INTERVIEW 'Stooges' time is up in
Pakistan' By Mahan Abedin
Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT), or the Liberation
Party, was founded in 1953 in Jerusalem. The party
advocates the politics of pan-Islam by calling for
the re-establishment of the Islamic caliphate.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is active in most Muslim
countries in addition to Western Europe, North
America and Australia. Since the targeted
assassination of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden
by United States special forces in Pakistan in
early May, the Pakistani chapter of HuT has come
under increasing media and security attention
because of its alleged penetration of the higher
reaches of the powerful Pakistani military
establishment.
To investigate this issue
further, Asia Times Online conducted an
exclusive interview with Hizb
ut-Tahrir's spokesman in Pakistan, Naveed Butt.
Butt grew up in Islamabad and began his
degree at the University of Engineering and
Technology in Lahore before transferring to the
University of Illinois at Chicago, where he
completed a degree in electrical engineering and
computer science. Since 2000, he has been the
media spokesman for HuT in Pakistan.
Asia Times Online: How do
you explain the explosion in alarmist stories
about Hizb ut-Tahrir Pakistan by the Pakistani and
international media?
Naveed
Butt: Western governments along with their
media are well aware of the global impact and
reach of Hizb ut-Tahrir, especially in the Muslim
world. Both America and Britain know that openly
declaring our party as the real opponents will
further galvanize support for our call and
objectives.
Therefore, they try their
level best to ignore us in the media whilst at the
same time they use their agent Muslim rulers to
hamper our activities through oppression, mass
arrests, torture and persecution. The Hizb's
influence and activities in the ummah
[Muslim community] have now forced the West to
address us through their media and so do their
agents in Muslims countries.
Ignoring such
a high-profile incident [alleged HuT support for
militancy and HuT penetration of the Pakistani
armed forces] would mean encouraging people within
the armed forces to look for alternatives.
Therefore, the Western and Pakistani media at the
behest of the governments quickly jumped in on it
and started concocting lies and causing
unnecessary alarm amongst the masses. Having said
that, there have been exceptions, and there are
many sincere journalists in Pakistan who have come
out openly and exposed these lies and supported
the Hizb's non-violent political struggle for the
khilafah [caliphate].
ATol: What was Brigadier Ali
Khan's precise relationship with Hizb ut-Tahrir
Pakistan? [1]
NB: The policy
of Hizb ut-Tahrir is that we neither confirm nor
deny such accusations or allegations.
ATol: To what extent is the
Pakistani military sympathetic to the views and
goals of Hizb ut-Tahrir?
NB:
We call on the people of power to fulfill their
Islamic duty and stop the munkar
[transgression] by using their authority. We call
upon them to eject all those who have revolted
against Allah and His Messenger by conniving with
the imperialists.
It is well known that
seeking nusra [support] from the people of
power was a part of the methodology of the Prophet
Mohammad (saw) [2] for establishing the Islamic
state, and the Hizb follows this method in letter
and spirit. Unlike in some other countries. the
Pakistani army is not an elitist army. They come
from all strata of society.
Hence,
whatever exists in the public opinion of the
country, more or less the same thoughts and
emotions are carried by the military as well. The
Hizb has been working in the masses for the last
10 years and hence it is not surprising that like
the masses, the idea of khilafah and the
unification of the Muslim ummah resonates
with officers of the armed forces.
ATol: What has been the
reaction inside the Pakistani military to the
targeted assassination of Osama bin Laden on May
2?
NB: The Pakistani
military is part of society and they share the
same Islamic feeling as the masses. Therefore, the
thing that disgusted and infuriated the army was
the sheer audacity and arrogance of the US and
blatant subservience of the [Pakistan] military
top brass.
No sane person in Pakistan, let
alone an army officer who is more aware of
Pakistani security capabilities and standard
operating procedures, is willing to buy the absurd
explanation that the US came from across the
border, conducted an operation for 40 minutes and
then safely flew back without the knowledge and
consent of the top army and civilian leadership.
This incident alone was enough for the
officers of the armed forces to conclude that they
are actually led by a bunch of US stooges. This is
why [Chief of Army Staff] General [Ashfaq Parvez]
Kiani himself visited various military garrisons
and gave explanations in town-hall style meetings
including at the National Defense University (NDU)
and Quetta Staff College in order to pacify the
angry officers.
His basic argument was
built around fear, ie we are weak and cannot
counter the US hence we have to accept this
humiliation and violation of Pakistani
sovereignty. Obviously, officers of a professional
army that possesses nuclear capability are not
willing to buy this. This is why the US and their
agents, such as General Kiani, feel very
vulnerable and have started to harass anybody who
has Islamic inclinations.
There are
reports that all those officers who are known to
be Islamic in orientation are not being promoted
to higher ranks even if they deserve to be; or
they are given posts which are not sensitive. This
in turn produces frustration and disenchantment
which, obviously, is not going to help the US in
winning hearts and minds within the armed forces.
ATol: In regards to the
violation and gradual erosion of Pakistani
sovereignty by the United States government, is
there a point at which the Pakistani military will
snap and react against America?
NB: It is not a matter of
if but rather when. The frustration,
anger and disgust currently present in the
Pakistan army cannot be sustained, especially when
more and more people now believe that they should
not be fighting America's "war of terror".
Numerous officers have either quietly
resigned or they have been court-martialed for
refusing to fight their Muslim brothers in FATA
[Federally Administered Tribal Areas]. This
pressure cannot be sustained indefinitely. And
evidence points to the fact that it [the breaking
point] will occur sooner rather than later.
However, a decisive break with America can't
happen under the current political and military
leadership, it has to be under a new sincere
Islamic leadership, ie the khilafah state.
ATol: To what extent are
Pakistan's political elites in conflict with the
military over America's growing role in the
country?
NB: The
"politicians" versus "military" paradigm must
itself be questioned. Just as there are some
sincere people in the armed forces who are ready
to challenge American tyranny, there is also a
growing band of sincere politicians who are
against America. Just as there are collaborators
in the military leadership who have sold the
country and its people to America for personal
gain, there are also similar people in the
political leadership.
ATol:
As the situation inside Afghanistan becomes
increasingly critical to the Western alliance, and
in view of Pakistan's and America's divergent
views on the desired outcome to the Afghan
conflict, do you envisage an armed confrontation
between Pakistan and America?
NB: Under the current
traitor leadership there is no serious challenge
to the American hegemony in the region and its
attempts to pillage the huge material resources of
Afghanistan that are estimated to be worth around
one to three trillion dollars.
They have
squandered an opportunity. Merely cutting off the
NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] supply
line permanently and expelling US officials from
Pakistan would force America into a hasty retreat.
As for the US fighting Pakistan, if America were
to make that mistake, I ask the question; if they
have not been able to subdue small groups of
mujahideen in Afghanistan in a decade of fighting,
what chance do they have against the strongest and
most battle-experienced Muslim army in the world?
And this is why on March 11, 2009, in his
presentation to key [US President Barack] Obama
officials including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the
Interagency Policy Review of Afghanistan-Pakistan
for the Obama administration, Bruce O Riedel, said
they had looked at the extreme option of invading
Pakistan, and, of course, immediately dismissed
it. Invading a country that possesses dozens of
nuclear weapons would be something beyond madness.
Everyone agreed. ATol: To
what extent is the Pakistani Taliban a creature of
the Directorate for Inter-Services Intelligence
(ISI)?
NB: Infiltrating a
loosely knit organization such as the Taliban is
not difficult for any government. There is enough
evidence to conclude that the US has been able
infiltrate the loosely structured Taliban to cause
chaos in Pakistan. This was further confirmed by
[Central Intelligence Agency operative] Raymond
Davis' links with militant organizations. This is
why the "militants" instead of targeting US
assets, such as offices of the FBI [Federal Bureau
of Investigation], CIA and Blackwater [Xe
Services], were targeting mosques, Islamic
universities, markets and bus stations. The whole
purpose was to start a civil war or fitna
[strife] where Muslims would die on both sides.
ATol: How will the ISI react
to a popular revolution in Pakistan, aiming to
overthrow the entire political establishment and
replace it with a more representative system?
NB: Well, this is a question
for the ISI to answer and I am only a spokesman of
Hizb ut-Tahrir. However, the traitors within the
Arab intelligence services did their best to stop
the popular revolutions, but they were not
successful in spite of deploying all their
resources. Therefore, if a popular revolution
starts in Pakistan, I advise the military and the
political leadership to flee to their master's
abode like [former Tunisian president Zine
el-Abidine] Ben Ali and the Afghan Central Bank
governor [Abdul Qadir Fitrat]!
ATol: Do you fear greater Indian
meddling in Pakistan and Afghanistan in the light
of the growing turmoil in Pakistan?
NB: The recent
Pakistan-India dialogue has shown that Pakistan
has completely backed off from her traditional
stance. The Pakistanis have decoupled Kashmir from
trade negotiations and in principle agreed to
grant India land access to Afghanistan.
On
the other hand, it is well known that China is a
regional threat to US interests in South and Far
East Asia. America wants to use Pakistan and India
as a block against China. For this very purpose,
Kashmir and other irritants must be buried, not
resolved, since any just solution will not be
acceptable to India.
It was for this
reason that the US is dictating that Pakistan
backs down from her longstanding stance on
Kashmir. [Former Pakistan president General
Pervez] Musharraf was the first to initiate this
divergence; [current President Asif Ali] Zardari
is only staying the course. Hence, with agents
like Zardari, [current Prime Minister Yousaf Raza]
Gilani and Kiani one can only expect capitulation
and surrender before India. So, yes, if these
agents are not ejected, India's influence in
Kashmir and Afghanistan will only increase.
ATol: To what extent have
the problems noted above set back the quest to
reclaim Kashmir from India?
NB: Reclaiming Kashmir is no
longer on the Pakistan government's agenda. Hence,
now we don't even hear the slogan "Kashmir
banay ga Pakistan" [Kashmir will become
Pakistan]. All we hear is about how much economic
benefit we can get by trading with India.
Just last year, when Kashmir's streets
were full of thousands of protesters, Pakistan
observed a deafening silence. This was a clear
signal that not only has Pakistan stopped
supporting jihadi organizations resisting India's
brutality, but she has also halted political
support to the freedom struggle. The only way
Kashmir can be liberated is through organized
jihad under a state that mobilizes the armies.
This would only be possible by establishing the
khilafah.
ATol: What
is your view on the recent conference in Tehran on
the global fight against terrorism, which was
attended by the heads of state of Pakistan and
Afghanistan? Can Iran help redefine terrorism in a
manner that suits global Islamic interests?
NB: That conference has
actually exposed the real face of the Iranian
regime. Everybody knows that Pakistan and
Afghanistan are nothing but stooges of America and
what they consider as terrorism is according to
the definition as laid down by the United States.
In such a circumstance, cooperating with
Afghanistan and Pakistan is actually cooperating
with America. I don't see how by working with
Pakistan and Afghanistan, Iran can benefit
Muslims. The real vision for these and all Muslim
countries is unification into a single state to
represent all Muslims, regardless of their race or
school of thought; a state that will stand for
their interests with their considerable combined
resources to end American terrorism practiced by
official US armed forces and private military
organizations.
Note 1.
Brigadier Ali Khan and four majors were arrested
last month for alleged links to the HuT. They are
being interrogated in the garrison town of
Rawalpindi by the Special Investigation Branch of
the Military Intelligence. 2. Sallallahu Alaihi
Wasallam is an expression Muslims use whenever
the name of Prophet Mohammad is mentioned or
written. The meaning is: "May the blessings and
the peace of Allah be upon him [Mohammad].
Mahan Abedin is an analyst of
Middle East politics.
(Copyright 2011
Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights
reserved. Please contact us about sales,
syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
