RADİCALISM AND DEMOCRACY

While supporting Islamic movements against communism, USA also laid the foundations of its future plans and also it blackened the future of Afghanistan and Pakistan. Especially, with the outbreak of ‘unsuccessfulness’ in Afghanistan and with the increase in American antagonism, radical and extremist Islamic parties started to gain power in Pakistan. While being supported by only a small portion of people until 2002, the conditions challenged for Islamic parties with the invasion of Afghanistan by USA.3 Especially in some places, which are close to Afghanistan borders of Pakistan, sympathy for Taliban increased enormously in many places in Pakistan. During the first stages of the invasion USA and Pakistan President P.Musharraf, who took the power with a coup in 1999 were collaborating. Moreover in 24 June 2003, President W.Bush thanked to Musharraf because of his support to reconstruction of Afghanistan and his decisive posture! 4 But after a short time, when Pakistan was seen as a responsible from the worsening conditions in Afghanistan and growing of Islamism, world public turned to Pakistan as a failing state.
Pakistan was an important country that must not fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists. It was not only a center state for intervention in Afghanistan but also it was the only Islamic state that has nuclear weapons. It would be a disaster if Pakistan administration would be captured by Islamists and this would result in emergence of new Irans, new North Koreas. Finally, an unsuccessful assassination attempt to Musharraf in 2003 alarmed the US administration and by initiating the period of transition to democracy in Pakistan, USA tried to find alternative political parties against the Islamic ones. At this point Benazir Bhutto, who was recognized as a secular person and became Prime Minister two times, was the first name that was coming to mind. Appearance of Bhutto, who was in exile, was seen as an enemy project by Al Qaeda and Taliban. In addition to this when Bhutto explained that she wants to act more brutally to Islamists than Musharraf did, this speech made her an open target for the Islamists.
In 5 October 2007, when President Musharraf signed the law of Defraudation Forgiveness, Bhutto eluded from the allegations, which were made during her times of Prime Ministry and anymore there was not any obstacles that would prevent her to come her country again. When she returned to her country in 18 October 2007, a big crowded met her in Karachi Harbor. This return’s mean was alternation of Pakistan society to a democratic one5 and this was starting point of the end for Bhutto. During the meeting ceremony, the first “welcome gift” was given to Bhutto with a suicide attack, in which almost 150 people died. This attack was the messenger of the next ones. Bhutto, who was rescued from first attack in Karachi, was not as lucky as before when the second attack was made. In 27 November 2007, while she was telling her election works to people, she died because of an assassination and she shared the same end with her father Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, was also hanged by Ziya-ul Hak in 1977. After her death one of Al Qaeda’s leaders in Afghanistan declared that “they destroyed the most important American capital, who pledged to beat the Mujahids”.6 Some people can reject it but Bhutto was an important “American capital”. It is clear that her return to Pakistan was provided by USA.

AFTER BHUTTO

Death of Bhutto finished the American dream of democratization of Pakistan for a while. Musharraf, who was blamed for not providing the security of Bhutto effectively, abandoned his position in the General Staff. The political environment after assassination of Bhutto caused the decrease in support to Islamist parties as it is seen in election results, too. Bhutto’s Pakistan People’s Party and another opposing party Pakistan Muslim Union-Navaz raised their votes. On the other hand Islamist parties lost support. Another dimension of elections is that it revealed some results that can directly affect the political career of Musharraf. The straw polls showed that people’s support to Musharraf was decreasing. I think the opposing parties are also insufficient to fulfill the people’s wants. These show that Pakistan is deprived from leaders, who can ameliorate the living conditions of Pakistani people and provide economic stability to Pakistan. I mean that in Pakistan “politics for persons” understanding is seen more important that the understanding of “politics for Pakistani people”.7

JUDGEMENT

With the increasing usage of term, globalization, all states are face to face with the danger of separation to ethnic and religious minor groups. While globalization is devastating the nation-states, societies are drifting apart their ethnic roots.8 Especially, states that are composed of more than one national identities such as Pakistan are losing their chance of living together. The American led imperialist powers are applying cruel policies to states, which are made up of many ethnicities. Pakistan also got its share from this. The eminent map, which was published by American Armed Forces Journal, clearly shows that USA does not want to see Pakistan as it is today.9
Combating with terrorism, political-economic problems and social disagreements are taking away Pakistan to a critical chaos. Since they prioritize to religious identities, Pakistani people don’t see the ascendant of radicalism as a problem. On the contrary, some reactions that made against shariah demands in some parts of the country are less than the reactions that are made against American invasion. The armament because of the disputes between Pakistan and neighbor states and as a result decline in economic welfare level, the importance of religion in Pakistan history, different pursuits of people because of economic backwardness, the importance of religion in education and the changing international balance are the reasons that help us to understand the radicalism in Pakistan.10 Finally; when we look to the structure in Pakistan society, we see that the threat perception of international public is not same with the perception of Pakistani people. While international community sees terrorism and radicalism as the most important problems in Pakistan, it should not be forgotten that for an ordinary Pakistani citizen economic and social problems come first.
Maybe it is more useful and beneficial for international actors, especially for USA, not to intervene internal affairs in Pakistan, not to direct the country for their own purposes and interest and to give a chance to Pakistan to solve the problems under the light of its own dynamics and priorities. It is not a good approach to try to understand Islamabad by looking from Washington!

Nail ELHAN

For the Turkish of the essay, please click here
1 Cavid Veliev, “Pakistan’da Sivil Siyasetin Sonu”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:184, Ankara s.12

2 Uluslararası İlişkiler ve Siyaset Teorisi Üzerine Derleme

3 Gökçen Oğan, “Pakistan’da Seçimler Belirsizliği Artırdı”, Stratejik Analiz, No.95, Ankara, s.8-9

4 Mustafa Kemal Dağdelen, “Kaosun Odağı Pakistan”, Stratejik Analiz, No.110, Ankara, s.68

5 Cavid Veliev, “Pakistan’da Sivil Siyasetin Sonu”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:184, Ankara s.13

6 Prof.M.Shadid Alam, “Bir Pakistan Trajedisi”, http://www.makaleler.com/oku-bir+pakistan+trajedisi

7 Gökçen Oğan, “Pakistan’da Koalisyon Sallanıyor”, Stratejik Analiz, No.98, Ankara, s.15

8 Anıl Çeçen, Türkiye ve Avrasya, Ankara, Fark Yayınları, 2006, s.73

9 Ali Külebi, “Pakistan’a Ağır Bedel”, Cumhuriyet Strateji Sayı:225, Ankara s.9

10 Mustafa Kemal Dağdelen, “Kaosun Odağı Pakistan”, Stratejik Analiz, No.110, Ankara, s.71

We didn’t know that the Middle East, which is in fact, too close to us, is far and the place called the Far East is far away to us.

The colonialist West mentality-West doesn’t express a geographical meaning here-, began to decide the name of the places since it got the region, called East, under its thumb. We didn’t know that our southern neighbors were placing at the middle of the East or Cyprus was in somewhere that was near to Europe. It seems like that a line had been drawn beyond Greece; the left side is western, modern and civilized. The rest? Go to the Hell! Eastern, dirty, wild, uncivilized and Muslims.

The “Apartheid” is made for once: “We” and “they”.

East is always thought in terms of the necessities of Europe. After once The West chose the East as the target point, it created new concepts and new ideas: East and Eastern, Arab, Muslim, Indian, Chinese, terrorist and many others. All these had been refreshed in every era and while sometimes Jesus was being used as the supporter of West and Europe concepts, then concepts of human rights and democracy were emphasized by Westerns. Did people were killed, where? In United States, sir. The individual is the most magnanimous creature and in 21st century, human violations should be prevented. What about the events in Iraq, in Afghanistan and in Palestine? They are not human. Because they don’t understand anything from democracy and modernism. But, sir! They are living on the oil, what will happen? Yes, they don’t know these concepts, but somebody should teach to them!

You know after what happened: One million people have died in Iraq; civilians were killed in Afghanistan “accidentally”. It’s ok, no problem. According to Westerns, these people died for the sake of democracy.

This is the Western mind… Poor Democracy Martyrs!

The western man, who scorns us: According to us this is a duty for humanity. We don’t want deaths of children and we don’t want discrimination of women. Everybody should be able to use their basic human rights. Human rights are universal…then a smile comes…but they are for the humans. In other words for those, who we think as humans. The rest is only a pretext. Democracy is a pretext. Civilization is a pretext. The magnificent thing is imperialism. What is magnificent is the money that comes from the oil. What is the magnificent is the maintenance of the West hegemony. What understands the man, who sits in London, in New York, in Paris, in a Starbucks Café and drinks his coffee while reading his newspaper, from the conditions of a woman that lives in Camp of Satilla in poverty, of a human whose home is collapsed by Israel in Gaza or of a man who lost his child in civil war in Iraq.

The idea that is based on the imaginary geographies such as “our country” and “their country” doesn’t need the latter to believe this difference. What is important is creation of this difference in the side, which uses the word of “us”. After this difference is created once, the other side takes the name of “they” with all its lands, languages and thoughts and the other side becomes alienated to “us”.

We are Easters. The role, which is given to us, is this.

Vive la petrol!
Vive la democracy!
Vive la civilization!

Nail ELHAN

In 2002, Alireza Jaferzadeh from Iran National Resistance Movement brought out the secret nuclear efforts of Iran and this condition carried the USA-Iran relations that were really high-strung ever since the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979 to a new and imbroglio situation. After 1979-Islamic Revolution, as a result of national pride and anti-Americanism, the American Embassy in Tehran was raided by Iranian students and 66 American people was taken as hostage. This event passed into history as Hostage Crisis. 444 days lasting action gained a new extent after the unsuccessful rescue operation of US Special Forces in 1980 and by affecting the presidential elections in USA caused the triumph of Reagan against Carter.

Accused by USA from building “axis of evil”, in 1957 Iran began its nuclear “cruising” with the support of USA as irony of fate. It took the first step by signing the Nuclear Cooperation Agreement during Shah Era. In following years, USA provided light water reactor and laboratory materials for Iran to be used in Tehran Nuclear Research Center. As 1980-1988 Iraq-Iran War mitigated the Iran’s efforts in its nuclear energy program and harmed the development of nuclear energy, interests of Iran in nuclear maintained by the supports of states such as Russia, China and Pakistan. However; the emergence of secret missions of Iran, it drew all attention towards itself.

Why Iran wants to be a nuclear weapon producing power and why USA is against it? When we look from the Iranian side, although there are several political groups from various political spectrums, a consensus appears in nuclear energy issue. Iran approaches the nuclear energy as its long term strategy and as a security requirement. Being a contained state by Sunni-Arab neighboring states and “archenemy” Israel discomposes Iran, which is both Shiah and Persian. With the impact of anti-Americanism, Iranian government and majority of Iranian people think that if Iran has nuclear weapon, no state can assault to it. Moreover, having nuclear will give superiority Iran against Turkey and Egypt, which are Muslim populated rival states in the region. The mainstream in Iran is withdrawing from Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which there is Iran’s signature under it and not giving attention to the world public opinion. Since war is a non-expected probability by Iranians, Iran’s main strategy and priorities are negotiating and using diplomatic ways. Iran sees Israel’s nuclear weapons as a big threat to itself and wants international laws to be applied in Israel issue. Unluckily, what weakens Iran’s strategy is that Iran accepted these laws by signing and Israel did not.

When we look from the side of USA, not interestingly Democrats and Republicans have similar strategies about Iran’s nuclear issue. American public opinion opposes Iran’s “nuclearization” as a whole. USA, who paid the bill of Iraq War heavily by itself because of not bearing in mind the others, cannot act similarly in Iran. There are several options in front of Obama Administration:
-Application of political and economic enforcements,
-Striking Iran’s nuclear power plants,
-Limited invasion of Iran in terms of time and space,
-The most interesting one for me, changing the regime in Iran.

How many of these can be implemented completely? How economic sanctions and limitations can be applied to people, who live under very low living standards? How waging a war can be effective against an administration, which declared that if there will be a strike against Iran, it will be reciprocated by counter strikes in anywhere in the world? After all these, the best and only option is to make a regime change in Iran by supporting the opponents of status quo. The repressive environment after elections, which Ahmedinejad won, is a basis for this view.

Finally, I want to mention that there are many American military bases and deployed soldiers in Iraq, Turkey and Gulf states. This military existence is a big security problem for Iran. As a result Iran gravitates to nuclear armament to securitize itself. I think maybe the best solution to reduce the tension between both USA-Iran and in the region is to make some suggestions about Iran’s security. This is the life ring of not only the regional peace but also the alliance of civilizations.

Nail ELHAN

All these are the “small results” of water shortage and possible solutions to them. But we should not forget the most dangerous possibility that is a “war for water” possibility. We saw some examples not as a war but as diplomatic disputes in recent years. The problems between Turkey-Syria-Iraq and Egypt-Sudan exemplify these disputes.

Doing a full-scale irrigation or building full-scale dams on a river, which is being used by more than one countries, result in increase of one of the countries’ prosperity and living standards but result in decrease of the another countries’ ecologic and economic standards. Moreover, the usage of water resources in high rates by up-stream riparian country results in shortage in the rate of potable water and irrigation water and even in drought in down-stream riparian countries. Also, building of dams and barrages by the countries in the places, where the water enters their lands may cause in spates and flooding in the lands of riparian and neighbor countries.

All these problems and possibilities inspire countries, which have water shortage or have possible problems to meet in the same point: to get on well together and to accord. If a possible war is the result, which is not wanted, communion and sharing are the only choices. The relations between states and condition in the region are pregnancy to a war. To decrease the disputes and to achieve the regional peace should be the main aim of the states.

Nail ELHAN