The tragic killing of two Pakistani hostages in Iraq has come as a big shock not only to the victims' families but all Pakistanis. President General Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain have strongly condemned the killing, correctly terming it as a crime against humanity and against the teachings of Islam.
These assertions, though appropriate and true, are of little solace. There is a general feeling that the tragedy could have been averted had the government clearly stated, as demanded by the hostage takers, that it did not intend to send Pakistani troops to Iraq. That would not have necessarily meant bowing down to hostage takers' demand.
An overwhelming body of public opinion is opposed to Pakistan participating in the US occupation project. According respect to that opinion would have saved precious human lives. But till the last moment the Foreign Office spokesman kept saying that Pakistan had made no decision on the issue, thus keeping the door open for sending troops to occupied Iraq. It now turns out that, in fact, there is a proposal on the table that requires Pakistan to do just that.
The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, and the Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi have both been to Saudi Arabia looking for ways to consolidate the American occupation of Iraq.
They got what they wanted on Thursday when the Saudi government came up with the proposal for sending a Muslim force to Iraq. Powell, of course, immediately hailed the proposal - which, sceptics believe, was actually his own brainchild - describing it as a "welcome idea from the Saudi government to generate additional Muslim forces to participate in the work in Iraq." Indeed, he would not want to explain why the Muslims would want to participate in his country's "work", which is aimed at plundering the resources of a Muslim people and promoting the interests of Zionist hegemonism. Unsurprisingly, he also said that such a force would be sent "either as part of the [US-led] Coalition or as a separate organisation that would be within the framework of the Coalition effort." In other words, it would take orders from the American commanders, and hence would be a mere appendage of the occupation forces, rightly viewed by the Iraqi Resistance as part of the occupation forces.
No wonder one of the Resistance groups, which calls itself Tawhid Wa al-Jihad, has quickly responded to the proposal with a dire warning. In a message addressed to "the Saudi and Pakistani governments" who it said are "seeking to send Muslim troops to Iraq in order to please their Jewish and Christian masters," it vowed to, "strike with an iron fist all the traitors who co-operate with the Zionists."
This group, it goes without saying, is not alone in fighting occupation troops. Iraqis of all hues - nationalists, religious extremists as well as secularists - are fighting to free their country from foreign occupation. That is why despite the recently enacted charade of sovereignty hand-over to Allawi's government, the fighting has only intensified. Notably, even though the opponents of the invasion, namely, France, Germany and Russia, have approved a UNSC resolution, giving the go-ahead to the world body to return to Iraq to offer humanitarian assistance and oversee elections scheduled for next January, they have refused to contribute troops to that effort.
Some members of the so-called 'coalition of the willing' too have pulled back their troops in the face of a fierce resistance. Hence the American plan for a Muslim force. Unfortunate as it is, most of the Muslim countries have unrepresentative governments who are willing to lend a helping hand to the sole superpower while their peoples are deeply resentful of the occupation of another Muslim country. If and when any of these governments sends in its soldiers in aid of occupation, those fighting for freedom will naturally regard them as enemies and try to kill them - just like they killed two abducted Pakistani civilian workers.
Such an eventuality will only aggravate the public anger and dismay, creating further political instability in these countries. Pakistan, therefore, must not allow itself to be used by the US as a tool in its hitherto unsuccessful imperial conquest of Iraq.
One excuse that the US and its friends have been trotting out in support of the continued presence of occupation troops in Iraq, despite the sovereignty hand-over drama, is that a pull-out at this point in time will create a security vacuum, leading to chaos and anarchy. They must stay there, it is argued, until a local security force is ready to take control.
If that is the only hindrance in ending occupation, it can be overcome easily. That is where the Muslim countries' troops can play a useful part. In fact, for the US too an honourable way out of the Iraqi quagmire would be to announce withdrawal of its forces to be replaced, under UN auspices, with troops from the Muslim or non-Muslim countries.
The European countries like France and Germany that had vehemently opposed the war need to play a proactive role in getting things to move along those lines. Once the resistance movement knows that the purpose of Muslim soldiers is not to help perpetuate but to end occupation, it would surely welcome them. That will also change the general perception of UN having become a handmaiden to the US, restoring its credibility with the Iraqis and others.
Comments
Comments are closed.