Editorials in Pakistani Dailies Warn of Expanding Middle Eastern War

Following are excerpts from the Dawn editorial:[1]

"Western governments should take note of the Arab alarm over a possible military intervention in Libya, where the popular revolt against Muammar Al-Qadhafi's 41-year-old rule has turned into a civil war. On Thursday [March 3], President Barack Obama said all options were open with regard to Libya, where the regime is using air power against its people. The Arab League, representing 22 member states, would like the Western response restricted at best to imposing a no-fly zone, as Iraq was subjected to for years. It has made clear that it opposes foreign military intervention on Libyan soil.

"The consequences of a Western attack will not only be counter-productive, they could give a new and dangerous color to the protests. The anti-Qadhafi revolt could fizzle out and transform itself into a national resistance movement which would see such intervention as an attempt to capture Libya's oil wealth.

"As is evident from the wave of freedom unleashed by the Jasmine Revolution, whatever has happened or is happening in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain is a popular uprising against decades of corrupt and authoritarian rule. The sacrifices which the people have given in the pro-democracy movement against the dictatorships of Ben Ali, Hosni Mubarak, and Ali Saleh and against the reigning Bahrain dynasty testify to the indigenous character of the rebellion. The people's struggle against well-entrenched dictators has already triumphed in Tunisia and Egypt. There is no reason to believe this would not be the case in other Arab countries in the grip of fierce anti-regime revolts.

"Foreign military intervention will be a godsend for the regimes, for they could appeal for unity against invaders to deflect the people's ire. Besides, as Arab analysts fear, U.S.-led military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan do not inspire confidence in their ability. In Iraq, a minimum of 200,000 civilians were killed and Iraqi infrastructure was destroyed. In Afghanistan, after a decade of war, America and NATO are planning to get out without having crushed the militancy. An invasion of Libya could turn Mr. Qadhafi into a hero, and the freedom struggle now raging there could disappear into thin air."

"With Iran Now Urging the Saudis to Back Down, There is a Danger that Bahrain could Become a Proxy for a Larger Middle Eastern Fight"

Following are excerpts from The Express Tribune editorial:[2]

"We now know what Middle Eastern rulers mean when they talk about Muslim unity. The life of any Muslim who is not of the right sect or political persuasion is intrinsically worth less than that of his Sunni, royalist counterpart. At least that is the only possible interpretation of the news that the Gulf Cooperation Council, led by Saudi Arabia, has decided to send troops into Bahrain to protect the king from pro-democracy protesters. The protesters in Bahrain are mainly from the Shia majority while the rulers are Sunni and hence the presence of Saudi troops threatens to turn a battle for liberty into a sectarian war.

"Apart from the fact that the Gulf states are acting as agents of a repressive regime that has lost its legitimacy, the conflict in Bahrain threatens wider Middle Eastern stability. The ruling family in Bahrain has been accusing Iran of being behind the uprising, a charge that is not borne out by any evidence. With Iran now urging the Saudis to back down, there is a danger that Bahrain could become a proxy for a larger Middle Eastern fight, with the sides divided purely along sectarian lines. The last thing the Middle East needs right now is a Shia-Sunni conflict.

"Pakistan, for its part, needs to maintain a position of studious neutrality as good relations with both Iran and Saudi Arabia are important for us. That, unfortunately, has not been the case so far. Even before the protests began, many Pakistanis were serving in the Bahraini police force. Now, as this newspaper reported, the Fauji Foundation is recruiting mercenaries to fight for the dying regime. We have obviously not learnt our lesson from the Iranian Revolution of 1979, where we supported the Shah till the end. Our relations with the new regime suffered as a result. If, and when, the Bahraini people take control of their own destiny, we should want them to consider Pakistan an ally, not an enemy."

"Although There are Similarities between the Unrest in Bahrain and Elsewhere [in the Middle East], This is at Heart a Sectarian Clash"

Following are excerpts from The News editorial:[3]

"Early on Monday [March 14], military vehicles without national identity marks crossed the 26-mile causeway which connects the island state of Bahrain to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They were part of a multinational Arab task force called in at the request of the Bahrain government as it struggled with a deepening crisis.

"Those protesting against the current regime immediately dubbed the force as 'occupiers' and on Tuesday afternoon, Iran issued a statement decrying 'interference' in the affairs of Bahrain by other Arab states.

"Although there are similarities between the unrest in Bahrain and elsewhere, this is at heart a sectarian clash. The Shia majority has long resented the rule of a Sunni minority and has many grievances, but it is the interests of foreign powers in Bahrain, particularly America and Iran, which heighten concerns. The Iranians would be beneficiaries of a regime change in Bahrain and a transfer of power to the majority, and would be displeased by the presence of an intervention force."

"Iran has Long Sought to have Naval Dominance of the Gulf Waters…; If America had to Find Another Home for the Fifth Fleet … Its Power in the Gulf [Would Be] Diminished"

"The American Fifth Fleet has its base there and the Americans would potentially be the losers if majority rule – backed and perhaps underwritten by Iran – made their massive naval facility no longer welcome. Iran has long sought to have naval dominance of the Gulf waters, an ambition that far predates the Iranian revolution. If America had to find another home for the Fifth Fleet, it would, at best, face a period when its power in the Gulf was diminished, and worse, cede some of that power to Iran, which could move into whatever facilities the Americans vacated.

"It must be assumed that the Saudis are as aware of Iranian intentions as are the Americans – whose statement on Tuesday that they were 'unaware' of the move of foreign forces into Bahrain rings as true as lions declaring themselves to be vegetarian all along. If they were truly as unaware as they say they were then they should be dismissing from post every signals intelligence officer in the fifth fleet.

"Whoever controls Bahrain controls the Gulf and the oil traffic. To the northwest is Kuwait and to the east the Straits of Hormuz, through which virtually all of the oil exported from the region has to pass. The USA and its close ally Saudi Arabia are going to be anxious to hold on to their strategically vital island state, but the unrest there has already begun to seep into the Shia eastern part of Saudi Arabia. Bahrain is a hinge on which much will turn in the coming days and weeks."

"Pakistan's Retired Military Officers and Civilians are Being Rapidly Hired by Bahrain because They are Reputed to Be Most Aggressive"

Following are excerpts from the Daily Times editorial:[4]

"Although Bahrain's monarch had requested the Gulf Cooperation Council, comprising six Gulf countries, to send their forces to contain the protests in Bahrain, it is nonetheless a foreign intervention. The 1,000-strong contingent sent by five neighboring countries of Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Oman and Kuwait, will be used to suppress Shia protesters, who are demanding political and economic rights in a country ruled by a minority Sunni elite.

"Arguably, Saudi Arabia was more worried than the rest of the Gulf countries because its oil-rich, Shia-dominated eastern area borders Bahrain. and if the Bahraini Shias manage to gain the upper hand it might spell disaster for the Saudi monarchy's own existence, which has kept its Shia population backward and deprived for decades. It is in the interest of all reactionary monarchs of the Gulf to not let things get out of hand, hence this collaboration. There is no reason to open fire on unarmed protesters, but when an insecure minority is ruling over a restless majority as in Bahrain, perhaps this is inevitable.

"It would be pertinent to mention that Pakistan's retired military officers and civilians are being rapidly hired by Bahrain because they are reputed to be most aggressive. It is not certain if the Bahrainis, who have been out on the streets for a month, would be able to sustain their struggle in the face of a brutal crackdown that now seems in the cards."

"The Proposal of Imposing a No-Fly Zone over Libya... is Dangerous Thinking; Military Intervention... will Lead to the Expansion of War in Libya and the Region"

"When the wave of insurgency started from Tunisia and spread to Egypt, in both cases yielding results quickly and relatively peacefully, an optimistic illusion was created that this would be replicated in all Arab countries where the public had risen. It has turned out that all Gulf countries are not at the same juncture of history where their regimes had been hollowed out from within and needed just the kind of push that the people in Egypt and Tunisia provided.

"Yemen's long-serving dictator is not yielding to the protesters' demands to relinquish the office of president, which he has been holding for the last 32 years. There have been protests in Oman as well, without much hope for success. In Libya, there are reports that the tables have been turned by Al-Qadhafi's use of military force and a vow to fight until the last drop of blood. The rebel forces in Libya that had taken over eastern towns are now being pushed back through the use of navy, air force, and artillery bombardments. The imbalance of power between the two sides is so great that an untrained, lightly armed, scattered guerrilla force cannot win over a conventional military force in set-piece battles. Being largely a desert excepting the northern periphery, it will not be easy for the rebels to sustain guerrilla warfare against Al-Qadhafi's air power. It seems that Al-Qadhafi's still has the backing of his military and certain tribes who are aiding him.

"In this scenario, saner heads in the West are advising the hawks led by France against military intervention in the name of 'humanitarian' action. It has been proved in recent years that such intrusions are, after all, not entirely altruistic and are driven by vested interests. The UN Security Council is unlikely to yield to the proposal of imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. It is dangerous thinking, this talk of military intervention and will lead to the expansion of war in Libya and the region.

"A fig leaf has been created in the shape of the Arab League's endorsement of a no-fly zone, but this is unlikely to impress anyone. The Arab League has lost credibility over the years and cannot necessarily be taken as representing the interests of the Arab people. Al-Qadhafi may have resiled from anti-imperialist Arab nationalism and may be cracking down on his people, but this should not be used an excuse to call for a foreign intervention. The Arab people must be given the opportunity to settle their affairs themselves."

"Given… Sectarian Overtones [in Bahrain], and Pakistan Desperately Needing Good Relations with the Sunni Saudis and Shia Iran, This is One Fight We should have Silently Observed from a Corner"

Following are excerpts from Nadir Hassan's article:[5]

"The Pakistan Army has lost every war it fought against India, committed mass atrocities in Baluchistan and what was then East Pakistan [now Bangladesh], and has failed to defeat militant extremists in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and FATA [Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan]. It has, however, always been willing to lend an iron hand to despots of the Middle East. For the army, pan-Islamism, if the definition of the term is narrowed to mean only serving dictators and not their unfree populations, has always trumped national interest.

"A report in this newspaper revealed that the Fauji Foundation – a business conglomerate of former military men with links to the military – that, among other things, produces corn flakes, was recruiting personnel to serve in Bahrain's security forces. The protests in Bahrain are pitting the Shia-majority population against a Sunni royal family.

"Given its sectarian overtones, and Pakistan desperately needing good relations with the Sunni Saudis and Shia Iran, this is one fight we should have silently observed from a corner. Instead, we have ensured that we will be instantly blacklisted by any new government. The army's activities in Muslim countries seem to indicate that it is only willing to uphold the status quo, without considering how it will affect Pakistan if 'their' side falters."

"After the Arab Countries were Routed by Israel in 1967, Jordan, Syria, and Iraq Asked for Military Training from Pakistan… [which] was Rapidly Granted, Since the Enemy in Question was the Jewish State"

"After the Arab countries were routed by Israel in 1967, Jordan, Syria and Iraq asked for military training from Pakistan. This uncontroversial request was rapidly granted since the enemy in question was the Jewish state. By 1970, though, King Hussein of Jordan had another irritant on his hands: The refugee Palestinian population in his country. Among the Pakistani soldiers stationed in Jordan was Ziaul Haq (then a brigadier), and he was asked to assume charge of a division of the Jordanian army. Given that our army's role in the country was not supposed to involve combat, the Jordanian request was perplexingly granted.

"The Jordanians massacred scores of Palestinians in what is known as Black September. While the exact role played by Zia in putting down the Palestinians is in question, the mere presence of a Pakistani military officer in charge of one division of the army was enough to strain relations between the two sides. It is hard to understate just how immense a foreign policy debacle this was, as after Black September, India could credibly claim to have closer ties than Pakistan with both the Palestine Liberation Organization and Israel.

"The Difference between… [Pakistan's] Entanglements of the 1970s and That in Bahrain is that Now, the Soldiers are Being Hired by an Organization Run by Ex-Servicemen [of Pakistan Army]

"Similarly, the Pakistan Army had a brigade posted in Saudi Arabia to aid the regime during the 1970s and '80s. Its role in clearing the Masjid-al-Haram [Mecca] of rebels in 1979 is as disputed as its activities in the Black September uprising. To the extent that it was possible to clear the fog that surrounds the operation, it appeared that the Pakistani brigade was present in a purely advisory capacity, while the fighting was done by Saudi and French forces.

"Back home, Zia, for some reason, claimed that the U.S. had invaded the mosque and then stood idly by for hours as the American Embassy was attacked by an enraged mob. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan prevented a permanent straining of relations. But the incident cemented the U.S. policy that Pakistan is to be used and discarded as needed, but never trusted.

"The difference between our entanglements of the 1970s and that in Bahrain is that now, the soldiers are being hired by an organization run by ex-servicemen and hence, this is not a reflection of official Pakistan policy. That argument is facile. If Pakistan decides to stay neutral in Bahrain's internal conflict, mercenaries can simply be banned from serving there. And if we are to avoid the embarrassments of the past, neutrality is the only credible option."