International Politics and Bin Laden Chapter

Former Al-Qaida Chief Osama Bin Laden chapter in the international politics had come to an end in May 2011. Bin Laden is now dead. He is now part of history. Many painful stories and incidents of deaths are involved with this history. He had given a new interpretation of the religion of Islam. His interpretation was controversial and it cannot be said Muslims across the world had accepted the version. But it is fact that he produced hundreds of "jihadists" in the Muslim world. These jihadists were ready to embrace "martyrdom" in the name of Islam. Bin Laden wanted to revert to the ancient course of Islam. The "Wahabi" doctrine has this ancient course. Some people prefer identifying the course as the 'Salafi' ideology. The Saudi Royal family is the follower of this ideology.
One Saudi Islamic pundit, Mohammad Bin Abad Al Wahab, is the exponent of this ideology. He was born in 1703. Once the founder of Saudi Royal family, Ibne Saud, was attracted by this philosophy. The family is still following the ideology. It is being told that Saudi Arabia is promoting this doctrine. The Wahabi doctrine gives highest importance to jihad. The followers of Wahabi ideology do not believe in worshipping pir (spiritual leader), mazar (grave), holding milad (a kind of meeting to glorify the Prophet Mohammad), visiting grave, shirk and bidat. Bin Laden used to believe that Islam could be established in the world through jihad.
Significance of Islam
Islam is a religion of peace. Islam has spread to various countries of the world. But in nowhere it expanded through terrorism. The people, who come to our region of the world thousands of years back for preaching Islam, did not resorted to terror activities. They had preached the messages of peace and choose to stay here because of love for the land.
However, for preaching which Islam Bin Laden had stepped into the field? He had inspired hundreds of youths to take part in "jihadist" activities. Bin Laden was an owner of billion of dollars. He spent the money for terror activities. He had developed a big network in the Arab world from Iraq to Algeria. Al-Qaida has a strong base in Yemen. Bin Laden had given birth to the organization named -- Al-Qaida. Allegation has been raised that Al-Qaida was involved with the destruction of World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. Since then the name of Bin Laden has spread to everywhere in the world. He became the "No 1 terrorist of the world." The United States had been on the hunt of Bin Laden since 11 September. After long 10 years he was detected in the Abbottabad City of Pakistan.
Bin Laden has undoubtedly committed crimes. He could be hanged in trials. It would have been normal, if he was tried. But the United States has given rise to many questions by killing Bin Laden. A dead Bin Laden has emerged a more risky man for the United States. Rather the killing of Bin Laden will enhance his popularity. But the question that has assumed prominence to me is that whether this role of the United States would create a big threat to the developing world? The Muslim world is gripped with agitation. One type of hegemony has been created in the name of globalization. In this regard some Islamic pundits (for example Sayyid Qutb of Egypt) think Islam is the solution.
Palestinian Problem
A leader like Bin Laden gives the call for jihad when the Palestinian problem is not solved year after year. The Israeli commandoes kill the Palestinian leaders. And no trails are being held for the killings. It is true that this so called jihad did not get massive support in the Muslim world. But at the same time it is natural that some sorts of agitations and hatred are simmering in the Muslim world as the innocent people are being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States had conducted aggression against Afghanistan on the plea that the Taliban gave shelter to Bin Laden. The US forces have been in Afghanistan from 2001 to 2011. US President Barack Obama also won Nobel Prize for peace. But his hands are tainted with blood. He had a given a promise that the US soldiers will be withdrawn from Afghanistan by 2011. Now the deadline has been extended to 2014. But security experts believe the United States has a big interest in Afghanistan. They will have stay in this country. The Central Asia is abundant with huge energy resources, gas and oil. The US companies have huge investment here. The United States does not want other powers (particularly China and Russia) have a share of these resources.
The energy resources of Central Asia will be controlled from Afghanistan. For this reason this "Islamic militancy" has been born to Tajikistan or Uzbekistan. This militancy is also a threat to the security of the Central Asia. The Asiaism of NATO will centre round this region. As a result, there is a remote possibility of withdrawing force from Afghanistan. In case of Iraq it was told that the country had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs). It had been further told the WMD was posing threat to the security of the region. Under this pretext the United States captured Iraq in 2003. We all know the next stories. The WMD was not found in Iraq. But Saddam Hussein was hanged. Iraq was destroyed. Some US companies are reconstructing Iraq by selling the oil resources of that country. The United States is now searching the path of military intervention in Libya in the name of humanitarian intervention. The oil of Libya is the target of the United States. Libya is the gateway to North Africa. The control of Libya will mean controlling the North African countries having huge resource. The United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established with this target.
Terrorism in the name of Islam is acceptable. This is not Islam also. But it equally not acceptable to attack any independent country or violating its sovereignty in the name of suppressing terrorism. This role of the US is the violation of the Clause 4 ( 1) and 4( 4) of the UN Charter that deal with "sovereignty" and "territorial integrity." The United States has involved itself with terror activities in the name of curbing terrorism. The concept of "preemptive strike" that US President Bush had used and Obama now using will not at all help America to galvanize its image. History says the United States is committing such incidents time and again.
Violation of International Law
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Hague in 1986 ruled that the United States violated the international law by using force illegally in Nicaragua and providing help to Contra guerrillas (fighting the leftist government of that country at that time). The United States did not accept the verdict of the international court. But the UN secretary general in a resolution adopted by 94-2 votes had urged the United States to accept the verdict international court. The United States and Israel voted against the resolution.
In the death of Bin Laden a new chapter has been ushered in. It is to be observed what impact this 'death' creates in the Muslim world. But the Obama administration has more responsibility at this moment to enhance the US image in the Muslim world. President Obama's Cairo address had created a prospect in this regard. But a little progress has so far been achieved. Smaller Islamic militant groups like Al-Qaida have been born to a quite good number of Islamic countries. These groups have much influence in the countries like Algeria, Mauritania, Libya, Yemen, Sudan, and Somalia. The Islamic militants in Somalia directly or indirectly control the state power. The organization named Al Sadarb has introduced Shari'ah in the area controlled by them.
Al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and Salafist Group of Preaching and Combat had called for suicide bombing and worldwide jihad. The AQIM is active in the entire Maghreb region. The responsibility of the Obama administration at this moment is taking initiatives for bringing these militant groups in the mainstream of the society.
Moreover, it is very urgent to start "dialogue" with the militants in Afghanistan.
Existence of Mullah Omar
After Bin Laden, Mullah Omar is the target of the United States. The existence of Mullah Omar could not be found anywhere in Afghanistan in the long last 10 years of hectic searching. The solution to the Afghan problem will not be possible without initiating dialog with the Taliban. However, the Taliban movement and Al-Qaida are not the same. There are differences between the two.
Al-Qaida had given a call for jihad across the world, but the Taliban wanted to establish Islamic rule only in Afghanistan. It is very urgent for President Obama to withdraw soldiers from Afghanistan. The responsibility of the US President has further increased. The problem could not be solved by engraving the body of Bin Laden in the Arabian Sea from the US warship-Karl Vinson, patrolling in that sea. Obama himself will have to take the initiatives to earn confidence of the Muslim world. The death of Bin Laden has given birth to this possibility. President Obama has ensured his victory in the 2012 US President election by killing Bin Laden. Nobody has doubt about this. But various complexities have been created in the Muslim world, Pakistan-US relations and India-Pakistan relations. The complexities will increase regional tension. These will also create tension in the world politics. And the same will be the main obstacle in the way of establishing peace in the world.

Will Next Pakistan-India War Be for Water?

With the passage of time, the Pakistan-India water dispute has assumed alarming proportions. It is a very long story as to when this dispute started, and which agreements the countries signed on this disputes, and how the two countries are bound to cooperate with each other under these agreements. Little brawls among farmers and peasants over water are the order of day in our rural areas today as they were yesterday. However, these brawls were far more intense when I was a child. I have seen several farmers and peasants smashing one another's head over water disputes.
However, war between countries and blocs over water was no more than a whim, idea, and apprehension until a little while ago; however, now, the war experts elaborately say that man will see this idea transformed into a full-fledged, ruthless reality in the next few years. According to their predictions, South Asia will be the first region which will fall prey to war for water and the region, famous for the fights of Panipat, will become a center of wars for water and will give the gift of a seeping cancer, like the Kashmir issue, to the coming generation. The region is all set to introduce the world to a horrible history because, like the Kashmir issue, this issue does not appear to be resolving through rebuttals and condemnations and debates and negotiations. Like the Kashmir issue, confrontation, instead of cooperation, is being resorted to in this issue too.
The devastation, which this war might wreak can be assessed from the fact that the war will be between three nuclear powers of the region, China, India, and Pakistan. Rather, the question is being raised now whether this war has not actually already started unnoticed.
Resolving Kashmir Issue
Tragically, the first decade of the 21st century has ended but the South Asian countries are still carrying the baskets of the past garbage on their heads. Considering the historical perspective and the sacrifices offered by the Kashmiris, the Kashmir issue should have been resolved and the chapter of enmity in the region should have been closed for ever. The climate of this region should have changed until now. We should have learned a lesson from the past hostility, fights, wars, and bloodshed and should have set new goals to move to new destinations. However, the conceited and intoxicates souls of the region are still soaked in the ignorance of the past while the oppressed ‘Kashmiri people’ are being subjected to atrocities.
Following the partition of the subcontinent, Pakistan and India signed an agreement on 18 December 1947. Under this agreement, the distribution of water between the two countries was to remain as it was before the partition. However, within a few months, in 1948, after the conciliatory tribunal was abolished, India blocked every canal, reserved for irrigation, which originated from Ferozpur and Gurdaspur and crossed the border between the two countries. This India act meant severe loss to the standing Pakistani crops. The unilateral Indian act was against the spirit of the international law pertaining to the rivers flowing between two countries. The Barcelona Convention of 1921, which India had signed, does not allow any country to block or divert water of a river which crosses the border to enter a neighboring country. Under Barcelona Convention, a country is not allowed to use river water to a level and in a manner that the lands of the neighboring country cannot be irrigated or it may not have adequate water.
The river system of Indus basin consists of River Indus and it tributaries, Jhelum, Bias, Chanab, Ravi, and Sutlej. All these rivers meet Indus River at Mithan Kot in Pakistan before they fall into the ocean, in the south of Karachi. The total area of Indus basin is around 365,000 sq miles. Most of this area happens to be in Pakistan while the little remaining part stretches across the disputed Jammu and Kashmir, India, China, and Afghanistan.
At the time of the partition of the subcontinent, 31 million acres out of a total 37 million acres of Pakistani land was irrigated by these rivers. However, while drawing borders between the two countries, no attention was paid to the canal system established in the Pakistan-India subcontinent. Although, the boundary commission recognized this dispute, it deliberately did not resolve it because the Kashmir issue was linked with it and the governments of both the country were unwilling to withdraw from their respective stance. Pakistan gave the threat to take the issue to the International Court of Justice. At this, India gave the assurance that the issue of distribution of water would be resolved through mutual dialogue. However, the experience of years proved that dialogue is the best tactic to delay the resolution of any problem and the insincere party uses this tactic expertly.
Continuation of Mutual Dialogue
Mutual dialogue continued from 1948 to 1951; however, the two countries could not make any headway on this issue in spite of the fact that they wanted to resolve the issue as they knew that unresolved issue of water can engender numberless disputes in future. Yet, thanks to the Indian stubbornness, they could not mutually resolve the issue.
During this time, India had started construction of a barrage in the upper part of River Bias and River Sutlej at Harik, a place beyond Ferozepur, and had also started work on Bhakra Dam site. Thus, India dismissed every Pakistani objection, which augmented bitterness between the two countries. When the stories of the hostility between the two countries spread, ‘Collier’, a famous US magazine, which continued to be published until 1957, sent ‘David,’ the former chairman of Tennessee Valley Authority and chairman of US Atomic Energy Commission, to India and Pakistan on a fact-finding mission. The idea was to prepare a report in the light of which the problem could be resolved. For several days, David tried to understand the Pakistan-India water dispute. On his return, he expressed his opinion in the form of a series of articles.
Removing Pakistan's Apprehensions
The first of these series of articles was polished in 4 August 1591 edition of the Collier. In this article he wrote that the efforts to resolve this issue should start from removing Pakistan's apprehensions of being deprived of water and being reduced to a desert. India should confirm the volume of water it is currently using and it should be made incumbent on Pakistan that it and India would jointly work on the international basin of the river. The problem should be resolved on the basis of engineering. The two countries would not be able to resolve this issue if they worked separately, as the River Indus disregards borders between the two countries and follows its natural course lying across disputed Kashmir, India, and Pakistan. The entire system should be developed as a unit and it should be run as a unit like the TVA system of the US states.

NATO Action in Libya

Air strikes by NATO forces in Libya have been continuing. These strikes are being used to target president Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and his family members. The very rebels are also being targeted in whose sympathy North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has been claiming to launch air strikes. Dozens of rebels have so far been killed in NATO action. Now, NATO has killed Gadaffi's son and three grandsons. These attacks were made with the aim of targeting a building near Bab-Al Azizia compound. It is not known where Gaddafi was at the time of these attacks. His 29-year-old son and three grandsons have been killed in these attacks. The Libyan Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim said Gaddafi and his wife were safe. As a result of the attack, the three-storied building was partially destroyed. According to Libyan officials, three missiles were launched. This is not the first time that Gaddafi has been targeted. He was attacked earlier also, but survived.
Removing Gaddafi
The United States and its European allies, who are part NATO, have been supporting rebels in Libya. Now, the United States has announced $25 million aid to rebels. France and Italy have been arranging training of rebels. This shows that the objective is to unseat Gaddafi's regime. The United States and its allies have been claiming that they want to benefit Libyan people by removing Gaddafi.
The way attempts are being made on the lives of Gaddafi's family members is reprehensible. Even in war, targeting civilians is violation of law. The United States and NATO have thereby been breaking the law.
Violation of International Law
The United States and its allies have set their eyes on Libya's oil wealth. The United States wants to control these resources. It is said that there is no one to stop this violation of international law. US barbarism should be stopped immediately. Targeting any individual or a particular family is unjustified, and should not be allowed.
The United States can well be taken to the International Court of Justice on this issue. The United States and NATO should not be allowed to have their way in pursuit of their objective of destroying a particular family. The United States should give up such action and adoption of double standards. No law permits waging war to destroy one family.