Pakistan to be worst-hit in US war on Iraq -- Detail Story
LAHORE: Of all the Middle Eastern and Central Asia countries, Pakistan will be the worst hit by the US attack on Iraq due to its political instability and nuclear capability.
This was the consensus of the debate on "US attack on Iraq and the future of our region" arranged by an NGO, Mashaal, at the HRCP auditorium here on Tuesday with HRCP director I. A. Rehman in the chair.
Columnist and author Ahmad Rashid said within three days of the terrorist attack on America on Sept 11, US President Bush had declared his intention to attack Iraq. Unlike the attack on Iraq in 1991 when many countries of the world had supported the US, this time there was great opposition by the people as well as governments throughout the world as was evident from the large rallies held against the possible US attack.
He apprehended that the US attack would have serious repercussions on the entire region, particularly Pakistan as President Gen Musharraf had expressed his concern the other day when he had been quoted asking how Pakistan could avert its turn after Iraq.
Mr Rashid said Pakistan had already taken a U-turn on Afghanistan when the US had attacked it. Now, he feared, it would take another turn as Pakistan-US relations might deteriorate after the attack on Iraq because of three reasons.
First, there were reports of Taliban leaders taking shelter in Pakistan, particularly in the NWFP and tribal areas, as Gulbadeen Hikmatyar who had been supporting the Al Qaeda movement had been reportedly visiting the country.
Secondly, there were reports of the plans to resume the support of Kashmiri freedom fighters, and thirdly, the US apprehension of going Pakistan's nuclear technology into wrong hands and the possibility of its transfer to other countries as reported by the American and western media hurling all sorts of accusations and allegations against Pakistan's programme.
He said Indo-Pakistan relations had deteriorated so much that both the countries had lost all contacts, even worse than the US-USSR relations during the Cold War when at least they had contacts at various levels. The Indian defence minister was talking of wiping out Pakistan from the world map.
Mashaal chairman, a physicist, an intellectual and author, Pervaiz Hoodbhai, said America had no moral and political justification to attack Iraq. It was not a clash between two civilizations but it would be a war for the vested US interests.
He said since the end of the World War-II, America had fought 28 major war and numerous small battles in different parts of the world, the biggest and disastrous of them was the one fought in Vietnam where no less than one million Vietnamese were killed. In the 1991 Gulf War, 70,000 Iraqis were killed. Israel, abetted by the US had killed over 60,000 people in Lebanon, including Palestinians who had taken refuge there. America and Israel had jointly killed about 250,000 people since 1945 in wars.
He said the people of the world were opposing the US attack on Iraq as was evident from the large rallies all over the world. Thousands of people in Europe had declared their plan to make a human shield in Iraq against the attack. The people of Pakistan could not avert the war but they could join the anti-war campaign. The western and American media had been publishing malicious reports against Pakistan's nuclear programme which could mislead the world about the nuclear and missile programme of Pakistan.
Mr Hoodbhai said America feared that Pakistan's nuclear technology might be transferred to other countries, particularly North Korea. Though US Secretary of State Colin Powell had denied the reports and hushed up the matter but, after the Iraq war, the issue could be taken up.
He said any incident like the attack on Indian parliament on December 13, 2001, could be staged to attack on Pakistan. The US, India and Israel could also launch a joint action against Pakistan's nuclear programme. In fact they had started thinking on the strategy, he added.
Columnist and author Khalid Ahmad also expressed his concern at the remarks of President Musharraf referring to Pakistan's turn and said though it was an off-the-record remark, it was reported and commented upon in newspapers.
Unlike the Gulf War, the US could not get enough support for attack on Iraq and the people and the governments of various Western countries were opposing President Bush, he added.
He said there was no terrorism in Iraq which was said to possess weapons of mass destructions. America could take action against Pakistan but it had become an ally in its war against terrorism and had got many concessions. Action against Pakistan had been delayed, not averted.
He said there was a need for pragmatism instead of idealism to handle the delicate situation caused by the US designs against Iraq and their impact on the region.
He said conditions in Pakistan were worse than those in Afghanistan. The international law was what the five permanent members of the UN Security Council decide and the smaller nations were required to follow them.
He criticized the role of OIC which had no courage to raise its voice against the US action.
HRCP director I. A. Rehman emphasized the need for meeting the situation caused by the possible US attack on Iraq with reason rather than emotions.
He said the impact of the attack had already been felt on the Indo-Pakistan relations as both the countries had started expelling their embassy staff and a stage would come soon when only guards would be left in the offices of both embassies. The attack would have its impact on Iran, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia and other countries of the region.
He said after the 9/11 tragedy the phase of terrorism had come to an end and replaced by the hegemony of the big powers which would get a licence to browbeat the smaller and weaker nations.