April 2003: US in Iraq, Vajpayee’s Pak initiative and Worldview India

 

April 2003: US in Iraq, Vajpayee’s Pak initiative and Worldview India

                                                                                                                                   Saeed Naqvi 

Dated: 16-04-2021.

 

April, 2003, was the cruellest month for the people of Iraq, a month of reflection on Pakistan by Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, and a rare opportunity for Worldview India, a dedicated group of Indian journalists who helped lift the mist from the historic events that month.

Americans had occupied Iraq, by April 3.  Vice President Dick Cheney, the real author of the operation, was eager to declare victory on April 9. It was to be a spectacular media event. After all, Cheyney had embedded 300 plus journalists with the forces.

The choreography was audacious. In a prepared statement Dick Cheyney would declare victory on Global Media. This statement would be interspersed with images of an ecstatic, popular upsurge pulling down the statue of Saddam Hussain at Firdous square. Cheyney’s talking head would alternate with the slow fall of the statue. Cheyney would never have dreamt that all the back channel tricks that had gone into the manufacture of the memorable spectacle  would be exposed. For the first time in the history of Indian journalism, Worldview India had posted camera units/ cum reporters in Baghdad, Najaf, Istanbul, Jerusalem, Amman, Lebanon. Some of these reporters happened to be in Palestine hotel, witness to the real story – the one the world was not supposed to know.

Contrary to the narrative of a popular uprising toppling the statue, the Americans had to think on their feet: they had to improvise the iconic images because the popular upsurge had simply not materialized. US marines were mobilized to “lasso” the neck of the statue and have it pulled down by cranes. CNN, premier cheerleader for the occupation, has to this day incorporated a video of the statue as a lasting symbol of Americans replacing  a “brutal” dictatorship with democracy.

As we know from the experience of various “colour revolutions”, camera angles can amplify a handful of people (in this case the workers of Palestine hotel) into a revolution on the march. True, the sole super power can arrange for a statue to be pulled down, but how does it show images of crowds celebrating Saddam Hussein’s fall?

1991-92 Shia uprising in Najaf and Karbala encouraged by operation Desert Storm was harshly put down by Saddam Hussain. The only images of the damaged shrine of Imam Hussain was brought to the world by a TV crew led by this reporter. The Shia refugees from this almost unreported conflict had been settled in a vast ghetto on the outskirts of Baghdad. It was named, like much else in Iraq those days, as Saddam City.It dawned on Cheyney’s team that one group of people thrilled at  the “fall of Saddam were actually the inmates of the nearby ghetto,  teeming with disgruntled Shias.

A deal was struck with the controversial cleric, Muqtada Sadr. Saddam city was renamed “Sadr” city. That is when celebrations erupted on the streets of Baghdad. Crowds from Sadr city trampled on posters of Saddam Hussain and beat it with their Sandals. American romance with the Shias of Iraq burgeoned. On March 20, 2005, Thomas Friedman of the New York Times recommended Grand Ayatullah Ali Sistani for the Nobel Prize. Sistani remains the blue-eyed Ayatullah because he differs with Tehran on the clergy’s role in governing the state.

Cheyney’s contrivance of a quick victory in Iraq was matched by the energetic diplomacy of the US embassy in New Delhi. They persuaded South Block to participate in the American victory by taking over the administration of Iraq’s Kurdish North. Powerful cabinet Minister like Jaswant Singh found the American blandishment tempting. Prime Minster Vajpayee, as much a statesman as a skilful politician, rather than rubbish his cabinet colleagues, went into one of his extended spells of deep reflection.

He called up his friend A.B.Bardhan, Secretary General of the CPI. ”Are you supporting Indian occupation of Kurdish Iraq?”. Vajpayee taunted. “Not at all” exclaimed Bardhan. “But I see no protest”. Vajpayee continued. The Prime Minister was looking for signs of street restiveness on the issue   to cite in opposing the idea.The source for this exchange was Bardhan.Vajpayee did not deny it.

This was a period of extraordinary tension between India and Pakistan. After the 2001 December 13 attack on Indian Parliament, the two militaries were in an eyeball to eyeball confrontation. On April 18, Vajpayee landed in Srinagar and, without a hint to his cabinet colleagues,  held out his hand of peace to Pakistan. “An awesome power has arisen”. Regional quarrels have no meaning now. Conflicts in the region would have to be composed. The January 4, 2004 Indo-Pak summit in Islamabad followed.

Vajpayee found the “sole super power” moment forbidding. Hence his quest for regional peace. Narender Modi’s crawl towards a regional entente is dictated by a different set of circumstance. The burgeoning China, Russia, Iran, Pakistan togetherness in the vicinity makes a friendly US look too distant.

Journalists of Worldview India remember April of 2003 for the kind of journalism Indian journalists have never practiced before or since. The idea was to cover the war and the occupation of Iraq from an Indian perspective.The western media would ofcourse cover the occupation comprehensively, but from its own perspective. Indeed the embedded journalists would be part of the war effort. This would not be the Indian perspective, unless New Delhi accepted the proposition that it was India’s war too. Indian media houses are stone deaf on such issues. For coverage of foreign affairs they have deals with Reuters, BBC, CNN, FOX News and so on --  so much for atmnirbharta or self sufficiency.  A word of gratitude is owed to S.Y Qureshi, Director General of Doordarshan, for having grasped the significance of the project. He fought the resistance in the system. The standard argument against covering foreign affairs was familiar . “Foreign affairs have low TRP ratings”.

Let Qureshi bear witness. Amitabh Bachchan’s Kaun Banega Crorepati (who will be the millionaire) had the highest ratings until Worldview India’s one hour prime time reporting from the gulf by dedicated reporters pipped it to the post.

 

===========################## =================   ##############

Can US Ignore The “Moscow Format” On Afghanistan Reiterated By Lavrov?

Can US Ignore The “Moscow Format” On Afghanistan Reiterated By Lavrov?

                                                                                         Saeed Naqvi

The “Moscow Format” for Afghanistan spelt out by foreign minister Sergei Lavrov in New Delhi is straightforward. Russians want all the afghan ethnicities, religious groups, political parties, plus neighbouring countries to participate in a process for an all inclusive Kabul. Americans on the other hand would like to yoke President Ashraf Ghani and Taleban into a power sharing arrangement in Kabul. From this arrangement will flow a new constitution and an invitation to broad base the stakeholders.

Too much should not be read into the fact that Lavrov was not given time by Prime Minister Narendra Modi, something that foreign ministers from Washington, London or even the Gulf states take for granted. American exceptionalism, particularly when its underlying basis is being persistently questioned, has to be sensitively handled. Holding back on symbolic signs of upgradation of rising power centres will be noticed in capitals New Delhi habitually clubs with: the Quad, for instance.

An almighty fly in the American ointment for Afghanistan is there for all to see. Ghani, like Barkis, may be willing to sup with the Taleban. But the Taleban are obstinately opposed to such a feast. Should anyone still anchor optimism on Zalmay Khalilzad’s capacity to pull a diplomatic rabbit out of the hat should glance at the Peace Agreement Khalilzad coaxed out of the Taleban in February last year in Doha. So eager was he to flourish an agreement that he harmed his own credibility.

The headline or the title given to the “agreement” only amplifies disagreement.

“Agreement for bringing Peace to Afghanistan between the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan which is not recognized by the United States as a state and is known as the Taleban and the United States etc.” Obviously, the Taleban threw a ginger fit when they did not see their definition of themselves as the “Islamic Emirate” in the draft proposed by Khalilzad. He was, in other words compelled to include the phrase even though it made the US envoy look like a diplomatic eager beaver.

Russians, in their Soviet Avatar, have actually administered the country during the period of their occupation from 1980 to 1989. Soon after 9/11, the US found reasons to bomb their way into that strategic real estate. Both know the terrain.

For announcing initiatives and not being able to implement them, Barack Obama holds something of a record. Remember how demeaning of the American image, in his oft repeated utterances, was Guantanamo Bay? That dehumanizing torture centre and prison would be shut down the day he entered the White House, he promised. That facility remains in operation.

With what fanfare he announced that US troops would start withdrawing from Afghanistan “from July 2011”. Even then this reporter had predicted that the Americans were not going to leave “now nor tomorrow”. A super power enters a major theatre with one set of interests but, over a period of time, develops multiple compelling interests.

The US entered Afghanistan in its very heady sole-superpower moment. Reality dawned with the end of Lehman Brothers in September 2008, signaling the climax of the subprime mortgage crisis and the subsequent free fall of capitalist economies. Hence Obama’s urgency to cut costs and withdraw. Trump’s sidekick Steve Bannon during his spell of glory, even encouraged Erik Prince, former US Navy Seal officer and founder of the world’s largest military company, Blackwater, to dream dreams of privatizing the war in Afghanistan. In his 100 page project report, studied by the White House, Prince envisaged a “Viceroy”, exactly as the British had in India.

After going through a series of gyrations, the Trump administration set May 1, 2021 as the date for final troop withdrawal. Qualifications attended even these intentions: “interests” would be left behind to be quickly mobilized, should a post US Afghanistan be gripped in need.

President Biden is abiding by the May first deadline but there are sufficient statements, from Washington that the deadline is not cast in stone. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, surrounded by the “neo-cons” saw an American century right there, within grasp when the occupation began. And now the US is contemplating withdrawal from its 20 year involvement at a time when its plummeting self esteem is being maliciously watched globally. Is this the right psychological moment for it to pick its chips and walk away from the game?

Why then would the US military industrial complex not sketch a posture of greater aggression, quite the opposite of withdrawal? After all, the Obama-Kerry team had brought Iran into a West Asian balance of power by signing the nuclear deal, because the “pivot-to-Asia” was beckoning the White House for a more hands-on engagement to manage China. Alarm bells on that count have reached a deafening pitch. Harvard Professor Graham Allison’s Thucydides Trap is only one of the dreadful images being cited. Allison’s thesis based on the Greek historian’s insights is not to be trifled with: when an established power is challenged by a rising power, war takes place. According to Allison, in the past 500 years, there have been 16 cases in which a rising power threatened to displace a ruling one. Twelve of these ended in war.

Against this perspective, why would the hawks in Washington not salivate at China’s vulnerabilities in Xinjiang. What better launching pad to insert Islamic militants, freshly flown from Syria, for instance, to mingle among the restive Uighurs? Again, the might of the US will be pitted against the consolidated power of China and Russia. Even during the sole super-power days, when the US tried to sideline the Russians in Kosovo, the Russians defiantly barged in and occupied Pristina airport in 1999. In 2015 Russians again spoilt America’s game in Syria. And now when not just Xinjiang but even the Caucasus can be exposed to imported Islamism, will Moscow, backed by China, allow the US to do as it pleases in Afghanistan?

#          #          #          #