Chapter III
ISLAM AND THE WEST

 ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN
Western policies towards Pakistan were similar. From 1977 to 1978 Pakistan was ruled by Ziaul Haq, an 'Islamist' general who had come to power through a military coup. In the 1980s the USA gave massive support and arms to this military ruler - they needed his country as a base from which to support the Mujahidin against the Soviet Union in the war in Afghanistan. The building of a Pakistani atom bomb, the invovlvement of his dictatorship in heroin smuggling to Europe and other activities were
looked upon as mere peccadilloes and generously ignored - to say nothing of the repression of the Pakistani people and widespread human rights abuse. On Zia's death the secular members of the Washington government surpassed themselves in their eulogies. Reagan, in a written statement issued from his ranch near Santa Barbara, recalled his meetings with Zia, saying they had 'worked together for peace and stability' ... The Pakistani leader, the statement said, 'also believed in freedom for Afghanistan'... Vice President Bush ... told reporters that 'Pakistan and the United States have a very special relationship, and the loss of General Zia is a great tragedy.'12 The fact that dictator had followed an "islamist fundamentalist" programme in order to widen his political base, and had fostered Islamist parties on a massive scale, presented no problem. The reason: the USA needed Pakistan as a base of operations for the war in Afghanistan.13

HISTORICAL ANTAGONISM WITH THE WEST
The Islamic confrontation with the West is distinct from that between the West and secular nationalists, Bhuddist, Hindus or Animists because there has been intermittent conflict between the West and Islam for 1,200 years. This conflict has left in the minds of most Westerners a psychological residue of fear, hatred and antagonism towards Islam. Hence, the intellectual legacy of the West in its attitude towards Islam bears the imprint of the Crus ades. These were originally a series of conflicts between Christian and Muslim forces for the control of Jerusalem, and from the 11th and 13th centuries, hardly any decade passed without Kings and Barons leading expeditions from various parts of Europe in order either to maintain or recover possession of the Holy Land. Many names have come down through literature and legend, notably those of King Richard or the "Lion Heart" and Saladin (Salahuddin Ayyubi). After the 13th century, as the Ottoman Turks conquered parts of Europe, the anti-Islam struggle assumed a defensive character.

According to Akbar S. Ahmad, the ongoing and complex confrontation between Islam and the West is marked by three historical encounters. The first began with the rise of Islam, the conquest of Spain and the appearance of Islamic armies in France and Sicily. It reached its dramatic climax with the Crusades, and ended in the seventeenth century when the Ottomans were halted at Vienna. When the French general in 1920, preparing to partition Arab lands, knocked on Salhuddin's tomb in Damascus and said, "Awake Saladin, we have returned," he expressed the continuity of the first encounter. The second
encounter was brief but ferocious. During it the entire Muslim world was in the grip of European colonial imperialism. When this encounter concluded, after the Second World War, it was assumed that a period of harmony and friendship based on equality between Islamic and western nations would follow. This was not to be. The hoped for symmetry was destroyed as western civilization, driven by the USA and UK, began to dominate the world, a process sharpened by the collapse of Communism in
the late 1980s. The present third encounter is, perhaps, the most complex of all. The weapons used in this encounter by the West are culture and media propaganda. TV and the VCR penetrate most Muslim homes. If for Muslims the second encounter, European colonialism, was a siege, the present encounter is a blitzkrieg. Unlike the earlie r encounters, it is neither primarily religious, nor colonial nor racist -- but at certain points reflect all three. It is marked by a bewildering fusion of media images, scholarly opinions and atavistic cultural responses. Muslims appear threatened and unable to cope with the cultural onslaught of the West. Their response to the Satanic Verses sump up this encounter; Muslim fury met western incomprehension reflecting the complete lack of communication, the great cultural gap. The study of Islam (by orientalists) and perception of Muslim society are embedded in the socio-political context of these encounters.14

WEST'S DOUBLE STANDARD
Muslims do not have any inherent animus against the west and yet the mutual alienation is growing. One of the main cause of this widening gulf is the perception among many in the Islamic world that the West follows a double standard when it comes to Muslims. Western governments that condemn repression and violations of human rights elsewhere are s een as mute in the face of similar practices by pro-western Muslim governments. "Saddam Hussein is justifiably condemned but none of his neighbors,
some of them no less dictatorial, is so systematically scrutinized, " according to Ghassan Salame, Middle East expert at the Institute of Political Studies in Paris. Many Muslims also were angered that the United States bombed Iraq for not complying with the UN resolutions that ended the Gulf War, but it fails to take strong action against Israel when that country ignores UN resolutions to leave Lebanon or take back Palestinian Islamic activists it forcibly expelled.15

One example of pro-US or anti-Arab stance is the US bid to cover up, down-play or condone by not condemning the brutal Israeli massacre of Arab refugees in a UN compound in Qana in southern Lebanon in April, 1996. There has been no forth right US condemnation of the Israeli aggression. On the contrary, far from objecting to the Israeli occupation of southern Lebanon, in flagrant violation of the UN charter, Washington has been justifying the Israeli military presence on foreign soil on grounds of Israeli compulsions of self-defense. This enunciates a dangerous principle in that it permits stronger states to occupy part of their neighbor's territory on the plea of self-defense, breaching the smaller state's sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Israeli occupation of Arab lands, Israeli atrocities committed on unarmed Arab men, women and even teenagers are normally ignored by the West. Israeli defiance of the Security Council resolutions have never been condemned. But in the case of Kuwait, how is it that the world reaction was so quick and firm? Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2nd August, and by 25 Aug., the Security Council had passed five resolutions against Iraq -- on 3, 6, 9, 18 and 25 August. This was not the end. During September another four -- on 10, 16, 24 and 25 Sept. -- resolutions were adopted. October saw only one, followed by two in November on the 28th and 29th. Thus th e total of twelve resolutions were passed with the last one on 29th Nov. "giving Iraq the last opportunity, until 15th Jan, 1991, to comply with all previous resolutions, otherwise "nations allied with Kuwait" were authorized to use all necessary means to force Iraq to withdraw and honor all resolutions." What about other UN resolutions. For example the resolution on plebiscite in Kashmir. Death of hundreds of Kashmiris has not so far echoed in the Security Council.

The United States government prepared vigorously to punish Iraq. It shaped at the United Nations resolutions, their enforcement, and member countries' support of them. Barring the one occasion in 1950 when the Security Council acting in the absence of the Soviet delegate, approved US intervention in Korea, the UN had not issued so open-ended a license to wage what Rudyard Kipling might well have described as a "savage war of peace." Two hours after the war began President Bush spoke from the Oval office, vastl y broadening the objectives of the war. They were, he said, "to drive Saddam from Kuwait by force," "knock out Saddam's nuclear bomb potential," "destroy his chemical weapons facilities" and "much of Saddam's artillery and tanks." "And Iraq will eventually comply with all relevant United Nations resolutions..." The last requirement provides the framework for continued US military presence in the Gulf, for the maintenance of harsh sanctions against Iraq, and for intrusive UN inspections of its nuclear and military facilities.

With the end of the cold war the American President George Bush came out in early 1990 with a fresh call for a new world order. Iraq's disastrous attack on Kuwait and the American-led Gulf war were used as the harbingers of the alleged new order. It was claimed that "no aggressor would in the future be allowed to go unpunished," that "occupation by force would not be tolerated," that "international boundarie s would not be allowed to be changed arbitrarily," that "human rights would have to be respected by all," that "it would be ensured that any violation of human rights is brought to an end," without constraint of national boundaries, and that "the United Nations would play a new role as the peace-keeper of the world." With the establishment of these principles, it was suggested, the mankind is bound to enter into a new era of democracy and security. Sadly, but not unexpectedly, to those who had never thought there would be any other outcome, the chosen instrument of enforcing the proposed New World Order, the UN Security Council, under American leadership, revealed with indecent haste, that selectivity in reacting to causes and threats of instability and tension were still wholly subservient to its considerations of where the remaining superpower deemed its national interests to lie.

No one can believe that the American objective in unleashing a war of attrition agains t Iraq was to make Kuwait safe for democracy or safeguard the right of self-determination of its people, just as it was not the concern of its Camp David diplomacy to arrive at a peace settlement on the basis of recognition of Arab sovereignties in the Middle East. What was transparently clear in the conference diplomacy in 1979, and the military adventure a decade later, was to provide a protective cover to Israel to grab Arab lands without fear of retaliation. With the Soviet veto hanging over its heads, the Camp David Accord was concluded outside the United Nations, and now that the veto has been neutralized, and instrumentality of the Security Council has been freely used to give American foreign policy a semblance of international respectability. What America proposes the Council cannot dispose. Never before in its history had the United Nations been reduced to such imbecility and impotence. The role of the United Nations under the NWO is restructured by the western powers, particularly the US. The Secur ity Council dominated by the western NATO powers has turned into an instrument of new colonialism under high sounding objectives. The UN, which has in large served the interests of major powers, once again will be used as a tool by these powers against the integrity of small states.

Israel is above nuclear nonproliferation. Its nuclear program has not been subject to scrutiny by the US Congress or pressure by the US government. The US anti-proliferation laws have not been invoked against it. The U.S. Congress has passed country-specific legislation such as the Pressler and Solarz amendments which do not apply to Israel. The full extent of its nuclear capability is not known. What we do know is that Israel broke with impunity many laws to acquire American technology, designs, and material for its nuclear program. It's awesome nuclear arsenal now includes at least 300 high density nuclear devices, and a delivery system which parallels in many areas those of the US, Russia and NATO. This delivery system is provided largely by the United States. Israel is also immune from the seven-power Missile Technology Control Regime of 1987, which embargoes missiles technology, including space launchers, to any nation that has missiles of over 300-km range and more than 500-kg payload. Both Jericho and Shevit II as well as Ofeq I fall under this category, but the West has no problem with them. And as if it was not enough, Israel is developing the Arrow anti-missile missile, under American-Israeli Strategic Cooperation, funded mainly by the U.S. from its Star War program.


Washington's determination to prevent any other country in the region from becoming Israel's atomic equal is comprehensible as a continuation of old policy. The only difference is that in the 1970s, the US perceived and armed Israel as one of two or more polar stars in its Middle Eastern constellation of clients. Now, it seeks to assure Israel the status of the sole regional power. Israel is now a publicly acclaimed "strategic ally." ; This alliance enjoys consensus in America; and it is assured the permanent support of a powerful lobby. What it lacks still is legitimacy and formal acceptance by countries in the region. Those Muslims and Arabs who subscribe to a conspiracy theory of international affairs would argue that the establishment of Israel in 1948 was deliberately designed by the West so that the state might serve as the outpost of Western hegemony.16 In the eyes of Muslim and Arab countries, the United States, ever since the formation of the state of Israel has followed a consistent policy of excessive cordiality and favoritism toward Israel. They would argue that Arab oil has contributed heavily toward the enrichment and growth of the Western economy, but that oil has been used to help Israel in such a way that the legitimate interests of the Arab and Muslim states have not only been disregarded but adversely affected.17