Military

November 18, 1999

'TALIBAN DOES NOT SUCCUMB, UN IMPOSES SANCTIONS ON AFGHANISTAN'

Foreign commentators split along the fault line of the global Muslim community on one side and the rest of the world on the other regarding the UN's November 14 decision not to heed the Taliban's plea to delay sanctions on Afghanistan for the Islamic militia's failure to hand over Saudi dissident Osama bin Laden. In Belgium, The Netherlands and India writers judged that the UN "has done well" to go proceed with the embargo. Noting the "destructive presence" of "a wide arc" of "Islamic militancy" from Kashmir to Central Asia to Russia's southern republics, New Delhi's right-of-center Pioneer warned that "a postponement" of the sanctions would have been interpreted as "a weakening of the UN's resolve to fight terrorism" and "would have boosted the morale of terrorists the world over." But in the Muslim world--from Pakistan to Indonesia to the Persian Gulf--analysts railed against the embargo and defended the Taliban's position that it not hand over Bin Laden until Washington proves that he was responsible for the terrorist bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa last year. These were highlights:

THE MUSLIM VIEW: Predictably, the most biting criticism was found in Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates--two of the three countries worldwide that recognize the Taliban as Afghanistan's rulers. In these cases, the UN action was interpreted as "extreme," "anti-Islam" and unfair U.S.-orchestrated punishment of the Afghan people. "The UN is so subservient to the U.S. that it can't protect the rights of Muslim countries," Islamabad's sensationalist Urdu-langauge Ummat charged. In more tempered but still critical reaction, Bahraini and Indonesian papers judged that the Talibs were "realistic" in saying that they were not ready to hand over Bin Laden until Washington "submitted enough evidence showing that he was responsible" for the U.S. embassy bombings. Jakarta's leading independent Kompas added that the sanctions will not "solve" anything, but only "add to the diplomatic problems of Afghanistan with the UN and the U.S." Interestingly, in Pakistan, the majority of papers there concluded that the onus is now on "Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which recognize the Kabul government" to work for "an early settlement of the Usama dispute" in order to prevent "any further escalation."

ISLAMABAD BLASTS: Commentators expressed a variety of views on the rocket attacks directed against U.S. and UN offices in Islamabad just two days prior to the sanctions. A German paper wondered to what extent Pakistan's new military regime can control terrorists since "the new ruler, General Musharraf, has a lot to do to consolidate his power." In Islamabad, the centrist, national News insisted that "this latest round of terrorism clearly has no links to Pakistan's domestic politics." A Bahraini writer suggested that the explosions were part of a conspiracy meant to pre-empt international "sympathy" for the people of Afghanistan. A United Arab Emirate writer warned the U.S. not to retaliate with violence unless it can prove "in a full and transparent form" the identity of the bombers.

U.S. COUNTER-TERRORISM STRATEGIES: A cross-section of commentators argued that U.S. attempts to combat terrorism--the retaliatory military strikes against suspected terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan last year and the Taliban sanctions--have been clumsy and counterproductive and have actually increased anti-Americanism in the Muslim world.

EDITOR: Gail Hamer Burke

This survey is based on 15 reports from 9 countries, November 13-18. Editorial excerpts are grouped by region; editorials from each country are listed from the most recent date.

SOUTH ASIA

PAKISTAN: "UN Action Against Taliban Hits Snags"

An editorial in the Karachi-based, independent national Dawn held (11/18): "The United Nations Security Council has run into serious difficulties in persuading some of its member states on the Council to play their assigned roles in the UN action against the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. Many member states believe that the Afghan sanctions plan is basically an American plan to further its interests in the region."

"Anti-Afghan Or Anti-Islam?"

An editorial in the sensationalist, Urdu-language Ummat maintained (11/16): "The extreme step taken by the United Nations against Afghanistan at the behest of the United States proves that the UN is so subservient to the United States that it can't protect the rights of Muslim countries. Osama bin Laden is an individual and has a handful of supporters. If one accepts the U.S. claim that he is a 'terrorist,' targeting 20 million people for the sake of one is not only unjust, but [an expression of] open animosity towards Muslims and is international terrorism itself."

"Crippling Sanctions"

An editorial in the centrist national News stated (11/16): "Terrorism in any form and from any source cannot be condoned. Yet punishing an entire country and risking the spread of violence through sanctions is a questionable strategy--especially when the issue is as vexed and complicated as that of radical Islamic groups. All previous U.S.-UN sanctions have either been followed or preceded by military action of some sort.... Short of war, enforcing sanctions is the least bad option for the United States and the world community to achieve their objective in Afghanistan. Pakistan must choose its words and actions will utmost care and work for an early settlement of the Osama dispute which must be prevented from any further escalation. We must not let yet another Afghan crisis become the bane of our society."

"Aftermath Of Sanctions"

Islamabad's rightist, English-language Pakistan Observer held (11/16): "Isn't it a tragedy that a nation, that had pioneered the dissolution of the evil empire and the obliteration of communism from the world, should be targeted for the sake of an individual, who is simply accused of certain acts of terrorism? We are convinced that the UN sanctions against Kabul are bound to be judged by history as over-reactive and unwarranted, as will be the U.S. missile attack on bin Laden's hideout in Afghanistan last year. The sanctions have, however, devolved a special responsibility on Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates--which recognize the Kabul government--to pacify the United States, in order to save the Afghan people from further miseries, as it will not be appropriate to push the Taliban into isolation."

"The Islamabad Blasts"

Nasim Zehra penned this op-ed piece in the centrist, national News (11/14): "The six rockets fired from rocket launchers in the heart of Pakistan's capital on the morning of November 12...which clearly missed their prime targets...were communicating a message to the Americans, to the UN and to a Washington-controlled international agency mandated to finance the development initiatives of developing countries.... One obvious conclusion could be that the

message was either from the sympathizers of the suffering Afghan people, from Taliban supporters or from the supporters of Osama bin Laden.... This latest round of terrorism clearly has no links to Pakistan's domestic politics. It must therefore be isolated from the developments of October 12, which led to the dismissal of an elected government through a military coup d'etat."

INDIA: "Combatting Terrorism"

The centrist Hindu opined (11/16): "Any collective action by the international community to counter-terrorism will be welcomed by this country, itself a long suffering victim.... Now comes the Security Council decision to impose punitive economic sanctions against the Taliban.... It is a long delayed action against a politico-religious outfit that has been preaching and practicing its own brand of terrorism with disastrous results for the entire region.... In a wide arc, from Kashmir to the Central Asian nations to Russia's own southern republics, Islamic militancy has a destructive presence that can no longer be wished away.... But the focus of a possible joint fight against the menace of terrorism has unfortunately been distorted by Washington's obsessive concentration on Osama bin Laden. Besides, the contrast between the alacrity with which the UN has moved now, however welcome and well-merited the action, and the lethargy and inaction on earlier occasions is too stark for comfort to the international community.... Even the use of the punitive weapon of economic sanctions had often been selective, the UN initiating action if pressured by the West. Mr. Saddam Hussein's Iraq is one instance where sanctions which are meant to choke a regime are in fact hurting and penalizing an entire population. The sanctions tool cannot be a partisan weapon, wielded only when Western, in particular American, interests are affected. Much like humanitarian intervention, sanctions are an extraordinary power that ought not to be used indiscriminately, and used only in the rarest of rare instances when international peace is threatened beyond doubt."

"Arrest Bin Laden"

An editorial in the right-of-center Pioneer said (11/16): "The United Nations has done well not to heed the Taliban army's plea for delaying the imposition of the sanctions which came into force against Afghanistan on Sunday.... A postponement would have boosted the morale of terrorists the world over. Particularly after last Friday's rocket attacks on the American Centre and several UN offices in Islamabad, it would have been interpreted as a sign of either a weakening of the UN's resolve to fight terrorism or a lack of seriousness on its part.... The sanctions...will doubtless hurt... But then the sanctions imposed early this year by the United States were even harsher. Yet, the Taliban has still to hand over Osama bin Laden.... One cannot underestimate the ability of fanatical groups to defy international sanctions even if it means great hardships for the people whom they govern. Thus, while not relenting on the sanctions, the UN must begin thinking of other supplementary measures which may be required to compel the Taliban to hand over bin Laden. In this context, it needs to take a long hard look at Pakistan which organized, trained, and armed the Taliban.... Besides the Taliban, Pakistan has also been actively promoting fundamentalist Islamic terrorist organizations like the Lashkar-e-Toiba and Harkat-ul-Mujahideen.... India has for years been at the receiving end of their violence.... The message is simple: It would be impossible to winkle bin-Laden out and try him without Pakistan's cooperation. If Islamabad is unwilling to oblige, the UN, and particularly the United States, has to find a way of compelling it to cooperate."

"Signs Of Danger"

An editorial in the nationalist Hindustan Times held (11/15): "Unlike the earlier military coups in Pakistan, which at least introduced a semblance of order in the initial stages, the latest one has failed to achieve even that. As the rocket attacks directed against the American and UN offices in Islamabad showed, the terrorist groups responsible for them have as little fear of the military

administration as they perhaps would have had of a civilian one. The reason probably is the overall degeneration of Pakistan into what an earlier U.S. report had described as a terrorist state where fanatical militants pursuing diverse agendas of jihad feel at home."

MIDDLE EAST

UNITED ARAB EMIRATES: "Afghans Brace For Sanctions"

The Dubai-based, English-language Gulf News commented (11/14): "The initial implementation of sanctions has been confused, and Afghan flights from the UAE were uncertain at the time of going to the press." The editorial continued, "A series of explosions in Pakistan reminded everyone of the potential for violence contained in this issue. No one has yet claimed responsibility for the acts which leaves lots of room for speculation. The bombing could be by Osama bin Laden or a group linked to him, seeking to show the world that they do not care about sanctions; or it could be some other group which wants the world to think that Osama Bin Laden's people are still causing trouble.... The purpose of such duplicity would be to trigger a harsh U.S. response and so create a new wave of sympathy for Osama Bin Laden. U.S. over-reaction to the bombing of their embassies in Africa embarrassed the United States in the end. Their retaliation on a medical factory in Sudan was a mistake which served to unite Sudan against the United States.... Revenge is not justice, and the United States should refrain from any such reaction. However, if the United States is considering going down the wrong route of vengeance attack, it is very important that the country can prove it knows who perpetrated these terrible attacks. Not only must the United States know, but it will have to show the world the evidence in a full and transparent form."

KUWAIT: "U.S. Counter-Terrorism Strategies"

Independent Al-Anba published this by Hasan Abdullah Al-Sayegh (11/17): "After the American Embassy bombing incidents in Africa, the American administration recognized that this terrorist action was supported logistically by Osama Bin Laden. This threat was countered by a direct and decisive military strike against a suspected medicine factory in Sudan and against bin Laden's training camps in Afghanistan. Eventually, the solution reached was to exert pressure on Afghanistan to hand over Bin Laden. But the Taliban's refusal to hand him over pushed Washington to impose economic sanctions. Now, millions of lives are linked to Bin Laden's hand over."

BAHRAIN: "Explosions In Pakistan Meant To Discourage Sympathy For The Afghans"

Semi-independent Akhbar Al-Khalij published this comment (11/15) by Adnan Bumtaia: "The United States yesterday began its economic sanctions against Afghanistan. I say the United States and not the United Nations because the UN has become the shadow of U.S. policy.... The Taliban was realistic when it said that it was ready to hand over Bin Laden if Washington submitted enough evidence showing that he was responsible. But the American response was to obtain a sanctions resolution. Sanctions have become the new American weapon of mass destruction, which it uses against the peoples who reject its policies. Because of one person, 20 million Afghans will suffer from international sanctions. I believe that the explosions in Islamabad two days ago, just one day before the implementation of the sanctions, were meant to block the way for any attempts to show sympathy for the Afghanis. However, by doing so, 20 million people have been added to the list of the enemies of the United States."

EUROPE

GERMANY: "Of Sanctions And Bombs"

Dietrich Alexander's editorial had this to say in right-of-center Die Welt of Berlin (11/15): "Despite the latest bomb attacks against U.S. installations in Islamabad, the UN imposed sanctions on Afghanistan. This is good, since it will hit the Taliban hard.... [They] will regret having allowed Osama bin Laden to enter the country, since they are now in a fix: If they extradite the Saudi Arabian millionaire, they will risk the financial support of the radical-Islamic forces in the Arab countries. But as long as they do not extradite him, they will remain isolated. And, after the change of power in Pakistan, [the world] can hardly rely on [Pakistan] any longer. The new ruler, General Musharraf, has a lot to do to consolidate his power.... In addition, he must reduce the enormous foreign debt of his country. If he continues to stick to the Taliban, he will also be punished by the international community of nations."

BELGIUM: "The Talibans Have A Date With The Embargo"

Baudouin Loos penned this in independent Le Soir (11/13), "In fact, as some Muslim intellectuals regret, Bin Laden has done a lot to spoil the image of the Muslim world in the West, although the reaction which he aroused in the West has not always been more subtle. For instance, the American 'retaliation' for the Nairobi and Dar Es-Salaam terrorist attacks--which consisted, one week later, in bombing without any warning Talibans' training camps and a chemical plant in Sudan--has not even been unanimously approved in the United States, where intelligence sources have revealed the lack of certainty as far as the nature of the targets was concerned. Besides, Washington has again underestimated the impact of these strikes on the Arab Muslim world, which is already irritated at what it considers is an unfair treatment of Iraq. Where else does Bin Laden's popularity come from? This popularity prevents his Taliban protectors from cooperating with the UN, although they announced last July that 'they prohibited him from conducting any hostile activity on their soil.'"

THE NETHERLANDS: "Arrest Of Bin Laden Would Save World A Lot Of Trouble"

Centrist Algemeen Dagblad said in its editorial (11/13): "The arrest of Osama Bin Laden could save the world a lot of trouble. It is unacceptable that the Taliban regime in Afghanistan does not want to meet the UN request for extradition. The world should support the sanctions planned against Afghanistan. The Taliban regime, with its many bizarre policies, such as prohibiting women to work and girls to go to school, is providing this dangerous lunatic hospitality. By doing so, the Taliban is placing itself outside the international community and should be fought."

EAST ASIA

INDONESIA: "Taliban Does Not Succumb, UN Imposes Economic Sanctions"

Leading, independent Kompas observed (11/16): "It is simple logic that the Taliban government not simply yield to the UN and U.S. demands, despite the economic risks. Conversely, neither will the sanctions solve the questions, but perhaps could even add to the diplomatic problems of Afghanistan with the UN and the United States.... [Meanwhile], in the international realm, the Taliban have only limited scope, for many countries remain reluctant to recognize the legitimacy of this ruler of Afghanistan. The Afghans are really facing a complicated challenge."

##

For more information, please contact:

U.S. Department of State

Office of Research

Telephone: (202) 619-6511

10/29/99

# # #