SPY EYES

Blocked roads, police check-posts and a heavy presence of armed forces has become the norm in northern areas of Pakistan. Terrorism has become so deeply entrenched in these areas that it is difficult to differentiate between friend and foe. National and International security analysts inevitably try to blame government’s policies and law enforcement agencies. But Pakistan might not be solely at fault for the pervading state of insecurity within its borders.

Over the years, some external forces have also influenced Pakistan’s internal security. There is a commonly held belief that America has a certain agenda for Pakistan, one that may not benefit the latter. Although the US has come to Pakistan’s aid in humanitarian crises and contributed to the uplift of social welfare, it has made some grave mistakes that have tarnished its image in the eyes of Pakistanis. The way Raymond Davis was able to get away with a double murder and the underhanded CIA operation to use the polio campaign to obtain Bin Ladin’s DNA samples are some examples of America’s ulterior motives. Many are now convinced that Baloch separatists are secretly funded by the United States.  Apart from these few incidents, evidence of American participation in violent acts is less obvious. While America may be aware of other foreign forces actively meddling in Pakistan’s internal security affairs, it has largely chosen to turn a blind eye towards these activities. Nevertheless, America’s dealings with Pakistan certainly have a role in instigating violence and hatred.

Most of all, it is the American  War on Terror in neighboring Afghanistan that has set in motion many events which can no longer be reversed and perhaps has created more enemies than allies. Pakistan’s support to this cause has angered the Afghan Taliban as well as indigenous extremists, who sympathize with their Afghan brothers.

The Afghan Taliban have suffered a loss in power and prestige with the installation of the US puppet Karzai as the Afghan President. In the eyes of the locals, Western occupation of Afghan territory risks their culture and values. Advantaged by Pakistan’s porous north-western border, Afghan Taliban have found it easy to travel between the two countries and take sanctuary in their safe havens in Pakistan.

Pakistan’s foreign policy decisions to support the War on Terror have dragged the nation into a war against the West. The Pakistani Taliban (TTP), who support the Afghan Taliban’s struggle, also detest foreign interference. They question the credibility and loyalty of the Pakistani government which has allowed US forces to (mis)use Pakistani resources, evidence of its non-Shariah underpinnings. Although the Afghan Taliban have not participated in TTP’s activities, the former has been used to attract recruits. Pakistan is therefore, guilty by association and some of its leading politicians and defense leaders are even “wajib-ul-qatal”(deserve being killed).

This battle for an independent nation, free from western influences acquires a new flavor when religion is used to justify its mission. It is now not a matter of wealth or prestige, but a matter of protecting one’s identity. Local terrorist organizations have used this to manipulate recruits in fulfilling their agendas. In a simplified version, it would seem like a fight between Islamic and non-Islamic traditions. But which type of Islam is being fought for? Minor differences have inflated into glaring barriers. As a result, local and external religious extremists continue to attack both Pakistani and Western coalition security forces and government representatives who fail to abide by their “authentic” version of Islam all the while losing innocent lives as collateral damage.

The other great conspirator against Pakistan’s insecurity is considered to be India. Just like the Americans, Indians are said to be encouraging anti-state activities. As regional powers busy themselves in finding a peaceful end to the Afghan War, India has transformed its hostile image into a benevolent ally of Afghanistan. It has not only contributed to the economy and welfare by investing in mineral excavation, construction of hospitals and scholarships for Afghan students, India has even started training the Afghan National Security forces. Pakistan may indeed be abundant in natural resources and boast a strategic geographical position, but all this loses its appeal when seen in the context of rising terrorism. Foreign projects have been declining simply due to the high security risk. In contrast, India offers a stable political environment and a well developed market to set up business and trade operations.

We need to also consider the ripple effect of counter terrorism operations on the overall security situation in Pakistan. The loss of innocent lives, destruction of livelihoods and hence, the rising cost of living has driven masses to opt for violent means to convey their resentment and ensure affirmative action. Unfortunately, many people have been misguided in joining militant organizations like Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Tehrik-e-Nefaz-e-Shariat-e-Muhammadi. Although these are local organizations which operate domestically, funding sources of these organizations may extend beyond the borders of Pakistan. Their unlimited supply of weapons is a source of immense concern to the authorities. Some speculate that anti-Shia organizations are secretly supported by Saudi Arabia while anti-Sunni organizations are backed by Iran.

Terrorism breeds terrorism, and when the basis of a conflict is upon normative concepts of religion and faith, law enforcement agencies have to be extra cautious in dealing with terrorists. Pakistan’s politicians and law enforcers in addition to foreign powers, who like to censure Pakistan for the uncontrollable level of terrorism, would do well to keep in mind these complexities before passing out any judgment. This should in fact help them in developing a more comprehensive national counter terrorism strategy.

By Ahsan Waheed

Analysts say the US drone killing of a ‘Good Taliban’ commander in Pakistan could unleash new violence by anti-government insurgents – or undo peace talks with the Taliban in Afghanistan.

The US drone killing of Pakistani Taliban commander Maulvi Nazir threatens to unleash new anti-government violence against the country’s weak government or civilian targets, and expose fractures in the country’s military and security forces, analysts say.

Mr. Nazir was traveling in a car in troubled South Waziristan, bordering Afghanistan, Thursday, when his vehicle was hit by a missile, according to media reports. He and six other Pakistanis believed to be militants were killed.

The attacks highlight the convoluted interconnections among insurgent factions in Pakistan, some of whom are focused on fighting US forces in Afghanistan, others of whom seek to topple Pakistan’s government. Still other groups target Indian forces. Many of the factions are backed or financed by military and intelligence agencies in Pakistan, who have differing agendas themselves.

The killing was confirmed by Pakistani intelligence officials in the nearby city of Peshawar who spoke on condition of anonymity since they were not authorized to speak to the press.

Mr. Nazir, who survived a suicide attack in November reputedly organized by rival Taliban commanders, was considered to be pro-government, a rare stance among Pakistani Taliban. He had agreed in the past to restrain his fighters from targeting Pakistani government forces, instead focusing efforts on the Taliban-led anti-US insurgency in Afghanistan. That had led some to label him a “good” Taliban.

With his killing, however, some analysts say his successor and followers may now turn their guns on civilian and military targets within Pakistan.

“Such [drone] attacks are not the first ones to have occurred and they have definitely created rifts between the Pakistani military and the likes of Maulvi Nazir-led Taliban,” says Mehreen Zahra Malik, an Islamabad-based columnist who recently visited Wana, the town in South Waziristan where Nazir was based.

Adding to the problem is widespread outrage among most Pakistanis toward US drone strikes. The government and military have harnessed that anger to pressure Washington. The “Good Taliban” forces increasingly suspect these attacks are being carried out with the consent of the Pakistani security establishment, Ms. Malik says.

“There is nothing to say the ‘Good Taliban’ won’t also turn their guns on the Pakistani state in the coming days, which is definitely something the Pakistan Army would like to avoid,” Malik adds.

Other experts believe targeting Nazir could be part of a larger strategic alliance between Pakistan and the US, a relationship that has been strained by the 2011 secret US raid that killed Osama bin Laden without the knowledge of the government. The 2011 “Salala Incident” in which NATO aircraft killed 24 Pakistani soldiers at a post on the Afghan border also prompted anger toward Washington.

“By taking out the leadership of those Taliban based in Pakistan and fighting in Afghanistan like Maulvi Nazir, both countries can increase the pressure on the Taliban for talks because they will be in a stronger position,” says Ayesha Siddiqa, a defense analyst who has authored two books on the Pakistani military.

Some fear the drone attacks may end up backfiring.

“This drone attack belies the conventional wisdom… Why [would] the US target a militant close to the Afghan Taliban and antagonize those it wants to bring [to] the table for peace talks?” says Fahd Husain, a noted columnist for the several leading Islamabad newspapers.

Another reason that such attacks may be happening could have to do with the Pakistani military wanting to support stability in Afghanistan for its own interests, adds Mr. Husain. Recent reports in Pakistani media have discussed a new doctrine by the Pakistan Army that describes homegrown militancy as the “biggest threat” to national security.

“Pakistan knows that [after] the post pull-out of the Americans from Afghanistan in 2014, it will face a serious threat from the Taliban within the country and therefore there is an emergence of new strategic thinking within the Pakistani military,” he says.

By Taha Siddiqui

“Today I tell you, and I declare it to the whole world, that we accept to live with you in permanent peace based on justice.” –Egyptian President Anwar al-Sadat became the first Arab Leader to recognize Israel in 1977

2011 and 2012 have been tough years for Israel. While the unconditional support from their biggest ally, and billions of dollars flowing into the country strengthening military and economy, the tide has turned drastically against their favor. The bottom line is: no matter how many safety nets the West provides for their strategic ally, Middle Eastern politics remains far too unruly to be controlled or predicted even. Simultaneously, the momentous social media revolutions and revolutionaries gained popularity in the West so rapidly that the only option remaining for the US was to support and use backdoor channels to fine tune. The only ‘enemy’ that could openly be called out on remained Iran. And despite harsh anti-Iran rhetoric through the months approaching US 2012 election, the Republicans were reduced to second best.

The US-Israel partnership has raised questions, enmities and at times even been questioned by the US citizens themselves. For Muslim countries who feel strongly against the Zionist regime, a simple justification remains the strong hold Jews have over American media and information circles. Such justifications for unconditional partnership are mere tools to keep US in our good books; as if to say the only reason America helps Israel is because the public sentiment dictates them to. AIPAC is perhaps the heaviest funded lobbying group in the US, created in 1965 to ‘lobby the Congress of the United States on issues related to Israel’. With time however AIPAC’s growing influence has made it cause of much controversy. However the assumption that some invisible Zionist hand controlled the tide in Israel’s favor is false. And the recent Arab Spring, while welcomed by most, definitely leaves Israel less secure than a neighborhood of puppet regimes.

The first time the United States got soaked up in the politics of power and oil was during the Second World War when American, Russian and British troops were together stationed on Iranian soil. The motivation then for the United States was to use the Middle East as a hot war zone for the otherwise cold war. By strengthening relations with the Iranian Shah (Raza Shah Pahlavi) since 1941, and went on to let Turkey onboard the NATO bandwagon. After securing allies in the wealthy region, another development in the Middle East was to assure firmer control over the allies the US has formed. Initially when the idea of a Zionist state in the middle of the Arab World was pitched in, the American administration was divided into two groups strongly opposing one another. While Truman supported the idea of warmly welcoming the Jews, his Secretary of State George Marshall was afraid relations with the Muslim World might be compromised, destabilize the region and limit access to Middle Eastern oil.

However the United States not only supported cordoning off the Palestinians to 43% of their homeland, but heavily lobbied for the UN Plan, becoming the first state to welcome Israel, 11 minutes after its existence on 14 May 1948. Truman’s dedication towards the formation of Israel on the surface had much to do with domestic pressure and assuring re-election. The plight of the displaced Jews and the Holocaust were trending in the West: A President who failed to sympathize with the persecuted community was of little worth.

At the time of Israel’s creation the United States was in the process of inheriting the Middle Eastern empires (that had been divided between the victors after WWI). Britain’s weak economy could not manage the colonies. In the bipolar world US wanted to penetrate the Middle East deeper. Support for Israel caused much outrage in the Muslim World. The very creation of Israel had, and still continues to. However securing a good partnership with Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Libya, Turkey, and Iraq during the 1960s and 1970s assured Muslim support despite support of the Zionists. American foreign policy has been greatly influenced by the ‘Neoconservatives’: intellectual Jews who surfaced on the political realm around the Cold war era, liberals who advocated more military spending. It is the Neoconservative prism that has with time created the narrative of Violent Islamists terrorists as the true enemy.

As the Cold war began and threatened American influence, the best recipe to secure oil rich Middle East was a combination of puppet regimes (dictatorships) surrounding a loyal ally (Israel). The trick was simple: Israel misbehaves with her neighbors, and the US holds her restraint. It was right in the middle of the Cold War that Egypt, one of the strongest states in the region switched loyalties from the USSR to the US. This switch was observed shortly after Arab Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973. In the United Nations the US passed resolution 242 (peace treaties between the Arabs and Israel in exchange for Israeli withdrawal from occupied areas). On the other hand, having discovered a strategic weapon, the US biffed Israel up militarily. It can be said safely that the US used the carrot and stick tactic with the Middle Eastern Regimes. Safeguarding their interests, and unleashing the dog when they misbehaved.

Another problem is that of narrative. Strong sense of victimization on both ends has disturbed the real chain of events and created versions that are propagated by both sides to justify their own respective ends. The 1967 and ’73 Arab-Israel wars have two strong historical narratives: The neoconservatives versus the Muslim World, essentially. In 1979 the US faced the first major setback in the region, when the Islamic Revolution toppled the Shah’s regime. With this first erroneous slip, the US increased support for the remaining allies, policy formulated in a way to supply Middle Eastern allies with the latest weapons, ensuring domestic stability and an abnormal gap between the regimes and masses in terms of strength. At the same time, Israel has been kept better equipped, obviously under the supposed pressure of AIPAC. But in actuality keeping Israel strong enough to pose a threat to her neighbors has kept Middle Eastern dictators obedient.

Even after the fall of the Soviet Union, that too with the help of the Taliban (again we resort to the Muslims), the Middle Eastern politics has remained under the thumb of the Western hegemony. Then technology and social media happened. The oppressed in the Middle East finally raised their voices, and before anything could be done to support decade long ally, Mubarak, chants for democracy spread like wild fire. The Arab Spring in itself can be seen as a malfunction of the strategic setup in the oil rich zone of the World. As the Arab Spring began to take a toll on the intricately balanced equation, like dominos falling all over the place, the US had to try and turn the tide in her favor.

With revolutions, the problem with any international involvement is, that it is directed to safeguard interests of the external stakeholder. The very definition of a puppet regime is that it exists to safeguard the interests of the puppeteer. Similarly, when a revolution is spoon-fed, the provider is laying grounds for new allies within the changing tide. To begin with these regimes only had such a tight control over their people because of the external aid. However the Arab Spring was a shock too sudden to be entirely absorbed. As the Arabs take external help to fight away from their overpowering dictators, they are electing Islamists who may not be easy to dictate or predict. As Israel’s neighbors are breaking free from the strings, the last resort to keep her neighbors at bay would have been an attack on Iran, a show of strength. However the US did not support such an attack. Still trying to grapple with the jumbled up pieces of the puzzle, the United States finds itself in a tough corner.

One could guess that it is a combination of factors that have led to a mismanagement of the oil rich region. While Iraq and Afghanistan invasions were planned, with favorable ‘democracies’ propped in place of dictators and governments who had digressed, the Arab Spring is quite the opposite of the phenomena experienced. Is it the weakening of the American economy, the growing strength of the Islamists, the social media revolution that let the situations out of hands? Political critics have even gone to the extent of blaming the US for the revolutions, but the outcomes in Tunisia and Egypt speak otherwise. The Arab Spring could lead to more independent minded states like Iran, or if the United States can judge the mass emotions and weaknesses of the infant governments correctly, they could still become strong allies of the West. Either way, for the time being, the hegemony is at stake. If the Middle Eastern stronghold is lost to complete disarray, perhaps US’s best ally could turn into a burden. Saving Israel from the growing tide of Islamists, and failure to let ‘anti-Iran’ rhetoric escalate will only serve to cause further ambiguity.

Russia’s support for the Assad regime is perplexing. A Moscow-based think tank published a report that indicated that Russia has few, if any, national interests to defend in Syria. So, why then, has Russia continued to support Assad’s waning dictatorial rule?

Historically, Syria is the closest ally of Russia in the Middle East. Russian presence in the Arab country predates WWI. In 1893, a Russian consular office was established in Damascus. By 1905, the Imperial Russian Orthodox Society had opened 74 schools in Syria. The Bolshevik Revolution put a brief end to the Russian presence in the region, after which a strong relationship between the two countries emerged once more. In 1925, Russia played a powerful role in establishing Syrian Communist Party. In 1946, Russia formerly recognized Syria as an independent state.

Ties between the two countries saw their golden days in the Cold War when Syria chose to side with Russia against Western powers. Between 1955 and 1958, Syria received about $294 million from Moscow for military and economic assistance, and during Assad Sr’s rule, thousands of Syrian military officials were trained in Russia as a gesture of support and booming ties.

These gestures of support also resulted in arms trade between the two countries. A report published by US Congressional Service pointed out that Soviet military sales to Syria in the 1970s and 80′s were so extensive, they accounted for 90% of all military arms exports from the Soviet Union, making the Soviet Union a main supplier of arms for Syria. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the arms supply to Syria fell, but Syria continued to seek purchases through satellite states. Russia’s current contracts with Syria for arms are estimated to be worth 1.5 billion US dollars, comprising 10% of Russia’s global arms sales.

Besides arms trade, Russia has significant investments in Syria. Moscow Times reported that Russian exports to Syria were valued at $1.1 billion in 2010 and its investments in the country were valued at $19.4 billion in 2009. Furthermore, Russian firms have invested heavily in Syrian infrastructure and energy. Stroitransgaz, a natural gas facility construction company, has the largest Russian operation in Syria. In 2010, it was involved in projects worth $1.1 billion and had a staff of 80 Russians working in Syria.

When the Syrian conflict began in early 2011, there were calls by the international community for Russia to stop their arms supply to Syria and back away from supporting the dictatorial regime. Russia refused to do so, saying that it was bound by contractual agreements. Since then, Russia has been among the biggest supporters of the Syrian regime at the United Nations. Because of this, Russia has been continuously singled out by several nations for playing a strong role in massacres committed by the Syrian government.

If the Russian government has no national interests to defend in Syria, then it makes sense to look at the historical significance of this relationship. Supporting the Assad regime may be the last chance Russia may have of maintaining the Soviet-era presence in the region. There is also the embarrassment of the Libyan confrontation fresh in the minds of the upper echelons of the Russian power circles. Russia had abstained from voting for a military intervention in Libya. As a result of the military intervention that went ahead anyway, the old regime (which was one of the biggest arms customers of Russian technology) was replaced by a new one which was hostile to the Russian government.

Russia has also been accused of siding with Assad in an attempt to boost its own world standing and legitimacy of its internal politics – which is taking a more and more authoritarian direction every day. Furthermore, Russia has been accused of aiding the Syrian military in action against Syrian rebels, an accusation that Russia has denied vehemently.

One must also not forget the importance of the Syrian port of Tartus. Russia’s only Mediterranean naval base for its Black Sea Fleet is located in the Syrian port of Tartus, and naturally, this port is of key importance to the Russian government. What remains to be seen is what the future of this port will look like because Russia is obviously rubbing the Syrian rebels the wrong way – and their resistance has not wavered over the months, despite the mounting casualties in the country.

Naturally, Russia is wary of the possibility that it might not have a strong position in Syria if the current regime succumbs to the pressure of the uprising. About three days ago, Russian foreign minister announced that Russia was ready to meet with the leaders of the Syrian opposition. This hesitant gesture to forge a new relationship with what may be the future of the Syrian government was rejected by leaders of Syrian opposition forces, mostly because of Russian backing of the current regime. Russia, though, played it safe. While it acknowledged the fact that it was ready to meet with Syrian opposition, it did not formerly recognize the opposition as a legitimate representative of the Syrian people.

There will come a time will Russia will formerly have to pick a side – and the direction of the tides with the current Syrian regime do not seem to be so favorable for Russia. It may be wise to act now, to stop the covert supplies to the Syrian military and to acknowledge the fact that the opposition to the regime is here to stay – because it may not have the same future of the Islamist uprising of the 1960s where Russian support enabled the movement to be crushed before it ever fully started.

The quiet re-numbering of imperial numbers is what makes the history spin around the axis of its own logic and rhetoric.

We live on multiple daily sites of our consciousness, no matter where we actually get up in the morning and hit the road to report to work. Does your week start on a Monday or a Saturday? Does your week end on a Thursday or a Friday? Is your “Sabbath” on Friday, Saturday or Sunday? Does your day start on sunset or sunrise?

Does your New Year begin on the first of January, the first of Muharram, the first of Nissan, or the first of Farvardin? The first of Muharram for Muslims means nothing like what the first of January means for Christians, nor does the first of Nissan for Jews. Eid al-Adha (celebrated during the very last months of the Muslim calendar) and Rosh Hashanah (celebrated on the sixth month of the Jewish calendar) are far more crucial for Muslims and Jews, respectively.

When is the world coming to an end – on December 21, 2012, when the 5,125-year cycle in the Mayan calendar came to an end, or was it on Y2k when people thought doomsday was fast upon us?

I grew up in Iran on three calendars, simultaneously asserting their cosmic weight on our young imagination. Well three-and-half calendars, to be precise – but before describing that mysterious “half calendar” let me explain the three wholesome calendars.

Three calendars

Three different calendars – Iranian, Islamic and the globalised Christian – informed us on a daily basis where in the world we were. The Iranian calendar is solar and has survived from the pre-Islamic period, with distinct pre-Islamic Persian names for the months (Farvardin, Ordibehesht, Khordad, etc).

The seasons have logical and natural divisions, and again all have distinctly Persian names (Bahar, Tabestan, Pa’iz, Zemestan) – all located logically within one calendar year (that the first day of the year is the first day of Spring) and not divided into two like in the Christian calendar (when the year begins 11 days into winter – and thus three months minus 11 days before the spring starts on the Vernal Equinox).

The single most important event on this Iranian calendar is the two-week long celebration of Nowruz (New Year), which runs from the last Wednesday of the year, Chahar-shanbeh Suri/Festive Wednesday, to Sizdah Bedar/Picnicking Thirteenth, a day of outings with family and friends, which usually coincides with April Fool’s Day. The calendar is pre-Islamic but it was Islamised by its point of origin being designated from the migration of Prophet Mohammad from Mecca to Medina.

The second calendar is the Islamic calendar, which is lunar and marks the number of years from the migration of Prophet Mohammad from Mecca to Medina. As such it is punctuated at regular intervals with historic events, birthdays and mourning days of Muslim saints and Shia imams.

It is a calendar that not only marks the Islamic plane of Iranians’ consciousness, but also pointedly distinguishes the Shia history from their Sunni sisters and brothers. If the first calendar marks the national aspect of Iranians, the second specifies their Islamic identity. At times, these two calendars might be in tension with each other, but mostly they dovetail perfectly well.

The third calendar is the globalised Christian calendar, which itself has a dual dimension. The first is its colonial and Christian identity, thus marked as “Western”. The second identity, on the other hand, signals the connectedness of Iranians with the world at large – not just the Christian world, or that of Western Europe and North America, but also the worlds of Latin America, Africa and Asia.

If one aspect marks “Western imperialism”, the other marks Christian liberation theology. As such, then, the globalised “Western” calendar is, paradoxically, both colonial and anti-colonial. May Day (Labour Day), particularly important to the Iranian left, is celebrated on this calendar.

These triple calendars are where Iranian multiple consciousness is most palpably evident, embedded in these polyfocal calendars, as the space where the creative subject could always find room for political defiance, social manoeuverability, mental meandering, symbolic altercations, national identity, pious practices, global adjustments. I borrow the term “multiple consciousness” from WEB Dubois’ “double consciousness” for African-Americans, but give it a more positive and defiant designation.

Half calendar

Now what was that “half calendar”? A couple of years after the Arab oil embargo of 1973 when the late Shah’s oil revenue skyrocketed, so did His Imperial Majesty’s coiling megalomaniac miasma. He thought of himself as Cyrus the Great incarnate and changed the Iranian calendar, so that instead of starting from the migration of the Prophet from Mecca to Medina, it commenced from “the coronation of Cyrus the Great!”

Suddenly, one fine morning we woke up and had no blasted clue how old we were, what day of the year it was and how many years on that calendar had passed by now. It was quite a mess. The Muslim clergy of course did not like the new calendar either and the first thing the ruling regime did when massive street demonstrations began to topple the Shah was to reverse that decision and we went back to our own habitual calendar and forgot all about Cyrus the Great’s coronation.

When the Iranian Revolution of 1977-1979 happened, because the dominant regime was overblowing the Iranian calendar, the revolutionary rhetoric had a significant Islamic intonation to it, which led the Islamist revolutionaries to conclude that Iranians were all coagulated on this calendar and were first and foremost Muslims, as they understood the term.

But soon after the militant over-Islamisation of the revolution, people began to emphasise pre-Islamic practices, fromChahar-shanbeh Suri to Sizdah Bedar, which now led others to conclude that Iranians were, after all, Iranians first and foremost, and their Islamic identity was something artificial and imposed on them. They were both wrong – Iranians, by and large, were shifting symbolic register to oppose tyranny, of one sort or another.

The more calendars on your mind the more sculpted is your daily memories, precisely the same way that the more languages you know the more multidimensional becomes your conception of things.

So here is to the Christian New Year, as we quietly realise that on the Jewish or Islamic or Iranian or Mayan or Indian or Chinese calendar this festive hour when we New Yorkers like millions of other people around the world keep our eyes on that descending apple to celebrate “The New Year” on the American imperial calendar it is just one blessed ordinary day on any number of other calendars. That quiet re-numbering of the imperial numbers is what makes the history spin around the axis of its own logic and rhetoric.

Hamid Dabashi is the Hagop Kevorkian Professor of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature at Columbia University in New York. Among his most recent books is The World of Persian Literary Humanism (2012).

Syria’s government has welcomed any initiative for talks to end bloodshed in the country, after UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said he had a peace plan acceptable to world powers.

Prime Minister Wael al-Halaqi told parliament on Monday that the conflict must be resolved only by the Syrian people, “without external pressures or decrees”.

“The government is working to support the national reconciliation project and will respond to any regional or international initiative that would solve the current crisis through dialogue and peaceful means and prevent foreign intervention in Syria’s internal affairs,” he said.

The country, he said, was “moving toward a historic moment when it will declare victory over its enemies, with the goal of positioning Syria to build a new world order that promotes national sovereignty and the concept of international law”.

Meanwhile, Syria’s state news agency said a “terrorist group” blew up a natural gas pipeline in the country’s oil-rich east, about 30km north of Deir Ezzor, and caused the loss of around 1.5 million cubic metres of gas.

Regime officials and state media have long categorised activists and armed rebels alike as enemies or “terrorists” funded by Gulf rivals Qatar and Saudi Arabia, former ally Turkey and the West.

Brahimi said on Sunday he had crafted a ceasefire plan “that could be adopted by the international community”, but was rejected by the opposition, which insists on President Bashar al-Assad’s departure before any dialogue can take place.

Tortured bodies found

Activists say more than 45,000 people have been killed since the uprising against Assad began in March 2011.

Even though Syrian rebels now hold vast swathes of territory and have struck the heart of Damascus, the regime has so far stood firm despite Western predictions of its imminent fall.

On Monday, dozens of tortured bodies were found in a flashpoint district of the capital, a watchdog reported, in one of the worst atrocities in Syria’s 21-month conflict.

“Thirty bodies were found in the Barzeh district. They bore signs of torture and have so far not been identified,” said the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights.

The reports came as a gruesome video emerged on the internet of a separate slaying of three children who had their throats slashed in Jobar district, also in Damascus.

Opposition activists said the children had been kidnapped the day before at a checkpoint on their way home from school.

These reports could not be verified independently because of media restrictions by the Syrian authorities.

Regime warplanes, meanwhile, bombarded rebel positions on the northeastern and southwestern outskirts of Damascus, leaving eight civilians dead including two children, activists said.

Southwest of the capital, fierce fighting erupted in the town of Moadamiyet al-Sham with 11 rebels killed in clashes and a child killed in shelling.

In neighbouring Daraya, rebels destroyed a tank as army reinforcements massed in the battleground town, where more than 500 people were reportedly killed in the conflict’s bloodiest massacre in August.

In the north, eight civilians, four of them children, were killed in shelling in the Marjeh district of Syria’s second city Aleppo.

Syrian television reported the army was “clearing Aleppo of terrorists”.

Sen was pushed to death by a woman who “hated Muslims”, as anti-Muslim bigotry in the US sinks to violent new depths.

On the evening of December 27, an Indian immigrant to America named Sunando Sen was pushed by a stranger onto the subway tracks in New York City and struck and killed by an oncoming train. Sen had called New York home for years, and after years of hard work and struggle had recently managed to achieve his lifelong goal ofopening a small business of his own, a copy shop in Upper Manhattan.

His roommate, MD Khan expressed shock at the death of his friend, a soft spoken man who liked to stay up late watching comedy shows and listening to music: “He was so nice, gentle and quiet… It’s broken my heart.”

The following day, the NYPD announced the arrest of Erika Menendez, a 31-year-old woman who had been spotted on security footage fleeing the scene after Sen had been pushed. Upon being detained and taken to a 112th Precinct police station for questioning, Menendez confessed to Sen’s murder and revealed as her motivation a desire to commit violence against Muslims. As she told detectives:

Sunando Sen was not a Muslim, but as a brown-skinned foreigner living in the United States, he was targeted and killed in an act of hate which is the by-product of an ongoing campaign of bigotry and demonisation against Muslims living in America.

Muslim-Americans, as well as Hindus, Sikhs and others who purportedly “look Muslim” have been humiliated,assaulted and in many cases murdered by individuals often galvanised to violence by politicians and media figures who have enthusiastically engaged in public hatemongering against the Muslim community in the country.

Anti-Muslim violence increases

The 9/11 attacks precipitated a surge in hate crimes, but even as the events themselves recede further into history, the level of hatred and violence directed at Muslim communities is paradoxically increasing. Within the past month, in New York alone, police have suspected racial hatred as being the motive behind several crimes.

This includes a string of murders specifically targetingMiddle Eastern storekeepers in Brooklyn, the last of whom, a 78-year old Iranian immigrant named Rahmatollah Vahidipour, was shot to death while closing his boutique and whose lifeless body was then dragged to a backroom and covered over with merchandise from his store.

Within the same week as Vahidipour’s murder another Muslim man was viciously beaten by two men who preceded their attack by asking him whether he was “a Hindu or a Muslim”, while another man was stabbed several times outside of a mosque in a random attack by an assailant who screamed “I’m going to kill you Muslim“, while repeatedly plunging a knife into his victims’ body.

Far from being aberrations, these incidents are in line with national statistics which show anti-Muslim violence in America nearing record highs, a trend which comes in tandem with highly public campaigns against mosque construction as well as fear-mongering by politicians and media figures regarding alleged plots by Muslim-Americans to override the constitution and impose Islamic law on the country.

The US election cycle also saw Muslims used as convenient targets for politicians seeking office, with one example being incumbent Illinois House of Representatives Republican Joe Walsh who told a cheering crowd at a campaign rally that “Muslims are here trying to kill Americans everyday“, before making a baseless and highly incendiary claim that radical Islam had “infiltrated” the Chicago suburbs and that Muslims there were planning an attack that would “make 9/11 look like child’s play”.

While working the crowd into hysterics was a convenient campaign strategy for Walsh, just days later the Muslim community experienced the consequences of his rhetoric. A man opened fire on an Illinois mosque while it was packed with hundreds of congregants for Ramadan. The next day, another mosque was hit with an acid bombthrown at a window while worshippers had gathered for night services.

Despite these attacks against Illinois Muslims in the wake of his statements, Walsh steadfastly refused to apologise for his rhetoric demonising the Muslim-Americans and instead doubled-down on his blanket accusations against them, a reflection of the mainstream acceptability of anti-Muslim rhetoric by political figures in the US today.

Indeed the use of Muslims as a punching bag by opportunistic politicians seeking a minority group to scapegoat has become a regular feature of American political life which shows no signs of abating, despite the “trickle-down” effect by which this bigotry is now manifesting itself in real violence against innocent Muslim-Americans on a regular basis.

Behind this hatemongering lies a deep cynicism, as leading anti-Muslim politicians such as Newt Gingrich who have warned of “stealth jihad” and other nefarious plots by Muslims in America were within recent years helping facilitateSharia-compliant finance programmes in the country and who maintained notably cordial relations with prominent Muslim leaders.

Political hatemongering

With Muslim-bashing becoming politically fashionable in recent years, politicians such as Gingrich have markedly changed their tune and it has been to the detriment of Muslim-Americans, as well as to the general level of social cohesion and tolerance in the country.

In addition to political hatemongering, the past several years have seen a highly organised and well-funded group of anti-Muslim activists who have been sponsoring campaigns targeting Muslims across the country.

Leading figures in this movement such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer have led a crusade to vilify Muslims throughout the country and to exclude them from public life through campaigns of smears and hate-mongering which have cast Muslim-Americans as an insidious fifth column within the country.

Their views have gotten considerable popular attention, and thanks to a documented network of funders and media associates they have managed to bring their message to people across the United States.

In the past few months, a major controversy erupted when Geller’s anti-Muslim organisation sponsored the placement of Islamophobic advertisements at major subway stations in New York as well as in other cities across the country.

Some advertisements depicted pictures of the 9/11 attacks with verses from the Quran superimposed, while others called Muslims “savages” and implored people to “fight Jihad”. While the campaign has been challenged by many liberal commentators, including one infamous incident in which Egyptian-American activist Mona Eltahawy was arrested for attempting to cover a sign with pink spray paint, they continue to run across the country and to spread a message of indiscriminate, vitriolic hatred towards Muslim-Americans in a manner unlikely to be tolerated were it to pertain to any other minority group.

While correlation does not necessarily imply causation, the question must be asked – what effect do advertisements such as these have on the psyches’ of people such as Erika Menendez? Was Sunando Sen, a law-abiding, hardworking immigrant who had given his life to achieving the American dream and who was pushed to his death by a woman who “hated Muslims” a direct victim of this campaign of bigotry? That he lost his life on the same subway system which for months has played host to hateful, incendiary advertisements such as Geller’s is a tragic irony but is in many ways the natural result of a national culture of anti-Muslim bigotry that has become mainstream in both politics and popular culture.

The sad, inescapable truth is that Sen will likely not be the last victim of the accelerating phenomena of violence against Muslims in the United States – the only question today is how far into the darkness America must travel before it decides to take a stand against it.

I was a student of Professor Albert O Hirschman at Harvard in the late 1960s. First at Harvard’s Kennedy School and later at the University’s Economics Department, Professor Hirschman taught me development economics. He was a pioneer in that area of economics, one of the few economists who developed the discipline but was not awarded the Nobel Prize. He was not recognised for the reason that it was difficult to pin down his specialty: was he an economist or a political scientist; an anthropologist or a sociologist; a historian or a philosopher. Professor Hirschman died a few days ago, in New Jersey, at the age of 97. His last affiliation in the academia was with the Institute of Advanced Studies in Princeton University that was made famous by Albert Einstein, the scientist who changed physics and the way we know the world today.

When I was a student of Professor Hirschman’s, he was working on a book that was to have a profound influence on several disciplines. In the several discussions I had with him then, I talked about Pakistan. At that time, the prevailing wisdom at Harvard was that Pakistan under president Ayub Khan had found the road to economic success. Hirschman did not buy that conclusion. He believed that an inflexible political system did not have the capacity to absorb discontent when it surfaced. His book titled Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organisations and States appeared in 1970 and dealt with the subject of alienation and some possible reactions to it. If people are unhappy with the situation they are in, asked Hirschman, how do they normally respond? This question became extraordinarily relevant with the launch of the Arab Spring in 2011. It is also tremendously relevant for today’s Pakistan.

Hirschman looked at three possibilities. People could remain loyal to the system that has caused them anxiety and despair. In that case, their hope will be that they can work within the system to reform it and thus improve their own situation in it. This happens in most functioning democracies. People use the opportunities inherent in democratic systems to improve what they receive from politics and economics. The second option is to raise their voice. That can be done by stepping out of the system and entering into a different kind of discourse. This is essentially what was done by the participants in the Arab Spring. The Arab street woke up when the realisation became acute that the autocratic structures in several Arab states did not have the space in which the alienated could raise their voice. They took to the streets and to the public squares and brought about regime change in several countries that had been governed for decades by autocrats.

The third option — of exiting the system — is the most radical of the three that Hirschman considered. This has happened in Syria. Earlier, it happened in Pakistan when the citizens of the eastern wing decided to opt out and create a country of their own. They had tried hard to remain within the Pakistani system as conceived by Mohammad Ali Jinnah but the political structure within West Pakistan could not countenance the idea of political power moving from Islamabad to Dhaka. That would have happened had the results of the 1970 election been allowed to create the government that would have been dominated by East Pakistan’s Awami League. What followed is familiar history.

There can be no denying the fact that the level of people’s alienation with the current economic and political systems in Pakistan has, at this time, reached a level never experienced before. And yet, the citizens have chosen to remain within the developing political order, rather than opt out and try for something new. That the people’s response this time around has been different from those in the Arab world is because of their belief in the political order that is under development. But the process of development has been messy which was to be expected. This brings me to another point that Hirschman developed in his long academic career.

He was of the view that progress is never linear. It does not happen in a smooth way, either with the economy or with the political system. Most systems operate through disequilibria making adjustments as they go along. According to Jeremy Adelman, a professor of history at Princeton whose biography about Hirschman will be published next year, the late professor thought “disequilibria creates a problem that you have to solve — and that’s a good thing. Somehow we only think in terms one thing to happen; everything else will coalesce around it and we’ll come out all right”. But change in the world of politics and economics is much more complicated than that. Had he been viewing the situation of today’s Pakistan, he would not have despaired. He would have suggested that in today’s turmoil are to be found the seeds of positive change. The tensions that we see today in the structures of country’s economics and politics will get resolved in time. The important thing is not to exit the system, to stay loyal to it but continue to raise your voice to get the change that would be positive for the entire citizenry. To quote from Adelman again, Hirschman thought that “even the most seemingly immutable, impossible situations could be solved, that you could change things that seemed unchangeable.” There is an important lesson in this for Pakistan.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was hospitalized Sunday when doctors discovered a blood clot caused after she fainted and suffered concussion earlier this month, her top aide said.

The latest health scare for the globe-trotting Clinton will likely keep her out of the public eye a bit longer, just as she prepares to step down after four years as America’s top diplomat.

Clinton, 65, fell ill with a stomach bug on her return from a trip to Europe earlier this month that caused the former first lady to become severely dehydrated and faint, suffering a concussion.

“In the course of a follow-up exam today, Secretary Clinton’s doctors discovered a blood clot had formed, stemming from the concussion she sustained several weeks ago,” her aide Philippe Reines said in a statement.

“She is being treated with anti-coagulants and is at New York Presbyterian Hospital so that they can monitor the medication over the next 48 hours,” he said.

“Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion. They will determine if any further action is required,” he added.

Reines did not elaborate further on her condition, and would not specify where the clot had formed. And the streets outside the hospital in Clinton’s home state were deserted late Sunday on a cold December night.

Previously in 1998, when she was first lady in the White House of her husband and then-president Bill Clinton, Clinton suffered a blood clot in her leg that she has described as “the most significant health scare I’ve ever had.”

“That was scary because you have to treat it immediately — you don’t want to take the risk that it will break lose and travel to your brain, or your heart or your lungs,” she told the New York Daily News in October 2007.

Clinton has been off work since her return from her last foreign trip on December 7, although her staff has said she has been working from home. Only a few days ago, Reines said she was expected back in Washington this week.

Her rare and lengthy absence from public life had sparked claims from some of her fiercer critics that she was trying to avoid testifying before lawmakers investigating a deadly attack on a US mission in Libya.

The American media has also been rife with speculation and rumors about her whereabouts and her condition, but it is not believed to be life-threatening.

Clinton’s doctors said she had become severely dehydrated due to the effects of the stomach bug and fainted, suffering a concussion. They recommended she stay off work, and ordered her not to fly until at least mid-January.

Clinton has flown almost a million miles since taking office four years ago, visited 112 countries and spent some 400 days in a plane. She has been hugely popular as secretary of state, and has the highest ratings of any cabinet member.

Many believe she will try to run again for the White House in 2016, after she was narrowly defeated to the Democratic Party nomination by Barack Obama in 2008.

The secretary’s health prevented her from testifying on December 20 to US lawmakers about the September 11 attack on the US consulate in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

The assault, in which the US ambassador and three other American officials were killed, sparked a political firestorm in the United States.

Republican lawmakers and some media outlets opposed to the administration slammed Clinton’s absence from the hearings, with her harshest critics suggesting she was faking illness.

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said Sunday it was “absolutely essential that she’d testify. I want to know from the secretary of state’s point of view, were you informed of the deteriorating security situation?”

Graham also told Fox News Sunday Republicans would not conduct the nomination hearings for Senator John Kerry, tapped to replace Clinton, until she has appeared before them.

Long accused of assisting the Taliban, Pakistan’s army is reportedly seeking to move the group into the political realm.

Hundreds of Pakistani Taliban stormed checkpoints near Peshawar with rocket-propelled grenades and assault rifles blazing in coordinated strikes on Thursday, capturing 23 outgunned tribal security men in the rugged northwest near the border with Afghanistan.

After holding and terrorising them for three days, 21 officers were taken to a cricket pitch, blindfolded, and shot dead, one-by-one, against a wall. The bodies were left where they fell on Saturday as a grisly message for ethnic Pashtuns contemplating joining paramilitary forces opposing the Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters.

The killings came a day after Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud, in a rare on-camera interview, offered to negotiate with the government of Pakistan. His offer was conditional, “we will not lay down our guns”, he said.

A week earlier a suicide bomber strolled into a political rally in Pakistan’s northwest and blew himself up alongside nine other people – including his target, veteran politician Bashir Bilour.

A vocal critic of violent hardliners, Bilour consistently challenged them – as well as Pakistan’s military – for its backing of the Taliban movement in Afghanistan since the 1990s. He also denounced world powers for playing the “Great Game” in Central Asia.

“Unless there is peace in Afghanistan, there will be no peace in Pakistan,” Bilour told reporters in November 2010. “Superpowers are engaged in an unannounced Third World War in Afghanistan, and unfortunately Pakistan is in the eye of the storm.”

After his assassination that Saturday, Bilour’s words have gained new significance in the corridors of power in Pakistan, amid growing anxiety over the forthcoming United States military withdrawal from Afghanistan, and as a struggle for power over tribal areas along the porous border intensifies.

Both Pakistan’s military and civilian leadership are fearful of violence spilling over the border as the more than 100,000 foreign troops leave in 2014.

Military officials and Western diplomats say Pakistan’s powerful military commander, General Ashfaq Pervez Kayani, has made finding a political solution to the war in Afghanistan his “top priority”.

Pakistan’s military has agreed to release Taliban commanders and fighters as part of an agreement with the Afghan government intended to bring all parties to the negotiating table. The end goal is to transform the Afghan Taliban into a political force.

Ahmed Rashid, author of “Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia”, said the situation is a major turning point for Pakistan’s military, which has for years been accused of aiding and abetting some of the most violent Taliban elements.

“The army, which has endured heavy casualties fighting the Pakistani Taliban, is deeply reluctant to get involved in more fighting,” Rashid told Al Jazeera from Lahore. “General Kayani is now banking on the hope that reconciliation among the Afghans will have a trickle-down positive effect on the Pakistani Taliban – depriving them of legitimacy and recruits.”

Ayesha Siddiqa, author of “Military, Inc: Inside Pakistan’s Military Economy”, told Al Jazeera that the country’s military is banking on its long-standing relationship with the Afghan Taliban to achieve peace in the war-torn country.

“For military commanders it’s about an old partnership. Pakistan’s army is not known to abandon its friends. It doesn’t leave those who’ve helped it in the past,” Siddiqa said.

Strategic alliances

It has taken more than a decade for Pakistani generals to figure out their strategy for Afghanistan. The military has tried previously to broker peace agreements with various armed groups following the US invasion in 2001.

But the contradictory policy of supporting some insurgents and not others has largely failed, said professor Hassan Abbas from National Defense University in Washington, DC.

“The purpose of these deals was to limit the conflict zone from expanding, and avoid a head-on collision with the militants … [However] these deals proved to be counterproductive,” Abbas 

While the US-led fight has neutralised many armed groups and individuals, the offensive has also resulted in the creation of one of the most deadly organisations in the world – the Pakistani Taliban.

Many Arab al-Qaeda fighters fled the United States’ “war on terror” in Afghanistan, seeking refuge in Pakistan’s tribal areas in 2002, and five-years later the Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan was officially born.

“That was the turning point when the Arabs were given shelter by these tribes, they became mentors to young, impressionable [tribal] leaders,” said Rashid. “With their arrival began a much deeper process of radicalisation for Pakistan’s fiercely independent tribes. This made them more radical and vicious than the Afghan fighters.”

The Taliban movement in Pakistan quickly gained notoriety for using suicide bombers as a weapon of choice. Former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto was among more than 5,300 Pakistanis killed in suicide attacks since 2002.

“In North Waziristan, you can buy a suicide bomber from anywhere between $5,000 to $11,000,” says Syed Irfan Ashraf, who has studied Tehrik-e-Taliban Pakistan. The money most often goes to the attackers’ impoverished families.

But monetary benefits are only part of the lure of the Pakistani Taliban. The movement’s rise can also be attributed to an expansionist interpretation of Islam, Rashid said.

“In Afghanistan, the Taliban is still a peasant army. In Pakistan, its different – they’re ideologically primed, they have studied at madrasas,” he said. “A few religious political parties have also nurtured its leaders, [and] as a result they have a lot more political acumen and vision.”

Expansion plans

This vision – of a “global Islam” based on the al-Qaeda model in which Arabs, Chechens, Pakistanis and others can network and pool resources – is an important reason why Pakistan’s military establishment is eager for a settlement in Afghanistan.

In the past, it was easy for the Pakistani military to control different groups because of tribal and ideological divisions, but now these differences are proving to be a disadvantage because the groups often fight each other over influence and tribal allegiances.

Taliban commander Mullah Muhamad Nazir survived but was wounded in a suicide attack in Wana, capital of the South Waziristan tribal area, which killed eight others.

Nazir is part of the Haqqani network and has a deal in place with Pakistan’s army. Hours after the attack, Nazirordered the expulsion of all fighters who belong to the Mehsud tribe – the core group behind Pakistan’s Taliban movement.

Azaz Syed, a correspondent for Pakistan’s GEO television network, said it would be harder for the Afghan Taliban to influence Pakistan’s Taliban if violence continues to escalate.

“The Americans have given the [Pakistani] army a free hand in Afghanistan, and the Afghan Taliban have given an assurance to resolve the Pakistani Taliban issue. But there’s a big question mark on whether these promises will be fulfilled,” said Syed.

Enforcing any peace deals with a fragmented Taliban movement may become impossible once US troops leave, said Rashid, adding after a decade of fighting the Afghan Taliban wants to consolidate its gains without diktats from the Pakistanis.

“The Afghan Taliban faces an awkward perpetual situation,” said Rashid. “They are tired. They want to return back to Afghanistan. Their leaders do not want to be under the thumb of the Pakistan military any longer.”

Foreign Minister Hina Rabbani Khar said all physical battles and mind games over Kashmir had yielded nothing and it was time to seek a peaceful settlement to the problem through a process of dialogue.

“Pakistan and India have fought wars, played mind games and used every other tactic on Kashmir, but everything has failed,” Khar said in an interview at the Foreign Office in Islamabad. She said the only option available with the two countries was to engage in dialogue.

“During my press conference here in the same room with Indian Foreign Minister Krishna, I issued a statement which was prepared by the Indian bureaucrat, mentioning that the process should be uninterrupted and uninterruptible,” she said.

She however advocated for the inclusion of Kashmiris in the process. “There are three parties to the dispute, Pakistan, India and Kashmir, and true representatives of Kashmir should be included in the dialogue process,” said Khar.

She insisted that the Kashmir settlement was the key to peace in the region, and her government was exploring every possible option to open channels of dialogue with New Delhi for a permanent settlement of the issue. She wanted the Kashmiri leadership to get united to see a breakthrough in the process. “We would like to see the separatist leadership getting united,” Khar said.

She said Hurriyat conference (G) Chairman Syed Ali Geelani was an important stakeholder in the process adding that Geelani was an “honourable” and “influential” leader in the ongoing movement and his importance cannot be overlooked. “Geelani is a very honourable leader and represents a large chunk of population and sentiment. He couldn’t come because of his ailing health, but we are inviting him again and we would love to have consultations with him,” Khar added.