Be
Skeptical ... Be Very Skeptical
By M K Bhadrakumar
19 August,2006
Asia
Times Online
One of the significant contributions
to the "war on terror" by Britain's home secretary David Blunkett
before his abrupt departure from the Tony Blair cabinet last year was
his statement on terrorism in the House of Commons that specifically
flagged the possibility of a "dirty bomb" being planted in
Britain by terrorists.
That was in November 2002,
when preparations were already in an advanced stage for the march to
Baghdad. We are still waiting for the dirty bomb and its lethal radiation.
The dirty bomb genre, however, provoked two years later a brilliant
television series on BBC2 by acclaimed documentary producer Adam Curtis,
titled
Curtis's argument was that
much of the threat of international terrorism turns out to be in actuality
"a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians
... In an age when all the grand ideas have lost credibility, fear of
a phantom enemy is all the politicians have left to maintain their power."
Curtis placed al-Qaeda terrorism
in a long line of dramatic panics in Britain's checkered history since
the Elizabethan era, which included the arrival of Spanish raiding parties,
French revolutionary agitators, anarchists, Bolsheviks, and Irish republicans.
Naturally, Curtis comes readily
to mind a week after British authorities arrested some two dozen Muslims
on August 10 for plotting to blow up trans-Atlantic flights from United
Kingdom to the United States. Not a shred of evidence has since seen
the light of day in this Mother of all Dastardly Plots.
Meanwhile, wild stories of
new plots in the making are in circulation. The latest was the "breaking
news" regarding the emergency landing of an aircraft in Boston
on Wednesday due to the tantrums of an "unruly" woman passenger.
Last weekend, Michigan police locked up three hapless Palestinian-Americans
for allegedly plotting an act of terrorism. The three "terrorists"
were caught red-handed purchasing 80 cell phones from a Wal-Mart store.
Michigan police concluded
that the cell phones could be used as detonators to blow up the Mackinac
Bridge, which connected the peninsula's upper and lower parts. Subsequently
it transpired that the three detained "terrorists" bought
and sold cell phones to make a living.
The London plot itself is
becoming curiouser and curiouser. Reports have appeared that the British
security agencies were feeling increasingly uncomfortable that their
American counterparts rushed to make out that the alleged plot was linked
to al-Qaeda. More importantly, it appears that sources in London have
begun distancing themselves from the plot by claiming that the British
side was pressured from Washington to go public with the plot despite
a lack of evidence and clear and convincing facts whether any conspiracy
in fact existed at all.
Not surprisingly, the loudest
voices of skepticism about the alleged plot are heard in Pakistan, where
of course the public is habitually cynical over anything that goes to
the credit of the establishment. This despite the insistent claim that
the UK, US and Pakistani security agencies had actively coordinated
in thwarting the plot - a scenario that cast Pakistan as a plucky, feisty
partner in the "war on terror", quite contrary to the prevailing
impression that Islamabad is possibly indulging in doublespeak.
The skeptics in Pakistan
feel that the entire plot is a crudely executed hoax by the Bush administration.
It was not only the so-called "jihadi" circles in Pakistan
that ridiculed the plot but even sections of opinion, which usually
put primacy on reasoning. The Pakistani newspaper Daily Times commented
editorially, "There is a horrible war going on in Lebanon and it
is not unfolding in favor of Israel, US and UK. Iraq has gone bad; Afghanistan
is getting worse.
"The Bush-Blair duo
is in trouble at home and both need something really big to happen to
justify their policies and distract attention from their losses ...
the past record of intelligence agencies everywhere suggests they are
quite capable of blowing up or underplaying things for better media
management of their respective governments' performance. So a bit of
skepticism is in order."
Adam Curtis had an explanation
for the dilemma facing the saner sections of opinion in times of public
hysteria. As he explained two years ago, such plots, when blown up in
larger-than-life terms and whipping up an atmosphere of hysteria, have
a way of trapping us. In the process, we get "trapped by a fear
that is completely irrational".
Indeed, in a poll after the
plot story broke, 55% of Americans voiced approval of Bush's handling
of terrorism and homeland security. A beaming Bush promptly promised
his nervous nation that the terror fight may last for "years to
come". Democrats are beginning to accuse the Republicans of using
the scare to political advantage ahead of the November elections to
the US Congress.
Former US president Bill
Clinton said: "They [the Bush administration] seem to be anxious
to tie it to al-Qaeda. If that's true, how come we've got seven times
as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan? I think that Republicans should
be very careful in playing politics with this London thing because they're
going to have a hard time with the facts."
All the same, it is extraordinary
that the mainstream media in the US could so willingly suspend their
disbelief over the patchy official claims that the plot was a "real
idea" of cosmic significance. Furthermore, they dutifully ran "expert
opinions" by commentators on the alleged plotters' al-Qaeda connections.
Not a single mainstream newspaper in the US challenged the plot theory
as such - leave alone pointed out the patent gulf between the London
plotters' ambition and their ability to pull it off.
It could be that they have
succumbed to the "suspiciously circular relationship between the
security services and much of the media" (to quote Curtis) in which
official briefings become the stuff of dramatic press stories and prompt
further briefings and further stories.
At any rate, terrorism thrives
on bluff. Think of the horrific bomb blasts in Mumbai last month. Unlike
the ethereal London plot, it was tangible; it was verifiable. It was
of a piece, by all indications, with the cycle of violence ripping apart
India's composite society for the past decade or so since the Babri
Mosque was pulled down by vandals incited by Hindu fundamentalists.
Yet, in the wake of the Mumbai
blasts, an attempt has been made to link the abhorrent violence to al-Qaeda.
As if al-Qaeda is an organized international network. As if it has members
or a leader. As if it has "sleeper cells". As if it has corporate-style
affiliates and subsidiaries. As if it has a strategy towards India.
Indian media people seem
to be unaware that al-Qaeda barely exists at all and that it is more
an idea about cleansing the impure world of Islam corrupted by the al-Adou
al-Qareeb (Muslim apostates) and al-Adou al-Baeed or the "far enemy"
(Israel and the Western powers), through violence sanctioned by religion
explicitly for such extraordinary times.
Indian opinion makers seem
to believe that countering al-Qaeda justifies a national security objective.
Some among them no doubt fancy that a closer "strategic partnership"
with the Bush administration becomes possible if only India were to
assertively stake claim to be a frontline state in the "war on
terror". But there is no way that India can hope to gain entry
into the exclusive, charmed circle that comprises the US Central Intelligence
Agency, Britain's MI6 and Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence.
The so-called Islamic terror
network is the trinity's fabrication. It has become what would be known
in intelligence parlance as an "asset" or an "instrument".
The "intelligence assets" do enjoy a certain measure of independence
and autonomy vis-a-vis their sponsors but that is part of the art of
dissimulation. Al-Qaeda has incrementally become then a situation or
a chain of events in politics that can arouse a particular emotional
reaction instantaneously.
M K Bhadrakumar served
as a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service for over 29 years,
with postings including India's ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998)
and to Turkey (1998-2001).
Copyright 2006 Asia Times
Online Ltd