al-Zawahiri claimed victories in Iraq and Somalia while ridiculing Barak Obama’s Afghanistan policy: “And if you still want to be stubborn about America’s failure in Afghanistan, then remember the fate of Bush and Pervez Musharraf, and the fate of the Soviets and British before them. And be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them.” Despite the black poetry of the statement, it begged an attentive reading not because of what it actually said but because of what it left out. What confused me most was the fact that al-Zawahiri chose not to mention two major regions of conflict where al-Qaeda and other Jihadist groups are currently engaged: Kashmir in South Asia and Chechnya in the Caucasus.

The recent terrorist carnage in the Indian financial capital, Mumbai, made those omissions even more noteworthy. Consider the fact that the Mumbai attacks were partly targeted at American, British and Israeli citizens. Also consider that Laskar-e-Tayyiba (LeT), the Pakistan-based group reportedly responsible for the attacks, is a major player in the al-Qaeda network in South Asia. The ultimate goal of the Jihad waged by LeT: Restoration of Islamic rule over all parts of South Asia, Russia and China, through establishing a Muslim caliphate.

Now, if Barak Obama moves the global war on terror waged by the US from Iraq to Afghanistan, we need to compare the geopolitics of the Middle East with that of South Asia. Apparently, Afghanistan is going to replace Iraq as the centre of the conflict. Compare the Indian occupied Kashmir to Palestine noting that India, as the key American ally in the region, is set to become the South Asian version of Israel. In this map, Pakistan replaces Lebanon: A state on the verge of failure, hostage to non-state actors like the Hezbollah guerillas.

US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, has already opposed the notion of Indian unilateral strikes against any militant targets on the Pakistani soil in the wake of Mumbai attacks, saying New Delhi should avoid anything that may worsen the South Asian situation. I am tempted to believe that Rice actually learnt a lesson from the 2006 Lebanon war.

In 2006, Hezbollah launched attacks on Israel provoking the Israeli army to start the 34-day war on Lebanon, while the Lebanese government helplessly watched the episode unfold. At the end of the war, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah was boasting victory: “They thought the war would lead Hezbollah to give in… Lebanon has been victorious, Palestine has been victorious, Arab nations have been victorious.”

For Pakistani groups like LeT, the humiliating Israeli defeat in that conflict surely set an exciting example, something to be replicated in South Asia: trapping India into a military campaign against Pakistan.

In this backdrop, the latest anti-India statements by Pakistani militant groups beg our attention.

Take Maulvi Omar, spokesman for Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan, warning India that “Taliban fighters will stand side by side with the Pakistani army in the event of a war… Indian threats following the Mumbai attacks are aimed not at the Pakistani army but at Pakistan as a Muslim country.”

Misri Khan, spokesman for Lashkar-e-Islam: “In the event of an Indian attack, hundreds of thousands of Lashkar-e-Islam fighters will give an appropriate reply to the enemies of Pakistan… Our ancestors offered sacrifices for the defence of Pakistan’s borders, and Lashkar-e-Islam will not hesitate to make any sacrifice for the security of the nation.”

And Hafiz Muhammad Saeed, leader of LeT: “Like any other patriotic Pakistani, we too will stand behind the armed forces if the Indians resort to any aggression against Pakistan’s sovereignty.”

What do we call this militant excitement about becoming the vanguard of Pakistani sovereignty? South Asia’s Hezbollah syndrome, maybe.

Going back to the statement by Ayman al-Zawahiri. The global Jihad has to date greeted each American president with conflicts of their own choice. Bill Clinton faced the Jihadist menace in Africa: Somalia, Kenya, Tanzania, Sudan. George Bush started the Iraq war, in the Middle East. Now Barak Obama is taking the war to South Asia.

Is Mumbai the tip of a larger iceberg? One question Obama needs to ask al-Zawahiri.

In 2003, Abu Omar,¹ an Egyptian political refugee in Milan, was abducted by the CIA. He was secretly flown out of Italy to Egypt as a suspected terrorist. Readers of Nerikes Allehanda surely remember a similar case involving two Egyptian asylumseekers in Sweden. In 2001, abiding by a CIA request, Swedish authorities secretly deported Ahmed Agiza and Muhammad al-Zery² to Egypt where both men were reportedly tortured. In 2004, Agiza was sentenced to 25 years in prison by a military court for his connections with Islamic Jihad and al-Qaeda. al-Zery was released from prison in 2003.

Italian prosecutors have now opened a trial into the Abu Omar case. 25 CIA agents, one US Air Force colonel and at least six senior officials of the Italian secret service have been indicted for approving, masterminding and carrying out the kidnapping plan. The US government has said it will not extradite the American suspects.

On May 14 [2008], Ghali Nabila, Abu Omar’s wife, appeared before the court to describe how her husband was kidnapped and sent to Egypt, his torture and imprisonment. According to a report in the International Herald Tribune: Nabila described her shock at seeing Abu Omar in Alexandria, Egypt, during one brief respite from Egyptian prison in October 2004.

“I found him wasted, skinny — so skinny his hair had turned white, he had a hearing aid,” she said. Nabila at first rebuffed prosecutors’ requests to describe the torture her husband had recounted, saying she didn’t want to talk about it. Advised by prosecutors that she had no choice, she tearfully proceeded, “He was tied up like he was being crucified. He was beaten up, especially around his ears. He was subject to electroshocks to many body parts.” “To his genitals?” the prosecutors asked. “Yes,” she replied.³

Extraordinary rendition — the practice of transporting suspected terrorists or other individuals to third countries for interrogation and imprisonment — is practically an euphemism for torture by proxy. Omar, Agiza or al-Zery, all victims of this bizarre torture game, could have become characters in Franz Kafka’s nightmares. And if Kafka wrote a novel today, it could have been the latest Human Rights Watch report: “Double Jeopardy: CIA Renditions to Jordan,” a 36-page investigation that documents how Jordan’s General Intelligence Directorate (GID) secretly detained, interrogated, and tortured at least 14 non-Jordanians on behalf of the CIA from 2001 until 2004. Many of these individuals later landed in the prison cells of Guantanamo.⁴

Joanne Mariner, author of the report, tells me, “President George W Bush declared a global war on terror… and the CIA is a truly global player. This truly is an international phenomenon: individuals from about 40 different countries have been detained and flown to a whole lot of other countries…”

With Kafka dead years back, what we now have is the globalization of torture. In a globalized world, even torture do not have any national boundaries. In a Kafkaesque world divided between terrorists and torturers, since fact has undoubtedly become stranger than the fiction, a report in International Herald Tribune or an investigation by Human Rights Watch can now easily substitute a bizarre novel.

1. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/hassan_mustafa_osama_nasr
2. Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ahmed_agiza_and_muhammad_al-zery
3. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/14/europe/italy.php
4. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2008/jordan0408

If we look at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the peace process in now in a coma, thanks to a counterproductive US-Israeli policy of isolating Hamas and Syria. Hamas is undoubtedly a terrorist organization and Syria a rouge state. However, Hamas is also the most popular political party in Palestine while Syria remains a key player in the game.

Former US president Jimmy Carter is evidently rowing his boat in hostile waters, trying to underline this fact. In a recent op-ed for the New York Times, he writes: “Hamas had been declared a terrorist organization by the US and Israel, and the elected Palestinian government was forced to dissolve… Opinion polls show Hamas steadily gaining popularity. Since there can be no peace with Palestinians divided, we at the Carter Center believed it important to explore conditions allowing Hamas to be brought peacefully back into the discussions… Similarly, Israel cannot gain peace with Syria unless the Golan Heights dispute is resolved. Here again, US policy is to ostracize the Syrian government and prevent bilateral peace talks…”¹

Indeed, the path to peace lies in negotiation, not in isolation.

In Nepal, after a decade of civil-war that saw at least 13,000 dead, the Maoists — a terrorist organization as designated by the US and many other world governments — entered a peace process. The organization that is responsible for numberless massacres and adheres to a murderous ideology, has now surprisingly won the recent constituent assembly elections.

Now, unlike Iraq or Palestine, the US (and other international actors) is ready to do business with terrorists — the Maoists — and has offered assistance to “stability and democracy [in Nepal].” And unlike Israel, India — the US ally in South Asia — is also ready to give peace a chance despite its troublesome relationship with the Maoists.

Is Nepal an example that can benefit the Middle East peace process? When I ask David Pottie, Associate Director of Democracy Program at the Carter Center, he writes, “… a peace process can only succeed when all sides to a conflict are committed to dialog. The Maoists have demonstrated their commitment to multi-party elections and the overall peace process and the other parties to the conflict have signaled their willingness to work with them. Although Nepal’s peace process is ongoing and there remain many serious unresolved issues, there may be important examples for the Middle East.”

Despite their poor human rights record and terror campaigns, “by voting for the Maoists, the Nepali people have voted for peace and change more than they have voted for the ideology,” says Kanak Mani Dixit, Editor of Kathmandu-based Himal magazine.

Rhoderick Chalmers, of the International Crisis Group, believes that the Nepali peace process is ongoing, “It remains to be seen: how a government is formed, how the Maoists go forward with their plan to bring federalism to Nepal, how they carry out land-reforms they promised, and how security-sector reforms take place.”

Chalmers notes the point that the international community plays a major role in the Nepali peace process, even though it has to deal with the Maoists. One reason why unlike Iraq or Palestine, peace is dawning on Nepal.

Sometimes, seating with terrorists at the same table does pay off.

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28carter.html