To pause or not to pause

Pervaiz Iqbal Cheema

Mary Robinson, the Human Rights Commissioner of the united Nations, has been consistently calling for a pause in the American-led air strikes against Afghanistan to enable the aid agencies to deliver the vital aid to hundreds of thousands Afghan people. The basic aid is meant for both the internally displaced people as well as those lucky ones who managed to cross the border and took refuge in the neighbouring countries.

Similarly and simultaneously many others have regularly highlighted the importance of humanitarian efforts. Those directly involved have been consistently emphasizing the need to undertake concrete corrective measures in this direction. Clare Short, the British International Development Secretary stressed recently that the humanitarian efforts were just as important as the military campaign. In addition she also suggested that the already announced aid for humanitarian purposed needed to be doubled in order to avoid the impending catastrophe.

Two words colossal 'disaster' and likely 'catastrophe' are frequently employed to impress upon the concerned decision makers and to communicate to the world opinion that a major humanitarian crisis is in the offing. Need to be prepared to face such a crisis and to make adequate arrangements in order to mitigate the augured sufferings of the Afghan people is regularly projected. It is a well-documented fact that the Afghan people have been suffering since the day the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in its attempt to impose a government of its own choice.

The UN refugee agency (UNHCR) has also been playing its part somewhat admirably this time. At least this time the employees of the UNHCR had warned that it was not fully ready to deal with the mass influx of the refugees from Afghanistan, which in turn seemed to have impressed some concerned authorities and sympathetic nations have accelerated the process of relief deliveries. Fears have also been aired that new camps may not be ready for the anticipated influx. Ironically the latest Afghan crisis massively contributing to the existing huge pile of miseries has managed to invoke the sympathetic responces from many quarters.

Two proposals have been circulating in concerned quarters and also being discussed in public. One is to stop the bombing completely and the other calls for a pause in the US-led air strikes to give a chance to the relief agencies to provide the much-needed aid to the starving and increasingly shelter-less Afghans. The underneath idea is to do something for poor Afghans who may have nothing to do with the ongoing political games but being the citizens of the target country they have to endure whatever is happening in their country.

Many reasons are being advanced to support these suggestions. Those who support the termination of the air strikes are arguing that by now most of the American objectives such as destroying the air defences of the Taliban regime must have been attained; therefore the air strikes must halt. Some have even cynically put it that the Taliban regimes had a rudimentary air defence and communication systems and the destruction of such systems is no big deal. In many ways they were stressing that all what the air strikes have done is to destroy the already destroyed structures. The country has only few airfields and a limited number of air-crafts/helicopters. Nothing else can be targeted apart from what is now frequently referred as emerging or opportunity targets. Such targets may include military convoys or anything moving on the roads etc. Most of the visible military targets have already been destroyed.

It needs to be stressed that the main American objective in this crisis is to apprehend Osama bin Laden and to try him for the alleged acts of terrorism. The 'Operation Infinite Justice' is meant to bring the perpetrators of acts of terrorism to justice. So far the American air strikes have not been able to influence the Talibans to hand over Osama to US. Thus the Americans have so far not been able to achieve their stated objective. And there is no guarantee that bombing would be able to flush Osama out of his hideouts into open.

What has happened so far is that in the process of securing the custody of Osama many civilians have become victims of American bombing. The question that is frequently asked is whether or not justice allows subjecting the innocent's civilians to aerial bombardment. Just as the tragedy of 11th September cannot be condoned, many feel that the killing of innocent Afghan civilians is equally unjustifiable. Thus they tend to advance the idea of halting the air strikes.

The second set of arguments calls for a pause in the aerial bombing. The primary reason advanced in this regard revolves around the problem to delivering the much-needed humanitarian aid to the most needy inside Afghanistan. Almost all relief agencies are confronted with a dilemma how to deliver basic necessities such as food, medicine, tents to the Afghans. It has been estimated that the relief agencies may have to cater for something like 7.5 millions Afghans. By any yardstick this is a colossal number to cater for. The trucks carrying aid run the risk of being accidentally hit by the bombs and consequently not many drivers are willing to undertake such hazardous journey to Afghanistan. The existing uncertainly effectively prevents many drivers to opt for such a journey who, under normal circumstances were more than willing to undertake such trips to various regions of Afghanistan. A pause in bombing could enable the relief agencies to replenish the rapidly depleted warehouses inside Afghanistan.

Many have convincingly advocated the urgency of pause. Since the winter is fast approaching and Afghan winter is known to be quite severe, pause is deemed to provide the desired access. If the relief does not reach the concerned areas before the winter sets in, the world would be faced with a massive human tragedy. Many of the roads would be snow-bound and it would not be possible to deliver aid to areas particularly situated in mountainous regions.

Contrary to repeatedly expressed concerns of the relief agencies, the supporters of the continuous bombing view the situation in Afghanistan as the creation of the Taliban regime and argue that pause might reflect the weakening of America resolve and would provide the much desired respite to the Talibans. Since US has been subjected what the President Bush calls 'an attack on America', the US felt compelled to demonstrate its power and abilities to counter such attacks. Without attaining the stated objectives, the US officials feel it may not be possible to inject pause until some concessionary gesture comes from the other side or signs of weakening of Taliban's begin to appear.

For the Americans it is essential to understand that aerial bombing can only achieve limited objectives especially in the light of Afghanistan's physical terrain. To get Osama they may have to deploy ground troops. Already some very senior American officials are beginning to recognize the fact that victory in Afghanistan requires the deployment of ground troops and acknowledged that the 'air strikes alone probably won't dislodge Talibans or kill Osama bin Laden. This assessment clearly paves the way for introducing pause in the aerial strikes. In addition, a pause can strengthen the notion what the Americans have so painstakingly trying to project that war is against the Taliban regime, which is harbouring Osama, and not against the Afghan people. Perhaps that's why food drops accompanied the bombs. But dropping food from air is not really an appropriate method.

However it also needs to be highlighted that bombing has resulted in the deaths of so many civilians and persistence in air strikes are likely to cause more civilian casualties. Reports coming out of Afghanistan clearly reflect that many innocent civilians have died. As the civilian casualties increase, the intensity of reactions in various parts of the globe would also multiply. The notion of pause could provide a way out to the Americans to disentangle them from Afghanistan. It should not be lightly dismissed.

On the other hand the Taliban regime must realize that bombing may not hurt them but it is certainly devastating the country. They should also demonstrate some flexibility in order to minimize the deaths of innocent civilians. Unless the visible signs appear reflecting flexibility in Talibans' attitude, the American would be hesitant to introduce pause. Thus the net result would be that the innocent Afghan civilians would continue to experience another deadly phase of their perennial sufferings.