Name: Guo Huiying Student ID：
Research paper supervisor:Dr.Seku Conde
Minzu University of China
2007-2008 Academic Year

 
Abstract   The terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, fueled widespread concern and speculation about mounting Islam phobic sentiment among Americans in response to the events. To monitor attitudes toward the Islamic faith and the influence on Pakistan , survey organizations began to assess more regularly Americans’ attitudes on these topics. I analyze the disaster really gives big affection to Pakistan. The data analyses in this study suggest that Pakistan now has both the opportunity and the challenge. The evidence also reveals Pakistan is already paying a price for the ISI’s involvement and it may soon have a much heavier price to pay . Monitoring these developments as the war on terror continues is crucial.
 
The attack on the World Trade Center (WTC) in New York City on September 11, 2001, was the largest act of terrorism in the history of the United States. The terrorist attacks were traumatic and stressful for people throughout the United States. More than 2,800 people lost their lives and many others were injured, displaced, or separated from their loved ones. Given the tragic nature of this event, there has been widespread concern among politician and social workers for the relationship of USA and other country such as Pakistan.
Pakistan And The 9/11 Attack
September 11 and the American War on Terrorism has affected the internal politics, external policies and the future of Pakistan. The post-September 11 events inside Pakistan have both short-term implications and long-term repercussions.
Internally, the military regime has strengthened its position. Musharraf is aware that the international community (read the US) prefers a stable and friendly government in Pakistan. American strategic interests in Pakistan have always been better served by a military regime. General Musharraf would not have held his referendum, making himself President for the next five years, without the indirect support of the US. There was no official criticism from the US, except in newspaper editorials. The military regime has also changed the Parliamentary content of the Constitution, providing an institutional role for the military to guide Pakistan’s democracy. These legal measures make the Prime Minster a puppet and the Parliament subservient to the President. Besides, the National Security Council makes the elected representatives dummies, which has serious repercussions for the future of democracy in Pakistan.
Secondly, though the military regime has supported the US attack on Afghanistan, this has reduced Musharraf’s popularity. Led by the Pakistan-Afghanistan Defence Forum, and later the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA), the religious parties spearheaded by the Jamaat-e-Islami and Jamiat-ul-Islam, has rallied popular support against the military regime. Besides, the steps taken by Musharraf under US pressure to curb the jihadi activities have made these groups hostile to the regime. Some jihadi organizations were banned; their accounts frozen, and their leaders arrested. They have retaliated by launching attacks inside the country using rockets, explosives and bombs – both chemical and human. The threats from these groups would continue.            
Thirdly, the War on Terrorism has increased anti-American and anti-West sentiments. A cursory look at the reports and opinion articles in the Urdu press and in English dailies reveals that the killing of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, and the suicide attacks are expressions of these resentments. Osama bin Laden is being glorified inside Pakistan (T-Shirts with Osama’s picture are still popular) for standing up against American imperialism. This feeling will continue, unless the US changes its policy towards Muslim countries, starting with Palestine. In future, one can expect more such attacks on citizens from Western countries and Christians in Pakistan. Attacks on the minority communities had occurred in the past, but after September 11, the Christian community has become the main target.
A direct fallout of Pakistan’s support to the War on Terrorism has been the internal re-organization of the Pakistani Army in October last year. Generals who supported the rightist agenda were removed from important posts, and moderates appointed. Lt Gen Mahmood, the Director General of the ISI who strongly supported the earlier Afghan policy, was removed. Moderate officers loyal to Musharraf, like Lt Gen Mohammad Aziz, was appointed Chairman of the JCSC; Lt Gen Ehsan-ul Haq as the Director General of the ISI; Lt Gen Shahid Aziz as the Chief of General Staff; and Gen Mohammad Yousuf as Vice Chief of the Army Staff.
On the economic front, Pakistan’s assistance to the War on Terrorism has increased its aid inflow. In December last year, the IMF agreed to $ 1.3 billion for a Poverty Reduction and Growth Facility (PRGF); the Paris Club agreed for a $12.5 billion for debt rescheduling; the Asian Development Bank agreed for a $ 1 billion loan for civil reforms, and later in the same month approved two more loans for a total of $ 386 million for a Justice Programme and Reproductive Health Care Project. During February this year, US President George Bush announced an economic package of $ 1 billion for debt relief; $ 100 million for education and $ 142 million for market access. However, it should be underlined that only foreign aid has increased, not foreign direct investment in Pakistan. FDI for the year 2001 was $ 322 millions, which is expected to increase to $ 470 to $ 500 millions. [1]However, it is unlikely that FDI would even reach the level of the previous year. Thus, the aid from outside would only benefit Pakistan in short term.
On the external front, Pakistan’s foreign policy has undergone a dramatic change. Its traditional Afghan policy has been changed to suit American interests. This shift has also affected its security in terms of its losing “strategic depth”, and this would increase Pakistan’s emphasis on Kashmir. One can therefore expect increased tension between India and Pakistan over Kashmir?  
The terrorist attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, fueled widespread concern and speculation about mounting Islamophobic sentiment among Americans in response to the events. In an effort to avert such a reaction, U.S. president George W. Bush urged Americans to resist anti-Muslim impulses in his address to a grieving nation delivered to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001. Bush declared, “The enemy of America is not our many Muslim friends. It is not our many Arab friends . . . . No one should be singled out for unfair treatment or unkind words because of their ethnic background or religious faith” (Bush 2001).
       In the aftermath of the attacks, evidence of backlash violence against Arabs and Muslims—and those perceived to be Arab or Muslim—grew considerably across the country. Arab and Muslim groups report more than two thousand September 11–related backlash incidents. After the disastrous the whole country was immersed in the big grief, the New York Times participated once again in the mass education of the American public by using variety ways, an digitally altered Rockwell painting – ‘Teacher’s Birthday’ – to aid its readers in their quest to make sense of it all. In the original Rockwell, the viewer is positioned in the back of a grade-school classroom, watching a birthday celebration unfold (Figure 4a).In the foreground, children sit dutifully at their desks, with their backs to the viewer. The teacher stands in the painting’s background, next to a blackboard covered with wishes for a Happy Birthday. In the version published
 Engle – Putting Mourning to Work

(a)                                                                (b)
Figure 4 (a) Norman Rockwell’s ‘Teacher’s Birthday’, (b) Modified ‘Teacher’s Birthday’[2]
By the New York Times on 9 November 2001, the blackboard is partially
covered by a map of Afghanistan . A lesson so simple, a child can understand. Readers are positioned as children, learning that the map of Afghanistan provides answers to the confusion of 11 September. Accomplishing a deft infantilization of its readers, the New York Times’ deployment of this particular Rockwell raises a number of issues concerning the representation of children. Typically objectified in political rhetoric as ‘the future,’ children are seen, among other things, as images of hope, repositories of energy to be harnessed for productive work, and future consumers of goods waiting to be captured by the gods of corporate advertising. Here, a complex substitution and doubling take place, whereby adult readers become children (being fed so much pap in history class), and children come to resemble future soldiers receiving a lesson in geopolitical relations. Finally, making sense of our times – a task easily set to children – requires the docile passivity figured in the bodies of these students. By emulating the receptacle-like attention of Rockwell’s pupils, readers are encouraged to make the grade and discipline themselves to identify Afghanistan as the seat of the terror.
To identify, in other words, with the precipitating event and thereby with the governmental solution of invasion. Terrorism, against all logic and credibility, is deftly located far away from the here-and-now of America, while it is internalized and held close within the bodies and minds of listening audiences.
A study released by Human Rights Watch in November 2002 noted that the Federal Bureau of Investigation reported a 17-fold increase [...]

If you want to read the full article, you need to ask for permission from Sekou ( ). If you have the permission, you can login now.