MMA at the crossroads

WITH a general election less than a year away, the MMA seems to be a house divided against itself. There is no decision yet on one fundamental issue — will the six-party alliance take part in it or not? The alliance’s two major parties seem to be at odds with each other on what to many is an issue that could decide the right-wing group’s fate for the subsequent five years. Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad is opposed to the MMA’s participation in the polls if President Pervez Musharraf remains at the helm of affairs. In this he is not alone but enjoys the support of many other parties. What the JI chief wants is a movement to oust the present military-led government. The MMA’s other major component, JUI-F, insists that a boycott is no solution, and its chief, Maulana Fazlur Rahman, feels the alliance must prepare for the election instead of launching an anti-Musharraf movement.

This is not the only issue on which there are differences within the MMA; the issue where the alliance suffered its greatest setback was the passage of the women’s protection bill. Qazi Hussain Ahmad was for immediate resignations and insisted that the MMA was with him. However, the alliance high command’s subsequent meetings showed that there never was any consensus on resignations. As one MMA leader put it, resigning from the National Assembly would amount to political suicide, for the ruling party would then be able to win the by-elections and thus further consolidate its position in parliament. The division stemmed from Qazi Hussain Ahmad’s hard line on the women’s bill and his decision to go public categorically on the resignations without having achieved a consensus within the MMA. On the Bajaur by-election, the MMA protested to the government against the polls, but it was the JI which spearheaded the boycott movement, held rallies and warned of possible violence if people went to the booths. It is not clear why the MMA opposed a democratic exercise. The controversy surrounding the Bajaur air strike that killed 82 people last year and the by-elections held earlier this month had no relationship. The end-result was that a seat which the MMA could have comfortably won went to the ANP.

That the MMA misjudged the people’s attitude to the women’s bill and realised perhaps quite late that a movement on this issue was unlikely to assume dimensions that could oust the army from power is another matter. The crucial issue is that, as a major opposition alliance — notwithstanding its occasional hobnobbing with the army, as demonstrated by its support for the Seventeenth Amendment — the MMA must decide whether or not it is its duty to strengthen democracy irrespective of passing political controversies. Misgivings on this score arise from what appears to be the MMA’s proclivity for street agitation on a number of questions. “Wheel jam” strikes and violence may bring a government down, but it is unthinkable that they can strengthen democracy or the rule of law. The result of the two mass movements — that against Ayub in 1968-69 and the 1977 PNA movement — ousted the government of the day but led to outright military intervention each time. The alliance’s top brass is likely to meet soon, and one hopes that it will take decisions that will be in the interest of democracy without compromising its principled stand on a number of issues, including, for instance, making President Musharraf give up one of the two posts.

Cut in oil prices

THE cut in the prices of petrol and diesel announced by the government on Monday, following the directive of the Supreme Court, is welcome news for consumers hit by high food prices. The much-awaited decision is expected to help tame the current double-digit inflation in the transport and communication and fuel sectors which have raised the transportation and production costs of essential commodities. Coming as it does amidst nationwide concern that the inflation rate would exceed the targeted 6.5 per cent for this fiscal year, the decision may also somewhat dampen the inflationary expectations that often lead to hoarding and speculation by profiteers. After all, the level of price cut has left much room for further reduction in prices, at least once the outstanding subsidy amount of Rs12 billion owed to the oil companies has been cleared (originally stipulated in April when global oil prices were $60 per barrel). The prices of petrol and diesel have been slashed by four rupees per litre and one rupee per litre respectively, whereas international prices have plummeted to a rate closer to $50 from the peak of $79 per barrel a few months ago. It is quite possible that this cyclic downturn may continue, removing a contributing factor for high inflation. As food and oil price inflation is outside the domain of the monetary policy being pursued now, the government’s responsibility to pass on the benefits of lower international prices to the consumers assumes critical importance.

The nature of the current monetary policy practised both at home and abroad is increasingly being questioned for its failure to curb inflation in developing countries like Pakistan. The State Bank is expected to announce the Monetary Policy Statement for January-July next Thursday. One hopes that it would find innovative ways to keep inflation at least at the targeted rate for this year. Oil prices are also jacked up by indirect taxes like development levy and general sales tax. The tax levels may also be reviewed from time to time in view of the wide impact of oil prices on economic growth and the consumers’ cost of living.

Peshawar Museum’s centenary

ONE of the oldest and most well-kept repositories of national historical treasures and relics, the Peshawar Museum celebrated 100 years of its founding this past week. Set up in an impressive Gothic structure, originally named as the Victoria Memorial Hall, the museum has over 14,000 relics and artefacts on display. It also has the distinction of housing the largest number of Gandhara Buddhist relics — over 4,200 statues, figurines, carved panels and caskets, documenting the life and death of Buddha — kept in one place anywhere in the world. The week-long centenary celebrations saw archaeologists and scholars from around the world congregate in Peshawar to take part in seminars and other related activities to mark the occasion. The NWFP government and the provincial archaeology department, as custodians of the museum, deserve compliments for holding the celebrations in a befitting manner.

Peshawar city has its foundation in history as being the cradle of an ancient Buddhist civilisation dating back to 200BC; the city was rebuilt as the capital of the Kushan ruler Kanishka in the second century AD. Peshawar today is also a leading centre of learning which continues to attract a large number of foreign tourists, especially scholars and students of history and archaeology. This, despite the post-9/11 US-led war on terrorism in which tribal territories bordering the Frontier and Peshawar have become frontline areas. The holding of the centenary events against this backdrop gives much hope and confidence to a people whose majority remains basically an urbane, enlightened lot. The citizens’ wholehearted participation in the week-long celebrations further endorses the point that they will not be cowed down by a handful of bigots taking a narrow-minded view of history and culture and their place in people’s lives. Meaningful activities such as these should be encouraged further and held in cities and towns across the country.

No end to Bush war blues

LAST month, the executioners of Saddam Hussein pulled off a small miracle when they succeeded in inducing a brief twinge of sympathy for the doomed dictator. Last week, some people found it hard not to feel at least a tiny bit sorry for another mass murderer as he stood there in the White House, determinedly digging himself deeper into a hole that no sensible person would have stepped into in the first place.

There was more than a hint of desperation last Wednesday in one of the most anticipated pronouncements of George W. Bush’s pathetic presidency. The gist of his 20-minute oration had been leaked by the White House over the preceding couple of weeks, so everyone knew about the coming surge, although the presidential speechwriters calculatedly left out that catchword. Nor did Bush mention the purge leading up to the surge, whereby the main military and civilian figures in charge of the occupation have been replaced. He concentrated instead on supplementing a dirge about the possibility of defeat with an overture to the Sunni side of the street.

The compassion was necessarily fleeting. It could have been different, but that would have required a drastically different approach from the commander-in-chief. “Where mistakes have been made,” he intoned, “the responsibility rests with me.” That simply will not do in the face of an obstinate refusal to see the error of his ways. The decision to violate Iraq’s sovereignty was not a mistake: it was a colossal crime. Everything else has flowed from that. It cannot be set right by doubling the number of American troops in Baghdad.

The next day, Bush managed to muster a solitary tear when reflecting on the loss of young lives (only American ones, obviously) in Iraq. He closely resembled a crocodile at that point. Even quasi-sincere concern would have made him think twice before committing them to combat on the basis of canards. Unless it was glycerine, what makes the single tear even more galling is that it followed the announcement that even more young Americans will be sent into harm’s way. As Phil Ochs sang more than 40 years ago, “It’s always the old to lead us to the war/ It’s always the young to fall/ Now look at all we’ve won with the sabre and the gun/ Tell me is it worth it all?”

Sabres are seldom used nowadays, but sabre-rattling never went out of fashion, and over the past week Bush has indulged in a fair amount vis-a-vis Iran. He also threw in another old favourite, gunboat diplomacy, for good measure. Could it be possible that the so-called surge isn’t the last throw of the dice for the humiliated neo-cons? The full-spectrum dominance they once dreamed of may have proved unfeasible, but are they clinging on to their dream of bringing democracy to Iran, after the resounding success of the Iraq enterprise?

A ground invasion is out of the question, but a “shock and awe” assault from the skies — with or without Israeli assistance — cannot be ruled out, with Iran’s nuclear activities being cited as an excuse. It would be devastating for Iran and disastrous for the Middle East, but such considerations are unlikely to deter the fanatics who continue to control the US military agenda. It would also entail more blowback than the US has ever experienced before, but the neo-cons are perfectly capable of averting their gaze from that likelihood.

It must be hoped, of course, this scenario does not come to pass. But it is not based purely on conjecture. Bush’s belligerent speech more or less coincided with the abduction of half a dozen Iranians from semi-diplomatic premises in Irbil, five of whom remained in American custody at the start of the week, despite protests from the foreign ministry in Iraq as well as the Kurdish administration, which is counted among the closest allies of the occupation forces.

The US says the detainees were Revolutionary Guards sent to foment the insurgency; Iran says they were in the process of setting up a consulate. Tehran’s word isn’t much more trustworthy than that of Washington, but the level of hypocrisy involved in the US (or Britain) decrying “foreign interference” in Iraq’s affairs is never less than astounding.

The US has thus far been unable to come to terms with the fact that the Shia parties it has helped to catapult into office in Baghdad inevitably enjoy fraternal relations with Tehran. That could be one reason behind what Bush has described as a change of strategy, although it adds up to no more than a tactical adjustment: the possibility that US and Iraqi government forces will jointly challenge the Shia militias that have made life hell for Sunnis, rather than concentrating mainly on the Sunni forces that commonly target Shias.

In that case, one of the obvious targets would be the Mahdi Army of Moqtada Al Sadr, which controls the 2,000,000-strong Shia stronghold of Sadr City. Politically, Prime Minister Nuri Al Maliki can ill afford to antagonise the fiery Moqtada, nor is there any guarantee that Shia soldiers would be prepared to participate in such an endeavour. Washington, meanwhile, has made it clear that it considers Maliki dispensable — a less turbulent quisling can easily be found. Condoleezza Rice and Zalmay Khalilzad have warned that the Maliki government is living on borrowed time.

Reports in the American press suggest that negotiations between US officers and representatives of the Maliki regime are — predictably — not going well. The Americans are less than thrilled by the appointment of Aboud Qanbar, a southern Shia who served as a senior general in Saddam’s army, as the Iraqi commander for the Baghdad operation. The idea of the better-trained and better-equipped Americans taking a secondary role in military operations is anyhow ridiculous: this tactic has floundered before.

Bush does not, as far as anyone can tell, have a Plan B — unless it involves Iran. The additional troops, he has threatened, may not be made available if the Iraqis don’t live up to their side of the bargain. That won’t bother the Maliki administration, which has been unenthusiastic about the prospect anyhow. For a change, it is the Sunnis who are keen on the prospect of protection, with the Shias having supplanted the Americans as primary foes in their eyes.

Bush has also warned that Maliki runs the risk of losing the support of the American people. The puppet prime minister is unlikely to ever have presumed that he enjoyed the endorsement of the American public. Perhaps Bush was playing some sort of delusional mind game with his audience. After all, it is he who has lost the support of the American people. Opinion polls last week suggested that backing for his conduct of the war has dropped to 26 per cent, while 61 per cent of Americans opposed the surge. The idea of taking on Iran — indeed the provocations may have been calculated to impress Israel and Saudi Arabia — is unlikely to generate much jingoism.

In his speech last Wednesday, Bush yet again insinuated a link between 9/11 and the assault on Iraq. It’s hard to say who that bit of regurgitated deceit was directed at, but there are some people — not only in the US — who accept at face value the argument that American withdrawal from Iraq would be victory for the terrorists.

The fact is that no military enterprise in recent history has succeeded in creating as many terrorists, in all parts of the world, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The trend will continue as long as US forces remain in the region. All talk about eliminating the root causes of terrorism is so much hot air unless it takes cognisance of the fact that the single largest factor responsible for anti-western violence, indiscriminate or otherwise, is various forms of imperialism.

Iraq, of course, has received a bigger dose than most. The second largest foreign force in that country consists of private contractors, and the additional reconstruction activity presaged by Bush’s speech means greater scope for war-profiteers such as Halliburton and its subsidiaries, which have already quite literally made a killing. Bush also mentioned a plan (which he couldn’t spell out because no one appears to be aware of its intricacies) for the redistribution of Iraq’s oil wealth among its people — those who have survived, that is. He made no mention of another plan: to give the likes of BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude, with the companies initially allowed to gobble up 75 per cent of the profits.

He also talked about turning Iraq into “a country that fights terrorists instead of harbouring them”. But the choice isn’t necessarily so stark: Pakistan has proved capable of doing both. And it’s possible that Ryan Crocker’s reassignment to Baghdad is realistic nod towards acknowledging that likelihood.

Beyond that, changes in personnel and tactics are more or less meaningless. It’s absurd to dismiss them as a case of too little, too late. They wouldn’t have worked at any stage. What’s required is a complete reversal of course. Bush lacks the courage and the imagination to undo a grievous wrong, and all one can expect from the Democrat-dominated Congress is a mild reprimand.

Extra-parliamentary action in the shape of mass mobilisation on the Vietnam war scale may be the only way for the US to redeem itself in the short run. That may not be a likely prospect, but the dire alternatives barely bear contemplation, particularly if Iran is to become the new Cambodia.

mahir.worldview@gmail.com