Back to the president

PRESIDENT Musharraf has confidently scotched all rumours of his imminent resignation that were doing the rounds of late. Talking to senior journalists in Islamabad yesterday he looked and sounded more self-assured than what appeared to be his wont since the February election. He is here to stay for now, he says, and willing to work with parliament which he holds supreme. Parrying questions on whether he would consider using the infamous Article 58-2(b) to send the government packing as and when he believed it had failed to deliver, he struck a conciliatory note saying he was willing to accept whatever parliament decided on the scrapping of his many powers. Then, in a commanding tone, he went on to dismiss the allegation that any conspiracy was being hatched to destabilise the elected government. On the judges’ reinstatement, he was equally clear-headed: let parliament decide their fate and he would go along with the decision.

Mr Musharraf is back in his element, evidently, knowing once again what he is talking about. Is it for good reason? Has he been assured by his interlocutors that he has little to worry about the constitutional package the PPP-led government has proposed? Even as parliament will debate the 82 amendments when it does, none of these suggest the president’s impeachment. Instead, the package offers indemnity, even if limited, to many of the controversial provisions of the Nov 3 Provisional Constitution Order promulgated under a presidential decree imposing emergency rule. There is little chance that the PML-N, which the establishment sees as the only spoilsport in parliament, will be able to convince the rest of the coalition partners to help it settle scores with President Musharraf by impeaching him. If nothing else, the PML-N’s avowed commitment to the judges’ reinstatement is likely to consume its energies before it can get on to other matters.

It is ironic and sad in equal measure that at a time when the country is caught in a cobweb of so many pressing issues, politicians should find it hard to come to grips with their own and the people’s democratic aspirations. Runaway inflation, the energy crisis, the threat posed by extremism and terrorism and the fear of economic instability are factors that affect everyone, everyday; these must surely be addressed first and foremost. This is not to say that the concerns expressed by those who wish to see the back of the president sooner than later, for reasons all too obvious, are any less worthy of the government’s attention. Unless Mr Musharraf’s poise and calm, as seen on TV only yesterday, is a big bluff, he does not seem under pressure to go away in a hurry.

Perils of atomic strength

GOVERNED as they are by orthodox views on the subject of nuclear invincibility, it is improbable that the government of either India or Pakistan would listen to any words of wisdom regarding the dangers of atomic proliferation. Thus, the grim reality painted by Praful Bidwai, an Indian peace activist who recently spoke in Karachi on the India-Pakistan nuclear race, is likely to be lost on those who could influence political decision-making in the two countries. A salient point — and a major cause for concern — made by Mr Bidwai was that the nuclear issue no longer figured on the peace agenda of the two countries. This is indicative of the deep distrust that still exists between the two countries despite their ostensible commitment to ensuring a durable peace. It is a subject that cannot be silently shoved aside and must always remain an integral part of any final solution to decades of animosity between India and Pakistan. While one would strongly urge all nuclear countries to consider actively rolling back their respective atomic programmes, in the case of the subcontinent — as in that of Israel and North Korea — this is especially important. Atomic weapons do not constitute a safeguard against war as proved by the Kargil conflict that came after the 1998 tests. Moreover, the nationalistic tirades of those who have the authority to deploy these weapons of destruction also cause alarm. Time and again, hard-line elements in both countries find themselves in decision-making positions, and not all are inclined to follow a standard vision that eschews conflict in any situation. Nuclear accidents can happen — and in circumstances where countries are suspicious of each other’s motives, the occurrence of one can have disastrous consequences.

But if these are not enough reasons to stop developing atomic weapons (and sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), South Asia’s human misery should convince politicians to halt further militarisation. Instead, it is their responsibility to focus on improving the lives of the hundreds of millions who live in abject poverty without access to even basic amenities like education and healthcare. With defence — of which the upkeep of the nuclear arsenal is a component — being given precedence over social welfare in both countries, this vicious cycle of underdevelopment is not likely to be broken soon, especially with the steadily increasing population. In this scenario, it is incumbent on anti-war lobbies in both countries to strengthen their numbers and raise a joint voice against militarisation, both nuclear and conventional.

Diplomats’ security

AFTER the bomb blast outside the Danish embassy last Monday, it is only natural that various foreign missions in Islamabad and the relevant government agencies should be putting their heads together to chart out measures to strengthen the security arrangements for diplomats and embassies. One major immediate measure that has been decided on is the deployment of some 2,000 paramilitary personnel from the Frontier Constabulary to provide extra protection for embassies, especially those which, like the Danish embassy, are still located outside the diplomatic enclave. The enclave had been physically cordoned off and guarded by a newly established Diplomatic Protection Department of the Islamabad Police ever since the March 2002 bomb attack on a church within the enclave. In the longer term, however, the solution must lie in the shifting of all embassies within the enclave, something which the city authorities are already working on under an expansion plan for the enclave. Although the diplomatic enclave is a concept that had originated from the original master plan of the capital city, up until now less than a third — about 20 — of the 70 or so foreign missions in Islamabad have their buildings located within the enclave. The rest are still located in rented houses scattered in various residential sectors of the city. This not only makes the safety of these embassies and their workers a security headache, but also exposes residents living nearby to considerable security risks, a fact amply demonstrated by the recent Danish embassy bomb blast.

For the sake of the security of both diplomats and residents, all foreign missions should be encouraged to shift into an expanded and more securely fortified enclave. Countries which, for various reasons, may not want to construct their own embassy buildings and residential quarters in Islamabad could be facilitated by having plazas or complexes and apartment buildings constructed in the enclave that can be rented out to them. Diplomatic enclaves, or diplomatic quarters as it is known in some countries, may be a pre-9/11 concept adopted decades ago by many developing capital cities including Islamabad, but post-9/11, the concept has gained a security significance which ought not to be taken lightly.

OTHER VOICES - Indian Press

Act to live

The Telegraph

…NO government worth its salt can be seen to be dragging its feet on a matter on which a decision is absolutely imperative. Yet the United Progressive Alliance government has … been unable to make up its mind about how to deal with the oil price hike. After an incredible period of silence, the prime minister, Manmohan Singh, announced on Monday that subsidies could not be increased any further and that the consumer could not be entirely protected from a rise in prices…. All this makes sound economic sense…. But it does not provide a decision with concrete proposals. What is demanded is that the prime minister should act, not that Mr Singh the economist should speak….

The usual excuse given for the delay in decision-making is that it is a coalition set-up…[T]hroughout the four years of the UPA government’s existence it has never been clear who its master is. Both the UPA and its government have their respective leaders — Sonia Gandhi in the case of the former, and Mr Singh in the latter — but they have not distinguished themselves by their ability to take quick and hard decisions. Ms Gandhi acted with great conviction … when she refused the prime ministership…. But in her role as the chairperson of the UPA, she has been strangely withdrawn.…. Mr Singh … appears incapable of cutting through the shackles around him. …[T]his reduces his capacity to take fast decisions…. — (June 4)

Priorities askew

The Statesman

INDIA’S public health system has been put on notice by the World Health Organisation. And as with many other spheres of national life, the latest caveat concerns the fundamentals. The country still doesn’t have a preventive mechanism in place for combating malaria. In today’s age of medical science, treatment of malaria has made phenomenal progress. This is hardly a boast for the country’s public health system and the medical fraternity. Where it has failed … is in adopting preventive measures … to ensure that there is no outbreak of malaria. And the loss of face must be considerable if WHO has to inform the national government that it “still needs to prioritise its plan of action to win the battle against the micro-killer”.

The message is resounding — the centre doesn’t have a plan of action. It is one thing to test anti-malarial drugs; quite another to stop the spread of the vector…. The approach remains far from integrated; there is little or no coordination between the civic authorities and the public health system to counter the breeding of mosquitoes even in areas that were free of the vector. The parasite has spread to the salubrious environs of Kulu and Manali, an alarming trend that has been referred to as the outbreak of ‘geographical malaria’. And yet there has been little or nothing by way of prevention despite the dollars made available by WHO on that count alone. — (June 7)

The black coat movement

IN a stagnant society where moral values and traditions decline, where intellectuals fail to create new ideas in order to inspire the people, where political parties take no interest in mobilising the masses for a change in the system and where leaders, instead of resisting, are ready to compromise with the powers that be in order to retain their privileges and status, the emergence of a new movement with fresh ideas and a vision for change inspires the entire society to actively participate in the struggle.

Historically speaking, a socio-economic and political movement always makes a dynamic impact on society. It awakens the dormant forces and creates a new kind of consciousness of political and social issues. It initiates debates and discussions on the ongoing problems of society.

It generates new energy and vitality among different groups and individuals and prompts them to contribute their share in making a movement a success. In short, it provides new life and fresh blood to a decadent society.

Historians may also ask as to who should be responsible for such a movement — individuals or socio-economic and political forces? I think both factors help each other in creating and expanding a movement far and wide. Sometimes the social forces bide their time and wait for individuals to exploit the situation on the ground and lead the movement. Sometimes an individual initiates spontaneously a movement and the social forces then facilitate his work and make the movement popular.

Keeping in view this historian’s perspective, when we study the lawyers’ movement in Pakistan, we easily reach the conclusion that though the defiance by Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry was spontaneous, the spark soon turned into a flame enveloping the entire society. The reason is obvious. People had suffered under eight long years of dictatorship. They were suffocated and were enduring much hardship. Public anger against the dictatorship was pent up as there was no avenue of expressing it.

President Pervez Musharraf’s arrogance was at its height. He had refused to let the exiled leaders return to Pakistan. He had planned to extend his dictatorial powers with the help of his cronies. There was no political party which was capable of launching a movement against the regime. There was no opposition to challenge the general’s authority. There were no intellectuals to inspire people to struggle against an oppressive regime. Poverty, unemployment, disparity between the rich and poor were haunting the masses.

On the other hand, the government was touting its miracle of overall successes in every aspect of life.

But Musharraf was safe as there was no threat to his authority and he successfully overran his opponents, never expecting that anybody would ever defy him. But the movement led by Iftikhar Chaudhry unleashed an indomitable force against the military regime.

Soon enough the black coat movement became a popular expression of the people’s expectations that had reached a new high. As a result of the movement, all the exiled leaders were able to return home. Elections were held and popular votes changed the structure of the government.

As soon as political parties came to power and formed a government, a change occurred in their thinking too. A change, unfortunately, for the worse! First, they started by discrediting the black coat movement as the catalyst of this political change. The PPP led the campaign by announcing that it won the majority of seats not because of the struggle for the restoration of the judiciary but on the slogan of roti, kapra aur makan.

Then the PPP started denigrating the whole movement by saying that the lawyers were struggling for the jobs of the judges and not for any higher purpose i.e. not for an independent judiciary.

It is sad that the political parties, instead of recognising the sacrifices, the tribulations, the sufferings of the legal profession for the cause of an independent judiciary, launched a campaign against the judges and created hurdles in their restoration.

History tells us that it is not necessary that a movement should succeed and achieve its object. It could be crushed by strong authoritarian forces not only physically but also intellectually through publicity and propaganda. It could be divided by the creation of different groups and it could be corrupted financially. It has happened before that a dissident movement, once broken and crushed, disappeared from the scene leaving behind a negative image created by the ruling classes in order to mislead the people.

But times are changing. We are living in a democratic and global world. There exist alternative media that can keep the popular image of a movement alive despite negative propaganda from a hostile regime.

It is a strange phenomenon that the black coat movement in Pakistan is refusing to surrender despite all the difficulties it is facing and its vigour and vitality appears to be undiminished.

It will not be far-fetched to believe that this movement may succeed in forcing the political leaders to mend their ways. It will be in the interest too of the politicians themselves if they share the struggle for an independent judiciary in Pakistan.

West’s weapon of self-delusion

SO they are it again, the great and the good of American democracy, grovelling and fawning to the Israeli lobbyists of American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), repeatedly allying themselves to the cause of another country and one that is continuing to steal Arab land.

Will this ever end? Even Barack Obama — or “Mr Baracka” as an Irish friend of mine innocently and wonderfully described him — found time to tell his Jewish audience that Jerusalem is the one undivided capital of Israel, which is not the view of the rest of the world which continues to regard the annexation of Arab East Jerusalem as illegal. The security of Israel.

Say it again a thousand times: the security of Israel — and threaten Iran, for good measure.

Yes, Israelis deserve security. But so do Palestinians. So do Iraqis and Lebanese and the people of the wider Muslim world. Now even Condoleezza Rice admits — and she was also talking to Aipac, of course — that there won’t be a Palestinian state by the end of the year. That promise of George Bush — which no-one believed anyway — has gone. In Rice’s pathetic words, “The goal itself will endure beyond the current US leadership.”

Of course it will. And the siege of Gaza will endure beyond the current US leadership. And the Israeli wall. And the illegal Israeli settlement building. And deaths in Iraq will endure beyond “the current US leadership” — though “leadership” is pushing the definition of the word a bit when the gutless Bush is involved — and deaths in Afghanistan and, I fear, deaths in Lebanon too.

It’s amazing how far self-delusion travels. The Bush boys and girls still think they’re supporting the “American-backed government” of Fouad Siniora in Lebanon. But Siniora can’t even form a caretaker government to implement a new set of rules which allows Hizbollah and other opposition groups to hold veto powers over cabinet decisions.

Thus there will be no disarming of Hezbollah and thus — again, I fear this — there will be another Hezbollah-Israeli proxy war to take up the slack of America’s long-standing hatred of Iran. No wonder President Bashar Assad of Syria is now threatening a triumphal trip to Lebanon. He’s won. And wasn’t there supposed to be a UN tribunal to try those responsible for the murder of ex-prime minister Rafiq Hariri in 2005? This must be the longest police enquiry in the history of the world. And I suspect it’s never going to achieve its goal (or at least not under the “current US leadership”).

There are gun battles in Beirut at night; there are dark-uniformed Lebanese interior ministry troops in equally dark armoured vehicles patrolling the night-time Corniche outside my home.

At least Lebanon has a new president, former army commander Michel Sleiman, an intelligent man who initially appeared on posters, eyes turned to his left, staring at Lebanon with a creditor’s concern. Now he has wisely ordered all these posters to be torn down in an attempt to get the sectarian groups to take down their own pictures of martyrs and warlords. And America thinks things are going fine in Lebanon.

And Bush and his cohorts go on saying that they will never speak to “terrorists”. And what has happened meanwhile? Why, their Israeli friends — Mr Baracka’s Israeli friends — are doing just that. They are talking to Hamas via Egypt and are negotiating with Syria via Turkey and have just finished negotiating with Hezbollah via Germany and have just handed back one of Hezbollah’s top spies in Israel in return for body parts of Israelis killed in the 2006 war. And Bush isn’t going to talk to “terrorists”, eh? I bet he didn’t bring that up with the equally hapless Ehud Olmert in Washington this week.

And so our dementia continues. In front of us this week was Blair with his increasingly maniacal eyes, poncing on about faith and God and religion, and I couldn’t help reflecting on an excellent article by a colleague a few weeks ago who pointed out that God never seemed to give Blair advice. Like before April of 2003, couldn’t He have just said, er, Tony, this Iraq invasion might not be a good idea.

Indeed, Blair’s relationship with God is itself very odd. And I rather suspect I know what happens. I think Blair tells God what he absolutely and completely knows to be right — and God approves his words. Because Blair, like a lot of devious politicians, plays God himself. For there are two Gods out there. The Blair God and the infinite being which blesses his every word, so obliging that He doesn’t even tell Him to go to Gaza.

I despair. The Tate has just sent me its magnificent book of orientalist paintings to coincide with its latest exhibition (The Lure of the East: British Orientalist Painting) and I am struck by the awesome beauty of this work. In the 19th century, our great painters wondered at the glories of the Orient.

No more painters today. Instead, we send our photographers and they return with pictures of car bombs and body parts and blood and destroyed homes and Palestinians pleading for food and fuel and hooded gunmen on the streets of Beirut, yes, and dead Israelis too. The orientalists looked at the majesty of this place and today we look at the wasteland which we have helped to create.

But fear not. Israel’s security comes first and Mr Baracka wants Israel to keep all of Jerusalem — so much for the Palestinian state — and Condee says the “goal will endure beyond the current American leadership”. And I have a bird that sits in the palm tree outside my home in Beirut and blasts away, going “cheep-cheep-cheep-cheep-cheep” for about an hour every morning — which is why my landlord used to throw stones at it.

But I have a dear friend who believes that once there was an orchestra of birds outside my home and that one day, almost all of them — the ones which sounded like violins and trumpets — got tired of the war and flew away (to Cyprus, if they were wise, but perhaps on to Ireland), leaving only the sparrows with their discordant flutes to remind me of the stagnant world of the Middle East and our cowardly, mendacious politicians.

“Cheep-cheep-cheep,” they were saying again yesterday morning.

“Cheap-cheap-cheap.” And I rather think they are right. —(c) The Independent