Reforming the system

THE Shaukat Aziz government completes its first year in office today. Mr Aziz’s elevation to the prime ministership had come in bizarre circumstances: first Mr Zafarullah Jamali was made to go and then Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain served as premier for 57 days before Mr Aziz was elected to the National Assembly. His vote of confidence was boycotted by the opposition. However, as prime minister Mr Aziz has had the advantage of ensuring continuity for the policies that he had initiated as finance minister. These policies have provided stability to the economy and stimulated growth. He has also been able to lend a certain civility to official discourse, and to advancing Pakistan’s case among international monetary bodies. On the political front, despite the years spent by him abroad in democratic environments, he has not been able to make much headway. The average citizen continues to feel neglected, and swamped by market forces, by which the government sets so much store. No bridges have been built with the opposition nor has state authoritarianism in various forms shown any significant change. Mr Aziz has been thrown rather suddenly into the political hurly-burly, and it is not difficult to understand if he finds himself a little at a loss. He could certainly have gone slower on the religious rhetoric that every prime minister and president has adopted and which fails to move the mullahs and makes no impact on the people.

But in the end it is, perhaps, pointless to either blame or praise the prime minister in a system where the shots are called by others, notably the military. Mr Aziz must have known the limitations imposed by an arrangement where the army chief is simultaneously the president and major decision-maker. It is, therefore, on changing the system that attention must be focussed. Every time the military has intervened in politics, it has tried to create a presidential form of government or a hodgepodge of its liking. In either case, it hasn’t worked and inflicted incalculable damage on democratic institutions and the federal structure. The just concluded elections to local bodies have clearly brought out both aspects. They have also, despite the local government dispensation worked out by the military, shown that it is impossible in a highly politicized society like ours, and in this day and age, to seek to bypass political parties. Such schemes have not worked before and will not work now. The practice of seeking to circumvent established parties by floating an official party has also always proved non-productive and only helped to deepen schisms.

The next general elections are due in 2007, when the president is also scheduled to lay down his uniform. This means that we have just about a year or so to agree on strengthening the fundamentals of a federal parliamentary system. The present political strife and confrontation need to be replaced by efforts to arrive at a broad national consensus on governance. The military should be able to convince itself that it is not the only repository of wisdom and that input is required from accredited political parties and elected representatives. Immediately, parliament and the opposition should be accorded the respect that they deserve in a democracy, and then the ground prepared for the widest possible consultation between all segments of political opinion to break out of a system that holds all of us prisoner.

Nostalgia for Saddam days

NOBODY could have believed that there would be a pro-Saddam march in Iraq within two and a half years of the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003. On Friday, marchers at a rally in Baquba, 65 kilometres from Baghdad, raised slogans in favour of former president Saddam Hussein and denounced the constitution now under preparation. Their main cause of concern was that Iraq should not have a federal constitution. Such a system, they feared, would lead to their country’s disintegration. Iraq’s Sunnis are opposed to federalism, so are most of the Shias; only the Kurds are keen on a federal scheme. Fire-brand Shia cleric Moqtada al Sadr has come out against a federal constitution and said it would be rejected by the people when it is put to vote. As agency reports say, over 100,000 Shias have marched across the country to protest against a federal constitution.

More than the constitutional controversy, the Baquba march represents the frustration of the Iraqi people over the chaos in their country. The US-led forces occupied Iraq and promised to give them peace and stability. The Baathist regime may not have given them democracy and civil liberties, but most certainly Saddam Hussein’s Iraq was peaceful and untroubled. Under occupation, Iraq has been in a state of turbulence. The insurgency continues unabated because the new Iraqi government as well as the occupation forces have failed to give security to the people. The government does not command the people’s respect and allegiance, and the occupation looks open-ended because the Bush administration has consistently refused to give a pullout schedule. This has only served to strengthen the resistance and thrown into doubt Washington’s long-term intentions about Iraq. Sources in Washington say troop levels in Iraq will depend on the fate of the constitution. The draft will stand scrapped if it is rejected even by three provinces. In that event, one could expect a continuation of the American military presence in Iraq and more bloodshed and anarchy. No wonder, there should be nostalgia for Saddam’s days when Iraq did not have freedom but at least it was peaceful.

Another death in custody

THE death in custody of a young man held on murder charges at the Khanabad police station in Haripur is the second incident of its kind to have occurred at the same premises in the past year and a half. In the previous incident, a judicial probe found three policemen guilty of torturing a detainee, who subsequently died of his injuries, thus proving false police claims that the man took his own life. In the present case, too, the law enforcement authorities say that the victim, Saleem Ghazi, had committed suicide, although his family has alleged that his death was a case of custodial killing. Meanwhile, police in Peshawar have also been accused of torturing two cousins arrested on trumped up charges, to extract confessional statements.

Whatever the police view might be on the matter, the fact remains that custodial torture in the country is a vital human rights concern. There were more than a thousand cases of police torture last year, about 400 of which occurred at police stations. There are no signs to show that this form of violence is on the decline, as such incidents are reported every now and then. What has become of the police reforms of 2002 (subsequently amended last year) remains a mystery. In violation of the law, torture remains rampant, and few policemen receive more than a rap on the knuckles for perpetrating it. This gives the rest of the law enforcement community the impression that it is free to operate exactly as it chooses, which it does regardless of the law. It is about time the checks and scrutiny meant to contain illegal police methods were enforced and the district public safety and police complaints commissions in the country were made more active and accessible to all.

The emerging Asian triangle

THAT the Pakistan-China friendship is time-tested, enduring and of a strategic rather than tactical or transitory nature cannot be doubted.

As an old friend, China sees Pakistan as a pivotal state in combating terrorism and playing a constructive role in stabilizing Afghanistan. Moreover, it sees Pakistan as a gateway to the Middle East, a strategic opening to the straits of Hormuz, an energy transit route and a nuclear power counterbalancing India in South Asia, the Gulf and Central Asia.

China sees in Pakistan a friend which helped it in its time of need although the present generation in China is fast forgetting the halcyon days of the 1960s and 1970s. But the relationship stands reinvigorated in the beginning of the 21st century.

For China, Pakistan lies in a geo-strategically pivotal zone as two superpowers (Soviet Union in the 1970s and the US in the late 1990s) intervened militarily in its neighbourhood.

China has welcomed the ongoing rapprochement between India and Pakistan as “mutually beneficial” and desired that it should become “irreversible.” The easing of tensions in South Asia will help build a mutually rewarding relationship.

The US faced a dilemma in South Asia just as it did in balancing China and Taiwan. The US interest was to keep Pakistan engaged in combating terrorism, to use it as a “hedge” against India while Pakistan was considered as a moderate Islamic country and an asset, given its geo-strategic location. The Chinese scholars emphasized the unique geopolitical position of Pakistan and Myanmar: “two strategic assets and outlets” — one in the southwest and another in the southeast.

In terms of energy needs, Pakistan’s role as a corridor of energy transit was highlighted; whether energy comes via Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India (TAP), Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) or Qatar-Pakistan-India oil pipelines.

The Chinese maintain a wary watch but without evincing any sign of alarm, on last month’s India-US defence agreement. They view the agreement as a US move to contain China but feel that India will not play “second fiddle” to US policies, and watch her own national and regional interests. In fact, it would use the US to realize its own national interests.

Moreover, any finalization of this agreement would take time and has to have the approval of the US Congress. Besides, India’s military’s dependence on Russian military hardware precludes a smooth transition to US defence equipment. Whether India will agree to jointly participate in any US-India military operations, proliferation security initiative or play the role of “hedge” or “fence” is also open to question.

For, this will undermine its oft-proclaimed non-aligned status. Besides, the Indian opposition, particularly the Communist party, is critical of the Congress-led government’s “cosying up” to the US.

The India-China rapprochement is going well and the volume of trade between the two countries is expected to rise to $30 billion by 2008. India knows the reality of being China’s neighbour while the US is seen as an outsider that will leave the region sooner or later. Owing to economic and development compulsions china has no desire to pick a major quarrel with India. a Sino-India military confrontation thus seems remote in the immediate future.

It is also postulated that India, despite all its assets and aspirations for world power, may not have the wherewithal to emerge as serious rival to China for many decades to come. This is because of its crushing poverty base. While China has turned its population into national asset and developed harmonious relations with all neighbours, India’s population remains a problem and the latter’s relations with its immediate neighbours are far from friendly.

China is a self-assured power that is racing ahead of India economically and in other aspects. It has excelled in infrastructural development, seen a marked reduction of poverty at home, is attracting FDIs, gaining acceptability in southeast Asia, Africa and Latin America as an aid donor and has close trading link with the US, Japan and South Korea. If there are some irritants, the glue of economic relations acts as a strong bond. Moreover, China also knows that US-India ties could beneficially engage New Delhi, restrain its hegemonic designs against Pakistan and that no superpower can help “raise” a power to a major power level.

In the Chinese worldview, global terrorism is a complicated problem that could drag on for decades. Hence, according to the Chinese, this is a unique “window of opportunity” for countries like Pakistan and China to act prudently and work single-mindedly on their economic development.

Being diplomats par excellence, the Chinese during a recent visit to the country, conveyed messages as well-wishers and good friends. They admitted that as a majority Han populated country they were limited in the understanding of the Chinese Muslim culture. Therefore, they would appreciate Pakistan’s cooperation in eliminating terrorism in their northwestern semi-autonomous republic of Xingiang. They expressed concerns about “foreign elements” that created “disruption.” More concretely, this help could come by appointing a high-level Pakistani advisor in the Xinjiang province.

The Chinese expressed concerns about the US presence in Afghanistan, although they tacitly welcomed its presence in the initial stages when it was dislodging the Taliban regime. As the US presence becomes prolonged their anxiety level is on the increase since the present situation constricts their political and economic space, and renders them vulnerable to “foreign interference” and increases vulnerabilities in their northwestern Muslim region.

Hence they have welcomed the decision of the Shanghai Cooperation organization (SCO) that has asked the US to leave the region. They desire that the enlargement of the SCO should include Afghanistan as well, and if and when the US troops leave, the peacekeeping forces of SCO should replace those of Nato.

Regarding the syndrome of a “rising India,” Chinese academics have their views. According to them, India’s vast resources, industrial-cum-information technological base together with military prowess are no doubt positive features, but there is no sustainable growth as in China. Further, India’s potential is hampered by an inadequate physical infrastructure, an unwieldy and feisty political system, a less friendly neighbourhood and global constraints imposed by the US.

There was an animated exchange on what is termed as the “peaceful rise” of China. Initially, the term was “rising,” and was used to explain a “resurgent” China but the Chinese prefixed it with “peaceful” to allay Western fears. In defending rapid modernization, the Chinese assert that the European nations had dominated because they possessed advanced technology. Likewise, as a developing country it had the sovereign right to develop and improve its economic conditions. Pakistan, India and China, too, should make use of science and technology for economic development.

China describes the fears that it may eventually turn “expansionist” as a figment of western imagination. That economic development would lead to military expansionism as it once did in Europe and East Asia was a flawed hypothesis. In their view, China’s environment and conditions were different and not infused with an expansionist ideology. Moreover, by improving the lot of its huge population (one sixth of the globe) it was contributing to regional development and world stability.

The US, as a country, once perceived Japan as a major threat, then it felt threatened by communism and now by Islam. The Chinese model is different from pre-Second World War Germany or Japan that held fascist ideologies. China maintains peaceful relations with its neighbours and does not have power projection capability, foreign bases or facilities (unlike more than 100 held by the US). It suffers from poverty, energy resource constraints and has to manage a large population.

Historically, China was never an expansionist power, its neighbours paid tribute to it and the Great Wall signified a defensive mindset. It was inward looking, rather than outward, as in the past 150 years, it was occupied and exploited by the Western powers and Japan.

The return to the mainland of Hong Kong, Macao came about peacefully rather than by force; China’s world view is based on the ancient wisdom that while relatives and friends could be replaced or avoided if uncooperative, there is no escape from learning to live with neighbours. That explains its normalization with its big neighbour, India. Occasional spats that have occurred with Japan and South Korea are passing irritations that will not lead to confrontations due to high economic stakes (FDIs, trade and technology exchanges).

If China is undertaking military modernization it is a natural concomitant of its overall economic modernization.

The Chinese think that the US apprehensions are inflated and unjustified. First, it has neither the intentions nor the capability to easily surpass the US; secondly, as a developing country, it suffers from wide economic disparities. Its galloping growth rate is no guarantee that it will soon graduate into a superpower. Further, it is hardly seen as a threat by most of Southeast and East Asia (except of course Japan).

In short, in the foreseeable future China will remain engrossed in its economic development. A China-Pakistan-India triangle is emerging in the region that will be synergistically rewarding to all of them.

The writer is a senior research fellow at the Islamabad Policy Research Institute.