Hillary’s balderdash

KOWTOWING to Israel is an essential feature of American politics. More so in an election year. So one must not be shocked by what Hillary Clinton said in a TV interview. Nevertheless, the least one expected from a person who is making a bid for the presidency of the world’s sole superpower was to exercise some restraint while trying to please her bankrollers and America’s mighty media moguls, whose order of loyalties need not be repeated here. Asked how she would react if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, Ms Clinton said she would ‘totally obliterate’ the former. An Iranian nuclear attack on Israel is a fantasy. Unfortunately, some of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s utterances have served to provide ample ammunition to American hawks eager to have a go at Iran. Virtually every American leader in the current Republican administration — from President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to those who matter in the Pentagon and State Department — has at one time or another threatened Iran with war. But perhaps no one has been as rash and crassly irresponsible as the former first lady who could this time enter the White House in her own right after November.

History will judge Iran and Israel — and all actors in the Middle Eastern drama — by deeds rather than by words. And history so far tells us that Iran has attacked no country, has laid no claim to other people’s lands and has not pursued a policy of genocide and expulsion of a people from their ancestral home. Nor has indeed Iran been guilty of such horrendous pogroms as those at Deir Yassin, Sabra-Chatilla and Jenin. Israel has been guilty of all these crimes with shameless support from most, if not all, western powers, including and especially America. Israel has attacked all its neighbours, occupied their lands, and carried out one massacre after another. It also tops the list of countries which have most violated UN resolutions. Precisely at this moment, Israel is in illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and has no intention of quitting them. Yet Hillary Clinton seems to diligently conform to that most inviolable of unwritten laws in American politics — Israel can do no wrong. Any criticism of Israel — howsoever just — is dubbed anti-Semitism.

Mr Ahmadinejad’s utterances have been criticised within Iran itself, and it is by now confirmed that his purported statement about wiping out Israel — made in a speech to a students’ conference in Tehran on Oct 26, 2005 — resulted from mistranslation: Mah shavad means ‘to disappear’ or ‘get lost’. Instead of threatening to ‘obliterate’ Iran, Hillary Clinton would do well to make Israel adhere to the Annapolis document which commits Israel and her country to the emergence of a free Palestine by the end of this year.

Display of weapons

THE root cause is the macho mindset that dominates our society. Weapons and guards are flaunted by the powerful not so much for security reasons but to establish status in a culture where a man’s station in life is determined by his ability to dominate others. What was once considered urbane or respectable is now seen as a sign of weakness. In most societies, city ways come to influence life in the hinterland but here the opposite also holds true. The ‘fierce’ tribal look that says, impassively or from behind a leer, that I can do anything I want to you is much in vogue in the cities of Pakistan and is cultivated even by the educated, by people who should know better. Many aspire to the day when, perched imperiously in an SUV of suitably monstrous proportions, they too will be able to cruise the streets with armed guards in tow, preferably in a separate vehicle of their own.

As vulgar and threatening as they might find such displays, ordinary citizens are naturally powerless to change the situation. This is where the authorities must step in and force the wealthy to at least sheathe their modern-day swords. In a welcome move, the government announced on Monday that displaying and carrying arms is to be banned across the country. While it is difficult to see how a ban on carrying weapons can be enforced, involving as it would frisking everyone on the streets, cracking down on display is not beyond the realm of possibility. For several months after March 1, 2000, when a similar ban came into force, at least an appearance of civility was restored to the cities of Pakistan. It may have made no difference to the crime rate but then criminality is not under discussion here. And though the guns may have still been there nestling in the vehicles of the powerful, at least they were not in anybody’s face. In Karachi, many noticed a palpable difference in the feel of the city. Carrying and displaying weapons was again prohibited by the Sindh government on Jan 26, 2006, but with little or no results. This time round the ban must be enforced without discrimination or favour, and our elected representatives should set an example with their own guards, henchmen and supporters. It is understandable that politicians need ample protection in this day and age. But surely they can keep their deadly toys out of sight.

Fighting to be fit

LITTLE remedy has been prescribed for the persisting blues that plague Pakistan’s healthcare system. At a recent press conference, the spokesman of the Karachi chapter of the Pakistan Medical Association (PMA) once again asserted the desperate need for the incumbent government to focus on reinforcing the frail health sector. Prominent members of PMA acknowledged that although previous authorities had sanctioned a significant amount of funds to enhance health facilities, sensitive aspects such as qualified staff, including paramedics, and adequate equipment continued to weaken by the day. Without these, health facilities cannot function efficiently. Dismal statistics from recent estimates have shown that the country has 118,000 registered doctors for a population of over 160 million. This doesn’t present the full picture. Since health facilities are not evenly distributed over the country the situation in the rural areas is more dismal than the national data makes it out to be. Successive governments have treated ‘the health of the nation’ with a definite degree of disregard, an apt example being the grim state of small health units in both rural and urban areas that cater to a vast segment of the population — mainly the poor. Another key issue is the failure of the authorities to fill the scores of vacant posts of doctors in public hospitals — a clear indication of the government’s apathy towards this vital sector.

However, a healthcare structure in top form will remain a far cry until the newly elected government addresses age-old gripes of local health practitioners — political appointments, lack of structured career prospects and incentives such as timely promotions, investment in training facilities and checks on the academic standards of medical colleges. Aside from infrastructural reinforcements, the health departments must crack down on, according to PMA statistics, over 600,000 quacks that are a perilous medicinal alternative for hapless millions. Measures also have to be taken to check the blatant availability of harmful and spurious drugs that promise wonders. An action plan that keeps the focus on health information, efficient primary care, preventive medicine and a compensated, authentic medical work force is a dire need to provide sustained relief to citizens. Needless to say, robust nations are stuff of high productivity and endurance.

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

Chaos prevails

The Egyptian Gazette

TO describe the local labour market as chaotic would not be unfair. While university and polytechnical school graduates are estimated at thousands each year, many establishments complain of the shortage of specialised labour.

Some offshore oil companies, for instance, resort to foreign labourers, mostly Asian, who they say are more committed and motivated than Egyptian workers.

We would be repeating the model of Arab Gulf countries, which have only lately realised the impact of their reliance on foreign labour…. For instance, a Turkish textile factory has vacancies for 3,000 workers, technicians and engineers. And yet no one applied for these jobs! The reason is that there is no accommodation for a labour force although the plant is far from the urban community of Borg Al Arab. — (April 21)

A different Carter

Gulf News

FORMER US President Jimmy Carter’s term in office was not known for its breadth of vision or significant contribution to global peace…. [H]e brought America almost to a point of global ridicule because of his obsession with devoting himself to the minutiae of administration, rather than leaving such issues to his underlings.

However, it is a different Carter the world now sees. No longer is he the peanut farmer from Georgia and failed president, but a person who advocates human rights and dignity.

... Carter has decided that while on his tour around the Middle East, he will have talks with Hamas personnel, including the exiled Hamas leader, Khalid Mesha’al. To rub more salt into the wound created in the sides of the US and Israel, Carter has also said he will visit Syrian President Bashar Al Assad. — (April 19)

Eclipsed euphoria

OUR hindsight today reveals a striking difference between pre-Pakistan and post-Pakistan leaders. In their fight against foreign rulers, the former took the masses along with them, while the latter, after the death of the Quaid-i-Azam, exploited and estranged the masses like the foreign rulers. The Pakistani people have thus remained banished from their own homeland by their own leaders for a long time.

No wonder, our nation is currently displaying the psyche of a persistently deprived person. Unpredictable outbursts of violence increasingly bubble out of the wide marsh of accumulated anger, clouding the national horizon with a universal anxiety syndrome. Self-pity, the only possession of a dispossessed person, makes us smell suspicion, nurture distrust and imagine shadows. Hope is not recognised even when it is around. That is why, even after two months, the euphoria generated by the election on Feb 18 is eclipsed by fear and uncertainty. Is this scepticism justified? The correct answer is ‘yes’ — and ‘no’.

It is justified, firstly, by the long anti-democratic track record of our leaders. Every proclaimed saviour from Liaquat Ali Khan to General Musharraf did not give what the people wanted (constitution, education, merit and equal opportunity) though people gave their total support. Instead, each one of them craftily contributed to the carving of a self-perpetuating autocratic system.

Second, in spite of sustained rejection by the people from March 9, 2007, till today, the deep-rooted status quo is refusing to yield. It is not dragging its feet and is conspiring (as stated by the prime minister and others) sometimes in Karachi (Arbab Rahim), Lahore (Sher Afgan Niazi), Multan (power shortage) and all the time in Islamabad.

Musharraf is still there, weak to govern but strong to thwart change under the blissful neutrality of the army (avoiding the final push) and the invisible tactics of its agencies. His team of wizards (provincial governors, spokesmen, chosen judges, pivotal bureaucrats and attorney-general), is still in the saddle. Press reports show that the new government has allowed the attorney-general ‘to continue on a trial basis’.

The more than a year-long euphoria over the ‘inevitable change’ has been repeatedly frustrated. On April 16, 2008, advocate Ali Mohammad Kurd openly expressed his despair in a TV interview over the delay by the Nawaz-Zardari-Asfandyar meeting for the restoration of the deposed judges. Similar ‘slow haste’ in the dissolution of NWFP Assembly last year allowed Gen Musharraf to effectively deliver his blow. People appear concerned that it could be repeated.

Third, the people’s agenda for change is being casually handled by the slow-moving politicians whose past constituted this system and whose present grew out of the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The Musharraf-blessed NRO is a sacred oath under the new religion of corruption adopted by this system. It was not reconciliation between the leaders and the people, but a re-alliance of those who had plundered the people in the past, and were regrouping for future adventures. The people are rightly apprehensive about the fate of their mandate when they see mutual obligations under the deals being gradually adjusted.

In the face of this data, can we blame the people for their scepticism? Many utterances and moves of the present rulers remind one of similar tactics in the past, which strengthened the status quo. There is, however, also significant data which does not justify this scepticism.

First, a new factor has emerged since March 9, 2007, which never existed in the past. The nation had previously seen its artificial form during the anti-Ayub and anti-Bhutto agitations, but never tasted its true essence as it is doing now. Past protests were organised by political parties for a change of face without a change of system.

The recent protests by the lawyers, media and civil society, on the other hand, are challenging the system itself. These were neither started, nor genuinely supported, by the political parties. The politicians exploited it and came to power. Since then, their role has been creating misgivings about their intentions. Whether they help or hinder the spirit of Feb 18, the new factor is bound to persist in one form or the other with varying intensity.

Second, the status quo is bent on undermining it. We should not underestimate its capacity in the face of visible circumstantial evidence. Quite a few salvos have been shot (minus one formula, linkage of restoration of judges with a constitutional package, seniority of Justice Falak Sher, change in the tenure of judges, threats of Arbab Rahim and Sher Afgan Niazi to implicate the Sharif brothers in case of any harm to them, different versions of 30-day countdown, shuttle diplomacy of the attorney-general and Sharifuddin Pirzada, Altaf Hussain’s clarion call to the MQM about tough times). The negative reaction of an anti-people system proves that it is hopeful for the people.

How do the two conflicting sets of data augur for the days to come? The answer lies in our readiness to face the naked reality. We must realise that the outcome of Feb 18 has not solved the ‘people versus system’ problem of Pakistan. It has, on the other hand, intensified it, and driven it to a higher plane, where the conduct of the two protagonists will be largely unpredictable.

All we know is that the anguished people are sincerely committed but not organised, and are in the firm grip of the aforementioned psyche of deprivation. The system, on the other hand, is deep-rooted, well-organised round the vested interests and is fully backed by our ruthless and inhuman socio-political feudal setup. The only guess about this multi-faceted confrontation is that the system will not retreat in the short term and the people will not retreat in the long run. The shape of the people’s victory, as and when it comes, cannot be visualised at this stage.

The ultimate victory, however, is subject to one condition. It is not enough to realise the newfound voice against the corrupt system created by the mullah-military-wadera collusion.

We have to get rid of the corrupt political culture perfected by this triple alliance. The current undemocratic and autocratic mould of political parties constitutes the basic motif of this culture. This mould needs to be broken and replaced by a new democratic party structure. The demi-gods, labelled as the ‘lifelong presidents’ and the dynastic holds on political parties must go. Unless each member’s vote develops into political ammunition in party deliberations, Pakistan will not be able to defeat the military and civil dictatorship.

masudmufti@hotmail.com