Friday, September 05, 2008
Ayaz Amir
Barring a stroke – of which the chances, it has to be admitted, appear pretty slim – Asif Ali Zardari, son of Hakim Ali Zardari, is all set to be the next president of the Islamic Republic. In a country which has seen its share of wonders, this must rank among the greatest of them all.
The drawing room classes are beating their breasts but their anguish is misplaced. Anyone has the right to stand as president and be elected given the right numbers. So if Zardari as president is what democracy ordains, so be it. We have lived through misfortunes and disasters before. And although I don't want to prejudge the event by saying that this necessarily will be a disaster, let us take comfort from the fact that all things change and nothing is permanent.
Don't also discount the possibility of President Zardari surprising us all and proving to be the leopard who changes his spots. Indeed, a whole industry has mushroomed in recent days working overtime to tell us what a miracle of change awaits Pakistan. But it takes some effort to swallow this theory.
Yes, sinners have been saints and crooks often turn into upright pillars of society. But we must not go overboard. There was a story in this newspaper the other day that Mr Zardari's business skills and his ability to cut deals – and I can assure you in the story no irony was intended – could serve Pakistan well and turn it into an economic powerhouse. I'll wait for this one to unfold.
Let's also get another thing straight. A president in our setup is no symbol of the federation or anything pompous like that. Was Pervez Musharraf a symbol of the federation? Was Zia, was Yahya? Let's get out of this fiction at least. Zardari will be a symbol of himself and his party, the Pakistan People's Party, and all we can do is hope and pray that he manages to rise above his well-earned reputation as 'Mr Ten Percent', a tag which, like it or not, will always follow his name.
We can say it again, he has every right to be president. By the same token people have every right to criticise him should there be grounds for doing so. Does he have an unexplained fortune? Yes. Did he buy what was popularly known as Surrey Palace? He did. Did he deny its ownership? He did. Does he have a long list of bank accounts abroad? That's what we are given to understand. Has he faced kickback and money laundering charges in a Swiss court? Sadly, yes.
Just because Zardari is getting into the presidency should not mean we suffer collective amnesia and forget all these things. The law may not say that he must declare his assets but he should, especially when lurid tales abound about his financial skills.
No, Zardari must do what he has to and the media and public opinion, observing the limits of libel and defamation, must do what they have to. Since when was a president untouchable? Boris Yeltsin, elected president of Russia, was an alcoholic and a buffoon and people said so. Alberto Fujimori of Peru became a fugitive from the law. The Philippines has had a history of corrupt presidents. Africa is full of them. The Islamic world reeks of corrupt and inept rulers. Yes, being an elected president is an honour and a distinction. But given his notoriety, Zardari will be on test to prove he has outlived his past.
Yes, he faced long years in jail bravely, without whining or complaining. But people do that all the time. Some even walk bravely to the gallows, and here I am not thinking of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. There is no shortage of brave people in Pakistani jails or jails anywhere in the world for that matter. It is also well to remember that he was in jail on corruption charges and not for having participated in any war of liberation.
At the same time it has to be said that he and Benazir Bhutto were hounded by the Sharifs when the latter were in power. And the Sharifs were on sticky ground when they slapped corruption charges on their opponents because who is there to say there were no skeletons in their cupboards? That old cry from biblical legend, 'let him who has not sinned cast the first stone', should have general applicability in Pakistan.
Be that as it may, we don't have to be prophets of doom to realise that the national situation is dire. The economy if not in freefall already is heading in that direction. The situation in FATA is out of control, however much the army command may console itself by saying that this or that operation has been successful.
What are we to make of the American attack on a remote village (some reports say two villages) near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan? Among the 20 or so dead are women and children, shot at close range. What are we doing about it? Apart from whining, meaningless protests – about which the Americans don't give a damn because they know we are not about to get off their war chariot – nothing. And this is just the beginning. The Americans will make a Cambodia of us before they are finished with this war – or before they exit Afghanistan, licking their wounds, as so many armies have done in the past.
Never was there a greater need for bold and decisive leadership. What we are getting is too-clever-by-half showmanship. Promises are made only to be broken and this is taken to be higher politics. Zardari says he will keep teaching politics to Nawaz Sharif (this to a correspondent of this paper). So full of himself so early on? Hardly a good sign for the future.
Pakistan needs calm and stability. The economy has to be managed and inflation brought under some kind of control if desperation is not to become a national characteristic. The Yanks, already too brazen as the Angoor Adda assault on civilians demonstrates, have to be told where to get off. We don't need more lies and dishonesty, nor the kind of political infighting which was a hallmark of the 1990s. But what kind of signal is transmitted by the attempt to resurrect old National Accountability Bureau (NAB) cases against the Sharif family?
Whatever happened to the winding up of NAB which the PPP leaders were threatening? When Zardari is a NAB target, NAB is an instrument of evil meant to hound political opponents. The tune apparently changes when Zardari is in the clear, washed of all corruption charges. Then it is all right to deploy the same instrument of evil against the PML-N leadership. It won't work but then who learns from the past?
Punjab we are being told will be the next battleground. If this be Zardari's order of priorities God help Pakistan. The enemy is at the gates, there is nothing to check Yank behaviour and the economy's nose is towards the ground. But Punjab is to be the next battlefield.
We now know that Zardari received psychiatric help when he was cooling his heels in New York. Uncharitable critics say that those psychiatric reports indicating that he had severe psychological problems were excuses to stay away from the Swiss court looking into the kickback charges against him. But we must take Zardari's psychiatrists at their word. If they put it in writing that their patient suffered from dementia and other grave psychological disorders we must believe them.
Zardari's recent behaviour – feeling not a twinge of remorse after breaking solemn promises – and some of his recent utterances such as the avowal to teach politics to his opponents suggest that he may still be in need of psychological counselling. If this be so, for the country's sake let him not shy away from receiving it when he moves into the presidency.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Thursday, 4 September 2008
Wednesday, 3 September 2008
The Bleeding Kurram Agency
source: Outlook India
Web| Sep 03, 2008
Opinion
The Shia community in the rest of Pakistan is getting increasingly restive over what it sees as the strange silence of the Pakistan Army over the continuing violence in Kurram. Shias from other parts of Pakistan are now threatening to go in large numbers to Kurram to join the Shia jihad against the Sunnis.
B. RAMAN
Web| Sep 03, 2008
Opinion
The Shia community in the rest of Pakistan is getting increasingly restive over what it sees as the strange silence of the Pakistan Army over the continuing violence in Kurram. Shias from other parts of Pakistan are now threatening to go in large numbers to Kurram to join the Shia jihad against the Sunnis.
B. RAMAN
| (An update of my earlier articles on the subject written since November 20, 2007)
--Extract from my earlier paper of November 15, 2007, titled The Buck Stops Where? Till 1977, the Shias were in a preponderant majority in the Kurram Agency in Pakistan's Federally-Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) on its border with Afghanistan and in the Northern Areas (Gilgit and Baltistan) of Jammu and Kashmir, which is presently under Pakistani occupation. Addressing the media at the Peshawar Press Club on April 9, 2007, Mast Gul, a Sunni jihadi leader, alleged that since April 6, 2007, Shias had killed hundreds of innocent Sunnis. According to him, just on one day about 28 Sunni women and children were slaughtered in the Kurram Agency. He accused Iran of providing financial resources and weapons to the Shias in the Agency. He warned the Pakistan Army that if it did not take effective action against the Shias, he would appeal to the Sunnis in the other parts of Pakistan and in Jammu and Kashmir to come to Kurram and help the local Sunnis. Latif Hussain said Al Qaeda fighters had occupied various areas of Kurram Agency and blocked the main road from Peshawar to Parachinar, resulting in a shortage of basic commodities. "There is an acute shortage of medicines, food, electricity and water," he added. The Kurram Welfare Society President said that as a result of the war, hundreds of women, children and the elderly had taken refuge in Peshawar while over a hundred students who were unable to move to their native areas because of the war had been forced to stay in Islamabad. Mehdi Ghulam from Kurram Agency said Alizai, Balyamin, Tangi Amro Khail, Arravali, Santikot, Singk, Burqi and Pevar were under Taliban and Al Qaeda attacks while dozens of injured were waiting for their death in the Parachinar hospital owing to a shortage of medicines. Muhammad Hussain Turi, secretary, Ittehad-e-Ummat Committee, said: "We are not only fighting for our lives and the area but also for the sovereignty of our country.We are fighting the international war against terrorism on our borders by shedding our blood but, instead of helping us, everyone is creating trouble for us by trying to stop us from defending our area." Turi appealed to the President and the Chief of the Army Staff to issue a directive to the army to intervene to save the lives of thousands of people.Gull Ishrat, member, Kurram Welfare Society, said: "We are fighting the battle of the Pakistan Army against those who managed to escape from Swat, Bajaur, North and South Waziristan and Afghanistan and are involved in furious attacks on the Pakistan Army." B. Raman is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt.of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. |
Tuesday, 2 September 2008
OPINION: Hottentot morality —Uri Avnery
Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires — the USA and Russia — is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing has happened
“If he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that is good” — this moral rule was attributed by European racists to the Hottentots, an ancient tribe in Southern Africa.
It’s hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the European countries cry out against Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which seceded from the Republic of Sakartvelo, known in the West as Georgia.
Not so long ago, the Western countries recognised the Republic of Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia. The West argued that the population of Kosovo is not Serbian, its culture and language is not Serbian, and that therefore it has a right to independence from Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted a grievous campaign of oppression against them. I supported this view with all my heart. Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation that helped the Kosovars to free themselves.
But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes. What’s true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The population in these provinces is not Georgian, they have their own languages and ancient civilisations. They were annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and they have no desire to be part of it.
So what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed: the independence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed by the Russians. Therefore it’s good. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is supported by the Russians and opposed by the Americans. Therefore it’s bad. As the Romans said: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi — what’s allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox.
I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all these regions.
In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to everybody: every province that wants to secede from any country has a right to do so. In this respect there is, for me, no difference between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques, Scots and Palestinians. One rule for all.
There was a time when this principle could not be implemented. A state of a few hundred thousand people was not viable economically, and could not defend itself militarily.
That was the era of the “nation state”, when a strong people imposed itself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to create a state big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper standard of living. France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans, Spain on Catalans and Basques, England on Welsh, Scots and Irish, and so forth.
That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of the “nation state” have moved to super-national structures: large federations like the USA, large partnerships like the EU. In those there is room for small countries like Luxemburg beside larger ones like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and a Flemish state comes into being beside a Walloon state, both will be received into the EU, and nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each of its parts will eventually belong to the European Union.
That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed itself from Russia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia can free itself from Georgia.
But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: it must convince the smaller peoples which live under its wings that it is worthwhile for them to remain there. If the Scots feel that they enjoy full equality in the United Kingdom, that they have been accorded sufficient autonomy and a fair slice of the common cake, that their culture and traditions are being respected, they may decide to remain there. Such a debate has been going on for decades in the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec.
The general trend in the world is to enlarge the functions of the big regional organisations, and at the same time allow peoples to secede from their mother countries and establish their own states. That is what happened in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Georgia. That is bound to happen in many other countries.
Those who want to go in the opposite direction and establish, for example, a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, are going against the Zeitgeist — to say the least.
This is the historical background to the recent spat between Georgia and Russia. There are no Righteous Ones here. It is rather funny to hear Vladimir Putin, whose hands are dripping with the blood of Chechen freedom fighters, extolling the right of South Ossetia to secession. It’s no less funny to hear Mikheil Saakashvili likening the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The fighting reminded me of our own history. In the spring of 1967, I heard a senior Israeli general saying that he prayed every night for the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdal Nasser, to send his troops into the Sinai peninsula. There, he said, we shall annihilate them. Some months later, Nasser marched into the trap. The rest is history.
Now Saakashvili has done precisely the same. The Russians prayed for him to invade South Ossetia. When he walked into this trap, the Russians did to him what we did to the Egyptians. It took the Russians six days, the same as it took us.
Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He is an inexperienced person, educated in the United States, a politician who came to power on the strength of his promise to bring the separatist regions back to the homeland. The world is full of such demagogues, who build a career on hatred, super-nationalism and racism. We have more than enough of them here, too.
But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe that President Bush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to his aid? Did he not know that America has no soldiers to spare? That Bush’s warlike speeches are being carried away by the wind? That NATO is a paper tiger? That the Georgian army would melt like butter in the fire of war?
I am curious about our part in this story.
In the Georgian government there are several ministers who grew up and received their education in Israel. It seems that the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Integration (of the separatist regions) are also Israeli citizens. And most importantly: that the elite units of the Georgian army have been trained by Israeli officers, including the one who was blamed for losing Lebanon War II. The Americans, too, invested much effort in training the Georgians.
I am always amused by the idea that it is possible to train a foreign army. One can, of course, teach technicalities: how to use particular weapons or how to conduct a battalion-scale manoeuvre. But anyone who has taken part in a real war (as distinct from policing an occupied population) knows that the technical aspects are secondary. What matters is the spirit of the soldiers, their readiness to risk their lives for the cause, their motivation, the human quality of the fighting units and the command echelon.
Such things cannot be imparted by foreigners. Every army is a part of its society, and the quality of the society decides the quality of the army. That is particularly true in a war against an enemy who enjoys a decisive numerical superiority. We experienced that in the 1948 war, when David Ben-Gurion wanted to impose on us officers who were trained in the British army, and we, the combat soldiers, preferred our own commanders, who were trained in our underground army and had never seen a military academy in their lives.
Only professional generals, whose whole outlook is technical, imagine that they could “train” soldiers of another people and another culture — in Afghanistan, Iraq or Georgia.
A well-developed trait among our officers is arrogance. In our case, it is generally connected with a reasonable standard of the army. If the Israeli officers infected their Georgian colleagues with this arrogance, convincing them that they could beat the mighty Russian army, they committed a grievous sin against them.
I do not believe that this is the beginning of Cold War II, as has been suggested. But this is certainly a continuation of the Great Game.
This appellation was given to the relentless secret struggle that went on all through the 19th century along Russia’s southern border between the two great empires of the time: the British and the Russian. Secret agents and not so secret armies were active in the border regions of India (including today’s Pakistan), Afghanistan, Persia and so on. The “North-West Frontier” (of Pakistan), which is starring now in the war against the Taliban, was already legendary then.
Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires — the USA and Russia — is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing has happened.
Georgia is a mere pawn in the chess game. The initiative belongs to the US: it wants to encircle Russia by expanding NATO, an arm of US policy, all along the border. That is a direct threat to the rival empire. Russia, on its part, is trying to extend its control over the resources most vital to the West, oil and gas, as well as their routes of transportation. That can lead to disaster.
When Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a foolish statesman, he expounded an important principle: in order to maintain stability in the world, a system has to be formed that includes all the parties. If one party is left outside, stability is in danger.
He cited as an example the “Holy Alliance” of the great powers that came into being after the Napoleonic wars. The wise statesmen of the time, headed by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, took care not to leave the defeated French outside, but, on the contrary, gave them an important place in the Concert of Europe.
The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is a danger to the whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the rising power of China.)
A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big bullies risks being squashed. That has happened in the past to Poland, and it seems that it has not learned from that experience. One should advise Georgia, and also the Ukraine, not to emulate the Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War II have pursued a wise policy: they guard their independence but endeavour to take the interest of their mighty neighbour into account.
We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this: that it is not safe to be a vassal of one great Empire and provoke the rival empire. Russia is returning to our region, and every move we make to further American expansion will surely be countered by a Russian move in favour of Syria and Iran.
So let’s not adopt the Hottentot morality. It is not wise, and certainly not moral.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
“If he steals my cow, that is bad. If I steal his cow, that is good” — this moral rule was attributed by European racists to the Hottentots, an ancient tribe in Southern Africa.
It’s hard not to be reminded of this when the United States and the European countries cry out against Russia’s recognition of the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces which seceded from the Republic of Sakartvelo, known in the West as Georgia.
Not so long ago, the Western countries recognised the Republic of Kosovo, which seceded from Serbia. The West argued that the population of Kosovo is not Serbian, its culture and language is not Serbian, and that therefore it has a right to independence from Serbia. Especially after Serbia had conducted a grievous campaign of oppression against them. I supported this view with all my heart. Unlike many of my friends, I even supported the military operation that helped the Kosovars to free themselves.
But what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, as the saying goes. What’s true for Kosovo is no less true for Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The population in these provinces is not Georgian, they have their own languages and ancient civilisations. They were annexed to Georgia almost by whim, and they have no desire to be part of it.
So what is the difference between the two cases? A huge one, indeed: the independence of Kosovo is supported by the Americans and opposed by the Russians. Therefore it’s good. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is supported by the Russians and opposed by the Americans. Therefore it’s bad. As the Romans said: Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi — what’s allowed to Jupiter is not allowed to an ox.
I do not accept this moral code. I support the independence of all these regions.
In my view, there is one simple principle, and it applies to everybody: every province that wants to secede from any country has a right to do so. In this respect there is, for me, no difference between Kosovars, Abkhazians, Basques, Scots and Palestinians. One rule for all.
There was a time when this principle could not be implemented. A state of a few hundred thousand people was not viable economically, and could not defend itself militarily.
That was the era of the “nation state”, when a strong people imposed itself, its culture and its language, on weaker peoples, in order to create a state big enough to safeguard security, order and a proper standard of living. France imposed itself on Bretons and Corsicans, Spain on Catalans and Basques, England on Welsh, Scots and Irish, and so forth.
That reality has been superseded. Most of the functions of the “nation state” have moved to super-national structures: large federations like the USA, large partnerships like the EU. In those there is room for small countries like Luxemburg beside larger ones like Germany. If Belgium falls apart and a Flemish state comes into being beside a Walloon state, both will be received into the EU, and nobody will be hurt. Yugoslavia has disintegrated, and each of its parts will eventually belong to the European Union.
That has happened to the former Soviet Union, too. Georgia freed itself from Russia. By the same right and the same logic, Abkhazia can free itself from Georgia.
But then, how can a country avoid disintegration? Very simple: it must convince the smaller peoples which live under its wings that it is worthwhile for them to remain there. If the Scots feel that they enjoy full equality in the United Kingdom, that they have been accorded sufficient autonomy and a fair slice of the common cake, that their culture and traditions are being respected, they may decide to remain there. Such a debate has been going on for decades in the French-speaking Canadian province of Quebec.
The general trend in the world is to enlarge the functions of the big regional organisations, and at the same time allow peoples to secede from their mother countries and establish their own states. That is what happened in the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Serbia and Georgia. That is bound to happen in many other countries.
Those who want to go in the opposite direction and establish, for example, a bi-national Israeli-Palestinian state, are going against the Zeitgeist — to say the least.
This is the historical background to the recent spat between Georgia and Russia. There are no Righteous Ones here. It is rather funny to hear Vladimir Putin, whose hands are dripping with the blood of Chechen freedom fighters, extolling the right of South Ossetia to secession. It’s no less funny to hear Mikheil Saakashvili likening the freedom fight of the two separatist regions to the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia.
The fighting reminded me of our own history. In the spring of 1967, I heard a senior Israeli general saying that he prayed every night for the Egyptian leader, Gamal Abdal Nasser, to send his troops into the Sinai peninsula. There, he said, we shall annihilate them. Some months later, Nasser marched into the trap. The rest is history.
Now Saakashvili has done precisely the same. The Russians prayed for him to invade South Ossetia. When he walked into this trap, the Russians did to him what we did to the Egyptians. It took the Russians six days, the same as it took us.
Nobody can know what was passing through the mind of Saakashvili. He is an inexperienced person, educated in the United States, a politician who came to power on the strength of his promise to bring the separatist regions back to the homeland. The world is full of such demagogues, who build a career on hatred, super-nationalism and racism. We have more than enough of them here, too.
But even a demagogue does not have to be an idiot. Did he believe that President Bush, who is bankrupt in all fields, would rush to his aid? Did he not know that America has no soldiers to spare? That Bush’s warlike speeches are being carried away by the wind? That NATO is a paper tiger? That the Georgian army would melt like butter in the fire of war?
I am curious about our part in this story.
In the Georgian government there are several ministers who grew up and received their education in Israel. It seems that the Minister of Defence and the Minister for Integration (of the separatist regions) are also Israeli citizens. And most importantly: that the elite units of the Georgian army have been trained by Israeli officers, including the one who was blamed for losing Lebanon War II. The Americans, too, invested much effort in training the Georgians.
I am always amused by the idea that it is possible to train a foreign army. One can, of course, teach technicalities: how to use particular weapons or how to conduct a battalion-scale manoeuvre. But anyone who has taken part in a real war (as distinct from policing an occupied population) knows that the technical aspects are secondary. What matters is the spirit of the soldiers, their readiness to risk their lives for the cause, their motivation, the human quality of the fighting units and the command echelon.
Such things cannot be imparted by foreigners. Every army is a part of its society, and the quality of the society decides the quality of the army. That is particularly true in a war against an enemy who enjoys a decisive numerical superiority. We experienced that in the 1948 war, when David Ben-Gurion wanted to impose on us officers who were trained in the British army, and we, the combat soldiers, preferred our own commanders, who were trained in our underground army and had never seen a military academy in their lives.
Only professional generals, whose whole outlook is technical, imagine that they could “train” soldiers of another people and another culture — in Afghanistan, Iraq or Georgia.
A well-developed trait among our officers is arrogance. In our case, it is generally connected with a reasonable standard of the army. If the Israeli officers infected their Georgian colleagues with this arrogance, convincing them that they could beat the mighty Russian army, they committed a grievous sin against them.
I do not believe that this is the beginning of Cold War II, as has been suggested. But this is certainly a continuation of the Great Game.
This appellation was given to the relentless secret struggle that went on all through the 19th century along Russia’s southern border between the two great empires of the time: the British and the Russian. Secret agents and not so secret armies were active in the border regions of India (including today’s Pakistan), Afghanistan, Persia and so on. The “North-West Frontier” (of Pakistan), which is starring now in the war against the Taliban, was already legendary then.
Today, the Great Game between the current two great empires — the USA and Russia — is going on all over the place from the Ukraine to Pakistan. It proves that geography is more important than ideology: Communism has come and gone, but the struggle goes on as if nothing has happened.
Georgia is a mere pawn in the chess game. The initiative belongs to the US: it wants to encircle Russia by expanding NATO, an arm of US policy, all along the border. That is a direct threat to the rival empire. Russia, on its part, is trying to extend its control over the resources most vital to the West, oil and gas, as well as their routes of transportation. That can lead to disaster.
When Henry Kissinger was still a wise historian, before he became a foolish statesman, he expounded an important principle: in order to maintain stability in the world, a system has to be formed that includes all the parties. If one party is left outside, stability is in danger.
He cited as an example the “Holy Alliance” of the great powers that came into being after the Napoleonic wars. The wise statesmen of the time, headed by the Austrian Prince Clemens von Metternich, took care not to leave the defeated French outside, but, on the contrary, gave them an important place in the Concert of Europe.
The present American policy, with its attempt to push Russia out, is a danger to the whole world. (And I have not even mentioned the rising power of China.)
A small country which gets involved in the struggle between the big bullies risks being squashed. That has happened in the past to Poland, and it seems that it has not learned from that experience. One should advise Georgia, and also the Ukraine, not to emulate the Poles but rather the Finns, who since world War II have pursued a wise policy: they guard their independence but endeavour to take the interest of their mighty neighbour into account.
We Israelis can, perhaps, also learn something from all of this: that it is not safe to be a vassal of one great Empire and provoke the rival empire. Russia is returning to our region, and every move we make to further American expansion will surely be countered by a Russian move in favour of Syria and Iran.
So let’s not adopt the Hottentot morality. It is not wise, and certainly not moral.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli peace activist who has advocated the setting up of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. He served three terms in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), and is the founder of Gush Shalom (Peace Bloc)
Saturday, 30 August 2008
Savouring the ultimate irony
Friday, August 29, 2008 By by Ayaz Amir
In a land which has always excelled at all kinds of ironies—none more striking than the constant gap between rhetoric and reality—the ultimate irony has to be Asif Ali Zardari as president of the Islamic Republic. Someone more vilified and demonised over the years than even that other target of righteous anger, Gen Yahya Khan, chosen by the flow of events to preside over the breakup of Pakistan.
Who would have thought it? If anyone had predicted six or seven months ago that Mr Zardari was a potential presidential candidate, he would have invited ridicule or been denounced as a fool. Yet, this is what is coming to pass. If this be not the hand of destiny, what is?
From Governor General Ghulam Muhammad (in his last days in power a certified madman) to President Pervez Musharraf—whom we have just got rid of, perhaps only to realise that we may be about to take a jump from the frying pan into the fire—we’ve had quite a collection of heroes as our presidents. Set to join this pantheon is Asif Zardari.
Not the least of the ironies surrounding this imminent development is the circumstance that, although Zardari owes his rise to political prominence to his late wife, Benazir Bhutto, the question of his being considered for president would simply not have arisen had she been alive. The conventional wisdom prevailing in Pakistan People’s Party circles prior to Ms Bhutto’s tragic death was that her interests and those of her party were best served if Mr Zardari was kept away from the spotlight.
But into the spotlight he was thrust when untimely death removed her from the scene, making him the focal point around which the party rallied. He always had his detractors, within the party influential Sindhi politicos who found it hard to stomach the idea of being led by a Zardari (Zardaris not exactly being very high in the hierarchy of Sindhi politics), and outside it others who were in turns appalled and fascinated by his reputation for corruption.
But had he not seized the reins firmly the PPP would have been in trouble. It wasn’t easy filling Benazir Bhutto’s shoes but, on the whole, he managed the transition after her death pretty smoothly and, unlike the PML-N leadership which was torn between the merits of participation and a boycott, was very clear in his mind that the key to moving beyond the Musharraf era lay in election participation. As we can now see, this was the only correct strategy, as Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mahmood Achakzai, et al, who took the boycott route to political irrelevance, have opportunity enough to contemplate.
The coalition was a good thing and the PPP and the PML-N were not playing false with each other when they entered into it. It was the strength of the coalition which made government-formation so easy at the centre and in Punjab and the other three provinces. And it was the same factor, amongst others, no doubt, which strengthened Zardaris’s hands, enabling him to pour cold water so easily over Amin Fahim’s overripe ambitions.
The judges’ issue was the rock on which the fragile barque of the coalition has finally split. Zardari has few excuses to make regarding this issue. He shouldn’t have made promises and entered into solemn commitments meant only to be broken. He had his reservations about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry right from the start. But he should have been more open about them in his discussions with Nawaz Sharif, instead of following a course of action inviting charges of betrayal and even of treachery, and leading to the first signs of bad blood between the PPP and the PML-N since the elections.
People at large also feel betrayed because it was not for this that they delivered such a kick to the Musharraf order on Feb 18. Any opinion poll would tell us that there was overwhelming support in favour of the coalition surviving and getting a grip on the many problems facing the country. While those problems remain unaddressed conditions are being created for the PPP and the PML-N to go back to the bickering and conflict which was the hallmark of their politics in the 1990s.
Stability, above all, is what Pakistan needs at this juncture. The key to getting rid of Musharraf was the unity of the coalition. The need for this unity has not disappeared. The Americans are breathing down our necks, asking us to “do more” in FATA. We follow this advice blindly and keep chanting the mantra that America’s war is our war, and we risk getting sucked further into a spiral of conflict over which we will have little control. But we can resist this pressure and think priorities out for ourselves only if the two big political parties stay together, at least until the next elections, whenever they come.
Anyway, in the shape of a Zardari presidency the improbable is about to happen, My Lord Saeeduzaman Siddiqui’s candidacy, and friend Mushahid Hussain’s posturing—Mushahid a candidate of Musharraf’s party, the Q League—notwithstanding. For better or worse we will have to live with the consequences of this development. When Ronald Reagan became US president in 1980 there was no shortage of people tending to dismiss him as a B-grade actor. He went on to become one of the most influential presidents of recent times. It won’t do to dismiss Zardari as someone of no consequence, because everything about him should tell us that as president he won’t be a pushover. So it is best to size him up more realistically.
He won Benazir Bhutto’s hand in his own right, which was no mean undertaking. (Someone else trying to woo Ms Bhutto was the Customs officer, Shuja Shah, who, as legend has it, made the fatal mistake of writing to Gen Zia to seek permission to propose to Benazir Bhutto. This he did on the advice of Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, Sindhi politician and columnist, who reportedly said that a job in Customs was not worth sacrificing even for a daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. One can only wonder what his thoughts on the subject would be now.)
Living in his wife’s shadow while retaining his own identity—even if that meant nurturing a reputation for cutting sleazy deals and promoting a culture of cronyism—was also not a small achievement. Look also at the way all the charges of corruption against him, most of them reputedly well-grounded, have fallen by the wayside. Even money-laundering charges in Swiss courts, potentially a danger point, have been dropped.
At one time a congressional sub-committee in Washington investigated Zardari’s foreign accounts, Shaukat “Shortcut” Aziz, then in Citibank, also being called upon to testify. All this is documented but the trail has gone cold or has been allowed to get cold. The Americans know all about it. Let’s just hope they don’t have any kind of hold on President-to-be Zardari, because if they do it only further complicates our security situation. A president open to blackmail…takes us into the realm of the unthinkable.
A bad sign about the future is the flourishing of cronyism in Islamabad these days. All those considered the usual suspects in previous PPP dispensations are back in position or are waiting in the wings to make a comeback. What about the reputation for sleaze and corruption? When Chaudry Shujaat and Pervaiz Elahi rose to power under Musharraf I thought this was one family that had no need to make more money. I was proved wrong. Are we about to see another edition of Mr Ten Percent or a break with the past? The jury has to be out on this one.
In the domain of national security we face another danger, and that comes from the American apologists holding key positions in the present government. They range from Hussain Haqqani in Washington to Maj Gen Mahmud Durrani and my friend Interior Adviser Rehman Malik in Islamabad. If they continue to influence decision-making we are in for some more hard times.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
In a land which has always excelled at all kinds of ironies—none more striking than the constant gap between rhetoric and reality—the ultimate irony has to be Asif Ali Zardari as president of the Islamic Republic. Someone more vilified and demonised over the years than even that other target of righteous anger, Gen Yahya Khan, chosen by the flow of events to preside over the breakup of Pakistan.
Who would have thought it? If anyone had predicted six or seven months ago that Mr Zardari was a potential presidential candidate, he would have invited ridicule or been denounced as a fool. Yet, this is what is coming to pass. If this be not the hand of destiny, what is?
From Governor General Ghulam Muhammad (in his last days in power a certified madman) to President Pervez Musharraf—whom we have just got rid of, perhaps only to realise that we may be about to take a jump from the frying pan into the fire—we’ve had quite a collection of heroes as our presidents. Set to join this pantheon is Asif Zardari.
Not the least of the ironies surrounding this imminent development is the circumstance that, although Zardari owes his rise to political prominence to his late wife, Benazir Bhutto, the question of his being considered for president would simply not have arisen had she been alive. The conventional wisdom prevailing in Pakistan People’s Party circles prior to Ms Bhutto’s tragic death was that her interests and those of her party were best served if Mr Zardari was kept away from the spotlight.
But into the spotlight he was thrust when untimely death removed her from the scene, making him the focal point around which the party rallied. He always had his detractors, within the party influential Sindhi politicos who found it hard to stomach the idea of being led by a Zardari (Zardaris not exactly being very high in the hierarchy of Sindhi politics), and outside it others who were in turns appalled and fascinated by his reputation for corruption.
But had he not seized the reins firmly the PPP would have been in trouble. It wasn’t easy filling Benazir Bhutto’s shoes but, on the whole, he managed the transition after her death pretty smoothly and, unlike the PML-N leadership which was torn between the merits of participation and a boycott, was very clear in his mind that the key to moving beyond the Musharraf era lay in election participation. As we can now see, this was the only correct strategy, as Imran Khan, Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Mahmood Achakzai, et al, who took the boycott route to political irrelevance, have opportunity enough to contemplate.
The coalition was a good thing and the PPP and the PML-N were not playing false with each other when they entered into it. It was the strength of the coalition which made government-formation so easy at the centre and in Punjab and the other three provinces. And it was the same factor, amongst others, no doubt, which strengthened Zardaris’s hands, enabling him to pour cold water so easily over Amin Fahim’s overripe ambitions.
The judges’ issue was the rock on which the fragile barque of the coalition has finally split. Zardari has few excuses to make regarding this issue. He shouldn’t have made promises and entered into solemn commitments meant only to be broken. He had his reservations about Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudry right from the start. But he should have been more open about them in his discussions with Nawaz Sharif, instead of following a course of action inviting charges of betrayal and even of treachery, and leading to the first signs of bad blood between the PPP and the PML-N since the elections.
People at large also feel betrayed because it was not for this that they delivered such a kick to the Musharraf order on Feb 18. Any opinion poll would tell us that there was overwhelming support in favour of the coalition surviving and getting a grip on the many problems facing the country. While those problems remain unaddressed conditions are being created for the PPP and the PML-N to go back to the bickering and conflict which was the hallmark of their politics in the 1990s.
Stability, above all, is what Pakistan needs at this juncture. The key to getting rid of Musharraf was the unity of the coalition. The need for this unity has not disappeared. The Americans are breathing down our necks, asking us to “do more” in FATA. We follow this advice blindly and keep chanting the mantra that America’s war is our war, and we risk getting sucked further into a spiral of conflict over which we will have little control. But we can resist this pressure and think priorities out for ourselves only if the two big political parties stay together, at least until the next elections, whenever they come.
Anyway, in the shape of a Zardari presidency the improbable is about to happen, My Lord Saeeduzaman Siddiqui’s candidacy, and friend Mushahid Hussain’s posturing—Mushahid a candidate of Musharraf’s party, the Q League—notwithstanding. For better or worse we will have to live with the consequences of this development. When Ronald Reagan became US president in 1980 there was no shortage of people tending to dismiss him as a B-grade actor. He went on to become one of the most influential presidents of recent times. It won’t do to dismiss Zardari as someone of no consequence, because everything about him should tell us that as president he won’t be a pushover. So it is best to size him up more realistically.
He won Benazir Bhutto’s hand in his own right, which was no mean undertaking. (Someone else trying to woo Ms Bhutto was the Customs officer, Shuja Shah, who, as legend has it, made the fatal mistake of writing to Gen Zia to seek permission to propose to Benazir Bhutto. This he did on the advice of Pir Ali Muhammad Rashdi, Sindhi politician and columnist, who reportedly said that a job in Customs was not worth sacrificing even for a daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. One can only wonder what his thoughts on the subject would be now.)
Living in his wife’s shadow while retaining his own identity—even if that meant nurturing a reputation for cutting sleazy deals and promoting a culture of cronyism—was also not a small achievement. Look also at the way all the charges of corruption against him, most of them reputedly well-grounded, have fallen by the wayside. Even money-laundering charges in Swiss courts, potentially a danger point, have been dropped.
At one time a congressional sub-committee in Washington investigated Zardari’s foreign accounts, Shaukat “Shortcut” Aziz, then in Citibank, also being called upon to testify. All this is documented but the trail has gone cold or has been allowed to get cold. The Americans know all about it. Let’s just hope they don’t have any kind of hold on President-to-be Zardari, because if they do it only further complicates our security situation. A president open to blackmail…takes us into the realm of the unthinkable.
A bad sign about the future is the flourishing of cronyism in Islamabad these days. All those considered the usual suspects in previous PPP dispensations are back in position or are waiting in the wings to make a comeback. What about the reputation for sleaze and corruption? When Chaudry Shujaat and Pervaiz Elahi rose to power under Musharraf I thought this was one family that had no need to make more money. I was proved wrong. Are we about to see another edition of Mr Ten Percent or a break with the past? The jury has to be out on this one.
In the domain of national security we face another danger, and that comes from the American apologists holding key positions in the present government. They range from Hussain Haqqani in Washington to Maj Gen Mahmud Durrani and my friend Interior Adviser Rehman Malik in Islamabad. If they continue to influence decision-making we are in for some more hard times.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Community: alien concept for Pakistan?
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Dr Amin A Gadit
In recent times, it has been observed that community mindedness is fast disappearing in our nation. Historically, when Pakistan became independent in 1947, there was visible cohesion among people who are bound by emotions, national spirit and brotherhood. This was somewhat similar to the Ansar and Mohajireens in the Holy Prophet's era. There was a declaration that Pakistan was built for Muslims all over the world where they can practice their religion in its true spirit and philosophy. Though people belonged to different cultures, spoke different languages but they all were united under one banner and made numerous sacrifices for their independent homeland. There have been a number of jolts in the political arena of Pakistan since its earlier days.
Then, after the demise of the father of the nation, people were unable to focus their attention on any leader because of the type of governance and policies they supported. At this crucial time, conspiracies started to weaken the foundation of the country. It has always been said that there were 'hidden hands' but no one has ever known anything clear about this. People in those years were emotionally fragile and hence were manipulated. The concept of one nation started getting blurred by slogans for five different nations, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, Sindhis and this error was introduced by people who had a 'hidden agenda' and were never sincere to Pakistan.
The feudal system and focal kingdoms added momentum to this thought process. The national spirit was eroded by design and the perpetrators were successful in doing so by poisoning the thoughts to the extent that each nation within the country started identifying themselves as individual communities with nothing in common with the other communities. The worst example was witnessed in separation of the east wing of the country. The major compounding factor was the very low literacy level which, to date, has not reached appropriate proportion comparing in comparison with neighbouring states. Education in Pakistan by virtue of low priority was instrumental in blocking polished thought processes and arrested the development of psychological insight in terms of mutual care and understanding.
It appears that at different stages of development, various subtle psychological processes were operational, which gradually found a place in people's mindsets. In time, every nation started working for its own interest and each province of Pakistan started acquiring the sense of deprivation, discrimination and community prejudice. Later, another group was established which believed that their rights were sabotaged and were not accorded due recognition by any government. This group was distinct in the way that it did not fall into any particular category as they originally migrated from India and were called 'refugees'. Soon, there was another recognised community in Sindh known as 'Mohajirs'.
Further cracks came in when other provinces started to feel that the successive governments were failing in giving due provincial autonomy and rights. Gross unemployment and rising poverty further weakened the social fabric. But this malady was deeply coloured by massive corruption at all levels. Still Pakistan ranks very high when we talk about 'poverty line'; an enormous number of the population is deprived of basic needs of life. In a mega city such as Karachi there is dearth of electricity, water and gas. Economic progress has been made by an elite group in Pakistan; they get every luxury under the sun while a contrasting picture is that of people in majority living under abject poverty.
There is a money race as a result of which the sophisticated 'middle class' is fast disappearing. This leaves two distinct classes: the very rich and the very poor. This economic disparity has caused a huge psychological damage and promoted unhealthy behaviour among both the rich and poor. Corruption is so deep rooted in today's Pakistan that one cannot get anything, even rightly deserved, without bribery. The dream of a welfare state was never realised in our country which was perhaps on the agenda at the time of independence. The rulers had no time to look after the condition of the people who they ruled; instead, they were busier looking after their own welfare. Hence, the common people had no role models to follow. Faulty learning comes from high ups and it has rightfully transpired to the people.
Further bifurcation came when our religious leaders failed to inculcate the spirit of brotherhood which is the essence of religion. Earlier, the history had witnessed frictions among different sects which were perpetrated by a number of groups claiming superior understanding of religion over each other. This has created distances among people who are further alienated from each other. Constant suppression, insecurity, fears and frustration has caused a marked psychological fragility among the people. There is an atmosphere of distrust and mistrust among people which has ripened over the years and culminated to the point that the national spirit, mutual respect and care for each other is fast disappearing. People generally avoid helping and caring for each other for the fear of negative repercussions on one hand and microscopic hatred on the other hand based on all the aforementioned factors.
The people of Pakistan have undergone a severe emotional turmoil over the years that has resulted in emotional numbing, carelessness, self-centeredness, aggression, frustration and anxiety. This scenario has washed away the tender emotions of care and love. Also, in the wake of worldly gains, cohesion with religion has also weakened to the extent that even the basic principle of religion "huqooq-ul-ibad" (rights of people) are totally forgotten and are disregarded. Ironically, none of our leaders after Mr Jinnah endeavoured to inculcate this spirit; no role models emerged from religious or community groups. Countries that have progressed are because of the national spirit and community-mindedness. It is high time; we should do something to revive that spirit before it is too late.
The scenario may not be that bleak as there are good people somewhere around us who can take this initiative and emerge as 'role models'. We may get success in re-awakening the community spirit as the nation has temporarily shown unity and cohesion on at least two occasions: during the 1965 war and the recent earthquake. Media can play an effective and definitive role. Let's think deeply and listen to the inner voice. Hope to see a better tomorrow.
The writer is a psychiatrist based in Canada. Email: amin.muhammad@ med.mun.ca
Dr Amin A Gadit
In recent times, it has been observed that community mindedness is fast disappearing in our nation. Historically, when Pakistan became independent in 1947, there was visible cohesion among people who are bound by emotions, national spirit and brotherhood. This was somewhat similar to the Ansar and Mohajireens in the Holy Prophet's era. There was a declaration that Pakistan was built for Muslims all over the world where they can practice their religion in its true spirit and philosophy. Though people belonged to different cultures, spoke different languages but they all were united under one banner and made numerous sacrifices for their independent homeland. There have been a number of jolts in the political arena of Pakistan since its earlier days.
Then, after the demise of the father of the nation, people were unable to focus their attention on any leader because of the type of governance and policies they supported. At this crucial time, conspiracies started to weaken the foundation of the country. It has always been said that there were 'hidden hands' but no one has ever known anything clear about this. People in those years were emotionally fragile and hence were manipulated. The concept of one nation started getting blurred by slogans for five different nations, Bengalis, Punjabis, Pakhtoons, Baluchis, Sindhis and this error was introduced by people who had a 'hidden agenda' and were never sincere to Pakistan.
The feudal system and focal kingdoms added momentum to this thought process. The national spirit was eroded by design and the perpetrators were successful in doing so by poisoning the thoughts to the extent that each nation within the country started identifying themselves as individual communities with nothing in common with the other communities. The worst example was witnessed in separation of the east wing of the country. The major compounding factor was the very low literacy level which, to date, has not reached appropriate proportion comparing in comparison with neighbouring states. Education in Pakistan by virtue of low priority was instrumental in blocking polished thought processes and arrested the development of psychological insight in terms of mutual care and understanding.
It appears that at different stages of development, various subtle psychological processes were operational, which gradually found a place in people's mindsets. In time, every nation started working for its own interest and each province of Pakistan started acquiring the sense of deprivation, discrimination and community prejudice. Later, another group was established which believed that their rights were sabotaged and were not accorded due recognition by any government. This group was distinct in the way that it did not fall into any particular category as they originally migrated from India and were called 'refugees'. Soon, there was another recognised community in Sindh known as 'Mohajirs'.
Further cracks came in when other provinces started to feel that the successive governments were failing in giving due provincial autonomy and rights. Gross unemployment and rising poverty further weakened the social fabric. But this malady was deeply coloured by massive corruption at all levels. Still Pakistan ranks very high when we talk about 'poverty line'; an enormous number of the population is deprived of basic needs of life. In a mega city such as Karachi there is dearth of electricity, water and gas. Economic progress has been made by an elite group in Pakistan; they get every luxury under the sun while a contrasting picture is that of people in majority living under abject poverty.
There is a money race as a result of which the sophisticated 'middle class' is fast disappearing. This leaves two distinct classes: the very rich and the very poor. This economic disparity has caused a huge psychological damage and promoted unhealthy behaviour among both the rich and poor. Corruption is so deep rooted in today's Pakistan that one cannot get anything, even rightly deserved, without bribery. The dream of a welfare state was never realised in our country which was perhaps on the agenda at the time of independence. The rulers had no time to look after the condition of the people who they ruled; instead, they were busier looking after their own welfare. Hence, the common people had no role models to follow. Faulty learning comes from high ups and it has rightfully transpired to the people.
Further bifurcation came when our religious leaders failed to inculcate the spirit of brotherhood which is the essence of religion. Earlier, the history had witnessed frictions among different sects which were perpetrated by a number of groups claiming superior understanding of religion over each other. This has created distances among people who are further alienated from each other. Constant suppression, insecurity, fears and frustration has caused a marked psychological fragility among the people. There is an atmosphere of distrust and mistrust among people which has ripened over the years and culminated to the point that the national spirit, mutual respect and care for each other is fast disappearing. People generally avoid helping and caring for each other for the fear of negative repercussions on one hand and microscopic hatred on the other hand based on all the aforementioned factors.
The people of Pakistan have undergone a severe emotional turmoil over the years that has resulted in emotional numbing, carelessness, self-centeredness, aggression, frustration and anxiety. This scenario has washed away the tender emotions of care and love. Also, in the wake of worldly gains, cohesion with religion has also weakened to the extent that even the basic principle of religion "huqooq-ul-ibad" (rights of people) are totally forgotten and are disregarded. Ironically, none of our leaders after Mr Jinnah endeavoured to inculcate this spirit; no role models emerged from religious or community groups. Countries that have progressed are because of the national spirit and community-mindedness. It is high time; we should do something to revive that spirit before it is too late.
The scenario may not be that bleak as there are good people somewhere around us who can take this initiative and emerge as 'role models'. We may get success in re-awakening the community spirit as the nation has temporarily shown unity and cohesion on at least two occasions: during the 1965 war and the recent earthquake. Media can play an effective and definitive role. Let's think deeply and listen to the inner voice. Hope to see a better tomorrow.
The writer is a psychiatrist based in Canada. Email: amin.muhammad@ med.mun.ca
Expecting miracles from jackasses
Friday, May 30, 2008
Ayaz Amir
A strange nation we are, expecting wisdom from morons, radicalism from born opportunists, and virtue from knaves whose principal claim to fame is daylight national robbery.
What do we take the national scene to be, the result of a Nepalese revolution or a Chinese long march? Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan after a deal brokered by the Yanks in whose prowess she had invested all her hopes. Nawaz Sharif's return to the country came about as a result of Saudi royal intervention. Hard to detect the glimmers of any Che Guevarism in either of these Roman triumphs.
Musharraf took off his uniform not because a million men and women, torches in hand, had besieged Army House but because the Yanks were twisting his elbow and support for him within the army command was waning. The lawyers' movement played a vital part in weakening him but lawyers take on too much upon themselves when they portray themselves as the heralds of the changes that have swept Pakistan.
All the leaders of the movement – from Aitzaz Ahsan to Munir A Malik to Ali Ahmed Kurd – are my friends. They are possessed of admirable qualities but modesty or humility, alas, is not the most conspicuous among them. They expect the world to change but themselves refuse to change, still stuck in the heady feelings generated by their movement last year. If the tide flows it also ebbs. Critical points come and pass. Their movement has lost its momentum and something more than Aitzaz's driving skills – his uncanny ability to arrive at every destination at least ten hours late – is needed to regain it.
The people made their views known on Feb 18 but only because they were given an opportunity to do so. If they had not been given that opportunity does anyone think that they would have taken to the streets and stormed the citadels of power? In which make-believe world do we live? Our capacity for being pushed around is virtually inexhaustible and our political class, far from honing the tools of political resistance, has arrived at the last stages of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
If the Feb elections had been shelved, Pakistan would have dug a deeper hole for itself but the masses would not have stirred. A nation that could endure Ayub Khan for eleven years, that knight of darkness – Ziaul Haq – for another eleven, and a certified mediocre like Musharraf, a disaster in both war and peace, for eight and a half years, can put up with anything. Still the fact remains that whether the Yanks played around with the props on our political stage or the Saudi Royals had a hand in altering some of the background tapestry, elections were held, Musharraf and his pack of political jackals were roundly humiliated, and political parties reviled and abused, and kept out in the cold all these years, swept to a dramatic victory.
So the people were not remiss in expecting great things to happen. What they have received instead is another extended lesson in the workings of political bankruptcy, the political parties in whom the people had reposed their trust proving epic failures at political management. Instead of dealing with real issues and trying to figure out how to get the country out of the hole in which it is stuck they are chasing shadows, evening out old scores and charging at toothless dragons that have lost the power to spout any fire from their raging nostrils.
Zardari, to his credit, is being the man that he always was: interested in power and money. Courtesy of the deal struck with Musharraf (through the Yanks) he has just won himself the biggest reprieve in Pakistani history, all cases against him – and it was not easy counting them – having been wound up. The people of Pakistan may yet be awaiting their miracle but he has received his.
My Lord Dogar, presently adorning the highest chair in the Supreme Court, is the agent of this miracle. And the people of Pakistan, chumps as ever, expect Zardari to put Dogar in the doghouse while My Lord Iftikhar Chaudhry, symbol and hero of the lawyer-cum-judicial movement, sweeps into the Supreme Court. This won't happen in the real world as long as Zardari is around. So what he is doing is smiling all the time and spouting some of the worst clichés about institution-building that the people of Pakistan have had to put up with for a long time.
The people of Pakistan – ordinary people, that is, because some have had a ball – have had to put up with much all these years. But having to endure lectures on politics from Mr Zardari takes the prize. Those in the charmed circle of the PPP elect – that is, in Zardari's good graces and therefore enjoying office or importance – go about with trained smiles on their faces. Sherry, I said, was becoming a competent minister. She is also turning into a sophisticated version of the dreaded Mohammad Ali Durrani.
But imagine the plight of those not in this charmed circle. They have to take in all that they are subjected to without wincing or saying anything in return. Our political parties, all of them, produce no rebels. They turn out courtiers instinctively aware that discretion is the better part of valour.
So the nation is being fed a series of fibs as extended as the thousand and one tales of the Arabian Nights: all about constitutional packaging, etc. Zardari misses not a step when reciting this litany. Farooq Naek, the law minister, as he goes through the same paces looks a deeply unhappy man. Things are whirling out of control and the economy is sinking and the rupee taking a further dip every day but the political charade being played out in Islamabad goes on, each day bringing a fresh twist to it.
And what is that other great party of the people, the PML-N, doing? Heaping fresh imprecations on Musharraf's head when Musharraf is no longer the problem. Far from being a den of conspiracy, the erstwhile Army House where he is still holed up has now a house of sorrow, another lesson in what happens when the pomp and glory of power have fled. Yet the PML-N keeps harping on Musharraf as if with him gone or better still impeached, the bright morning Pakistan has long awaited will have finally arrived.
It is a sign of the state the PML-N is in that without giving the matter a second thought it overreacts to the appointment of a political nonentity like my old friend Salmaan Taseer (never mind if he is a smart finance man) as Punjab governor, turning Salmaan at least for 48 hours into a looming presence on the political landscape. Beware the time when Musharraf is finally no more because the time for excuses then will have run out. Whom them to blame for the nation's shortcomings or the ineptitude of the political class?
The PML-N also runs the risk of being perceived as a single-issue party. It has boxed itself so much into a corner over the judges' issue that it has drastically curtailed its room for manoeuvre. We will restore the judges, the party and its leaders thunder at every opportunity, when it lies not in their power to do so. The key to the restoration of the judges is in Zardari's pocket and he has other games to play and other accounts to settle.
The PML-N consoles itself with the thought that its graph is rising while the PPP's is plunging. That may be so but of what use a rising graph when it is hard to predict what is going to happen in the next five months, let alone the next five years. How long will the present pantomime last? Suppose it doesn't, will we head into an election or another night of the…I need not spell out the word. Zardari may be playing a negative game of his own but the PML-N's interest lies in seeing to it that the present experiment, centred on Pakistan's first attempt at coalition-building, lasts.
But for that it will have to break free from the shackles of the judges' issue. Perhaps it would if it got some help from the legal fraternity or even My Lord Chaudhry. But the legal community has run out of ideas while My Lord Chaudhry no longer seems capable of thinking outside the box. He has proved himself a great man in many respects but the gift that marks a Mandela from an ordinary mortal seems not to lie in his grasp. Someone with true greatness in his soul would have said by now 'all right I am ready to step aside provided Musharraf goes too, Dogar also goes, and the Nov 2 judiciary is restored' thus sacrificing self for a higher cause.
Iqbal, awakener of our souls, where has thy memory fled, where all thy songs exhorting us to emulate the flight of the eagle? At stake is the country's future, calling for vision and some measure of greatness. What we are getting is a dance by dummies and men of straw.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Ayaz Amir
A strange nation we are, expecting wisdom from morons, radicalism from born opportunists, and virtue from knaves whose principal claim to fame is daylight national robbery.
What do we take the national scene to be, the result of a Nepalese revolution or a Chinese long march? Benazir Bhutto returned to Pakistan after a deal brokered by the Yanks in whose prowess she had invested all her hopes. Nawaz Sharif's return to the country came about as a result of Saudi royal intervention. Hard to detect the glimmers of any Che Guevarism in either of these Roman triumphs.
Musharraf took off his uniform not because a million men and women, torches in hand, had besieged Army House but because the Yanks were twisting his elbow and support for him within the army command was waning. The lawyers' movement played a vital part in weakening him but lawyers take on too much upon themselves when they portray themselves as the heralds of the changes that have swept Pakistan.
All the leaders of the movement – from Aitzaz Ahsan to Munir A Malik to Ali Ahmed Kurd – are my friends. They are possessed of admirable qualities but modesty or humility, alas, is not the most conspicuous among them. They expect the world to change but themselves refuse to change, still stuck in the heady feelings generated by their movement last year. If the tide flows it also ebbs. Critical points come and pass. Their movement has lost its momentum and something more than Aitzaz's driving skills – his uncanny ability to arrive at every destination at least ten hours late – is needed to regain it.
The people made their views known on Feb 18 but only because they were given an opportunity to do so. If they had not been given that opportunity does anyone think that they would have taken to the streets and stormed the citadels of power? In which make-believe world do we live? Our capacity for being pushed around is virtually inexhaustible and our political class, far from honing the tools of political resistance, has arrived at the last stages of moral and intellectual bankruptcy.
If the Feb elections had been shelved, Pakistan would have dug a deeper hole for itself but the masses would not have stirred. A nation that could endure Ayub Khan for eleven years, that knight of darkness – Ziaul Haq – for another eleven, and a certified mediocre like Musharraf, a disaster in both war and peace, for eight and a half years, can put up with anything. Still the fact remains that whether the Yanks played around with the props on our political stage or the Saudi Royals had a hand in altering some of the background tapestry, elections were held, Musharraf and his pack of political jackals were roundly humiliated, and political parties reviled and abused, and kept out in the cold all these years, swept to a dramatic victory.
So the people were not remiss in expecting great things to happen. What they have received instead is another extended lesson in the workings of political bankruptcy, the political parties in whom the people had reposed their trust proving epic failures at political management. Instead of dealing with real issues and trying to figure out how to get the country out of the hole in which it is stuck they are chasing shadows, evening out old scores and charging at toothless dragons that have lost the power to spout any fire from their raging nostrils.
Zardari, to his credit, is being the man that he always was: interested in power and money. Courtesy of the deal struck with Musharraf (through the Yanks) he has just won himself the biggest reprieve in Pakistani history, all cases against him – and it was not easy counting them – having been wound up. The people of Pakistan may yet be awaiting their miracle but he has received his.
My Lord Dogar, presently adorning the highest chair in the Supreme Court, is the agent of this miracle. And the people of Pakistan, chumps as ever, expect Zardari to put Dogar in the doghouse while My Lord Iftikhar Chaudhry, symbol and hero of the lawyer-cum-judicial movement, sweeps into the Supreme Court. This won't happen in the real world as long as Zardari is around. So what he is doing is smiling all the time and spouting some of the worst clichés about institution-building that the people of Pakistan have had to put up with for a long time.
The people of Pakistan – ordinary people, that is, because some have had a ball – have had to put up with much all these years. But having to endure lectures on politics from Mr Zardari takes the prize. Those in the charmed circle of the PPP elect – that is, in Zardari's good graces and therefore enjoying office or importance – go about with trained smiles on their faces. Sherry, I said, was becoming a competent minister. She is also turning into a sophisticated version of the dreaded Mohammad Ali Durrani.
But imagine the plight of those not in this charmed circle. They have to take in all that they are subjected to without wincing or saying anything in return. Our political parties, all of them, produce no rebels. They turn out courtiers instinctively aware that discretion is the better part of valour.
So the nation is being fed a series of fibs as extended as the thousand and one tales of the Arabian Nights: all about constitutional packaging, etc. Zardari misses not a step when reciting this litany. Farooq Naek, the law minister, as he goes through the same paces looks a deeply unhappy man. Things are whirling out of control and the economy is sinking and the rupee taking a further dip every day but the political charade being played out in Islamabad goes on, each day bringing a fresh twist to it.
And what is that other great party of the people, the PML-N, doing? Heaping fresh imprecations on Musharraf's head when Musharraf is no longer the problem. Far from being a den of conspiracy, the erstwhile Army House where he is still holed up has now a house of sorrow, another lesson in what happens when the pomp and glory of power have fled. Yet the PML-N keeps harping on Musharraf as if with him gone or better still impeached, the bright morning Pakistan has long awaited will have finally arrived.
It is a sign of the state the PML-N is in that without giving the matter a second thought it overreacts to the appointment of a political nonentity like my old friend Salmaan Taseer (never mind if he is a smart finance man) as Punjab governor, turning Salmaan at least for 48 hours into a looming presence on the political landscape. Beware the time when Musharraf is finally no more because the time for excuses then will have run out. Whom them to blame for the nation's shortcomings or the ineptitude of the political class?
The PML-N also runs the risk of being perceived as a single-issue party. It has boxed itself so much into a corner over the judges' issue that it has drastically curtailed its room for manoeuvre. We will restore the judges, the party and its leaders thunder at every opportunity, when it lies not in their power to do so. The key to the restoration of the judges is in Zardari's pocket and he has other games to play and other accounts to settle.
The PML-N consoles itself with the thought that its graph is rising while the PPP's is plunging. That may be so but of what use a rising graph when it is hard to predict what is going to happen in the next five months, let alone the next five years. How long will the present pantomime last? Suppose it doesn't, will we head into an election or another night of the…I need not spell out the word. Zardari may be playing a negative game of his own but the PML-N's interest lies in seeing to it that the present experiment, centred on Pakistan's first attempt at coalition-building, lasts.
But for that it will have to break free from the shackles of the judges' issue. Perhaps it would if it got some help from the legal fraternity or even My Lord Chaudhry. But the legal community has run out of ideas while My Lord Chaudhry no longer seems capable of thinking outside the box. He has proved himself a great man in many respects but the gift that marks a Mandela from an ordinary mortal seems not to lie in his grasp. Someone with true greatness in his soul would have said by now 'all right I am ready to step aside provided Musharraf goes too, Dogar also goes, and the Nov 2 judiciary is restored' thus sacrificing self for a higher cause.
Iqbal, awakener of our souls, where has thy memory fled, where all thy songs exhorting us to emulate the flight of the eagle? At stake is the country's future, calling for vision and some measure of greatness. What we are getting is a dance by dummies and men of straw.
Email: chakwal@comsats.net.pk
Thursday, 28 August 2008
No to another Cold War
By Tariq Fatemi
WHEN President George Bush first met President Vladimir Putin, he claimed that having looked into the latter’s heart he had found in it a good man with whom he could do business.
One wonders what Bush is saying in the wake of Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Not surprisingly, the western media stirred up quite a sob story in Georgia’s favour, claiming that it was a small, defenceless victim at the hands of marauding Russian soldiers.
The reality however, is far more complex and goes back to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Truly, its result — the emergence of a sole superpower — represented a historic transformation, for it destroyed the concept of the balance of power enunciated as far back as 1648 in the Treaty of Westphalia. Western politicians and scholars jumped to the conclusion that the event confirmed the triumph of western democracy and capitalism and thus marked the ‘end of history’.
Consequently, the US embarked on a policy that showed scant regard for Russian interests. The chaotic years of Boris Yeltsin were taken advantage of, while Russia lay supinely in a state of drunken stupor. Yeltsin’s many transgressions, including his military assault on the duma were overlooked, Moscow’s regional and global issues were ignored, and in the meanwhile, the former communist states of Eastern and central Europe were made a part of the West’s fabric of economic and military alliances.
But Russia is a millennium-old country, with a glorious history of achievements, possessing tremendous resources — both economic and human. It was therefore inevitable that Putin’s strong and resolute leadership would refocus the nation’s energies on economic and military reconstruction. The galloping international oil and gas prices helped in filling up its coffers, enabling it to alter its bargaining power as well.
This newfound confidence enabled the Kremlin to exert influence far afield — claiming the North Pole and renewing nuclear bomber patrols near Guam and Scotland. But it was in the Caucuses where an increasingly assertive Kremlin decided to put its foot down, helped unwittingly by the irresponsible policies of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. By making a rash move to occupy the breakaway province of South Ossetia, Saakashvili may have wanted to prove his ‘nationalist’ credentials and enhance his ‘usefulness’ to the West.
But when Moscow responded with its own military incursion, he could do no more than fret that the Russians were repeating what the Soviets had done in earlier years, while senior US officials made the preposterous claim that such an action could not be permitted in this era. How ironic coming from an administration that had invaded not one but two sovereign states!
Saakashvili’s frustration at having been left to fend for himself was understandable. For long a favourite of the Bush administration, the former New York lawyer was viewed by Moscow as unreliable and an instrument to promote the West’s interests in Moscow’s backyard. As the Economist wrote, his thrust into South Ossetia “was foolish and possibly criminal”, and Gorbachev was right to observe: “Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.” Whether acting alone or at the behest of the US, Saakashvili’s grab for the enclaves has unleashed forces that are likely to have a deep, long-lasting impact not only on the region, but on East-West relations as well.
President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice have threatened to isolate Russia, while others have called for its expulsion from the G-8, as well as for keeping it out of the WTO. There have also been calls to rethink relations with Russia. But the rethinking needs to be directed at establishing a relationship of trust and mutual advantage, not to promote unilateral American advantage.
The US must also be careful not to push Russia against the wall. It has already made the mistake of basing its policy on two major fallacies. One, that Russia was inherently aggressive and therefore needed to be kept ‘encircled’ and two, that Russia had been so weakened by the Soviet Union’s disintegration that it would not be able to ever endanger the West.
It has, however, been proven again that nothing can be a more explosive mix than national humiliation and massive resources! Washington must not forget that it was the West that in inelegant haste brought in the former Soviet republics into economic and military alliances, while converting Nato into a global military force to be used at American behest to promote Washington’s global interests.
The latest provocation has been the placement of US missiles in Poland, ostensibly to counter the Iranian threat, a claim no one takes seriously. All this has only reinforced Russia’s resolve to assert its place under the sun.
Bush may see the Russian action in Georgia as directed against the West but it will have a far greater impact on the other states of the Caucuses and Caspian. Many of them have sizeable Russian minorities and long-established relations with Moscow. They cannot afford to be caught in a US-Russia confrontation. The energy pipelines too originate or go through this region and Europe would not want to see this area in a state of turmoil.
Moscow’s show of strength in Georgia, coupled with Washington’s failure to come to the latter’s aid, has made countries such as the Ukraine and Poland nervous. Some see this as confirming their fears that the bear’s claws remain as sharp as ever.
However, this would be a serious misreading of Russia’s intentions and interests. Any effort to create an anti-Russia coalition would be counter-productive, because Moscow recognises that its strategic objectives, such as bolstering its weight in world affairs, fortifying its presence in the Caucuses and regaining control over the region’s vital oil and gas transport corridor, can only be achieved in cooperation with the West.
The US too cannot expect to tackle the grave challenges of global terrorism, climate control, energy security and even peace in the Middle East, without Russia’s support and cooperation. A new Cold War would be utterly disastrous for us all.
WHEN President George Bush first met President Vladimir Putin, he claimed that having looked into the latter’s heart he had found in it a good man with whom he could do business.
One wonders what Bush is saying in the wake of Russia’s incursion into Georgia. Not surprisingly, the western media stirred up quite a sob story in Georgia’s favour, claiming that it was a small, defenceless victim at the hands of marauding Russian soldiers.
The reality however, is far more complex and goes back to the Soviet Union’s collapse in 1991. Truly, its result — the emergence of a sole superpower — represented a historic transformation, for it destroyed the concept of the balance of power enunciated as far back as 1648 in the Treaty of Westphalia. Western politicians and scholars jumped to the conclusion that the event confirmed the triumph of western democracy and capitalism and thus marked the ‘end of history’.
Consequently, the US embarked on a policy that showed scant regard for Russian interests. The chaotic years of Boris Yeltsin were taken advantage of, while Russia lay supinely in a state of drunken stupor. Yeltsin’s many transgressions, including his military assault on the duma were overlooked, Moscow’s regional and global issues were ignored, and in the meanwhile, the former communist states of Eastern and central Europe were made a part of the West’s fabric of economic and military alliances.
But Russia is a millennium-old country, with a glorious history of achievements, possessing tremendous resources — both economic and human. It was therefore inevitable that Putin’s strong and resolute leadership would refocus the nation’s energies on economic and military reconstruction. The galloping international oil and gas prices helped in filling up its coffers, enabling it to alter its bargaining power as well.
This newfound confidence enabled the Kremlin to exert influence far afield — claiming the North Pole and renewing nuclear bomber patrols near Guam and Scotland. But it was in the Caucuses where an increasingly assertive Kremlin decided to put its foot down, helped unwittingly by the irresponsible policies of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. By making a rash move to occupy the breakaway province of South Ossetia, Saakashvili may have wanted to prove his ‘nationalist’ credentials and enhance his ‘usefulness’ to the West.
But when Moscow responded with its own military incursion, he could do no more than fret that the Russians were repeating what the Soviets had done in earlier years, while senior US officials made the preposterous claim that such an action could not be permitted in this era. How ironic coming from an administration that had invaded not one but two sovereign states!
Saakashvili’s frustration at having been left to fend for himself was understandable. For long a favourite of the Bush administration, the former New York lawyer was viewed by Moscow as unreliable and an instrument to promote the West’s interests in Moscow’s backyard. As the Economist wrote, his thrust into South Ossetia “was foolish and possibly criminal”, and Gorbachev was right to observe: “Russia was dragged into the fray by the recklessness of Saakashvili. He would not have dared to attack without outside support. Once he did, Russia could not afford inaction.” Whether acting alone or at the behest of the US, Saakashvili’s grab for the enclaves has unleashed forces that are likely to have a deep, long-lasting impact not only on the region, but on East-West relations as well.
President Bush and Secretary Condoleezza Rice have threatened to isolate Russia, while others have called for its expulsion from the G-8, as well as for keeping it out of the WTO. There have also been calls to rethink relations with Russia. But the rethinking needs to be directed at establishing a relationship of trust and mutual advantage, not to promote unilateral American advantage.
The US must also be careful not to push Russia against the wall. It has already made the mistake of basing its policy on two major fallacies. One, that Russia was inherently aggressive and therefore needed to be kept ‘encircled’ and two, that Russia had been so weakened by the Soviet Union’s disintegration that it would not be able to ever endanger the West.
It has, however, been proven again that nothing can be a more explosive mix than national humiliation and massive resources! Washington must not forget that it was the West that in inelegant haste brought in the former Soviet republics into economic and military alliances, while converting Nato into a global military force to be used at American behest to promote Washington’s global interests.
The latest provocation has been the placement of US missiles in Poland, ostensibly to counter the Iranian threat, a claim no one takes seriously. All this has only reinforced Russia’s resolve to assert its place under the sun.
Bush may see the Russian action in Georgia as directed against the West but it will have a far greater impact on the other states of the Caucuses and Caspian. Many of them have sizeable Russian minorities and long-established relations with Moscow. They cannot afford to be caught in a US-Russia confrontation. The energy pipelines too originate or go through this region and Europe would not want to see this area in a state of turmoil.
Moscow’s show of strength in Georgia, coupled with Washington’s failure to come to the latter’s aid, has made countries such as the Ukraine and Poland nervous. Some see this as confirming their fears that the bear’s claws remain as sharp as ever.
However, this would be a serious misreading of Russia’s intentions and interests. Any effort to create an anti-Russia coalition would be counter-productive, because Moscow recognises that its strategic objectives, such as bolstering its weight in world affairs, fortifying its presence in the Caucuses and regaining control over the region’s vital oil and gas transport corridor, can only be achieved in cooperation with the West.
The US too cannot expect to tackle the grave challenges of global terrorism, climate control, energy security and even peace in the Middle East, without Russia’s support and cooperation. A new Cold War would be utterly disastrous for us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)