| August 31, 2002 | Saturday | Jamadi-us-Saani 21, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Why the double standards?
THE opposition to a possible American attack on Iraq now seems to be getting stronger worldwide. The latest to voice criticism against any such misadventure are Pakistan, China, Saudi Arabia and France, while Britain, too, seems to be moving away from the Bush administration’s hawkish and unilateralist stance on the issue. President Musharraf was categorical in saying that a US attack on Iraq would have “really negative repercussions” in terms of greater turmoil and an upswing in anti-American sentiments in the Muslim world. In an interview with the BBC, he pointed out that many troubling problems in the world today somehow involved, or were being traced to, the Islamic world, and the Muslims felt “they are at the receiving end everywhere.” In such a situation, a US attack on Iraq would not only give rise to anti-American feelings in Pakistan; it would also “alienate the entire Islamic world.”
Washington would do well to pay heed to General Musharraf’s views because they are from the head of government of a country which is a “front-line” state in the global war on terrorism. His views provide a regional perspective on the consequences of an uncalled-for US offensive against Iraq. Also opposed to such a war are all regional powers, including such staunch American allies and friends as Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan. It is doubtful if anyone of them will provide logistic support to the US should it decide to go ahead with its war plans with or without UN authorization. In Europe, where Germany has already opposed such an attack, President Jacques Chirac has aired what is being considered the sharpest French criticism yet of a military strike against Iraq. The French president is specifically critical of what he calls an American propensity to be unilateral, in contrast to “the French notion of collective security.” Besides, as he points out, if Baghdad is not willing to permit an unconditional return of the UN inspectors, it is up to the Security Council to decide what action to take. About the same time, Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal called America’s fixation with President Saddam Hussein “unwise.” More surprisingly, there has been a policy shift in Britain, where Peter Mandelson, Tony Blair’s special envoy, says his country would seek UN authorization before joining any US attack on Iraq. All this is in sharp contrast to the jingoism that characterizes the Bush administration’s Iraq policy.
Led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, the hawks in the Bush administration have sidelined Colin Powell. In fact, the secretary of state was not even called to a recent meeting at the US president’s Texas ranch, where two former secretaries of state — James Baker and Lawrence Eagleburger — strongly opposed an attack on Iraq, saying it could lead to an Armageddon. However, it is Rumsfeld, Condoleeza Rice and deputy defence secretary Paul Wolfowitz who dominate the policy-making apparatus in the Bush administration.
Should it come about, a US attack on Iraq will break up the world coalition formed after 9/11 and undermine the global war on terror. In the Muslim world, the Arab countries in particular, there will be a new wave of anti-Americanism, which would only serve to strengthen the forces of religious extremism. Besides, a collapse of the Saddam regime could trigger anarchy and chaos in Iraq. This in turn could produce spillovers affecting Iraq’s neighbours, especially Iran and Turkey where Kurd minorities have long been restive over the question of autonomy. Indeed, a convulsion such as this will only confirm fears among some regional powers that the Bush administration is being blind to the consequences of its Saddam obsession and is using the world coalition to advance Israel’s chauvinistic causes in the Middle East instead of working for peace and stability in a region where America has long-term economic and geopolitical interests.
ONE of the nominations filed by People’s Party leader Benazir Bhutto from a Larkana constituency has been rejected by the returning officer. Another nomination filed from a second constituency in the same district is to be adjudged on Sunday. The first rejection is said to be on the ground that Ms Bhutto, who lives in self-imposed exile in Dubai and Britain, has been convicted by an anti-corruption court, and as a convicted person she is debarred from being an election candidate. The conviction on which the returning officer has relied concerns what is known as the ARY gold case. Ms Bhutto refused to appear before the court trying that case, was declared an absconder, and finally convicted in absentia. This was just a month and a half ago, and an appeal against the sentencing was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, but on the grounds that the appeal was not competently filed. A conviction for non-appearance in court has since been made part of the reasons that can lead to disqualification — a change in the law that Ms Bhutto has challenged in a wide-ranging petition now before the courts. Earlier, during the Nawaz Sharif government, she was convicted in 1999 by the ehtesab bench of the Lahore High Court in the SGS case, but the conviction was, famously, overturned by the Supreme Court which had accused one of the High Court judges of bias. Following the rejection of her nomination papers, Ms Bhutto’s lawyers have said they will appeal to the Election Tribunal
There are legal points involved here that only the tribunal and the competent courts can decide. But on the purely political level, Ms Bhutto’s lawyers have pointed out that although Mr Nawaz Sharif also has a conviction against him, that of hijacking — on the face of it, a more serious offence than corruption — his nomination from two Lahore constituencies has been found in order. His brother and co-accused, Mr Shahbaz Sharif, has also been cleared to contest. This difference between Lahore and Larkana has been cited by Ms Bhutto’s lawyers as indicating double-standards. The government may yet object to the acceptance of Mr Sharif’s papers and prevent him from being a candidate, but for the moment there is a glaring discrepancy that needs to be explained.
The president and chief executive has repeatedly said that he wants a level playing field for all parties, but the Larkana episode will be seized upon by the PPP to accuse the administration of being interested primarily in keeping Ms Bhutto out of the electoral fray. There have also been reports, denied by the government, that some kind of a political deal has been struck with the Sharifs, and speculation in this regard will now only gain in intensity. It is too early to see any discernible game plan anywhere, but in the interest of a free and fair election and for the sake of the government’s own credibility, the electoral scene should be kept clear of any suspicion of bias or official interference.