In any event, with the US administration’s newest and rather improvable claim that secular Iraq has been giving haven and training to the madly theocratic Al Qaeda, the case against Saddam seems to have been closed. The prevailing (but by no means uncontested) government consensus is that since UN inspectors cannot ascertain what he has of WMD, what he has hidden and what he might still do, he should be attacked and removed.

The whole point of going to the UN for authorization from the US point of view is to get a resolution so stiff and so punitive that no matter whether or not Saddam Hussein complies, he will be so incriminated with having violated “international law” that his mere existence will warrant regime change. In late September, on the other hand, in a Security Council resolution passed unanimously (with US abstention), Israel was enjoined to end its siege of Arafat’s Ramallah compound and to withdraw from Palestinian territory illegally occupied since March (for which Israel’s excuse has been “self-defence”). Israel has refused to comply, and the underlying US rationale for Washington not doing much to enforce even its own stated position is that “we” understand that Israel must defend its citizens. Why the UN is to be sought after in one instance, ignored in another is one of those inconsistencies that the US indulges in.

A small group of unexamined and self-invented phrases such as anticipatory pre-emption or preventive self-defence are bandied about by Donald Rumsfeld and his colleagues to persuade the public that the preparations for war against Iraq or any other state in need of “regime change” (or, the other somewhat rarer euphemism, “constructive destruction”) are buttressed by the notion of self-defence. The public is kept on tenterhooks by repeated red or orange alerts, people are encouraged to inform law enforcement authorities of “suspicious” behaviour, and thousands of Muslims, Arabs and South Asians have been detained, and in some cases arrested on suspicion.

All of this is carried out at the president’s behest as a facet of patriotism and love of America. I still have not been able to understand what it means to love a country (in US political discourse, love of Israel is also a current phrase) but it seems to mean unquestioning, blind loyalty to the powers that be, whose secrecy, evasiveness and wilful refusal to engage with an alert public, which for the time being does not seem to be awakened into coherent or systematic responsiveness, has concealed the ugliness and destructiveness of the whole Iraq and Middle East policy of the Bush administration.

So powerful is the United States in comparison with most other major countries combined that it can not really be constrained by or be compelled to obey any international system of conduct, not even one its secretary of state may wish to. Along with the abstractness of whether “we” should go to war against Iraq 7,000 miles away, discussion of foreign policy denudes other people of any thick or real human identity; Iraq and Afghanistan seen from the bombsights of a smart missile or on television are at best a chessboard which “we” decide to enter, destroy, re-construct, or not, at will. The word “terrorism,” as well as the war on it, serves nicely to further this sentiment since in comparison with many Europeans, the great majority of Americans have had no contact or experience with the Muslim lands and peoples and therefore feel no sense of the fabric of life that a sustained bombing campaign (as in Afghanistan) would tear to shreds. And, seen as it is, like an emanation from nowhere except from well-financed madrassahs on the basis of a “decision” by people who hate our freedoms and who are jealous of our democracy, terrorism engages polemicists in the most extravagant, if unsituated, and non-political debates. History and politics have disappeared, all because memory, truth, and actual human existence have effectively been downgraded. You cannot speak about Palestinian suffering or Arab frustration because Israel’s presence in the US prevents it. At a fervently pro-Israel demonstration in May, Paul Wolfowitz mentioned Palestinian suffering in passing, but he was loudly booed and never could refer to it again.

Moreover, a coherent human rights or free trade policy that consistently sticks to the endlessly underlined virtues of human rights, democracy, and free economies that we are constitutively believed to stand for is likely to be undermined domestically by special interest groups (as witness the influence of the ethnic lobbies, the steel and defence industries, the oil cartel, the farming industry, retired people, gun lobby, to mention only a few). Every one of the 500 congressional districts represented in Washington, for instance, has a defence or defence-related industry in it; so as Secretary of State James Baker said just before the first Gulf War, the real issue in that war against Iraq was “jobs”. When it comes to foreign affairs, it is worth remembering that only something like 25-30 per cent (compare that with the 15 per cent of Americans who have actually travelled abroad) of members of Congress even have passports, and what they say or think has less to do with history, philosophy or ideals and more to do with who influences the member’s campaign, sends money, etc. Two incumbent House members, Earl Hilliard of Alabama and Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, supportive of the Palestinian right to self-determination and critical of Israel, were recently defeated by relatively obscure candidates who were well-financed by what was openly cited as New York (Jewish) money from outside their states. The defeated pair were berated by the press as extremist and unpatriotic.

As far as US Middle East policy is concerned, the Israeli lobby has no peer and has turned the legislative branch of the US government into what former Senator Jim Abourezk once called Israeli-occupied territory. No comparable Arab lobby even exists, much less functions effectively. As a case in point the Senate will periodically issue unsolicited resolutions sent to the president that stress, underline, re-iterate American support for Israel. There was such a resolution in May, just at the time when Israeli forces were occupying and in effect destroying all the major West Bank towns. One of the drawbacks of this wall-to-wall endorsement of Israel’s most extreme policies is that in the long run it is simply bad for Israel’s future as a Middle East country. Tony Judt has well argued that case, suggesting that Israel’s dead end ideas about staying on in Palestinian land will lead nowhere and simply put off the inevitable withdrawal.

Because of Israeli interests in this country, US Middle East policy is therefore Israel-centric. A post-9/11 chilling conjuncture has occurred in which the Christian right, the Israeli lobby, and the Bush administration’s semi-religious belligerency are theoretically rationalized by neo-conservative hawks whose view of the Middle East is committed to the destruction of Israel’s enemies, which is sometimes given the euphemistic label of redrawing the map by bringing regime change and “democracy” to the Arab countries who most threaten Israel. (See “The Dynamics of World Disorder: Which God is on whose side?” by Ibrahim Warde, Le Monde Diplomatique, September 2002 and “Born-Again Zionists” by Ken Silverstein and Michael Scherer, Mother Jones, October 2002). Sharon’s campaign for Palestinian reform is simply the other side of his effort to destroy the Palestinians politically, his life-long ambition. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria, even Jordan have been variously threatened, even though, dreadful regimes though they may be, they were protected and supported by the US since World War Two, as indeed was Iraq.

In fact, it seems obvious to anyone who knows anything about the Arab world that its parlous state is likely to get a whole lot worse once the US begins its assault on Iraq. Supporters of the administration’s policy occasionally say vague things like how exciting it will be when we bring democracy to Iraq and the other Arab states, without much consideration for what exactly, in terms of lived experience that will mean for the people who actually live there, especially after B-52 strikes tear their land and homes apart relentlessly. I can’t imagine that there is a single Arab or Iraqi who would not like to see Saddam Hussein removed. All the indications are that US/Israeli military action has made things a lot worse on a daily basis for ordinary people, but this is nothing in comparison with the terrible anxiety, psychological distortions and political malformations imposed on their societies.

Today neither the expatriate Iraqi opposition that has been intermittently courted by at least two US administrations, nor the various US generals like Tommy Franks, has much credibility as possible post-war rulers of Iraq. Nor does there seem to have been much thought given to what Iraq will need once the regime is changed, once the internal actors get moving again, once even the Baath is detoxified. It may be the case that not even the Iraqi army will lift a finger in battle on behalf of Saddam. Interestingly though, in a recent congressional hearing three former generals from the US’s Central Command, have expressed serious and, I would say, crippling reservations about the hazards of this whole adventure as it is being planned militarily. But even those doubts do not sufficiently address the country’s seething internal factionalism and ethno-religious dynamic, particularly after thirty debilitating years under the Baath party, UN sanctions, and two major wars. No one in the US, no one at all, has any real idea of what might happen in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, or Egypt if a major military intervention takes place.

Meanwhile, as The Nation put it in its last editorial, the country marches toward war as if in a trance, while with an increasing number of exceptions, Congress has simply abdicated its role of representing the people’s interest. As someone who has lived within the two cultures all my life it is appalling that the clash of civilizations, that reductive and vulgar notion so much in vogue now, has taken over thought and action. What we need to put in place is a universalist framework for comprehending and dealing with Saddam Hussein as well as Sharon, the rulers of Myanmar, Syria, Turkey, and a whole host of those countries where depredations are endured without sufficient resistance.—Copyright 2002, Edward W. Said

(Concluded)

THE elections have not returned any political party with a majority in the National Assembly. Fearing that office and power may elude them in spite of the substantial number of seats some of the parties have won, their spokesmen have been calling for a “government of national consensus”. Actually, there is no consensus among them on most of the major issues that confront us. What these gentlemen really mean is that the next government should include them regardless of who else is, or is not, included. A government of national consensus is a phantom that we will not see on the ground.

A realistic approach to coalition making should take cognizance of the following “ground realities”: (1) the measure of compatibility between the likely partners; (2) the presence of General Pervez Musharraf on the political scene as president and army chief for the next five years; (3) his deference, voluntary or forced, to the preferences of George W. Bush.

Of the three larger groups in the assembly — PML (QA), 77 seats; PPP, 63; MMA, 53 (including seven FATA and one Islamabad seats, but not including in any of these and other cases each party’s proportionate share of the reserved seats for women and minorities) — the MMA is the one notable for its espousal of an ideology and attachment to its commitments. (These figures are liable to change as independents join them). Yet, its record suggests that it may be willing to wait for a more propitious time and turn of events for a fuller realization of its goals. It will take what it can now and press for more as it goes along.

Qazi Husain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rahman have recently made conciliatory statements to assure us and the outside world, especially the United States, that they will not pursue their Islam-related goals in any fanatical fashion. The Islamic state they desire in Pakistan will be “poles apart” from the regime the Taliban had foisted upon Afghanistan.

Considering General Musharraf’s modernist inclinations, and the fact that MMA has done poorly in Punjab and Sindh, it is unlikely that it will push for further Islamization right away. But a related issue may become prominent, even explosive. That is the American, and indirectly Pakistani, war against Muslim extremists.

The extremists in question were the Taliban and their allies, the Al Qaeda folks. The Taliban had initially been raised and trained by some of our Islamic parties now in MMA.

The American war against them has caused the “collateral” killing of many thousands of Pakhtoons in Afghanistan. Our own Pakhtoons are understandably resentful of this indiscriminate brutality.

The MMA has won most of its seats in the National Assembly from the Pakhtoon belt in the NWFP and Balochistan. This has been a protest vote, and it has gone to MMA because its component parties, more than the others, were believed to be opposed to the American policy and Pakistan’s association with it. The MMA cannot reverse its stance without betraying the mandate the Pakhtoons have given it. But if it honours that mandate, it will greatly alienate Mr. Bush and, “collaterally,” General Musharraf.

After meetings with Qazi Husain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, leader of the PML (QA) parliamentary group, made the weird statement that, having cooperated with each other at some point in the remote past, his party and MMA were now “natural allies”. Speaking, as he was, for the “king’s party,” Chaudhry Sahib should have consulted the “king” before making this unconvincing declaration. Apparently, he didn’t, and that was imprudent of him.

Beyond promising all good things, in general terms, on the domestic front, MMA leaders stand for rolling back dictatorship and the military’s participation in government decision making, reviving democracy and, to this end, repealing most of General Musharraf’s amendments to the Constitution, replacing him with a properly elected president, expelling American military presence from Pakistani soil, and possibly from Afghanistan. One may be certain that no part of this agenda will go well with the general, and he will be loath to have its proponents as his partners in governance.

If the PML (QA) is to remain on the general’s right side, it will have little in common with the MMA. Turning to the PPP, even though Amin Fahim has held meetings with Qazi Husain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur Rahman, the idea of their coalescing to form a government does not make sense. There has never been any good feeling, or even mutual respect as adversaries, between the PPP and the Islamic parties. In fact, their attitudes towards each other have been those of hatred and, just as often, contempt.

Let us now consider the possibility of cooperation between the PPP and the PML (QA). Between 1988 and 1999 the PML under Nawaz Sharif’s sway and the PPP under that of Benazir Bhutto were enemies. But that was then. Since Mr. Sharif’s ouster, many of his former lieutenants have deserted him to join the PML (QA). They do not appear to have any abiding dispute with her.

Are the PML (QA) and the PPP compatible? They would appear to be more so than either one of them could be with the MMA. Neither of them is burdened with an ideology, nor is either one of them firmly committed to any rules of political morality or principles of policy. They are both pragmatic in their approach to the tasks ahead, and their socio-economic outlook is essentially centrist. The PML (QA) is open to American advice and guidance, now more than ever, because General Musharraf is inclined that way.

Ms Bhutto has sought American approval and support all along. Now that she cannot see the president or his top assistants each time she comes to Washington, she is often found canvassing middle-ranking officials in the state department.

Both Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto were willing to walk the extra mile to conciliate India. Following their predecessors (Ziaul Haq, Junejo, Z.A. Bhutto), they kept the Kashmir issue on the “back burner”. Ms Bhutto entertained Rajiv Gandhi in Islamabad and reportedly provided him the names and addresses of Sikh separatists whom Pakistan had been helping. Nawaz Sharif went to Wagah to welcome Mr. Vajpayee’s famous bus, entertained him in Lahore (much to the chagrin of the Islamic parties), and joined him in signing a declaration of peace and amity to which Indian officials still refer with much longing.

If the criminal cases against Ms Bhutto can somehow be resolved, or if she will live abroad for a time without making waves or directing her party men in a coalition government from Dubai and London, the PPP and the PML (QA) are “natural allies” more than any two other parties on the political scene.

The National Alliance, with 13 seats in the assembly, is the general’s “junior league”, and it will join any coalition that is acceptable to him. The MQM, also with 13 seats, is unlikely to join a coalition that is led by the MMA. But it may be receptive to an invitation from the PPP and the PML (QA) for, in spite of its unpleasant past experience with these parties, it may be just too tired of being in the opposition.

Where does this leave us? We have the PML-N (16 seats), independents (22), and “others” (13). If the PPP and the PML (QA) forsake the MMA, there is no way it can put together a majority in the house even if the PML (N) and all of the “others” and independents enter its camp. They will add up to 104 out of the 272 already elected. This number may decline significantly in the likely event that quite a few of the “others” and independents will not want to stand under an umbrella whose hues and contours are known to be offensive to the general’s sensibilities.

Let us see if the PML (QA) can put together a majority without the participation of either the PPP or MMA. The National Alliance will join in, and let us make the implausible assumption that it can rope in MQM, and all of the independents and “others.” This combination will have 125 members (out of 272), meaning 12 short of a majority. The PML (QA) might conceivably seduce a number of the PML (N) members to defect to its side.

But in all probability they, and most of the independents and “others”, who jump on to its bandwagon, will have to be bribed on a continuous basis to be kept in. Any government resulting from such a coalition will be corrupt, unstable, and incompetent — grounds on which governments have been dismissed in the past.

A coalition between the PML (QA) and the PPP, which the NA will readily join, will have 152 members (77+62+13 respectively) out of 272. It will form a clear and comfortable majority, made even more so if MQM were to come aboard — that is, without making impossible demands. There will then be no need whatsoever to bring in any of the independents or “others” by offering them inducements. We could have a reasonably stable government.

Lastly, three quick observations may be made. General Musharraf says he is equally receptive to all parties and that he will work with any person whom the National Assembly elects as prime minister, regardless of his party affiliation. That is the proper thing to say, but it is not to be taken seriously. Estrangement between the next government and the general will do none of us any good.

Two, Benazir Bhutto will advance the national interest, and enhance her own stature, if she withholds her demands and her desire to be the prime minister in exile for a time, and allows a coalition between her party and the PML (QA) to materialize. Three, the best course of action for MMA is to lead the provincial governments in the NWFP and Balochistan and provide decent governance in those two provinces. It should forego participation in the federal government, occupy the opposition benches in the National Assembly, discover and voice the conscience of the nation.

Writer’s e-mail: syed.anwar@attbi.com

THE MNAs elect of the Q Muslim League have authorized their leader Shujaat Husain to select the party’s candidate for the prime minister’s post. Nawaz Sharif was also so authorized by his parliamentarians in 1997 to name whoever he liked to be the president of the country.

This shows that the herd instinct of our legislators, as a body, remains intact though Gen Musharraf’s bureaus and tribunals had, purportedly, purged their ranks of the corrupt and ignorant (undergraduates).

When Nawaz Sharif in 1997, in pursuance of the trust reposed in him by the members of the time, announced to them that the president would be Rafiq Tarar, it took some time to sink in their minds that he wasn’t kidding. As later events showed, the people had to pay a heavy price for the selection of a friend and adviser of the Sharif clan as the country’s president.

In a parliamentary system the office of the president is largely ceremonial but the holder of the office by his intellectual eminence and standing in public life personifies the ethos of a nation as, taking just one instance, Dr Radhakrishnan and Dr. Zakir Husain did in India.

Further, the president is ordinarily bound by the advice of the prime minister, yet his right to be informed and in turn to advise and warn the government against the consequences of a policy or course of action remains enshrined in parliamentary conventions.

Were Rafiq Tarar to have the standing and inclination to exercise this right, Nawaz Sharif would surely have had second thoughts before dismissing the two army chiefs (one succumbed, the other revolted), engineering an attack on the Supreme Court and attempting to assume dictatorial powers under the 15th constitutional amendment bill. Tarar’s failure to act, if at all he was informed, precipitated the army intervention in October 1999 and plunged the country in a crisis which is now reaching its climax.

In addition to the right to advise or admonish, one power which a head of state — whether a monarch or a president — must exercise is to call upon the leader of a party to form a government in the event no single party is able to demonstrate a clear majority in the parliament. The presidents in various countries have used this power to rally the wavering members behind a chosen leader or to forge a coalition. If the chosen leader is unable to muster a majority, the president may commission another leader and dissolve the parliament if he fails.

Only constitutional experts can say whether this power is still available to the president of Pakistan under the multiple layers of amendments made to the 1973 Constitution. If it isn’t, it needs to be restored because it is a cardinal feature of every parliamentary form of government, and events in political and parliamentary spheres may leave no alternative to the president but to invoke it. But before this power is exercised the National Assembly must meet for the president and the people to assess the strength of each party and alliance. The moment has arrived for the National Assembly to be convened to put an end to the speculations and charges swirling around the parties and their leaders and the president himself and his administration. If it is another five or six weeks before the NA meets, as is being suggested, the result could be general despondency or unrest.

If the rumours circulating over the past two weeks since the polls are bizarre, so are the activities of the political leaders and the indifference of the government and the doings of the Election Commission. They are all fast losing the respect of the people. In this game of delay and wavering and waffling, the joker in the pack, besides the ever-present “agencies”, appears to be the Election Commission.

In the jostle for power the manifestoes and morality both have been cast aside by the parties and the welfare of the people finds no place. The guiding force in negotiating coalitions is the share in power and key posts and not the conformity of views. The bargaining in progress may result in such strange bedfellows as the Q League and the PPP, and the MMA and the MQM — all ready to repent and make amends for their past behaviour towards each other.

The cake in this on-going tussle however goes to the Jamaat-i-islami. Its chief, Qazi Hussain Ahmad, said at a news conference in Islamabad (reported in Dawn on October 18) that the alliance (MMA) would collaborate with any party which pledges support to the candidature of Maulana Fazlur Rahman for prime minister. It is hard to reconcile it with the known stand of Qazi’s party repeated by its secretary-general, Liaquat Baloch, at a meeting in Lahore on October 19 that the goal of the JI is to establish an Islamic system from which it could not be distracted by the lure of any worldly office. The commitment the party is now seeking is to an office not to a system.

In its campaign to lead the new government, the MMA has also chosen to canvass support of foreign diplomats based in Islamabad, giving credence to the old popular belief, more relevant in today’s circumstances, that no one can become prime minister of Pakistan unless blessed by America. The government and public pressure should, perhaps, combine to dissuade the other parties from following the example set by MMA. It detracts from our national sovereignty and pride, both.

It is also an appropriate moment for a bit of an advice to the religious alliance while it seeks foreign endorsement of its bid for power. It is known to the entire world — and more particularly to the Americans — that the Taliban militia rose from the madrassahs run by the JUI, had that party’s support while it ruled and now its sympathy when it is on the run. It is also known to he world, especially to the Indians, that the insurgents in Kashmir get more encouragement from the JI and its allied forces than from other organizations in Pakistan.

The MMA getting into power, thus, might bring Pakistan’s relations with America under strain and also hamper the efforts at a rapprochement with India. Pakistan needs both for its peace and economic progress. In the present state of social deprivation and economic stagnation no government, howsoever appealing its ideology or promises, would be able to stave off for long an outburst of popular discontent.

Religion now has become a political issue. All actions of a people, their hate and heroism, are viewed and required to be explained in the light of their religious beliefs. The world views the attacks of the freedom fighters in Kashmir in the same light as the bombing of the Bali night club or the Chechens holding 700 Russians hostage in a Moscow theatre. The sad reality that the world overlooks is that behind every terrorist act lurks an injustice, an unfulfilled national aspiration. The victims of this injustice — the Palestinians, Chechens and the Kashmiris — being all Muslims, the Islamic groups or movements inevitably get linked with terrorism. The religious parties therefore should have the political savvy to stay out of the government till our frontiers are secure and America’s war on terrorism in Afghanistan ends.

Mutual suspicion and recrimination are growing in the country. Leaders speak out what to them is the truth only after they have left the government. Very few have the courage to say in public what they say in private. Speaking in public for the first time, and stridently, since leaving the presidency, Rafiq Tarar has promised to disclose why General Musharraf overthrew the Nawaz Sharif government and how the elections of October 10 were rigged. His disclosures would have been credible had he resigned immediately after the October 1999 military take-over and said what he wants to say now. Now, Tarar, affluent in retirement and Musharraf moving out of the executive mansions into the lonely splendour of the presidency and golf links, it would be just another tale told by a president who was forced out of office.

However, Rafiq Tarar’s account of election rigging, drawing upon his own 10-year experience, should evoke greater interest. But the people at the same time would also expect him to disclose how the six per cent turnout in Zia’s referendum was made into sixty by his election commission. He should also tell the people the purpose of his mid-night flight to Quetta then if it was not to influence the judicial in-fighting then in progress.

The truth behind all the national misfortunes must be unmasked, for the power broker sooner or later patch up, with only the common people left to suffer the brunt of their intrigues. Rafiq Tarar, thus, has made a much needed beginning. The skeletons in political closets must be exposed in open public debates, not in special courts.