NOW that military action against Iraq is almost certain — barring Saddam Hussein’s flight into exile or his overthrow in Baghdad — it is worthwhile attempting an assessment of the possible consequences for the region.

President Bush thinks he is in a race against time; the reason is weather. His military advisers, according to western press reports, believe a large ground force would have to sweep through Iraq before the beginning of April when oppressive summer weather, with machine-clogging dust storms, would set in. Even in a conventional war that would be a daunting environment. Since the Pentagon’s assumption is that Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to use his chemical weapons, the American-led forces would have to wear sealed chemical warfare suits which cannot be worn in fierce heat. Hence, Washington’s reluctance to delay military action beyond the first week of March.

An American-led invasion of Iraq is likely to be a much bloodier affair than the Gulf War of 1991. If Saddam Hussein decides to battle it out, he will try to inflict as much damage on the Americans as he can because he knows he is going to lose anyway.

He is not likely to repeat his mistakes of 1991 when he left his army exposed in the desert for target bombing by the allied air force and then to be cut off and destroyed by US tanks. This time he could follow scorched-desert retreat that might create huge problems for the advancing US troops. He is likely to deploy his best troops in and around Baghdad and Tikrit, their tanks dispersed in schools and mosques, safe from US warplanes and ready for a last-ditch stand.

Baghdad has more than four million people and even a few hundred determined defenders could recreate the ghost of Somalia or even Vietnam for the Americans. “What worries me most,” says retired US General Norman Schwarzkopf, “is if we end up getting into protracted combat in cities, in downtown Baghdad.”

US defence planners are reportedly hoping for a quick kill, incapacitating Iraq’s military by overwhelming force and high-tech weapons, leaving it in complete disarray while the US armour seizes Baghdad. The world is likely to see the use of some high-tech weapons, not yet used or even heard of. In this scenario, there are few civilian casualties — victory is achieved quickly and anger soon subsides in the Arab as well as Muslim world.

But it could all go wrong because even lop-sided wars are rarely fought according to plan. Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld recently told US troops stationed in Italy: “It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months.” But what happens if it does? The longer it lasts, the more damaging it will be for US interests. Images of besieged civilians in Baghdad dying in streets and hordes of fleeing refugees crossing into Turkey and Iran would be beamed to a worldwide audience, inflaming passions in the Islamic world and increasing international condemnation of the military action.

It will be a new kind of war, with untold risks and perils in. Unlike his father, the junior Bush appears to be a risk-taker on a grand scale. It is apparent that risks of a US-led invasion without local allies and with little unequivocal support are indeed great. But Washington seems to have an overriding faith in its technological prowess to win a quick victory.

But even if the United States does win a quick victory, the danger of Iraq lapsing into bloody chaos will nevertheless remain. The country has been fractured by hatred-between ethnic and religious groups and between the regime’s enforcers and its victims. That phenomenon alone will make the policing, governance and political and economic restructuring of Iraq more than a daunting task.

It is, however, the possible reaction outside Iraq that may upset the apple cart of US planning. The invasion of Iraq runs the risk of unintended damage to mosques as well as such holy places as Nahaf-e-Ashraf and Karbala. Also the continuing presence of “infidel” occupying troops in Baghdad, one of the oldest centres of Islamic civilization, will be widely resented in the Muslim world. The US-led military action against Iraq, without UN support, is even likely to raise the spectre of “a clash of civilizations” despite the disparities of economic and political power between the invader and the victim.

Though the ultimate American victory is not in doubt, nobody can foretell what impact the American-led occupation of Iraq will have on the region and the wider Muslim world. Washington has not yet told its key allies how it sees Iraq being managed after its military occupation, how long the occupation will last and what role other countries will be required to play.

Marc Grossman, the US under-secretary of state for political affairs, recently told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee that a US military occupation could last two years and would involve American control over civilian ministries and the Iraqi oil industry. He played down any hope for the Iraqi opposition playing a major role.

Washington will be faced with a serious dilemma in post-Saddam Hussein Iraq. How to restore democracy in Iraq as well as placate its Arab allies, whose leaders are known to fear the very idea of a new federal democratic structure in Iraq. Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait reportedly want to see the existing power structure in Iraq left in place, allowing Sunni minority Muslims to exert control over a country that has an estimated 65 per cent Shiite population.

The US will also have to keep Turkish sensitivities in mind. Ankara will not like any surge in Kurdish militancy in Iraq as it might spill over into Turkey and give a new lease of life to the Kurdish problem.

Some analysts think that containment of Saddam Hussein can be achieved by continued inspections, stretching over many years. But this does not seem to fit in with Washington’s plans whose objective is to change the regime and alter the balance of power in the entire region. The reason France is not supporting the planned US-led military action is not that it has a soft corner for Saddam Hussein or the Iraqi people, but because it does not want to be left out of a new balance of influence in the Middle East.

Washington hopes that a pro-western and democratic Iraq will provide a beacon for other countries in the Middle East, spurring political, economic and social reforms in the region. It further hopes this will isolate the Ayatollahs in Iran, make Syria think twice before confronting Israel, put greater pressure on the regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt to reform themselves and bring Israel and Palestinians back to the bargaining table. The thinking in Washington appears to be that more open and democratic governments in the countries of the region will help diminish the appeal of terror as a mode of political action.

The all-important question is: how realistic is Washington’s plan in practice? US government documents reportedly suggest that 75,000 US and allied troops will be needed in Iraq for five years to implement the kind of reforms under consideration in Washington. Many Iraqis will consider a regime change in Baghdad a blessing in disguise, but many more will regard the foreign troops as an occupation force which is there to control the Iraqi oil.

There are shades of grey in figuring out as to what will happen after the planned regime change in Iraq. Will the Americans succeed where the British and the French failed after the First World War? No doubt, times have changed since then and democracy and pluralism have a much wider appeal today than they had several decades ago. But even today the path to remaking the Middle East is thorny and beset with pitfalls and imponderables.

The fallout of an Iraq war will not be confined to the Arab world alone; its shock waves will be equally felt in Tehran and Islamabad. The scenario for Pakistan will be particularly grim, given its proximity to Afghanistan, its past association with the Taliban, the recent surge in the popularity of religious and extremist groups, increasing anti-Americanism in the country, the continuing confrontation with India and the tenuous hold of the Musharraf regime on Pakistani society.

If the Americans go ahead with their military adventure in Iraq, the political and economic stability in Pakistan, tenuous even now, will receive a severe blow. Will Islamabad be able to absorb the jolts and pressures that are likely to result from the conflagration in Iraq? And where will Pakistan stand in the new American plan for remaking the region? Will not the post-September 11 commitment of Washington to stand by Islamabad be weakened once it gets bogged down in the messy affairs of the Middle East after its victory in Iraq? Will not Islamabad become less relevant in the new scheme of things? And what position will New Deli occupy in the US strategy in the post-war era devoted as it is likely to be pluralism and democracy in the region?

Since there are so many imponderables, no one can foretell how the events will eventually unfold. But one thing is certain: if an US-led invasion goes ahead, the situation extending from Cairo to Islamabad will not be the same as before.

The writer is a former ambassador of Pakistan.

ON February 15, peace activists in 60 countries and 400 cities of the world joined hands to demonstrate against the impending war on Iraq. Nearly ten million people are estimated to have responded to their call and turned up at the rallies that were organized. Once again it was plain that the phenomenon of the shrinking of international borders and the globalization of the peace movement has come to stay.

This process has been facilitated by the freer movement of capital and, to some extent, the mobility of people. It has been further reinforced by communication technology. Also a major contributing factor has been the thrust towards democratic and open societies which encourage public participation in all sectors of life.

But there were some significant points to be noted about what happened last Saturday. The rallies were bigger in Europe and North America — London’s demonstration attracted the largest number of people (said to be two million). Although the main brunt of war, if it comes, will be on Third World countries and devastate their economies and societies, their response was relatively muted and not as massive as that in Europe and America. This would appear to be strange, especially when the people of Asia seem to be pretty aware of the fate that awaits them if Iraq is attacked.

Take the case of Pakistan, where public opinion has been quite vocal against an American attack on Iraq and where the media has been very vocal in its criticism of President George W, Bush’s policy which is now widely believed to be directed at promoting the oil interests of some powerful individuals in the administration. Moreover, American bombardment of Afghanistan in the post-9/11 weeks provoked a strong backlash against any further attacks on any country in the region.

Yet the religious parties whose rallies made headlines in the foreign electronic media in the aftermath of the savage American bombing of Afghanistan and who have adopted a clear stand against the American war on Iraq chose not to join the international peace rallies on Saturday. The political parties, which seem to have exhausted their stamina after their wheeling and dealing in the wake of the October 10 elections and the forthcoming Senate polls, were also conspicuous by their absence from the scene. Only the ever active women’s groups and progressive writers and intellectuals joined hands to register their protest along with the peace activists all over the world. Saturday’s rallies in Pakistan were quite impressive by local standards.

The moot question is, will these demonstrations have an impact and deter Mr Bush, enjoying the full backing of his key supporter in Europe, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, from going ahead with his planned military action against Iraq? From the statements emanating from Washington and London it appears that the Bush administration’s resolve to take on Iraq and bring about a regime change has not been weakened by this worldwide show of dissent. But some modification in its stance is discernible. This may initially involve postponing military action for some time and giving the arms inspectors more time to hunt for prohibited weapons and materials.

Some observers feel that Mr Bush will not be deterred by the peace rallies because he believes that he can get away with its recourse to force against delinquent Iraq and emerge unscathed as he did in Afghanistan. This could prove to be a grave miscalculation. The attack on Afghanistan came within a month of 9/11 when America as well as Europe was still in a state of shock and fear. Hence it was easy to convince the people that punitive action against Afghanistan was the only way of rooting out the evil of terrorism of Al Qaeda and the Taliban. That is not the case with Iraq today and Mr Colin Powell’s repeated assertion that the need is to disarm Iraq — by pulverizing it if need be — because of the danger it poses has not found ready acceptance. Hence the compulsion for the American and British governments to be more circumspect, especially when their popularity ratings are falling.

At a time when the common goal of the international peace movement and the people of Pakistan is to oppose war on Iraq, it is important that we should join hands with the peace activists worldwide. The marches on Saturday were not a sporadic phenomenon. They had been planned after the peace rally in London in October drew a massive crowd. The idea caught on after the Porto Allegro meeting of the Social Action Forum in January. The activists will meet in London next month to plan their future course of action.

It needs hardly to be emphasized that the people in the Third World, who are most vulnerable to war and its after-effects should be in the forefront of a peace movement. It is true that this kind of activism does not come easily to the impoverished classes which are weighed down by their struggle for survival on a day-to-day basis. To find out, ask a woman who spends four hours everyday to fetch water for her family, and she will tell you how hard the struggle for bare existence is for large sections in poor countries. But political parties and religious groups do manage to mobilize the people when they want to. The NGOs and CBOs which are networking with one another and interacting with the people at the grassroots level should be setting up the structures without which mobilization is not possible. Political parties need to understand that they will have to broaden their sights and link up with shared causes all across the globe.

While this is important for many reasons, the foremost priority is of course peace. It is not surprising that governments and big businesses do not always share the aspirations of the people. While the majority of men and women want to live in peace so that they can pursue goals like development, self-uplift and emancipation, governments have a vested interest in the acquisition of armaments, control over territory and resources and the manipulation of power. All these make conflict and war often inevitable.

Hence the need for pacifists all over the world to join hands. One has something to learn from the 3,000 Arabs and Jews in Tel Aviv who marched together on Saturday and the peace activists in India and Pakistan, who lighted candles at the Wagah border. Will their governments ever get their message — peace in Palestine and peace in Kashmir?

Will these demonstrations make any difference? The answer should be seen in the wider perspective of the system of international relations as it is emerging today. Since the Berlin Wall came down in 1989 and the cold war ended followed by the collapse of the USSR in 1991, the bipolar international system has changed. A new world order based on the predominance of the United States, the sole superpower today, is taking shape.

This also spells the end of the balance of power which injected a degree of stability into the state system in post-Napoleonic Europe since the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The new world system is in effect coming to be based on the hegemony of one state whose powers go beyond national boundaries, thanks to the globalization spearheaded by the multinationals. This is the new “Empire” forecast by Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri in their book of the same name (2000).

According to these two academics, imperial power can no longer resolve the conflict of social forces. Previously it was the state which would contain these conflicts. Now you have on the one side the “Empire”, which has no territorial centre of power or territorial boundaries, and the masses of the exploited and subjugated on the other, called the “multitude”. One can regard the growing peace movement as a manifestation of the will and power of the so-called “multitude”.

In this struggle which in due course will acquire global dimensions, it would be unwise of the Muslim world to isolate itself from the rest of the “multitude”. By not joining the peace rallies on February 15, the religious parties in Pakistan in effect are attempting to distance themselves from the mainstream. If this process continues this will not only create divisions in the “multitude” but will in the long run weaken the Muslim world which already lacks homogeneity and solidarity and therefore strength.

ON March 8, when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Pakistan attains the age of 65 years, Pakistan’s legal fraternity will observe a black day to protest against the Legal Framework Order, 2002, and the thirty draft constitutional amendments introduced through it. One of the demands of the lawyers as well as the citizens of this country is that the members of the superior judiciary should be administered the oath of their office under Article 178 of the Constitution of 1973. It has been long overdue.

The oath under article 178 reads as under:

“I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan: That, as Chief Justice of Pakistan (or a Judge of the Supreme Court of Pakistan or Chief Justice or a Judge of the High Court for the Province), I will discharge my duties and perform my functions, honestly, to the best of my ability and faithfully in accordance with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan and the law... That I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan.”

It is important to note the contents of another oath of office, prescribed under the Constitution of Pakistan. This relates to the members of the armed forces who, under Article 244, are required to take the following oath:

“I do solemnly swear that I will bear true faith and allegiance to Pakistan and uphold the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan which embodies the will of the people, that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever...”

The factual position now is that the president of Pakistan, all the members of the armed forces of Pakistan, two provincial governors (of Sindh and Balochistan) and only one judge of the Supreme Court (Mr Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry who, on January 13, 2003, was administered the oath of the office under the 1973 Constitution) have solemnly sworn to uphold the Constitution of Pakistan. On the other hand, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and of the four High Courts, all the judges (except one) of the Supreme Court, all the judges of all the four High Courts and the two provincial governors (Punjab and the NWFP) have not taken oath to “preserve, protect, defend and uphold the Constitution of Pakistan.

If a constitutional matter now comes u for adjudication before the Supreme Court, the solitary judge of that court, who has since sworn to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution and to discharge his duties and perform his functions under the Constitution will be holding a judicial view which may be at variance with that held by the Chief Justice of Pakistan and by all the rest of the judges of the Supreme Court, who are not under the oath of fealty to the Constitution. It is indeed a piece of constitutional comedy to find a Chief Justice owing allegiance to one document and the next senior-most judge on the same bench in the same court, to a different document. Only the sharpest of legal eagles could have created this anomaly, thereby throwing the judicial system to ridicule and confusion, and the legal community up in arms.

Let us now look at yet another anomaly. In 2000, the then Chief Justice and about half a dozen judges of the Supreme Court were made to vacate their offices immediately and unceremoniously because, having already sworn to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution”, they could not persuade themselves to renounce that solemn oath, and swear allegiance to another document which, even by the admission of its own authors, was of a transient nature and for a transitory period. Since on January 13, 2003, the acting Chief Justice of Pakistan took the oath under the Constitution of 1973, the adherence to which was the one and the only act or omission on the part of the ex-Chief Justice and his brother judges for forfeiting their high offices in 2000, there seems little justification now not to recall them and give them, with retrospective effect, their pay and seniority.

If half a dozen judges of the Supreme Court, who have now, prima facie, become entitled to sit on the bench, are still denied the full restoration of their rights to act as judges of the Supreme Court under the oath already taken by them under Article 178 of the Constitution, the composition of the present court itself can be called into question.

This takes us to the question which has been troubling the nation since October 10, 2002, namely, what is the Constitution of 1973? Sophistry apart, the answer is simple and clear. The Constitution of 1973 is that Constitution which was enacted by the people of Pakistan through their representatives in the National Assembly of Pakistan on April 12, 1973, as amended from time to time, under Article 238. This Article leaves no ambiguity whatsoever about the manner in which the Constitution can be amended. The Article stipulates that a constitutional amendment will become legally effective only when it has been passed by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the National Assembly as well as of the Senate, voting separately.

It is for the Supreme Court to interpret it the constitution. On October 10, 2002, which was the date fixed for general elections, the regime which had earlier introduced twenty nine draft constitutional amendments, introduced the (last) 30th draft constitutional amendment which enhanced the retirement age of the judges of the Supreme Court from 65 to 68, and that of the High Court judges from 62 to 65. It was a cynical move. If the judges now knock down the twenty nine draft constitutional amendments notified in August 2002, they automatically deprive themselves of three years’ extension, which, too, is a draft constitutional amendment under the same Legal Framework Order. The judges of the superior judiciary were thus placed in a “take-it-or-leave-it” situation.

The point at issue before the nation now is not the retirement age of the judges. It has already been fixed under the Constitution. It is 65 years for the judges of the Supreme Court, under article 179, and 62 years for the judges of the High Court, under article 195. any amendment to these Articles can be made under article 238 which has been discussed above. It needs no repetition — or rebuttal.

Judiciary is the third pillar of the state. It has attained its present independence and pre-eminence after a long, bitter and hard struggle waged by the people, the press and by the judges themselves. If the judiciary acquiesces, even by its eloquent silence, over the unsolicited, across-the-board three years’ extension granted to the permanent pillar of the state by an individual, however powerful he may appear today, judiciary should not forget that one who can give three years’ extension by a wave of his hand and without any legal authority, can also curtail the already constitutionally protected retirement age of 62 and 65 years, by the wave of another hand, or by a mere blink of the eye.

If the extension can be sudden, the curtailment may also be equally sudden. The matter may not rest at the retirement age. Other constitutional safeguards enjoyed by the superior judiciary may also be tinkered with.

The fate of the public servants is an eye-opener for the judiciary. Once the constitutional protection of the public servants was abolished, they were reduced to personal servitude. Their conditions have worsened under every successive regime — civil or military.

If the judiciary had pondered over this unsolicited favour of three years’ extension in this perspective, it should have felt extremely uneasy and vulnerable instead of feeling cosy or smug. The judges would have rejected it. The honourable way for the judges to reject this dubious and double-edged favour is simple. On the date of retirement fixed under the Constitution, the retiring judge should quietly lay his robes of office and leave. After that, he should not look back over his shoulder. an honourable retirement is a gift of God. It should be cherished and enjoyed.

Our judges get handsome salaries and perks during service which now goes well beyond the age of 60; they also get decent pensions and liberal perks, after retirement. Looking solely from this view, it should not be very difficult for them to spurn the unsolicited favour. Sixty five years is a ripe age for anyone to enjoy retirement, rest and recreation.

If the High Courts and the Supreme Court solemnly resolve that they will accept the three years’ extension only when the people of Pakistan, acting through their representatives, enact the required amendments in the relevant Articles of the Constitution it will raise the prestige of the apex courts to greater heights. The judges will make a name for themselves in history and, in the bargain, may change the course of Pakistan’s history. In early February, 2003, the regime informed the Supreme Court formally that the Legal Framework Order, 2002 was now a part of the Constitution and did not need any validation by the parliament.

The suo motu rejection of the 30th draft constitutional amendment by the judiciary will force the regime to beat a retreat before the combined pressure and the determined advance of the judiciary and the public opinion, withdraw the other twentynine draft amendments and place them, together with the 30th one, before the National Assembly and the Senate which, without any doubt, will endorse the 30th draft amendment — by more than two-thirds majority, in each house.

The writer is a retired additional secretary.