Difficult to predict new Palestinian-Israel ties
By Omar Dajani
WASHINGTON: A few weeks ago, I said goodbye to Palestine. I first arrived there in September 1999, just as the newly-elected Israeli government of Ehud Barak and a Palestinian leadership still dominated by Yasser Arafat agreed that, within one year, they would achieve a permanent settlement of the Palestinian- Israeli conflict. Signing on as a legal adviser to the Palestinian negotiating team, I hoped to contribute — and bear witness — to an extraordinary event: the final stage of the Middle East peace process. Now, less than four years later, few Palestinians can say the words “peace process” without wincing. Negotiations came to a halt in January 2001; and the other hallmarks of the process — Israeli-Palestinian security cooperation, confidence-building measures, “people-to-people” programmes — are seen by most Palestinians as naive illusions or, worse, as gimmicks intended to distract attention from Israel’s continuing occupation of Palestinian land. As a veteran Palestinian Cabinet minister told me when I paid him a farewell visit in March, “You’ve chosen the right time to leave. The Oslo era is over.”
But is a new era beginning? Last week, Mahmoud Abbas (commonly known as Abu Mazen) was confirmed as the first prime minister of the Palestinian Authority, and he brings with him a new Cabinet composed of outspoken critics of the status quo, as well as some of its traditional defenders.
In his inaugural address, Abu Mazen pledged to reform Palestinian governmental institutions, restore order in Palestinian areas, and consolidate authority under “one law, and one democratic and national decision that applies to us all” — an indirect challenge to the Muslim organizations that compete with the Palestinian Authority for political and military supremacy.
The government of Israel is now contemplating a series of measures to facilitate the work of the new Palestinian government. And the United States has responded by presenting the latest Middle East peace plan, the “roadmap,” which it devised last fall in collaboration with the United Nations, European Union, and Russia (known collectively as the Quartet).
The way forward, however, may be blocked by the road already travelled. The state of mind of Palestinians is far different from that of the frenzied diplomats in Al Quds and Tel Aviv, many of whom were posted to the region in 2000 with the expectation of helping to implement a peace deal and who have instead watched impotently as Palestinian-Israeli relations unravelled.
Now those re-energized diplomats are once again talking about the roadmap’s ultimate destination — two states, a secure Israel and a viable, democratic Palestine, living side by side in peace.
Even though all parties are studiously avoiding associating new efforts with the process that flowed from the Oslo peace accords Israeli and Palestinian leaders signed in 1993, Palestinians will judge the roadmap, and any subsequent initiative, based on their experience during the past 10 years.
The lessons from those years, too painfully learned to be ignored, bear revisiting. First, no amount of peace education or high-minded rhetoric about reconciliation will compensate for a failure to improve the conditions in which Palestinians are living. The issue is not economic aid or job creation; it is freedom of movement.
The physical fragmentation of the Palestinian territories has spawned political fragmentation, making Abu Mazen’s task of enforcing “one democratic and national decision that applies to us all” exceptionally difficult.
If the Palestinian Authority reassumes security control in areas under its jurisdiction, there will, inevitably, be calls once again for it to take sweeping measures against opposition groups, especially those most closely associated with uprising.
Finally, although personal relationships are important, they are not, alone, a reliable foundation for peace. The Oslo peace process was built in large part on personalities, and it fell with them. Commitments were breached and institutions were sidelined. The momentum of negotiations were often fuelled primarily by the strength of the relationships among the negotiators. After more than two years of uprising, that reservoir of goodwill has to a great extent dried up. Palestinians and Israelis alike will judge whatever new process unfolds solely by the other side’s compliance with its obligations. If the roadmap is to succeed, they should be given the opportunity to do precisely that. A cold assessment of each side’s progress by objective third parties will go much further toward building mutual confidence than a loosely articulated vision of the future or a friendly pat on the back.
It is difficult to predict what the next era of Palestinian- Israeli relations will bring. The hopefulness that animated the peace process during the Oslo years has given way to a tired sobriety. But that in itself may be just what the next peace process requires. In one of my last farewell visits, a reformist member of the Palestinian Legislative Council told me that he was certain I would come back to Palestine. I asked whether he thought that Palestinian political reforms would yield a diplomatic breakthrough. He immediately responded, “No.” Then, after a pause, he added, “but they were the right thing to do.”—Dawn/The LAT-WP News Service (c) The Washington Post.


Looking at war and peace from a glass menagerie
By Jawed Naqvi
PRIME Minister Vajpayee offered his hand of friendship to Pakistan from behind a bulletproof glass in Srinagar. The ironical image was stark, and it raised a few valid questions about the prospects ahead for his new peace move.
We all know that in the India-Pakistan equation the reasons for heralding peace are often as baffling as the reasons for going to war. In this classic love-hate relationship, not everything can be explained in rational terms.
Parliament and the nation at large had to suspend disbelief or logic as Mr Vajpayee tried to answer some of the more obvious questions flagged by MPs. They were curious to know if anything had changed in Kashmir’s graph of violence or elsewhere for India to make a U-turn on its policy of coercive diplomacy.
Some of the MPs may have known the answer but they still wanted to hear it from the prime minister. Politicians are often perverse and delight in their opponent’s misery, but Mr Vajpayee was equal to the challenge.
He blandly told them that the international circumstances had changed and that the world was standing on a single axis of power. Not that he approved of this world order, but that’s the way it was. Was Mr Vajpayee implicitly admitting that India’s foreign policy was now being governed by the United States? Or, as former diplomat and foreign minister in the Congress government Natwar Singh asked, was he trying to pre-empt a direct American engagement in the region by signalling a resumption of a peace initiative with Pakistan?
Of course the persistent MPs had asked the same question in December last year when India had for apparently no cogent reason withdrawn its troops from the border.
At that time the prime minister had declared that the objectives of the troop deployment had been met. If India was seeking to stop what is described as infiltration into Kashmir from across the Line of Control, that clearly has not happened. Even Mr Vajpayee acknowledges this. So what was the objective that was met?
If the aim of the military deployment was to internationalize the issue of cross-border terrorism without internationalizing the issue of Kashmir, then the troop deployment does seem to have worked. It’s a delicate argument and there are a lot of people, many of them in Vajpayee’s own party, who do not accept the view that he has succeeded in keeping the Kashmir issue away from the international agenda.
This might explain the complete dismay and confusion within the BJP’s ranks following the prime minister’s surprise announcement.
On the one hand, we have been treated to BJP spokesman Vijay Kumar Malhotra saying that the prime minister would not be visiting Pakistan, only to be gently rebuked by the leader. Pity the BJP’s ultra-nationalist cadre which has been fed on the staple of the standoff logic. They might well wonder what has prompted the new line of thinking, specially in the wake of an official report tabled in parliament last week which said that 1,874 Indian troops were killed or wounded during last year’s military deployment.
This an extraordinary number of casualties given the fact that no actual confrontation took place between the two countries.
Diplomacy, it would seem, was completely out of the reckoning if the country’s biggest military deployment since its 1971 war with Pakistan was merely intended to get senior US officials to visit the region and to declare that India was indeed living with a serious threat.
To the extent that US State Department official Richard Haass was lamenting on April 17 that Washington was “disappointed and frustrated” by its inability to encourage Pakistan to stem cross-border infiltration into Kashmir, Mr Vajpayee’s address in Srinagar the very next day would make diplomatic sense, but not so the price tag that would seem to have come with it.
Mr Haass’ warning that relations with Islamabad could never “improve beyond a certain point” unless the issue was adequately addressed should have pleased Mr Vajpayee. However, according to Stratfor, the Texas-based strategic forecasting agency, US officials had made it clear to New Delhi that Indian officials speaking of pre-emptive strikes on Pakistan “should change their tone and pave the way for diplomatic talks with Pakistan before the end of the year.”
Vajpayee’s offer of talks was reportedly conveyed to Washington a week before his Kashmir visit — even before Haass made his remarks,” the Stratfor report said.
Remember, too, President Clinton’s remarks to the Indian parliament in March 2000 when he demolished the government’s official claim of a military victory in Kargil and said it was American diplomacy that had put an end to that confrontation. The MPs had responded to that with much applause.
Since its 1998 nuclear tests, India has been locked in two military standoffs with Pakistan. On both occasions it has found itself leaning on American diplomatic intervention, even while claiming a military victory on its own. If we have to call in the Americans to help end military build-ups every time, we might as well call them in early and avert the needless deaths of our soldiers.
As Mr Vajpayee embarks on his third and, apparently, final attempt at peace with Pakistan, the bulletproof glass in Srinagar and the pointless deaths of Indian soldiers under his stewardship will continue to mock him.
* * * * * *
WHEN Indian Defence Minister George Fernandes is not slamming China, he is sure to be in trouble for defending it. On his recent visit to Shanghai, the reputed China-baiter ticked off the foreign media for “exaggerating” the SARS outbreak in China. Mr Fernandes sees a hidden agenda in the deliberate panic- mongering, pointing out that only two SARS infection cases were noted in Shanghai’s population of 17 million until April 24, compared to a few thousand dying in Africa of cholera.
And now we have Indian businessmen expecting to reap the benefits from China’s misfortune, which has badly hit its exports. Of course, India too has had over 20 people infected by SARS since last month and scores have been quarantined as suspected cases although no deaths have been reported. Mysteriously though, the World Health Organization has stepped in to declare India SARS-free, a point broadcast by the government amid official chest-thumping. Lots of people are keeping their fingers crossed and mouths shut with medical masks. Mr Fernandes handed a generous number of these masks to the Chinese ambassador to be shipped home.


Exploring post-70s literary ‘stagnation’
By Shamsul Islam Naz
The three-day All Pakistan Progressive Writers Conference which ended here the other day was attended by about 200 writers from all parts of country and addressed by a number of famous writers and artists belonging to different fields of literature and art.
According to its organizers, the basic idea of holding the conference was to trace the reason behind the failure of our society in producing internationally known writers and artists after the late 70s. It is a point to ponder for all that about three decades ago, there used to be 1,000 copies of an edition. But now the figure is just 300 including 200 books for complementary distribution.
Speaking at the conference, Progressive Writers Forum chairman Rasheed Misbah said that the one who worked hard was considered inferior while the one who worked less was considered superior and more honourable in the society. Writing without aim, devotion, study and diligence was a crime, he added.
Adil Soomro, a writer from Sindh, said that the liaison between the writer and the reader was on the verge of collapse. It was expedient to link the literature with cultural traditions and spre ad it in smaller towns and villages.
An intellectual from Rawalpindi, Rosh Nadim, said that every era had its own identity. The new generation feels the pinch of shattered dreams.
Latif Sahal from Lahore said that the nation had been writing for the last 55 years but was hardly devoted to thinking due to which our literature had regressed by centuries.
Anwar Mehmood Khalid said that a true writer could never be creedless. A writer reflected and depicted the society. Only those writers survive the challenge of time who project truths that are not in the limelight. A genuine writer not only fights with the society but with his own self as well. Every revolution is based on some idea derived from some thinker. The role of a writer is thus superior to that of a politician.
Arshad Jawed said that whatever was about to happen in South Asia in the 21st century required deep thinking.
Mehmood Ahmed Qazi said that a writer became progressive with the very first word he wrote. A writer banishes disorder and ushers in beauty.
Safdar Saleem Sial said that the current age was an age of the clash of economies and not of military conflicts.
Hussain Majrooh said that contemporary writers still floated on the surface of centuries old cultural traditions.
Ashfaq Rasheed said that there were more problems in prose-writing as compared to poetry in the current age.
Saleem Shahid, Mehmood Gilani, Johar Hayat, Altaf Qureshi, Shabbir Qadri, Nasreen Anjum, Zubair Rana, Tariq Jawed, Dawood Rizwan, Safat Waqar and Mansoor Wafa also addressed the conference.
The conference also adopted a number of resolutions demanding recognition of the art of writing as a profession and provision of social security to workers in the form of pension and medical and other allowances.
The moot expressed concern over the massacre let loose in Iraq by American imperialists and their allies for the establishment of a puppet government, and demanded that it should be stopped forthwith. The Iraqis should be allowed to form a government of their choice. The fallacious and misleading propaganda campaign launched by the allied forces to present their wrongdoings as right was also denounced. It also demanded withdrawal of restrictions on the declaration required for publication of newspapers.
It further demanded that the PTV should be taken away from the clutches of the ministry of information and handed over to workers. Allocation of 10 to 20 per cent of the budget for education, establishment of translation houses at provincial and federal levels, establishment of autonomous writers clubs on the pattern of the press clubs and establishment of libraries at the level of union councils and tehsils was also demanded.
The conference also demanded autonomous bodies for education in fine arts at federal and provincial levels and withdrawal of restrictions on performing arts on the PTV.
The moot also called for resolving disputes between Pakistan and India amicably through dialogue and diverting the resources from procurement of weapons to welfare projects. It also called for implementation of the seventh wage board award.
The moot further emphasized education in social sciences and demanded abolition of Shariat Bill, Hudood Ordinance, Section 295-C of the Blasphemy Act and discriminatory laws.
By another resolution, the conference urged the government to declare subjects of Pakistan Studies and Islamiat as compulsory, declare regional languages of Pakistan as national languages and impart elementary education in regional languages.
The conference at the concluding session issued a declaration which asked: “What is literature and what is the status of a literary person in the society.” This question had been cropping up afresh in the earlier decades of Pakistan’s history especially in the sixties and seventies. However, this subject was never discussed in the last two decades.
The declaration said: “According to the writer of our age, literature is nothing but the most effective instrument for depiction of the beauty of self, for escape from life, for revival of unsatiated desires and a journey back into the realm of exotic past. It is propagated vociferously that art should be for the sake of art, and should not have the remotest connection with politics, social imperatives and other cultural factors. Although every artist professes the concept of art for the sake of life. But due to a contrast between theory and practice, aimless writings have been piling up. “The question is why this is happening. A large number of writers are unaware of their true place in the society. Similarly, some writers, who have involved themselves in factions and groupings based on selfish motives, have intentionally chosen to be ignorant of it. This is the way of getting advantages from the media and benefits and favours from state institutions.
“The view that to be a writer is a God-given faculty, which is inherent in selected individuals, is an incorrect and improper approach. A writer is one of the components of a society who directly reacts to the forces of society. Thus a writer is created according to given conditions of society, environment and training, and produces literature according to the said circumstances.”
It was the first ever conference held without the assistance of any government agency. Citizens are hopeful that such conferences would not only change the literary atmosphere of the city but also pave way for others to join hands with writers and artists for the noble cause of spreading literary activities in small cities as well as rural areas.


Let’s begin at the beginning
By A. B. S. Jafri
LAST Friday, a group of admittedly big names called upon the government to abandon the Lyari Expressway Project. But, why pray? Going by the frequent reports in newspapers, also on the radio and television, one gets the impression that work is already in hand on this project and it appears to be in an advanced stage. Hundreds of the people to be displaced to make room for the expressway have already been displaced. Some have received some kind of compensation. A special township for the displaced people is also said to be under development.
To say this much is by no means to be interpreted as holding a brief for the expressway in question. Those who are objecting to the project are expected to know what they are talking about. For all the common man knows, this project must have been on the drawing boards for years and on the anvil, so to speak, also for some years. The correct time for debate on the expressway should be deemed to have expired, now that work on the ground is in hand and presumably making some snail-pace progress, too.
As stated by a former administrator of the now defunct Karachi Municipal Corporation, the idea of some project of more or less this nature was born, thanks to the devastating flood of 1977. Another date mentioned with some emphasis is 1981, when Wapda carried out a survey. Over the years, apparently the emphasis has shifted from a project to protect against possible flood to one that is, in addition, a scheme for traffic facilitation.
That Karachi needs a civilized system of urban traffic cannot be denied. In fact, the state in which surface traffic now is in Karachi is something the educated, enlightened and informed citizens ought to be thoroughly ashamed of. This is, quite frankly, a reference to the wise gentlemen who addressed that anti-expressway workshop. Or, was it a seminar? As far as the lay citizen is concerned it is traffic management that the expressway is supposed to be all about. And goodness knows, the citizen would embrace any idea that is even remotely related to putting some sense in Karachi’s road traffic anarchy.
One would readily agree with the gentleman who said that this “city needed funds for more urgent uplift schemes.” Why not name the “more urgent needs.” Many citizens would at once say Karachi needs proper urban rail transport system above all else. These wise men did not mention the way almost everyone in authority is playing cat-and-mouse with the Karachi Circular Railway. To talk of “urgent needs” without naming a single such need is, to say the least, not helpful.
Let it be stated once again that the intention here is not to sell the expressway. But criticism leads you nowhere if it is wholesale denunciation in hyperbolic and sweeping terms. What does one make of the view that the project is “bypassing all state rules and regulations and institutions.” Not one specific instance is mentioned. Another wiseacre said with an almost broken heart that “all the norms of a civilized society are being ignored.” Again not one norm is mentioned to help the citizen make some head or tail out of such flaming tirades. Yet another gentleman believed that the expressway “is violating all rules and regulations.”
Finally, the expressway was convicted of the crime of being “anti-people.” So there the debate ended. What next? Apparently, nothing. There is absolutely no denying that all projects ought to be debated thoroughly when there is still time for debate. Once the implementation of the project begins on the ground, the effort had better be to facilitate its progress, blowing the whistle on the fouls on the way.
As far as one can see, and it is evident from the discussion of last Friday, this project was not seriously focused upon by the opinion-makers in Karachi and up there in Islamabad. If newspapers are to be believed, the expressway, the Northern Bypass and also the resurrection of the KCR are some of the projects that have received the nod of the highest in the land.
Work has commenced on only one, that is the expressway. Perhaps it would be more sensible and constructive if the really qualified senior citizens of Karachi keep an alert vigil on the way work progresses on the expressway so that it may be rescued from being ‘anti-people’ and turned into a genuinely pro-people project. Let us not obstruct what has been taken in hand. At this stage it would be much better to try to make the best of the expressway. To call upon the government to ‘abandon’ it would be altogether counterproductive.
Now what about the Northern Bypass project? Would the gentlemen who are so worked up about the expressway kindly turn their attention to the two projects mentioned above. There is still time to talk about the Northern Bypass. If this project, too, is seen to be riddled and perforated with flaws for the worthy fault-finders, the time is now to get cracking. Path-finders help civilization, not the fault-finders who wake up after the damage has been done and has become irreparable.
Let us see what the wise senior citizens have to say about the KCR that has been deliberately throttled by a clearly identifiable road transport mafia and its tentacles inside the civil and railway bureaucracy. Where one should have liked to see a clear-cut plan for an up-to-date urban rail system, what we have is a jungle of plans, and plans, most of them so conceived as to be contradicting one another. We have plans for underground, surface and elevated urban railways. But no action. Not even a workshop or seminar. Bravo!
Time and again it has been suggested that a businesslike way of doing things is to begin at the beginning. Revive and put into operation what of the KCR already exists. Then move on to expand, improve and refine. Grandiose planning is about the most cunning of devices to block progress. Side by side run, however unwittingly, the critics. The two working in tandem comprise the surest recipe in aid of our do-nothing culture. It is better to be doing a little shoddily than not doing anything at all. This is the way the commonest of us little lay citizens of Karachi think.

