Ties with Moscow

ONE does not know the details of the conversation President Pervez Musharraf had with President Vladimir Putin on the telephone on Wednesday. No hint was available from the Pakistan foreign office as to what the two leaders talked about, but a foreign news agency spoke of the two presidents discussing Moscow’s “burgeoning relations” with Islamabad. The Russian president’s telephone call came in the wake of the reports that Moscow was keen to join the Organization of Islamic Conference — a move to which official sources in Islamabad have reacted negatively. However, Pakistan’s response to the Putin government’s keenness to join the OIC is only one aspect of Russia’s relations with Pakistan; there are other, for more important ones, that need greater attention. The biggest challenge before Pakistan and Russia is to put the cold war legacy of mutual suspicions and hostility behind them and open a new chapter in bilateral relations.

It goes without saying that Pakistan’s membership of the west-sponsored military pacts in the fifties did a lot to damage relations between Islamabad and Moscow. The Russians have not forgotten that the American U-2 plane shot down by the USSR had flown on its spying mission from a US base in Pakistan. The low point in their relations came when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in 1979. This took Pakistan back into the American camp, with Ziaul Haq’s military government serving as a funnel for the CIA’s covert military operations against the Soviet occupation forces. The Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, followed by the civil war among the mujahideen factions, and Pakistan’s categorical support to the Taliban further embittered relations with Moscow. However, in the changed post-cold war period, it is time the two countries looked forward instead of looking back in time and made efforts to develop a friendly and fruitful relationship. President Musharraf’s visit to Moscow last February was, thus, a laudable attempt to mend fences with Russia.

Apart from the technical help that Russia can give to Pakistan and the advantages flowing from economic cooperation and trade, Islamabad should look at its relations with Moscow in a larger context. For too long has our foreign policy been US-centric. In the wake of 9/11 especially, Pakistan has come closer to America the way it never has been since the heyday of the US-sponsored jihad in Afghanistan. While Pakistan must have a friendly and cooperative relationship with the world’s only superpower, Islamabad should know the hazards of relying excessively on any single power. America has its own interests to look after, and they do not necessarily coincide with Pakistani interests in South Asia and the Gulf region. Besides, Russia may not be Pakistan’s neighbour, but it is very much present in Central Asia, which it calls its “near abroad.” There, it has vital economic and geopolitical interests. Russia is also concerned over the rise of religious extremism in Central Asia and the potential it has of destabilizing the region. Pakistan would do well to address these Russian concerns. Russia is also a country that is well advanced in science and technology. The country may at present be going through a phase of economic and political instability, but, given its history, it has a way of staging a comeback. Common sense dictates that Pakistan should be on friendly terms with this Eurasian power without compromising its relations with China or the US, with both of whom Islamabad has traditionally enjoyed a warm relationship.

Blair in trouble

IT appears that Prime Minister Tony Blair’s troubles are far from over. Ever since the British leader decided to join hands with President George Bush on Iraq in defiance of public opinion back home, he has not had smooth sailing on the political front. The latest crisis he faces has been triggered by the Hutton enquiry into the presumed suicide of Dr David Kelly, the ministry of defence scientist. It is now being said that the government’s responsibility in the matter is much deeper than has been made out to be, and the Defence Secretary has even accepted the blame for the scientist’s death.

Be that as it may, the fact is that Mr Blair had all along virtually ignored the anti-war message sent out by the British public opinion ever since the Iraq crisis hotted up earlier this year. He turned a blind eye to the massive peace rally on February 15, which was followed by a revolt in the ruling Labour Party when 122 Labour MPs voted against the government’s stance. Then came a spate of resignations by senior Cabinet members. But nothing seemed to have deterred Mr Blair from toeing the American line in Iraq.

While the political process in Britain will take its course and some heads are bound to roll, the world has several conclusions to draw from this episode. The British tradition of democratic accountability and respect for public opinion continues to be strong. Very few leaders have survived the backlash from the voters after those in office have failed to heed the people’s wishes. At times, even when the ruling party has remained entrenched in power, the leader of the house has been forced to bow out as Mrs Margaret Thatcher, the iron lady, had to do to make room for Mr John Major. Besides the British parliamentary system does not allow the kind of autocratic rule one witnesses in America under its presidential mechanism. The parliamentary traditions, which require the prime minister to be answerable for his policies, ensures a constant monitoring of the government by the parliament. It certainly has something to offer to the former British colonies which had adopted this system of government when they gained independence.

Journalist’s death in Iraq

THE shooting to death of the Reuters cameraman, Mazen Dana, in Baghdad brings to 19 the number of war reporters who have been killed or gone missing since the war in Iraq began. The Pentagon said that the American tank that shot him dead mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. His assistant, however, insisted that there was no question of a mistaken identity as the two had been chatting with the American marines minutes before the US tank fired mortars on Dana. Many media rights groups have expressed their shock at the incident, with Reporteurs Sans Frontieres saying that the US military has committed “many mistakes” in Iraq.

This latest incident comes less than four months after a Ukrainian cameraman similarly fell victim to a tank shell fired at Baghdad’s Palestine Hotel, which housed foreign mediamen. The impunity with which the American occupation forces have been conducting their operations in Iraq has raised serious questions about Washington’s long-term objectives in that country. What one is witnessing at present is a victor’s justice thrust upon the vanquished. It is time the UN took a greater interest in the anarchic situation in Iraq. It must actively seek to curb the occupation forces’ gung-ho approach in dealing with the situation on the ground. This is the least the world body can do to lessen the miseries of the Iraqi people, who did not want, much less start, this insane war.