Not to forget Anwar Ibrahim

ON Friday, October 31, Mahathir Mohammed stepped down after 22 years as prime minister of Malaysia. His exit from power was marked by an extraordinary outpouring of tributes, from admirers both at home and abroad.

As prime minister, Mahathir achieved what can only be described as an economic miracle. His push for growth and development, especially in the fields of science and technology, transformed Malaysia from a small-time rubber and tin producer, into one of the top twenty trading countries in the world. In the process he brought about a dramatic improvement in the living standards of ordinary Malaysians. And he did so while preserving racial and ethnic harmony between the country’s Malay, Chinese, Indian and other communities — no mean feat.

On the international stage Mahathir was a vocal defendant of Malaysian, Muslim and developing world interests, with no qualms about attacking western neo-colonialism and international financial institutions like the IMF. Mahathir’s failure to follow IMF fiscal prescriptions was seen as a key factor in Malaysia weathering the Asian currency crisis much better than its neighbours. One should also not forget that Mahathir has voluntarily relinquished power. Both these traits — taking an independent stance and exiting without being pushed — are rare among developing/Muslim world leaders.

Indeed, there is much to admire in Mahathir Mohamad’s 22 years at the helm in Malaysia. But there is also another side to the Mahathir legacy — one that provokes criticism rather than admiration and praise. It includes crony capitalism; state control of the police, judiciary and the press; and denial of basic human rights. It is epitomized in the case of Anwar Ibrahim.

In the 1980s Anwar Ibrahim was picked up by the UMNO, the Malay party to which Mahathir belongs, from a small Islamist party. The talented young leader rose rapidly within the government; by the 1990s he was deputy prime minister and Mahathir’s designated heir.

But the relationship soured after Ibrahim criticized a bail-out by the national oil company Petronas of a shipping company in which Mahathir’s son Mirzan had an interest. Ibrahim strongly opposed the action but was over-ruled by Mahathir. The deputy also disapproved of his leader’s obsession with huge infrastructure projects, believing they imposed an unnecessary and undesirable debt burden on the Malaysian economy. Policy differences continued over the East Asia financial crisis, in which Ibrahim advocated following IMF strictures. By this time, Mahathir was seeing his deputy as a political threat rather than his heir apparent.

In June 1998 an attempt by Ibrahim to force a change of party leadership at the UMNO conference, was pre-empted by the distribution of a pamphlet entitled: ‘Fifty reasons why Anwar should not be prime minister’. Included in the list were allegations of sexual misconduct. The final split came in September 1998, when Ibrahim was abruptly sacked as deputy prime minister and expelled from the party.

Had Anwar Ibrahim stayed quiet that would probably have been the end of the matter. But Ibrahim did not stay quiet: instead he formed his own political party and held huge rallies across the country in which he denounced Mahathir’s ‘crony capitalism’ and called for wide scale reform. A charismatic leader, Ibrahim struck a chord with the people. But just three weeks after he started his independent political career, he was arrested on charges of abusing power and sodomy.

The five-month court case that followed was the ultimate example of a ‘show trial’. Evidence presented to support the charges of sodomy was constantly discredited by the defence. The chauffeur who accused Ibrahim of using him as ‘his homosexual slave’ changed his testimony about the timing of the alleged abuse from 1994 to 1992, when the first date was disproved by an alibi. He changed it a second time after the defence showed that the building in which the alleged abuse took place was not built until 1993. The chauffeur also admitted in court that the police had coached him on his testimony.

Ibrahim was viciously beaten up by the police on the day of his arrest — he appeared in court days later with a very visible black eye. His lawyer was charged with sedition for statements made in his client’s defence. He himself was denied bail or the right to present a defence of the charge of political harassment. He was not allowed to testify that Mahathir had threatened him with court action for his political opposition. The prime minister, meanwhile, regularly engaged in contempt of court by pronouncing Ibrahim guilty.

Despite all these blatant irregularities, the trial was allowed to proceed, and Ibrahim was duly found guilty. He was sentenced to a total of fifteen years in jail. All appeals were rejected. Even after Ibrahim’s conviction, Mahathir continued the slander campaign against him by claiming that his wife wanted a divorce. In fact, Dr Azizah has resolutely stood by her husband and is heading a political party to champion his reform cause.

In his address to the court following the guilty verdict, Anwar Ibrahim eloquently pointed out the real reasons for his conviction: “I was loyal to the government and the prime minister. But...if justice, the law or public interest was threatened I would defy Dr Mahathir. I objected to the use of massive public funds to rescue the failed businesses of his children and cronies. And it was precisely because I defied him...that I was dismissed and persecuted.”

The Anwar Ibrahim case was the political persecution of one man (an assessment endorsed by Amnesty International). But it exposed the extent to which Malaysia’s political system, police, judiciary and media have been made tools of the state. It highlighted the other side of Mahathir’s Malaysia: a country in which corruption is condoned, political freedom and other rights suppressed. Amnesty International concluded that the Ibrahim verdict “highlights the vulnerability of all Malaysians to selective, politically motivated prosecutions.”

Such voices are often dismissed as irrelevant, drowned out in the applause for Mahathir’s socio-economic miracle. The thinking seems to be that economic profits excuse democratic deficits: so long as a government can deliver the former, it does not have to act on the latter. The implication is that the right to freedom of speech can be bought off by healthy GDP figures. It is a thinking that is deeply flawed.

The right to freedom of speech is one of the ‘fundamental human rights’ (alongside the right to life, liberty, justice, and so on) — rights that can never be bought off, denied, withheld or dismissed as irrelevant. Economic growth and democracy are not alternative options for good governance: democracy is a given, something that has to be delivered. Nothing can excuse a state’s failure to deliver basic human rights to its people.

Mahathir said recently: “The belief that if democracy is implemented then everything will be well, has no basis.” In fact it is the belief that if economic growth is achieved then everything will be well, that has no basis. Economic growth built on weak democratic foundations is structurally flawed. Thus Mahathir Mohammed has every reason to be proud of his economic and other achievements, but his legacy is irreparably tarnished by his persecution of Anwar Ibrahim and the wider reality of authoritarianism that reflected.

In Malaysia’s case, the international community — particularly the West — has also been silent because, since 9/11, the country’s authoritarianism has been directed against suspected Muslim militants. Hundreds have been detained under the notorious Internal Security Act, which allows indefinite detention without trial. Again, the notion that human rights (the right to justice) can be excused, this time on the grounds of security, is deeply flawed. Terrorism has to be tackled — but in the right way, preserving rather than undermining the principles and values that characterize a civilized society. Anwar Ibrahim stood up for those values; five years into his fifteen-year jail sentence, he is still paying the price for that stand. As many applaud Mahathir Mohammed, they should not forget Anwar Ibrahim.

Silence feeds 9/11 theories

DISASTERS in American history have always spawned conspiracy theories, but thorough investigations can help relegate them to the margins. Only a

few conspiracy buffs, for instance, still believe that President Franklin Roosevelt knew ahead of time that Japan would bomb Pearl Harbour and kept silent to push the U.S. into World War II.

Today, a persistent strain of conspiracy theory overseas clouds the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, usually claiming prior U.S. government knowledge

of — even responsibility for — the attacks. That, and the

peace of mind of 9/11 families, are both good reasons for the Bush administration to cooperate more freely with the 9/11 investigating panel headed by former New Jersey Gov. Thomas H. Kean. Unfortunately, relations have gotten so bad that Kean is threatening to subpoena certain White House records. Kean is reluctant to say what documents he is seeking, but they apparently include the daily presidential briefings compiled by the CIA on foreign affairs and threats.

Whether those documents contain valuable information is unclear, but the commission won’t know unless the White House releases them. Though the panel has received several million pages from federal agencies, the documents withheld may contain important data about the quality of intelligence and White House alertness to threats.

Los Angeles Times

Poverty and progress

SHOULD the Pakistan government with its enhanced revenues of 16.2 per cent in the last financial year, the large external debt relief and the lowest interest rates in our history take to poverty reduction resolutely or give a higher priority to debt reduction?

The government has chosen to give a higher priority to scaling down the external debt instead of focusing on cutting down the high poverty rate in the country which affects one-third of its people of 146 million. Some put the figure at 20 per cent or more, and they may not be wrong.

The State Bank of Pakistan in its annual report for 2002-03 admits poverty in Pakistan has risen by 20 per cent to 33 per cent, but makes it clear that it happened over a period of 15 years, and not as a result of the policies of the last your years. That may be true, more or less, but if an increasing number of people have been suffering the pangs of poverty for the last 15 years, that is all the more reasons to take urgent and effective steps to arrest and reverse that trend and avert the tragedies which follow.

The socially conscious people feel the sting of poverty acutely now as the country has been exposed to so many unemployment suicides and reports of young persons selling their kidneys for Rs 5,000 to feed themselves. Some of the suicides are not because of unemployment but employment on very low wages which do not support a large number of dependents. In a number of cases not only the head of the family commits suicide but also kills the mother and children so that they do not beg for food after his death.

The temptation for the government to give preference to external debt reduction over reducing poverty on a large scale is strong as that brings international kudos. The aid agencies praise such moves and the international rating agencies give a higher rating to the government after such debt-reduction. Foreign investors too admire that. If, instead, the government had focused more on poverty reduction, the results may not have been so visible and the poor may have asked for more relief. Even otherwise in a system dominated by feudal lords and tribal chiefs, military commanders and bureaucrats, the poor and their pain have a low priority, particularly when free and fair elections in such a setup are a rare happening.

The SBP report laments that “despite the impressive improvements in economic fundamentals, a strong and secure external sector, increased development spending by the government, upsurge in growth rate and a quantum jump in private sector credit, the popular perception about the economy among the media and commentators does not reflect the improvements.”

And that is because of widespread unemployment and the rising suicide rates at one end, and increasing crimes by the unemployed youth at the other. Along with that are low wages owing to a real inflation rate which is far higher than 3.1 per cent in the financial ending 2003 after decelerating from 3.5 per cent. When petrol, diesel and kerosene prices keep on rising fortnight after fortnight, meat prices soar to Rs 200 a kilo, vegetable, egg and fruit prices rise abnormally they cannot be dismissed as seasonal price rise. We have one reason or another for the markets to be disturbed and prices rising high. Most businessmen and industrialists are not passing on the benefits of the imported disinflation following the stronger rupee, to the consumers.

When it comes to the common man, particularly the unemployed with no savings, the liberal consumer finance facilities to buy foreign luxuries including cars, the low interest rates offered by leasing companies and the phenomenal rise in the index of the Karachi Stock Exchange are not of great help to him.

The State Bank admits the solution lies “in creating as many jobs as possible” and greater investment by the private sector. The Bank also wants increased government spending on human resources development and infrastructure. The Bank also says that unless encouraged by a robust increase in domestic private sector investment, foreign investment is unlikely to emerge. It also says that government policies — fiscal and monetary — should remain supportive, “but the institutional capacity and bureaucratic hassle forced on the private entrepreneurs should be addressed.”

In fact, it is necessary for the government to come up with a five or seven-year investment policy which should reward entrepreneurs who come up with large investment in this period, and provide tax remissions wherever possible. The duty on the machinery imported for such investment should be lifted if done within the specified period.

It is not enough for the government to make appeals to the industrialists to come forward and invest. It has been doing so for the last four years with poor results. If the private sector borrows money from the banks at low rates of interest and then buys shares for speculation that is not a great service to the economy. Instead we need job-creating investment on the ground.

Industrialists talk of the great losses they have suffered in Pakistan. First that was the result of the nationalization of the ten basic industries in 1972 and then of banks and other financial institutions. Prior to that they lost the industries they had set up in East Pakistan — major projects like Adamjee Jute mills, and paper mills acquired by Ahmad Dawood, and lesser enterprises owned by others, including banks and insurance companies.

The government at its highest levels should meet private entrepreneurs, remove the deterrents to their investment and play a more positive role, as the State Bank urges, to put the total economy back on the rails and not the macro-economy alone.

Public debt came down from 104.3 per cent of the GDP in 2001-02 to 95.1 per cent in 2002-03. But while the foreign debt has come down the domestic debt has risen by 7.8 per cent. That is the outcome of the money raised from the local market to be converted into dollars cheap, and the money paid against some of the foreign debt. According to the State Bank report 4,212 million dollars were repaid in the financial year ending June, 2002 and 1,891 million in the year ending June, 2003. And we are to pay 1,078 million dollars to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank in the shape of 18 loans before the current year ends. Out of 4,214 million dollars repaid in the year ending June, 2002, 2,216 million dollars were high cost commercial and short term debt and the other 2,025 million dollars were equally costly loans.

The SBP report says “reversal of the trend of increasing poverty cannot take place unless economic growth is put back on the trajectory of a sustained growth rate of six per cent over the next five years and the pro-poor policy interventions are faithfully implemented. The current rate of growth can only arrest a further rise in poverty incidence.”

The report says given the carry-over of the past legacy current geo-political and security situation, non-supportive external economic environment and weak institutional capacity, it will simply be a pipe-dream to expect any accelerated fall in the incidence of poverty in Pakistan in the short term.

As the State Bank admits in its report that if the current policies and practices continue, the crucial issue of poverty cannot be tackled within a short time. Then, what is the solution ? The need of the hour is large scale investment in the industrial, agricultural and service sectors. The service sector thrives on the growth of the other two sectors which produce far more goods. Of course, the service sector can thrive by trading on imported goods as well; but that will be for a short period after which the people will run out of money to buy the imported luxuries.

There is a lot of money afloat in the country. The banks are aflush with money with few productive and credible borrowers. Home remittances come around 3 billion dollars a year and the balance of payments is reporting a large surplus of 4.6 billion dollars. What is the government’s strategy to make use of such vast funds when agriculture, industry and the service sectors are in dire need of investment capital and the public is ready to buy the shares of credible sponsors of companies with a track record to speak of?

It is here where the government is found wanting. What kind of packages can it come up with to make the most productive use of such surplus funds and accelerate the economic growth and reduce the poverty levels?

The State Bank calls for “sustained pro-poor policies” along with positive measures for human development. Right at this moment the textile mills are facing a serious problem because of the soaring cotton prices and its production shortfall in Pakistan. The output may be as low as 10 million bales while the earlier target was 10.4 million bales.

Cotton can be imported from Uzbekistan but the Uzbek prices are just two cents below the New York rates. So there is talk of importing 25,000 bales from India.

The sugar industry is facing another crisis as the mill- owners are not ready to pay Rs. 43 for 40 kilos of cane. So the delay in crushing of the cane which was to start on November 1, may start much later. It means less employment for the sugar cane growers and mill employees for sometime. The cement factories are not increasing their output despite greater demand for fear it might bring down prices which they abhor.

What all that means is that instead of the employment rising it is going down, if not remaining static. This is a disturbing situation. We need better poverty reduction accounting than we have. The money spent should be accounted for and the results achieved documented. What is done in the name of human development should be fully documented. How many schools without teachers, without roofs, without furniture and without students are going to be put to work soon?

We are told of the hospitals without doctors, without nurses, and without medicines. And even more ghastly than that is hospitals dispensing spurious drugs while the real drugs have been sold elsewhere. Monday’s paper carried stories of Rs 200 million worth of spurious drugs being distributed through hospitals in Dera Ismail Khan. More in Vehari. That means instead of hospitals curing patients, make them far more sick.

Poverty reduction should not mean marginal activity or non- accounted or partially accounted activity when some Rs. 180 billion are supposed to be spent on that. There should be better accounting of the money spent, the number of persons employed in this work, the number who had benefited and the overall results achieved and sustained. It is not enough if the aid agencies are for a time satisfied that we are on the right track. Our people, too, should know we are making the right use of the money and getting the best possible results to wipe this disgrace off the face of Pakistan lest it becomes far worse.

Negotiating peace with India

SOME prominent Indian journalists have been writing in Pakistani newspapers and journals and their columns are read with avid interest. These writings provide a window on the thought- process across the border. We in Pakistan are particularly interested in their perspective of Indo-Pakistan relations.

It is not surprising that their views reflect what the opinion makers of that country think and a pro-India tilt is understandable. But what surprises most Pakistani readers is that most seem to have either forgotten or are deliberately ignoring the facts of history. It is true that some of the writers were not born then or were too young to remember the events leading to the creation of Pakistan and the way events shaped thereafter.

It may be well to remind the columnists about the genesis of the creation of two independent and sovereign states in 1947. There is an enormous amount of literature on the subject; some written by the Indian authors themselves, some by the departing British and, of course, by Pakistani writers as well. Abul Kalam Azad’s “India Wins Freedom”, Victoria Schoffield’s “Kashmir in conflict” and Chaudhry Muhammad Ali’s “Emergence of Pakistan”, to name only a few of the books that these columnists would do well to re-read if they had already done so.

Needless to say this exercise should enlighten them on some significant events such as who went back on his words on the Cabinet Mission Plan that would have preserved India as one entity — Mountbattan-Nehru nexus to throttle Pakistan at its birth, Mountbattan-Radcliffe perfidy to change the boundary commission award at the last minute to gift Ferozpur headworks and the Muslim majority Gurdaspur district to India. This effort was primarily designed to provide a corridor to Kashmir.

Many Indian authors themselves have highlighted Nehru’s fixation with Kashmir. Some of the manifestations of his fixation are “reflected by the arrival of the Indian troops in Srinagar before the instrument of accession” had been signed, then India’s complaint to the UN, and Pandit Nehru’s solemn commitment to the world to give the Kashmiris the option of acceding to either state. Subsequent actions such as India’s acceptance of the UN resolutions on Kashmir and then gradual backing out of the solemn commitments on one pretext or another, are all well documented.

On the other hand, India’s logic of using force to take over Junagarh and Manavadar states which had acceded to Pakistan, and the subsequent invasion of Hyderabad are facts that cannot be easily forgotten. Viewed against this background, the claim of these famous columnists that any disturbance of the status quo in Kashmir would undermine the basic structure of Indian “secularism” is difficult to understand. It is a philosophy corresponding to the idea of “heads I win, tails you lose.”

The object of bringing home the harsh realities of history is not to rake up the past but to remind the wise men from across the border to refrain from pulling wool over the eyes of the reading public. Much has been said about forgetting the bitterness of the past and holding of negotiations with an open mind. That, we believe was the approach that was adopted at Agra and would perhaps be continued in future talks, whether on the sidelines of international or regional conferences or at meetings specifically called for peace and normalization.

Pakistan’s quest for a just and honourable settlement of all issues is without doubt the only option available to it. Peace with our large neighbour, albeit with honour, is and should be the single-minded aim of our government and in this quest for a peace the resolution of the Kashmir issue is crucial to any progress and development.

The hopes of the teeming millions of the subcontinent for a successful outcome of any serious talks must not be clouded by the events of the past but neither should we forget the lessons learnt over the years. Reneging on solemn commitments has been the hallmark of India’s foreign policy vis-a-vis Pakistan. Kashmir was only the beginning. What are some of the broken promises? There is the violation of the Indus Basin Treaty by constructing works on the river Jhelum. Then the Indian foreign secretary’s about-turn on Siachen on reaching Delhi from Islamabad, not to mention the churlish cancellation of cricket tours.

The other perspective that has to be kept in view while dealing with India is that its willingness to negotiate at any particular time is influenced by factors other than altruistic. Remember the long drawn-out negotiations between late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Sardar Swaran Singh in the aftermath of the drubbing that the Indians had received at the hands of the Chinese in 1962.

It did not then come as a surprise that the Indians forgot all about “non-alignment” and their cozy relationship with the Soviet Union and rushed to the US for military assistance. President Kennedy was only too willing to provide all assistance to the beleaguered Indians. At the same time, he made efforts to soften the concerns of its ‘most allied ally,’ and encouraged India into entering into negotiations with Pakistan to resolve the Kashmir dispute. Once everything was quiet on the Chinese front and the American assistance had arrived, India quietly backed out of the negotiations.

The Indians have always been conscious of their size, population and strategic importance, especially after dismembering Pakistan in 1971. Their quest for nuclear capability and missile delivery systems was one more manifestation of their pursuit of superpower status. Following the end of the cold war, the Indians switched to market economy and their policies have yielded very encouraging results. Their foreign exchange reserves have shot up to over $ 40 billion and there has been a rush of overseas investors. The western world had always been keen to develop close relations with India in order to exploit the economic opportunities it offers and to prop up India as a regional rival to counter China’s great power status. With the collapse of the Soviet Union, India was able to free itself of its image of being anti-West and to enjoy the best of both worlds. The switchover to market economy not only led to a turnaround but also helped New Delhi secure the interest of the western financial backers, particularly American investors.

Thus having reaped the benefits of both worlds, India wants to be recognized as an important player on the world scene; a large country, the largest democracy, a flourishing economy and a nuclear power that deserves a permanent seat in the Security Council! The situation in Indian-held Kashmir is something that rankles the Indians and their inability to settle the issue through force or through cajoling the Kashmiris is something that Indians would like to overcome. India wishes to show to the world that it is a country that is keen to settle all contentious issues with its neighbours in a reasonable manner. It continues to work its way up the ladder of image-building worldwide.

Thus, the decision of India to finally agree to a dialogue with Pakistan was not altogether for altruistic reasons. We are sure the Pakistan government is fully cognizant of these factors in entering into a dialogue with India.

Pakistan was keen that India should be brought to the negotiating table to resolve the long festering Kashmir dispute so that the limited resources of the country could be utilized to improve the living standards of the vast majority of our people, particularly at the grassroots level. War was no longer a sane option as shown by our misadventures in 1965, 1971 and sad to say, more recently in Kargil. A solution to the problem acceptable to both countries and to the people of Kashmir could be the forerunner to breathing a fresh life into the whole of the subcontinent.

However, even while we enter into negotiations with India with an open mind, we should not forget our past experience of negotiations with that country and also the compulsions under which India would feel impelled to come to the negotiating table.

Giving the Geneva accord a chance

IT would be a macabre exercise, but if anyone were ever to compile a league table of political assassins, ranked solely by success in achieving their goals, there is no doubt who would come out on top. It would surely be Yigal Amir, the Jewish extremist who murdered Israel’s prime minister Yitzhak Rabin eight years ago.

Amir’s aim was to stop the Oslo peace process that was then two years old. He succeeded spectacularly. Without Rabin to drive it forward, Oslo sputtered and died. Distrust led to failure and to an intifada which rages to this day. Today Ariel Sharon sits in the premier’s office and George Bush’s “road map” is turning to dust. Israelis and Palestinians continue to die while Amir lives in his prison cell, chuckling with satisfaction.

Yet there are suddenly some stirrings in the undergrowth, signs that the years of paralysis could be coming to an end. On Saturday night 100,000 Israelis converged on Tel Aviv’s Rabin Square to remember the slain warrior-turned-peacemaker — the greatest show of strength by the left since Sharon’s election in early 2001.

Earlier there was a boost from an unexpected quarter. The army chief of staff broke ranks and admitted that Sharon’s iron-fist treatment of the Palestinians was “increasing hatred for Israel and strengthening the terror organizations”. There could only be a political, not a military, way out.

Still, the biggest boost to the doves has come through an unorthodox attempt at conflict resolution. Rather than wait for the two leaderships, a team of freelance negotiators — Israeli opposition politicians and Palestinian ex-ministers still close to Yasser Arafat — has spent the last two years thrashing out a full and final peace agreement between their two peoples. Last month they made the breakthrough. With the backing of the Swiss government they now have a text, running to some 10,000 words: the Geneva accord.

Already this “virtual agreement” is building momentum. The Israeli op-ed pages are full of it; soon the document will be sent to every Israeli household, so that citizens can read it for themselves (an idea inspired by the mass distribution of Northern Ireland’s Good Friday agreement). Public meetings to explain the accord have been standing-room only.

Among the Palestinians, the indications are similarly positive: when al-Ayyam printed the Geneva text in Arabic for the first time at the weekend, the paper sold out; a reprint is on the way. Bill Clinton, Nelson Mandela and FW de Klerk have shown interest in attending the signing ceremony in Geneva later this year. Tony Blair has welcomed it; on Monday, Jack Straw huddled with aides to discuss how Britain might help.

And what exactly are they all supporting? Geneva is not a revolutionary document. It merely takes the solution most assume to be the only one possible — partition of Palestine into two states, one for each people — and spells out the details. But, as every cliche-monger knows, that’s where the devil lives. Geneva works them out. Instead of postponing the thorny, “final status” questions, the new accord tackles them one by one.

Jerusalem? It will be divided, becoming the capital of two states with sovereignty for each side over their respective holy sites. Palestinians’ right of return? The document does not use the phrase, but proposes a solution to the plight of Palestinian refugees that will combine financial compensation with a return to the new state of Palestine, rather than to Israel itself. Jewish settlements in the occupied territories? Most settlers would stay under Israeli jurisdiction, thanks to a redrawing of the border — in return the Palestinians would gain territory from pre-1967 Israel, equivalent to the amount they had lost.

It is a phenomenal piece of work. The negotiators, led by former ministers Yossi Beilin and Yasser Abed Rabbo, have thought of everything. In place of the “constructive ambiguity” that characterizes most diplomatic prose, Geneva goes for decisive clarity. The pain of compromise is not postponed, but laid bare.

Proof of the accord’s significance has come in the vehemence of its condemnation by Sharon and his ministers. They have denounced it, branding Beilin and friends as virtual traitors for daring to contact the enemy “behind the government’s back at a time of war”.

More serious criticism has come from those who should be allies. Former PM Ehud Barak told me on Monday that Geneva was “the peace of ostriches, a plan that only serves Arafat”. For him, signing a deal while terror continues rewards violence: “It is capitulation,” he said.

Some senior Palestinians worry that any future Israeli government will feel obliged to give less than Geneva offers — lest they be seen as Beilin-style leftists. Some Israelis echo the same doubts: won’t future Palestinian negotiators regard Geneva as a starting point, and demand more?

Of course, that’s a risk for both sides — a fact which cancels itself out. But the obstacles are real. On the Palestinian side, it is legitimate to doubt whether Arafat has what it takes to do a final deal for peace. He seems to prefer the role of revolutionary struggler to pragmatic state-builder. Maybe Geneva has to wait till a new leadership is in place. Still, a hopeful sign is the presence on the Palestinian team of a pair of lieutenants to Marwan Barghouti, the widely respected leader now in an Israeli jail. (That duo, Qaddura Fares and Muhammad Hourani, have been touring the refugee camps, selling the Geneva plan.)

For the Israelis, it is surely fanciful to imagine Sharon making peace on Geneva terms. Most observers believe a festering corruption scandal will drive him from office within the next year anyway. But his likely successor, Bibi Netanyahu, is unlikely to be any more accommodating. Instead what is required is a political change of direction. In the past, that has all been about finding a new man, whether Rabin or Barak. Now the left has no man, and no real party — but it does have a plan.

There are two key players who can make a difference. The first are the Arab states. They should endorse the Geneva pact, and revive the Saudi initiative they endorsed in March 2002, which promised Israel full recognition from the entire Arab world if it returned to its pre-1967 borders. That prospect would hugely appeal to the Israelis and accelerate the momentum for Geneva. The EU, and eventually even the United States, might prefer to jump on that bandwagon than miss it.

But the greatest role belongs to the people of Israel and Palestine. For too long polls have shown both sides desperate to make a deal, yet backing leaders who hesitate to do what’s needed. The Israelis and Palestinians need to break through that paradox. They need to read this agreement, word for word, and then, if they can live with it, demand that the politicians make it happen. Neither side can say any longer that there is “no partner on the other side”. Geneva shows there is. All it takes is the will.

—Dawn/Guardian Service