| 20 March 2004 | Saturday | 28 Muharram 1425 |
An evening with Aali held
Straight talker from Egypt
From way back in the bickering pack of Democratic party presidential candidates Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts hurtled into the lead, ousting front-runner Governor Howard Dean and staving off Senator John Edwards of South Carolina, who likely will wind up as Kerry's running mate. Until the January 19 Iowa primary Howard Dean, a conservative in all respects but his brave anti-war stance, held glittering centre-stage.
But an enlivened Kerry now establishes himself as the most formidable and electable Democratic challenger. Given the smear campaign already under way, the Bush camp clearly fears Kerry, above all, because he is the real thing, the decorated warrior, that George W. Bush, the spoiled and clueless and frat boy, carefully avoided any chance to become because his dad pulled strings to hide him safely in the Air National Guard.
Kerry's six-point win over Edwards in Wisconsin was duly portrayed as a close finish by the media which craves a race, but after his February 24 primary victories in three states and heading into March 2 state primaries (California, New York, Ohio and seven other states) he is a sure thing, wielding a surly, if stiff, gravitas on the podium that the comparatively callow Edwards cannot match. Still, Edwards' (and Dennis Kucinich's and Al Sharpton's) resonant messages in the primaries about an America suffering from a widening gulf between the haves and have-nots is being absorbed into Kerry's campaign appeals.
Kerry is increasingly seen as the saviour of the Democrats, and of the rest of the apprehensive planet, from a fiercely unilateralist Republican administration that only lacks a brown shirt movement to complete its far right credentials.
After a long spell of uncritical support after 9/11, George W. Bush's standing as a patriot, truth-teller, and financial wizard are undergoing long-delayed scrutiny, and are found wanting.
According to the polls Kerry would trounce Bush by anywhere from 6 to 12 points, but those figures can change once the Republicans unleash their heavy electoral artillery.
While it seems remarkable that a self-styled 'war president' could be so vulnerable, Bush is without doubt the worst president in memory for the Americans who have to live off their pay cheques, not investment income.
Bush will be the first president since the 1930s to end his term with fewer jobs available than when he started, with 2.2 million lost. Then there are record setting deficits, achieved in the relentless course of cutting taxes on rich cronies.
As for Iraq, Washington Post/ABC poll found 54 per cent believe Bush exaggerated or lied about pre-war intelligence. Less than half of the Americans believe the war was worth fighting. But it is the economy and health care that preoccupy the Americans, which is not good news for the stubborn neocon administration either.
Bush's numbers, after a slight bump up after Saddam's capture, are sliding down. Since the much-hailed recovery began in November 2001, employment dropped by only half a percentage point.
Real GDP rose 7.2 per cent since then but wages are only up half a per cent, meaning the gains stayed in the pockets and portfolios of the poshest Americans. Bush's 47 per cent approval rating today is the same as his father's at this stage before he lost to Bill Clinton.
Accordingly, well-practised Republican dirt diggers churn out charges, such as that of Kerry's alleged affair with an intern-- a Monica Lewinsky rerun--which the Americans showed in 1998 they didn't care about.
Doctored photos circulated of Kerry in 1971 at a Vietnam anti-war rally sitting beside actress Jane Fonda, whom the rabid American Right loves to portray as a greater villain than all the prestigious authorities who contrived that needless slaughter.
"I promise you that when the Republican smear machine trots out the same old attacks in this election, this is one Democrat who will fight back," Kerry vowed. The macho 13-million-member AFL-CIO union plans to endorse Kerry soon.
Kerry is an unlikely common man's hero. Son of a well-off Boston diplomat, Kerry is every bit the patrician that Bush really is behind his studied cow poke pose. Both hail from highly privileged backgrounds, are members of the ultra-elitist Skull and Bones Club at Yale University, and are wealthy men, with Kerry far wealthier after two marriages to millionairesses, the second to Teresa Heinz who possesses a half billion dollar fortune. (She is known as an engagingly loose-lipped straight talker, which would make for an intriguing First Lady.)
After graduating Yale in 1966 Kerry became a Navy officer piloting patrol boats on Vietnam's river ways, and reaped a Silver star, Bronze star and three Purple Hearts. Former assistant secretary of Defence (1991-95) Wade Sanders, who also commanded a Swift boat at the same time in Vietnam, spoke to me very highly of Kerry's abilities.
Hideous experiences there turned both men firmly against the war and both spoke out. The FBI labelled Kerry as a subversive while Sanders, still in the Navy, was hounded for a while by a Nixonian squad inside the service. There is no doubting the courage it took to take strong oppositional stances at the time.
Kerry participated in mass rallies against the war and helped form the powerfully symbolic organisation, Vietnam Veterans Against the War (although leaving it soon afterward).
In a riveting appearance on April 22, 1971, at Congressional hearings the young Kerry recounted atrocities that he and fellow servicemen witnessed or committed as an inevitable by product of misbegotten American policy. That same passion and acute sense of principle, if aroused again and backed up with deeds, would guarantee Kerry a landslide victory in November.
By 1973 the American role in Vietnam ended. Kerry attended law school, worked as a public prosecutor in Middlesex County in Massachusetts, became lieutenant governor of Massachusetts in 1982 and two years later gained a Senate seat alongside liberal paragon Teddy Kennedy.
Kerry opposed frilly expensive weapons systems, such as the B-1 bomber, B-2 stealth bomber, Apache helicopter, Abrams tank, and the wildly overrated Patriot missile system but now calls those stances "ill-advised."
Vietnam veteran Larry Heinemann, a prize winning novelist, told me that Kerry was a 'coward' for going along with the Iraq vote. But many people this year will hold their nose, overlook Kerry's occasional pragmatic lack of principle, and vote for him anyway.
Kerry's foreign policy pitch is that he would wage a more effective "war on terror" than Bush. Kerry proposed cutting the deficit by half in a first term, mostly by repealing Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans who hogged the vast bulk of the benefit and therefore are devout Bush supporters. The primary contests against trade critics like Edwards pushed Kerry somewhat to the left.
After voting for NAFTA in 1993 Kerry now pledges not to sign a trade agreement that does not embrace enforceable labour and environment standards. Kerry's customary free trade position is a distinct liability in the eyes of the Americans who see jobs and companies flowing overseas in search of dirt-cheap and unprotected labour. Some three quarters of voters believe that trade costs domestic jobs.
Despite Kerry's populist messages, the standard electoral wisdom is that an official party nominees must tack back to the "centre" in the presidential campaign to win, even though the space the "centre" occupies today was a right-wing outpost just a decade or two ago.
Kerry, oddly, supported the Gramm-Rudman deficit reduction act which aimed to decimate social programmes he otherwise supposedly supported, and also voted for Clinton's crime bill and the Counter-Terrorism Act which set the mould for Bush's Patriot Act, which Kerry initially backed but now criticizes: "We are a nation of laws and liberties, not of a knock in the night.
"So it is time to end the era of John Ashcroft. That starts with replacing the Patriot Act with a new law that protects our people and our liberties at the same time."
Can Kerry beat Bush? It will be difficult not to. The Bush administration is unravelling. How Kerry will get the US unstruck from the Iraq war is unclear, although he will not have the motives for deceitful ploys that everyone expects of Bush.
The only sure way to derail him is if another successful attack of 9/11 proportions were to hit the American mainland, which does not bear thinking about.
With the Bush unrepentant and defensive, it has never been easier for a Democrat to appear as the lesser evil. Kerry's war experience is a definite plus. 'Everyone now wants to make a big deal of the fact that he is a veteran with a Purple Heart,' notes Heinemann, who one time 'went back to get a guy' (like you're supposed to - when you're in charge it's your job) - as if 'war service' were the main criteria [for becoming a national leader].
"It is hard to demonize as an irresponsible leftist a man who has locked up criminals and shot communists," fellow Massachusetts Democrat and Congressman Barney Frank observed.
An evening with Aali held
KARACHI: An evening with poet/writer Dr Jamiluddin Aali, under the title of Qaumi Danishwar Ke Naam, was held on Thursday, S. H. Hashmi, chairman Baba-i-Urdu Foundation, being the host.
Presided over by Gen (r) Moinuddin Haider, the function was attended by a cross section of people poets, writers, teachers, journalists and intellectuals who listened with rapt attention the speeches made by such writers as Dr Ismail Saad, Prof Saher Ansari and Aftab Ahmad Khan - at present Nazim-i-Aala of the Federal Urdu University.
Rich tributes were paid to Jamiluddin Aali for his poetry, mostly those reflecting his national fervour, his dohey, social and literary commentaries published in several volumes, travelogues and most of all his invaluable services for the promotion of Urdu and the founding of the Urdu University.
Aftab Ahmad Khan admired Aali for his many qualities and said that in his love for Urdu, he was the true successor of Baba-i-Urdu Maulvi Abdul Haq. He recalled that Aali was also a competent banker and was also known as a political activist who had served the nation as a Senator as well.
Expressing his views on Urdu as the national language, Mr Aftab recalled that he was the first to present the national budget in Urdu in 1978. Since then, the practice continues.
Moinuddin Haider, in his presidential discourse, felt happy that most of the national business as mentioned by Aftab Saheb was being preformed in Urdu, and speeches in the assemblies were being made in Urdu. One should not then worry about the 'nifaz-i-Urdu' (implementation of Urdu) in the country.
Earlier, Dr Jamiluddin Aali in his speech asked S. H. Hashmi to bring out activists and do the job of nifaz-i-Urdu himself and should no more depend on him (Aali).
Dr Aali was highly critical of the role of some of his 'close associates' who were, according to him, his worst enemies and were determined to sabotage the Urdu University's role.
Dr Aali, who has been writing a 'nation epic' under the title of Insaan for more than 50 years, recited some of its pieces and won much applause. Among those who paid accolades to Aali included Prof Azfer Rizvi and Dr Qaiser Abbas who praised Aali for his efforts in the promotion of education and also his academic commentaries published in a daily. S. H. Hashmi welcomed the guest and the chief guest. Mr Farooq Jabish did the compering.
Straight talker from Egypt
Egyptians have a great sense of history, and Dr Mohammad El-Sayed Selim, professor of political science at Cairo University, is no exception. He is known for his forthright criticism of the West's double standards in dealing with Middle Eastern and Palestinian issues and American and EU policies vis-a-vis Iraq.
A frequent visitor to Pakistan to attend international seminars, Dr El-Sayed Selim was again in Karachi recently, lecturing at the Area Study Centre for Europe on confidence-building measures in the Middle East. Inevitably, he was eager to know how CBMs between Pakistan-India were proceeding.
Analyzing the situation in the Muslim world, especially since the invasion of Iraq, Dr El-Sayed Selim was forthright in admitting in an interview with Dawn that Muslim countries were themselves to be blamed for their present plight.
By failing to properly address their domestic agendas and by fighting the Cold War on the American side, they had helped to bring the USA to the forefront of world politics. Muslims were being targeted today because of their own weaknesses, and also because they presented a cultural challenge to the West.
Given the present oligarchical character of the ruling elites, the Egyptian scholar said he was not sure Muslims would be able to get out of the vicious circle in which they had got into.
Dr El-Sayed Selim was concerned over the nuclear tangle embroiling Pakistan and did not believe that we had seen the last of the episode. "I think the US will re-open the nuclear issue with Pakistan after it is through with Al Qaeda.
I believe that one of the ultimate objectives of what I call America's greater Middle East project is to achieve that goal, by including Pakistan in the new paradigm in the context of proliferation and WMDs, and excluding India from this India is a surprising proposition. You just wait and see."
He suspected that "the US, India and Israel have worked out a common strategy to de-nuclearlize Pakistan and that India is trying to reduce tension until the right moment is reached. In the short-term, therefore, violence will be reduced, but in the medium term, say, five years, he believes there will be another equation.
Cautioning Pakistan against putting all eggs in one basket, the Egyptian scholar said Pakistan would have a negotiating advantage if it insisted on a linkage between the Indian and Pakistani nuclear arsenals, and did not conform fully to American strategy. "And, most importantly, establish a sort of democratic national unity along the main lines of Pakistani national interests."
Dr El-Sayed Selim emphasized that reduction of tension between India and Pakistan would benefit their people and the cause of world peace. He suggested that both New Delhi and Islamabad should pick up courage and resolve their disputes without outside interference. Regional peace will also make South Asia economically more independent of the West.
In the context of the "democratic upsurge" in the Middle East, he suspects the US will support opposition elements in Arab countries to consolidate its grip on the region and re-structure it. It is already planning to de-stabilize Syria and will use Israel to achieve that objective by initiating some form of aggression against Damascus.
Dr El-Sayed Selim spent about a week in Karachi, but one forgot to ask whether he found time to do something he has always looked forward to - visit Zainab Market.