Reality beyond politics

Fahrenheit 9/11 is astounding. Not so much as a film - although it is cunning and moving - but as an event. Most commentators try to dismiss the event and disparage the film. We will see why later. The artists on the Cannes film festival jury apparently voted unanimously to award Michael Moore's film the Palme d'Or.

Since then it has touched many millions across the world. In the US, its box-office takings for the first six weeks amounted to more than $100m, which is, astoundingly, about half of what Harry Potter made during a comparable period. Only the so-called opinion-makers in the media appear to have been put out by it.

The film, considered as a political act, may be a historical landmark. Yet to have a sense of this, a certain perspective for the future is required. Living only close-up to the latest news, as most opinion-makers do, reduces one's perspectives. The film is trying to make a small contribution towards the changing of world history. It is a work inspired by hope.

What makes it an event is the fact that it is an effective and independent intervention into immediate world politics. Today it is rare for an artist to succeed in making such an intervention, and in interrupting the prepared, prevaricating statements of politicians. Its immediate aim is to make it less likely that President Bush will be re-elected next November.

To denigrate this as propaganda is either naive or perverse, forgetting (deliberately?) what the last century taught us. Propaganda requires a permanent network of communication so that it can systematically stifle reflection with emotive or utopian slogans. Its pace is usually fast. Propaganda invariably serves the long-term interests of some elite.

This single maverick movie is often reflectively slow and is not afraid of silence. It appeals to people to think for themselves and make connections. And it identifies with, and pleads for, those who are normally not listened to. Making a strong case is not the same thing as saturating with propaganda. Fox TV does the latter; Michael Moore the former.

Ever since the Greek tragedies, artists have, from time to time, asked themselves how they might influence ongoing political events. It's a tricky question because two very different types of power are involved.

Many theories of aesthetics and ethics revolve round this question. For those living under political tyrannies, art has frequently been a form of hidden resistance, and tyrants habitually look for ways to control art.

All this, however, is in general terms and over a large terrain. Fahrenheit 9/11 is something different. It has succeeded in intervening in a political programme on the programme's own ground.

For this to happen a convergence of factors were needed. The Cannes award and the misjudged attempt to prevent the film being distributed played a significant part in creating the event.

To point this out in no way implies that the film as such doesn't deserve the attention it is receiving. It's simply to remind ourselves that within the realm of the mass media, a breakthrough (a smashing down of the daily wall of lies and half- truths) is bound to be rare. And it is this rarity which has made the film exemplary. It is setting an example to millions - as if they'd been waiting for it.

The film proposes that the White House and Pentagon were taken over in the first year of the millennium by a gang of thugs so that US power should henceforth serve the global interests of the corporations: a stark scenario which is closer to the truth than most nuanced editorials.

Yet more important than the scenario is the way the movie speaks out. It demonstrates that - despite all the manipulative power of communications experts, lying presidential speeches and vapid press conferences - a single independent voice, pointing out certain home truths which countless Americans are already discovering for themselves, can break through the conspiracy of silence, the atmosphere of fear and the solitude of feeling politically impotent.

It's a movie that speaks of obstinate faraway desires in a period of disillusion. A movie that tells jokes while the band plays the apocalypse. A movie in which millions of Americans recognize themselves and the precise ways in which they are being cheated.

A movie about surprises, mostly bad but some good, being discussed together. Fahrenheit 9/11 reminds the spectator that when courage is shared one can fight against the odds.

In more than a thousand cinemas across the country, Michael Moore becomes with this film a people's tribune. And what do we see? Bush is visibly a political cretin, as ignorant of the world as he is indifferent to it; while the tribune, informed by popular experience, acquires political credibility, not as a politician himself, but as the voice of the anger of a multitude and its will to resist.

There is something else which is astounding. The aim of Fahrenheit 9/11 is to stop Bush fixing the next election as he fixed the last. Its focus is on the totally unjustified war in Iraq. Yet its conclusion is larger than either of these issues.

It declares that a political economy which creates colossally increasing wealth surrounded by disastrously increasing poverty, needs - in order to survive - a continual war with some invented foreign enemy to maintain its own internal order and security. It requires ceaseless war.

Thus, 15 years after the fall of communism, a decade after the declared end of history, one of the main theses of Marx's interpretation of history again becomes a debating point and a possible explanation of the catastrophes being lived.

It is always the poor who make the most sacrifices, Fahrenheit 9/11 announces quietly during its last minutes. For how much longer? There is no future for any civilization anywhere in the world today which ignores this question. And this is why the film was made and became what it became. It's a film that deeply wants America to survive. - Dawn/Guardian Service

Stand off on Sir Creek dispute

With the ongoing process of normalization of relations between India and Pakistan, the two governments have decided to hold a composite dialogue to address all disputes between the two countries. There are eight issues on the agenda to be decided. Sir Creek is one of them which has remained in the cold storage for more than a decade.

There are 17 creeks on Sindh coast. Sir Creek is the seventeenth creek. These creeks used to be the main distributaries of River Indus. Sir Creek is a 60-mile-long strip of water between the Rann of Kutch (in India) and Sindh (in Pakistan), which emerged as a disputed area in late 1960s.

Since then several attempts have been made to find a solution. The reason as to why the two countries are showing sensitivity towards this marshy area is that it is believed to have considerable amount of oil and gas deposits in it.

In this connection talks started in 1969 but were terminated time and again because of the ups and downs in relations between India and Pakistan. Till now six rounds of talks have been held which ended without any result. The fifth round of talks was held in 1992 while the sixth round was held on August 5-6, 2004.

The history of the issue dates back to 1914, when an agreement was signed between the then government of Sindh and Rao Maharaj of Kutch. According to the agreement both sides agreed to a boundary line running through the middle of the creek as a border between the two states.

The final demarcation of the boundary was completed in 1925 in which the boundary was shown by a "green line", depicted on the eastern side of the creek. In 1960s this misconception emerged as a dispute between India and Pakistan.

To resolve the issue, talks started in 1969. Having terminated time and again the fifth round of talks was held in November 1992. But no solution could be found. Now, as the two countries are eager to resolve all of their bilateral disputes Sir Creek has become one of the eight main issues on the agenda.

One side of the Creek is under Pakistan's control whereas there are naval installations of India on the other side. Pakistan claims that all the seventeen creeks of Sindh coast belong to it while India maintains that almost half of the area of Sir Creek, the seventeenth one, belongs to it.

According to official sources 112 Pakistani fishermen are languishing in Indian jails while the number of Indian fishermen in Pakistani prisons is 250. Some of them have been behind bars for over five years.

According to the Indian claim the "green line" shown in the map as the boundary line was simply an indicative line, and the boundary line should be defined by "mid-channel" of the creek as shown on the map of 1925. But Pakistan rejects the Indian view on the grounds that the notion of "mid-channel" is applicable only to navigable channels while this channel is not a navigable one.

India maintains that it had proposed that pending formalization of the boundary in Sir Creek, the two sides could consider the delimitation of the India-Pakistan maritime boundary from seawards, by commencing at EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone limit and proceeding landwards up to a mutually acceptable limit as per provisions under technical aspects of law of sea (TALOS).

The seaward approach is based on internationally accepted principles and will benefit both countries for exploitation of resources in respective of EEZ. The issue gains importance in view of continental shelf claims to be submitted by 2004 to the UN.

Actually the UNCLOS (The United Nations convention on law of the sea), which came into force in November 1994, has established a commission on the limits of the continental Shelf (CLCS).

Under Article 76/Annexure II of the CLCS all coastal states having continental shelves exceeding 200 nautical miles from their territorial sea baselines are entitled to submit claims to determine the outer limits of their continental shelves to this international commission.

The commission on the limits of the continental shelf (CLCS), in turn will consider the data and other material submitted by the coastal states and make recommendations in accordance with the provisions of the UNCLOS.

The CLCS has issued Guidelines detailing the types and format of evidence they will consider. In this connection, the Indian claim can suffer a setback in the presence of Sir Creek issue. Because India cannot include this area in its claim of continental shelf until and unless the issue is resolved.

If Pakistan accepts the Indian proposal of pending the formalization of boundary in Sir Creek, it would mean that Pakistan will share a vast area of this creek with India. But Pakistan is not willing to allow India to use its area in this manner.

Pakistan claims that the whole creek belongs to it on the following grounds: first, according to the map accompanying the 1914 resolution the boundary shown by a green line is situated in the east of Sir Creek; second, all the 17 creeks, including Sir Creek, used to be the main distributaries of the river Indus on which Pakistan has a decisive right; third, the tail of Sir Creek is called Shah Samdo Creek, which terminates in Badin district which indicates that Pakistani claim is correct; fourth, historically, Indus delta extends up to Khori Creek which is located in Kutch in India.

In the light of these facts "hydrologically, oceanographically and geographically, the Pakistani claim stands correct," confirms Tahir Qureshi, director coastal ecosystem, world conservation union (IUCN) based in Karachi.

Finally, Pakistan has proposed that if India does not consider the Pakistani viewpoint as genuine, it is ready to take the matter to an international tribunal. The boundary demarcated by an international tribunal would not only help both parties to reach a solution of Sir Creek issue but would also help in defining the limits of the EEZ and the continental shelf for both countries.

On August 5-6 talks between India and Pakistan were held in New Delhi. The Pakistani delegation was led by additional defence secretary Rear Admiral Ahsan Ul Haq while his Indian counterpart Ranjit Issar headed the Indian delegation. At the end of the talks both reiterated the need for an early solution of the issue.

If India accepts Pakistan's premise on "green line", it would mean a loss of about 250 miles of EEZ for India, which India does not seem ready to lose. But the fact cannot be denied that serious efforts towards peace demand some compromises. If India sincerely desires to resolve the outstanding issues this is the time to show some flexibility.

Taking the blame

Somebody suggested in a newspaper the other day that we, in Pakistan, should have a Truth & Reconciliation Commission similar to what ex-President Nelson Mandela gave to his South Africa.

I don't know what the writer hoped to achieve through such a commission when we neither believe in truth nor are we ready to reconcile with our opponents on the basis of tolerance.

I may add that tolerance added to forgiveness was the moving spirit behind the South African body presided over by Bishop Desmond Tutu, the internationally respected priest who had devoted a lifetime to campaigning against apartheid.

Its purpose was to purge the hearts of both blacks and whites of bitterness, racial enmity and prejudice nurtured by a century or more of a vicious system under which millions of coloured persons were aliens in their own homeland and a handful of white settlers reigned supreme.

We have no such problem in Pakistan, though the ever-increasing ethnic and sectarian divide and the sense of deprivation in the smaller provinces would certainly call for a Truth & Reconciliation Commission, only if the belligerents were willing to speak the truth and effect a reconciliation. This they are not. In fact they seem determined to intensify mutual hatred and enmity and are not bothered about what happens to them or to their country.

When this proposal was mooted in the newspaper columns someone in Islamabad commented that if you look at Malik Meraj Khalid's political record and temperament (this was some months ago when Malik Sahib was still alive) he could be the Nelson Mandela of Pakistan.

The comparison was rather far-fetched, especially if you keep in mind the latter's 21 years in prison, but so far as the ideals behind the Truth & Reconciliation Commission were concerned, Malik Sahib could certainly be described as a firm proponent of truth, goodwill and mutual accommodation. Maybe that is why no place was left for him in the politics of Pakistan.

One of the objects of that unique South African body was that people appearing before it should be willing to take the blame if any blame fell to their lot while analysing a national problem and it is this aspect that inspired me to write this piece, for I was reminded of it when I recalled what Malik Sahib had said to the graduates of the International Islamic University at its convocation in 1999. I may add that I worked with him as media adviser when he was Rector of the university for a number of years.

I have listened to many convocation addresses in my time. Without exception they were routine, insipid, platitudinous and full of pompous advice based on cliches. The one by Malik Meraj Khalid was so different that it could be called the only one of its kind.

Only he could say all those things that we all know to be true but which no public figure or politician or a government leader could have the boldness and honesty to express in a public gathering. It had never been done before.

Malik Sahib laid the entire blame for Pakistan's failure at the door of the people of his age and generation, and included himself among the culprits. He said there had been a few exceptions but chose not to count himself as one.

It was a rare and unprecedented display of candour, truthfulness and honesty. He advised the outgoing scholars to beware of false ideals that stand in the way of national integration and said he was in a better position to give them this piece of advice because he belonged to that class of elders who were responsible for Pakistan's social decay and moral degeneration.

To quote him, he said, "We are guilty of betraying our commitment to strengthen the cause of national cohesion by worshipping the idols of caste, creed, ethnicity and parochial and linguistic discrimination. We have enslaved ourselves to these unholy goals.

We have practically indulged in negating Islamic social and ethical values. Barring a few exceptions, I make this confession on behalf of the horde of leaders, including myself, who practised every kind of deceit for sheer lust of power and sanctified the plunder of the national wealth. I implore you young people to beware of these pitfalls."

In his exhortation to the young graduates, Malik Sahib made out a strong case for being pragmatic, saying, "You will have to be realists and refuse to be led by the wiles and propaganda used by leaders to perpetuate their stranglehold over the nation's resources.

You have the rare opportunity to recapture Pakistan's vanished glory and the glory of the Muslim ummah and emancipate your suffering brethren, You are destined to establish a society wherein the life and liberty of all are protected and the welfare of all is ensured. That is if you have the will to do so by keeping your minds open."

As Rector, Malik Meraj Khalid said many other things to the new graduates. Such advice is always the main feature of a convocation address. Of course the young men and women are too excited at receiving their degrees and wearing the robe and special hat to pay attention to what is being said.

That day too half of them were taking photographs and the other half were posing for them. But the words that I have quoted were meant for sensitive Pakistanis outside the hall who mourn the demise of traditional values and the prevailing standards of social and political behaviour.

They must have been amazed at reading the words in the newspapers the next day, because, as I have said, no Pakistani has ever admitted that he too had a role in his country's degradation.

We have had many top leaders, some of them claiming to be saviours, but they were all blind to this fault in the ruling elite of which they formed an integral part, or were purposely unmindful of it.

It was sporting of Malik Sahib to include himself among the exploiters and scoundrels who have brought Pakistan to this pass. If there were more people like him around, Pakistan would not be a bad place to live in.

I am tired of listening to the daily plaint, "What is now left in this country?" It is symptomatic of the depravity of our times that many of those who voice this grouse are themselves from that class. It's like the Devil quoting the scriptures. Another evidence of what we have come to.

Frankly, aside from calling upon the youth to save themselves from drifting into the crowd of knaves and cheats, what else could Malik Sahib do? He could only point out the chasm that we have dug in our path.

But when people are bent upon jumping into a chasm how can saintly figures prevent them? If there were hope to be held out before them, or fear of the hereafter to frighten them, it might help. But probably we are now beyond hope and fear.

Troubled waters down under

Come hell or high water, George W. Bush will have to face the American electorate in a little over two months. Or perhaps not: there have lately been reports of terrorist plans to "disrupt" the US election on November 2, and as the date draws nearer, the ruling neoconservative cabal may well be looking for an excuse to postpone its rendezvous with destiny.

True, it hasn't really been done before. Franklin Roosevelt managed to stay at the helm for three full terms and a bit during the Second World War, but not without putting himself to the electoral test. And, even in the event of an Al Qaeda outrage on the eve of polling day, it is unlikely - albeit not impossible - that the balloting can be put off.

Bush's closest allies, on the other hand, enjoy greater leeway. The fate of his close comrade-in-arms, Tony Blair, is likely to be decided by the Labour Party rather than by the British electorate.

Although the party's fortunes have declined considerably in the aftermath of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, the challenges it faces from its Conservative and Liberal-Democratic rivals are not so far formidable.

But there is some evidence that Labour would benefit electorally from a leadership change. Blair's rival Gordon Brown may not have challenged the war or his nation's embarrassingly obsequious relationship with the US, but in the public eye he is not as commonly associated with neocon follies as the incumbent prime minister.

The question, therefore, is not so much whether Labour can win again but whether it will have the sense to cast out the devil, so to speak, before braving the deep blue sea.

The fact that Blair has lately been relishing the hospitality of western Europe's most conservative leader, Italy's Silvio Berlusconi, serves as a reminder of how far he has drifted to the right, and - beyond the immediate leadership issue - the British Labour Party will sooner or later have to decide whether it wishes to effectively continue blurring the distinction between itself and the Tories.

The swing against Labour in recent byelections won't necessarily be replicated in the general election due next year, but a hung parliament isn't out of the question - and, in the event, it will be interesting to see whether the upshot is a Lib-Lab alliance or a Lab-Con coalition, unprecedented since the wartime government of national unity under Winston Churchill.

No such options are available to John Winston Howard, who is close to completing his third term at the head of a coalition between Australia's deceptively labelled Liberals and the increasingly marginalized National Party.

Like Blair and unlike Bush, Howard has a degree of leeway in deciding on a date for the election, and he could easily put it off until early next year. Notwithstanding rumours of a September or October polling day, recent developments make it more likely that later rather than sooner will be the preferred option.

This involves a gamble: should American voters opt for the logical course by terminating Bush's lease on the White House, Howard's chances of winning a fourth term will diminish to the point where his Liberal Party may well opt to replace him as captain.

But that may be a gamble Howard can't avoid. After all, an unquestioning ally's comeuppance at the hands of the Australian electorate is not something that the Bushies are keen to contemplate in the run-up to November 2. And when the neocons in Washington express their wishes, Howard listens.

Howard faces the bigger risk: after all, much of the American electorate can barely locate Australia on the map, let alone name its head of government or ponder his political fate. Most Australians, on the other hand, are well aware of their government's habit of kowtowing to the United States, and many of them resent it.

Pro-Howard interventions by the likes of Richard Armitage and Bush himself have not gone down well. They were chiefly responses to Australian Labour Party leader Mark Latham's announcement some months ago that should his party be voted into power, Australian troops in Iraq would be back home by Christmas.

The trouble is, Latham came up with the deadline in an off-the-cuff remark during a radio interview. He evidently hadn't thought it through, and hemmed and hawed in subsequent conversations with journalists, even as evidence emerged of rifts within Labour.

It probably would have made greater sense to say that Australian troops - whose strength and role are anyhow marginal - would be pulled out immediately, in keeping with the sensible Spanish example, because they should never have been deployed in the first place.

Latham's ill-considered pronouncement gave the Howard government an opportunity to claim that a Labour government would endanger the US-Australia alliance, with the US ambassador in Canberra chiming in, followed by Armitage and George Bush.

The American interventions did not go down too well with the public, which broadly does not appreciate being told who to vote for, but caused enough concern within Labour ranks for the party's shamelessly pro-American former leader Kim Beazley to be brought back as shadow defence minister.

But Labour's discomfiture was brief. Earlier this month, in an echo of similar moves in Britain and the US, a group of 43 former Australian ambassadors, armed forces chiefs and other officials unequivocally denounced the Howard government's role in the Iraq misadventure, accusing it of slavishly following Washington's dictates.

The government dismissed them as "daiquiri diplomats" - an insult that infuriated much of the public service and prompted at least one disclosure that has profoundly, although perhaps not fatally, wounded the government.

Three years ago, Australia was one of the favoured destinations for would-be refugees, mainly from Afghanistan and Iraq. Not all of them were running away from political repression, but they were all clearly desperate people, many of whom had spent everything they had on the quest for a new life. They were journeying in unseaworthy vessels, mainly from Indonesia.

Even though they were coming in their hundreds rather than by the thousand, the Australian government was desperate to stop the flow. It set up exclusion zones and eventually pushed a legal clause through parliament whereby islands on the continent's periphery - an obvious destination for rickety boats overflowing with humanity - could no longer be construed as Australian territory for the purposes of requesting asylum.

Australia does not have a coastguard, so its navy was deployed to maintain a lookout and, wherever possible, to turn back refugee boatloads. In August 2001, during one such interception, a vague report from a single naval source provided the government's propaganda wing with a veritable arsenal of ammunition. Some of the refugees, it suggested, had held their children over the water, threatening to throw them in if they were prevented from proceeding to Australia.

The government's campaign against "boat people" was already shaded with racial overtones. Not surprisingly, it pounced upon what was essentially an unsubstantiated rumour and ran with it.

Within days, the tale was contradicted at the highest levels of the navy. The government effectively gagged the admirals. There couldn't possibly be any place in Australia for people who could be so callous, went the official line. They are not like us, ergo they are not welcome in our country.

After September 11, the prime minister played on Australian fears by suggesting that some of the refugees may well be terrorists. And two months later, he was still milking the children overboard incident on the eve of a general election.

Three days before polling day, in a major speech, Howard repeated the discredited claims. "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come," he declared - and went on to obtain a narrow parliamentary majority.

A parliamentary inquiry subsequently concluded that no children had ever been threatened, but failed to conclusively establish governmental culpability for spreading the lie: at the time, no one was willing to clearly contradict the claims by Howard and his ministers that they had based their unambiguous but demonstrably false conclusions on advice received from their public service minions.

However, earlier this month, a gentleman by the name of Mike Scrafton, who had been serving as a senior adviser to the defence minister in 2001, declared that he had spoken thrice to the prime minister on the eve of his aforementioned speech, and had made it clear that there was no evidence whatsoever that the children overboard incident had ever taken place.

Howard concedes the phone conversations took place, but insists they related only to the video and not any other aspect of the incident. Scrafton submitted to a lie-detector test on national television, and passed it.

The prime minister has dismissed this as a gimmick and fobbed off suggestions that perhaps he ought to follow suit. But Howard's visage is clouded these days as opinion polls show the vast majority of Australians don't believe his side of the story.

Of course, it is generally accepted that politicians tell lies. And Howard is a particularly devious representative of the species. All the same, there's a growing sense that this time his lack of decency has landed him in a particularly sour pickle.

Elections today would probably entail a repetition of Jose Maria Aznar's fate - which is why Howard is likely to put them off for as long as possible, unless Washington decrees otherwise. Fortunately, however, the day of reckoning cannot indefinitely be postponed.