| 01 November 2004 | Monday | 17 Ramazan 1425 |
Unbecoming behaviour
Caucasian Muslims' struggle
Who will decide the US election?
A post-Bush mindset
The Pakistan-India dispute over Jammu and Kashmir proves the adage that adversaries striving for zero-sum solutions to bilateral disputes may end up surrendering their freedom to pursue a rational policy. Confrontation becomes a way of life immune from governmental, even military, control. An adversarial relationship may get locked on auto-pilot. Such has been the case with India-Pakistan relations since 1947.
President Musharraf's announcement prior to the 12th SAARC Summit in Islamabad that Pakistan would be willing to consider a solution other than one based on a UN-sponsored plebiscite was a bold attempt to break the 56-year deadlock over Kashmir.
His statement of October 25, 2004, went a big step further, because the president suggested specific alternate approaches to the settlement of the dispute. One such option that the president mentioned was that of joint-sovereignty of India and Pakistan over the disputed territory. The president also invited the people of Pakistan to respond to his proposal.
As expected, Pakistan's opposition parties, especially some of the religious ones, have reacted negatively. The reaction in Indian held Kashmir was generally positive. What was disappointing was the Indian external affairs spokesperson's unimaginative, bureaucratic response that Jammu and Kashmir was not a subject for discussion via the media.
Indian authorities have perhaps failed to appreciate President Musharraf's suggestion for raising this issue in public in order to start a national debate as a means of mustering domestic support for his proposal in favour of a settlement.
For over 50 years successive governments of Pakistan have drummed it into the ears of the people that Jammu and Kashmir was Pakistan's according to the principles of partition, and that the accession of the state to India by the Hindu maharajah was invalid. The people were made to believe that the only acceptable solution was the holding of a UN-sponsored referendum in the disputed territory.
President Musharraf, a hawk by reputation but, more accurately, "a do or die" leader, has brought a fresh approach to this intractable problem. But the going will not be easy. Apart from overcoming Indian suspicion, he has to win over his own people in the face of allegations that he has made unilateral concessions to an unappreciative India.
Just as the president has acknowledged that Pakistan's maximalist position in favour a plebiscite in never going to be acceptable to India, the Indians need to reciprocate by meeting Pakistan half-way. Rather than a manifestation of weakness, Pakistan's historic offer stems from a growing realization that cooperation and friendship with India, not confrontation and conflict, offers the best prospects of peace and prosperity to the people of South Asia.
Pakistan has not retreated officially from its position in favour of self-determination. The right to self-determination can neither be conferred nor denied by India or Pakistan; it is an in inalienable right - a natural right if you will. The UN Security Council resolutions merely reinforced this existing right, they did not create it. So long as the people of Jammu and Kashmir remain steadfast, they cannot be cast aside. Any solution to the problem of Jammu and Kashmir has to be acceptable not only to Pakistan and India but also to the people of the disputed territory.
The president's remarks are historic for another reason. For the first time a leader of Pakistan has suggested joint sovereignty as one of the options. The offer has immense symbolic importance.
The proposal is also worth exploring because the other options (academics have identified as many as seven) are certain to be rejected by either one or the other of the parties to the dispute. India's claim to all of Jammu and Kashmir is rejected by Pakistan and the majority of the Kashmiri Muslims on both sides of the Line of Control. Pakistan's position that the future of the disputed territory has to be decided through a plebiscite is rejected by India as well as the Hindus and Buddhists in Indian held Kashmir.
The option of independence, originally favoured by Sheikh Abdullah, is acceptable neither to India nor to Pakistan. Variations of the above involving a redrawing of the map has been ruled out by India. Similarly, a solution based on making the LoC the international border is rejected by Pakistan as well as the majority of the Kashmiri people.
Joint or co-equal sovereignty of India and Pakistan over Jammu and Kashmir avoids losses to the two state parties to the dispute, while conferring significant rewards on the Kashmiris by keeping their territory intact. The entire disputed territory would be a single entity, with autonomous, democratic self-government under the joint protection of India and Pakistan. Another name for such an arrangement is condominium. India and Pakistan would have well-defined, co-equal rights in the territory, defined by a treaty.
The people of Jammu and Kashmir would freely elect their own representative governments in different areas, similar to Swiss cantons for example, which would enjoy a large measure of autonomy.Historical examples of joint sovereignty include the Anglo-Egyptian condominium over Sudan, the Soviet-Norwegian condominium over Spitsbergen and the Anglo-French protectorate of the New Hebrides (now Vanuatu). Another example is that of Austria in the immediate aftermath of World War II.
Under normal circumstances, it is a requirement that a single state should exercise sovereignty over a territory. But this cannot be considered an absolute requirement. In theory, there is no legal reason why two powers instead of one may not hold joint responsibility for defence and ultimate governance of a territory. In some ways it is analogous to having two signatures rather than one to validate a cheque.
In the past, joint sovereignty has worked reasonably well where the territory is sparsely populated - for example in Spitsbergen and the New Hebrides. As the dispute over Jammu and Kashmir has been so bitter and contentious, the exercise of joint sovereignty could be fraught with complex and potentially divisive issues. While embarking on such a historic partnership, it is vital to build maximum trust and confidence between Pakistan and India.
The proposed solution has to be acceptable to India, Pakistan and the inhabitants of the disputed territory. Being acceptable does not mean ideal though, because a solution considered ideal by all parties simply does not exist. The solution must be clear and straightforward in regard to the political and military agreements, with no tricks up one's sleeve, no hidden agenda, no one-upmanship.
Policy guidelines and a new constitution for Jammu and Kashmir will have to be agreed upon in order to give effect to the agreement on joint sovereignty. A formal treaty would have to be signed. Once ratified, the treaty and its related instruments and protocols would provide the constitutional framework for Jammu and Kashmir. The Line of Control would stand abolished.
Constitutional issues to be resolved would include, inter alia, the establishment of the highest authority representing India and Pakistan in Jammu and Kashmir (the Supreme Council), the composition and definition of its functions, subjects that would fall within the purview of the Council and those that would come under the autonomous government, rule of unanimity in decision-making at the highest level, drafting of a state constitution, citizenship for the Kashmiri people, the degree of autonomy for the constituent units of the new Jammu and Kashmir, a guarantee of fundamental freedoms and human rights, and procedures for settling disputes arising out of an interpretation of the treaty on Jammu and Kashmir.
A joint military commission for Jammu and Kashmir would have to be established; Indian and Pakistani troops would be redeployed and reduced to levels consistent with the new situation. Arrangements would have to be made for local law enforcement. Other important issues would be return of refugees/displaced persons, questions of land ownership, business, employment and access of nationals and business organizations from India and Pakistan, determination of the right of local residents to visit and to seek gainful employment in India and Pakistan, and the right of nationals of India and Pakistan to visit Jammu and Kashmir for innocent pursuits.
Special areas or zones would have to be designated: the Karakoram Highway and adjoining territory would be under the exclusive control of the Pakistan army; likewise the Ladakh Highway and adjoining territory would be under the exclusive control of the Indian army. The Siachen glacier would be a demilitarized zone. As a confidence-building measure the Pakistan army would have the right to send observers to the special Indian zone, while the Indian army would have the right to send military observers to the Pakistan's exclusive zone.
In matters of economics and finance, decisions regarding the establishment of the central bank, currency matters, revenue and taxation and customs duties, and subsidies to Kashmir would have to be tackled. While the Indus Waters Treaty governs the distribution of water resources between India and Pakistan, the sharing of natural resources, including hydropower resources between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiris, would also have to be decided.
Transitional arrangements will include provisions for an immediate ceasefire in the disputed territory, grant of amnesty to the mujahideen, release of all political detainees, and surrender of all firearms.
The list of issues may appear to be daunting while the problem of making such a complex system work may seem intractable. But whatever pitfalls may lurk under the new dispensation, they cannot compare with the perils and complexities of the present arrangements.
If someone had proposed in 1947 the regime that prevails today along the LoC and Siachen glacier, for example, it would have been rejected as sheer madness, a travesty not worthy of consideration. If it had been suggested that 57 years after independence the principal countries of South Asia would be neglecting the welfare of their peoples in the stubborn pursuit of mutual hostility, that South Korea and Taiwan province would be many times more affluent than all of South Asia put together, it too would have been dismissed as being unduly alarmist. Awareness of reality brings hope for more rational choices, perhaps to save succeeding generations of South Asians from the painful grip of a history that has shown them little compassion and conferred on them meagre rewards.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Unbecoming behaviour
What is the intelligent critic to make of the October 22 debacle in the National Assembly? Those who have watched the developments closely certainly didn't expect the proceedings to end in such a fiasco.
On the one hand, there was the government party, determined to derail the opposition by a clever manoeuvre which it executed with grisly zeal. And on the other, the opposition, all fired up with flailing arms and spittle flecked exclamations, who lost its grip at the decisive moment.
The official version of the proceedings, contained in a terse one-liner, is that the no-trust motion to dislodge the Speaker, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, failed as no votes were cast against him. There was, however, a sequence of events which led to this questionable action, that the government spokesman has cheerfully omitted to mention. This certainly, bears repetition.
The opposition, which had a combined strength of 148, and was short by 24 in a house of 342, was relying heavily on the support of the dissidents on the treasury benches, where rumblings had been heard for quite a while. There was a strong possibility that some of these MNAs, who were disenchanted with both the speaker and the leader of the king's party, and had of late been nursing a number of grievances, might have thrown in their lot with the opposition.
In order to accomplish this, it was necessary that the house should vote through a secret ballot. But this was something the deputy speaker, Sardar Mohammed Yakub Khan, who was chairing the meeting, was not prepared to entertain. The government, however, had not been idle and had taken out insurance. Rumours had been circulating of another expansion of the federal cabinet. And seven treasury members, including five women, had been elected chairpersons of different standing committees a day ahead of the no-trust motion. The whips had been doing their homework.
As if that was not enough, outside the assembly, according to Raja Parvez Ashraf, secretary general of the PPPP, disillusioned dissidents from the king's party had to run the gauntlet set up by members of the ruling party, ably assisted by the chief ministers of Punjab, Sindh and Balochistan. The task set for these worthies was to ensure that the recalcitrant dissidents did not stray into the assembly hall by accident or by design.
The opposition wanted all members who had signed the petition to voice their protest. Eventually, after granting leave to move the resolution, only three speakers were allowed to represent the axis - Aitzaz Ahsan, of the PPP, Chaudhry Nisar of the PML(N) and Hafeez Hussain Ahmed of the MMA, who was subsequently replaced by Liaquat Baloch.
Aitzaz Ahsan, conjugating the rigours of his calling, presented five points which more or less crystallized the views of the opposition. Citing paragraph C of clause 7 of article 53 of the 1973 Constitution, read with Rule 12 of the procedures and conduct of business in the National Assembly, 1992, he fired quite a few broadsides at the chair. Warming up to his task, he stated that the speaker had earned the wrath of the combined opposition due to his partisan and grossly partial behaviour.
He demanded the presence inside the Assembly of the jailed PML(N) leader Javed Hashmi, condemned the sentence given to the former speaker Syed Yousuf Raza Gillani, and alluded that the speaker , the two former and the current prime ministers were powerless and ineffective, as the real power in the country lay in the hands of the president and the military brass. This greatly incensed Mr Jamali, who protested vociferously, but without too much conviction.
It was, however, when Aitzaz Ahsan demanded that the no trust motion should be conducted through a secret ballot, which the deputy speaker vehemently opposed, that the house erupted. There were frequent exchanges between Dr Sher Afgan Khan Niazi, minister for parliamentary affairs, and opposition members, where the dialogues were coarse patchworks of inane exchanges whose very banality was supposed to be loaded with moment and simmering undertones.
Opposition members then surrounded the deputy speaker's chair, snatched and tore up ballot papers which were tossed at the deputy speaker, and brought the proceedings to an abrupt end. Some of the opposition MNAs were also a little theatrical. After spreading a sheet on the floor of the hall, they offered fateha for the demise of democracy. The boycott, while it certainly demonstrated that the opposition was operating from a no-win situation, has been nevertheless regarded by critics as a face-saving retreat.
That Friday's scene was almost a replay of last year's episode, when the opposition boycotted the proceedings in protest against the deputy speaker's refusal to allow all 20 movers to speak on the resolution against the speaker. The difference, this time, was in the increased degree of rancour. After the cantankerous session was over and the dust had settled , somebody pointed out that Chaudhry Amir Hussain is the first holder of the office of speaker to have survived two no-confidence motions within one and a quarter years. If he keeps this up, he might end up in the Guinness book of records.
Chaudhry Amir Hussain is no shrinking violet, having been in and out of the National Assembly five times. In some ways he is the ideal candidate for speaker. He has all the right credentials for the job - sobriety, average intelligence, a lugubrious dignity and the capacity to recover from the slings of outrageous fortune. After the latest standoff by the opposition on the honour killing bill, he was back to his old self, stern, officious and threatening to throw the book at the people who continue to disturb the sanctity of the lower house.
However, the identity of the speaker is not the problem. The real issue is that both the government and the opposition behaved irresponsibly and childishly over the issue of ousting the speaker. The government action was devious and arcane, and should be roundly condemned. If the king's party is losing the support of its allies, it should set about repairing the internal damage.
The opposition's action was also abominable. Charred by the combustion that was its own rupturing open, their members displayed the worst form of parliamentary behaviour which hasn't gone down very well with their supporters outside the Assembly. It was a no-win situation, and one sympathizes with their helplessness, but their objective could have been just as easily accomplished without a display of belligerence.
Throughout the struggle against the British, the leaders of the Indian National Congress who had waded deep in the mire of rebellion, nevertheless stood firm and dignified when they opposed the imperial power. They realized the futility of aggression. They knew that through patience and perseverance they would finally come out on top.
The National Assembly was formed after considerable expense to the taxpayer, who is increasingly beginning to wonder if all this was really worth it. Instead of being a warren of watchfulness and guardedness, the members of the National Assembly appear to be more interested in scoring points against one another, than in doing something worthwhile for the nation. What have the 342 MNAs with all the trappings of upper and middle class respectability and the ministers, with a refined propellant conservatism, whose number has now swelled to a staggering 60, done for the poor, the dispossessed, the illiterate and the downtrodden?
Eventually, after years of sabotage, opposition, raised eyebrows, buck passing, tickings off by retrogressive elements and drastic editing, the nation has learned that the law against honour killing has been finally tightened. Pakistani democracy then went into action. The PPP, who authored what has now become a moth eaten document, was naturally incensed and once again the opposition stormed out of the house. Perhaps it's time they read Hegel, especially the part where he says "one learns from experience that one does not always learn from experience."
Caucasian Muslims' struggle
The countries located in the Black Sea and Caspian Sea regions are currently undergoing political, economic and ideological transformation and are charting new strategies to meet new challenges. They are also seeking to forge new friendships to match the ground realities.
The demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 was followed 10 years later by a grave and unexpected event of September 11 which awoke United States to the realities of global politics. However, the root cause of this major development still remains to be addressed by the American administration.
In May 2004 the European Union was further fortified by adding 10 more States to the Club whose population swelled to 450 million to which the Pope advised to defend the Christian values.
Against this the Muslim population in the land-mass to the east of the EU is estimated to be over 400 million, comprising the Balkans, the Caucasian region, Crimean Tartars, Turkey, Central Asia, Uigur Turks of Xinjiang, the Muslim minorities living in these regions, Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
In contemporary history these regions had three icons, namely, Kemal Ataturk, Gorbachev and Ayatollah Kohmeini. The Soviet bloc thus receded - the EU was reaching the outskirts of the Russian Federation (Population 150m) with the apparatus of NATO.
In the adjoining Middle East the presence of nuclear arsenal in Israel is buttressing its colonial tactics and denying the Palestinians their right of establishing their sovereign state. The invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq has caused unrest in the Muslim world and the Anglo-American led coalition has inflicted innumerable deaths, injuries and destruction and further widened the gap between the West and the Islamic world.
It would be worthwhile exploring the four characteristics of these two regions in terms of (1) population (2) ethnicity (3) language and script and (4) religion.
The Russian Federation has a contiguous presence in both the regions. In fact, it extends to Urals and Siberia and reaches the shores of Sakhalin, Nakhodka and Vladivostok in the Russian Far East. The littoral states in the Black Sea and its neighbourhood are Ukraine, Bylorussia, Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey and Georgia. Both Turkey and Greece are members of the NATO. During the invasion of Iraq, some differences surfaced between the United States and Turkey.
There are also differences between Greece and Turkey on Cyprus. Russia, Ukraine, Bylorussia and Bulgaria are of Slav ethnicity and so is the case with some countries in the Balkans. Romania, Georgia are not Slavs and so is Armenia. These three states have their distinct ethnicity, language and script. Turkey has replaced Arabic script with Latin. All the former republics of the Soviet Union speak and write Russian and use the Cyrillic script. Ethnic Slavs follow Russian Orthodox Church. Catholics are in minority. Turks are Sunni Muslims.
In the Caspian Sea and its neighbourhood besides Russia the littoral states are Azerbaijan, Iran, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kirgystan and Afghanistan. In this region religious affiliation is both Sunni and Shia. Iran, Afghanistan and Tajikistan are Persian speaking whereas the Central Asians are Turkic speaking and close to the Istanbuli Turkish. The former SU republics also speak Russian.
The population of Turkish and Turkic speaking people is 200 millions. Thinkers in this language group are aspiring to the creation of Greater Turkestan.
New dynamics have come into play in these regions. The demise of the Soviet Union brought the end of Warsaw Pact, conversion of the former republics into sovereign states and defining their international borders, galvanizing independent foreign policy commensurate with its national interests, managing its own natural resources and conversion to market economy and division of the assets of the USSR.
The collateral ramification was the removal of the Berlin Wall and the unification of the two Germanys and new EU desire to reassert its newly gained strength to "match" the United States in global politics. The Russian Federation was reduced to the status of paramount power in this "New Big Game."
Central Asian Republics established diplomatic relations with Turkey, Iran and Pakistan. However, they also looked to the US and the EU. The West seized the opportunity to offer technology to revamp the vast oil deposits of Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in the Caspian Basin.
Thus the western oil giants steered the location of oil pipelines to the Turkish port of Cehan in the Mediterranean and the Georgian port of Batumi in the Black Sea. For the growing Chinese economy, the availability of oil is indispensable and currently China and Japan are competing to construct the 4000 km pipeline to their region from the Kazakh oil fields.
The Caucasian region lies between the Black and the Caspian Sea and is home to Chechnya, Dagestan, Abkhazia, Ossetia and Circassia. These autonomous regions are aspiring for Independence. Chechnya uprising has cost many lives. The United States has its presence in some Central Asian Republics and also Georgia.
Kazakhstan's ethnic Russian population is 37 per cent. Volga Germans who were deported to Kazakhstan by Stalin are gradually returning to their homeland. Similarly Russians are also migrating to the Russian Federation. The 200,000 Tartars who were consigned to Central Asia are also going back to their native habitat.
In the new scenario Russia is looking east to China and has established cooperation with the "Shanghai-Five". Russia is also working to keep the CIS alive. To counter American influence, Russia is helping Iran to build its nuclear energy outfit, to which America looks with suspicion.
The writer is honorary consul-general of Morocco.
Who will decide the US election?
What do an Afridi tribesman in Pakistan, a factory hand in Shanghai, a grape picker in Chile, and a Canadian auto worker have in common? Their lives are all shaped by decisions made at the White House.
The vision of a re-elected George W. Bush ruling the world does not sit well. Few non-Americans know anything about Kerry, but that hardly matters. He is popular everywhere abroad simply because he looks civilized and is un-Bush.
An interesting internet site, www.BetaVote.com, tabulates straw votes for Bush and Kerry from around the world. Though unscientific, and distorted in its US section by Bush unlovers, it provides a good sample of world thinking about the US election.
Among 42,721 global respondents, Kerry leads Bush by 88 per cent to 11 per cent. In Pakistan, Kerry leads Bush by 75 per cent. In Brazil, by 91 per cent; 79 per cent in Italy; 91 per cent in France; 71 per cent in India; 77 per cent in Japan; 11 per cent in Kuwait; 89 per cent Germany; 81 per cent in Britain; 17 per cent in Israel; and 61 per cent in Nigeria.
Only in the African state, Niger, does Bush lead, by 71 per cent. Bush and Kerry are tied, oddly, in Libya, North Korea, and remote Christmas Island.
What deeply alarms many non-Americans is the prospect of a second Bush term dominated by a coalition made up of militant evangelical Protestants, Christian Rapturists, American supporters of Israel's PM Ariel Sharon, and narrow-minded rural voters from the Deep South who have more in common with Taliban than the rest of the US.
These groups share a loathing of Europe, the UN, the Pope, Muslims in general, Arabs in particular, Chinese, intellectuals, anything international, and truly believe themselves as God's chosen people. Many born-again Christians see George Bush as a new messiah.
By contrast, Bush, to most foreigners, incarnates the arrogance, ignorance and bullying that form the worst negative stereotypes of Americans. Non-Americans worry that US domestic politics and foreign policy are increasingly influenced by extremist religious groups. Pakistan is far from alone in being vexed by religious extremists.
Catholic bishops have ordered their flocks to vote against John Kerry because he supports abortion. Ardent supporters of Israel's Ariel Sharon, who now run US foreign policy, are urging more wars against Syria and Iran - and even Pakistan - to promote Greater Biblical Israel which, they believe, has been commanded by God.
Forty-one per cent of the Americans say they are born-again evangelical Protestants. Nearly all vote Republican. Many of them belong to the Rapture sect. This cult believes that when all the world's Jews are concentrated in a re-created Biblical Greater Israel, and forced to convert to Christianity, the Messiah will return, and Armageddon (the end of the world) will occur.
As explained in the widely popular book series 'Left Behind,' which have sold nearly 60 million copies in the US, when the 'Rapture' hits, true believers will be spirited naked up to heaven, leaving behind their clothing and shoes - as well as all other Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc. These miscreants will slowly burn in a worldwide holocaust, gleefully observed from heaven by the anointed. Most Americans, not to mention non-Americans, understand the nature or size of this strange sect, which calls for total war on the Muslim world.
All this would be merely a religious curiosity of America's outback if the Rapturists and other Christian religious militants were not so influential in the Republican Party. A recent survey shows born-again Christians comprising 22 per cent of voters in Pennsylvania, 36 per cent in Missouri, 30 per cent in Iowa, 27 per cent in Ohio - all key battleground states that will decide the election.
A 'New York Times' survey found big city voters backed Kerry 69 per cent to only 23 per cent for Bush; and, in small cities, 53 per cent to 40 per cent. But in suburbs, Bush leads 50 per cent to 42 per cent. And in rural areas, Bush leads by a whopping 55 per cent to 35 per cent.
This leads to the conclusion that critics and holy rollers support Bush, while more educated Americans back Kerry. Bush clearly speaks for America's lower orders, who love him for his lack of learning, mangled English, militarism, and religious pretensions.
However, a US president who says he receives direction from God, communicates with Him regularly, and claims to be on a 'divine mission' makes the rest of the world very uneasy.
Who will the Lord order Bush to 'liberate' next? Iran? That hotbed of wicked Muslims, Pakistan? Sinful France, with its cigarettes, wine, and sex. Canadians with all that water and oil. Or Chinese, who reject Christian values and work too cheaply?
Add to the pro-Bush vote the 20 per cent of Americans who actually believe Elvis is still alive, and you end up with an unbeatable majority.-Copyright Eric S. Margolis
A post-Bush mindset
While we are still in a pre-Nov. 2 mind-set, may I offer my last few words on the "pre-Sept. 11 mind-set"? By now that phrase has become a mantra for the Bush reelection campaign. In every stump speech in every swing state, the president accuses John Kerry not only of being untrustworthy but of viewing the world with a "pre-Sept. 11th mentality" or a "September the 10th mind-set."
On Sept. 10, 2001, a psychic was the guest on "Larry King Live." "Hardball" ran a segment on hazing by a field hockey team. And Katie Couric opened her show by saying: "With troubling economic news, anemic growth and rising unemployment, all eyes are on Wall Street, today, Monday, September the 10th, 2001."
Today one of the definitions for "9/11" in the Encarta Webster's dictionary is: a generic word for any catastrophic terrorist attack. But "September 10th" appears as an adjective meaning "so petty, shallow or outmoded, as to be irrelevant." Soooo September 10th.
I never mocked the president for the stunned and dazed look that was captured by the cameras in that Florida classroom. Every American was shocked and horrified. The images of the attack were permanently imprinted on our national psyche. But three years and one Iraq war later, what exactly does the president mean when he talks about the lessons of Sept. 11 and how his opponent didn't learn them?
"First of all," he says, "we face an enemy which has no conscience. They are cold-blooded. Therefore, you can never hope for the best with them. You cannot negotiate with them. . . . The only way to secure America, to keep us safe, is to find them and bring them to justice before they hurt us again." Of course you cannot negotiate with zealots who fly planes into buildings. You cannot reason with people who kill and die in the name of heaven and the hope of 72 virgins. You can only stop them.
But the central lie of this campaign is in the way the administration has conflated the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq. It's the way Bush morphed Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the religious fanatic and the secular dictator, Sept. 11, 2001, and March 19, 2003.
It's the way he has drawn a composite of one intractable "enemy": the jihadist in the cockpit. The lesson of Sept. 11, says Bush repeatedly, is that "we must take threats seriously before they come to hurt us." His punch line is: "And I saw a threat in Saddam Hussein."
Bush no longer claims directly that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. He tells us rather that he "saw" a threat. This is the Bush doctrine. And anyone who doesn't accept his vision - even when it clashes with reality - is dismissed as "soooo September 10th."
All year, I have been ranting over one piece of polling data. As recently as two weeks ago, the Harris Poll showed that 41 percent of Americans still link Saddam Hussein with the hijackers. What's more disheartening is the gender gap of misinformation: 51 percent of women compared with 29 percent of men connect Iraq and Al Qaeda.
Al Qaeda was a uniter, not a divider, of Americans. We took the war to the Afghan rulers who hosted Al Qaeda. But Iraq? Now, using his Sept. 11 lens, the president says, "we are fighting terrorists there so we do not have to fight them here." But Iraq became a magnet after March 19, 2003. If Baghdad is now purposeful bait to lure terrorists, have we told that to American soldiers or Iraqis? For that matter has this hapless war just attracted terrorists or recruited them?
There is no item in the dictionary for "September 12th," but I remember the day. In one voice and many languages, the world said, "Today we are all Americans." What happened to the Sept. 12 mind-set? On Sept. 12 the world was divided into us and them, the community of nations against the terrorists. Today, the world is divided into the United States and them. After all the bungling and arrogance, we are nearly isolated.
I have an entire Rolodex of reasons why I would not vote to keep this president in office. But none of them trumps my sense of danger at being led by a man who tailors the facts to fit the mind that is indeed set.
Now we are led in a dangerous time by a man who calls chaos "freedom on the march," a president who uses Sept. 11 as his cover story.
And that is my November 2nd mind-set.-Dawn/Washington Post Service