Mr Colin Powell's resignation should not come as a surprise to anyone. In a cabinet packed with hawks, he was the only voice of reason and moderation. President George Bush respected him but relied more on born-again Christians while taking some of the most crucial decisions. On Iraq, especially, Vice-President Dick Cheney, Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice ganged up against him - assisted in no small measure by CIA chief George Tenet - to push forward their own agenda.
At the lower level those who made things difficult for the retired four-star general were Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, Defence Under-Secretary Douglas Feith and Pentagon adviser Richard Perle, who later resigned. In fact, immediately after 9/11, the Zionist lobby in the Republican administration wanted a war on Iraq, even though no link has till today been established between Al Qaeda and Baathist Iraq. The most perverse phenomenon surrounding the Iraq war concerned the weapons of mass destruction which President Saddam Hussain supposedly possessed.
Mr Powell was sceptic on this, but Mr Tenet clinched the issue when he told a cabinet meeting that the existence of Iraqi WMDs was "a slam dunk". This made the war certain, and Mr Powell should have resigned then. Instead, it was left to him to make a case for war before the UN in February 2003. In that speech he presented intelligence data which we now know was fabricated. His exit from the cabinet now would make no difference to what history would record.
Ms Rice is to replace Mr Powell. This means the hawkish unilateralism that characterized American foreign policy during the first term of George Bush will continue. Ms Rice is a superhawk, has no immediate family and is an energy tycoon. All this should reflect in the way she conducts foreign policy, especially vis-a-vis Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In Iraq, the US needs a credible exit strategy, and the Arab-Israeli conflict requires a major initiative for reviving the peace process. With a hawk like Ms Rice in charge of foreign policy, both are unlikely to be American priorities.
Training birth attendants
A report in this newspaper points out that pregnant women living in suburban Karachi have no option but to rely on traditional birth attendants - many of whom are untrained and unskilled, and, therefore, incapable of handling complicated cases - during delivery. Indeed, this problem extends to most of the country, especially the rural areas, where professional medics are absent, and where the Rural Health Centres and Basic Health Units, originally meant to cater to this segment of the population, lie in a shambles.
Moreover, expenses, long distances to better equipped medical outlets, interference by relatives, and cultural susceptibilities do not allow would-be mothers ready access to clinics and hospitals where they could be given proper attention. The result is that Pakistan, with 340 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (the figure is worse in the rural areas), has one of the highest maternal mortality rates in South Asia.
While much can be done to bring down the maternal mortality rate and prevent deaths, one of the most pressing needs is to impart professional training to midwives who are called upon to attend to births in these areas. Considering that 80 per cent of deliveries countrywide are handled by these attendants, this is essential. Not only do they need to be taught about the importance of hygiene and the shunning of those methods of delivery that are unsafe but also of referring patients, whose cases do not appear normal, to better trained medical personnel.
It is also necessary that they are provided with basic medical material that may be needed at the time of birth. In recognizing the problem, the government and international agencies have attempted to launch training programmes for birth attendants. Given the alarmingly high rate of population growth, a more concerted effort is needed in this direction.