| 23 November 2004 | Tuesday | 10 Shawwal 1425 |
The killings go on and on
Bush's second 'opportunity'
American Muslims' anxieties
EU carrot, not the US stick
Over the last two weeks, I have been examining the rise of China as a global economic power. I have looked at how much the country has achieved in the last few decades and where it is headed in the next quarter century.
I have also discussed some of the ways in which China has already begun to influence the global economy. The country's growing economic prowess can be felt in the way the global production system is evolving, in the way the world commodity prices are being affected, and the competition China is already offering in a variety of low-wage products.
These developments obviously offer a country such as Pakistan - a large developing nation that sits on China's borders and with which it might have to compete unless it is able to enter into a strategic relationship with it. Exactly what form such a relationship could take will be influenced to some extent by the way the Chinese political system develops over time.
Many in the West, fearful of China's growing economic size, sometimes draw comfort from the belief that the country may stumble some time, not in the not too distant future.
This may happen if China is unable or unwilling to develop a political system that can accommodate and contain the rising aspirations of its increasingly prosperous population. The political system also needs to cater to those who are not fully participating in the country's economic miracle.
Many of these people live near the border with Pakistan and most of them are Muslims. Some of them have been caught up in the upheaval radical Islam is causing in many areas of the globe.
If the Chinese political system is unable to cater to the aspirations of these people, the consequences of this would reach beyond the country's borders. It would certainly have an impact on Pakistan.
Some political scientists and economists who have watched developments in the countries that made the transition from socialism to capitalism argue that none of these went through this change without first going through a political upheaval.
Russia, in particular, is still in the process of establishing a democratic system. It has been through much political turbulence since the end of the control by the communists.
Some of the recent moves by President Vladmir Putin suggest the country may be moving back towards authoritarianism, with the forces of opposition under pressure by the state and the press being subjected to government control.
All the "stans" in Central Asia continue to be dominated by strong rulers who are not subject to any control, not even that of a political party as was the case during the communist period.
Why should China be different from Russia and the countries in Central Asia, these analysts ask? This is a legitimate question to pose, and it needs to be seriously addressed.
There is much to fear if China's experiment in political change does not succeed and the country once again succumbs to fissiparous tendencies as has happened several times in the past in its long history.
Several thousand years of recorded history of China has periods of strong central rule - mostly authoritarian and with state power often exercised by brutal force - interrupted by upheaval which led to the emergence of warlords in various parts of the country that exerted control over their areas without bothering about any central authority. These quasi-independent fiefdoms were brought under control only when a strong leader emerged who waged war on the warlords and established his authority over them.
Sometimes it appears that those who suggest that such a chain of events may unfold are indulging in wishful thinking. Many in the West are fearful of China's economic rise.
They believe that economic progress will inevitably result in increased military strength; that China, like other major economic powers in world history, will project its influence around the globe not just through trade and capital flows but also through the use - or at least the threat of its use - of military force.
Why should China behave differently from Britain, Germany and Japan in the past and the United States at this moment? Rather than confront China some time in the future, would it not be prudent to weaken it before it gets to that stage?
The "passivists" among China watchers would like history to do its work; they would like the country to weaken through some form of disintegration. This could happen in several different ways.
As already noted, the peripheral areas of modern China, such as Xinjiang province in the country's west, Inner Mongolia to its north, and Qinghai on the border with Tibet could just spin out of control. Or, the eastern coast of the country may refuse to shoulder the burden of helping the poorer parts in the country's centre and west and prefer to also grow and go on their own.
There are indications that provinces such as Guandong in the southeast and Shanghai a little bit to the north are not particularly anxious to share their rapidly increasing wealth with the poorer parts of the country. They may be willing to see the poorer regions of the country go their separate ways.
Those who advocate a more activist role in keeping China weak would like the West - in particular the United States - to take steps to ensure such an outcome. The administration headed by President George W. Bush has listened to this line of argument the moment it took power in Washington in January in 2001. Some of the initial approaches towards Beijing were in keeping with this approach.
In spite of some correction to this line of thinking, Washington has continued to take an active interest in China's dispute with Taiwan and its handling of Tibet in the hope that the problems in these distant places would keep Beijing on the defensive and weaken it over time.
A great deal, therefore, rides on China's political future. For a country such as Pakistan a strong China is in its interest. It will not only counter the growing power of the United States which has become increasingly assertive under the influence of the Bush doctrine of "preemption" made public in September 2002, a year after the terrorists struck New York and Washington.
It would also bring some balance in the region in which Pakistan is located. Although relations with India are improving and it is not inconceivable that some kind of resolution may finally be found to the long-festering problem of Kashmir, Pakistan would be better off if it has two rather than one large economic and political power in its immediate neighbourhood.
In light of all this is it possible to predict China's political future? Some signposts are already visible to see the direction in which China seems to be moving. The country's pragmatic leaders have begun to bring about subtle changes in political processes they believe will accommodate the demands for greater participation on the part of several segments of the rapidly changing society.
In that respect it has departed from the strategy pursued by the countries of Eastern Europe as they journeyed towards democracy. With the weight of communism lifted from these countries they were able to move quickly towards democracy.
The possibility that such a move would bring economic benefits to the common citizens of the region was reinforced by the prospect of joining the European Union. China's situation is different.
To begin with, the form of communism developed at home in China was in response to several domestic imperatives. For centuries, the Chinese peasantry had been exploited without mercy by the landlords. It was on the peasantry's growing resentment that the Communist Party of China was able to build its strength. Nothing like that happened in Eastern Europe.
In most of these countries communism was imported from Russia. Also, the East Asians - not just the Chinese - have preferred a more measured approach towards political development.
It appears that China, like Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea before it, will succeed in gradually making its political system more open and representative. China has already taken one important step towards political development that has eluded most authoritarian systems - it has brought about a peaceful and relatively smooth transition from one set of leaders to another.
The transfer of power from the third generation of leaders headed by Jiang Zemin was by all measures an unprecedented event in China's history. It happened as a result of the working of institutional arrangements according to which the country's president and prime minister cannot stay in power for more than two terms, each lasting for five years, with succession determined by the party leadership meeting in various caucuses and not by the will of a single individual.
Although Jiang made an attempt to prolong his stay by staying on as the chairman of the military commission for a couple of years after retiring as president, he had to ultimately give up that position.
The fourth generation of leadership headed by President Hu Jintao and Prime Minister Wen Jiabao is now fully in charge. It has already begun to experiment with popularly elected leadership at the local level in several provinces. It appears that democracy in China will move from the bottom tiers of government to the top rather than be forced from the top towards the bottom.
It is also possible that the Chinese Communist Party will go the way of the Liberal Democratic Party of Japan that also dominated that country's political system unchallenged for several decades.
Ultimately, the LDP spun off minor parties that began to challenge the parent organization. It appears that China will continue to evolve politically without going through any serious upheaval that is expected or hoped for by several analysts.
In sum, China will continue to grow and develop economically and change and evolve politically in ways that can only be speculated and guessed about. Even Beijing does not know where the country is headed in the next several decades.
Nonetheless, it is important to speculate a bit about China's future in order to prepare for the emergence of a new economic giant that will have an enormous impact on the global economic system.
For the developing world to prepare itself well for a future in which China will have a large presence it is important to factor in the economic, political and social changes that are likely to occur in that country.
The killings go on and on
Added to the military and political mayhem in Iraq is the mayhem of semantics. We are told of foreign fighters among the insurgents. Does this mean that American and British soldiers are sons of the soil?
Surely they too would have to be described as foreign fighters. Then we have insurgents and civilians. According to Allawi, no civilians have been killed in Fallujah; they are only insurgents.
How can he tell the difference? Do insurgents wear arm-bands? No civilian houses and mosques have been destroyed. Only those giving sanctuary to the insurgents. And finally there is the insurgent.
The word is a great improvement over thugs, bandits, criminals and remnants of the Saddam regime. It accepts, at least, that there is an insurgency in Iraq and not just a law and order problem. Till the bitter end, the Chinese communists were called bandits, as were the Vietcong as if this conferred on them some low status.
The assault on Fallujah began, safely, after, the American presidential elections so that there would be no political repercussions. Not that there would be any but there could have been a lot more American casualties than there have been, 37 killed so far against hundreds of insurgents, incriminating figures in themselves for the savagery of the assault, confirming that it isn't so much an assault as a massacre.
What we see on our television screens are pictures and reports that bear the finger-prints of censorship since the correspondents are embedded and I remember my friend the late Zamir Niazi who called embedded journalists " presstitutes. " We see a lot of billowing smoke and hear the sound of artillery fire but the only persons we see are US Marines kicking down doors.
We are told of fierce fighting. Allawi has declared victory in Fallujah though we are yet to see him leading a victory parade into Fallujah. An American general is more modest. He claims to have "broken the back of the insurgency in Iraq."
Does this mean that it's all over in Iraq bar some scattered pockets of resistance? This means too that Iraq can hold its elections in January and democracy can be ushered in and the mission will have been accomplished for a second time. Can the American and British troops go home?
There was world wide condemnation at the murder of Mrs. Margaret Hassan supposedly by some group or faction of the insurgents though no one has come forward to acknowledge it or accept responsibility. Mrs. Hassan was an Anglo-Irish lady who was an Iraqi citizen, much loved by the Iraqi people and who had opposed the war in Iraq.
Robert Fisk asks the question who murdered Margaret Hassan in an article that appeared in this newspaper. Robert Fisk raises certain disturbing points and he is a disturbing investigative reporter who does not take at face-value official versions that are put out and made to seem like the gospel truth.
This is one of his observations: "And now let's remember the other, earlier videos. Margaret Hassan crying. Margaret Hassan fainting, Margaret Hassan having water thrown over her face to revive her, Margaret Hassan crying again, pleading for the withdrawal of the Black Watch from the Euphrates river basin.
"In the background of these appalling pictures, there were none of the usual Islamic banners. There were none of the usual armed and hooded men. There were no Quranic recitations.
And when it percolated through to Fallujah and Ramadi that the mere act of kidnapping Margaret Hassan was close to heresy, the combined resistance groups of Fallujah - and the message genuinely came from them - demanded her release.
So incredibly, did Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda man whom the American falsely claimed to be leading the Iraqi insurrection - but who has very definitely been involved in the kidnapping and beheading of foreigners".
The curious part of the story is that it appears to have disappeared from the radar screen. One would have imagined that it would have been milked for all it was worth for its propaganda.
News stories do get stale but this one should have been followed up. Some stories have a longer shelf life. Tony Blair still gets mileage from reminding us that Saddam Hussain gassed his own people and about the mass graves that were found.
Understandably, the shooting of an unarmed, wounded Iraqi is a mosque by a US Marine had its day in court and has been quickly forgotten and an inquiry has been promised. The point I want to make is that there is a human side to war, all wars. And it brings out a dark side of ourselves. Tony Blair said about Margaret Hassan in the House of Commons that they now knew the sort of people they were dealing with in Iraq. I am sure that in the household of the unarmed, wounded Iraq who was shot dead by a US Marine they must be expressing similar sentiments about the Americans and the British.
The Iraqis will get democracy at gun-point if necessary. George Bush has decreed it. The elections in Iraq will be held even if cities like Fallujah have to be flattened and turned into ghost towns.
Readers who are familiar with Charles Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities will remember the sacrifice of its hero Sydney Carton and his last words: "It's a far better thing I have ever done..." The Americans and the British can say that they gave democracy to Iraq even if they had to abandon humanity in the process. But it is not Iraq that is Tony Blair's main problem these days. It is fox-hunting! How the mighty have fallen, from weapons of mass destruction to a sport where a little animal is hunted by the landed gentry who pursue it with hounds. An apt metaphor for the Iraq war?
Bush's second 'opportunity'
The world at large was closely watching the process of the US elections and waiting anxiously for its outcome. The security doctrine, economic priorities and ideological planks of the US policies affect developments all over the world. It would be pertinent, therefore, to examine the mandate received by President Bush and to assess its implications.
John Mitchell, Nixon's attorney-general, had stated as for back as 1970 that the "US would turn so far to the right as to be unrecognizable." Had Mitchell been alive today, he would have been amazed at his own prescience! The outcome of the recent elections is not only a Democratic defeat but the threatened demise of the traditionally moderate Republican party at the hands of its radical, extreme-right incarnation.
In the words of Nancy Pelosi, Democratic leader in the House of Representatives, "Bush and the religious right have dangerously blurred the distinction between Church and state."
These apprehensions and fears are a consequence of a number of factors, including the electoral victory of a presidential incumbent, the nature of whose war against terrorism and occupation of Iraq had divided his country as never before since the American civil war.
The mandate of a popular (and electoral) majority has gone to a candidate who had failed to carry the industrial heartland and the centres of education, culture and technology of the north-east, the Great lakes and the Pacific Coast, an incumbent who received a minority of the votes of the Americans with higher educational levels, of women and of the minorities with the African-Americans going 90 per cent for Kerry and the Hispanics 55 per cent.
The turn, in fact the lurch, to the extreme right is also reflected in the defeat of the domestic challenger whose platform on tax cuts, social spending, minimum wages, budget deficit and other economic issues was much more in tune with the interests of the middle classes which make up the bulk of the American electorate.
Economic interests and class consciousness were overwhelmed by the strength of reaction to church-driven issues including abortion, gay rights, stem-cell research and the like.
A state like Ohio, which in the ultimate analysis became the final arbiter of the electoral results, went to Bush, in spite of having lost two hundred thousand jobs during Bush's first term. To an extent this was attributed to the issue of gay marriages having been put on the ballot, swaying the results towards the stridently anti-gay republicans.
A gut feeling of sensitive observers was the certainty that the trauma of 9/11 would sway the vote, over and above all other issues, in favour of the fiery leader whose commitment to the hounding and crushing of suspected enemies overrode considerations of international legality, alliance solidarity, collective security and wider humanity. The obsession with terrorism and the evangelical fervour of the religious right combined to put terrorism and moral issues at the top of the electoral agenda.
The electoral outcome sadly demonstrated the insensitivity of a majority of the electorate to the unprecedented tragedy of the Iraqi occupation, justified by none of the considerations advanced by its protagonists.
The bulk of the electorate ignored the world-wide impact of US policies over Iraq; the further fuelling of terrorist activities, the inflaming of Islamic sentiments, the estrangement with traditional European allies and the damage to American image and standing abroad.
President Bush proclaimed in his victory speech that he had "earned political capital from 59 million Americans", who voted for him and that he would use the political capital to advance a broad agenda. Giving no hint of a softer line on Iraq or related issues, he said that "spreading freedom around the world would be a central part of his foreign policy."
It is hoped that the 'political capital' accumulated by President Bush with the support of the electorate will produce during his second term a more sensitive and broader vision.
This would call for much needed flexibility on issues such as the early resolution of the Iraqi problem and urgently required even- handedness on the Middle East and Palestinian issues, the eschewing of threats to target states such as Iran and Syria, and a reining in of a pre-emptive, unilateral strategy.
The polls revealed that moral questions were the lead issue for most voters (22 per cent) with 20 per cent regarding economic issues as the most important. Nineteen per cent put terrorism at the top of the agenda while only 15 per cent saw Iraq as the issue of greatest concern.
Of the 22 per cent who gave moral issues as their top concern, over 85 per cent voted for Bush. The influence of moral issues may be gauged from the fact that in spite of Kerry, unlike Bush, being a Catholic, 52 per cent of the Catholics voted for the latter because of kerry's pro-choice stance on abortion which now is sought to be made a capital offence.
With expected nomination by the Bush administration of new judges for the US Supreme Court, a congressional fight would be on the cards over likely moves to undo part of the constitutional legislation over economic and social issues, some stemming from as far back as the New Deal.
It is to be hoped that President Bush would realize the priority of healing the nation's divisions and not exacerbate them further by interpreting the electoral result as a mandate to implement bitterly divisive social and economic policies.
In his victory speech, President Bush said that he would seek greater bipartisanship in his second term but qualified this conciliatory remark by declaring that "he would reach out to every one who shares our goals."
It is encouraging that in his radio speech he described a second term 'as a second opportunity' hinting perhaps at a more accommodating stance over bitterly divisive issues.
While Pakistan's relevance in regional and global affairs rests on its geopolitical importance and other related factors, the opportunity of dealing with a known Bush administration is a positive element.
The US administration has a stake in Pakistan's economic viability and security in view of latter's instrumental role in the war against terror. The Bush presidency is committed to the agreements for economic and military support concluded during President Musharraf's visit to Camp David.
It is hoped the US leadership will realize the price paid by Pakistan by virtue of its role in the US sponsored alliances during the cold war, Pakistan's frontline role in the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan and its lead role in the current war against terror.
This should be kept in view by the US government while formulating its programmes of economic and security support for Pakistan and in helping to achieve in the foreseeable future a just resolution of the Kashmir dispute.
The writer is a former ambassador.
American Muslims' anxieties
Election 2004 is over. Never before have the rural red - the Republican supporters, and the urban blue - the Democratic voters in the US were seen in such combative mood, locked in a fierce battle for the White House. Visionary wisdom was missing as grimly faced aides resorted to emotional catch phrases and commonplace buzzwords during the days leading up to the elections.
The outcome was difficult to predict to the last. Yet, in the wee hours of November 3 President Bush triumphantly emerged as the winner. As an analyst observed, the last 48 hours saw a marked decline of the secular intelligentsia and a visible rise of the religious right. Fifty-one per cent of the rural red had voiced unequivocal support for President Bush.
Conceding defeat, a teary-eyed Senator John Kerry "talked about the danger of division in our country and the need - desperate need - for unity, for finding the common ground, coming together" in his congratulatory call to President Bush. "Today, I hope we can begin the healing..."
Healing indeed was a pressing need. Election 2004 created an unprecedented stir in the US and beyond - across the Atlantic and the Pacific. Under standably so. The election's outcome was to impact Americans and non-Americans, though in varying degrees and different ways. Not surprisingly, both the Americans and the non-Americans aired their views.
The Muslim Americans voted en bloc for Senator Kerry. Demonstrating their collective strength, thanks to the sustained strivings of the American Muslim Task force (AMT) headed by Dr Agha Saeed, a Pakistani. According to Dr Lisette Poole of California State University Howard, Muslim Americans and Arab Muslims "are firmly embarked on the road of political involvement".
The Muslim support for Kerry raises the crucial question: Will the defeat of the Senator adversely affect Muslim Americans? Will the anticipated introduction of Patriot Act II by the triumphant Bush administration compound their problems? And will the president, who visited a mosque in the immediate post-Sept 11 period and described Islam as a religion of peace, continue to hold the Muslims in a similar esteem?
In his victory speech, Bush gave a hint of his intentions as he outlined his priorities: "Reaching these goals will require the broad support of the Americans. So today I want to speak to every person who voted for my opponent. To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust."
Later, at his first press conference after re-election, the President remarked: "I will be your president regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no president should ever try to impose religion on our society...The great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose..."
Scrapping Patriot Act could lend meaning to this resolve. 'Healing wounds' will, inter alia, require rapid restoration of civil rights of all American citizens and treating them at par with others. An equally paramount need of the time is to deal with the terrorists with an iron hand without blurring the distinction between genuine freedom fighters and adventurous, hardcore hoodlums.
Dr M. A. Muqtedar Khan, an educationist, says: "The American identity is gradually changing. What we saw on November 2 was just the tip of the iceberg. American Muslims have to think hard about what position they wish to occupy in the New Republic and fight even harder to get it. American Muslims must respect the diversity within the community and use it as a strategic asset. American Muslims will likely face a tough future."
While such observations carry considerable weight, the fact remains that the bloc vote has done Muslims more good than harm. It also holds the promise of precipitating a wholesome change. Its immediate benefits enunciated by an AMT supporter, can be summed up as follows:
1) Self-correction - the errors and omissions of 2000 were corrected in 2004 and broader consultation has resulted in better results.
2) Environment - they are beginning to understand America and America is beginning to understand Islam and Muslims.
3) Contextualization - even though Bush won the election, about half the country voted against him. The Muslims were not alone and isolated as they would have been had they voted for a third party.
4) Maturity - they have learnt to agree and disagree without a split.
It is for American Muslims to transform the 'worst of times' into the 'best of times' by reaching out to fellow Americans and present the peaceful face of Islam. As for Pakistani Americans, President Bush's victory should signify the end of the roller-coaster equation that has characterized ties between Washington and Islamabad in the past.
EU carrot, not the US stick
Buried under an avalanche of events as the world adjusts to George Bush's second term, Palestine without Arafat, and mayhem in Iraq, there was some rare, and important, good news last week: Europeans, acting together, and largely ignoring American wishes, persuaded Iran to stop processing uranium, a key stage in the production of nuclear weapons.
The immediate effect will be to prevent Tehran from being referred to the UN security council for concealing its nuclear programmes, to stave off the threat of sanctions and forestall the possibility of US military action against the Islamic republic - included in Bush's "axis of evil".
It is unlike governments not to crow over such a success. British diplomats like to say, with bogus self-deprecation, that they don't "do triumphalism". But by quietly working together, Britain, France and Germany - the EU's "big three" - have pulled off something of a coup.
The novelty is that Europe has a strategy. Offering Iran the carrot of engagement - rather than the stick of regime change and war - may not succeed, but in the light of the disaster in Iraq, it is definitely worth pursuing. "It is," a senior EU policy-maker says wryly, "a good deal better than the alternatives."
Europe learned the hard way last year that unless it can offer an alternative to unbridled US power, its ambitions to be a global player are doomed to remain an empty boast. And Britain, this time, is working with the old continent, not the new, though very much on the quiet.
This is not just a question of not annoying the Americans. Iran agreed only to suspend uranium processing pending a long-term deal with the EU. It is probably not ready to surrender its nuclear strategy - a useful card to play in the game of nations. The conservative-controlled Majlis (parliament) has accused the reformists of giving away too much.
But the suspension buys time, if only a few months, and raises the stakes for a resumption. Officially, Iran insists it is not planning to build nuclear weapons, though hardliners say this would be justified - despite the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).
Two neighbours - Russia and Pakistan - have nuclear weapons, the latter in breach of the NPT. So has Israel, outside international law, as well as missiles that can reach Iran.
Evidence of Iranian intentions is strong yet inconclusive, and broadly shared by the US and Europe. The IAEA, the UN nuclear agency, knows a lot about past activity but has found no smoking gun. The intelligence is also said to be more solid than those dodgy dossiers about Iraqi WMD.
Two years ago, this made Iran a tempting target for US neocons, who also cited its support for Hamas in Palestine, Hizbullah in Lebanon and alleged, though unproven, links with Al Qaeda. "Baghdad is for wimps; Tehran is where the real men go," went the Washington joke. No longer.
The US is as obsessed by Iran as it has been since 1979, but being over stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and with oil at $50 a barrel, regime change and war are off the agenda. Sabre-rattling by Israel, threatening a bunker-busting repeat of its 1981 attack on Iraq's nuclear reactor, has kept up the pressure.
US responses to Europe's initiative have ranged from the dismissive to the frosty. Ominously, even the dovish Colin Powell warned last week that Iranian missile capabilities were well advanced.
Washington worries that an EU offer to supply light-water reactors for civil nuclear power would allow Tehran to follow North Korea in freezing weapons programmes only to resume them at will. But the EU initiative goes beyond proliferation concerns to entice Iran with trade and the $18bn (#9.7bn) in foreign investment urgently needed to create jobs for the million youngsters who enter the market every year. Human rights and democratic reform will be part of any dialogue.
London, Paris and Berlin are in the lead, but the EU as a whole, in the person of its foreign policy chief Javier Solana, has claimed "ownership" of the negotiations. In Brussels, this is seen as a key test of whether a union of 25 countries can act coherently on the world stage. -Dawn/Guardian Service