| 24 January 2005 | Monday | 13 Zilhaj 1425 |
No alternative to democracy
Silly reactions to terrorism
Fool's gold
Moment of truth in the Mid east
In Pakistani experience, no government has ever fallen for want of majority support in the National Assembly. Yet, the danger that defections may bring it down does exist when a ruling party, or a coalition, has only a slim majority in the house.
Switching party affiliations, called "horse-trading," has been common enough to justify this fear. Defections can also do a good deal of collateral damage. We know that they kept the PPP and PML (N) from playing the vigorous role in national politics of which these parties might otherwise have been capable.
Threats of defection can make a government unwieldy, even incompetent. The opportunists among members of the ruling party may confront the prime minister with packages of self-serving demands and threaten to cross the floor if these are not met. The notoriety of Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's "cabinet," both for its huge size and meagre abilities, is a case in point.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution (July 1997) was intended to remedy this evil. A new article (63A) prescribed penalties that would result to a member of parliament who had violated the discipline of the party upon whose nomination he had been elected, or which he had joined following his election as an independent candidate.
A variety of actions constituted the said "violation," and the offender in each case could end up losing his seat. A member would be deemed to have defected not only if he left to join another party but if he had violated his party's constitution, code of ethics, and declared policies, or if he had voted, or abstained from voting, contrary to his party leader's direction.
In any of these situations, the party head could call upon him to show cause within seven days why he should not be declared to have defected. The party's disciplinary committee would hear him, determine his status within seven days, and inform the party head accordingly.
The latter would consider the member's appeal, if any, and then reach a decision that would be final. If a negative decision survived this review process, the party head would advise the presiding officer of the relevant house that the member concerned had become a defector.
The presiding officer would promptly forward this finding to the chief election commissioner who would declare the member's seat to have fallen vacant. One may wonder why Mr Nawaz Sharif chose to sponsor this amendment.
With a two-thirds majority in the house behind him, there was no danger of his government falling for want of sufficient support. Consider also that the other parties were in no position to offer his party members more than what they already had, if as much.
Nor could the potential defectors demand a price for their support, for it was not as critical to the prime minister as it might have been had his majority in the house been precariously slim.
One interpretation at the time had it that Mr Sharif simply wanted to suppress all dissent within his own party. A spokesman of the Jamaat-i-Islami observed that he, and the clique surrounding him, rated their party members as a bunch of mindless individuals whose choice of following their conscience and independent judgment he wanted to take away.
Howsoever desirable political stability may be, it is difficult to endorse the proposition that heads of parliamentary parties are entitled to deny their members the right to speak their minds.
The problem would be less troublesome if issues were taken up regularly in the party caucus, and members given the opportunity of voicing their views before the same reached the floor. But this is not the normal practice of our parliamentary parties.
A group of lawyers, professedly dedicated to the safeguarding of the Constitution, took the issue to the Supreme Court and asked it to void article 63A. The court maintained (May 20, 1998) that the Article in question was not to be construed to deny a member of parliament his right to free speech, which was the "sine qua non" of parliamentary government.
This right would bear only reasonable restriction such as that without which the system could not operate effectively. The article applied particularly to a member's voting, or abstaining to vote, contrary to his party's directive.
In other words, the court held that the requirement to vote according to one's party line was essential to the working of a parliamentary system, and therefore, proper.
It held also that Article 63A related to a member's conduct within, not outside, the precincts of parliament. It would not apply if a member had criticized his party's leaders or policies in statements outside.
There is something to be said for a member's right to express his view of the matter in debate. On the other hand, it remains open to question whether a member who demolishes his party's stand through speeches on the floor, but in the end votes for the party line, has not strained the parliamentary system.
It may be useful at this point to see how party discipline works in other parliamentary democracies. It was not considered essential until about the third quarter of the 19th century when persons got elected to parliament on the basis of their known personal qualifications, status, and influence. A political party's endorsement might help but it did not count as much. Once elected, a member would speak and vote according to his own view of the matter.
With the advent of mass politics, it became cumbersome, and financially unfeasible, for unaligned individuals to manage and win elections. They needed organizational support that political parties provided.
Parties became identified with certain declared policy goals, and the people would now vote for a candidate not only because he was a nice and wise guy but because he was the nominee of a certain party.
The vote for him had in fact been a vote for his party. It is not surprising, then, that in this new situation he was expected to submit to his party's discipline. Cohesive voting according to party line is the norm in most parliamentary systems (notably Britain, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and India among others).
The Indian constitution allows disqualification of a member who votes contrary to his party's directive. But in most other places the obligation to go with one's party is more a matter of established tradition than law.
But even in these places the possibility of conflict between the political needs of the party and the individual member's judgment and conscience haunts observers. There is considerable distaste for the notion of treating a member of parliament merely as a rubber stamp to be used by the party bosses.
Let us now turn to the British House of Commons and see what happens there. An MP does normally follow party discipline. But he does not lose his seat because he has spoken or voted contrary to its direction.
The party organization includes a chief whip and a number of his deputies. It is their business to keep their members informed of the business that is coming in and the importance the party attaches to various items. But note, that it is also a part of their function to serve as listening posts and carry the members' views on various issues back to the leadership. The whips are to make sure that members are present on the floor to vote on measures the party considers important.
A notice delivered to each of them indicates the degree of importance the government attaches to an item by underlining it. An item underlined thrice means that it is critical and a member's failure to vote on it would be regarded as virtual rebellion.
The same conduct on less important issues may be frowned upon but it will not incur penalties. The member concerned may even get away with a speech critical of the government's position.
Persistent defiance of the party leadership could invite one of the following penalties: (1) expulsion from the party caucus (in extreme cases); (2) denial of party nomination or lower funding and organizational support at the next election; (3) exclusion from important parliamentary committees and delegations visiting abroad; (4) inadequate office space and staff; (5) loss of opportunity to ask questions from the floor: (6) dimmer prospect of selection for a ministerial position; (7) cold-shouldering by colleagues.
We have witnessed a greater inclination to self-assertion on the part of MPs, and some mellowing of the party whips, since the early 1970s. These tendencies are encouraged by the fact that the government does not fall every time it loses a vote in the house.
It will resign only if it loses a vote of confidence, or the division on an issue that it has declared to be critical. In such an event, the prime minister will probably request the queen to dissolve the House of Commons.
It has been reported that between 1972 and 1979 the British government suffered 65 defeats on the floor, many of which had resulted from its own back-benchers' dissent. It sought a vote of confidence on only three of these occasions, and only once did the prime minister request dissolution.
The ruling party's need for stability and effectiveness and the individual legislator's obligation to obey his conscience would appear to have been harmonized to an extent in the evolving British practice. We, too, may be able to work out a similar harmonization.
We may do well to adopt the position, and write it into law if necessary, that a government will fall only if it loses a vote of confidence. The authors of the Fourteenth Amendment may needlessly have gone to the extreme when they prescribed that a member of parliament would stand disqualified any time he spoke or acted contrary to his party's direction.
Nothing would be lost if the whip were withdrawn altogether, and members allowed to speak and vote according to their best judgment, when the issues before the house were less than momentous.
The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, USA.
Email: anwarsyed@cox.net.
No alternative to democracy
The struggle for Pakistan by the Muslims of the subcontinent, under the inspiring leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah, met with success only as it was waged in accordance with the principles of democracy and by adopting constitutional means to attain their goal.
Regrettably, however, after its establishment in 1947, Pakistan failed to get into that spirit owing to the weak civil society structure it inherited and continued authoritarian regimes that stunted the growth of democratic culture in the country.
For more than half its life, Pakistan has been under military rule, which made a mockery of democracy. However, the politicians must also bear. Their part of the blame for eroding the democratic norms in the country.
Since independence, the successive rulers, with feudal and tribal background, not only suppressed democracy in the country but also encouraged the anti-democratic forces.
They indulged in confrontational politics, abused their power for personal gain and failed to address the nation's myriad political and economic problems. When out of power, they even clamoured for military interventions which Pakistan's judiciary, acting uncharacteristically, frequently condoned by inventing the "law of necessity".
The self-seeking politicians, owing to their ineptitude, also rocked the very foundation of the federation of Pakistan. Many factors made varying contributions to the disintegration of Pakistan in 1971.
However, the most profound one responsible for that catastrophe was the non-adherence to the principle of majority rule by the then ruling elite which generated frustration among the people of the eastern wing that ultimately led to the break-up of the country.
Evidently, the rulers have not learnt any lesson from the 1971 debacle as they continue to follow the policies, which, in the past, had given rise to regional tendencies and separatism.
The absence of a true democracy has also polarized the present-day Pakistan along ethnic and sectarian lines and its disparate regions are pitted against each other on the federal policies, which, they accuse, are unjust and discriminatory. Balochistan, in particular, is feeling more and more alienated from Islamabad and has even turned to violence which has dealt a blow to the country's stability.
Islamabad should, therefore, rectify the situation politically, in a democratic manner. Its aggressive reaction to the untoward happenings in Balochistan will only exacerbate the situation. Needless to say, it will take years to restore the confidence of the smaller provinces in the federal government.
When General Pervez Musharraf, who is reputed to be an enlightened and reform-minded military leader, dismissed Nawaz Sharif's government it was hoped that he will return the country to democracy after clearing up the mess.
Though he has transferred the power to a civilian government, he remains reluctant to forgo the army's primacy and is keen on retaining its dominant role in the governance of the country, at least for the foreseeable future. His decision to continue as president and army chief till 2007, confirms this assertion.
As things stand, the army is now behind the scene in the decision-making on all, important national and international issues. Since the Pakistan army comprises predominantly of people from Punjab, its role in the governance in the country may unnecessarily create a friction between Punjab and other three provinces that could impinge upon national harmony and integration.
It is, therefore, imperative to avoid this situation, particularly at the present juncture when inter-provincial rivalries and bickerings are at their height and have assumed an alarming proportion.
Some orthodox Muslims tend to perceive democracy as a western concept, which, they believe, is at odds with the values and principles of Islam. Some western scholars and media also portray Islam as anti-democratic.
This perception is not, however, shared by the Muslim scholars and intellectuals who see no contradiction between Islam and democracy. They argue that the principle of Shura, or consultative decision-making process, is an immutable source of democratic ethic in Islam.
Pakistan has become a test case for the compatibility of Islam with democracy. Fortunately, its people, despite prolonged totalitarian rule, which adversely affected the democratic process in the country, never abandoned the quest for democracy and persistently demanded democratic reforms in the country. The next few years will be crucial for democracy's evolution in Pakistan.
One hopes that pro-democracy elements in society, regardless of their political and religious affiliations, will push hard for democracy through peaceful means.
They should insist on the introduction of democratic reforms in the country and the establishment of enduring and credible political institutions that was the only way to transform Pakistan into a true and liberal democratic state. Being an important pillar of the state, the media should also play a meaningful role in making Pakistan a genuine democratic state.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Silly reactions to terrorism
In the 20th century, the prevailing slogan was decolonization followed by internationalism, based on economic and political "reconstruction" and "development". While reconstruction was fully implemented to rehabilitate the war-devastated economy of Europe, this slogan of "development" was not much of a success on a global basis as most of the poor countries of the world remained poor.
The deplorable episode of September 2001 gave birth to a new slogan 'international terrorism' by the lone superpower of the world. This has not only polarized the world but has even become a yardstick to conduct international relations.
Practically all the countries are directly or indirectly affected and "terrorism" will continue to hold sway in their international relations for decades to come.
While 'terrorism' undoubtedly is the most stupid act, it has also generated a plethora of silly reactions in several countries, mostly in the United States. Thousands of senseless reactions took place in the US after September 11.
These are very well reflected in the formulation of anti-terrorist policies and their implementation. In this article, I will mention only a few of those stupid reactions in the US which go to show how a serious thing 'terrorism' has generated reactions which can be called 'silly.'
It will also show how American ingenuity can convert a serious business into a comical farce making it an act of humour. In the aftermath of such policies one can only see comical behaviour causing widespread laughter.
The September 11 incident in 2001 caused extraordinary and most tight security arrangements in all US airports. During the Thanksgiving holiday in 2001, thousands of passengers were subjected to a thorough search and their luggage was scanned on that day.
A solemn occasion turned into a bitter experience for many. The confiscation list included (i) 15982 pocket knives, (ii) 98 box cutters, (iii) six guns, (iv) 1072 clubs or bats (v) 242 banned tools, (vi) 2384 flammable items and (vii) 20581 sharp objects like scissors.
An American airline flight made an unscheduled landing in Salt Lake city to eject a college student after he tried to recharge an AA battery by heating it with a cigarettes lighter.
A passenger was detained at Lambert Field in St Louis when his checked luggage was found to have a suspicious item which was an alarm clock with six toy sticks of dynamite attached to it.
US Marines headed for Iraq were boarding a chartered commercial airliner when they were stopped by security. They were not allowed to board while carrying their knives.
Ultimately they relinquished their knives and boarded the plane carrying their M16 guns and M60 machine-guns. The anti-terror laws provided to confiscate any 'suspicious' item. The following episodes among thousands will show how strictly and literally the law was enforced.
An airline captain's personal pocket knife with only one inch blade was confiscated at New York's La Guardia airport before he boarded the Boeing 757 he was going to fly to Florida. He was told if he kept the knife he might use it to gain control of the aeroplane.
In February 2002, while in a plane in Dallas, 36-year-old Renee Kout sourades was paged over loudspeaker, she was asked to deplane and accompany a Delta air security guard to the tarmac.
There was something 'suspicious' in her bag, something that appear to be vibrating. She was asked to take it out and hold it in her hand for inspection. It was a battery operated vibrator which she apparently forgot to switch off. This was a gift to her from her husband.
She filed a suit against Delta, seeking damage on a number of counts including intentional infliction of public humiliation as the passenger laughed at her and made obnoxious harassing comments.
Security guards at JFK international airport in New York were suspicious about three bottles of milk that a woman was carrying along with her infant daughter. The security guards were not convinced that the bottles were for the infant.
She was asked to drink the three bottles or she would not be allowed to board. They said that there could be explosives in the bottles and could be thrown on the stewardess. She was considering a law suit as it was very uncomfortable, insulting and embarrassing.
A Saudi Arabian college student was stopped at a security checkpoint at Philadelphia international airport. While inspecting his luggage, security guards become suspicious over a bottle of cologne.
The student sprayed himself with the liquid to show it was merely cologne. Accidentally he also sprayed two security guards. Immediately a code-red hazardous material alert was issued, and local police, fire fighters and FBI rushed to the scene.
The guards were rushed to a hospital for testing and the emergency room was quarantined for three hours together with the student. A doughnut shop and a right aid drugstore were also closed for an hour as both security guards had been there after being 'contaminated.' The quarantine and red alert were lifted, when it was finally determined that the unknown substance was "nothing but cologne."
In the post-9/11 US, even an insignificant event or object was given the highest consideration of being an act of terrorism taking the matter to an amazing extreme. A27-foot long hot dog vehicle, the famous OSCAR Mayer Weiner mobile caused alert in Washington road when the driver got lost and inadvertently wound up on a road near the Pentagon.
This road was closed to commercial traffic since 9/11. The vehicle was stopped. The hot dog was inspected and was ultimately released with the comments that it constituted "no threat to Pentagon."
A stained white envelope was addressed to a member of Congress. The envelope looked "suspicious" as a postal clerk who handled it, complained of headache and burning sensation. He checked in at Unity hospital where concerned officials called in the FBI.
The FBI promptly activated its joint terrorism task force. Two agents went to the post office basement and carefully opened the suspicious envelope and found a 'potato slice.' "No body read the writing on the envelope which said Have a "French Fry."
In Orange county, California, a package was found leaking an unidentifiable fluid. four workers soon fell ill breathing the fumes. The whole building was evacuated by the fire department hazardous waste team. When the package was opened it was nothing but a bottle of vodka.
In a school in Irvington, New Jersey, two eight-year-old boys were charged with making terrorist threat by playing cops and robber with a paper gun. Vigilant local officials caught the boys and filed charges.
A Florida man was worried that Pentagon might not be telling the truth about the working of its anti-terrorism system. So he wanted to test the system by sending an e-mail falsely threatening a widespread attack on Patrick Air Force base and the surrounding areas. He was traced and arrested and was facing charge up to 15 years in prison and a fine of $10,000, if convicted.
These are only a few of the thousands of stupid reactions in the US. The unfortunate thing is that they do not show any sign of lessening. One wonders if the US society as a whole suffers from an unknown fear and a terror phobia.
The writer is a former director of the Asian Development Bank.
Fool's gold
Alchemy is the purported science of turning base metals into gold. It does not exist. Political alchemy is the ability to turn hard failures into gossamer triumphs. It does exist. The inauguration of George W. Bush for a second term proves it.
The president, of course, does not see it that way. He proclaims himself at the top of his game: ruler of the free world, liberator of Iraq and magnificent chief of the Grand Old Party.
Most important, to him, is that his view is shared by the American people. His re election was no mere mandate since, you will recall, he claimed that the last time, when he scratched out a win in Florida by a few hundred votes. No, this victory is a mandate of Rooseveltian dimensions.
In reality, Bush's view of the American people is not shared by the American people. In fact, a recent Post-ABC News poll found Bush with what you might call a negative mandate. Only 45 percent said they wanted the country to go in the direction Bush wanted.
And on Iraq - the No. 1 issue for most - 58 per cent disapproved of the way he's handled what to him is a grand triumph. The 60-day war is now in its second year, and the chorus of those urging a pullout grows louder and louder.
The war in Iraq is in fact a debacle, yet Bush talks about it as if it is going swimmingly. His original aims have been amended a bit - now it's a grand march toward Middle East democracy.
Daily, Americans are losing their lives for ... well, it's hard to say. A Shia majority? Sunni participation in the elections? An autonomous Kurdish state? All of these, without question, are issues that have long transfixed the people of Omaha and other cities in America and for which they have gladly sacrificed their sons and daughters.
Iraq aside, are there other areas in which the administration has done so well that you can say it explains Bush's smile? The economy? Hardly. It's okay; not really terrific and not bad either.
It is, though, the recipient of huge and reckless tax cuts, which have spread cash as Tinker bell does fairy dust. The result has been a burgeoning national debt that can be paid off only if space exploration discovers a planet of suckers willing to buy U.S. bonds.
Could it be education? Hardly. No Child Left Behind is a nifty slogan and maybe a good idea, but it is not the sort of thing that gets presidents on Mount Rushmore. Conservation? Are you mad? Agriculture? You jest. Maybe it's the way we've been able to stop nuclear proliferation or the way America is now respected around the world. Sorry. Just kidding.
The disjunction between Bush's performance and his demeanour is shared by much of Washington. The town is now in a celebratory mood, though precisely what is being celebrated is impossible to tell. As for Congress, it, too, has inhaled vapours of some kind.
Bush's unsurpassed achievement has been in turning fantasy into reality, failure into success. He strides the world stage, a smile on his face and a mandate in his pocket. Behold the gold! What, you don't see it? No matter. Washington does. -Dawn/ Washington Post Service.
Moment of truth in the Mid east
The first month of 2005 will be marked by two elections in the Middle East, that will not only have an impact on the region, but also on the US, and other major powers who have a stake in the area.
One has to remember that the terrorist attack of 9/11 was rooted in the desperation and frustration of the Arabs, who were mostly Muslims, over the way the basic rights of the Palestinians were being violated, and their lands expropriated.
The US, which had played successfully on Islamic sentiment during the four decades of its cold war with the Soviet Union, began treating the Islamic world as the successor threat to communism, once it emerged victorious.
The state of Israel, created in 1948, mainly through US and British support, has been at the heart of the tensions arising from the partition of Palestine, and by the steady inroads made by the Jewish state into Arab territory.
President Truman, who was motivated by his personal association with Jewish neighbours, played the decisive role by using the superpower's enormous clout to bring it into being despite the opposition of a majority of members of the UN.
The only time when the US has demonstrated a principled policy in the Middle East was when President Eisenhower opposed the 1956 War against Egypt over President Nasser's nationalization of the Suez Canal by Britain and France in collusion with Israel.
Since then, the Jewish lobby in the US has so established its influence in the US, that the superpower has not only stood by Israel but has even encouraged its expansionist policy in the region. Prime Minister Ariel Sharon openly claimed that Washington's policies were made in Israel.
The Palestinians were supported by most of the Arab and Islamic countries, in their struggle to safeguard their rights, as Israel displayed increasing arrogance and aggression with the passage of time.
Its pre-emptive war in 1967, led to a comprehensive defeat of the Arab states around it, and enabled it not only to occupy the whole of Palestine, but even the Golan Heights, that were an integral part of Syria.
Despite the passage of resolutions by the UN Security Council in 1967, and again in 1973, when Arabs tried to hit back but failed due to active US support, Israel has held on to the territories it occupied, and the great majority of Palestinians have become refugees.
The defeat of Saddam Hussein in the Gulf War of 1991 finally convinced Yasser Arafat, who had cast his lot with the Iraqi dictator, to come to terms with the existence of Israel, and to end the phase of armed struggle in favour of a negotiated settlement.
When the administration of the older Bush launched an initiative to resolve the Palestinian problem, Arafat responded positively, and showed readiness to participate in the dialogue that took place in Madrid.
However, the initiative fizzled out, as the Israeli government came under pressure from a flood of new Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe to obtain more Palestinian land.
With Clinton's election in 1992, the new Democratic administration began by concentrating on the domestic agenda, and it was four years later, in 1996, that the Oslo Accords reached in behind-the-scenes parleys led to the renewal of the Arab-Israeli dialogue.
Some progress was achieved and moderate Israeli leaders like Yitzhak Rabin played a major role in efforts to end the confrontation between the Jews and Arabs in Palestine.
Rabin was assassinated by a Jewish hard-liner and extremists like Netanyahu and Sharon got the upper hand. It is worth recalling that the majority of both Arabs and Jews favoured a peaceful settlement, to end the prolonged phase of confrontation and violence.
The last round of talks during the Clinton presidency between Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat made good progress, but Arafat backed out after the Israelis sought last minute changes.
Ariel Sharon, a long time hawk on the Israeli side, deliberately violated Arab sensitivities when he walked into the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem in September 2000, which led to the renewal of the intifada by the Arabs. He was voted into office shortly thereafter, soon after the Bush victory in the US presidential election of late 2000.
The present Bush administration has been the most Jewish-friendly. The basic fact is that the desecration of the Al Aqsa mosque, and adoption of tough measures by the Israeli government led to the Palestinians launching another intifada.
The way Israel, that has been equipped with state-of-the art military equipment by the US, and has developed many systems of its own, has reacted has truly hit the Palestinian population hard, reducing them to extreme poverty and deprivation.
Of course, Israel has suffered high casualties, owing to suicide attacks against which there can be no perfect defence. With Ariel Sharon assuming the premiership Israeli tactics have been ruthless and barbaric, with women and children frequently targeted, and Palestinian houses and localities bombed mercilessly.
Though the Israelis sought to justify such tactics by designating Palestinian freedom fighters as "terrorists", the fact recorded by human rights organizations show that some of the worst human rights violations were perpetrated against the Palestinians. Bush, surrounded by Jewish and pro-Jewish advisers, put the blame largely on the Palestinians under Arafat, while describing Sharon as a "man of peace".
Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11 Bush, who had already launched a unilateralist foreign policy based on American might, now came up with the doctrine of pre-emption, whereby the US reserved the right to attack any country, or individual, whom it considered as posing a terrorist threat.
Virtually the entire Islamic world was placed in the ambit of potential terrorists, and warnings issued in various ways, with even staunch allies like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan not excluded.
With Arafat virtually imprisoned in his compound in Ramallah, Bush was made to realize by all and sundry that the US could not play the role of the global superpower, if it ignored the barbarities and outrages being perpetrated by Israel under Sharon.
The leaders of friendly Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Pakistan urged him to play a just role, and save the Palestinians from the atrocities of the "butcher of Sabra and Shatila".
He came up with the roadmap of 2002 that envisaged two sovereign states in Palestine, one Jewish, and the other Arab. This roadmap was also sponsored by the UN, the European Union and Russia.
However Bush continued to mistrust Arafat despite his being the elected president of the Palestinian Authority. He showed a preference for leaders like Mahmoud Abbas, also known as Abu Mazen, who was briefly elevated to premiership of Palestine, from which he resigned four months later.
Sharon persisted with tactics designed to establish long-term domination of Palestine by Israel, including building of more Jewish settlements, and the construction of a security fence that placed nearly 13 per cent of the West Bank under Israeli control.
Any agitation by the Palestinians was subjected to extreme repression, and whenever the matter was referred to the UN Security Council, the US veto protected Sharon from any consequences.
During 2004, the pre-emptive action against Iraq of March 2003, was followed by escalating insurgency. The Bush administration came under pressure from the international community as well as domestic critics to play a more active role in stabilizing the Middle East.
It became evident that the key to peace in the region lay in Palestine. After Bush won the re-election, British Prime Minister Tony Blair called for urgent attention to the Palestinian problem.
The passing away of Yasser Arafat, whom neither Bush nor Sharon trusted, has brought Mahmoud Abbas to power as a result of the election on January 9, that earned him nearly 62 per cent of the votes cast.
As a lifelong opponent of the militant approach, he has to ensure that the militant groups like Hamas, Islamic jihad and the Al Aqsa Brigade would cooperate with him, before he begins negotiations with the Israeli leadership. While demanding an immediate end to militancy by the Palestinians, Sharon has kept using force against suspected militants even after the election, causing Palestinian militants to respond with suicide attacks.
Sharon has broken off all contact with the Palestinian Authority, now headed by Mahmoud Abbas, and ordered the Israeli forces to undertake punitive strikes against the Palestinians. It is critically important for the US to play a leading role, in bringing the negotiating process back on track.
As the New York Times pointed out after the demise of Arafat, a durable settlement in Palestine must accommodate their key demands, including withdrawals from occupied territory, a compromise on East Jerusalem, as well as on the refugee issue. Any arbitrary imposition of Israeli demands would not only undermine chances of peace, but virtually ensure that terrorism would thrive.
The elections in Iraq are due towards the end of January. Again, we are witnessing an attempt to enforce the American game plan, which is to have a pliable regime in Baghdad, that will guarantee the implementation of the neo-con agenda, ensure US control of oil, and cooperate with efforts to impose US-style democracy. The outlook is daunting and uncertain.
It appears that elections will not be possible in the four regions that account for half the population. The Sunnis, who have held power in Iraq for decades, are threatening to boycott the elections.
Major Shia factions are urging steps to ensure the inclusion of Sunnis in the new Iraqi government. How the Bush administration handles the Iraqi elections, and their outcome, will be as important as its policy in Palestine in determining whether peace will return to the Middle East, or whether violence and instability will prevail.