| 05 March 2005 | Saturday | 23 Muharram 1426 |
Managing a Mideast revolution
Democracy & its guiding code
Bringing Fata into the mainstream
Notwithstanding all the fence-mending that took place during President George Bush's recent visit to Europe, some transatlantic disagreements could not be prevented from coming into the open.
There were differences over Iraq and Iran but the most serious, and perhaps the most awkward, disagreement over the European Union's planned lifting of the embargo on arms sales to China which the United States and Japan oppose.
Explaining his opposition President Bush said on February 22: "There is a deep concern in our country that a transfer of weapons would be a transfer of technology to China which would change the balance of relations between China and Taiwan." He went on to warn that if the EU went ahead with the lifting of the ban, the US Congress might retaliate with restrictions on technology transfer to Europe.
Actually, the US opposition to the lifting of the embargo runs deeper than the Taiwan question. The American opposition reflects a suspicion of what Europe is up to in Asia.
When President Jacques Chirac went on a little reported trip to Beijing some months ago, the ostensible purpose was to promote trade and cultural exchanges with France. But he also knew that Europe had an opportunity to woo China from the American embrace. And lifting of the arms embargo will be an important step in that direction. This will open the door to profitable weapons sales as well as to closer trade relations with an emerging economic superpower.
The American concern is multidimensional. The Bush administration fears that the lifting of the ban might enable the Chinese to develop the kind of sophisticated systems that were used in Iraq by the Americans and their allies.
That was the reason why the US Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn EU's planned lifting of the embargo. Writing recently in the Wall Street Journal, Henry Hyde, chairman of the House of Representatives' international relations committee, said: "European Union's security policy toward China is on a collision course with America's extensive security interests in Asia."
The Bush administration has scoffed at European claims, put forward by British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and others that they would follow a strict export code that would actually diminish arms sales.
Seeking to defuse transatlantic tensions over the issue, the EU's foreign and security policy chief, Javier Solana, has called for the US and Europe to initiate a strategic dialogue on China's emerging power.
The Americans are concerned because China has come a long way since the 1989 Tianamen Square tragedy. Today, it is growing as an economy, as a world player and as a military power. It is close to surpassing Japan as the world's second largest trader. It will play host to the 2008 Olympics and the 2010 World Fair.
There is no question that Taiwan is also an important factor in the US opposition to the lifting of the arms embargo. It was under Bill Clinton that the US increased contacts with the Taiwanese armed forces.
Those contacts were further strengthened after Mr Bush had become the president. His administration offered to sell Taiwan a huge package of advanced weaponry and help it buy submarines. According to some reports, there are now more American military programmes with Taiwan than with any other American ally.
Taiwan has enjoyed de facto independence and has been running its own affairs since the end of the Chinese civil war in 1949 when Chiang Kai-shek's Nationalist forces retreated to Taiwan after being defeated on the mainland by the communist forces led by Mao Zedong.
However, China continually threatens to retake it by force if it ever declares independence formally. It has reportedly 600 missiles aimed at the island. According to the western media, China is also developing land- attack cruise missiles which could be fired across the 100-mile strait and penetrate even the most sophisticated anti-missile defences that Taiwan is acquiring from the United States.
Japan's jumping into the fray has complicated the situation. China has reacted angrily to the new joint security arrangement between Japan and the United States announced on February 19.
The two called on China to be more open about its military affairs and, for the first time, Japan said it viewed Taiwan as a shared security concern with the United States. China has retorted that the statement violated its sovereignty. The new development has strained Beijing's relations with Tokyo and Washington at a time when the three (along with South Korea and Russia) were expected to be working together to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
Japan's emergence as an assertive neighbour is a serious development for China. Tokyo intends to reform its pacifist constitution and modernize the role of the Self Defence Force (a euphemism for the military).
The relaxation of the constitution would make it possible for Japan to participate in overseas military action. This will mean the Japanese forces would join the Americans in protecting Taiwan if China ever attempts to retake it by force.
The recently announced joint security arrangement between the US and Japan reflects their concern at the growing military power of China. It would be naive to think that the EU's lifting of the embargo on sales of weaponry to Beijing alone would transform China's forces.
China has conclusively proved that it is quite capable of increasing its military might without the embargoed weapons. Experts have estimated China's military budget at $65 billion, second only to Washington's.
China commands 2.5 million soldiers and its stock of warplanes and submarines is growing. It is fast catching up with the United States in the areas of ballistic missiles and rocket-launch systems. It will continue to acquire new military knowledge as in the past.
It is worth recalling that after winning his first term, Mr Bush pledged to stiffen US policy on China, come closer to Taiwan and reinvigorate what the Republicans believed to be the grossly neglected relationship with Japan.
What Mr Bush could not achieve in his first term, he intends to accomplish in his second term. The Republicans continue to believe that America's most important strategic relationship in Asia should be with Japan. The reason: China's growing power.
In his best known foreign policy speech, delivered on November 19, 2000, at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, Mr Bush said that China "is a competitor, not a strategic partner. We must deal with China without ill-will but without illusions."
The role of a strategic partner has instead, been given to India. In the words of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the Indo-US relationship "goes beyond security, proliferation or regional issues."
China is no doubt an important factor in growing relations between New Delhi and Washington. The strategic interests of Washington and New Delhi have brought them closer to each other, and the newly-developed 'strategic partnership' may not only lead to major geo-political changes in the region but also enable India to fulfil its long-cherished dream of playing a greater role in Asia.
It may be recalled that the bestowing of strategic ally status on India was followed by the US decision to relax technology controls which would have a salutary effect on Indian business sectors from space to information technology.
Some Indian security analysts think that by enhancing technology cooperation, Washington has given de facto recognition to India's nuclear status. Washington and New Delhi will also expand cooperation on nuclear regulatory and safety measures and missile defence.
It may be recalled that India was one of the first countries to welcome the Bush administration's missile defence plan in 2001, in marked contrast to China's strong negative reaction.
The forthcoming session of China's National People's Congress will be watched with keen interest by China observers. There have been media reports that the plenary meeting of the People's Congress may enact an anti-secession law.
This would give China, at least from its own viewpoint, a stronger legal basis to take over Taiwan. If such a legislation is enacted, Beijing's relations with Washington and Tokyo are bound to deteriorate further.
Since at this particular juncture, it is not in the interests of China to increase tension in its bilateral relations with the United States or Japan, the odds are that it will balk at enacting such provocative legislation as an anti-secession law.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Managing a Mideast revolution
There's an obscure branch of mathematics known as "catastrophe theory," which looks at how a small perturbation in a previously stable system can suddenly produce dramatic change. A classic example of the theory is the way a bridge, after bearing immense weight for many years, can suddenly collapse because of a new stress.
We are now watching a glorious catastrophe take place in the Middle East. The old system that had looked so stable is ripping apart, with each beam pulling another down as it falls.
The sudden stress that produced the catastrophe was the American invasion of Iraq two years ago. But this Arab power structure has been rotting at the joints for a generation. The real force that's bringing it down is public anger.
It's hard not to feel giddy, watching the dominoes fall. In Lebanon, "people power" forced the resignation of Syria's puppet government; in Egypt, the Pharaonic Hosni Mubarak agreed to allow other candidates to challenge his presidency for life; in Iraq, the momentum of January's elections is still propelling the nation forward, despite bickering politicians and brutal suicide bombers. But catastrophic change is dangerous, even when it's bringing down a system people detest. This is not a time for US triumphalism, or for gloating and lecturing to the Arabs.
That kind of arrogance got us into trouble in Iraq during the first year of occupation. It was only when Iraqis began to take control of their own destinies that this project began to go right.
The same rule holds for Lebanon, Egypt and the rest. America can help by keeping on the pressure, but it's their revolution. Here are some warning flags about challenges ahead.
My list is drawn from conversations this week with Arabs who are part of the new revolution. They worry that Washington, in its current giddy mood, may miss the danger signs.
The crucial issue for Lebanon is the role of Hezbollah. This Shia militia is the most well-organized political force in the country, and it's now at a crossroads. Hezbollah cannot remain the "A Team" of terrorism and also help build a new democracy in Lebanon.
An encouraging sign is that Hezbollah's leader, Said Hasan Nasrallah, met quietly Monday night in Beirut with Samir Franjieh, one of the leaders of the pro-democracy opposition.
They discussed a possible deal whereby Hezbollah would agree to disarm its militia and join a new government, so long as that government wasn't openly anti-Syrian and Hezbollah was allowed to keep its "resistance" squads. That's a steep price, but getting Hezbollah inside the tent of political change might be worth it.
For Syria's leaders, the issue is survival. Until recently, a pro-Syrian analyst had been telling me about their "sandwich strategy" for squeezing America in Iraq between a Syrian-backed insurgency and Iranian pressure. - Dawn/Washington Post Service
Democracy & its guiding code
Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, former prime ministers of Pakistan, reportedly agreed to devise a "code of democracy" for their country when they met in Jeddah recently. The two are to appoint working groups to draft it. This is odd because democracy itself is a code.
Certain assumptions guide it. The understanding is that people and political parties will confine themselves to the environs of freedom and liberty. India's experience is that democracy works, not the code.
Crime, corruption and callousness may make the country appear anarchical. But institutions invariably rise to the occasion. The strength is the sturdiness of the constitution, law courts, the election commission and such other institutions. They function so fiercely independent that the will of the people comes to prevail.
The craze for power by parties and the one-point programme to retain it by hook or by crook have had a telling effect on the institutions in India over the years. Even governance has come to be tainted. Still, when the chips are down, democratic values have been found asserting themselves. Public and press opinion have chipped in.
That examples like Goa take place is unfortunate. The Congress cut a sorry figure in the state where the governor, a former Congress chief minister of Nagaland, dismissed the elected government of the BJP.
No doubt, it was an unstable government with a majority of two members. But the governor went to the extent of not only sacking the BJP chief minister but installing one from the Congress who has all the time to prove his majority whenever he likes.
This was a murder of democracy. However, the wave of shock that has spread throughout the country has made the Congress look sheepish. It may not have admitted its mistake. But it is trying its best to meet the criticism as far as possible.
So long as institutions are healthy, things can be retrieved. A judicial review by the supreme court, which it introduced on its own some 10 to 12 years ago, has lessened the governor's whimsical interference in states.
In fact, the governor has emerged as an arbiter to decide on who will head the government in a state. This is a great responsibility, requiring objectivity and a sense of fair play.
Take elections in the three states - Bihar, Jharkhand and Haryana. The governor had no problem in Haryana. The majority party, the Congress, had two-thirds strength and formed the government. It is another matter that the party did not allow its legislators to register their choice freely.
Once again, the Congress president was asked to nominate the leader. This meant that the members fell in line with the choice of the high command, not their own. This was unfortunate but it related to internal democracy which, in any case, was absent not only in the Congress but other political parties as well.
This very high command made a mess in Bihar when it supported the two rivals - Laloo Prasad Yadav and Ram Vilas Paswan - at the same time during elections. In this way, the Congress divided the Muslim vote. Otherwise, it was not possible for the BJP to have the best showing in eastern Bihar where the Muslims dominated.
In truth, the Congress wanted to cut Laloo and Paswan down to size and it expected to recreate a base of its own in the state but in the process, it frittered away the advantage the secular forces had. The party also suffered and won some 10 out of 243 seats.
My worry is that if the Congress does not realize its folly, it may commit the same mistake in UP where the Congress has lost its base. The BJP, far from staging a recovery from the blows it received during the Lok Sabha elections, got a negative advantage in Bihar.
It would be worse in UP if secular forces do not unite if and when the state poll takes place. The Congress' inscrutable moves can help the BJP recover. The larger question that secular forces must face is how to fight against communal elements unitedly and concertedly. But this consideration, as the recent polls show, has been pushed into the background. However, secularism should not be used to cover up crime or corruption.
That Laloo has done little for the state in terms of development is nothing new. Nor are his corrupt ways. Still the Congress that has accommodated him as the railway minister at the centre should have handled him differently.
Instead of allowing him to allot the number of seats to his allies, the Congress and the Left should have asserted themselves to get a better deal. At least they should have put their foot down on the candidature of criminals. He could not have gone it alone.
Maybe, Paswan would have been a better bet from the very beginning. His strategy could have been different. He should have said "nothing doing with Laloo," without dissociating himself from the party, Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD). It is like throwing the baby out with the bathtub.
Paswan's proposal to have a Muslim chief minister is understandable because he has announced the constitution of an all-India Muslim-Dalit front. If he is successful in doing so, he may as well change the entire political scene in India. But Paswan's choice for a Muslim chief minister appears as more of a tactic. He should have made this announcement before election. His intimation to the state governor not to support the RJD complicated things unnecessarily.
Former Home Minister Buta Singh, the Bihar governor, again the Congress nominee, did not have much of an option because Paswan held the key. His 30 members could give a majority either to the Laloo-Congress combination or to the BJP-led alliance.
However, the governor's role in Jharkhand is reprehensible. He should have invited the BJP-led alliance which was the largest group even though it fell three or four members short of majority. But inviting the other combination that includes the Congress was patently wrong. Such situations, as the supreme court judgments have said, have to be sorted out on the floor of the house. Obviously, the governor wanted to placate the Congress-led centre.
India has to come out with some solution to ensure that governor's discretion is not according to the telephone calls from New Delhi. Such instances of bias have come to notice in the last few years. Goa is only the recent example.
The code of democracy may not be necessary but it is essential that governors follow certain norms. The Sarkaria commission on centre-state relations has listed some. But no government in New Delhi has implemented them.
Governors continue to take the cue from the centre, whichever government is in power. The nation should not expect anything better if politicians continued to be appointed as governors.
Bringing Fata into the mainstream
Recently, a septuagenarian lawmaker from Fata was illegally confined for more than 24 hours in a shack somewhere near Wana in South Waziristan. Later, he filed a privilege motion in the lower house that was admitted by the speaker and referred to the National Assembly's standing committee on rules of procedure and privileges.
The committee summoned the secretary, Fata affairs, the head of the area's Frontier Constabulary and the political officer of the agency for an explanation. The legislators were amazed to learn that although Fata is represented by 20 parliamentarians in both houses, not a single constitutional clause covers their legitimate privileges. An eight-member subcommittee was formed to scrutinize the present FC rules enforced in the seven agencies of Fata and to suggest amendments.
There is no writ of law in this federal territory, and even the parliament has no say in Fata-related matters. Only the president has the final say in its affairs under the constitutional powers contained in Article 247 (3).
Fata has been viewed as no-man's land, and people from other parts of the country have been discouraged from acquiring property there or operating a business. If Fata is a part of Pakistan, then irrespective of its semi-autonomous status, it should be opened to all Pakistanis. Here, we may also find a similarity between Fata and Indian-held Kashmir, as no Indian is allowed to settle in the occupied region or purchase any property there.
The influx from Fata has changed the ethnic demography of Balochistan, while in Sindh their population is greater in number than in Fata itself. The government should remember the mid-eighties and Karachi's Sohrab Goth that was the hub of ethnic violence then.
An unusually high number of criminals and proclaimed offenders (16,741, as per a government report) are taking shelter in Fata. This means that this area has the highest concentration of criminals (among a male population of 1.5 million) than any other political terrain in the world.
Some time ago, two journalists were gunned downed there after witnessing a surrender ceremony of some outlaws. Last year, a girl was murdered by a young man in Islamabad who was packed off to one of the Fata agencies by his influential father to escape trial. For a hefty sum every month, the area's 'maliks' will keep him out of the law's reach.
There are other examples of being kidnapped in the country and then being held in Fata for ransom. Some are released after 10 to 15 years while others are still there.
The provincial police are prohibited from entering any Fata agency to arrest a lawbreaker although a provision is there for them to go to other provinces for such an arrest.
One fails to understand why, despite Islamic injunctions; hired assassins, murderers, bank robbers, rapists and national and international terrorists are living in Fata as guests. There are even some parliamentarians, belonging to religious parties, who are in this business of 'protection'.
In fact, our clerics, who are vociferous in denouncing what they see as social vices, have turned a blind eye to all sorts of drugs and weapons that are openly sold in Fata, even in religiously conservative NWFP.
Why can't the people of this territory pay taxes like those in other areas of the country? Why don't they pay electricity charges? Why do they refuse to pay income tax, sales tax, property tax or utility bills? Wapda sustains a loss of one billion rupees per month. If we come down to statistics; then where Fata is concerned the amount outstanding must run into trillions of rupees. Fata is virtually an undeclared economic zone of the country.
Every year, an enormous amount in billions of rupees is allocated for Fata's 'annual development' but this appropriation disappears into the pockets of the 'maliks' and those of the public servants concerned.
This has never been brought to the notice of the related committees of the National Assembly by the government auditors. As a member of the public accounts committee for two terms, I never came across any instance when these funds used for 'development' there were subjected to scrutiny.
The solution lies in merging this so-called federal territory with the NWFP province. Besides, there is a need to scrap the anachronistic FCR and the jirga system which were encouraged by the British.
One recalls an incident in the days of President Ayub Khan when a businessman was kidnapped from Karachi and held for ransom in one of the Fata agencies. The government not only arrested the prominent male members of the clan involved in hostage taking, but impounded their vehicles and closed down their businesses all over the country. The chief of the tribe had to release the hostage the same evening.
While such action does not conform with present-day democracy, there is, nevertheless, a strong need to bring about changes in tribal society and to enforce the law of the land there.
It is up to our tribal elders and the educated class to seriously ponder this. Global change is evident in the 21st century. A new definition of terrorism and crime is emerging, opinion within the country is in the throes of change. Fata, with its 3.1 million population, should undergo reforms and be opened up to the rest of the country.
As a parliamentarian, I believe that when we propose to amend our laws in favour of legislators from Fata, not only should we also recommend the total writ of national law in the territory but also suggest the enactment of new laws to curtail the trend of providing shelter to criminals in return for financial gains. This would safeguard the rights and interests of all four provinces.
Since the power of our parliament is restricted on this issue, it is only the president, who by using his special powers vested in him by the Constitution, can bring revolutionary changes in Fata. The existing National Security Council may also frame/recommend new laws.
Meanwhile, it has been reported that a huge sum of money, amounting to tens of millions of rupees, was paid by the government to four notorious terrorists from Fata. In return, the government wanted them to refrain from carrying out attacks on government personnel and property. The government also wanted them to suspend their activities across the border with Afghanistan.
For how long can the federal government use money to control unruly characters? This system will encourage a new breed of criminals who are neither satisfied with money nor afraid of any operation. At the moment, we have the resources and time to decimate this culture.
The writer is a member of the National Assembly.