WASHINGTON: It’s always difficult to play defence and offence at the same time, but when the geo-political ground is shifting beneath one’s feet and damaging leaks are spurting out of the White House and Downing Street plumbing like Fourth of July fireworks, it’s more difficult than usual. At least, that’s the sense one gets after watching the frantic manoeuvrings this week of far-right and neo-conservative personalities who found themselves trying, on the one hand, to persuade their compatriots to prepare to take on new enemies in what they call “World War IV,” while, on the other, mounting rear-guard actions against faint-hearted allies who want out of Iraq and Democrats who are calling for the head of President George W. Bush’s “brain,” Karl Rove.

While, by week’s end, most of them, at least judging by their editorials, columns and Fox News television appearances, were focused on defending Rove from charges that he may have compromised national security by “outing” a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer as the immediate priority, they were all over the map — almost literally — for most of the past seven days, dispensing a never-ending stream of geo-strategic advice for all and sundry.

Some of it was entirely familiar, especially with respect to Iran and Syria, favoured neo-conservative targets, for the next phase of the “global war on terror.”

Indeed, since last month’s surprise victory late last month of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran’s presidential elections, neo-conservatives have launched a new campaign for “regime change,” urging the Bush administration to take more urgent action to achieve that goal.

“The country is ripe for revolution,” enthused Jeffrey Gedmin, the neo-conservative director of the Aspen Institute in Berlin, in the ‘Weekly Standard.’

“This regime has to go,” he went on, arguing that, what with the EU constitutional process stalemated and the “impending political demise of (French President) Jacques Chirac and (German Chancellor) Gerhard Schroeder,” Bush should be able to line up the European Union behind support for the “democracy movement in Iran.”

And if that strategy should fail, noted Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), “Bush may decide that pinpoint military strikes are the only mechanism by which to undercut the Islamic Republic’s (nuclear) ambitions.”

AEI’s Michael Ledeen, just back from safari in Botswana (“The best hope for Africa is tough love. Cut off the aid.”), took much the same line in several articles in ‘National Review Online,’ arguing that new and “abundant evidence” has surfaced over Iranian ties to Al Qaeda and to the insurgency in Iraq.

“I do not know if ...the Iranians were involved in the London bombings, but it really does not matter, for Iran is the most potent force in the terror network, from which the killers in London undoubtedly drew succour. ...We cannot possibly have decent security in Iraq unless we end the murderous tyrannies in Tehran and Damascus,” wrote Ledeen, who, in another piece, argued, as did several other neo-conservatives, that the British “elites” had brought on last week’s attacks by their “special relationship with the Arab world” and “anti-Semitism.”

While this was all quite familiar, the war hawks also tried to take advantage this week of Congressional concern over an attempted Chinese takeover of US oil giant Unocal and next week’s state visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to mount a broader strategic vision of allies and enemies.

This was encapsulated in a brief talk Wednesday by the neo-conservative Foundation for the Defence of Democracies director Clifford May to the “US-India League” in which he called on the US to “forge new alliances appropriate to a new era” that would include Eastern Europe, Australia, Israel, Japan, and, “most emphatically, India — the world’s largest democracy.”

May, who would later in the week devote his considerable polemical talents to defending Rove, was joined by Kenneth Timmerman, author of “Countdown to Crisis: The Coming Nuclear Showdown with Iran,” far-right activist Paul Weyrich, and AEI’s Thomas Donnelly, all of whom argued that Delhi should play a key role in countering China’s strategic ambitions.

So should Japan, Washington Times and National Review editor Rich Lowry was quick to add in a Washington Times column in which he made an increasingly common argument that Tokyo should tear up its post-war constitution and become “as reliable a partner of the US in Asia as Britain is in Europe” in checking Beijing.

The column, entitled “Unleash Japan,” noted that other Asian countries have “nightmarish memories of the Japanese military,” but that they should understand that there’s a “new Japanese government ...on the side of decency and civilization.”

As for China itself, several prominent neo-conservatives appeared before a key Congressional committee this week arguing that Washington should prevent the sale of Unocal, most of whose assets are found on China’s doorstep in Asia, to the China National Offshore Oil Company (CNOOC), because oil is a “national security” issue rather than a simple commodity that should be subject to the free market.

“China is pursuing a national strategy of domination of the energy markets and strategic dominance of the western Pacific,” argued James Woolsey, a former CIA director and prominent neo-conservative who popularized the “World War IV” slogan but who, until now, had confined its use to the war on “Islamo-fascism” in which Beijing is supposedly allied with Washington.

Appearing on the same panel as Woolsey was Centre for Security Policy (CSP) president Frank Gaffney, another neo-conservative, who warned in the late 1990s that a Hong Kong-based company’s lease of two port facilities at either end of the Panama Canal was part of a secret plan to deny the waterway to the US Navy in the event of war.

“China is positioning itself to supplant the United States economically and strategically and, if necessary, to defeat us militarily in the decades to come,” said Gaffney who, in a Washington Times article this week, argued that the London bombings should prompt the Bush administration to prevent Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s disengagement from Gaza (“Friends don’t let friends commit suicide...”).

But while propagating their latest geo-strategic worldview, these same activists and their comrades this week also were forced to play defence, and not just about the damage inflicted on the White House by the growing scandal over Rove.

The leak of a classified memo from the British defence minister to Prime Minister Tony Blair detailing “emerging US plans” to reduce by half the number of soldiers — as well as reports that the Pentagon intended to substantially withdraw its forces from Afghanistan within two years — drew very worried responses from Weekly Standard editor William Kristol who has long assailed Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for refusing to deploy enough troops to the two countries.

The British memo “shows real efforts within the administration to extricate us from this, and I think ...that’s a much greater threat than anything that happens directly in London,” he told an AEI audience this week. In a written memo co-authored by Project for the New American Century director Gary Schmitt, Kristol warned that Rumsfeld “is putting the president’s strategic vision at risk.”

Worried as well about a steady stream of public opinion polls increasing pluralities of US citizens who believe that Bush and his backers lied about the reasons for going to war in Iraq, Kristol also gave over half of this week’s Weekly Standard to an article titled “The Mother of All Connections,” in which the author, Stephen Hayes, presents what he calls ”new evidence” of an operational tie between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.—Dawn/The InterPress News Service.

‘SHERWANIS’ and the culture of ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ that was once the hallmark of the Aligarh Muslim University, set up as a result of the movement launched by Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, has disappeared and the students there only remember its founder at the annual dinners.

This comment came from Aligarh-born, New Delhi-based journalist and peace activist Pushpendra Kulshreshta who was recently in Karachi. He represented India in roller skating. His wife Rachna was a champion runner and is at the moment deputy director with the Sports Authority of India.

Kulshreshta says Aligarh began to change when for the first time in its history a bureaucrat was made vice-chancellor. That decision, he thinks, dealt a serious below to the ideals, value system and the movement for which Aligarh was known. “The respect of juniors for their seniors was consciously disturbed and we saw a movement against the vice-chancellor. For the first time firearms were used in the university and one student was killed. That was the beginning of the rapid downfall of Aligarh’s traditions and values”.

He left the campus in 1988 and feels that the ideals for which the university was set up have become history. “Sir Syed is remembered on only Sir Syed Dinner Day. They don’t even know that it is his birthday”. But when he visited Sir Syed University in Karachi he felt proud to see its functioning.

About the status of Urdu in India, he believes that in contemporary India, Urdu has become a political issue. It has been tagged on with Muslims. Now it is being viewed from that angle. If Muslims are considered traitors, their language is also seen in that perspective and both are equally hated by the reactionaries. He thinks that Muslims should read and write in Urdu but not launch any ‘movement’ to save the language because it will aggravate the situation. “We all know that if Urdu is taken out of Indian life, it will create a dry and horrible picture. It is well known in the whole of India that Urdu is the backbone of its huge film industry. We cannot do without Urdu because we use it in our daily interaction. But whenever the issue of Urdu’s development is raised by Muslims, it has hurt the language as well as the community. I therefore ask Indian Muslims not to identify Urdu only with themselves. It is a language and is liked by everyone, including a large number of Hindus.”

He believes that both India and Pakistan should put aside the trivial issues. Everything should not be linked with one issue and “we should move forward by accepting that whatever has happened cannot be changed. As an Indian, I say that since partition and afterwards if any mistake was committed by us, we should find a way to move forward by forgetting the past because it is not possible for a whole country to tender an apology. Those who are making provocative statements and pursuing extremist policies, whether they are Indians or Pakistanis, must be brought face to face to sort out the issues. I remember that when Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam’s Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who was seen in our country as a ferocious supporter of Taliban, came to India I took him to the RSS office in Delhi. Madandas, RSS No. 2 in Delhi, was surprised to see the Maulana in their midst. Then they exchanged pleasantries and issued a joint statement expressing their desire to work for peace and stability in the region. Such meetings help in removing misunderstandings”.

Commenting on the controversy that cropped up in India over L.K. Advani’s remarks that Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah was a secularist, Kushereshta said Indian political parties were trying to outdo each other to prove their secular credentials.

Muslims formed an important segment of the political vote bank. Both the BJP and Congress were claiming to be secular. The BJP is conscious of the fact that if they want to form a government in Delhi, they will have to take along many people whether they like them or not. Mr Advani wanted to achieve two things. On the one hand, he wanted to please that segment of Indian public opinion which already believes in this perception and on the other to expose and embarrass the Congress which had been saying that Pakistan was created on the basis of the two-nation theory.

At the same time, it should be remembered that the same Mulayam Singh who was chief minister of UP when Babri Mosque was destroyed is again CM, and again the Congress rules at the centre. Now the BJP has used the recent Ayodhya incident to blame Lashkar-i-Tayba or Hizbul Mujahideen. The Pakistan flag was burnt in Gujarat and it gave the impression as if it was a well-organized effort. The Congress-led government too immediately said that the attackers were terrorists and Pakistan was involved in that. He said, “Governments try by such things to hide their own mistakes and shortcomings. When you say that either the ISI or RAW is involved in an incident, the real culprits are not apprehended and they get protection. If RAW or the ISI are doing everything, what are the other agencies doing?”

—Shamim-ur-Rahman

KARACHI: The race is on and Karachi is one of the high stake up for grabs in the upcoming local bodies elections scheduled to begin in August. The Pakistan People’s Party has already hurled various accusations at other major parties and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement name is making its presence felt by banners and statements put up already. The ruling Pakistan Muslim League too is speeding up matters and potential candidates are being dispatched from the assemblies as everyone has realized that the Nazim offices somehow wield more power. They definitely yield more finances ever since the budget allocation was moved to the lower tier with the idea of the people benefiting as fast as possible if development funds for local areas are needed.

Ironically, at this point, the ex-city nazim’s party preparations are seemingly rather soundless as no accusation or counter-accusation is being heard from Mr Niamatullah’s camp. His sound and fury appears spent or, having given his fate in the hands of the Lord, he perhaps awaits justice in the form of being re-instated solely by the divine intervention. And if the Lord does not consider him for the post of Nazim, well, many a Karachiite will be affected — not emotionally, but physically! The half-completed projects in various areas across the city are increasing the sufferings of many on a daily basis already and if a change takes place, the citizens are truly afraid of the fate of those projects.

It is strange how a representative of the fundamental group has gained such a commendable fan following, specially in a city which may easily be termed as the most modern in the entire country and whose citizens will brook no ‘fundamental’ and ‘extremist’ move which is the modus operandi of Niamatullah Khan’s flagship. Not only are his party politics deplored by the moderate and enlightened Karachiites but of late they are creating strong resentment with the mounting fear of the Hasba Bill. Still, surprisingly, if the average citizen (the enlightened kind, not to be mistaken with the ethnic one!) was asked to comment on how the past city government fared, and the answer will be, ‘the Nazim did a lot for Karachi!’

Incidentally, a website, which is a forum for the city mayors of the world is running a race to decide the best mayor amongst 550 chosen from the world’s cities. Concentrating on the issues facing the world’s cities, it examines how city mayors, and others who govern metropolitan areas, develop innovative solutions to long-standing urban problems such as housing, transport, education and employment. And what is more astounding is that Mr Niamatullah Khan is one of 65 chosen finalists because of the ‘development he has carried out in his city with determination, despite being elderly..’ Whether he makes it to the top is irrelevant, but it is to his credit that he is being considered in the same light as the Mayor of New York, Tokyo and London.

If one were to critically survey his tenure, would we still accredit sweeping success to him? When he took over the reign three years ago, Mr Niamatullah had a mix of stubborn ambition and idealism which he wanted to unleash on this city so that it could be remembered that he had changed the face of Karachi. That was his desire and he began work with gusto. Riding rough shod over a number of obsolete procedures he even cornered (or coerced!) the President into announcing a package with Rs29 billion earmarked exclusively for Karachi’s development which would include revamping the road network, the local health services, education and whatever else that came under his jurisdiction. In fact even his jurisdiction became wider than was initially intended and the President smiled benignly as it was all for a good cause, or rather the larger picture intended earlier which was to make Karachi an investor’s paradise.

It would have worked out well too if the Nazim had stayed within his area and would not have exulted in the media about his Karachi development. As it happened the accolades that began coming his way, and from no less a personage than the President himself, the other parties also ruling Karachi in their own way began to feel undermined and overshadowed. With the Governor’s House and the Chief Minister’s House manned by two different party parrots things became sticky for the Nazim who unfortunately had no party following in Karachi. People only approved of him and not his party. And it goes to Niamatullah’s credit that he did not let his party politics interfere with Karachi’s affairs, even when his party colleagues were raising havoc elsewhere at marathons and marches.

Party politics are not being encouraged by the government either which has decided to further itself from the PML banner. The people too should choose the city’s representative on pure merit of the individual, not on party bias. Karachi is one of ten largest cities of the world and running the show here is not easy. But if the ‘chosen one’ is upright and has the people’s benefit as his only agenda, then there is a chance for all of us who simply want to go about our daily business in peace.