The preacher and the president

AMERICAN televangelist Pat Robertson came up with a priceless piece of advice last week. Regime change in Caracas, he told an estimated one million viewers on the Christian Broadcasting Network he founded 45 years ago, can be achieved at a fraction of the cost that the invasion of Iraq entailed. Apart from being a thorn in the side for the US, Hugo Chavez keeps complaining that the Bush administration is trying to assassinate him, so why not go ahead and prove him right?

By airing this thought, the combatively pro-Bush preacher effectively lobbed the ball into the administration’s court. So, how did a government that claims to be waging a global war against terror react to this advocacy of terrorism? Did it unequivocally condemn Robertson? Send the FBI around to ask him a few questions? Threaten him with a stint at Guantanamo Bay?

Nothing of the kind. “Any allegations that we are planning to take hostile action against the Venezuelan government are baseless,” said state department spokesman Sam McCormack, pointing out that the televangelist was speaking as a private citizen and that the administration did not share his views. That doesn’t even count as a mild rebuke, but the more intriguing question is: Why is the government being so defensive? Does Robertson know something that the rest of us don’t?

The defence department “doesn’t do that kind of thing”, chimed in Pentagon chief Donald Rumsfeld, almost wistfully. Besides, he added, “private citizens say all kinds of things all the time”. Let us not forget that some not-so-private citizens are prone to the same affliction. It was, after all, Rumsfeld who informed the world: We know where Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are; they are to Baghdad’s north and south and east and west.

The US defence secretary also chooses not to remember that Washington has a long history of seeking the elimination of foreign “undesirables”, including heads of state and government. It has usually endeavoured to achieve this end through local proxies. There have been some spectacular failures, but also a number of “successes”, including Mohammed Mossadegh, Patrice Lumumba, the Diem brothers and Salvador Allende.

Although it has been three decades or so since the US formally declared that assassinations would no longer be a foreign policy tool, old habits die hard. Besides, the neo-conservative clique currently in power has already demonstrated that it doesn’t allow moral squeamishness to interfere with the achievement of its ends.

It was probably purely coincidental that when reports of Robertson’s deadly diatribe first emerged, his target of choice was holding talks with the man who justifiably considers himself more sinned against than any other in terms of American assassination attempts: Fidel Castro.

There are a number of reasons why Chavez sends the American right into paroxysms of barely controllable rage, but perhaps the single most apoplexy-inducing aspect of his presidency is that the Venezuelan leader makes no secret of the fact that he looks upon his Cuban counterpart as a mentor. And the octogenarian revolutionary takes obvious pleasure and pride in cultivating a protege of sorts. They speak regularly over the phone, and Chavez is a frequent visitor to Havana.

The fact that he shares the enthusiasm that Castro inspires among a substantial proportion of Latin Americans does not make the Venezuelan colonel a Cuban pawn. Nor is it particularly remarkable that he wishes to learn as much as possible from the Cuban example, from the revolution’s shortcomings as well as its impressive achievements in the health and education spheres. And, not least, from its knack for survival in the face of implacable hostility from its giant neighbour to the north.

Somewhat like Castro, the leader of what he calls the Bolivarian Revolution rose to prominence as a radical populist who subsequently evolved into an advocate and practitioner of socialism. At an international youth congress in Caracas earlier this month, Chavez told the thousands of delegates: “The world is in peril .... Either we dismantle imperialism, or imperialism destroys the planet — this is our dilemma.” He spruiked Noam Chomsky’s book Hegemony or Survival as an anti-imperialist tool and reminded his audience that the choice remained as stark as it was when Rosa Luxemburg articulated it 90 years ago: socialism or barbarism.

Even though Chavez has thus far taken Venezuela down what could only be described as a social-democratic path, he clearly isn’t the sort of person whom the US establishment might be expected to embrace. The problem, from Washington’s point of view, is that Venezuela can’t be ostracized with a blockade, the way Cuba was. Because, as the world’s fifth largest producer of petroleum, the country has something the US desperately needs.

Venezuela exports 1.3 million barrels of crude oil a day to the US. It’s a lifeline the Americans can ill afford to jeopardize. A government in Caracas that unquestioningly did Washington’s bidding would set many American minds at ease — which is why, subsequent denials notwithstanding, the US supported an anti-Chavez coup three years ago mounted by elements in the army in collusion with big business. Luckily for Venezuela, a popular uprising supported by junior officers and the military rank and file ensured that the putsch floundered within a couple of days. Last year, Chavez submitted to a recall referendum aimed at cutting short his tenure and won handsomely, in a result certified by former US president Jimmy Carter.

What endears Chavez to the majority of his compatriots — particularly Venezuela’s poor — is precisely what makes him persona non grata in Washington’s eyes: his determination that profits from petroleum sales must be ploughed into development and poverty alleviation projects, instead of enriching the pro-American elite. The US has always been wary of governments setting “bad examples” in its “backyard” (Guatemala, Chile and Nicaragua are examples of countries in which the CIA succeeded in reversing progressive trends), which makes it reasonably likely that Pat Robertson isn’t the only American wishing that Chavez could somehow be eliminated.

What makes Chavez particularly dangerous in some American eyes is that his willingness to put his nation’s natural resources to good use extends beyond Venezuelan shores. Last week, he signed an agreement to sell Jamaica oil at $20 below the market rate. Cuba’s petroleum needs are being fulfilled, at a similarly reduced rate, for the first time since the Soviet Union collapsed. (The gesture hasn’t gone unreciprocated: 20,000 Cuban doctors are working in Venezuelan shanty-towns and villages.) Crude sales to China are also rapidly on the rise.

Alongside the quest for alternative markets, Chavez has offered to sell “gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States”. He has also said that joint project whereby sight-impaired patients from across Latin America are flown to Cuba for cataract operations could be extended to US citizens.

The bigger picture, meanwhile, suggests that Latin American voters are reacting to decades of neo-liberal economics by voting in left-wing governments. The inauguration of Tabare Vazquez last March made Uruguay the fifth country in the region to move leftwards, and Mexico may follow suit next year. None of the other governments is quite as radical or as combative as that of Venezuela, but it would be surprising if alarm bells weren’t ringing in Washington. Last month the US authorities reacted petulantly to the launch of Telesur, a new regional TV channel operating out of Caracas.

Many of the voices that joined the chorus of condemnation in the wake of Pat Robertson’s outburst may well have been sincerely disgusted by his murderous blather, but some gave the impression that they were angered primarily not by what he had said but by the fact that he had said it. As if the intellectually unstable preacher had revealed some kind of secret.

There have lately been subtle indications that the US may have picked Chavez as a candidate for the sort of treatment meted out to Manuel Noriega. Should that be the case, or in the event of some other covert scenario aimed at eliminating him, it is probably safe to assume that US plans have suffered a setback as a result of Robertson’s outburst. Even crackpots have their uses.

Which is more than can be said for John Bolton, the foreign policy psycho despatched to the United Nations without congressional approval, who recently demanded 750 changes to the 40-page draft document outlining proposals to reshape the world body, which is supposed to be submitted to the leaders of 170 countries when they gather in New York by mid-September.

The nature of the changes Bolton is seeking offer a salutary reminder of the Bush administration’s decrepit worldview — and how sharply it contrasts with the Bolivarian vision. Alleviating poverty? That cannot possibly be a priority. Millennium development goals? Forget about them. An aid commitment of 0.7 per cent of national income? No way. “Respect for nature”? How ridiculous. The International Criminal Court? Can’t be endorsed. The use of force a last resort in tackling security threats? Don’t be absurd. Nuclear disarmament? Dream on. Corporate responsibility? How dare you bring that up! Subsidized anti-AIDS drugs for Africa? The pharmaceutical conglomerates aren’t charities.

So on and so forth. Virtually no sentence remains unaltered. And unless the rest of the UN caves in, Bolton and his masters will be quite happy to consign the declaration to the dustbin.

That, actually, is where this sordid administration belongs. May the people of the United States have the courage and the wisdom to dump it.

E-mail: mahirali1@gmail.com

Parliamentary farce

THE National Assembly’s session that opened on Monday and the disgraceful conduct of the treasury benches simply reinforce the view that is gaining ground that neither the government nor the political leaders attach much importance to democratic processes in the country. Thus, on this occasion, quite contrary to the general tradition, enough members were present in the house to start the session, which had been called after a long break of two-and-a-half months. But the ruling party, finding itself in a difficult position, wanted to stall the assembly proceedings. It staged a walk-out declaring that the proceedings could not be held since the quorum was incomplete. Unsurprisingly, this has been a chronic problem under governments of all hues. But thanks to five sensible members of the ruling coalition who refused to leave, the quorum was found to be just complete — and that too when the speaker ordered a second count of members.

The fact is that an elected legislature is one of the most important organs of government in any country, and all the more so if it is governed under a parliamentary system. Unfortunately, the National Assembly in Pakistan has been the most downgraded of all institutions of government. Our failure in constitutional government and our long history of military rule have created the impression in the powers that be that the assembly has at best a nuisance value and is quite dispensable. A look at the assembly’s dismal performance is enough to prove that few — even its own members who draw quite a hefty salary — really care whether all the rules are observed and they make their own contribution as parliamentarians. But can one really blame them when the prime minister, who had presided over a meeting of the ruling coalition’s parliamentary party just before the NA session on Monday, and the PML-Q president also chose to absent themselves from the house? The MNAs’ record in the matter of attendance has been poor in spite of the fact that they have been offered incentives for regularity and punctuality. They have been worse in their non-observance of the rules and decorum that is expected of them. So, the parliamentary affairs minister is reported to have drawn up new rules which would allow the speaker to impose penalties on “unruly” members, quite a few of whom would be from the ruling parties. Another minister is said to have sent attendance reports on 62 ministers and 130 MPs to three intelligence agencies and the GHQ.

What is happening today is reminiscent of what happened in the days of generals Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq. Ayub’s Convention League and Zia’s religio-political coalition consisted of hybrid elements that were cobbled together by their military mentors for their expedient needs. Though they were projected as ruling parties, their role was no more than providing a political and legislative fig leaf for the two military dictators. The MPs had very little to do with basic law or policy making and governance. It is a pity that the MNAs today are doing no better. Many of them appear to be more interested in the influence they can peddle by virtue of their position. As for being the custodians of their constituents’ interests, they appear to be least concerned, their only contact with the voters being at the time of elections. With this record, can we ever hope for democracy in this country?

Bush’s apprehensions

FOR once Mr George Bush is right. Speaking to reporters at his ranch in Crawford, the American president said he foresaw more violence in Iraq on the issue of the constitution. The enemies of freedom, he said, would try to subvert the constitutional process because they knew they had no place in a democratic set-up. Mr Bush has been disappointed by the Sunni rejection of the draft constitution, and there is every chance that it will stand scrapped if voters in the three Sunni provinces reject it. A rejection of the draft constitution will not only lead to an escalation of violence, it will also open new and dangerous issues that could accentuate fissiparous tendencies and threaten Iraq’s territorial integrity. In the Kurdish north especially, the failure of the constitutional process could strengthen separatist elements. Unfortunately, the US does not seem to have any other strategy for controlling the expected surge in violence except by rushing more troops to Iraq. As announced by Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, 2,000 more US troops are to go to Iraq to raise the strength to 160,000. They are needed to ensure security during the constitutional referendum in October. This may backfire. A vote held while Iraq is under US-led military occupation will lack legitimacy, since Washington has a vested interest in having the constitution approved. No wonder some Sunni parliamentarians should have asked the people to reject the “American constitution” and have appealed to the UN and the Arab League to intervene.

This is not going to happen, because America wants to go it alone. It has no exit strategy, and Washington has refused repeatedly to give a withdrawal schedule. To the Iraqis, this makes the occupation look open-ended and is the single biggest cause of insurgency. Constitution or no constitution, violence in Iraq will continue so long as the Iraqi people find foreign troops on their soil. If violence is to end, both the referendum in October and the general election scheduled for December must be held under UN auspices. With these vital exercises being held without the UN’s involvement, both the constitutional referendum and the general election will lack transparency and legitimacy.

Callous & indifferent

IF there was any doubt about society’s increasing dehumanization, Monday’s report of a physically and mentally handicapped boy’s death on the lawns of a public hospital in Jhang is proof that apathy has acquired new proportions. The 13-year-old boy was said to have suffered an injury which required stitches, a seemingly simple process, which, if performed quickly, could have saved his life. Instead, the boy is said to have slowly bled to death over a period of eight days, during which he lay under a tree on the premises of the hospital, until he fell unconscious and eventually died. A human rights activist spoke to doctors to get the boy treated but they refused on medico-legal grounds, saying that the matter had to be reported to the police first. When the police were approached, they refused to attend to the case. All the while, the boy remained unattended to. Now that he has died, his unclaimed body buried by the Edhi foundation, who should be held responsible for the boy’s death? The insensitive doctors? A callous police force? Or a hard-hearted society, unwilling to help the distressed?

Given that the Injured Person’s Bill was passed last year, which ensured that a person could get the necessary emergency care without having to go through the required medico-legal formalities first, it is difficult to understand why the hospital refused to treat the boy in the first place. The same is true of the police. The ordinance was, after all, passed because so many precious lives were lost because of the tedious and cumbersome procedure. Clearly the change in procedure needs to be widely publicized so that tragic deaths like these can be avoided. This should not, however, absolve any individual or institution of the boy’s death. Both the hospital and the police should be held answerable for their callous and irresponsible conduct.