No easy sailing for America

THERE is a deadlock in the UN Security Council on the Iranian nuclear issue. Two permanent members, China and Russia, have so far refused to toe the American line vis-a-vis Tehran. The basic difference between the stand taken by these two countries and of the United States, supported by France and Britain, is in respect of the body that must deal with the Iranian question. The western powers want the Security Council to take up the matter, which would pave the way for the imposition of sanctions on Iran. The Russians and the Chinese prefer that the IAEA, which had been overseeing the Iranian nuclear programme quite intensively since 2003, should continue to be involved in the matter. Hence, unsurprisingly, there has been no consensus on the issue in the Security Council since March 10 when the case was referred to it by the IAEA.

The fact of the matter is that Russia and China are being sensible in blocking this issue. By adopting a hardline and rigid stance, the United States is seeking to mount a confrontation with Iran. Various members of the Bush administration have even been speaking of a military strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. It is not clear what the Americans hope to gain by taking on Iran. If their real concern is its nuclear programme, they can resolve the contentious issues by negotiations and compromise. Earlier, it was the path of dialogue that had been taken and a solution seemed quite attainable but for America’s inflexible approach. For instance, Tehran had even offered a moratorium on uranium enrichment — the main cause of contention — for two years. Considering that Iran legitimately has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful and research purposes under the NPT, its offer should have been accepted. It had also agreed to its nuclear facilities being monitored by IAEA inspectors under the Additional Protocol. Rather than narrowing down the area of discord and expanding the points of agreement, the United States has chosen the path of confrontation that has created an international crisis of grave proportions.

The only silver lining in the cloud is that the Bush administration is now discovering that its unilateralism has reached its limit. It is unlikely that other states which had begun to submit to American hegemony in the post-Cold War world dominated by one superpower will put up with being pushed and shoved around, saying enough is enough. The Iran nuclear issue has provided them with an opportunity to flex their muscles. Russia and China are now resisting the Americans. True, they may have their own interest in adopting a pro-Iran stance — after all, they have multi-million dollar energy deals with Tehran which are important for their economies. But their policies will make an impact on the pattern of international politics. Japan, a US ally, has also rejected an American plea to halt work on Iran’s Azadegan oil fields. With economics now calling the shots, Mr Bush may find it difficult to even win the cooperation of America’s allies in imposing sanctions against Iran. This trend is likely to gain strength and will shape international politics in the years to come. If need be, some of these powers may even resort to a military build-up to strengthen themselves — it is already happening in the case of Russia. This could ultimately lead to the emergence of multiple power centres that would check the American drive towards world domination.

Killing by Afghan troops

ONE must condemn without reservation the cold-blooded murder of 17 Pakistani civilians by Afghan security forces on Tuesday in Spin Boldak. Belonging to the well-known Noorzai tribe, they were killed in a fake encounter and were among the 20 who had gone from Chaman to Afghanistan to attend Nauroz celebrations. The Pakistanis were on their way to Mazar-i-Sharif, but Afghan security forces arrested them in Kabul, brought them to the border with Pakistan near Spin Boldak and then killed them, giving them impression as if there was a clash between the two sides. The Afghan authorities are now trying to claim that those killed by them were Taliban. This, however, does not seem to be the case. The relatives of the victims said none of them belonged to the Taliban, and at least one of them, according to Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao, was wanted by the police in Pakistan in a criminal case. Criminal charges against him in Pakistan do not mean that a foreign country could kill him without reason.

Reports say that an Afghan commander, Abdul Razzaq Noorzai, had killed the Pakistani civilians to avenge the death of his brother. If true, this shows not only the utter lawlessness prevailing in Afghanistan but the Karzai administration’s lax control over the country’s security apparatus. Afghan police and even warlords act on their own to settle scores for personal and political reasons, and those killed are branded terrorists or Taliban. Afghan security forces and warlords hold innumerable Pakistanis in jail without providing any reason for their detention. Pakistan has done well to lodge a protest with Afghanistan and asked it to hold an inquiry into the killings and share the findings with Islamabad to let the world know the truth. The recent change in Kabul’s foreign ministry had aroused hopes that there would be a lessening of tension with Islamabad, and the two countries would cooperate sincerely in crushing terrorism. The crime committed by the Afghan security forces makes this seem doubtful.

Little progress on TB

ON March 24, World Tuberculosis Day, Pakistan had little to show for its efforts to combat the infectious disease that afflicts 350,000 people in the country each year and kills about 60,000. Despite extending the DOTS (directly observed treatment, short course) programme to several districts, the target of ensuring 100 per cent coverage by 2005 has not been met. This means a large number of patients who could have benefited from DOTS therapy have not been cured and they pose a risk to thousands others. What is also of concern is that the TB detection rate is still low, indicating that diagnosis of the disease is hampered by inadequate laboratory facilities, especially in areas that are far away from the main urban centres. Poor information on the subject is also responsible for the general ignorance that prevails about TB and its prevention and cure.

In order to win the war on TB, the government will have to take serious steps to extend DOTS coverage, improve medical facilities and make people aware of not just the health implications of the disease, but also of the financial hardship it can cause. These are important measures whose implementation is urgently called for, considering that TB cases have been on the rise in the north after last year’s earthquake that destroyed homes and forced people to live in overcrowded, unhealthy conditions, causing the bacteria to multiply. While admittedly, there is greater awareness of TB now than ever, health authorities must accept the responsibility for not doing enough to eradicate the disease. This is apparent from the growing number of TB cases that are not responding to traditional medication because of the emergence of multi-drug resistant bacteria strains. The only way to prevent this is to raise awareness and ensure that patients complete their treatment course under the DOTS strategy.

Shunning India-centric policies

PAKISTAN has assiduously pursued the policy of confrontation and competition with India since 1947. The advice of president Musharraf in his press conference on March 5 to his countrymen was to shun India-centricity and, instead, concentrate on the reduction of poverty through economic development.

The advice came as a surprise to Pakistanis at large who had over the past 58 years read in textbooks and listened to lectures and sermons about Indian jingoism and the security threat from it.

However, this does not come as a surprise for a selected group of people who have closely watched political developments in South Asia over the past few years. It began with the sudden attempt of the US to resuscitate the South Asia Association of Regional Cooperation (Saarc), formed in 1985 for the promotion of the well-being of the populations of South Asia but lying in a state of inactivity. With the tacit but active support of the US the Saarc summit held in Kathmandu in January 2002 set a far- reaching goal for South Asia: a free trade area by 2006, a South Asian customs union by 2015 and South Asian economic union by 2020.

Pakistan became a signatory to this declaration and committed itself to its goals. We should not forget that it was in the background of this very declaration that Atal Behari Vajpayee the then prime minister of India during the Saarc summit held in Islamabad in January 2004, proposed a common currency for the region.

An economic union, as is the case with the European Union, inevitably leads to a loose political union, allowing free movement of goods, services and people across each other’s borders without any barriers. In essence, it implies a common trade and monetary policy and, to some extent, a similar, if not identical, fiscal policy and a common response to political issues. The resolution of the European Parliament, supporting the stand taken by the Danish government over the issue of publication of the sacrilegious cartoons, represents the political galvanization to which an economic union ultimately leads.

Consistent with the Saarc declaration, a change in our relationship with India started taking place in the last past few years. A composite dialogue with India was set in motion and a number of steps have already been taken to normalize our relationship with India. These include the opening of bus routes, shipping, train services, the establishment of a bank branch by a Pakistani bank in Mumbai, business relations between Pakistan insurance companies and General Insurance Corporation of India, exchange of cultural troupes and an ambience of friendship.

Former US president Bill Clinton who visited Pakistan and India in February, in a statement on February 19, at Delhi had not only revealed the purpose of the visit of the president of the US well in advance but also spelled out the US vision of South Asia. I quote from this statement: “We are going to have a level of security cooperation that we have never known before. And hopefully we will be friends in the context of an even, more integrated South Asia where the past problems between India and Pakistan will diminish over time... And economic, political and security cooperation within South Asia will increase. I think we are key partners as on the big picture here.”

This hurry and worry of the US to integrate South Asia into a formidable counter-balancing power under the leadership of India arises from the concern about the growing economic might of China and its sustained GDP growth of well over 9.5 per cent per annum over the past two decades and trade surpluses which in 2005 alone stood at $102 billion. It is no wonder that at the World Economic Forum meeting held in January one of the sub-themes which came up for intense discussion was the far reaching consequence of China becoming “the workshop of the world and India its back office”.

Under the aegis of the US we have been trekking the path of normalization of our ties with India, within the context of South Asia. It is, therefore, not understandable that in the post-Bush visit to Islamabad on March 4, why we should be ruefully ruminating the outcome of the visit, without taking the public into confidence.

The US has preferred India over other member-countries of Saarc including Pakistan for the leadership of South Asia. India is much larger than the combined area of the Saarc member-states three thousand times more populous, its GDP is eight hundred times greater than that of the smallest country, Maldives and seven and half times more than Pakistan’s.

Numerically speaking, India has 72.58 per cent of land area 75.49 per cent of population and 78.98 per cent of the GDP of the Saarc. The sheer physical size of India alone does not make it central to the region. It is her status as an emerging economic superpower which has qualified her in the eyes of the US as the leader of South Asia.

Its GDP growth rate hovers around eight per cent as against three to six per cent in other member-states. Its gross domestic investment at more than 25 per cent is mainly financed by domestic savings and direct foreign investment unlike other countries of the region which largely bank upon foreign loans from multilateral financial institutions and bilateral donors for financing their domestic investment and find it difficult to service their debts.

It is unfortunate that while we pursued the US interest in the region by normalizing our relations with India under the umbrella of Saarc, the people of Pakistan were not taken into confidence about the global implications of this policy. It is also regrettable that the government chose not to elicit the will of people by having open discussions and debates on a fundamental issue.

There is still time to debate the issue in parliament, the press, the electronic media and all other available forums in order to elicit the views of the people. This suggestion follows John Stuart Mill’s advice: “All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility”.

The author is a former additional secretary to the federal government.

Lame ducks can still bite back

TEACHING the history of revolutions has been easy at Harvard this semester. As if to illustrate exactly how these strange historical upheavals work, the university has obligingly staged a revolution of its own.

The outside world is under the impression that one of two things has happened at Harvard: Either a reactionary despot has been deposed by faculty freedom fighters, or a bold reformer has been thwarted by vested interests. Most revolutions get written up in these contrary ways.

In reality, revolutions usually begin with rather obscure disputes, like how to pay for a standing army in the colonies. They burst out of political channels only when the grievances against the monarch reach a critical mass and the monarch alienates one too many of his own supporters.

Thus it was at Harvard. The question I found myself pondering last week was whether the same thing is happening in Washington. Could the next president to fall victim to an unruly representative body be George W. Bush?

Like Harvard’s Larry Summers, Bush is a president with a bold vision. Summers wanted to move Harvard science to Allston; Bush wanted to bring freedom to the Middle East. But, also like Summers, Bush has a style problem. Not the abrasive contrariness that alienated professors but a reserve verging on introversion that has cut him off from his own party in Congress.

Ten days ago, I paid a visit to the imposing Russell Building on Capitol Hill, where senators have their offices. What I saw there was a timely reminder of just how much power the Constitution vests in the legislative branch. The senators I spoke with made it abundantly clear that Bush’s political capital — about which he boasted after securing reelection — is all used up. The phrase I kept hearing was lame duck.

It’s not hard to see why. With his approval ratings down to 37 per cent, Bush is now as unpopular as his father was in the year before his defeat by Bill Clinton. As midterm elections approach, the political hunting season has begun. Republicans and Democrats alike are taking potshots at the president as if merely having a lame duck is not enough. They want this duck dead.

Last week they got him with both barrels. The House Appropriations Committee voted 62 to 2 to block the acquisition by Dubai Ports World of the US subsidiary of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a deal that the president had unequivocally backed. Before Bush could even reach for the presidential veto — a weapon he has never had to use thanks to his own party’s dominance in Congress - Dubai World folded, announcing that it would “transfer fully” P&O Ports North America to “a US entity.” This is the biggest humiliation Bush has suffered since entering the White House. It is unlikely to be the last.

Grievances in an assembly have a way of multiplying. There was already unease among GOP lawmakers on a number of issues, notably the administration’s insistence that torture, detention without charge and phone-tapping without warrants are all legitimate weapons in the war on terrorism. The idea of Arabs running American ports was the last straw.

But there is a difference between Harvard and Washington. Last year, I listened aghast as Summers abased himself before the faculty with the most abject apology (for his remarks about women scientists) I think I have ever heard. He had forgotten British Adm. Jackie Fisher’s words: “Never apologize, never explain.” Saying sorry was like dripping blood into a pool full of sharks; it only made them hungrier.

This is not a mistake I expect Bush to make; he is likely to be more cussed than contrite. After all, it makes no sense to cast aspersions on the reliability of a Middle Eastern ally like the United Arab Emirates — especially at a time when the US needs all the foreign investment it can get to finance its yawning budget and trade deficits.

Members of Congress should beware of underestimating this president, as others have done in the past. They should remember that a second-term president is not necessarily a lame duck - he is also a man with nothing to lose.

— Los Angeles Times