The old refrain of corruption

EVEN though he did not mention the ‘Charter of Democracy’ signed by Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif in London on Sunday, President Pervez Musharraf had them at the back of his mind when he said that “corrupt politicians” had no future and that the people would not elect them again. Talking to a group of parliamentarians and nazims in Islamabad on Monday, the president said “they” — the corrupt politicians in general and the two former prime ministers in particular — had transferred national wealth to foreign banks and landed the country in an economic crisis. Fighting corruption and punishing those involved in it have been our generals’ handy weapons since Ayub overthrew Malik Feroze Khan Noon’s government and established a military dictatorship. But lacking all along has been impartiality, for accountability has often been used as an instrument of persecution. The one who perverted the very concept of accountability was Gen Ziaul Haq, who seized power in July 1977 after overthrowing Z. A. Bhutto’s elected government. He hanged Bhutto, and all those tried on different charges invariably belonged to the PPP. In 1988, he dismissed the government of his own protégé, Mohammad Khan Junejo, and denounced the ministers in the Junejo cabinet for “plundering” national wealth. However, he included most of them in the government (without a prime minister) which he formed later.

This government, too, has conducted accountability selectively, for it used carrot and stick to win over politicians from other parties to its side, and the government formed by the Muslim League after the October 2002 elections included many politicians against whom the National Accountability Bureau had filed cases. There is no doubt that Pakistan no more heads the list of corrupt countries, for this government has managed to control graft at the top. But there is nothing to suggest that it is even-handed in its approach, or that it will give an even playing field to all sides when elections are held in 2007.

That Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif face corruption cases goes without saying. But what must be clearly understood is that democracy itself is the surest method of cleansing the body politic of corrupt elements. Not a day passes without some corruption scandal hitting the headlines in Western Europe, America, Japan or neighbouring India. But that does not derail democracy or lead to postponing an election. In Pakistan, there have always been laws against corruption on the statute book, but every military government forms special tribunals and enacts special laws to try those allegedly involved in corruption. The result of this kind of accountability has always been negative, and the public is able to see clearly that it is no more than a convenient weapon. The long-term concept of public accountability lies in periodic elections that are fair and free. If this government is serious about fighting corruption among politicians, it should leave it to the people to decide who is corrupt and who is not and who will rule them. The nation is now looking forward to the next election with both hope and fear. The fear is that it may be manipulated, with Gen Musharraf being “elected” president while still remaining army chief. The hope is that perhaps there may be a turn for the better, and we may have a truly transparent electoral process that will do away with the military-civilian mix that we have at present and Pakistan may truly have a genuine democratic system.

A new approach in Fata

MERCIFULLY, the Pakistan government is now exploring new approaches to ease the crisis in North Waziristan. In their latest move, the governor and chief minister of the NWFP and the corps commander of that region have agreed to establish a grand jirga to find a solution to the unrest in the tribal areas. It is to consist of maliks and ulema from the different agencies of Fata — at least five of them from North Waziristan — and will serve as an intermediary between the government and the people. This is the government’s response to the public demand to enlist the people’s participation in the pacification process in the tribal areas which have been in turmoil since 2002. But whether the move will succeed in bringing peace and stability will have to be seen. Since the maliks and ulema are to be nominated, will they enjoy the public confidence that alone can give them the authority to have their decisions implemented — mainly to restore the rule of law to this region without the use of force?

The government’s main concern is that the people should stop shielding and providing sanctuary to the Taliban — both of local and Afghan origins — so that the war on terror can be brought to a successful conclusion with as little bloodshed as possible. At a time when people in Fata are generally angry with the army, the ulema and maliks on the jirga might face the problem of a lack of credibility being government nominees. If they are seen as collaborators, they might be targeted as has been the case with the 100 or so tribal chiefs who have been killed in Waziristan in the last few years. But a beginning has to be made towards normalisation somewhere and the sooner it is done the better. It would therefore be wise of the government to empower the jirga and allow it time and opportunity to produce results. The government must be at the “beck and call” of the jirga as promised by the NWFP chief minister. Much of the problem would be resolved if the army adopts a clear policy vis-à-vis the militants who are hiding in Fata.

Libya: back in the fold

ALTHOUGH it has been some years since Libya shook off the tag of Washington’s bête noire, it is only now, after a lapse of almost 26 years, that the US has restored full diplomatic ties with the North African country. It is unclear yet what impact the move will have inside Libya and in the region. For, while it has joined the ranks of other pro-American Muslim governments, the memories of April 1986, when the US bombed Tripoli, killing, among others, the adopted daughter of Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Qadhafi, have yet to be erased. The strikes were in retaliation for the bombing of a discotheque in Berlin, blamed on Libya, and in which several Americans died. In 1988, a plane explosion over Scotland that killed 270 people added further hostility towards Libya. Libya’s refusal to hand over two suspects accused in the blast led to the imposition of UN sanctions which were formally lifted in 2003 after Libya surrendered the suspects and accepted responsibility for the Lockerbie blast.

Now, not only is the West happy that Libya has renounced terrorism, it also sees Tripoli’s decision in 2003 to dismantle its nuclear programme as a positive development. Since then, bilateral ties with the US (and with Britain whose prime minister visited Libya in 2004), have improved. In 2004, the US lifted its own sanctions on Libya, paving the way for greater economic cooperation. A number of US oil firms have been given licences to operate in Libya that contains the continent’s largest oil reserves. But even with bright economic prospects, it is difficult to say whether Libya is finally on the road to progress and stability. The global environment is one of strong anti-American sentiments, especially in Muslim countries, over the US occupation of Iraq. For its part, the Libyan government has a poor human rights record. Under these circumstances, it remains to be seen how the Libyans will react to a favourable turn in their country’s relations with the US.

By George, this man needs help!

IRAN’S president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in his recent letter to George W. Bush, mildly (but at great length) berated his American counterpart for, among other things, straying from the true religious path. The United States decided not to dignify that missive with a response.

The “no reply” strategy has attracted some flak from commentators who feel that a polite rejoinder would have done little harm. After all, it was the first contact at that level between the two countries since 1979 (although the two of them have, in that interim, not only communicated at lower levels but also cooperated whenever their interests have coincided — which is more frequent than one might imagine).

Bush is presumably at the receiving end of a great deal of daily mail. Much of it probably never finds its way to his desk, and it is unlikely he reads everything that is placed under his nose. After all, it is common knowledge that the US president is a less than voracious reader.

Be that as it may, I suspect Bush would make an exception were the following letter to come his way. He’d even make an effort to decipher the handwriting. Chances are he would respond, too, after consulting the usual suspects: Dick, Karl, Condi, Rummy, the entire motley crew. As for the nature of that response, your guess would be as good as mine. The letter in question might go something like this:

My Very Dearest George,

You will be surprised to hear from me in this manner, but I’ve been reluctant to use the phone since reading all those newspaper reports about CIA listening devices and the like. I realise the presidential hotline is unlikely to be targeted, but one can’t be too careful these days. What I have to say to you is absolutely confidential. In case there’s any confusion, I’ll translate that for you: Top Secret, George.

As you know, George, I’ve been totally, completely and unequivocally loyal to you from the outset. I’m sure we would have been the best of friends even if 9/11 hadn’t afforded us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to remake the world, starting with Afghanistan.

We would have done great things together, you and I, even without Osama bin Laden’s timely assistance. We would have got Saddam anyhow.

But all that is by the by. What I wanted to remind you, George — as though you need any reminding! — is that I have stood shoulder to shoulder with you through thick and thin. I have alienated the United Nations, large parts of Europe, the Labour Party and even the British public. I’ve fobbed them off with half-truths and even untruths, and they know it.

But it didn’t matter — none of it mattered — as long as you and I stayed on the path you had chosen. When I’m with you, George — even if it’s only in spirit — I forget about everything and everyone else. (Even Cherie has noticed that my attitude towards you goes beyond statesmanlike warmth and borders on infatuation — I think she described it as an obsessive-compulsive disorder — but I really don’t care.)

Now before you start thinking that this preamble is leading towards a request for marital counselling from the Leader of the Free World (and may I say that never before has that appellation been so accurate), I should hasten to point out that my troubles run much deeper than that.

I’m awfully sorry to have to break it to you this way, George, but there is a distinct possibility that it may soon become impossible for me to be of further service to you. In fact, it’s more than that — it’s a virtual certainty. And it’s not the case, I assure you, that I have changed my mind in the slightest about all that you and I have done. If anything, it’s quite the opposite.

To put it bluntly, George, my job is in jeopardy. A sort of regime change looms. And for the life of me I can’t imagine how I could continue to serve you once I’m no longer ensconced at Number 10 Downing Street. (That’s my current residential address, in case you’re wondering.)

I wonder if you’ve caught my drift, George. What do I need? Help! When do I need it? Now! What’ll happen if I don’t get it? You’ll have to make friends with Gordon Brown. (I know what you’re thinking, but no, he’s not the chap who wrote The Da Vinci Code — he’s never written anything much fancier than memorandums.)

I suspect you may be a bit perplexed, George, and I don’t like it when that happens, so perhaps I should fill you in, in case the CIA and your other sources of intelligence haven’t done a good job (yet again). A bit of background (just skip a few paragraphs if you lose interest): Back in 1994, this Brown fellow was one of my competitors in the race for the Labour Party’s leadership.

So, just to shut him up, I promised to let him be chancellor of the exchequer when we won government, and to allow him some leeway in social policy, and to pass the baton to him after a couple of terms.

The last of these prospects seemed so distant then, and I couldn’t have foreseen you, or 9/11, or even the exhilaration that accompanies power. Anyhow, Brown and his mates have been nagging me over the years to pick a date for handing over.

I’ve dilly-dallied, I’ve made promises in private that I had no intention of keeping — mainly for your sake, George, but also because I’m not through with Britain yet: my country’s transition to a one-party state isn’t quite complete, though I’ve brought it a long way.

Unfortunately, after the events of the past couple of weeks, it’s no longer possible for me to keep Brown at bay. He’s not accepting private promises any more. He’s been going on and on about a written agreement, signed and witnessed. Many of my ungrateful partymen are taking his side. Brown has publicly threatened me with the appalling fate that befell poor Margaret Thatcher (ask your dad about it).

We can’t let that happen again, can we? I mean, I was desperate to lead the Labour Party because that seemed to be the only way of guaranteeing a new lease of life for Mrs Thatcher’s exceptional legacy, given that the Tories were at each other’s throats.

Now the same thing is happening to Labour. May has been an exceptionally nasty month for me. First my home secretary, Charles Clarke, found himself in a spot of trouble after it turned out that a large number of foreign criminals had been let loose. It wasn’t really his fault — the courts here are abominable, with judges constantly going on about human rights and all that nonsense. I’ll put an end to that even if it’s the last thing I do.

Then my deputy got caught with his pants down, having it off with his secretary. Believe me, this man is no Bill Clinton — ask your staff to show you a picture of John Prescott and you’ll see what I mean. Then came the local council elections — predictably, a disaster for Labour and something of a triumph for the Tories under their new leader David Cameron (he’s just an overgrown schoolboy, really, and I trust you won’t be conned by the Conservative tag — note that it hasn’t got a neo in front of it).

Anyhow, the upshot is that I’m being blamed for all this. My cabinet reshuffle created more problems. I sacked Clarke, deprived Prescott of his portfolio and demoted Jack Straw — after your people complained about his injudicious comments against invading Iran (I had, if you remember, done the same to Robin Cook on American advice).

Hard to believe, but my popularity is lower even than yours. Iraq keeps being mentioned, for some reason. My position is becoming untenable. I can’t possibly hang on for more than a year and may have to go much sooner than that. I’m sinking, George, and I need you to throw me a lifeline.

If you’re wondering just how that can be done, I’ve given the matter some thought and decided that extraordinary rendition for Brown and Cameron (and a few others), tempting though it may seem, wouldn’t be the best way out. Why, it may even spur further anti-Americanism, and we wouldn’t want that, would we?

For very similar reasons, it may not be a good idea to invade Britain and restore the status quo ante after Brown rudely shoves me aside (even though the Pentagon will know exactly where he stores his WMD), because the natives may not take kindly to an occupation. A Fallujah-on-the-Thames would be extreme even by my standards.

But how about Iran? Do it now. Coalition or no coalition, I’ll be willing. No WMD just yet? No problem: you can order an invasion in response to Ahmadinejad’s impertinence in sending you a proselytizing letter.

A new war would end all this talk of a prime ministerial handover. You’re dying to do it anyway. I’ll be a goner if you don’t do it. So how about it, George? Pretty please.

I shall eagerly await your reply.

Your adoring and obedient servant,

Tony Blair

Adrift on a tide of panic

FEW things in the record of the Blair government are shabbier or more destructive than its increasing tendency — intimately related to its own mounting political difficulties — to foster lies and bolster rightwing myths about its own Human Rights Act.

The growing readiness of a few ministers to fan fear and demoralisation about the specific and principled contents of the government’s own act reached a climax over the weekend with the publication of Downing Street’s letter to the new home secretary, John Reid. That letter is not a serious attempt to set out a strategy for addressing the government’s problems in administering the criminal justice and penal systems.

It is a deliberate attempt to pick a headline-grabbing fight with the judges, and with Britain’s tried and tested traditions of justice and fairness. Mr Blair’s specific threat this time is to amend the 1998 act so that judges must take account of “the rights of the community to basic security” in their rulings. It needs to be said clearly that this campaign has no real merit whatever.

The government is not running this attack on the judges and the Human Rights Act because our judges have lost their reason, or because the 1998 act is a charter for anarchy and lawlessness. It is doing so because Labour strategists are neuralgic.

—The Guardian, London