|
| May 20, 2006 | Saturday | Rabi-us-Sani 21, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Kabul’s allegations
Another unfortunate couple
A way out of the US-Iran standoff
UN secretary-general’s advice to the US to talk directly to Iran was quickly rejected by Washington on the ground that Iran is playing with time and not serious about negotiations. Earlier, the Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s letter to President George Bush was also brushed aside by the US administration on the ground that it was too philosophical, vague and religious in content and had bypassed the main nuclear issue.
THE ISPR’s denial of the words President Pervez Musharraf had reportedly used in his TV interview with regard to his re-election is obviously an exercise in damage control. A re-play of the interview will clearly establish what the president meant. According to the version given by one news agency and published in Thursday’s newspapers, the president claimed that the present assemblies could re-elect him as president for a second term, and there was “no ambiguity” in the constitution about this. Does it really matter whether there is or there is no constitutional ambiguity? Ziaul Haq merely went public with what all generals really believe in when he said the Constitution was nothing but a piece of paper which he could tear up any time. Gen Musharraf, too, has shown scant respect for the constitution and made the Legal Framework Order — enforced by decree — part of the Constitution. Now when he says that the Constitution permits his re-election by the existing assemblies, the issue needs to be looked at from the point of view of the propriety of this mode of “re-election” and of the political desirability of all that has been going on since the military takeover in October 1999.
If the military takeover was justified — the Supreme Court validated the action — then the one-time extra-constitutional act which the takeover indeed was could perhaps have been accepted by the people if the general had later moved with speed towards democracy. The fact that the general had some other plans first became obvious when he had the farce of a referendum organised to manipulate a popular mandate for his rule. Like Ayub and Ziaul Haq, he, too received a Yes vote of 98 per cent of the people. Next, when the assemblies came into being after the 2002 election he had himself elected president, while still remaining army chief. In fact, the higher judiciary ruled that Gen Musharraf could remain president while still holding the office of the Chief of the Army Staff. Now the general wants another five-year term for himself as head of state (and possibly as army chief) because he reportedly said that the existing assemblies and the new assemblies can elect him president for a second term.
The issue is not constitutional; it is political and moral, and it is about a country whose foundations were laid by a constitutionalist like Jinnah, who made it clear that Pakistan had no other destiny except as a parliamentary democracy. All the actions which Gen Musharraf has taken over the last six years to consolidate his power and enforce the present quasi-military, quasi-civilian system on the nation do not stand the test of political morality. He may not have chosen to call this system “basic democracy” as Ayub did, but for all practical purposes what we have in Pakistan today is controlled democracy, with the military calling the shots and the people’s representatives kowtowing to the military.
The next elections seem destined to be dubious. There are declarations from time to time by Muslim League leaders that the election could be postponed by a year, and now the ISPR denies that the president said what he reportedly did about his re-election. Must we say farewell to democracy? What the president’s TV interview and the denial have done is to add to the fears about the country’s democratic future and the system that will be there after the 2007 national election.
AS Afghanistan prepares for a change of command in the south with Nato forces assuming military control from the American forces from the end of July, the Taliban seem to have made a comeback in that country. Over a hundred people were killed on Thursday as Mosa Qila, a town near Kabul, came under attack and fighting flared up across the country. Not only are the foreign troops but Afghan forces too are also coming under attack. This constitutes a serious setback to the pacification process in the country where, in the absence of peace and security, socio-economic reconstruction has not made much headway. The implications are serious not just for peace in Afghanistan but also for the war on terror the United States is waging in the region.
After 9/11 when American troops went all out in Afghanistan to dislodge Mullah Umar and wipe out the Taliban and the Al Qaeda, one logically expected the militants to be gradually rooted out. This has not happened. Afghanistan and the other powers fighting the terrorists suspect Pakistan of providing sanctuary to the Taliban and also assisting them in their unholy war. On several occasions Islamabad has stoutly rejected these charges. In response to the allegations that it is sheltering the militants, Pakistan has demanded a list of names from the Afghan government to facilitate the Pakistani intelligence agencies’ task of tracing out the wanted men. But no such list, apart from an outdated one that was once provided, has so far been made available. In these circumstances, it would be wise and practical for the two sides, as well as the Nato commanders, to sit together at the negotiating table and sort out the misunderstandings that have led to the exchange of charges and counter-charges between them. Since Pakistan’s ISI was the creator of the Taliban in the 1980s, it is not surprising that their opponents suspect that that agency’s sympathies still rest with the militants. The on-going conflict in the tribal areas also gives rise to the impression that Pakistan is not doing enough to curb the militancy as some of its partners have alleged. It is advisable therefore to remove all such misgivings at the earliest. The fact of the matter is that the battle against terror must be won not only in the interest of peace and stability in Afghanistan but also in Pakistan as well.
DESPITE a 1997 Supreme Court ruling which stated that a Muslim girl was free to marry of her own will, women continue to face harassment for exercising this right. The latest story is from Karachi which carries all the ingredients of similar episodes of the past. An educated man and woman from different ethnic backgrounds fall in love and decide to marry but the girl’s parents are opposed to the union. In late 2005, the girl leaves her family to marry the man she wants to be her companion in life. But after strange twists and turns, the couple end up seeking refuge at the Edhi centre, out of fright for their lives. As often happens in such cases, either fake marriage certificates are produced to show that the girl is already married to someone else or worse, her parents register kidnapping cases against the boy. In fact, no effort is spared to dissolve the marriage and restore the so-called family honour.
If the couple in question are lucky, their case will be taken notice of by the courts — as has happened in the case of other couples in similar situations. Unless that happens, the international media is bound to be drawn in and present Pakistan as a country that places little value on its women. Unless the draconian Hudood Ordinance is repealed and the police are prevented from registering false cases of kidnapping and adultery against legally wedded couples, the situation is not likely to change. For this, necessary legal changes need to be supported by the enlightened sections of society which can help reduce problems arising out of outmoded customs and traditions. As society passes through transitory changes, the intelligentsia can play a vital role in encouraging people to accept these changes that liberates them the hold of antediluvian ideas and notions.
Similar adverse comments have appeared in Iran-related write-ups in the influential newspapers like Washington Post and New York Times. In contrast Iranian newspapers have been more conciliatory, following the official line. President Ahmadinejad’s letter, despite its unconventional style and evasive nature was a welcome departure from the language of threat, intimidation and defiance that the two governments have used against each other, ever since the Islamic Republic of Iran came in existence 27 years ago. It is therefore expected that this initiative should open up space for dialogue and diplomacy rather than lead to sanctions or military action that would surely inflame the world and create more complications than there already are.
The world stands on the brink of a disaster as long as the positions of Iran and the US remain wide apart. On a recent visit to Tehran to attend a conference on nuclear and security issues arranged in collaboration with Institute of Strategic Research, Iran and Pugwash — a prestigious international NGO — the impression one got after listening to the Iranian top leadership was that they are determined to pursue the civilian nuclear programme. For them it is a matter of exercising their rights under Article 4 of the NPT and, accordingly, they are not violating any international law. Pursuit of nuclear technology is also a question of national pride and importance for the Iranians.
There also seems to be a broad consensus across the political and social spectrum over the nuclear policy even if there are differences among the top leadership over how to handle it at the operational level. Paradoxically, the clergy is in favour of a softer tone as compared to President Ahmadinejad’s aggressive rhetoric. There is a realisation among certain quarters that Islamic militancy and threatening language, especially against Israel, makes the nuclear issue more explosive for the West.
Iranian support to Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad are matters on which the positions of Washington and Tehran remain wide apart. Equally problematic are President Bush’s characterisation of Iran as the axis of evil, the US administration’s declared policy of regime change and American threats of military strikes that generate insecurities in Iran and are a serious impediment to confidence building.
The IAEA’s pointed reference to technical breaches, which is the current basis of mistrust between the international community and Iran, are only mentioned by the Iranian leadership in passing during public discourse. From their perspective these could be explained away and in any case Tehran is not prepared to accept the logic that violating safeguards implies that you lose your obligations. It is, however, important to recall that it is only after the programme became known that Iran decided to be cooperative and transparent with the IAEA.
The US and the western countries are blamed for their discriminatory attitude and India and Israel are rightly cited as US favourites where different set of rules applies. Indeed, Israel’s nuclear arsenal and capability are a major cause of insecurity in the Middle East which is conveniently ignored by the US and the West, while vigorously opposing Iran’s acquisition of even civilian nuclear technology. The Iranians are very conscious that they are surrounded by nuclear powers, with India and Pakistan to the east, Russia to the north, Israel in the west and the US, the strongest nuclear and military power, firmly lodged in Iran’s neighbourhood.
Iran is developing an elaborate nuclear infrastructure that covers the entire fuel cycle from mining of uranium to milling, conversion plants and enrichment facilities. It also maintains that cascading of enrichment facilities will continue and they already claim to have two bays of centrifuges. In addition, a plutonium separation unit, research reactor and heavy water production plant are also being developed. Our group of participants at the Tehran conference was taken to the uranium conversion facility at Esfahan where milled uranium (yellow cake) is converted to uranium hexafluoride gas that is then fed to centrifuges for enrichment. This plant, which is under IAEA safeguards, is well laid out and appears to be properly maintained and professionally run.
The main concern of the West is about the enrichment facilities being created by Iran and not as much about the Bushehr light water reactor. Because the latter is under safeguards and the Russians are at least five years behind the completion schedule, they will handle the spent fuel. The development of a heavy water unit, which is used in weapon-grade plutonium processing and long-range missiles that are primarily meant as carriers of nuclear warheads has given rise to western apprehensions that there is a gap between the declaratory and operational policy of Iran and that it is poised for developing the capability for weapons production.
The Supreme Leader’s edict declaring nuclear weapons as un-Islamic is not taken seriously by the West. There is also a fear that if Iran is allowed to run the enrichment facility it will eventually learn how to hide emissions and accidents and then develop covert facilities. On the other hand, Mr Larijani, the Supreme National Security Council secretary-general, and other leaders have stated that Iran is ready to accept additional safeguards, introduce greater transparency and fully cooperate with the IAEA to allay concerns of the international community. The Iranian government has stated that it is prepared to get the legislation regarding additional safeguards passed once there is an agreement with the IAEA.
Tehran feels that the US is not looking for a solution but is searching for an excuse for denying it its justifiable right to pursue a peaceful nuclear energy programme and that it is after regime change. They also accuse the US of seeking to establish a nuclear Opec in the distant future by monopolising the technology. The zero option of the US and the EU is a non-starter with Iran and only serious and sustained negotiations could break the deadlock. While maintaining its NPT rights, Iran should calibrate its production, define the practical use and allow full monitoring.
The other proposal floated by Russia for an international fuel bank or consortium for enrichment and fuel production in which Iran could be a partner is an attractive alternative. Iran, of course, insists that it is not willing to forgo its inherent right to develop an autonomous civilian nuclear energy capability. It is also taking advantage of the fact that world powers seem far away from developing a consensus on any diplomatic initiative and the possibility of invoking Chapter 7 is very remote so long as China and Russia oppose it.
The big powers pursue different objectives on Iran, which has helped Tehran to play off these differences at the IAEA and the Security Council. In essence the standoff between the US and Iran is political rather than technical and therefore calls for a political solution. The technical problems can be resolved more easily once the political climate improves. The two countries need to build trust through dialogue and avoid rhetoric. Iran needs to avoid confrontation and address the more pressing problems of growing unemployment and development. Even Arab Muslim states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf emirates may not want to co-exist with a nuclearised Iran, regardless of threat from the United States and Israel.
Similarly, Washington would be well advised not to treat Iran as another Iraq. In fact, there are no easy military options for the US. Air operations against Iran could involve hitting several targets in populated areas with heavy civilian casualties that will further inflame the Muslim world. A military strike on Iran would drive up oil prices to well above 100 dollars a barrel as predicted by eminent international energy analysts. This could lead to global recession and raise anti-American sentiments to new heights.
If Iran’s nuclear installations are struck, there is every possibility of Iran exercising other options, including asymmetrical warfare to widen the conflict. The situation in Iraq will totally spin out of control if Iran supports the Iraqi insurgency and the radical elements will gain ascendancy in the region. It is, therefore, in the interest of world peace that the United States should join the Europeans at the table and talk directly to the Iranians.
Through direct negotiations it is possible that a solution could be found ensuring that there is no diversion of civil nuclear programme resources for weapons manufacture, and yet that Iran’s nuclear energy needs are fulfilled and its genuine security concerns are met.
The writer is a retired lieutenant-general.