WATCHING the live telecast of Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert’s address to the joint houses of the Congress of the United States a few days ago, one could not but be impressed by the resonance produced by virtually every idea, every observation and every judgment that he offered to perhaps the most powerful legislators in the world today.

Here was an audience that had willingly suspended its critical detachedness and was emotionally and psychologically primed to applaud with great abandon every word spoken by Israel’s new leader.

The spectacle was a powerful reminder of the main argument in the memorable paper, The Israeli lobby and the U.S foreign policy published with considerable difficulty by two highly distinguished professors of the “realist” school, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in March this year. With painstaking care for details — end-notes running to full 40 pages — the respected academics documented “the unmatched power” of Israel’s lobby in the United States which assured American support even in those Israeli enterprises that did not serve the national interest of the United States. Washington, it recalled has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions concerning Israel since 1982. It gives Israel “wide latitude” in dealing with the Palestinians to an extent that it becomes “complicit in the crimes perpetrated against the Palestinians”.

To evoke sympathy and support, Ehud Olmert used every trick in Israel’s repertoire from a tear-jerker narration of the personal tragedies of two Israeli victims of suicide bombings to Israel’s woes in not having a partner for peace amongst the Palestinians. What was completely missing from the scene was any hint of the fact that there is a vastly greater number of personal tragedies on the other side and that the peace that the Israeli prime minister was declaiming about was conditional on a further land grab.

This is his first visit to the United States after succeeding Ariel Sharon whose vision he hopes to translate into reality. He has been quick to remind his hosts that the annexation of land that he plans to carry out while implementing his unilateral disengagement and settlements’ convergence plan was implicit in President Bush’s letter to Sharon, written in 2004, which conceded that major settlements were “facts on the ground”. Sharon had rightly claimed that the United States would understand Israel’s refusal to give them up.

It is customary for a newly elected leader of Israel to go to Washington to renew the historical relationship and settle the parameters for continuing collaboration. The present visit by Ehud Olmert has taken place against the backdrop of synchronised decisions to bring about a virtual collapse of the Hamas administration in the Palestinian Authority through a relentless economic siege.

President Carter recently wrote that the people of Palestine were “being treated like animals with the presumption that they are guilty of some crime”. By imposing banking restrictions that make it very difficult for Arab nations to come to their rescue, Washington and Tel Aviv have ratcheted up the collective punishment of the Palestinians for having voted for Hamas. Their main crime was that they took the American declarations about democracy in the Middle East at their face value and held a universally acclaimed free election.

The two major issues on which Israel and the United States have coordinated thinking during this visit are the so-called convergence plan — the “in-gathering” of Israeli settlers into major settlements to be annexed permanently — and the policy towards Iran. There is a long history of Israel having successfully reduced the area available for a Palestinian state from forty four per cent originally mapped out by the United Nations when it created the Jewish state to no more than 20 per cent as and when the disengagement-cum-consolidation plan materialises. Ehud Olmert has won a conditional endorsement from President Bush; the only condition is probably a short and foredoomed period of negotiations with President Mahmoud Abbas.

There were some anxious diplomatic manoeuvres on the eve of Ehud Olmert’s visit to Washington. Since the plan will seal off the Jordan valley, King Abdullah wrote to President Bush to bring out the grave implications of Israel’s contemplated annexations. Anticipating President Bush’s “condition” about implementing Israel’s “bold idea”, as the American president described it, Shimon Peres and Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni held a brief meeting with Mamoud Abbas at the World Economic Forum at Sharm el-Sheikh.

The Egyptian foreign minister, Aboul Gheit used the same forum to re-focus attention on the Quartet’s roadmap gathering dust because of the US-backed Israeli reservations about it. The Israeli foreign minister made a vague reference to the continuing relevance of the roadmap and turned to the more important task of securing the American approval of the plan to determine the final borders of Israel unilaterally through an annexation of another vital chunk of the West Bank.

It is vital because the plan will sever the remaining Palestine into as many as four disconnected cantons and take Jerusalem out of the equation forever. When Ehud Olmert offers these cantons to Mahmoud Abbas in return for abandoning the Palestinian struggle altogether, he knows that his offer is a kiss of death to all hopes of a viable Arab state. The Palestinians will sign on to a life of perennial subordination to Israel.

Before he landed in Washington, Olmert told the CNN that Mahmoud Abbas was “powerless” to conduct any serious or responsible negotiations. This was the burden of his song in Washington too and when President Bush urged him to reach the final status with Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, Olmert had little difficulty in agreeing, subject to his unequivocal assertion that Israel could not wait indefinitely for an agreement with the Palestinians. Olmert’s cabinet ministers lost no time in limiting the search for this unequal agreement to the remainder of this year. So Ehud Olmert has positioned his Kadima government to nominally fulfil the condition of resuming a dialogue with Mahmoud Abbas and yet set the stage for the “in-gathering” of settlers in an enlarged and more secure Israel.

As in most summit level meetings, a broad agreement on shared strategic objectives would have existed between Tel Aviv and Washington even before Ehud Olmert boarded his plane. However, there was a revealing orchestration of the parley: Israel’s diffidence about obtaining full support from Bush, leaks that Washington had new ideas to put forward to revive the Middle East peace process, protestations of adherence to the roadmap.

Israel later put on a smart act of being pleasantly surprised at what has been described as more than expected “conditional support” and “de facto consent” for the plan to realign Israel’s border. The word realignment is used with studied non-chalance as if it would not permanently take away another eight per cent of the Palestinian land and irreversibly cripple the design of a contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

It is a moment of truth for the Arab-Islamic world not only because of a further shrinkage of the territories available for a two-state solution but also because of what the plan would do to Jerusalem. Sacred to Muslims, Christians and Jews alike, this great city faces complete judaisation. The integration of major Jewish colonies into its municipal perimeter and the growing pressure on the Arabs to sell and move out would deprive mankind of a great common heritage. A city that could be a symbol of inter-faith harmony would acquire an unmistakable racist character.

In November last year, the European Union’s diplomatic representatives in Jerusalem observed that Israel’s Jerusalem policy was reducing the possibility of reaching a final-status agreement on the city that any Palestinian could accept. Israel challenged the view that East Jerusalem was occupied territory and claimed full sovereignty over the whole of Jerusalem in total disregard of all UN resolutions. It is a triumph of the Jewish lobby that the United States did not reinforce the EU opinion and that EU ministers failed to follow it up with any significant diplomacy.

One of the more notable achievements of the global war on terror was the induction of nameless fears in the ruling elites of the Arab-Islamic world. It was not because of any credible allegation of complicity; it was that this new kind of war was being waged with an integral threat of regime change. Alternatively, Muslim governments that had doubts about their own legitimacy and acceptance saw in this war an opportunity to strengthen their grip on power with western assistance. The result is a US-led salami-tactic project to neutralise Muslim states with a view to advancing US plans for the new century and more significantly, Israel plans for territorial aggrandisement and regional hegemony.

Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the neo-con designs looked good on paper but have badly floundered on the ground. Unforeseen levels of resistance and their protean quality to change shape have demonstrated the continuing validity of the old adage that political solutions are better than those imposed by brute force. Clearly, it is time for Muslim rulers to overcome their defensive and apologetic attitude and assert themselves diplomatically to bring to an end a tragic era where the destiny of their people is being unilaterally decided by powers that for the moment are out to weaken their sovereignty, their religion and culture.

It is probably no more than a moment but it can extend itself indefinitely if Muslim states continue to consider the separate, isolated targets of opportunity in their midst with apathy. Palestine should by any criteria — strategy, democracy, faith — qualify for a united diplomatic defence. It is time that the Arab League and the OIC wake up to the fact that the clock is ticking away.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

OPPORTUNITIES for legalism are often provided by lack of precision in enactments or in demands for adoption of a certain legal course.

This apparently is the case in relation to the opposition demand that the next general election must be held under an independent caretaker government and the establishment’s refusal to be drawn into the debate, possibly because it has more than one course open to it.

A caretaker government is first mentioned in the Constitution, which seems to have recently found some new readers, in Article 48. Clause 5 of this Article says: “Where the President dissolves the National Assembly, he shall, in his discretion: (a) appoint a date, not later than ninety days from the date of dissolution, for the holding of a general election to the Assembly; and (b) appoint a caretaker Cabinet.”

In the Constitution as it stood till 2002 this was the only reference to a caretaker regime. The appointment of caretakers was mandatory whenever the president exercised his power to dissolve the National Assembly. There was no problem in complying with this provision in the past because the National Assembly was almost always dissolved to get rid of a prime minister who could not be sacked otherwise, and the provision regarding a caretaker outfit was in complete harmony with the objective before the president.

While Article 48(5) of the Constitution remained in place, the Legal Framework Order of 2002, subsequently sanctified by the Seventeenth Amendment, inserted a more comprehensive provision regarding caretakers. A new proviso added to Article 224 says: “Provided that on dissolution of an Assembly on completion of its term, the President, in his discretion, or, as the case may be, the Governor, in his discretion, but with the previous approval of the President, shall appoint a caretaker Cabinet.”

Read with Article 48(5) this proviso ensures that whatever the circumstances of an assembly’s demise a caretaker regime shall have to be set up to hold election, If any doubt was left in the matter, the authors of the LFO of 2002, in manifest exuberance for the idea of caretakers, added Clause (7) to Article 224, which says: “When a caretaker cabinet is appointed, on dissolution of the National Assembly under Article 58 or of a Provincial Assembly under Article 112, or on dissolution of any such Assembly on completion of its term, the Prime Minister, or as the case may be, the Chief Minister of the caretaker cabinet shall not be eligible to contest the immediately following election of such Assembly.”

However, the lawmakers have been consistently averse to it saying in clear words that caretakers are required not merely to fill a vacuum in authority, the objective is creation of guarantees of a free and fair election. This purpose cannot be achieved by a purely legalistic interpretation of the constitutional provisions relating to caretaker cabinets. As things stand, the caretaker prime minister and chief ministers will be nominees of the president who has already declared himself a party to the election. Besides, at least two of the three caretaker regimes set up between 1988 and 1999 were not, and were not supposed to be, interested in holding free and fair elections.

The opposition parties, and like the establishment they too have quite a few brilliant lawyers in their ranks, know very well that under the Constitution, as in force today, a caretaker cabinet will have to be set up when the National Assembly stands dissolved. They cannot be expected to demand something that is anyway going to happen.

Obviously, what they are asking for is an independent caretaker government that could guarantee fair polls. They cannot in fairness be told to be content with any caretaker cabinet that the president may, in his discretion, appoint. That would be a dangerous adventure into legalism, and the opposition apart, it will satisfy neither the conscious citizens nor the regime’s friends abroad.

What is therefore needed now is adoption of a new law to provide for the induction of a caretaker government in consultation with all significant political parties, especially those that are represented in parliament in some strength.

This enactment should also confer on the caretaker government all the powers it may need for guaranteeing fair election, including authority to ensure independent and fair functioning of the Election Commission.

Perhaps some lessons can be learnt from Bangladesh’s experience with caretaker regimes. Let nobody forget that the need to restore the people’s faith in the election system demands radical departures from the thoroughly exposed and universally condemned practices followed so far.

(Concluded)

THERE is an old Pushto saying that the late Wali Khan quoted in his book Facts are Facts: if something is yellow and round and sour, it must be a grapefruit. It is this grapefruit that has quite unintentionally played a significant role in the political swamp in which the country has found itself during the last six years.

On the one hand there is an unelected president, backed by the military brass, a rag bag of functionaries who are supposed to represent the masses at the grassroots level and a government of turncoats that doesn’t really do very much but has managed to hang on by regularly sprinkling sugar on the citrus fruit to make it palatable. And on the other, there is the opposition in exile, represented by two former prime ministers, each of whom has had two bites at the national cherry, that is anxious to replace the fruit altogether with a sapling from the early years and is looking forward to a posthumous impeachment of the president.

The stand that the current ruling clique is taking is that any return to the state of affairs that existed before the military takeover would once again cast the nation adrift on a sea of permissive wickedness. Remember the taxi scheme, the cooperative scandal and the huge flight of foreign capital, all attributed to a man who could spend half a million rupees on a diamond-encrusted gold watch in an airport duty-free shop without batting an eyelid? And his rival in extravagance, popularly referred to as Mr Ten Per Cent, who bought a frightfully expensive mansion in the English countryside on a whim with the peoples’ money, and then disowned the purchase?

The stand that the opposition is taking is that it is only the people, and nobody but the people, who have the inalienable right to govern through their representatives. It is high time the military withdrew its collective finger from the dykes, went back to the barracks and reported to a civilian administration as they do in India, the United States, Great Britain, Russia, China, Afghanistan and 95 per cent of the rest of the world. People in uniform are supposed to defend a country, not rule over its people and sit in judgment over them. Besides, what great achievements has the present government made, and why is it nobody is questioning the sale of national assets at throwaway prices?

The political standoff and the frustration of the ousted politicians have been felt at all levels for some time, especially after the passing of the 17th amendment in 2003. But the episode that once again ignited tensions, triggered off a fresh squall, gave the president a king-sized headache, and possibly hastened the return of the turncoat government to the political wilderness, is the “Charter of Democracy.” Signed by the two erstwhile prime ministers who apparently still wield considerable political influence in the country, it has stirred up strong emotions. Though the typhoon appears to have passed, its after effects will continue to be felt until the nation goes to the polls in October 2007.

Learned treatises surfaced in the newspapers over the merits and demerits of this document, and the issue became the focus of numerous talk shows. If Winston Churchill had been commenting on the current state of affairs in Pakistan, he would have probably referred to the current impasse as ‘The Gathering Storm’ for that is precisely what is brewing in the country at the moment.

Many of the sentiments that the document throws up — saving the country from the dilemma it suddenly finds itself in by suggesting a democratic alternative, tolerance of the opposition, pluralism, devolution of power, the uplift of women, independence of the judiciary and establishment of the rule of law — are laudable.

One nevertheless wonders why none of these commendable aspirations and endeavours was practised when the two erstwhile prime ministers were in power. In fact, it is on record that during the “democratic period” authority was highly centralised; the civil service came under considerable pressure the judiciary was hard pressed to maintain its independence and Pakistani women were given a particularly hard time, as they still are today — even though the head of government didn’t make irresponsible statements about women wanting to get raped so they could get Canadian visas. It is also on record that the primary motive of the party chief, who didn’t make it to prime minister, appeared to be to ensure that his or her political opponent was decimated, even if it meant cavorting with the army, the civilian president or the White House to achieve this objective.

All that is, of course, water under the bridge and propagandists on both sides of the fence will continue to rake up cogent arguments on who is best suited to rescue the country from the political morass and steer the land on the path of righteousness and prosperity. The real issue that is worrying the thinking man is: what is going to happen in October 2007?

It is by now painfully obvious that the Muslim League government of Chaudhry Shujaat, made up of disparate elements, a few defaulters who have been given a temporary reprieve and a lot of opportunists, has outlived its usefulness. It is also widely believed that if a fair and transparent election were to take place next year, one or other of the two mainstream parties would be back in harness. There has even been some talk of an election alliance between the two. If this comes about the nation might see a reenactment of the battle of Thermopylae and the heroic defence of Leonides and his 300 Spartans against the mighty host of Xerxes.

All this presupposes that the president is going to throw in the towel. So far there is no evidence that anything of the sort is about to take place. In fact, as soon as news of the signing of the ‘charter of democracy’ reached the ears of the president he pre-empted the opposition by stating quite categorically that under the Constitution the existing assemblies are mandated to elect him for a second term. He added there was no ambiguity about that. Some constitutional experts are, however, having a problem with the word “mandated”.

According to the Concise Oxford Dictionary the noun and verb “mandate” means, among a number of other things, “an official command or instruction by an authority” and “support for a policy or course of action.” The adjective “mandatory”, on the other hand, is described as a) “of or conveying a command”, and b) “compulsory”.

The word “mandate” doesn’t figure in Article 44(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan. The Article reads “Subject to the Constitution a person holding office as President shall be eligible for re-election to that office, but no person shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms.” Article 41(3) clearly spells out the details of election. “The President to be elected after the expiration of the term specified in Clause (7) shall be elected in accordance with the provisions of the second Schedule by the members of an electoral college consisting of (a) the members of both houses (b) the members of the Provincial Assemblies”. The word “mandate” also does not appear in the seventeenth amendment.

It is obvious that what the president should have said was that he was eligible for re-election, the assemblies have the power and the authority to re-elect him, and he hoped they would do so. This is, of course, quite a different thing. But then, English has never been the strong point of the legislators in the assemblies and the Senate and a clever script writer can get away with anything.

It has by now been assumed that Article 244 of the Constitution, which pertains to the oath taken by members of the armed forces about not engaging themselves “in any political activities whatsoever”, has been condoned due to extenuating circumstances. As has Article 43(1) — Conditions of President’s office, which states: “The President must not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan or occupy any other position carrying the right to remuneration for the rendering of services.”

The seventeenth amendment appears to have taken care of that. But there is still that nagging business about wearing two hats on which the president has displayed considerable ambivalence. It is the uniform which might yet prove to be President Musharraf’s Achilles heel.