A way out of Iran’s nuclear imbroglio?

THE world can now heave a sigh of relief. It appears likely that the impasse between Iran and the West will end soon. When the two sides were locked in an eyeball to eyeball situation over Iran’s nuclear programme, which includes a uranium enrichment facility, it was widely feared that sanctions followed by war were in the offing. The prospects of an agreement have brightened since Tuesday when Mr Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, presented to Tehran a package of incentives and penalties drawn up by the EU-3 and backed by the US, Russia and China. Although the contents of the package have not been disclosed, the positive response from Tehran and the American president’s encouraging stance give rise to hope. One can expect the dialogue between Iran and the UN Security Council’s permanent members and Germany to be revived after all. This is important because that is the only way the present crisis can be resolved. At this stage the world cannot afford to see the US open another battle front on the periphery of the troubled Middle East. As it is, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have already done enormous damage to international peace and security.

From reports which have emanated from Tehran, it appears that the package offers a compromise on the contentious issues. Since the West, notably the US, fears that Iran will use its uranium enrichment capability for building nuclear weapons — a charge President Ahmadinejad denies — this question has been addressed diplomatically. Thus, instead of demanding a long-term moratorium, the package asks for a suspension of enrichment — while allowing conversion — during the period that talks are to be held. Keeping the Iranian sensitivities in mind, the whole issue has been sent back to the IAEA from the Security Council which appeared to be focussing on sanctions against Iran. Until the details are fully known, it may not be possible to ascertain accurately the direction the negotiations can possibly take. But once the talks begin and the deadlock is broken the political climate should improve, paving the way for a meaningful resolution of the dispute.

The basic factor that has vitiated the pattern of international relations today — it also contributed towards the deepening of the Iranian crisis — is the role the United States has played in the post-Cold War world. The Bush administration has contributed some of the worst features of American policy that is responsible for much of the malaise that marks global politics today. Its unilateralism, arrogance and its intoxication with power have made bilateralism and the normal give-and-take in diplomacy impossible. Along with a total disregard for peace and security, the American government’s trigger-happy approach has brought the world to the brink of war. Iraq and Afghanistan have been the victims of Washington’s trigger-happy approach. Iran could have been next, given America’s paranoia, had it not played its cards deftly and had Russia and China not decided to challenge American unilateralism. By adopting a technically correct stance on the NPT, the IAEA also had a moderating impact on the situation. In the final analysis, President Bush agreed to enter the dialogue which has been Iran’s demand for the last three years. This, more than anything else, would soothe ruffled feathers in Tehran and may help sort out the differences on Iran’s nuclear programme that calls for greater trust and good faith than has been displayed so far.

Ties with Russia

PAKISTAN’s relations with Russia have still not acquired the level of understanding and warmth they should have in the aftermath of the break-up of the Soviet Union. Evidently, memory still rankles, for throughout the Cold War years Pakistan and Russia found themselves on opposite sides. In the fifties Pakistan became a member of the US-led military pacts, including Cento, which was designed to strengthen the “northern tier” against a presumed Soviet threat. The relationship hit a new low when the USSR invaded Afghanistan in December 1979, and Pakistan became a conduit for the CIA’s overt and covert aid to the mujahideen fighting the Soviet army. Russia’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, the dismemberment of the Soviet Union and the changes in world politics since 9/11 have led to a realisation in Islamabad that it needs to improve its relations with what indeed is territorially the world’s biggest country with immense natural resources and a high level of science and technology. Russia may be in decline today, but it is potentially a superpower.

Under the changed circumstances, Pakistan and Russia have a lot to gain from a closer relationship of understanding and cooperation. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Moscow’s concerns are now more focussed on areas closer to its periphery, especially Central Asia, which it calls “near abroad”. The rise of Islamist militancy with its base in Afghanistan, the trouble in Chechnya and the fundamentalist movements in Central Asia are concerns which Islamabad shares with Moscow. On the Iraqi war, too, Pakistan and Russia opposed the use of force, and on the question of Iran’s nuclear enrichment issue, Islamabad and Moscow stand for a negotiated solution. Against this background, President Pervez Musharraf’s statement that Russia should not have an Indo-centric policy makes sense. In an interview with Itar-Tass he referred to the rapport he had achieved with President Vladimir Putin and referred to a number of sectors in which Russia and Pakistan could cooperate, especially textiles, the energy sector and defence purchases. There is a need thus for the two sides to strengthen their relationship through closer cooperation in economic, scientific and cultural fields.

Delay in re-opening consulates

THE six-month delay in the opening of the Pakistan and Indian consulates in Karachi and Mumbai respectively is cause for concern as it is hampering the peace process and causing inconvenience to those wishing to visit the other country. Having given up its decades-long effort to have Mr Jinnah’s home in Mumbai to house as its consulate, Pakistan found a location at the beginning of the year but it was deemed a security risk by the occupants of the proposed building. It is perplexing that since then, no alternative location has been found in spite of seeking the Indian government’s help in this regard. There have been reports that the Indian government identified three locations for the consulate but they were all rejected by Pakistan for reasons not explained by the foreign ministry spokesperson when asked about it. It is unclear what is causing all the delays but whatever these are, the two governments should find it possible to get them out of the way — and soon.

This delay is causing great inconvenience to the people in the southern parts of Pakistan who are eager to travel by the Khokrapar-Munabao rail service which was re-opened in February this year. The resumption of the rail link was part of a confidence-building measure between the two countries. But that purpose will remain unfulfilled unless the Indian consulate in Karachi is re-opened. In its absence those wishing to travel to India by train must go to Islamabad to obtain a visa — which is both costly and time-consuming. The same must be the problems facing many Indians in the southern areas wishing to visit their relatives and friends in Karachi and other places in Sindh — in the absence of a Pakistani consulate in Mumbai. Realising the extent of inconvenience caused to the public on both sides, the two governments should hasten with their efforts to re-open these consulates — Pakistan’s in Mumbai and India’s in Karachi.

Challenges to political stability

SINCE the Platonic period, philosophers have sought to determine the nature and meaning of a ‘good society’ and a ‘good state’, often giving their own interpretations of what ideal societies and states ought to be. Their interpretations have been formulated in western political thought as diverse concepts of an ideal state.

For the people of Pakistan in general and students of political philosophy in particular, the challenge remains to find our place in the annals of political history. For our political illiterates, however, ‘a good society and a good state’ or for that matter ‘good methods of government’ remain merely philosophical expressions with no practical relevance. To them, the essence of politics today is nothing else but power and bounty, no matter how they achieve these.

Ever since the emergence of the nation-state, the world has experienced many forms of political systems ranging from monarchies to republics; from aristocracies to oligarchies and from tyranny to democracy. After centuries of trial and error, democracy has emerged as the preferred choice. It is now considered universally applicable and is also the most prevalent model of government in our era.

With national boundaries redrawn, and new concepts and ideas having replaced old ones, the dominant themes of world affairs today are those of globalisation and integration through greater economic interaction among nations, the promotion of development and democracy as mutually reinforcing imperatives and respect for fundamental freedoms and human rights.

Viewed from this perspective, we must confess, the evolution of the political system in our country has been a tale of woes and wiles. We have been experimenting with different systems at different times - and on occasion at the same time. We have done things in the name of democracy that no other country in the world has.

We lost half the country after holding what we thought were “free and fair elections”. We have executed an elected prime minister and exiled two others. We have had three constitutions — two of them abrogated by successive military rulers within a period of 10 years, the third one adopted by an “elected” legislature of a truncated Pakistan in 1973 and which has been amended by two military rulers 17 times stripping the original text of its essence. In fact, it is a different constitution altogether.

Pakistan came into being in the name of Islam and democracy but we distorted religion in a way that it is being used as the hotbed of extremism and terrorism in the name of jihad. Muslims are killing Muslims. Even mosques, churches and religious congregations have not been spared as venues of cold-blooded communal and sectarian killings.

Ironically, as a country, which on its creation, was considered a “twentieth century miracle” and which was fought and won entirely through a democratic and constitutional struggle, Pakistan has been struggling haplessly throughout its independent statehood for genuine democracy and constitutional primacy. With the ingrained culture of political opportunism and ineptitude we have yet to discover a theory of state and methods of government which will suit the genius of our nation.

The nature and form of our political system has long been the subject of debate in our own country with no clarity in the minds of our people as to which system suits them most. At the time of our independence, we inherited, like India, a parliamentary tradition but soon lost track, groping in the maze of political chaos and confusion. Since then, while India has persisted with the basic norms of parliamentary democracy, we have been experimenting with distorted versions of almost every form of government ranging from democracy to dictatorship, from civilian to military rule, and from parliamentary to presidential system.

India, despite its huge size and socio-economic challenges, remains steadfast in its democratic experience and today enjoys global respect as the world’s largest democracy. It has enjoyed a providential continuity in its leadership and political institutions with the supremacy of the constitution and sanctity of the recognised political processes remaining inviolable. Governments have always changed through an electoral process and the political leadership remains subservient to the will of the people which is exercised on a regular basis through fair and free elections.

Even a country like Bangladesh, which broke away from Pakistan after being subjected to a military operation, is today respected globally as a democratic country where governments change through elections. It is also the home of the internationally acclaimed Grameen Bank which gave the world the concept of micro-credit.

On our part, we have been experiencing systemic aberrations with endless political merry-go-rounds and jockeying for power. Consistency has never been a virtue as our history of frequent governmental breakdowns and military coups reflect. In every instance, we found salvation in our own version of the historically infamous “doctrine of necessity”, which has become our political creed. For decades, we have had a parliamentary system without parliament ever functioning as a “full sovereign body” or playing a role in the decision-making process. Even today, “legislating” is a business beyond our parliament’s purview. The legislators give priority to power and bounty. To them, genuine pluralism, good governance, the rule of law, the separation of powers, institutional integrity, and normative standards are secondary.

We have also been experimenting with our own version of the presidential system, at times under chief martial law administrators, including a civilian one, with no precedent and no relevance to established models of world republics. Our present parliamentary-cum-presidential system under military uniform also has no parallel in political philosophy or contemporary history. The closest parallel is perhaps the Cromwell era of the seventeenth century in England, when various governmental, constitutional and parliamentary experiments were carried out.

The tragedy of our nation is that democracy was never allowed to flourish in our country. We deviated from our ideals. Unfortunately, in its short history since independence, Pakistan has seen a continuing cycle of governmental changes through non-political means. Machiavelli’s political philosophy based on the “doctrine of necessity” has become an integral part of our body politic.

Against this background, the charter of democracy recently signed in London between Pakistan’s two mainstream political parties is a ray of hope for people who want to see the serious shortcomings of our political culture corrected. The document in essence is an action plan and a remedial roadmap for the restoration of a robust democratic order in the country rooted in the will of the people and based on the supremacy of the Constitution and the primacy of parliament.

One only hopes that all political parties will now join together to ensure their strict adherence to democratic norms and ethical standards, rising above all factional considerations including tribal, feudal and business interests. But the big question is: in a country where even constitutions adopted by democratically elected parliaments do not survive the onslaught of power and bounty, how can a document signed by two leaders, both living in exile and representing the country’s major political parties, make a difference?

Given our country’s peculiar socio-economic and political culture, based on a feudal and tribal structure, and a high rate of poverty and illiteracy, and also in view of our long tradition of remote-controlled elections, the prospects of a robust democratic order, genuinely rooted in the will of the people, are very slim.

At a recent seminar, three panelists comprising eminent scholars and journalists were asked to analyse our domestic situation and to identify the impending challenges to Pakistan’s political stability. The emergent unanimous view linked the prospect of a genuine democracy in Pakistan to the holding of free and fair elections under an independent and neutral caretaker government as well as a free and autonomous election commission. But everyone agreed that elections in Pakistan would be free and fair only when our politics come under complete civilian control.

According to the conceptual outline of the seminar, democracy had played hide and seek with the Pakistani people, mainly because it had failed to harmonise the interests of the principal stakeholders, namely, America, the army, the administration, and the people. It was, however, agreed that the best way to harmonise the divergent interests of the major stakeholders in Pakistan’s stability was to let them be on their own in accordance with universally established practices and principles and in accordance with the Constitution as adopted by an elected parliament.

Unfortunately, for a country as domestically unstable and unpredictable as ours, there cannot be many choices. In today’s world, our options are limited. We must accept that in the ultimate analysis, our problems are not external; our problems are domestic. Putting our own house in order is what we need to do.

We need to overcome our domestic weaknesses through political reconciliation and national confidence-building. The country must return to a genuine democracy rooted in the will of the people, constitutional supremacy, the rule of law and good governance, and must adopt a culture of political consistency, institutional integrity and civilianised body politic.

The world’s major powers must also recognise that Pakistan under a democratically elected civilian government and with stable institutions, including an army with professional integrity, will be a more reliable, more effective and more appropriate partner of the free world, in pursuit of common goals and in defence of shared values.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.