Shifting winds in the US

THE month of August is usually languid and lazy in Washington. Virtually everyone is in their country houses or on the beaches, far removed from the cares of their daily chores. And yet, this month has seen the administration stretched overtime on foreign policy issues that are likely to have a profound impact on the domestic front as well.

For an administration that has seen both its major foreign policy initiatives — Afghanistan and Iraq — spiral out of control, the Lebanon crisis appeared to be a welcome diversion — one that would prove short, decisive and not costly. More importantly, it was seen as ending in a spectacular victory for its friend and ally, Israel, thus earning it the gratitude of the most powerful lobbies in the US.

Meanwhile, Washington’s European allies would be reminded that America alone had meaningful influence over the globe, as well as on regional developments. No less important, the authoritarian regimes in the Middle East would be put to the test, once again, and asked to demonstrate where their loyalties lay.

There was a perceptible air of triumphal expectation, as President Bush defied world opinion and refused to permit the Security Council to consider a ceasefire resolution. There was not even an effort at simulation; the administration proudly announced that not only would Israel be permitted all the time it needed to achieve its strategic objective, but that the US would airlift the latest weaponry to Israel, to enable it to destroy the Hezbollah. Of course, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice gave flight to her rich imagination, when she characterised the massive death and destruction as representing “the birth pangs of a new Middle East”.

But much to the surprise of Israel and the disappointment of the Bush administration, Hezbollah refused to play ball. Instead of rolling over like other Arab armies, it fought the invading forces with remarkable skill and determination. President Bush, of course, continues to plug the line that Hezbollah has suffered grievous losses, but not even the Israelis are making these ridiculous claims.

In the meanwhile, people are suddenly waking up to what this administration has done in Iraq. In the three years since the invasion of that country, nearly 100,000 Iraqis have been killed, more than 2,000 US soldiers have died and the Americans have had to pump billions of dollars into that country.

Even though President Bush insisted in a recent press conference that pulling out the troops would be a “disaster”, the Republicans are getting increasingly worried that, for the first time since the US invasion, a growing number of Americans are questioning not only the president’s strategy, but even the whole purpose and motive of this adventure. They are no longer buying US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s spin on each setback in that country.

More importantly, many Democrats and some Republicans, including a likely presidential candidate, John McCain, are finally summoning the courage to question what US troops are doing in Iraq. Some have gone to the extent of demanding that the administration set a definite timeframe for troop withdrawal.

This is an altogether new experience for the administration that had enjoyed a virtual free ride on the Iraq issue. As Daniel Byman and Kenneth Pollack, two well-known scholars, wrote in The Washington Post: “The debate is over. By any definition, Iraq is in a state of civil war. Considering how many mistakes the United States has made in Iraq, how much time has been squandered, and how difficult the task is, even a serious course correction in Washington and Baghdad may only postpone the inevitable.”

In the midst of all these negative developments, the administration got a major reprieve when news of the arrests in London suddenly hit the headlines. It provided the White House with the opportunity to bring the debate back to the issue of the war on terror. There was a perceptible sigh of relief that the administration could again occupy not only centre-stage, but also the moral high ground, by pointing to the London conspiracy as proof of the legitimacy of its “crusade” against the terrorists. In the process, of course, it also took a convenient swipe at its critics, accusing them of defeatism and even cowardice.

The expectation of a favourable domestic fallout from the London arrests was such that virtually all the principal actors in this administration hit the airwaves as soon as the conspiracy was exposed, to claim how their “tough” policies had made America a safer place. President Bush was understandably in his element, declaring that he had made the US safer, but warning that the country remained threatened by terrorists. This echoed the strategy the Republicans have used, to such lethal effect, in the last two election cycles that they do a far better job at fighting terrorism than the Democrats.

The eagerness of the Bush administration to get a break from its domestic travails was evident from reports that it pushed the British to arrest the plotters prematurely. This ran the risk of jeopardising their prosecution, but that was the least of the worries here. Another theme underlying the official briefings was the effort to portray the London plotters as having strong institutional linkages to Al Qaeda, so that “it would strengthen the administration’s political message about the importance of fighting the war on terror”. Moreover, hawkish politicians, especially from among the Republicans, were smug, indicative of their “I told you so” attitude.

The Democrats, however, are no longer willing to be silenced by these tactics. They hit back swift and hard. Former President Bill Clinton, who generally refrains from criticising Bush by name, accused the Republicans of “trying to play politics” with the London arrests. He also questioned Bush’s national security priorities, asking why the US had seven times as many troops in Iraq as in Afghanistan. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, too, ridiculed White House claims by pointing out that instead of Al Qaeda being destroyed, it “has morphed into a global franchise operation”. Other Democrats used the London incident to reinforce their contention that an implicit link to Al Qaeda “underscores the US failure to crush the organisation, nearly five years after the September attacks”.

The more scholarly took the opportunity to warn that the US approach, which had focused only on a “killing or capturing” policy, was failing, because Al Qaeda had “grown into a social movement that links like-minded groups feeding off anti-American sentiments to attract new recruits and sources of funding”. The Democrats were also able to emphasise that had Bush remained focused on the war on terror, rather than frittering away the nation’s resources on a futile regime change in Iraq, the US would have had far greater success against the terrorists.

There is however no doubt that this administration is convinced that the “terror card” remains a most effective and emotive issue and one that has great advantages for it. This is clear from comments such as those made by Vice-President Dick Cheney, who is accusing the Democrats of “defeatism”. Recent polls are, however, giving mixed signals.

The public is no longer buying the administration line as unquestioningly as it did in the past. Admittedly, the London arrests did boost the president’s standing in his ratings, though it was much smaller than in the past. A Newsweek poll last week found that 50 per cent think the US is safer from terrorism today than before, but that 47 per cent said that it was not. The same poll found 55 per cent approval of Bush’s handling of terrorism and that Republicans have only a five per cent edge over the Democrats.

Regarding the Pakistanis in this country, the London arrests have added to the growing concern and disquiet in the community. They are worried and confused. Their commitment and patriotism to their adopted homeland is being questioned. Nothing seems to be going right for them. While the administration has been generous in its praise for the cooperation received from Pakistan, others, including many in the media, questioned both Pakistan’s performance in and commitment to the war on terror.

The London conspiracy also permitted the media to dwell on the absence of democracy and lack of human rights in Pakistan. The Wall Street Journal, in a major story, noted that the Musharraf government had taken advantage of the war on terror to engage in massive human rights violations in Pakistan and recalled the State Department’s report which had alleged that the country’s “human rights record was poor and serious problems remained”. It also referred to “arbitrary arrests, and lengthy pre-trial detention,” as well as “extrajudicial killings, torture, and rape” as normal occurrences in Pakistan.

It also claimed that “Pakistan is a nexus for extremist groups, many of which grew out of militant groups active in Kashmir”. Again, in a scathing piece, the paper charged that “Musharraf presents himself as the last line of defence between the mullahs and the nuclear arsenal...but the relationship between the army and the jihadists is symbiotic rather than adversarial. The army plays up the terrorist threat in order to consolidate its position in western capitals, while at best turning a blind eye to the violence they export.”

But what deeply upset Muslims in this country, was Bush’s reference to the terrorists as “Islamic fascists”. This was as crude and offensive a remark as was the president’s earlier characterisation of the war on terror as a “crusade”. While it is true that the French writer Maxine Rodinson introduced the term “Islamofascism” to describe the Iranian Revolution, most writers and scholars have refrained from using this derogatory term.

But Bush’s remark encouraged others to join the fray. Roger Scruton writing in The Wall Street Journal recently, even raised the question of “whether terrorism is as alien to Islam as we should like to believe” and added the highly insulting remark: “In the presence of Islam, we all feel, you have to tread carefully, as though humouring a dangerous animal.” Linking Islam with fascism is wrong, provocative and even dangerous. Let there be no confusion. Islam had no role in perpetrating the Holocaust. The fascists were not Muslims.

The writer is a former ambassador.

A disappointing judgment

IT is a disappointing judgment, although the Supreme Court has taken five months to finalise it. Probably, the word ‘perverse’ is more apt because the five-judge bench has opposed what is wanted, reasonable or required.

True, the court has upheld the parliament law which has done away with the residential qualification for a member of the Rajya Sabha and which introduced an open ballot in place of secrecy in voting. But in the process, the court has changed the very complexion of the Rajya Sabha.

The House does not have to have members who ordinarily reside in particular states. The Rajya Sabha is no more the council of states but the council of freelancers from anywhere and with little link to the state returning them through its assembly.

The constitution framers were particular about the link, a meaningful tie. Former President R. Venkataraman, who was a member of the constituent assembly, recalled that Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who piloted the constitution, clarified that a candidate to the council of states should be the resident of the state concerned but a candidate to the Lok Sabha need to reside only in any parliamentary constituency.

The Supreme Court sees no merit in the elected member to be from the state “because the electorate that is electing him is required by law to do so.” It is a strange argument to justify the election of an outsider. The point at issue is not who can be elected but who can represent the state. Obviously, a person who normally lives in the state should be preferred to a freelancer. The first is familiar with the state’s culture, problems and its aspirations. The second has only an address in the state and may not know even its language.

Take the case of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The two states have a running dispute over water. Will a person who is a resident of Karnataka represent the state’s interest better or one who belongs to Tamil Nadu but has been sent by Karnataka to the Rajya Sabha? That is the reason why the national commission appointed to review the working of the constitution recommended “that in order to maintain the basic federal character of the Rajya Sabha, the domiciliary requirement for eligibility to contest elections to the Rajya Sabha from the states concerned is essential.” The commission was sitting when the bill to change the residential qualification was initiated in parliament.

The Supreme Court’s argument that federation is not territory-related takes the cake. A federation is a formation of a political unity out of a number of separate states or districts which retains control of its own internal affairs. The key words are: separate states controlling their own internal interests. The entire justification of a state goes if it does not have its own people — sons of the soil. How do freelancers constitute a state? Agreed that “the residence is neither a constitutional factor nor a constitutional requirement,” but who embodies the state — definitely not those who are not even ordinary residents?

The Supreme Court feels satisfied as long as the representatives to the council of states are “citizens of the country”. If there is no residential qualification, logically all the 250 Rajya Sabha members, excluding the 12 nominated ones, cannot only be from one state but from one city. Surely, the Supreme Court would not want that. There is no option to the domicile requirement.

The Supreme Court’s new title of “revising House” for the Rajya Sabha brings down its status and stature. The Rajya Sabha is an independent body, with its own duties and obligations. Its role is not secondary to that of the Lok Sabha. All bills, except the one relating to money, can be introduced in the Rajya Sabha. In that case, the Lok Sabha becomes a revising House. In matters concerning the state, the Rajya Sabha comes first. All questions relating to the central services and the like are initiated in the Rajya Sabha. It is second to none.

I express my inability to make out what the Supreme Court means when it says that the right to elect “is neither a fundamental right nor a common law right, but pure and simple, a statutory right and not a constitutional right.” At the same time, the court says that the right to elect is fundamental to democracy.

I find the two contentions contradictory. How does a country stay democratic if the right to elect is not something basic or fundamental? That right differentiates between democracy and dictatorship. It cannot be anything else except fundamental if society is to function freely.

The Supreme Court is the weakest in its argument when it defends the open ballot in place of the right of secrecy of voters. It says that “the right to vote in secrecy is not correct since the constitution has itself provided for elections by secret ballot where it thought it fit to do so.” In a democratic structure, the constitution does not have to spell out where the ballot will be secret. It is understood that voting to the elected positions will be secret. An open ballot offends the conduct of free and fair election, a basic feature of democracy. Even the constitution provides under Article 19(1) (a) the freedom of expression.

The Supreme Court has depended on the argument that political parties find it difficult to stop corruption in a secret ballot. The open ballot will change the mode. Money will go to the leader, not to a member.

How is the open ballot more transparent when a political boss has ordered who will vote for whom? But then, the court is more concerned with discipline within a political party than with the norms of free and fair voting. The Supreme Court’s plea for an open ballot system has made a mockery of guarantees given in all the international covenants that the voting will be through secret ballot.

It is sad that the Supreme Court judgment has opened the doors of the Rajya Sabha to money bags, the mafia and the unwanted. The House will be a hunting ground for those who have clout or deep pockets. Political bosses are now free to bring their favourites from any nook and corner of India. The constitution had laid down that only 12 members would be nominated to the Rajya Sabha. Now the whole House will be nominated by political masters.

True, the Supreme Court has dismissed my petition but my point has many takers. My view is a challenge to the intelligentsia and future generations which, I believe, will correct the error which the court has committed. The Supreme Court is the final authority but not infallible.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

The options narrow

WHILE our eyes have been fixed on Lebanon, the situation in Iraq has been deteriorating. The death toll in Lebanon and Israel during the recent fighting was appalling, but three times as many people were probably killed in Iraq in the same period, UN figures suggest.

There are often 70 or more fresh bodies in Baghdad’s morgues each morning. Far from being reduced by the efforts of the Americans, the British and the Iraqi security forces, the figures for civilian deaths, now mainly communal killings, were the highest for many months in June, and are believed to be still rising.

So are figures for the overall number of attacks on coalition forces, and the statistics for American military deaths could be worse if not for some recent improvements in armoured protection. With luck, money and the right kind of international help, Lebanon can be put back together again. But can Iraq? That is the stark question which faces both Iraqis and their occupiers.

The people of Baghdad note every day the ominous signs of descent into communal violence. One week the gunmen go after bakers, forcing those of the “wrong” sect to close up and leave, and murdering them and their workers if they do not. The next, they turn to newspaper and magazine stalls, demanding that the “wrong” titles be removed from sale.

Again, death is often the price for disobedience. In the mixed areas of the city, families are packing to move to safer areas, a process which has not yet become a full-scale exodus but which certainly could become one. Even in solidly Shia or Sunni areas, there are conflicts between different factions and movements, as was illustrated this week when aggrieved tribesmen attacked the city council headquarters in Basra, British troops hovering uneasily on the edge of the fight.

The grim pattern of intimidation, fear, flight, murder and massacre is taking shape in all those parts of Iraq where the communities are, or were, mingled. If this is not civil war, it is moving sharply in that direction. Two wars, a war of Iraqis against Iraqis and a war of Iraqis against Americans, threaten to blur into one in a way which could be beyond anybody’s ability, Iraqi or American, to manage or control.

—The Guardian, London