THREE diverse groups of prominent citizens have in recent weeks issued open letters on the distressing state of the nation and indicated the direction in which the road to salvation lies. Unfortunately, these non-lethal missiles generated more scepticism about the credentials and motives of their authors than a debate on their contents.

However, taken together, these statements reveal a significant progression of ideas and provide a useful study in the evolution of public opinion.

But first a few words about the tendency to concentrate on who is claiming public attention instead of listening to the call. The effort to look for untainted knights among the characters that have somehow commanded the public space in Pakistan is not only futile, it is also irrelevant. It is not right to deny the possibility that a person who was wrong in the past can be right today. Besides, it is strange that the critics of the regime should be subjected to a credibility test while no such test is applied to official spokesmen whose sole task apparently is demonisation of the opposition figures.

One of the common comments, especially on the first letter in the sequence, was that most of its signatories had at one time or another been on the authoritarian bandwagon. The retired army generals constituted a primary target of such criticism. The fact that a voice of dissent, however feeble, had been raised from quarters close to the regime should have carried more weight than the past record of the gentlemen concerned. (No group has considered women capable of making a meaningful contribution to the current political debate; in the first group only one was a woman, among the 23 who signed the subsequent two letters none was a woman).

References to absence of representatives of the large oppressed majority (women, peasants, youth and workers) among the authors of the letters could have been more appropriate than breaking the locks on the cupboards of some of the signatories.

There was no serious disagreement with the group of 18 over the grounds of their petition. In some of the comments in the media exception was taken to the writers’ greater concern for the future of the army than for the health of the nation. Much stronger was the criticism of the remedy prescribed in this letter — that President Musharraf should give up his army uniform and set up a neutral caretaker regime (under himself) to ensure a fair general election. The contradiction within the latter part of the formulation was manifest.

The second letter — by six politicians still on the active list and an odd couple made by two former Chief Justices — obviously drew upon both the contents of the first letter and the criticism attracted by it. The signatories to this letter deemed it necessary to tell General Musharraf that “none of us sought office under your dispensation.” They also chose to confess that “many of us may have given you the benefit of the doubt as seemingly ‘reluctant coup-maker’.” (The layer upon layer of reservation here is quite remarkable.) After thus meeting the common objections to the group of 18, the eight signatories to the second letter tried to give, in comparison to the former, a fuller description of the regime’s failures and a more radical cure.

President Musharraf was reminded of the “lengthy litany of promises which remain unfulfilled.” The conclusion reached by the authors after recounting the regime’s failures and a long list of public grievances, was that “in our considered opinion these policies now pose a serious threat to the integrity, solidarity and wellbeing of Pakistan.”

Further, the writers of the second letter moved several steps ahead of the preceding 18 good Samaritans by declining to be content with asking President Musharraf to shed his armour. They further urged him not to embarrass himself much longer by clinging to power and earnestly asked him to hand over power to the Supreme Court, ‘largely constituted by yourself’ to hold elections through a ‘consensual and neutral caretaker government.’ The view that President Musharraf might, after relinquishing the army post, preside over a neutral caretaker regime was implicitly repelled. And, of course, caretakers must not only be neutral, they have to be ‘consensual’ too.

Where does one go after the second missive? To the people. Isn’t that elementary, Dr Watson? So the last letter (so far) in the series is not a petition to General Musharraf. Instead, it gives the people, who have been recognised as the “real sovereign of the territories of Pakistan” even in the second letter, a call to the barricades.

The 15 men (again no woman worthy of joining the august group) who signed the third letter, include more representatives of independent civil society segments than found in the preceding groups. Some of them can claim credit for rejecting the regime change seven years ago. They do not think a thick brief is needed to attack a ruler “who lacks both legitimacy and credibility.” They directly come to the point: “that freedom from army rule is not negotiable; that their interest and the interest of Pakistan do not coincide; that we are tired of military rule, tired of tyranny, tired of being humiliated, tired of being deprived of our right to elect our rulers. We say to them: enough is enough! We can’t take it anymore.”

The rhetoric echoes a common citizen’s mood, though the authors of this letter may be considered a few years late in realising that the time to wake up has come.

One could be asked whether epistles drafted by some eminent citizens will have any effect on a regime that is wallowing in a sea of self-praise and which has imperviously shrugged off attacks from a sizable group of opposition politicians and an even larger array of civil society organisations, human rights campaigners, women activists, trade unions, and peasant groups. True, the regime is unlikely to pay any heed to the call of generals without any soldiers behind them. Nevertheless, even after making allowances for the cynicism of middle class commentators, which operates to the advantage of the regime, the open letters we have seen (and such writings that may be in the pipeline) do matter for more reasons than one.

First, as we move from the guarded pragmatism of the non-committed academician in the first letter, to the quasi-judicial phraseology of the second letter, and then to the executive rhetoric of defiance in the third letter, we cover a wide spectrum of public opinion. These letters not only contain responses by informed citizens to the national crisis but also a progression in prescriptions from sedatives/painkillers to the minimum essential surgery. This is how ideas develop before they become irresistible.

Secondly, the admittedly small effort by the writers of the three letters should be taken as complementary to, and not in contradiction with, the consistent struggle by the real agents of change — the much maligned political workers. They have been saying in fewer words and far more pithily all that is contained in the letters. Unlike the letter-writers they neither send up petitions nor do they call others to act; they have been risking their life and weal for quite some time — for years, indeed. These men and women of action will bring ideas of change to fruition and whatever voices can be raised in their support are welcome.

Nobody can say in advance what will be the last straw on the back of a very docile camel. After all the anti-Ayub movement was sparked by a routine search of some students’ bags (for smuggled goods).

Thirdly, the regime appears to have lost the battle of words. The last of the three letters came on the eve of the seventh anniversary of the 1999 putsch. In their references to the event the official propagandists avoided mentioning the seven-point agenda the regime had started with. Indeed, all the three letters hit the regime in varying degrees for non-realisation of these seven objectives.

The government’s retreat in the public debate on its failures was fully borne out by a recent cataloguing of General Musharraf’s 12 achievements by a loyal minister. These in the given order were: projection of the Palestine issue; the checking of Al Qaeda; the model accord with militants in Waziristan; Pakistan providing intellectual leadership for eradication of terrorism; Pakistan has emerged as a peace symbol in the region; new concepts evolved for resolving India-Pakistan issues through creative initiatives and out-of-box solutions; all pretexts for denying nuclear cooperation with Pakistan demolished; Pakistan has emerged as a non-controversial Muslim country — a bridge between the Muslim world and the West; Pakistan playing a role in regional stability through its geopolitical location; Pakistan may need aid but it prefers investment; Pakistan moving ahead with changes in its democratic, social and economic fibre and has introduced the culture of tolerance; the US has realised that the story of abandoning Pakistan after the Afghan war shall not be repeated.

Apart from the fact that each one of these claims can be challenged, and some of the formulations are devoid of meaning and sense, what happened to the problems of federalism, secrecy of rule, corruption and the day-to-day needs of the people the regime had set out to resolve?

THE foreign minister of South Korea, Ban Ki-Moon, will take over as the new secretary-general of the United Nations on January 1, 2007. He will have to deal with multiple and complex issues facing the contemporary world. It remains to be seen if Ban Ki-Moon, with his extensive experience of bilateral and multilateral diplomacy, will be able to tackle them incisively, re-orient the world body and set new goals.

Regrettably, with one or two exceptions, all the predecessors of Ban Ki-Moon have been a dismal failure. The veto-wielding five permanent members of the UN Security Council never allowed them the freedom to take initiatives on their own in international affairs for fear that it could jeopardise their national interests. They deliberately undermined the position of the secretary-general by declaring him as “chief administrative officer” of the organisation meaning thereby that his role is purely of an administrative nature.

It is also worth mentioning that the present permanent representative of the United States to the UN, John Bolton, who is believed to have played a key role in getting Ban Ki-Moon elected to the coveted post of secretary-general, also sees him as a “chief administrative officer” which indicates that, like his predecessors, he will also not be allowed to take important diplomatic initiatives for the redemption of the UN for its past failures.

It is, however, necessary to mention that according to the UN Charter the secretary-general is the top official of the organisation who has been assigned multifarious responsibilities under Article VIII. He is the symbol of the UN to the world, particularly as its foremost international mediator and peacemaker. The secretary-general also draws the world’s attention to global issues, from development to disarmament. One of the secretary-general’s main responsibility is to bring to the attention of the Security Council any problem which threatens international pace and security. To help resolve disputes, the secretary-general may also carry out mediation, or exercise “quiet diplomacy” behind the scenes. It is, therefore, unfair if he is relegated to the role of an administrative officer of the organisation.

Unfortunately, the unipolar world and single power hegemony have made the job of the secretary-general extremely difficult and cumbersome. In the wake of 9/11, the United States wants unconstrained authority to control the affairs of the United Nations. This has aggravated the situation. It may, however, be mentioned that greater awareness in Africa and Asia and the admission of a large number of new countries to the United Nations from these continents has completely changed the balance of influence.

The UN Charter reaffirms the principle of equal rights of nations regardless of their size, military and economic power. These countries will certainly oppose any move by the United States to dominate the world body to advance its global geo-political interests. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez’s speech at the 61st General Assembly Session criticising the United States for consolidating its system of world domination and accusing the United Nations of failing to live up to its charter should be seen as the writing on the wall.

If the UN is to be prevented from meeting the fate of the League of Nations the new secretary-general will have to show great perseverance and take decisive steps, even if they are not palatable to the United States and the other big powers. He should not allow his official conduct to be influenced by those who want to make the UN subservient to their whims. He is only answerable to the United Nations for his actions.

Since its establishment in 1945, the United Nations lived in the grip of the Cold War which prevented it from fulfilling its core objective of the maintenance of international peace and security. It was widely criticised for its poor performance. It is, therefore, of vital importance to make the United Nations a more effective instrument for pursuing all its objectives as enshrined in the charter.

Major structural changes in the existing UN system are also needed to enable the apex world body to keep pace with the fast changing world environment. The new secretary-general will have to intensify its efforts to achieve a comprehensive reform of the United Nations, in all its aspects, so that it can play a central role in the protection of international peace and security. He will also have to focus his attention on other related issues. These include, among other things, counter-terrorism, nuclear non-proliferation, conflicts between and within states, human rights, transnational organised crimes, poverty alleviation and the role of sanctions.

Given the large increase in the number of UN member-states since 1945, especially developing countries, as well as the changes in international relations, the United Nations and its Security Council, in particular, need to be reformed. The aspirants for permanent seats in the Security Council have launched a worldwide campaign to garner support for the expansion of the body.

For obvious reasons, the expansion and reform of the Security Council should not lead to new centres of privileges and should be in accordance with the principle of equitable geographical representation and based on the sovereign equality of member states. The entire process of reform should be aimed at making the working procedures of the United Nations and the Security Council more transparent and participatory. Similarly, the concept of veto is an anachronism which negates the democratic norms of the United Nations. There is near consensus on the need to curtail if not eliminate it altogether.

The United Nations, as an international organisation, is sustained and directed by its members. It cannot act independently to determine the course of action to respond to the daunting challenges faced by the world. The most important prerequisite for making the world body a more effective and vibrant institution is the unwavering commitment of its members to fulfil their obligations to the promotion of objectives set out in the charter.

It is also necessary to harmonise the collective interests of the member states otherwise it would adversely affect the functional capability of the organisation and erode its credibility as an institution that was established to promote and safeguard the common interests of its members. It is equally important that members give their unstinting support to the secretary-general so that he can carry out his responsibilities in a manner that is commensurate with the challenges facing the contemporary world.

The writer is a former ambassador.

I’VE BEEN trying to imagine what it must be like to be a Muslim in Britain. I guess there’s a sense of dread about switching on the radio or television, even about walking into a newsagents.

What will they be saying about us today? Will we be under assault for the way we dress? Or the schools we go to, or the mosques we build? Who will be on the front page: a terror suspect, a woman in a veil or, the best of both worlds, a veiled terror suspect.

Don’t laugh. Last week the Times splashed on “Suspect in terror hunt used veil to evade arrest”. That sat alongside Tuesday’s lead in the Daily Express: “Veil should be banned say 98 per cent”. Nearly all those who rang the Express agreed that “a restriction would help to safeguard racial harmony and improve communication”. At the weekend the Sunday Telegraph led on “Tories accuse Muslims of ‘creating apartheid by shutting themselves off’ “.

That’s how it’s been almost every day since Jack Straw raised the matter of the veil nearly two weeks ago. Even before, Muslims could barely open a paper without seeing themselves on the front of it. David Cameron’s speech to the Tories a week earlier was trailed in advance as an appeal for Muslims to open up their single-faith schools: “Ban Muslim ghettos” was one headline.

Taken alone, each one of these topics could be the topic of a thoughtful, nuanced debate. The veil, for example, has found feminists among both its champions and critics, proving that it’s no straightforward matter. There should be nothing automatically anti-Muslim about raising the subject, not least since many Muslim women question the niqab themselves.

Similarly, Ruth Kelly was hardly out of line in suggesting, as she did last week, that the government needs to be careful about which Muslim groups it funds and with whom it engages, ensuring it leans towards those who are actively “tackling extremism”. Other things being equal, that was a perfectly sensible thing to say.

Except other things are not equal. Each one of these perfectly rational subjects, taken together, has created a perfectly irrational mood: a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a single, small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life.

The result is turning ugly and has, predictably, spilled on to the streets. Muslim organisations report a surge in physical and verbal attacks on Muslims; women have had their head coverings removed by force. A mosque in Falkirk was firebombed while another in Preston was attacked by a gang throwing bricks and concrete blocks.

Of course, such violence would be condemned by any politician asked about it. But a climate is developing here and every time a politician raises a question that would, on its own and in the quiet of the seminar room, be legitimate for debate, they are adding to it. They should feel shame for their reckless spraying of petrol on a growing blaze. Instead they applaud themselves, and are applauded in the press, for their bravery in daring to say what needs to be said.

In fact, the courageous politician would refuse to join this open season on Muslims and seek to cool things down - beginning with an explanation of how we got here. The elements include many of those that feature in any build-up of hostility to a single, derided group, here or across the world.

The foundation is fear. Many Britons have since 9/11, and especially since July 7, come to fear their Muslim neighbours: they worry that the young man next to them on the train might have more than an extra sweater in his backpack. Next comes ignorance, a simple lack of knowledge about Muslim life which leaves non-Muslims open to all kinds of misconceptions. That feeds into a simple discomfort, personified, in its most extreme form, by a woman whose face we cannot see.

What’s more, the set of issues that Islam raises for Britain are ones that do not break down on the usual ideological lines, allowing liberals and traditional anti-racists reflexively to line up alongside Muslims. The veil, and the queasiness it stirs in many feminists, is one example. Faith schools are another, prompting the ardent secularist to feel a sympathy for the government position that ordinarily would come more slowly. The result is that the Muslim community finds itself suddenly friendless. When it came to opposing the war in Iraq, British Muslims had no shortage of allies, but they face the latest bombardment virtually alone.

Muslims are not entirely passive in this drama. For one thing, the tiny handful of Islamist groups such as al-Ghurabaa or the Saviour Sect tend to confirm the wildest prejudices of those who fear Islam: they glorify those who kill civilians, they show contempt for democracy and declare that, yes, they are indeed determined to transform Britain into an Islamic state. Every time they open their mouths, life for Muslims in Britain gets harder. (Which is why the Today programme had no business giving over the prestigious 8.10am slot to Omar Brooks, whose sole qualification was his heckling of John Reid the previous day.)

The majority of British Muslims could have done themselves a favour if they had found a way to show just how unrepresentative Brooks and his ilk are. How powerful it would have been if, after 7/7, hundreds of thousands of British Muslims had taken to the streets to repudiate utterly the four bombers who had killed in the name of Islam. The model might have been the 2000 Basque march in Bilbao in protest against ETA violence. Or perhaps the 1992 funeral of an assassinated anti-mafia judge in Palermo, which turned into a rally of Sicilians against the crime organisation. The slogan for the British Muslim equivalent would have been obvious: Not in our name.

But Muslims would be right to reply that they should be under no more obligation to distance themselves from the 7/7 bombers than Britain’s Irish community were expected to denounce the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s. And this, too, is a prime task for politicians and media alike — to distinguish between radical, violent Islamism and mainstream British Islam.

Too often, the line between the two gets blurred, lazily and casually. Helpfully, the 1990 Trust on Tuesday published a survey which deserves wide dissemination. They found that the number of Muslims who believed acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK were justified was between 1 per cent and 2 per cent. Not good, but less than the 20 per cent or higher found by some newspaper polls. The trust reckons those earlier polls asked a loaded question - and got a highly charged answer.

Politicians and media need to be similarly careful when discussing multiculturalism, refusing to play to those who believe it means a licence to secession and Balkanisation. It doesn’t. Multiculturalism means allowing every group its own distinct identity and, at the same time, seeking an integrated Britishness we all share. Tony Blair was correct yesterday to say that the goal, never easy, is “getting the balance right”.

Right now, we’re getting it badly wrong — bombarding Muslims with pressure and prejudice, laying one social problem after another at their door. I try to imagine how I would feel if this rainstorm of headlines substituted the word “Jew” for “Muslim”: Jews creating apartheid, Jews whose strange customs and costume should be banned. I wouldn’t just feel frightened. I would be looking for my passport.

—Dawn/Guardian Service