|
| November 16, 2006 | Thursday | Shawwal 23, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
And now Talibanisation
Containing the dengue threat
Changing the course
THERE has been an unprecedented interest all over the world in the recent US mid-term election. Apparently, the entire world community was relieved over the election outcome which, as anticipated, turned out to be a referendum on President Bush’s Iraq policy and his handling of the war. For the first time in 12 years, the Democrats are now in control of both houses of the Congress.
A SPLIT seems to be developing between America and Britain on how to handle the Iraqi situation. Mr Tony Blair, long accused by his critics of tagging along with President George Bush on the latter’s Iraqi adventure beginning with the wild goose chase around the non-existent weapons of mass destruction, now seems to be getting wiser. More surprisingly, it is the British prime minister who appears to have drawn the correct conclusions from America’s mid-term elections rather than President Bush. Mr Blair has an ally in Mr James Baker, a former secretary of state in President George Bush senior’s government. Mr Baker is co-chairing a panel that favours talks with Syria and Iran to help find a solution to the Iraqi crisis. In his annual foreign policy speech on Monday, Mr Blair asked Syria and Iran to help stabilise Iraq. Still insisting that Syria and Iran give up their alleged support for terrorism, Mr Blair said just as the situation in Iraq was “evolving, so our strategy has to evolve to meet it”. He said that “a new partnership was possible” with the two countries, but that Iran must be given “a clear strategic choice” — to give up its “nuclear ambitions” or face isolation. Given what looks like a departure from the hard line towards Tehran and Damascus, Mr Blair had to qualify his offer with mild rebukes so as to make his policy shift acceptable to the people across the Atlantic. But, surprisingly, Ms Condoleezza Rice paid little attention to the British initiative. Speaking at Ramstein in Germany on Tuesday, the US secretary of state said she saw nothing new about “Iranian behaviour” that would suggest that Tehran was interested in contributing to stability in Iraq. However, she left the possibility of talks with Iran open, saying that there was already a channel between the American and Iranian ambassadors in Baghdad that at some point could be reactivated, but at the moment she saw little advantage in using it, stressing that Iraq was not Vietnam.
Talking to Iraq’s neighbours is the obvious option in trying to break the Iraqi imbroglio. Iraq’s other neighbours — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Jordan, all America’s friends — are unlikely to have much influence with the Iraqi resistance groups. But there is every possibility that they would listen to what Iranian and Syrian governments have to say. A quick withdrawal on which the Democrats insist is not practical. It will only increase violence and constitute a victory for the militants, who would simply throw the Maliki government out. But it is doubtful if they would be able to give peace to Iraq, given the fractious nature of Iraqi policy and the existence of powerful militias that often work at cross purposes. This is where Tehran and Damascus can help by working out an arrangement to ensure a phased withdrawal of the occupation forces and the gradual induction of UN peacekeepers.
America has to show realism. There is no military solution to the Iraqi problem, and the senseless violence with its heavy civilian toll, besides the rising American casualties, will continue. Iran has indicated that it will consider any American offer of talks if it is officially made. A breakthrough is thus possible provided the Bush administration shows the same realism which Mr Blair has had the belated courage to demonstrate.
THERE’S nothing even remotely moderate or enlightening about Talibanisation — a euphemism for the enforcement of radical interpretation of religion — that is continuing in parts of the Frontier province. Groups of so-called ‘local’ Taliban are going around stopping women from stepping out of the house, and shutting down girls’ schools, civil society organisations’ and NGOs’ offices even in the settled areas, not far from Peshawar. The zealots have also distributed pamphlets warning the ‘errant’ men of horrible consequences if they did not stop their women from going to work or their girls to schools and colleges. This is happening right under the nose of the MMA government which on Monday passed the controversial Hasba bill aimed at enforcing Islamic tenets through a moral police guided by the ombudsman. All this, while real issues confronting the people have taken a back seat in a province where 40 per cent of the population does not have access to drinking water. A worsening law and order situation and the Frontier’s social indicators are tell-tale reminders of the province’s underdevelopment. According to the government’s own statistics, only 14 per cent of rural women are literate; mortality rate among children under the age of five is 117 per 1,000; unemployment runs as high as 27 per cent; many seriously ill women die before ever reaching a hospital; the school dropout rate for girl students is among the highest in the country. Traditionally, women voters have been held back from using their right of franchise or even that of acquiring a national identity card.
Against this dismal background, it is amazing that the MMA government should be placing its emphasis only on improving an utterly impoverished people’s morality; the bigoted view of the emerging ‘local’ Taliban in the same area is even a bigger cause for concern. The MMA government’s blinkered view of priorities and the parallel, illegal process of Talibanisation now underway will further curtail women’s rights and lower their status in society. Such moves have no basis in the Constitution of Pakistan and must be stopped forthwith by the relevant authority, be it the federal government or the Supreme Court.
IT seems that the health ministry is pinning its hope on the dengue virus disappearing as the onset of winter nears; the logic being that the deadly mosquito does not survive in cold weather. This is perhaps why it is claiming that the numbers of patients being diagnosed with the dengue fever is on the decline. While this may be true for northern parts of the country, where dengue patients have been far fewer, the numbers in Sindh belie that claim. Since the beginning of this month, the number of patients being diagnosed with dengue fever has been averaging 100 a day in Karachi the past week. As of Nov 14, 37 people died in Karachi while 41 in Sindh. In fact, over 3,500 dengue fever patients have been admitted since June. While the strategy of “waiting for winter” to kill the mosquitoes may well work upcountry, the Sindh government will have to try a different approach — and one that works.
Admittedly, it has recognised the severity of the issue. But its actions, like heavy fumigation campaigns across the cities, have not proved effective enough. The authorities should conduct a proper survey of dengue patients, their homes and neighbourhoods to assess the risk of dengue fever in their locality. It must determine which area is more prone to the disease so that it can focus its efforts on eradicating the mosquitoes in that particular area while working on preventing its spread to other areas. This must be done on an urgent basis. Awareness campaigns in the media should be intensified so that people remain vigilant about when they should seek medical help if they get a fever. This will reduce the fear that has gripped the province — and the rest of the country too.
In the US, every mid-term election provides a regular opportunity to the people to change the composition of Congress and serves as an outlet for voter dissatisfaction with the party in power.
In other words, every election in the middle of a presidential tenure becomes an occasion for the American people to comment on the performance of their government and the White House. Although the president does not run every two years, in many respects the mid-terms are also seen as a reflection on his performance or that of the executive branch of his government.
This year’s mid-term election was a watershed opportunity for the American people not only to change the composition of the Congress but also to give a message of disapproval, loud and clear, to President Bush on his Iraq policy and his handling of the war on terror. In addition, for the American people, some important domestic concerns were also linked to foreign policy, such as energy supplies and homeland security.
This was the first time after the Vietnam war era in the late 1960s and early 1970s that foreign policy took centre-stage so decisively in an American election. Traditionally, domestic issues, mostly focusing on the economy, energy, healthcare, education, immigration, highways, crime prevention, job security and taxes have constituted the bulk of national issues on which elections are usually fought in the US. The 2006 election revolved round President Bush and the Iraq war.
The pre-exit polls had clearly portended the coming change with six in 10 respondents favouring a withdrawal of some or all troops from Iraq. In contrast, only less than one in five voters supported the induction of more troops into the Iraqi conflict. Meanwhile, President Bush also continued to suffer a sharp decline in his approval rates among the voters.
Major issues dominating an election campaign always engage the attention of both political parties, but on every issue each party has its own approach. Democrats might emphasise an issue that Republicans downplay and vice versa. Each party criticises the other for perceived or real policy faults. On Iraq, for example, the Democrats capitalised on the shortcomings of Bush’s Iraq policy and mishandling of the war. They have been saying that the US “shouldn’t have gone into Iraq and should get out.”
Now that the Democrats control both houses of Congress, will the US get out of Iraq soon? Not immediately. The voters may have wished to send a message to the administration for a change of course in Iraq but the dynamics of the situation there would not allow any immediate turnaround in US policy.
The Democrats did campaign against Bush’s Iraq policy but never presented any plan or timetable of their own for withdrawal from Iraq. In fact, their leaders never coalesced behind a single Iraq policy, and only used the overwhelming anti-war sentiment as an election ploy.
The Republicans brought it upon themselves. Their consensus around “stay the course” collapsed even before the votes were cast. GOP candidates tried to localise the elections by putting some rhetorical distance between themselves and the president and his policies, but the defeat of a number of popular Republican incumbents shows that the people were not ready for a compromise of any sort.
Indeed, as should have been in any genuine democracy, the people of the United States have exercised their general will and spoken their minds. And President Bush was quick to accept the people’s verdict and gave a prompt signal of his readiness for a “change in course” by immediately removing his defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief architects and a symbol of his Iraq policy, and replacing him with Robert Gates, a former CIA chief known for his pragmatic and realistic approach to Iraq.
This was welcomed by both the Republicans and the Democrats as a positive step that should now set the stage for some “change in course” on Iraq. Apparently, both parties, guided by their future political interests, might be looking for an exit from Iraq. After their major losses in this mid-term, Republicans would not want Iraq to remain an electoral albatross in 2008; Democrats, on their part, would also prefer Iraq not to be the first order of business if they reoccupy the White House in 2009.
Democratic leaders are now speaking of their preference for a change in approach which they hope can lead to the beginning of a phased withdrawal of US troops. Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who will be the next house speaker in January, has acknowledged that “the American people have spoken and said it was important for us now to work in a bipartisan way with the president to solve the problem, not to stay the course.”
Likewise, another leading Democrat, Senator Joseph Biden, who will be the new chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is also hopeful of a bipartisan approach in foreign policy. He claims to have been privately assured by a number of Republicans of their support for a “change in course” on Iraq. “We have a narrow window before 2008 kicks in to get a bipartisan consensus on Iraq,” he said.
President Bush, in his post-election news conference, reiterated his mind on Iraq; “I’d like our troops to come home, too, but I want them to come home with victory, leaving behind a country that can govern itself, sustain itself and defend itself but Iraq is not working well enough, fast enough.” He said, however, that he was open to any new ideas.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has also been engaged in a major review of the military’s Iraq strategy to determine “what’s going wrong and should be changed” to attain US objectives in the war-torn country. The review was initiated after the recent deterioration of the security situation in Baghdad and mounting US casualties.
The changed political landscape in Washington should pave the way for fresh thinking and a new bipartisan approach in handling the conflict in Iraq. But no major change, especially any wholesale troop withdrawal, is expected. The possibility of a remedial effort that improves the situation in Iraq by strengthening its stability and delegating to its government more responsibility cannot be ruled out.
A lot will, however, depend on whether the main stakeholders, namely, the White House, the two parties and their 2008 presidential contenders, will opt to lower the political temperature on Iraq for a consensus approach in dealing with the Iraqi situation or allow the Iraq issue to remain a rallying cry for the presidential campaign.
In this connection, all eyes are now set on James Baker, a veteran Republican and secretary of state in the senior Bush’s administration, who, along with former Democratic congressman Lee Hamilton, co-chairs the bipartisan Iraq Study Group which has been quietly studying options to “change the course” on Iraq. The independent panel was constituted in March this year with the blessings of the White House and funding from the Congress.
It is not without significance that the new defence secretary, Robert Gates, is one of the 10 members of this panel which is now finalising its recommendations. Political circles in Washington attach great importance to this report expected to be out in late December or early January, and believe that its recommendations might provide a fresh perspective and some new ideas to the major political stakeholders for a bipartisan strategy to “change the course” on Iraq.
The panel is believed to be looking at a wide range of options, and only one, “staying the course” is apparently off the table. The various “course adjustment” alternatives under consideration of the panel include sending more troops, “redeploy and contain”, immediate withdrawal, and drawing down troops gradually.
The panel might also propose a rapprochement with Iran and Syria to bring them into a regional arrangement on Iraq, an international conference, primary focus on stability rather than democracy, as well as a timetable for a phased withdrawal of US troops.
On Afghanistan and Pakistan, the new political dispensation on Capitol Hill is not likely to bring any change. Both countries are the “ground zero” of the war on terror, and will retain their importance and role in this capacity no matter who is in control of the Congress.
Terrorism is an issue above party lines in Washington and evokes equal concern in the US over the aggravating situation in Afghanistan and on Pakistan’s crucial role in this war. If anything, one may expect the Democrats to bring greater pressure on Pakistan to continue “to do more” in fighting the Taliban.
Among other issues, US policy interests in Pakistan will continue to focus on nuclear weapons and missile proliferation, India-Pakistan hostility, democracy, human rights and narcotics trafficking.
On Kashmir, the position of the United States has always been ambivalent and evasive of any role that is against India’s wishes. It recognises the dispute and declares that it should be settled in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people, without any reference to the partition formula of 1947 or the United Nations resolutions.
In practical terms, however, the US considers Kashmir as a very complex problem with legitimisation of the status quo as being the only viable solution. For the sake of stability in the region and to avoid any distraction from the war on terror, it will continue to encourage and sustain the India-Pakistan composite dialogue.
For India, its strategic relationship with the US as “partners in peace” would remain a priority in Washington under any dispensation. Democrats now with a majority in both houses might even accelerate the outstanding clearance of the nuclear deal in Congress and also take up more vigorously India’s case for a permanent seat in the UN Security Council.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.