|
| November 23, 2006 | Thursday | Ziqa'ad 1, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Free and fair elections
For pacification of Iraq
Political cost of the nuclear deal
Rivals in partnership
NEVER underestimate the ability of a lame-duck Senate to cripple any idea that appears in its path. However, the latest episode in the long-running effort to structure a nuclear deal between India and the United States is a bit of a non-event.
IN A typical case of the kettle calling the pot black, the president of the ruling PML-Q has advised the MMA to refrain from using religion for political purposes. One can well ask Chaudhry Shujaat whether he himself has not turned to religion to promote his political ambitions. The fact is that politics in Pakistan has been given a strongly religious overtone and politicians of different hues have relied heavily on religion to give credibility to what they say. There is no doubt that the Objectives Resolution was moved by the first prime minister of Pakistan basically to appease the religious parties, but he discreetly kept it in the preamble to the then constitution to avoid its indiscriminate use. Religion was brought into practical politics for the first time in the seventies. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s concern was to ensure that the religious elements were not alienated by his populist politics. He, therefore, coined the slogan of Islamic socialism and declared the Qadianis non-Muslim. It was Ziaul Haq who brought in the trend of Islamisation of governance and politics in a big way and there has been no turning back since then.
This induction of Islam into politics has had very a negative impact. There is no doubt about Pakistanis being proud of their Islamic faith and heritage. One would not question the wisdom of encouraging people to order their personal lives in accordance with the moral principles of Islam. But to try to empower the state to enforce Islamic laws and systems drawn up by the disciples of one school of thought or another has a divisive tilt to it. It is hazardous since it can lead to discord, given the large number of sects that exist in Pakistan and that hold conflicting views on, and interpretations of, the Sharia and the Quran. This also explains why no Islamic model of government has been developed in 1400 years. An attempt at this stage to devise a system for prescribing the framework for government, economy and a corpus of laws has its pitfalls. It would therefore be wiser to adopt the option of upholding the principles that Islam stands for and striving to work within the broad framework of these norms.
On the other hand, the system Pakistan has adopted is one in which there is an exaggerated stress on ritualistic correctness and rectitude of form rather than substance. This approach allows plenty of room for politicians to use religion for their own ends as has been happening in Pakistan. The main reason why the Hasba Bill was resisted by the opposition parties in the NWFP assembly is because they fear that it will provide the MMA an instrument to use against its opponents. The two-month long drama in Islamabad that preceded the enactment of the protection of women’s bill could have been avoided if the ruling party had not succumbed initially to the MMA’s pressure directed at weakening the bill on the pretext of bringing it into line with the Sharia. It is shocking that the political parties that are most vocal about Islamising society are also the ones which do not raise a voice against all the social evils, economic corruption and other ills that plague Pakistan and make the life of an average citizen nasty and brutish and which take place in gross violation of Islam. Is it because there is no political mileage to be gained from opposing these ills?
THE coming together of some civil society organisations in Islamabad for the purpose of ensuring a free and fair election next year is a welcome development. Various groups which spoke at the launch of the newly formed body, Free and Fair Elections Network, on Tuesday stressed how important it was for people to have their shaken faith restored in the electoral process. While the military is responsible for the erosion of people’s trust, as a result of its frequent interferences in politics, politicians too must accept their part of the blame for failing to deliver on promises made to their electorate. In the past seven years, President Musharraf and his party of loyalists have also contributed to the widening disconnect and mistrust between the people and the institutions that are meant to represent them. The results of the obviously rigged presidential referendum and the 2002 elections are just two examples of how the peoples’ faith in the electoral process has been further eroded. To restore that faith will require more than President Musharraf urging people to exercise their right to vote in the “mother of all elections” next year as he did in Karachi on Monday. The public, like other stakeholders, must own up the electoral process as their own; they need to believe that their vote can count as a vehicle of change or affirmation.
It is imperative that the 2007 elections be held under a neutral, independent caretaker set-up that is acceptable to all the parties. The same is true of the Election Commissioner whose appointment must inspire the confidence of everyone involved. The Election Commission must ensure that any new rules and regulations for next year’s elections are announced well in advance so as to avoid any advantage for one group or cause any last minute confusion. Steps like redrawing a particular constituency so as to split votes are unethical and unfair. It should also ensure that everyone adheres to the electioneering code of conduct formulated in July 2005. Apart from urging people to vote, organisations like FAFEN should monitor the voting process and ensure that voting boxes are not stuffed with fake ballots and often happens in Pakistan.
IT is ominous that the killing of the Lebanese minister, Pierre Gemayel, should have coincided with the accord reached between Syria and Iraq on Tuesday to re-establish their severed diplomatic relations after 24 years. The anti-Syria lobby in Lebanon and its western backers have again blamed Damascus for the latest killing, as they did in February last year for the assassination of Mr Rafik Hariri. The latest accusation also comes on the eve of Iran, another thorn in the side of Iraq’s occupiers, trying to arrange a three-nation summit meeting with Syria and Iraq to help stabilise the political situation in Iraq. The regional initiative goes a step further than what the US and Britain had grudgingly hinted at after their failure to blame Iran and Syria for the mess of their own creation in Iraq: that Iraq’s two neighbours should play a role in stabilising the situation in the occupied country. While both Syria and Iran know that a stable Iraq is in their own interest, they understandably remain wary of Iraq’s occupiers and their agenda.
If the Iranian initiative to hold the summit in Tehran on Saturday succeeds, it will deal a blow to the US-British strategy, which is aimed at securing Iraq’s oil wealth and neutralising any threat to Israel. The present Iraqi government, a loose confederation of Shias, Sunnis and Kurds, however, knows that for it to have any credibility with its own people, it must mend fences with its immediate neighbours or risk being seen as a stooge of the occupying powers. Baghdad’s decision to re-establish diplomatic relations with Syria and seeking better ties with Iran are steps in the right direction; for long after American and British troops have vacated Iraq, Baghdad will have to live with its neighbours who wield considerable influence over its disparate sectarian and ethnic groups.
The US Senate approved a bill that included all the clauses that India, speaking formally through its parliament, had objected to, and added amendments that will raise more than an eyebrow in Delhi.
I cannot see, for instance, India reading from the same page as America on Iran ‘s nuclear programme, or, more important, surrendering its independent right to test again. The rising star of the Democrats, Senator Obama, has lent his name to an amendment that prevents India from storing fuel for its imported reactors.
Too much conciliation might be required in the next stage, when the bill will be “reconciled” between the Senate and House versions. Common sense suggests that reconciliation seeks to bridge the difference between what has been passed, rather than eliminate clauses wholesale. Come December, we shall see what we shall see. In the meantime, let us celebrate the return of calm and maturity to the foreign office in Delhi.
When the House of Representatives passed its version of the bill, a mild form of hysteria broke out, guided by mandarins in external affairs and contract-employees in the prime minister’s office. Selected journalists were briefed to lead a media chorus. You might have thought that India had been elected member of the Security Council, and defeated Pakistan in both war and cricket on the same day. This time, the temper of the reaction is both realistic and reassuring. You can see the calm hand of foreign minister Pranab Mukherjee and foreign secretary Shiv Shankar Menon at work. The new message is clear and welcome: India wants a nuclear deal, but it is not going to be written with only an American pen.
Since there is a pause in the affairs of men, it might be appropriate to take a larger look. The basis of the nuclear deal is the agreement signed between President George Bush and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on July 18, 2005. Since then, there have been three important developments, at least two of which are certainly inter-related, and the third very possibly so. The consequence of these events is that the nuclear map of the world has changed one more time. From July this year, there has been a growing feeling, now reaching certainty, that the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq has been a failure; that victory in Iraq is impossible, and the best scenario possible is an orderly, phased withdrawal in which power is transferred to a government in Baghdad that is not overtly hostile to the West. Such a transition is impossible without the cooperation of Iraq’s neighbours. There have been subtle, and not so subtle, shifts in the dynamic of America’s relations with most of the neighbours.
When George Bush was still in charge of events, he declared that three nations constituted an “axis of evil”: Iran, Iraq and North Korea. Syria was then added to the list. Now that events are in charge of Bush, the meaning of “evil” is being renegotiated. Bush accepts that Syria cannot be treated as an outcast, and while he will not yet extend that same consideration to Iran, any realist knows that a settlement in Iraq, if there is ever going to be one, is impossible without Iran’s cooperation.
Iran has very sensible diplomats. They know that it makes no sense to tease a defeated elephant, but they also understand that it is a weakened animal. If the American mission in Iraq had gone according to Donald Rumsfeld’s dreams, Iran would have been vulnerable today. Now that the war has gone as per Iran’s expectations, America is vulnerable.
The first country to exploit this vulnerability was the third member of the axis of evil, North Korea. It is highly unlikely that North Korea would have dared to test three years ago, when the perception of American power was still in the “shock and awe” dimension. It is also moot whether North Korea’s principal and sole benefactor would have permitted North Korea to do so.
America’s muted response has justified the Pyongyang-Beijing calculation. The irony is multiple. America went to Iraq ostensibly to hold the nuclear line, and is emerging from the war with the nuclear line in tatters. A door that was pushed ajar by India and Pakistan in 1998 has been thrown open by North Korea and China eight years later. This eases the pressure on Iran significantly, since it would be a very brave, if not foolhardy, American president who would now plan an invasion of Iran.
China has been swift to exploit emerging opportunity. It is strengthening Pakistan’s capability dramatically, and has just signed up to provide Egypt with a credible nuclear programme. I presume no one with even marginal IQ indulges in the fiction that nuclear reactors are really meant for peaceful purposes. If Egypt needed them for peaceful purposes it would have invested in them at least a generation ago. Egypt knows that with Israel a nuclear power, and Iran on the verge of becoming one, it cannot be a regional player without similar capability.
The Saudis certainly have the finances to become a nuclear power and Latin America is not going to remain obediently docile. Japan is nuclear in all but name. It will not deviate from its official, pacific line, but if its self-interest requires a degree of deception, so be it.
The next decade is going to be one of great flux in the nuclear game. This game will be played with the kind of dexterity, determination and patience that India showed during those long decades when we pretended that our nuclear programme was for peaceful purposes only. It is going to be a decade for building parallel alliances.
It is not the moment in history when India should willingly tie itself down to any apron string, even if that apron has the enticing brand value of America. It is no accident that one of the conditions that American legislators want to impose upon India is that it must become part of American policy vis-a-vis Iran. China is free of any such encumbrance, and is playing the nuclear field with careful abandon.
It is supplying nuclear fuel and technology to its friends, a point that is registering sharply with mature nations who now see such friendship as critical to their security concerns. Such nations will express their gratitude by encouraging the import of Chinese manufactures, giving China a double whammy. China ‘s eggs are being spread across the world, to fertilise and hatch at whatever pace the local climate will permit. India can see only one basket.
There is still time for contours to shift. And while there are still too many knee-jerk cheerleaders in the chorus surrounding government, the drums are thankfully silent inside government. Prime Minister Singh has made certain commitments to parliament; it is now up to Washington to ensure that those commitments are honoured.
When the deal was at an incipient stage last year, I recall asking an American friend only one question: how much political capital does George Bush have left in reserve after Iraq, and how much of it is he willing to spend on a nuclear deal with India? More than a year later, reserves of capital have depleted further, and we will know the full answer to that two-part question soon enough.
The writer is editor-in-chief of Asian Age, New Delhi.
TONY BLAIR flies to Afghanistan, Gordon Brown to Iraq; David Cameron is in Darfur, George Bush has just left Indonesia. Some of the recent flurry of international jettings matter a lot. Others much less so.
One that indisputably belongs in the first category is the visit by China’s president Hu Jintao to India this week. The summit with India’s prime minister Manmohan Singh — only the second of its kind — brings together the leaders of more than a third of humanity and of the two countries whose growth is the starting-point for all serious discussion of the global economy in the 21st century. Few bilateral relationships are more important than this. This one matters to us all.
The current tendency of European leaders to speak of the two nations in one globalising breath can be misleading. China and India are neither economic equals nor political allies. On most indicators, India lags considerably behind, while the visit reminds the world that China’s military defeat of India in 1962 still shapes relations and attitudes.
Attempts to solve their border disputes have continued for long years without breakthrough; last week, on the eve of Mr Hu’s trip, China provocatively reiterated its territorial claims. Indian fears that China may try to divert the Brahmaputra river and ongoing Chinese anger about the presence in India of the Dalai Lama and 120,000 Tibetan refugees also ensured that the summit had to skirt around some intractable differences.
Agreements were limited further by China’s long relationship with Pakistan, where Mr Hu goes a day later. There he will sign nuclear-power and naval arms deals worth billions of pounds more than anything to which he put his name in Delhi. Though there have been plenty of mutual compliments during the visit, India and China remain wary of each other, acting out a cold-war style rivalry in which an advantage for one is perceived by the other as a threat. None of that has changed this week.
— The Guardian, London