|
| March 27, 2007 | Tuesday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 7, 1428 |
Air attack by Tamil rebels
Murder of newly-weds
Iran: this hot-headed US approach
It’s harder to look forward
IN January 1945, four and a half years before coming to power in China, Mao Zedong and Chou En-Lai expressed their desire to talk in person with President Franklin D. Roosevelt in Washington. The United States remained silent and ignored the offer.
IGNORING the ‘doing more’ part of the four American senators’ letter to President Pervez Musharraf, one can see a lot of truth in what the members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee have said about the political situation in Pakistan and their concerns about the future. They have particularly referred to the current pressures on the media and the detention, mistreatment and harassment of journalists and political figures, and remarked that the general election in 2002 had created “widespread international scepticism” because of the involvement of security and intelligence agencies in the electoral exercise. Calling the coming days as “crucial” for Pakistan’s democratic development and the relations between the two countries, the senators have said their country has “enormous stakes” in Pakistan and warned that, if the current situation is not handed properly, their relationship could be “imperilled”.
The points raised by the senators stand on their own, irrespective of what negative or positive impact they can have on US-Pakistan relations. The letter to the president comes at a time when the country is passing through a serious political and judicial crisis, worsened by the administration’s inept handling of the situation as shown by the baton charge on protesting lawyers and the police attacks on the offices of a newspaper and a TV channel. This has strengthened the widespread feeling among political parties and sections of opinion that the action against the chief justice has something to do with the coming election, because the CJ, now ‘non-functional’, had delivered a number of judgments that reversed government actions on some key issues. Large sections of the people would thus not be wrong if they thought that the government wanted to have a pliant judiciary in the coming months when the apex court could possibly be required to pronounce on major issues such as the existing assemblies re-electing Gen Musharraf for another five-year term and the army chief continuing as head of state.
Since the army takeover of October 12, 1999, under circumstances which need not be recalled here, the nation has been waiting for a return to democracy. Whatever the faults of the two leaders now in exile, one has to admit that the four governments Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Nawaz Sharif headed were democratically elected. If they were accused of corruption, there is nothing to suggest that corruption has ceased to exist under the present military-led regime. The crucial difference between the present government and those that existed between 1988 and 1999 is one of democracy. Truly speaking, this government lacks democratic credentials because the last election was far from being free and transparent. The generals queered the pitch for its political opponents and saw to it that the ‘king’s party’ won. The coming election will lose all meaning and relevance if it is to be a repeat of the 2002 exercise. The continuation of Gen Musharraf as both army chief and president violates one of democracy’s fundamentals — total civilian control over the nation’s affairs. Whether or not the feared manipulation of the next general election spoils Pakistan’s relations with its friends is immaterial; what is far more fundamental is the repeatedly frustrated quest and desire of the people of Pakistan for undiluted democracy and the rule of law.
SUNDAY night’s aerial attack that was carried out by Tamil rebels on an air force base near Colombo is a dangerous development in Sri Lanka’s civil conflict and threatens to plunge the country into deeper political chaos. This was the first air attack carried out by the rebels and confirmed what many had suspected: that the Tamil Tigers are in the process of building up their own air power. The impression has much to support it, given that the rebels have been building air strips in the territory controlled by them. Also, the Sri Lankan navy recently destroyed two Tiger ships that were carrying spare aircraft parts for assemblage. The fact that the two light aircraft that dropped bombs on the military base in Sunday’s attack were not intercepted — and also returned safely — points to serious intelligence and security flaws. Whatever the findings of the probe that the authorities have launched, it is certain that, elated by their success, the Tigers will now carry out similar missions that could also jeopardise international flights to Sri Lanka.
It remains to be seen how the government responds to this new threat posed by a rebel force that frequently indulges in suicide missions. With violence escalating over the past one year, the 2002 ceasefire hangs by a thread. Talks have consistently failed and the efforts of the Scandinavian peace monitoring team have been undermined by Tamil bellicosity. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of civilians, mostly Tamils, continue to suffer — thousands have died, and many more have been rendered homeless. While the government has no option but to use force against the intransigent rebels, one expects that ‘collateral damage’ will be kept to a minimum and that the air force and army will refrain from targeting Tamil civilian areas during their operations. In fact, the government’s best weapon against the rebels would be the support of ordinary Tamils, especially those living in a virtual state of siege in Tiger-controlled areas. It can win this support by safeguarding their interests and ensuring that they are not subjected to any kind of discrimination that could alienate them further and prevent their joining the mainstream.
IT is not just in the rural hinterland, remote areas stuck in a time warp, that daughters are killed for marrying men of their own choice. Such barbaric sentiment is alive even in towns like Narowal in Punjab, from where a father went to suburban Lahore and shot dead his 20-year-old daughter, as well as her husband and brother-in-law, because she had married against his will. It is difficult to comprehend what compels a parent to take his own child’s life simply because she has married a man of her choosing. A woman has the right to marry a partner of her own choice, a right that was upheld by a Supreme Court ruling in 1997. But such reasoning falls on deaf ears of tradition-bound families that will go to any lengths in getting their daughters back. Some girls marrying against their parents’ will run away but remain in constant fear of being discovered by their vengeful families. Then there are some who seek refuge in shelters as their fates are decided by courts hearing charges of kidnapping filed against husbands by the girls’ families. Many are spared death because their story makes the news. However, like the couple originally from Narowal, many are not always lucky.
What is the way out of this terrible situation? The most important aspect lies in implementing the law — in this case, arresting those involved in the killing and bringing them to justice. As for those couples that marry of their own choice and are then threatened by their families: they must be given protection of the law and their families held responsible if anything horrible happens to them. Of equal importance are awareness campaigns in the media, educating the people on a person’s right to choose a life partner. Only enlightened debate on the subject can steer society out of the hold of medieval customs and notions.
Twenty-seven years later, with millions of lives lost in the wars in Korea and Vietnam, Richard Nixon travelled to Beijing to confer with the same two leaders whose offer Roosevelt had ignored.In 2003, Iran had offered the United States a detailed proposal, which had the blessings of all major players including the supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, for comprehensive negotiations to resolve bilateral differences. Flush with its recent triumph in Iraq, Washington rejected the offer for a comprehensive deal in 2003.
The document, sent by the Iranian foreign ministry, acknowledged that Iran would have to address concerns about its nuclear programme and support for anti-Israeli extremist organisations.
Prior to this proposal in 2003, Iran had helped Washington in its invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, in the aftermath of 9/11 in which no Iranian was involved, and became the first country to recognise Hamid Karzai’s government in Kabul. Immediately after 9/11, Tehran was one capital of a Muslim country where thousands held spontaneous candlelight vigil with prayers and support for the victims of 9/11.
Mohammad Khatami, Iran’s scholarly and cultured president, in his message condemned 9/11 as an “act of nihilism” which has “no place in Islamic thinking”. United States responded to all these appeasement overtures by including Iran, in January 2002, in the “axis of evil” along with Iraq and North Korea.
Sensing that it would be the prime beneficiary of Saddam Hussein’s downfall and its subsequent replacement by a Shia-dominated government, Iran remained silent over the invasion of Iraq although it has opposed the occupation of Iraq by the American forces.
By the end of 2003, two of Iran’s worst enemies — Taliban and Saddam — had been overthrown by the American forces. However, Iran was seized by a siege mentality as American forces in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Persian Gulf surrounded it.
In addition, America has a military presence in or close military cooperation with all of Iran’s neighbours except Syria and Russia. Iran’s negotiations with the EU-3 (France, Germany and United Kingdom) were bound to fail, as it did not include the United States — the only country from which Iran faces a threat and, hence, which is in a position to underwrite security assurances to an insecure Iran in exchange for abandoning its nuclear programme.
Washington invaded Iraq calculating that it could do business with the Shias in Iraq, who were presumed to be different from Iranian Shias. In 1972, Richard Nixon had cut a deal with China, based on the assumption that Washington could manipulate the Sino-Soviet divide in communism to his advantage and contain the Soviets in Vietnam.
Three years after the invasion of Iraq, the American assumption about the Shias of Iraq has proved wrong as Iraq’s Shias and, most importantly, their top political leadership are quite close to Iran. For the first time since 1921, when Iraq became a republic, Baghdad has a government which is friendly towards Tehran.
At the request of Iraq’s Shia political leadership, Washington felt compelled to initiate a dialogue with Tehran on Iraq’s future — hence acknowledging the failure of its policy of isolating Iran by dealing with Iraq’s Shias.Both Tehran and Washington have common interest in the stability and integrity of Iraq and the war against Al Qaeda in the Middle East. The report by the Iraq Study Group — co-headed by former secretary of state, James Baker — has stressed the need for engagement with Iran and Syria to improve the situation in Iraq. The argument that an unstable Iraq (or an Iraq divided into three countries) is in Iran’s interest is not convincing at all.
From Iran’s viewpoint, a stable Iraq, dominated by Shias who are close to the Iranian leadership is what serves Iranian interests best. Last year’s elections in Iraq, which brought the Shias into power, has already achieved Iran’s objectives. Now, it is in Iran’s interest to see a stable Iraq, presided over by Nouri al-Maliki or Abdel Aziz al-Hakim — who is friendly towards Iran.
James Baker is right in saying that even during the Cold War, Washington never abandoned the policy of engagement/dialogue with Moscow. Engaging Iran in talks over Iraq can serve as a confidence building measure for further dialogue between Iran and the United States who have not had any formal contact since the hostage crisis following the 1979 revolution in Iran.
Washington’s policy of conducting diplomacy with Iran through proxies — the UN, the EU, China or Russia — has failed. The need of the hour is that both Washington and Tehran should hold direct talks on Iran’s nuclear programme and other issues such as the situation in the Middle East, support to extremist organisations, concerns over human rights record etc.
In the past, Washington, despite opposition to authoritarian regimes such as the Soviet Union or China, never closed the door of direct negotiations. The US continues to do business with countries whose human rights record is worse than Iran’s.In the last few years, Washington has been able to wean Libya away from the policy of acquiring nuclear weapons and supporting extremist organisations by offering security assurances to the Libyan regime.
By the same logic, Iran can also be persuaded to give up nuclear weapons and support to extremist organisations by being offered a comprehensive deal that underwrites security assurances, engages Iran in Iraq and the region, drops the objectives of regime change from Washington’s agenda and safeguards Iran’s energy and economic interests.
The US should understand that it has no good options, apart from direct talks, on Iran as none of the other options, sanctions — including the latest ones backed by the UN — or military strikes, will achieve the desired objective. Sanctions or the threat of a military strike or steps to isolate Iran from the regional scenario will force Iran to take the North Korean route instead of following Libya’s example.
Barbara Tuchman, a noted American historian, wrote during the Vietnam War in 1972: “Basic to the conduct of foreign policy is the problem basic to all policy: how to apply wisdom to government. If wisdom in government eludes us, perhaps courage could substitute — the moral courage to terminate mistakes.”
Inviting Iran and Syria to the conference in Iraq is a good first step. President Bush should discard the current flawed American foreign policy and pursue the path of direct dialogue/engagement with the ayatollahs in Tehran.
ammar.ali.qureshi@gmail.com
IF you were standing under the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on Sunday and looking either down Unter den Linden, in what was once in east Berlin, or back towards the Tiergarten, in what was once the west, it would have been easy to think of the good things Europe had achieved at the age 50: reunification, the largest single market in the world, the nemesis of dictatorship in Spain, Portugal and Greece, the end of continental war.
The EU has arguably been more skilful at projecting its soft power than the greatest military force in the world, America. Cue Beethoven's Ninth Symphony and light the fireworks. But it would have been more difficult to look forwards. No sooner had European leaders quaffed their glasses yesterday in celebration of half a century of unity than they were experiencing the familiar hangover about what the next five decades holds in store.
Chief among the party poopers was the German Pope, Benedict XVI, angry that the Berlin Declaration contained no reference to God and Europe's Christian roots. He said the reluctance of women in Europe to have babies was not just a demographic sign of decline. Europe itself was losing faith in its future.
The Pope is not the only problem. The paradox of Europe at 50 is that it has been almost too successful at expansion. Its existential spirit burns brightest at its periphery. If you are Polish, or Irish, it is quite hard to feel anti-European. More funds are pouring into Poland from Europe than post-war Germany received from the Marshall Plan. But if you live in Germany, France or the Netherlands you are more likely to be plunged into a post-Maastricht malaise. Euroscepticism is no longer a British monopoly.
Sluggish economic growth, high unemployment and the euro account for part, but not at all, of the story. It is often forgotten that three of the world's five best-performing economies are European: Denmark, Finland and Sweden.
Germany is back as the world's leading exporter, thanks to private-sector wage restraint. If there are problems with the French, German and Italian economies, it would be fairer to say that they are national rather than European ones.
Politics in France and the Netherlands is still deeply affected by their rejection of the European constitution. In both countries Europe has been the whipping boy for the growing gulf between voters and their political elites.
––The Guardian, London