Iran’s show of maturity

THE recent episode relating to the capture and release of 15 British sailors and marines by Iran was another example of how this beleaguered regime is able to play a weak hand with considerable skill and intelligence and thus derive unexpected advantages. This is not the first time something like this has happened. Yet diplomatic observers were surprised by the manner in which the drama unfolded.

This is because most countries, and in particular those in the West, have always made the mistake of believing that the Islamic regime lacks adequate experience and understanding of how the world functions, which leads it to either overstate its strengths or underestimate the resolve of its opponents.

The Carter administration’s dealings with Iran during the hostage crisis that lasted from November 1979 to January 1981, demonstrated the folly of this perception. Consequently, it had to pay a heavy price that included not only an inordinate delay in the release of the hostages, but one that saw its presidency being discredited and eventually destroyed on account of an ill-conceived and poorly executed rescue operation.

The Reagan administration, too, fared no better, with senior officials from the National Security Council, deciding to travel to Tehran bearing a Bible and a cake, in expectation of rebuilding relations with the regime. I cannot imagine a more bizarre exhibition of inept behaviour by seemingly wise people representing a superpower.But it was, of course, Saddam Hussein who suffered most grievously from his misreading of the Islamic regime’s steely determination. I recall being told by senior US officials in Washington how the Iraqis armed with advanced Soviet weapons and reinforced by sensitive American intelligence would overrun the poorly-equipped Iranian soldiers who lacked both the weaponry and professional training required for modern warfare. Saddam was left to rue the day he decided to invade Iran.

These past weeks we have seen how the Iranians have once again handled a potentially explosive situation with skill and resolve. Though the British claimed that the marines were seized in the Shatt Al-Arab, there can be no doubt that the British were aware that their activities in the area were likely to upset the Iranians who have always considered it theirs.

This is because a 1975 treaty between Iran and Iraq set their border as running down the centre of the Shatt Al-Arab, but Saddam cancelled the treaty before launching his invasion of Iran in 1980.

The Iranians also made it clear that they were all the more upset by the British navy encroaching its territorial waters because Britain has always been viewed as the US’s junior partner in Washington’s conspiracies against Tehran. In any case, by capturing the British sailors, Tehran succeeded in reinforcing its claim to the area. Tehran was also able to handle the situation with poise and self-assurance. Though Iran condemned the violation of its territorial waters and threatened to put the captured soldiers on trial, it never rejected the option of dialogue and negotiations to resolve this confrontation. Finally, by ordering their release on the occasion of the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) birthday, Iran demonstrated that it did not wish to be viewed as rigid and vindictive.

Once the hostages were back home, the British press expressed its outrage at what it claimed was the harsh and illegal treatment of its naval personnel. The US, too, joined in, even though it has had no hesitation in violating the provisions of the Geneva Convention relating to the treatment of prisoners of war. Bush actually signed a memo after 9/11 relaxing adherence to Geneva, causing immense damage to the sanctity of this agreement.

The British accusations were simply ludicrous, coming as they did from a country that has hardly been a model of correct behaviour. Lest it be forgotten, Tony Blair’s government has not only been among the most vocal defenders of the Bush policies, but has itself been accused of similar transgressions. That the British captives were kept in reasonably good condition was obvious from their physical and emotional state when released from captivity.

The British could not, however, hide the fact that Tehran had succeeded in outsmarting it, even though they claimed that the release was accomplished “without any deal, without any side agreement of any nature whatsoever”. Nevertheless, as reported by the Iranian media, an Iranian diplomat was promised access to five of their officials arrested in Irbil by US forces earlier in the year. And, it was not a coincidence that an Iranian official, Jalal Sharafi, detained in Iraq for some two months, was released at the same time that the British sailors were allowed to go home.

As expected, the US tried to fish in troubled waters by jumping into the fray and trying to come out swinging in support of its ally. The Americans were also keen to claim credit for the release of the British servicemen, with the neo-conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer claiming that “American action is what got this unstuck”. This was also the view of Bush administration officials, but mainstream American journalists were not impressed by these claims.

They acknowledged that US policies in the Middle East, and in particular its occupation of Iraq, had not only generated tremendous hostility against Washington, but also weakened US leverage over Iran.

Many credible journalists have recognised that with the debacle in Iraq, the US may also be losing the will to carry out a surgical strike against Iran’s nuclear installations. Not only are the US and the UK stuck in a quagmire, their policies have had an effect exactly the opposite of what had been intended. Gary Sick, an American expert on the Middle East, recently noted: “From Iran’s perspective (the US war in Iraq) is a gift of unparalleled proportions.” Bob Gates, before becoming Bush’s defence secretary, admitted that the US would be “the supplicant” if US-Iran discussions were held now.

It was, however, the US raid on the Iranian liaison office in Irbil on January 11 that was the starting point of the drama that culminated in the Iranian capture of the British sailors some 10 weeks later. The US raid was carried out within hours of Bush’s State of the Union address on January 10, 2007, in which he charged that “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops.”

On that day, the US forces launched a surprise raid on the Iranian office in the city and took into custody five relatively junior officials. Accused of being intelligence agents, they are still being held in custody. It has, however, now been gathered that the US operation was aimed at capturing two senior officials of the Iranian security establishment. They were reportedly M. Jafari, the powerful deputy head of the Iranian National Security Council, and General Minojahar Frouzanda, the chief of Intelligence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. They were on an official visit to Iraqi Kurdistan to meet President Jalal Talabani at his house in Irbil. The US action was both irresponsible and highly provocative.

For Pakistan, an unfortunate development at this time was a report carried by a US television network alleging that a group known as Jundullah was operating from inside Pakistan to carry out raids across the border into Iran. The US network claimed that US officials had secretly encouraged a militant group operating out of Balochistan to carry out several deadly attacks in Iran.

Recognising the damaging nature of the report, the Pakistan Foreign Office spokesperson, rejected it as “absurd and sinister”, but the denial carried little credibility given the fact that our Foreign Office is not privy to these kinds of things.Nevertheless, this latest episode has once again demonstrated that just when it appeared that Iran was moving inexorably towards extreme positions, it surprised the world by adopting a moderate, pragmatic approach. The swift and peaceful resolution of this latest crisis is another demonstration of Iran’s remarkable ability to switch gears.

Reputable American scholars, such as Mark Gasiorowski and Stephen Green, have pointed out that the Iranians have always demonstrated intelligence and astuteness in dealing with foreign powers. Even during the hostage crisis, US arms continued to flow to Iran through Israel, with “the knowledge and tacit approval of the Carter administration”. All this suggests strongly that Iran has never “allowed ideology to influence its political conduct or supersede its national interests”.

Iran’s current difficulties pose both a challenge and an opportunity for Pakistan. If we can demonstrate genuine understanding for Iran’s core interests, we could use our current close relations with the US to promote dialogue and reconciliation between Washington and Tehran. This will be neither easy nor risk-free, but the stakes for the entire region are very high.

The rewards are great as well. No opportunity must, therefore, be lost to impress upon the US that it would do itself and the region a lot of good if it was to grasp every available opportunity to engage Iran’s leadership in a quiet, constructive dialogue. This is the only way out for all sides.

For Washington to even contemplate that it can now engineer a change of regime in Tehran would be a folly of monumental proportions. The correlation of forces has undergone a radical transformation and it would be best for the US to recognise this.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Electoral confusion in UP

A SHORT visit to Lucknow, even after one-fourth of the polling is over, does not clear the electoral confusion that prevails in UP. The state has a population of 180 million, more than Pakistan or Bangladesh. Yet, what makes the confusion more confounded is not the number of people but the proliferation of candidates, political parties and of out and out criminals.

The state, like Bihar, has become divided and subdivided into castes, sub-castes and even smaller identities. Sectarian appeals have come to sway them. The outcome of the election may depend on how far a leader has been able to consolidate his or her position in favour of the caste he or she represents.

Crime and money are playing their part and the underworld is supplying the wherewithal from Mumbai and beyond. Scores of candidates are history-sheeters and have strong connections with the most undesirable elements.

The Central Election Commission (CEC) has posted paramilitary forces from outside the state to make the tainted local police irrelevant. Similarly, the CEC has transferred officers known for their party allegiance. Unfortunately, the state has a horde of former chief ministers who, even in the wilderness, continue to have a few top officers of the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service in tow.

As before, the election has turned into a caste war, with religious leaders holding their drooping flags and stale slogans. Chief Minister Mulayam Singh Yadav leads the Other Back Classes (OBC) and former Chief Minister Mayawati, the Dalits. Both sides are wracked by revolts from within. Mulayam Singh’s Yadavs are pitted against Yadavs and Kurmis and the Dalits against the Dalits and Chamars.

The yawning gap in the Mulayam Singh ranks is larger than the one in the Mayawati camp. But his plus point is the support of Muslims all over the state.

Despite the uncertain scenario, the two main contestants who have enlarged their space are: Mulayam Singh’s Samajwadi Party and Mayawati’s Bahujan Samaj Party.

The BJP is third and the Congress does not count for much. What is clear is that no political outfit is anywhere near an absolute majority in the 403-member assembly.

In terms of votes, 60 per cent of the OBC remains shackled to Mulayam Singh and 70 per cent of Dalits to Mayawati. She has also tried to appeal to the upper castes by fielding candidates from among them. This may prove to be her trump card.

Still, the bulk of the upper castes avow their allegiance to the BJP which is emerging from its poor third position to a close second. The party has been giving a fillip following its victories in the Delhi and Mumbai municipal elections and the assembly polls in Punjab and Uttarakhand.

What is visible this time about the BJP is not so much of the pro-Hindutva profile but its open, blatant anti-Muslim campaign.

The party intentionally released a cassette abusing Muslims all the way to begin its campaign in the state. The reason it withdrew the cassette was not because the party realised that it had gone too far to vilify Muslims but that the CEC had taken adverse notice of it.

As expected, the party gave a political colouring to the episode. It was the crime which Bhartiya Janata Party president Rajnath Singh was trying to cover with ‘satyagraha’ and pretending as if he was fighting for the truth.

At the time of writing, the CEC’s decision was not known. But this incident proved — if any further proof was needed — that the BJP was second to none in trying to demolish institutions like the CEC and polluting the atmosphere.

Fortunately, communal thinking has not yet contaminated the countryside where the population is mixed and where people do not fancy slogans, songs or posters abusing Muslims who have lived in their midst peacefully for centuries.

Muslims have a 15 per cent vote in UP. The BJP which has based its electoral strategy on hatred against them must have calculated that it would not get a single vote of theirs. Muslims appear to be picking up the winning candidates and voting en bloc for them against the Bhartiya Janata Party nominees.

Muslims did this in the last general election and contributed to reducing the strength of the BJP and its allies in the Lok Sabha.

The community would have retuned to the Congress after having vainly tried others in the last three decades.

But the party is hopelessly weak and has targeted not the Bhartiya Janata Party but Mulayam Singh who has a secular image. I wonder if the Congress has not started out on the wrong foot.

Rahul Gandhi, Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s only son, initiated the campaign with the statement that Ayodhya’s Babri Masjid would not have been demolished had a Gandhi been in the prime minister’s chair.

The statement, however innocent, has unnecessarily divided the party. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh had to come to the defence of Narasimha Rao who was the Congress prime minister at the time of the Babri Masjid’s destruction.

The opposition has exploited the fact that Rahul’s father, Rajiv Gandhi, former prime minister, had opened the locks of the Babri Masjid and had started the election campaign from Ayodhya.

Indeed, Rahul Gandhi has attracted attention. His visit to Deoband, the Islamic learning centre which once reflected Congress thinking, has been the high point of his tour to UP. Conservative clerics who opposed partition are impressed with him.

He may appear to be a babe in the woods but he comes out transparently secular and devoid of political humbug.

He has a mind of his own although it seems as if he is curbed and contained. The party is trying its best to improve its tally of 25 in the last assembly to a figure of 40 or 45. Were it to do so, it would carry enough weight in the assembly which might be hung once again.

Diversities, in a way, are India’s strength. But when they take the shape of compartmentalisation, as is beginning to happen, they are in the way of unity.

The election results will show whether the diversity of castes is a passing phenomenon and whether the voters transcend such barriers when they queue up before the polling booth. My worry is that the voter is succumbing to appeals in the name of jat (caste) and dharam (religion) and not assessing the merits and demerits of the candidates.

As the nation goes from one election to the other, whether it is for parliament, the state legislature or the local body, it appears that criminals, casteists and moneybags are gaining ground. Politicians are increasingly subservient to them.

We do not face any danger of losing the democratic system but it is wanting in the quality of democracy which makes it meaningful.

The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.

Wolfowitz on the ropes

FOR an organisation meant to serve the poor, the World Bank looks embarrassingly wealthy, in a huge concrete and glass building just three blocks from the White House. The problem, according to the bank's critics, is that all this shapes the way it behaves.

This weekend the annual spring meeting of the International Monetary Fund and the bank in Washington will raise a traditional litany of complaints. It is too bureaucratic and centralised, critics say; too insistent that poor borrower countries follow its instructions. Politically too, they complain, the bank is in Capitol Hill's shadow.

Many of these arguments are accepted by the organisation's own staff; others simply reflect a yearning for the perfect over the good. The two giants of multilateral development – the IMF as a last resort in financial crisis and the World Bank as an engine of development – have made attempts to improve since they were set up in Bretton Woods. Next month marks the 60th anniversary of the bank's first loan. Then the borrower was France; now it is more likely to be Malawi.

But the critics' job has become simpler since Paul Wolfowitz was appointed as the bank's president in 2005. The charge that the world's second-largest development organisation is under America's thumb could hardly be better supported than by the appointment of one of President Bush's closest advisers, a man who helped bring about the Iraq war. And all those who suggested that the bank was about to become the development arm of the Pentagon have had plenty of material ever since.

Mr Wolfowitz hired as his gatekeepers Kevin Kellems and Robin Cleveland, two people also linked to Iraq. On top of that, he has poured funds into Afghanistan and Iraq. He even set up a permanent office in Baghdad, not staffed by the World Bank since the bombing of the UN office there. Others allege that Mr Wolfowitz's campaign against corruption, which has led to the bank withholding funds from some borrower countries, is a more insidious version of the neocon drive to spread democracy.

Yet a press conference at the bank on Thursday presented the astonishing sight of Mr Wolfowitz, the great propagator of good governance, having to defend his own record. He began the meeting, normally an affair of limited appeal to non-economists, with a personal statement apologising for his role in getting his girlfriend, Shaha Riza, a secondment to the Bush administration. Not only does she remain on the bank's payroll, but she is on a salary well above her former colleagues. The embattled Mr Wolfowitz spent much of the rest of the conference fending off questions about his possible resignation. Tellingly, he left them unanswered.

Most of the facts of this story have been known for months. But details of Ms Riza's pay, which have emerged recently, have made Mr Wolfowitz's position is shaky. All this will have cheered up his critics, and those of the bank. It also lends great force to their calls for reform. After all, if the process of appointing the bank's head was more transparent it is very unlikely that Mr Wolfowitz would have got the job. —The Guardian, London