THREE weeks ago, I had written that I would devote my next column to the lessons Pakistan could learn from the manner in which the Turkish government, suspected by the Turkish army and Turkish secularists of having an Islamist agenda, was handling the issue of the election of a new president.

I had intended to point out that by withdrawing the candidature of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul for the presidency and by bringing forward the date for parliamentary elections Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had defused the crisis.

He had, in effect, realised that despite the popularity of his party, a strong minority in Turkey entertained suspicions about his Justice and Development Party and that using his parliamentary majority to ride roughshod over these objections would not be in Turkey’s national interest.

I would have pointed out that the political climate in Turkey had changed. The opposition parties had certainly been encouraged by the statement of the army generals to boycott the parliamentary session at which the new president was to be elected. The constitutional court had probably been influenced by the same source when it decreed that in the absence of a quorum the election of a new president was null and void, even though there was at least one past precedent of such an election having been recognised.

These developments proved that the establishment, with the army in the lead, was still a powerful force in Turkey, but that Erdogan and his ministers could still get away with rebuking the army generals for having sought to influence the political debate. This was despite the army’s self-proclaimed role of guardians of Kemal Ataturk’s legacy and despite the high regard in which the armed forces are held by the Turkish people.

He could do so because the slogans chanted by the anti- government secular demonstrators who crowded on the streets of Istanbul and other major cities in Turkey were as opposed to an army coup as they were to the presence of the “hijab” in the Turkish presidential palace.

I would have pointed out that it was not the Islamist credentials of the party but the corruption-free administration it had provided and the welfare work it had done in the slums of Istanbul that won it such overwhelming public support.

The party had committed itself to the separation of “mosque and state” and the one foray it had made in changing secular law — making adultery a punishable crime — was reflective not necessarily of the desire to make Sharia the law of the land but of the conservative values of the vast majority of the Turkish people.

Erdogan chose to call fresh elections rather than to confront his opponents with a display of street power that could have led to bloody confrontations. He could do so secure in the knowledge that the phenomenal economic progress which his party’s administration brought to Turkey would ensure that his party would win an even larger majority in the next election. But even with this larger majority his party would not nominate a candidate for the presidency whose commitment to secularism, or at least to the separation of mosque and state, could be called into question.

I had hoped to elaborate on these themes and to suggest that Pakistan’s establishment and political parties could learn lessons from this to defuse the crisis triggered in our own country by the reference against the Chief Justice. The tragic events of May 12 on the streets of Karachi put paid to all plans for offering sane counsel.

This was the fomenting of ethnic strife in Pakistan’s most multi-ethnic, most volatile and most important commercial and industrial metropolis. This was the deliberate arousing of primitive emotions, eroding if not destroying the slow-building and still fragile veneer of tolerance that was beginning to return to Karachi. This was “Black Saturday” as one colleague put it in a recent column.

Who could think, leave alone write, rationally while in a state of blind fury, heightened by watching, alongside the gory visuals of the Karachi carnage, the “song and dance” act put on in Islamabad to display political support for the regime. This was Nero fiddling while Rome burnt. This was political miscalculation of monstrous and hugely destructive proportions.

In the 18 days that have passed since this tragedy, one sat glued to the TV hoping for the best but fearing the worst. That the worst has not happened is a tribute not to the administration but to civil society and political leaders who have kept smouldering passions in check so far and who hopefully will continue to castigate the regime verbally but will not permit such condemnation to escalate into physical confrontation.

It is to be hoped that the regime will refrain from a show of strength or what was termed as protection of the “political turf”. The current peace in Karachi, or indeed in much of Pakistan, is tenuous. The slightest provocation can make for a conflagration. In the currently charged atmosphere, political accommodation must be sought.

Even as it engages in negotiations on this score with its adversaries and its potential partners, the regime must recognise that action rather than words are needed to combat extremism and to enhance the appeal of the moderate forces in the forthcoming elections.

It is not enough to talk of the economic turnaround since its benefits have not trickled down to those who are most susceptible to the appeal of extremists. The best political card is working on and securing some success in stemming the growth of Talibanisation in our tribal areas and the adjoining settled districts and bringing to an end the farcical but highly dangerous activities of the Jamia Hafsa.

Besides we must continue to seek to insulate ourselves from the pernicious influences emanating from Afghanistan by closing or shifting refugee camps and fencing the unpatrolled parts of the border, and cooperating with the Afghan government in combating the common Taliban threat.

To say that Pakistan’s image has been tarnished would be the understatement of the year. Even so, there is much talk of the unqualified support that the Bush administration is prepared to continue to offer to President Musharraf. Statements to this effect have certainly appeared and have been repeated after the eruption of the judicial crisis. But are these statements as unqualified as they are made out to be?

The current thinking among American think-tanks is that President George Bush does not want to have a crisis in relations with a weakened but still ruling Musharraf at a time when Pakistan’s assistance is still crucial in the badly fought battle against terrorism and when other issues are dominating the political agenda in Washington.

It is true that the beleaguered Bush administration has its hands full with the Iraq crisis, the Iranian nuclear tension and other issues. So far its declared policy on both issues is to “stay the course”. But there is clear evidence that on both Bush is being made to give ground.

The American president may have won the battle in Congress to secure funding for the troop surge in Iraq but it has been made known that apart from laying down benchmarks for the Iraqi government Bush is also having to consider a 50 per cent drawdown in the near future of the troop levels currently maintained in Iraq.

On Iran, the first formal talks between the two sides have been held at the ambassadorial level, theoretically under Iraqi auspices. Both sides say they have the common objective of “support for a stable, secure, democratic, federal Iraq that is able to control its borders, is at peace with its neighbours and is bringing prosperity to its citizens.”

While the Americans maintain that Iranian actions are at variance with this stated policy, they think that the meeting was “businesslike” and from the cautious briefing offered one can surmise that these talks will continue as a “tripartite security mechanism”.

It may be too early to reach any definitive conclusion but it is more than likely that the talks may be upgraded to foreign minister level and then subjects other than Iraq will also appear on the agenda. Given the Iraq situation, the Americans may have no choice but to go down this road.

If Bush, famed for his stubbornness, is being made to bend on Iraq and Iran, he will do so on Pakistan too. It is indicative that questions are now being raised about the one billion dollars that Pakistan receives annually in coalition support funds.Initially, I believed that this support was compensation for the services and material provided for the airbases and other facilities maintained by the Americans in Pakistan. It now seems that this funding is to support Pakistan army actions to combat the Taliban. It also appears that, according to reports clearly leaked to the press from official sources, there are concerns about the manner in which expenditure statements are audited and there are recommendations from the American embassy in Islamabad that these payments should be related to the achievement of objectives.

It is also no secret that the Americans have been making it clear to all and sundry that the battle against extremism cannot be won unless the army joins hand with the mainstream political parties, primarily the People’s Party, which in the estimate of the Americans has the truest liberal credentials.

It is also no secret that the Americans are becoming increasingly impatient with the gap that they see between Musharraf’s verbalised anti-extremism strategy and its actual implementation, this gap being best exemplified by the Jamia Hafsa standoff.

The American perception that Musharraf is “stringing us along” and “milking us for whatever he can get”, delivering sops rather than substance, is getting stronger. Current official statements from Washington should be interpreted as designed to give Musharraf a negotiating hand and not a licence to ignore the public mood.

President Musharraf must read the writing on the wall, both internal and external. Perilous times lie ahead for Pakistan in the best of circumstances. They will be infinitely more perilous if the writing on the wall is not correctly interpreted.

The writer is a former foreign secretary.

WILL President Pervez Musharraf’s pacification mission to Karachi last week bear fruit? From the accounts given by some of the “elites” and “notables” who attended his briefing, no healing of wounds can be expected. One of them disclosed that they had been advised not to be negative in their approach.

The president acknowledged that a few “after shocks” are still being felt but he believes that if we “suppress” them they will die out. Surrounded by self-serving advisers, the president failed to sense the undercurrent of tension in the city.

He commended the political parties for their positive role in trying to bring harmony and peace to the city. But he seems to have spoken prematurely. Soon thereafter, a war of words erupted between the MQM and the Tehrik-i-Insaf which degenerated into personalised attacks against each other’s leaders.

It is not clear why the Muttahida has been so upset by the verbal attack on Mr Altaf Hussain’s style of politics. With Karachi still in a state of shock that it slipped into in the aftermath of the tragedy of May 12, this is no time for such display of strength. After all, section 144 is in force. Does it behove the ruling party to send out its women on the streets to hurl insults at another leader in violation of the law? Where is the restraint President Musharraf spoke about four days ago?

The issues being raised by the MQM demonstrators are peripheral when the need is to pre-empt the resurgence of the politics of vindictiveness. The president’s visit was supposed to bridge the gap between the estranged parties but all it did was to widen it because his approach is more of a military man’s than a politician’s.

Considering the fact that the MQM (seen as the president’s constituency) is generally being held responsible for the killings on the day the Chief Justice was to arrive in the city, it is important for the president to distance himself from this ruling coalition partner in Sindh. He was judicious in holding his meeting with a cross section of the people of Karachi, including Pashtun representatives, in the chief minister’s house. Inviting people to the Governor House would have been disastrous considering that Governor Ishratul Ibad stands too closely identified with ‘Nine Zero’ for anyone’s comfort.

It speaks of the sad state of our politics that the president was not willing to go any further. He has rejected categorically the demand for a judicial enquiry into the sad events of May 12, saying, “Forget the enquiry and focus on peace and harmony in the province.” Chief Minister Arbab Rahim also confirmed this approach when he said enquiries would only compound the situation. Obviously, the MQM’s supporters fear that a probe into what happened on that fateful day would open a Pandora’s box which the rulers may not be able to handle.

But can the healing of wounds inflicted so brutally on May 12 take place without an impartial enquiry? Besides, the deweaponisation of society that the president has stressed — though not ordered — as being the need of the hour may not be possible without a degree of confidence building between the affected parties. Small wonder Dr Arbab Rahim has termed it an uphill task.

The families of the victims killed on that black Saturday are not just grief stricken. They are also bitter. Independent bodies and NGOs have been attempting to probe into the happenings of that day. The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has set up a body to do some fact finding on its own but that is no substitute for an independent enquiry conducted by a judge or retired judge which would carry the weight of authority.

That is one aspect of the matter. The other is to create a momentum for peace if Karachi is not to slide back into the violence of earlier years. Regaining the trust and confidence of the affected people should be a vital element of the peace initiative. People need to be assured that such a carnage will not happen again and their anger has to be calmed.

The Women’s Action Forum has been attempting to do that. Teams of WAF members have been visiting the bereaved families. It is an exercise in helping them cope with their grief — a process that is very natural after bereavement and is more acute when death is sudden and violent.

WAF is maintaining records of these visits. Its observations are instructive. The affected families are going through natural emotions of grief, anger, humiliation and shock which could lead to problems later if not handled sympathetically at this stage. Many of those killed were young Pashtuns in their twenties who were earning members of their family.

The bereaved were more or less unanimous in holding the MQM responsible for the killings since the victims were going to join the rally and were unarmed as they had been instructed not to carry weapons. The positive aspect of the situation is that in the immediate aftermath of the killings the feeling of vengeance has been held at bay. In fact, many families strongly demanded peace and harmony. In this context, the MQM’s rallies will not really help.

Now is the time for a peace initiative which will assuage the people’s grief and allow them to share their sorrow with those who understand. This will help dissipate anger. On Saturday WAF will hold an open forum for peace called `Women Speak Out’. It hopes to announce the establishment of a citizen’s peace commission comprising representatives of political parties, respected citizens of Karachi and representatives of bereaved families.

The idea is to channelise the people’s emotions into a constructive initiative for peace and harmony in Karachi. Since the whole country is affected by and concerned at what happens in Karachi, women from other parts of Pakistan will be joining hands in this peace initiative. All peace loving men and women should support this move.

The future location of the US anti-missile shield in Poland is still an official secret, but in the northern city of Slupsk the locals already know they may live next to it.

The facility, which has caused controversy in Europe and anger in Moscow, is a hot topic in Slupsk and nearby Redzikowo, an ex-military airfield poised to house the rocket silos and about 200 US military personnel.

Surveys show most Poles oppose the conservative government's plan to host the anti-missile base, fearing it could make ex-communist Poland a target for attack.

But in Slupsk and Redzikowo, apprehension seems outweighed by hopes for an economic boost and a new lease of life for the struggling community around the defunct airfield.

“I'm in favour,” said Zbigniew Borkowski, a 53-year-old taxi driver who regularly ferries customers between Redzikowo and Slupsk. “This will breathe new life into the entire region.”

Government and diplomatic sources confirm that Radzikowo, 477 kilometres north of Warsaw, has been picked for the base but are reluctant to go on the record until negotiations between Warsaw and Washington are well advanced.

For Borkowski, no such public confirmation is necessary. He already keeps an English course book in his cab, studying the language of his future customers while idling at a rank.

“The talk of a threat because the shield will be installed is just scare-mongering,” he said.

Local authorities say the benefits of having the base are clear for Redzikowo, which was used by the German air force (Luftwaffe) during World War Two and then became a Soviet army outpost. Now dilapidated, it is populated mostly by ex-military families living in crumbling Soviet-style apartment blocs.

“The opponents of the shield say we will be threatened, but we are calm,” said Mariusz Chmiel, a Slupsk community mayor.

“The Americans aren’t going to spend millions to build the site to make the whole place vulnerable to a terrorist attack.”

“I hope this base will not be just a place where US soldiers and their families live but that it will cause an economic revival for the community, bringing in investment also by US firms,” Chmiel said.

The base, which will host 10 interceptor rockets, is set to cost several hundred million dollars. It will be constructed by specialised defence firms but local, Polish companies may land contracts for services and infrastructure around the base.

If Warsaw and Washington agree a deal, and parliament approves it, work on the base could start next year, with the rockets in place by 2012.

But opponents of the missile shield, led by local Catholic priest Father Jan Giriatowicz, are not swayed by the potential economic benefits.

“God wants peace, not war,” Giriatowicz says, arguing the shield would fuel global tensions and revive the arms race.

His followers say the government is unnecessarily dragging Poland into a global confrontation between the United States and its rivals.

They also fear the base will stoke tensions with former overlord Russia, which has reacted with fury to what it sees as US encroachment on its former backyard.

Moscow has dismissed US assurances that the shield aims to defend the United States and its European allies from “rogue states”, and has all but frozen relations with Warsaw.

Such sabre-rattling has made even some Polish and US allies in NATO and the European Union nervous, a point Father Giriatowicz's supporters are quick to make when they gather around reporters after Sunday mass.—Reuters

AS I walked into a bank some time ago, I was greeted with posters announcing a courtesy week; I found the entire staff, including the manager and the peon, tense because of the restraints they had to impose on themselves for seven days. It was the last day, and as the cashier, an old acquaintance, gave me my money, he said petulantly, “Thank God this will end tomorrow and we can come back to normal.”

It was just like the last day of Ramazan, with every one nervous with guilt but happy at the thought of the relief that next day’s Eid would bring. I couldn’t go to the bank again the next day to witness the staff’s relief.

Special weeks are great favourites with us. Whenever we have an ideal or objective that we know we are not inclined to gain we at once hold a week to highlight it, whether it is tree planting or punctuality on the railway or cleanliness in the cities. The latter was observed with great éclat some years ago when the Australian High Commissioner, broom in hand, helped remove the dirt and grime of years from a particularly nauseating locality of Rawalpindi in pursuance of an international “Clean up the world” campaign. I hope he didn’t make the mistake of visiting the place again to look at its denizens coming back to normal.

I wish someone had suggested to General Ziaul Haq to have a democracy week in Pakistan every year. We mistakenly take him for a military dictator whereas his son Ejazul Haq insists that his father was a democrat at heart. If that was the case, he should have organised a democracy week and participated in it wholeheartedly with all his admirers in politics and the now defunct NPT newspapers waxing eloquent about the good that democracy could do to Pakistan, secure in the knowledge that it was nowhere in sight.

In his message to the nation on the occasion the general would have told us how he had been enamoured of democracy ever since he had read about it in Greek history in college days and how he was determined to introduce it in Pakistan within ninety years. Till then the nation could do with his brand of Islam which was only a second name for democracy.

I don’t know if you will agree with me or not, but I think the number of special weeks being observed in Pakistan is pitifully small. It does not even come to one a month, which is a matter of shame for a developing country. We must do something about it, if the government takes the lead, the nation, which is bound to it with a heavy mandate, is sure to respond with fervour.

Leaving some time for Muharram and the two Eids, (and possibly the month of fasting) we must fully consume the rest of the year in holding at least forty special weeks. We have an endless variety of aims, objectives and ideals that we have no intention of ever fulfilling and they should all be made the subject of these weeks so that during a seven-day period we are totally engrossed by them, turn by turn.

These include honesty, tolerance, hard work, good manners, respect for tradition, learning, truth, helpfulness, charity, unselfishness – there is no end to the good things that we want to do away with, that we are never serious about, and which qualify on that account for intensive concentration for seven days to rid us of a guilty feeling about their absence from our midst.

There are qualities that may call for more than one week annually. A mere seven days may not be sufficient to express our nostalgia for them, without of course harbouring any intention to adopt them in our daily lives. Tolerance, for example. Its observance could be expanded and we could have separate weeks each for religious tolerance, political tolerance, social tolerance, sports tolerance, and some other rare forms that are dying out for want of use.

But beware of anti-corruption week! I would not advocate it for anything for fear that if a special week is observed for it the corrupt may make it an excuse to try to achieve their whole year’s target for ill-gotten gains in those seven days. That would surely break the people’s back or whatever has been left of it by the rulers’ endeavours to improve the economy.

This has already happened in another sector, I remember that during the traffic week some time ago, men of the traffic police made hay even though the sun was not shining because of the rains.

Thankfully the week made no difference to the public, except to those road-users who had to pay through the nose for alleged traffic violations. But there was a strong demand from the traffic police itself to have one such week at least every three months. They said this was a must if they were to continue to keep their children in English medium schools.

I have no space to mention other subjects, but let me say that special weeks are great morale boosters. Bureaucrats love them for they help to show how hard they are working doing nothing. Newspapers welcome them because they invariably lead to special supplements full of extra advertisements. And, because of the reason cited by me in the beginning, these special weeks spread happiness all around.