America’s changing attitude

THERE is an American cliché that a day is a lifetime in politics. Nothing could have demonstrated the validity of this expression better than the events of March 9, 2007, in Pakistan. That morning not even the most committed of General Musharraf’s opponents could have imagined that only a few hours later the political landscape of Pakistan would be transformed radically.

With virtually every institution of the state in shambles or in control of military officers and with the two mainstream parties bereft of their leadership, the regime’s confidence in its invincibility was such that not only was the president sure of his own re-election, and that too in uniform, but also of being able to carry along his party to victory in the parliamentary elections.

But even the best-laid plans can go wrong. Given the judiciary’s perceived record of acquiescence, who could have contemplated that the Chief Justice would have the “courage” to stand up to the rulers. However, the government’s plans, when confronted by the refusal of one hapless civilian to bend, proved the inadequacy of military training to resolve political and constitutional matters. The Chief Justice refused to play ball, contrary to the expectations of the intelligence agencies.

It was this one event that unleashed a storm of unprecedented dimensions, affecting all aspects of the country’s domestic and foreign policies. Most observers are convinced that whatever the final outcome, it is likely to have a most profound impact on the country’s political dispensation, possibly altering the landscape for decades to come. In fact, one is inclined to concur with those scholars who say that the general faces the most serious crisis since seizing power nearly eight years ago.

There can be no doubt that the regime has suffered grievously with regard to its credibility and international image. Its air of supreme confidence, bordering on contempt, that silenced even stray voices of dissent, is all in the past.

Not only does the general appear unsure and confused, his supporters prefer to hide their heads in the sand. They would rather be considered disloyal than commit political suicide. That the supreme commander should be pleading with the minions of his self-created political party for their support, is reflective of the sea change brought about by the judicial crisis.

It is the attitude of major powers, in particular the US, that interests me primarily. In any case, according to popular “folklore”, it is America, along with Allah and the army that determines who should or should not be in power in Pakistan! This explains why so many Pakistanis are looking at Washington with increasing hope and expectation.

The US has, however, moved far away from the position adopted by it after the invasion of Iraq. Back then, Washington was confident that Saddam Hussein’s downfall would trigger a chain of events that would result in the departure of other authoritarian regimes, ushering in the dawn of a new era of democracy and human rights. Alas, for the people of oppressed lands, America’s travails in Iraq led to a remarkable turnaround in the Bush administration’s policy. All its lofty promises were forgotten, leaving in the lurch many who had hitched their stars to Washington.

It is in this light that one should view the statements of the Bush administration, especially those of Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher and his boss, Ambassador Nick Burns. When Boucher commented after the massacre in Karachi that the Pakistan government was “moving forward” on democracy, what could one say, except to remark that there are limits to diplomatic doublespeak.

The forcible removal of the Chief Justice, accompanied by attempts to humiliate him, followed thereafter by attacks on journalists and their offices, are not the hallmarks of a regime moving towards democracy. By no stretch of the imagination can Pakistan be called a democracy, even if Nick Burns chooses to say so.

I would humbly suggest that these officials recall what their president had to say back in November 2003: “Many Middle Eastern governments now understand that military dictatorship and theocratic rule are a straight, smooth highway to nowhere. But some governments still cling to the old habits of central control.” Bush then added: “The good and capable people of the Middle East all deserve responsible leadership. For too long, many people in the region have been victims and subjects — they deserve to be active citizens.”

Well, after all these years the people of Pakistan are not only being “active citizens”; they are showing grit and resolve, taking the regime by surprise.

However, the same US leader stated a few days ago that democracy is “more established” in Pakistan, than in some other nations. He also praised Musharraf’s role in the war against terror, while giving him a free hand to deal with the demand for democracy. With the US making these disappointing statements, Pakistan’s strong man has continued to show supreme confidence in his ability to ride out the storm.

Nevertheless, it is to the credit of the US media that it sensed the mood on the Pakistani streets. Those same newspapers that had looked upon the general as a strong, effective, moderate Muslim leader, who had also proven to be a trusted and effective ally of the US in the global war on terror, have taken to task the Bush administration for its unequivocal support for the Pakistani strongman. They have even compared the Bush administration’s support for Musharraf to the “terrible mistake the US made in propping up such infamous rulers as the Shah of Iran, Nicaragua’s Somoza and the Philippines’ Marcos.”The New York Times in its editorial of May 22 counselled the Bush administration to “use the leverage it gets from (providing Islamabad) roughly US$2 billion a year in aid, to encourage an early return to democratic rule.” The paper expressed alarm at what it called the Bush administration’s “grave error in tying the fortunes of the US to the person of General Musharraf.”

Its editorial this week was more scathing, urging the Bush administration to “disentangle America, quickly, from the general’s damaging embrace” and support democratic forces in the country. It also dismissed Musharraf’s claim “that he was a democratic leader”, adding that nobody took his claim seriously, except the Bush administration which considered him “an essential ally in its half-baked campaign to promote democracy throughout the Muslim world”. The paper argued that Pakistan seemed to be rapidly approaching a critical point, “with a choice between intensifying repression and instability or an orderly transition back to democratic rule.”

The same day the highly influential Wall Street Journal stated that the Bush administration was “reaching a decision point” on Pakistan as to whether it would continue to support him or “pull the rug from under his feet.”

Think-tanks and the media are expressing the fear that unless the Bush administration can establish its credentials with democratic forces in Pakistan, its interests would be threatened. More recently, some newspapers have claimed that Washington may already have begun planning for a “post-Musharraf Pakistan”. What would be even more galling to the general is that the US media is now questioning his commitment to the war on terror, with the New York Times advising that “Congress must insist that future payments to Pakistan be linked to actual counter-terrorist activities and results.”

Happily, influential members of the Congress have also stepped in with their concerns about what the current crisis in Pakistan could do to American interests in the region. In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the leaders of the Foreign Relations Committees in both Houses, asked her to “publicly call for an immediate end to the violence and urge the government of Pakistan to commit to holding free and fair elections.”

In the midst of all this, the president decided that it was time for him to remind the nation that his primary source of strength, namely the Pakistan army, remained firmly and irrevocably by his side. The ISPR in a press release issued on June 1 claimed that the meeting of the corps commanders that day had taken “serious note of the malicious campaign against institutions of the state launched by vested interests and institutions”, and warned that the Pakistan army was committed to giving “full support towards realisation of the vision set by the president for a dynamic, progressive and moderate Islamic state.” But the most significant portion related to the claim that the participants in the meeting had reiterated “support for the role of the president and the COAS in the on-going reform process.”

The ISPR statement was severely criticised by opposition political parties as well as progressive and democratic forces in the country. They accused Musharraf of using the armed forces for his own survival, while pointing out that under the Constitution, members of the armed forces are required to refrain from any involvement in political activity in the country.

This step, along with his decision to call a meeting of the National Security Council, and the issuance of a new order to gag the media, was not evidence of confidence. It betrayed insecurity and confusion on the part of the rulers. In particular, the attempt to rope in the military high command is fraught with serious risks. It could open up a Pandora’s box. This led Stratfor, the political analysis set-up, to characterise the steps as exposing the regime’s weakness rather than its strength.

Stratfor warned that “the generals will be watching the situation more closely than ever and will be considering contingency plans as the political temperature rises in the coming weeks. Then, if needed, they can intervene and force Musharraf to step down in order to avoid risking an ugly confrontation on the streets.” Equally revealing was a comment by Rob Richer, former senior CIA official, who claimed that the US intelligence agencies had reached the conclusion that Musharraf was on his way out.

The sudden, unscheduled visit of Assistant Secretary Boucher to Islamabad, to be followed soon thereafter by Deputy Secretary John Negroponte’s, is clear evidence of the shifting winds in Washington. In fact, Boucher’s public confirmation in Islamabad that the US was pressing Musharraf to hold free and fair elections and also to respect his commitment to shed his uniform are significant.

The Bush administration has already proven its loyalty to the general, supporting him in his efforts to destroy mainstream moderate political parties and thereby to perpetuate his authoritarian rule in Pakistan. The disastrous handling of the reference against the Chief Justice has been the catalyst that has unleashed all the pent-up anger and frustration accumulated over the past eight years.

It is no longer the person of the Chief Justice that is the issue. The stakes are much higher. We are approaching a historic moment where the country’s future political dispensation is likely to be determined for all times. Let the US not be found wanting, once again. Let it come out firmly and squarely in favour of the forces of democracy and human rights. Let Pakistan become a beacon of hope and inspiration to other Muslim countries. That is the only basis for establishing a relationship of genuine understanding and cooperation between the two countries.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Will Bangladesh go Pakistan’s way?

NOBODY hides it. Everyone in Dhaka assumes that you know about the army’s presence behind the caretaker government. Chief Advisor Fakhruddin Ahmed himself tells you about it. But he emphasises that the army is in charge of only law and order and all that can reveal corruption and the crime of politicians.

Yet, the fact remains that the army has spread to districts, and guides deputy commissioners in the administration.

Whatever one’s fears, the people in Bangladesh feel relieved. They have welcomed the army action without reservation. They were so sick of the misrule and corruption by former Prime Ministers Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina, the “Minus Two,” as they are called, that the public would have accepted anything, however drastic. Otherwise, Khaleda Zia would have returned to power, and she had arranged to the last detail to get a majority at the polls.

Whether the constitution allows the extension of the caretaker government beyond six months or not is hardly a topic of discussion. People are engrossed in witnessing case after case of corruption and criminality at high places. They applaud every disclosure and every arrest as if it were an emotional purification of their involvement in the wasteful hartals that has cost the nation dearly.

No one knows how many more corrupt politicians and their supporters in business and elsewhere will be brought to book. People want the cleansing of the stables once and for all. So far, only 130 or so cases have come up but the number is said to be “plus 420”.

They mostly relate to members of Khaleda’s Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Her son, Tariq, who was an extra-constitutional authority as Sanjay Gandhi was during the emergency in India, is on top of the list. His wealth runs into hundreds of crores. Khaleda’s other son, Koko, owns a house in Dubai under a fictitious name. From among Khaleda’s ministers in the limelight is her home minister. He hushed up a murder after pocketing 50 crore taka.

Many former ministers have fled the country. Hasina is reportedly herself involved. Three bank owners have given in writing that they paid her one crore, three crore and five crore takas respectively before getting permission to open their bank. Roughly 40 cases against her party men have come to light. She believes that all this has been done to put pressure on her to quit politics. This may well be true, but the taint of those involved cannot be denied.

The scale of corruption and the close involvement of top politicians have shocked the nation. It knew that corruption was there but the disclosures have been beyond their wildest guess. The army has set up a task force to dig out instances of corruption. Once the task force identifies the suspects and collects evidence, it passes on the case to the Anti-Corruption Commission for instituting proceedings before the specially-designated court. The commission, headed by a top retired army officer, is a constitutional body and also has civilian officers as members.

People have not raised any objection to the chief advisor’s statement that elections will be held towards the end of 2008, a postponement of two years. The election commission which is engaged in revising electoral rolls also has public support. The army’s help to the election commission for a quick job is seen as a plus point.

So far so good. One ominous thought which crosses the mind is whether the army would quit after it has done the cleansing job. Since 2008 is still one and a half years away, not many talk about what will happen after that. Even otherwise, people are so impressed by the manner in which the army is using the broomstick that they keep all doubts to themselves. They want a thorough cleansing job.

Eyebrows were, however, raised when Lt Gen Moeen U Ahmed, the chief of army staff, said in a written speech in the presence of the country’s president Iajuddin Ahmed that “democracy itself requires a secure environment for it to thrive and spread its roots.” He went on to add that “both democracy and security are complimentary features of the system now being put in place by correct initiatives.”

True, the army chief flinched after The Star, an influential English daily, questioned: “Was it a mere intellectual exercise or a purposeful floating of ideas to gauge public reactions?” The paper went on to say that “our first trust with a general in politics was with Ayub Khan back in 1958 and he wanted to ‘re-invent democracy according to the genius of the people’ and we ended up having ‘basic democracy’ that was thoroughly rejected by our people, though it took a while.” The Star’s forthright opinion received support all over. In subsequent observations, the general tried to water down what he had said earlier.

I asked the chief advisor in Dhaka the same question: would the army quit after the cleansing? He had no doubt that it would and he based his reading on talks with the army chief. The chief advisor, a simple and straight person, who wears his integrity on his sleeve, is confident that by the time the cleansing job is over, the system would have been reformed and institutions like the media, the judiciary and the election commission would have become strong enough to protect the polity.

The chief advisor may turn out to be right. The disgust and disdain with which people view the politicians indicates the nation’s determination to stay alert from now onwards. Yet I have seen how Ayub and Ziaul Haq promised to quit after holding free and fair elections within 90 days and stayed on for years to turn Pakistan into a military-ruled country.

Likewise, I fear, Bangladesh may go the Pakistan way, the khaki behind the kurta and pajama. But the silver lining is the irresistible Bangladeshi. He is defiant and determined, different from the phlegmatic Pakistani. The first has fought even against the Pakistan army to liberate the country. The second has had cosy relations with the army. True, the lawyers’ agitation over the “suspension of the Pakistan Chief Justice” has evoked a sustained countrywide agitation, never witnessed before. Yet, the anger is primarily directed against President General Pervez Musharraf, not the army.

On balance, I can say that I have every hope that Bangladesh will not accept the army in any role or shape permanently. There is, however, one proviso: politicians, particularly Hasina and Khaleda, should stop playing games in their pursuit of power and personal gains. But then politicians are not made that way. Bangladesh would have to begin from a clean slate and revive the spirit of liberation — all for the country and the country for all.

The writer is a New Delhi-based senior columnist.

Not democracy’s failure

FROM Gaza to Lebanon to Iraq, the Middle East is aflame, and the vaunted free elections that have been held in each country have hardly produced peace, stability or good governance. Some Arabs are now claiming that democracy itself is discredited. That's neither fair nor true.

Democracy is the only path to a government for and by the people. And without the competition of free elections, politicians have no real incentive to enact reform, and citizens have no meaningful way to hold them accountable. But it is simplistic to equate elections with democracy. Nor should Americans expect elections to produce outcomes we approve.

Early this decade, Washington was fiercely opposed to Palestinian elections that would surely have legitimised the late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat's leadership against his weak rival, Hamas. After Arafat's death, Hamas won elections that were unquestionably free and fair, and this week, Gaza has descended into a fierce civil war. The US applauded the Iraqi and Lebanese elections. Yet sectarian strife, malevolent neighbours and crippling historical legacies have conspired to nullify the resulting democratic gains.

It is often said that were free elections to be held tomorrow, Islamists would sweep into power across the Middle East. That's because Islamists are seen as an antidote to corruption and despotism, and they are organised. So governments such as Egypt's have virtually crushed secular democratic opposition, while the Islamists continue to spread their messages in mosques and underground.

Cairo banned Muslim Brotherhood candidates from parliamentary elections last week, beating up poll watchers and turning away voters in heavily Islamist neighbourhoods. Such repression is intolerable, of course. Still, the central challenge to the Bush administration's democracy promotion strategy is the inconvenient but pressing question: What does the US do when elections produce leaders who despise the United States, or whom the United States despises?

First, we must practise patience, which has not been a traditional American virtue. It is worth remembering that in US foreign policy, as in medicine, bad outcomes are sometimes inevitable. Elections should not have been expected to cure the poisoning of the Palestinian body politic after 40 years of war, occupation and strife. Elections could not prevent Syria from assassinating Lebanese politicians. And medievalist Al Qaeda has no respect for the ballot.

–– Los Angeles Times