Unceasing US pressure

THE onset of the monsoons and the consequent relief from the scorching summer heat has been welcomed. But the political landscape remains tumultuous, with the regime under pressure both at home and from abroad. First, it saw its much trumpeted case against the Chief Justice thrown into the trash by the Supreme Court, further tarnishing its track record. As if this were not enough, its performance on the anti-terror front, too, has come under attack by the Americans.

The Supreme Court’s judgment has been blithely skimmed over by the regime. Instead of acknowledging its mistake and seeking forgiveness of the nation for having put it through an ill-conceived and poorly-executed “plan”, it has brazenly gone about claiming credit for having honoured the court’s judgment. But it is the renewed US pressure on Pakistan which has been causing considerable anguish in the national security establishment.

The shock in Islamabad was such that our usually optimistic foreign minister was constrained to express his “resentment” at the “tone” of the US charges, which was not surprising given that the US accusations took even old, wizened foreign policy hands by surprise.

The current onslaught began in mid-July, with the release of the US National Intelligence Estimate that painted an alarming picture of what the Al Qaeda was capable of doing. It asserted that the organisation, while ensconced in the tribal areas, had “regenerated key elements of its attack capability” and that it was trying to “acquire and employ chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear materials in attacks and would not hesitate to use them if it develops what it deems is sufficient capability.” It also rejected Islamabad’s much-hyped September 2006 accord with the tribal leaders in the northern parts.

Given that the report represented the collective wisdom of 16 major American intelligence agencies and was their most authoritative work since the 9/11 attacks, it could not be ignored. While introducing the Estimate, the White House homeland security adviser, Frances Townsend, squarely blamed the Musharraf regime for allowing Al Qaeda to regroup as a result of the September 2006 peace pact in the tribal areas, (which has since unravelled and that Islamabad has been desperately trying to resurrect).

According to National Intelligence director Mike McConnell: “Instead of pushing Al Qaeda out…they made a safe haven for training and recruitment. Al Qaeda has been able to regain some of its momentum.” However, he conceded that Musharraf had been one of America’s “strongest allies”.

In an interview to CNN, Ms Townsend said that the US would consider the use of military force, if necessary, to stem Al Qaeda’s growing ability to use its hideouts in Pakistan to launch terrorist attacks. “Just because we don’t speak about things publicly does not mean we are not doing things you talk about,” she said in an ominous tone.

Remarks by White House press secretary Tony Snow were no less critical and alarming. In his weekly address last Sunday, President Bush, too, referred to the NIE and raised the spectre of Al Qaeda attacking mainland United States. He was also critical of the September 2006 deal with the tribesmen, although he added that Musharraf was “taking steps to correct it.”

With presidential and congressional elections on the anvil, the Democrats could not afford to be left out, especially on a “hot button issue” such as the war on terror. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called on the US to use military force to destroy the terrorist safe houses, wherever they were.

For good measure, he added: “I don’t think we should take anything off the table. Wherever we find these evil people, we should go get them.” Republican Party frontrunner, Rudy Giuliani, too joined the fray, when he told the media: “To the extent that he (Musharraf) recognises that it is an existentialist threat to us and to him, he is valuable to us. To the extent that he does not, he isn’t.”

Not surprisingly, the US media chimed in as well. It quoted unnamed sources that the White House was weighing “options” involving “deniable covert action” by US forces inside Pakistan or US strikes against “known terrorist compounds” in Pakistan’s tribal areas, or even a large-scale ground offensive across the border from Afghanistan. The usually well-informed New York Times, while discussing these options, pointed out that none were without serious consequences.

The Christian Science Monitor commented that the Bush administration was “caught between a familiar rock and a hard place.” It quoted Bruce Riedel, a former National Security adviser to President Clinton, that the US “has a policy that looks increasingly bankrupt but I do not see the administration prepared as yet to move away from it or the military dictator.” In Riedel’s view, the US has few options but he warned that with the Bush administration “having backed Musharraf to the hilt, the slightest hint of a turn by the US could set off his collapse.”

What is remarkable is that having totally supported the Musharraf regime all these years, out of the blue Washington has started firing on all cylinders, leaving it upset and confused. That this should have come days after the regime had destroyed the most visible symbol of militancy in the capital during the Lal Masjid episode, must have been deeply galling, though Bush publicly praised the operation and added that he ‘liked and appreciated’ Musharraf.

What then explains this seeming volte face in Washington’s attitude to Pakistan? For a start, it has to be admitted that the US administration has always harboured an ambivalent attitude towards Islamabad’s role in the war on terror. In fact, for the past year, the demand for “more” to be done by Islamabad has been interspersed with praise for Pakistan’s contribution to this objective.

No wonder, Islamabad appeared rattled, with the Foreign Office spokesperson using unusually tough language to convey the government’s disappointment, especially when she said: “Let us make it clear that any military action inside our borders under any excuse of hunting for Al Qaeda militants will not be acceptable. A stiff resistance will come out against it.”

Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri, usually ebullient in his references to relations with the US, was also constrained to warn that any incursion in Pakistan would alienate public opinion in the country.

Some independent analysts in Washington have speculated that a number of factors could be at play in Washington on this issue. A strange mix of personalities and politics could have been involved in it as well. For a start, it must not be forgotten that while President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been admirers of Musharraf, other institutions have not been so enamoured of the general.

In fact, they have often questioned his commitment to the war on terror, fearing that the Pakistani ruler has been playing on both sides of the street. The latest NIE gave them the opportunity to come out with their misgivings about him again.

There could be another no less plausible reason. The Bush administration is facing unprecedented opposition on its Iraq policy. Even Republican stalwarts such as Senators Richard Lugar and John Warner are voicing reservations, in the knowledge that their re-election prospects could be damaged irreparably if they do not.

Yet, the Bush-Cheney team remains irrevocably wedded to the idea of maintaining current troop levels in Iraq. In such a scenario, placing some of the blame for the continuing insurgency in Iraq at the doorsteps of Pakistan makes sense. This is why the same analysts believe that the NIE may have been “tailored” to the administration’s need to sell its Iraq policy.

There are also some who suspect that with the Bush administration buffeted as it is on all sides, it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the hawks in Washington may have thought that they could use the NIE report as the raison d’etre for carrying out a massive “hunt and destroy” mission in Pakistan, in the hope that a spectacular success could restore their sinking fortunes.

Significantly, after the report was issued, Tony Snow refused to rule out the option of hot pursuit by US forces in Pakistan, adding that the US would “never rule out any options, including striking actionable targets” and deflected questions whether it would first seek permission from Islamabad before undertaking such missions. Some corroboration can be found in the US media’s comments to the effect that the Musharraf regime, having been grievously hurt by the Supreme Court’s decision, may not be able to resist American demands for greater concessions.

This view is buttressed by later efforts at damage control. On two occasions, Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher underlined the administration’s confidence in Musharraf. And more importantly, he ruled out the need for any direct US military involvement in Pakistan. Later, the White House spokesman, too, tried to back track, assuring Islamabad that Washington had no plan to carry out an invasion, but at the same time, he reiterated that the US retained the right to attack “actionable targets” inside Pakistan.

Whatever the reason for this unexpected barrage, Islamabad should take advantage of this “crisis” to hold a comprehensive dialogue with the US on the rules of the game. The open-ended US agenda, to which Pakistan appears to have agreed in the wake of 9/11, must now be clearly redefined. We cannot remain engaged in a policy that is creating major schisms at home. The United States must also be warned that any American adventure in Pakistan would be highly detrimental to both countries. Not only will it not resolve the problem of militancy in the country, it will give it greater fillip. In any case, the Musharraf regime has already done more than any government in Pakistan could have to assist the US in the fulfillment of its goals.

All available evidence points to the Bush administration remaining committed to General Musharraf. The White House press secretary Tony Snow dismissed the suggestion that President Bush no longer trusted his Pakistani counterpart. He remarked that the US leader “has respect and admiration for President Musharraf who is dealing with a very tough situation and his own life has been placed at risk by virtue of cooperating with the US.”

If, however, Washington wants Islamabad to be a truly credible partner and sincere friend, it should promote genuine democracy in the country. Only a democratic dispensation in Pakistan will have the credibility to arrive at a national consensus on the issue of cooperation with the US. As long as the majority continues to believe that it is America’s war and not Pakistan’s, the people of this country will not be willing partners of the US.

The war on terror cannot be based on military means only. An effort must be made to win the trust and confidence of Muslims the world over. This can only come about by the US standing with those striving for democracy and human rights, however unpleasant its initial results may appear.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Judiciary’s finest hour

WHEN the US supreme court gave its verdict on the free speech case of The New York Times v Sullivan in 1964, Professor Alexander Meiklejohn observed that it was a day to rejoice by “dancing in the streets.”

July 20, 2007, was the day when the people of Pakistan could dance on the streets too. It was the day when the Supreme Court of Pakistan finally assumed its role as the custodian of the Constitution and redeemed the constitutional pledge of an independent judiciary.

Such epochal moments occur rarely in the lives of nations. Those who are present at such transforming moments are fortunate, those who are part of it are blessed. It was a shining moment after a long period of darkness. A day posterity will cherish and look back on with honour and pride.

The immediate effect of the judgment of the Supreme Court will be limited to the issue which was raised before the court i.e. the dismissal of the presidential reference and the complete restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to his office. Besides this, the judgment may have no immediate consequences. Not much will change momentarily.

Traffic will continue to flow haphazardly on our broken roads, power shutdowns will continue unabated, water taps will remain dry, corruption in government departments and police harassment of the poor and unconnected will not cease, poverty will continue to take its toll on the majority of the populace, patients will continue to languish in government hospitals, and trains and flights will still run late. Life will go on as usual.

Yet something fundamental has changed for ever. Something happened which not only has never happened before but that was unlikely to happen in this country. Our judiciary had been providing support to dictators of all stripes. It was part of the establishment. It was not a people’s court. An independent judiciary was an aspiration.

And then it all changed most dramatically with a single gesture of defiance by a lone courageous judge who had travelled the same old path. He had taken oath under the PCO. He had sanctioned military rule. He was part of the establishment. But at the crucial moment, he rose to the occasion and with a single stroke, threw away the shackles of the past.

Overnight, he came to personify the national conscience and defiance to the dictatorship. He took the first step alone. The legal fraternity followed and then the people joined in. Today, the entire Supreme Court stands behind him. A drop evolved into a stream and the stream into a torrent.

In the past, the Supreme Court termed dictators as usurpers but long after they were gone. For the first time in our history, the judiciary has confronted a powerful dictator in uniform and called his bluff. The message from the Supreme Court is unmistakably loud and clear. Gone are days when dictators took the judiciary for granted and extracted legitimacy for their usurpation of power.

With its order, the Supreme Court has not only removed the restraints against the Chief Justice of Pakistan, it has finally restored the rule of law. The message is very clear. It is the law and the Constitution and not the individual, however, high, mighty or well-armed he may be, that will prevail. An independent judiciary is no longer a constitutional commitment or a dream, it is a self-evident reality.

The judgment of the Supreme Court and the restoration of the Chief Justice of Pakistan not only rang the death knell for the presidential reference against the Chief Justice, it has also poured cold water on the schemes hatched by General Musharraf to get himself re-elected in uniform from the present assemblies in their dying moments. Now at last General Musharraf will have to think about retirement long after the date on which he should have retired.Others with Bonapartist ambitions can forget about legitimacy from the Supreme Court.

The doctrine of necessity has finally been buried. The age of martial laws is over. The government can no longer sell national assets for peanuts. The intelligence agencies cannot pick up people and remain silent about their whereabouts. They will have to come clean. The Chief Election Commissioner can now proceed to hold free and fair elections, secure in the knowledge that an independent judiciary stands guard over his constitutional mandate.

The judgment heralding the independence of the judiciary will not only restore the constitutional balance amongst different institutions of the state, it will act as a bulwark against injustice for ordinary citizens. It is for this reason that ordinary people have a feeling that they are no longer voiceless and powerless. They know that their cries of distress will not go unheard.

Now in the remotest of villages if a girl is raped or a poor villager displaced, they would know on whose door to knock. The perpetrator, however powerful or well-connected he may be, will be summoned and called to account for his misdeeds. That is what a people’s court is all about.

This is a defining moment for the nation but like all defining moments it carries promises as well as dangers. It carries the promise that an independent judiciary will maintain a constitutional balance amongst the different organs and institutions of the state and also provide relief to the poor and downtrodden. It will hold the government to account and compel it to act according to the law and fulfil its obligations vis-à-vis the people. It will no longer sustain the usurpation of power and will rein in the intelligence agencies.

It is a moment of triumph and victory for the judiciary and the people. But it is still early. The day has still to come. It is fragile like a drop of dew. It requires vigilance and care. It is the beginning of a long and arduous journey which is full of pitfalls. Nothing is more intoxicating than absolute victory. But each victory carries in itself the seeds of destruction. Thus, prudence, caution, restraint and magnanimity are required to confer longevity on the new order about to dawn.

While the legal community and people must rejoice at this time of triumph, this moment should be captured in its essence so it lasts, lest it is lost for ever in euphoria. It should not be treated as a defeat for anyone. We need to take all the institutions of the state along.

This includes the most powerful institution of the state i.e. the army. The judgment is not and should not be treated as a defeat for anyone, least of all the army which is a national institution. It, too, needs to evolve into a people’s army, one that is not hitched to personal ambitions and to the fortunes of one man.

The army must reflect the aspirations of the people and serve them. Its strength lies not in defiance but in subordination to the Constitution and a genuinely elected civilian leadership. It must protect the borders and fight the enemy, not the citizens. It must act as a professional army serving the nation and not running it or its own business empire.

The intelligence agencies must remain vigilant and active but against the country’s enemies and should not snoop in the affairs of its judges, lawyers, politicians and citizens. The agencies have no business to interfere in politics and manipulate elections. It destroys their morale and professionalism.

All this is possible without revolt, bloodshed and violence and through a peaceful process. We don’t need a civil war to achieve it. This is evident from the judgment of the Supreme Court.

The torture mystery

‘WE do not torture,” President Bush says. Yet that oft-repeated assurance has been followed by an unspoken “but” in reference to interrogation of suspected terrorists by the CIA. Last week, that troubling “but” was translated into an executive order that, while forswearing torture, allows the intelligence agency to use “enhanced” interrogation methods off-limits to the US military.

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden says that under the new order, “our mission and authorities are clearly defined.” But not to the public, which is left to puzzle over how an “enhanced” technique can be so vital as to justify a departure from standards imposed on military interrogators and yet not so aggressive as to raise concerns about torture. It’s not surprising that both critics and supporters of the order seem to assume that the CIA will be skirting the ban on torture.

David Cole, a Georgetown University law professor, points to the qualifiers and ambiguities in the order’s prohibition on “willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliation or degrading the individuals in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency.” Cole concludes: “Whatever else one might say, these are hardly ‘clear rules’.”

They’re clear enough for Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney, who said that, while he was against torture, “I support tough interrogation techniques, enhanced interrogation techniques, in circumstances where there is a ticking time bomb.” But Romney must know that the “ticking time bomb” is the scenario of choice for those who argue that in some circumstances torture might be permissible to serve the greater good.

The Senate Intelligence Committee has raised questions about whether special interrogation rules for the CIA were “necessary, lawful and in the best interests of the US.” If Bush’s executive order doesn’t calm those doubts, Congress should say so — and insist on a single standard for interrogation that will remove the “but” from “we do not torture.” — The Los Angeles Times