American impatience

GIVEN President Pervez Musharraf’s role in shaping Pakistan’s policy in the US-led war on terror one can understand if Washington feels a little concerned over the shape of things to come. For a world battling with terrorism, the results of last month’s general election are positive. The people of Pakistan have once again rejected elements and personalities espousing religious extremism and have voted for parties opposed to obscurantist philosophies. It is, therefore, not surprising that the leaders of the two mainstream parties in the National Assembly have said nothing that could indicate the possibility of a sudden reversal of Islamabad’s role in the fight against terrorism. Against this background, the arrival in indecent haste of two US State Department officials in Islamabad when Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani had not even formed his cabinet was not in keeping with diplomatic propriety. Even more undesirable was the reported objective of Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher’s mission. They are said to have sought ‘assurances’ from the PPP and PML-N leaders on issues that are of a domestic nature. The prime minister’s speech after he took the oath of office on Tuesday was in that context significant. He affirmed that the coalition would strengthen parliament and added that “parliament comprises the president, the National Assembly and the Senate” and its role in policymaking would take precedence over all others. When Asif Ali Zardari and Mian Nawaz Sharif met the two diplomats they emphasised the pre-eminence of parliament in all policy matters, including the war on terror.

It is time Washington gave time to the new government to settle down. Considering Pakistan’s political history — marked as it has been by conflicts between the heads of state and prime ministers — the newly elected leadership and the president will take time to evolve a tension-free, working relationship. They will also need time to formulate a well-thought-out strategy in the war on terror. They have let it be known that the war which Musharraf has been fighting on behalf of the Americans is also the war of all Pakistanis. Their war aims are the same, namely to eliminate terrorism and extremism. But the Gilani government might want to modify the strategy somewhat. The Americans would do well to give space to the new government to draw up its policy. So far Washington’s close and overt involvement in the war on Pakistan’s soil has only fuelled anti-American sentiments and this has proved to be a setback for the Pakistan Army. The people have also had to suffer the wrath of the militants who identify the state with the Americans. A discreet stance on the part of the US might prove to be slightly more helpful.

Positive note for bilateral ties

SOUNDING an optimistic note on the future of India-Pakistan ties, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has said he expects the ‘best ever’ bilateral relations with the new government in Islamabad. In fact, the road towards this goal may not be too rocky considering that part of the way has already been paved by President Musharraf. The relevance of this should not be seen in the context of the efforts of an individual. Until he doffed his uniform late last year, Mr Musharraf was also the army chief and as such represented the institution’s interests which have traditionally been anti-Indian.

Whatever it was — external pressure, a genuine change of heart or the force of circumstances — that made the previous government change tack on India, the results have been positive for India-Pakistan ties. Ironically enough, it was the pro-military government that saw the introduction and strengthening of confidence-building measures such as a joint mechanism for fighting terror and travel links between the two countries. It is obvious that memories of conflict and animosity will not be obliterated while Kashmir remains a festering wound. But Mr Gilani’s government can be comfortable in the knowledge that the composite dialogue initiated in 2004 has laid the ground for solutions and has taken the two countries away from the trajectory of war. It can also take heart from the fact that since all this has had the sanction of the army, which is closely intertwined with Pakistan’s anti-Indian intelligence network, it is not likely that this position will be reversed, especially as the military has to contend with another warfront in the northwest.

PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari gave an indication of the new government’s stance some weeks ago when he said that he was against India-Pakistan ties being held hostage to the Kashmir issue. Not that India’s human rights violations in Kashmir are to be condoned. But Pakistan does not find itself in a position at present to confront New Delhi on this issue. With the PPP’s friendly leanings vis-à-vis India and with the army ostensibly more worried about Islamic militancy and Baloch nationalism, Mr Gilani’s government should be able to make good progress. What should help him are coalition partners that have liberal political leanings compared to the enervated religious right. Meanwhile, given its own democratic credentials, New Delhi might feel much easier working with a government that is not associated with the army.

The struggle against TB

AWARENESS is the key to combating disease. In this context, the slogan for this year’s World TB Day, observed recently, is as relevant to us in Pakistan as elsewhere. The slogan, ‘I am stopping TB’, highlights the importance of individual participation in the drive to eliminate tuberculosis. Such an effort, whether it comes from doctors, teachers or the patients themselves, is part of the process of redefining strategies, strengthening community participation and putting pressure on local health authorities to do more to limit the spread of TB. In short, individual participation is the road to a collective solution. How far we have been successful in spurring on such efforts is evident in the country’s abysmal statistics for tuberculosis. True, there has been some improvement over the years. For instance, DOTS (directly observed treatment short-course) coverage has been extended to virtually all districts. Yet, Pakistan ranks eighth on the World Health Organisation’s list of 22 countries in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in terms of disease burden. TB afflicts 280,000 people every year, although a low detection rate makes it difficult to cite accurate figures.

Although Pakistan has a National TB Control Programme, how realistic is it to expect it to meet all goals without public pressure? Given the general complacency of health officials and a high TB prevalence rate, there is little room for optimism. There is public involvement at the DOTS level where medicine intake is supervised by health workers, family members or others. But that involves just the curative part. Knowing more about the prevention of TB is as important, especially because it is an easily communicable disease. It is here where efforts are lagging, especially as the target groups living in poverty-stricken conditions are often uneducated and do not understand the seriousness of the disease. Many undiagnosed TB patients go to quacks as they don’t have access to labs or are misdirected. Also, the stigma attached to the disease prevents some from seeking timely medical help. Such attitudes, coupled with poor knowledge — even at the level of new medical graduates — are major barriers to the prevention of TB. No progress can be expected unless a cohesive strategy to guide schoolchildren, families, communities and other sections of society is evolved and implemented.

View from a halfway point

A YEAR ago the people of Pakistan were jolted out of a strange state of passivity and hopelessness by an event the unintended consequences of which had not been foreseen by the powers that caused it. The great outrage at the sudden removal of the Chief Justice of Pakistan became a national quest for the Holy Grail of democracy.

Human beings compulsively calibrate their journeys and erect milestones to map them. They also look down to find reassurance in the progress made and look up to summon requisite reserves of energy for what is often the most arduous part of the ascent.

Pakistani society is visibly taxed by the effort made in climbing out of the abyss of unbridled authoritarianism on to a base camp and then getting halfway through to the top of the magic mountain of democracy. It is breathless with excitement at what it has achieved and also a trifle short of breath because of the perils that lie ahead. If the people are heady because of the extraordinary spurt of energy that has brought them so far, they are also haunted by the Sisyphean disasters of the past.

Viewed from this mid-point of hope and fear, what has already been traversed bears testimony to the indomitable spirit of man. It was not a propitious time for our people to resume their oft-aborted quest for democracy. Larry Diamond, whose work on democratisation is widely known, has a thought-provoking but pessimistic essay in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs that argues that the “democratic wave has been slowed by a powerful authoritarian undertow, and the world has slipped into a democratic recession.”

He cites a number of examples to show how democracy has either been overthrown or gradually stifled. Like many other western analysts, he evades an upfront comment on how the global war on terror was exploited to suppress institutions of democracy, free speech, and law and social organisation in Pakistan though he does concede that western leaders “tend to speak out only when democratic norms are violated by unfriendly governments (as in Russia and Venezuela or in Bolivia) and soft-pedal abuses when allies (such

as Ethiopia, Iraq, or Pakistan) are involved.”

In Pakistan the political parties had been decimated, the people told repeatedly that there was no power in the world that could bring their exiled leaders back and more than 50 judges removed through an unlawful fiat of military power. There was no organisation similar to the ones that launched the ‘colour revolutions’ of Ukraine and Georgia. What the people of Pakistan achieved on Feb 18 has few parallels in the case histories of ‘waves of democracy’ since the eventful 1970s.

It was beyond the capacity of the people to stage a classical revolution on their own. So they did the next best thing by re-energising the battered political parties while making them responsible — and accountable — for changing the status quo. One cannot blame the political parties for not being quite ready for this awesome responsibility. In fact it is a tribute to their skills that the National Assembly did not take more than 28 days after the election to take oath and elect a speaker and no more than 35 days to appoint the new prime minister.

In both cases the outcome vindicated the unusual delay with decisive majorities that could not even be contemplated a few months back. Pakistan became the first Muslim country to have a woman parliamentarian as the speaker and the scion of a family active in Muslim politics since the early 1920s was elected prime minister.

Many long years ago I accompanied Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani to represent Pakistan at the 25th anniversary celebrations of the independence of Maldives and was struck by the effortless manner in which he used the inimitable courtesy and friendliness of Pakistan’s Seraiki belt to charm other leaders, especially from the smaller states of South Asia. One was to discover later the grit, steadfastness and courage with which he stood up to his tormentors after the coup d’etat of Oct 12, 1999. It was that kind of resilience that has kept the flame of democracy alive in Pakistan.

The onward view to the summit is daunting and the terrain treacherous. Like Milosevic’s Serbia and Pinochet’s Chile earlier, the regime in Pakistan relied heavily on creating a make-believe world of achievements by exploiting the power of the new ubiquitous media. It unravelled rapidly once the independent media broke ranks. The process has left behind huge problems and much impatience for quick results.

The new government will not lack talent or experience but it has no more than the proverbial one hundred days to convince the people that it has made a credible beginning in restoring a lawful state, a viable constitutional order, democratic governance, a civic life free of terrorist attacks and, above all, an economic policy that does not further exacerbate disparities in incomes and opportunities.

PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari has taken the right strategic approach in creating a broad-based coalition. The depth of the national crisis demands it and its aggregate power provides a hedge against our hitherto unreformed predatory state. So far only the inner core — the PPP, PML-N and ANP — can be considered to be reasonably bound by trust which, in turn, should enable them to adopt a common minimum programme. Beyond this core lies an uncertain landscape of convenience and opportunism.

Endless expansion may force critical dilution of the common programme, a process likely to sow doubts and dissensions. In fact a Trojan horse or two may open up fault lines in the coalition.

The new prime minister should make a comprehensive statement — a veritable state of the federation message — on behalf of the entire coalition to reassure the electorate with a clear road map. The people will follow it only if the right signs are put up well before disillusionment begins to set in to the delight of the anti-democratic forces that are down but not out.

tanvir.a.khan@gmail.com

OTHER VOICES - Middle East Press

Insane disunity

Arab News

THE insanity of the bitter and bloody inter-Palestinian rivalry remains unresolved despite the best efforts of the Yemeni government [which] … has just sought to bring Hamas and Fatah together for talks in Sanaa.

… The majority of Palestinians, in both the West Bank and Gaza, longs for peace and freedom from Israeli tyranny.… Both Hamas and Fatah say this is their goal … Hamas still believes that it can be victorious by confronting Israel and bargaining from a position of strength.

The Palestinian Authority under President Mahmoud Abbas is convinced that only negotiations that will inevitably include some compromises will bring an end to the agony. The Hamas seizure of Gaza gave physical form to these policy divisions. It also effectively stymied the path of negotiation because in reality the Palestinian Authority can no longer speak for part of Palestine. And since Washington led the proscription of Hamas, even after it had won free and fair elections, Hamas is excluded from talks.

The exasperation felt in both Ramallah and Gaza is understandable. What is incomprehensible is the wilful refusal to recognise [the fact] that without unity Israel holds all the cards. It can continue to build illegal settlements. It can continue to treat Gaza as a murderous shooting gallery. It can continue to avoid being forced to give up territory and make any concessions at all….

Indeed the current Palestinian disunity is so convenient for Israel that some might suspect that somewhere in Hamas there is an Israeli agent provocateur egging on his unsuspecting colleagues to ever greater enormities. Repellent though this idea is, in some ways it would be more digestible than the two other alternative explanations.

The first is that Hamas, encouraged by outsiders, really is blind to the genuine opportunity for peace. The second is that they simply do not care but are wedded to violence, blinded by the anger born of 61 years of Israeli oppression. — (March 22)

Take our tired, our poor

Yemen Times

DURING Dutch Development Cooperation Minister Bert Koenders’ visit to Kharaz Refugee Camp two weeks ago, female African refugees held up their crossed arms above their heads to signify that they are being held as prisoners at the camp. They complained of harsh conditions in the camp and increasing security problems due to violent tribes in the area.

The refugee issue in Yemen is one of the most enduring problems the nation has suffered…. How much hospitality is expected from a poor host with many problems of its own? The French gift to the Americans, the Statue of Liberty, reads: “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

Those words were written by Jewish activist and writer Emma Lazarus, who worked with East European immigrants through her association with the Hebrew Emigrant Aid Society. The lines are part of ‘The New Colossus’, which she composed in 1883 as part of a fund-raising campaign to erect the Statue of Liberty.

However, Yemen isn’t reading from the same song sheet. In fact, if it were up to us, we’d have a national symbol written on it: “Take our tired and poor and give them a life.” Yet, relatively, we seemingly take in even more refugees than the United States or Europe. We harbour all sorts of refugees, but offer them a life no better than the one they fled — not because we don’t want to, but because we can’t afford it.

The Netherlands recently pledged 700,000 euros (approximately YR 216.6 million) for the Kharaz camp, and because the Dutch are concerned and interested in helping, there’s even more support on the way. But while this helps, the original problem remains, as more and more refugees continue arriving to our poor country, which is only getting poorer…. — (March 22)