Belated revenge

A NATION that does not produce its own prophets should not expect any miracles. Although ideologically Pakistan has abjured producing any prophets, during the past 60 years it has managed to fabricate at least three generations of persuasive orators, convincing demagogues, plausible soothsayers and voluble charlatans.

Each for a while has caught the attention of the multitude, fed them the manna of hope, and then disappeared into the mists of oblivion.

Today, 160 million Pakistanis wait for any Moses who will free them from bondage and lead them out of their Promised Homeland, someone who can perform the miracle of striking a rock and making oil flow from it, someone who will cast his rod and through its serpent swallow all the plagues of poverty, illiteracy, sectarianism and terrorism. If there is such a deliverer, he has not made himself manifest as yet. Every Pakistani must learn to be patient and, like the pharaoh’s daughter, wait for the unborn to be born.

Meanwhile, our country is sliding perceptibly into a freefall that can be arrested only by timely miracles, despite having at least six governments nominally committed to control that decline. Three elected governments ensconced in the saddle at Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi, and three shadow ones that actually control the reins of governance.

In countries where shadow cabinets exist, a minister has a ‘shadow’ counterpart. Only in our subcontinent, can one find shadow cabinets in government, and the real government in the shadows. In New Delhi, for example, it is now an accepted fact that all key decisions are taken not in the cabinet room but in Mrs Sonia Gandhi’s kitchen cabinet. Mrs Golda Meir, Israel’s first woman prime minister, made such decision-making a practical reality by actually gathering her cabinet colleagues into her kitchen where she served them homemade chicken soup with matzo balls.

Such diagonal command structures are not contrary to the norms of democracy. There are some who would argue that so long as directions to an incumbent government come from the political leadership in the country (an obvious example is the Communist Party in China), government expediency should remain subservient to political imperatives in the larger national interest. However, there are others who feel that if the Westminster model is to be imitated, then it should be followed more closely, with the leader of the government being also leader of the political party that propelled them to office.

In Pakistan, there is an interesting mutation of this concept. In Islamabad, the prime minister oscillates between being the head of government and a mere figurehead. In Punjab and Sindh, the chief ministers function as seat-warmers, another set of caretakers replacing the ones who have just vacated office.

Under ordinary circumstances, such elliptical contours of governance would work. In our present predicament, it is difficult to see how they could. The interim caretaker cabinets postponed many critical decisions pending the outcome of the elections. Now that elected governments are in place, they themselves are waiting for the outcome of the by-elections which will bring the true leaders out of the shadows.

Can our country afford to wait until then? Can any country anywhere grow and prosper in a vacuum of indecision? To watch the countless television channels and to listen to the ceaseless chatter in chat shows, one would be lulled into believing that cabinet and parliamentary sub-committees are in fact superfluous. The solutions to our national dilemma are so obvious. They are already there, splayed on the screen — if only someone else could be found to implement them.

Meanwhile, the two major political parties — the PPP and PML-N — close in inexorably on the presidency and its embattled incumbent. The recent agreement between their two leaders in Dubai to restore the deposed judges has done more than remove an impediment to the consummation of their Murree Declaration. It has dislodged yet another cornerstone of President Musharraf’s presidency and caused it to list even more precariously than before.

What does the future hold for him? Only he and his closest advisors (hopefully they are also his well-wishers) as well as those inimical to him can know for sure. Something that is becoming increasingly clear is that the laurel wreath that he has been wearing for the past eight years is rapidly atrophying into a crown of thorns. In a sense, his resolve over the past eight years or so has remained singularly consistent. It has been to survive. That was as true in October 1999 while he sat strapped in his seat in the PIA aircraft as it hovered over Karachi airport, and it is equally true in May 2008 as he sits trapped in his chair within the presidency.

He has never been a man though to concede defeat. The word is not in his lexicon. Nor come to think of it was it in the vocabulary of Charles I of England. But Time can be a cruel teacher. During the English civil war, challenged and routed by the democratic Roundheads, Charles and his Cavalier supporters had to learn its meaning the hard way.

Democracy, as Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto predicted, is the best form of revenge. Revenge can, however, come in different guises, in unexpected ways and at unexpected times. For example, after the decisive Battle of Naseby in 1645, one of King Charles’ vanquished Royalists taunted his Roundhead parliamentarian opponents in their moment of victory: “Now that you have done with us, go fight amongst yourselves.”

Perhaps Musharraf’s loyalists are praying for just such satisfaction — whenever that miracle may occur, however belatedly.

fsaijazuddin2@gmail.com

The politics of pipelines

INDIA’S critical power shortage coupled with the Manmohan Singh government’s failure to obtain Lok Sabha’s approval for the US civilian nuclear deal appears to have convinced its leadership to renew its interest in two major gas pipeline projects under consideration for over a decade.

These are the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) and the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) projects.

In fact, this past fortnight, we saw both Pakistan and India demonstrate a refreshing interest in both. First it was the April 24 Islamabad meeting of the petroleum ministers of Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India, which resulted in the Gas Pipeline Framework Agreement (GSFA), an important indicator of their seriousness. This 1,680-kilometre pipeline project was conceived as far back as 1993 when it was expected to cost $3.3bn. Its cost has now escalated to $7.6bn.

The Bush administration has been strongly supportive of this project, confident that it would reduce interest in the IPI project and thereby prevent Iran from extending its influence in a critical part of the world. Consequently, the Asian Development Bank expressed its readiness to assist in the preparation of a comprehensive feasibility study and in the formation of a consortium of investors to undertake the project.

However, those monitoring the project continue to harbour major reservations that centre around two issues, the first regarding Turkmenistan’s actual gas reserves, and the second, whether those reserves are under its control or have been pledged to Russia, as is claimed by Gazprom. The Turkmen minister tried to address these concerns, claiming that the huge new gas fields discovered recently and that would be certified by a British company would more than meet the demands of all contractual partners.

Soon thereafter, the Indian petroleum minister and his Pakistani counterpart met to discuss the IPI gas pipeline project. This project, to which Pakistan attaches importance, had been somewhat sidelined by New Delhi since the US nuclear deal was under consideration in the Lok Sabha. With prospects of that ‘deal’ having been shelved for now, India has woken up to IPI’s advantages, especially with oil prices at an all-time high and with China responding favourably to Pakistan’s suggestion that it join the project.

This may explain the speed at which Pakistan and India were able to resolve their differences relating to transit fee and transportation tariff. The ministers claimed that the approximately 2775km pipeline project, to be completed in 2012, will carry 2.4bn cubic feet of gas a day from Iran’s South Pars field, to be shared equally by Pakistan and India. It was also learnt that the route of the pipeline has been altered at India’s request for security reasons and will now enter near Gwadar and join the transmission system near Nawabshah.

Informed sources said that the two sides had narrowed their differences by agreeing on a ‘template’ for finalising the transportation tariff, which was linked to the cost of constructing the pipeline. The fee would be worked out when Pakistan finalises the contract for building its section of the pipeline. As regards the transit fee, there were indications that the eventual figure would be a compromise between India’s offer of 15 cents per million British thermal units of gas and Pakistan’s demand of 60 cents. Informed sources claim it could be somewhere around 40 cents per MMBTU, which would mean that Pakistan would receive around $148m per annum in transit fee.

The project also received a timely boost from President Ahmadinejad’s brief visits to Islamabad and Delhi recently, which became the catalyst for reaffirmation by all parties of their commitment to it. It also enabled them to remove some of the hitches that had stalled agreement on it.

In addition to the assurance of future gas supplies, it is clear that India and Pakistan recognise that unless they move boldly to ensure guaranteed energy sources their current economic growth rates cannot be sustained. Officials in both capitals denied that the project faces US opposition because it involves Iran. But some observers remain unsure whether it would be possible for New Delhi to involve itself fully in the IPI, while the Bush administration maintains its current hostility towards the Islamic regime.

Nevertheless, India’s decision to resurrect its interest in the IPI is indicative of its realisation that the nuclear deal with Washington is off, at least for the foreseeable future. It may also hope that with a new incumbent in the White House early next year, the US may review its policy on the project. This may explain the change from a couple of years ago, when New Delhi had no hesitation in casting votes against Iran at the IAEA. Last week, Indian Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee expressed annoyance at the US comment that India should ask the Iranian president to suspend Iran’s enrichment activity.

It would appear that inter-state relations in the region are finally being driven by economic factors and politics is happily taking a backseat. When the project does actually materialise, its potential to become a genuine peace pipeline, as Islamabad has described it, would create healthy interdependence in as important a sector as energy. Apart from imparting a major boost to regional cooperation, it would also enhance Iran’s clout, especially at a time when it has been under great US pressure.

The US may not wish to admit it but Iran has not only remained an important player in the region, it has also succeeded in enhancing its influence, thanks to the Bush administration’s grievous errors, especially in Iraq. Nor surprisingly, Washington’s sanctions policy is unravelling, with most important countries, including Russia and China opting to maintain their cooperative relations with Iran.

Two concepts of terrorism

“TERRORISM,” like “fascism,” is one of those words that people routinely apply to almost any behaviour they disapprove of. We had a particularly impressive spread of meanings on display last week.

At one extreme, the US State Department released its annual “Country Reports on Terrorism,” a Congressionally mandated survey of all the incidents that the United States officially regards as terrorism. There were, it said, 14,499 such attacks last year. (That’s 71 down from the previous year, so there is hope.)

At the other extreme, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama’s former pastor and current nemesis, when asked to justify his earlier remark that the 9/11 attacks on the United States were “America’s chickens coming home to roost,” helpfully explained that the US had dropped atomic bombs on Japan and “supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans,” so what did Americans expect?

“You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you,” Wright elucidated. “These are Biblical principles, not Jeremiah Wright bombastic divisive principles.” So it was presumably God who selected a bunch of Saudi Arabians and Egyptians to punish the United States for its misdeeds against Japanese, Palestinians and South Africans.

Mass slaughter of the innocent as a tool of divine justice is a familiar concept in the Bible (Jericho, Sodom and Gomorrah, the seven plagues of Egypt, etc.), and it would have held equal appeal for the nineteen Arab fanatics aboard those hijacked aircraft on 9/11. The ancient Hebrews were quite partial to divine terrorism, too, since it served their purposes so well.

But divine terrorism doesn’t really qualify under the State Department’s definition, since God, even when He perpetrates “premeditated, politically motivated violence...against non-combatant targets,” is not acting as a “sub-national group or clandestine agent.” He is more of a sovereign Power in his own right. This puts Him in the same category as sovereign states, whose actions, however violent and even illegal, cannot by definition be described as “terrorism.” If you don’t believe me, ask the State Department.

So much for Jeremiah Wright’s attempt to define the American use of nuclear weapons against Japan as terrorism. It was terrible and terrifying, and it was intended to terrorise the Japanese people into surrender, but it was not terrorism. Neither are Israeli actions against the Palestinians, even when ten or twenty Palestinians are dying for every Israel victim of Palestinian terrorism, and a high proportion of the dead Palestinians are innocent civilians. Israel is a state, so by definition what it does cannot be terrorism.

Now that that’s clear, let’s move on to what the US State Department does define as terrorism. The first thing that strikes you, reading the “Country Reports on Terrorism,” is that 6,212 of “the terrorist attacks,” over two-fifths of all the 14,499 that it records for last year, were in Iraq. Might that be connected in some way with the fact that Iraq was invaded by the United States five years ago and for all practical purposes remains under US military occupation?

Algerian rebels used similar tactics against French imperial rule, including numerous brutal attacks on innocent civilians. So did the Mau Mau guerillas against their British colonial masters in Kenya, and the Viet Cong against the American presence in South Vietnam, and other people fighting against foreign occupation or domestic oppression in dozens of other countries. Their tactics were regularly condemned by their targets, but nobody tried to pretend that the world was facing a wave of irrational and inexplicable violence called “terrorism.”

Yet that is precisely the assumption that underlies the State Department’s annual reports on “terrorism,” and indeed the Bush administration’s entire “war on terror.” Or rather, it is the perspective through which the report’s authors want the rest of the world to see the troubles in Iraq, Afghanistan and so on, for they cannot be so naive that they truly believe the link between the presence of US occupation troops and a high level of terrorist attacks is purely coincidental.

You can see the same perspective at work in the distinction that is made between Israeli attacks on Palestinians (the legitimate actions of a sovereign state) and Palestinian attacks on Israelis (terrorism). Thus, the US support for Israel is also legitimate, while Iranian support for Palestinian militants makes Iran the “most active state sponsor of terrorism.”

Others play this game too – notably the Russians in Chechnya – but it is really an American innovation. Leading neo-conservative Richard Perle, former chairman of the Defence Policy Board, famously declared in 2002 that “terrorism must be de-contextualised,” but the process was already well underway in practice. And so, deprived of context, terrorism sits there as a uniquely wicked and inexplicable phenomenon, while legitimate states and armies can get on with the business of killing people in legitimate wars.

Jeremiah Wright is a narcissistic and embittered man who says many stupid and untrue things (like accusing the US government of spreading HIV/Aids among the African-American population), but you can see why he got a little confused on the terrorism issue. — Copyright