OVER the past three weeks that I have been in the US, I have watched with interest and expectations the current presidential election campaign. This has been a fascinating experience, even for someone who has monitored US elections for the past 35 years.

For one, the forthcoming elections have neither a sitting president nor a vice president in it. Instead, they have a female and a black as serious front-runners for the Democratic Party’s nomination — a new and positive development.

Moreover, they are taking place at a time when the White House incumbent is extremely unpopular. It is not only his foreign policy that has deeply polarised the country, even his domestic programmes have resulted in a serious economic malaise. Recent polls confirm that 82 per cent of Americans fear that the country is on the wrong track and are yearning for a genuine change. Such is the disillusionment with President Bush.

The Republicans have had a dull and uneventful primary campaign that led to the bland but experienced Senator John McCain emerging as his party’s standard bearer. Though not one to set your imagination on fire, he is a Vietnam War veteran, who is viewed as a centrist-liberal on domestic issues, though a hawk on foreign policy matters. While he may not be able to arouse the passionate support of the religious right, he could appeal to moderate voters who may prefer to see a dull but strong leader in the White House.

The Democrats are, however, still locked in a highly contentious race which has remained agonisingly close for far too long. But it is clear that Obama is in an unassailable position and Clinton will eventually have to accept the inevitable.

The differences between Senators McCain and Obama, on both domestic and foreign policies, are deep and profound. Though viewed as a liberal by the Christian fundamentalists, McCain is nevertheless very much part of the Washington establishment. He spent five years in a Vietcong prison, but remains the only one among fellow combat veterans in the Senate who continues to champion the war in Iraq, which has caused such deep divisions that another Vietnam veteran, Senator Chuck Hagel, predicted that it would turn out to be “the most dangerous and costly foreign policy debacle in our nation’s history”.

An extremely intelligent person, Obama is also regarded as a genuine thinking man, unconventional in both his upbringing and political views. His candidature has generated unprecedented interest and excitement across the country, though conservative groups and influential lobbies view his stand on some issues as near blasphemous and deeply worrying. Some have even questioned whether he is imbued with ‘Judeo-Christian values’, which has led to his repeated assertion that he is a strongly believing and practising Christian.

There has also been an effort to portray Obama as not being sufficiently committed to Israel, an important litmus test for those running for national office. But for Obama it is even more critical, since he has advocated ‘sending a signal that we need to talk to Iran’, a position viewed as reckless by many. Bush sought to capitalise on this during his recent visit to Israel when he compared the Iranian leadership with the Nazis and those advocating negotiations with recalcitrant regimes as the ‘false comfort of appeasement’.

Though the Gallup poll released last week showed Jewish voters favouring Obama over McCain by 61 per cent to 32 per cent, the Republicans are endeavouring to foster doubts about Obama’s commitment to Israel, alleging that while McCain as president would be Hamas’s worst nightmare, Obama would be much softer on both Hamas and Hezbollah.

Consequently, Obama has responded by offering this assurance: “I pledge to you that I will do whatever I can, in whatever capacity, to not only ensure Israel’s security but also to ensure the people of Israel are able to thrive.” Obama backers also point out that their candidate’s position on social issues is more in tune with Jewish voters who could make a difference in states with large Jewish populations, such as Florida and Pennsylvania.

Though the Americans are deeply worried about their country and the Democrats hold their biggest advantage since 1993, as the party seen as better capable of dealing with the nation’s problems, nothing can be taken for granted in an American presidential election. It is a cruel, no-holds-barred contest that has left even battle-hardened politicians in tears, while influencing others to opt out of the process to save themselves and their families this devastatingly painful ordeal. It is, however, the ‘glorious uncertainty’ of these elections that makes them so fascinating.

What would an Obama presidency mean for the rest of the world? For a start, neo-con control of the White House and the resultant contempt for global organisations and disdain for international commitments would come to an end. In recognition of the disastrous impact the Bush administration’s ‘lone ranger’ mode of operations has had on the country’s image and standing, even in traditionally pro-US European countries, a much greater effort would be mounted to reposition the US in the international mainstream. Obama is also likely to opt more often for ‘soft power’ as an instrument of US foreign policy — certainly a positive development.

As regards Pakistan, the changes would be considerable and visible. Fortunately, Obama is not enamoured of Musharraf nor is he a fan of authoritarian regimes. In his view, the regime has neither brought benefits to Pakistan nor pursued the war on terror with sincerity or seriousness. His advisors also fault Bush for continuing to view Musharraf as ‘indispensable’, even after elections that amounted to a stunning repudiation of the military ruler and his policies. He remains deeply worried about Pakistan, which he believes is inextricably linked to Afghanistan and not only on the issue of terrorism.

Undoubtedly, Obama will vigorously pursue the war on terror, but will aim at bringing Islamabad more into the equation than has been evidenced so far. Thus it will be a more multi-faceted approach, with a noticeable reduction in money for defence purchases and a meaningful increase in economic assistance. In brief, a more nuanced and balanced policy on Pakistan is likely to emerge under Obama. This should be a welcome development.

IMAGINE this: a time bomb ticks menacingly. Thousands of innocent civilian lives are in imminent danger. The good news: the suspected terrorist mastermind is in police custody. The bad news: there isn’t much time left before the bomb detonates.

So the interrogators have no choice but to use every possible means to find the bomb in time. As they extract nail after nail from the sleep-deprived suspect’s fingers, he cracks open. Torture yields crucial intelligence and a major catastrophe is averted. Perfect, right?

Think twice. This deadly ticking time bomb scenario is the classic justification used by the Bush administration for the use of systematic torture in the war on radical Islam. Granted, the difficult trade-off between torture and human rights may on rare occasions be unavoidable. Torture might even lead terror suspects to provide timely intelligence that they otherwise would not. In fact, Team America (read the US and the UK) claims to have stopped several terrorist plots in the tracks by using coercive investigation techniques.

But the clear-cut choice presented in the ticking bomb scenario is simplistic and misleading. For one, mass terror plots rarely involve a single bomber. Second, there is no evidence on how many actual bombs have been defused under such conditions. Third, the crude ends-means logic of the whole concept unravels on close examination: for every terrorist tortured, many more innocent people are likely to get whacked to a pulp. Not to mention the psychological costs they might suffer. And torture is a slippery slope. Once a government decides that torture is justified à la the Bush administration, there is no limit to the dehumanising cruelty government agents can inflict on an alleged terrorist. Think Abu Ghraib and Gitmo.

The experience of US law-enforcement agencies, including the FBI, shows that critical information can be obtained from detainees by tortureless methods. The Bush administration and some of its allies obviously do not agree and see torture not as a crime but as a necessary evil. In their view, Osama bin Laden and his ilk do not have basic human rights because they do not respect the rights of those they kill and maim. If the terrorists commit heinous crimes, goes the logic, so must Team America.

The Guardian recently revealed that the British security service MI5 interrogated British terror suspects who were being tortured in a secret Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) detention centre in the heart of Rawalpindi. After MPs and human rights groups called for an investigation into the allegations levelled in the Guardian story, MI5 denied it had colluded in torture, claiming instead that its agents operate under strict guidelines when operating overseas and “do not participate in, solicit, encourage or condone the use of torture or inhuman and degrading treatment”. Unless of course that torture takes place in another country and those tortured are either locals or dual nationals so that Whitehall can take cover under the plea of non-jurisdiction.

Across the Atlantic, the Bush administration dissimulates torture as ‘that alternative set of procedures’. These procedures are not always usable at home because of the fear of democratic accountability. So the easy way out is to outsource torture to friendly countries like Mubarak’s Egypt or Musharraf’s Pakistan. Of course, such actions make a mockery of Washington’s avowed commitment to democracy and the rule of law.

Consider: speaking at the Air University in Montgomery, Alabama on April 14 this year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice pledged that America “will greatly expand our support for the efforts of Pakistani civilians to strengthen democratic institutions and the rule of law … Pakistan now will need to find a way to have very solid civilian control of the armed forces”.

Surely, Secretary Rice understands that using Pakistani intelligence operatives as mercenaries is unlikely to help establish civilian supremacy. In fact, the relative autonomy of Pakistan’s intelligence agencies, especially the ISI, is largely the result of CIA patronage during the US-led covert anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan. During this period their capacity for domestic surveillance and repression increased dramatically, as did their confidence and sense of impunity.

Since 9/11, these agencies have run amok under American auspices, illegally detaining and torturing hundreds of Pakistanis and foreigners in the name of combating terror. Some of those detained were reportedly involved in personal disputes with ISI officials. Many others were secular Baloch and Sindhi nationalists. Simply put, the Americans helped create a monster in Pakistan which they keep injecting with adrenaline even as it wildly stomps on our civil and political liberties.

The new government must take immediate action to end the illegal detentions and torture committed on Pakistani soil under the garb of anti-terrorism. Parliament should exercise its oversight function by calling the intelligence chiefs to account. Above all, we need a strong judiciary to rein in the agencies.

It was the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry which took them to task on the missing persons’ issue. To my knowledge, never before in our history had senior military intelligence officials been summoned to court and asked to explain why they were illegally detaining people. No wonder the then army chief of staff General Pervez Musharraf accused the Supreme Court of releasing terrorists to justify his illegal actions of Nov 3, 2007. He knew full well that it would be music to the ears of his benefactors on both sides of the Atlantic.

It is of little surprise that his dismissal and house arrest of the chief justice and other judges did not elicit even a squeak from Team America. Champion they might liberty, rights and justice but the Americans and their allies have lost all credibility by virtue of their blatant disregard for the rule of law in other countries. Yet they continue to chide others for crimes they themselves have no qualms about committing. It might be a good idea for them to step out of their glasshouse before throwing stones at others. n

The writer, a PhD candidate in political science at Columbia University, is conducting doctoral research in Pakistan.

as2552@columbia.edu

CREATING neologisms to describe our world in a way that covers up more than what it reveals is a skill at which the US excels. Fancy new coinages have emerged such as ‘host-nation support’, meaning countries pay to base US troops on their soil. The jargon ‘low-intensity warfare’ repackages the most brutal strife in antiseptic language, while the term ‘consequences’, derived from Newton’s third law, is a polite expression for ‘bombing you to the Stone Age’.

No wonder, Pakistan is considered a great ‘strategic ally’ (a term used for big-time suckers), for its enthusiasm to cooperate in lending reality to many of these sugar-coated concepts.

It seems that the American law now requires all US state officials and military generals to spend at least one day per week in Pakistan. Richard Boucher, John Negroponte and the Centcom general visit Islamabad more often than most Pakistanis and have more Pakistani stamps on their passports than all other countries put together. An infinitely vague one-liner from Washington often summarises these visits as a continuum of ‘on-going talks on matters of mutual interest’.

It is time that Pakistanis asked some pertinent questions about the comings and goings of these gentlemen. It makes a lot of sense if they come here to seek our advice on how to postpone the forthcoming 2008 US elections. The grapevine has it that the US is interested in learning this trick from the ‘one phone call’ expert in our interior ministry. Do they come here to learn how they could delay the restoration of the judges just in case the US army chief decides to get rid of the constitution and to fire the US supreme court?

One understands that they are making impassioned appeals for the services of our law minister. Some go as far as to suggest that the US is so impressed with Musharraf that he is being seriously considered as one of the next US presidential candidates. Our attorney-general and the ‘jadoogar of Jeddah’ have assured the US that if requested, they could use their extensive past experience to resolve any legal or constitutional glitches the administration might be facing.

If the above arguments sound too flimsy or ludicrous, we have serious cause for concern. What makes these gentlemen focus less on their jobs in the US and more on what is going on in Pakistan? Is it that the US is principally interested in cultivating just a few selected individuals who could enable the US to retain control of critical interests in Pakistan? Thus an unelected cartel consisting of the president (head of the National Security Council), the much indoctrinated ambassador-turned-national security advisor and the unrestrained interior security advisor are all that the US is interested in.

Clearly, the concept of the ‘host-nation support’ in the case of Pakistan has been fine-tuned to the status of ‘host-cartel support’. This reduces our ministers and parliamentarians to mere municipality-level operators, kept busy in attending foreign-funded seminars, visiting mazars, conducting mindless press conferences or simply awaiting further instructions from the unelected cartel. The chief justice of Nov 2, 2007, is primarily unacceptable on one single count: he could rock the newly-established ‘host-cartel support’ system of Pakistan.

US intervention is perceived as a serious roadblock to the development of a sovereign democratic order in Pakistan. The Boucher et al traffic must be drastically reduced and limited to the offices of their counterparts in the Pakistan government. But all this can happen only if we are willing to take a few basic steps.

The first and foremost is to dismantle the unelected cartel that calls the shots in Pakistan today. Decision-making must go back to parliament and the prime minister. Next, we must declare all Nov 3 actions as unconstitutional and restore the undiluted Nov 2 judiciary to practically and forcefully assert our commitment to follow our own constitution.

A country refusing to follow its own constitution exposes its vulnerability to external interference and is typically referred to as a banana republic (a country that is politically unstable, often ruled by a small, self-elected, wealthy and corrupt clique). Pakistan has increasingly begun to fit this definition.

Sovereignty and beggary are chemically incompatible. If the first thing that a finance minister does after taking over is to book a flight to Spain to queue up for a billion-dollar ADB loan, we are only reinforcing our bonded-nation status. It may be best for Pakistan to hold back some of the exotic military equipment purchases and not beg the US for any further grants. There are allegations that as much as 70 per cent of the $5.4bn US aid to Pakistan in the past five years has been misspent.

The list of misspent and wasted loans taken under fancy captions is endless — ‘poverty alleviation’, ‘access to justice’ and ‘capacity building for government servants’ to name just a few. It does not make sense to keep begging and to also expect bank managers not to scrutinise our accounts.

naeemsadiq@gmail.com