Post-election crisis

UNLESS common sense prevails all around, there is every possibility that Palestine could descend into chaos. There is more at stake than the mere formation of a government, for the whole world is watching the Palestinian scenario in the aftermath of last week’s elections, which by all accounts were fair and free. While it would be futile to blame one party for the two days of clashes in Gaza and Ramallah, it seems obvious that Fatah has not reconciled itself to loss of power. At issue is the control of the security apparatus, now packed with pro-Fatah elements. Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal said the victorious side planned to create an army, prompting a Fatah leader to say that he could turn the existing security force of the Palestinian Authority into a militia, implying that it could wage guerrilla warfare against a Hamas-controlled security force. The take-over of the parliament buildings by Fatah police and its supporters in Gaza and Ramallah and the exchange of fire between the two sides show that emotions are running high.

Fatah should realize that as a majority party in parliament, Hamas has every right to form a government of its own. But Hamas leaders have said that they could even form a coalition government. This is something Fatah leaders should consider seriously. A Hamas-Fatah coalition government will give stability to the PA and enable it to tackle the two tasks before it: to focus on reforms and to negotiate with Israel with a view to ensuring the latter’s withdrawal from the occupied West Bank. Unfortunately, reactions from Europe and America have been hostile to the Hamas victory, even though Hamas has not yet formed a government. Both have asked Hamas to “renounce violence” and threatened to cut off all aid. This has emboldened Tel Aviv, which said it would suspend the transfer of customs revenues to the PA. No wonder, Hamas leaders should term this as an attempt to blackmail Hamas and the Palestinian people. It would be a pity if the Hamas-Fatah conflict were to escalate. This will not only mean a civil war shedding more Palestinian blood, Israel will also utilize the occasion to call off the peace process, which in any case has been in a dormant state since the second intifada broke out in September 2000. Shaul Mofaz, Israel’s defence minister, has already threatened “an unprecedented Israeli attack” if Hamas abandoned the truce.

The stakes for the Palestinian people are high. The world is watching the post-election drama with bated breath. A failure to work democracy will mean the end of the Palestinian people’s unity for which Yasser Arafat had worked so hard. Aware of the fractious nature of Palestinian politics, the Fatah founder had managed to take all sides on board, even if this meant uneasy compromises. On Sept 13, 1993, the Palestinian people’s enemies shook hands with Arafat on the lawns of the White House and promised to help create a Palestinian state because their leader had managed to forge an unprecedented unity among his people. It would be a tragedy for the Palestinian people if this unity were to fall victim to petty political squabbles and rivalry. In victory and defeat, both Hamas and Fatah should never forget the one single aim for which at least three generations of Palestinians have shed blood and suffered — creating a sovereign Palestinian state with Al Quds as its capital.

What caused the accident?

INITIAL investigations conducted into Sunday night’s train crash near Jhelum have indicated the possibility of this being an act of sabotage. The railway minister has said there were indications on the ground that saboteurs had preplanned the dismantling of the track near Domeili, where the line takes a sharp turn next to a ravine, with the aim of causing maximum damage. Railway authorities have confirmed six people dead and over 50 injured as a result of the crash. It is most fortunate that the number of casualties is higher given the fact that more than 600 people were onboard the ill-fated train. The minister gave no indication as to who the saboteurs might be. The railway authorities have not ruled out the possibility of a foreign hand being behind the deadly crime. If the probe now underway confirms terrorism as the factor that caused the derailment of the non-stop, high-speed Lahore Express that runs between Islamabad and the Punjab capital, then this would be worrisome. This would be the first time that terrorists, whoever they might be, have targeted the national transport system in the heart of Punjab. The train in question is one of the most preferred expresses running between Islamabad and Lahore, and it mostly attracts luxury travellers, including government officials and the business elite.

So who could it be that sent innocent people to death to settle scores with the state? Al Qaeda or its local activists or sympathizers? A Baloch resistance group or an unknown third entity? The possibilities are not many, which should help the authorities identify the culprits sooner than later. But because Pakistan Railway’s own equipment was reportedly used to dismantle the track, investigators also should not rule out the possibility of sabotage from within the organization. Last month a railway police constable made away with millions of rupees in employees’ salaries from the PR’s Mughalpura workshop in Lahore. But the public has yet to know the result of the inquiry ordered into that incident. All these factors should be carefully examined before reaching a definitive conclusion.

Lahore’s successful marathon

THANKFULLY, the Lahore marathon turned out to be a peaceful and successful event. In the weeks leading to it, one had become apprehensive that the government might once again cave in to the religious right’s demand for disallowing women from competing alongside men in the mixed run but this did not happen. By arresting hundreds of religious activists a day prior to the event and beefing up security to assuage the fears of contestants and spectators, the government sent the message that it placed a great deal of importance on such events. It is encouraging that the government stood by its commitment and refused to be browbeaten by bigots who believe that social activities like mixed marathons or Basant spread immorality. This warped view and threat of disruption frightened many women into dropping out of Sunday’s race as they were apprehensive of their safety. However, many women ignored these threats, determined to prove their mettle by participating in the race. It is their spirit — along with every participant’s — that should be appreciated wholeheartedly.

It is reassuring to hear that the government plans to hold this event annually. Not only will international participation boost the country’s image but it will provide a much-needed platform for sportsmanship in the country. Scores of would-be-athletes now have an event to look forward to in our cheerless ambience. Other provinces should take the cue from Sunday’s event and plan to hold similar sporting events in their respective cities. They give people an opportunity for healthy recreational activities and allow them to compete in outdoor activities. The success of a concert in Karachi on Sunday — which went off without any disruption — also proves that there is a dire need for events that give people a reason to be cheerful.

Observer status at the OIC

PRIOR to his departure for India to attend its Republic Day parade on January 26 as chief guest, Saudi King Abdullah gave an interview to a private Indian TV channel. In this interview, it was suggested that India be granted observer status at the OIC as has been given to Russia which, like India, is also a non-Muslim country but with a sizable Muslim population — although Saudi authorities later said that the monarch had been misquoted.

It may be recalled that following an arson attack on Al Aqsa mosque in August 1969, which outraged Muslims all over the world, an Islamic summit was held in Rabat in September 1969 to condemn the sacrilege against one of the most venerated places of Islam and to coordinate efforts for safeguarding Islam’s holy places. However, the Muslim leaders, who gathered in Rabat, also decided to institutionalize cooperation among Muslim states in economic, social, cultural, scientific and other vital fields of activities by establishing a permanent organization for this purpose. A charter of the proposed body of the Islamic countries, named Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), was adopted in 1971 which specified its objectives and principles laying great emphasis on promoting Islamic solidarity.

According to its charter, the OIC is composed of the states which participated in the summit of kings and heads of state/government held in Rabat in September 1969 and also attended the foreign ministers conferences held in Jeddah and Karachi in March 1970 and December 1970 respectively. Every other Muslim state is, however also, eligible to join the OIC on submitting an application expressing its desire and preparedness to adopt this charter.

India made every possible effort to participate in the Rabat summit in 1969 on the basis of having a large Muslim community in its population. However, Pakistan opposed this move and argued that India was not an Islamic country and that it also had a record of treating its Muslim population ruthlessly. Some Arab states still favoured India’s participation in the summit. However, Pakistan’s strong opposition, based on its principled and logical stand, forced them to capitulate and India was kept out of the Islamic summit.

This setback did not, however, deter India from making relentless efforts, albeit in vain, to make inroads into the OIC apparently with no cogent reason except that it probably wanted to deprive Pakistan from enjoying unequivocal support in the Islamic world through this platform for the Kashmir cause. India’s case has, however, gone from bad to worse, particularly after the destruction of the historic Babri mosque in 1992 and the killing of thousands of Muslims in its aftermath as well as its growing intimate relationship with Israel which is considered an arch-enemy of the Islamic world.

The charter of the OIC clearly stipulates that only the Muslim countries willing to promote the organization’s objectives were eligible to become its members. In this context it may, however, be of interest to note that Turkey, which has an overwhelming Muslim population, did not seek OIC’s full membership as its constitution did not allow it to join an organization that has religious undertones. The Turkish parliament, therefore, had to make suitable amendment in the Turkish constitution to remove this snag and only then did Turkey apply for the membership of the OIC. It follows from this that India cannot become a member of the OIC as it cannot promote its objectives as that would be inconsistent with its secular constitution.

When the second Islamic summit was held in Lahore in February 1974, the then president of Uganda, Idi Amin, declared that he would also attend the summit. Uganda was not an Islamic country and, therefore, its participation in the summit was in conflict with the OIC charter. However, those who were at the helm of the state affairs in Pakistan at the time allowed Idi Amin to attend the summit and admitted Uganda as a member of the OIC.

Regrettably, non-adherence of the criteria laid down in the charter for admission of members into the organization led a number of other non-eligible countries, like Benin and Sierra Leone to join the OIC as full-fledged members which not only set an undesirable precedent but has also created an anomalous situation which needs to be rectified. However, one does not really know how it would be possible to do so at this stage.

There is an increasing number of requests for obtaining observer status at the OIC. The case of Islamic states eligible for membership of the organization, according to the provisions of the charter and wishing to follow the activities of the OIC in observer capacity provisionally, prior to applying for membership, is simple and would present no difficulty. Similarly, governmental organizations, both international and regional, can also be granted observer status, in accordance with the conditions and regulations provided for in the statutes and on the basis of reciprocity.

However, the admission of non-Muslim countries seeking accession as observers at the OIC necessitates a thorough review. It is believed that the OIC has already set up a committee to review the current procedures for the grant of observer status to non-Muslim states. It is understood that under the existing rules full membership may be granted on the fulfilment of some prescribed conditions which are not included in the rules pertaining to the grant of observer status.

As a matter of fact, all non-eligible countries and organizations applying for observer status at the OIC should also be asked to express their willingness and capability to work for the realization of the objectives of the organization enunciated in its charter. After all, observer status is quasi-membership to the OIC and therefore, the observers are also expected to fulfil their obligations. Observer status should be suspended or withdrawn from an observer if it fails to fulfil its obligations.

The writer is a former ambassador

The world after Greenspan

THE big event in the world economy is not the Davos economic forum — which ended at the weekend — but the fact that Alan Greenspan, chairman of the US Federal Reserve, will be attending his last Fed meeting on Tuesday before retiring.

The man who is often credited with single-handedly steering the US economy through a series of storms to a land of sustained growth will be handing over after 18 years at the helm to a respected, but inevitably less experienced, successor. Europe has more than a passing interest in this. Since the eurozone seems unable to generate growth on its own, it is disproportionately reliant on trade generated by US expansion and so has good reasons to be nervous about what will happen next.

Even his critics admit that Mr Greenspan is a giant whose skill, insights and legendary attention to detail have been one of the main forces behind the success of the US economy, even if the last quarter of 2005 suggests a slowing down. Within weeks of taking over in October 1987 he had to contend with the collapse of the stock market. In 1990-91 there was an economic recession followed by the dotcom bubble of the mid-90s, the Russian debt default in 1997, the near-collapse of the LTCM hedge fund in 1998 followed by September 11, hurricane Katrina and the soaring price of oil.

Mr Greenspan even turned failure into success. When he famously warned the stock markets of “irrational exuberance” in December 1996 and they ignored him he rationalised this into a principle: that central banks can’t burst bubbles, but merely follow afterwards with a shovel (a theory to which his successor Ben Bernanke also subscribes to). This is not easy for the man in the street to grasp: it suggests that economists are impotent at times when investors are bidding up assets to levels that practically everyone thinks are unrealistic.

This is relevant now because Mr Greenspan’s legacy includes three unresolved problems that make it hard to pass final judgment on his tenure. The first is the current UK-style boom in house prices. So far it has been benevolent, feeding consumption and adding to the feel-good factor. It remains to be seen whether it is followed by a sharp drop that could hit consumer spending hard and cause a recession with international repercussions. The other two problems are the huge twin deficits on trade and the budget.

Critics have been predicting doomsday scenarios that have not happened for so long that they don’t merit headlines any more. But that doesn’t mean the risks are not real. Only last week Rachel Lomax, deputy governor of the Bank of England, warned that the US trade deficit and other large global imbalances could have “significant impact on economic activity”. That is Bankspeak for saying that if there is a sharp fall in the dollar then don’t say we didn’t warn you.

It is too early to make a final judgment on him, but there is no doubt that Mr Greenspan’s proactive approach to interest rates - he has changed them far more than his European counterpart and is expected to announce another rise tomorrow - has been beneficial. He has been as concerned about encouraging growth as about constraining inflation. And he has done very well on both.

He has presided over a remarkable resurgence of productivity since the mid-90s which is the envy of Europe (though, curiously, there has not been a corresponding increase in real wages of a kind that happened in the UK without the productivity increases). One of Gordon Brown’s big ambitions is to reproduce a US productivity miracle here.

Meanwhile, Mr Greenspan’s admirers wonder what would have happened to stagnant eurozone growth if he had been in charge of Europe’s central bank.

—Dawn/Guardian Service