Implications of Bush visit

SOON we will have the US president in Islamabad. What message will the world’s most powerful leader bring us and what advantages can accrue to the country from this event? Pakistan’s current relations with the United States are close and cooperative. The government claims that the ties have never been as better as now. But similar claims had been made in the past as well. It is, therefore, not the Bush administration’s public pronouncements of Pakistan’s relevance in regional and global affairs that matter. Such declarations need to be transformed into substantive political and economic advantages.

The US must accept that it has a stake in Pakistan’s economic well-being and national security, specially in view of our status as a nuclear power, our contribution to the global war on terror, our efforts to normalize relations with India and our role as a major Islamic country. This is particularly important because US-Pakistan ties are being forged in an uncertain global environment.

Notwithstanding the close cooperation between the two countries in the pursuit of important objectives, especially as regards the global war on terror, this has not resulted in the relationship acquiring a strategic dimension so far. In particular, the people here see US cooperation with Pakistan as tactical and, therefore, a transient engagement. Many Pakistanis, like those in other Muslim countries, view the US with deep misgivings.

America is seen as engaged in schemes to humiliate Islam, occupy some Muslim states, threaten others and extend a carte blanche to Israel to perpetuate its repressive policies against the Palestinians. The US will, therefore, be judged by the way in which it treats issues that are close to Muslims such as Palestine, Kashmir, and not by mere statements of intent.

President Bush’s address at the Asia Society on February 23, followed by extensive interviews to the media have, however, facilitated the task of the analysts. Bush made it clear that his visit to Delhi represents a very important element in his quest to turn the relationship with India into a strategic vision for his country for the 21st century. He spoke out strongly in favour of making the civilian nuclear cooperation deal the centre piece of his India visit, for it would not only cement their friendship, but also raise the level of their ties to a much higher plane. Administration officials have reiterated that the US has de-hyphenated the India-Pakistan relationship. “What it does with one, will not be mirrored with the other”. US under-secretary of state Nicholas Burns claimed that the administration has reaffirmed “the central importance of Pakistan to the US, as a strategic partner for us in the war on terrorism”, while India is “one of our most important partners worldwide.” He has, however, emphasized that it would not be realistic to compare Pakistan with India, which the US is committed “to help become a major power in the 21st century”. The agenda with Pakistan is more limited.

Bush’s remarks confirmed that America’s primary interest in Pakistan remains this country’s role and contribution to the war on terror. On this issue, there was very close coordination between the intelligence and security agencies of the US and Pakistan and this was true even in the case of the Bajaur incident. This may explain the administration’s refusal to express any remorse over the loss of civilian lives in this tragedy. More revealing was the remark that “in the war against terror, we are allies and we coordinate.”

On terrorism, the Pakistani leadership is determined to remain a credible US partner. Nevertheless, there are aspects which need careful analysis. Will Al Qaeda gradually disappear or will the growing hostility of the West to Islam provide further impetus to terrorists and help them recruit new members and widen the scope and area of their operations? Afghanistan and Iraq have already become breeding grounds for extremists, but now, with growing hostility against the West, even in the traditionally moderate Muslim countries, Al Qaeda is likely to remain a major threat not only to the West, but to the establishments in the East, as well.

While it is true that Pakistan is no longer preoccupied with India as it was for more than 50 years, it would be naive to presume that India no longer constitutes a threat to Pakistan’s national interests. The American president reiterated that he was very pleased with the current normalization process between Pakistan and India that had permitted the US to build good relations with both. As regards the issue of Kashmir, he confirmed that it would figure in his talks in both New Delhi and Islamabad, but that he would not play any role in the resolution of this problem, confining himself to speaking about it and encouraging the leadership of the two countries to remain committed to dialogue and negotiations. But he underlined that any solution of the Kashmir problem should be in accordance with the wishes of Pakistan, India and the “citizens” of Kashmir.

Pakistanis will, nevertheless, be encouraged by Bush’s remark that “for too long, Kashmir has been a source of violence and distrust between these two countries.” This does not mean, however, that the Bush administration is prepared to use its new found influence in New Delhi to urge India to either reduce its military presence in the occupied territory, or to enter into a serious and result-oriented dialogue with Pakistan. The US agrees with India that resistance to Indian occupation in Kashmir amounts to terrorism and, therefore, accepts the need for the massive Indian military presence there. In fact, American academicians have suggested that formalization of the current status quo in Kashmir may be the only acceptable way out.

This should not, however, discourage us from forcefully urging upon Bush that unless his administration takes a more active role in the peace process, it may soon run out of steam. After all, the US has, on many occasions, played a critical role in reducing tension and encouraging dialogue between India and Pakistan. Now that the US is forging ties with India and has declared Pakistan a non-Nato ally, it is incumbent on it make a determined pitch for durable peace in the region which would not be possible without a resolution of the Kashmir dispute.

As regards US plans to provide highly sophisticated arms to India, this is not something which we can protest against, especially as the US is now providing Pakistan some weapons systems as well. But we can point out that any massive accretion to India’s offensive ability will neither help the normalization process nor add to stability in the region. The Bush administration needs to appreciate that deterioration in the conventional balance will only enhance Pakistan’s dependence on non-conventional weapons.

In this context, we must also take up forcefully the issue of US assistance to India in the nuclear field that would confer on Delhi the status of a near-acknowledged nuclear power. We should point out that we now have strict institutional and legal mechanisms to ensure total compliance with global non-proliferation requirements. Apart from our own acute need for energy, any move to discriminate between the nuclear status of the two South Asian neighbours would have a negative fallout on the region.

Nevertheless, the American president is likely to make new and more onerous demands on Pakistan, especially with regard to the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan, the brewing crisis in Iran, and the evolving situation in the Middle East. As regards Afghanistan, it is quite clear that the Karzai government, even with Nato and ISAF (International Security Assistance Force) presence, will find it difficult to crush the Taliban. The warlords remain a major headache for Kabul. Bush is, therefore, likely to ask for our acquiescence to US-led operations in the border areas, and this could give rise to fresh tensions in Pakistan.

Iran is likely to be discussed as well. Administration officials have refused to rule out an armed attack on Iran. Israeli leaders, too, have been urging upon the US not to waste time in negotiations, but to opt for a policy of ultimatums followed by armed action if required. Pakistan must point out that this would be a grave folly not only for the region, but even for American interests. We should affirm that we can have no role in any American schemes against Iran.

The Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project would surely figure in both New Delhi and Islamabad, as evident from Bush’s first ever comments on the subject, when he called upon India, Pakistan and the US to “send a united message to Iran that development of nuclear weapons is unacceptable. Iran must get a unified message from all of us.” This was as a clear warning that, notwithstanding the energy needs of India and Pakistan, the US would not countenance a “member of the axis of evil”, gaining such an important advantage in the region.

I believe that after the Bush visit, we will see both countries cool their enthusiasm for the IPI project and opt for projects such as the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline or the Qatar-Pakistan-India project. This would be regrettable since the IPI is considered as technically the most feasible and financially the most attractive.

Trade is an important, even critical issue, between the two countries. Interestingly enough, the Bush administration is quite happy to dole out nearly seven hundred million dollars annually to Pakistan, but appears unwilling to provide greater market access to Pakistani products. Our pleas that increasing the volume of Pakistan’s exports would generate jobs and enhance economic activity that could best combat the spread of extremism have not fallen on receptive ears, so far. It was, therefore, gratifying to hear Bush acknowledge that greater market access for Pakistani products is a legitimate concern. The investment agreement that is to be signed during the visit is also likely to encourage American investors to look at Pakistan more favourably.

Pakistan’s relations with the US remains one-dimensional, based as it is on a single item agenda — cooperation in the war on terror; even though Bush claimed in an interview that “it is much bigger than just the war on terror”. This is reminiscent of the ‘60s when we were part of the western alliance in the Cold War and therefore, favoured with arms and economic assistance. Again, the political adulation and massive assistance extended in the ‘80s was a payment for our role in American-led efforts to oust the Soviet forces from Afghanistan.

Even if we are to presume that the war on terror is not likely to subside for decades, basing our relations with the world’s only superpower on this single issue is fraught with risks. Notwithstanding our efforts, influential elements in the US Congress and media even now question our role in the war on terror, alleging that the president “has been an intermittent collaborator in the fight against terrorism, rather than a fully committed ally.” As Ashley Tellis, the influential strategic analyst wrote in early 2005, “Pakistan today is clearly both part of the problem as well as part of the solution”, a sentiment shared by others.

We have to prove these people wrong, by our policies both at home and abroad. The US is unlike any other democracy. The executive has to share authority and influence with other centres of power. Institutions matter much more than individuals. These need to be cultivated assiduously, over the years. In this effort, Pakistani-Americans can also play a helpful role. But the real challenge is at home. Only a democratic polity, strengthened by a tolerant and liberal society, can enhance our credentials and make us genuine partners of the West. And the West, too, must recognize that if the global campaign against terrorism is a war “for the soul of Islam” as it claims, then it is incumbent for it to assist those that represent the moderate stream in Islam.

The writer is a former ambassador.

The pain of being displaced

IN LATE January some members of the Hindu community living in Rehmatia Colony on the south bank of the Lyari river in Gulshan-i-Iqbal Town — now razed to the ground to give the right of way to the Lyari Expressway Project (LEP) — approached me to narrate their tale of woe.

They had been displaced when their jhuggis were bulldozed. That is how Somi, Seeta, Mitha, Jeeta and about 100 others, including children, were left without a roof above their head on a wintry January day. They had become victims of the phenomenon called development-related forced displacement.

There are many aspects of LEP and the resettlement process that need to be looked into. They will come later. Today I will write about the displacement of Somi and her community and others like her. A development project is supposedly for the benefit of the people. Hence any human dislocation it is likely to cause must be minimized if the government cares for its people. Understanding this paradox, the UN Human Rights Commission of the Economic and Social Council asked some experts to draw up Comprehensive Human Rights Guidelines on Development-Based Displacement. In 1997 they came up with a code to ease the pain of those evicted.

Did those who were involved with LEP — from the president of Pakistan who ordered its construction to the National Highway Authority and the city government of Karachi who were responsible for the planning and execution of the project — read the recommendations of the experts? Considering the haste with which they have proceeded with the expressway project, it seems unlikely that they were aware of these guidelines. And if they were, they just ignored them.

These guidelines make it binding on the state to fully explore all possible alternatives to any act involving forced eviction. Governments are asked to ensure that eviction impact assessments are carried out prior to the initiation of the project with a view to fully securing the human rights of all likely to be affected.

Besides, it is the right of the affected people to be consulted at every stage and be provided with full information. They also have the right to propose alternatives. The state is also expected to pay resettlement costs and no affected person must be allowed to suffer detriment in his living conditions because of the relocation. Above all, people must give their full and informed consent with regards to the relocation site. They must be given 90 days notice prior to relocation and neutral observers must be present at the time of displacement. Sadly, this is not exactly what has happened on the bank of the Lyari.

The foremost need of the hour was for consultation, careful planning, impact assessment surveys prior to undertaking the project. After all, human lives were involved and they could not be treated with disdain. Had the preparatory work been undertaken with diligence the powers that be would not have rushed into starting the work, and the story of the LEP would have been different.

“We are poor, uneducated, so no one listens to us,” is a common refrain I heard when I visited — unaccompanied by officials — the offices of the Lyari Expressway Resettlement Project (LERP), the revenue department of the city government next door, the site of the Rehmatia Colony and the Hawkesbay site. Unsurprisingly, I was nearly mobbed outside the LERP/revenue department by desperate people whose homes had been pulled down and who have been visiting the concerned offices for two months in an exercise in futility.

There was another complaint I heard frequently from various affectees. “I have not been allotted a plot, but my neighbour has been given two.” Worse still was the charge, “I have not received a plot and the person who has received one was not even living here. He came from Dadu and is a party activist.” Another complaint, “I was given a plot but had to forgo the cheque.” Yet another, “They are asking me for Rs 20,000 if I want my allotment paper. I don’t have the money.” (Every person who qualifies for compensation is supposed to be allotted a plot of 80 square yards and a cheque of Rs 50,000 to meet the construction cost.) The State Bank should be investigating these charges since people tell me it is possible for someone other than the allottee to have the cheque cashed with the connivance of the SBP staff.

Mr Shafiq Paracha, who was earlier commissioner Karachi and is currently director of the Lyari Expressway Resettlement Project says he cares for the poor and explains the process. The PC-1 was made on the basis of the initial demarcation (by aerial photography) of the area that LEP wanted cleared. Then it was realized that the numbers to be displaced had been underestimated.

Hence a new survey was undertaken by the revenue department and lists were prepared of the units to be demolished. These were used to make another set of lists that identified who was to be compensated. The resettlement department gets these final lists on the basis of which plots are allotted and cheques distributed. Refusing to take responsibility for the authenticity of the lists, the director LERP says his department only implements the recommendations of the revenue department. The DO enforcement is responsible for the demolition work that is carried out in the presence of the police. There are complaints against this procedure too. “We were given no notice and the bulldozers arrived.” “Only after our homes were pulled down that we received allotment letters” (this is from the lucky ones who have been compensated). A visit to the demolition site was depressing. Desolate people looking despondently at what used to be their homes. With so much of police around, discretion demanded silence from them.

Since human problems were to be expected every town involved (eight in all) have set up committees to look into the cases which are challenged. These haven’t been able to provide much redress. The town nazim, Gulshan, Mr Wasay Jaleel, attributes the problem to the greed factor with “agents” having emerged in the field to exploit the situation. To prove his point he says his committee has heard 225 cases in the last three weeks and found that only 14 qualified for compensation. The affectees counter the charges by claiming that political affiliations make all the difference.

The problem started with the surveys that were undertaken in a hurry. According to the revenue department which was responsible for the door-to-door survey, 24,400 units have been identified — a jump from the 14,811 given in the first survey. The director resettlement says that nearly 16,000 families have been resettled. Given the number of lists floating around — many of them loose sheets from a bigger list — it is impossible to tally them.

A common complaint is that no master lists are available from various departments. The revenue department puts up a list (three or four pages at a time) on the wall outside its office once a week or so. In no time it is in tatters.

The resettlement officials say they have a website (www.lerproject.com) but it is hopelessly outdated. Had comprehensive and scientifically prepared lists been made available at every stage, the charges of lack of transparency would not have stuck. Now, the concerned departments shrug off the seeming discrepancies by accusing the claimants of being greedy and corrupt. Their biggest crime, however, may well be ignorance and poverty.

According to an official of the revenue department, who doesn’t want to be identified, the surveys were crudely done. No scientific methodology was followed and no standardized criteria adopted and too much was left to the discretion of the field staff. The pro forma was defective and presumably, minimum details were recorded in writing. Small wonder, transparency is suspect, especially if it is recalled that there were different categories of units in terms of their use (commercial, residential and places of worship) and structures (leased, pucca, encroachments — regularized and not regularized). The absence of uniformity in the application of the criteria — sometimes every family living in one unit has been allotted a plot, in other identical cases compensation has been considered for only one — has given rise to suspicion of foul play.

With the demolition work nearing completion, many of the original survey staff having been transferred and the local bodies polls having brought a new party into office in the town governments, the transparency of the project may now be impossible to establish.

What we have today is one department passing on responsibility to another. People are running in circles being shoved from one office to the next. Their fault? They are too ignorant to read the fine print and too trusting of those in power.

Wanted more holidays

THERE are spoil-sports everywhere, only we have more than our share of them in Pakistan. Usually their sanctimonious outbursts are aimed at innocent young people whom they cannot bear to see enjoying themselves with Klashnikovs and stolen motor cars. But they are also after poor government servants whose sole means of entertainment is a holiday from work.

These spoilsports could not stand the five-day week and made a caretaker government (I forget which caretaker government, there have been so many of them) withdraw this facility. I don’t know why. At one stage of our PPP-PML seesaw, some fans of Mian Nawaz Sharif, counting the black deeds of the Benazir government, cited the five-day week as one of them. They could not dare to look at the truth in this regard.

They ignored the fact that previously too there had been a five-day week in Pakistan — in the time of President Ziaul Haq. It was undone when GIK became President. He was another spoilsport. While General Zia dismissed one national assembly, he dismissed two. Maybe the second one could have been saved if GIK had five weekdays to do mischief instead of six. But he even worked on Friday, the then closed day, having nothing better to do.

Sardar Mohammad Iqbal, our first Ombudsman (and still unmatched in greatness by those who followed him) used to say that the bureaucrat was supreme in Pakistan. From getting an infant inoculated to setting up a steel mill, you have to deal with him. There is no escape. Sardar Sahib did not say so but he probably felt that the more you keep the bureaucrat away from his office the better it would be for the common man. Perhaps that is why he introduced the five-day week in the Wafaqi Mohtasib’s secretariat much before General Zia thought of it.

When the Pakistan Government adopted the idea I asked Sardar Iqbal — I was in the Ombudsman’s office then — whether he would like to go a step further and enforce a four-day week for his staff. He didn’t even smile at my joke. Actually he used to do more work in one day than a senior Pakistani officer does in the whole week. But he genuinely believed in two off days, and as an offset, increased the daily working hours from Saturday to Thursday.

The trouble is that in Pakistan you can never find out why a particular government passed a certain order or introduced a certain measure. The only official explanation is that it was done for the public good, when all the time the public is unable to understand what good it has done to it. When you ask the common man (if you can find one around) his comment on government orders is, “They are badshah log, they can do what they like. What do we poor men know how their mind works?”

So it would be impossible to discover, even if one had all the government records to help him in his research, why that particular PPP regime ordered the five-day week. However, I have my own method of research for which I need no files and records because I base my results on the known psyche of the people of Pakistan. I may add that I have many common men living in my neighbourhood who have the most witty and piquant observations to make on the government’s working.

I have developed my theory on this point and I think most of my readers will agree with it. I honestly believe that the PPP government’s support for the five-day week did not arise from its desire to be efficient or modern. It was only a proof of its being a representative regime mirroring the aspirations of a people who have no inclination to work and want more and more holidays. Look at some of the religious parties, which are actually political parties although they do business in politics as a sideline. One of their demands is that both the birth and death anniversaries of the Khulafa-e-Rashideen should be declared public holidays.

But these parties do not tell us what the Muslims of Pakistan should do on these closed days except not to work, nor do they quote the four rightly-guided caliphs as having said that people should abstain from work on their anniversaries. What these parties should do is to conduct research into Muslim history and name all the saints and spiritual personalities who have made some contribution to the spread and glory of Islam. It should not be difficult to find out their dates of birth and the dates on which they joined their Maker. The idea is that, as an expression of devotion to these great men of Islam, the people of Pakistan should eschew work on their anniversaries and, instead, go to picnics and fly kites. There is no better way to honour their memory.

I once knew an administrative expert from Holland. He had spent some years in Pakistan trying to put some sense into our government’s working system, and we grew friendly. One evening when he was in a particularly candid mood, he said, “I honestly believe that if you close the Pakistan Secretariat for a full month every year — apart from the other holidays of course — nothing terrible will happen. In fact most of the people’s problems will get solved by themselves.”

But my topic today is the great humanizing effect of holidays on people. In the United States some bosses literally force their staff to go and enjoy a week or ten days from work, with their girl friends. I realize this may be difficult here, for then public servants will ask for girl friends, at government expense, to take with them on the trips. But something of the sort could be adopted.

If the government would accept my proposal for more holidays, I will draw up a schedule for the people on how to spend these days profitably. After that spoilsports will not have the cheek to say to you and me, “Just tell me what you do on Allama Iqbal’s birthday. Cut a cake? And how do you spend the Defence of Pakistan Day? By having all the kitchen knives and other weapons of offence sharpened by the itinerant Pathan knife-grinder?”