The Iraqi quagmire

EVEN though Congress seems relentless in its drive to bring American troops back home by September next year, the Bush administration appears equally determined to “stay the course”. The bill, passed 218-212 on Friday by the Democrat-dominated House of Representatives, is unlikely to be approved by the Senate, where the Democrats have only a one-vote majority. Besides, even all Democrats are unlikely to vote for the withdrawal bill in its present form. But President George Bush has indicated that if such a bill is passed, he will veto it. This goes to underline only one aspect of the Iraqi war — the on-going confrontation between Congress and the administration; the other more worrying aspect of the war is the anarchy in Iraq, the continued misery of the Iraqi people and the failure of the “surge” to effect any significant change in the situation, lower the level of the insurgency and avoid further American casualties.

One catastrophic aspect of the Iraq war that has gone into the background is the irreparable damage done to Iraq’s cultural heritage. This loss to the Arab people as a whole is often buried in the news about the human tragedy in Iraq — the death of a minimum 300,000 civilians, the flight of at least two million Iraqis to neighbouring countries, especially Syria, and the constant rise in the number of internal refugees. Among the museums and archives looted, burnt and all but destroyed were the Iraqi National Museum and the National Archives, which housed some priceless objets d’art from the Arab and Ottoman periods. Also destroyed was the Quranic Library at the Ministry of Waqf. This was perhaps the greatest blow to Arab culture since the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258. The tragedy is that this modern-day de-culturalisation of Iraq has taken place under the nose of the occupation forces whose governments had pledged to help the people of Iraq build political and cultural institutions and start a new chapter after the Baathist regime was ousted. The Baathist regime was indeed overthrown, but anything even remotely resembling reconstruction is not to be seen anywhere. The people have been pauperised, the demobilisation of the Iraqi army has swelled the number of militants, and engineers, doctors and professors are selling books to buy food.

The most extraordinary part of the US legislation is that it requires President Bush to issue a certificate saying that the Iraqi government is making efforts to restore peace. Now we know that there is hardly any government in Baghdad worth its name. It does not command the people’s confidence because most Iraqis view it as an American puppet. Besides, even if it is really a government, it has failed to make its presence felt, for the lawlessness in the country continues, and Iraq seems to be splitting on sectarian and ethnic lines — Kurdistan is already virtually autonomous. The amusing part of the bill is that, even if the president issues such a certificate, the withdrawal must in any case begin in March 2008 and be completed by September. The dilemma is President Bush’s. If he refuses to pull his troops out, the anarchy and violence will continue; if he withdraws, the Iraqi government will simply be wiped out in a matter of days, and Iraq will be under the control of religious extremists as no Arab country at present is.

Lapses in environmental law

LAWS are flouted so brazenly and so often in Pakistan that fresh violations come as no surprise. Under the Capital Development Authority’s revised master plan, construction is to be allowed in certain zones in Islamabad where development was originally prohibited. The small-scale construction work already carried out in these areas by individual landowners will also receive legal cover under the revised master plan, which has been approved by the Planning Commission and is now awaiting the nod from the prime minister. Once that happens, there is bound to be a massive boom in housing and other large development schemes, drastically altering the landscape in what were until now protected zones. Despite the risks inherent in this radical departure from past practice — or perhaps in deference to them — the CDA has failed to carry out an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the proposed changes, as mandated by law under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (Pepa) 1997. Depending on their cost or size, urban development plans and other major schemes cannot get off the ground without either an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) or an EIA, which applies to large projects. In the case of the CDA’s revised master plan, an EIA would be required under Pepa. This assessment would then be subject to a review, open to the public, in which objections could be raised. Further, a case could also be made for a Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA) under the mandate of the National Environmental Policy 2005-15. None of this has happened so far.

Sadly, impact assessments can be rendered meaningless even when they are conducted, and for this a lacuna in the law may be at fault. As things stand, the contracting party can itself carry out an EIA or outsource the work to a paid consultant of its choice. This is hardly the recipe for a balanced, impartial assessment. Take the case of an underpass planned for Lahore, where the impact assessment was conducted by the project’s designer. The EIA concluded that some 300 mature trees would have to be cut, and there the matter ended. Environmental assessments will never have the desired impact if they are not assigned to neutral professional organisations.

Helping the film industry

DESPITE holding their second nationwide strike on Friday to protest against the government’s failure to stop piracy, cinema house owners rightly feel that their pleas fall on deaf ears. What else can explain the government’s inaction on so many of their demands? Many in the film industry, including cinema owners, have been warning how the film industry is on the verge of collapse and urge the government to take remedial steps that will give it the boost it needs. For the lack of government support, hundreds of cinema houses have closed down over the years. Those that exist are barely surviving whereas newly opened multiplexes are only doing well because they are showing foreign films. Over the last few years there has been a huge demand from film producers, actors and cinema owners to allow the screening of Indian films. This, they argue, will actually benefit the local industry rather than harm it. That no action has been taken on this count was also part of the reason cinema owners went on strike again, three months after their first protest this year.

The issue needs resolving for livelihoods are at risk. First, the film industry needs to be recognised as an economically viable one that can generate revenue and create employment opportunities for many. Second, the government can make many concessions that will actually improve the quality of films which in turn will bring people back to watching movies. Banning Indian films has not stopped people from watching them. On the contrary, it has only promoted the culture of piracy which has badly hurt the local film industry. If film-makers are not threatened by the screening of Indian films and they genuinely believe it will provide the healthy competition the film industry needs, the government should not have any objection to it.

Iran: an estranged friend

THE statement by President Ahmadinejad of Iran in early March on the eve of his visit to Saudi Arabia expressing concern over the meeting of the foreign ministers of Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, hosted by Pakistan on February 25, came as a shock to those observers in Pakistan who were aware of the importance of Pakistan-Iran friendship for the security and economic well-being of the two countries.

The Iranian president remarked that he had “lots of questions….and apprehensions” about the meeting, which called for “explicit answers”. That the situation had come to such a pass that the head of state of a friendly country, which had stood by Pakistan in its difficult times, complained publicly about its foreign policy initiative spoke volumes about the current state of Pakistan-Iran relations.

The foreign ministers’ meeting in Islamabad was the result of the trips undertaken by President Musharraf to the capitals of a number of Muslim countries in January and February this year. The nation was told by the government that the president’s move was aimed at taking “new and forceful” initiatives on important issues of the Middle East region and strengthening harmony within the Muslim world. The visits covered Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, the UAE, Indonesia, Malaysia, Iran and Turkey.

The meeting was preceded by media reports in the Arab world that President Musharraf was working for the establishment of a Sunni alliance to confront the rising influence of Iran in the region. This accusation was vehemently denied by the spokesperson of our foreign ministry.

Be that as it may, the net result of President Musharraf’s initiative, which was supposed to promote harmony in the Muslim world, was increased misgivings and mistrust among the Muslim countries as reflected by the Iranian president’s expression of concern over the foreign ministers’ meeting held in Islamabad. It should have been clear to even a novice in diplomacy that the establishment of a new group of like-minded countries within the OIC would create divisions within the Muslim world, at least between its members and those excluded from it, instead of promoting unity and harmony.

Misgivings were also bound to arise when one realised that the participants of the Islamabad meeting included only the representatives of pro-West Muslim countries thus giving rise to rumours that Musharraf’s initiative was meant to serve some hidden US agenda.

The argument that only those countries which supported the two-state solution, land for peace formula and withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Golan Heights as Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri would have us believe lacks basis. After all, Syria was a party to the plan adopted by the Arab summit at Beirut in March 2002, which was based precisely on these elements. It certainly would not have opposed the Israeli withdrawal from the Golan Heights!

As for Iran, despite the rhetoric of its leaders, it has in the past adopted a pragmatic approach at the OIC meetings and routinely gone along with the resolutions on Palestine which were based on the Arab consensus. One should also not forget that Iran successfully hosted the OIC summit in December 1997 and did not allow its national views on Palestine to come in the way of the adoption of resolutions on this issue which enjoyed broad support in the Arab and the Muslim world.

Iran’s omission from the countries which attended the Islamabad meeting, therefore, defied any logic, especially as the Iranian nuclear programme was one of the important items on its agenda. The Iranians must have felt the same way as we would have if a regional country had taken the initiative of organising a meeting on Kashmir from which Pakistan was excluded.

One of the gravest threats facing the Muslim world at this stage is the danger of strife between Sunni and Shia Muslims. Unfortunately, the Islamabad meeting by excluding Iran, the most powerful Shia state in the region, sent the wrong signal on this issue also. One of the main objectives of the foreign ministers’ meeting in Islamabad should have been to provide a healing touch on this issue which is tearing apart Iraq and can lead to deep divisions, instability and strife in the Muslim world. By excluding Iran from the meeting, that opportunity was lost.

In contrast, the Iranian president by undertaking in early March a visit to Riyadh where he met King Abdullah, conveyed Tehran’s readiness to work for calming the situation and strengthening Muslim harmony and unity. According to Saudi sources, “The two leaders affirmed that the greatest danger presently threatening the Islamic nation is the attempt to fuel the fire of strife between Sunni and Shia Muslims, and that efforts must concentrate on countering these attempts and closing ranks”.Fortunately, Islamabad soon realised the damage that had been caused by the exclusion of Iran from the Islamabad meeting. President Musharraf’s telephone call to the Iranian president on March 8 to allay Iranian concerns came none too soon. One would have to wait and see how far our government has succeeded in overcoming Iran’s misgivings about our initiative regarding the Middle East, which besides parroting OIC’s well-known positions on Middle Eastern issues and alienating Iran has achieved precious little so far.

The latest episode in Pakistan-Iran relations also shows that all is not well between the two brotherly countries. An Iranian cleric Hojatoleslam Ahmad Khatami told Friday worshippers in Tehran on March 2, “Though Pakistan is our neighbour, little by little it is losing its neighbourly manners. Pakistan has become a sanctuary of terrorists who kill people in Zahedan.” Those who have served in Iran are fully aware that the statements at the Friday congregations in Tehran carry the sanction from the highest quarters in Iran and therefore must be taken seriously.

Earlier, after two bomb blasts in Zahedan one of which killed 11 Revolutionary Guards, the Pakistan ambassador was summoned by the Iranian foreign ministry for “explanations”. Following discussions, a decision was taken to form a committee of the two countries to reinforce border security.

Separately, the Iranian officials indicated that the bomb blasts and the later unrest in Zahedan bore the marks of the involvement of the American and the British intelligence agencies. These developments were followed by the report that Iran had started constructing a concrete wall from Taftan to Mand along its border with Pakistan to stop illegal crossings.

A number of factors are responsible for the cooling of relations between Pakistan and Iran. During the 1990s, the clash of the Afghanistan policies of the two countries and the sectarian issue caused severe damage to Pakistan-Iran relations. Fortunately, the sectarian issue has subsided now.

The change of our Afghanistan policy after 9/11 provided an opportunity to Pakistan and Iran to coordinate their Afghanistan policies. Unfortunately, that opportunity was not fully grasped by them because of lack of vision on the part of their leaders.It is not without reason that President Ahmadinejad has yet to pay a visit to Pakistan since his election in 2005. Conversely, President Musharraf’s short visit to Iran in February this year took place after a long interval of seven years since June 2000 when he visited Tehran to attend the ECO summit.

Currently, Iran is facing a serious threat to its security from the United States not only because of its nuclear programme but also because Washington sees Iran as an obstacle in the realisation of its strategic objectives in the Middle East, that is, control over the oil and gas resources of the region, security of Israel as a US outpost in the Middle East and reorientation of the political outlook of the region to suit American interests.

Our friendship with the US, which has its own unique importance for us, despite its limitations at present as shown by the recent moves in the US Congress to link aid to Pakistan to certain conditions, should not be at the expense of our friendship with Iran which is a tested friend of Pakistan.

Pakistan and Iran have common strategic interests. Both of them have suffered when they worked at cross purposes on important regional security issues as, for example, in Afghanistan during the 1990s. Both of them would have been better off if they had instead followed the policy of mutual understanding and accommodation in Afghanistan during that period.

The complementarity between the economies of Pakistan and Iran and the Economic Cooperation Organisation hold vast potential for developing mutual economic cooperation between the two countries. Their leaders must take advantage of the attractive opportunities for mutual cooperation, of which the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project is just one example, waiting to be exploited.

On the Iranian nuclear issue, we should categorically tell Washington that

Pakistan is resolutely opposed to the use of force in dealing with this issue because of its destabilising repercussions for the region and Pakistan, and would not be a party to it under any condition and in any form whatsoever. At the same time, we should advise both the US and Iran to show necessary flexibility for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue peacefully in accordance with Iran’s rights and obligations under the NPT.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to Iran.
E-mail: javid_husain@yahoo.com