Foreign policy debate

TOMORROW the National Assembly is set to begin what could be a major review of Pakistan’s foreign policy against some disturbing developments. The opposition has a lot of ammunition at its disposal, and it should take patience and skill for the treasury benches to defend the government’s position. The disquieting developments include President George Bush’s assent to the bill linking aid to Pakistan’s performance in fighting terror and extremism, the finalisation of the Indo-American nuclear deal in which India seems to have come out the winner, and official and non-official threats from America to take military action against Al Qaeda bases in Pakistan’s tribal region. The most perverse of the threats included a presidential candidate’s idea of attacking Makkah and Madina. The conditional aid to Pakistan and the threat to take military action against terrorists in Waziristan go to highlight the bind in which the government finds itself today.

Here we are shouting at the top of our voice that we are America’s front-line ally and partner in the war on terror, and here is America not only doubting our sincerity to the cause but attaching humiliating conditions to aid and threatening military action in disregard of Pakistan’s sovereignty. Nobody in the Bush administration or outside seems prepared to take into account the fact that 800 Pakistani soldiers have been killed in the fight against the terrorists, in addition to hundreds of civilian casualties in a series of suicide bombings by religious fanatics. Instead, while some grudging praise is doled out, what Islamabad gets mostly is an order to “do more”. This speaks of the military-led government’s failure: it has been fighting terror with all the power at its command, suffering casualties and facing intense domestic criticism from both right and left. Yet it has failed to convince America that it is doing all it could possibly do to root out terrorism.

The problem in Pakistan is that all foreign policy issues are hostage to domestic politics. Most opposition parties, especially those on the extreme right, view the alliance with the US from their narrow, partisan perspective — to the exclusion of some of the basic geopolitical factors that go into the making of a nation’s foreign policy. While it is true that the make-up of a regime determines its world view and shapes its foreign policy outlook, there are broad contours of that policy on which there must be a national consensus. Yet in Pakistan, the opposition plays politics with even sensitive issues like nuclear policy or the ongoing alliance with the US. While the government itself has failed to carry the opposition along, the opposition has not come up to the broad approach expected of it in the realm of foreign policy. The government may be vulnerable on many counts, but when it comes to foreign policy the opposition has to draw a line between the government and the state. What is in the state’s interest cannot be sacrificed at the altar of partisan politics.

The two-day debate will be watched by the nation and its allies in the war on terror with interest. One does not know why the House failed on Friday to agree on a joint resolution condemning Congressman Tom Tancredo’s threat. One hopes the debate helps develop a consensus on vital foreign policy issues, and both the government and the opposition realise where they are wrong.

KESC’s dismal performance

WHERE all else has failed, perhaps a word of warning from the Supreme Court will help ease the misery of the people of Karachi. On Thursday, the SC’s Karachi registry put the KESC on notice for its poor performance, telling the power utility to shape up or risk facing suo motu action. The same day, the law ministry in Islamabad ruled that privatised public utilities are still answerable to the federal ombudsman. It should be noted in this context that the KESC had earlier refused to appear before the ombudsman’s office or provide any answers relating to public queries and complaints. The long-suffering people of Karachi can only hope that these developments will somehow compel the power utility to improve its operations and deliver a service expected of it. Previous interventions, after all, have failed to provide any relief to consumers. From the president and prime minister down to the provincial governor and city government, officials of every ilk have roundly criticised the KESC from time to time. Yet the utility’s performance has gone from bad to worse, indicating that words alone may not be enough to jolt the KESC out of its stupor. While cancelling its privatisation may not be feasible for a government keen on inviting foreign investment, some remedial action is clearly called for.

The KESC’s biggest failing since November 2005, when the new owners took over, has been its inability to increase its generation capacity in any meaningful way. Promises have been made and reneged on, and plant-purchase deals have inexplicably fallen through at the last minute. Here, the role played by Siemens, the utility’s operations and management contractor, has consistently come under question. Insiders describe its management style as chaotic, with no clear chain of command and a glaring lack of expertise in technical areas. The generation and distribution system is prone to collapse, and little has been done to check line losses. In fact, transmission and distribution losses increased to 34.1 per cent in July-March 2006-07, up 0.6 per cent from the corresponding period the previous year. This raises the question: is the KESC even capable of arresting the decline?

Victims of development

IN condemning the mass evictions of residents in Karachi’s Gahi Faqir Goth, Mehran Town and Korangi, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has pointed out that the city government has undertaken the exercise in a “thoughtless manner and in disregard of … international commitments”. Between 30,000 to 35,000 people have been rendered homeless following the razing of about 5,000 homes. It is unfortunate that the authorities do not realise that in demolishing these homes, they are not just destroying dwellings, they are uprooting entire communities and seriously disrupting their way of life. Livelihoods are affected and the children are forced to quit school as they go to live in other neighbourhoods. Moreover, the government does not provide the dislocated people with compensation or temporary shelter. Very often, it razes homes to make way for development projects without giving any prior notice to the people, proving itself to be indifferent to human misery.

Since the government is not inclined to restraint or to figuring out how to minimise the suffering unleashed on a community facing eviction, it is civil society and motivated organisations that should come forward and help. There is a need to identify settlements in the path of development projects and to familiarise the communities there with the legal aspects of eviction, and to make them aware that they face a very real threat as many do not take prior notice of demolition by the authorities seriously. Besides, pressure must be increased on the government to assess all development projects thoroughly before embarking on them to ensure that the human cost is kept to a minimum. The immediate need is for alternative housing, and this issue should be taken up seriously so that the government is persuaded to compensate the uprooted people.

After long years of Bonapartist rule

HAVING sold her soul, one of Pakistan’s most inept political leaders with a reeking reputation has entered into an unholy alliance with a dying dictatorship, ostensibly to save democracy and political stability.

Simply to avoid being penalised for corruption, Benazir has gleefully clambered on board Pervez Musharraf’s sinking ship. We all know that reality is more bizarre than fiction but if it is not just to avoid conviction for graft, how else can one rationalise or explain Benazir tying her political knot with someone whose political obituary has already been written?

I confess to belong to a fast dying breed in the country – those who are liberal, moderate and secular. However, it amazes me that there are starry-eyed liberal fellow travellers who imagine that Benazir’s ability to marshal the votes of the less privileged segments of society and deliver the support of the politically dynamic, but now silent, enlightened and progressive moderates (perhaps this is their wish rather than a belief derived from a careful analysis) to Musharraf will be enough to push back the rising tide of religious extremism within the country.

It is certainly in our national interest to take head on, both politically (by allowing moderate political viewpoints to become active in the tribal and adjoining areas in the NWFP) and through the enforcement of the rule of law, the menace of growing militancy. But the question is: can such a task be accomplished in partnership with Musharraf, widely perceived as an American puppet, faithfully implementing their dictates for the region. In fact, every time they support any action that he takes (for instance, the Jamia Hafsa operation) and egg him on, they strike yet another nail in Musharraf’s political coffin and further weaken the shrinking community of liberals.

Such a strategy is unlikely to succeed since anyone and any partnership tarred with the brush of American approval will not be able to mobilise political opinion and win at the hustings. If the reception that the Chief Justice received during his rallies and processions was a reflection of the public mood, making it clear that anyone now puckering up to Musharraf would be receiving the kiss of death. One cannot realistically expect to enter the corridors of power on George Bush’s shoulders with a bruised public image, despite one’s seemingly populist and anti-establishment credentials.

Such a strategy cannot generate the kind of public support needed to maintain a momentum over the extended timeframe required to tame Bonapartism that has been nourished, nurtured and promoted by the state over decades and has found its raison d’etre in the societal neglect that has deprived the people of basic education, health and skills to enable them to participate meaningfully in national economic growth and thereby have a stake in this system.

Without the education and skills to become effective economic actors, it is these religious zealots – the Taliban and their ilk – that, ironically, represent the demographic dividend that we have reaped and not what Islamabad fantasises and expects as the outcome of the demographic advantage that is supposed to accrue from a higher proportion of young ones in the population.

A civilian regime has become imperative which, apart from addressing the rising wave of fanaticism through social and political investments, will have to be fully backed by the army to ply the instruments of force required to curb the militants and quell the unrest they and other obscurantist forces sponsor and protect. This can only happen if the army is prepared to re-think and alter its terms of partnership with civilian institutions by giving up its claim to be the senior and unquestioned partner in this arrangement.

It must agree to be an equal, if not a subordinate or junior, partner, especially on substantive matters of statecraft, like foreign policy, Kashmir, national security and provincial autonomy and control over natural resources, and beyond sectors like animal husbandry and livestock assigned to civilian governments until now. Is this likely to happen in our lifetime is a million dollar question however.

Does the military see that its time is up, that it does not have the resources and the wherewithal in terms of the capability and experience to rule and manage this country and keep this federation together? To date there is no evidence to suggest that its mindset is changing. The institutional view, even though Musharraf has led them into a dark and narrow cul de sac, continues to be shaped by ambitions for power and influence.

The army does not appear to be willing to distance itself from the Chief who has led them and the country into this mess from where the only way out is through a very slippery slope. One says this because in past constitutional crises, involving the president and the prime minister, there used to be an arbiter. This time around, given the circumstances and the actors involved, there is no intermediary to resolve the crisis, especially since Musharraf has brought matters to such a pass.

The battle of the minds and hearts is being lost and this writer for one cannot see how Benazir – a woman, also perceived as having been brought into the fold (to be eventually given membership of the ruling establishment) as an American choice – will be able to tackle either politically or with force or with a mix of both the mullahs and the militancy threatening the writ of the state.

In fact, these forces of darkness are gaining influence, strength and intensity. Their militancy is not likely to subside (the army will not be able to handle it just as the Americans, with all their technology and firepower, have failed to achieve such an objective in Iraq or Afghanistan) and the political beneficiaries of this war and conflict of ideas will be the mullahs of religious parties (and in which the fanatics will increasingly be seen as heroes gaining public sympathy with each passing day).

The only political leader who, with the support of Imran Khan (whose performance in the forthcoming elections will not match his growing popularity, thanks to the electronic media) who today looks capable of carrying both the democratic forces and the religious lobby with him and also be able to neutralise and tame the mullah is Nawaz Sharif (the recent APC was a testimony to this).

Moreover, his stand of not negotiating with Musharraf, has been well received and looks popular and should hold him in good stead in a fair and free election. The army would be well-advised to invite him back and allow him to participate freely in the next election and then be ready to carve out a new partnership with civilian institutions after the elections.

The writer is a former finance minister, Punjab.

Investigating Gonzales

THE furor over whether America’s Attorney-General Alberto R. Gonzales perjured himself in congressional testimony has prompted four Democratic senators to call for the appointment of a special prosecutor and a group of House members to propose impeachment. The legislators have reason to be perturbed.

Mr Gonzales has been less than forthcoming on a host of issues, including internal administration disputes over the president's Terrorist Surveillance Programme. He bungled the handling of a number of Justice Department matters, most notable being the firing of nine US attorneys. But a special prosecutor or an impeachment is not the answer -- at least not yet.

It's well known what can happen when special prosecutors with unlimited time and money are appointed. Years elapse, tens of millions of tax dollars evaporate, and dozens of people with tangential relationships to the matter at hand are dragged into the investigation at terrible financial and emotional cost. The allegations surrounding Mr Gonzales's parsed statements about classified programmes and personnel matters are just the kind of muddy circumstances that invite such excesses. Impeachment of Mr Gonzales would be just as problematic; if an impeachment succeeded in the absence of proven criminal offences, it would invite future Congresses to launch similar proceedings against unpopular Cabinet members on a regular basis.

In Mr Gonzales's case, there's a good alternative to such extreme measures. The senators put their request for a special prosecutor to Solicitor General Paul D. Clement, who is functioning as the acting attorney-general on these issues because Mr Gonzales is recused. Mr Clement, in turn, has the option of referring the matter to Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine, an independent watchdog who has not been afraid to take Justice officials to task on overzealous intelligence-gathering, among other things.

Mr Fine and the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility are already investigating apparent contradictions in the testimonies of Mr Gonzales and former aide Monica M. Goodling over the U.S. attorney firings. And since at least last November, the inspector-general has been examining Justice's use of the surveillance programme. The investigation into whether Mr Gonzales perjured himself about intelligence matters would dovetail nicely with work that the office is already doing.

––The Washington Post