US lenient on its ally against terrorism

WASHINGTON: Despite President Gen Pervez Musharraf’s decision to appropriate extensive powers for himself, the United States has been tepid at most in its reaction to the sweeping constitutional changes he announced two days ago

Pressed by a throng of reporters for responses to Gen Musharraf’s plan to introduce ‘democratic dictatorship’ in Pakistan, the State Department’s deputy spokesman Philip Reeker said the changes could make it harder to strengthen democracy in the South Asian nation

The White House was even more careful in commenting on Gen Musharraf’s reforms. “President Musharraf has committed to having free elections, fair elections, and the president (George W. Bush) expects that will continue,”

White House spokesman Ari Fleischer told reporters aboard Air Force One, as Bush travelled to Oregon.

At the State Department, reporters made more than a dozen attempts to make Mr Reeker criticize Gen Musharraf’s constitutional changes. What they heard was: “We are concerned that his recent decisions could make it more difficult to build strong democratic institutions in Pakistan.”

The spokesman repeated this sentence each time someone attempted to obtain a rebuke from him of one of Washington’s closest allies in the war on terrorism.

Even a question as straightforward as whether Benazir Bhutto should be allowed to return to Pakistan did not elicit a straight answer. “That’s a matter for Pakistan to decide,” Mr Reeker said.

Despite the constitutional changes that have taken away all powers from parliament and the future elected government and transferred them to Gen Musharraf, both Mr Reeker and Mr Fleischer said they believed Gen Musharraf wants to develop strong democratic institutions in his country.

Mr Reeker also expressed hope that after the next elections, set for Oct 10, Gen Musharraf would initiate a dialogue with elected civilian officials, and he urged the Pakistan leader to “consider the best way forward, consistent with existing constitutional requirements.”

Although Gen Musharraf assumed power in October 1999 after toppling prime minister Nawaz Sharif, he remained an international pariah until the Sept 11 terrorist attacks in the United States changed his political fortunes.

From a man the United States had all but shunned, Gen Musharraf overnight became a trusted US ally in the war against terrorism due to Pakistan’s strategic importance as a border country to Afghanistan. At home, he upset the powerful religious lobby by dumping Pakistan’s Taliban allies in Afghanistan in favour of the United States. The US forces pushed the Taliban from power last December.

The militants have vowed to unseat Gen Musharraf and have launched a string of terrorist attacks against Western and Pakistan government targets in a bid to unnerve his regime. But the attacks have generally strengthened Gen Musharraf’s support base in Washington and other Western capitals.

His new Western allies, however, have continued to urge him to hold elections in October this year, as stipulated in a 1999 order by the Pakistan Supreme Court. Last week, Gen Musharraf set Oct 10 as the date for elections to the National and Provincial Assemblies, but on Monday he clipped the wings of the future elected government by appropriating all of its powers for himself.

Gen Musharraf now has the power to sack the future prime minister, overrule parliament, head the powerful National Security Council and appoint chiefs for Pakistan’s armed forces.

The constitutional package was roundly condemned by all opposition groups in Pakistan, which have vowed to launch a movement against Gen Musharraf to force him to reverse the changes.

Asked if Gen Musharraf should reconsider the changes, Mr Reeker said that ultimately the people of Pakistan would have to decide how their nation proceeds on the issue. “We are concerned that some of these recent announcements could make it more difficult to build strong democratic institutions in Pakistan, so that would be obviously something to be taken into consideration,” he said.

Mr Reeker said the United States would remain engaged with Pakistan on the issue of its Constitution. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage is to discuss that matter and other topics with Gen Musharraf when they meet in Islamabad on Saturday.

Mr Reeker said Mr Armitage would discuss the constitutional changes and the scheduled elections in Pakistan as part of continuing US-Pakistan talks.

“We want to see the elections take place as announced. We think that’s very important,” he said.

Asked what consequences Gen Musharraf’s changes might have on Pakistan’s relations with the United States, Mr Reeker said: “The consequences will be for Pakistan. They need to focus on developing democratic institutions. “

Commenting on the phrase “democratic dictatorship” that Gen Musharraf used in his briefing, the spokesman said Washington would like to see “a movement toward full democracy” in Pakistan.

Asked to comment on the feeling among some Pakistanis that the United States has not exercised any pressure on Gen Musharraf to make Pakistan more democratic, Mr Reeker said the United States had made it “quite clear that part of the war on terrorism includes looking for democracy, because where there’s democracy, there’s less opportunity for extremists and terrorist enterprises to thrive.”

Cable television blues

IT WOULD be fair to say that cable TV has grown astronomically in the past couple of years, especially in the larger cities. However, there have been many problems, especially as far as consumers are concerned. In its early days — before the government set down laws to recognize the burgeoning industry — one often heard of fly-by-night operators who would open service to an area from a makeshift place, make people pay in advance, and then disappear after a few months, only to be replaced by another similar kind of provider, who would then repeat this cycle of consumer exploitation.

Even now, there are people who complain that their cable operators (a) switch the channels that they offer without prior notice; (b) offer all kinds of channels that no one in their right mind would want to watch, e.g., Arirang TV which is a Korean channel but with much of its programming in English or most of the Arabic channels or even state-owned Chinese television CCTV; (c) and, most importantly, that the quality of transmission is often poor and that the provider cannot be relied upon to provide uninterrupted service for any reasonable period of time.

Later, the government introduced a ban on Indian channels. This happened at the height of the tension with our belligerent eastern neighbour and hence it was deemed appropriately patriotic by most cable operators, as well as viewers, to support that decision. However, all it seems to have done is to move the-then legal market for watching Indian soaps and dramas to the video shops who now do a roaring business in dozens of such shows that cable viewers are not able to get because of the ban. Apparently, one of the hot favourites these days seems to be the hit on Sony with Madhuri Dixit hosting what is essentially a match-making show. And in due course of time, the same consumers who initially thought it unpatriotic to register any protest against this ban found nothing wrong with renting these tapes, and not minding paying the extra rental fee that most shops charge for these shows.

The cable operators, for their part have their own problems. And these are the usual: conflicts with local land-owning government agencies or with the electricity company who insisted on charging, and rightly so, for the use of the poles to carry the cable wire; harassment by the police and unrealistically high taxes. Police harassment apparently happens because, and this is according to some major cable operators in Karachi, when a provider begins showing the banned channels or movies on CDs (these are now banned, at least in theory, because of copyright laws). However, those who don’t do any such thing say they face no police harassment.

Last week, all these problems came to a head and representatives of a body calling itself the All-Pakistan Terrestrial Cable Operators went on a three-day strike (in Karachi, as far as I know, and that, too, only partially), demanding that the government give a fair hearing to their grievances. One newspaper had a report of a press conference by the operators association saying the crucial bone of contention was the continued ban on Indian channels which had nothing to do with news because some subscribers were using this as an excuse to not pay their provider. Other newspapers carried reports in which the association president did not mention this point, leading one to think that perhaps the operators themselves were divided over this issue.

The strike last three days — Aug 18 to 20 — and at the end, the association chief issued a statement saying a delegation would proceed to Islamabad and meet officials of the Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) to press their point.

And this brings us to PEMRA, a body set up by the government, basically along the lines of other industry regulators like NEPRA and OGRA (yes, it’s called the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority). One wishes luck to the cable operators in their talks with the people at PEMRA.

A couple of words of advice, though. Cable providers should realize by now that most people don’t mind paying even extra if their cable connection doesn’t break every now and then and if the quality of the transmission is good. The other issue relates to PEMRA itself. On August 20, it issued an advertisement in some newspapers (including this one) inviting applications from citizens to become “friends of PEMRA”. According to the advert, these ‘friends of PEMRA’ will be given free cable connections and their job will be to monitor the channels and programmes shown by their respective cable operators and basically to rate every time something is shown that is either on banned channel or that violates our “cultural and moral values”. Apart from being downright absurd, this scheme ignores the fact as to why would a cable operator give a free connection to someone who has the unenviable job of blowing the whistle on the operator’s service? In any case, why would most normal people do such a job anyway? Incidentally, the ad says that retired judicial officers, bureaucrats and military officers are encouraged to apply. What’s to prevent those who get a “free” connection from them keeping it as a free ride at PEMRA’s expense? What was the authority thinking of in any case? Does it think that it’s the keeper of our morality or that its job of regulating the cable industry includes being chief censor? Hopefully, someone sensible in the information ministry will see the folly and possible dangerous consequences of this scheme and pull a plug on it. — OMAR R. QURAISHI

(email:omarq@cyber.net.pk)

You cannot always hate the enemy

THE scene was shockingly familiar to New Yorkers: fire-engines rushing to the site, police cars blocking roads, relatives clustered near police barriers seeking news about victims and survivors — and a column of thick, dark smoke rising from the centre of it all. It was Nov 12, 2001. A plane had crashed in Queens.

Residents of the city, still shaken by the Sept 11 attacks on New York and Washington, panicked when they heard a big bang in their neighbourhood. Most people did not yet know what had befallen them — or fallen on them.

The facts tumbled out slowly: an American Airlines plane had crashed in Rockaway shortly after takeoff from nearby John F. Kennedy International Airport, killing 251 passengers and nine crew members. Tension tightened its grip across New York. But nowhere was the fear greater than in neighbourhoods like Jackson Heights, home to a large South Asian community.

“Oh God, let it not be another terrorist attack,” prayed Noor ibn Al Qudsi, a Queens resident who is part-time correspondent for a Middle Eastern newspaper, but whose name has been changed for this article. “There has been a lot of tension in our neighbourhood. We do not want any more trouble.” Two South Asians were killed in the area after the World Trade Center attack. He rushed to JFK’s Ramada hotel, designated a collection point for friends and relatives of the victims, to report on the crash.

They had come for whatever news they could not get. They wanted someone to come and tell them that the crash had not happened, that it was a media error. They were hoping against hope but were not willing to give up. “Why not? Miracles happen,” an old woman said through sobs and tears. She had a son on the plane. Talking only to a young woman accompanying her, she repeated her mantra: “Miracles happen. He could still be alive. Miracles happen.”

The authorities were not waiting for miracles. They had a city to run — a huge metropolis that was still reeling from the huge tragedy of barely two months earlier. Tunnels and highways were closed. Access to Manhattan was limited. Security around the United Nations, where the General Assembly was debating terrorism and the war in Afghanistan, was further tightened. Several subway trains, including the A train, which links Rockaway and other parts of Queens to the city, were still for hours. Passengers were still nervous when the train started to move again.

Holding his notebook, Noor approached a young woman outside the hotel. His fair skin and olive-green eyes hid his Middle Eastern origin and allowed him to mingle with other people when other Arabs and Muslims would not have dared.

Flashing his press card, he said to a young woman: “Can I talk to you?” “No, I don’t trust journalists,” she said. But seeing his disappointment, she changed her mind. “Only if you send me what you write.” She was known as Nora — not her real name — a paralegal in a Manhattan law firm. She had come to find out about a friend who was supposed to have taken this flight. She called her friend’s home when she heard the news. No one answered. The office said her friend was on leave but they did not know whether she had taken this flight.

It was getting late to file the story, but Noor stayed with Nora until the passenger list was posted on the hotel door. Amid the tragedy, there was some joy: Her friend was not on it. She was so happy that she hugged Noor. She gave him her e-mail address when they parted and asked him to send her the story.

“And you never told me your name?” she said. “Al,” he said and walked away before she could ask his full name. She was Jewish and he did not want to risk annoying her. Every part of his name was as Islamic as they come and the last even showed his place of origin: Al Quds or Jerusalem. His family still lives in the Arab quarter of that most controversial of all cities.

He sent her the quotes he had used from the interview. She wrote back asking for the article. He did not send it because it was in Arabic. Soon he forgot her. But a week or so after the first meeting, he met her again at the Union Turnpike metro station. She came over and said hello. He was pleased. She reminded him about the article. He said it was in Arabic and that’s why he did not send it to her. She did not say anything. The train came. They sat facing each other.

“You are an Arab?” she asked.

“Yes. A Palestinian and my name is not Al either. It is Noor,” he said.

This time the silence was longer. Several stations passed before she addressed him again.

He also told her that he was only a part-time journalist. Four days a week he worked at a computer shop near the Grand Central station. She said she worked near there.

They both got off at the Grand Central and walked their separate ways. “I will probably not see her again,” he said to himself.

They met again. This time outside a fast-food restaurant, lining up for lunch. They ate together and realized that they both go home late, around 8:30 or 9 in the evening. So that day he left the shop a little early and waited for her at the platform. She was obviously pleased to see him. It became a routine. They came to work separately but returned home together. She was from Manhattan, where her parents still lived. But she had rented an apartment near the Union Turnpike station when she got a job. It’s cheaper than Manhattan and her grandparents had lived there once. She said she had good memories of the place.

Noor said he liked the area because it had a large South Asian population. Although they were not Arabs, like him, the streets and shops reminded him of home.

Soon they were good friends. But the relationship did not go beyond friendship. They often ate together, particularly on Friday nights but went home separately.

But one evening she called his shop. He was surprised because she had never called. They always met at the station.

“I have to work late tonight and am afraid of going home alone. Could you come with me?” she asked.

She came to his shop. They bought sandwiches and went over to her office. After eating their dinner, he watched television in her boss’s room while she finished her work.

It was already midnight when she finished. She was holding his hand on the walk to the station. The train came around 12:45. But they did not notice. They were busy talking.

She had spent six months at a kibbutz in Israel but had never seen an Arab up close. For her they were always “them,” people on the other side of the divide who had to be watched carefully.

He grew up in an area where many went joined the so-called martyr brigades to learn how to blow themselves up near a Jewish crowd — the larger the better. It was to escape from these brigades that he fled to the United States 10 years ago. “Had I stayed I would be a suicide bomber by now,” he said.

By the time they got off at the Union Turnpike station it was 1:30 in the morning. They came out of the station and started walking toward her apartment. They were so engrossed in their conversation that they did not notice a shadow walking behind them.

Suddenly, a hand appeared from behind and grabbed her expensive leather bag. She screamed and pulled the bag away. The man grabbed the bag again. She kicked him in the groin and he bent up with pain.

They left him there and ran away. But they had gone hardly a few yards when Noor saw a flash. Instinctively Noor stepped between the woman and the flash. The knife slid between his ribs and he fell on the pavement. She screamed for help. The attacker ran away. She bent down and pressed Noor tightly near the wound to stop bleeding. He heard her frantically calling 911 for her help.

“I wonder what my friends in Hamas would think if they see this,” he thought. Then he fainted.