Is the anti-defection clause suspended?

THE revival, after a three-year gestation, of ‘real democracy’ in the country (as opposed to ‘sham democracy’ that we apparently had prior to October, 1999) has unfortunately re-infected the body politic with the virus of defections or lotaism in the shape of forward blocs and break-away factions. The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1997, had curbed this disease by placing Article 63A in the Constitution.

The government contends that this Article is currently suspended and that it will again be in force in due course (perhaps in a somewhat modified form). So it would seem that for some reasons ‘real democracy’ is not incompatible with lotaism during the suspension but that after the Article’s revival even ‘real democracy’ will require that defections be constitutionally curbed.

While the absurdity and moral bankruptcy of this position are self-evident, the purpose of this discussion is to examine the matter from a strictly legal perspective. Is it correct that Article 63A stands suspended until “revived” under the LFO? The government of course asserts that this indeed is the case. It is contended that the Constitution was suspended by reason of the Proclamation of Emergency (effective from October 12,1999) and is only now being revived as per the laid down schedule. Any given provision remains suspended and has no legal effect until expressly revived, and that is currently the status of Article 63A.

For good measure, it is claimed that the entire position stands validated by the Supreme Court in the Zafar Ali Shah case (PLD 2000, SC 869). Since the essence of the government’s stance is that a constitutional provision remains suspended unless expressly ‘revived’, it is obvious that in the absence of this basic foundation, the entire argument crumbles. So the question becomes whether this claim is legally sustainable.

The fundamental importance of the Zafar Ali Shah case lies in the fact that this decision was accepted in its entirety by the military government. It was repeatedly declared at the highest levels that the government was bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court and indeed, the October 2002 elections were expressly stated to have been held pursuant to the court’s decision. Thus, the legal status of the military takeover and the extent of the powers of the military government were as determined in the Zafar Ali Shah case, and not anything contained in the Proclamation of Emergency or any Provisional Constitutional Order (PCO). The critical question therefore is: what does the Zafar Ali Shah case have to say regarding the suspension of the Constitution?

The essence or operative part of the Supreme Court’s decision is conveniently encapsulated in a series of numbered paragraphs contained in what is called the short order. For the present purposes, it is paragraphs 4 and 13 which are relevant.

Paragraph 4 states “that the 1973 Constitution still remains the supreme law of the land subject to the condition that certain parts thereof have been held in abeyance on account of state necessity.”

Paragraph 13 reads: “This is not a case where old legal order has been completely suppressed or destroyed, but merely a case of constitutional deviation for a transitional period so as to enable the Chief Executive to achieve his declared objectives.”

The first, and most crucial, point to be noted in para 4 is that the Supreme Court has expressly declared that the Constitution always remains the supreme law. Since there can be only one supreme law, this means that if there was any inconsistency between the Constitution and (say) the Proclamation or a PCO, then the Constitution would prevail. This was, however, subject to the condition that “certain parts” of the Constitution were suspended (held in abeyance).

And this leads to the second crucial point. If only certain parts of the Constitution were suspended, it necessarily follows that other parts were in force. In other words, contrary to the claims advanced by the military regime (or the present government), the Constitution was never suspended in totality; only certain parts were so affected; The rest of the Constitution remained fully in force even during the period of the military government. Obviously, there is no need to “revive” these provisions since they always remained in force. To that extent, the “revival” orders issued under the LFO may be regarded as redundant.

Para 13 reinforced what had been said in para 4 by emphasizing that the period of military government was merely a constitutional deviation for a limited period. The reason why such a deviation was permitted even transitionally was to enable the Chief Executive to achieve his “declared objectives.” The Supreme Court held (in para 6 of the short order) these objectives to be those spelt out in the Chief Executive’s speeches of October 13 and 17, 1999. Obviously, there was no need for the entire Constitution to be suspended for such a limited purpose, thus leading again to the conclusion that only a limited number of the provisions of the Constitution were suspended.

But how was it to be determined which provisions of the Constitution were suspended? Para 4 expressly states that the suspension was on account of state necessity. This, then, is the legal test to be applied: only if the doctrine of state necessity so required, was a constitutional provision to be suspended; otherwise it remained fully in force. The doctrine of state necessity is a well recognized legal concept. The doctrine was first enunciated by the apex court in 1955 in the following terms: “Subject to the condition of absoluteness, extremeness and imminence, an act which would otherwise be illegal becomes legal if it is done bona fide under the stress of necessity, the necessity being referable to an intention to preserve the Constitution, the State and the Society and to prevent it from dissolution.”

In 1977, the doctrine laid down in 1955 was applied to validate the Ziaul Haq regime. It was explained by the Supreme Court then that the doctrine could be applied only if the following conditions were met: “(a) an imperative and inevitable necessity or exceptional circumstances; (b) no other remedy to apply; (c) the measure taken must be proportionate to the necessity; and (d) it must be of a temporary character limited to the duration of the exceptional circumstances.” The 1977 decision was expressly applied by the Supreme Court in the Zafar Ali Shah case.

It will be seen from the foregoing description that state necessity is subject to very stringent conditions. It applies only in a narrow and tightly constrained set of circumstances, and it follows that the onus lies on those who invoke the doctrine to show that it applied to any given provision of the Constitution.

This analysis can now be applied to Article 63A. Whether or not this Article was ever suspended is determinable solely on the basis of the test laid down in the Zafar Ali Shah case, that is, the test of state necessity. If state necessity applies, the provision is in abeyance; if not, it has remained fully in force. Did state necessity ever require that Article 63A be suspended? Was there, in other words, ever any condition of absoluteness, extremeness and imminence requiring that the anti-defection clause be suspended? Was it necessary to suspend this Article in order to preserve the Constitution, the state and society and to prevent it from dissolution? Was it an imperative and inevitable necessity that Article 63A be suspended?

The answer is obvious. There was never any state necessity for Article 63A to be suspended. Since this was the only basis on which suspension was permissible, it follows that Article 63A has always remained in force. There is therefore no need to “revive” this Article, and any date specified for such a “revival” is wholly redundant.

It follows that the case put forward for contending that currently defections are permissible is without any legal justification. If forward blocs, breakaway factions and the like fall foul of Article 63A (which is fully in force), that would clearly constitute defection within the meaning of the Constitution. All parliamentarians who act contrary to the provisions of Article 63A can be held liable to action in terms there of, which could lead to the application of the ultimate sanction of the member losing his seat.

The decision in the Zafar Ali Shah case was a carefully considered judgment of a 12-judge bench. It is a decision which is binding in all cases (and indeed, binds even the Supreme Court itself, unless a matter is heard by a larger bench). The law has been authoritatively laid down by the Supreme Court and must be followed. Bitter experience has shown that while lotaism may appear to pay off in the short run, its long-term consequences are invariably disastrous. This particular wind has been sown too many times in the past for the nation to again run the risk of having to reap the whirlwind.

Democracy’s choices

ONE of the greatest virtues of democracies is that they do not go to war easily. That is true even when they have been subjected to attack; it is even more so when they are challenged to use force without a proximate act of aggression.

The case of Iraq is no exception: In the United States, where a substantial majority of the public supports military action to disarm Saddam Hussein, there have nevertheless been large and passionate demonstrations in opposition. In Europe, where the sense of danger from Iraq and weapons of mass destruction is less, big majorities oppose a US-led campaign, and protest rallies a week ago attracted immense crowds. We continue to believe that war with Iraq will be necessary, unless there is a dramatic change in Baghdad. —The Washington Post

This mad rush for war

FOR a world virtually holding its breath in anticipation of the unleashing of the dogs of war in Iraq, the proceedings of the critical Security Council session on Valentine’s Day, were a source both of relief and assurance.

Recalling how the report of chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, on January 27 had appeared to provide enough ammunition to the hawks around President Bush, there was a fear, experienced by a great many analysts, that the Swedish technocrat might carry the process of raising doubts about Iraqi behaviour further. However, both he, and IAEA chief Mohammed Elbaradei gave the Iraqis high marks for cooperating with the UN Inspectors, and declared categorically that neither weapons of mass destruction nor any vestiges of nuclear plans had been encountered. The entire world seemed to heave a sigh of relief.

As the American and British leaders expressed impatience over the obstacles being raised to the use of the awesome offensive force being assembled around Iraq, there were public demonstrations in favour of peace in more than five hundred cities in all parts of the world, in which millions participated. London, seat of the European government most supportive of the American resolve to change the political map of the Middle East, witnessed an unprecedented outpouring of dissent in which nearly two million citizens participated. Spain, whose government has also been supportive of US military plans, saw the most widespread protests against resort to war in Iraq, that spontaneously broke out in 40 urban centres all over the country.

Since the February 14 meeting, one gets the impression that the Bush administration is feeling frustrated by the prevailing sentiment in favour of a peaceful settlement of the issue of Iraqi implementation of UN resolutions. Indeed, even Secretary of State Colin Powell, who is supposed to be a “dove”, is reported to have stated that ‘you do not assemble a quarter of a million combatants and a vast armada of warships only to take them home. It was not clear in what context he stated this, but the apparent formation of a war party, to launch the formidable forces assembled around Iraq, continues to cause concern worldwide. Apart from the prevailing sentiment within the Security Council, the popular movement against a military solution is gaining momentum.

At the 13th Non-Aligned Summit in Kuala Lumpur, moves were afoot to give a forceful expression to the prevailing view that while the world’s rejection of terrorism is clear and unambiguous, counter-terrorism should not be made an excuse for a paradigm shift towards the use of force; that would make the UN almost irrelevant. At the UN, France has spearheaded a diplomatic effort to slow the rush towards unleashing war on Iraq. Supported by Russia, Germany and China, France has been pressing for extending the period for weapons inspection believing that would help unearth any concealed weapons of mass destruction, or to locate any nuclear or missile development programmes. In the meantime, Iraq has extended full cooperation to the inspectors, and even agreed to allow U-2 flights over its territory.

The Bush administration and its leading media supporters have begun to manifest chagrin over the French attitude, with some writers going so far as to suggest that the time may have come to reorganize the UN and to replace France by India as a permanent member of the Security Council. Thomas L. Friedman, prominent Jewish columnist, wrote in The New York Times on February 11 that throughout the cold war, France sought to differentiate itself by playing between the Soviet and American blocs. It got away with its games because it knew that Uncle Sam would always protect it from the Russian bear. The world of the cold war years was much more stable, as the two superpowers represented different orders, but both represented order.

Friedman pointed out that after the end of the cold war, the world still remained divided, but this time between the World of Order, that included America, the EU, Russia, India, China and Japan, and the “World of Disorder” dominated by rogue states like Iraq, Korea and the various global terrorist networks that “feed off the troubled string of states stretching from the Middle East to Indonesia”. Writing before the reports of the UN inspectors, Friedman stated that the inspections had not worked, because Saddam Hussein was not complying with the UN resolutions. He quoted another Jewish expert, Michael Mandelbaum as stating that “France.. would rather be more important in a world of chaos than less important in a world of order”.

The French ambassador to the US, Jean-David Levitte, wrote in The New York Times three days later under the title “A Warning on Iraq, From a Friend”, who reaffirmed the strong friendship that began in the early days of the US fight for independence, and continued as America twice rescued France in the last century. He drew attention to the fact that 78 per cent of the French people were opposed to military intervention in Iraq, and that a similar position obtained in other European countries.

He gave three reasons for this cautious mood. Firstly, a terrorist threat existed from the Al Qaeda network, of which France had been a target. However, no evidence had emerged of a link between the Iraqi regime and Al Qaeda. A second reason was that Iraq was not seen as a direct threat on the basis of the work of the UN weapons inspectors. Not only was there no credible proof of Iraqi terrorism, but a seemingly unjustified war would fuel extremism and bitterness in the Arab and Muslim worlds, and encourage Al Qaeda recruitment.

France is worried about the region, with no peace process at work, and feels that the notion of creating democracy by brute force is unrealistic, since that could be achieved only through a process on pressure, prodding and persuasion. Apart from wishing to play a global role commensurate with its status as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, France has borne more than its share of the killings and destruction of the two great wars of the 20th century, so that it feels obliged to exercise restraint and circumspection on issues of peace and war. Furthermore, the Europeans have learnt through great suffering that wars seldom resolve problems — rather they create new ones.

The American historical experience has been characterized by low exposure to prolonged and bloody conflicts, though the civil war in the middle of the 19th century was as gory as any conflict in Europe. The concept of a just war, of law versus lawlessness, has been romanticized by Hollywood, and President Bush heads an administration that believes in the use of the technological and military edge US has over all others to run the world according to its lights.

Advisers who stand for turning America’s military might into an instrument of hegemony surround the president. After the Second World War, the US went through a liberal phase, when it helped Europe rebuild its shattered economy and infrastructure through the Marshall Plan and played a major role in the emancipation of European imperial powers colonies in Asia and Africa. President George Bush seeks to establish for his country the status of a hegemon very much on the lines of president Theodore Roosevelt a century ago.

The contemplated invasion of Iraq is meant to achieve three major aims. America will assume physical control of the oil and gas fields of Iraq, and ensure that the cost of the increasingly scarce resource is kept low, perhaps $20 a barrel. Israel will emerge to a dominant status in the Middle East. Lastly, a limited but victorious war will guarantee American dominance over the entire region.

The unilateralist agenda , which was initiated immediately after the start of bank’s administration, received a fillip from the terrorist outrage of 9/11. There are indications that while ordering military action against the twin threats of Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, President Bush issued instructions that preparations for military action against Iraq be taken in hand. A series of announcements and declarations spread over the year 2002 envisaged measures and doctrines to justify preemptive military action against the so-called “rogue states”. The unleashing of military action against Iraq, without waiting for clear proof of terrorist linkages or possession of weapons of mass destruction, will open the door to further preemption, directed mainly against Muslim countries, precipitating a virtual conflict between civilizations.

An awareness has grown that the Bush agenda consists of a series of actions designed to ensure total US hegemony, with little regard for human life in target countries. The Bush doctrine not only enables Washington to use preemption against states and individuals considered inimical, but has also encouraged Israel and India to impose their will by force on Palestinians and Kashmiris respectively in the name of counter-terrorism.

Therefore, a worldwide movement has started with the aim of preventing the slide towards violence and bloodshed. The key to safeguarding peace and international order is to proceed through the United Nations. Pakistan, which is on the Security Council, faces the challenge of upholding peace and international law, and to counter the dangerous slide towards war and oppression.

Growing opposition to war

UNTIL Mr Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons’ inspector, made his presentation to the UN’s Security Council in mid-February it was still unclear which way the Europeans were going to vote on authorizing war against Iraq.

Many had assumed the French in the end would go along, to get along- to maintain their status at the UN and to make sure their serious economic interests in Iraq were not jeopardised. This is no longer true. Indeed one can go even further and say that Britain, until now America’s most faithful ally, is beginning to waver. One can see it in parliament, one can see it in the newspapers, one can see it on the street and, most important of all, one can see it on Prime Minister Tony Blairs face.

The Americans, in particular Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, have tried to divide Europe, to mock the notion of an emerging common foreign policy, to set “old” Europe against a “new” Europe, the pro American eastern Europeans. But, apart from the fact that the east Europeans are not yet in the European Union and need to watch their step in case they provoke a delay in their promised entry, the important development of the last few days is that it has become clear that the electorate of Europe has a common foreign policy even if the leaders do not- and that is to oppose war with Iraq.

The Americans, the crowds on the marches seemed to be saying, may be assuming the inevitability of war but surely they are not claiming infallibility! The Europeans want the Americans to stop, look at the evidence that Mr Blix and his colleague, Mohamed ElBaradei, from the International Atomic Energy are garnering with an open mind, and also think hard of the awful, quite terrible likely consequences of a war.

What are these? The real danger that Saddam Hussein with his back to the wall and with the end of his life only hours away gives the order for the use of chemical and biological weapons. The Americans have said in this case they might use nuclear weapons and Israel almost certainly would if they were attacked too. It is quite impossible to imagine how angry 80% of the world would be at such an act.

It is nearly everyone’s greatest taboo (apart from a relatively small circle of neo-conservatives who have the ear of President George Bush-Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney but certainly not Secretary of State Colin Powell who would certainly resign taking some of the important service chiefs with him). Humanity in unison would seethe with anger. America would never dare show its face again, for a very long time.

But even if war did not degenerate to this level it will still trigger enormous waves of political bitterness against America all over the Islamic world. There will be thousands of new recruits for Al Qaeda, which will find that the present day social sanction against further murderous activities, quite rigorous in most Islamic societies despite the superficial analysis of American “experts”, will have softened by many degrees. Besides, the way a war is going to be fought in all likelihood — almost house to house in Baghdad — is going to produce an appalling loss of civilian life.

No wonder the Pope, no great radical and a staunch believer in the valuable role played by the U.S. in the cold war, has come out against what he sees as an unjust war. These protests were not the old student kind of the 1960s. They were middle of the road people, professors as much as students, the thinking middle classes and working class, people with experience who know quite a bit who dont even want necessarily to see their government replaced. They just want it to change its mind.

Whatever economic difficulties there may be in Europe at the moment the one thing cannot be said is that the continent is in the grip of Europessimissm. That period if it ever existed has long gone. It is generally positive and optimistic. Neither is it a “used up” civilization. There does not have to be a federal Europe for a powerful Europe to exist, as my colleague William Pfaff has long and correctly argued.

Europeans are aware of their common experience. They built the European Union to avoid the mistakes of their fathers — the too ready resort to war. And increasingly as the demonstrations, the newspapers editorials and the critique of politicians have shown, a Europe is emerging that is going to stand up to America on this need for war. Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction can be contained as they have been contained the last decade without another war.

Perhaps Mr Bush has done the world a service. It has made us all hold Iraq up to the light. But a majority in Europe have concluded that whilst Saddam Hussein is an evil man, inured to any sense of human rights, a war would be the worst of all human wrongs.—Copyright Jonathan Power

Decline and fall of Karachi

ABOUT a week ago, according to a section of the press, the honourable men and women of the Sindh assembly, who have the misfortune of living in an age when the selfish pursuit of worthless outdoor goals is all too readily confused with real achievement, started the day’s proceedings with special prayers.

They prayed for the souls of the victims of the tragic air force crash, the slain MQM party worker and — hold your breath — the victims of Karo Kari executions.

I had to read the news item twice to ensure that I had got it right, and that it wasn’t an illusion. After that, I was marvellously prescient all day and said to myself, if a writer keeps plugging away at a particular theme, week after week, even though he knows that newspaper readers have a low boredom threshold, somebody, somewhere, sometime or other, is bound to take notice.

I would like to think that this is what has happened in the case of the Sindh assembly, which is supposed to be a warren of watchfulness and guardedness. Who knows? Perhaps this is the beginning of the realization by members that honour killing is premeditated murder pure and simple which has to be tried under Section 302 of the Penal Code of Pakistan..

Could it be that the leaders of the house and the opposition have had a sudden attack of remorse, or have they, in their leisure hours, perhaps read what Sir Charles Napier had to say on the subject. The conqueror of Scinde (as the province was known at the time) was once approached by a delegation of sardars who informed him that it was their law to kill women who were unfaithful and who dishonoured the clan. Sir Charles Napier, with the stiff upper lip of the British boarding school system behind him, fixed the landlords with a cold stare and said: “And it is our law to execute men who do just that.”

The good news is that many of the veiled members of the MMA have now joined the struggle against the injustice being meted out to women in Pakistan. At a two-day workshop on women’s rights, a cross section of speakers stated that it was high time the government of Pakistan complied with the UN convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. The speakers also reminded the government that it was a signatory to the convention. Will Mr Jamali rise to the occasion and introduce a comprehensive bill of rights for women? Can he do what Mohammed Khan Junejo could not? On February 27, newsmen were entertained to another day’s proceedings at the assembly. This time, after the usual display of rowdyism and confusion, in which the rising star of the PPP, Sassi Palejo, was involved in some light-hearted banter with members of the government, the spotlight fell on the speaker of the house, Syed Muzaffar Ali Shah, and the leader of the opposition, Nisar Ahmed Khuhro, who took turns to occupy centre stage.

Both MPAs exercised their vocal chords in a full-throated exchange of accusations and counter-accusations. The opposition man claimed the speaker was biased and partial. The government man said that there were certain rules of procedure that he was not prepared to compromise, and that the majority of the MPAs were not familiar with the rules.

Perhaps both were right. One of the onlookers told me afterwards that he thought this was the stuff of Verdi. All it needed was a good libretto. But he lamented the fact that with all the problems facing Karachi and the province of Sindh, much time was spent in discussing non-issues like the number of people arrested in a police raid in Thatta, and whether a particular crime was committed on the third or the twenty-sixth of December.

Finally, there was an onslaught on the Greater Thal Canal project, and the leader of the opposition had scored a point. Perhaps, in the days to come, the assembly will take up cases which also touch the lives of the urban folk, like this ridiculous, highly expensive mass transit project for which the administration has already invited tenders.

Later that morning I called on a friend of long standing who lives in one of those fin de siecle red sandstone buildings in Clifton, where a nettle twines around the fence’s mesh, guarding vacancies. Over Havana cigars and Kenyan coffee we reminisced about what a wonderful city Karachi used to be and what generations of political scavengers have done to it.

In the fifties, Karachi, for the schoolboy used to be the centre of the universe. There were hardly any cars on the roads. Schoolboys used bicycles or travelled in quaint green trams. Life was peaceful and secure, and fourteen-year old girls could walk the streets of Saddar at four o’clock in the morning, comfortable in the knowledge that they would not be molested. There was, in fact, a general aura of everything being hunky.

There was an uninterrupted supply of electricity throughout the year and enough water. The smart Anglo-Indians and Goans who were entrenched in the middle ranks of the traffic police, were people-friendly and scrupulously honest. They roared through the narrow streets on their Norton four-stroke engines, keeping a perfect vigil over what passed for traffic in the early days. The police generally had a relatively easy time. There were no sectarian killings or ethnic violence. Just an occasional demonstration in a cotton mill or a cement factory against the excesses of the management.

There were dozens of bars and bawdy night clubs where fading continental blondes from the bistros of Istanbul and Athens titillated the jaded appetites of men in search of pleasure, and the more sophisticated black-tie-and-dinner- jacket casino in the Central Hotel where leading politicians and businessmen dined and danced to the music of Stefan Eros and his Hungarian Serenaders. There were also members clubs and the Railway Institute.

Western culture was also provided by the foreign embassies which were scattered around the city. The French were good at holding art exhibitions and with Gallic charm and introduced local artists to the works of Braque and Gaughin and Monet. One could catch snatches of Wagner and Richard Strauss at private concerts at the home of the German ambassador. And the British Council ensured that the public got its share of the plays of Shakespeare and Shaw, performed by outstanding actors, for theatre has always been one of the great glories of the British.

For the highbrows, there was a clutch of coffee houses in the vicinity of Garden and Bunder Roads, where long haired intellectuals of subdued raffish appearance put their heads together in muttered colloquy , and discussed Kafka and Nietzsche and, of course, Jean Paul Sartre, who was in vogue at the time. Senior citizens, in search of spiritual satisfaction, would regularly visit the Theosophical Society or other esoteric institutes which examined the mysteries of astral science.

However, the place that everybody ended up in, irrespective of the direction in which they initially travelled, was Elphinstone Street. Here the shopper found Chinese restaurants, soda fountains, cold storages, bookshops, bakeries, tobacconists, shops that sold sheet music, records and pianos, surplus American and British army rations, watches, fountain pens and — jewelry. Today, in Saddar, jewelry shops outnumber book shops by forty-one to one. Which says a lot about the reading habits of people and the basic insecurities with which they are afflicted.

Those were wonderful days. Unfortunately they are buried beneath the sepia tints of history, never to reappear. We are all silent spectators who have witnessed the gradual decline and fall of a great city, which is rapidly going the way of Cairo and Mexico City. It is still not too late. Perhaps the Sindh assembly could take it up one of these days and squeeze it in between pay rises for peons and new uniforms for the municipal staff in Mirpur Mathelo.

Tax-free defence

RUMOUR has it that the Cayman Islands and Bermuda have asked to join NATO. They insist they must be admitted because they protect more money than all of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization countries combined.

A lobbyist for the hundreds of banks located on the two islands said, “The Caymans and Bermuda are involved with the movement of billions of tax free dollars around the world. While their depositors live in foreign countries, their money is in the Caymans and Bermuda and must be protected from the hostile tax collectors of every nation on the face of the earth.

“We believe an attack on us is an attack on our numbered bank accounts.”

I asked, “How many troops can the Caymans and Bermuda contribute?”

“Not many. But we can finance any war with cash.”

“Why, historically speaking, should the two islands be admitted?”

Bermuda was discovered in 1503 by the Spanish explorer, Juan de Bermudez, who declared it a tax shelter for the king in case he had to leave Spain in a hurry. It became a shelter for the English in 1609. From then on, citizens from all over the world have come to enjoy the sun, the beautiful beaches and visit their safe deposit boxes.”

“What about the Cayman Islands?” I asked.

“The Cayman Islands were discovered by Christopher Columbus, also in 1503, but he didn’t make a big deal of it. Then in 1655, the islands became a home for pirates, who stashed their booty there. But they weren’t getting any interest on their plunder, so an enterprising swashbuckler named Peg Leg Ken Lay opened the first bank in the islands.

“Pirates were the first to hear of it, and then word got out, and pretty soon legitimate businessmen were depositing their money. There’s a famous story about a group of colonists in Boston who said, ‘Taxation without representation is tyranny,’ and then they dumped British tea into Boston Harbour. Instead of paying taxes to the king, they sent their money to the Caymans for safekeeping. To this day, Bostonians come to the islands in the winter to enjoy the breezes, snorkel and remember what their ancestors said about taxes.”

I said, “That is still not a persuasive enough argument to be accepted into NATO.” “The islands are much older than the United States, and Americans owe a lot to us,” the lobbyist replied. “If Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic can be admitted into NATO, why can’t we?”

“If NATO recognizes you, they will be admitting that they condone tax cheating, phony bookkeeping and unethical accountants.”

“Doesn’t everybody?”

“Yes, but they do it secretly and you advertise it,” I said.

“Do you want Saudi Arabia to control all the money in the world?” the lobbyist asked.

“They do now,” I replied.

“Nobody in the Middle East is going to attack Bermuda if it’s a member of NATO,” he said. “We will become the listening post for all the North Atlantic Treaty countries. As a matter of fact, right now, all the money from Saddam’s family is pouring in. This means Saddam is starting to get scared.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services