Responding to Indo-US defence pact

A SIGNIFICANT geo-political shift is likely to occur, with the signing of the Indo-US defence pact. In fact, not only the interest of Pakistan, but of other Asian nations too will be subverted by this strategic partnership, as it points towards very specific directions, where the intent is to use power to achieve the objective.

The US will be outsourcing its imperial outreach, through India as a ‘competent military power’ to respond rapidly to regional crises. Together, they will fight the war on terror against “the evil ideology, which hates freedom, rejects tolerance and is determined to destroy our way of life.” The US and India would jointly endeavour ‘to curb and counter the increasing military and economic power of China, and fight terrorism emanating from the Muslim world.’

Joint air exercises would be held in occupied Kashmir to validate Indian claim over the territory and project power and influence beyond. US primacy, considered vital for the governance of the world, would be maintained to consolidate control over energy resources, the fulcrum of economic power.

Since the objectives are very precise and the battle lines clearly defined, it makes the job of policy planners in Pakistan relatively easy to determine appropriate responses to the challenges. In fact this “development should be a cause for rejoicing, not despair and the best news for years,” offering tremendous opportunities, to carve out a new destiny for Pakistan. The elements of national power, which could be brought to bear as a response; democracy, diplomacy, deterrence and defiance, fully harnessed together to strengthen national security.

The process of democratization must lead to the establishment of a ‘sovereign parliament’ to glavanize the nation into a cohesive force, to face the threat. Therefore, fair and free elections to be monitored by an independent election commission, is imperative to ensure adherence to the rules of business and the exercise of free ‘will’ of all people. The courts of justice have to protect the Constitution, by “maintaining balance between one, a few and the many.” Political parties and the government have to meet, in the best interest of the country, to evolve a strategy based on consensus for the furtherance of democracy.

Pakistan’s geo-political importance has increased with the signing of the Indo-US defence pact, demanding dexterous diplomatic skill and propriety to safeguard national security interests. Pakistan, therefore must not be drawn into a deal, particularly with China, “to make a parallel kind of carve-out for Pakistan” as the cold war mindset of confrontation and conflict is outdated.

China is the most trusted and reliable friend, and is not expected to be bound by any ‘deal’. Friendship thrives on a reciprocal and symbiotic relationship. In fact Pakistan’s place in the regional order will be defined by its relationship with China.

An exaggerated US-centric policy has not served us well. Therefore our relations with Washington must be maintained on the basis of national self-respect, recognizing the reality that, we need them as much as they need us. Iran-Pakistan relations should be lifted up to a level of deeper understanding, to match that with China, because, we both now realize that, owing to the machinations of vested powers in the past, we have not been able to establish meaningful neighbourly relations.

With the shifting of the centre of gravity of the military power of the US and the allied forces from Iraq to Afghanistan, “for coming to grips with reality, seriously questioning the two-war strategy”, conflict would intensify in Afghanistan, and our borders would become more volatile and insecure. Therefore, we should ensure that unnecessarily we are not drawn into the conflict, at the cost of our defence on the eastern borders. We should also be prepared to engage with the future majority government in Afghanistan, which will be more amenable and accommodative than the present one.

With India we should continue the peace process, relentlessly, hoping that sanity might prevail for peace and prosperity us South Asia. The intensity of resistance in Kashmir is likely to increase, and India will get more and more embroiled in it, raising the threshold of confrontation with Pakistan. Under these circumstances, seeking peace while remaining prepared for war, would be the difficult balancing act of diplomacy.

By joining the war on terror, Pakistan, has earned positive recognition as well as condemnation, hence the need to make our approach more balanced. Peace with all the neighbours must be the guiding principle and can be effectively projected from the forum which provides this opportunity, namely, the Shanghai cooperative organization (SCO). We should strive to become a permanent member of the organization, to play our role more positively. Energy security guarantees must be obtained on the basis of long-term supply and investment agreements with all the oil-producing countries in the region and beyond.

The elements of our national power, which would enhance our capability to actively deter aggression are: conventional military capability, nuclear deterrence and national resilience, working in complete harmony with each other.

Pakistan must not enter into an armed race with India. Deterrence must be maintained by improving operational capability at the cutting edge of strategy, in respect of all the three services — army, navy and air force. This is a difficult demand but not difficult to meet for a professional armed forces, despite several constraints. Pakistan is maintaining minimum credible nuclear deterrence, as part of the ‘nuclear policy of restraint’ since 1989.

It is a bold and pragmatic policy, based on the deterrence value of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) where the number beyond the optimum becomes irrelevant, thus establishing a new relationship between the power of the weapon and the concept of its employment This guiding principle of our nuclear policy must be retained realizing that our nuclear capability does not compensate for the conventional military capability, which functions independently, yet both operate in harmony.

Pakistan’s national resilience and the will to resist aggression and occupation, is an inherent passion. It is to the Americans that after the military takeover of General Ayub Khan, Pakistan joined the Baghdad pact, as part of US doctrine to contain Russia and China. American training teams promptly descended on Pakistan, including the special forces combat team to train Pakistani officers and men at Cherat (NWFP) to create a stay-behind organization, for organizing national resistance against the likely Soviet occupation of Pakistan.

Pakistan was not over-run by the Soviets, but Afghanistan was occupied in 1979 and all the experience and expertise of the Pakistani armed forces, came in handy to organize a formidable resistance movement against the Soviet occupation forces. With America’s and Saudi Arabia’s tacit support, jihadis were welcomed from all over the world. They were imparted motivational training in the madressahs, specially created along the borders.

Madressahs also became nurseries for the training of the jihadis. Around 30,000 to 35000 jihadis from Pakistan, and 60,000 to 70,000 from 60 different countries (according to CIA estimates) took part in the jihad and after the Soviet retreat, some of them joined the on-going liberation movements in Kashmir, Afghanistan and Iraq, thus gaining “a global reach, as the strategic arm of the Islamic resistance.”

Having forced retreat on the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Islamic resistance has put a limit on American aggression in Iraq and Afghanistan, thus, emerging as a strong ‘global deterrent force’ as reported by the CIA think tank, National Intelligence Council: “Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the training and recruitment ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorists, who will create a framework for the spread of radical Islamic ideology, inside and outside the ME, Central Asia, SE Asia and Western Europe.” But unfortunately this report does not differentiate between terrorism and wars of liberation. The on-going wars of liberations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir and Chechnya are justifiable under international law. But out of these movements, splinter groups have grown and drifted away, committing heinous acts of terror thus defaming the cause of the liberation movements. These terrorist groups and wars of liberation are different entities.

Terror is a symptom, growing out of the wars of liberation, which needs to be treated first The Islamic resistance, therefore, assumes the status of an important element of national power providing security cover to all Muslim countries. Pakistan, must take into account this new element of national power, in its defence planning.

A growing bond of friendship between Pakistan, Iran and China is the rational concomitant of the Indo-US defence pact. Hopefully, this would lead to an alliance of the three countries — later to be joined by Afghanistan as a formidable force, radiating power, to defy, dater and defeat the forces of aggression without fighting, thus giving a real meaning to the notion of Strategic Defiance, which flows from the ‘Strategic Depth’ of a group of nations, having common perceptions and orientation towards their security and well being. European Union is the best example to follow.

Pakistan’s security is threatened from several directions, posing a serious challenge to national leadership in harnessing the vital elements of national power, as a cohesive force, to meet the threat. Expediency, self-interest, power pressure and false pretensions must be dispensed with, for the greater good of the country. Great opportunities are awaiting our shared response.

The writer is a retired general.

A drive for more energy

With the world oil prices racing past the dreaded 60 dollar a barrel mark, and likely to stay high for quite some time, activities in the oil and gas sector in Pakistan are increasing rapidly. The vast spectrum of activities cover increasing nuclear energy at one end and vigorously looking for substitutes for oil at the other.

Forced to spend around five billion dollars on import of oil, fearing worse to come, and facing a large trade deficit, the government is encouraging foreign oil companies to invest more on oil and gas exploration and inducing Pakistani entrepreneurs to do likewise. And Pakistani businessmen are showing considerable interest in oil and gas exploration because of the high prices, and possible large profits. In the Pakistan’s stock market, oil and gas company shares are quoted at very high prices in view of their promise of larger rewards.

Having doubled the capacity of nuclear power output at Chashma with a second unit with Chinese assistance, Pakistan is now trying to produce electric power out of the Thar coal. A good many details now remain to be settled before the Thar coal becomes electric power.

The government is also to modernize nuclear power generation and raise the nuclear power output in the country to 8,000 MW by the year 2030. The share of nuclear power in the overall power production now is 0.42 per cent, which will by 2030 rise to eight per cent. It will begin the process by modernizing nuclear field laboratories. A financial sanction of Rs 2.5 billion has been made for the purpose.

In Pakistan, now 20 companies are engaged in oil and gas exploration. Five of them are Pakistani concerns. If Pakistan Petroleum is privatized, the new owners may invest far more in expanding its operations as it is a pioneer in gas exploration in the country. Four parties are now bidding for the PPL while seven are bidding for the PSO. PSO’s new owners, too, many opt to look for oil exploration in addition to its distribution work. It is the largest oil distribution company of Pakistan.

Minister for petroleum and natural resources Amanullah Khan Jadoon is delighted that a Pakistani company has opted to undertake offshore drilling operations. He has congratulated Pakistan Exploration Ltd. for going off the beaten track. He wants not only other Pakistani companies to look for gas and oil but also opt for offshore operations. Minister for Industries Jehangir Tareen last week held a conference of sugar mill owners to urge them produce ethanol out of sugar cane for its use as a substitute to petrol. That is being done in several kinds of vehicles in Latin America for quite sometime. In Pakistan, many officially sponsored conferences had been held for that purpose, but without results.

Usually there is no follow-up after such conferences while the idea continues to be discussed openly. I hope that Tareen who is also the minister for special initiatives will make a success of his move as the world oil prices have now touched 64 dollars a barrel and hence the frantic search around the world for substitutes of oil and for renewable energy.

The use of ethanol will also bring more profits to sugar millowners who are always ready to push up sugar prices to obtain larger profits. Development of by-products of sugar will ease the pressure on sugar prices and make the sugar millowners richer in the process.

Official figures show Pakistan’s oil and gas reserves are pretty large. The oil reserves are estimated at 27 million barrels out of which only three per cent has been used. Pakistan has also 287 billion cubic feet of gas out of which only 15 per cent has been used so far. Enough foreign investment has not been coming forth in this sector and so far the oil discoveries have been large in number but small in output. In view of the rising oil prices, the government is urging foreign oil companies to invest more and more and step up their exploration activities. And the Pakistani investors in this sector are also being urged to play a more active role.

Mr Waseem Haqqui, Chairman, Investment Bureau, expects a foreign investment of 3.5 billion dollars this year out of which 1.5 billion dollars would come through privatization. The FDI of two billion dollars does not seem to include much funds for oil and gas exploration. But the privatization will be in the oil and gas majors like the PSO and PPL.

Meanwhile Engro Chemicals have announced they are ready to set up another urea plant if the government provides the requisite gas. Otherwise the government would be spending Rs seven billion on the import of urea, the demand for which is increasing. Larger availability of oil and gas and electricity supply are essential in view of the expansion in economic activities.

The SECP reports that 906 companies were registered in July which is four times the number registered in July last year. Permitting a one-man company to be registered as well has given a fillip to the increase in the number of companies to be registered. The chairman of the Karachi Stock Exchange Yaseen Lakhani is predicting another bull run in the KSE and has advised the investors to choose their shares wisely. They should study the recent performance of the companies whose shares they prefer and their real assets before they decide to buy.

The National Assembly committee, which looked into the mid-March collapse of the KSE when it lost 29 per cent of the value of its index is not satisfied with the performance of the Securities and Exchange Commission whose investigation let almost everyone off the hook. And Mr Lakhani says that the government was the heaviest loser as it owns 47 per cent of the total shares listed on the KSE.

Now US investment advisory company Merrill Lynch talks of a blue sky for investors in Pakistan. Those who lost by 29 per cent may recover by 20 per cent, it forecasts. What is obvious is that the responsibility of the SEC in regulating the stock trade has become heavier. And if there is a collapse in the stock market in the future it is the SECP which will be blamed altogether. So it had to be on guard constantly.

Activities on the commercial front should also increase following an agreement between Pakistan and China to place 52 items on zero-rate duty. The two list of items will be different from each other and would take effect from January. It is a part of the Early Harvest of the Free Trade Agreement being negotiated by the two countries. And by the time these items come on the zero-rated list, possibly by the end of 2008, far more items would be added to the list. Evidently the FTA with China is to come into effect step by step so that the Pakistan market is not flooded by cheap products within a brief period.

Trade with India, too, is to expand significantly beginning with meat, live animals and vegetables in short supply in Pakistan. An official Pakistan trade delegation arrived in New Delhi this week to try to remove the hidden and explicit barriers to the import of Pakistan goods into India. India on the other hand wants the right for transit of goods across Pakistan to Afghanistan and Central Asia by road and air.

Pakistan and India have also opened roads for movement of goods between the two countries. And Pakistan has also lifted ban on import of sugar from India. Officially the trade between the two countries last year was only 600 million dollars. Far larger movement of goods between the two countries took place through smuggling across the borders or through third countries like Dubai and Singapore. The issue now is how to formalize this trade and help the government gain the revenues which they are losing.

Anyway, there is far more trade activities between the two countries now than before and in a larger variety of goods which the people of the two countries need.

Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz wants the Export Promotion Bureau to become a marketing organization to promote Pakistani brands. He held a meeting of the officials concerned and directed that the proposals for such conversion should be submitted to him within seven days.

It is for the industrialists of the country to come up with marketable brands that excel its competitors in quality and the EPB can then promote them abroad. With the same end in view Export Houses were earlier sought to be promoted independent of the manufacturers. But they could make little headway as the industrialists did not want their monopoly to be affected.

Many ministers and governments have in the past sought to reform the EPB, but without notable success. Giving greater authority to the chairman of the EPB, along with ministerial status, has not produced market results.

The fact is that the EPB is given a new export target every year and he is expected to achieve that.

And the chairman focuses on achieving that and moves heaven and earth to deliver what is expected for him. Other long range objectives of the EPB then suffer. For example, promoting Pakistani brand abroad and making our products secure is long haul. How the short-term objective of achieving Rs 17 billion exports this year and long-term goals of promoting Pakistani brands abroad can be achieved remains to be seen.

Without the earnest and sustained cooperation of the industrialists and exporters the EPB would not be able to achieve success. In fact, quality has to become a national goal and not a limited sectoral goal. It has to begin with schools and colleges. It has to become a part of the work-ethic of the work place. That is now how the strong brands are formulated and sustained and not through changes at the top alone.

West’s miscalculation

NOBODY now disputes that misunderstanding has paved every step of the way in Iraq. The misunderstanding, or the lie, about Saddam’s weapons continues to be central to western arguments about the war.

But, important as that issue remains, there was a more profound set of misunderstandings of the social, political and religious processes at work within the Middle East.

They included especially the tense balance between Sunni and Shia, a loss of diversity and tolerance in the Sunni lands, the real impact of Sharon’s long reign in Israel, and the effect of demographic changes altering the politics of many countries in the region. It was not that these things were not seen by experts, governments or even journalists, but that they were not added up, or were added up in the wrong way.

Some, such as the Shia majority in Iraq, were seen by many only as an asset for an invader. Others, such as the collapsing peace process, were categorized as requiring remedy but not, in spite of much rhetoric, urgency. Above all, the interaction between these processes, still continuing, was only partially foreseen.

For example, Iran’s resumption of its nuclear programme this week is the act of a government that, although it has serious internal weaknesses, is in a position of strength in its international dealings. The argument going on next door in Iraq over the constitution is also one in which Shia Muslims are in a strong position. In Lebanon, Syrian withdrawal may ultimately benefit an already strong Shia community. In the Gulf and in Saudi Arabia, suppressed Shia aspirations may not remain so for ever.

These are all aspects of a shift in power between Sunnis and Shias that always had some potential for violence. But the way in which the Iraqi intervention triggered a violent Sunni reaction — at least as much among Sunnis outside Iraq as among those inside — to a potential Shia gain may come to be seen as its most important, and its most tragic, effect. To gloss this only as “terrorism”, and to see it mainly in terms of a conflict between terrorists and the West, is to miss a large part of its meaning.

The Iranian revolution had given the region a new kind of state, specifically religious and specifically Shia in a way that the Shah’s regime had never been. Much of what Saddam did during his years in power was aimed at staving off a Shia succession, but, especially with Iran’s weight on the scales, change in Iraq could not be delayed for ever.

That such a succession would have come anyway in Iraq, and would undoubtedly have been accompanied by violence, is not a defence of the war. It could well have been much less violent, and it might well also have taken place — notwithstanding the existence of significant jihadist groups — without inducing such an angry Sunni reaction, for the American intervention gave an inevitable change: the aspect of a western-assisted Shia seizure of power from Sunnis in the best-endowed of all Arab states.

Jihad groups, initially more interested in expelling Americans from Saudi Arabia, could also increasingly point to the deterioration in Palestine as proof of encirclement and encroachment on the Sunni world. They can still do so: Netanyahu’s resignation this week portends a political contest in Israel, making it even less likely that Gaza withdrawal will be followed by genuine negotiations about the West Bank.

The failure of the peace process took place in a region that had lost some of its old diversity and tolerance, because of the migration of minorities to the west, and because of the emergence of more schematic forms of Islam. And it took place in a world in which Europe had, as the American academic Robert S Leiken recently wrote in Foreign Affairs magazine, “in a fit of absent- mindedness ... acquired not a colonial empire but something of an internal colony, whose numbers are roughly equivalent to the population of Syria.”

The limbo in which some of Europe’s Muslims live has suddenly become an object of intense interest, for obvious reasons, again a case of something often seen in the past, and indeed sometimes intensely discussed, but rarely put into the larger context.

The reaction of some Sunnis — not just jihadists but people of all classes, in Muslim lands and in the diaspora — has been to see mainly and sometimes only that in Iraq a Sunni place is under siege. It is a view that blanks out the fact that Iraqi Shias and Kurds are Muslims, and that a majority of Iraqi Sunnis want to see the back of the insurgency, although of course they want to see the back of the Americans too. And it also blanks out the democratic argument, which suggests another western misunderstanding.

The Americans in particular are wont to see nothing underneath a bad government except a people yearning to be free, and to regard the secular middle classes of countries such as Iraq or Iran as the authentic representatives of everybody else. Like it or not, this is not always the case. In Iraq’s war conditions, apart from Kurdistan, these classes have been brutally targeted in Sunni areas and may well end up being outflanked by clerics in the Shia south. In Iran the recent election was a reminder that there is a third party in what from the outside is often seen as a conflict between authoritarian rulers and a liberal middle class. This third party may find itself deceived in its choice in Iran, but it is a constituency of more ordinary folk, with conservative Islamic leanings, a desire for clean government and not much interest in issues of cultural freedom. It is a constituency visible everywhere in the Middle East, in countries that have democracy, such as Turkey, where it sustains the ruling party, and in those that have little.

The historian David Fromkin has recorded that he set out to write an account of how Europe changed the Middle East in the early decades of the last century and ended up writing just as much about how the Middle East changed Europe, mainly by wearing it down. Among the things seen but not understood before Iraq were how our own societies would react, mainstream as well as minority.

The majority have shown a surprising willingness to operate on the basis of what’s done is done. They even seem resigned to the fact that, as Ayman al-Zawahiri’s words made clear last week, our freedom from terrorist attack is now specifically dependent on events in Palestine as well as in Iraq. But the readiness of Americans and British to invest more in the enterprise is diminishing almost by the week, and the otherwise incomprehensible plans for partial military withdrawal by both nations are a reaction to that.

As the American Iraqi expert Phebe Marr says: “If you can’t garner adequate resources — and public opinion at home and abroad — to rebuild a nation, do not start.” But we did start, and now history has us by the throat. —Dawn/Guardian Service

Iraq’s democratic transition

THE people of Iraq, who are striving to reclaim their freedom that was usurped by the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein, are now engaged in producing a permanent constitution for the country. This is a complex and time-consuming exercise involving several sensitive and contentious issues that need careful consideration to ensure its viability.

The drafting committee, comprising Shia, Sunni and Kurd representatives, encouraged a public debate on the constitution through the media and have received a number of proposals in this regard from the Iraqi citizens. The committee will present the draft to the national assembly one of these days. The final draft, approved by the assembly, will be presented to the Iraqi people, for approval, in a general referendum, to be held not later than October 15 this year.

If approved by two-thirds of the voters, elections for a permanent government in the country will be held by December 15. However, if the Iraqi people rejected the draft constitution in the referendum, the present national assembly will be dissolved and elections for a new assembly held not later than December 15, 2005. The new national assembly will be entrusted with the task of writing another draft constitution for the country.

The present national assembly, despite many difficulties in doing so, has been under immense US pressure to complete the drafting process by August 15. The US argues that the constitution would help bring religious and ethnic groups together for a peaceful political transition which would end the on-going insurgency in the country. The UN secretary general, Kofi Annan, has also urged the Iraqi parties to continue working together to achieve a consensus a new permanent constitution within the given timeframe.

The UN has also been seeking full inclusiveness of all sections in the constitution drafting process ever since Sunni Arabs largely stayed away from the January 30 elections for the transitional national assembly. Just a month ago the Sunnis, after much persuasion, agreed to participate in the constitution making process. However, following the assassination of the two of their members of the constitution drafting committee recently, the drafting process was deadlocked and there were indications that the committee might seek a 30- day extension of the drafting period.

However, after the transitional government’s decision to conduct an independent investigation into the assassination of the two Sunni members of the committee and to prosecute the assassins, the Sunnis have agreed to participate in the basic law drafting process. It is also believed that, apart from the mounting US pressure to stick to the timetable laid out in the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), the drafting committee members also felt that their differences would not be any easier to overcome with more time. Accordingly, it has agreed to abide by the deadline of August 15.

It may, however, be mentioned that the constitution of a country reflects not only the wishes and aspirations of the contemporary generation but also the hopes of the future generations. It is, therefore, important that it is drafted very carefully and not in unseemly haste. In the present case, it is feared that the adherence to the deadline for the production of the constitution, without addressing the fundamental issues involved, may cause problems in the future. It is, therefore, necessary to resolve the controversial issues before shaping and presenting the draft constitution to the national assembly. It should not be difficult to do so by agreeing on a middle course to reconcile the competing demands of the concerned parties.

There is evidence, however, that contrary to its public posture pleading unity among the religious and ethnic groups in Iraq, the United States is actually fanning the flames of religious and ethnic differences which it intends to exploit to prolong its stay in the country. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Air Force, General Richard Myres, when asked about recent British press reports that a substantial reduction of British troops is in the offering, said that there is no timetable for the reduction of US or coalition forces in Iraq. This statement only confirms Washington’s oft-repeated plans for an indefinite stay in Iraq.

An end to Iraq’s present predicament can be found only in establishing a genuine democracy in the country. This alone can play a positive role in transforming it into an altogether different society. The people of Iraq, regardless of their religious and ethnic differences, must unceasingly strive for the attainment of this goal. The time must inevitably come when they will be operating as an independent, sovereign nation, in the interest of all, without any distinction on the basis of religious or ethnic diversities, and their bitter memories of the past on this account would then become a part of history.

Regrettably, the importance for such a change in the outlook has been undervalued in most of the Muslim countries where the people have failed to appreciate the magnitude of the damage to them resulting from sectarian and ethnic divide. They should not allow this perilous attitude to persist. What happens in Iraq will make a significant impact on other countries, particularly in the Middle East. The people of Iraq should, therefore, set an example that may be emulated by other Muslim countries in the region and beyond.

The United States continues to claim that its aim in Iraq is to establish democracy there. It has, however, ignored the fact that democracy cannot be created in a country which is under foreign occupation and in a state of turmoil. Its professed advocacy for democracy in Iraq will, therefore, remain an illusion unless it withdraws its forces from there.

It is established, beyond a shadow of doubt, that the United States had invaded Iraq to gain control of its oil wealth and expand its sphere of influence and control over other countries in the region. However, the invasion has, gone disastrously wrong. The fierce resistance it is facing in Iraq against its continued occupation of that country has proved all its calculations wrong. The best option for it now is genuine democratic transition in Iraq.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Obscenity

Novak used an obscenity on CNN while debating James Carville. It came as a surprise to me because I have never heard him use an obscenity, except when talking about liberals, left-wingers and Democrats.

I have known Bob for 30 years. My office was across the hall from Novak and Rowland Evans, who wrote the “Inside Report” column together.

When you have an office so close to another columnist, you connect. I would go across the hall after I finished my column, read it out loud, and then tell them if one of them left the other could keep all the money.

My favourite Novak story took place when he came into my office with a tin Band-Aid can that someone left for him.

“It could be a bomb,” I said.

Novak replied, “That’s what I think. That’s why I brought it in here. I didn’t want to make a mess in my office.”

I was the one who used the obscenity. Even in those days, Novak had people who didn’t like what he wrote, so we called the bomb squad. They arrived with a dog.

I said to the police, “Don’t let the dog sniff Novak’s trashcan. He writes a lot of bombs for his column.”

Finally they opened the tin can and it was full of pennies, sent to him by a disgruntled reader.

What made Novak such a successful reporter was that he had more sources than any columnist in Washington. If you wanted to do in opponent, you leaked to Bob.

He received so many leaks he had to have a sump pump in his office.

Novak received most of his leaks from the right. We now know Karl Rove has been one of his main sources in the White House. We know this because every time Bob mentioned Rove in his column, he did it in laudatory terms: “great political architect,” “trustworthy,” “brilliant” and “the man Bush trusted the most.”

Whenever you saw Rove’s name in the column, you had to read between the lines for something that he leaked to Novak.

While Bob was either loved or hated, his fame reached its zenith when writing about Ambassador Joe Wilson. In his column Novak revealed the name of Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, who happened to work for the CIA — undercover or above cover.

The difference is very important. If she was still undercover, Novak violated the law by mentioning her name.

To find out, the justice department appointed a special prosecutor to investigate if the law was violated and who was responsible for the leak.

Now here is where it gets complicated. Nobody knows what Novak told the grand jury concerning his leak, but Judy Miller, the New York Times reporter, is in jail because she refused to name her source, even if she never wrote about Valerie Plame. (If anyone should be permitted to use an obscenity, it’s Judy.)

Although so far Bob is getting a free ride, he is being tormented by his colleagues. Some say his fuse is shorter than ever, and that is why he used an obscenity on television.

It hurt everyone to see Novak lose his temper.

And that’s no bull. — Dawn/ Tribune Media Services