What after Gaza evacuation?

WHAT a remarkable transformation within one lifetime. The Israeli general (Ariel Sharon) known for his swagger and bluster, who built a political career based on sanctioning ever increasing illegal settlements in occupied territories and who vowed never to give an inch to the Palestinians, is now using his army to persuade the settlers to vacate their homes in Gaza and move to new settlements in the West Bank.

The sights and sounds emerging from this forced operation have not been pretty. Many a stout heart in Israel has shed tears. But the political and personal benefits to the Israeli leader have been immense. The man known as the Butcher of Sabra and Shatila is now the apostle of peace and non-violence, hailed as a man of dignity and determination. The New York Times, in its editorial on August 24, characterized Sharon’s move as “statesmanship”, adding that he can “take pride in his own actions”.

Moreover, the pain of those being evacuated from their homes has generated appreciation and goodwill in Europe and America, which have lauded what they call, the supreme sacrifice of the settlers at the altar of peace and reconciliation. This, coupled with the split TV images showing the Palestinians rejoicing in undignified triumph, has added to admiration for the Israelis, and disgust for the Palestinians. Thus, even in its hour of grief, Israel has come out the winner.

This is how Israel and its supporters would want us to see this small, beleaguered country. One only wishes it was as simple as this. Regrettably, the truth is a little more complicated than that. Gaza and the West Bank were seized by Israeli defence forces during the 1967 war and since then every major power, including the United States, has remained committed to the principle that the occupied territories must be vacated and the Palestinians allowed to establish their own free, independent, sovereign state in these lands.

This is what Security Council resolutions 242 and 338 stated. This is what other (UN, EU, OIC, NAM and Arab League) resolutions have been calling for as well. This is what was also contained in the understandings known as the Madrid Conference principles, when the two sides agreed to the principle of “land for peace”, meaning that the Israelis would hand over the occupied lands in exchange for peace (diplomatic recognition and normal inter-state relations) from the Palestinians.

In this context, it may also be relevant to recall the proposals made by former President Bill Clinton, which were the most far-reaching ever advanced by a US Administration and certainly a world away from what his successor offered the Palestinians. Clinton’s proposals may not have met all Palestinian expectations, but they responded, in Clinton’s own words, “to the essential needs of both sides, if not their desires”. As subsequent events were to prove, the PLO leadership would have grasped these offers, had they the faintest idea of what the Bush-Sharon duo would later do to them. But all that is history now!

After the Palestinians had been pummelled sufficiently into the ground, they were offered the lifeline of the so-called roadmap by the Quartet, comprising the US, Russia, the EU and the UN. Published on April 30, 2003, the roadmap called for a comprehensive settlement based on a two-state solution. It specified that “the settlement will end the occupation, which began in 1967” and in elaboration, detailed three stages: reform and security on the part of the Palestinians and lifting of Israeli siege; establishment of a Palestinian state, “within provisional boundaries”, and in the final phase, the settlement of “all permanent status issues, that would include the question of final borders, the status of Jerusalem, the rights of refugees, security arrangements and the formal end of the conflict”.

We are, therefore, in that strange situation where we have the Israeli leadership being praised for its bold initiative, while the Palestinians are seen as unresponsive and unrealistic, for alleging Israeli intransigence and obduracy. Why this divergence in the views of the two sides?

For one, Israel’s unilateral decision to withdraw its forces from Gaza may appear to be an advance on the peace process, but is, in fact, in violation of formal understandings. By vacating Gaza, while simultaneously initiating construction of new settlements in the West Bank, Sharon has demonstrated remarkable foresight and intelligence, far beyond what he had been credited with.

One, Israel’s attachment to the West Bank, being much stronger and far more passionate than to the barren strip of land known as the Gaza, vacating the latter was far less painful. Two, by his action, Sharon had deflected whatever little pressure there may have been on him from the EU, Russia, China and the Arab states, to demonstrate continuing commitment to the peace process.

Three, Sharon’s action will also have serious consequences for the entire peace process, since the withdrawal was brought about not as the result of either bilateral understanding or multilateral arrangement, and therefore, pressure for a multilateral approach to the problem will be reduced. Four, Sharon’s unilateralism demonstrates his intention to retain the initiative in his own hands; there is no evidence of his desire to engage with the Palestinians in meaningful negotiations.

Five, the international community, too, is likely to be satisfied with Sharon’s action for it will be perceived as amounting to the establishment of a Palestinian state, within “provisional borders”, as specified in the so called roadmap. And six, Sharon has shown loyalty to Israel’s overriding goals, namely the preservation of its Jewish character and maintaining the overwhelming Jewish majority in the territory of Israel.

The unilateral withdrawal from Gaza rids Israel of an area with maximum Palestinian population, for Gaza represents no more than six per cent of the territories occupied in 1967, but it reduces the Palestinian “demographic threat” by a third. With the completion of “separation wall” in the West Bank in mid 2006, Israel’s five million Jews will be insulated from the 3.8 million Palestinians in the occupied territories

All this places the PLO leadership in a quandary. How should it react to this initiative? Should it concentrate on good governance in the reclaimed territories, ignore the establishment of new settlements in the West Bank and around Jerusalem and agree to defer vital issues, such as the future of the holy city and the right of refugees to return to their homes? The PLO has, in fact, few options. The Intifada has already caused tremendous pain and suffering to the people. It has also discredited the whole concept of armed struggle, but ironically, has added to the popularity and credibility of Hamas and the Islamic Jihad.

The PLO leader, Mahmood Abbas, is in a bind. He is suspect in the eyes of many for having long advocated reconciliation and compromise with the Israelis. He is no Arafat, either.

His authority is questioned, the infrastructure is destroyed, the economy is in a shambles and the people are seething with anger and yet demanding miracles from the Palestinian Authority (which it cannot deliver). In this scenario, Gaza can neither be independent, nor self-sufficient. It is at best a purgatory — a mid-point between the hell that the Israeli occupation was and Hades that it is likely to become.

How does the PA ensure that its cooperation with Israel does not add to the growing disillusionment with Abbas that is likely to make Gaza a new breeding ground for violence and extremism, thus fulfilling all of Sharon’s worst warnings? The Palestinians could not have forgotten Sharon’s Gaza pull-out speech when he warned that the “world is waiting for the Palestinian response — a hand stretched out to peace or the fire of terror.”

With great cunning and subtlety, Sharon has already shifted the onus on to his adversaries. He is now preparing the ground to consolidate Israel’s presence in the West Bank, while extracting fresh concessions from Arab states (and some Islamic states, eagerly awaiting any pretext to establish relations with the Jewish state), for what he claims are his most generous and conciliatory policies towards the Palestinians.

I fear the current phase will only be a brief interlude. The differences are far too fundamental and too complex to be shelved or ignored. They have to be resolved — otherwise the next phase is likely to be far worse than anything we have seen so far. In all this, the Palestinians must eschew the temptation to take recourse to violence, however deep their anger and however profound their disillusionment.

Israel’s occupation has bred a cancer within the soul of the Palestinian body politic. Gaza may be free of occupation troops, but Israel retains control of its land, water and air frontiers. It is no better than a huge prison or a large racist ghetto. The area is wracked by violence and lawlessness. The mood is one of despair and depression, anger and hatred. The more the PA tries to rein in the extremists, the greater will be the desire to join the militants. The more Tel Aviv and Washington press the PA to disarm and control Hamas and Islamic Jihad, the greater their popularity and the deeper the damage to Mahmood Abbas’s credibility.

In such a situation, a special responsibility falls at Washington’s doorstep. It must refrain from the easy and cost-free option of praising Sharon, while doing nothing to ease the misery and suffering of the Palestinians. In fact, the Bush administration must take urgent steps to revive the “roadmap”, while calling for an immediate freeze on the settlements, urging that Israel remove all unauthorized outposts in the West Bank and cede “real and total” control of Gaza to the PA.

In doing so, Bush will likely annoy some of his friends and supporters, but he will be doing no favour to the Palestinians. In fact, the biggest favour will be to America’s image, acceptance and credibility, not only in the Middle East, but the world over.

Obscurantist face of America By A.B. Shahid

PEOPLE may differ with Pastor Pat Robertson’s view, but it is undeniable that he speaks the way he feels. His advice to President Bush to “take out” (CIA’s euphemism for assignation) Venezuelan President is proof of this. To ensure unhindered access to his supporters, he uses his own TV channel — The 700 Club — the title suggesting that it addresses only a select few on God’s earth and leaves out the “unintelligent” billions.

Pat Robertson is also a strategist in the true US mould. That is why he recalls the failed military coup against President Chavez as loss of “opportunity”. “US should have helped that civil-military coup to topple him” he said, taunting President Bush over his expensive but fruitless adventure in Iraq. He suggested. “We don’t need another $200 billion dollar war to get rid of him [Chavez]. It is a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job” — the usual US strategy that wasn’t tried in Iraq.

He was referring to the long history of US interventions in Latin America, the most shocking being the toppling of D. Salvador Allende — the democratically elected president of Chile — in a bloody military coup mounted by US protege General. Pinochet. Sordid details of this bloody coup have been the subject of many books and films. Pat Robertson believes in the grand US dictum “we do what we want and if you don’t like it, tough luck (for you).”

Following this dictum, the good pastor did not succeed in his bid for US presidency (in 1988) but he continues to spearhead a powerful ultra-rightist group, which he calls the “coalition of US churches”. At last, under the Bush administration, which has shown more flexibility to wards his cause than any other administration since 1988, he seems to be in luck because President Bush’s great achievement — the Patriot Act — doesn’t bar people like Pat Robertson from preaching crime, with “evangelical certainty”.

It is interesting that Pat Robertson aired his views about President Chavez the day after President Bush’s address to US war veterans in which he vowed to take “the war on terror to the where the terrorists are to protect our children and grandchildren”. This approach to living on this planet, that ignores the protection of children and grandchildren of other nations, is hardening the image of the US as a violent nation.

Evidence of this feeling being widespread is provided by Clyde Prestowitz in his book Rogue Nation. Responding to the view that US foreign policy was peace-loving, a Latin American country’s ambassador to the UN said, “Peace loving? Are you kidding? No one believes that nonsense in Latin America.” He goes on to quote other leaders but the words of former of Malaysian president, Mahathir Mohamad are very precise: “The way things are, pretty soon, it will be the US against the world.”

It is logical to ask why. The answer lies in the deficiencies of technological advances. America’s technological and strategic genius could not have visualized that the country would have to reduce its dependence on oil as the source of energy because by 2010, world oil consumption would far exceed supply. Even after the 1991 Iraq war, US think-tanks didn’t realize that besides dwindling reserves, supply could be vulnerable because the bulk of the reserves were located in politically volatile areas (Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Central Asian States, etc.).

The US tried to redesign the Middle Eastern political map to ensure oil availability, with scant regard for the backlash it would generate in the rest of the Muslim world. It is this folly that is pitting the US against the rest of the world — a folly that has been compounded by a blatant disregard for escalating poverty among the under-privileged living in the oil-producing countries.

On the contrary, with little knowledge of the circumstances of these countries, Washington often spearheaded the delay of IFI assistance pointing to moral hazards while paying no attention to the much greater risk of the collapse of the system. That catastrophe has now struck the world. According to the Mexican finance minister, “there is a huge weapon of mass destruction located just south of the US borders and it is about to explode. It’s called Latin America.”

Today, people of most oil-producing countries view their rulers as US puppets. These rulers appear fragile and so do the prospects of continued oil supplies from their countries. The gravest of US blunders have been the Iraq wars, and the political isolation of successive Iranian governments. With Iraq likely to remain out of control in the foreseeable future, instability in Saudi Arabia (according to the CIA), and Iran not on talking terms with the US, oil supplies to the US are certainly in danger.

The scenario automatically brings into focus producers like Venezuela and the need for bullying them into submission. What Pat Robertson didn’t mention was the US involvement in the attempted coup against President Chavez who while addressing a gathering in Kolkata on a visit to India declared that if he was assassinated, the US would be to blame. There are reasons for this. He nationalized Venezuelan oil companies in which US investors had major states. The move jeopardized the continued supply of Venezuelan oil that meets 10 per cent of total US consumption.

Military’s inroads into job market

PRESIDENT Musharraf never ceases to astonish the nation with his frequent, carefully calibrated exhortations on the merits of democracy. At times he is tartly iconic about the various deluded political visionaries of the past, the charlatans and egomaniacs like Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif who people his story and who are supposed to have plunged the nation into utter despair.

At other times, he expresses a wistful longing for the relative calm that existed before the leaders of the six-party religious alliance started to show their teeth, and manoeuvred themselves into a position from where they became the ultimate arbiters to decide whether or not the controversial seventeenth Amendment should go through. Whatever the occasion, he always manages to portray an acute sense of tragedy reinforced by an undertow of genuine sadness.

Last week, in Rawalpindi, he was once again extolling the virtues of democracy, with considerable panache. He said that Pakistan was moving forward on the path of sustainable democracy which has great significance for the development of the country and the well being of its people.

The word ‘sustained’ had been dropped into the proceedings as it has a nice modern ring to it, and the nation was told that sustained democracy was essential for economic development. While this statement is questionable, especially when one examines the economic progress made under the Chinese system, it at least represents an advance in philosophical rectitude.

One of the heads in the audience that nodded vigorously and hung on to every word as if it had been uttered by Socrates himself, belonged to the Speaker of the National Assembly, Chaudhry Amir Hussain, of the eleven-million rupee Mercedes-Benz procured at the taxpayers’ expense, who has established a reputation for his intolerance of and lack of cooperation with the Pakistan Peoples Party who twice brought a no-confidence motion against him.

What is a little difficult to understand is why the president insists on making such statements when he is acutely aware that the presence of an unelected head of state in a country that is supposed to be practising democracy is the main cause of the genetic disorder that has spread throughout the length and breadth of the country.

The fact that his position has been sanctified by a judicial system prone to exercising doctrines of necessity does not detract from the fact that there is no room for a military oligarchy in a democratic system. If President Musharraf wants to gain popularity he should talk, instead, about better governance, plans to introduce education into the feudal and tribal belts and point to ways in which urban thinking and values can be transmitted into the rural hinterland.

However, behind all the moralizing a significant development has taken place during the last 20 years in the employment sector in Pakistan. This is the gradual, planned and almost subliminal militarizing of civil society.

The public is no longer surprised when it hears that a retired general, admiral or air marshal has been appointed to head one of the country’s utilities or corporations, or to represent the flag abroad — sinecures that have been traditionally the preserve of the civil, administrative, accounts or foreign service.

At first, the intrusions were slow and cautious, and the officers felt it prudent to test the temperature of the water, before taking a dip in the lake. But as time passed, caution was thrown to the wind. The dips became longer and more frequent as programmatic change altered elemental moorings.

In 1968, with one or two rare exceptions, the military was largely confined to the barracks, and hadn’t yet been given the opportunity to try out its marketing and managerial skills in the public sector.

Subsequently, the military discovered how easy it was to dig its own tributary and divert it to the mainstream of civilian employment. Between 1980 and 1985, according to published figures, 211 officers from the armed forces were inducted into the central superior services. The die had been cast. But as subsequent events proved, this was only a trickle.

When President Musharraf took over and made the usual gestures and promises, what began as a trickle turned into a regular flow, and the tributary started to overflow its banks. During the four-year period after 1999, this newspaper recorded that 1,027 personnel from the fighting forces had been inducted into jobs previously reserved for civilians.

There was a temporary mopping up in October 2002, when around 400 serving officers either returned to military service, or left because their contracts had been terminated. But this aberration had not really affected the trend which continued unabated. What made some of the senior civil servants wince was the fact that when the wholesale induction of the men in uniform took place, there were around 700 surplus civilian employees, waiting to be given a posting.

The increasing militarization of society in Pakistan and the regular inroads into the civilian job market by men in uniform has caused considerable resentment among people. This has led to political polarization which is both undesirable and unhealthy, as it has unnecessarily tarnished the image of the fighting forces. Politicians, particularly those that represent the views of the minority provinces, have repeatedly pointed out that the military brass should stick to the jobs for which they were recruited, and that incursions into areas which have always been the preserve of the civilians, might ultimately affect the professionalism of the military.

Politicians repeatedly point out that members of the armed forces were certainly not hired to start upper class housing societies, clubs, banks, schools, airlines, advertising agencies, security services, cooperative farms, leasing companies and enterprises which have actually hurt the government, not to mention industrial and commercial enterprises, worth over five billion dollars. They were hired to defend the country.

The politicians are now rubbing salt into the wound by maintaining that it is no longer the fighting forces that are giving the country a semblance of security, but the nuclear programme initiated by Nawaz Sharif, many of whose contributions to this country have been cheerfully forgotten.

There is, however, a point which centres on the issue of superannuation, which it would be pertinent to mention. Military personnel follow strict retirement rules and often hang up their boots long before their civilian colleagues do. In the armed forces, which analysts are now beginning to regard as top heavy, this can create all sorts of problems.

Senior surviving officers feel they have a moral obligation to help such people, and attempts are, therefore, made to accommodate some of the brighter officers into the Shaheen, Bahria or Fauji foundations. But there is a limit to the number of people who can be employed in these organizations. And so efforts are made to award grants, contracts and industrial permits. And if that fails, well, there’s always the civilian sector.

China apparently also faced such a problem. Li Peng, a former leader and other members of the Chinese politburo decided to crack down on the military in their country that was probably inspired by the experiences of their old ally.

However, in all fairness to the military, it must be said that certain sectors supervised by the retired officers have demonstrated marginal improvements. If nothing else, they have checked corrupt practices and managed to inculcate a certain sense of discipline.

Nevertheless, in spite of the hype and the moral indignation expressed in print and in the drawing room , the continued military inroads into civilian life in Pakistan are inevitable and are likely to grow. The public is also getting used to the idea of this country being ruled by a military authority. After all, the president is still wearing two hats, and there are no grounds for assuming that he will not continue to do so and will continue to enjoy the support of the military. The armed forces provide a disciplined, highly motivated political constituency for any military president with political ambitions, and the servicemen provide the anchors of stability in the system.

It would be naive to suggest that things will ever be different in this country. But if the president, who comes across as a reasonable man, would like to do something about his own public image, he should stop talking about the importance of democracy — unless, of course, he has something up his sleeve, like relinquishing power in October 2007.

Caught up in quotas

FIRE up any website or turn on a television these days, and China seems to be everywhere. If the country’s businesses are not spending billions of dollars on Kazakh oil companies or floating on American stock markets, they are bidding up the price of raw materials around the world — a sign of the nascent power that has been unleashed on the international economy.

It would be easy to dismiss this as a rerun of the emergence of Japan in the 1980s, or Asia’s tiger economies in the 1990s. But China is different: it has nuclear weapons, a seat on the UN security council and 1.2 billion citizens.

Yet for all its new-found strength, China is still home to more people living below the poverty line than any other country. Indeed, there are more people living in absolute poverty in China than in the whole of Africa.

So it is richly ironic that the European Union - which rarely fails to lecture developing countries on the need to develop their export markets - should find itself tangled up in a mess of Chinese textiles and garments, now said to be clogging up the docks of Europe, including some 17 million pairs of trousers and 60 million jumpers.

Briefly: at the end of last year an international agreement on trade in textiles and clothing expired. From January, European retailers were free to source from wherever they wished. Because China has the most competitive export industry it has leaped ahead, so that by the middle of this year its exports in clothing to the EU had reached five billion pounds, almost the same total as for the whole of 2004.

Peter Mandelson, the EU trade commissioner, stepped in and last month negotiated annual quotas to limit Chinese imports. But no sooner had the deal been done than the quotas were filled.

—The Guardian, London