Silver lining to a war cloud?

THE European Union’s three leading powers — Britain, France and Germany (EU 3) — will be tabling a draft resolution today, February 2, in an emergency session of the board of governors (BoG) of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna to report to the UN Security Council its decision on the steps required from Iran to give greater transparency to its suspected nuclear activities. Iran questions the legality of the IAEA reporting, even though its falls short of a formal referral for punitive action by the Security Council.

To give diplomacy a chance for negotiations with Iran in order to defuse the nuclear crisis, the EU-3 had been able to contain for two years the possibility of preemptive military strikes by US or Israel on Iran’s nuclear facilities. It will be recalled that President Bush had indicted Iran as a partner with Saddaamite Iraq and North Korea in the “axis of evil”.

Referral of Iran by the BoG to the Security Council had been prevented by Russia and China. They wanted to give more time for negotiations between the two protagonists until the BoG had before it a definitive report by IAEA’s inspectors whether Iran had engaged in nuclear activities in violation of its obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This treaty proscribes non-nuclear states from acquiring nuclear weapons. Iran adamantly maintains that its nuclear programme is to produce only low-level enriched uranium as fuel for power reactors to generate electricity — a peaceful use to which it has the right under the NPT to which it is party.

On January 10, Iran restarted sensitive nuclear fuel research and earlier in August the reconversion of uranium ending its suspension of enrichment of uranium in return for political and economic incentives by the EU 3 for Iran’s permanent suspension of this nuclear activity.

The US and the EU-3 would have liked the BoG to condemn Iran and inform the Security Council of what they consider a history of “concealment and deception” for over a period of 18 years and for violation of the deal Iran had made with the European three two years before to suspend enrichment. However nuclear research by itself does not constitute a violation of the NPT which entitles a non-nuclear state to engage in the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

In September last, the BoG, departing from the practice of decision-making by consensus had, by a majority vote, declared Iran to be in breach of its international non-proliferation obligations. Iran is now extending greater cooperation to the IAEA in enhancing the transparency of its nuclear past. The agency’s head, Nobel laureate ElBaradei, has advised BoG members that his definitive report in regard to Iran’s full cooperation with its obligations with respect its past activities cannot be submitted until March, but that he would submit an interim report by February 2.

Russia and China, both board members and veto-wielding permanent members of the Security Council, are opposed to imposition of sanctions against Iran. President Putin has warned against “taking any erroneous steps” in resolving the Iran nuclear crisis and that the “international community must be cautious to avoid sharp measures”. China fears referral “could complicate the issue”. It favours further negotiation to resolve it. Thus both Russia and China prefer continued engagement with Iran and are opposed to punitive measures. They consider it premature to pass judgment on its nuclear programme, whether it is weapons oriented or not.

How will India, another key member of BoG, vote? The US has made it clear to its strategic partner that its “historic deal” with President Bush on the sale of civilian nuclear reactors and advanced nuclear technology will not go through the US Congress should New Delhi not vote against Iran. Much is at stake for India — should it insist on exercising its “independent judgment”? Its plan for separating military nuclear facilities from civilian ones, which is the central condition of the deal, does not satisfy the standards set by the US that require it to put a great majority of its nuclear reactors into civilian programmes and be subjected to IAEA safeguards. Indications are that India will cast an in-abstention vote.

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice seems reconciled to deferment of sanctions until March but insisted that “it is absolutely crucial” to refer Iran’s nuclear programme to the Security Council. Iran’s warning that it will retaliate by resuming full industrial scale enrichment and stop submitting to the NPT’s Additional Protocol which gives IAEA additional powers of inspection seems to have carried weight with the non-aligned members of BoG.

The irony of inflicting penalties on Iran for the alleged concealment of its nuclear activities will not be lost on the world if it cares to recall that several of the present nuclear weapon states acquired nuclear capability by surrounding it with disinformation. Most countries “lie about their nuclear progress”.

The prospect of a negotiated solution of Iran’s nuclear crisis has brightened with Iran’s readiness to consider the Russian offer to enrich uranium in Russia, jointly with Iran, to provide the latter with fuel for its nuclear power reactors. Earlier, Iran had insisted on enriching uranium in its own territory albeit under intrusive IAEA inspection that would ensure against diversion of any fissionable material to weapons purposes. Ali Larijani, Iran’s negotiator on security matters, is to visit Moscow again this month to discuss a joint plan for enriching uranium in Russia, with the involvement of China and several other countries.

China which is opposed to UN sanctions or threat of sanctions has thrown its considerable diplomatic weight behind the Russian offer. After his recent visits to Moscow and Beijing, Ali Larijani stated: “We positively evaluate this (Russian) offer” and that the plan could be “perfected” in talks with the Russians next month.

Previously the US had reluctantly accepted the EU-3’s favourable view of Moscow’s offer as a possible breakthrough of the stalemate in their negotiations after Iran had broken the IAEA’s seals on its enrichment facility in Natanz to resume nuclear fuel research.

ElBaradei is hopeful that the Russian proposal could provide “the beginning of a solution”. He calls for “maximum transparency” by Iran of its nuclear programme while warning that referral to the Security Council (for punitive action) would mean “an end of the diplomatic effort to end the stalemate”.

The Iran-West stand-off is now at a point where wiser counsels could open the path to a diplomatic solution on the basis of the Russian compromise proposal. Should it be accepted, both sides would win. Iran’s right to research the nuclear fuel cycle technology would be largely met minus production of enriched uranium which would be done by it jointly with Russia and China but outside Iran. That should dispel western suspicions of Iran’s real intentions through restricting its nuclear activity to peaceful, not military purposes. The West’s geopolitical objective of securing the monopoly of Israel as the Middle East’s sole nuclear weapon power would also be extracted in the bargain though at the cost of the security of the other regional states.

A negotiated compromise settlement would also lift the pall of fear of the fall-out of nuclear preemptive strikes descending on the regional countries. Threatening utterances that Iran’s nuclear ambition is “intolerable” and “unacceptable” and will be thwarted by the use of nuclear bunker-buster-bombs to take out its dispersed underground nuclear sites is contributing to tension in the region.

Israel would have the world believe that a clear and present danger exists of Iran producing an atomic bomb within months which would be a threat to the countries of the region and the European Union. But respected western think-tanks and intelligence agencies have come to the conclusion that Iran is five to 10 years away from nuclear capability. That it could pose a nuclear threat is hardly credible when Israel and the West’s nuclear weapons powers sit on huge nuclear arsenals and delivery systems that would deter Iran from nuclear aggression which would be suicidal.

Will Israel, which insists that Iran will cross within months the point of no-return, resort to its “Osirak option” which destroyed Iraq’s nuclear facilities near Baghdad in 1981? Some months ago, US Vice-President Cheney made explicit reference to this possibility.

The consequences of dozens of bunker-buster strikes are too horrendous to imagine. The loss of human lives would be incalculable, the entire landscape of a victim country would be devastated and become inhabitable. And, should Iran retaliate by using its oil weapon — being the fourth largest oil exporter — the price of oil could mushroom to over $ 100 a barrel, causing the collapse of the economies of many developing countries and even some of the developed ones.

Will the newly restructured OIC be able to play a role to avert a catastrophe in the heart of the Muslim world? The Makkah Declaration called on the OIC countries to forge “unity of purpose” to redress the geopolitical imbalance that has marginalized them international affairs. The organization has to harmonize the national security interests of the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council and Iran as a first priority. If these are reconciled the OIC will become a powerful voice in favour of a compromise settlement of Iran’s nuclear crisis and confrontation with the West and against a third preemptive war on the Muslim world.

The writer is a former foreign minister

Naked fear-mongering

ONCE upon a time we had a great wartime president who told Americans they had nothing to fear but fear itself. Now we have George W. Bush, who uses fear as a tool of executive power and as a political weapon against his opponents.

Franklin D. Roosevelt tried his best to allay his nation’s fears in the midst of an epic struggle against fascism. Bush, as he leads the country in a war whose nature he is constantly redefining, keeps fear alive because it has been so useful. His political grand vizier, Karl Rove, was perfectly transparent the other day when he emerged from wherever he’s been hiding the past few months — consulting omens, reading entrails — and gave the Republican National Committee its positioning statement for the fall elections: Vote for us or die.

Democrats “have a pre-9/11 worldview” of national security that is “deeply and profoundly and consistently wrong,” Rove said. The clear subtext was that Americans would court mortal danger by electing Democrats. Go forth and scare the bejesus out of them, Rove was telling his party, because the more frightened they are, the better our chances.

To cultivate fear for partisan gain is never a political tactic to be proud of, but Rove’s prescription of naked fearmongering is just plain reprehensible when the nation faces a shifting array of genuine, serious threats. This is a moment for ethical politicians — and, yes, these days that seems like an oxymoron — to speak honestly about what dangers have receded, what new dangers have emerged, and how the imperatives of liberty and security can be balanced.

From the likes of Rove, I guess, we shouldn’t expect anything more noble than win-at-all-costs. But we do have the right to expect more from the president of the United States, and while Bush gives off none of Rove’s Sith-lord menace, he has made the cultivation of fear a hallmark of his governance.

At his news conference, Bush was asked again about the domestic surveillance he has ordered the National Security Agency to conduct without seeking warrants — a programme that seems to violate the law. In his meandering answer, the president kept throwing in the phrase “to protect the American people.” I suspect that’s a line that tests well in focus groups, but it doesn’t really say anything. The fact that we expect any president to protect us does not obviate the fact that we expect any president to obey the law.

Bush mentioned the new tape from Osama bin Laden that surfaced the other day, calling it a reminder that we face “an enemy that wants to hit us again.” That’s certainly true, but the warning would carry more gravitas if Bush and his administration didn’t brag so much about how thoroughly Al Qaeda has been routed and decimated. Is anybody keeping track of how many “No. 3” or “No. 4” Al Qaeda lieutenants U.S. forces claim to have eliminated?

And Americans would be better able to measure the threat from Osama bin Laden if Bush and the rest of his administration didn’t argue — when it gives them an edge — that Iraq is the “central front in the war on terrorism.” If Iraq is the main event, then Osama’s, huddled in some cave in northern Pakistan, must be just a sideshow, right? But of course he’s not a sideshow, he’s the author of the Sept. 11 attacks, so what does that make Iraq? The answer seems to depend on whether, at any given time, Bush believes that cultivating fear of Osama bin Laden or stoking fear of a terrorist spawning ground in Iraq would better help his administration achieve its ends.

The thing is, fear works. The administration successfully invoked the fear of “mushroom clouds” to win support, or at least acquiescence, for the invasion of Iraq. By the time it was clear there were no weapons of mass destruction, the fear of losing to terrorists on the “central front” had been given primacy. We stopped hearing the name bin Laden so often — no need to bring attention to the fact that he remained at large — until reports emerged of secret CIA prisons, torture and domestic spying.

Osama bin Laden does remain a threat. He would hit the United States again if he could. We do expect the president to protect us. But a great wartime leader rallies his citizens by informing them and inspiring them. He certainly doesn’t use threats to our national security for political gain. He doesn’t just point at a map and say “Boo.”

—Dawn/Washington Post Service

Security for Haiti

AMERICA’S First Lady Laura Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice both travelled to Liberia to mark the inauguration last week of a democratically elected president, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, who has given that devastated West African country hope for recovery from years of war and anarchy.

In a show of support for the United Nations peacekeepers who remain vital to preserving security, two US Navy warships made an appearance off the Liberian coast. Yet, much closer to home — 600 miles from Florida — the Bush administration continues to deny critical security support to another failed state, Haiti.

With UN help, Haiti is trying to hold its own democratic election to replace the interim government that has been in power for nearly two years. But the vote, scheduled for Feb. 7, already has been postponed four times because of organizational problems and Haiti’s mounting anarchy; there’s no guarantee it will go forward even now.

Much of the countryside and capital continues to be controlled by armed gangs — some loyal to exiled former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide, some to his opponents in a deeply polarized society, and some to drug traffickers and other criminals. The drug traffic, in which Haiti acts as a transshipment point for cocaine on its way from South America to the United States, goes virtually unchecked. Kidnappings occur at the rate of 10 per day.

The Brazilian-led UN force of 7,200, made up of troops from Latin America as well as such unlikely friends of Haiti as Jordan and Sri Lanka, has never seriously attempted to restore order or disarm the gunmen. Earlier this month its commander committed suicide. It is expected to provide security for the elections but lacks the manpower, professionalism and logistical support to do so. The danger of violence is great: Among the more than 30 candidates for president are two alleged drug traffickers; an insurgent leader; and a former president, Rene Preval, who is bitterly opposed by the same coalition that forced Mr. Aristide from office.

The United States has been the guarantor of Haiti’s security for nearly a century, repeatedly dispatching troops to restore order. Two years ago a Marine force entered the country to escort Mr. Aristide into exile. Yet, though it has endorsed and partially funded the election process, the Bush administration refuses to make even the smallest contribution to security. Last year Defence Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld rejected a proposal to provide a small rapid-reaction force to back up the disarmament of the gangs. Now the Pentagon has rejected a U.N. petition for a temporary supply of helicopters to assist in the elections. Though Ms. Rice and other senior officials have visited Haiti to sing the praises of democracy, the administration is unwilling to commit even five helicopters to such tasks as securing the transport of ballot boxes.

It’s true that U.S. military forces are spread thin because of the demands of Iraq and Afghanistan. But the administration’s refusal to spare even a handful of helicopters or a few hundred Marines for Haiti makes little sense when instability there is sure to raise the flow of refugees and drugs toward Florida. Haiti has a slim chance to follow Liberia in establishing a legitimate government that can begin to restore order with the help of foreign troops and donors. But if the United States isn’t willing to provide military backup in the Caribbean as well as in West Africa, its success is unlikely.

—The Washington Post

Drawing the line

“IN promulgating your esoteric cogitation are you aware of your platitudinous ponderosity?” Youthful stirrings in the exciting transition from school to college in Pakistan prompted us to pose this question to classmates who were not so proficient in English.

In due course of time, we realized our folly. The less-proficient in English burnt the proverbial midnight oil to make their successful pilgrimage to Cornell, Stanford, McGill and Loughborough. They emerged as bright doctors, zestful engineers, and innovative R&D professionals to make up an enterprising lot — men of substance. High-sounding verbosity or superficial affectations was not their forte.

Recently, we were reminded of our unbecoming youthful levity on perusing an editorial in the Washington Post. Describing President Musharraf as a “meretricious” military ruler, the editorial smacked of arrogance and made quite a few misleading observations in an imperial tone.

A few excerpts:

“Ever since the war on terrorism began, this meretricious military ruler has tried to be counted as a US ally while avoiding an all-out campaign against the Islamic extremists in his country, who almost surely include Osama bin Laden and his top deputies. Despite mounting costs in American lives and resources, he has gotten away with it...” Quite to the contrary, as pointed out by the Pakistan embassy, on March 8, 2005 President Bush had told a gathering at the National Defence University: “We are more secure because Pakistani forces captured more than 100 extremists across the country last year, including operatives who were plotting attacks against the United States.”

The lambasting continued: “Yet Gen Musharraf has never directed his forces against the Pashtun Taliban militants who use Pakistan as a base to wage war against American and Afghan forces across the border. He has never dismantled the Islamic extremist groups that carry out terrorist attacks against India. He has never cleaned up the Islamic madressahs that serve as a breeding ground for suicide bombers. He has pardoned and protected the greatest criminal proliferator of nuclear weapons technology in history, A.Q. Khan, who aided Libya, North Korea and Iran...”

Misleading claims. The fact of the matter is that President Musharraf has acted with due expedition to counter the Taliban remnants in the northern part of the country. The Pakistan army has suffered losses yet the pressure has been maintained, in fact, mounted. One must ask the Post editors if the presence of coalition troops in Iraq has prevented the acts of madness by suicide bombers?

As for the terrorist camps against India, there are none. The indigenous nature of the uprising in occupied Kashmir has been conclusively proved — time and again. Indeed, Pakistan opened up the whole Azad Jammu and Kashmir territory to international relief agencies after the Oct 8 earthquake. “Had there been any such group in Pakistan, the government would have not allowed charity organizations and UN agencies to function in Azad Jammu and Kashmir,” the Pakistan embassy protest note in Washington rightly claimed. The madressahs have a new curriculum, marking a wholesome change. The A. Q. Khan network has been effectively dismantled while no such action has been taken against nuclear proliferators of European origin whose complicity in shady dealings has been amply proved. Why has such omission on the part of European countries gone unnoticed, one may ask.

“If targets can be located, they should be attacked — with or without Gen Musharraf’s cooperation...” A preposterous suggestion in total disregard of international norms! It is a pity that the Washington Post, which claims to be the bastion of liberal journalism, unabashedly justifies bullyboy techniques.

One need hardly remind the Post editors that the media has to be honest and objective if it is to succeed in fulfilling its role of defining a healthy set of values for society, to draw the line between right and wrong, to be the upholder of liberty and freedom. De Tocqueville was wholly right when he declared in 1835 that “a nation that is determined to remain free is right in demanding at any price the exercise of this independence” (of the media).

It was the recognition of this noble role that led to the acceptance of the media as the ‘fourth estate’ in the UK as early as 1789. Three decades earlier, in 1753 to be precise, seven million newspapers were sold in the UK annually; 20,000 a day, more than any other country at that time.

Yet, truthfulness and objectivity have been an elusive hallmark of the fourth estate — today and previously. About 70 years ago, the American media found itself precariously perched. It was helplessly dependent for news flow on the British press. Kent Cooper, a former executive manager of the Associated Press (AP), complained about American dependence thus: “Reuters decided what news was to be sent from America. It told the world about Indians on the warpath in the west, lynching in the south, and bizarre crimes in the north. The charge for decades was that nothing creditable to America was sent... Figuratively speaking, in the United States, it wasn’t safe to travel on account of the Indians.” Stressing the same point more incisively and in the context of the present times, academic William James Stover observes: “The concentration of telecommunication facilities, news agencies, mass media outlets, data resources, and manufacturers of communication equipment in a small group of advanced countries precludes a full, two-way flow of information among equals. As a result, the flow of messages, data, media programmes, culture and other information is directed predominantly from bigger to smaller countries, from those with power and technology to those less advanced, from the developed to the less developed world...” Not surprisingly, UPS’ monthly output of 150 filmed stories from North America and Europe sharply contrasted with 20 from Asia.

Today, the media wields a formidable clout. It can demolish states, institutions, and even presidents of the most powerful country of the world. These are instructive excerpts from Modern Times (Paul Johnson, HarperCollins Publishers, New York, 1992):

“The men and the movement that broke Lyndon Johnson’s authority in 1968 are out to break Richard Nixon in 1969 ...breaking presidentship is, like most feats, easier to accomplish the second time round...”

“Remember”, he (Nixon) told his staff, “the press is the enemy. When news is concerned nobody in the press is a friend. They are all enemies.”

“Nixon never put his side of the case since, rather than risk the prolonged national convulsion of an impeachment, which might have lasted years, he resigned in August 1974. Thus, the electoral verdict of 1972 was overturned by what might be described as a media putsch. The ‘imperial presidency’ was replaced by the ‘imperial press.’”

If the powerful American president was so helpless before the more powerful media, what could be the lot of the have-nots, the developing countries, or the Third World known for the ‘third-ness’ of its strivings? Mort Rosenblum, former editor of the International Herald Tribune, furnishes an insightful answer: “The western monopoly on the distribution of news, whereby even stories written about one Third World country for distribution in another are reported and transmitted by international agencies based in New York, London, and Paris amounts to neo-colonialism and cultural domination.”

The quotations from various sources in this piece may sound excessive yet they have been mentioned to lend credence to the argument.

It is in this context that a Los Angeles Times editorial comment made some time ago should be perused. It is a comment that could serve as food for thought for many a newspaper editor: “As a member of the industry we hesitate to offer unsolicited advice to the ubiquitous media... Each news outlet should reexamine its decisions. Were they true to a mission of delivering news not speculations of reporting facts, not hyped promotional opportunities?”

Email: afaruqui@pakistanlink.com