CEC’s right stand

IT is unfortunate that it should take the Chief Election Commissioner to remind Gen Pervez Musharraf of something very elementary — that as president he cannot run a party’s election campaign. Speaking at the start of the door-to-door voters’ registration drive in Islamabad on Thursday, Qazi Mohammad Farooq said that while the president could meet any member of the National Assembly, because he is part of parliament under the Constitution’s Article 50, “under the law he cannot support the election campaign of any legislator.” The CEC’s remarks refer to the meetings the president periodically has with PML(Q) leaders. While it would be wrong to say that he is running the PML’s election campaign, some of his remarks last month appeared to be part of the general’s concerted drive to help the PML prepare for the elections next year. For instance, speaking in Gilgit earlier this month, he asked the people to vote for the PML and said that he would quit if the people stopped supporting him. This smacked of an election campaign and has rightly drawn the CEC’s attention.

Gen Musharraf is not the first (but let us hope the last) army chief to have dabbled in politics. Before him we have such trendsetters as Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan and Ziaul Haq. Ayub discarded his uniform, made Gen Musa the army chief and then contested the presidential election on a Muslim League ticket. Yahya Khan did not have time for politics, for his ambitions were lost in the mire of the Bangladesh crisis. Ziaul Haq indulged in politics unabashedly while retaining his uniform. Even though he did not join any party or bother to contest an election, he remained both president and army chief till his death and in that capacity used the state apparatus without any qualms of conscience to buttress parties and politicians of his choice. This support included the misuse of official funds for the benefit of some parties and politician-industrialists. Nevertheless, all his scheming and the ‘system’ he had imposed on the nation disappeared with his death, for in less than four months the PPP, the party he had persecuted for 11 years, returned to power through elections.

President Musharraf’s reign so far has not been all disaster. Among the good things he has overseen in the last six years are the revival of the economy, the freedom which the print and electronic media enjoy and some progressive legislation that has helped women and minorities. But it is his continuation as both head of state and army chief, and the feelers about a re-election by the existing assemblies, that have cast him in a negative light. Pakistan will never be considered a truly democratic state so long as this anomaly continues. If he is interested in a re-election, then he must shed his uniform and contest as a civilian in a fair election in which other candidates should have a level playing field. Presiding over PML meetings and asking the people to vote for it while still remaining the army chief constitute a gross violation of the elementary principles of constitutional propriety and have rightly drawn the CEC’s attention. The basic point to note in the context of President Musharraf’s campaigning for the PML is that it is contrary to a long established and widely respected constitutional principle that requires even a party member to cease to be so once he is elected head of state and become neutral between the ruling party and those in the opposition.

Why exclude amnesty?

WHILE reviewing the parliamentary sub-committee’s recommendations on Balochistan, the prime minister has ruled out amnesty in the province. Mr Shaukat Aziz has also claimed that 30 of the sub-committee’s 36 recommendations have already been implemented. This is probably his idea of moving towards a political settlement of a problem that poses a serious threat to the peace and stability of Pakistan. Earlier, the nationalists, who have taken up arms in their struggle to win their rights, rejected the idea of reviving the sub-committee as a “political gimmick”. Given the worsening of the situation in the last 18 months, a political beginning can only be made if the government makes a gesture of reconciliation to win the confidence of the Baloch. For instance, the announcement of a ceasefire or an amnesty could make a real impact on Baloch opinion and lead to a political dialogue. Some of the recommendations of the sub-committee call for major initiatives and they appear to be the ones not implemented yet. Recommendation 6(i) calls for a new NFC award, keeping in view the Baloch interest. Recommendation 7(vi) envisages a review of the cases of political prisoners and their release.

It is important that the prime minister let the public know precisely which of the recommendations have been implemented and to what effect. The task force to be set up to oversee the implementation should be created and have a sizable Baloch representation. But most important of all, Islamabad should abandon the idea of fighting the Baloch nationalists at the same time as it offers to negotiate with them. This dual approach is not realistic because, as Sardar Akhtar Mengal of the BNP put it, no self-respecting leader “would talk to Islamabad at gunpoint”. Hence, to brand the nationalists “miscreants” and “terrorists” and seek to crush them militarily will not produce positive results. Even those who are taking recourse to violence need to be won over rather than be ‘tamed’. A final settlement has to be political and the war only delays the negotiations, creating more bitterness and alienation and hampering prospects of peace. Two years ago the two sides were at least talking; now they are only shooting at each other.

Another police ‘encounter’

GIVEN the Karachi police’s past record of extrajudicial killings — euphemistically termed ‘encounters’ — it is easier to believe eyewitness accounts of how a suspected criminal already in police custody was shot to death by the officers than rely on the official version of events. According to the latter, the suspect was shot as he and his accomplice ignored the police order to stop the motorcycle they were riding and fired at the law enforcers. An internal inquiry has been ordered, but more encouraging than that, the Supreme Court has taken suo motu notice of the killing.

It is interesting to note that the incident, which took place on Tuesday in broad daylight and in a congested part of the city, came on the heels of a police decision to crack down on street crime that has assumed alarming proportions. The objective might be praiseworthy but given the force’s trigger-happy ways, it is not certain whether such bloody encounters (many of which are ‘fake’ as the low fatality count for police officials in such shootouts indicates) can be avoided and the suspects detained and produced in court instead of being killed. Moreover, it may be standard procedure for an inquiry to be conducted by the police after every such ‘encounter’. But this should not be simply an internal investigation. Truth can be ascertained only through a high-level impartial inquiry. Such a probe can also bring to light the limited resources with which the police tackle the growing crime and lawlessness. Sadly, the Police Order of 2002 has so far failed to check the excesses of the law enforcement agency which has no qualms about abusing its powers. This is a dangerous trend in a society where the idea of accountability for state authorities virtually does not exist.

Realism of India’s UN ambition

AN astute Cuban diplomat, with long experience of the United Nations, once described the decision making process in the Security Council by drawing an enigmatic mathmatical equation: 1+1+3+10=15. He deciphered the riddle as follows; on any major issue one must first get the support of the United States. Britain will automatically follow suit. France, Russia and China would come along after offering varying degrees of resistance. Thereafter the 10 non permanent members would be left with no option but to join the permanent five.

That was in 1993, when the successor state to the erstwhile Soviet Union was in shambles and American supremacy virtually unchallenged. The world has moved on from there but the fundamentals of my Cuban friend’s formula remain valid even today.

India’s initiative to secure the UN secretary-general’s post shows keen appreciation of how the Security Council functions. If its nominee Shashi Tharoor, an under- secretary general and Kofi Annan’s close confidante, had obtained even an implicit assurance of US support prior to announcing his candidature, the remaining numbers in the puzzle, with the possible exception of China, should be expected to fall in place. Britain and France have openly supported India’s claim for permanent membership of the Security Council and enjoy the closest of relations with that country. The two are also supportive of the Indo-US nuclear deal and are expected to lobby for it in the Nuclear Supplier’s Group once it is cleared by the American Congress.

Russia, despite India’s recent closeness with the United States, remains a strategic ally and the supplier of most of India’s weaponry. China’s attitude would be decisive provided it is prepared to cast a negative vote against the Indian nominee in the Security Council. Even if China abstains, Shashi Tharoor would not be thwarted, since a veto is necessary to disable a candidacy. Given the growing political and economic ties between India and China, it is this writer’s assessment that a Chinese veto, particularly if the other P-4 are in agreement, would be inconsistent with the content and the emerging trend of bilateral relations between the two countries. It would also be at variance with China’s traditional aversion to taking positions of strident opposition unless its vital national interests are seen to be in jeopardy.

This takes us back to the first number in the equation, the United States. Since there were already three Asian candidates in the field, namely the Deputy prime minister of Thailand, the foreign minister of South Korea and Dhanapalan an accomplished Sri Lankan diplomat, what prompted Tharoor to stake his own claim?

India was quick to lend him its wholehearted official support. Tharoor is a UN insider and a shrewed tactician. Why did he choose to enter an already crowded arena? Just to try his luck?

Or is his and India’s decision the outcome of prior consultations and some understandings with the P-5, more specifically the US. An accurate answer to this query would comprise the first test of our diplomacy in the opening moves of what promises to be an absorbing and intense diplomatic tussle.

One might be wondering that for such a major appointment, easily the most prestigious in the multilateral system, why has the constituency been limited to a mere five countries with a pronounced accent on just one. What about the General Assembly, where the entire UN membership of 191 countries is represented and which has been designated by the UN Charter as the final authority for appointing the secretary-general? The reader’s bewilderment would be dispelled by a short analysis of the manner in which the secretary general is appointed.

According to the Charter he is appointed by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the Security Council.

In practice, however, since the inception of the United Nations, the General Assembly has never overturned a candidate recommended by the Security Council. In recent decades, the Assembly has not even asked to take a vote on the Council’s nominee preferring to express its approval by acclamation. There is considerable logic behind this practice.

To take a vote, one or more countries would be required to formally ask for it. Since the Council recommends only one candidate, no country considers it worthwhile to challenge the Council’s nominee regardless of how distasteful that person might be.

Because such a challenge is most likely to be beaten, even an adversarially inclined delegation considers it in its interest to avoid causing offence and stay on the right side of the prospective secretary- general. So on the specific issue of selection of the secretary-general, the table needs to be slightly amended; 1+1+3+10=191.

There have been widespread calls to reform this process by making it transparent and giving the General Assembly a more meaningful role in the secretary-general’s selection. For instance, it has been suggested that all candidates should be obliged to present their vision before the general membership and respond to their concerns to enable an informed assessment of their competence and political inclinations.

It has also been proposed that, instead of recommending one individual, the Council should present a panel of three and let the General Assembly then elect the most suitable amongst them.

These are constructive ideas which would make the process democratic and participatory and render the secretary-general more widely accountable to the membership. Understandably these proposals are being resisted by the Permanent 5, since their implementation would deprive the big powers of a vital lever of authority. The forthcoming election would thus, in all likelihood, be decided in the Security Council, with the veto wielding five permanent members in the driving seat.

A brief look at the current non-permanent members of the Security Council would be instructive. These are Argentina, Republic of Congo, Denmark, Ghana, Greece, Japan, Peru, Qatar, Slovakia, Tanzania. None amongst them would go against an agreement amongst the Permanent Five. On the specific issue of India’s candidature several would be quite supportive, particularly Ghana (Tharoor’s long association with Kofi Annan, a Ghanian) Greece (India’s consistent support on Cyprus), Japan (India’s close ally on Security Council expansion) Slovakia(historical ties with Eastern European countries) and Tanzania (Nonaligned affiliation and economic assistance).I do not see the remaining five taking up the cudgels for any one of India’s three rivals. Much has been made of the Thai candidate enjoying the support of the entire Asean group. This would be of little help since none of the Asean countries are currently represented on the Security Council.

Hence the significance of 1+1+3+10 and the need for a correct answer to the question posed earlier in this analysis.

It has been argued that India does not qualify to occupy the secretary- general’s office since an unwritten tradition refrains a great economic or political power from seeking the office. This is not entirely correct.

The injunction applies essentially to the permanent members. Even if this postulate was extended to include great powers I would be disinclined to include India in that category. After all, did we not oppose India’s case for permanent membership precisely for this very reason? To now reject India’s bid for the top slot in the UN invoking its great power status would completely destroy the logic and credibility of our argument in regard to the membership issue.

How would the appointment of an Indian secretary-general impinge on our national interests? Quite adversely, one should imagine. In my long association with the United Nations and its affiliate agencies, I did not come across a single Indian UN employee who did not directly or indirectly advance his country’s interests particularly vis-a-vis Pakistan. Shashi Tharoor is no exception. There should be little doubt in our mind that he would use the powerful platform of the secretary-general’s office to subtly promote India’s agenda on Kashmir and the lopsided nature of the on-going peace process. A host of Indians would be appointed to senior positions to bring to bear their inherent bias against Pakistan.

Regardless of the current upgradation in our bilateral relations with India, in the context of multilateralism it is still a zero sum game, largely because of the Indian attitude. Its diplomats remain as negatively inclined towards Pakistan as ever.

One wonders whether India will ever be able to overcome the smallness of spirit which has been the cause of so much subcontinental misery.

Pakistan must develop a sensible strategy to counter the Indian candidature. It should not simply be seen to be reactive as currently appears but spring from an objective assessment of the situation in its global context. The length of this article obliges me to examine this aspect separately.

(To be concluded)

The writer is a former ambassador.