US pressure to ‘do more’
SOME strange things have been happening these past weeks which have left Pakistanis confused and concerned. I refer to the testimony of John Negroponte, the outgoing US intelligence chief, before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently. Negroponte has always had the reputation of being a blunt and forceful personality with strong links to the US intelligence community. During the Reagan administration he was involved in plans to subvert regimes deemed inimical to American interests.
Negroponte’s remarks caused some surprise in the Senate itself, where they were perceived as more critical of Pakistan than on previous occasions. Negroponte began by declaring that Al Qaeda was a terrorist organisation that posed “the greatest threat to US interests, including to the homeland”. This was in sharp contrast to earlier US claims that its efforts globally, and particularly in Afghanistan and in Iraq, had disabled Al Qaeda which had consequently lost its ability to cause major damage to American interests, specially on the US mainland.
It was, however, his references to Pakistan’s role and performance in the global war on terror that should be of primary concern to Islamabad. Though Negroponte described Pakistan as “our partner in the war on terror”, he included it in a laundry list of foreign governments such as Iraq, the UK, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Afghanistan and others. After this rather grudging acknowledgement of Pakistan’s role, Negroponte charged that the Al Qaeda leadership was running its operations from “secure hideouts” in Pakistan, implying that despite several years of anti-war operations by Pakistan’s armed forces, including the deployment of nearly 80,000 troops and the loss of some 600 soldiers, Al Qaeda’s operational headquarters remained strong, effective and dangerous. Not only is Pakistan the headquarters, but also the place where Al Qaeda maintains “critical sanctuaries”, a clear reference to Pakistan’s inability to destroy and eliminate Al Qaeda’s training camps and recruiting centres.
Negroponte did, however, soften the impact of his charges by admitting that Pakistan’s military operations were “aggressive”, but expressed the fear that these had “the potential for sparking tribal rebellion and a backlash by sympathetic Islamic political parties”. He also acknowledged that “there is widespread opposition in Pakistan to the US military presence in Afghanistan and Iraq.”
More significantly, Negroponte recognised that “with elections expected later this year the situation will become even more challenging — for President Musharraf and the US”. Before closing, Negroponte took another swipe at Pakistan when he charged that it remained “a major source of Islamic extremism and the home for some top terrorist leaders.”
Negroponte’s remarks on Afghanistan’s future, India’s role in the region and the future of Pakistan-India relations are also of interest. Calling 2007 a “pivotal year”, Negroponte admitted that the ability of the Karzai government, Nato and the US “to arrest — if not reverse — the resurgence of the Taliban will determine the country’s future”. He also recognised that “a dangerous nexus exists between drugs and the insurgents and warlords, who derive funds from cultivation and trafficking.”
Now that India is a strategic partner of the US and “a reliable ally against global terrorism”, it is praised for its “role in fostering democracy in the region, especially Nepal and Bangladesh”. This is news because at no stage has India promoted democracy in either of the two countries. In fact, India resisted the emergence of a genuine people’s opposition to the monarchy’s authoritarian rule in Nepal. At the same time, India was reminded that it remained “a major target for jihadists in part because of the insurgency in Kashmir”.
Most disturbingly, Negroponte expressed the fear that “an attack on a high profile target” in India could lead New Delhi “to punish Islamabad for its continued support to Pakistan-based militants”. In doing so, what was Mr Negroponte’s purpose? Surely, a superpower cannot merely take note of a threat to peace between two of its friends without taking steps to prevent such an eventuality? By not taking these steps, is the Bush administration encouraging India to contemplate such an initiative? In any case, this is an irresponsible remark that cannot promote the current normalisation process between Pakistan and India.
It may have been a mere coincidence that Negroponte’s testimony came at a time when US Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher was holding talks with the Pakistani leadership. Obviously, Boucher was somewhat uncomfortable having to face the local media, which was more interested in Negroponte’s pronouncements than in Boucher’s meetings. He was forced to seek refuge in the usual diplomatic obfuscation, while trying to soften the impact of Negroponte’s remarks by admitting that both the US and Pakistan had not been successful in eliminating terrorists and both needed to do more. Nevertheless, he too alleged that Pakistan had not succeeded in its aims, despite signing an agreement with the tribes of North Waziristan, and that terrorists were still coming into Pakistan.
While the government was still recovering from the impact of Negroponte’s remarks, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in an interview to BBC Arabic, engaged in the usual balancing act. When asked about Negroponte’s charge that Pakistan was the Al Qaeda leaders’ “secure hideout” from where it radiated to “affiliates throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe”, she praised Pakistan as an excellent ally in the war against terror. But the refrain of ‘Pakistan should do more’ was also present.
The foreign office responded by stressing that “in breaking the back of Al Qaeda, Pakistan has done more than any country in the world” and that “this has been appreciated by the international community”. Appropriately, she chose to focus on that portion of Negroponte’s testimony where he had hinted at the possibility that India, losing patience with Islamabad’s continued support for the insurgency in Kashmir, could decide to punish Pakistan, if an incident of a serious nature took place in India. She issued a stern warning against any attempt to violate Pakistani territory on the pretext of combating terrorism, calling any such adventure “unacceptable”, adding that: “Pakistan will not tolerate that”.
The warning was both appropriate and timely, given the fact that even now there are elements in India who advocate a “tough line” against Pakistan and punitive raids against so-called “terrorist camps”. Negroponte would have done better to encourage both Delhi and Islamabad to remain committed to the peace process, rather than to make these ambiguous statements at a time when the two countries are engaged in delicate negotiations on sensitive political issues.
Some observers may feel that the utterances of senior US officials are always intriguing, but Negroponte’s statement may even be considered somewhat provocative. President Bush has claimed that he is “tight” with Musharraf and that the Pakistani leader had been extremely helpful to the US in the war on terror.
Other senior American officials too, have been most generous in their praise of the Pakistani leader. Only recently Michael Scheuer, former senior CIA official who headed the Osama bin Laden unit, remarked that “history will show that America has seldom if ever, had an ally more willing than Gen Pervez Musharraf to take action to further US interests, which in no way served Pakistan’s own”. In words that may come to haunt our leaders at some point in time, Scheuer added that, “virtually none of the many things Musharraf has done to assist the US in Afghanistan has been in Pakistan’s national interest; indeed, by sending the Pakistani army into the Pashtun regions he brought his country to the brink of civil war.”
This is a compliment that the Pakistani leadership could have done without, for it only adds to the growing impression amongst Pakistanis that the government has been pursuing policies that are promoting American interests rather than its own. It is regrettable that the more Pakistan does the greater the demand for it to do more, especially in the context of Washington’s claimed friendship with Pakistan. But this should not surprise practitioners of diplomacy since all unequal relations are inherently imbalanced and inequitable.
The factor that explains Washington’s renewed pressure on Pakistan emanates from the Bush administration’s current difficulties, for it is now widely acknowledged that the US is in an untenable situation where all the lofty goals set for it by its neo-con philosophers for the Greater Middle East lie in ruins. There is recognition among US intelligence circles that Iraq is spinning out of control. It is no longer a question of if but when the US will have to pull out its troops.
The war in Afghanistan, too, is not proceeding well. The Taliban’s remarkable resurgence has been aided by Hamid Karzai’s government’s inefficiency and corruption. In particular, its alliance with the warlords and drug barons has hurt it both domestically and internationally. All this means that in the coming months the administration will need strong alibis to fend off criticism.
In the case of Iraq, Washington has already identified Iran and Syria as the culprits. What alibi can it offer for its failure in Afghanistan? Will it be Pakistan? This is not as far-fetched as it may sound. Some evidence of this thinking is contained in a little known bill moved in the House which would require a presidential waiver regarding certain conditions relating to Pakistan’s aid programme. Amongst these, the president would have to certify that the government of Pakistan was preventing the Taliban from operating in “areas under its sovereign control” and also that Pakistan was dealing effectively with “Islamic extremism” and setting up “secular public schools.”
But there is another deeply worrying development. This is the sudden spurt of press reports about American preparations for an attack on Iran which are eerily reminiscent of the pre-Iraq invasion media leaks. They are, of course, being denied by the US, just as the stories about the Iraq invasion were denied. These reports also claim that apart from Israel, sadly Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan are spearheading the campaign to convince the US to take out Iran’s nuclear installations and major economic infrastructure. If true, this would be not only extremely unfortunate but very dangerous as well.
In such a scenario, the Americans will be expecting Pakistan’s help and assistance, which would place us in a no-win situation. Sources in Washington claim that this issue has already been broached with Pakistan. Hopefully, Islamabad will try to dissuade the Americans from undertaking any such adventure, pointing out its disastrous consequences not only for Pakistan but for the region as well. This then is the time for extreme circumspection, not the time to send confusing signals, as is likely to be the effect of the reported plans for the president to travel to major Arab capitals to hold consultations on the Iranian issue.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Two outstanding judgments
IN the first year or so of the Indian constitution, some state high courts went to the extent of holding that the guarantee of freedom of speech and expression protected not only the liberty to speak out but also the instigation to commit murder and offences involving violence.
Obviously, the courts had misunderstood the concept of liberty. Parliament had to intervene with a constitutional amendment to remedy the situation. It inserted in the chapter on fundamental rights expressions like “public safety” and “incitement to offence” with which the courts were more familiar.
Around the same time, the provisions relating to the right to equality and the right to property were so interpreted by the courts that urgent social reforms like the abolition of zamindari became unconstitutional or impossible. Parliament had to step in once again with legislation to bring about a transformation in the conditions of those who lived in the villages and worked on the land.
It was an amendment to the constitution — the Ninth Schedule — that made social justice measures beyond the court’s jurisdiction. However, the government misused the provision and converted the Ninth Schedule into a kind of bag into which it threw laws of dubious character to avoid judicial scrutiny. For example, a provision to split the audit and accounts service was put in the bag to escape legal examination.
The supreme court of India has looked into the basket where as many as 216 acts have been stacked. In a judgment, the court has said that it has the right to scrutinise every law in the Ninth Schedule to ensure that there is no violation of fundamental rights like freedom of speech and that of the basic structure of the constitution like secularism. Social justice measures will have to stand the same test.
I wish the government had utilised the Ninth Schedule for agrarian reforms, its original purpose. The mistake of the administration has probably irritated the supreme court. It has gone to the other extreme and thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Future agrarian reforms would come to be snarled in unending legal suits. Probably new legislation will be required to avoid this.
Yet another question that has been thrown up is of parliament’s supremacy. If the two Houses representing the people cannot have a law for their welfare without having the court’s endorsement, how does the nation fight against vested interests and anti-poor laws? The judiciary, lessening in standards and credibility, may not be the ideal authority to override measures relating to the welfare of the people. While settling this question, the risk of confrontation between parliament and the judiciary has to be avoided. Some laws in the Ninth Schedule are relevant to the nation’s welfare.
What is their fate after the sanctity of the Schedule is gone? The wheat has to be separated from the chaff. Another thing which may have irritated the supreme court is the government’s inclusion of a creamy layer in the list of scheduled castes and other backward classes. The court had advised the government not to do so. Still it went ahead in its efforts to have a law to include the “creamy layer” in reservations for jobs and admission to technical institutions. Also, the supreme court has yet to decide on the Tamil Nadu legislation which has fixed reservations at 63 per cent. The court had put the limit at 50 per cent.
I am all for reservations but within the limit of 50 per cent and without the creamy layer being part of it. The Manmohan Singh government buckled under the pressure of two central ministers belonging to the creamy layer — Ram Vilas Paswan, a dalit, and Lalu Prasad Yadav from the backward classes.
The legislation, if and when thrown out by the supreme court, may create a problem. I wonder if there is still any purpose of having the Ninth Schedule when all laws are subject to judicial scrutiny. After the supreme court’s judgment, no legislation is special or superior to the other.
Rulers or, for that matter, the majority in parliament may have to come to terms with the reality: they cannot go beyond the “lakshman rekha” which has been drawn by the fundamental rights and basic structure of the constitution.
The supreme court has given another historic judgment. It has upheld parliament’s prerogative to expel members. Thus, the 11 MPs, thrown out of Lok Sabha last year because of corruption, have lost their seats. The supremacy of parliament, more so of the speaker, has been established beyond doubt. This can, however, create political uncertainty in the states, particularly where the ruling party has a thin majority of three to four members.
The speaker has now untrammelled powers which he can misuse. He can be tempted to play politics. The supreme court has done well to lay down that ousting of members will have to stand the test of judicial scrutiny. Still, the best course would have been to ask the members concerned to go back to their constituency and seek a fresh verdict. The voters elect a member. They are the masters, not parliament or the state assembly.
One thing the two judgments underline is India’s democratic environ — not the supremacy of the judiciary or the pre-eminence of parliament. When the atmosphere was different during the emergency (1975-77), both the institutions cringed before the authoritarian Mrs Indira Gandhi and her son, Sanjay Gandhi, enjoying extra-constitutional authority. The supreme court held at that time that the government had powers to suspend fundamental rights. Only one judge, H.R. Khanna, dissented at that time and he was superseded. Parliament, on the other hand, endorsed the emergency and most members sang praises of Mrs Gandhi.
I only hope that the supreme court will stand up if and when the occasion arises again. It has already shown its pro-establishment tilt when it said in a judgment that a Rajya Sabha member need not be a resident of the state which returns him or her. The court rejected the requirement of the basic structure of the constitution — federalism. The argument given was that parliament had passed a law to do away with the domicile requirement. How could a law, not even a constitutional amendment, violating the basic structure of the constitution be upheld by the supreme court?
The court seems to have double standards. Without the awareness of what is right, and a desire to act according to what is right, there may be no realisation of what is wrong. For many, the dividing line between right and wrong, moral and immoral, has ceased to exist. The judiciary has to be above reproach. This is the key institution which protects democracy in a country.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.
The wrong prescription
US HOUSE Democrats delivered on a campaign promise last week, passing a bill that would require the government to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals covered by the new Medicare drug benefit. The idea is that government negotiators could force prices down, generating savings that could be used to make the benefit more generous. But the measure is misguided.
The Democrats point to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which manages to negotiate discounts for the drugs covered in the veterans’ health programme. But the department can do this because it is free to deny coverage for drugs whose makers refuse to provide discounts: Fully 3,000 of the 4,300 medicines covered by Medicare are unavailable under the veterans’ programme.
Restricting the list of covered drugs saves money, but it also reduces the quality of the benefit — 1.5 million veterans are sufficiently unhappy with the result that they opt to buy the more inclusive Medicare coverage. Recognizing that narrow formularies are unpopular, the Democratic plan does not permit Medicare to establish one. But if drug makers know that Medicare must buy their pills, why would they grant a discount? The Congressional Budget Office estimated last week that savings from direct negotiation would be “negligible.”
Not only are the Democrats too optimistic about government negotiation; they are also too pessimistic about the current system in which private insurers administering Medicare drug benefits do the price bargaining.
—The Wsahington Post