Changing American stance?

THE move against the Chief Justice and the action taken against his supporters have led to a strange reaction in the United States, considered our ally. Its official spokesmen have said they hope that Gen Pervez Musharraf will handle the crisis well and elections will be held freely and democratically.

The comments and reactions from American legislators, newspapers and discussion groups have been much more open and critical, questioning the general’s right to continue as president in his military uniform and asking for honest elections. Last week, some legislators even said that leaders in exile should be permitted to take part in the general elections this year or early next year.

Relations between the US and Pakistan have not always been sound and friendly. This country was kept on the American side initially by Washington because of America’s opposition to the Soviet Union, China and other communist countries. This was something in which Pakistan’s military rulers took full part because they wanted American military aid and weapons besides economic help. They also disliked communism and wanted to be part of the West. What they wished was to get American support and use it against India.

Their attitude to India was never backed by the Americans, who realised that country’s great relevance in Asian and international politics. But they provided Pakistan with aid knowing that they would seek to prevent any misuse of it against India. This didn’t always work. Ayub Khan moved close to China and in 1965 attacked India through Kashmir. He lost all US economic and military aid because of the war. However, Washington remained conscious of the strategic importance, geography-wise, of Pakistan and wanted to keep it as its protégé.

Richard Nixon was the only US president to actually back Pakistan against India. This happened during the 1971 Bangladesh crisis, although the Nixon input failed to really help Pakistan, which lost to India, and East Pakistan was converted into Bangladesh. But Nixon had backed Yahya Khan, saying at one point: “To all hands. Don’t squeeze Yahya at this time.”

Nixon had also come to Pakistan in August 1969. President Bill Clinton visited Pakistan in March 2000; it should be recalled that while he had spent five days in India he was in Islamabad only for five hours, talking to Gen Musharraf and the people here in a speech from television, which was quite unusual and not entirely complimentary.

Mr Bush decided to come in March 2006 only for a day, with Islamabad fully covered by US officials. Gen Musharraf of course has made several trips to Washington to meet the US president and keep him happy.

The aim of all this is to come to the point that the Americans have usually been concerned about Pakistan because of their policies in this region, including, of course, Afghanistan and the religious domination of the Taliban and extremist groups within Pakistan, many of which at one time enjoyed the military’s and the general’s support. But Washington has usually been careful not to intervene too much in what the Pakistani regime may be doing in dealing with internal politics. If the Americans are accused by some of taking care of Bhutto and Ziaul Haq, it was for reasons other than the leaders’ internal politics.

This position appears to have changed in what is happening now. Not only has the present regime been criticised for its failure to fully tackle the Taliban offensive and movements by bigoted local religious organisations, but also for creating and following policies on Afghanistan that are considered unhelpful. These attitudes are quietly reflected in government statements in Washington, but other organisations and senators as well as Congressmen are sounding much more critical in statements made openly.

The chairman and three senior members of the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, in a letter written to Gen Musharraf and made public on Saturday, accused Islamabad of permitting the “extensive involvement of the Pakistani military and intelligence agencies in the electoral process (marking the 2002 elections) and in daily governance”.

They remind the general that no democratic government can be credible without the protective check of a free press and ask him to order Pakistan’s security and intelligence agencies to stop harassing journalists. The supporters said they wrote the letter as supporters of the US-Pakistan relationship, but given the enormous stakes the US has in the developments in Pakistan, they find it important to raise several issues of concern.

The letter also notes continued Taliban and Al Qaeda activities in Afghanistan and quotes US and Nato officials as saying that the “Taliban leadership operates from headquarters in or near Quetta”. The induction of Democrats in the American Congress has provided new strength for criticism of the Pakistani approach.

Letters and statements have followed the moves made internally against the chief justice and the subsequent attacks on the press and TV stations. This is certainly something that should be seen as different from actions threatened by Washington and senators or prominent writers against Pakistan in previous years: the move against the chief justice is being utilised to criticise Pakistani leaders on their tackling of attitudes towards the Taliban and other religious extremist organisations. Other writers and commentators have expressed their reservations about the action taken by the Pakistan government in Waziristan and other areas in the northern areas.

There seems to be a move on the part of some to discredit Gen Musharraf and his government, not only because of how the country is being run but because of a feeling that the moves against Al Qaeda, the Taliban and religious organisations are half-hearted.

Interestingly, the outgoing US ambassador, referring to the statements made by the US government and US senators and experts, says there was no question of any pressure. “Democracy is in the interest of both countries and the US supports strong and transparent democratic institutions in Pakistan.”

Most of the remarks being made both by US officials and non-official organisations and people since Gen Musharraf’s encounter with the chief justice appear to mark a new approach on the part of the Americans. Is this due to a feeling that the government has failed to comply, as Washington wanted it to do, with its conditions for a dispensation conducive to elections and that the US now has a change in mind if the general is not ready to give up his uniform and assume a more acceptable stand?

The reality is that over the years Pakistan has been seized by an obsession to go to America for its military weapons and economic help. This has been especially so when the army has ruled us, which has been for long, although Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq both instigated processes that marked some changes for a while.

But ultimately the Pakistan military went back to proving its need to obtain American assistance. The Americans, wanting to back action against the Taliban and keep Pakistan as a state ready to comply, have kept their pressure on.

The current change of attitude with India and other developments that have taken place should have made Pakistani leaders realise that they should try to make moves of their own rather than keep trying to ingratiate themselves with the Americans.

Gen Musharraf appears to have lost much support. Pakistanis do not like American pressure, but many of them may now hope that the statements made recently by Washington will persuade Gen Musharraf to take a more honest position and give up his military alliance with the US. He will have to take part like all politicians if he wants to get elected for another term and he will have to ensure that elections are held honestly.

We must remember that the Americans, after a long time, have openly criticised the ruling man in Pakistan, and only time can spell out when this pattern may precipitate a change. The great surrender made after 9/11 may no longer be pleasing America because it has changed.

Breathing fire at Iran

THE increasing tension between the United States and Iran over the nuclear issue, if not resolved soon in an amicable manner, has the potential to escalate into a military confrontation with devastating consequences for the entire region. There is no solid evidence to suggest that Iran is covertly building a nuclear bomb, as alleged by the Bush administration.

The director of the Middle East Studies at Brown University in the UN has questioned the State Department’s claims of a nuclear proliferation by Iran and called it “demonstrably false”. He has categorically stated that the “physical evidence for a nuclear weapons programme in Iran simply does not exist”.

Being a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Iran, however, has the inalienable right to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in accordance with the Statute of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and its safeguards. The United States and its close allies are, however, opposed to Iran’s nuclear programme despite its unequivocal commitment that it is exclusively for peaceful purposes and is in conformity with the safety regulations of the IAEA.

Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has also declared that his country has no intention of producing nuclear weapons. After this categorical statement by a leader of such high stature there could be no room for doubting Iran’s motives behind its nuclear programme.

The US argues that Iran, which has vast oil and gas reserves, does not need nuclear energy, as it would be much costlier to produce electricity from uranium than from petroleum. This is, however, a flawed argument. Many countries that are also rich in oil and gas resources, like Russia, have developed nuclear power as an alternative energy source to meet their domestic demand for energy. It must also be appreciated that oil and gas are non-renewable natural resources and may deplete rapidly if alternative sources of energy are not developed.

Washington’s rejection of Tehran’s offer to hold talks with it to clear US misconceptions about its nuclear programme makes it abundantly clear that it is recycling its hype over Saddam Hussein’s supposed WMD threat into rhetoric about Iran, with ulterior motives. It is also rather intriguing that while the United Sates did not object to negotiate with North Korea that had threatened to quit the NPT it is not willing to do so with Iran despite its willingness to abide by the treaty.

It is thus clear that the United States has deliberately adopted a tough line on Iran on the nuclear issue to prevent it from acquiring nuclear energy even for civilian purposes. Evidently, the US approach on the issue not only lacks the impartiality it is expected to show as a major world power but is also devoid of a pragmatic approach to a sensitive issue. Washington, therefore, needs to change this attitude and, instead of adopting an aggressive posture towards Iran’s nuclear programme, should seek a peaceful settlement of this issue.

Some political observers believe that the fundamental premise of the American policy on Iran is that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a hard-line extremist and, therefore, no peace overtures should be made towards his regime. This attitude is, however, unwise as it represents an ominous trend that has already helped radical elements in Iran strengthen their position at home and their influence in the region.

Prudence demands that Washington should follow a constructive policy towards Iran, which is the only way forward to strengthen moderation in that country. The United States also needs to calculate the harm its existing policy on Iran is causing to its own interests in the Middle East.

The prime responsibility for improving relations with Iran rests with the United States. However, Iran should also accept the new strategic paradigm and bring a fundamental change in its policy towards the United States which occupies a central place in world affairs. Iran’s former president, Mohammad Khatami, has also made a strong plea to prevent a crisis over the nuclear issue. He has urged upon the Iranian leadership to avoid provocations and act with prudence.

The United States already bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq is unlikely to invade Iran. It is, however, believed that the Pentagon is contemplating an attack on Iran with the limited objective of destroying its nuclear installations by using B 2 bombers and submarine-launched ballistic missiles. A nuclear attack is also contemplated. It is a profound irony that the United States may be proposing to use nuclear weapons against Iran on the pretext of protecting the world from these weapons. In case the US uses nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations countless people would die in that country instantly and hundreds of thousands would be exposed to potentially lethal levels of radiation. People living in the neighbouring Gulf countries and beyond will also be affected.

Any attack on Iran would not only inflame tensions in the region and trigger a global crisis but also sow more seeds of anti-American feelings in the Muslim world that would give a new impetus to radical elements.

America’s moderate Arab and Muslim friends in the region and beyond, shaken by the growing influence of radical forces in their countries, will be plunged into a deeper, protracted political crisis. The United States should, therefore, refrain from exercising military action against Iran which, in any case, would be untenable and legally as well as morally unjustified as it has not committed a material breach of the NPT.

The writer is a former ambassador

Rewarding loyalty

THE SCANDAL unfolding around the firing of eight US attorneys compels the conclusion that the Bush administration has rewarded loyalty over all else. A destructive pattern of partisan political actions at the Justice Department started long before this incident, however, as those of us who worked in its civil rights division can attest.

I spent more than 35 years in the department enforcing federal civil rights laws — particularly voting rights. Before leaving in 2005, I worked for attorneys general with dramatically different political philosophies — from John Mitchell to Ed Meese to Janet Reno. Regardless of the administration, the political appointees had respect for the experience and judgment of long-time civil servants.

Under the Bush administration, however, all that changed. Over the last six years, this Justice Department has ignored the advice of its staff and skewed aspects of law enforcement in ways that clearly were intended to influence the outcome of elections.

It has notably shirked its legal responsibility to protect voting rights. From 2001 to 2006, no voting discrimination cases were brought on behalf of African American or Native American voters. US attorneys were told instead to give priority to voter fraud cases, which, when coupled with the strong support for voter ID laws, indicated an intent to depress voter turnout in minority and poor communities.

At least two of the recently fired US attorneys, John McKay in Seattle and David C. Iglesias in New Mexico, were targeted largely because they refused to prosecute voting fraud cases that implicated Democrats or voters likely to vote for Democrats.

This pattern also extended to hiring. In March 2006, Bradley Schlozman was appointed interim US attorney in Kansas City, Mo. Two weeks earlier, the administration was granted the authority to make such indefinite appointments without Senate confirmation. That was too bad: A Senate hearing might have uncovered Schlozman's central role in politicising the civil rights division during his three-year tenure.

Schlozman, for instance, was part of the team of political appointees that approved then-House Majority Leader Tom DeLay's plan to redraw congressional districts in Texas, which in 2004 increased the number of Republicans elected to the House. Similarly, Schlozman was acting assistant attorney general in charge of the division when the Justice Department okayed a Georgia law requiring voters to show photo IDs at the polls. These decisions went against the recommendations of career staff, who asserted that such rulings discriminated against minority voters. The warnings were prescient: Both proposals were struck down by federal courts.

Schlozman continued to influence elections as an interim US attorney. Missouri had one of the closest Senate races in the country last November, and a week before the election, Schlozman brought four voter fraud indictments against members of an organisation representing poor and minority people. This blatantly contradicted the department's long-standing policy to wait until after an election to bring such indictments because a federal criminal investigation might affect the outcome of the vote. The timing of the Missouri indictments could not have made the administration's aims more transparent.

This administration is also politicising the career staff of the Justice Department. Outright hostility to career employees who disagreed with the political appointees was evident early on. Seven career managers were removed in the civil rights division. I personally was ordered to change performance evaluations of several attorneys under my supervision. I was told to include critical comments about those whose recommendations ran counter to the political will of the administration and to improve evaluations of those who were politically favoured.

Morale plummeted, resulting in an alarming exodus of career attorneys. In the last two years, 60 per cent of attorneys in the voting section have transferred to other departments or left the Justice Department entirely.

At the same time, career staff were nearly cut out of the process of hiring lawyers. Control of hiring went to political appointees, so an applicant's fidelity to GOP interests replaced civil rights experience as the most important factor in hiring decisions.

For decades prior to this administration, the Justice Department had successfully kept politics out of its law enforcement decisions. Hopefully, the spotlight on this misconduct will begin the process of restoring dignity and non-partisanship to federal law enforcement. As the 2008 elections approach, it is critical to have a Justice Department that approaches its responsibility to all eligible voters without favour. —Dawn/Los Angeles Times Service

The writer was chief of the voting section in the US Justice Department's civil right division from 1999 to 2005. He now works for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.