‘Wishful’ claims of progress

WHERE, then, does the India-Pakistan peace process stand? Back to square one. Addressing the third round table conference in New Delhi last week, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh squarely ruled out any prospect of an early Kashmir settlement.

He dismissed Pakistan Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s repeated “wishful” claims of New Delhi and Islamabad nearing an agreement on Kashmir (or even Siachen) and categorically made it clear that “some public statements in this regard (Kashmir issue) emanating from Pakistan do not give the correct picture.”

In his recent interviews and media conversations, Kasuri had been indecorously upbeat in claiming that a “lot of ground has been covered for an agreement on Kashmir” and “the two countries are moving towards a settlement of the Kashmir issue.” He has also been at pains to assert that he was one of the five or perhaps six persons in Pakistan who were in the back-channel Kashmir loop.

How amusing for a foreign minister to be struggling for a semblance of some relevance in a system which is being run on the whims of a uniformed individual rather than an institution. He doesn’t even know that the number of persons in the Kashmir loop is far greater than his imaginative estimate. There are many invisible hands, including some outside powers and organisations that have contributed to the brewing recipe for this Pakola version of a delectable Kashmir cocktail.

Manmohan Singh, on his part, while sitting on a square table used the round table conference to once again articulate his “simple vision” of a trisected Naya Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh which he had enunciated two years ago while addressing university students in Srinagar. This “simple vision” according to him, “is symbolised by peace, prosperity and people’s power” which would be a “model of real empowerment of the people and comprehensive security for them.”

Manmohan Singh’s “simple vision” is not really that simple. It is a well-choreographed smokescreen to eclipse the core of the Kashmir issue. It should open the eyes of President Musharraf and his overzealous foreign minister. New Delhi is looking at the whole issue only as an administrative domestic problem which it thinks will be taken care of through political, administrative and economic measures within the bounds of India’s constitutional framework.

Manmohan Singh in his address at the conference did admit that there were references to President Musharraf’s proposals and statements on Jammu and Kashmir during the discussions, and several ideas, having a bearing on improving relations between India and Pakistan, were being discussed at various levels. According to him, “we are giving careful consideration to the views expressed at these round tables and the meetings of the working groups.”

He said India was engaged sincerely with Pakistan to “improve relations and resolve all pending issues” and vowed to work for reconciliation “recognising the interdependence of our destiny.” He reiterated his proposal for India and Pakistan to “work out cooperative, consultative mechanisms” between the two sides of Kashmir to solve problems of social and economic development of the region.

Most Kashmiri parties, including those supporting Musharraf’s Kashmir initiative and which did not participate in the round table dialogue, agree that Manmohan Singh’s Kashmir vision is totally blurred on the actual territorial dispute or its solution. Manmohan Singh made it clear that the reduction of security forces in Indian-held Kashmir depended on militant activities. He said “every possible action would be taken to see that the deployment of security forces is directly related to the scale of the problems on the ground which they are required to tackle.”

This takes care of Musharraf’s demilitarisation proposal. India would retain the final say in determining the scale of the problems on the ground. We are just witnessing a déjà vu of the 1950s when Nehru’s Congress party had made similar conditionalities on India’s withdrawal of its forces from occupied Kashmir as required by the in UN Security Council resolutions to prepare the ground for a free and fair plebiscite.

Like his illustrious predecessor, Manmohan Singh is using the same clichés in stressing that these (current) efforts will not be fruitful unless a peaceful environment is created through honouring commitments made, in letter and spirit, to curb terrorist activities. He is clearly alluding to President Musharraf’s unprecedented solemn affidavit given in this regard to India in the joint Islamabad statement of January 6, 2004. A simple reading of its text would show that there was nothing joint in that statement.

One must accept, however, that unlike our leaders, Manmohan Singh at least has been faithful to his constitutional oath and democratic pluralistic system. He is not taking the decisions all alone. He is holding round table conferences and has established working groups for discussions on various aspects of the Kashmir problem. This systemic approach strengthens Manmohan Singh’s hands and also reinforces his “simple vision” on Kashmir. He will find it easier to move ahead with his diversionary antics.

We do not see any such attempt, not even a cosmetic one, in Pakistan. General Musharraf is grappling with challenges to his own political survival at home and has no time from his unending pointless foreign odysseys. Even if he had time, he would not have opted for an institutional approach because he fears constitutional bodies and does not trust institutions. Instead, he relies on the advice of lone-rangers of all sorts who, as sequential events have shown, are capable of landing him in crisis after crisis.

There is a clear difference of approach being followed in New Delhi and Islamabad. In New Delhi, round table conferences and working groups are the forums for multifaceted discussions on the whole range of issues. Manmohan Singh personally engages in those discussions steering them artfully to make sure a façade of constructive engagement with Pakistan is maintained while making no commitments beyond India’s basic stand on Kashmir.

In Islamabad, the foreign minister is being used only to make noises while the man in the saddle is calling the shots without any consultative processes. Ever since Musharraf gave out his own “simpler vision” of an out of the box Kashmir solution, India has shown not the slightest change or flexibility in its position and remains firmly committed to its claim that Kashmir is an integral part of India and cannot be negotiated.

On our part, by giving all the wrong signals, and that too at the highest level, we have only damaged the Kashmir cause and our own case as a party to this dispute. By giving a clear message of retreat from our principled position, we have divided the Kashmiri people who having suffered heavy loss of life and limb over the decades, now stand totally disillusioned with Pakistan’s changing stance. They feel abandoned and let down

In Islamabad, a paradigm shift has been made in our Kashmir policy without going through any institutional process. The sole arbitrary arbiter of the nation’s destiny has taken no one into confidence, not even his handpicked cabinet or the Kashmir committee in the marginalised parliament.

The question is, how could one person who is not even sure of his own future in this crisis-laden election year, play with the destiny of the Kashmiri people? He has no mandate, especially during this fateful year of his military rule, to negotiate one-sided or unequal peace with India. He offers demilitarisation and self-governance to the Kashmiri people, something he continues to deny to his own people. How can the Kashmiris trust him?

His cosmetic four-point formula, which in essence is nothing but a gift-wrapped legitimisation of the status quo, has evoked no unequivocal response from India. Even if this formula, as Khurshid Kasuri asserts, is the only “best or second best” available choice for all the three parties, a military regime in Pakistan has no locus standi to make a back-channel deal which no future government in Pakistan elected by the people through a democratic process will accept or endorse.

Manmohan Singh, despite all his simplicity and soft-spoken demeanour, has never sounded over-optimistic or euphoric about the on-going back-channel diplomacy between a veteran diplomat from the Indian side and a politically suave personal confidante of Musharraf on this side. However, what amazes and amuses every one is the flurry of unending expressions of optimism by our president and foreign minister on the prospects of an early deal on Kashmir.

Ironically, the same day when Manmohan Singh was dismissing our “wishful” claims of an imminent agreement, Musharraf in Madrid again claimed that “reasonable progress had already been achieved on the Kashmir issue” and that the world may see the resolution of this dispute earlier than expected. He also termed Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as “a credible leader and a man of peace.”

One wonders if public praises of leaders can make them change their minds on issues of vital importance to their countries. In real and dignified diplomacy, however, roaring gestures, feigning optimism, faking progress and oral “messaging” would never facilitate the desired outcome. It only weakens one morally and ethically.

In the ultimate analysis, no deal without the support of the people on both sides of the border will bring the needed durable peace between India and Pakistan. The present ruling dispensations both in New Delhi, where an Italian family-run political mob is seen to be running the show through a turbaned fall guy and in Islamabad where a wilful military ruler is calling the shots all alone with his English-orating straw men only keeping the lights on, inspire no confidence at the popular level.

Given this murky situation, it would perhaps be desirable that while remaining engaged in their “composite” dialogue and confidence building process, India and Pakistan should delay any final decision on Kashmir till such time as both countries have a national consensus on this major issue.

India has the advantage of an uninterrupted democratic process in which all political forces including the opposition parties have a say in their major policy formulation institutional processes. We in Pakistan cannot trust any major decision on Kashmir unless there is a genuinely elected civilian government in our country. Meanwhile in Pakistan, no more feigning of optimism, nor soliciting of half-baked deals, please. Show some dignified restraint.

The writer is a former foreign secretary

Testing time for BD democracy

THE people of Bangladesh have been living through a period of political uncertainty ever since President Iajuddin Ahmed declared a state of emergency on January 10 following months of political unrest over the issue of a partisan election commission and questionable voter lists.

Invoking the constitutional provision of 141 A, B and C, the emergency rule suspended several fundamental political rights, including the right to assemble and imposed censorship on the press.

The reconstituted non-party caretaker government has been conducting business under Articles 58B and D of the Bangladesh constitution. One of the first acts of the government was to postpone the parliamentary election, which were to take place on January 22.

Article 126 of the constitution mandates the caretaker government to hold parliamentary elections within 90 days of the dissolution of the previous parliament. Article 58 B (1) of the constitution outlines that any interim caretaker government must relinquish its powers as soon as a new parliament is inducted and a prime minister is elected.

However, the three-month period expired on April 12, which means that the caretaker regime is now bereft of constitutional legitimacy. Nevertheless, it does not appear ready to relinquish powers. On the contrary, it appears to be digging in for a long haul. The head of the caretaker government declared in a televised speech on April 13 that the parliamentary election cannot be held before the endemic political corruption that plagues the nation had been tackled. Furthermore, he refused to give a firm timetable when elections would be held except for mentioning the possibility of holding elections sometime by the end of 2008. Additionally, the interim administration has retained and strengthened a draconian law first enacted in 1974. Under this law, the executive branch can detain any person without reason, and hold him without trial for an indefinite period. This action follows the precedent set by the Bangladesh Nationalist Party, which came to power in 2001 vowing to abolish these laws, but ultimately reneged on its promise.

A particularly ominous sign is that the military appears to have become politically active. In a speech given on April 2, the army chief, Lt. General Moeen U. Ahmed, attacked the political parties for creating the current political debacle. He went on to urge the Bangladeshis to look for alternatives to these parties. He stressed the need for a platform that would incorporate new concepts and a new sense of direction in the governance of the country.

What is intriguing is that his speech was given while the head of the caretaker government was away from the country attending the summit of South Asian Association of Regional Cooperation in New Delhi. Neither he nor the president, who is also the commander-in-chief of the defence forces, has contradicted the statements made by the army chief. Their silence has added to speculations that the army is dictating the direction of government policy from behind the scenes. This in fact is precisely what a number of domestic and international observers have concluded in spite of the chief of army's denial to the contrary.

The political intervention by the military is contrary to the democratic process because it undermines the civilian institutions that are vital to democracy. For this reason, government officials, civilian or military, should avoid making political speeches, or show overt political bias. The defence forces of Bangladesh are expected to be a disciplined service.

Their only role should be to protect the country from external aggression. Occasionally, the executive branch calls out the military to help during times of exceptional needs.

Therefore, the forces should remain politically neutral and should not interfere in the governance of the country. They have earned a good reputation in the past 15 years by staying out of politics, and for carrying out extensive relief operations on several occasions when the country was afflicted with calamitous natural disasters. Additionally, they have earned acclaim and the confidence of the international community with their service in several United Nations peacekeeping operations, particularly in Sierra Leone and Liberia . They are indeed the proud sons of Bangladesh.

Since the independence in 1971, the people have been experiencing different systems of governance, from the one-party rule of Shaikh Mujib, to martial law, a presidential system and finally the Westminster style of parliamentary government. Unfortunately, none of these systems could deliver good governance. The civilian leadership of Bangladesh is to a large extent culpable for the failure of the democratic process because of their autocratic ways, and personal corruption.

When Bangladesh was East Pakistan prior to 1971, it frequently endured direct military rule. In each instance, from Ayub Khan to Yahya Khan, the generals justified their power grab as the only way to save the nation from the deleterious effects of notoriously corrupt civilian politicians.

Initially, military takeovers are welcomed by the people, who are disgusted by the corrupt politicians and officials, but not for long. It is important to bear in mind that each successive military government was ultimately proven to be untenable because they were rejected by the people.

The interim government has launched a campaign to clean up corruption. It appears that the public, by and large, approves of this action. However, it has been noticed that the war on corruption has largely spared the military, or, for that matter, the police and other paramilitary forces, such as the Bangladesh Rifles, all of which are tainted by corruption. According to the London Economist, "defence deals were notoriously corrupt in Bangladesh". If law enforcement agencies themselves are corrupt, who will fight corruption? Who will bring corrupt officials to justice when they will not root out corruption in their own ranks? In that case, there will not be any justice at any level. The law should be equally applicable to every person and agency.

Military officers are not above the law. Lt. General Moeen U Ahmed's political speeches are reminiscent of another military ruler, Lt. General Ershad, who was known to make political speeches while he was the chief of staff prior to launching a bloodless coup in 1982. In the following nine years of his rule, he tried in vain to legitimise his regime, and was eventually forced to step down in the face of widespread public protests in 1991.

The recent actions of the administration do not speak of a positive direction, including the arrest of Arafat Rahman, youngest son of Khaleda Zia, prime minister from 1991-1996 and 2001-2006, and his release the next day on the condition that Khaleda Zia should leave the country and go on exile. That means the arrest of her son was a threat to Khaleda Zia her to leave the country.

Similarly, a case was filed by Bangladesh head of a Malaysian power company against Sheikh Hasina, former prime minister of Bangladesh (1996-2001), for extortion of 30 million taka ( Bangladesh currency).

Hasina has been charged with the murder of four people on October 28 last year during street violence and a warrant of arrest was issued against her. She is now in London from the United States. She was debarred from boarding an international airline bound for Dhaka. However, shortly thereafter, the decision of the interim government to send the two ladies on exile was revoked, perhaps fearing strong public reaction. An identical situation has existed in Pakistan over the last eight years when Gen Pervez Musharraf, the chief of army staff, took over power and has since kept two main political leaders: Benazir Bhutto, Nawaz Shariff, both former prime ministers, in exile.

The caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmad has lost its credibility and should clarify the position in the greater interest of the country and its people as to who is running the show. The transparency of the government is imperative for the functioning of a democratic system. Secondly, the chief of army staff should stay out of the affairs of the interim civilian government and leave it free to hold the next election at an early date.

It is high time that international donor countries came forward to save the fragile democracy in Bangladesh that has yet to strike deep roots.

The writer is a former diplomat, now based in Virginia, USA.

The parliament of man

For I dipped into the future, far as human eye could see,

Saw the vision of the world, and all the wonders there would be,

Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,

Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales...

Till the war-drum throbbed no longer, and the battle-flags were furlled

In the Parliament of man, the Federation of the world.

— Alfred Tennyson, 1842

ONE hundred and sixty-five years later, Tennyson would be impressed by the amount of air travel, and he would be encouraged by the steep decline in wars among the great powers. (They still attack small countries from time to time, but at least they don't fight each other, which is when the mass deaths happen.) He would, however, be astonished that nothing has yet been done to make international society democratic.

There is already a world administration of sorts, in the form of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation and so on, but it is all in the hands of governments -- and some governments are much more equal than others, so none of the global institutions ever acts against the will of the powerful. (Occasionally they refuse to approve some deed of the powerful, as the UN did briefly over the US invasion of Iraq, but that is all.) And nowhere in all the layers of bureaucrats and diplomats is there any direct representation of ordinary people.

And so, only 62 years after the foundation of the UN, the Campaign for the Establishment of a United Nations Parliamentary Assembly (UNPA) is being launched this week in five continents. It has the signatures of 377 members of national parliaments from seventy countries, six former foreign ministers/secretaries, and various other international luminaries like Vaclav Havel, Guenther Grass and former UN secretary-general Boutros Boutros-Ghali. But it also has a few little problems.

One is a distinct lack of Americans: only nine of those signatories are from the United States. The well-known American allergy to international institutions that might infringe on the absolute sovereignty of the United States extends, in this case, to a body that could have no such impact because it would have no legislative or executive power. And that is precisely the problem: what is the point of this hypothetical world parliament, given that it would have no power over the UN Security Council, the IMF, the World Bank, or any of the other real decision-making centres?

The Campaign, whose headquarters is in Germany, explains that the UNPA "is envisaged as a first practical step towards the long-term goal of a world parliament," but it would not even be elected in the first phase of its existence. Members from various national parliaments would be chosen, by whatever means each country saw fit, to sit together at the UN for a few weeks a year. It is the feeblest of symbolic gestures, and you wonder why they even bother.

European enthusiasts point out that when the European Parliament was first set up in 1958 its members were chosen by the national parliaments of member-states, and it had little control over the decisions of the European Union. As at the UN, those remained in the hands of national governments and of the international institutions that they directly controlled. But in 1979 they started electing members of the European Parliament directly, which gave it real democratic legitimacy and, little by little, it has gained some degree of control over what happens in Brussels.

It would take a very long time indeed for the same sort of evolution to occur at the UN level, where even the number of members each country gets would be the subject of fierce disputes. Would China really have as many members as the hundred smallest countries combined, which is what its population entitles it to? Would America settle for one-third as many members as India (assuming it agreed to be represented at all)? Obviously not, but what would be the right numbers?

At best, the supporters of the UNPA would have to work their way through all those problems, and accept that for the next twenty or fifty years what they have created will be a debating chamber and nothing more. Is it worth all the effort for that damp squib of a result?

Yes, certainly. It would be open to individual countries to start electing their own members of the UNPA from the start, so that it had more democratic legitimacy. And although real power might take generations to arrive, from the very start a parliament of this sort would provide a very different perspective on the world — and a more realistic one — than the pious debates of the General Assembly and the hard-ball great-power politics of the Security Council. It would be very interesting at least, and maybe quite instructive.

So tell Lord Tennyson to come back in another hundred years, and maybe we'll have something to show him.—Copyright

The wrong confession

"IT really is desirable that when a nation makes war upon another nation it should be quite clear why it does so. It should not keep changing the reasons as time goes on. There is, in fact, no correspondence whatsoever between the reasons given today and the reasons set out by the prime minister at the beginning. The reasons have changed all the time."

These words could have been spoken about, or to, Tony Blair at any time in the last four years, such is their relevance to the decision to invade Iraq. But they were, in fact, uttered by Nye Bevan, the greatest parliamentary swordsman of his day, lashing into the government of Anthony Eden over the Suez crisis, in a speech.

If Iraq was the biggest mistake of Mr Blair's premiership, it is also an enduring one. The oily patina covering the steel of his intent — to stick with Washington, come what may —continues to this day. Time has not dulled the urge of any present member of his government to slither around with words which disguise the truth about the unfolding catastrophe. Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary during the invasion, makes a series of candid admissions to the Guardian. He admits that the decision to disband Iraq's army and to de-Ba'athify its civil service two months after the invasion unleashed a host of highly trained and angry people into the hands of the insurgency.

It allowed Saddam Hussein's people to link up with al-Qaida and ultimately with Sunni insurgents. He says that attempts by members of the government to lobby their counterparts in Washington somehow missed the fact that it was the neoconservative vice-president, Dick Cheney, who pulled the strings (as if we did not know that at the time). And he concludes: "Maybe we were too optimistic about the idea of the streets being lined with cheering people."

Is this honesty, or yet another political counter-measure? Mr Hoon admits that the tactics were wrong, but continues to defend the strategy. He still feels that the decision to go to war was right, even though it was based on the wrong evidence, and challenged anyone "to go through what they went through" and come to a different conclusion. This is all of a piece with the non-apology Mr Blair gave in an exchange in October 2004, apologising for faulty pre-war intelligence — which he was careful not to take responsibility for — but sticking by every decision he had taken. Hillary Clinton uses a different formula, perhaps because she is seeking the presidency from opposition.

— The Guardian, London