[Type text]

DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
MAY 2008
Kamaal K. Lalany – HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
May 2008 of the DAWN Compilation Series,
put together by Kamaal Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad 25.05.08
25.05.08

– PPP Out to tame Presidency, empower Parliament

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) on Saturday unveiled some major points of the 18th
Constitution Amendment Bill aimed at cutting the presidency to size, ensuring the
reinstatement of deposed judges and making the parliament sovereign in real terms. The
party’s Central Executive Committee (CEC), through a resolution, authoriz
authorized its co-
chairman, Asif Ali Zardari, to hold consultations with the coalition partners, lawyers’
representatives and President Pervez Musharraf on a draft of the amendment bill, which
the party intends to table in the National Assembly next month. Briefing reporters after
the CEC meeting, Mr. Zardari kept up his latest tirade against President Musharraf, saying
his party had never considered him a “constitutional president”.
president”. He, however, admitted
that the party had maintained a “working
“working relationship”
relationship” with President Musharraf and
would consult him over the constitutional package with a hope that he might quit office of
his own accord. “We
“We want him to walk him away rather than impeach him away,” away,” was Mr.
Zardari’s frank comment in reply to a question about any possibility of President
Musharraf’s impeachment. “We “We will definitely hold dialogue with the general (Musharraf)
on the package and get its approval from the cabinet,”
cabinet,” Mr. Zardari said. The party will hold
a dialogue with the establishment, too, “believing
“believing that the whole world is with us”,
us”, Mr.
Zardari asserted. According to PPP sources, there was a difference of opinion within the
CEC whether the party should take President Musharraf into confidence about the
proposed constitutional package or not. A minority opposed any contact whatsoever with
the presidency as, according to them, it could erode the party’s popularity. Those in favour
of taking the president into confidence were divided on whether the party should hold
direct talks or through interlocutors. The matter was settled after the CEC authoriz
authorized Mr.
Mr.
Zardari to hold talks with coalition partners and the president in whatever way he wanted.
Another controversy arising out of the package pertained to Article 270-AAA, which was
incorporated into the constitution by Gen Pervez Musharraf after bypassing the parliament
and which amounts to indemnifying all his actions since Nov 3, the proclamation of
emergency included. The PPP co-chairman and Law Minister Farooq Naek were vague on
the issue and it remained unclear whether the proposed amendment would be made in
the document as it existed before Nov 3 or in the one that has already incorporated
270AAA. During the briefing, Mr. Zardari asked Mr. Naek to explain salient features of the
proposed package, saying the draft would be made available to the media after handing it
over to other coalition partners. The package, according to Mr. Zardari, will be a step
towards the “majesty
“majesty of the parliament”
parliament” and will not only take away the president’s power
to dismiss the government, but will also transfer his authority to appoint provincial
governors and the services chiefs to the prime minister. The proposed amendments also
include a bar on a president running for office for more than two terms. Mr. Zardari parried
questions about any proposal to reduce the tenure of the chief justice. However, according
to some insiders, the package contains proposals to limit the tenure of the chief justice to
three years and to raise the retirement age of the judges of high court and the Supreme
Court. Sources told Dawn that Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, who is also the president of the
Supreme Court Bar Association, raised objection on the proposal of fixing the CJ’s tenure,
but he was cooled down by Mr. Zardari by declaring that the proposed draft was not a
“sanctified document”
document” and it could be changed. He asked Mr. Ahsan to arrange his
meetings with the lawyers’ community so that he could hold dialogue with them on the
issue of the judges’ restoration.
Accommodating
Accommodating the ANP’s demand, the PPP has proposed an amendment to Article 1 of
the Constitution under which the name of the NWFP (North West Frontier Province) will be
changed to “Pakhtoonkhwa.
“Pakhtoonkhwa.” ” Through another amendment to Article 6 of the constitution,
constitution,
it has been suggested that the judges of the higher courts who will validate military
takeovers in future and take oath under provisional constitution orders (PCOs) will
render them to be tried under high treason. Another proposal seeks to give minorities
representation in the Senate. The bill suggests that there should be five minority members
— one from each province and federal capital — in the Senate that will make the total
number of the members of the upper house to 105 from existing 100. The bill also
suggests amendment to Article 63 dealing with the disqualification of a person from
becoming a member of the parliament. Under the existing provision given in Article 63(g),
a person who defames or “brings
“brings into ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces”
forces” cannot
become a member of the parliament. Now, there will be no such provision in the
constitution, if the proposed bill is passed. The bill also proposes that in future, caretaker
governments at centre and provinces will be appointed in consultation with prime
minister, senate chairman and speakers of the National and provincial assemblies. The
PPP is in favour of doing away with the law under which an elected person can hold two
government offices simultaneously. Besides this, the proposed bill also envisages abolition
of concurrent list to grant more autonomy to the provinces. The party has also suggested
that Council of Common Interests (CCI) and National Finance Commission (NFC) be
made more effective in order to remove grievances of the provinces on major issues.
• Article 58-2(B), which gives the president powers to dismiss an elected government
and dissolve the National Assembly, will be abolished.
• The president’s authority to appoint provincial governors and the services chiefs will be
transferred to the prime minister.
• There will be a bar on a person running for the office of president for more than two
terms.
• A three-year tenure for the chief justice proposed.
• Name of the NWFP will be changed to “Pakhtoonkhwa”.
• Through amendment to Article 6, those judges who validate military takeovers in
future and take oath under a PCO to be tried for high treason.
• Minorities to have representation in Senate.
• Through an amendment to Article 63, a person who defames or brings into ridicule the
judiciary or the armed forces will not be disqualified from contesting elections.

• Caretaker governments at the centre and provinces will be appointed in consultation

with prime minister, Senate chairman and speakers of the National and provincial
assemblies.

• The law under which an elected person can hold two government offices
simultaneously will be done away with.
• The Council of Common Interests and the NFC will be made more effective.
• It will be mandatory on the CCI to meet twice in a year.

Author Location Dated

Asha’ar Rehman 25.05.08

– Four Runners to War or Peace

One cannot fail to note the strong resemblance between our leaders and the band of
disparate adventurers in ‘The
‘The Guns of Navarone’,
Navarone’, who launched their exploration for gold
with some of them suspicious of others, each linked to his ‘enemy
‘enemy’’ through a friend or a
friend of a friend. Unlike at least the film version of the novel in the 1960s, each one of our
leaders has chosen to fight the other by proxy. All four of them — Asif Ali Zardari, after he
seized the PPP’s baton following Benazir Bhutto’s death, President Pervez Musharraf, Chief
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and
and Nawaz Sharif — as public perceptions
perceptions went, started off with
remote controls in their hands, engaging one another through their advanced troops, at
times making it difficult for people to put two and two together.
The president appeared to withdraw increasingly to his base in Rawalpindi, his bidding
done by a few trusted lieutenants not all of them wearing the Q-League tag. He also used
his good relationship with the army high command and the Americans to drive home the
message that he was firmly in the saddle. Justice Chaudhry, when he did not have the all-
out support of the N-League leaders, relied on the thousands of lawyers who vowed to
battle on for their ‘chief’. Mr.
Mr. Zardari chose to do his politics through a presentable group
assigned to run the party’s front office as he fixed orders from all around in the backroom.
Mr.
Mr. Sharif concentrated on the lawyers from a distance and was gracious enough to name
people for ministries and other crucial jobs while he preferred to stay outside parliament.
Those who sought all-out war to reach a solution and those who backed the tougher option
of re-ap
re-app
proach
oaching
ing were certain that their wishes could only materializ
materialize once the four key
actors had shed their mocked aloofness from the scene and took on one another openly.
By Pakistani standards, the two sides had to wait for long, but their moment seems to
have arrived at last.
Mian Nawaz Sharif indicates that he is poised to give parliament a shot. He has filed
nomination papers for contesting a seat from Lahore in by-elections scheduled for June 26.
On the side he reminds all around that he had put his weight behind the PPP unselfishly
and by way of a good deed in the name of Allah. After holding on to his cards for long and
in the aftermath of the dismissal of the last of the court cases pending against him, Asif
Zardari has used the services of the media to finally hit out at President Musharraf. The
honourable Justice Chaudhry has been moved by circumstances to praise a certain
unknown political party which has sacrificed its ministries in the march for a greater cause
— the cause of a free judiciary. This has cleared much of the mist in the minds of all those
who wouldn’t believe anything until they had heard it firsthand. All that was needed now
was an angry statement of intent by the low-lying president, and the pursuers of war and
rapprochement could go their respective ways. Reports from the president’s camp on
Friday said that Mr.
Mr. Zardari’s interview with the Press Trust of India has done the trick as it
got Gen Musharraf thinking. The president is said to have decided to end his ‘backdoor’
contacts with the PPP cochairman, who is effectively the ultimate authority in the party. In
the peculiar way that things have been moving in this country, Mr.Mr. President and Mr.
Mr.
Zardari may still sort this matter out and continue to act as each other’s cushion for some
more time.
Having said that, Mr.
Mr. Zardari’s calling President Musharraf a relic of the past is
symptomatic of how vulnerable their partnership is to the force of public demand which
the head of a party of the people cannot remain indifferent to. As has been the case with
some other recent occurrences, this latest development doesn’t reflect well on the
president. He may be enjoying the backing of an institution, the most powerful of them all,
yet in the domain where politicians operate, he has been in recent times reduced to
investing in individuals in the hope that they will salvage his position and pride. The so-
called attempt to replace the leadership of Gen Musharraf’s own creation, the Q-League, is
a case which, to the public eye, shows the dwindling of his power. For days on end, the
media predicted an imminent change of command in the Q-League. The fact that this
didn’t happen was taken by people to be a sign that President Musharraf’s grip on the
proceedings was loosening. Then remarks by his old comrades, the Chaudhries of Gujrat,
that the president had no business interfering in the affairs of the party hardly helped
undo the damage. Chaudhry Shujaat, who heads the Q-League, has since been heard
pledging to help the PPP stay in power should the N-League opt to part ways with Mr. Mr.
Zardari. He may have spoken on the president’s behalf but only after adding to the
public’s sense of Gen Musharraf’s isolation. Despite the passage of time and the many
hurdles they have been faced with, the feeling is that Mr.
Mr. Zardari and Mr.
Mr. Sharif are too
intricately aligned with each other at this moment to separate. The chants for President
Musharraf to quit have a greater purpose to them than ever before, even if a reading of
his record suggests that right now he may be pondering a show of strength of his own. He
is surely in need of a party to carry it out for him.
Author Location Dated
Ahmed Faraz Khan Lahore 26.05.08
26.05.08

– Gilani vows to avoid confrontation

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that the proposed constitution
amendment package will be tabled in parliament before or after the budget session.
Talking to senior journalists, columnists and newspaper editors on Sunday, he said the PPP
was working on its manifesto to “serve
“serve the people with all the resources at the
government’s disposal, without indulging in confrontation with anyone”
anyone” and restore the
genuine parliamentary system under the Constitution of 1973. He said the Pakistan
People’s Party would resolve all constitutional issues through parliament. Replying to a
question, the prime minister said the PPP had its own policies and it did not want to adopt
the path of confrontation. He said he was following the guidelines and policies of his party
party
which envisaged good working relationship with the president, the governors and chief
ministers of the provinces and the president and prime minister of Azad Jammu and
Kashmir. “We
“We do not want to make any issue a problem of ego, create bitterness or
humiliate anyone because this is not the policy of our party,”
party,” he said. Responding to a
question, Mr Gilani said he had a lot of respect for the president because he was a part of
parliament. He said the PPP was advancing its manifesto to serve the people without any
confrontation with anyone. He said restoration of the parliamentary system of government
under the Constitution of 1973 was a commitment of the party to the nation. He said the
PPP stood committed to the cause of reinstatement of the deposed judges and restoration
of democracy. “The
“The PPP values democratic norms because it has rendered more sacrifices
for the cause than any other party.”
party.” He said he himself had been in prison with other PPP
workers and lawyers for the cause of the judiciary and democracy. The prime minister said
no-one had the right to suspect his party’s sincerity and commitment.

Denying differences with coalition partners on major issues, he said: The party does not
have any ego problem on any issue confronting the country. “It does not want to make
any issue an ego problem or create bitterness among political forces and coalition
partners.” Prime Minister Gilani said people had rejected the manifesto of the Pakistan
Muslim League-Q and supported the PPP in the elections. Replying to a question, he said
the government was following the party guidelines to promote an independent media,
stable institutions and an -accountable government. Replying to a question about
terrorism, he said: “We will address the root cause of the problem by holding dialogue,
because the strategy adopted by the previous government has failed.” Even the US,
Britain and other countries, he said, had accepted that the previous strategy had failed.
“Troops will remain in the disturbed areas but the government will use them only if
needed,” he said. He said the PPP would hold dialogue with those who would lay down
arms weapons and join mainstream politics and launch a development programme and
create job opportunities on a revolutionary basis. Mr Gilani said the government would
take measures to promote the livestock sector on an urgent basis and overcome the food
shortage with a new agriculture policy.He said the government was importing 2.5 million
tons of wheat while the estimated shortfall was of one million tons. Therefore, there would
be no wheat crisis. He praised the administrative measures taken by the Punjab
government to prevent illegal transportation of wheat. He said increases in the prices of
petroleum products and food items were major challenges for the government. There was
an international crisis but Pakistan, being an agricultural country, was in a better position
to cope with it by increasing its production. The prime minister also offered condolences to
former governor Khalid Maqbool on the death of his sister and brotherin-law.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad 26.05.08

– ‘PPP in position to muster support for impeachment’

PPP cochairman Asif Ali Zardari said on Sunday that the PPP could muster the support of
as many lawmakers as required for impeaching President Pervez Musharraf, but hastened
to add that his party did not want to do that in order to avoid what he called a political
upheaval. In an interview with the Express TV channel here on Sunday, the PPP leader said
his party wanted to resolve all issues through dialogue and did not want confrontation with
anyone. “We
“We are ready to hold talks with anyone, including (President) Musharraf, despite
differences,”
differences,” Mr Zardari said. He said the PPP wanted reinstatement of all judges,
including deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, adding that there should be
no doubt about that. He said the constitutional package prepared by his party was not
final and it could be amended to accommodate views of coalition partners. Mr Zardari
termed the constitutional package an important turn in the country’s history, adding that
he wanted a thorough debate to evolve consensus on various issues.
The package was based on the Charter of Democracy and it had the support of most of the
political parties, he said. Mr Zardari said all political parties wanted to see democratic
norms flourishing in the country, adding that the package could be improved through a
healthy debate and in consultation with all stakeholders. He said there was a possibility of
presenting the package in the National Assembly before the budget session and holding
debate on it after the budget session. He expressed the hope that the constitutional
package would be approved in July with consensus, and said that he had asked Supreme
Court Bar Association President Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan to hold talks on the issue because
the PPP wanted to improve the judicial system in the country. Mr Zardari said that the PPP
did not believe in politics of confrontation as it wanted reconciliation and resolution of the
judicial issue through dialogue. The PPP co-chairman said that his party believed in the
supremacy of parliament and did not want confrontation with anyone, adding that
politicians’ job was to make possible what appeared to be impossible. In reply to a
question, he said there was working relationship between PPP and the presidency. The PPP
leader pledged to address grievances of the people of Balochistan and said that efforts
were under way in this regard.

Author Location Dated

Mohammad Salim Faisalabad 26.05.08

– PCO judges to be punished: Iftikhar

Deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry has said that judges who violated the
Nov 3 verdict of the Supreme Court, which declared the emergency null and void, will be
punished. Addressing a lawyers’ convention here late on Saturday night, he said that a
seven-member bench of the apex court had directed all judges not to take oath under the
Provisional Constitution Order (PCO), but a few of them had ignored the directive. Such
judges, he said, would be punished because they had violated the SC ruling. The bench
had also restrained the Chief of Army Staff, corps commanders, staff officers and other
military and civil officers from obeying the decree. Headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry, the bench that had handed down the unanimous two-page order
consisted of Justice Rana Bhagwandas, Justice Javed Iqbal, Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan,
Justice Nasirul Mulk, Justice Raja Fayyaz and Justice Ghulam Rabbani.
Justice Chaudhry’s caravan took about 18 hours to reach Faisalabad from Islamabad
normally a four-hour journey. Lawyers, political workers, human rights activists and people
from different walks of life showered the CJP and other judges with rose petals and gave
them a standing ovation while raising slogans in support of judiciary’s independence.
Despite two spells of heavy rain, the enthusiastic lawyers remained at their place, along
with workers of various political par ties who, unlike the last time the chief justice visited
the city, were inside the bar premises. Justice Chaudhry said the proclamation of
emergency had falsely stated that the Supreme Court had been interfering in government
affairs with suo motu actions. He said if the SC had been creating problems then why were
judges of subordinate courts punished and forced to take oath under the PCO.
“Such judges were punished one because they followed the ruling of the SC.” SC.” He urged the
people to strive for enforcement of the Nov 3 order of the SC and don’t let anyone play
with their fate. He said it was for the people to decide what sort of a judiciary they wanted
to see, independent or controlled. There have been instances in the past when judges
favoured dictators in the past. But the situation has now changed, he said, adding that
now everyone wanted an independent judiciary. He said that the pre-Nov 3 judiciary would
protect people’s lives, rights, property and children and cases would be decided on merit
without favouring anyone. Paying tribute to the legal fraternity, he said they rendered
sacrifices for the supremacy of judiciary and litigants contributed to the struggle with their
patience. He asked the subordinate courts to do their utmost to dispense justice. Speaking
about devaluation of the rupee, he said it was the outcome of non-implementation of
rules. Several deposed judges, including Justice Raja Fayyaz Ahmed, Justice Arshad
Jehangir, Justice Khawaja Mohammad Sharif and Justice Shahid Siddique, were present at
the convention. An additional district and sessions-
sessions-judge from Mirpurkhas gifted Ajraks to
the judges. Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz Ahsan said the legal
community would not accept the ‘minus
‘minus one formula.’
formula.’ He asked parliamentarians not to
be afraid of the 58(2-B) powers of the president and said that the legal fraternity would
support them if the president exercised the powers. He said the lawyers would embark on
a long march from Multan on June 10 and people from all walks of life would reach Lahore
the following day. The Chief Justice would lead the long march in Islamabad on June 12.
Former SCBA president Hamid Khan said the proposed constitutional amendment bill of
the Pakistan People’s Party supported dictatorship. “We
“We categorically reject the
constitutional package.”
package. ” He called upon the government to remove the president and the
PCO judges and register cases against them. Former SCBA president Munir A. Malik,
former vice-chairman Ali Ahmed Kurd, Balochistan Bar Association president Baz
Mohammad Kakar and Faisalabad Bar president Nasir Ali Gorraya also addressed the
gathering.
Author Location Dated
Dr. Tariq Rehman 26.05.08

– Ayub Khan and the politics of script

The script of a language is not only a linguistic issue, it is also a political one. Scripts are
associated with the identity of a group and, therefore, function as icons, or symbols, of a
certain cultural traditions. During the British days in north India, the Perso-Arabic script
was associated with a Muslim identity; the Gurmukhi script with the Sikh identity and the
Devanagari one with the Hindu identity. In Bengal, however, the Bengali script —
belonging to the Brahmi family of scripts like Devanagari — was a part of Bengali cultural
identity. Ayub Khan, the first military ruler of Pakistan, was keen on changing this. If
Mustafa Kemal of Turkey could change the Arabic-based script of Turkey to the Roman
one, so could the field marshal — or so Ayub Khan reasoned. But could he? This is the
story of what happened. It has been just touched upon in Ayub’s biography in a synoptic
form but this is the first time it has been reconstructed from the work entitled Introduction
of Roman Script for Languages in Pakistan which has now been declassified and is in
Islamabad’s National Documentation Centre that I take the opportunity to thank here.
The first entry is dated Dec 31, 1959. According to this, Ayub Khan said to his cabinet
members that the Roman script would increase literacy and “could “could result in the creation of
a common language.”
language. ” English, it was agreed, was an international language and could not
be discarded. The cabinet decided that the education commission should study the
proposal. Thus, on Feb 4, 1959, this point was added to the agenda of the commission.
The wheels of government grind slowly so nothing much seems to have happened even a
year later by which time the education commission had given its report. This time, on Dec
23, 1960, Ayub told the cabinet that “national
“national unity between East and West Pakistan could
result by understanding each other’s languages.”
languages.” This is, of course, a pet theory of all
government officials — that unity is created by understanding each other’s language. The
fact, however, is that conflicts are caused by many complicated reasons and knowing the
language often does not help. If it had, the American war of independence would not have
occurred nor would the Sikhs have fought with Punjabi-speaking Muslims and vice versa.
Nor, indeed, would Nehru, a man who spoke better Urdu than many Pakistani leaders,
have quarrelled with them and vice versa.
versa. We hear from politicians and generals that
learning the others’ language means we cannot fight them. This is an illusion, but, for now,
let us leave the powerful with their illusions and get back to the facts.
On Nov 29, 1961, Ayub Khan said in yet another cabinet meeting that no progress had
been made in the constitution of a board set up in West Pakistan for the evolution of a
composite language based on regional languages. This, incidentally, was another idea of
Ayub Khan and his coterie. They believed that if words of Bengali, Punjabi, Pashto and
Sindhi could be forced into Urdu, everybody would be happy and there would be peace
and harmony. The fact, however, is that harmony is a product of the people’s perception
that they are being treated with justice and are being given their fair share of goods,
services and power. Therefore, mingling of words to create an artificial language — even if
it becomes popular which is a rather rare event — does not create harmony. Anyway,
bureaucracy considered the ideas and came up with the suggestion that committees of
linguists should be formed to evolve a script for Urdu, Bengali and other languages of
Pakistan. A letter of Jan 7, 1962, by the secretary (S.M. Sharif) tells us that the experiment
was going on. Where? We are not told this but surely we can guess that the linguists were
probably having a whale of a time drinking endless cups of tea.
A week later (Jan 13, 1962), the ‘Summary
‘Summary for the Governors Conference’
Conference’ marked ‘secret
‘secret’’
spilled the beans. It appears that, besides quaffing tea, the linguists had also been calling
the government names. In East Pakistan, they were almost throwing stones. The
opposition was so great that a certain amount of trickery was recommended. Para 4
advocated that seminar type of meetings showing the advantages — not the
disadvantages — of a single script should be arranged. The opponents, however, had to be
kept away from them. The language chosen for this ruse was as follows: “by “by keeping out
strong protagonists of the Urdu and Bengali scripts hot controversies would be avoided”.
avoided”.
The aim was to present only the pro-government view while blocking out the anti-
government one. It was also decided to soften public opinion through occasional letters
and articles in the press, involving some discussion of the subjects (S. H. Raza, director of
the Bureau of National Reconstruction). The ‘discussions’ would presumably be conducted
by pro-government linguists. But here lay the rub. Pro-government linguists were in
notoriously short supply. Those who did bother to write were nobodies. Prominent Bengali
and Urdu literary figures pointed out that their literary traditions would become a closed
book for them. Dr Syed Abdullah, a prominent Urdu and Persian scholar, said it would cut
off West Pakistani languages from their Islamic roots. The Bengalis were extremely angry
and, for once, Dr Abdullah thanked them for their intransigence. If they wanted to keep
reading Tagore in the original, Dr Abdullah and his ilk stuck to their Ghalib and Iqbal. In
short, no independent scholar came to the government’s rescue despite Ayub Khan’s
hobnailed boots and field marshal’s baton. The last letter from the much abused Bureau of
National Reconstruction was dated May 11, 1962. It said that it would watch ‘the‘the position’
position’
while the Dhaka and Lahore offices would continue with the work. This was probably
officials for saying that the case had been lost before the court of the people.
Understandably, there is a line in black handwriting below the letter: ‘the
‘the case may be
closed’.
closed’. And that is why we still have our scripts intact. Had we not inherited some
democratic decencies from the British or had Ayub Khan been ruthless in the Middle
Eastern tradition we might have been unable to read Ghalib in the original today! Such is
the politics of the script.
Author Location Dated
Rubina 26.05.08

– No end to colonial governance

The Defence of India Act of 1915 was an emergency criminal law enacted by the British
Raj to curtail revolutionary and nationalist activities in India during the First World War.
The apparent intent was to prevent ‘terrorists
‘terrorists’’ from calling public meetings, publishing
material inciting the people to revolt, disseminating revolutionary literature, and so forth.
The act was designed to curtail actions by armed revolutionaries characterised as
‘terrorists’ and ‘extremists’ with links abroad. However, the legislation was so wide in
scope that it rendered “suspect
“suspect all political activity that was even mildly critical of the
British Government of India, and it put an effective end to whatever freedom of expression
the Indian press had been allowed”.
allowed”. This act gave the government of British India special
emergency powers to deal with German-inspired threats especially in Punjab. A special
legal tribunal was established to deal with suspects who could be interned without warrant
and had no recourse to appeal.
In March 1919, at the end of the war, the British extended the special ‘emergency
‘emergency powers’
powers’
by passing the recommendations of the Rowlatt Commission headed by a British judge, Sir
Sydney Rowlatt. Under the guise of dealing with ‘public
‘public unrest’,
unrest’, ‘revolutionary
‘revolutionary activities’
activities’
and ‘terrorism
‘terrorism’,
’, especially in Bengal and Punjab, this act authorised the government to: 1)
imprison suspects without trial; 2) arrest suspects without a warrant; 3) hold secret, in
camera trials of suspects; 4) tell suspects where they should live; 5) quell sedition by
silencing the press. The reasons given for instituting such a draconian law were the
following: 1) alleged assistance given to the revolutionary movement in India by the
German government to destabilise the British government in India; 2) destabilisation of
the political situation in neighbouring Afghanistan by inciting the emir to turn against
British India and the possible links of this to Bolshevik Russia; and 3) civil and labour
unrest in India due to the post-war recession which led to the Bombay Mill Workers’
strikes, unrest in Punjab due to several reasons including the havoc wrought by the
Spanish flu epidemic causing the deaths of 13 million Indians. The Rowlatt Act was met
with immediate denunciation by Indian leaders. Gandhi organised strikes and
demonstrations against the act and Jinnah resigned from the Legislative Council writing to
the viceroy, Lord Chelmsford, that “the
“the fundamental principles of justice have been
uprooted”.
uprooted”. The unjust law sparked furious waves of protest particularly in Punjab where
there were rapid disruptions in rail, telegraph and communication systems, government
buildings were burnt and five Europeans including government employees and civilians
were killed.
The protests reached a peak in April 1919 and according to one account “practically
“practically the
whole of Lahore was on the streets, the immense crowd that passed through Anarkali was
estimated to be around 20,000”.
20,000”. Several banks, government buildings and the railway
station were attacked. By April 13, the British government had decided to place most of
Punjab under martial law. A number of restrictions were placed on civil liberties including
freedom of assembly and a ban on gatherings of more than four people. On April 13, 1919,
around 10,000 people gathered at the Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar to register their
protest. The British feared an uprising along the lines of the 1857 revolt which began in
the month of May. Under the command of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, British Indian soldiers
opened fire on the unarmed crowd. The firing lasted for 10 minutes and 1,650 rounds, or
33 per soldier, were fired. Official British Raj placed the casualty figures at 379, however
private sources revealed that over 1,000 people were killed and 2,000 injured. The civil
surgeon Dr Smith claimed that there were over 1,800 casualties. The Bagh was bounded
on all sides by buildings and houses and the few narrow openings were locked. There was
no escape. Some people tried desperately to clamber over the walls while others jumped
into a well to escape the bullets. Around 120 bodies were dug out of the well.
A curfew was declared in Amritsar and Dyer reported to his superiors that he ‘had ‘had been
confronted by a revolutionary army’
army’ and was therefore obliged to ‘teach
‘teach a moral lesson to
the Punjab’.
Punjab’. The lieutenant governor of Punjab, Sir Michael O’Dwyer wrote back: “Your “Your
action is correct. Lieutenant Governor approves.”
approves.” Jawaharlal Nehru, in his autobiography,
reported hearing British soldiers saying that they “wanted
“wanted to teach the bloody browns a
lesson”.
lesson”. In his testimony before the Hunter Commission formed to inquire into the
massacre, Brigadier Dyer acknowledged that he could have dispersed the crowd without
firing but he would have become a laughing stock if they re-converged on the Bagh and
made a fool of him. He said that if he would have used machine guns if he could get them
through the narrow gates, and that taking the wounded to hospital was not his
responsibility. British officers applauded the suppression of ‘another
‘another Indian mutiny’
mutiny’ and
the House of Lords commended Dyer. However, the House of Commons censured him and
Winston Churchill remarked: “The“The incident in Jallianwala Bagh was an extraordinary event,
a monstrous event, an event which stands in singular and sinister isolation.”
isolation.” Dyer was
officially sanctioned by the British government and resigned in 1920. The British press
nonetheless defended Dyer labelling him ‘Saviour
‘Saviour of the Punjab’
Punjab’ and started a sympathy
fund collecting £26,000 for him. An American woman donated £100 saying, “I “I fear for the
British women there now that Dyer has been dismissed.”
dismissed.” The events of 1919-20 bear an
uncanny resemblance to contemporary times. We are all too familiar with laws similar to
the Rowlatt Act, martial laws, indiscriminate killing of dissenters, curbs on the press,
detention without warrant, in camera trials and sympathies for killers. The massacre of
May 12, 2007, is still fresh in our memories. The constant armed attacks on innocent
populations in Balochistan and the tribal areas in the name of fleshing out militants and
rooting out terrorists are all too familiar. Our post-independence history is replete with
martial laws, press and publications ordinances, arrests without warrant and detentions of
terror suspects. All this has been exacerbated after 9/11 in the name of the so-called war
on terror. The techniques of colonial governmentality persist as the nature of the state is
essentially colonial. As some historians say, we never really achieved independence and
only experienced a transfer of power from foreign to local masters. The continuities of
history reveal to us the amazing consistency of the forms and application of power.
Author Location Dated
Mohammad Waseem 26.05.08

– “Musharraf’s third coup?”

Asif Zardari’s description of Pervez Musharraf as the greatest hurdle in the way of
democracy has elicited a rebuttal from the latter. The president has reiterated his position
as a constitutional head of state duly elected by parliament. The political circus is getting
more exciting by the day. The PPP–PML-N alliance had been teetering
teetering on the rocks for
some time, allegedly because of some understanding between Musharraf and Zardari. In
the new context, can we expect Zardari and Nawaz Sharif to join hands again, leaving
Musharraf in the lurch? Will politics continue to move in a triangle? Will Musharraf launch
anoth er coup? Musharraf’s first coup was launched against the civilian government of
Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1999. He managed to topple the government which had
retired him as COAS a few hours earlier. His sec ond coup in the form of the emergency
came on Nov 3, 2007. It was a desperate attempt to save his presidency from the much-
feared verdict of the Supreme Court about the legality of his controversial election on Oct
6, 2007.
Musharraf suffered a huge setback on Feb 18 when his party PML-Q was defeated by the
two mainstream parties. The coalition between the two was billed as a lasting
commitment by Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari to stay the course for years and even
generations. But that was not to be. The president decided to stay on, against public
demand that he should resign after the nation had rejected him. Prime Minister Yusuf Raza
Gilani failed to make a breakthrough in the given set of policies. The much-trumpeted 100-
day agenda got bogged down in empty phrases. There were no targets set, no goals
defined and no definite outcome of administrative and policy measures promised for the
honeymoon period. This profile of weakness has characterised Gilani’s government from
the beginning. The more he interacted with the establishment, the more he was struck
with awe. The power and grandeur of the channels of power outside parliament were over
whelming for the prime minister. He was unable to move key persons to the top of various
departments and institutes. Continuity of both policy and personnel was noted all around.
Beyond merely surviving, Musharraf gave an image of thriving.
The dual leadership of Zardari and Gilani started to unravel soon. The latter’s loss of
initiative in administration became obvious. PPP’s partners also felt marginalised. No effort
was made to remove the PML-N’s reservations before the PPP entered into a coalition with
the MQM. Asfandyar Wali Khan and Fazlur Rehman were allowed to fade away from the
scene of high politics. The government was not able to prepare credible programmes to
meet the challenges of governance relating to poverty, inflation and the supply of
foodstuff or to the acute shortage of electricity. There is no thrill at the end of 50 days, not
is there likely to be at the end of another 50 days. The predominant impression is that
nobody is in charge in Islamabad. The loss of the prime minister has been the gain of the
president. The postponement of by-elections for two months was a bombshell which shook
the government. Democratic forces condemned this act. The NWFP government made a
stunning announcement that it was none other than the PPP’s interior advisor who was
responsible for this. The Election Commission was obliged to take back its decision in no
time.
The media and political analysts interpreted this incident as a conspiracy to stop Shahbaz
Sharif from becoming the chief minister of Punjab. This gap in trust between the two ruling
partners widened. The new democratic set-up was understood by the media, the
opposition and civil society to be a hostage in the hands of the president. The judges’
issue has haunted the government from day one. For the PPP, it became a matter of
disentangling itself from commitments made in the pre-election days and immediately
after the formation of the government. Politically, rehabilitating the judges was never a
bright option, given the pitched battles fought by the judges in the 1990s against elected
governments. Lawyers are fighting a battle for the judiciary. They are also leading civil
society’s agenda for establishing the independence of state institutions. Their movement
for the restoration of Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and the other dismissed judges
destabilised the eight-year long rule of the COAS, President Musharraf. The announcement
of the Pakistan Bar Council to start an agitation from June 10 does not portend well for the
ruling set-up, which is still experiencing teething problems.
The 30-day deadline and May 12 as the day for passing the resolution in the National
Assembly to be followed by an executive order to reinstate the judges passed without any
move forward. All this left Nawaz Sharif bruised and the lawyers alienated, the
government’s announcement about moving a new constitutional package before June 10
notwithstanding. Meanwhile, the coalition partners drifted apart, earning public ridicule.
The appointment of a new governor in Punjab was perceived as a conspiracy to destabilise
the PML-N government in Lahore, reflecting a policy of containment of Nawaz Sharif.
Asfandyar Wali’s announcement of support for lawyers further complicated the situation.
Ironically, the PML-Q offered its own ‘rescue’ policy to the PPP. The lines of alignment got
blurred all around. Is the formidable anti-establishment vote of Feb 18, 2008, fast losing
its meaning? The removal of Article 58-2(b) appears an uphill task, given the lack of
initiative on the part of the ruling coalition. The PPP’s package may fall short of satisfying
lawyers, judges and civil society. The president’s public commitment to keep his powers to
dissolve the National Assembly, along with other supra-parliamentary powers, keeps the
pot boiling. Will the PML-N assert itself once again to bring the PPP on board? Will
Musharraf strike again, given that he is adept at taking arbitrary measures within or
outside the constitution? Will the PPP government in Islamabad be shown the door, or will
there finally be a Pakistan
Pakistan without its self-styled strongman?
Author Location Dated
AFP Washington, D.C,
D.C, U.S.A 26.05.08

– 9/11 plotters to appear in Guantanamo court on June 5

In the first step towards trying the alleged plotters behind the devastating September 11,
2001 attacks, five men, including the accused mastermind, will be arrai
arraigned on June 5
before a US military judge in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Nearly seven years after the attacks
and at least five years after their capture, Pakistan-born Kuwaiti Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the purported key 9/11 planner, and four others will formally be charged with
murder, terrorism and other war crimes, launching the process of trying them under
special military commissions at the US naval prison at Guantanamo. All face possible
death sentences, but the question of whether the trials will ever get under way and how
long they could last still looms darkly over the process.
To be arraigned alongside Mohammed are Walid Muhammad Salih Mubarak Bin Attash, a
Saudi Arabian; Ramzi Binalshibh of Yemen; Ali Abd alAziz Ali, Mohammed’s nephew also
from Kuwait; and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, of Saudi Arabia. The five were
arrested between 2002 and 2003 and held for interrogation for several years in secret
Central Intelligence Agency prisons outside the United States. In 2006 they were
transferred to Guantanamo, but only in early May were they referred for trial by the
convening authority of the military commissions set up to try US “war on terror”
detainees. In the June 5 hearing judge Ralph Kohlmann, a US marines colonel, will formally
read the charges against them and allow each to enter a plea of guilty or not guilty, or
postpone the plea. The Pentagon expects some 60 journalists to be on hand for this
relatively open proceeding, but issues involving the lawyers’ tightly restricted access to
the defendants already have raised questions about the process. Access to lawyers Until
charges were first officially set in February, the detainees were unable to meet lawyers, as
the military had designated the men themselves with top secret classifications.
Since then the combination of the official secrecy surrounding the government’s cases and
the logistics of travelling to Guantanamo have meant limited meetings with their military
and civilian lawyers. “The
“The commission recognises that there are many logistic and legal
issues that will need to be addressed in this case. It is precisely because of the anticipated
complexity of this case, that it is important that the process get under way,”
way,” he said. Of
the five the be tried, Mohammed is the most prominent, having allegedly confessed to
planning and organising the 9/11 hijacking of four US commercial jets which crashed into
New York’s World Trade Centre, the Pentagon in Washington, and a rural field in
Pennsylvania, killing 2,974 people, not including the 19 hijackers. His trial could become
snagged on legal issues surrounding the CIA’s admission that it subjected Mohammed to
waterboarding, the interrogation technique simulating drowning that is widely considered
torture. The hearing will take place in a purpose-built courtroom in Guantanamo,
constructed in a way that will allow the judge to prevent unauthorised people from hearing
any official secrets that may be disclosed in the trials. Even so, the whole process could
grind to a halt at any time. The special military tribunals, set up just after the 9/11 attacks,
have faced a series of legal challenges that saw them ruled unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court in 2006. They were then re-established with a firmer legal footing by
Congress last year. But a related case dealing with US law’s applicability in Guantanamo
that is expected to be decided by the Supreme Court in June could spark new challenges
to the tribunals.
Author Location Dated
Meera Jamal Karachi, Pakistan 26.05.08

– ‘Women lawyers not taken seriously’

About 1,400 female lawyers, including roughly 500 apprentices, out of total 7,500
advocates are practising in the city but hardly a few of them fight criminal or other
important cases. Most female lawyers prefer fighting corporate and family cases mainly to
avoid facing any kind of harassment by their clients or male colleagues and ‘inappropriate
‘inappropriate’’
questions posed to them during trial. Among male lawyers and clients, it is a general
perception that women lawyers need to go a long way in order to be established as
reliable professionals. A woman lawyer, who chose the odd criminal cases, preferring to
remain anonymous, reveals that men both colleagues and clients not only steer at them
but try and strike unnecessary conversation.
“During the first few years of my practice, I was discouraged by my seniors. They would
send me on errands during the cross-examination and would tell me that I was getting
involved in something not meant for women. They used to give me advice that better go
and deal family cases,”
cases,” she recalls, saying that she was determined not to be bogged
down by such demoralising remarks. The problem is not specific to women lawyers but
female clients too have to face such harassments. Sahira, who has won a separation case
against her husband, says male lawyers at times harass female clients. “A “A lawyer used to
call me every now and then and ask me to visit court for petty things for no rhyme or
reason. Then another male lawyer, who asked for my recent photograph, inquired how my
husband could stay away from me, saying that he couldn’t fathom it,”it,” she recalls. It was
that at point, she says, she decided not to hire a male lawyer any longer. “My
“My female
lawyer was so corporative that she actually handled the case on her own and it saved me
a lot of hassle,”
hassle,” Sahira adds.
Advocate Riffat Mehdi, who has been in profession for the past seven years with four years
of court experience, says that all is not piece of cake as it seems. She views that it is a
male dominant profession like many others of the sort and therefore has a lot of
difficulties for women. “Our
“Our male colleagues, particularly those who are at the high court
level, are quite cooperative though some of those at the lower courts are not so refined
and well-behaved,”
well-behaved,” she reveals. Ms Mehdi says, “There
“There have been some incidences that
she came to know about some of the lower court judges calling girls to their chambers and
then misbehaving with them or the male counterparts indirectly.”
indirectly.” For the reason why
women lawyers do not get criminal cases, she explains that mostly clients don’t trust in
women when it comes to criminal and other such cases, therefore they end up having
mostly cases that involve dispute in families, separation, child custody and other such
cases.
For instance, she mentions, when women have to go to registrar in order to pursue a land
dispute to dig up a file, the registrar demands bribe in order to quicken the process. “In
“In
such cases if the women lawyers do give some cash, her character is brought under
question whereas if a male lawyer gives a bribe only his honesty is questioned,”
questioned,” she
complains. However, she adds that the profession is quite safe and her uniform is looked
upon respectfully. Talking about criminal cases, she says she won’t fight such case even if
she is given Rs1 million for it as the courtroom and the question asked are quite
uncomfortable for women. While Noor Naz Agha, president of the Pakistan Women
Lawyers’ Association, completely disapproves the theory of women facing any hardship at
all. “Women
“Women come to this profession with their preconceived notions and there is no
harassment of any sort here,”
here,” she opines.
“You see a lot of girls opting for this profession nowadays and that is because they are
inspired to this work,”
work,” she adds. She believes that society has no reservations as far as
the women lawyers are concerned. A woman has to be confident and composed enough
not to mention decently dressed in order to gain respect and work with dignity, she says.
Ms Agha has not come across nor heard of any case of harassment so far. Instead she
says she has learnt about “a“a few incidents when female lawyers who appeared in court
without any preparation at all were somewhat yelled upon for their ignorance about the
case by judges”.
judges”. She argues that there are threats that lawyers (both male and female)
working particularly on human rights get. Aftab Bano Rajput, a lawyer dealing in criminal
cases for the past 20 years, agrees to Ms Agha’s observations. She says that her seniors
encouraged her pretty much. “However,
“However, it is tricky at times as far as clients are
concerned. Some misbehave while others don’t take seriously what we say,” say,” she says.
Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid, a former judge of the Supreme Court, thinks that not many
women lawyers are seen doing their job well. “Only
“Only those fighting the corporate cases are
doing fine. Otherwise, women lawyers do nothing but appear in the adjournment and
adjustments,”
adjustments,” he remarks. He argues that this profession demands much more hard work.
Its diverse nature is somehow not rightly explored by the womenfolk, he says. “There“There are
hardly any woman lawyers in criminal and murder cases and those who are don’t burn the
midnight oil as they should. They turn up without recording evidences and very poor trial
work,”
work,” he says, adding that they don’t even take the civil trials. “This
“This is why I think the
city for such a long time has rarely seen any woman district judge emerging,”
emerging,” observes
the retired judge. According to him, only a couple of good female lawyers are observed
working in the city and unless there is a change witnessed in the attitude of women
lawyers they promise nothing magnificent for the future.
Author Location Dated
27.05.08

– The 62-point package

Given the two major parties’ inability to agree on a single point — the restoration of the
judges — it would be interesting to see how they manage to arrive at a consensus on 62
points. Within 24 hours of the unveiling of the 62-point constitution amendment package
by Mr Asif Ali Zardari, Mr Ishaq Dar, an important PML-N member, claimed that the PPP co-
chairman had agreed to increase the chief justice’s tenure to five years — originally he
had proposed three years. Well, there are 61 more points to go. Of the changes sought
through the Eighteenth Amendment Bill, some are non-controversial. All parties want the
president to become a titular head of state, and this means Article 58-2(b) must be
repealed. Introduced by Ziaul Haq through a decree, later abolished by Nawaz Sharif in his
second term as prime minister and revived by President Musharraf through the
Seventeenth Amendment, this article has been responsible for a lot of political chaos in
the country. Many other amendments seek to restore the powers which the prime minister
has in any parliamentary democracy, like the appointment of governors and services
chiefs. A key amendment concerns judges who validate a military takeover. The proposed
amendment makes them liable to prosecution for high treason. Fortunately, the
amendment speaks of the judges doing so ‘in future’ and exonerates those who validated
the military takeover of October 1999 and took an oath under PCO.PCO. This includes Iftikhar
Chaudhry. As for the change in the name of the NWFP, even though many lawmakers may
have reservations about Pakhtoonkhwa, because of its emotive implications, one would
not quarrel with it because it would satisfy the representatives from the Frontier Province.
A greater source of anxiety for the nation is the torrent of contradictory statements
emanating from all sides. They leave us cold and betray political immaturity and the
absence of well-considered priorities.
The one impression that clearly emerges is that the PPP is temporising. After he made the
‘relic of the past’
past’ statement, the impression created was that the PPP cochairman had
issued what seemed to be a belated reaffirmation of the Bhurban Declaration. The
unveiling of the constitution amendment package also appeared to signal a détente
between the two coalition partners on the fate of the president. But once again we have
the PPP seemingly softening its stance with Mr Zardari saying that though he could muster
as many lawmakers as required to impeach the president, he would not do so because he
wished to avoid a political upheaval. Does this mean we are back to square one? With the
National Assembly’s budget session having been called for June 2 and no clear
announcement having been made if the package will be tabled before the budget is
presented on June 7, the uncertainty and confusion is getting worse. The nation expects
the elected government to start addressing what indeed are pressing economic problems
such as the whopping inflation, acute energy shortage and unemployment. The judges’
issue that is central to the Eighteenth Amendment is no doubt at the heart of the present
crisis. But the process that has been adopted will take time and it should not be allowed to
pre-empt the effective working and policymaking of the government.
Author Location Dated
Shamim-ur-Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 27.05.08

– Prolonged outages cripple life in Karachi

Electricity consumers across the city endured more than 10 hours of power outages, which
began on Sunday night, owing to a lack of interest of the privatized management of the
Karachi Electric Supply Corporation in enhancing generation and providing relief to the
people. As the mercury touched 31 degrees Celsius with 61 per cent humidity on Monday,
the KESC was facing a shortfall of about 415 megawatts due to the closure of the recently
repaired Unit 3 of the Bin Qasim power plant due to leakages in its boiler, sources said on
Monday. At around 4pm, the power deficit was around 416MW. On Sunday night, Unit 4
had developed a fault, causing sudden and prolonged outages several times at night and
during the day. Each spell was more than two hours long, but KESC officials were not
admitting that there were faults in Units 4 and 3 of the Bin Qasim power plant.
The Bin Qasim units which have the capacity to generate 210MW each were in fact
generating about 160MW, which had added to the pressure on the utility. According to
insiders, the power outage is deliberate because the management has not cleared dues of
the Pakistan State Oil, which in turn has slowed down supplies. And the utility, which has
burdened consumers with increasing fuel adjustment charges, was in fact using gas,
instead of oil, for power generation. This has been done in total disregard of public
inconvenience. Insiders fear that if the situation persists for another day or two, people will
resort to violent protests. There are projections that the peak demand would be in the
vicinity of 2,700MW this summer, leaving a shortfall of about 600MW because the KESC
has not been able to enhance its generation capacity and upgrade its distribution network.
The utility is not likely to have 2,100MW available power. But the KESC chief believes that
the peak demand will be around 2,500MW this summer. Bin Qasim’s one unit is out for
repairs while the rest are operating at much below their capacity. Since Sunday evening
the situation of power supply in the city has been deteriorating due to tripping of a
generation unit of the Bin Qasim thermal power station.
Several major residential parts of the city came under prolonged power outages on late
Sunday night, causing serious discomfort to people, especially to students preparing for
various exams. Several residential and commercial localities of the city suffered multiple
spells of power breakdowns during the day and at night. Already 80MW from the Karachi
Nuclear Power Plant were not available since Tuesday. A spokesman for the KESC said that
power supply from the desalination plant of the DHA had not been available since Sunday
evening while a generation unit at the Korangi thermal power station, producing 80
megawatts power, was out of order. The spokesman claimed the shortfall of electricity was
ranging between 100MW and 300MW in the midst of summer owing to which load-
shedding of two-hour duration was being carried out separately in the day and evening
hours while there was a last spell of one-hour load- shedding in the night. He said the
deterioration in the power supply situation was often compounded in several areas by
frequent faults in the power transmission and distribution systems. He, however, denied
that there was tripping of any unit at the Bin Qasim facility. Insiders say the KESC
management is not admitting that the power outages were due to load-shedding and
blames it on “faults” in the system. But the spokesman could not explain how such a
massive “fault” could develop in the system across the city at the same time.
Author Location Dated
Pervez Hoodbhoy Quaid-e-Azam University, 28.05.08
ISL

– Ten years later

It’s May 1998 and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif congratulates wildly cheering citizens as
the Chagai mountain trembles and goes white from multiple nuclear explosions. He
declares that Pakistan is now safe and sound forever. Bomb makers become national
heroes. Schoolchildren are handed free badges with mushroom clouds. Bomb and missile
replicas are planted in cities up and down the land. Welcome to nuclear Pakistan. Fast-
forward the video 10 years. Pakistan turns into a different country, deeply insecure and
afraid for its future. Grim-faced citizens see machine-gun bunkers, soldiers crouched
behind sandbags, barbed wire and barricaded streets. In Balochistan and Fata, helicopter
gunships and fighter jets swarm the skies. Today, we are at war on multiple fronts. But the
bomb provides no defence. Rather, it has helped bring us to this grievously troubled
situation and offers no way out. On this awful anniversary, it is important that we relate
the present to the past. Some say that India forced Pakistan to test. This could indeed be
true. India lied about its ‘peaceful
‘peaceful’’ nuclear programme, India tested first, India then hurled
threats at Pakistan, India jeered as Pakistan agonised over its response. But once Pakistan
followed suit, it forgot that it had done so reluctantly and under provocation. The bomb
immediately generated its own dynamics. Post-Chagai, it was a different Pakistan. A
euphoric nation felt the expected pain of international sanctions but shrugged it off. In
retrospect, the high cost of the weapons programme, as well as the flight of capital, are
almost irrelevant. A historical accident fixed this problem: after Pakistan’s 9/11 U-turn, the
West rushed to fill the state’s coffers and avert its imminent collapse.
But the gravest damage was psychological and political, not material. It could not be
undone. The official celebration of violence, and the encouragement of public joy at
successful bomb-making, proved to be the most lasting and pernicious legacy of the May
1998 nuclear tests. They changed the national psyche. Most significantly, they changed
the way in which military and political leaders thought, spoke and behaved. The bomb
turned into a fantastic talisman, able to ward off all evil. For military men, Pakistani nukes
were not just a counter to Indian nukes but also the means for neutralising India’s larger
conventional land, air and sea forces. For diplomats and politicians, the bomb was a sure
way to guarantee that the world would make India negotiate. Flushed with success, the
Pakistani leadership hit on what, in their view, was a brilliant strategy for confronting India
— jihad by Islamic fighters protected by Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. Kargil followed. This
secret invasion in early January 1999 was conceived and implemented by General Pervez
Musharraf. But to blame only Musharraf — a fashionable thing to do in these times — is to
sacrifice truth for convenience. Blinded by nuclear euphoria, there was scarcely a voice in
Pakistan against an adventure that, six months later, left over 1000 dead and dealt the
country a humiliating defeat. But Kargil was just one consequence. More significantly, the
bomb fed a culture of violence that eventually grew into the hydra-
hydra-headed militancy now
haunting Pakistan. Some Mujahideen, who felt betrayed by Pakistan’s army and
politicians, would ultimately take revenge by turning their guns against their sponsors and
trainers. The body parts spattered across Pakistani cities by suicide bombers, Taliban-
bombed schools and colleges, or the now-frequent lynching of thieves and bandits and
roasting them to death, flow from the social acceptance of violence and brutality in
conflict situations.
Terrorism and fanaticism, not India, shall be the real threats to Pakistan in the forseeable
future. The writ of the Pakistani state has already ceased to hold in parts of the country.
Terrorists have repeatedly targeted Pakistani officers and soldiers and their wives and
children. Even their fortified residential compounds are not safe. Officers are now
understandably afraid to drive in official vehicles, to wear uniforms in public, or even to
stop at traffic lights. It was a lie that the bomb could protect Pakistan, its people, or its
armed forces. The bomb cannot help us recover the territory seized by the Baitullahs and
Fazlullahs. Our nukes certainly give us the ability to destroy India — and to be destroyed
in return. But that’s about it. The much-vaunted nuclear dividend turned out to be empty.
Some might ask, didn’t the bomb stop India from swallowing up Pakistan? Even if India
wanted to, this would be impossible. Conventional weapons, used by Pakistan in a
defensive mode, would be sufficient defence. If mighty America could not digest Iraq,
there can never be a chance for a middling power like India to occupy Pakistan, a country
four times larger than Iraq. Others believe that nuclear weapons earned international
respect for Pakistan. Indeed, in the aftermath of the tests, Pakistan’s stock shot up in
some Muslim countries — before it crashed. Recently, a poll carried out by the BBC in 17
countries showed that Pakistan belongs to the five most disliked countries in the world:
Iran (54 per cent), Israel (52 per cent), Pakistan (50 per cent), United States (48 per cent),
and North Korea (44 per cent). Nukes for popularity or respect don’t work well either.
The bomb was also supposed to unite all Pakistan, build a nation out of disparate peoples.
The tumultuous, officially organised, 1999 celebration of ‘youm-e-takbir
‘youm-e-takbir’’ across the
country was supposed to do exactly this. But the bomb failed as national glue. Today, it is
true that many in Punjab still want the bomb. But angry Sindhis want water and jobs, and
they blame Punjab for taking these away. The Baloch resent the fact that the nuclear test
site — now radioactive and out of bounds — is located on Balochistan’s soil. Many have
taken up arms and demand Punjab’s army get off their backs. The Pathans, trapped in a
war between the Taliban and the US-Pakistani armies, principally want protection against
suicide bombers as well as American Predators and the Pakistan Air Force. How can
Pakistan be made a more normal, more secure country? What can persuade our people,
and the world, that the country has a future? The threat to Pakistan is internal. Therefore,
churning out more nuclear warheads, or test-launching more missiles, or buying yet more
American F-16s or French submarines, will not help. Pakistan’s security problems cannot
be solved by better weapons. No ill-fed, ill-educated nation can be secure. No viable nation
can discriminate between its citizens for reasons of ethnicity, religious faith or economic
status. Force and violence cannot summon a sense of citizenship. The way forward lies in
building a sustainable and active democracy, an economy for peace rather than war, a
federation in which provincial grievances can be effectively resolved, and a society that
respects the rule of law.
Author Contact Dated
Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 28.05.08

– The twin presidencies

At noon on Jan 20, 2009, George W. Bush, the 43rd president of the United States, will
cease to hold office. In reality, the Bush era is already over, swallowed up by the unfolding
drama of an historic presidential election season. However, good or bad, scorned or
embraced, Bush has been consequential to the US and the world, and so, in the quieter
moments of the race to succeed him, the media will trot out pundits, commentators and
analysts to assess his presidency. In Pakistan, where the consequences of the Bush
presidency will resonate for a long time, the US president will be undoubtedly berated,
belittled, ridiculed and disparaged. Deserved or not, lost in the opprobrium will be one of
the stranger facts of 21st century politics: the presidencies of Bush and Musharraf have
followed a remarkably similar arc and are embodied by matching approaches to issues of
both substance and style. The evidence is striking.

Rewind to the presidents’ respective ascensions to power. Bush and Musharraf were mired
in storms of controversy and shorn of legitimacy. Bush brushed aside hanging chads and
cries of foul play in Florida to claim the presidency; Musharraf brushed aside the
constitution and an elected prime minister. Ultimately, both had to turn to their supreme
courts to validate their claim to power. The courts obliged, staining their good names in
the process. Bush v. Gore was not quite at the level of Zafar Ali Shah v. Pervez Musharraf,
Musharraf,
but its infamy in the annals of US jurisprudence is assured. Musharraf would have to wait
until 2001 to be sworn in as president, but that was a mere formality. Once in power, both
quickly turned their attention to the economy. The state of the Pakistani and US
economies could not have been more different. The US was coming off the longest
economic expansion in its history; the Pakistani economy was a disaster after a decade of
low growth and sanctions. And yet, Bush and Musharraf chose the same economic
paradigm: growth that favoured big business and rich individuals and relied on wealth
trickling down. In both countries, the prescription seemed to work initially, but then the
wheels rapid ly came off. Today, recession fears stalk the US economy while inflation and
stalled growth vex Pakistan’s economic managers. The war on terror is of course the
policy to which the presidents will indelibly be linked, the reason for the joint sobriquet of
‘Busharraf’.
Busharraf’. Yet, for all their enthusiasm for hard power, Bush and Musharraf have
strikingly similar records of failure. Both have focussed on the wrong battles, allowing
militancy to flourish before belatedly trying to change tack.
Of course, nothing the Pakistani president has done rises to the level of the Iraq invasion,
but we will never know if that is only because Musharraf’s greatest military misadventure,
the disastrous Kargil operation, was already behind him when he captured political power.
Despite being a central plank of their presidencies, for a long stretch of time the execution
of the war on terror lacked focus in the White House and Army House. Bush was fixated on
Iraq at the expense of securing Afghanistan; Musharraf was fixated on Balochistan and
double-games with the Taliban at the expense of securing the tribal areas. Along the way,
Bush gave the world Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, while Musharraf gave Pakistan missing
persons. Increasing concern in Washington and Islamabad belatedly refocused attention
on Afghanistan, Fata and the northern areas. However, the genie was already out of the
bottle, a result of over-reliance on military action and counterterrorism measures. Soft
power — development aid and political reform — has never been a favourite of the two
men who preferred to use a big stick against their enemies. But if Bush and Musharraf
were taking a page from Machiavelli’s playbook, they forgot that by preferring to be feared
rather than loved they could end up being hated. In style, too, the presidents are similar.
Bush and Musharraf are ‘ideas
‘ideas’’ men, content to leave the nuts and bolts of
implementation and governance to others. Democracy has been Bush’s grand narrative;
enlightened moderation has been Musharraf’s. By all accounts, both have been
spectacular failures. There is more. When Bush was asked a year after the invasion of Iraq
to name a mistake he had made since 9/11, the US president could not think of one. The
more expansive Musharraf has admitted tactical errors, but none when it comes to his
favourite non sequitur: the national interest. Little wonder then that the two men share a
bond beyond the requirements of office.
It is only now, in the autumn of their presidencies, that Bush and Musharraf have charted
different courses for themselves. Bush is constitutionally barred from seeking a third term
but, unlike Bill Clinton, has never shown any longing to occupy the presidential White
House beyond eight years. On the contrary, Bush has talked about relaxing on his
Crawford ranch and earning easy money on the lecture circuit. Eight years, however, have
not proved enough for Musharraf, with dangerous consequences for national stability.
What then of these men’s legacies? Bush’s place in the history books will be debated
fiercely in the US, but it’s safe to say that the argument will largely be about whether he
was bad for the country or worse. Here in Pakistan, Musharraf’s legacy is a more
complicated issue than the current environment may suggest. Think about Ayub. He was
nudged out a deeply unpopular ruler but his image as a moderniser has survived, a
benevolent dictator who built the country’s industrial and infrastructure base. Musharraf
has made a similar bet: he hopes to be remembered for the next big phase in Pakistan’s
economic history, the middleclass revolution. Read the statements emanating from the
presidency today — political stability is demanded to ensure continuity of economic
policies. Musharraf knows his legacy is in jeopardy, the gains of the last few years
engulfed by inflation, deficits and rising poverty. And he knows that the blame will be
placed squarely — and rightly — on his shoulders. Which is why the country is stuck with a
relic of the past: he’s trying to salvage how he will be judged in the future.
Author Location Dated
Correspondent Washington, D.C., U.S.A 28.05.08
28.05.08

– McCain vows to halt N-proliferation

Republican presidential candidate Senator John McCain on Tuesday vowed to halt and
reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to promote democracy in countries like
Pakistan if elected. In a foreign policy speech to the Los Angeles World Affairs Council and
later in an address to a campaign rally in Denver, Colorado, Mr McCain also warned that
an immediate US withdrawal from Iraq would encourage Al Qaeda in places like Pakistan
and Afghanistan. “We
“We share an obligation with the world’s other great powers to halt and
reverse the proliferation of nuclear weapons,”
weapons,” he declared. “We
“We should work to reduce
nuclear arsenals all around the world, starting with our own.”
own.” Mr McCain pledged to renew
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, saying that “the
“the United States should lead a global
effort at nuclear disarmament consistent with our vital interests and the cause of peace.”
peace.”
A bitter, and often negative, rivalry between Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack
Obama and Hillary Clinton has apparently increased Mr McCain’s chances of winning the
November election. His policies, if implemented, could increase pressure on the world’s
two self-declared nuclear powers – India and Pakistan – and may also have a negative
impact on a nuclear deal India is negotiating with the US. Mr McCain, however, reserved
most of his ire for Iran, saying that the US and other world powers must “prevent
“prevent Iran -- a
nation whose President has repeatedly expressed a desire to wipe off Israel from the face
of the earth - from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
weapon.” Mr McCain blamed previous US
administrations for promoting autocracies in the Muslim world and vowed to end this
practice.
“For decades in the greater Middle East, we had a strategy of relying on autocrats to
provide order and stability,”
stability,” he said. “We
“We relied on the Shah of Iran, the autocratic rulers
of Egypt, the generals of Pakistan, the Saudi royal family, and even, for a time, on military
dictator Saddam Hussein.”
Hussein.” The US, he said, can no longer delude itself that relying on
these ‘out-dated
‘out-dated autocracies’
autocracies’ is the safest bet. “They
“They no longer provide lasting stability,
only the illusion of it,”
it,” he added. Mr McCain, however, warned that the US must not act
rashly or demand change overnight. “But “But neither can we pretend the status quo is
sustainable, stable, or in our interests. Change is occurring whether we want it or not.
not.”
“The only question for us is whether we shape this change in ways that benefit humanity
or let our enemies seize it for their hateful purposes.”
purposes.” Mr McCain called for a new arms
agreement with Russia that finds ways to reduce the number of nuclear missiles, and
suggested that the US and Russia should jointly cut non-nuclear weapons as well.
Author Location Dated
Amjad Ma
Mahmood Lahore, Pakistan 29.05.08

– ‘No justification for providing safe exit’ Asif supports move to oust
Musharraf, claims Nawaz
PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif said here on Wednesday that there was no justification for
providing a safe exit to Pervez Musharraf and claimed that PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari
had agreed with him to remove the former army chief from the presidency. He said that
Musharraf must be held accountable for abrogating the Constitution. He announced that
he would join the lawyers’ march if the pre-emergency judiciary was not restored.
Speaking at a function held here to mark the 10th anniversary of first nuclear tests, Mr
Sharif said that during a meeting with him in Islamabad on Tuesday, Mr Zardari had
agreed to work with him to oust Pervez Musharraf. Urging the masses to be prepared for a
decision greater than the one they had given on Feb 18, the PML-N leader said that had
his party got a clear mandate he would have overthrown Musharraf the following day. The
former prime minister, who was ousted in a military coup on Oct 12, 1999, said he had
forgiven Musharraf for the mistreatment and torture he had suffered at his (Musharraf’s)
hands. But, he said, he would not absolve Musharraf from the charges of devastating the
country by selling it to foreign powers, carrying out what he called the Lal Masjid
massacre, incarcerating nuclear scientist Dr A.Q. Khan and superior court judges and
handing over innocent Pakistanis to American agencies in return for dollars.
“I have told Mr Zardari that I will ride the lawyers’ bus for Islamabad if the deposed judges
are not reinstated,”
reinstated,” Mr Sharif added. He said his party had quit ministries for the sake of
its principled stand on the judges’ issue and it was ready to go even further. Urging the
masses to be ready for a movement for deciding the fate of the country, he said that
people had to prove that “they
“they are a living nation”.
nation”. The fate of the country should be
decided in Islamabad, and not in Washington or anywhere else, he added. He said India
had recognised Pakistan as an independent and sovereign nation when Islamabad
detonated the nuclear devices. But, he regretted that an army dictator had pushed the
country towards destabilisation, carried out massacre from Karachi to Khyber and given
the nation the gift of suicide attacks and lawlessness. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Sirdar
Zulfikar Khosa, Khwaja Saad Rafiq and other PML-N leaders spoke on the occasion.
Author Location Dated
Agence France-Presse Kathmandu, Nepal 29.05.08

– Nepal dethrones king, asks him to vacate palace

A constituent assembly in Nepal on Wednesday voted overwhelmingly in favour of
abolishing the Himalayan nation’s 240-year-old Hindu monarchy and declaring a republic.
In a historic vote that caps a peace deal between Maoist rebels and mainstream parties,
politicians ordered unpopular King Gyanendra to step down and for his palace to be turned
into a museum. “The
“The sacrifice of thousands of Nepalese has been honoured today by us
getting rid of the monarchy,”
monarchy,” Communist Party of Nepal-Maoist spokesman Krishna
Bahadur Mahara told AFP. “The
“The Nepalese people have been freed from centuries of feudal
tradition, and the doors have now opened for a radical social and economic
transformation,”
transformation,” he said. A senior member of the 601-member Constituent Assembly, Kul
Bahadur Gurung, said 560 members voted in favour and just four opposed. The remaining
lawmakers were absent. Nepal’s Maoists, who fought for 10 years to oust the Gyanendra’s
Hindu dynasty and create a secular republic, won the largest single bloc of seats in the
assembly in elections last month. The abolition was a triumph for the leftists and marks a
fresh start for one of the world’s poorest countries, still reeling from a civil war that left at
least 13,000 people dead.
Officials said Gyanendra, who ascended to the throne after most of the royal family was
massacred by a drunken prince in 2001, will have 15 days to vacate his Kathmandu
palace. The republican declaration states that Nepal will become “an “an independent,
indivisible, sovereign, and secular and an inclusive democratic republic.”
republic.” “Nepal
“Nepal has
turned into a democratic republic, all the existing laws and administrative functions that
contradict this idea will be invalidated from today,”
today,” it reads. “All
“All the privileges enjoyed by
the king and royal family will automatically come to an end,”end,” it says, noting that May 29
will henceforth be celebrated as “Republic
“Republic Day.”
Day.” “This
“This assembly asks the government to
make the necessary arrangements to vacate the Narayanhiti Royal Palace,” Palace,” Gurung told
the gathering to huge cheers and applause. “The “The meeting also directs the government to
take necessary actions to turn the palace into a national museum.”
museum.” Nepal’s Peace Minister
Ram Chandra Poudel, told journalists that Gyanendra “should“should understand and leave the
palace by himself, that would be the best thing.”
thing.” Outside the venue a crowd of about
1,000 people -- who have been waiting impatiently for the vote — cheered wildly as the
decision was an nounced, an AFP reporter at the scene said. “I “I am overjoyed. This is the
most important day of my life,”
life,” said Rajesh Subedi, a 21-year-old student. The Maoists
have told Gyanendra and his son Crown Prince Paras — loathed for his reported playboy
lifestyle — to bow out gracefully and adapt to life as a “common
“common citizen”
citizen” or else face
“strong punishment.”
punishment.” Gyanendra was vaulted to the throne after the 2001 massacre of his
popular brother Birendra and most of the royal family by a drink-and-drug-fuelled crown
prince who later killed himself. Although seen by loyalists as the reincarnation of a Hindu
god, Gyanendra never managed to win much support from the public, suspected by many
of involvement in the palace killings.
The king’s status was further damaged by his ill-fated decision to seize absolute power to
fight the Maoist rebellion. He still enjoys some support from Hindu hardliners and powerful
elements in the armed forces and ruling elite, who argue the royals, are a crucial symbol
of the neutrality of a country wedged between Asian giants India and China. The Maoists
are set to lead Nepal’s new government, although many are still sceptical of the
movement -- whose loyalists are regularly accused of using violence and intimidation. The
United States also continues to list the former rebels as a foreign “terrorist
“terrorist”
” organisation.
Author Location Dated
Bureau Report Hyderabad, Pakistan 29.05.08

– Musharraf author of all crises: PML-N

Pakistan Muslim League-N Provincial President Ghous Ali Shah condemned President
Musharraf ‘for
‘for hatching conspiracies against Nawaz Sharif’
Sharif’ who made Pakistan a nuclear
power. He denounced the toppling of Nawaz government and instituting against him false
case of plane hijacking. Pervez Musharraf accepted the US dictation and jeopardised the
existence of Pakistan after 9/11, he said adding that he was the author of all crises
confronting the country. The US was trying to take control of our nuclear assets with the
concurrence of President Musharraf,
Musharraf, he said and added that 160 million people would foil
this conspiracy.He said the then US President Bill Clinton had telephoned not once but five
times to prevent the then prime minister of Pakistan Nawaz Sharif from exploding nuclear
device but the latter refused. Nawaz Sharif in consultation with the concerned people went
ahead with the nuclear explosion which not only made Pakistan invincible but the Muslim
world proud, he said.
He was speaking by telephone to participants of a Youm-i-
Youm-i-Takbeer function organised by
the local chapter of PML-N at the press club on Wednesday. Nawaz Sharif refused to
accept any pressure on nuclear test as India and the West did not want Pakistan to
become a nuclear power, he said adding that it was late Z.A. Bhutto who laid its
foundation while Ziaul Haq also played a key role. He said late Z.A. Bhutto endured threats
of dire consequences by Henry Kissinger but refused to budge an inch from his endeavour.
The PML-N Secretary Information Sindh, Zahid Rafiq Butt said Mr Bhutto, Mr Sharif and Dr
Abdul Qadeer Khan were national heroes as they made Pakistan impregnable and the
entire Muslim world proud. He criticized for treating Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan as a prisoner to
appease the US. He said now a democratic government was in power which will make
Musharraf accountable under Article-6 of the Constitution and hold trail for keeping Dr
Khan in wrongful confinement. Local PML-N leaders Shabbir Hassan Ansari and Khalid Aziz
Aran also spoke on the occasion. They cut a cake to celebrate the 10th anniversary of
nuclear explosion. Fateha was held for slain PML-N leader Tahir Khan and prayers offered
for the health of Dr Hyder Shah. Hundreds of PML-N activists raised slogans against
Musharraf and in support of Mr Sharif, Shahbaz Sharif and Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan. Earlier,
activists staged a demonstration outside the press club to mark Youm-e-Takbeer.
Author Location Dated
SQN LDR (r) S. Ausaf Karachi, Pakistan 29.05.08
Hussain

– Rebuilding public trust in police

This is to commend your editorial, ‘Justice
‘Justice of the mob’ (May 20),
20), and a number of letters
regarding mob justice. Sadly, the trend of mob justice is picking up fast, which needs to be
controlled. All this is happening because people in our country lack trust in the police.
People generally lose trust in the police when they are kept in the dark and do not come to
know about the fate of criminals apprehended by the police. For example, the fate of the
accused who kept a girl in captivity at the Quaid’s mausoleum for 36 hours and subjected
her to sexual assault (March 19) is still not known to the people. Similarly, the fate of the
robbers who were rescued by the police from the clutches of the enraged mobs on four
occasions in Karachi between May 15 and May 20 and in Lahore on May 18 is still not
made public. In such a scenario the people are prone to think that the police must have
released the criminals after taking bribe. The report, ‘Six constables held for robbing
citizens’ (May 25),
25), in which six policemen of the Diplomatic Protection Department,
Department,
Islamabad, have been arrested for their alleged involvement in robberies. All of them were
in plainclothes while doing the crime. This incident must have led people to think that
most of these street robbers might be off-duty policemen.

Another factor that makes the police a suspect in the eyes of the people is when the
former act quickly in order to take control of the criminals who fall into the hands of the
people/mob. The people regard the police as sympathisers or sponsors of the criminals
involved. On the other hand, when people fall victim and seek help from the police, the
latter do not respond at all or appear at the scene much after the crime has been
committed and criminals have fled the scene. A time was when the police were worth their
salt, true to their calling. Their mere presence was a matter of consolation to the people.
But over the years, with the decay of the administration and society, the police force too
changed from good to bad, then to worse and now to the worst. Modernising the police
force, providing latest equipment to them and increasing their pay package are good, but
these things will not make much difference. The need is to keep the police away from
political pressure and influence of powerful criminals to enable them to carry out their
duties without any fear or favour. They should be given an exemplary punishment if found
involved in an act of negligence of duty, inept corrupt practices, dishonesty and
inefficiency. The police should be motivated to be sincere, sympathetic and helpful to the
public to gain their confidence. Only then, will people start feeling secure with their
presence and will have trust in them. To achieve this, we need political will. Our leaders
may wrangle among themselves to prove their points of view, but must not employ or
manipulate any of the members of the lawenforcement agencies, specially the police, to
play their games at the cost of people. They should build a clean police force to serve the
people — only then will the latter begin having faith in the police.

Author Contact Dated

S. A. Qureshi lawgroup.q3@googlemail. 29.05.08
com

– Once upon a constitution

After every martial law in Pakistan comes a constitutional vacuum. This is because
constitutions are essentially living frameworks that should continually recognise changing
political realities. On the other hand, when suspended in a dictatorship, they are unable to
do so. If one examines our country’s three prolonged dictatorial periods of rule, the end of
each has resulted in jockeying to translate the changed political realities into a viable
power structure. This is very much happening again today. At the end of the first Ayub
Khan/Yahya Khan rule, the political forces that emerged after the 1970 election had no
framework to operate in. The dominant political force the Awami League and the military
could not agree on the apportionment of power. The result was war and division of the
country.

After the division of Pakistan, the re mainder of the country suddenly had politics without
the military as a player which went into a brief political retreat. This brief interregnum was
capitalised upon by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who managed to agree on an apportionment of
power among the political forces. The result was a constitution. Unfortunately, as a result
of the disputed 1977 elections, Mr Bhutto lost the consensus that had framed the
constitution. Consequently, the military led by the power-hungry Gen Zia were able to
impose martial law. The end of Zia’s era ended in a political disaster very much like that of
1971 although of a lesser magnitude in geographical terms. The dominant political force,
the PPP, led by Benazir Bhutto, wanted to establish an idealistic political framework which
would recognise their mandate. The major mistake was that they thought the constitution
mangled by Zia would be able to work in a changed political reality. However, the
constitution could only have worked if the new political forces were able to hammer out a
compromise which would be acceptable to all of them. At the time, Nawaz Sharif was very
much in the role Chaudhry Shujaat has assumed today — he was working with the military
and did not permit a political compromise. The result was that the political forces failed to
hammer out a viable political system that apportioned power to each of the actors.

That led to war of a kind different from that of 1971 but war all the same. Politics justified
everything. The state’s institutions conspired against the federal government. The
judiciary did not have the confidence of the actors and became like a yoyo trying to end
up on the more powerful side. The inability of the political actors and the military to
hammer out an apportionment of power eventually resulted in the Musharraf martial rule
without law. Today, the end of the Musharraf rule has thrown up the same issues. We
again have a constitution that is unable to reflect the current power structure of the
country. This time around Benazir Bhutto floated the doctrine of reconciliation to avoid
making the earlier mistake of not making political realities part of the constitution.
Unpalatable as it is, the truth is that the ragtag political forces that coalesce around
Musharraf and the military have the same numerical strength in the National Assembly
and could muster as many popular votes as the PML-N. Musharraf’s strength within the
military is unclear but the overall evidence is that he is still to some extent linked to the
generals and represents certain institutional interests in Pakistan’s politics both national
and international.

If these pro-Musharraf political forces and institutional interests they represent are ignored
in any political dispensation, the fabric of the new political dispensation could be torn
asunder. Recognising this changed albeit unpalatable reality in the power structure will
take some doing. Here are some of the irreconcilables which this complex exercise will
need to bring together:

(a) Musharraf/military and the lawyers/Nawaz Sharif;

(b) Regressive religious thought and progressive economic models of economy;
(c) Army and democracy; and
(d) Defence spending and public welfare spending.

The details of these complex political interests will need to be negotiated but the end-
result given the present political context should probably reflect the current power
structures. These structures should include the restoration of the chief justice and the
Supreme Court with the clear understanding that the Supreme Court will not be a party to
destabilising political frameworks as it has done in the past nor will it unnecessarily
impede the implementation of political programmes. In this connection, the main
stumbling block is the maverick and immensely popular personality of Iftikhar Chaudhry.
Given his current political profile, he,
he, together with the Supreme Court will need to restate
his commitment to the reconciliation process. The judicial niceties of noncomment by the
chief justice do not apply anymore at this juncture since he is at the head of an intensely
political movement. If his commitment is not forthcoming the political process will go into
a deadlock.

Other measures should include the devolution of presidential powers to the parliament. In
this connection, the powers of the president to make appointments and dismiss
parliament need to be relinquished. They are no longer necessary. President Musharraf
will very much like Iftikhar Chaudhry to make a commitment on this. To give institutional
interests their due, President Musharraf needs to be recognised as constitutional president
and instead of a trial of treason for his sins he should be rewarded for being the first
dictator to hold a relatively free election and transfer power to an elected government.
The deal has to be ‘power
‘power for legitimacy’.
legitimacy’. To guide the public, perhaps a public statement
from the president admitting the October 1999 mistake should be made part of the
package. The military should agree to a media-led programme of public education which
agrees that the military chiefs committed treason in the past and the new military
leadership has agreed never to repeat this. To put politics on a firm footing, the PPP and
provincial governing parties should be allowed to go back to the electorate with their work
five years from now and find out from the electorate whether they are a party which can
provide good governance. In the absence of military intervention, the results should be
fair. The media, lawyers and political forces need to educate the people of Pakistan on this
rather complex reconciliation agenda. The alternatives are confrontation and further
weakening of the state. If this happens all the current actors will be the losers. We now
need a constitution that works in the present. The past is a good reference point but we
live in the present. Let us not be shy of amending our national framework to take
take account
of the way we are.

Author Location Dated

I. A. Rehman 29.05.08

– To cross-border humanism
Public opinion in both India and Pakistan is apparently relieved that the process of
composite dialogue between their governments continues. Still, it is not possible to
conceal one’s disappointment that the latest round of ministerial talks in Islamabad could
not register progress towards bridging the divide between the two neighbours. True, India
needs to know the new government in Pakistan better to receive more evidence of its
stability before committing itself to substantial measures needed to normalise bilateral
relations. However, when allowances have been made for the lack of familiarity with their
counterparts, the Indians could have made their latest visit to Islamabad more meaningful
by at least moving towards a more sensible and humane visa regime. This is not to belittle
the importance of the new accord on facilitating consular access to Indian and Pakistani
nationals in each other’s prisons. This issue has always caused bitterness between the two
countries. Some recent incidents, such as the death of two Pakistan nationals in Indian
prisons, greatly aggravated tensions and emboldened the traditional enemies of peace in
the subcontinent to call for an end to all confidence-building measures.

Even otherwise, the inhuman treatment the two countries reserve for each other’s
prisoners is one of the most reprehensible consequences of their failure to live like
civilised neighbours. Under the new accord, each government will maintain a
comprehensive list of the nationals of the other country under its arrest, detention and
imprisonment and the lists will be exchanged every six months. Each case of arrest,
detention and imprisonment of any person from the other country will be intimated to the
mission concerned. Likewise, each government will inform the other of the sentence
awarded to the convicted nationals of the other country. Consular access is guaranteed
within three months of notice and prisoners will be repatriated to home countries within
one month of confirmation of their national status and completion of sentences. While the
accord is welcome as far as it goes, unfortunately, it does not go far enough. For instance,
in special cases, which call for or require compassionate or humanitarian considerations,
each side may exercise its discretion, subject to its laws and regulations, to allow the early
release and repatriation of persons. Quite obviously, the urge to be compassionate
towards detainees who are on their deathbed or in the terminal phase of sickness has
been sacrificed at the altar of the security agencies’ paranoia. If the two countries can
appreciate the need for cross-border humanism replacing cross-border conflict, they
should establish a mechanism for the immediate repatriation of detainees who are too sick
or infirm to cause any harm to anyone. This will mark the beginning of a journey towards
the ideal of an accord in future whereby Indians and Pakistanis convicted in the other
country may be allowed to serve their sentences in the home country.

The unnecessarily great respect New Delhi and Islamabad pay to spoilsports in their
security agencies is evident from the provision in the accord, in cases of arrest, detention
or sentence, made on political or security grounds. Each side may examine any such case
on its merit. This keeps the door open to security personnel’s veto in cases they may label
as ‘political
‘political’’ or ‘security
‘security’’ matters. And one knows at what low level such matters are
decided. One should like to hope that, sooner rather than later, such cases are brought
under the purview of joint prisoners’ welfare committees. It is not known whether during
the negotiations preceding this accord the question of Indian and Pakistani convicts being
executed in the other country was discussed. Considering the recent agitation in both
countries over the possible execution of Sarabjit Singh, it should have been. A possible
way out of this emotive problem could be a joint India-
India-Pakistan declaration to abolish the
death penalty in their countries. If SAARC
SAARC could be wise enough to reach a regional accord
on this subject, that would be even better. The two countries’ regrettable surrender to
their security apparatuses visible in the accord on prisoners is more evident in the
apparent tightening of visa restrictions on both sides.
Indian journalists have been prevented from attending a media training course in Lahore.
Some Indian artistes who had been invited to perform in Lahore in a festival were allowed
visas by the Pakistan High Commission but were unable to come because the Indian
authorities did not allow them to cross the Wagah border on foot. Pakistanis desiring to
visit their relations in India are now required to furnish new guarantees of return. Peace
activists wishing to attend a joint convention of the Pakistan-
Pakistan-India People’s Forum have
been kept waiting for clearance by the Islamabad bureaucrats for months. That free travel
between India and Pakistan will be the most decisive confidence-building measure can
hardly be disputed. But it seems political leaders on both sides are helpless in the face of
obdurate bureaucrats who cannot discard the script of confrontation they have followed
for decades. One of their myths is that a new India Pakistan summit should wait till the
officials have worked on something for a happy announcement. Perhaps it is time to
reverse the process and move towards a meeting between the two prime ministers and
give them a chance to create an environment in which all outstanding issues can be
addressed. If Mr Asif Zardari really wishes to visit Delhi in Mr Nawaz Sharif’s company the
sooner this happen the better. That could help. The traditional view that disputes and
differences have erased all goodwill between India and Pakistan and prevented them from
cooperating with one another is becoming increasingly untenable. Far more plausible is
the view that the absence of goodwill has not only prevented these subcontinental twins
from approaching disputes and differences as matters that can be resolved but has also
contributed to ideologisation of political matters and thus made them intractable. It is
therefore time that reliance on experts in dispute resolution was reduced and greater
confidence reposed in political agents who can cleanse the people’s psyche of rancour and
prejudice foolishly nourished for decades. They may be able to save the process of
composite dialogue from degenerating into a tour-and-travel ritual.

Author Location Dated

Sam Taylor (AFP) Kathmandu,
Kathmandu, Nepal 29.05.08

– Nepal’s royals face life as commoners

The downfall of Nepal’s monarchy marks the end of the line for a dysfunctional dynasty
renowned for insanity and ineptitude, and a new start for one of the world’s poorest
nations. The fortunes of the royal family have gone steadily downhill since Prithvi Narayan
Shah, the first in the Shah line and credited with creating modern Nepal out of a
patchwork of small Himalayan valley fiefdoms 240 years ago. According to writer
Manjushree Thapa, Nepal has essentially been ruled since Narayan Shah’s death in 1775
by a succession of kings “who
“who were either underage, inept, insane or all three”.
three”. The early
kings — viewed by loyal subjects as reincarnations of a Hindu god — were famed for
taking numerous wives and producing legions of children, leading to frequent and bloody
battles over who should take the crown. “Many
“Many of the Shah kings of this time did not die
natural deaths,”
deaths,” said royal expert Sanu Bhai Dangol. The unending intrigue weakened the
dynasty and just a century into their rule, the Shahs found themselves sharing power with
another crafty political tribe — the Ranas.
By the early 20th century, the Shahs were “virtual
“virtual prisoners of the Rana maharajas”,
maharajas”, who
had declared themselves “hereditary
“hereditary prime ministers”.
ministers”. The Ranas kept the Shahs under
tight control until 1950 when King Tribhuvan told his overlords he planned to leave his
palace for a hunting trip, but fled to the Indian embassy and was spirited away to India. He
left behind his toddler grandson, Prince Gyanendra, whom the Ranas promptly enthroned
as a puppet monarch. After negotiations between the Shahs, the political parties and the
Ranas, the king returned a year later as a constitutional monarch -- a flirtation with
democracy that ended with a royal coup in 1960. The Shah family was hit by more turmoil
in 2001. Crown Prince Dipendra, who had a passion for firearms and was apparently
fuming at being blocked from marrying the woman he loved, went on a drink-and drug-
fuelled rampage at a palace party. He shot dead nine members of the royal family,
including popular King Birendra, and then turned the gun on himself, according to official
accounts. The “palace massacre” vaulted the king’s younger brother, Gyanendra, to the
throne. Already disliked due to conspiracy theories linking him to the massacre, his
unpopularity deepened when he fired the government and seized control in 2005 -- a
move he argued was necessary to fight off an escalating revolt by Maoist rebels. His
authoritarian rule lasted 14 months, until massive protests by political parties and rebel
Maoists forced him to climb down in April 2006.
Adding to his woes were the alleged antics of his son and heir, Crown Prince Paras -- who
has been accused of nightclub shootings, hit-and-run driving and generally conducting
himself as a playboy in a conservative country where most people barely eke out a living
from the land. Paras suffered a heart attack last year at the age of just 36. Gyanendra and
his son now face life as “common
“common” ” citizens, with the Maoists — who entered Kathmandu
after signing a peace deal and swept elections a month ago — threatening them with
“strong punishment”
punishment” if they refuse to bow out gracefully.“In
gracefully.“In the past, previous kings
always had something up their sleeves and made a comeback,”
comeback,” said Tribhuvan University
history professor Surendra Khatri Chhetri. “Times
“Times have changed now. The palace is no
longer at the centre of politics.”
politics.”
Author Location Dated
Subel Bhandari (AFP) Kathmandu, Nepal 29.05.08

– Prachanda: the new face of Nepal

After 25 years underground and a decade of armed struggle across Nepal’s jungles and
hills, Maoist leader Prachanda has become the most powerful man in Nepal and is set to
lead a new government. Prachanda, who signed up to peace in 2006, has had trouble
shaking off his ruthless warlord image. But many believe he is now the right man to
rebuild the impoverished Himalayan country after the deadly civil war that ravaged the
country’s economy. “It“It is Prachanda (the word means ‘fierce one’) who really set the
agenda for a constituent assembly, republicanism and federalism,”
federalism,” said Sangraula, who
writes for Nepal’s best-selling Kantipur daily. “He
“He wants to move Nepali society forward.”
forward.”
The Maoist chief is now in his strongest position yet. Last month, he led his party to an
upset victory in polls to elect a body to write a new constitution, the next step in a peace
process launched in 2006. Commentators said the result showed impoverished Nepal was
desperate for radical change.
The Maoists snatched 220 seats in the 601-member assembly, twice as many as their
rivals and election favourites, the Nepali Congress. That success was a long time coming
for the 53-year-old Prachanda, who spent more than two decades living underground. Born
into a high-caste but poor farming family, Prachanda — whose real name is Pushpa Kamal
Dahal — was driven to politics by the extreme poverty he witnessed in rural Nepal.
Married with three children, his interest grew in the communist groups that emerged in
the country in the late 1960s after the father of the current King Gyanendra banned
political parties. The Cultural Revolution in China inspired him, as did Peru’s Shining Path
guerillas, who also took their inspiration from the revolutionary theories of Chinese
communist leader Mao Zedong. Although he never fought in combat himself, he became
chief military strategist of a group of rag-tag rebels and built it into a fearsome force that
took control of large swathes of Nepal’s countryside. Their ideology appealed to Nepal’s
low-caste, women and ethnic minority groups, but the rebels also used indoctrination,
intimidation, murder, kidnapping and extortion to cement their control, human rights
groups say. He has had trouble shaking off his image of being a ruthless warlord,
especially as young Maoist activists continue to be accused of beating up their rivals and
extorting money.
The United States still classes his group as a foreign “terrorist” organisation, and many in
Nepal are still uneasy. “During the ‘people’s
‘people’s war’ there were many excesses -many, many
innocent people were killed on the suspicion of being spies,”
spies,” said columnist Sangraula. “In
“In
some way the Maoist party glorified violence. There was too much and unnecessary
violence, for which Prachanda is responsible.”
responsible.” The man slated to head Nepal’s next
government has said his dream is to create a more inclusive country, but he may also
suffer from the weakness for clan politics common in South Asia. His immediate family
members are already embedded in Maoist politics, with his wife and daughter both holding
seats on the constituent assembly, sworn on Tuesday. In spite of the question marks that
still surround the former teacher, Prachanda is for now the face of a “New
“New Nepal”,
Nepal”, a
popular Maoist slogan.
Author Location Dated
Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 30.05.08

– Bigwigs gather at Presidency dinner Rumours and denials galore

Rumours that President Pervez Musharraf is on his way out took the country by storm on
Thursday, severely affecting the public and commercial life. Despite repeated denials from
the quarters concerned the mill continued to churn out rumours of various kinds till they
were quashed by President Musharraf himself in the night. President Musharraf refuted the
stories which were based on his Wednesday night’s three hour meeting with Chief of the
Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, at a farewell dinner given to Gen (retd) Khalid
Maqbool, the former governor of Punjab, at the Presidency. At the dinner which was also
attended by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani, the army chief, all the four provincial
governors and federal ministers Syed Khursheed Shah and Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, the
president put up a brave face and observed that the rumour had caused a huge loss to
national economy.
The rumour first had its effect on the Karachi stock market which saw a 500-point fall
during the first hour of the day. People throughout the day kept on ringing newspapers
offices asking different questions, including if Mr Musharraf was leaving for Turkey in the
night, or has Mr Musharraf been arrested, or has the president resigned? Reports of
Senate chairman Mohammadmian Soomro having been asked to cut short his foreign tour
further fuelled the speculations. Mr Soomro, in Berlin to attend a Nato parliamentary
session, was scheduled to return in the first week of June. However, there were reports
that he had cut short his visit and was expected to return early Friday morning. A section
of media linked the otherwise a routine transfer of the Commander of 111 Brigade Asim
Bajwa to a possible change at the top. Later, it was denied by an army spokesman who
said the change was a ‘routine
‘routine practice’.
practice’. The president, on the other hand, termed his
meeting with the army chief a ‘routine
‘routine one’,
one’, saying that he had already met Gen Kayani
six times in recent weeks.
A spokesman for the Presidency quoted the president as saying: “The “The purpose of these
rumours is to create unrest in the country and also give an impression that there are
differences between the president and the army whereas that is not true.” true.” The president
assured the prime minister of his fullest cooperation. “I “I do not believe in confrontation,
rather I believe in reconciliation approach,”
approach,” said President Musharraf, who had also held a
one-to-one meeting with the prime minister before the start of the dinner. “The “The panic
(created due to the rumours) need to be redressed,”
redressed ,” said the president, adding: “Those
“Those
who are spreading these rumours are not safeguarding interests of Pakistan because their
irresponsible acts have caused a loss of billions of dollars to national economy.”
economy.” The
president has been under immense pressure to step down, especially after PPP co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari described him a “relic
“relic of the past”.
past”. However, the situation took a
more serious turn when PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif adopted a tough line on Wednesday and
said that instead of giving a safe passage to President Musharraf, they would like to try
him on charges of sedition.
Author Location Dated
Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 30.05.08
 – A.Q. Khan regrets ‘confession’
Nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan has expressed regret over his confession made in
2004 and alleged that he has been ‘betrayed
‘betrayed by his friends’
friends’ who had promised that
nothing wrong would happen to him and he would live a respectable life. In the first
detailed interview since he was put under a virtual house arrest, Dr Khan said he had been
made a ‘scapegoat
‘scapegoat’’ and he had made the confession in the larger interest of the country.
“I think the confession was my mistake,”
mistake,” he told DawnNews TV channel on Thursday. In
reply to a question, he revealed that he had been given a written confessional statement
to read. “I
“I should not have read the written statement. I should have spoken in my own
words and changed things,”
things,” he said. He said he should have defended himself, but he did
not realise that things would work out the way they did. He said Pakistan Muslim League-Q
president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Senator S.M. Zafar had assured him that no harm
would come to him after the confession.
“I was assured that I would be a free man and be allowed to go anywhere I want,”
want,” he said.
In response to a question, the 72-year-old Dr Khan said: “I
“I am an innocent man, but I
don’t want to indulge in any controversy.”
controversy.” The scientist made his first public appearance
on May 21 after a four-year detention when he visited the Academy of Sciences amid tight
security. The government is reported to have relaxed restrictions on him and allowed him
to meet his friends. He was arrested on Jan 31, 2004, under the Security Act for allegedly
transferring nuclear technology and centrifuges to other countries. When asked why he
had come out now to claim that he was innocent, Dr Khan said he had thought that he
should take the nation into confidence because the people of the country and those who
knew the facts had started talking on the matter on the media. He said former army chief
Mirza Aslam Beg and former head of Inter-Services Intelligence Hameed Gul knew the
details, some of which they had disclosed in their recent TV interviews.
When asked if he had been involved in leaking nuclear secrets to any other country, Dr
Khan said he was not a part of any illegal or unauthorised deal in any way. “This
“This one
sentence covers the whole thing,”
thing,” he asserted. On being asked if he was willing to speak
to officials of US intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency, he
said: “Why
“Why should we. We are an independent country, we have not violated any
international law,
law, we are not signatory to the NPT, I am a free man, we have no obligation,
then why should I agree to that?”
that?” About his protective custody, he said he was not
satisfied with the arrangement, but it was okay on the part of the government to restrict
access to him. He said he had not been given any indication that restrictions on him were
being lifted, but he was hopeful that he would be free one day. “I “I am not in a hurry and I
know that the coalition government is presently sorting out its own worries. If I can bear
four-and-a-half years of detention then I think we should let the government solve other
problems and then come to my problem,”
problem,” he said.
When asked if he was concerned about his security, he said: “I “I was never worried and I
will never be worried. I was humiliated all over the world when my pictures were published
in international newspapers. If I wasn’t afraid at that time, why should I be afraid now.”
now.” Dr
Khan termed the nuclear test conducted in 1998 ‘a ‘a good move’
move’ under the circumstances
and said the whole credit went to former prime minister Nawaz Sharif. “If “If he had not done
it, it might have encouraged India to do some misadventure. There was a general
consensus to go for the nuclear test, the whole nation wanted it and it was done properly.”
properly.”
He said that by gaining nuclear capability, the country had become free of the fear of a
war and 500,000 Indian troops on the border did not dare attack it. Dr Khan claimed that
the country’s nuclear assets and weapons were quite safe and they could not be taken
out. “We
“We have a safe and good command and control system. Nobody can take away any
nuclear weapon from Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” The scientist said he was always one of the most hated
persons in the eyes of the US and other western countries because nobody had expected
Pakistan to acquire such a sophisticated and difficult technology. “I“I see my future with my
family, with my grandsons and daughters and I want to look after some welfare
institutions I had set up at different places in the country with the help of expatriate
Pakistanis,”
Pakistanis,” Dr Khan said.
Author Location Dated
Kathmandu, Nepal 30.05.08

– Royal flag lowered as Nepal celebrates ‘rebirth’

Nepal basked in its rebirth as a republic on Thursday, lowering the royal flag at
Kathmandu’s main palace a day after the 239-yearold monarchy was abolished and the
king given two weeks to leave the royal compound. The monarchy’s end came on
Wednesday in a late-night vote by Nepal’s newly elected Constituent Assembly. It was the
culmination of a two-year peace process that saw Nepal’s communist rebels transformed
from feared insurgents into the country’s dominant political force. “Turning
“Turning Nepal into a
republic is the biggest achievement of the people in the history of this coun
country,’’
try,’’ wrote
Prateek Pradhan, the editor of the Kathmandu Post. There were some scattered gatherings
across Kathmandu, and a few hundred people gathered outside the pink concrete palace,
chanting ‘Gyanendra
‘Gyanendra is a thief, leave the country!’ They briefly clashed with police when
they tried to march on the palace gates, and officers used tear gas to disperse the crowd.
Hours earlier, one of the final symbols of the monarchy disappeared as the royal flag, a
red square decorated with a flagwaving lion, was removed and replaced later at the
palace by Nepal’s national flag, a red banner of two triangles adorned with a sun and
moon. The removal of the royal standard was ‘a ‘a decision by the government to show that
Nepal is now a republic,’
republic,’ said a palace official who spoke on condition of anonymity
because of palace rules. There was no immediate reaction to the abolition of his throne
from the dour 61-year-old former monarch, who remained silent in recent months as it
became apparent that his days as king were numbered. In every significant way, his
throne had become meaningless in the two years since widespread protests against his
royal dictatorship forced him to restore democracy.
Author Location Dated
Atai Karim 30.05.08

– Meeting the challenge of sectarianism

The Muslim world is facing many internal and external challenges. Sectarianism is one of
them. Sectarianism may be characterised by dogmatism and inflexibility. In a narrow
sense it denotes zeal for, or attachment to a particular sect. Likewise, it connotes an
excessively zealous and doctrinaire narrow-mindedness that would quickly judge and
condemn those who disagree. However, in a broader sense, it refers to the historical
process by which all the divisions in major world religions have come about. In a general
way, sectarianism is usually used as a pejorative term to describe division, intolerance and
violence based on religion. Wherever religious sectarians compete, religious sectarianism
is found in varying forms, like prejudice, bigotry, discrimination, malice, violence, and
illwill towards members of another sect. Sectarianism, in different forms, has been an
issue among different Muslim sects and this practice has led the Muslims to disunity and
weakness, intellectual and educational backwardness.
There are different types of sectarianism. It can appear in several, often inter-related
forms, e.g. personal, cultural, institutional and structural. Sectarianism is also revealed in
attitudes and behaviours, where one can easily observe the signs of hatred and
prejudices. Sometimes, members of different sectarian groups take the form of name
calling, titles or other forms of verbal abuse or discrimination. It can also take the form of
physical violence. Moreover, it is also most commonly observed through jokes and by
using sectarian terms to describe the people. We find these examples in history, where
different sects named each other with different names to look down upon them. Every sect
has its own concept of others. All of us have our own religious ego and we tend to glorify
our own faith in different forms, which encourages sectarianism.
Furthermore, disapproval of relationship and marriage, sectarian threat, harassment and
discrimination in employment decisions has also been common forms of sectarianism.
Within Islam there is scope for difference of opinion but unfortunately, in Muslim societies
the difference of faith has crossed the boundary of tolerance and reached violence in
terms of fanaticism and extremism. The violence and refutation of each other’s beliefs has
become part of religious duty of different sects. Considering others infidel is considered to
be a favourable religious duty which enlarges the gap between different Muslim sects.
Sectarianism is known to have sparked religious violence throughout Muslim history. The
main cause of it seems to be the attitude of exclusivity and fanaticism. According to Dr
Riberio, inflexible attitudes, the claim of religious believers to an absolute and exclusive
hold on truth, and the denial of the right of others to be different, are root causes of
religious sectarianism. Indeed, human beings have a tendency to exclude others and to
see their own beliefs as right, and all others wrong. This tendency leads to violence and
fighting in history. A question can arise here that why do people exclude others? One
answer could be the religious rigidity, but another answer could be some personal material
interests. There are many examples in history to show that most sectarian clashes and
wars did not happen on religious basis, but also for material benefits, power and identity.
So the development of sectarianism should be viewed religious as well as a political
phenomenon.
Moreover, if we see the sectarianism in the Muslim context, it is clear that every sect
considers others heretical sects. Verses of the Quran and Hadith are used to disprove
others’ faith and sect. Furthermore, every sect is trying to keep a specific physical
appearance and insists on its identity which sometimes causes clashes of identities. In
addition, there has been a close connection between poverty, sense of deprivation and
religious violence. People, who are poor and deprived, are usually used and engaged in
sectarian violence. If the roots of sectarianism become strong in Islamic Ummah, it will
pose a more serious threat to the unity of the Muslims than any external threat. Hence, it
is the need of the hour that every member of the Muslim society played his/her role in
creating an openminded, flexible and tolerant society, where every Muslim sect can
survive peacefully without any fear and can practise without anybody’s pressure.
A debate has been raging for a long period among Muslim intellectuals on sectarian
differences. Each sect is unique and it is the beauty of Islam to be diverse. Diversity is the
strength, not weakness within Muslim community and every member of the Muslim
community has to respect it to promote peace and harmony within Muslim community.
Within Islam there is scope for difference of opinion and Muslims should take these
differences as blessings and should respect each other’s opinion, faith and ideas by
showing tolerance and patience. Tolerance, respect for each other’s ideas, pluralism and
diversity are beauty and core values in Islamic tradition. Quran recognises diversity and
tolerance of differences based on belief, ranks (64; 2; 6: 165), gender (49: 13; 53; 45), skin
colour and language (30:22). Harmony between different religious, social grouping and
communities is praised, and competitions, violence, force and control of any person or
sect by any other is condemned. It is important to note that Allah has created diversity
and we should accept it in all humility. Diversity is in fact our test. Our response should be
pluralism. Each sect is unique. It is Allah’s will to have diversity in the world and the
believers have to live with it in a way which will promote peace and harmony. Quran
confirms divine unity but it also recognises the diversity of culture, religions and ethnicity.
Above this, it recognises freedom for humans to choose their way. “Let “Let there be no
compulsion in religion…”
religion…” (Quran, 2: 256). In order to promote peace and harmony among
different sects within Muslim community every member of the Muslim community
including our leadership and stakeholders at different level can play a major role and can
live as brothers and sisters.
Author Location Dated
M. Shehryar Khakwani 30.05.2008

– A Tale of two Countries

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the
age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the
season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter
of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going
direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way....” Charles Dickens in his literary
masterpiece may well have written this opening to describe the disparity in our country,
instead of the inequality which led up to the French Revolution. Six decades have passed
since two nations came into being, created along religious lines, under the watchful eye of
the then masters of the world. Pakistan and Israel have both celebrated their 60th
birthdays — Pakistan last year and Israel this month.
Both nations had vowed to be shining examples of the values professed by their
respective religions — they were to provide aspirations for others to follow. The creation of
the states was followed by massive immigration and emigration along religious lines. Both
nations have fought wars with their neighbours, fighting for their existence. Both are filled
with politicians who are ex-
ex-military, and the efforts of the liberals are met with an uproar
from the religious right. Both strategic allies of America seem to be in a constant state of
flux, dominated by a political landscape rife with backdoor deals, rumours and innuendo.
Both have the uncanny ability to bank on their geopolitical importance. Both are nuclear
states — although Israel is an undeclared one — insisting on needing the deterrent for
their existence. There is, however, a stark difference — while Pakistan occupies the high
moral ground by supporting the liberation of Kashmir, Israel is busy turning large chunks
of Palestine into a large-scale Guantanamo for the Palestinians.
The similarities continue. Corrupt politicians within the upper echelons being investigated
seems to be the rule, not the exception. The intelligence services always seem to be the
target of allegations relating to sinister plots being hatched; of course, they always deny
them. The minorities in Israel and Pakistan routinely complain of their respective courts
not providing justice. Lawyers complain of a system characterised by red tape, and
citizens complain about the irregular appointments of justices. As we look further some
differences also emerge. Like most nations, Israel boasts an independent judiciary, with
the separation of powers between the executive and judicial branches. It has secular and
religious courts. The religious courts are based on rabbinical law for Jews, and Sharia and
ecclesiastic courts for Muslims and Christians. A judicial panel chose Dorit Beinisch as
president of the Israeli supreme court; Justice Bhagwandas took over temporarily from
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in spite of his religion.
Attorney-General Menachem Mazuz led an investigation and forced Israeli President Moshe
Katsav from office roughly at the same time the president of Pakistan shook up the
judiciary by suspending the chief justice for being independent-minded. Attorney-General
Malik Qayyum lent reticent support to the president as he declared a state of emergency,
suspending civil rights. Ariel Sharon’s son, Omri Sharon, was sentenced to prison for a
year when he was found guilty of violating campaign funding laws. Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert’s office is complying with an investigation being carried out for wrongdoings. The
little village of Bil’in petitioned the supreme court and got the ‘separation
‘separation wall’
wall’ re-routed.
Aryeh Deri, a prominent leader, and Yitzhak Mordechai, ex-defence minister and potential
candidate for prime minister, served time for their convictions. The Israeli courts may not
mete out justice to the many detained Palestinians, but they are a far cry from the strain
placed on the Pakistani judiciary. Their judges are not in doubt of the oath they have
taken. Their lawyers do not hold the authorities in contempt for putting them in an
unenviable situation. Their office of the president does not consider itself above the
powers of the national police when it comes to enforcing the rule of law.
After being repelled from southern Lebanon, Israel set up the Winograd Commission to
hold an inquiry into the shortcomings of the war. Even Hasan Nasrallah of Hezbollah
commented that one cannot but admire a government that sets up an independent
commission to criticise itself and works day and night for the release of their soldier, a
reference to Gilead Shalit. Despite a very strong military, the Israeli parliament has not
been sidelined by its military. Their judiciary is independent and has not been
marginalised by its politicians. Their media is independent and has not been subjugated
by the police. Their foreign policy is independent and has not been dominated by America.
‘Kya hum hein woh musalman jinhen dekh ke sharmaein yehud’? yehud’?
Author Location Dated
Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 31.05.08
31.05.08

– Bush comes to the aid of old ally Musharraf

US President George W. Bush indicated on Friday that his administration still backed
President Pervez Musharraf in his conflict with political rivals who wanted to oust him.
“The president reiterated the United States’ strong support for Pakistan and he indicated
he looked forward to President Musharraf’s continuing role in further strengthening US-
Pakistani relations,”
relations,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told journalists. At a later
briefing, Ms Perino said the US was “very
“very concerned”
concerned” about the situation in Fata “but
“but we
believe that the Pakistanis are, as well, and that we need to continue to make sure that
we can confront the terrorists there on the border”.
border”.
Also on Friday, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Pakistan’s new civilian leaders
needed time to “get
“get their feet on the ground”
ground” before they could be expected to move
aggressively against Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents in their border area. Diplomatic
observers in Washington noted that President Bush not only telephoned Mr Musharraf but
the White House also took the unusual step of announcing the details of this conversation.
Usually, the White House lets the office of the leader who receives the call divulge its
details to the media. The White House said the conversation was a follow-up to Mr Bush’s
recent meeting in Egypt with Pakistani Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. Reports in a
section of Pakistani press about a late-night meeting this week between Mr Musharraf and
Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani fuelled widespread speculation that the
army was urging him to resign. Mr Musharraf dismissed the reports, declaring that he
continued to have good relations with the institution he used to lead before quitting as
army chief last year. An army spokesman also contradicted the report.
The US media, however, noted that it was becoming increasingly difficult for Mr Musharraf
to hang on to power. They pointed out that Mr Musharraf’s future hung in the balance as
he faced mounting pressure from his opponents to step down despite his controversial re-
election to another five-year term in November. Aides to Mr Musharraf have been talking
to PPP officials for some weeks, the media reported, noting that the PPP was in a position
to help the president retain his office. The Wall Street Journal noted that the PPP
government had proposed measures in parliament to curb the president’s power but it
had declined so far to publicly join calls for his ouster.
Meanwhile, Defence Secretary Gates has opposed those who advocate bringing more
pressure on the new Pakistani government to force it to abandon peace talks with the Fata
militants. He noted that Pakistani military forces were still communicating with Nato troops
in Afghanistan, but acknowledged that the Pakistanis had at least temporarily halted their
own operations against insurgents. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is in a transition,”
transition,” Mr Gates said at a news
conference on a US Air Force base on the Pacific island of Guam. “I “I think until they get
their feet on the ground and get a full appreciation of the nature of the threats that they
face and their approach to it, I think we just have to give them a little time.”
time.” Mr Gates was
reacting to comments by the outgoing US commander in Afghanistan, Army General Dan
McNeill, who pressed Pakistan to clamp down on insurgents using its tribal region as a
staging area to attack US, Afghan and NATO forces across the border. President’s
spokesman: Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi said the telephone conversation between US
President George Bush and President Musharraf lasted about 25 minutes, during which the
former reiterated his country’s support for Pakistan and President Musharraf.
Author Location Dated
Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 31.05.08

– Asif stresses dialogue, evades questions about impeachment

PPP Co-Chairman Asif Ali Zardari on Friday-
Friday- parried a volley of questions about the
possibility of impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf and kept it vague who would
decide about the matter. Speaking at a crowded news conference after attending a
meeting of the Socialist International’s Asia-Pacific Committee at a hotel, Mr Zardari
avoided making any comment on President Musharraf despite repeated questions by
reporters, saying only the PPP believed that “dialogue
“dialogue is the only way to move towards
democracy”.
democracy”. “The
“The PPP is a mature party. We will move ahead through dialogue with
patience and dignity,”
dignity,” he said. He evaded a question on whether he was in direct or
indirect contact with the president. Socialist International Secretary General Luis Ayala,
Federal Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf and Information Minister Sherry
Rehman were present at the news conference, which proved to be a nonevent for most of
the reporters.
The reporters were curious to know about President Musharraf’s fate a day after the
country remained in the grip of rumours that the president had decided to tender
resignation. Just before the end of the news conference a reporter asked when the PPP
would think of getting rid of President Musharraf, Mr Zardari quipped: “Whenever
“Whenever you will
want. Whenever the people will want and whenever parliament will want.”He
want.”He himself
noted that it was the fifth question about President Musharraf’s impeachment. “Politics
“Politics is
our profession. It is us who will choose the time and create an opportunity. For the time
being, show patience on whatever little freedom you have,”
have,” he added. Mr Zardari’s
sidestepping of questions about President Musharraf contrasted with a hard-hitting
statement by PMLN chief Nawaz Sharif: “The“The time had come for President Musharraf to
resign because all sections of society want to get rid of him.”
him.” In reply to a question, Mr
Zardari said the constitutional package was in the final stage and would soon be made
public.
Mr Zardari downplayed the lawyers’ movement and said that everyone was free to hold
long marches. He said there was democracy in the country and lawyers would be welcome
to hold a long march on June 10. “We“We will present them flowers and provide them with
water and food.”
food.” Interestingly, a 450-word handout was issued by the Zardari House press
office regarding the press conference, but there was no mention of any reply to questions
regarding President Musharraf’s impeachment. Earlier in a brief statement, Mr Zardari said
he had a vision to bring a change in the system through parliament. He praised the
struggle and sacrifices rendered by Myanmar’s opposition leader Aung San Sui Kyi. He
said that a PPP delegation would visit Myanmar to express solidarity with her. Mr Zardari
said the PPP government was aware of hardships people were facing because of high food
and oil prices. He assured newsmen that despite economic pressures the upcoming
budget would be people friendly. He said that a card-based system was being introduced
to provide essential commodities to poor people. The “Benazir Card” would be given to the
“poorest of the poor” and they would be able to shop on those cards and the subsidy
amount would be automatically transferred to those accounts every month, he added.
Author Contact Dated
Aqil Shah as2552@columbia.edu 31.05.08

– Dictatorship main enemy

Let’s keep our eyes on the ball. Lest we forget our main enemy is not this or that politician
or political party. It is military authoritarianism and its most visible symptom is Gen (retd)
Pervez Musharraf. But over three months after a clear-cut popular vote against him, the
former general refuses to relinquish the highest office of the state he illegally occupies.
Instead, he is using the presidential bully pulpit to displace blame on to the elected
government. Last week, an anonymous presidential advisor not so indirectly blamed the
civilian government for the economic downslide and the flight of foreign investors. Some
media reports suggest that a Musharraf-sponsored charge-sheet against the civilian
government is under preparation. These are dangerous signs that authoritarianism is
down but not yet out. Unfortunately, many in the media are unwittingly playing straight
into Musharraf’s hands by recycling his desperate rhetoric of dysfunction. The civilian
government has been in power for less than three months but the rumour mills are
already in overdrive predicting a presidential and even a military intervention. The energy
crisis, food shortages, inflation, unemployment and the general law and order deficit
carried over from the ancien regime have all been unduly laid at its door.

We are well within our democratic rights to rake our elected representatives over the coals
for their acts of omission and commission. But before we blast them out of the water, it
might be a good idea to at least acknowledge the difficulties attending a transition to
democracy. Eight years of authoritarian rule have cast their ominous shadows far and
wide. Musharraf and his PML-Q allies are still conspiring in and outside parliament to throw
sand in the machine. There is still a formidable autonomous military which has retreated
to the garrison out of institutional necessity not a commitment to constitutionalism.
National security is still its prerogative. The nuclear programme remains out of bounds for
civilians. The rule of law is in tatters. The constitution is a disfigured version of itself,
violated with impunity by a military dictator. The fear of terrorism and the virtual
breakdown of law and order are playing havoc with our collective sense of safety and
security. And, of course, the economy is in a veritable mess.

That is not all. Before the transition got off the ground, former premier Benazir Bhutto was
assassinated. The untimely demise of the PPP leader triggered a leadership vacuum in the
party and the polity. To its credit, the PPP handled the succession rather smoothly
considering the odds. Surprising many, the then newly appointed party co-chair Asif Ali
Zardari deftly calmed the partisan passions ignited in the wake of her death. The Murree
declaration convinced many a sceptic that Mr Zardari was a changed man by virtue of his
long imprisonment and exile. But it didn’t take long for his detractors in and outside the
media to reinstate him to his state-sponsored status as evil incarnate. The NRO acquittals
did not help. That he had not been duly convicted in any case filed against him and was
imprisoned for a decade did not matter one bit. And it was not long before he was
castigated for appointing ‘corrupt’ loyalists to high state offices. That loyalty and political
responsiveness are unfortunate default qualifications for public office in a system mined
with authoritarian residues was no issue at all. He was also unduly denigrated for
kowtowing to the Americans, without much acknowledgment of the deeply embedded US
influence in Pakistan. Mr Zardari may be the perfect scapegoat for all that is wrong with
Pakistan. But is it fair to expect miracles from a fledgling democratic order? Shouldn’t
credit be given where it is due?

Even though the PML-N left the federal cabinet after the expiry of the May 12 deadline for
the restoration of the judiciary, both Nawaz Sharif and Mr Zardari have exhibited
considerable political maturity by keeping the coalition intact. Their coalition in Punjab is
still in place despite differences over the appointment of the provincial governor. The two
sides are in broad agreement over the PPP drafted package of constitutional amendments
which will clip the authoritarian powers of the presidency. There is more good news.
However tortuously slow, frustrating and uncertain, consensus-building and conciliation
are slowly replacing authoritarian fiat as the main mode of decision-making. The
government has taken positive steps towards healing inter-provincial fissures. For
instance, it has released key political prisoners from Balochistan as a confidence-building
measure. It also appears to have adopted a smarter, calibrated politicalmilitary strategy
for tackling militancy in Swat and the tribal areas despite US and Nato objections. No less
encouragingly, the coalition leadership has apparently stood its ground in the face of
American pressure to stick with Musharraf. The days of the ‘one ‘one fatal phone call’
call’ are
hopefully over. In fact, it seems like Washington might be slowly, if reluctantly, coming to
terms with a post-
post-Musharraf Pakistan. Of course, these gains are no reason for
complacency. The PPP-led government should have wasted no time in restoring the 1973
Constitution as it stood on Oct 12, 1999. There was no justifiable reason to delay the
restoration of the pre Nov 3 judiciary even by a day. There still isn’t one. That is not all.
The structure and conduct of our political parties leave much to be desired. The lack of
intra-party democracy is a major problem they must address as is the elite capture of the
electoral process. But right now, the main political project is to consolidate the democratic
transition by removing all the dangerous ‘relics
‘relics of the past’.
past’. One can only hope that the
current rumours of Musharraf’s imminent resignation are more than just rumours.
Musharraf’s exit alone may not herald political stability. That is a much more complex task
which entails the institutionalisation of the rules of the democratic game. But it will be an
important substantive and symbolic victory for democracy.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 31.05.08

– Gyanendra given marching orders

Nepal’s government said on Friday it had started an audit of palace property and sent an
official letter telling King Gyanendra to leave after a historic assembly abolished the
monarchy. The ousted Hindu ‘god-king’, given a two-week eviction order, has kept a
studied silence behind the high walls of his pink-hued Narayanhiti palace, although the
royal flag has come down from over the heavily guarded complex. “An “An official letter has
been dispatched from the government asking Gyanendra Shah to vacate the palace,” palace,”
Information Minister Krishna Bahadur Mahara told AFP.

“A high-level committee has been formed to prepare the details of the property inside the
palace. All the property will be transferred to national property,”
property,” he added. An estimated
1,500 soldiers guard the king, but Nepal’s army — seen as a bastion of royalists — said
they will comply with the decision, which also involves turning the royal palace in
Kathmandu into a museum. Nepal has been brimming for weeks with rumours over the
king’s plans, with each and every departure from the palace in recent days — including a
weekend trip to his summer home and a drive to his sister’s house for tea — watched with
bated breath. Kishore Shrestha, a newspaper editor whose publication regularly runs
scoops on palace affairs, said the ousted king’s son Paras moved his belonging out
overnight but added that “the
“the king is still inside.”
inside.” Gyanendra, considered by loyalists to be
a reincarnation of a Hindu god, ascended to the throne in 2001 after most of the royal
family were slain by a drugged, drunk, lovelorn and suicidal prince. But the new king failed
to win the support of the public. His unpopularity deepened when he sacked the
government and embarked on a period of autocratic rule in early 2005.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
JUNE 2008
Kamaal K. Lalany - HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
June 2008 of the DAWN Compilation
Series, put together by Kamaal
Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 01.06.08

– More cuts proposed in President’s powers, LGs may go

People’s Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday approved a draft of the 18th
Constitution Amendment Bill and, according to the law ministry, the modified
document will now be sent to other coalition partners in order to arrive at a
consensus before its presentation in parliament. The law ministry’s announcement
that the constitutional package had been approved by the party chief came as a
surprise because Mr Zardari is not a part of the government. A source said that
changes included a new clause in Article 243 of the Constitution which proposes to
authorise the prime minister to declare war in case of an external aggression. “Only
“Only
the prime minister will have the final authority to grant permission to resort to such
an extreme step,”
step,” sources said. Although Article 243 lays down that the federal
government will control and command the armed forces, clause 1(A) states:
“Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the supreme
command of the armed forces will vest in the president.”
president.” Clause 2 of Article 243
says the president will have the power to raise and maintain the military, naval and
air forces and the reserves of such forces and to grant commission in such forces.
Sub-clause 3 of the provision says that the president, in consultation with the prime
minister, will appoint the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee, the Chief
of the Army Staff, the Chief of the Naval Staff and the Chief of the Air Staff, besides
determining their salary and allowances. The law minister is scheduled to meet
PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif in Raiwind on Sunday to deliver a copy of the draft. An
announcement by the law ministry said a sealed copy of the package had been
delivered to Bushra Gohar, the vice-president of the Awami National Party (ANP),
because the party’s president, Asfandyar Wali Khan, was in Karachi. Farooq Naek
also talked on phone with Maulana Fazalur Rehman, who is currently in Saudi
Arabia. On his request, the law minister handed over the package to his
representative, Mufti Abrar. A representative of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement has
also received a copy of the draft. The party would now send the copy to its chief,
Altaf Hussain, in London.
Earlier, presiding over a meeting of the National Reconstruction Bureau (NRB), the
law minister said the government had decided to scrap the local government
system, introduced in 2001, as all provinces had expressed reservations over the
arrangement. The Constitution would be amended for this purpose. Farooq Naek
said there was a proposal to revive the previous local bodies system and the
proposed constitutional package also contained some clauses in it. In this regard,
amendments had also been suggested in the package as the local government
system was protected under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution according to
which it could not be changed without the president’s permission. Either that or the
government would have had to wait till 2009, when provincial governments could
amend the existing system. The PPP was already working on a plan to suggest
changes in the Local Government Ordinance and the Police Order because both the
PPP and the PML-N believed that the local government system had ruined the
provincial governments’ administrative control. On May 24, after attending the
meeting of the central executive committee of the PPP, Mr Naek had unveiled the
salient feature of the package mainly aimed at cutting presidential powers and
ensuring parliament’s sovereignty.
The package includes suggestions to revoke the president’s power to dismiss the
government and transfer his authority to appoint provincial governors and heads of
the armed forces services and delegate it to the prime minister. The amendments
also included a bar on the president running for office for more than two terms. The
PPP has also proposed to amend Article 1 of the Constitution under which the name
of the NWFP (North West Frontier Province) will be changed to ‘Pakhtoonkhwa.’
Through another amendment in Article 6 of the Constitution, it has been suggested
that superior court judges, who validated military takeovers in future and take oaths
under provisional constitution orders (PCOs), would be liable to be tried under high
treason. Through another proposed amendment, minorities are being given
representation in the Senate. The bill suggests that there should be five minority
members ‘one‘one from each province and one from the federal capital’
capital’ in the Senate
that will take the total number of the members of the Upper House to 105. At
present, there are 100 Senators. The bill also suggests amending Article 63 which
deals with disqualification of a person from becoming a member of parliament.
Under the existing provision in Article 63(g), a person who defames or ‘brings
‘brings into
ridicule the judiciary or the armed forces’
forces’ cannot become a member of parliament.
Now, there will be no such provision in the constitution, if the proposed bill is
passed. The bill also suggests that in future, caretaker governments at centre and
provinces will be appointed in consultation with prime minister, senate chairman
and speakers of the National and provincial assemblies. The PPP is also inclined to
do away with the law under which an elected person can simultaneously hold two
government offices. The proposed bill also envisages abolition of the concurrent list
to grant more autonomy to the provinces. The party has also suggested that the
Council of Common Interests (CCI) and the National Finance Commission (NFC) be
made more effective to remove grievances of the provinces on major issues.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 01.06.08

– An Unwanted Year
Most of us commentators, indeed if not all of us, and a good many of those who are
supposed to report things as they are, not as they are not, suffer from a lack of
objectivity. There are too many personal axes being ground into the mud, there are
too many angles, obtuse and acute, there are too many chips on too many
shoulders — and this applies not only to the writers and commentators but to the
media barons themselves, many of whom are compromised by their own personal
interests and leanings. Minds need to be opened up and refreshed. We need to stop
attacking, picking on old bones, and do a bit of cool analysis, criticise objectively
and, if possible, constructively, point out the wrongs without forgetting the rights,
and hope that someone or some persons who are in a position to act and come up
with some solutions to this sorry mess are out there heeding. What has happened to
the grand reconciliation scheme? It has faltered. It has been one person and several
other linked persons-specific. It has not been and is not evenhanded. Unelected
unrepresentative Asif Zardari, in his interview with the Washington Times published
on May 29, reiterated several times that it is now ‘time
‘time for reconciliation’.
reconciliation’. Having
had his substantial reconciliation, thanks to that unconstitutional and unlawful
ordinance thrust upon the country through the machinations of Benazir Bhutto and
President Pervez Musharraf in thrall to the US and its ‘national
‘national interest’,
interest’, it is time
that he himself applied his mind and persuaded his wilting coalition partners and his
own party people to enter into the spirit of national reconciliation.
How is it that President Musharraf is omitted from this grand process? How about a
bit of reconciliation where he is concerned? His sins, largely, are no greater and no
less (though they may be different) than the sins of those who have so illegally and
un-evenhandedly benefited from the NRO. After all, it is he who is partly
responsible, in hand with his American friends, for having cleared Zardari and his
friends of the many charges (some iron-clad) levied against them many years ago.
Reconciliation, if it is to be with us, should apply all round — to Musharraf, to the
Mian of Lahore and his party people, in fact to us all. It is Zardari’s wife’s
assassination, and only and simply that, which has shot Zardari into the position
where he now finds himself — unelected, having no constitutional nexus, but almost
the sole spokesperson in this flailing Republic, sought out by locals and foreigners
for his words of wisdom and policy. If miracles do happen, then Zardari can certainly
claim one in his case.
Now, let us return to the objectivity factor and the state of the nation. For many a
year, the American journalist, a true professional, Paula Newberg, has watched and
commented on Pakistan and its peculiarities, its usually nefarious and occasionally
comical doings, and its infrequent ups and very frequent downs. She writes for
various US and international publications and has her wits about her. The comments
she comes up with are valid and should be pondered upon. Posted on the Internet
newspaper The Huffington Post on May 27 was Newberg’s article ‘Pakistan’s
governance imperative’. It is lengthy and comprehensive. But she says it as it is
from the opening paragraph right up to the bitter end. “After
“After the kind of year that
no country ever wants, with its government in crisis, repression replacing even the
most remote notion of good government, political assassination, and terror standing
in the wings, Pakistan elected a new parliament in February.”
February.” A coalition was
formed of three parties “previously
“previously deemed outcasts”
outcasts” which quickly agreed, at least
in public, on a “daunting
“daunting political agenda”.
agenda”. Then things went into reverse gear and
it stands now broken down on the various issues facing it. As of now, “Domestic
“Domestic
politics and foreign policy alike are fair game for ambitious politicians long removed
from power.”
power.” The “long removed from power” should make us all stand back and
absorb shame. What sort of a nation is it that cannot, in the long period of eight
years, throw up some new faces and new minds, untainted by past doings and
failings? The voters cannot be blamed, they had little choice.
The blame must be laid fairly and squarely in front of Musharraf’s boots for it was
up to him to find, nurture and bring out to the fore men and women of integrity,
substance and ability who could lead this county into the 21st century. For his own
selfish and myopic reasons he thrust upon us some of the most discredited men in
this country’s political history and introduced into the political system others who
are complete rogues and vulgar vagabonds. That he had no choice but to then bring
back the relics of the 1990s and throw them to the voters is thus not surprising. So
where are we now? “The“The recent blur of pronouncements, plans and policies reflects
this history as it touches on Pakistan’s perennially sensitive topics: jumbled
electoral rules, imbalances between provincial powers and central government
authority, political corruptions long deemed acceptable, and a testy relationship
between parliament and the president ... daily life in Pakistan is increasingly
punctuated by targeted, violent incidents and a prevailing insecurity that has not
diminished since Musharraf’s government was defeated.”
defeated.” A sad commentary on all
the euphoric rhetoric and pronouncements of glory to come with which we were
inundated in February.
Newberg is right when she states that it is not the names of individuals which
should dominate government and the headlines. It is political parties and parliament
which must lead the government. Institutions are in a shambles. “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s politics
has almost always been in conflict with major state institutions ... no state
institution has escaped the high-handedness of party rule ... the simple concepts of
representation, political participation and honest constitutionalism are so eroded
that Pakistan’s history is usually narrated as a contest between those who seek
power and those who wield authority ... the space between them ... has nurtured
corruptions of many sizes and shapes.”
shapes.” What we need are leaders “to“to defy their
own, and the world’s low expectations”
expectations” for Pakistan’s success. For now, this or any
government must demonstrate that after living for decades with coercion, the
citizens of Pakistan, the grand awam, “have
“have claims on the state that the state can
and will honour”.
honour”.
Author Location Dated
AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 01.06.08

– Gyenendra to Leave Palace Quietly

Nepal’s deposed monarch is willing to leave his palace quietly to begin life as a
commoner but wants help finding new accommodation for himself and elderly
members of his family, an official said on Saturday. The palace received a letter on
Friday asking the unpopular exking to leave within two weeks, in line with the
newly-elected assembly’s vote to abolish the monarchy earlier in the week. “The“The
palace secretary has told the home minister that (ousted king) Gyanendra Shah and
his family are leaving the palace,”
palace,” Bimalendra Nidhi, an official of the Nepali
Congress party, told AFP. “The
“The former king respects the decision of the constituent
assembly and is willing to leave the palace soon.”
soon.” Nidhi also said the government
had decided to withdraw army troops guarding Gyanendra and to throw a party in
the pinkhued palace after he leaves. The royal palace is still guarded by some 1,500
soldiers but Nepal’s army — previously seen as a bastion of royalists — has said it
will comply with any government orders to withdraw security cover.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 02.06.08

– Selective indemnity proposed in expanded PPP package

Pakistan people’s Party’s constitution amendment package contains insertion of
Article 270AAA to give indemnity to certain actions of President Pervez Musharraf,
including ordinances issued between July 12 and Dec 15 last year, but is vague on
the issue of proclamation of emergency and Provisional Constitution Order (PCO).
The package, containing about 80 amendments, if approved, will make drastic
changes in the Constitution to restore the sovereignty of parliament and curtail the
powers of the president. But perhaps the most significant of all the measures
suggested is an amendment to reinstate all the judges who were sacked under the
emergency order and to reinstate them to the position that existed on Nov 2, 2007.
The package suggests amendments regarding reinstatement of the superior court
judges, a new form for members of the armed forces, validity of general elections of
2008, renaming of the NWFP and changes to the article dealing with high treason. A
copy of the package was handed over to Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Mian
Mohmmad Nawaz Sharif by Law Minister Farooq Naek in Lahore on Sunday. Analysts
said the indemnity to be provided in the proposed package to President Musharraf
would pave way for him to step down because most of his actions that had become
controversial would get constitutional cover and, therefore, might not be challenged
in a court. The latest version of the Constitution contains new articles 270AAA, 270B
and 270C providing indemnity to the acts of the president, including the sacking of
about 60 judges, under his controversial decision to proclaim emergency. The 17th
Amendment had introduced Article 270AA validating earlier acts of the president.
The insertion of Article 270AAA (point 73) might have been included in the package
at a later stage because it has not been reported in the media.
Earlier, the media had been told that the package contained 62 amendments but
the draft given to the PML-N chief has about 80 points. It may be mentioned here
that President Musharraf had already inserted an article in the Constitution and its
clause-I validates the proclamation of the state of emergency on Nov 3, 2007.
However, the Article 270AAA proposed in the package does not mention specifically
the proclamation of emergency and the National Reconciliation Ordinance. The draft
contains a note stating: “This
“This is not a sacrosanct document and can be changed or
altered by the coalition partners in parliament and others.”
others.” Giving main objects and
reasons of the package, it says: “Through
“Through extra-constitutional deviation, the
Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan had undergone substantial changes
adversely affecting parliamentary system envisaged by it. Substantial amendments
have been made to restore its parliamentary character and also ensure
independence of the judiciary.”
judiciary.” Our Staff Reporter in Lahore adds: The PML-N
sought time to come up with its detailed response to the draft but said it
fundamentally differed with the party’s stand which called for restoration of the
judiciary through an executive order rather than a constitutional package. The
party’s spokesman Siddiqul Farooq said the PML-N could not accept such a
deviation from its principled stand. The judiciary had to be restored with an
executive order as agreed by both the major coalition partners in the Murree
Declaration. Mr Siddiqul Farooq said PML-N’s stand was supported by the legal
fraternity, members of the civil society and people in general. He said some other
points in the draft like fixing the tenure of the chief justice or changing the age of
superannuation of the judges also differed with PML-N’s stand. The spokesman said
the PMLN would study the daft clause by clause before offering its reaction. The
party would also invite other sections of the society, especially lawyers and
representatives of the civil society, and respect their input before coming up with its
response, he said. He said a guiding principle for forming the party’s response was
restoration of the Constitution to its pre-Oct 12, 1999, position. He said the PML-N
central executive council would meet soon to study the document and suggest
amendments.

Author Location Dated

Mansoor Haider New York 02.06.08

– Aitzaz blasts Asif, says most graft charges justified

Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, President of Supreme Court Bar Association and a leader of
Pakistan People’s Party, has severely criticised his party’s co-chairman Asif Ali
Zardari for dragging his feet on restoration of the judiciary because he “doesn’t
“doesn’t
want independent judges”.
judges”. In a highly volatile and extensive interview with the New
York Times magazine (Ahsan was on the cover of the magazine), he said that most
charges of corruption against Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Asif Ali Zardari were
justified. It may be mentioned that Barrister Ahsan was the minister of interior in
the first government of Benazir Bhutto. The author of the article, James Traub,
writes: “I
“I asked him (Mr Ahsan) how many of the allegations of corruption he
believed were justified. “Most of them,”
them,” Mr Ahsan said, after a moment’s reflection.
“The type of expenses that she had and he has are not from sources of income that
can be lawfully explained and accounted for.”
for.” In the interview which was conducted
over a week, James Traub said that Mr Ahsan recognised that the PPP was itself a
feudal and only marginally democratic body led by a figure accused of corruption
and violence. Mr Ahsan, who defended both Ms Benazir Bhutto and Mr Zardari in 14
cases, told Times that the charges of “corruption
“corruption against both”
both” and in Mr Zardari’s
case also of “kidnapping,
“kidnapping, ransom and murder”,
murder”, were justified. “Ahsan
“Ahsan”,
”, said the
interviewer, “is
“is almost recklessly outspoken about PPP leaders, even though they
are his own political patrons. He speaks admiringly of Benazir Bhutto’s courage and
steadfastness but also points out with disdain that she viewed herself as the PPP’s
‘life chairperson’. And he does not bother to conceal his dim view of Zardari.”
Zardari.”
Besides, the Times article said, Mr Ahsan believed that in the aftermath of the
Lahore incident, wherein he saved former federal minister Sher Afghan from the
wrath of the people ‘that
‘that he is more famous in the country than at any other time’.
time’.
“And I have become much more famous.”famous.” The thought tickled both his vanity and
his sense of irony. “I’m
“I’m being treated,”
treated,” he said, “like
“like the policeman who’s rescued
the cat from the tree”.
tree”.

On Mr Ahsan’s decision not to contest polls, Traub said: “I “I spoke to Mr Ahsan by

phone a few days later. He had decided not to contest a by-election slated for this
summer. He had decisively chosen movement politics over party politics, and
perhaps he was happiest there. Mr Zardari and the PPP seemed to have increasingly
thrown in their lot with Mr Musharraf, appointing allies of the president to key posts.
Mr Ahsan wasn’t worried that a new round of protests, this time directed in part at
his own party, would divide the country. “There’s enormous popular support for my
position,”
position,” he said. And he was, as ever, blithe in the face of confrontation. “I’m
“I’m
comfortable,”
comfortable,” he reported from his home in Lahore. “I “I have no problem.”
problem.” On the
issues of judges and confrontation between Mr Zardari and Mr Ahsan, Traub relates:
“On the morning flight from Karachi to Sukkur, a city in the southern province of
Sindh where the Pakistan People’s Party high command was going for an annual
pilgrimage to Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s grave site — now that of his daughter as well —
Ahsan was approached by Farooq Naek, the law minister and a party leader. Naek,
according to Ahsan, asked him to mute his harsh criticism of Zardari and the party.
Zardari had reached an agreement with Nawaz Sharif to reinstate the judges within
30 days of the formation of the new government, and Naik implored Ahsan to show
some faith and trust. Ahsan agreed to act as if he accepted their bona fides, though
he didn’t altogether. He says he believed that Zardari feared that Chaudhry and
other apolitical judges might restore some of the cases against him that had been
summarily dismissed. Ahsan seemed quite blithe about these concerns. When I
asked if he worried that the lawyers could be blamed for splitting the fragile
coalition, he said, “if the party doesn’t act, it will force a debate inside the party,
and that would be a good thing.”
thing.” That night he pushed Zardari hard at the party’s
conclave near the Bhutto family grave site; Zardari pushed back, insisting,
according to Raja Adil Bashir, a party official, that the lawyers “should
“should not try to
threaten the government.”
government.”

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 02.06.08

– Defence minister claims PPP’s Musharraf policy unchanged

Defence Minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar said on Sunday that the PPP-led
government would not change its policy towards Pervez Musharraf in spite of
President Bush’s support to the beleaguered leader. He said that Mr Bush had made
the phone call, expressing support for Mr Musharraf in his “personal
“personal capacity”
capacity” and
should not be taken as backing by the US government. Talking to Dawn, he said
America’s official policy was reflected by US Senators who during their recent visit
to Pakistan called for reinstatement of the deposed judges, a demand that irritated
President Musharraf. The minister said the PPP leadership’s top priority was “to “to
save the government”
government” even if it had to sacrifice its relationship with any person. “If
“If
you have to survive, you have to leave the president. He is an unpopular leader”.
leader”.
Asked what were the PPP’s obligations in return for the National Reconciliation
Ordinance, he said the agreement between the PPP and the president was no longer
“valid or useful”
useful” after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. In response to a
question, the defence minister rejected as rumours press reports that at a recent
meeting Gen Parvez Kayani had asked President Musharraf to step down. “These “These
were all rumours. The man (army chief) who was reported to have told the
president to quit had not said anything publicly, although he met the president
again after the said meeting”.
meeting”. “The
“The army chief”,
chief”, the defence minister said, “is
“is a
very straight soldier and his policy of non-interference in civilian matters is very
clear.”
clear.” He also rejected reports that a foreign plane had come to Islamabad to take
President Musharraf and his family out of the country. Nothing like that, he said.

Answering another question, Ahmed Mukhtar said if the president’s powers to

dissolve the National Assembly or appoint governors and services chiefs were taken
away, as proposed in the constitutional package, Mr Musharraf might like to step
down. Asked who could replace Musharraf, the defence minister said Asif Ali Zardari
would be the best choice even if the president’s power to dissolve the assembly was
“not” taken away. He said he was saying this because Mr Zardari would be the last
man to sack his own party’s government. He said if the president was to be
deprived of all powers and reduced to a ceremonial figure then anyone could be
elevated to that posting. He made it clear that the next president would belong to
the PPP because it was the majority party in parliament. About the demand that
President Musharraf should be tried on treason charge, the defence minister said
impeachment would suffice. “If
“If he’s the president, he can’t be tried.”
tried.” Responding to
a question, he said there should be no bar on a twice-elected prime minister from
serving for another term. However, he said, he did not know why Mr Nawaz Sharif
was contesting the election at a time when he stood no chance to become premier.
A former secretary-general of the party, Ahmed Mukhtar, said the PPP had no plan
to set up a PPP-led government in Punjab. Had it harboured such a desire, it would
have approached all independents elected to the assembly.

Author Location Dated

Report Islamabad, Pakistan 02.06.08

– Salient features of the proposed bill

The following are the salient features of the proposed 18th Constitution Amendment
Bill.
(1) Changing the name of the North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) as
Pakhtunkhwa.
(2) Trial by parliament of people guilty of high treason under the Article 6 of the
Constitution and those condoning the act, including the superior courts.
(3) No person will hold the office of the president for more than two terms.
(4) No trust motion against the prime minister can be moved by no less than 20
per cent of the total membership of the National Assembly, mentioning name of
the proposed successor.
(5) A commission headed by the Chief Justice and comprising chief justices of high
courts and the federal law minister to appoint judges of the Supreme Court. The
law minister to be the chairman for appointment of the chief justice.

(6) Reservation of up to 10 per cent seats for women in the high courts.
(7) Replacement of the Supreme Judicial Council by the Judicial Commission of
Pakistan headed by a non-politicised retired chief justice, two retired judges of the
Supreme Court and one each from all the four high courts.

(8) Decision of the council will be open to judicial scrutiny by a bench of the apex
court of not less than nine judges, which would decide the appeal within 30 days.
(9) Change in the procedure for appointment of the Chief Election Commissioner.
(10) No declaration of war or use of armed forces without approval by the prime
minister or the cabinet.
(11) Validation of ordinances promulgated by President Musharraf between July
2007 and December 2007.
(12) Validation of the 2008 general elections.
(13) Restoration of the Chief Justice and other sacked judges of the superior
courts.
(14) Change in the oath of members of the armed forces that the Constitution will
not be abrogated, subverted or held in abeyance.

Author Location Dated

02.06.08

– The Bush support

It is a matter of opinion whether President George Bush’s reiteration of support for
President Pervez Musharraf will strengthen the Pakistani leader politically or prove
counterproductive. This is not the first time that the man who has a few more
months to go in the White House has rung up his old friend, whose name he initially
had difficulty recalling after Musharraf had staged his coup and Bush was
campaigning for the presidency. 9/11 changed all that. Ever since the American
president has entertained President Musharraf lavishly at the White House and
Camp David, and has successfully prevailed upon Congress to buttress his regime
with heavy doses of economic and military aid. However, since March 9 last year,
President Musharraf has been in trouble. Even though he succeeded in manipulating
his election to the presidency, things have never been the same for him again. His
only tangible achievement since that fateful date was the holding of the February
election, which by any standard was more or less free and constituted a resounding
victory for his political opponents ranging from the PPP moderates to those wanting
his impeachment and trial for treason. That he has managed to survive and has the
satisfaction of seeing someone other than a PML-N man in the Prime Minister House
testifies to a commando’s survival instinct. This makes one point clear to all our
politicians — the ability of a leader to stay in office or make an exit depends on his
skills in navigating through Pakistani politics’ tempestuous sea. As Henry Kissinger
said recently, America’s ability to manipulate Pakistan’s internal affairs is limited. In
an article written for The Washington Post, the former secretary of state asked
President Bush to concede that “the
“the internal structure of Pakistan’s politics is
essentially out of the control of American decision-making”.
decision-making”.
There is no doubt that the MMA and the Taliban will cite the Bush phone call and the
revelation of its contents by the White House spokesman as more proof of President
Musharraf being one of the many American agents who rule the Muslim world —
Hosni Mubarak, the two Abdullahs, Hamid Karzai, the Gulf sheikhs and many more.
But what we should note is that the reaffirmation of the Bush support is meant less
to impress the MMA and its like-minded friends and more for the benefit of those in
the moribund coalition who are no less eager to curry favour with Washington. This
is an old story. Governments and the opposition have never had any qualms of
conscience about seeking foreign help in domestic politics. During the Bhutto days,
the opposition trooped to the embassies to garner support against the PPP leaders’
excesses, while the involvement of the Hariri family and the drama surrounding the
Sharifs’ exile and return are too recent to be recounted. It is a collective shame.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 02.06.08

– Obama takes unassailable lead over Clinton

Barack Obama has almost seized the Democratic nomination for America’s 2008
presidential election after a committee decision that also appears to have further
divided the party on racial lines. On Saturday, the Democratic Party’s Rules and
Bylaws Committee agreed to a deal reseating the Florida and Michigan delegates
but under a formula that halves their number and divides them between the two
candidates. “I
“I believe sometime next week we will know precisely who the
Democratic nominee is — it is 100 per cent certain,”
certain,” predicted Obama
communications chief Robert Gibbs. “We“We are ready to begin the general election
campaign.”
campaign.” Angry Clinton aides immediately threatened to appeal the deal,
brokered by the 30-member committee. “This“This motion will hijack ... delegates won
by Hillary Clinton,”
Clinton,” fumed Mrs Clinton’s point man on the committee, Harold Ickes.
“Mrs Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials
committee.”
committee.” The response drew cheers from Clinton supporters shouting, “Denver!,
“Denver!,
Denver!, Denver!”
Denver!” Denver is where this year’s Democratic National Convention will
be held starting Aug 25. The party had earlier decided not to invite delegates from
Florida and Michigan to Denver for nominating its candidate for the presidential
election because both states had held their primaries ahead of an agreed schedule.

Counting delegates assigned on Saturday, Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton

2,052 to 1,877.5. This increased the number necessary for nomination to 2,118
from 2,026 before Saturday’s decision. This makes it seemingly impossible for Mrs
Clinton to collect the required number of delegates, no matter how long she
remains in the race. In Florida, the committee unanimously approved a measure
that would seat all the members of the state’s delegation but at half of their original
strength. That puts the final delegate allocation from the state at 52.5 for Mrs
Clinton, 33.5 for Mr Obama and 6.5 for former senator John Edwards. On Michigan,
the committee was far more divided — passing a motion to allocate 69 delegates
for Mrs Clinton and 59 for Mr Obama and then immediately halving those totals so
that Senator Clinton comes away from Michigan with 34.5 delegates to Senator
Obama’s 29.5. This gives Senator Clinton a net equivalent of 24 pledged delegates.
The committee rejected Mrs Clinton’s demand that since Mr Obama had removed
his name from the ballot papers in Michigan after the party decided not to invite
state representatives to the convention, she should be given all the delegates. This
means Mr Obama could gain enough delegates and super-delegates to try to claim
victory as early as Tuesday’s final primaries in South Dakota and Montana, or soon
thereafter. Mrs Clinton is expected to win tomorrow in Puerto Rico and take more
than half the delegates available. Barring a miracle for Mrs Clinton, she would have
to take all the delegates from the two states and one republic and persuade the 200
plus undecided super-delegates to vote for her nomination. The chances of this
happening for Hillary Clinton are zero.

Technically both candidates could finish with less than the required number of
delegates barring the super-delegates. If that should happen the Democrats would
go to Denver divided on racial lines. Political pundits are already predicting that
many working class whites who voted for Mrs Clinton may not vote for Mr Obama.
In Washington, Clinton supporters staged a noisy but peaceful demonstration
outside the Marriott Wardman Park hotel while Democratic officials debated the fate
of Michigan and Florida. Peggy Gail Forehand, a Clinton supporter from Tallahassee,
Florida, told reporters outside the hotel that she would vote Republican unless
Democrats allow every delegate from Florida and Michigan to participate in the
nomination process. “If“If the party wants to take away my vote that’s fine, I will
simply go to the other party,”
party,” she said. “Hillary
“Hillary Clinton doesn’t need a last-ditch
effort to stay in the race. She’s staying in the race. She’s made it very clear she’s
staying in the race.”

Author Location Dated

Munawer Azeem Islamabad, Pakistan 03.06.08

– Blast rocks Danish embassy in high-security area: 8 killed

A carbomb exploded outside the Danish embassy in one of the most high-security
residential districts on Monday, killing eight people and injuring more than 25
others. The blast severely damaged several buildings, destroyed dozens of vehicles
and left a big crater on the road, indicating that the bomb had been fitted to a
vehicle. Investigators were unable to say whether the bomb was remote-controlled,
a time device or detonated by a suicide bomber. Most of the victims were Pakistani
nationals, including lower staff personnel. An embassy worker was among the dead
and three were hurt. After the explosion, police arrested two men found loitering
near the embassy. Denmark and Norway closed their embassies after the tragedy.
Police said a white Toyota car bearing a diplomatic registration plate entered Street
21 of F-6/2 from Street 19 around 1pm. Only the driver was in the vehicle. Security
personnel manned both ends of the street and put up barricades to search vehicles
and stop unauthorised people from entering it, but they allowed the vehicle to pass
without a search. It blew up immediately after passing the embassy’s gate. The
blast left a crater more than four feet deep and with a radius of five feet in the
middle of the road, about four metres away from the gate. The perimeter walls of
the embassy and the office of the UN-backed Devolution Trust for Community
Development across the road collapsed and their metal gates were blown inward.
Extensive damage was caused to the DTCD building and vehicles parked in its
premises. Windowpanes, masonry and dozens of wrecked vehicles littered the area,
which also houses some other embassies, including Ukraine’s, and residences of the
Indian high commissioner, Dutch ambassador and Australian defence attache.
At the time of the attack, very few employees were present inside the embassy. The
bodies and the injured were taken to the Pakistan Institute of Medical Sciences and
Federal Government Services Hospital. Amir Nasim, Shahid Hussain, Zafar Iqbal,
Mazhar Mehmood, Mohammed Nasir, Amin Shoukat, Shahid and an unidentified
person were killed. More than 20kgs of explosives were used. The car turned into a
mangled heap of metal, scattering pieces over a wide area. The engine was found in
Street 18, 15-20 metres away from the spot. Witnesses said they saw blood, smoke,
burning trees and debris in the air. Interior Secretary Syed Kamal Shah told
journalists that a team had been constituted to investigate the incident. “We
“We have
asked the embassy to share evidence, including recordings of CCTV cameras,”
cameras,” he
said. According to sources, intelligence agencies had informed the interior ministry
and police a few days ago that terrorists might target the embassy in retaliation for
publication of sacrilegious cartoons in Danish newspapers. This was the second
attack on a foreign target in the capital this year, the earlier being a grenade attack
on an Italian restaurant in March in the same area.

There were speculations that the target of the attack was not the Danish embassy,
but the motorcade of President Pervez Musharraf and the vehicle had tried twice to
enter the Margalla Road, which was used as the VVIP route. The president attended
a ceremony at the National Defence College and stayed there from 11am to 1pm.
He was taken to the presidency in a helicopter after the explosion, sources said. The
crime scene also raised the question as to why the attacker had not rammed the
vehicle into the embassy’s building or gate and had blown it up after passing the
gate. The blast caused more damage to the DTCD building than the embassy. Some
officials said the position of the vehicle showed that the driver might have wanted
to turn to Street 18 to use Street 22 to go to the Margalla Road, which the VVIP
motorcade was about to cross. However, police officials, when contacted, denied
that the VVIP motorcade was the target.

APP adds: Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Affairs, Rehman Malik, said
results of preliminary investigation by the joint team comprising officials of the
Federal Investigation Agency, police and intelligence agencies would come out in 24
hours. He told a TV channel that there was no tip-off of any suicide bomber entering
Islamabad. He said the casualties included two police personnel and a foreigner.
The Foreign Office asked the security agencies to strengthen safety measures at
embassies and ensure protection of diplomatic staff.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 03.06.08

– Constitutional package attempt to protect NRO: speakers

Speakers, representing non-parliamentary opposition, on Monday rejected the
proposed constitutional amendment package, terming it farce, meant to maintain
status quo and protect the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) that
provided indemnity to corrupt politicians. Speaking at a seminar on ‘Restoration
‘Restoration of
judiciary and the constitutional amendment package’,
package’, they said the government by
linking restoration of pre-November 3 judiciary with the package containing a
number of controversial articles had proved that it was not sincere in restoring the
illegally-sacked judges of superior courts. The seminar had jointly been organised
by Liberal Forum Pakistan and Pakistan-Norway Association. Speaking on the
occasion, Justice (retired) Wajihuddin said the package was nothing but a sham,
meant to delay and defeat restoration of pre-PCO judiciary. He said the package had
been worked out to camouflage the vital issue of restoration of illegally removed
judges. He said the PPP despite knowing that it did not have two-third majority in
the Senate, enlarged the proposed amendment package by including 80 items in it
to make it even more controversial. He said under Article 89 of the constitution
every ordinance promulgated by the president had to be laid before the parliament
within four months, and it lapsed if not laid down before and approved by the
parliament during the specified time. He said the package sought to give protection
to various ordinances promulgated by President Musharraf, the most important of
which is NRO. “The
“The cat is out of the bag now and the intention to make NRO supra-
constitutional is known to all,”
all,” he remarked.

He pointed out that “Chief

“Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry had given a stay
against the NRO”
NRO” and observed that keeping in view this context it was against the
interests of the government to reinstate independent judiciary. He said the package
proposed the trial of high treason under Article 6 by the parliament and said the
judges who condone subversion of the constitution would also be triable. He was of
the view that the PCO judges could be tried even now for conniving with the
individual who subverted the constitution. He said the package sought to substitute
Article 270AAA inserted in the constitution by Musharraf. He said in other words, the
validity of the illegally inserted article was being recognised. He said there was no
use of an amendment to declare the recently held general elections as valid. He
pointed out that in Asma Jehangir case, the apex court had held that the elections
held even by a usurper would be valid for they represent aspirations of the people.
Roedad Khan said Musharraf sacked the Superior Court judges, knowing that his
eligibility to contest elections in uniform was being examined by the Supreme Court.
He said it was for the first time in the history that a chief justice was not only
illegally removed but was put under illegal detention. He said Pakistan could only
survive in a democratic framework. Pakistan Liberal Forum Chairman Asif Khan,
President Pakistan-Norway Association Amir Iftikhar and Ghazala Minnallah also
spoke on the occasion.

Author Location Dated

Mohammed Waqar Aslam Quetta, Pakistan 03.06.08

– The truth inconvenient

Which is that country under the firmament wherein:
— Poverty is prevalent, corruption is evident, taxpayers are indigent, tax evaders
are affluent, criminals are intelligent, democracy is incipient, — Traffic is incoherent,
unpredictable remains imminent, fifth-columnists are eloquent, the ones caught
red-handed may be proved innocent, weather is mostly inclement, jails don’t reform
the delinquent, everyone shouts that majority is silent, society is tolerance-
deficient, polls are unnecessarily adjectived as transparent, mishaps may be
adverent, basic needs of the government servant outsize his emolument, mobs
immediately get violent, — Flattery is taken for a compliment, nobody is aware of
contentment, everyone whomsoever you meet looks impatient, governance stands
eaten up by government, marvelous feats mostly happen as an accident, law
succumbs to precedent, critic is labelled an insurgent, PhDs are mushrooming but
R&D is non-existent, — Those who break law are found to be the most confident,
working ambience thwarts appearance of talent, passing the buck onto others is
considered to be the most convenient, national priorities are to personal motives
subservient, trivials do render the federating units divergent, officially-announced
economic indicators are mutually inconsistent, — A pervert may be reputed as an
abstinent, only wealth is needed to look prudent, every government subjects the
nation to a new experiment, right man at right place is mostly absent, masterminds
behind all historic national tragedies remain latent, — Official response to any
situation is seldom pertinent, foreign policy is without any internationally-
recognised ingredient, national resources are wasted in the name of development,
you cannot move a man only with argument?

Pharmaceutical industry thrives at the cost of the patient, honesty is taken with
insanity equivalent, a nasty tale is usually behind a man’s sudden ascent,
watchdogs look crapulent, flyover may collapse any moment, transfer of power is
always turbulent, the hero of the entire nation was forced at gunpoint to repent, —
Ninety-seven per cent of the capital is owned by those whose own strength is three
per cent, supplies may not be according to indent, people speak English with least
regard for accent, offices actually promote what those are tasked to prevent, —
News is talked about prior to occurrence of the incident, the one posing to be owner
may actually be on rent, feudal mindset is permanent, instability remains recurrent,
rains turn roads into drains of effluent, the administration relaxes by seeing the
rascals mutually-deterrent, anyone can be defamed as agencies’ agent, —
Scientists innovate but don’t invent, US influence has been persistent, educational
policies benefit everyone except the student, the judiciary has finally become firm
in refusing to relent, the camel many times did throw the owner out of the tent and
-- The Constitution is the easiest prey for an amendment, parliament is indifferent,
the police are virtually independent, serving ministers are seen complacent, trust
deficit is nationally inherent and a retired army chief still continues as the
president? Let me pen off as hints are sufficient.

Author Location Dated

Martin Kettle London, England 03.06.08

– In modern politics we see what we want to see

For plenty of people, Hillary Clinton’s cringingly false boast in March that she had
dodged the bullets at Tuzla airport during a visit to Bosnia in 1996 was a defining
moment of exposure in her long contest with Barack Obama. After that, for many
voters, she had lost it. So now, I wonder, will Obama’s scarcely less egregious
assertion that his great-uncle took part in the liberation of Auschwitz in 1945 have
an equally decisive impact on this year’s US election? Somehow I doubt it. Yet the
two bogus claims are a double reminder of the enduring importance of the
rhinoceros syndrome in modern politics. Back in 1515, Sultan Muzaffar II, the ruler
of Gujarat, presented a live Indian rhinoceros as a gift to Alfonso d’Albuquerque, the
governor of Portuguese India. Albuquerque duly arranged for the rhino to be
shipped to Lisbon as a present to Dom Manuel I, king of Portugal. When the rhino
arrived in the Portuguese capital, it created a sensation. No rhinoceros had been
seen in Europe for more than a thousand years, since Roman times. The beast
instantly became the wonder of Europe.
A few weeks later, word and even a sketch of the rhino reached Nuremberg, where
Albrecht Durer created a famous woodcut of the beast, a print from which can be
seen in the British Museum. As those who have examined Durer’s celebrated print
will know, the German artist worked from inaccurate anatomical sketches, including
armour-like plates covering the rhino’s body and a small extra horn on its neck,
which he replicated and embellished in his woodcut. Such was the success and
fame of Durer’s print, however, that his imagination came to define reality. For
nearly 300 years, most subsequent depictions of the rhinoceros continued to reflect
the artist’s errors rather than anatomical fact. As late as 1956, indeed, Salvador Dali
sculpted a rhino, neck horn and all, that owes more to Durer than it does to
zoological accuracy. False rhino syndrome is the willingness to believe that
something is other than what it is. The tenacity of the false rhino in the popular
mind for so long is a reminder that human beings possess a vast capacity for
misperception and for preferring to believe what they would like to believe. This
does not excuse Hillary’s tall tale about landing at Tuzla but it casts light on it.
Maybe Hillary is indeed someone who cannot tell fact from fiction. Plenty of people
seem to think so. But, at some significant level she clearly thought it was true.

Obama’s claim about Auschwitz displays a similar vein of make-believe to Clinton’s

about Tuzla. It is easier to explain, but not necessarily easier to excuse. Obama’s
campaign claimed he made an error about which camp his great-uncle helped to
liberate. But who makes false claims about being at Auschwitz? Monday was in fact
the second time Obama has claimed that US troops liberated the most notorious
Nazi death camp, though it is the first time he has written his own family directly
into the fiction, whether or not it was inadvertent. He ought, of course, to know that
it was the Russians who freed the Auschwitz survivors in 1945. Yet when American
accounts of the Second World War so routinely write the Russians out of the story
and cast the US as the uniquely virtuous protagonist, it is less surprising. The
collective wish to believe Obama means that it has also provoked far less publicity
and condemnation than Hilary’s Tuzla story. It is difficult to understand politics
unless one grasps how ready people are to believe things that are belied by the
facts. I discovered an example of this in my own family history. My parents always
said that a close friend of theirs had been badly wounded in 1941 by what they
described as the only German bomb dropped on Cambridge during the Second
World War. The victim’s relatives were brought up on this “only
“only bomb in
Cambridge”
Cambridge” story too. Even Eric Hobsbawm repeats it as fact in his autobiography.
Yet the claim about the bomb’s uniqueness is untrue. It does not take long to
confirm that there were dozens of air raids on Cambridge during the war but my
parents and their friends insisted on remembering only the bomb that mattered to
them.

Politics is particularly vulnerable to avoidable self-deceptions of this kind. I will not

intrude on private grief by mentioning those who misled themselves about Gordon
Brown. Instead, think about toffs. No one in the Labour party now says that the anti-
toff campaigns against Boris Johnson or Edward Timpson of Crewe were anything
other than stupid. But they all went along with them at the time. Why? Because
when they looked across at the Tories, Labour campaigners saw only toffs. They
saw the opponents they wanted to see. In the US, in different ways, Hillary and
Obama have both faced the rhino syndrome. Obama will soon wrap up the
Democratic nomination in spite of his flaws. Hillary will lose it because hers have
been overstated. He has had it too easy and can get away with nonsense about
America liberating Auschwitz. She has had it too hard and cannot recover from a
false claim about Bosnia. His supporters are dazzled by his break with the past but
too dismissive of doubters. Her fans see a candidate who fights for the poor, while
critics see a racist this week. Christopher Hitchens even compared her to George
Wallace. None of this is fair or objective on either count. People are seeing only
what they want to see not what is actually in front of their eyes. But the greatest
collective hypocrisy of our time remains the state of the economy. Indisputably,
times are harder than they were. Undeniably, big changes in global financial power
are afoot. Yes, growth is faltering, nerves are stretching and politicians are
struggling to strike a persuasive note after surfing a long period of rising prosperity.
But be honest: is this biting economic distress of the sort that traumatises families,
communities and whole generations in the way that the convulsions of the 1930s or
the 1980s did? Not yet it isn’t. When I read in the papers of the British family of four
planning a summer holiday trip to the west coast of America, a place which their
parents could never have dreamed of visiting, will suffer the “misery
“misery” ” of paying an
extra 240 pounds surcharge for the privilege, I wonder who is more deluded, the
politicians or the people? And I ask myself what kind of rhinoceros we think we are
looking at.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 03.06.08

– Aitzaz says he was misquoted by NYT

Supreme Court Bar Association President Aitzaz Ahsan says the New York Times has
misquoted him on the issue of corruption charges against PPP co-chairman Asif Ali
Zardari and slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto. Addressing a press conference at the
Lahore Press Club on Monday, Mr Ahsan said he had asked the newspaper through a
legal notice for the reason for writing that he had stated that the charges against Mr
Zardari and Ms Bhutto were justified. Mr Ahsan said he had also asked the
newspaper to print a clarification. Mr Ahsan said he had only talked about the cases
against Ms Bhutto and Mr Zardari to a reporter of the newspaper. “I “I never said the
cases against the PPP leader were justified,”
justified,” Mr Ahsan said, adding that he had only
talked about the cases in which he had represented Mr Zardari before a court that
granted him bail. Answering a question, Mr Ahsan said that a long march now
appeared to be inevitable because the package would impede restoration of the
judiciary. He said that amending Article 6 of the Constitution, as proposed in the
package, would be counterproductive. “According
“According to Article 6, anyone who aided in
the abrogation of the Constitution was also guilty,”
guilty,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Mudassir Raja Rawalpindi, Pakistan 04.06.08

– Shahbaz to take over as CM this week

Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has said that the party’s
president, Mian Shahbaz Sharif, will take over as chief minister of Punjab as the
Election Commission has issued a notification about his election to the PP-48
Bhakkar-II seat. He said that Mr Sharif would take oath in two to three days at the
Governor’s House despite his party’s reservations over the appointment of Salman
Taseer as governor. Addressing a press conference after announcing a development
package for the district of Rawalpindi on Tuesday, Mr Khan said that PML-N chief
Nawaz Sharif would not be in Pakistan on June 10 when lawyers would start their
long march on Islamabad and by that time Shahbaz Sharif would be the chief
minister and, therefore, both of them not be able to take part in the lawyers’
movement for restoration of the judiciary. He said the elder Sharif would be with his
wife who would undergo a medical check-up in London on June 10, but other party
leaders and workers would participate in the protest. He said that reinstatement of
the judges was a prime objective of his party and it had sacrificed its ministries at
the centre for the cause. When asked about a formula put forward by PML-N
legislator Ayaz Amir that all three ‘controversial
‘controversial figures’
figures’ — President Pervez
Musharraf, deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and Chief Justice
Abdul Hameed Dogar — should be removed, he said it was Mr Amir’s personal own
view and not of PML-N. He said he had earlier called for a commission on the issue
of Kargil war and would reiterate it in his budget speech in the National Assembly.
He said that such a commission had become necessary now because of a statement
by former Rawalpindi corps commander Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiani that the
prime minister had not been taken into confidence on the Kargil operation. “If “If India
can constitute a commission on Kargil why not Pakistan,”
Pakistan ,” he asked. He said that the
PML-N was against giving a safe passage to Pervez Musharraf and demanded his
trail under Article 6 of the Constitution. “As
“As long as the president is there, there will
be no peace in the country,”
country,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 04.06.08

– Committee to examine PPP package

The Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N have agreed to form a
joint committee to examine the constitutional package proposed by the PPP to pave
the way for reinstatement of the deposed judges and making parliament sovereign
by clipping president’s powers. The decision was taken at a three-hour meeting
between PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif here
on Tuesday. Mr Zardari was assisted by Finance Minister Syed Naveed Qamar, Law
Minister Farooq Naek and Information Minister Sherry Rehman and Mr Sharif was
accompanied by Khwaja Mohammad Asif and Ishaq Dar. According to PPP
spokesman Farhatullah Khan Babar, the committee will discuss the draft of the
package and the amendment bill will be placed before parliament after the passage
of the budget by the end of the current month. Sources told Dawn that although the
two parties had agreed on most of the points of the draft, they were poles apart on
the issue of reinstatement of the judges. Mr Babar claimed that the two sides had
discussed issues relating to the budget and the political situation in the country, but
the sources said that most of the discussion revolved round the issue of
reinstatement of the judges.

The PML-N wants reinstatement of the judges in accordance with the Murree
Declaration through a National Assembly resolution and an executive order of the
prime minister. But the PPP has linked the reinstatement to a constitution
amendment bill that would not only empower parliament but also reform the judicial
system. The lawyers have rejected the package which also contains clauses under
which the tenure of the chief justice will be fixed at five years. The Pakistan Bar
Council (PBC) and Supreme Court Bar Association have given a call for a long march
on the federal capital on June 10 and the PML-N has announced its full support to
their movement. Law Minister Naek handed over copies of the draft of the
constitution amendment package to all coalition partners on Saturday and Sunday
and sought their recommendations. Meanwhile, a committee formed by the PML-N
to review the draft held its first meeting here on Tuesday. PML-N chairman Raja
Zafarul Haq heads the committee comprising Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Ahsan Iqbal,
Khwaja Asif and Khwaja Haris. Mr Haq told reporters after the meeting that the PML-
N was firm on its stand that the judges should be reinstated through a resolution
and there was no need for a constitutional amendment for the purpose. He said the
two parties had common viewpoints on most other proposals. He said the
committee would finalise its recommendations in a few days.
According to a handout issued by the PPP media office, Mr Zardari congratulated
Shahbaz Sharif on his election to the Punjab assembly as the prospective chief
minister of the province. He assured Mr Sharif that the PPP would support him as
the chief minister and strengthen the coalition government in Punjab.

Author Location Dated

AFP Tokyo, Japan 04.06.08

– Nepal Maoist chief refuses to renounce armed struggle

Nepal’s Maoist chief has ruled out renouncing armed struggle but said a return to
violence was unlikely after the former rebels achieved their goal of ending the
world’s last Hindu monarchy. The Maoists, who waged a decade-long insurgency
that left more than 13,000 people dead, won a convincing election victory for a
special assembly that last week voted to dethrone King Gyanendra. In an interview
published on Tuesday, Prachanda, whose nom de guerre means “The “The Fierce One,”
One,”
said that the election showed that the Nepalese people wanted “peace
“peace and
change.” “I don’t think there will be any kind of necessity to use arms again,”
again,” he
told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun. But he refused to renounce the right of armed
struggle by the Maoists, who have 31,000 fighters in UN-monitored camps across
the land of Mount Everest. “It
“It doesn’t mean nobody should take arms to resist
oppression of the government or something like that. I can’t predict that,”
that,” he said.

The Maoists have called for their guerrillas to be brought into Nepal’s army,
formerly a bastion of royalist support. But Nepal’s army, while pledging to respect
the decision to abolish the monarchy, has said it would be impossible for
indoctrinated leftist guerrillas to integrate into the 90,000-strong force. The United
States, which supplied arms to Nepal to fight the rebels, continues to classify the
Maoists as terrorists, thereby restricting the group’s travel and financial
transactions. Washington has repeatedly called on the Maoists to stop violence and
intimidation and rein in their dreaded youth league. But in a shift, the United States
has held talks with Prachanda, a former schoolteacher whose real name is Pushpa
Kamal Dahal and who spent more than two decades underground. Prachanda,
whose rebels were long sharply critical of the West and neighbouring India, said he
wanted “a
“a diplomatic relationship”
relationship” with the United States. “I
“I think the US is going to
change its attitude and policy. They are trying to understand the real dynamics of
our country,”
country,” he said. “Slowly,
“Slowly, gradually, they are taking more pragmatic steps.”
steps.”

Author Location Dated

Gopal Sharma Kathmandu, Nepal 04.06.08
 – Nepal’s infant democracy faces mature problems
As Nepal ends its first week as the world’s newest republic on Tuesday, worries
about political squabbling, food and fuel shortages and demands for regional
autonomy are replacing euphoria over the end of the unpopular monarchy. Given a
tradition of party bickering and the ambition of the Maoists, who gave up their
guerrilla war to topple the king and then won elections for an assembly which finally
ended royal rule, the transition was never going to be easy. But spiralling global
prices of basic foods and crude oil have added pressure as they spill over the
Himalayan foothills, creating shortages and threatening to fire popular anger. Nepal
is one of the world’s poorest countries, hobbled by years of strife, strikes, and
chronic power shortages, and heavily dependent on foreign aid and tourist
revenues. The most immediate challenge remains to form a new government and
elect the first president, expected to be a largely ceremonial position. Leading
parties, including the former rebels, who fell short of a majority in April’s polls, are
fighting over positions. The Maoists want both the posts of prime minister and
president. The centrist Nepali Congress, the second-biggest group in the new
assembly, say that would represent a “totalitarian
“totalitarian system”
system” and cannot be allowed.

Commentators say this should not be an insurmountable obstacle. “Finding “Finding a

(presidential) candidate acceptable to all without losing face to their cadres should
not be difficult,”
difficult,” said political analyst C.K. Lal. But while the politicians argue, the
problems the new government will face are mounting. “Whichever
“Whichever party is going to
form the government, it is going to immediately hit a brick wall with the food and
fuel crisis,”
crisis,” said Kunda Dixit, editor of the weekly Nepali Times. “Public
“Public expectations
are so high, there is bound to be disillusionment.”
disillusionment.” Cars and motorbikes queue daily
outside gas stations, and the state-run oil monopoly has warned it could soon run
out of cash and have to close more pumps if subsidised retail fuel prices are not
hiked in line with the rising cost of imports. Previous fuel price rises have sparked
violent protests and often forced government withdrawal. Consumer groups say
prices of many staple foods have gone up by more than 32 per cent since January,
mirroring gains in India from where Nepal imports most of its food. Fearing
shortages, some retailers have begun hoarding, adding to price pressures.

Beyond the initial hurdles lies the massive task of drafting a new inclusive
constitution in a country traditionally run along feudal lines by an unrepresentative
elite. Ethnic minorities, previously marginalised lower castes, and women are all
looking for a greater say in running the country and increased access to jobs and
education. “Integrating
“Integrating all of Nepali people into the state structure and the
economy will be a real test for the constitution drafters,”
drafters,” said Rhoderick Chalmers,
Nepal head of Brussels-based think-tank, the International Crisis Group. Sensing an
opportunity for gains, ethnic groups with varying demands have organised violent
protests in which scores of people have died since the Maoists ended their 10-year
fight with government troops and began peace talks. Most of those deaths took
place across the fertile southern plains, known as the Terai or Madhesh. Ethnic
Madheshis, who comprise one third of Nepal’s 26 million people, want a separate
province with extensive powers in what is Nepal’s breadbasket and business hub.
The Maoists and other parties insist they have no objection to greater regional
autonomy but have proposed no plans for how this will work. The Madheshis are
expected to push their case in the assembly, where they make up the fourth-largest
block. Adding to security fears is the future of over 19,000 former Maoist fighters
housed in United Nations supervised camps. The Maoists want them to join the
national army, a plan strongly opposed by senior officers. “Our
“Our stand is that anyone
who is politically indoctrinated can’t be taken into the army. This is true with the
Maoists,”
Maoists,” a top army general said. If the Maoists insist on their former guerrillas
entering the ranks rather than being found alternative employment, tensions could
rise, analysts say, possibly straining relationships between ministers and the top
brass. And if the former rebels relent, their disarmed fighters will have to compete
with almost half a million other young people who join the labour market every year
to face limited opportunities. Businesses want an end to chronic power shortages,
labour and transport strikes and the framing of investment-friendly policies to
revive growth and create jobs. “We
“We are not asking for any largesse from the
government,”
government ,” said Nirmal Shrestha, the owner of a shop selling noodles and cold
drinks in the capital. “We
“We need cheap meals, work, and security guarantees.”
guarantees.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 04.06.08

– Obama set to clinch nomination

Senator Barack Obama has achieved the delegates required to win the Democratic
nomination for the 2008 presidential election, campaign officials of his rival Hillary
Clinton conceded on Tuesday. With his nomination almost a certainty, Senator
Obama makes history as the first non-white candidate ever to lead a major US party
into a fall campaign for the White House. Senator Clinton, who may finally bow out
of the race later in the evening, would also have made history as the first woman to
do so. The historical significance of this election led to a 15-month long bitter
campaign between the two candidates that many political analysts said might have
hurt the Democratic Party’s otherwise strong possibility of beating the Republicans
this time. Senator Clinton already said farewell to her campaign staff, media reports
said as primaries in Montana and South Dakota progressed. Earlier on Tuesday, the
Associated Press news agency reported that the former first lady was all set to
make a concession speech, acknowledging that Barack Obama had the delegates to
secure the Democratic nomination. But her campaign later issued a statement,
indicating that the long and bitter contest between the two rivals for the 2008 US
presidential election was far from over. “The
“The AP story is incorrect. Senator Clinton
will not concede the nomination this evening,”
evening,” the statement said. But reports that
Mrs Clinton was all set to bow out of the presidential race reappeared after
members of her campaign staff said they have received an e-mail from the former
first lady telling them their roles would come to an end on Tuesday evening. All of
them had been summoned to New York for a final farewell meeting on Tuesday
evening, the reports said. Most campaign staff would be paid through June 15. On
NBC’s “Today Show,” Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said that once
Senator Obama got the majority of convention delegates, “I “I think Hillary Clinton will
congratulate him and call him the nominee.”
nominee.” While AP reported that Mr Obama had
already collected 2,118 delegates required to clinch the nomination, NBC News
reported that he was still 30.5 delegates short of the needed number. The AP tally
was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen
private commitments.

Author Location Dated

Shamim-ur-Rahman Karachi, Pakistan 04.06.08

– Market closure schedule put on hold

As Karachiites braved prolonged power outages on Tuesday, enforcement of
energy-saving Friday closure of markets in the city was put on hold, at least for a
week, primarily because traders rejected the proposal and vowed to defy it, warning
that the government would be responsible for a law and order situation if it tried to
use force. This was decided at a meeting of the Karachi Chambers of Commerce
and Industry on Tuesday. At the meeting, Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfikar Mirza
asked traders to form a five-member committee to find a way out of the situation.
Explaining reasons for the government’s energy-saving drive, he said it wanted to
take every stakeholder on board as it was a democratic government. It was decided
that at least for the time being the administration would not use any coercive
measure to enforce observance of the new timings and closure schedule for the
markets. Traders and businessmen gave vent to their anger and fear and refused to
hear the chief executive of the Karachi Electric Supply Company, Gen (retd)
Mohammad Amjad. They held the KESC responsible for “ruining
“ruining their businesses”
businesses”
and causing huge losses to them because of power failures. Those who criticised
the KESC for its failure to honour its commitment included Siraj Kasim Teli, Shamim
Shamsi, Majeed Memon, Mahmood Hamid, Rafiq Jadoon and Javed Shaikh. The main
contention of the trading community was that the government announced the
energy-saving drive without taking them into confidence and without taking into
consideration the typical nature of life in the metropolis.

Mahmood Hamid, the Karachi division president of the All Pakistan Association of
Small Traders and Cottage Industries, said the meeting decided to constitute a five-
member committee, including representatives of the traders to sort out issues
related to the energy-conservation drive. The Sindh home minister assured the
small traders that no strongarm tactics and measures, including visits by police,
would be used by the government from now on for the enforcement of power
conservation. He said the present democratic government would not act in an
arbitrary manner to impose its decisions. He said the committee should sort out the
contentious issues of power conservation drive within a week during which there
would be no forcible implementation of the plan on traders. Atiq Mir, the chairman
of the Alliance of Market Associations, said the traders and shopkeepers would
continue their routine trading activities and business hours despite introduction of
the energy conservation drive of the government. He said there was no justification
for shutting down shops at 9pm as already the regular business hours of markets
had been severely marred by prolonged spells of load-shedding. He said the first
two days of the government’s power-conservation programme had seen much
deterioration in power supply. He said that on Monday, which was the first working
day after the introduction of the power-conservation drive, police personnel visited
markets at Arambagh, Saddar and Tariq Road and advised shopkeepers and traders
to shut down their businesses at 9pm. “However,
“However, they did not resort to any forcible
means to ensure closure of markets in these areas after 9pm,”
9pm,” said Mr Mir.

He said that in another significant move on Monday evening power supply to shops
in Zainab Market, just opposite the KESC head office, was shut down after 9pm,
compelling the traders of the area to shutter their shops. He urged the government
to reverse its decision realizing the typical shopping culture of the city. The present
measures would lead to further chaos in the markets for which the government
alone would be responsible. Meanwhile, as the mercury touched 36 degrees Celsius
with 62 per cent humidity, the KESC was short of more than 400MW as its
generating units could not generate enough electricity and continued with more
than twohour spells of load-shedding at least thrice during the day. There were
reports of EHT tripping in Nazimabad, Mauripur and Haroonabad which also affected
some of the grid stations. Students appearing in exams were most affected by the
outages in the suffocating heat. KESC consumers from every nook and cranny of the
city had this question to ask: “Why
“Why is there no electricity, will somebody solve this
problem?” Residents of Hyderi Block G and the adjoining areas complained that
they had been without electricity from 1.30pm to 7pm but the officials concerned
did not respond to their desperate calls for help.

Author Location Dated

Syed Rashid Hussain Mecca, Saudi Arabia 05.06.08

– Saudi King calls for opening up to other faiths

A gathering of Muslim scholars from around the globe got under way here on
Wednesday, with call from King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to counter the challenges
of rigidity, ignorance, narrowmindedness to make the world accommodate and pay
heed to the kind message of Islam without reservations, enmity and antagonism.
Addressing the select gathering of some 500 best minds of the Muslim world, the
king emphasised: “We“We are voice of rational and just co-existence and dialogue,
voice of wisdom and admonition, and argumentation with the best way possible,”
possible,”
King Abdullah who entered the hall of the Safa Palace in the vicinity of Masjidul
Haram along with the former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, appeared
to give a clear message to the world that despite differences the Muslim world was
united on most issues confronting the Ummah. The three-day conference is aimed
at launching an inter-faith dialogue with other Abrahamic religions to eradicate
misconceptions about Islam. King Abdullah had announced in March that he wanted
to sponsor an interfaith dialogue between the world’s monotheistic religions –
specifically with Jews.

The Saudi king stressed that the Muslim world should eradicate the menace of
extremism to present the religion’s good message to the world. “You “You have gathered
today to tell the whole world that ... we are a voice of justice and values and
humanity, that we are a voice of coexistence and a just and rational dialogue.”
dialogue.” He
said the Islamic world faced difficult challenges from extremism of some Muslims,
whose aggression harmed the magnanimity, fairness and lofty aims of Islam.
“That’s why the invitation for the conference was extended – to face the challenges
of isolation, ignorance and narrow horizons, so that the world can absorb the good
message of Islam,”
Islam,” he said. Virtually all the delegates, including Hashemi
Rafsanjani, praised King Abdullah for the initiative. “Before
“Before we speak with other
religions, we must speak among ourselves and reach an understanding on a
particular Islamic path,”
path,” Dr Rafsanjani said, calling for greater understanding
between Sunnis and Shiites. It is hoped that the meeting will reach an agreement
on a global Islamic charter on dialogue with Christians and Jews. Two sessions of the
conference will focus on issues raised by the king and other delegates during the
opening session. The third session, ‘With
‘With Whom To Talk’,
Talk’, will focus on dialogue with
representatives of recognised philosophies around the world, including Buddhism,
Hinduism and Sikhism and other man-made philosophies.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 05.06.08

– Pressure on Obama to accept Hillary as running mate

Senator Barack Obama faces immense pressure from groups within his Democratic
Party to pick Hillary Clinton as his running mate after he won enough delegates to
clinch his party’s nomination for the 2008 presidential election. The two had their
first encounter at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington on
Wednesday, praised each other, but did not say a word about who will be the vice
presidential candidate. On Tuesday evening, Ms Clinton hinted that she was “open “open
to”
to” being Mr Obama’s running mate, but has not conceded her defeat yet. Members
of the Congressional Black Caucus, however, are pushing Mr Obama to accept Ms
Clinton as his vice presidential nominee. But an influential Democrat — former
president and Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter — urged Mr Obama not to do so. At the
AIPAC meeting, Mr Obama made sure to praise Ms Clinton, calling her an
“extraordinary candidate, an extraordinary public servant,”
servant,” and “a“a true friend of
Israel”.
Israel”. “I’m
“I’m very proud to have competed against her,”
her,” he said. Senator Clinton got
a standing ovation before she started her speech. She has a longer, stronger
relationship with the powerful committee than Mr Obama and she used it to vouch
for Mr Obama as a strong supporter of Israel. “And
“And let me be very clear. I know that
Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel,”
Israel,” she said. On Tuesday evening, Mr
Obama indicated that Ms Clinton will have a role in his administration, if he is
elected. “You
“You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal
healthcare in this country — and we will win that fight — she will be central to that
victory,”
victory,” he declared. Mr Obama and Ms Clinton talked early on Wednesday on
phone. He congratulated her and renewed his offer to “sit “sit down when it makes
sense for you”,
you”, said his spokesman Robert Gibbs. Ms Clinton responded positively,
Mr Gibbs said, but there were no immediate plans to meet on Wednesday.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 05.06.08

– PML-N separates judges’ issue from package

The special committee of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) on
Wednesday decided to separate the issue of restoration of deposed judges from the
PPP-proposed constitutional package. The committee met here for the second
consecutive day on Wednesday with PML-N chairman Raja Zafarul Haq in the chair
and attended by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Ahsan Iqbal and Khawaja Haris, advocate.
An expert on constitutional matters Justice (retd) Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim also
attended the meeting on special invitation. Sources told Dawn that the committee
members were unanimous in their views that the reinstatement of the deposed
judges should not be a part of the proposed constitutional amendment package.
The sources said the PML-N committee had decided to recommend it to the PPP to
remove Article 270CC relating to the restoration of the judges from the package.
The draft of the 18th constitution amendment bill 2008, prepared by Law Minister
Farooq Naek and handed over to all the coalition partners, contains an Article
270CC with the heading “Restoration
“Restoration of Superior Court Judges”.
Judges”.
The proposed article says: “Notwithstanding
“Notwithstanding anything contained any provision of
the Constitution, the Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2007, the High Court Judges
(Pensionary Benefits) Order 2007 (P.O. No 8 of 2007), the Supreme Court Judges
(Pensionary Benefits) Order 2007 (P.O. No 9 of 2007) and any other law for the time
being in force or judgment of any court including a high court and the Supreme
Court, the judges of Supreme Court and high courts, including the Chief Justice of
Supreme Court and chief justices of high courts who had ceased to continue to hold
office in pursuance of the Oath of Office (Judges) Order 2007, dated the 3rd day of
November 2007, shall stand reinstated/restored to the position and seniority they
were holding on the 2nd day of November 2007.”
2007.”

Talking to Dawn, Mr Haq said the PML-N was determined and firm on its stand that
the deposed judges should only be reinstated through a National Assembly
resolution in accordance with the Murree Declaration. He said the party would not
retreat from its stance on the issue of the judges. He said the PML-N also believed
that there was a need to bring judicial reforms in the country, but the package for
this purpose could be brought any time in the parliament. Mr Haq was not optimistic
about the passage of the PPP-proposed constitutional package, saying that the
ruling coalition parties did not have a two-third majority in the Senate. Mr Haq said
the committee had almost completed its task and hopefully it would finalise its
recommendations in a day or two. However, he said, the recommendations would
be sent to party chief Nawaz Sharif for approval. Mr Haq did not give any specific
reply to the question as to what line of action would the party adopt if the PPP
insisted on restoration of the judges through amendment to the constitution.

Author Contact Dated

Andleeb Abbas andleeb@franklincoveysoutha 05.06.08
sia.com

– The dilemma of leadership

Too many ‘leaders’ spoil a country. That is what the new political soap opera serial
on the media is displaying. With every episode ending in the suspense question of
‘who will do what to whom’,
whom’, the show has revealed some interesting aspects of the
leadership styles of the major actors in this actionpacked drama.

Leadership by desperation: Adopted by Musharraf, this requires one to be

shamelessly oblivious of the pressure in the buy-time, buy-people style. Silence can
be interpreted more than just consent — a revelation made by the president’s latest
political posture of disappearing from the limelight and playing the predictably
desperate game of conflict and conspiracy. The philosophy of the president seems
to be that if you cannot hoard power yourself, try to dilute the power of your
opponents. The best way of doing so is by fragmenting the cohesion of the power
brokers. In this case, considering the election results, it had to be the PPP or the
PML-N. With a history of conciliation and reconciliation with the PPP, it was but
natural to play on common interests and goals and make it look like a win-win for
the two of them. In this context, the appointment of Rehman Malik as interior
advisor and Salman Taseer as Punjab governor is proof that the PPP will tolerate
him as long as it serves their interest. Thus Musharraf’s style of leadership believes
in teambreaking rather than teambuilding.
Leadership by default: The PPP philosophy is based on collaboration and
cohabitation with all who would go along with ‘their
‘their’’ agenda. The agenda, of course,
is driven by Asif Zardari, PPP leader by default. Zardari, given an almost
unimaginable opportunity of ruling the country by the untimely death of his wife,
has made the most of it. He has a past riddled with controversy and corruption.
Titled as Mr 10 Per Cent earlier on, he has faced several corruption cases. The deal
struck between Benazir Bhutto and Musharraf was mainly based on the NRO which
has over a period of time cancelled all cases against Zardari. So with Mr Musharraf
it is a mutual corruption-condoning agreement which led to using the post-PCO
judiciary for the dutiful waiving of all conditions which did not suit Musharraf and
Zardari, whether it was the graduation condition for contesting elections or making
the illegal PCO legal for the president. Zardari has a rather loud and obvious
leadership posture. His melodramatic reading of Benazir Bhutto’s will was so
exaggerated that most people thought it was more fiction than reality. His abrupt
chumminess with the MQM was almost too breezy to be taken seriously. His
mysterious departure to Dubai and London and holding of long parleys have given a
lot of material to the media to keep viewers hanging on. However, all his high-
sounding declarations have been found to be short on substance and consistency.
These actions show his political immaturity, as he seems to have been trying to play
too many cards at the same time; in the end it is his impatience to hog all what is
suitable for him which will be his eventual undoing. Leaders who change their
statements and stance chameleon style are bound to lose their credibility.

Leadership by Emotion: Nawaz Sharif, on the other hand, has been capitalising on
anti-president and pro-chief justice public sentiments. The fact that he shares with
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry a common history of taking on Musharraf and then being
punished by him for it, is at the moment in his favour. He has sensed that the
judges’ restoration issue has given him a kind of popularity that he would not have
dreamt of when he came back to the country and any deviation from it will make
him fall into the same category as Musharraf and Zardari. This is an ideal
opportunity for him to differentiate himself from the lot. His interest in restoring the
judges also rests on the hope that in return for this favour he may be able to get
Musharraf’s third-time premiership restriction waived. However, a style based on
personal vendetta rather than public interest is always vulnerable to reverting to
the older pattern of failing to rise above selfish designs when it comes to using the
same ground rules for one’s own performance. His real test of leadership will come
if he has to take on the PPP as the latter becomes more and more inclined towards
the PCO judiciary. At the moment, the protest by his party against the PPP’s
politically compromising behaviour is muted. But as the intentions of the PPP
become obvious, Mr Sharif will have to prove that his disengagement from the
power centre was not just a political ruse to pacify the public, but an actual
principled stance designed to prove that he will not compromise on commitments.
Effective leaders need to possess the three ‘C’s, i.e. clarity, courage and
commitment. Clarity of vision, of purpose, of stance, of actions is what sets the path
for others to follow. Unfortunately, the game played by most of our leaders is to
create confusion, ambiguity and chaos, where they leave the public guessing about
their next move. This gives rise to uncertainty, gossip and speculation, eroding
confidence in the future of the country.
Another leadership requirement is the courage to uphold all that is true and to have
no hesitation in sacrificing personal interests for the public good. Unfortunately, our
leaders lack the moral courage to stand foreign and personal pressure and often
give in to the temptation of going for a quick fix even if it means sacrificing the
national interest. A leader true to his commitments is one who honours
expectations and fulfils all claims made to the public. Commitment, as interpreted
by our leaders, is temporary statement-mongering, where the memory of our
leaders is so short that they are consistently denying, degrading and dismissing
anything they had promised during their frenzied political campaigning. Without
clarity, courage and commitment we will always have leaders going through the
political revolving door, where they enter from one side and exit from the other,
only to enter again. Unless the complete exit of all morally handicapped characters
is ensured by the public, the drama of finding true leaders will continue to have a
tragic ending.

Author Contact Dated

F. S. Aijazuddin faijzuddin2@gmail.com 05.06.08

– Clinging to memories
If there is anything sadder than a person clinging to power, it is the sight of
someone clinging to his memory of it. Both President Pervez Musharraf and his
former prime minister, Shaukat Aziz, in their own separate ways are finding it as
difficult as then British Prime Minister Tony Blair did in 2007 to quit and to let go, to
‘go gentle into that good night’.
night’. One can understand their reluctance. For eight
years they were an inseparable partnership, sharing both rewards and risks,
exercising power and surviving assassination attempts to thwart it. Together, in
October 1999 they claimed to have seen a vision, a new dawn for our country; eight
years later, they are being made to witness the disappointing twilight of failed
expectations. It would be impossible to name two other persons in the history of
Pakistan who have come to occupy the highest posts in the land without any pre-
qualifications, who have then had the privilege of leading our country for so long,
and who have been dipping so continuously into the reservoir of public goodwill.
Today, each of them sits by that receding pool, like some modern Narcissus, in love
only with his own image. For President Musharraf, history would appear to be
repeating itself. Once before, early on in his 46-year-long army career, he was in
danger of being dismissed from service. In 1965, he disobeyed the orders of his
military superior and came within a whisker of being court-martialled. Thirty-five
years later, in 1999, he refused to obey the orders of a civilian superior who
approved his removal as chief of army staff. Today, he refuses to heed the
command of an electorate that in February’s general elections thought it had sent
him marching orders, only to have them returned from his trenches. His
predicament is unique: how does a president — however unpopular — give himself
marching orders? By comparison, Mr Shaukat Aziz’s departure from the two offices
he held of prime minister and his own finance minister has been more dignified. His
exit had been, as was his tenure in both posts, under the protective umbrella of
Musharraf’s patronage. He could not have done better. Persons who enter politics
from the side door need only one vote, not the crumpled mandate that falls out of a
ballot box.
Not many people may be aware that long before 1999, Mr Aziz had circulated to any
Pakistani government that would listen proposals for the rejuvenation of the
country’s economy. He offered his services as part of a high-powered team drawn
from amongst his Citibank colleagues. In this, he was following a path trodden by
such economic pundits as Syed Shahid Hussain, Moeen Qureshi and Shahid Javed
Burki, all of whom came from Washington DC with allopathic prescriptions to cure a
backward country that craved homeopathic remedies. Drawing on his experience as
the head of Citibank’s private banking division, Mr Aziz could see that his new client
needed amongst other things to shore up its foreign currency deposits and to have
its mountain of external debt levelled through rescheduling. Impervious to the
blandishments of private temptations, Mr Aziz guarded the public treasury with the
same care and rigorous discipline that he applied to his own private assets, some of
which he was forced to disclose when he was nominated by Musharraf in 2004 to
become prime minister. As he lacked a constituency of his own, he rode behind
Musharraf on the PML-Q warhorse and remained beholden as much to Musharraf
who held its reins as to the Chaudhries from Gujrat who held the whip.

Persons who did not know Mr Aziz better expected that he would relinquish the
finance ministership once he had been elected prime minister, just as some
optimists had languished in the expectation that Musharraf would doff his uniform
and surrender his post as chief of the army for the presidency. Mr Aziz might have
been taking his cue from his boss when he replied to one hopeful candidate for his
finance ministership: “I
“I cannot give you the only real job that I have.”
have.” As prime
minister, Mr Aziz ensured that his successes did not go unnoticed. A report prepared
in 2005 by a subordinate in the ministry of finance, assessing his first year’s
achievements as prime minister, lauds the country’s unprecedented GDP growth of
8.4 per cent, per capita income of $700, the highest production of cotton (14.6m
bales), of wheat (21.6m tons), privatisation proceeds of $2.6bn, exit from the IMF
programme, issuance of an Islamic Bond, and the introduction of the Fiscal
Responsibility and Debt Limitation Law designed to control profligate governments
from overspending. Three years into office, the same ardent acolyte trumpeted that
Mr Aziz’s “government
“government has not only consolidated the economic recovery that began
in early 2000 but also the economy of Pakistan continued to gain traction as it
experienced the longest spell of its strongest growth in three years…. Pakistan is in
the midst of its strongest economic expansion phase and its growth momentum is
broad-based. All the three major sectors, namely agriculture, industry and services,
have provided support to strong economic growth”.
growth”.

Why then, now that Mr Aziz has left the stage, has everything that we were led to
believe had taken place disappeared, as if it was some sort of conjuring trick, an
illusion? Why are the residual remains of his prime ministership not laurels but
prickly brambles? Why did the Pakistan Supreme Court have to intervene in the
Pakistan Steel Mills privatisation case? Why should there have been a wheat crisis
when we had a comfortable surplus? Why should we be experiencing an energy
crisis when four years ago, in 2005, a cabinet subcommittee had been formed to
devise a policy for the restructuring of the energy industry? Apart from Mr Aziz, it
had six other cabinet ministers as members, assisted by advisors and experts from
within the government and outside it. It is obvious they failed. What is less obvious
is why many of them were allowed to continue at the national steering wheel. Now
that Mr Aziz is no longer in public office, like Mr Blair he finds time hangs heavily on
his hands. He occupies himself with the innumerable interviews he gives to TV
channels exonerating his performance as prime minister/finance minister, with the
lecture circuit, and by accepting consultancy assignments that must be less
lucrative than those that went Dr Henry Kissinger’s way after his retirement. We are
told that Mr Aziz may be writing his autobiography of his years as Musharraf’s
civilian alter ego. One hopes that he will be kinder to his mentor than he was to him
in his autobiography In the Line of Fire. Out of seven references to Shaukat,
Musharraf misspells his PM/FM’s name unconscionably as ‘Shuakat’ and ‘Shaukut’.

Author Location Dated

Subel Bhandari Kathmandu, Nepal 05.06.08

– Deadlock over power sharing in post-monarchy Nepal

Political parties in Nepal — who agreed to abolish the monarchy and set up a
republic — are squabbling bitterly over power sharing in a new government. Since
the ex-rebel Maoists surprisingly swept April elections for an assembly to write a
new constitution, the question of the make-up of the next government has severely
tested an alliance of seven parties. The alliance orchestrated massive street
demonstrations that forced the unpopular king to restore democracy in April 2006.
And it more or less held during the interim governing period. But cooperation is no
longer the word on everyone’s tongue. “We “We are stuck in bad deadlock,”
deadlock,” senior
Maoist ideologue C.P. Gaujrel said. “We
“We feel that the Nepali people have given us
the right to lead the government and country,”
country,” he said. “But
“But the Nepali Congress
and other parties are finding it hard to leave the government that they are in.”
in.” The
Maoists won 220 of the 601 seats up for election, double the amount taken by the
pre-election favourites, the Nepali Congress. “Since
“Since the Maoist party emerged as
the single largest party, the other political parties are making meaningless
demands. It’s sheer double standards,”
standards,” Gaujrel complained. The former rebels, who
fought a bloody civil war for a decade to topple the monarchy, say they deserve the
prime ministerial and presidential positions in a new government. But others
disagree.

“We are demanding that a non-Maoist take the post of constitutional president so
that we can balance power,”
power,” Congress general secretary Ram Baran Yadav said.
The Maoists cannot be allowed to rule alone as they have not yet fully made the
transition from terrorist outfit to mainstream political actors, the senior Congress
official said. “The
“The Maoists have still not given up the politics of bullying, intimidation
and harassment. We do not believe that they are ready to give up violence,”
violence,” he
added. Although the Maoists say they have embraced democracy, they still refuse
to completely renounce violence, their leader said in an interview with a Japanese
newspaper. “I “I don’t think there will be any kind of necessity to use arms again,”
again,”
Prachanda -- whose name means “the fierce one” - told Japan’s Yomiuri Shimbun
newspaper. Around 20,000 former Maoist fighters and their weapons are confined to
UN-monitored camps as part of a peace deal reached in 2006, and Prachanda
refused to renounce the right of the Maoists to resort to armed struggle again. “It “It
doesn’t mean nobody should take arms to resist oppression of the government or
something like that. I can’t predict that,”
that,” he said.The ex-rebels claimed another
major victory last today when the constituent assembly officially abolished Nepal’s
240-year-old monarchy. Former king Gyanendra has been given official notice to
leave his palace at the heart of Kathmandu before June 12. The home minister met
him on Monday and announced that the fallen monarch was ready to leave. The
new republic deal capped a rocky two-year peace deal between the Maoists and
political parties that ended the bloody civil war in which 13,000 people were killed.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 05.06.08

– Jerusalem must remain ‘undivided’ capital, says Obama

US Democratic presumptive nominee Barack Obama said on Wednesday that
Jerusalem must remain the “undivided
“undivided”” capital of Israel in a speech to a powerful
US-Israel lobby group here. “Jerusalem
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must
remain undivided,”
undivided,” Obama told the vast annual policy conference of the American
Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC). Addressing the group in almost his first act
since claiming the Democratic nomination late on Tuesday, Obama said he was a
“true friend” of Israel and that the US bond with the Jewish state was
“unbreakable.”
unbreakable.” Obama drew a standing ovation as he arrived to address the mighty
US-Israel lobby, and also addressed perceived suspicion of him in some sectors of
the Jewish community. “As“As president I will never compromise when it comes to
Israel’s security,”
security,” Obama said in a cavernous Washington conference centre, his
image emblazoned across eight massive cinema-style screens.

Obama said in the strikingly pro-Israel speech that the US bond with the Jewish
state was “unbreakable
“unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow, unbreakable for ever,” ever,”
adding he was speaking from his heart as a “true“true friend”
friend” of Israel. Republicans have
hammered Obama over his offer to talk to leaders of Iran, saying the strategy
ignores repeated warnings by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to destroy
Israel. But he said it was time to abandon Middle East policies of President George
W. Bush, which he said had made Israel less safe, and accused Republican
presumptive nominee John McCain of wanting to prolong them. “There “There are those
who would continue and intensify this failed status quo, ignoring eight years of
accumulated evidence that our foreign policy is dangerously flawed,”
flawed,” Obama said.
Obama warned Islamist movement Hamas must renounce violence, pledged to
stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself at the United Nations and to provide the
Jewish state the means to guarantee its security. “We “We must isolate Hamas unless
and until they renounce terrorism, recognise Israel’s right to exist, and abide by
past agreements.”
agreements.” He said he would push for an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal if
elected president in November. “Any“Any agreement the Palestinian people must
preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state,”
state,” Obama said.

Author Location Dated

Fatehyab Ali Khan fatehyab@cyber.net.pk 06.06.08

– What about the earlier illegalities?

The goings-on in Islamabad are reminiscent of events of the past. No package
designed to right the constitutional wrongs perpetrated in Pakistan can be complete
unless it totally repeals the consequences of Yahya Khan’s first Legal Framework
Order of March 31, 1969, and the PCOs that were the unconstitutional legacies of
Ziaul Haq. Here it would be pertinent to recall the past and ask how the illegalities
of an earlier period impact on the present. The distortions inflicted on the
constitution by Ziaul Haq were far-reaching and the doing of one man. This was
something unheard of in constitutional history. A constitution is a consensus
document for the governance of a country and not a dictator’s personal statement
of power as was the case with the basic law bequeathed by Ziaul Haq. However,
none of the Majlis-i-Shoora (parliaments) elected since 1988 ever tried to undo
these illegalities and anomalies. The 1973 Constitution was adopted unanimously
by the National Assembly on April 10, 1973, amidst a political tug-of-war, backdoor
conspiracies and an attempted army coup. It had federal parliamentary features but
was essentially unitary in its working and gave the prime minister supreme
parliamentary authority. The president could not promulgate an ordinance even in
an emergency.

When Ziaul Haq struck on July 5, 1977, he dissolved not only the National Assembly
but also the Senate, which could never be constitutionally dissolved. Thereby, he
introduced the basis for a series of subsequent illegalities. Through the Governors’
Oath of Office Order of July 5, 1977, the chief justices of all the high courts became
the governors of their provinces and administered the oath of office to the judges of
their high courts. Thus the entire judiciary was enslaved. On March 24, 1981, Ziaul
Haq promulgated the Second Provisional Constitution Order which further enslaved
the judiciary. The only honourable exceptions who refused to submit to this scheme
of things were Justices Dorab Patel, Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and M.A. Rashid. Since
parliament had been dissolved, Zia nominated a Majlis-i-Shoora, sacked Fazal Ilahi
Chaudhry and became president himself. Ziaul Haq’s dictatorial steps were resisted
by the Movement for Restoration of Democracy (MRD) formed on Feb 3, 1981,
which demanded the restoration of the 1973 Constitution but to no avail. In 1984,
Ziaul Haq declared himself elected through a referendum, but did not lift martial
law. He made the lifting of martial law hostage to the unicameral assembly
endorsing a series of changes in the constitution proposed in his Revival of
Constitution Order, 1985, whose validation came to be known as the Eighth
Amendment. By amending Article 270 A, he secured blanket cover for all his actions
and held non-party elections in 1985. These elections were boycotted by the MRD
and Benazir Bhutto challenged these amendments in the Supreme Court which
gave its verdict on three major issues after Ziaul Haq’s death in 1988:

1. Elections are valid only if held on a party basis; non-party elections carry no
weight.
2. If the National Assembly is dissolved, elections must be held within 90 days.
3. If the National Assembly is dissolved, the federal government is incomplete
without a caretaker set-up.

In view of the foregoing, the following questions of great importance for the country
and the constitution arise:
1. Should the protection given in the 1973 Constitution (Article 270) to martial
law regulations, martial law orders and presidential orders issued under the
first Legal Framework Order of Yahya Khan, be deleted?

2. Was the dissolution of the Senate by Ziaul Haq constitutional?

3. Can a single House elected on a non-party basis amend the constitution and
rubberstamp the steps of the martial law administrator?
 4. Should the bicameral legislature be renamed ‘parliament’ as it was originally
known rather than being called Majlis-i-Shoora as it has been since the Eighth
Amendment was adopted?

5. Did the inclusion of provincial assemblies — through the Eighth Amendment —

in the electoral college for the president, originally comprising only the Senate
and National Assembly, create constitutional anomalies?

6. Should the parallel judicial system introduced by the Eighth Amendment

(Federal Sharia Court) be retained?
7. Was making the Preamble and Objectives Resolution a substantive part of the
constitution a valid step? Should it be reversed?
8. Should Article 6 of the constitution, which has been suspended and revived at
will, and has never been invoked, also be enforced retrospectively?

Under the original 1973 Constitution, elections were held under the system of joint
electorates and only the president and prime minister had to be Muslim, with
separate oaths of office given in the Third Schedule. The chairman Senate, speaker
National Assembly, members of the Senate, National Assembly and provincial
assemblies could be of any faith with identical oaths for Muslims and non Muslims. A
non-Muslim could become the chairman of the Senate or speaker of any assembly.
Ziaul Haq unconstitutionally changed both the mode of election from joint to
separate electorates and the oaths of offices in the Third Schedule, introducing his
own Islam, gender discrimination, hadd, taazir, blasphemy laws and deprived the
minorities of their constitutional rights. The oath introduced by him is still part of
the constitution. Every member of the Majlis-i-Shoora and all judges of the superior
courts are enslaved by this oath. Any constitutional package, which aims to restore
constitutional order and ensure democracy in trichotomy in Pakistan must focus on
repealing the Eighth Amendment and Articles 270, 270 A, 270 AA and 270 AAA.
These amendments deprived the people of Pakistan of their fundamental rights and
provided the basis for further constitutional abuse.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 06.06.08

– Benazir paid for defying US: Beg

Former chief of army staff and Awami Qyadat Party chief Mirza Aslam Beg has said
slain PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto was killed because of her anti-American policy.
Addressing the general house meeting of the Lahore Bar Association (LBA), Mr Baig
said Ms Bhutto had initially worked out a deal with US administration to return to
Pakistan, but after judging the intensity of antiMusharraf sentiment back home, she
could not toe the US line. “Now
“Now the US is dealing with Asif Ali Zardari to achieve its
interests,”
interests,” he said. Mr Baig said the refusal of the ‘deposed’ chief justice of
Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary, to bow before the dictator, gave rise to
the movement for change. He said the lawyers should have their own political
agenda for materialising their plans, suggesting them to form a coordination
committee to communicate with political parties. He said the imposition of
emergency on November 3 created problems, which were still dragging their feet.
He added though Musharraf was breathing the last of his political life, some
quarters were still busy hatching conspiracies. He added it was about time that the
real problems were identified and lawyers’ movement taken beyond getting rid of
Gen Musharraf (retired). He said the mandate of the Feb 18 elections proved to be
against the US interests in the region.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Kathmandu, Nepal 06.06.08

– Nepal Maoists give up claim to presidency

Nepal’s Maoist former rebels gave up their claim to the post of the first president of
a new republic on Thursday and said they would back a non-political candidate for
the ceremonial post. Political parties have squabbled over the key posts of
president and prime minister after the Himalayan nation abolished its 239-year-old
monarchy last week. A specially elected assembly voted to end the monarchy and
gave the ousted King Gyanendra 15 days to leave his official palace. But key
political parties were yet to agree on the formation of a new government and the
election of a new president, with the Maoists, who scored a surprise victory in the
April elections but fell short of a majority, initially claiming both roles. But on
Thursday the Maoists softened their stand after holding a series of meetings with
outgoing Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala and other party leaders this week.
“Today we have decided not to stake our claim for a ceremonial president,”
president,” senior
Maoist leader Barsha Man Pun told reporters after a party meeting

Author Location Dated

Tom Heneghan Paris, France 06.06.08

– Rabbi, imam, priest discuss sensitive verses

A rabbi, an imam and a priest sat down to discuss the most sensitive parts of their
sacred scriptures, the verses that offend or anger other faiths. But instead of the
Catholic criticising The Holy Quran quotes or the Jew complaining about a Gospel,
each took objectionable passages from his own holy book and tried to explain them
to the others. “Les
“Les Versets douloureux”,
douloureux”, the result of their work, is an unusual book
that aims to move interfaith dialogue beyond polite meetings to discuss issues that
create tensions among Christians, Muslims and Jews. Rabbi David Meyer, the driving
force behind the project, said his frustration with routine interfaith meetings that
avoided tough issues prompted him to seek a different kind of dialogue with Sohaib
Bencheikh and Rev. Yves Simoens S.J. “For“For a real dialogue, we have to have the
courage to confront difficult things,”
things,” the rabbi of the International Jewish Center in
Brussels said at a presentation of the French-language book in Paris on Thursday.
The book marked a new approach in interfaith dialogue. While religious leaders
have been meeting for decades, an upswing in contacts in recent years reflects a
feeling they need to work even more closely to foster better understanding.

Bensheikh, head of the Higher Institute of Islamic Sciences in Marseille, stressed the
book was “not
“not a dialogue between institutions. It’s the work of three believers,
that’s all.”
all.” DON’T STOP AT BANALITIES: Meyer said he got the idea when members
of his congregation asked how he could dialogue with Muslims when they had
passages hostile to Jews in Quran. “I“I knew I could find passages in Jewish texts that
would make them shudder,”
shudder,” he said. Simoens, professor of scripture at the Centre
Sevres faculty of philosophy and Catholic theology in Paris, said there was a
growing realisation among religions “that
“that the dialogue should be true and not stop
just at banalities”.
banalities”. One of the sensitive edicts, Bencheikh said, related to apostasy
in some Muslim states. “This
“This is an aberration,”
aberration,” he said. Apostasy was seen as
treason during the turbulent early years when Islam was expanding and faith was
equivalent to citizenship in the new empire. This no longer applied in the modern
era, he said. Among Meyer’s examples was the command in the Torah to the
Israelites to wipe out the rival Amalekite tribe, which amounted to asking Jews to
commit genocide. Another verse was a Talmudic text allowing Jews to steal from
non-Jews, he said. “There
“There is no text without interpretation,”
interpretation,” said Meyer, who in the
book cited several other Jewish writings to provide a wider context that weakened
their impact.

ISLAM’S TUNNEL PERIOD: Simoens argued the Gospel of John, the Evangelist
accused of being a source of Christian anti-Semitism, was not anti-Jewish and
closely examined many of his verses to illustrate his point. “There
“There are the effects of
a vulgarisation of exegesis,”
exegesis,” he said. He called the view of John as anti-Semitic “an
“an
ideology”.
ideology”. Asked how widely his liberal views were shared in the Islamic world,
Bencheikh said many Muslim states kept tight control over religion and blocked
reforms. But he said rigid readings of Islamic texts would give way to deeper
interpretations. Islam was in a “tunnel period”, he said: “Our
“Our generation has lost the
erudition of old without replacing it with modern thought.”
thought.” Meyer said the trio
hoped the book would be translated into other languages to help dialogue
elsewhere in Europe. “It’s
“It’s important to get beyond the French-speaking world,”
world,” he
said. Asked if they planned another book, Meyer was wary of tackling a new project
or hitting the usual conference trail. “If
“If we’re invited for conferences with dialogue
groups, we’ll just be preaching to the converted,”
converted,” he said. “The
“The problem is to
transmit this message in one’s own community,”
community,” he explained. “We “We need to
communicate this to people who need to hear it. We’re thinking how to do this
now.”

Author Location Dated

Bob Drogin, Erika Hayasaki and Robin Los Angeles, 06.06.08
Abcarian California

– Americans term Obama’s candidacy a positive change

Until now it has been the stuff of fiction. But on Wednesday, Americans reckoned
with the reality: A black man is now a major-party’s candidate for president. “I
“I
never thought I’d live to see this day,”
day,” said retired pharmacist Arthur Dees, 80,
marveling at Barack Obama’s triumph. Dees, an army veteran, recalled that he
attended Dwight D. Eisenhower’s inauguration in 1953, but was not welcome in any
downtown Washington, D.C., hotels or restaurants. “They
“They were all segregated,”
segregated,” he
said, as he shopped at a mall in Wheaton, Md., a blue-collar community 12 miles
north of the White House. Fighting back tears, he added: “My
“My people have always
had doggone names. We were darkies. Then colored. Next they called us Negroes.
After that, we were black. Now, we’re Afro-Americans. But with Obama, we’re going
to be just Americans. Won’t that be something!”
something!” From a shopping mall in the San
Gabriel Valley of Southern California to a hair salon in Denver and the bustling
sidewalks of lower Manhattan, across the country, people of all political, racial and
socioeconomic spectrum expressed excitement, pride, hope, relief and caution as
they considered the implications of the 46-year-old Obama’s historic achievement
as Democrats’ likely presidential nominee.
Under gray skies at the Seattle Ferry Terminal, commuters heading home hurried
toward seats on the state’s signature green-and-white ferries. They streamed past
newsracks with banner headlines: “OBAMA: THIS IS OUR MOMENT” read The Seattle
Times. John Trapp, a 46-year-old white home-builder from Poulsbo, Calif., echoed
Martin Luther King’s famous line when he said he hopes the country is “beyond“beyond
race”
race” and will judge Obama “by “by the content of his character”.
character”. He is dubious though.
“Some people will vote for him because he is black, and some will not vote for him
because he is,”
is,” said Trapp, who said he is more excited by Obama’s age than his
race. After all, he said: “He’s
“He’s the first person of my generation”
generation” to be a major party
nominee. Chelsea Baker, 18, waited to catch a ferry to Bainbridge Island after
leaving her Seattle restaurant hostess job. Like millions of other young adults,
enthusiasm for Obama inspired her to register to vote and attend her first political
events. Shes heard racists comments and knows the sentiment is out there. “I’m “I’m a
little worried,”
worried,” said Baker, who is white. “But
“But you you’d like to think we’ve moved
on.”
on.” In Atlanta, Sharon McLaurin, 43, a clerk who grew up in Mississippi, stared into
the reflecting pool surrounding King’s crypt and recalled that her parents had to sit
in the back of buses, use separate restrooms and drink from different fountains.
When she has seen Obama on TV, she said, she’s been struck by how many faces in
his crowds are white. “That
“That tells me they are looking at the issue of change”,
change”, she
said. “They
“They no longer see his color. I think that’s great.”
great.” America is ready for a black
president, said Rady Williams, 40, who sells T-shirts and King merchandise. “He “He just
has to be clean-cut, drive a Chevy truck and be an apple-pie Christian,”
Christian,” he said. “He
“He
can’t be a crook, and he can’t be bitter about slavery.”
slavery.” In lower Manhattan, at the
site of the World Trade Center attacks, a woman sold copies of the New York Post
with Obama’s face and the headline, “Destiny”, alongside the New York Daily News,
which proclaimed, simply, “History”.

A hotdog vendor from Egypt, serving construction workers at Ground Zero, pointed
to Obama’s picture and said: “I “I like this man. He is a good man.”
man.” A driver from Haiti
clapped his hands and shouted “Obama,
“Obama, he already the president to me!” me!”
Supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed relief that the
Democratic Party may now be able to move on. “I “I was rooting for Hillary,”
Hillary,” said
Jackie Wlodarczak, 46, a freelance writer, pushing her 3-year-old daughter, Sadie, in
a stroller. “I
“I had very much hoped for a woman for president, I still do, and I think
we will have one in the future. But Obama is remarkable as well. I think America is
more than ready.”
ready.” In Obama’s adopted hometown of Chicago, Sandy Brunson, a 62-
year old retired preschool teacher, was delighted but not surprised by Obama’s win.
“The idea of a black man in the White House is something I’ve dreamed of for
years,”
years,” said Brunson, who is black. “Never
“Never thought it’d happen, not until Barack
came around.”Amy
around.”Amy Kaspar, 32, a manager for a money-transfer company, ascribed
Obama’s win to simple sociological dynamics. “In “In this country, men tend to advance
before women,”
women ,” said Kaspar. “When
“When it comes to voting, when it comes to equal pay,
when it comes to military service, it’s traditionally been men before women.”
women.”
Kaspar, who is white and a Republican, said she believes Obama could beat the
GOP’s presumptive nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, in November. “Even “Even for
Republicans, George W. (Bush) has overstayed his welcome in the White House,
and enough Republicans are thirsty and seeking water elsewhere. Obama’s more
center-of-the-road, and Republicans can identify with the direction he wants to go in
even if they disagree with what he’s saying.”
saying.” In Denver, hairdresser Maria Acosta, a
41-year-old legal resident who arrived four years ago from Mexico, would vote for
Obama if she could. “I
“I didn’t think a black person could get that far because of
discrimination,”
discrimination,” Acosta said in Spanish as she rinsed dye from a customer’s hair in
her shop. “He
“He is a very, very good man. I think he will help the Latino people.”
people.”
Despite Acosta’s enthusiasm, Hillary fared far better among Hispanics than Obama.
The reluctance of some Hispanics to support a black man for president, said
Pasadena, California, web designer Ben Garcia, 29, is probably generational. He has
noted a divide among young Hispanics like him, who were born in the United States,
and older generations who immigrated.

“Most of the Latinos I know are really into him,”

him,” Garcia said. “But
“But then there’s also
the thing with ongoing racism in Mexico, and it kind of persists with the culture
there. I think maybe if you’re a little more traditional or you were born in Mexico
and raised in that culture you might have a problem with him.”him.” In the San Gabriel
Valley, home to a large population of Asian immigrants, retired engineer Jose Ngsee,
58, said the older Asians around him were more wary than celebratory. “There “There are
people that are still prejudiced, they don’t like the idea of a black president,”
president,” said
Ngsee, an immigrant from the Philippines who may vote for Obama even though he
is Republican. “A“A lot of people say on the surface that race doesn’t matter, but deep
down they’re uneasy. The riots have partly to do with it, and you see a lot of car
chases involving black people. It’s kind of unfairly lumped together.”
together.” Chris Hung, a
34-year-old furniture salesman from Alhambra, California, who has been a citizen
for 26 years, said he may cast his first-ever vote for Obama, but race has little to do
with it. “He
“He could’ve been green, it wouldn’t have mattered,”
mattered,” said Hung. “After
“After a
while, when you get to know a person and his values, you don’t care about his color
any more.”
more.” For Daphne Brown, a North Hollywood student and single mother who
will turn 22 on Friday, Obama’s success could give younger blacks like her a
renewed sense of their own worth. Plenty of young people, she said, have adopted
the attitude that ‘I
‘I don’t care about anything. I just want to be a rebel.’ “But now,”
now,”
said Brown, “I“I see that we count. We’re important. We’re all important. Every race
is important. And I think with Obama, coming into this candidacy, that it’s just going
to be a total change for my race, and I just want to say that I really appreciate that.”
that.”
In Atlanta, at the King crypt, the joy felt by Carolyn Evans, 52, was tempered by
trepidation. “We’ve
“We’ve come a long way, but we still have a long way to go, said Evans,
an office manager and singer with the Ebenezer Baptist Church choir. “I believe
Obama is a mighty man, a strong man, and I believe in my heart that he will make
change. I just pray for his safety. I know that the Lord will be with him, in spite of his
enemies.”

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 06.06.08

– Hillary to bow out, back Obama

Hillary Clinton said she will bow out of her marathon campaign for the White House
on Saturday, and throw her full support behind Democratic rival Barack Obama. In a
letter to supporters early on Thursday, she said she would use an event in
Washington, DC, to thank her backers and urge the party to unite behind Obama,
who on Tuesday secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination. “I “I
have said throughout the campaign that I would strongly support Senator Obama if
he were the Democratic Party’s nominee, and I intend to deliver on that promise,”
promise,”
said Clinton in the letter, published in various media reports. The New York senator
had so far refused to concede defeat, saying she would deliberate in the coming
days. “I
“I will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party
behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too
important to do otherwise,”
otherwise,” the letter said. Clinton looked ahead to the general
election showdown with Republican John McCain in November as she sought to
paste over the party splits laid bare in an often bitter nominating race. “My
“My
differences with Senator Obama are small compared to the differences we have
with Senator McCain and the Republicans,”
Republicans,” she said. Obama offered a similar
unifying message at a Manhattan fundraiser late on Wednesday, according to The
New York Times, saying: “Now“Now that the interfamily squabble is done, all of us can
focus on what needs to be done in November.”
November.” US media earlier reported Clinton
would bow out on Friday at the urging of Democratic members of Congress, but her
campaign said she would hold an event on Saturday instead to allow more of her
supporters to attend. Clinton visited her campaign headquarters in Arlington, in
Washington’s Virginia suburbs, on Wednesday to inform most of the staff that they
would no longer be required after Friday, ABC News said. Junior staffers were said to
be emotional and some were crying at the final confirmation that their 16 months of
hard graft had come to naught. In refusing to concede immediately, Clinton kept her
options open, and her supporters spent Wednesday talking up her credentials to be
Obama’s nominee for vice-president. Clinton sung her rival’s praises to a powerful
pro-Israel lobby earlier in the day, seeking to shed his perceived weaknesses among
Jewish voters. “Let
“Let me be very clear, I know that Senator Obama will be a good
friend to Israel,”
Israel,” she said. Obama also heaped praise on his rival for making
“history” on the campaign trail, as the two addressed the American Israel Public
Affairs Council (AIPAC) within minutes of each other. Obama told reporters after a
visit to the US Senate that he had talked with Clinton in the early hours of
Wednesday, adding: “We “We are going to be having a conversation with the coming
weeks.”
weeks.”

On Nov 4, voters must pick between Obama, 46, a freshman senator and
charismatic mixed-race champion of a new political generation, and McCain, 71, a
Vietnam war hero asking for one final call to service. Obama plunged straight into
the five-month election battle on Wednesday, crossing swords with McCain over
Middle East policy. Laying out the contours of his presidential programme, Obama
insisted Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel, and said he would
work to “eliminate” the threat posed by Iran. “His
“His appearance was very impressive.
His words on Jerusalem were very moving,”
moving, ” Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told
reporters after meeting President George Bush in the White House. But less than
two hours later, McCain’s campaign was on the attack, denouncing Obama for
presenting a “rather
“rather odd, alternative reality.”
reality.” “Senator
“Senator Obama really presents kind
of a false choice today, that the only diplomacy that can work is with Iranian
leaders,”
leaders,” McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser Randy Scheunemann told reporters.
McCain’s camp also hammered Obama on his association with fundraiser Antoin
“Tony” Rezko, who was on Wednesday found guilty of using his political clout to
demand kickbacks and win government contracts. Meanwhile, Obama’s campaign
announced that Caroline Kennedy, daughter of assassinated president John
Kennedy, had been selected as part of a three-member team searching for a vice
presidential pick. Clinton’s campaign chairman, Terry McAuliffe, told MSNBC
television that an Obama-Clinton ticket would be “unstoppable.” He added: “I
“I think
we would have the White House for 16 years.”
years.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Guantanamo Bay, US 06.06.08
Naval Base

– Guantanamo arraignment for five accused ‘Sept 11

mastermind’ seeks death penalty
The accused Al Qaeda mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks stood in a US military
court on Thursday and said he would welcome the death penalty. “This “This is what I
wish, to be martyred,”
martyred,” Pakistani captive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
highestranking Al Qaeda operative in US custody, told the Guantanamo court. He
and four accused co-conspirators appeared in court at the Guantanamo Bay US
naval base in Cuba for the first time on charges that could result in their execution.
As the judge questioned him about whether he was satisfied with the US military
lawyer appointed to defend him, Mohammed stood and began to sing in Arabic,
pausing to translate his own words into English. “My“My shield is Allah most high,”
high,” he
said, adding that his religion forbade him from accepting a lawyer from the United
States and that he wanted to act as his own attorney. He criticised the United
States for fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, waging what he called “a “a crusader war”,
war”,
and enacting illegal laws, including those authorising same-sex marriages. The
judge, Marine Col Ralph Kohlmann, tried to persuade Mohammed to accept an
attorney, telling him, “It’s
“It’s a bad idea for you to represent yourself.”
yourself.” Mohammed
looked rather old and portly and wore a long, bushy grey beard and big black
military-issue glasses. He wore a neat white tunic and turban, in stark contrast to
the saggy white undershirt he wore in photographs taken after his capture during a
raid in Pakistan in March 2003. Mohammed and co-defendants Ali Abdul Aziz Ali,
Ramzi Binalshibh, Mustafa Ahmed al-Hawsawi and Walid bin Attash are charged
with committing terrorism and conspiring with Al Qaeda to murder civilians in the
attacks that launched the Bush administration’s global “war on terrorism”. They
also face 2,973 counts of murder, one for each person killed in 2001 when hijacked
passenger planes slammed into the World Trade Centre, the Pentagon and a
Pennsylvania field.

All five defendants came to court willingly, a spokeswoman for the trials said. She
initially said none were shackled inside the courtroom, but Binalshibh, whom she
characterised as having “mental issues,” wore leg chains bolted to the floor. Bin
Attash, who lost his right leg in a battlefield accident in Afghanistan in 1997,
appeared frail and sat on a pillow. Mohammed told a military review panel last year
that he approached Osama bin Laden with the proposal to hijack passenger planes
and crash them into landmark US buildings, then oversaw execution of the plan
“from A to Z,”
Z,” according to US military transcripts of the hearing. But Mohammed
cast doubt on that transcript in Thursday’s hearing. “They“They mistranslated my words
and put many words in my mouth,”mouth,” he said in English. He later objected when the
judge repeatedly told one of his lawyers to sit down, telling the court, “It“It is
inquisition, it’s not trial.”
trial.” “All
“All of this has been taken under torturing,”
torturing,” he added,
“You know that very well.”
well.” The other defendants are accused of helping choose,
train and fund the 19 hijackers, assisting their flight school enrolment and travel to
the United States. Their lawyers are expected to waive formal reading of the
charges and defer entering a plea until they’ve had more time to prepare.
Prosecutors want to start the trial on Sept 15, a date the defence says was chosen
to influence the US presidential election in November. All five suspects, who could
be executed if convicted, were transferred to Guantanamo in September 2006 after
spending about three years in secret CIA prisons. The CIA has acknowledged
interrogating Mohammed using a simulated drowning technique known as
“waterboarding” and condemned as torture by human rights observers. Defence
lawyers have said they will challenge any attempt to introduce evidence tainted by
abuse.

Author Location Dated

Shamim-ur-Rahman Karachi, Pakistan 06.06.08

– India, Pakistan urged to end nuclear race

A leading Indian journalist and campaigner against nuclear proliferation on
Thursday called upon the peace movements in India and Pakistan to force their
governments to put the issue of non-proliferation and nuclear risk reduction high on
their official agenda, and to open borders for travel and trade through a liberal visa
regime. Praful Bidwai was speaking on the peace process 10 years after tit-for-tat
nuclear tests by India from the platform of the Pakistan Institute of Labour
Education and Research (Piler) in a local hotel. He was critical of the lack of will on
the part of the governments of India and Pakistan in opening their consulates in
Mumbai and Karachi and called upon peace movements to have a comprehensive
agenda for putting pressure on both governments for opening their borders for
trade, travel and cultural exchanges. He also called for formalizing the peace
process and said that in India there was a growing demand for taking special
initiatives for promoting bilateral people-to-people contact. He said the recent IPL
fixture was an outstanding example of the lead citizens have provided in breaking
barriers. He stressed an exchange of schoolchildren and theatre groups and setting
up a people’s commission on South Asian history which, he said, had been
distorted. He was of the view that the SAARC framework should also be used
especially by the media for pushing the governments.

The main thrust of Praful’s discourse was on the negative fallout of the nuclear tests
by India and Pakistan on the region and stressing the need for a more proactive role
of the peace movements by coming up with alternatives. Mr Bidwai, who is an
outspoken critic of fast–rising military expenditure on nuclear arms race between
India and Pakistan, referred to the situation in India, Pakistan, Nepal and
Bangladesh, which he claimed had created formidable challenges for the peace
movements in the two nuclear capable adversaries. He noted that while nuclear
rivalry between India and Pakistan was growing, the issue had been dropped from
their peace talks agenda. He said the induction and deployment of nuclear weapons
by the armed forces of the two countries had created finite possibility of their use
and inflicting unacceptable harm on mankind. These weapons, he added, cut across
generations due to their lethal damage potential and cited the example of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He said it was a great shame that both the governments in
India and Pakistan acquired nuclear weapons, despite their destructive nature. He
said two years before detonating the last nuclear device, India was actively
campaigning for illegalizing the nukes. But after the last tit-for-tat tests New Delhi
claimed that nukes would make South Asia more secure and stable and prevent
conventional conflict between the two countries, as advocated by the deterrent
lobby. He also criticised the notion that the deterrent capability would expand the
room for a more independent foreign and security policy and economic and social
dividends. Nullifying these claims, Mr Bidwai claimed that on the contrary South
Asia had become more volatile and within a year of the nuclear test both India and
Pakistan fought a mid-sized war in Kargil, which was the first conventional conflict
after the nuclear tests.

Referring to the India-US nuclear deal, he said that in order to push through the
seal, during the past five years New Delhi had tried to convince people that it would
behave responsibly despite being a nuclear power. He said that although the deal
could be renegotiated, India twice voted against Iran on the nuclear issue,
jeopardizing prospects of the IPI and its relationship with Tehran, which had
assumed added significance as it provided a bridgehead to Central Asia. He said
that for Pakistan, what was meant to be an asset had become a liability. Room for
an independent foreign policy had shrunk and the missile race between the two
countries had drastically reduced the reaction time for averting any missile attack
and any intervention for peace. He said that missile race had obliterated the
strategic depth between the two countries exposing millions of people to
annihilation. He, therefore, called for putting the issue of nuclear risk reduction high
on the agenda of the peace movements of the region. He said it was time that both
countries reaffirmed their commitment to complete dismantling of nukes.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 07.06.08

– Author’s claim in book about Benazir condemned

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has condemned the claim made in a book that former
prime minister Benazir Bhutto confided to the author that she participated in
nuclear black market and termed it a “despicable
“despicable attempt to sell the book”.
book”. A
London-based Indian journalist, Shyam Bhatya, recently claimed in his book
Goodbye Shahzadi that Ms Bhutto had acknowledged her role in nuclear black
market. In a statement here on Friday, PPP spokesperson and former senator
Farhatullah Babar said the claim that Ms Bhutto made such an acknowledgement to
an obscure journalist was a “tasteless
“tasteless and cheap exploitation of her tragic
assassination”.
assassination”. The assassinated leader has been the architect of “Benazir
“Benazir Nuclear
Doctrine”
Doctrine” that strictly forbade exports of nuclear technology to any country. The
claims that author Shyam Bhatya kept in regular touch with her are also
preposterous and are made only to lend credibility to his false assertions and get
some attention that has eluded him, the PPP spokesman said. Mr Babar said a few
weeks before her assassination in October, last year, Shyam Bhatya wanted a 10-
minute face to face interview with her for what he claimed a cover story for a
magazine. “Can
“Can you get me 10 minutes with her,”
her,” he had then asked in his e-mail
of October 7, 2007, also pleading that “most
“most important of all if we cannot talk is to
go over and take a picture of her”.
her”. Ms Bhutto refused to grant a face-to-face
interview, declined to be photographed and even did not accede to the request for a
telephonic interview because Mr Bhatya’s standing and credentials did not warrant
it, he said. Instead Mr Bhatya was asked to send his written questions to the Media
Office for answers that he did and got replies to the questions from the Media Office
and not direct from her, the spokesperson said. There was not one question relating
to the nuclear issue in the list of questions that were replied to on her behalf by the
Media Office, he said.

Author Location Dated

Ameer Buksh 07.06.08

– Nepal: a twist of history

On May 28, the Nepalese parliament passed a declaration dethroning King
Gyanendra and abolishing a 240-year-old monarchy, declaring the country to be a
republic. This is how things are done when there exists an honest commitment and
sincerity to achieve a certain goal. Our awami government, on the other hand, has
wasted more than two months doing nothing more than wrangling over whether the
judges should be restored by means of a resolution or a constitutional amendment.
They have nothing tangible to show for all the committees they cobbled together
and all their highly publicised meetings in Bhurban, Dubai, London and Islamabad.
Far from dethroning anyone, our parliament does not even seem to be up to the
task of striking down a blatantly illegal PCO. This is what happens when leadership
is lacking and self-interest in the preservation of the status quo, courtesy the deal,
overrides national interest. Apart from the judges’ issue, there are other pressing
issues that require the government’s immediate attention. Asif Zardari himself has
said that instead of the restoration of the judges, the common man craves prompt
relief from crises such as lawlessness, high prices of essential food commodities,
power shortages, etc. Having identified these core issues, what has his party’s
government done to tackle them?

The law and order situation is indeed very serious, particularly in Sindh, but it can
be brought under control relatively quickly and with minimal expenditure. The law-
enforcement agencies have to be cleaned up and made to do their job. It really is as
simple as that. For instance, on May 13, the law-enforcement agencies conducted a
raid in the kacha area near Naudero, where the Zardaris have set up headquarters
at a Bhutto family residence, in Larkana district, and arrested three innocent haris
in connection with an abduction case. Less than a kilometre away was Sharifpur
Forest, which is a government forest that has become a notorious safe haven for
dacoits and criminals. They have set up a flourishing village there, with power
generators for tubewells which they use to cultivate land and even issue fishing and
woodcutting leases as if they own the whole area. The authorities, from the SHO
level all the way up to the IG and chief minister, know and the local police have
established friendly contacts with the criminals of this two-year old hideout. But no
one from the law enforcement side dares to act. Also, on May 28, there erupted a
severe conflict between the Shar and Khosa tribes over a land dispute near Lakhi
Ghulam Shah in Shikarpur district that resulted in the killing of seven people. The
police remained idle spectators on the sidelines, periodically pleading with the
feuding parties to allow them to take away the dead bodies, instead of taking firm
action to stop the bloodshed and arrest the culprits. Law-enforcement authorities
refuse to intervene in any tribal conflicts, allowing wholesale murder and pillage,
conveniently transferring the blame to tribal elders and sardars. How can law and
order be restored if the law-enforcement authorities are afraid to confront the
criminals and hide behind flimsy excuses?
Another issue that should have been addressed right away was the issue of the
United Nations inquiry into the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. Procrastination by
the government is unjustifiable. This delay has given rise to all sorts of speculation.
People are asking whether this government has something to hide. Is there a shady
cover-up afoot? Even now all we have is a statement from the government that a
request for an inquiry will be submitted to the UN, but no such request has as yet
actually been submitted. People fear that as more time passes and the murder trail
goes cold, the chances of the truth surfacing will diminish. All the people who voted
for the People’s Party, primarily on a tidal wave of emotions and sympathy because
of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, must now at least hold the government
accountable for this inordinate delay. The first 100 days of President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt’s administration are still the yardstick by which all new
administrations are judged. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto too blazed a mighty trail during the
early days of his administration to transform the face of a shattered nation and
build a new Pakistan. This government has limped and crawled through its first two
months in power. It suffers from administrative paralysis and indecision. One day
the by-elections are postponed on the instructions of the prime minister’s advisor,
then a few days later, they are ‘un-postponed’. One day a federal minister
announces the scrapping of the Kalabagh Dam, then the next day, in the face of a
brewing storm in Punjab, even from within government ranks, he announces that
the scheme has not been killed completely after all. One day Zardari announces
that President Musharaf must go and the next day he approves a draft of a
constitutional amendment giving legal cover to the president’s actions. This is a
farce reminiscent of the BBC television series ‘Yes Prime Minister’. To successfully
tackle the issues the government is confronted with requires the genius and
leadership of political giants. Who among their ranks qualifies as a giant? There are
certainly no FDRs or ZABs among them. The people of Nepal elected a parliament
on the basis of issues and ideology that is now faithfully representing the
aspirations of the nation. The people of Pakistan, by contrast, voted purely on an
emotional surge without considering the merit of the individuals involved or their
thinking. As a consequence, we find ourselves encumbered with a government that
solely represents vested, foreign and self-interests rather than those of the people.
Is it any wonder the ship of state is sinking?

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 07.06.08

– PML-N has fundamental differences over package

The PML-N has fundamental differences over the PPP's package of constitutional
amendments and has, therefore, not accepted the draft in toto given by the federal
law minister, a party spokesman said on Friday. Mr Siddiqul Farooq told Dawn that
the PPP leadership had also realized that the draft had attracted the worst criticism
from most segments of society. "We
"We can't accept the restoration of judiciary
through a constitutional amendment as it would be tantamount to accepting Gen
Musharraf's unconstitutional action of Nov 3 as part of the Constitution".
Constitution". He said the
PML-N also could not give indemnity to Gen Musharraf's unconstitutional acts
because such a step would pave the way for future adventurers. Mr Siddidul Farooq
said his party would propose amendments to the draft package and also give
rationale. The PML-N committee constituted for the purpose would finalize its
recommendations by Tuesday, he said. The committee, he said, would hand over its
recommendations to Mian Nawaz Sharif who would then convene a meeting of the
party's central working committee and the parliamentary party. The proposals
finalzed at the meeting would be given in black and white to the PPP leadership, he
said. Asked if the procedure would not delay the reinstatement of the deposed
judges, the PML-N spokesman said since the PPP wanted to table the proposed
package in parliament after the budget session "we
"we have ample time to evolve
consensus".
consensus". He said the judges could be restored through the formula agreed upon
in the Murree Declaration.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 07.06.08

– Does Musharraf deserve a safe passage?

An explosion hit Islamabad on Monday. In fact, there were two and both had
Musharraf embedded in their agenda and the message they conveyed. One ripped
the Danish Embassy and its surroundings and soaked Islamabad’s ambience of
somnolence in blood. The embassy was, apparently, targeted because of Denmark’s
unbending stance over the issue of cartoons caricaturing the Prophet of Islam
(pbuh). Of course Musharraf didn’t have anything to do with the suicide attack. But
it was typically symptomatic of the culture of intolerance that his pandering to
George W. Bush’s inane ‘war on terror’ has inculcated in Pakistan. The other
explosion could be heard, later that evening, not only in Islamabad but also
throughout the country. The man who detonated it during a television talk-show
was Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiyani, General Musharraf’s former colleague,
who held key positions in the army — as DG (ISI), Commander of the all important
10 Corps of the army, and the all-too-important command of the 111 Brigade that
has traditionally been the spear-head of all the military coups in Pakistan. Kiyani
was also re-packaged into a civilian role by none other than Musharraf as Chairman
of the Federal Public Service Commission, where he eventually ran into the fog
kicked up by an ever-scheming and conniving PM, Shaukat Aziz, and suddenly fell
from Musharraf’s grace.

Kiyani’s no-holds-barred critique of Musharraf and his appalling failures both as a

military commander and as a selfanointed national leader wasn’t all that novel or
earth-shattering. But what added real punch to Kiyani’s diatribe against his former
boss, and made it look so unusual, was his categorical demand that Musharraf
mustn’t be given a safe passage out of Pakistan and, instead, should be tried for all
his lapses and called to book for whatever injuries he may have inflicted on the
body politic of Pakistan. Only a couple of days earlier, a little heard-of group of ex-
servicemen of Pakistan, claiming to have hundreds of thousands of ex-soldiers and
officers in its ranks, had issued a similar call demanding Musharraf’s removal from
the Army House in Rawalpindi and accountability for his policies that have
grievously hurt Pakistan. Quick on the heels of Kiyani’s initiative, the ex-servicemen,
through their spokesman, Brigadier (retd) Mohammad Yusuf, in Lahore, have now
called for Musharraf’s trial on at least two counts: The disastrous Kargil adventure,
of which he was the principal author, and last summer’s wanton bloodletting at the
Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafza, where, according to Kiyani, a barbaric operation took
place, with the use of phosphorous grenades and shells. These weapons fall under
the category of chemical weapons. If true, that should place Musharraf at par with
Saddam Hussain’s use of chemical weapons against the Kurds of Halabja. The
demand for Musharraf’s ouster has been gathering mass since February 18, when
the people voted, en masse, to turn their backs on him and on all those timeservers
who had helped him usurp and keep power. In a democratic culture, once the
people have spoken against a leader and his party, it’s considered au rigeur for him
to call it a day and quit. It’s not in western democracies alone where this practice is
followed with regularity. In neighbouring India, where democracy struck roots long
time ago, Mr. Vajpayee didn’t hang around after BJP was trounced at the polls.

But Pakistan, of course, is a different place; in its uniquely feudal-military milieu,

power is regarded as its own justification to be held on to, no matter how loud, clear
and categorical a leader’s (mostly a usurper) denunciation by the people’s will may
be. The people couldn’t have been more open in their demand that Musharraf must
go. But the latter, as Kiyani also articulated in his remarks, is a past-master of foot-
dragging. The man simply refuses to see the writing on the wall. But if Musharraf —
made up of a different mettle than a more honourable man like Ayub Khan, for
instance, who threw in the towel the moment he realised that his game was up —
seems ready to take the battle to the ‘enemy’ and fight it to the end, as per the gut
instincts of a commando, then those arrayed against him appear equally up to the
task of calling a spade a spade. They are not going to retreat either. There is, now,
a doubt that ex-general’s obduracy is leading the country to the brink of an epic
battle royal. He could, and still can, have taken the sting out of the popular backlash
against him by calling it a day and bowing out of the stage. But in his case he still
seems living in a world of fanciful torpor that makes him believe he’s still the man
of the moment needed by his country. Well, the stark truth is that he’s no longer
required, has become the most controversial man in Pakistan’s chequered history,
and is simply adding to the agony of the people who are already facing numerous
challenges to survive as a nation. If Musharraf thinks he has the undiluted backing
of his mentor, George W. Bush, then he’s not only being unrealistic, to say the least,
but purblind to the changing scenario. Bush is a fading commodity; the count-down
for him has begun, and with him of that policy too that has brought nothing but
ignominy and ruin to the American people. So Musharraf is hanging on to a rope
that may still seem long and sturdy to him but could, very quickly, become the
noose around his neck. However, the more it becomes clear that he’s hanging there
because of his mentor, the more determined the people of Pakistan seem to grow in
their resolve to make him accountable for all his abuses and excesses committed
against them.

So it’s no longer Nawaz Sharif’s call alone or that of his party’s that Musharraf
shouldn’t be given a safe passage out. The call has now been joined in by those —
the men-in-uniform — who have been the only constituency of Musharraf, much
against his self-gratifying claim that he has been popularly elected. This may be a
devastating development for Musharraf but is good news for his adversaries and the
people of Pakistan whose will is writ large on the wall that he refuses to see, now
increasingly at his own peril, it seems. Where does this snowballing movement for
his accountability take him and the nation? Much against the pusillanimity of
Cassandras and Jeremiahs, this scribe believes that events are leading Pakistan in
the right direction. It’s not only Musharraf’s fate in the balance, but also that of
constitutional authority and the rule of law, which should be the backbone of any
democratic polity. Up until this cross-roads in our tortured history all that we have
been doing as a nation is to shun looking reality in the face. It looks like a
psychological and mental ‘arrest’ that has been goading us into the dark alley of
avoiding a bold and categorical confrontation, face to face, with our national
tragedies. All that we have done, up to this avoidable tryst with history, is to deny
the continual accretion of putrid national miasma on our collective conscience.
What we forget is that no nation can survive without clearing the decks of its
tragedies, omission and commission. So what has happened in the process is that
we have accumulated too many skeletons in our national chest. That chest is now
groaning to be unlatched.

Ours is a terribly legacy of a nation in total denial of its tragedies and crimes, and a
more infuriating refusal to learn from them. Just look at the ledger of our unresolved
mysteries. The murder of Liaqat Ali Khan, our first PM; the Fall of Dhaka and the
tragedy of East Pakistan that cost us half the country; the judicial murder of Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto, and, lately, the heinous murder of a charismatic Benazir Bhutto. The
charge sheet against Musharraf has a lot written on it. It starts with the costly Kargil
blunder that nearly drove us into a nuclear Armageddon with a much more powerful
India. The surrender of Pakistan to Bush’s dubious war on terror; the bloody spill-
over of this senseless sellout in the tribal area, which had been a model of
tranquility and calm until that Rubicon was crossed; the rape of the judiciary; the
butchering of Pakistan’s Constitution; the raid against the occupants of Lal Masjid
and Jamia Hafza; and the most recent crime of the ‘emergency’ imposed last
November to shield himself against the long arm of the country’s law. Give him a
fair trial, by all means: a free trial in full view of the nation and the world. But the
colossal mistake of letting our villains go without any accountability must come to
an end. No wonder Zardari and minions are so tongue-tied in regard to making
Musharraf accountable. They would hate to set a precedent. But this nation must
close the book on the past, once and for all, and start throwing the book at its
villains who have caused so much pain and suffering to the people. The bottom line
is that Musharraf, because of his own arrogance and hauteur, has lost the chance to
exit with dignity. In the larger interest of Pakistan, take the battle to his ramparts if
he’s so desperate for one, and make him pay for his hubris.

Author Location Dated

Ellen Wulfhorst Washington, D.C. 07.06.08

– Hillary’s campaign provokes gender debate

Was she or wasn’t she? Hillary Clinton’s candidacy may soon be a thing of the past
but debate will rage over whether the first woman to make it so far in the US
presidential contest was a victim of sexism by the media or in the eyes of the
public. Her campaign draws to a close on tomorrow when she is set to back
apparent Democratic nominee Barack Obama.For some, there’s no question that
sexism was intricately woven through Hillary’s groundbreaking effort. They cite T-
shirts saying “Life’s
“Life’s a Bitch, so Don’t Vote for One,”
One,” newsman Chris Matthews
pinching Hillary on the cheek, descriptions of her as bitchy and shrill or newscasters
bantering over a pen that played a sound track of her laugh. Others say the claim of
sexism is laughable. Hillary could not have gotten as far as she did without being
the wife of a president so she can’t complain about being a woman, they say.
“Women are held to a different standard, and it hurt her,”
her,” said New York-based
pollster Mickey Blum. “It’s
“It’s also a reason a lot of women rallied to her and have
stuck with her, even more than they would have, because there was a sense she
was being treated unfairly.”
unfairly.” Debate is inevitable as long as some hear sexism and
others don’t hear it at all, said Elizabeth Ossoff, professor of political psychology at
St. Anselm College in New Hampshire.

Consider the incident when hecklers interrupted Hillary with shouts and signs
reading “Iron
“Iron My Shirt”,
Shirt”, she said. “What
“What if someone raised a sign reading, ‘Shine
my Shoes’ with Obama speaking? We all know that’s not OK,” OK,” she said. “When
“When
somebody says ‘Iron My Shirt’, there’s an element that it’s not OK but there’s an
element that it’s kind of funny. “People are comfortable with sexism and accept it,” it,”
she said. Among those seeing sexism was Hillary herself, who responded to the
hecklers by saying: “Ah,
“Ah, the remnants of sexism, alive and well.”
well.” Months later in a
Washington Post interview, she decried “sexism” in the campaign. “It’s “It’s been deeply
offensive to millions of women,”
women ,” Hillary said. Those claims make some conservative
observers angry. “Charges
“Charges of sexism have become Hillary’s rote strategy for
evading scrutiny,”
scrutiny,” commentator Camille Paglia recently wrote. “Will “Will every losing
woman candidate now turn on the waterworks and claim to be maimed by male
pride and prejudice? “Sexism has nothing to do with it,” it,” she said.

‘BE A GUY’: Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan called the charge untrue,
noting Clinton got support from “tough” men across the country. “Hillary
“Hillary got her
share, more than her share, of their votes. She should be a guy and say thanks,”
thanks,”
Noonan wrote. “It
“It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of
not seeing your flaws and addressing them.”
them.” Those who do detect sexism say it can
be subtle as using the term Mrs Clinton but not Mr Obama or Mr McCain or the
reporters covering Hillary who refer to women as “chicks” and “girls”. Glamour
magazine, in a recent online survey, found 12 per cent of respondents thought
sexism played a big role.But roughly a third each found sexism’s role was
moderate, minor or nonexistent. Seeing sexism as largely an issue of the past,
some women find the notion that they should back a candidate merely because
she’s a woman insulting. And even if sexism was a factor, it was not Hillary’s
undoing, said political strategist Tanya Melich. “I
“I really believe there was a lot of
sexism on cable television and talk shows, but I don’t think it made the significant
difference in her losing,”
losing,” said Melich. “Their
“Their problem was their strategy.”
strategy.” The
debate gives some feminists like Eleanor Smeal, founder of the Feminist Majority
Foundation, renewed drive. “One
“One of the legacies of the Hillary campaign is that it’s
been a wake-up call, really, to the women’s movement of how far we have to go,” go,”
she said. “We
“We have a lot of work to do. We are in much worse shape than we
thought.”
thought.”

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 08.06.08

– Musharraf ‘won’t resign’

President Pervez Musharraf on Saturday declared in categorical terms that he had
no immediate plan to resign or go into exile, but said he was ready to face
impeachment and would accept any decision taken by the parliament. “I “I won’t
resign in the current situation. I will live and die in Pakistan, there is no other way,”
way,”
President Musharraf told a select group of journalists in his first interaction with the
media since the imposition of emergency on Nov 3 last year. Rumours that
President Musharraf is on his way out have been in circulation in the country for the
past few weeks and on May 29 the rumour was so strong that it brought public and
commercial life to a virtual standstill. The same night President Musharraf hosted a
farewell dinner for former Punjab governor LtGen (retd) Khalid Maqbool. On that
occasion he rubbished all such rumours. However, the rumour mills continued to
grind, forcing President Musharraf to come out with his version. The president,
however, indicated that he would not like to be reduced to a ceremonial head of
state. “I
“I will keep watching. I can’t become a useless vegetable”
vegetable” he said, adding: “If“If
I see that I don’t have any role to play, then it is better to play golf and take rest.”
rest.”
He declared that he would not make any judgment under pressure and that he
“cannot preside over the downfall of Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. Showing anger over reports that he
was planning to leave for Turkey, President Musharraf said: “I “I don’t have a house
anywhere outside Pakistan. And I don’t want to have one. “Where is the aircraft that
had come to take me out of the country?”
country?” the president wondered, referring to a
newspaper report last week that claimed an aircraft had landed at Islamabad to
take President Musharraf abroad. He asked his opponents to bring an impeachment
resolution against him in the parliament if they wanted to get rid of him. “My “My
opponents should try to remove me through vote and not through abuses.” abuses.” The
constitution provided mechanism for impeaching a president, he said. “Do “Do it
amicably and politely,”
politely,” the president said, adding: “Parliament
“Parliament is supreme. I will
abide by whatever the parliament decides. Let assemblies decide.”
decide.”

President Musharraf alleged that the rumours about his fate were being spread
under a planned conspiracy. “I
“I know the direction as I am the target (of these
rumours),”
rumours),” he said, adding such rumours were only affecting the people of Pakistan
and creating “uncertainty
“uncertainty and confusion”.
confusion”. Moreover, he added, such rumours were
damaging the economy and threatening foreign investment. A visibly upset
president also dismissed claims by leaders of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim
League-N (PML-N) that the presidency was hatching conspiracies against the
coalition government. “As
“As the president of Pakistan, I am performing my functions
according to the Constitution. There is no interference from my side whatsoever. No
conspiracy is being hatched at the Presidency.”
Presidency.” President Musharraf said all the
governments — at the centre and provinces — were functioning independently.

The president once again defended the imposition of emergency and the sacking of
judges on Nov 3 last year. However, he said he had only sent a reference against
Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and had not dismissed 60 other judges.
“They themselves did not take oath under the PCO and quit their offices.”
offices.” He said if
the Parliament reinstated the judges, he would accept it. The president came down
hard on the Ex-Servicemen Society of Pakistan, which has been calling for his trial
for suspending the Constitution. He dismissed the society as a private organisation,
asserting that it had nothing to do with the Army. The president reserved harsh
words for Lt-Gen (retd) Jamshed Gulzar Kiani, a former corps commander, accusing
him of violating the National Secrets Act and confidentiality rules by speaking
openly on important issues like the Kargil war. “He
“He is letting the Pakistan Army
down,”
down,” the president said, adding the concerned quarters should take note of these
violations. The president said the government had a right to form a commission to
probe the Kargil war, but at the same time, he averred, the issue could not be
debated as it involved “national
“national secrets and confidentialities”.
confidentialities”.
President Musharraf said the Lal Masjid operation was carried out after persistent
appeals by the people. He said the “activities
“activities of Lal Masjid militants”
militants” were bringing
a bad name to the country and everyone was criticising the government for not
taking any action against them. He denied that any chemical weapons were used
during the operation. “Hats
“Hats off to those who carried out the operation and the
nation should also salute them for doing a national service.”
service.” President Musharraf
did not talk much about Dr A. Q. Khan and his recent statements in which he
claimed that he had given the confessional statement in 2004 about nuclear
proliferation under pressure. “I
“I will only say that whatever he (Dr Khan) is saying is
absolutely wrong. I would not speak on the issue as it would be against national
interests.”
interests.” In response to a question, the president said that he would only address
a joint session of parliament if the speaker and all political parties assured him that
they would listen to him with discipline. “I“I don’t consider it a requirement”
requirement” was the
president’s reply when a questioner asked if it was no constitutionally binding on
him to address the joint sitting of parliament at the beginning of each parliamentary
year.

The president said the country was going through a “critical” situation, but
expressed a hope that things could be handled even now. He said oil and food
prices were on the surge throughout the world and Pakistan was also facing its
effects. He admitted that there had been a delay on the part of the government to
address these problems. He termed terrorism and economy the biggest challenges
for the country. The president praised Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani who,
according to him, was making serious efforts to steer the country out of crises. “My
“My
support will always be with the prime minister. May he succeed in steering the
country out of the current crises.”
crises.” He said that he had no plan to take any step
against the prime minister or the present coalition government. “I“I am not an
imbalanced person that uses 58-2B.”
58-2B .”

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 08.06.08

– PPP, PML-N reject Musharraf’s claims

Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N on Saturday rejected
President Pervez Musharraf’s reasons for sticking to the presidency. Reacting to the
president’s warning that he would ‘react’ if the parliament moved to curb his
powers, the PPP said it amounted to “contempt
“contempt of parliament and the Constitution”.
Constitution”.
According to a statement issued by the party’s spokesman Farhatullah Babar, the
parliament, which represented the people’s will and was sovereign, could amend
the Constitution whether President Musharraf liked it or not. “Such
“Such … warnings
would not deter democratic forces from restoring the parliament’s powers,”
powers,” he said,
adding the PPP’s constitutional package was aimed at restoring the balance of
powers between the presidency and parliament.“The
parliament.“The party also rejects the claim
that the judges had not been dismissed but that they did not take oath under the
PCO. It is a most self-serving distortion of facts.”
facts.” The PPP spokesperson said: “To
“To
assert that the judges ceased to be judges because they did not take oath of
allegiance to Musharraf is a mockery of the judiciary and the Constitution.
“Musharraf’s claim that he is a democrat and … promoted democracy in the country
… is one of the cruellest jokes of the 21st Century … (he) will be remembered as
the man … who demolished the Constitution, the judiciary and parliament.”
parliament.”
Meanwhile, PML-N’s secretary information Ahsan Iqbal said that President
Musharraf’s entire speech was based on self-deception and it appeared that he was
unwilling to accept that Pakistani people had rejected his policies on Feb 18. Mr
Iqbal told Dawn that if the PML-N had the required numbers in parliament, it would
have impeached President Musharraf and reinstated the deposed judges within 24
hours of its first parliamentary session. He said: “We
“We are constantly urging our
coalition partners to make an early move to oust Musharraf whose presence … is a
disaster for the democratic order.”
order.” He dismissed Musharraf’s claim that he had
allowed Sharif brothers to return home, and said that the Saudi authorities had
declined his request to keep the PML-N leaders in exile.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 08.06.08

– Hillary Clinton bows out

The former American first lady Hillary Clinton on Saturday endorsed Senator Barack
Obama and urged her supports to do all they can to help him move to the White
House on Nov 4. The endorsement, announced at a big rally in Washington, ends a
17-month contest between the two Democratic candidates that at times appeared
to have clouded their party’s chances of winning the presidential election. “The
“The way
to continue our fight now … is to take our energy, our passions, our strengths and
do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States,”
States,”
she declared amid thunderous applause from a large crowd. “Today,“Today, as I suspend
my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary
race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all
of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.” me.” Joining
her on stage were her husband, former president Bill Clinton, and their daughter,
Chelsea, before she took their leave as she addressed the crowd. Mrs Clinton, who
would have been the first woman presidential candidate of a major US party had
she won the primaries, said she would continue her struggle to further empower the
women. “I “I will continue to stand strong with you ... the dreams we share are worth
fighting for,”
for,” she said. Senator Obama, who made history as the first Black
candidate of a major party, did not attend the event and spent Saturday in his
hometown of Chicago. Since both wanted to make history, either as the first Black
or the first woman president of the US, they continued their fight for more than 17
months and participated in 57 contests. The National Public Radio, America’s most
respected radio station, observed that their race “was
“was as gruelling as it was
groundbreaking.”
groundbreaking.”

Author Location Dated

Mubarak Ali 08.06.08

– The black coat movement

In a stagnant society where moral values and traditions decline, where intellectuals
fail to create new ideas in order to inspire the people, where political parties take no
interest in mobilising the masses for a change in the system and where leaders,
instead of resisting, are ready to compromise with the powers that be in order to
retain their privileges and status, the emergence of a new movement with fresh
ideas and a vision for change inspires the entire society to actively participate in the
struggle. Historically speaking, a socioeconomic and political movement always
makes a dynamic impact on society. It awakens the dormant forces and creates a
new kind of consciousness of political and social issues. It initiates debates and
discussions on the ongoing problems of society. It generates new energy and
vitality among different groups and individuals and prompts them to contribute their
share in making a movement a success. In short, it provides new life and fresh
blood to a decadent society. Historians may also ask as to who should be
responsible for such a movement — individuals or socio-economic and political
forces? I think both factors help each other in creating and expanding a movement
far and wide. Sometimes the social forces bide their time and wait for individuals to
exploit the situation on the ground and lead the movement. Sometimes an
individual initiates spontaneously a movement and the social forces then facilitate
his work and make the movement popular.

Keeping in view this historian’s perspective, when we study the lawyers’ movement
in Pakistan, we easily reach the conclusion that though the defiance by Chief Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhry was spontaneous, the spark soon turned into a flame enveloping
the entire society. The reason is obvious. People had suffered under eight long
years of dictatorship. They were suffocated and were enduring much hardship.
Public anger against the dictatorship was pent up as there was no avenue of
expressing it. President Pervez Musharraf’s arrogance was at its height. He had
refused to let the exiled leaders return to Pakistan. He had planned to extend his
dictatorial powers with the help of his cronies. There was no political party which
was capable of launching a movement against the regime. There was no opposition
to challenge the general’s authority. There were no intellectuals to inspire people to
struggle against an oppressive regime. Poverty, unemployment, disparity between
the rich and poor were haunting the masses. On the other hand, the government
was touting its miracle of overall successes in every aspect of life. But Musharraf
was safe as there was no threat to his authority and he successfully overran his
opponents, never expecting that anybody would ever defy him. But the movement
led by Iftikhar Chaudhry unleashed an indomitable force against the military
regime. Soon enough the black coat movement became a popular expression of the
people’s expectations that had reached a new high. As a result of the movement, all
the exiled leaders were able to return home. Elections were held and popular votes
changed the structure of the government. As soon as political parties came to
power and formed a government, a change occurred in their thinking too. A change,
unfortunately, for the worse! First, they started by discrediting the black coat
movement as the catalyst of this political change. The PPP led the campaign by
announcing that it won the majority of seats not because of the struggle for the
restoration of the judiciary but on the slogan of roti, kapra aur makan. Then the PPP
started denigrating the whole movement by saying that the lawyers were struggling
for the jobs of the judges and not for any higher purpose i.e. not for an independent
judiciary.

It is sad that the political parties, instead of recognising the sacrifices, the
tribulations, the sufferings of the legal profession for the cause of an independent
judiciary, launched a campaign against the judges and created hurdles in their
restoration. History tells us that it is not necessary that a movement should succeed
and achieve its object. It could be crushed by strong authoritarian forces not only
physically but also intellectually through publicity and propaganda. It could be
divided by the creation of different groups and it could be corrupted financially. It
has happened before that a dissident movement, once broken and crushed,
disappeared from the scene leaving behind a negative image created by the ruling
classes in order to mislead the people. But times are changing. We are living in a
democratic and global world. There exist alternative media that can keep the
popular image of a movement alive despite negative propaganda from a hostile
regime. It is a strange phenomenon that the black coat movement in Pakistan is
refusing to surrender despite all the difficulties it is facing and its vigour and vitality
appears to be undiminished. It will not be far-fetched to believe that this movement
may succeed in forcing the political leaders to mend their ways. It will be in the
interest too of the politicians themselves if they share the struggle for an
independent judiciary in Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 08.06.08

– Zardari and the judges

Maulana Fazlur Rahman said at a press conference on May 26 that General
Musharraf’s actions of Nov 3, 2007, including the dismissal of certain judges, could
not be undone by the adoption of a National Assembly resolution and the issuance
of an executive order. If that were feasible, he added, we might ask for his coup of
Oct 12, 1999, also to be undone and Mr Nawaz Sharif’s government restored. The
procedure for reinstating the deposed judges has become controversial. One group
of jurists has maintained that a resolution of the National Assembly requiring
reinstatement, followed by an executive order, would be sufficient. Others contend
that a constitutional amendment is needed to open the way for their reinstatement.
Maulana Fazlur Rahman, though by no means an expert in these matters, has
chosen to side with this latter group. Let us suppose that the National Assembly
passes the resolution under reference and the prime minister issues an executive
order to implement it. What happens then? An interested party will probably file a
writ in the Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the resolution and the
executive order. The present court, largely the outcome of Gen Musharraf’s
proclamation of emergency and the PCO of Nov 3, has already validated these
actions of his along with the dismissal of certain judges and appointment of others
to replace them. The likelihood is that it will hold the Assembly’s resolution to be
unlawful, null and void. It is argued, on the other hand, that General Musharraf’s
imposition of emergency rule was unlawful and so were the actions he took under
its authority, including the appointment of judges to replace the ones he had
removed. This school of thought argues further that the present court lacks
legitimacy and cannot be regarded as a properly constituted organ of the state. Its
verdicts are therefore of no consequence.

A distinction has to be made here between de jure and de facto. The present court
may not meet the test of legitimacy but it is de facto supreme: it is hearing cases
and its decisions are to be enforced. For practical purposes the constitution, as
amended by Gen Musharraf, is the law of the land. This situation will not change
until a constitutional amendment is passed, which revokes the PCO and certain
specified actions taken under its authority, including the dismissal of judges, and
repeals the Seventeenth Amendment. In the aforementioned press conference
Maulana Fazlur Rahman also stated that the PPP and PML-N did not see eye to eye
on issues relating to the judges (a fact now well known). Mr Zardari says he will
provide for their reinstatement in a constitutional amendment (consisting of 80
items) that will be moved in parliament on an undetermined date. Mr Sharif wants a
National Assembly resolution requiring reinstatement now. Mr Zardari does not
want to go Mr Sharif’s way. He may be apprehensive that the reinstated judges will
invalidate the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), which allowed the
withdrawal of criminal cases pending against him. If that does come to pass, these
cases might come back to haunt him. The Assembly resolution would mollify Mr
Zardari’s coalition partners. But it may turn out that the desired resolution will not
do and a constitutional amendment is, after all, needed. To be on the safe side, an
amendment dealing only with the judges may be moved at the same time that the
resolution is. Still another amendment to protect the NRO and implement all the
other 79 items in Mr Zardari’s bag may be introduced at some appropriate time.

Nawaz Sharif has threatened to join the lawyers’ long march if the resolution he
wants is not moved in the Assembly very soon. It is possible that Mr Zardari will
yield. The greater likelihood is that he will keep up his preference for dealing with
the judges by way of his 80-item constitutional package. It will have to be taken to
the Assembly after the budget has been passed. Let us see what kind of a time
frame that will require. If the prescribed rules of procedure are followed, the budget
will go to a committee, which will apportion segments of it to subcommittees, each
dealing with the estimates of a specific department. It will go over its package item
by item, consult with depart mental officials, and make recommendations. These
segments, with each sub-committee’s recommendations, will eventually reach the
parent committee, which, after some additional work, will send the document to the
ministry of finance. The latter will finalise its proposals and bring them back to
parliament. The Houses will debate and vote. All of this will easily take a couple of
months. A PPP spokesman has recently said that the budget, to be presented on
June 11, will be passed by the end of the month, that is, in less than three weeks. If
this is how the PPP government proceeds, parliamentary consideration of the
budget will have been perfunctory, meaning that parliament will not have taken its
most important function seriously enough. It will also mean that the PPP’s constant
talk of the sovereignty of parliament is gibberish, merely ritualistic sloganeering.

After the budget session, members of parliament will probably go home to take care
of their other obligations. They will return a few weeks, possibly months, later to do
more work. If the judges’ issue is presented to them as part of an 80-item package,
it is hard to say how much of the document they will accept and how long they will
take to reach a decision. If parliament follows its own rules of procedure, the
process could take months to complete. Unless Mr Zardari and his associates are
enthusiastic and have a sense of urgency about the package (which they may or
may not have), the proposed amendment may fall short of a two-thirds majority
support in the Senate (if not in both Houses) and fail, in which case the deposed
judges will stay deposed. This outcome will suit Mr Zardari well. It is possible that all
of this has been a part of his design all along. He is emerging as an expert in killing
projects with a blunt and rusty knife one side of which is indecision and the other
inaction. Knowing that time can be a silent erosive, he may have been expecting
that the powerful tide of public opinion in favour of the judges will one day subside
and the issue of their reinstatement will eventually go away.
Author Location Dated
Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 08.06.08

– A purposeless package
The constitutional package handed by the PPP to its coalition partners claims
modestly that it is not a sacrosanct document. As if the constitution itself is! Ziaul
Haq’s Eighth Amendment made in it no less than 40 changes. Pervez Musharraf’s
Seventeenth Amendment fell somewhat short of that number but was equally
radical. More damaging, however, was his extra constitutional assault on the
administrative system of the country. Before Zia, the very parliament which had
adopted the constitution amended it seven times: Mohammad Khan Junejo once;
Benazir attempted once for the women’s sake but didn’t succeed; Nawaz Sharif
made five amendments — the nation was lucky to have escaped his sixth attempt
(Fifteenth Amendment) that was to make Sharia the country’s supreme law. All
these amendments added little to the worth of the constitution, and some even
curbed fundamental rights. The changes now being proposed by Asif Zardari
through his Eighteenth Amendment far exceed the combined number of all
amendments made so far. Though numbered 80 in the draft text, the changes
proposed are more numerous. The exact count would be a tedious undertaking.

The constitution, thus, has been more of a hobby horse for generals and politicians
and not an inviolable code, embodying the basic law of the country and reflecting
the aspirations of its people. Ziaul Haq wished to make Pakistan a fortress of Islam
and Musharraf to turn it into a model of enlightened moderation. Bhutto and Nawaz
Sharif, too, apparently, acted in the cause of democracy and religion but the motive
was to entrench themselves in power. The exertions of all four spread over 34 years
have made the country a cesspool of violence, extremism and bigotry. The package
now prepared by Asif Zardari, the self-proclaimed soon-to-be founder of a new
order, might, in fact, land the country in greater chaos. Its provisions relating to the
judiciary have been rejected outright by the lawyers. It would be nothing short of a
miracle if they and their civil society companions, call them political agitators if you
will, led by Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry and marching in the blazing sun, are able to
keep their cool even if they intend to. The necessity and merit of the amending
plethora aside, it is surely going to make the revised constitution more cumbersome
and difficult to understand and interpret. Already with its multiple footnotes the
constitution makes for exasperating reading.

Take the example of Article 58-2(b) — the scourge of politicians and the pet of the
generals. Ziaul Haq added clause 2(b) to the original Article 58, Nawaz Sharif
omitted it, Musharraf reinstated it with some changes in the wording. It is again
being deleted. The intention is clear but the text is not. Another footnote will have
to be added to the five that are there. Instead of amending so many articles which
have already suffered amendments more than once it would make greater sense to
rewrite the whole constitution. In any case even with all the amendments
incorporated, the constitution is not going to satisfy every political group, province
and community as it does not address the more vexatious long-lingering issues of
provincial autonomy, status of the tribal areas, security of civil servants and
bringing fundamental rights clauses in conformity with Pakistan’s international
commitments. With all these and some other basic and burning issues going
unaddressed there can be no new order emerging from Zardari’s dream or
deception. Discontent among the provinces, communities, tribes and people as a
whole would persist, perhaps even worsen. The feeling is that Asif Zardari’s career
in politics is going to be short-lived. The knives are already out. He can become a
leader in his own right, and not by mere default (the tragic death of his wife) or by
virtue of Musharraf’s reconciliation order, only if he genuinely fulfills his promise of
a new order that is also equitable. The constitutional package, even if the whole of
it were to be approved, would not herald a new order; a new constitution adopted
after free debate might. Empowering the prime minister and reducing the president
to a figurehead more powerless than Chaudhry Fazal Elahi and Rafiq Tarar would
satisfy no one. The package focuses only on the powers of persons. The people
expect the institutions of the state from top to bottom to be responsive to their
needs. They are not concerned with who gives jobs, plots and loans but that they
receive them justly. No government has ever done that, whether the executive
authority has been vested in the president or the prime minister. Though it is still
struggling to stand on its feet, this government is also embroiled in the fight over
jobs and spoils. That said, the instant thought is one of sympathy for the committee
which is to consider the package. It is complex, confusing in parts and at places
sloppy in language. Take just one instance. There is a proposal to replace the
existing Supreme Judicial Council with a Judicial Commission which would comprise
a ‘non-politicised’ retired chief justice of Pakistan, two retired judges of the
Supreme Court and two of a high court who are also non-politicised. How will it be
determined, and by whom, whether a retired judge is politicised or not?

To an extent every citizen is and in these times even some sitting judges are. And
how many retired chief justices would be still around to offer a choice? A rational
approach would be to lay down the standards and procedure by which a judge is to
be judged and let the existing Supreme Judicial Council do it. The package does not
resolve the judicial crisis nor does it have the making of a new order. It is thus
purposeless. Discussions revolving around it will be a waste of time and deepen rifts
as hopelessness spreads wider. A straight recourse to parliament is the only
answer. A consensus may emerge in the joint committees of the National Assembly
and the Senate — when it appears all but impossible emerging out of the party
caucuses. Our politicians must not forget that they lose credibility faster than the
generals. This time round it is going to be faster still.

Author Location Dated

Intikhab Hanif Lahore, Pakistan 09.06.08

– Shahbaz against talks with Musharraf

No one can work with President Pervez Musharraf because he is an unconstitutional
head of state, according to PML-N president Shahbaz Sharif, who became the Chief
Minister of Punjab for a second time in eight years. Addressing a press conference
after taking oath of office on Sunday, he said the provincial government’s relations
with the president and the federal government should be good. “But “But this does not
mean covering up unconstitutional steps.”
steps.” Earlier, he addressed the Punjab
Assembly and secured 265 votes in the 342-seat house during the ascertainment
process. At the press conference, he said he would discuss with PPP co-chairman
Asif Ali Zardari issues relating to reinstatement of the judges. Resolving the issue
will allow lawyers to call off their protest. “I
“I will try that we again sit together to
seek a solution.”
solution.” Mr Sharif said reconciling with the president did not mean violating
the Constitution. “Relations
“Relations must conform to principles laid down in the
Constitution. There is a need to protect the Constitution and larger national
interests.”
interests.” When he was asked if the PML-N would give the president a safe exit, he
said he did not know what was meant by safe exit. “We
“We don’t have any personal
grudge against him,”
him,” he said, adding that he had once been his friend. He said that
by allowing army generals who imposed martial laws go scot-free, a dangerous
precedent had been established.

“When Ayub Khan was allowed to go away without being punished, Yahya Khan
took over and broke the country. Similarly, Ziaul Haq’s martial law paved the way
for Gen Mushrraf to dismiss an elected government after conducting the Kargil
operation in secret.”
secret.” When his comments were sought on President Musharraf’s
statement that he was willing to hold talks with Nawaz Sharif, he said it was
possible only after he stepped down as president. “Thank
“Thank God he is now talking
about talking to us and not about kicking (us). Nawaz Sharif had made it clear
during the elections that talks with Musharraf could only be held if he organised fair
and free polls, reinstated the deposed judges and left his office,”
office,” he said. Mr Sharif
said it was unfortunate that he did not remember his government’s eight-year mis
rule and criticised the performance of the present government which had been
formed only a few months ago. Criticising the previous government, he said it had
made false proclamation of prosperity. He said if what it had said was true the
country should not be experiencing long spells of loadshedding because of power
shortage. Supporting the construction of Kalabagh and other dams with consensus,
he said President Musharraf had used the issue for political gains. “He
“He should have
started the dams’ construction when Pakistan got funds after 9/11,”
9/11,” he said. If the
Musharraf government had started work on Bhasha dam, the project would have
been completed by now, giving the country an additional 2,500MW of power.
“Instead, the country is facing an acute shortage of water and power.”
power.”

When asked about his participation in the lawyers’ long march, he said the PML-N
was committed to their cause because restoration of the judiciary and its
independence was a national need. “We “We cannot implement the Murree Declaration
that is why we are fully supporting the lawyers and the civil society for
reinstatement of the judges,”
judges,” he said. When asked if he would join the lawyers’
protest, he said: “Do
“Do you want that I should be arrested?”
arrested?” Denying that the PML-N
and the PPP had differences over the judges’ issue, he said they differed on the
method of their reinstatement, which was the democratic way. “The “The coalition
government is here to stay.”
stay.” About the rampant inflation, he said it was something
the government had inherited from the Musharraf-led government. “It “It cannot be
controlled overnight but we will provide relief to people through food stamps,
monetary benefits and other steps.”
steps.”

Author Location Dated

AP Tehran, Iran 09.06.08

– Iraq says it won’t be used as launching pad for Iran attack

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki on Sunday sought to ease Iranian fears over a
proposed US-Iraq security deal, saying his government would not allow Iraq to
become a launching pad for an attack on Iran. Al-Maliki, on his second visit to Iran
this year, met President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials,
reassuring them that the security pact, which Washington and Baghdad hope to
finish by mid-summer, would not be a danger to Iran. “A “A stable Iraq will be a benefit
to the security of the region and the world,”
world,” al-Maliki told Ahmadinejad in their
talks, according to the Iranian president’s website. Al-Maliki also appeared to signal
that Tehran would not be squeezed out by any agreement, saying Iraq’s
“development and stability will be provided through more bilateral cooperation”
cooperation”
with Iran. Ahmadinejad, in turn, underlined that Iran had a key role in Iraq’s
security. “The
“The responsibility of (Iraq’s) neighbours is doubled in this regard,”
regard,” he
said. The Iranian president hinted at concerns that the security agreement would
mean US domination in Iraq. “Iraq
“Iraq must reach a certain level of stability so that its
enemies are not able to impose their influence,”
influence,” he said, without specifically
mentioning the deal.

Iran fiercely opposes the US-Iraq security agreement, saying it will lead to
permanent American bases on its doorstep in Iraq, reflecting Tehran’s fears that US
forces could attack it. Last week, powerful Iranian politician Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani said the deal would “enslave” Iraqis and vowed it would not be permitted
to be passed. An aide to al-Maliki said the prime minister was offering assurances in
the talks that the US presence in his country was no threat to Iran. But he would
also complain about Iran’s public campaign against the agreement as interference
in Iraq’s internal affairs, the aide said on condition of anonymity. In another issue
riling ties between Baghdad and Tehran, al-Maliki is like to raise the US allegations
that Iran is arming, funding and training Shia militiamen in Iraq. Iran has denied the
charges, saying it supports Iraq’s security and stability. On Sunday, the US military
in Iraq said it had captured a militant who ran an “assassination
“assassination squad”
squad” in the
southern city of Basra and was responsible from trafficking extremists in and out of
Iran. Al-Maliki’s government has always been an ally of Tehran, and the Shia and
Kurdish parties that dominate it have longstanding close ties with the Iranian
leadership. But the US accusations of Iranian help to Shia militiamen have strained
those ties – and the tensions have grown amid the negotiations over the security
deal, which aims to establish a long-term security arrangement between
Washington and Baghdad. After talks with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki on Saturday evening, alMaliki sought to ease Iranian opposition, saying the
Baghdad government would not allow Iraq to become a launching pad for “harming”
Iran, the state broadcaster said on its website.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 09.06.08

– PML-N prepares chargesheet against Musharraf

The Pakistan Muslim League-N has formulated a 10-point chargesheet for a
resolution to impeach President Pervez Musharraf and hopes that its coalition
partners will move it if Gen (retd) Musharraf does not resign. This was announced
by PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan at a press conference at the party’s
central secretariat here on Sunday. The chargesheet has the following allegations:

• Gen Pervez Musharraf imposed martial law in the country twice, subverted the
Constitution and violated the oath taken by him as army chief. He kept the elected
prime minister behind bars in the Attock Fort, detained judges of the superior
courts with their family members and imposed dictatorship at gunpoint.
• He planned and undertook the Kargil misadventure, concealing it from the
elected government, sacrificing some 800 officers and men of the army in the
process.

• He used Pakistan Army as his personal force, tried to corrupt it and gave
promotion to his blueeyed officers. He used the army for different unconstitutional
and illegal actions meant to prolong his rule, badly affecting the credibility of the
national institution.

• He pushed the army into an undeclared war against its own people without
seeking approval from the prime minister, cabinet and parliament, which has so
far resulted in the killing of over 1,000 armymen. Suicide bombings in reaction
have also claimed lives of a large number of Pakistanis.

• He blackmailed and subjected different people to torture and abuse, using the
National Accountability Bureau to form a political party.
• He got Nawab Akbar Bugti killed in cold blood to implement the threat he had
earlier hurled on him and congratulated the people involved in the killing after the
act.

• Thousands of Baloch political workers were made victims of enforced

disappearance, with their family members still unaware of their whereabouts.
Various Baloch leaders, including Akhtar Mengal, were implicated in false cases
and jailed.

• The Lal Masjid was attacked on the pressure of external powers, resulting in the
death of hundreds of innocent boys and girls.
• Over 650 of the people illegally picked up from different parts of the country
were handed over to the United States in return for dollars. This he admitted in his
book.

• He set new examples of cronyism, nepotism, corruption and favouritism.

During his eight years in power, Gen Musharraf made billions of rupees as his close
associates got massive contracts from NHA, OGDC, PIA, besides earning billions of
rupees in defence deals. Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said these were not mere
allegations, but substantial evidence was available which would be presented in
parliament during impeachment proceedings. He opposed the idea of giving a safe
exit to Musharraf and said it was a fit case for trial under Article 6 of the
Constitution. He said the reconciliation offer by Musharraf at this stage was
meaningless as it would be a folly to give more time to an unreliable and
controversial person. He said the PML-N would formally demand formation of a
commission on the Kargil episode during the budget session so that those
responsible for the misadventure could be brought to book. He rejected claim by
Musharraf that he had not lobbied to become army chief, but did not give details.
However, answering a question, he said he was amongst those who had supported
Musharraf at that time. He said the final decision was taken by the then prime
minister on the basis of records provided by the Inter Services Intelligence and the
Military Intelligence. “Nobody
“Nobody had recommended him as martial law administrator,”
administrator,”
he remarked.

Author Location Dated

Rawalpindi, Pakistan 09.06.08

– Govt mulls over end to capital punishment

The coalition government is working on recommendations for termination of capital
punishment in the country and efforts are being made to introduce extensive jail
reforms for provision of better facilities to the prisoners. This was stated by Federal
Finance Minister Naveed Qamar here on Sunday after paying off the fine of those
prisoners who were in jail only because of defaulting on penalties. The federal
government paid Rs 4,255,235 to get 36 prisoners, including two women, released
from the central jail in Adiala. Talking to media persons after the ceremony, Mr
Qamar said the government was pondering on the proposals for scraping death
penalty as such kind of punishment was being terminated in the civilised societies.
The minister said the government was working to introduce a jail reform package to
improve the existing facilities for the detainees. Mr Qamar said he himself had been
kept in Adiala Jail and he knew the problems of inmates very well, adding that he
had also been advised by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to pay the fine of all
those prisoners who were unable to pay the penalty.

The finance minister said all efforts were being made to eliminate corruption and
practice of illegal gratification from jails. The jail staff will be trained not to
misbehave with the prisoners and provide the inmates a conducive atmosphere to
bring a positive change in the prisoners. About the annual budget, he said it would
be tax free and poor friendly. All kinds of crises that the nation is facing today are
inherited by the present government, as the outgoing government paid little
attention to the welfare of the people. The prisoners, who were in jubilant mood on
their release, thanked the government and urged the authorities to bring in changes
in jails where corruption and maltreatment of prisoners was rampant.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 09.06.08

– Obama, McCain go head to head

From Iraq to diplomacy, via healthcare and jobs, the battle for the US presidency
took shape on Sunday with only two viable contenders left standing: Democrat
Barack Obama and Republican John McCain. After Hillary Clinton’s departure from
the Democratic race and full-throated endorsement of Obama on Saturday,
supporters of the Illinois senator and McCain hammered the main themes that will
define November’s election. But the former first lady was not entirely out of the
picture yet, with Clinton surrogates flagging up her 18 million primary votes to press
her qualification to be vice president in an Obama administration. “I’ve
“I’ve looked at
every other possible candidate. No one brings to a ticket what Hillary brings,”
brings,”
California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who hosted a hushhush meeting between the
two Democrats late on Thursday, told ABC News. Clinton campaign spokesman
Howard Wolfson reaffirmed that the New York senator was “not “not seeking”
seeking” the vice
presidency under Obama, 46. But asked on CBS if she would accept an offer from
her former adversary, Wolfson said: “She
“She has said during the campaign and she
says now that she will do whatever she can and whatever she’s asked. “This is
Senator Obama’s decision. It’s totally up to him,”
him,” he said, as the Democrats’ new
champion prepared to head deep into Republican territory with a nationwide
economic tour starting in North Carolina on Monday.

Tim Kaine, Virginia’s Democratic governor who is also touted as a possible VP pick
for Obama, said the 71-year-old McCain’s long years as a Washington insider had
resulted only in serial errors with grievous consequences. “We’ve
“We’ve seen Washington
make blunder after blunder in this decision about (going) to war in Iraq and in the
course that they have pursued,”
pursued,” Kaine told Fox News Sunday. “And
“And Senator McCain
has said that we’re going to keep pursuing that course.”
course.” Minnesota Governor Tim
Pawlenty, a Republican mentioned as a potential VP nominee for McCain, portrayed
Obama as a tax-and-spend liberal who was dangerously wrong on the Iraq war and
on his desire to meet leaders of US foes.

Author Location Dated

AFP Bangkok, Thailand 09.06.08

– Bollywood Oscars Young celebrity couple take early

Hot young celebrity couple Ranbir Kapoor and Deepika Padukone picked up honours
on Sunday as the best new actors at the “Bollywood Oscars.” Kapoor took a gong
for his role in the romance “Saawariya,” while his stunning girlfriend picked up hers
for “Om Shanti Om.” Padukone’s film about an intrigue that carries over into a
reincarnated life also swept most of the technical awards earlier in the show.
Dashing leading man Akshay Kumar was presented with a special achievement
award. He told the audience that he had once waited tables in the host city Bangkok
before setting out to become a movie star. “I
“I was just a young man when my
adventure began here. I was naive, restless and eager to please. This city
embraced me with such love and kindness,”
kindness,” he said. Vying for the coveted Best
Picture award are “Guru,” “Chak De India,” “Jab We Met,” “Om Shanti Om,” “Life in
a... Metro” and “Partner.” The gala event launched by the International Indian Film
Academy (IIFA) just eight years ago has become one of the film industry’s most-
watched events, with an estimated 600 million television viewers. Hundreds of fans
greeted their favourite stars as they paraded into the posh downtown Bangkok
theatre.

Former Miss World Aishwarya Rai-Bachchan, who last year married into the
Bachchan acting dynasty, arrived in a full-length, strapless red satin fishtail gown
and elicited screams from fans who stormed past security to snap photos. She and
her husband Abhishek Bachchan are up for Best Male and Best Female acting
awards for their roles in “Guru” — the rags-to-riches story of an Indian business
tycoon. “We’re
“We’re here for the whole film industry. It doesn’t matter if we win,”
win,”
Bachchan said before the show. Even some of the stars said they were dazzled by
the spectacle. “This
“This is an awards function that I have been watching on television
with my parents. It’s big to be here and be part of it,”
it,” said Padukone, who was also
nominated for best actress for “Om Shanti Om.” At least 500 of Bollywood’s biggest
names walked down a carpet changed from red to green in a nod to the
environmental themes the event is working to promote. While all eyes are on the
winners, the awards include a major dose of global marketing designed to raise the
profile of Indian cinema, especially in markets like Thailand, where Bollywood
remains a novelty. However, not many Thais actually saw the show, which was
broadcast by satellite but not carried on local television. Show-stopping dance
numbers punctuated the awards, all promoting upcoming films that eschew the
traditional song-and-dance format.

Author Location Dated

Sukkur, Pakistan 09.06.08

– Fazl fears political crisis may lead to re-election

Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has said he fears that if the
present state of affairs continues, the country may soon have to go through another
election. The Maulana told journalists after chairing a general council meeting of his
party here on Saturday that the state of affairs indicated that it was not the
president, who faced problems, but the coalition government itself was facing a
difficult time. He said that the president enjoyed powers under the 17th
constitutional amendment and it was a crime to keep the amendment intact despite
having two-thirds majority in the parliament. He termed the 1973 constitution a
national charter and said that instead of the charter of democracy and the Muree
accord, all matters should be decided in accordance with the Constitution. The
Maulana said that the restoration of judges was a purely constitutional issue and
Nawaz Sharif had already shown flexibility about present judges. If the restoration
of judges could have been done through an executive order, Nawaz government
could also be restored in the same manner, he asked. He said that despite
clamouring about national integrity, every thing had been done contrary to it. He
did not want to sabotage the process of dialogue between two major political
parties but the statements issued from time to time by PML-N leaders that they
would not give safe passage to the president, were aimed at playing with people’s
emotions. Its implementation would not be that easy, he said. Mr Fazl described
statements of the governor of Punjab as irresponsible, saying that the governor’s
office was an impartial one and the person occupying it ceased to be representative
of a single party. Despite the government’s peace agreement in Swat there was no
peace in the region, he said. He denied his party’s support for lawyers’ long march
and said that everyone had the right to protest. The parliament was empowered to
legislate and if the institution was pressurised, then it would not be able to work, he
said. Senator Dr. Khalid Mehmood Soomro condemned what he called anti-Islam
conspiracies by the United States and other western countries and urged the
Muslim Ummah to get united.

Author Location Dated

Rupee Report 09.06.08

– Rupee resists sharp decline

The rupee was able to resist sharp losses in relation to dollar in both open and inter-
bank markets this week as dollar inflows improved significantly. The tightening of
monetary policy seems to have curb speculation and stabilised the currency.
However, the bank’s measures appear adequate for the short-term, because there
are also concerns about outflows from the stock market which lost 13 per cent this
year and is 22 per cent lower than a lifehigh set on April 21, 2008. Continued
increase in oil prices in the international market has fuelled import payment bill
which in turn have pushed dollar demand in the local currency market. This
situation continues to exert downward pressure on the rupee. The rupee in the inter
bank market commenced the week on a dismal note as it gave up it weekend’s
firmness versus dollar on June 2, posting losses to the tune of 60 paisa on the
buying counter and another 50 paisa on the selling counter over previous
weekend’s Rs 66.30 and Rs 66.50 to trade at Rs 66.90 and Rs 67.00, amid
increasing demand from importers and tight dollar supplies. The rupee/dollar parity
continued its downtrend on the second trading day with the rupee making fresh
losses of 35 paisa against the dollar which was quoted at Rs 67.25 and 67.35 on
June 3. The rupee, however, resisted sharp decline versus the dollar due to smooth
supply of the US currency during the day.

The rupee weakness over the dollar persisted on June 4, as demand for dollars
continued to mount to meet heavy payments, particularly for oil imports. The
international oil prices are currently hovering around $138 a barrel. As a result,
mounting demand for dollars pushed the rupee further down, losing 15 paisa
against the dollar to trade at Rs 67.40 and Rs 67.50. However, on June 5, the
players in the inter bank market witnessed mixed sentiments with the rupee moving
both ways. While the rupee managed to gain five paisa on the buying counter, it
remain unchanged at its overnight levels on the selling counter, changing hands at
Rs 67.35 and Rs 67.50. On June 6, the rupee/dollar parity almost held its overnight
trend, shedding another shed five paisa for buying but remaining unchanged for
selling. The parity reverts to the June 4 position with the rupee changing hands at
Rs 67.40 and Rs 67.50. The demand for dollars remained high as the importers
were in the market to make payments to the foreign firms amid tight monetary
position.

During the week in review, the rupee in the inter bank market suffered losses on
cumulative basis to the tune of Rs 1.40 on the buying counter and Re 1 on the
selling counter. In the open market, the rupee opened the week on a positive note
as it managed to gain 10 paisa against the dollar changing hands at Rs 67.40 and
Rs 67.50 on June 2, after ending last week at Rs 67.50 and Rs 67.60. But on the
following day, the rupee gave up its overnight firmness in relation to dollar and
posted fresh losses of 40 paisa to trade at Rs 67.80 and Rs 67.90 on June 3. On June
4, the rupee further extended its overnight fall, falling 25 paisa against the US
currency which was trading at Rs 68.05 and Rs 68.15. The declining trend in the
rupee/dollar parity persisted on the third consecutive day. The rupee posted fresh
losses of 10 paisa changing hands in the open market at Rs 67.90 and Rs 68.00
against the American currency on June 5. On June 6, the rupee suffered a sharp
decline of 25 paisa as the dollar continued its advancement and traded at Rs 68.15
and Rs 68.25 bringing cumulative losses in the open market this week to 65 paisa.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee made a smart recovery on
the opening day of the week, gaining Rs3.16 to trade at Rs104.51 and Rs104.61 on
June 2, after closing last week at Rs107.35 and Rs107.44. But this recovery proved
short lived as the rupee failed to maintain its overnight firmness on the second
trading day of the week, when it suffered a sharp fall of 69 paisa and traded at
Rs105.20 and Rs105.30 on June 3. On June 4, the rupee rebounded and recovered
35 paisa versus the euro, changing hands at Rs104.85 and Rs104.95. It further
extended its overnight gain against the euro on June 5, when it traded at Rs104.75
and Rs104.85. But on June 6, the rupee failed to hold it firmness against the euro
sharply losing Rs1.15 to trade at Rs105.90 and Rs106.00. During the week,
however, the rupee managed to recover Rs1.10 versus the European single
common currency amid fluctuations.

Author Location Dated

Mahnaz Fatima 09.06.08

– Slapdash solutions to economic problems

Some of the gravest economic issues inherited by the elected government include
inflation in general and food inflation in particular, rising oil prices, rising poverty,
unemployment, energy deficit, current account deficit, and deprivation related
issues of rising crime and terror, to name a few. While there is an attempt to solve
them sooner rather than later, some of the proposed remedies are more
symptomatic instead of a jab at the sources and causes. For example, an IFI’s
suggestion to withdraw subsidy on oil prices to favourably affect fiscal deficit might
temporarily serve the purpose somewhat. It will, however, have a ratchet effect on
the prices of all manufactured goods as not only will the cost of materials and
distribution go up, the wage bill will also rise as higher salaries will be demanded.
Farm input prices will also rise making farm products dearer than before. The
withdrawal of subsidies will set off another price spiral that will impact exports
adversely, swelling up the current account deficit even further. We will be caught in
the dog catching its own tail syndrome as burdened manufacturers’ ability to pay
taxes will be further impaired that will, in turn, impact the fiscal deficit adversely.
So, what looks like a solution is a stop-gap arrangement likely to make the fiscal
deficit look good only in the interim following which we will find ourselves grappling
with the ramifications of this ill-advised symptomatic measure. The entire focus is
on making the system “efficient” through withdrawal of oil price subsidies in utter
disregard of the issue of equity. Same outlook is demonstrated in the increase in
support prices of wheat and other farm food products, the political considerations
notwithstanding. The trade-off consideration between efficiency and equity appears
to be getting more and more permanently shelved.

We could live with the IFIs’ advised accounting approach only if it would show the
desired results. That it would not is evident from the complex web of relationships
between various economic variables that together create hardships for all alike. A
holistic view is required that would show the sources and causes all of which need
to be tackled together to produce the results we want to see on a permanent basis.
Government borrowings must be stemmed so as to control inflation. So, fiscal
deficit must be reduced. How?.....through the withdrawal of oil price subsidies. But,
this too will lead to cost-push inflation as discussed. So, where is the solution for
inflation in this? Fiscal deficits must be controlled regardless. Must this deficit be
controlled through a measure that will generate a price spiral? And, why are such
measures being suggested? Has the government and the IFIs put together given up
on the issue of tax collection which system should be made vertically and
horizontally equitous on war footing? Pakistan’s central government revenues have
declined from 17.2 of GDP in 1995 to 13.5 per cent of GDP in 2006 (World
Development Indicators, 2008). The share of taxes on income, profits, and capital
gains increased by only two percentage points in 11 years to 20 per cent of
revenues in 2006 in the case of Pakistan (World Development Indicators, 2008).
India gained by 16 percentage points on the same score during the same period to
39 per cent of revenues in 2006 (World Development Indicators, 2008). The upshot
is a budget deficit of India that has been lower than Pakistan’s. Fiscal deficit is an
issue that requires resolute tax legislation, collection, and enforcement measures
on the part of the government. Equals must be taxed equally whether in the
agricultural or urban industrial sector. Otherwise, the urban industrial sector will
have reason to evade taxes if the agricultural sector is left virtually and actually tax
exempt. Tax collection necessitates fairness and justice failing which people
develop their own morality criteria. A hapless government becomes more so unless
it resolves to introduce an even-handed tax management and administration
system.

These are some of the issues that need to be dealt with headlong if a lasting
solution to the issue of fiscal deficit is to be found. Otherwise, we will only be
applying band aids that will provide temporary relief, if at all, to a variable or two in
isolation. The wound will get bigger and deeper and that much more difficult to heal
with the passage of time passed through ad hoc measures. Temporary relief policy
measures are proposed to be coupled with equally temporary relief measures for
the poor. It is important to realise that when prices go up indiscriminately, some 60
per cent of the population is affected as it feels poorer. This 60 per cent of the
population gets only 40 per cent of the income as 60 per cent of income goes to the
top 40 per cent. Not all of the bottom 60 per cent qualify for government’s hard-
toget income support programmes. Bulk of the population lives hand-tomouth and
have enormous difficulty coping with price pressures whether or not they fall in the
abject poverty category. Wheat price increase is burdensome for all and sundry of
the bottom 60 per cent. The middle and low-middle income groups have difficulty
choosing between food and education or quality education and healthcare and
housing. The quality of life of this bottom 60 per cent is adversely affected as prices
of food and petroleum prices rise since both of these feed significantly into the
overall price level no matter how much the monetary policy is tightened by the SBP.
Farm product prices require good management also. The farm product supplies
must be ensured. Exports and imports must be carefully planned. Buffer stocks
must be created to stabilise market prices. Smuggling and hoarding must be
controlled and these must be dealt with tough measures. This issue has a whole
bunch of Pakistan-specific determinants that need to be heeded. For, this issue
cannot be explained away by the international food crisis since our market has its
own dynamics that must be appreciated. Increase in farm product prices will only
make the landowners better off with the top 40 per cent population segment
unaffected as they grab 60 per cent of the income anyway. The bottom 60 per cent
will be worse off. There are huge issues of equity for not just the poor but for the
bottom 60 per cent population segment as well. Definite action is, therefore,
required on the price front instead of shifting the burden on this segment to make
some economic indicators look good for some time and to placate the all-time
power base. Unless a new approach develops, we will not see a break from the
outlook of the previous Shaukat Aziz government.

Author Location Dated

Ashfaq Bokhari 09.06.08

– Oil price: super spike or a bubble about to burst?

On May 6, a leading American investment firm, Goldman Sachs, announced that oil
was on the verge of another “super spike” and its price could go up as high as $200
a barrel within the next six to 24 months. The reasons it cited were China’s great
appetite for crude and the Middle East’s near-exhaustion of its ability to produce
more oil. This line of argument has become a familiar refrain for pushing up the
price of oil in the New York and London exchanges by speculators since the invasion
of Iraq in 2003 with the help of key banks, oil traders and oil multinationals. First, it
was $100 barrier that had created great panic and was nervously awaited. It was
finally breached but the mantra of record oil price remains intact. And now it is
$200 barrier which looks like a tsunami. There is a near-religious belief in the
market that the oil production has hit the point where most of the known reserves
have been consumed; the era of cheap oil and abundant quantity is a thing of the
past; high oil prices are there to stay for a long time to come and the world
economies need to come to terms with this reality.

As always, Washington points finger at Arab oil-producing countries. But incidentally

the problem is not a lack of crude oil supply. In fact the world is in over-supply now.
On May 16, Opec downgraded slightly its 2008 estimate of growth in world oil
demand. It said: “World
“World oil demand growth in 2008 is forecast at 1.2 million bpd to
average 86.95 million bpd, representing a minor downward revision.”
revision.” US oil
consumption declined sharply, due to both the slowing economy and warm winter.
Demand from China, the Middle East, India, and Latin America is, of course, forecast
to be stronger but the EU and North American demand will be lower. Just a few days
earlier, Lehman Brothers, another investment bank drew market’s attention when it
said that the current oil price was a bubble and it was about to burst. Its chief oil
strategist was quoted in Daily Telegraph on April 24 saying: “Oil
“Oil supply is now
outpacing demand growth. Inventories have been building since the beginning of
the year.”
year.” Under the circumstances when world oil consumption is not very strong,
one should expect the price to begin coming down. But it doesn’t. Why? The answer
lies in what are clearly deliberate US government policies that permit the unbridled
oil price manipulations. In a well-argued study released on May 21, F. William
Endgahl, an oil academic, concluded that at present at least 60 per cent of today’s
$130 plus price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge
funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York
NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or over-the-counter trading
to avoid scrutiny. It is so because the Commodity Futures Trading Commission
allows speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to
pay only six per cent of the value of the contract. At a price of, say, $128 per barrel
a futures trader only has to put up about eight dollars for every barrel. He borrows
the other $120. This helps drive prices to unrealistic levels. And this also helps keep
alive the mythology of peak oil prices.

However, the following facts do not support the speculators’ mythology which is
seriously harming the developing world’s economies. Pakistan’s oil import bill which
was about $3 billion in 2004 jumped to nearly $8 billion in 2007 and is poised to
exceed $10 billion this year.

(1) The US government’s Energy Information Administration (EIA) in its most

recent monthly energy outlook report says that US oil demand is expected to
decline by 190,000 b/d in 2008, primarily owing to the deepening economic
 recession. Chinese consumption is expected to rise this year by only 400,000
barrels a day which is hardly the “surging oil demand” blamed on China in
the western media. Last year China imported 3.2 million barrels, and its
estimated need was around seven million. The US, by contrast, consumes
around 20.7 million. Since the key oil-consuming nation, the United States, is
experiencing a significant drop in its demand and China will see a minor rise
in its imports, the price in open or transparent markets should, as a rule, be
falling, not rising. The absence of any supply crisis hardly justifies the way
the world’s oil is being priced today.

(2) Not only is there no supply crisis, there are several giant new oil fields due to
begin production in 2008 to further add to supply. Saudi Arabia plans to boost
drilling activity by a third and increase investments by 40 per cent to meet
growing demand in Asia and other emerging markets. It is expected to raise
its pumping capacity to a total of 12.5 mm bpd by next year, from current
11.3 mm bpd. Brazil’s Petrobras is in the early phase of exploiting what it
estimates are newly confirmed oil reserves that could hold as much as eight
billion barrels. It is expected to put Brazil among the world’s “top 10” oil
producers. In the US, apart from rumours that the big oil companies are
deliberately sitting on vast new reserves in Alaska for fear that the prices
would plunge on over-supply, the US Geological Survey has issued a report
that confirms major new oil reserves in an area called the Bakken, where
there may be up to 3.65 billion barrels of oil. In fact, much of the world has
yet to be explored for oil.

(3) There is growing evidence that the speculative bubble which has gone
asymptotic since January is about to pop. In April, oil industry CEOs at a
conference reached the consensus that “oil
“oil prices will likely soon drop
dramatically and the longterm price increases will be in natural gas.”
gas.” In the
US, stockpiles of oil climbed by almost 12m bpd in April, up by nearly 33m
since January. And gas demand has fallen by 5.8 per cent.

(4) The oil price today, unlike 20 years ago, is determined behind closed doors in
the trading rooms of giant companies like Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JP
Morgan Chase, Citigroup, etc. The key exchange in the game is the London
ICE Futures Exchange (formerly the International Petroleum Exchange). And
the key role is played by Goldman Sachs which also runs the GSCI price
index, which is over-weighted to oil prices. ICE was focus of a recent
congressional investigation by two panels and their reports concluded that
prices’ climb to $128 and perhaps beyond is driven by billions of dollars’
worth of oil and natural gas futures contracts being placed on the ICE.

(5) Through an exception granted by the Bush Administration in January 2006,

the ICE Futures trading of US energy futures is not regulated by the
Commodities Futures Trading Commission. A 2006 Senate report on market
speculation noted: “There’s
“There’s a few hedge fund managers out there who are
masters at knowing how to exploit the peak oil theories and hot buttons of
supply and demand … they only add more fuel to the bullish fire in a sort of
self-fulfilling prophecy.”
prophecy.” Engdahl, to conclude, poses the question: will
Democratic Congress act to change the carefully crafted opaque oil futures
 markets in an election year and risk bursting the bubble? On May 12, House
Energy & Commerce Committee stated it will look at this issue in June.The
world is watching.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 10.06.08

– Defence spending to be practically reduced: Gilani

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani told the National Assembly on Monday his
government would freeze — and practially reduce — defence spendings in the next
budget as a show of its desire for peace with neighbours, and voiced a belated hope
of reciprocity from nuclear rival India, which hiked is defence budget three months
ago. And, in a move to let parliament know more about defence expenditures, he
said estimates for the armed forces and other defence organisations would be
presented in parliament under separate “major heads” rather than “one-line”
allocation, in the budget for fiscal 2008-09 due to be unveiled on Wednesday. The
prime minister interrupted the scheduled proceedings of the lower house to make
his first policy statement on defence matters, which was later greeted by several
members from both sides of the political divide mainly for the slight opening of the
defence budget for the first time in the country’s history.

The traditional secrecy of the defence budget has often been criticised by politicians
and intelligentsia mainly for frequent military interventions in politics, including
seizure of power in four coups that saw the country ruled by armed forces for more
than half of nearly 61 years of its life. Mr Gilani said Pakistan could not remain
oblivious of its defence needs in a volatile environment due to its location in a “geo-
“geo-
strategically important but a turbulent region”
region” but added that his government
would continue to strive for “peace
“peace with honour”
honour” without compromising on national
interests. “As
“As a matter of policy, I declare that our defence is based on the strategy
of minimum essential (and) credible deterrence and that we shall not enter into any
arms race,”
race,” he said in an obvious reference to the nuclear-weapon capability of
Pakistan and India which two countries demonstrated in their May 1998 tit-for-tat
nuclear tests. “As
“As a measure of our tangible display to seek peace with our
neighbours, we have decided to freeze, actually reduce, the defence budget when
seen in the context of inflation and the rupee-dollar parity,”
parity,” the prime minister said
without stating whether the freeze would be at the original 2007-08 budget
allocation of Rs275 billion ($4.58 billion), 10 per cent more than the previous year’s
Rs250.2 billion, or at a revised estimate to be known in new budget. “We “We hope to
see a reciprocal gesture from our neighbour for the sake of peace and prosperity of
the region,”
region,” he said in an obvious reference to India, which raised its defence
budget for 2008-09 by 10 per cent to $26.5 billion in March to fund a huge
programme for the modernisation of the world’s fourth army.

Explaining the new format of the defence budget, the prime minister said it would
change the present practice of presenting a “one-line
“one-line allocation”
allocation” and approving it in
a consolidated form and then the defence ministry apportioning the allocation to
the three services – army, navy, air force – and other defence organisations. “My
“My
government has now decided to present the defence budget estimate in a format
reflecting the estimated expenditure under major ‘heads’ in the parliament,”
parliament,” he
said, adding that the defence ministry and the chief of the army staff “have
“have fully
endorsed the revised format”.
format”. The move was welcomed by opposition’s Riaz
Hussain Piraza of the formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim League and Abdul Kadir
Khanzada of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and some from the treasury benches,
including Khwaja Mohammad Khan of the Awami National Party.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 11.06.08

– President must address joint session: Gilani

Amid a rising political temperature, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Tuesday in
effect dared President Pervez Musharraf to make a mandatory address to a largely
hostile parliament, most of whose members want him out of his isolated office. The
move came in the National Assembly in the form of a challenging invitation to the
president on the eve of the new budget while political tensions seemed rising after
renewed demands for his ouster and over a lawyers’ “long march” due to arrive in
Islamabad on Thursday. The prime minister said the president’s failure to address a
joint sitting of the two houses of parliament for the past four years had been
unconstitutional and “it“it will be unconstitutional if it happens even now”.
now”. “We
“We invite
the president to address the joint sitting of majlis-ishoora (parliament) as required
by the Constitution,”
Constitution,” he said while responding to an odd question from an
outspoken pro-Musharraf opposition member who wanted to know if the present
government would continue with its predecessors’ practice of carrying on with a
parliamentary year without a presidential address. Riaz Hussain Pirzada of the
formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim League had sought a ruling from Speaker Fehmida
Mirza whether the presentation of the budget would be unconstitutional without
meeting the constitutional requirement that the president must address a joint
sitting of the National Assembly and the Senate at the start of a parliamentary year
and after the election of the National Assembly. The speaker said the budget would
be constitutional even without such an address but she asked the government to
send a “summary”, or advice, to the president to call a joint sitting and address it.

Mr Gilani referred to the parliament being the major component of the presidential
electoral college, which also includes the four provincial assemblies, and said “he
“he
should come to his constituency”.
constituency ”. President Musharraf addressed only one joint
sitting in January 2004, braving noisy opposition protests, and refused to do it again
unless the opposition gave an assurance he would be heard in silence. He repeated
the same condition in a talk with a selected group of journalists last week if he were
to address a joint sitting now. But it is unlikely his opponents now forming a PPP-led
coalition government after winning the Feb 18 elections would give such an
assurance while many of them have plans to move an impeachment motion to oust
him for alleged violations of the Constitution ranging from his Oct 12, 1999 coup to
the extra-constitutional Nov 3, 2007 emergency under which about 60 judges of the
superior courts lost their jobs for refusing or not being called to take oath under a
Provisional Constitution Order. While security arrangements in Islamabad worried
organisers of the lawyers’ “long march”, the prime minister told the house in
response to another query from a member of a coalition party that he had set up a
ministerial committee to facilitate the protesters seeking the reinstatement of the
deposed judges and talk to them about their march route and the site of their
gathering. The lawyers, who launched their march on Monday from Karachi and
Quetta and will depart from Multan on Wednesday on way to Lahore, plan to
congregate outside the parliament house on a broad avenue used for March 23
Pakistan Day military parades. But the prime minister’s Interior Adviser Rehman
Malik, who is one of five members of the ministerial committee, said the
government would like the lawyers to stop several kilometres away somewhere
near Shakarparian hill park or the Zero Point at the entry to the capital.

Witnesses said dozens of containers had been brought into the capital and parked
at different sites leading to fears the vehicles could be used the block the lawyers’
march as was done in Karachi on May 12, 2007 to foil a planned welcoming
procession for deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, leading to the
killings of nearly 50 people by gunfire. Ironically, the place chosen by the lawyers
for their congregation is the same where President Musharraf addressed a
government-organised rally on May 12. PML-N’s Khurram Dastgir, whose party is
supporting the lawyers’ movement, had complained about the deployment of the
containers and asked the government not to block the march aimed at pressing for
reinstatement of the deposed judges through a parliamentary resolution and an
executive government order.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 11.06.08
om

– Democrats’ race to the finish

Hillary Clinton found it remarkably hard to bow to the inevitable. But when she
finally summoned up the willpower to do so last Saturday, her performance was
both eloquent and moving. After dwelling for a while on cracks in the glass ceiling,
she told her supporters that the new task before them was to “take
“take all our energy
and all our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama as our next
president of the United States”.
States”. It had by then been reasonably obvious for several
weeks that she could not win enough delegates to overtake Obama, and it would
have done no harm to Democratic prospects in the November election had she
gracefully exited a month or two earlier, thereby allowing the presumptive party
nominee to focus on the bigger task of tackling his Republican rival. Her tenacity
may, at some level, be admirable, but it appears to have been founded on the belief
that the nomination was somehow hers by right. A wake-up call in Iowa at the
beginning of the year, when she came third in the first caucus of the primary
season, failed to alter that mindset, perhaps partly because it took only a brief loss
of composure in front of TV cameras to bring out the sympathy vote in New
Hampshire. However, the grassroots support that propelled the Obama campaign
proved incredibly efficacious, and the Clinton team, while shedding staff, frequently
opted for negativity. The other side barely found it necessary to reciprocate: Bill
Clinton, increasingly given to fits of apoplexy, sufficed as a built-in negative.

Bill and Hillary assumed that their network of supporters, cronies and all those who
owed favours to them would prove to be an insurmountable obstacle for any
challenger. Obama outmanoeuvred them partly on account of his considerable
personal appeal. He was able to inspire a movement of the sort that, 40 years ago,
had accounted for a groundswell of popular support for Robert F. Kennedy. By the
time he was assassinated in June 1968, Kennedy was considered likely to win the
Democratic nomination and, in the event, chances are he would have defeated
Richard Nixon, just as his elder brother had done eight years earlier. When, last
month, Hillary Clinton cited the RFK assassination as an argument for staying in the
race, she was widely berated for the implication, intended or otherwise, that Obama
might be destined for a similarly tragic fate. Over the past week she has indicated
her willingness to be co-opted as a vice-presidential candidate, and there are those
who will wonder whether this willingness to play second fiddle is based on the
prospect of that very contingency. There can be little doubt, after all, that Obama is
a potential target for the racists who still populate too many parts of the American
landscape, not least the southern rural hinterland. He was roundly criticised for
bringing up the bitterness of those driven towards guns and God by seemingly
hopeless economic circumstances. The diagnosis may have been simplistic but it
wasn’t inaccurate, even though Obama did not pinpoint racism as a common
component of this bitterness. That the profoundly prejudiced have lent a receptive
ear to suggestions that the African-American candidate is at best a closet Muslim
and, at worst, the Antichrist is hardly surprising. In some cases their relationship
with reality is tenuous enough to precipitate the fear that should Obama become
president, white Americans will, as a voter in small-town West Virginia told a
Guardian correspondent, “end
“end up slaves. We’ll be made slaves just like they was
once slaves.”
slaves.” Such depths of ignorance are a restricted phenomenon. But a degree
of racism, sometimes subconscious, is considerably more widespread.

Inarguably the most unpleasant aspect of the Clinton campaign was its success in
subtly pandering to such prejudices: as the primary season drew to a close,
America’s racial fault lines were exposed in one state after another. This dangerous
trend did not suffice to swing the battle Clinton’s way, but it established an
unfortunate dynamic that John McCain can insidiously exploit. The presumptive
Republican nominee is running neck and neck with Obama in opinion polls, despite
the Bush administration’s steadily abysmal ratings. Depending on which
constituency he is addressing, McCain occasionally tries to distance himself from
the unpopular government, but his imperialistic impulses mirror the disastrous
status quo. Although he once relished his reputation as a maverick, McCain has
consciously drifted to the right in order to reassure Republicans who might consider
him inadequately conservative. This has, inter alia, made it easier to portray him as
a symbol of continuity — which, presumably, will be the preferred angle of attack
from the Democratic side. McCain has taken a risk by calling for a series of town hall
debates — apart from the ritual network confrontations — given that his
unimpressive tenor is no match for Obama’s sonorous baritone. The vacuous feel-
good rhetoric that the Democratic contender effortlessly intones is a reminder that
the general level of politics in the US necessitates empty catchphrases. It does not
necessarily follow that Obama is all form and no content. He is a thoughtful and
intelligent young man with largely liberal instincts who thinks the US can be
transformed into a less unpalatable superpower. The contrast with George W. Bush
and McCain is stark enough for him to be acknowledged as a far more pleasant
alternative.

However, anyone who perceives him as a harbinger of epochal change is bound to

be disappointed. Obama is more likely to tinker with the economy than to make any
serious effort the corporate stranglehold. He has lately been reassuring the
reactionary anti-Cuban and proIsraeli lobbies, whose antagonism can translate into
a substantial electoral disadvantage. He has also felt obliged to water down his
relatively conciliatory stance towards ‘enemies’ such as Iran. In some respects, he
may be emboldened by an electoral triumph in November. However, it would be
folly to presume that an Obama presidency would somehow transcend murky
compromises on any number of fronts. Despite that, Obama is undoubtedly the best
that can be hoped for in the circumstances. He has leapt over one formidable hurdle
with panache, a historical achievement that elicited a hint of pride even from the
cold heart of Condoleezza Rice. A more crucial barrier, however, remains to be
overcome. Were the global population entitled to vote for the so-called leader of the
free world, Obama would win by a massive landslide. The American electorate, on
the other hand, often chooses unwisely. It may well err again five months hence,
and it will be particularly disappointing if this decision is based on judging a
candidate by the colour of his skin rather than the content of his character.

Author Location Dated

Ihtasham Ul Haq Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Rs2tr budget
Facing daunting political challenges and an economic slowdown, the PPP-led
coalition government on Wednesday presented a Rs2.01 trillion national budget
that at once offers relief measures to the poor and the salaried class, imposes new
taxes and slashes food, fuel and power subsidies. The budget, which was presented
by Finance Minister Syed Naveed Qamar in the National Assembly after its earlier
approval by the federal cabinet in a meeting chaired by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf
Raza Gilani, seeks to meet a budgetary deficit of Rs582 billion by rationalising
taxes, mainly by increasing indirect General Sales Tax (GST) from 15 per cent to 16
per cent — a move likely to push already surging inflation further up. But economic
experts said a drastic cut announced in the budget on food, fuel, electricity, and
fertiliser subsidies — from Rs407.48 billion to Rs295.20 billion — would most hurt
the poor already reeling from price-hike, inflation and food shortages. While the
rationale behind the harsh decision is said to be an attempt at pruning fiscal deficit
— from 7 per cent to 4.7 per cent — it is common knowledge that international
donors have been demanding the abolition of all subsidies for a long time. Senior
government officials privy to the reason for the overwhelming slash in subsidies told
Dawn that budgetary support had to come from external sources and such support
for the budget for the coming fiscal was 29.7 per cent higher than last year. They
said the government would have to make “painful
“painful adjustments”
adjustments” to achieve 25 per
cent growth in revenue, whose target had been set at Rs1.2 trillion in the new
budget. Net capital receipts have been estimated at Rs221 billion, against Rs59
billion of last year. However, analysts said the revenue target was too optimistic
and, like the outgoing fiscal, would be revised downwards after some time when the
federal bureau of revenue faced “slippages”.

The finance minister said in the National Assembly that “vulnerable

“vulnerable groups”
groups” would
be protected from the price hike through the launching of a new programme, which
will be known as Benazir Income Support Programme. “For “For the programme, we are
initially allocating Rs34 billion. The sum will be raised to Rs50 billion. This includes a
monthly cash grant of Rs1,000 to each qualifying household to be selected through
the computerised databank of Nadra.”
Nadra.” The beneficiaries of Benazir Card, he said,
would also be provided other welfare facilities like employment, skill development
training for youths, medical insurance and food subsidy. According to the budget
document, servicing of domestic debt will come to Rs459.09 billion and foreign debt
servicing has been estimated at Rs64.077 billion during 2008-09. Repayment of
foreign loans has worked out to be Rs96.18 billion. The government seems to have
backtracked on the claim of “freezing” the defence budget because the budget
proposes a nearly seven per cent increase, from Rs277 billion spent last fiscal to
Rs296.07 billion in 2008-09. However, it was not clear whether the increased
budgetary allocation would go towards employees’ expenses or acquisition of
defence assets. Resource availability estimated for the new budget is Rs1,836
billion, against last year's Rs1,394 billion. Net revenue receipts for the new budget
have been worked out at Rs1,111 billion, indicating an increase of 23.1 per cent
over last year. The provincial share in federal revenue receipts is calculated to be
Rs568 billion, 22 per cent higher than last year. Capital receipts net for 2008-09 is
estimated at Rs221 billion against Rs59 billion of last year. The overall expenditure
is estimated at Rs2,010 billion, including current expenditures worked out at
Rs1,493 billion, showing a decrease of 1.5 per cent over last year.

The Public Sector Development Programme (PSDP) has been estimated at Rs550
billion, registering a 20 per cent increase over last year. The National Economic
Council (NEC) had approved a Rs541 billion PSDP, which has been upped to Rs550
billion in the new budget. The share of current expenditures in total budgetary
outlay is 74.3 per cent, compared to 77.8 per cent last year. The Water and Power
Development Authority will get a subsidy of Rs74.6 billion, down from last fiscal’s
Rs113.6 billion. Similarly, the subsidy for the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation will
total Rs13.8 billion, against outgoing fiscal’s Rs19.59 billion. The subsidy for Trading
Corporation of Pakistan on wheat and sugar will total Rs26.6 billion during 2008-09,
against Rs46.5 billion of the outgoing financial year. The subsidy for Utility Stores
has been increased from Rs1.8 billion to Rs2.7 billion for 2008-09. Subsidies on
imported fertilisers, including urea, DAP and phosphatic fertilisers, will cost Rs35
billion to the exchequer during 2008-09. Subsidies on account of fuel oil and price
differential claim of Oil Marketing Companies will be Rs140 billion, against Rs175
billion of outgoing fiscal. No allocations have been for research and development
support for the textile sector during the next financial year. The budget proposes a
total of Rs598.92 billion net transfers to provinces during 2008-09, including
Rs505.7 billion from the divisible pool. The new budget incorporates Rs31.25 billion
receipts through issuance of a global bond during 2008-09. “Public
“Public order and safety
affairs”
affairs” allocations for FY09 have been estimated to be Rs26.77 billion.
Expenditures on education during FY09 have been estimated at Rs24.62 billion and
Rs4.79 billion for social protection. A superannuation allowance and pension
expenditures have been estimated to be Rs50.05 billion. Profits of the State Bank of
Pakistan are planned to be increased from Rs88 billion to Rs110 billion during the
next financial year. The government also plans to issue Pakistan Investment Bonds
of Rs50 billion, prize bonds of Rs20 billion, treasury bills of Rs5 billion and
government commercial papers of Rs40 billion during coming fiscal. The finance
minister told the house that the government would reconstitute the National
Finance Commission and convene its meeting as soon as nominations of members
were received from the provinces. He said the projected income and expenditure
indicated that the provinces were likely to benefit from improvement of about Rs79
billion in their cash balance after providing for the local component of their PSDP
and extra expenditure.
The finance minister conceded that the government did not have many resources
and that “we
“we were never confronted with such grave problems”.
problems”. “The
“The budget for
2008-09 is part of the perspective plan on which the new government is currently
working and the plan will shortly be finalised. Accordingly, we are taking a long-
term perspective while announcing the budget. It will be useful to spell out the key
assumptions about the macroeconomic conditions assumed to prevail during the
year and will affect the budget. “These include a 5.5 per cent growth rate of GDP,
inflation will be contained at 12 per cent, fiscal deficit at 4.7 per cent, current
account deficit to be reduced to 6 per cent of GDP and foreign exchange reserves
will be increased to $12 billion.”
billion.” The finance minister also assured the house that
loadshedding would be reduced by increasing installed electricity capacity to 1,500
megawatts. “While
“While the textile industry will have continuous, round-the-clock supply,
flour and ghee mills will have 18 hours of power supply. Agricultural tubewells will
have regular power supply for 10 hours at a stretch every night to make use of tariff
rebate.”Foreign investment in agriculture, he said, would be encouraged to increase
productivity and develop cultivable areas. Large tracts of land would be made
available to foreign investors to induct capital and technology in the local farming
sector,
sector, he said. After the budget speech, the finance minister tabled the finance bill
which was later transmitted to the Senate so that the upper house could formulate
its proposals which could be incorporated in the final budget.

Author Location Dated

Mubarak Zeb Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Taxes to raise additional Rs77bn; GST up to 16 pc

Taxes proposed to be levied in the budget for 2008-09 are expected to raise an
additional revenue of about Rs77 billion. The increased reliance on indirect taxes —
mostly through an increase in the rate of general sales tax (GST), from 15 per cent
to 16 per cent, and one per cent special excise duty on all imported and locally-
manufactured products — will trigger inflationary pressures and further burden the
lower-income groups. Although the government abolished GST on fertilisers and
pesticides, it raised customs duty on 300 items, mostly packed food and electronic
appliances, from 25 per cent and 30 per cent to 35 per cent — the highest customs
slabs introduced in the budget — and Rs500 tax on import of every mobile set. The
government has, in the meantime, increased the threshold of income tax for
salaried taxpayers from Rs150,000 to Rs180,000. But, in case of salaried women,
the exemption limit has been enhanced to Rs240,000 from Rs200,000. The
proposed new tax measures were taken mostly with a view to achieving an
ambitious revenue target of Rs1,251.460 billion set for the financial year 2008-09.
Of the total new taxes amounting to Rs77 billion, the government has proposed to
raise more than Rs41 billion from GST and excise duty, Rs29 billion from income
taxes and Rs7 billion from increase in customs duty, mostly on food items,
electronics and mobile phones.

The rate of GST and federal excise duty on provincial services sectors has been
proposed to be increased from 15 per cent to 16 per cent. According to the details,
the rate of excise duty on telecommunication has been increased to 21 per cent, on
cement it was increased to Rs900 a ton from Rs750. Five per cent excise duty has
been imposed on imported and locally-manufactured cars having an engine
capacity exceeding 850cc. Excise duty will be charged at an enhanced rate of 10
per cent from the previous five per cent on banking, insurance, franchises, while all
remaining telecommunication services were also brought under the net of excise
duty net and 0.75 per cent sales tax will be collected on the value of goods at the
import and manufacturing stages of electric goods. Energy saving lamps have been
exempted from GST and crop insurance have been exempted from the levy of 5 per
cent federal excise duty. Manufacturing of acetic acid, caustic soda flakes or solid,
cotton linter and sequins have also been exempted from excise duty while AJK
residents have been allowed refunds on purchase of Pakistani taxable goods. Sales
tax have been withdrawn on medical equipment, apparatus, reagents, disposables,
spares and donations supplied to hospitals of 50 beds or more. The customs duty on
cosmetics has been increased from 20-25 per cent to 35 per cent, on electric ovens
and cooking ranges to 30 per cent from 20 per cent, on betel leaves increased to
Rs200 per kg from Rs150 a kg, from 10 to 15 per cent on sulphonic acid, on
CKD/SKD of sewing machine to 20 per cent from 5 per cent, a uniform rate of 30 per
cent specified for import of special purpose motor vehicles and duty has been
increased on the import of cars and jeeps of more than 1800cc to 100 per cent from
90 per cent. On import of used cars and jeeps, the fixed duty and tax rates have
been proposed to be increased by 10 per cent.

However, CNG-run buses have been exempted from customs duty, 18 medicines
used for treating cancer and heart problems in addition to rice seeds, energy saving
lamps, dredgers, specified solar energy equipments have been exempted from
customs duty while power plants imported by Wapda have been ‘temporarily’
exempted from duty. Under the income tax, no tax on rental income from property
will be collected up to Rs150,000 and income from this source is taxed at
progressive rates of five, 10 and 15 per cent according to the slab. However, in case
of a company, basic exemption of Rs150,000 would not be available and three
separate rates has been proposed. A uniform rate of withholding tax has been
proposed on commercial and industrial importers at two per cent, while 10 per cent
withholding tax has been proposed on electricity bills exceeding Rs20,000 a month,
which would be adjustable. Withholding tax on bills of Rs2,000 and below would be
collected at previous rates. Income tax exemption has been withdrawn on Pakistan
Cricket Board. An amnesty scheme has been introduced on movable and
immovable assets on the value of which two per cent tax is being paid for
‘whitening’ the black economy. Withholding tax at the rate of 10 per cent will be
levied on all landline telephone bills exceeding Rs1,000 while one per cent
withholding tax has been proposed on all export proceeds. The 10 per cent
withholding tax on payment to media companies outside Pakistan is to be treated
as final tax. According to the new tax regime, builders would be required to pay tax
at the rate of Rs50 per square foot of a unit’s covered area at the time of sale.
However, developers converting land into residential, commercial and industrial
plots would be subjected to tax at the rate of Rs100 per square yard at time of sale,
which would be treated as the minimum tax.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Strength of Supreme Court judges increased to 29

The government took a controversial path on Wednesday to partly deal with the
burning issue of deposed judges, using the new budget to increase the Supreme
Court’s strength to 29 judges from 16. But the move, on the eve of the scheduled
arrival of a lawyers’ protest march in Islamabad, seemed to fit into similarly
disputed plans of the ruling Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) to reinstate the deposed
judges without disturbing those who filled the vacancies after mass sackings in the
superior courts under an extraconstitutional emergency declared by President
Pervez Musharraf last November. “(The)
“(The) number of posts of judges of the Supreme
Court is being increased from 16 to 29,”
29,” minister in charge of finance Naveed
Qamar told the National Assembly in his budget speech. This will mean the
Supreme Court strength, fixed by a Judges Act of 1997 will be increased through a
finance bill which, being a money bill, needs to be passed by only the 342-seat
National Assembly to become law and, unlike ordinary bills, does not need approval
of the 100-seat Senate as well. A section of the Finance Bill tabled in the house after
the announcement of the budget says: “In “In the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)
Act, 1997 (XXXIII of 1997), in section 2, for the words ‘be sixteen’ the words ‘not
more than twenty-nine’ shall be substituted and shall be deemed always to have
been so substituted on the 3rd of November, 2007.”2007.” But the new move, which came
shortly after the opposition tried to raise tempers over the lawyers’ march to be
calmed by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, is likely to be argued for and against
both in parliament and outside. The PPP and its partners in the present coalition
government have been opposing similar moves by the previous government to
made amendments in non-financial laws through the Finance Bill. While no
justification for the move was immediately available from the PPP, a Jamaat-i-Islami
senator, Prof Mohammad Ibrahim, called the move a “daka” (robbery) of the rights
of the upper house, where pro-Musharraf opposition parties have the majority. Just
before the budget speech, Raza Hayat Harraj of the formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim
League complained of what he called a “contempt of the house” by a reported
remark of the Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz Ahsan that
parliament was a hurdle in the way of reinstatement of the deposed judges. The
prime minister said the present one was “no “no rubber stamp parliament”
parliament” and “that
“that
they should not take us lightly”,
lightly”, but he avoided commenting on reported Punjab
and NWFP refusal to provide police force to Islamabad administration to deal with
the lawyers’ march.
Author Location Dated
Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Austerity programme leaves out President House

While the government announced some austerity measures and reduced expenses
of the Prime Minister Secretariat, it did not say a word about reducing the
expenditure of the Predient House, whose allocations were increased by over eight
per cent in the budget. According to budget proposals, Rs353.84 million has been
earmarked for the staff, household and allowances of the President House, against
last year’s Rs327.59 million, an increase of over Rs26 million. Under the heads of
grants, subsidies and loan write-offs, the President House will get Rs79.5 million,
against Rs77.5 million allocated in the budget for 2007-08. Interestingly, no
increase has been made for employees’ retirement benefits in the budget as the
allocation under this head remains unchanged at Rs1.6 million. There was a slight
increase in the President House’s operating expenses. It was increased to Rs76.1
million from Rs68.29 in the previous budget. An amount of Rs12.8 million was
allocated for ‘transfers’. Staff salary consumed the maximum chunk of the expenses
of the President House, which also registered an increase, rising to Rs161.86 million
from Rs142.73 million earmarked in the outgoing year’s budget. The allocation for
physical assets and repair and maintenance of the President House has slightly
declined with Rs11.65 million and Rs10.32 million earmarked for the two heads,
respectively, against the previous year’s allocation of Rs12.1 million and Rs12.5
million. The Prime Minister Secretariat’s total expenditure has been reduced by 34
per cent with Rs230.8 million allocated in the budget against last year’s allocation
of Rs351.3 million. The budget document shows a decline in the estimated
expenditures of all heads of the secretariat and its total expenditure has been
reduced by Rs120.4 million. An amount of Rs119.8 million has been earmarked
under the head of salary and allowances, Rs45.6 million for operating expenses,
Rs700,000 for employees’ retirement benefits, Rs38.5 million for grant subsidies
and loan write-offs, Rs11 million for transfers, Rs8 million for physical assets and
Rs6.7 million for repairs and maintenance.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Coalition fate depends on judges issue: Nawaz

Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif has urged Pakistan People’s
Party co-chairman Asif Zardari to act fast on the judges’ issue in the interest of the
coalition, but avoided giving a timeframe for his decision about quitting the ruling
coalition if the deposed judges are not reinstated. Talking to reporters at the Punjab
House after his return from London on Wednesday to join the lawyers’ long march,
the PML-N chief appealed to the nation to come out in support of the deposed
judges and for ousting President Pervez Musharraf. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is in danger today… I
invite every child of the country to take part in this peaceful long march,”
march,” Mr Sharif
said, adding that the long march would continue till the restoration of the judges
and ouster of President Musharraf. When asked if the PML-N would quit the ruling
coalition and sit in the opposition if the judges were not reinstated, Mr Sharif said
that at this stage he could not say anything about it or give an exact date for it. “My
“My
heart too demands a timeframe, but I am not in a position to make any
announcement right now,”
now,” he said. Mr Sharif said it would be good for the coalition
if Mr Zardari restored the judges. He said the PML-N would honour the promise
made to the nation and actively participate in the long march. “I“I will take part in the
march in Lahore on Thursday,”
Thursday ,” he said, adding that the march was necessary for
the security of future generations and the country.
Mr Sharif was of the view that things would not move forward if the deposed judges,
including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, were not reinstated.

Author Location Dated

Afshan Sabohi Karachi, Pakistan 12.06.08

– ‘Politically correct statements’

The first budget of the politically stressed coalition government presented in the
National Assembly aims to achieve the difficult targets of fiscal stabilisation by
reducing budget deficit to the level of 4.5 per cent and achieving the growth of 5.5
per cent during FY08-09. The pro-poor measures announced might not be
substantial but made the finance minister’s speech sound people-friendly and,
therefore, ‘politically
‘politically correct’.
correct’. The budget attempts to provide some relief to the
vulnerable groups through targeted subsidies such as a cash grant of Rs1,000 per
month per family of the poorest of the poor, to be identified by using the Nadra
database. The earlier announcement of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to
increase the minimum wages to Rs6,000 has been included in the proposal. Some
respite has been announced for the salaried classes by revising the slabs for income
tax to make the taxation system ‘progressive’ in nature. The pay package of
government employees has been increased by 20 per cent and conveyance
allowance doubled in a year of fiscal adjustment when inflation rate is expected to
rise further. The de facto finance minister, Naveed Qamar, acknowledged the
economic challenges the country is facing and avoided raising false hopes of an
economic turnaround in a year. As expected, he blamed the preceding regime for
neglecting the key economic areas of infrastructure, agriculture and manufacturing.

He also blasted the Shaukat Aziz government for irresponsible economic

management by resorting to short cuts, as raising money by borrowing from the
State Bank to finance the excessive government expenditure; hiking the deficit to a
record level that he said primarily pushed the rate of inflation and put pressure on
the value of the rupee, exposing the weak foundations of growth during the last
regime. To bring the current account deficit within permissible limits, the minister
has proposed to improve domestic resource generation and cut on the non-
development government expenditure. On resource generation side, the budget
envisages improving resource mobilisation by making tax collection more effective
and efficient, removing tax exemptions and roping in real estate developers in the
tax net. A scheme at a two per cent flat tax has also been introduced to bring black
money into the mainstream economy. To contain non-development expenditure,
salary expenditure has been proposed to be frozen last year’s level. A positive
gesture towards more transparent public money management has been made by
inducting the details of defence budget in the proposal to be discussed in the
National Assembly. There are indications in the budget that Mr Qamar Naveed
termed “part
“part of the perspective economic plan of the government”
government” of the shift of
emphasis to the commodity producing sectors of agriculture and manufacturing as
opposed to services that was encouraged and proved to be the driver of growth
during the last government. He claimed to have attempted for a structural shift in
the economic policy through budget proposals that would lead the economy
towards providing more sustainable foundation to growth by reinvigorating
agriculture and manufacturing. Another theme that was repeated in the budget was
the fresh focus on public-private partnership to address the demands of
infrastructure deficit.

The minister said that the coalition government considered the private sector to be
the driving force for economic development but because of shyness of private
investors in investing in gigantic long-term projects, the government was willing to
permit public participation in certain projects on the promise of divestment as soon
as possible once it got off the ground. His plan for agricultural revival includes
increasing the total acreage under cultivation, besides timely easy availability of
quality inputs at reasonable rates. He mentioned allowing import of bulldozers to
achieve this target. But for most people listening to the budget speech, a
relationship between importing bulldozers and increasing total acreage did not
make sense. The land under cultivation could be expanded by distributing state
land among landless farmers if the government does not want land reforms. The
minister evaded the issue of land holding structure in rural Pakistan that has been
identified by economists and a report of the agricultural reform commission as the
major hurdle in increasing agricultural productivity. The minister proposed
programmes to incentivise the farming community to improve productivity and
yields and water efficiency would be introduced. He indicated the government’s
intention to involve foreign investors in the agriculture sector by offering vast tracts
of land for corporate farming. Scores of other measures to ease water shortages
and bottlenecks in credit, seed and fertiliser availability have also been announced.
The minister specified measures to revise the tariff structure to encourage local
industry. Incentives have been announced for pharmaceuticals, textiles and some
other industries. All in all, the budget speech was populistic as was expected. The
finance minister made every effort to make ‘politically correct statements’.
However, until the entire budget documents are available, it would be premature to
offer a final verdict on the thrust and possible implications of the budget on the
economy and the wellbeing of the public.

Author Location Dated

Munawar ma@amhurstbrown.com 12.06.08

– PPP: let Pakistan move forward

The problem fundamental to the ailments of this country has been a judiciary
servile to each succeeding government. A free and independent judiciary is an
absolute need of a country to provide justice to the people and for political stability
and economic development. A government functioning under an independent
judiciary lasts longer, works correctly and efficiently, as it is aware of its duty of
functioning under the law. It is therefore not vulnerable to adventurers. The fact
that it functions under the watchful eyes of an independent judiciary gives a
government unmatched protection which is better than even repealing Article 58-
2(b). Without an independent judiciary it is not possible to stop a usurper taking
over and re-imposing 58-2(b) or anything else he invents. He will bulldoze through
everything including any ‘constitutional
‘constitutional package’.
package’. As in the past, a compliant
judiciary will ignore the lawful government and facilitate the adventurer. Absence of
an independent judiciary suits only a usurper, not an elected government unless the
aim of its leaders is other than governance. A government functioning under an
independent judiciary enjoys the confidence of the people and the world has
confidence in such a country. Always remember, this ‘confidence
‘confidence factor’
factor’ is
fundamental to the success of a government and the progress of the country. When
people have confidence they bond with their government. It is the participation of
160 million people that will help the country move forward and not a dictator or
unscrupulous politicians working under a muzzled judiciary. When the confidence
factor is there, people don’t send their money abroad but invest it in their own
country. That is when the country really progresses.

A government functioning under an independent judiciary does not have to have

road shows, spending millions of dollars on foreign trips to attract investors. You
don’t have to teach the world geography by requesting people to invest here based
on the claim that ‘Pakistan
‘Pakistan is the hub of Central Asia’,
Asia’, a pet phrase of Shaukat Aziz
and Pervez Musharraf in the eight years when they presided over the economy. The
world ignored the absence of the confidence factor. International investors are
smart. They have to risk their money; they know the world geography better.
Pakistan may be the hub of Central Asia but the investor knows the judiciary is not
independent, lawlessness is internally created; and there is no justice. When he is
pitched against the state or a bigwig neither the investor’s money nor his rights are
protected. He will not come and invest irrespective of what you say. Why does the
investment pour into other countries of the region like India, Singapore or Malaysia?
Why have they shot up to success and glory and we remain stuck in backwardness?
It is not just because they are democracies but more so because their judiciaries are
independent. It is the duty of the parliamentarians of the majority party to force
their errant leaders to restore the Nov 2 judiciary; remove a blatant constitutional
violation and now let the country move forward. At a meeting of the PPP MNAs with
Mr Zardari on May 16, only one MNA — a woman — stood up to tell her leader that
the judges’ restoration was long overdue.

Was it the fault of the independent judges that a dictator purportedly removed
them? Briefly, they set aside the sale of Pakistan Steel Mill (PSM) by the Musharraf
government for Rs21bn when PSM land alone was worth over Rs60bn. They took
notice of human rights violations of the people. Action was taken in cases of gang
rapes, child marriages, disappearance of people picked up by the agencies and the
high-handedness of the authorities. The judges brought much relief to the people
and required the administration to act according to the law. And when Musharraf’s
most immoral and illegal creation, the NRO, came up before the bench of the Chief
Justice for judicial review, the court suspended any benefits intended to be derived
from the ordinance. The final judgment was to be passed after hearing all the
parties. The independent judges were considered a threat to the dream of a second
illegal term of the presidency by a man insensitive to the welfare of this country and
indeed to the agony of his compatriots. He betrayed his mindset when he accused
innocent rape victims of seeking publicity and money to get immigration to rich
countries. We have already wasted 60 years while other countries have moved on.
Please stop wasting more time by introducing new ‘packages’. It is time to undo the
illegalities of the dictator as advised by the top and independent legal minds of the
country. A purely legal issue should not be politicised. Even with respect to political
matters remember the well known saying: nothing is politically right, which is
morally wrong and let Pakistan move forward. The emergence of an independent
judiciary from the year 2005 under the Honourable Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
was the result of an evolutionary process of 58 years of trials and tribulations of this
unfortunate country. Tampering with it will mean that many more years will be
needed for this institution to re-emerge as independent.

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman. 12.06.08

– Constitutional priorities
The constitutional package prepared by the PPP part of the ruling coalition has
saddened the democratic-minded public because they expected the winners of the
February election to know their priorities better. By the same token it must have
offered satisfaction to all denigrators of democracy, especially the country’s
permanent establishment, for nothing pleases them more than disarray in the
democratic camp. The package authors’ lack of comprehension of the priorities on
the democrats’ agenda apart, the document invites criticism for being derogatory to
PPP’s pool of collective wisdom, for trivialising the constitution, and for long
windedness. A preliminary objection to the manner of preparing and broadcasting
the document may be recorded. A smooth functioning of the present coalition is a
prerequisite to a transition to democracy. In order to avoid damage to intra-coalition
understanding it would have been better to entrust the drafting of constitutional
amendments to a committee comprising all coalition partners. Besides,
constitutional reform is not a private matter between the PPP and its coalition
partners. It is a matter that concerns the entire society. There is no evidence that
the people at large have been asked to give their views. The disclaimer that the
package is only a draft for discussion is welcome but it does not meet the objections
raised here. There are no two opinions on the need for a drastic overhaul of the
constitution because successive assaults by autocratic regimes have gravely
undermined its capacity to serve the needs of a modern, democratic order. The list
of demands for changes in it is quite long:

— The federating units are clamouring that all anti-federation features of the
constitution — and these are many — must be removed.
— The democratic–looking parties wish to revert to the parliamentary system that
has arbitrarily and unabashedly been turned into a presidential one.
— The rights community wants the fundamental rights articles strengthened and
some basic rights, such as the rights to education, healthcare, and social security,
transferred from the principles of policy to the chapter on fundamental rights.

— The articles inserted to legitimise the election of Generals Ziaul Haq and Pervez
Musharraf through sham referenda or extend protection to their actions are
disgraceful patches on the basic law and need to be removed.

However, equally undeniable is the fact that revision of the constitution cannot be
undertaken as a crash project. Making and unmaking of constitutions must of
necessity be an exercise spread over a reasonable period of time and such efforts
acquire legitimacy in proportion to the consensus behind them. The authors of the
1973 Constitution were aware of this condition. Amendments rushed through by
elected representatives without due deliberation can be as harmful as those
imposed by usurpers of state authority. Thus, while much can be said for beginning
the process of constitution’s revision by, say, establishing an all-party commission,
at the moment top priority attaches to removal of obstacles to democratic
governance and to effecting a break from the legacy of authoritarianism that has
been eating into the vitals of the Pakistani people. These priority issues are:
cancellation of all measures taken under the cover of the extra-constitutional
emergency of Nov 3, 2007, especially those related to the judiciary and the
presidency, and rehabilitation of the prime minister’s office. The contents of the
package must therefore be judged in terms of their urgency and relevance to a
speedy transition to parliamentary democracy.

The proposals that pass the urgency test are: renaming of NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa;
the amendments that extinguish the president’s discretionary powers, including
those under 58-2(b); the deletion of Article 268 (2), under which presidential
permission is needed before attempting a change in laws placed in the sixth
schedule; and a new article to secure the restoration of the superior court judges.
Most of the other proposals, whether welcome or not, do not survive the urgency
test. The proposed amendment to Article 6 whereby acts of treason are defined and
judges who justify coups or swear allegiance to orders like PCO are added to the
roster of culprits is for gallery effect only. The revised text will offer as little
guarantee against military takeovers as the existing provision. Some other
proposals ostensibly to pacify the less populous provinces, such as increase in the
period during which the Senate may give its comments on the budget (from seven
days to 14) or deletion of a few items from the Concurrent List, are likely to annoy
the nationalists as meaningless sops, especially since their demand for a review of
the emergency provisions has been ignored. An example of awkward drafting is the
new Article 95-A. Several paragraphs have been penned to make a provision that
could have been put in a sentence: In the absence of the prime minister, the senior
minister will head the cabinet and in the event of the prime minister’s office falling
vacant a new prime minister will be elected within 30 days.

A masterpiece of ambiguity is the proposed new Article 243-A which says no person
shall declare war without prior approval of the prime minister or the cabinet. This
attractive looking proposal is unnecessary once all actions of the president are
made subject to cabinet’s advice. Some of the proposals that need detailed
examination are: the proposals to change the composition of the Council of
Common Interest, the replacement of the Supreme Judicial Council with a judicial
commission lorded over by retired judges, the replacement of the president by the
federal government as the authority for drawing up the rules of business (which
should preferably be done by parliament), and the reduction of the National
Assembly quorum from one-fourth of the members to one-sixth. It has been
proposed to exclude the president from the parliament presumably on the ground
that he had been included under a Zima amendment. But Indian democracy has not
come to grief by mentioning the president as part of parliament. Then one is
astounded to find a regressive proposal that the prime minister must be a Muslim.
The new article devised to validate ordinances made between July 12 and Dec 15,
2007 does little credit to the PPP, to say the least. The trouble with drafting a
constitutional package that goes beyond the immediate needs is that many groups
will assail noninclusion of proposals to revise the provisions unwelcome to them.The
best course now will be to refer the package to an all-party committee which may
broaden the scope of reform and prepare for immediate action a shorter bill
comprising only the following points: Renaming NWFP as Pakhtunkhwa; abolition of
the president’s discretionary powers [that will take care of 58-2(b)]; deletion of 268
(2); and cancellation of all measures taken under the emergency of Nov 3 (that will
secure restoration of judges and a change at the top.)

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Govt to borrow from public

The government’s plan to borrow directly from public by launching security papers
and increasing return on National Saving Scheme by 2 per cent will hit hard the
entire banking sector. Finance Minister Naveed Qamar in his budget speech
announced that the government would launch papers to borrow from public. These
papers will be of 3-month, 6-month and 12month maturity. The government has
already borrowed excessively from the State Bank and it has been issuing warning
that heavy borrowing of over half a trillion plagued the economy with high inflation.
The new scheme to borrow directly from the public is only the change of window as
the scheme indicates that the government would still rely heavily on borrowing, not
from the SBP this time but from the public. The minister also announced that the
rate of NSS has also been increased by 2 per cent to attract more from the public.
He also said the rates will be reviewed after three months instead of six months.
The revision of rates after every three months will put enormous pressure on banks
to increase their return on deposits. Both these steps would bring negative impact
on banking. After launching of three papers the government will be in competition
with banks to mobilise deposits. The banks will find it hard to compete with the
government as the former requires higher margin of profits while the government
has no problem to offer higher interest rates.
At the same time, the increase in NSS rates would also deprive banks from the
deposits. Either the banks would increase return or allow their deposits to fly from
banks to the NSS. The new government would also attract banks’ deposits thus
minimizing their profits.

“The cost of funds for banks is bound to increase after launching of government
papers and increase in NSS rates. These steps will also substantially reduce the
interest income of banks,”
banks,” said a senior analyst. Bankers believe the new schemes
will not increase the national saving rate and instead, the deposits lying with banks
would find a new corridor to move. The finance minister also announced to increase
excise duty on banking services from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. Banking analysts
said it would not have a major impact. The minister increased the load on banks’
depositors by raising the tax on withdrawal of Rs25,000 and above from 0.02 per
cent to 0.03 per cent. This tax has been under sever criticism because it is the tax
on already taxed money and was termed as the gift of Pervez Musharraf
government. However, the new government chose to follow the same path instead
of abolishing the tax on withdrawal of already taxed money.

Author Location Dated

Gopal Kathmandu, Nepal 12.06.08

– The decline and fall of Nepal’s last king

Not long ago he was revered by some as a Hindu god, waited upon by thousands of
royal palace retainers. His face adorned banknotes and the national anthem sang
his praises. Now Nepal's former King Gyanendra is vilified, has lost his crown and is
being forced out of his palace. A specially elected assembly voted overwhelmingly
to abolish the 239-year-old monarchy two weeks ago, leaving Gyanendra to go
down in history as the last king of Nepal. Nepal's former King Gyanendra will now
move to an old royal hunting lodge just outside the capital until he has a chance to
find a permanent home. Addressing a first-ever press conference at the Narayanhiti
royal palace in Kathmandu on Wednesday Gyanendra vowed not to leave the
country but stay in Nepal and work for the people. The 60-year-old businessman-
turned-monarch has only himself to blame, many Nepalis say, after an ill-judged
power grab in 2005 when he dismissed the government, jailed politicians and
declared a state of emergency. Gyanendra was apparently fed up with Nepal's
corrupt and squabbling politicians and decided only he could rescue the country
from a deadly Maoist insurgency. The attempt backfired, and he was forced to back
down the following year after weeks of street protests that ultimately sealed his and
the monarchy's fate.

As a three-year-old boy Gyanendra was thrust on the throne in 1950 when his
grandfather briefly fled to India, in the midst of a power struggle with the country's
hereditary prime ministers, the Ranas. When King Tribhuvan returned a few months
later, Gyanendra retreated once more into the background, building a fortune in
tea, tobacco and hotels and getting involved in environmental conservation. Then,
nearly seven years ago, his more popular brother King Birendra and eight other
members of the royal family were shot and killed by the crown prince, who then
turned his gun on himself. Nepal's former King Gyanendra was back on the throne,
and like many of his predecessors, he was brought up to believe he knew better
than his subjects what was best for Nepal. The massacre had broken the mystique
of a monarchy once revered as incarnations of the Hindu god Vishnu, while
Gyanendra's seizure of power unleashed the wrath of the people. “I “I think he is
getting what he deserved,”
deserved,” said 48-year-old labourer Suntali Khatri, breastfeeding
her two-year-old daughter next to a building site. “He
“He could not ask for more.”
more.”
Gyanendra went to school in Darjeeling, a hill station in eastern India, and
graduated from Tribhuvan University in Kathmandu. Mohan Prasad Lohani, who
taught him English in university, said he was an irregular student — more interested
in politics than studies. “He
“He had his own notion of how things should change. He
was very ambitious,”
ambitious,” he said. That ambition could have been his downfall, analysts
say. And it has been a dramatic fall from grace.

In the past two years, the government has seized thousands of acres of royal lands,
nationalised more than a dozen of his palaces and sacked his priest in a purge of
palace employees. Virtually confined to his palace, the king had his annual
allowance cut, been hit with tax demands and requests for unpaid electricity bills.
He has seen his face replaced by an image of Mount Everest on the country's
banknotes and praise of him purged from the national anthem. But royalists who
have met him said he has taken it all calmly, and he looked composed and even
smiled during his address to the press. Some royalists argue that the hasty abolition
of the monarchy could backfire and leave the country without the anchor it needs in
times of change. But royalist parties won just four seats in the 601-member
assembly in April. While many Nepalis liked the idea of a constitutional monarchy,
few like the idea of being ruled by former King Gyanendra or his unpopular son
Paras, who has a reputation as a playboy and a reckless driver.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Vatican City, Rome 12.06.08

– Vatican cardinal says world obsessed by Islam

The world is obsessed by Islam, according to the Vatican’s point man for relations
with other religions. Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran also said he did not want an
impression to grow that there are different classes of religion. Tauran’s department,
the Pontifical Council for InterReligious Dialogue, oversees relations with all non-
Christian religions except Judaism and is preparing new guidelines for Catholic
dialogue with them. The new guidelines will not have special emphasis on Islam,
Tauran said in an interview with the religious website terrasanta.com, which
specialises in Middle East affairs. “No,
“No, it has to have regard for all religions. What
was interesting about our discussions was that we did not concentrate on Islam
because in a way we are being held hostage by Islam a little bit,”
bit,” he said. “Islam
“Islam is
very important but there are also other great Asiatic religious traditions. Islam is
one religion,”
religion,” he said. “Yes,
“Yes, the people are obsessed by Islam.”
Islam.” Cardinal Tauran
said he would be travelling to India soon and there he wanted to “give“give this message
that all religions are equal”.
equal”. “Sometimes
“Sometimes there are priorities because of particular
situations, but we mustn’t get the impression there are first-class religions and
second-class religions.”
religions.” In March, the Vatican and Muslim leaders agreed to
establish a permanent official dialogue, known as “The CatholicMuslim Forum”, to
improve often difficult relations and heal wounds still open from a controversial
papal speech in 2006. Catholic-Muslim relations nosedived after Pope Benedict
delivered a lecture in Regensburg, Germany, that was taken by Muslims to imply
Islam was violent and irrational. Muslims around the world protested and the pope
sought to make amends when he visited Turkey’s Blue Mosque and prayed towards
Makkah with its Imam. Cardinal Tauran declined to discuss what he knew of reports
of talks between the Vatican and Saudi Arabia aimed at eventually opening a
church there.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 12.06.08

– Gyanendra leaves palace to end centuries of monarchy

Nepal’s former king Gyanendra left his main palace in Kathmandu late on
Wednesday to live as a commoner in a former hunting lodge on the outskirts of the
capital. Gyanendra and his wife Komal Shah left in the back of a black Mercedes as
hundreds of riot police surrounded the main gate of the sprawling palace complex in
the heart of the ancient temple-studded city. Shouts of “Long live the republic” rang
out from a crowd of about 500 people who watched Gyanendra’s departure while a
few pro-royalists cried. “Former
“Former king Gyanendra Shah and his wife Komal Shah have
left the palace and are headed to Nagarjun,”
Nagarjun,” the forest reserve on the edge of
Kathmandu, police officer Bharat Lama said. The ex-king, who was regarded as a
god by devout Hindus, showed no emotion as he drove away in a small convoy of
three vehicles. The decision to abolish the world’s only Hindu monarchy was taken
last month by an assembly formed as part of a peace deal between Maoist rebels
and mainstream parties who joined forces to oppose Gyanendra after he seized
direct control of the country. Gyanendra was vaulted to the throne in June 2001
after a palace massacre in which most of the royal family was killed. The shooting
rampage was staged by the then-crown prince who was drunk and on drugs and
enraged at being prevented from marrying the woman he loved. He later killed
himself.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 12.06.08

– Text of budget speech 2008-09

Minister for Privatisation and Investment Naveed Qamar, who was given additional
charge of the ministry of finance, on Wednesday presented the budget proposals for
the fiscal year 2008-09 in the National Assembly. The following is the text of his
budget speech.

“Madam Speaker I rise to present budget before the House after a long time. We
presented the budget 12 years ago when it was certainly a different budget, a
different social environment, a different House and a different Pakistan. Budget was
not that large but at the same time the deficits were also not large. At that time we
did not have such a large population, but the society also did not have so much of
poverty, hunger, unemployment and disease. The House was not so large but it did
not have such complex issues to face. It was the same Pakistan but it did not have
problems and challenges of such magnitude.

We handed over the country after putting an end to load-shedding, but today not
only the country but destiny and hopes of the people are immersed in complete
darkness. This was an agricultural country which has been handed back to us with
famine-like conditions. There were small law and order problems, but we were not
so helpless before the terrorists because of which lives of innocent people have
become unbearable. Every city is a dead place and fear has gripped every house.
On top of it, with the demise of our brave leader, Shaheed Benazir Bhutto, the
hopes and aspirations of the people were also shattered. We did not have so much
resources but we were not confronted with such grave problems. We may not have
had such a large infrastructure but infrastructure was neither hallow nor crumbling
which could break into pieces with a slight tremor. Life was not so difficult and
hopeless to make living a burden. There was democracy and the country was not
under the rule of a dictator which makes life oppressive. History is witness to the
fact that whenever we were entrusted with power we inherited a broken Pakistan,
surrounded by upheavals, dangers, poverty, hunger, terrorism and injustice. Our
leader Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and Shaheed Benazir Bhutto nurtured this
country and its poor peoples. However, we accept the present challenge and assure
the nation that we will salvage the situation and retrieve the country from the
problems that surround it. Madam Speaker Where are we standing?

Before I present the specific proposals of the Budget for the consideration of this
House, it will be necessary that I present the condition of the economy that we
inherited and the budgetary conditions prevailing in the current fiscal year. Such an
appraisal will enable my colleagues to judge for themselves the economic
conditions surrounding us and appreciate the difficult choices we are faced with.
The economy we have inherited was built on the windfalls of the aftermath of 9/11.
Economic progress made has not proved to be sustainable. Significant amount of
capital was withdrawn from the West and transferred to the developing countries;
informal channels of financial transfers were blocked, thereby resulting in huge
inflow of remittances through the normal banking channels; sizeable support was
received by the country from its partners in the war on terror. The phenomenal
increase in the flow of foreign capital helped the country to build reserves as well as
sustain high demand for imports. The economy expanded significantly and high
rates of growth were achieved. However, much of the growth was driven by growth
in consumption, such as in consumer durables cars, TVs, refrigerators, air-
conditioners, mobile phones and similar consumer products. Commensurate
investments in industry, infrastructure and agriculture were not made to support
high growth on a sustained basis. This mismatch in growth and supporting
infrastructure is poignantly reflected by the fact that we have no electricity to use
such durable goods. Similarly, urban roads were not built to accommodate the
growth in the motor cars. The fragile foundation of growth was exposed as the
country suffered a series of shocks since the eruption of judicial crisis on March 9,
2007. This was followed by oil price shock and widespread food shortages. Just as
these crises were brewing the government went into policy inaction, delaying some
painful decisions needed to face these challenges, as it was politically expedient in
view of presidential and parliamentary elections. The current budget has taken the
brunt of all ills that were associated with these crises so much so that it is
threatening to undo much of the gains which the economy had achieved in the last
4 years. A quick account of unfavorable developments during the year would enable
us to gauge the damage done to the economy:

– In 2007-08, the economy will grow at 5.8 per cent compared to the target of
7.2 per cent, and the actual growth rate of 6.8 per cent last year;
– Both manufacturing and agriculture sectors have recorded very low growth of
5.4 per cent and 1.5 per cent respectively;
– Inflation is running at 11 per cent as compared to 7.8 per cent last year;
– Budget deficit after concerted efforts of this government is still estimated at
7.0 per cent of GDP, against the target of 4 per cent;
– There was a phenomenal build-up in subsidies in the budget, which are
largely responsible for this huge deficit. These subsidies, totaling Rs407
billion include; petroleum Rs175 billion; electricity Rs133 billion; wheat Rs40
billion, and textiles and fertilisers Rs48 billion, of which only Rs114 billion
were provided in the budget;

– Largely due to an exceptionally high fiscal deficit, balance of payments is

facing unprecedented deficit as well. The current account deficit is projected
at $11.9 billion or 7 per cent of GDP;

– Reserves have declined from a high of $16.5 billion in October, 2007 to less
than $12.3 billion as at end April 2008. This has put pressure on the
exchange rate which has depreciated by nearly 6.4 per cent during July 2007
to April 2008;

– Much of the deficit had to be financed from borrowing from the State Bank,
which is like printing more money. As much as Rs551 billion (up to May 2008)
have been borrowed from the central bank, which is unprecedented in
 country's history. It is not difficult to imagine what this printing of money
means. With more money and no new production, only prices are likely to
increase, which is what is happening. We have to stop this process otherwise
the inflation will be running much higher than what it is at present, and as I
noted it is already highest in country's history. Madam Speaker

– The budget for 2008-09 is part of a perspective plan on which the new
government is currently working and will shortly be finalized. Accordingly, we
are taking a long term perspective while announcing the budget. It will be
useful to spell out the key assumptions about the macroeconomic conditions
assumed to prevail during the year and will affect the budget. These are: (a)
GDP growth will increase by 5.5 per cent in the year 200809; (b) Inflation will
be contained at 12 per cent; (c) Gross investment to GDP ratio will be
maintained at 25 per cent; (d) Fiscal deficit will be contained to 4.7 per cent;
(e) Current account deficit will be reduced to 6 per cent of GDP; (f) Foreign
exchange reserves will be increased to $12 billion.

Public investment remains an important engine of growth, even though its share
vis-à-vis private sector has declined in recent years, which is a good thing as we
want private sector to bear an increasingly larger burden of economic development.
The National Economic Council has approved a development plan of Rs549.7 billion
for the year 2008-09. This represents an increase of nearly 5 per cent over the
budgetary target of Rs520 billion for 2007-08, despite serious resource constraint
facing the economy. Budget estimates for 2008-09 and Revised Estimates 2007-08
12. We are setting the following key objectives for the budget 2008-09:

(1) Restore economic stability through:

- Significant reduction of fiscal deficit;
- Rationalization of subsidies;
- Reduction in current account deficit;
- Build-up of foreign exchange reserves to a minimum of $12 billion.

(2) Protect the vulnerable Groups by increasing their incomes through a targeted
programme of cash transfers;
(3) Focus on agriculture and manufacturing sector to raise their productivity and
competitiveness;
(4) Restore investors’ confidence by declaring government’s commitment to
economic growth and investment and private sector's lead role in the process;
(5) Remove key bottlenecks in supportive infrastructure for spurring growth;
(6) Increase social sector allocations to bring about a meaningful change in the
social indicators;
(7) Make significant additions to low cost housing to lessen the rising gap in housing
stock, especially for the low income groups.

The budget estimates for the year 2008-09 together with a review of budgetary
performance of the current year i.e. 2007-08 is presented below. Against a revised
fiscal deficit of 7 per cent of GDP for this year, the budget for 2008-2009 envisages
a budget deficit of 4.7 per cent of GDP. This represents a significant fiscal
adjustment and promises stability in public finances. A combination of better
revenue collection and expenditure control measures has made it possible for us to
aim for this target. FBR revenues will rise to Rs1,250 billion from revised estimates
of Rs1,000 billion for 2007-08, representing an increase of about 25 per cent. A
combination of natural growth and discretionary effort proposed in the budget will
provide the necessary base for projecting this meaningful increase in revenue
collections. Current Federal expenditure has been budgeted at Rs1493 billion
against the revised estimates of Rs1,516 billion for 2007-08. We will try to achieve
further savings in current expenditure on the basis of measures proposed to be
adopted for bringing fiscal discipline. The government will reconstitute and convene
the meeting of National Finance Commission as soon as nominations of members
are received from the provinces. Provincial transfers (including grants) are projected
at Rs606 billion against the revised estimates of Rs490 billion for the current year,
representing an increase of 24 per cent. The projected income and expenditures
indicate that the provinces are likely to have an improvement of about Rs79 billion
in their cash balances after catering for the local component of their PSDP and extra
expenditure.

Based on the above estimates, we expect that our budget will help stabilise the
economy, promote fiscal discipline and further the process of economic revival. Our
measure of success will be reflected in averting any further decline in market
confidence and better flow of investment both from local as well as from foreign
investors. It is widely documented that income distribution in Pakistan has
worsened during the last decade. The wealth accrued during this period was not
equitably distributed. Even though much of the inflation is due to foreign price
increases, and while a large part of the required price increase has yet to be passed
on, the conditions facing the vulnerable and fixed income groups are precarious at
best, and down right unbearable at worst. We cannot afford to remain oblivious to
the plight of the poor. We still have time to act. It is incumbent on us to react to
their voices before they are taken over by despair that state is unable to play any
meaningful role in their lives. We must insulate these people from the vagaries of
rising prices and falling real incomes. The founding fathers of PPP had 'social justice'
as the core value guiding their struggle for democracy. Accordingly, we are
determined to fulfill our responsibility toward such groups and the current budget
will address this issue.

As I stated earlier, investment in key infrastructure projects needed to support

rising and sustained growth were not undertaken either in public sector or
encouraged in the private sector. For instance, in the power sector, the country is
facing the most severe load-shedding of its history. The peak demand-supply gap
was recorded at some 4,500 MW. I cannot resist making the point that this gap has
occurred despite the fact that 6500 MW of private power was added in the last
decade, all approved by the Peoples' Government under its Energy Policy of 1994.
These IPPs, which are now our saviors, were unjustifiably maligned and castigated.
Similarly, and even though significant amount of additional gas was injected in the
system again because of the incentives offered under the Energy Policy of 1994, yet
there is a demand-supply gap of nearly 1.5 bcf at present and rising rapidly unless
major sources of additional supply are added to the system. We have to augment
our supplies both from indigenous sources as well as from outside, both through
imports and cross border pipelines, as we are raising the priority of gas supply to
power sector to ensure that we fully utilize our existing facilities. When we took
over, the nation was suffering from loadshedding and black out. We took stock of
the position and are undertaking numerous measures in the short term, medium
term and long term to relieve the people, industry and agriculture from the menace
of electricity shortages. These include conservation in electricity use, revamping
and efficient use of installed capacity which will make available 1,500 MW of
electricity. We assure the nation that by taking these measures, load shedding will
be substantially reduced. While textile industry will have continuous round the clock
supply, flour and ghee mills will have 18 hours of supply. Agricultural tube wells will
have continuous power supply for 10 hours at a stretch every night to avail rebated
tariff.

Water availability is now a real issue facing the country. The need for expansion in
storage capacity has never been more pressing. However, at the same time
efficiency in water use is equally important. Thus alongside increasing water
storage capacity, we need to pay equally serious attention to water use efficiency.
Agriculture is the backbone of the economy which remained neglected and side
lined during the last 8 years. Numerous measures and policy directions are being
put in place to ensure relief and motivation to the farmer as well as incentives to
the agriculture sector to contribute its due share to the national economy. These
include:

a) Increase of support price of wheat from Rs510 to Rs625 per 40 kg.

b) Review of the support price for the next year's wheat crop in August-September
i.e. before the next sowing season keeping in view the input cost and prevailing
international prices.
c) Provision of Rs75 billion in the PSDP to improve the availability and efficient use
of water resources through construction of dams, rehabilitation of irrigation,
improve drainage system, lining of canals and water courses throughout the
country.
d) To ensure that agriculture produce retains it value and quality and to facilitate its
export. Cold chains will be set up in the country.
e) Arrangements for import of bulldozers through foreign collaboration to increase
and improve the cultivable area.
f) DAP fertiliser is an essential input that enhances crop yields. The steep increase
in its international prices is discouraging the use of this important fertiliser and
thereby adversely affecting productivity. Our government will more than double the
subsidy on DAP from Rs470 per bag to Rs1,000 per bag. Subsidy on other fertilisers
will also continue. A total allocation for subsidy on fertilisers has been increased
from Rs25 billion to Rs32 billion. Complete exemption from sales tax and other
duties on imported and local supply of fertilisers and pesticides, so that the farmers
can get these at much cheaper prices. The effect of exemption from duties in
respect of both fertilisers and pesticides is Rs6 billion.
g) Availability of credit to agriculture sector has been limited compared to industry
and other sectors. During the year an additional amount of Rs30 billion will be made
available in addition to total credit to agriculture sector amounting to Rs130 billion
disbursed this year.
h) We are also revamping ZTBL and will broaden its outreach.

In addition to above measures, agriculture sector will also be provided more

incentives and facilities through fiscal measures as well, which are:
a) Exemption from 10 per cent custom duty on import of rice seeds to ensure
healthy and quality production of rice in the country.
b) Duty free import of machinery and equipment for grain handling and storage
facilities to be de-linked from the conditionality of local manufacture. This will
largely help in improving the grain handling and storage facilities in the country.
c) It is also proposed to waive off the levy of 5 per cent Federal Excise Duty on
premium of crop insurance policy also. These measures shall yield higher
productivity and substantial raise in the income levels of the common man.

Livestock and dairy is a major source of income and livelihood for the rural
population. Pakistan is the fifth largest producer of milk. However, this potential has
not been optimally leveraged. In order to encourage this sector, the Prime Minister's
under his Special Initiative for “White Revolution”, an allocation of Rs1.5 billion is
proposed for the projects through the PSDP in this sub-sector. These include
livestock production and development of meat production, Veterinary services for
livestock, milk collection and processing and dairy production and development
programme, establishment of an integrated national animal and plant health
inspection services facility and up-gradation of animal health laboratories at NARC
for poultry diseases. In the fisheries sector such important projects like aqua culture
and shrimp farming, stock assessment survey programme in EEZ of Pakistan and
fisheries training center in Gwadar are being undertaken for which an allocation of
Rs1.1 billion is proposed in the budget. To enhance supply of quality seed to
farmers, a National Commercial Seed Production Program is being prepared.
Negotiations have been started for fast track, formal release of Bt cotton varieties in
Pakistan. This would help in making our farmers more competitive in production of
cotton.

Foreign investment in agriculture sector will be encouraged to increase our

productivity and develop cultivable areas. Large tracts of land will be made
available to foreign investors to induct capital and technology in our local farming
sector. Our industry is losing its competitive edge, which is most notably reflected in
the slowdown in all categories of textiles, which is the mainstay of our exports.
There are procedural irritants that add to the cost of doing business in Pakistan.
Similarly, a number of inefficiencies inherent in the provision of infrastructure
services, such as electricity, have led to increased cost of production, thereby
adversely affecting our competitive edge. A number of fiscal measures are being
undertaken to incentivize local manufacturing, which are :

i) Customs duty on import of sewing machines in CKD/SKD condition is

therefore being increased from the existing 5 per cent to 20 per cent to
promote and protect the local manufacture of sewing machine parts and
components,
ii) import duties on raw materials, parts and components of these industries
are proposed to be reduced to the lower slabs of zero, 5 per cent and 10
per cent respectively depending on their nature and requirements,
iii) Tariff based system of the auto industry is being improved further. For this
purpose various additions, deletions, mergers and creation of new tariff
lines in Schedule-1 of the Customs Act, 1969 have been proposed. The
new tariff lines will continue to attract additional duty at the rate of 15 per
cent as the respective items are being manufactured locally,
iv) PTA is very important chemical for production of Polyester Staple Fibre
(PSF). It is proposed that now rate of customs duty on PTA may be
reduced from 15 per cent to 7.5 per cent and duty on Polyester Staple
Fibre (PSF) may be reduced from 6.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent. It is
expected that this proposal will not only benefit the textile industry in
general but fabrics and garments, in particular,
v) In order to maintain the prices of medicines at the present levels and to
provide relief to the local industry, it has been proposed to reduce the
rates of customs duties on respective chemicals, active pharmaceutical
ingredients and packaging materials from the existing 10 per cent down
to 5 per cent. Similarly as many as 18 more life saving drugs and
medicines, as are used for treatment of cancer and other terminal
diseases, are being completely exempted from import duties,
vi) the import duty on calcium carbide is proposed to be reduced from the
existing 15 per cent down to 5 per cent ,
vii) the import duty on caustic soda is proposed for reduction from the
existing rate of Rs5000 per metric tonne to Rs4000 per metric tonne,
being the industrial input,
viii) reduction of customs duty on import of printing screens from the present
rate of 15 per cent to the lower slab of 10 per cent whereas its raw
materials are proposed for complete exemption of duty in order to
promote their local manufacture,
ix) reduction in customs duty on import of buckram from the higher slab of
25 per cent to the lower slab of 10 per cent, for value addition to textile
industry,
x) extension of duty free import facility of samples of no commercial value,
to all manufacturers irrespective of the fact whether they are direct or
indirect exporters,
xi) Bitumen is presently charged to a concessionary rate of 5 per cent duty
which is proposed to be exempted,
xii) the existing 20 per cent duty on import of base oil for lubricating oil is
proposed to be reduced to the lower slab of 10 per cent,
xiii) under the existing tariff regime, equipment used in the telephone call
centers are chargeable to 5 per cent duty with complete exemption from
sales tax. Two of the major components namely voice cards and “vast
terminals” which are meant for use in the telephone call centres are
however chargeable to 10 per cent customs duty whereas the “other “other
digital call recorders”
recorders” attract 20 per cent duty on import. It is proposed to
reduce customs duty on the said category of equipment and components
to the lower slab of 5 per cent with exemption from sales tax,
xiv) The rate of duty for polyester films is proposed to bring at par with other
items of the same category and it will also become liable to 20 per cent
duty,
xv) In order to encourage import of dedicated CNG buses, 15 per cent
customs duty on their import will be abolished,
xvi) It is proposed to allow the import of dredgers free of customs duty in order
to reduce the cost of port operations,
xvii) Energy Saving incentives: In order to achieve the objective, the customs
duty on import of energy saver bulbs is proposed for complete exemption.
Two components namely “Generators” and Deep Cycle Batteries”, which
 are meant for dedicated use in the solar energy equipment, are also
proposed for exemption from the customs duty,
xviii) It is further proposed that WAPDA and its generation companies be
allowed temporary import of power generation plants free of customs duty
as against the existing rate of 5 per cent duty. The local manufactures'
production will be purchased by WAPDA for distribution,
xix) In order to deal effectively with the energy crisis in the country and to
keep the prices as low as possible so as to encourage its use, it is being
proposed that energy saver lamps may be exempted from sales tax. This
measure would not only ensure the availability of energy saving lamps on
cheaper prices but also save energy up to 1000 mega watt,
xx) in order to incentivize the investment in domestic manufacturing industry,
the Government allows import of raw materials, parts and components
etc., either at zero or reduced rate of duty provided these are not
manufactured locally. It has been observed that the conditionally of local
manufacture as envisaged in respective notification SRO. No. 565(I)/2006
unnecessarily hampers the scheme of incentive. Therefore the condition
pertaining to local manufacture for import of inputs at concessionary rate
of duty under SRO. 565(I)/2006 is proposed to be deleted, i) it is proposed
that any plant, machinery, equipment and capital goods which is worth
US$50 million (C&F) or more, being imported for setting up of new
industrial projects may be delinked from the conditionality of local
manufacture. This will curtail the discretionary powers of the
administrative authorities and will provide for the hassle free investment
environment, ii) tax incentives like timebound tax holidays and creation of
tax free zones/ industrial estates etc. for industrial development in the
past ignored rural and under developed areas. It is proposed that 90 per
cent First Year Allowance and 10 per cent normal depreciation be allowed
to the industries established in specified rural and under developed areas
duly notified by the Government. It will generate economic activity and
employment in such areas besides eradication of poverty and illiteracy.
Linked with this is providing enabling environment for future Direct
Foreign Investment (DFI) and stabilizing economic growth by extending
further already available exemption to “Capital Gain” on sale of shares of
companies listed on stock exchange for a period another two years,
xxi) it is being proposed that caustic soda/flakes, cotton linter and sequins
should be zero-rated so that financial liquidity in the Textile sector is
increased and the textile producers are free from the hassles of delays in
getting refunds on this account,
xxii) it is, proposed that sales tax paid by non-resident entrepreneurs/ traders
arriving in Pakistan on trade fairs may be exempted by inserting suitable
provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1990. This exemption will be available to
foreign entrepreneurs on reciprocal basis,
xxiii) The Government has strong desire to provide health facilities on cheaper
rates to the people of Pakistan. For this purpose, the import of medical
equipment, apparatus, reagents, disposables, spares and donations
supplied to Government hospitals and charitable institutions are exempt
from sales tax. However, such goods are taxable if produced locally which
increases the cost of health facilities. It is proposed that the local supply
of medical equipment, apparatus, reagents, disposables and spares to the
 Government hospitals and charitable hospitals having more than 50 beds
and proceeds to be exempted from sales tax,
xxiv) the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir does not allow its registered
persons to get refund of input tax paid in Pakistan because of paucity of
funds with the Government of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The business
community of Azad Jammu and Kashmir has been demanding since long
that it should be given refund of input tax paid in Pakistan. To resolve this
long standing issue, it is being proposed that registered persons in Azad
Jammu and Kashmir may be allowed to claim refund on supplies of inputs
from Pakistan. Accordingly, a new section is being added in the Sales Tax
Act, 1990 to authorize FBR authorities to pay such refunds/repayments.

Expansion in communication links - roads, railways, ports and terminals - is an

equally pressing need. Gwadar port has yet to take-off for lack of supportive road
links to transport cargo up-country. We have to guard against such occurrences
because huge development funds were invested, yet the economy has so far
reaped no benefits from such a gigantic project. All the above factors, particularly
infrastructure shortages, are stunting our growth. We have undertaken a detailed
review of the current pipeline of approved projects for development budget. We
have decided to prune projects as we saw little benefit to the economy from such
projects. Details of this review will be provided separately. However, I would like to
state that the development plan we are giving to the nation reflects our priorities
which are based on economic realities as well as people's aspirations. Pakistan has
to make important strategic choices to ensure sustainable growth in the
manufacturing sector in a rapidly changing and challenging international
competitive environment. This requires massive structural changes rather than a
marginal change, a shift in the production paradigm to technology and knowledge-
based industrialization with a focus on the quantitative and qualitative growth of an
integrated and competitive industry in private sector. The in-efficiencies of import
substitution must give way to export-led strategy.

The Government is creating a synergy between public and private sectors to benefit
from the respective strength of each. A policy and operational framework for
fostering public private partnership is gradually evolving. Ministry of Industries and
Production also decided to “reposition” it to play a leadership role in formulation
and implementation of a comprehensive strategy for rapid industrialization of
Pakistan which aims at maximizing job creation and enhancing Pakistan's
international competitiveness. Government is taking a number of initiatives to
facilitate investors. The most effective support in this regard is the establishment of
industrial estates with relevant infrastructure facilities. An allocation of Rs1.0 billion
is proposed for establishment of Export Processing Zones (EPZ) in Balochistan to
support the growth and development activities around the Gwadar port. China-Pak
Economic Zone in Hattar, industrial estate for Reconstruction Opportunity Zones
(ROZs) in Khushal Garh, NWFP and improvement, rehabilitation and modernization
of industrial estates in NWFP are three initiatives to be taken in NWFP, where
industrial development needs acceleration. Specialized zones such as textiles city,
garments city and Marble and Granite city are also in hand through public private
partnership.
As I said earlier, significant shortages are emerging in such critical sectors like
power, gas, railways and highways which are now exacting a toll in form of slow
down in growth. Before any further damage is suffered it is necessary to add to the
stocks of such key infrastructural resources. Accordingly, adequate funds have been
provided to meet this challenge:

Government is attaching highest priority to reduce the demand supply gap for
power, which is crippling the economy. The larger burden of this responsibility will
fall on the private sector as under the regime introduced by the Energy Policy of
1994. It was to restrict the public sector to only provide supportive infrastructure,
policy making and regulatory responsibilities. However, in view of the urgency of
the situation, limited temporary-term investments have been allowed in the public
sector on the understanding that these will be disinvested at the earliest possible
opportunity. An allocation of Rs66 billion is proposed to be made for a number of
power sector projects. The projects included cover all the sub-sectors, power
generation, transmission, distribution and alternate energy. It is estimated that
2,200 MW of power will be brought on stream by the early next year and we will not
face the same situation as during this year.

Communication links are central to economic development. To give a significant

impetus to the growth of road network in the country, an allocation of Rs37 billion is
proposed to be made in the budget. This will cover more than 60 schemes covering
such important projects like Makran coastal highway, Islamabad-Peshawar
motorway (M-l), Karachi Northern By-pass, Indus Highway Phase-III project,
NoshkiDalbandin road, MansehraNaran-Jhalkhad-Chilas road, Lowari Tunnel access
roads, rehabilitation, improvement and widening of KKH, HasanabadalAbbottabad-
Mansehra expressway and Faisalabad-Khanewal expressway. It is proposed to
increase the allocation of for Special Areas Development Programs for AJK, NA and
FATA from Rs21.2 billion to Rs26.2 billion, which represents an increase of 24 per
cent. This programme will ensure equitable progress in less developed regions of
the country.

The main plank of democratic government's economic policy will be human

development and poverty reduction. To this end, we are adopting a multipronged
strategy. First, allocations for expenditures related to poverty reduction will be
enhanced. Second, Special programmes will be initiated to enhance the incomes of
low income groups. Third, a regionally diversified programme of low cost housing
will be started that would aim to significantly enhance availability of housing for low
income group. The main features of development programme and other measures
we plan to take in this budget to are as follows:

(1) Education: In the development plan we have proposed to allocate Rs24,6 billion
for education. It may be noted that of the total federal PSDP for ministries, the funds
allocated to education sector constitute about 10 per cent which is a very good
allocation. It may also be stated that larger expenditure on education and health is
done by the provincial governments and federal government does basically a
supportive role in these areas.
(2) Health: An allocation of Rs19 billion is made in the development plan for the
health sector programmes. The main vehicle for implementing preventive health
care is the Lady Health Workers (LHWs). This was a programme which Shaheed
Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto started back in 1994. Presently, 100,000 LHWs are in the
field, but the desired coverage of population is incomplete. To further broaden this
programme, government will be recruiting 100,000 more LHWs during the year. I
may point out that we will be doubling the number of LHWs in one year as
compared to the number recruited in 14 years. A number of preventive health
programmes such as the Expanded Program of Immunization (EPI), enhanced
HIV/AIDS control programme, national TB control programme, national programme
for control of blindness, control of hepatitis, maternal and neo-natal and child health
programme will be strengthened.
(3) Critical curative infrastructure is also planned which includes such projects as a
400 bedded hospital for chest disease for women, national plan for disease
surveillance, strengthening of district hospital and up-gradation of BHUs.
(4) Clean drinking water: To improve the quality of life for the poor of the country,
government is launching the clean drinking water initiative. An allocation of Rs2.2
billion is proposed for this programme, under which filtration plants will be installed
throughout the country, eventually at the village level. This is a participatory
programme between federal and provincial government, on the one hand, and
between provincial and local government, on the other. This project will mean a lot
for the health of our nation as the majority of our population is afflicted by water
borne diseases. Access to clean drinking water will greatly reduce the risk of such
diseases.

As I said, protecting the vulnerable from the vagaries of price hike is the main
objective of this budget. For this purpose, government is launching a new
programme to be known as “Benazir Income Support Program”. Under the
programme we are initially providing an amount of Rs34 billion to be raised to Rs50
billion to be given to the poorest of poor. The salient features of the programme
are:

a) Cash grant of Rs1000 per month will be given to each qualifying household.
b) Selection will be done through the computerized NADRA database under set
criteria.
c) Computerized National identity Card (CNIC) will be used as well as their thumb
impression.
d) The disbursement will be to the head of the household from the nearest bank or
post office.
e) Those who do not have CNIC will be encouraged to apply for a card free of cost.
f) Data will be continuously updated to include eligible households.
g) The beneficiaries of Benazir Card will also be provided, in due course, other
welfare facilities like employment, skill development training for family youth,
medical insurance, food subsidy.
h) In addition to the above welfare measures, the poor will be supported through
the existing programme of Baitul Mal, food items at subsidized rates will continue to
be provided through the Utility Stores whose network will be expended to 6000
stores.

Improving access of low income groups to basic necessities of life will play an
important role in reducing poverty and improving the quality of life. Thus we are
reviving the erstwhile People's Works Program of small development schemes that
would cover such basic areas like provision of electricity, gas, farm to market roads
and water supply. I propose to allocate an amount of FCs. 28.4 billion in the
development plan for this purpose. The schemes to be undertaken will be identified
by the elected representatives. This programme will also create sizeable
employment opportunities and therefore add to the increased income of our people.
Government is setting up a Commission which will review the state of unemployed
people in the country, regularly monitor the unemployment rate and suggest
measures for its control. It will coordinate all programmes aimed at providing
employment, imparting skills to the unemployed, broadening the opportunities for
technical training and vocational education and encouraging work for food
programmes. Adequate resources will be provided to fund the activities of the
Commission. National Internship programme was started last year for the benefit of
those who have completed 16 years of education. It is proposed to continue this
programme. It is estimated that a minimum of 30,000 post-graduate students will
take benefit of this programme during 2008-09. An allocation of Rs1.6 billion is
proposed to be made in the budget for funding the internship programme.

Creation of self employment opportunities has to form part of any programme for
employment generation. For this purpose, we have to make arrangements so that
the unemployed can have access to credit to enable him to start a useful business.
Credit will be provided to unemployed persons to start own small businesses. The
current self employment scheme being undertaken through National Bank will be
augmented and new businesses made eligible. No nation can progress by ignoring
half of its population. We believe in the social and economic role of the women in
particular women's contribution to the economic growth of the country. A ten
percent quota for women across the board in all government departments has been
approved by the government, thus increasing their role in the decision making
process. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto had established the First Women Bank. We will
continue to support it. In addition, Khushhali Bank, Zarai Taraqqiati Bank will be
encouraged to provide credit for women for promoting women entrepreneurship. In
line with its commitment to remove gender imbalances in society, the government,
through its Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper and Medium Term Development
Framework, has initiated the process of gender responsive budgeting for
mainstreaming gender dimension in the budgetary process at the federal level.

Microfinance plays a critical role in the lives of the poor. The potential client base of
microfinance sector is around 25-30 million borrowers. It is noteworthy the female
clients make up 45 per cent of the total microfinance users. Government will strive
to increase the outreach of microfinance services to 3 million borrowers by 2010
including increase in rural micro-finance. Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto had given the
slogan of roti, kapra and makan to Pakistan's people. In keeping with this
commitment, the Prime Minister, in his 100 days programme had announced that 1
million housing units will be added to country's housing stock, for low income
groups and government employees. It is proposed to allocate Rs2 billion as a
revolving fund which will be further expanded through innovative financing during
the year to initiate these projects, so that the execution of these projects is not
dependent on the availability of budgetary resources. Controlling fiscal deficit is the
foremost need for stabilizing the economy. We are moving in a number of directions
for this purpose. Many of the measures proposed for this purpose, have been
included in the Finance Bill which I will be placing before the house for its
consideration.
As a first major step of economy, it is proposed that government's non-development
and non-salary expenditures may be frozen at the revised level of the last year. This
measure has been adopted after realizing the grimness of the budgetary situation
and seeking the cooperation of key institutions. However, the pink book had to be
published much earlier and, therefore, is not reflected there. However, it is
understood that all budgets in excess of this limit will be slashed to adhere to this
principle.

With a view to further economizing on public resources, it has been decided to place
a ban on the purchase of motorcars, air-conditioners and other office equipment.
Budgetary cuts for the Prime Minister Secretariat, National Assembly and Senate:
Prime Minister has offered this sacrifice at the outset. The budget of his office has
been curtailed from Rs329,8 million to Rs230.9 million. Also both National Assembly
and Senate have agreed to freeze their nondevelopment non-salary expenditure at
the level of the last year. Budgetary cut of NAB: The Prime Minster, in his opening
speech to the National Assembly, had announced that appropriate measures will be
taken to wind-down the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). In view of this
decision, there is no justification for NAB to carry a budget that is not
commensurate with its future status. Since legal and procedural requirements have
to be met before it is decided to wind-up NAB, it will function with a truncated
mandate. Accordingly, a 30 per cent cut is proposed in the budget of NAB.
Disclosure of details of defence budget: In a major policy move government has
decided to do away with the past practice of presenting a single line budget for
defense. All the relevant details of the defense expenditure are available for the
review and debate of the Parliament. This will go a long way to bring greater fiscal
discipline by inducing more economical use of available resources.

There is an unbearable burden of subsidies currently carried by the budget. Much of

it is unintended and benefiting such groups who are neither needy nor should they
be subsidized. It is estimated that at present more than Rs400 billion are provided
in subsidies of all kinds from the budget. A detailed pruning of subsidies is,
therefore, necessary and inevitable to preserve country's finances. Borrowings from
central bank have reached an unacceptable level. This is a major source of
inflationary pressures and should be contained. Partly it is the result of fewer
choices available to attract non-bank resources and relatively underdeveloped
capital market. We are taking a number of measures to address this problem. A new
borrowing instrument to be called Government Commercial Paper has been
designed and will be launched shortly. This will be available on tap from all
authorized commercial banks for maturities of 3 months and 6 months and 1 year.
New products of shorter maturities will also be introduced in the National Savings
Schemes. More importantly, pricing on all government borrowing instruments will
be made attractive and competitive with market rates. With these changes,
dependence on central bank borrowing will likely decline considerably. Amendments
in Foreign Exchange Regulatory Act are being undertaken to make SBP more
effective against irregular foreign exchange operations. Similarly, SECP is also being
empowered through introduction of legislation to protect the investors from insider
trading and malpractices.
As I noted earlier, fixed income groups have been hardest hit by the price hike. The
largest segment of such people is in the service of the government. Accordingly, it
is imperative that immediate relief should be provided to this group. Similarly,
pensioners also fall within this group and they also need some relief. Finally,
individuals investing in government savings schemes need relief as real returns
have fallen considerably in face of rising prices. Keeping these needs in view,
government has decided to provide following relief to the above groups:

a) A 20 per cent increase in basic pay is proposed to all Federal Government

employees. The similar increase will also be allowed to defence services.
b) A 20 per cent increase in net pension is proposed for all civilian and defence
pensioners.
c) Minimum Pension increased from Rs300 to Rs2000.
d) 100 per cent increase in Conveyance Allowance, for government employees from
BS-1 to BS-19, which is currently at a very low level.
e) Medical Allowance for BS-116 is being increased from Rs425 to Rs500 per month.
f) Increase in minimum wages level from Rs4600 to Rs6000 per month.
g) Profit rates of National Savings Schemes (NSS) are being increased by 2 per cent.
The rates will be revised quarterly instead of biannually so as to minimize the gap
between NSS and market rates.
h) Those government employees who are unable to work due to illness, accident,
earthquake and terrorism will get complete pension benefits. The condition of 10
years service is abolished.
i) Regularisation of contract staff from BS-1 to 15 is proposed.
j) A Pay and Pension Commission to be set up to review pay and pension of
government employees.
k) Number of posts of Judges of the Supreme Court is being increased from 16 to
29.

I now turn to the Revenue proposals for the year 2008-09. Most of the Fiscal
incentives for Agriculture Growth, Industrial and Energy sector have already been
presented. As we all know that we are facing a very challenging economy. Our
foremost need is to stabilize the fast deteriorating economic conditions. A number
of far reaching steps have been taken to control the expenditures so that the
burden on budget is reduced. However, such measures are not enough to meet the
ambitious target for deficit reduction which we have set in the budget. Accordingly,
the rest of the burden will have to be shared by carrying out a more diligent and
concerted effort on rev enue mobilization. There is a realization that our Tax
Administration revenue effort and service standards need drastic improvements.
Accordingly Reform of Tax Administration would be a continuous commitment of the
Political Government with the objective to convert Tax Administration into a
modern, progressive, effective and credible organization and thereby enhancing the
capability of the tax system for optimizing revenue, increasing the tax to GDP ratio,
broadening the tax base, strengthening audit and enforcement procedures, fair and
equitable application of tax laws through modern techniques, quality service and
promoting compliance with tax laws. Before I place the taxation proposals before
the House, let me spell out that despite all odds, the net collection during this year
is expected to be around Rs1 trillion. The heavy dependence on indirect taxes is
being now shifted to direct taxes which has gone up to 39 per cent. There is marked
improvement in the tax return filers. Due to low tax/GDP ratio, there is ample scope
to further improve revenue collection by FBR.

There is a compelling need to curtail the widening gap in Pakistan's international

trade by discouraging imports of the nonessential and luxury items. It has therefore
been proposed to enhance import duties on about 300 non-essential and luxury
items from the existing 15 per cent, 20 per cent and 25 per cent slabs of import
duties to the higher slabs of 30 per cent and 35 per cent respectively. These items
generally include perfumery, cosmetics, crockery, ceramics, bath room fittings,
kitchen utensils, furniture, sporting arms and domestic appliances such as air
conditioners, refrigerators, deepfreezer, cooking range, ovens and other such
equipment. The list also includes confectionary items like biscuits, chocolates and
cookies besides cigarettes, cigars and some of the food preparations. Similarly, the
customs duty on the luxury vehicles of 1800cc engine capacity and above is being
increased from the existing 90 per cent to 100 per cent. Used motorcars and jeeps
of below 1800cc engine capacity are presently being charged to the fixed amounts
of duty and taxes. Respective fixed amounts of duty and taxes are proposed to be
enhanced by 10 per cent. Specific customs duty of Rs500 per set is being proposed
on the import of mobile cellular phones. Import duty on betel leaves is proposed to
be enhanced from Rs150 per kg to Rs200 per kg.

Following are some Sales Tax and Federal Excise measures for the industrial
growth:
- To achieve sustained economic growth, it is essential that sufficient revenues may
be available with the Government to spend on the socio-economic wellbeing of the
people. Presently, 15 per cent rate of sales tax is comparatively low in the region. In
some cases, it is even 20 per cent. In order to meet the increased requirements of
greater revenue generation, it is being proposed that the rate of sales tax may be
increased from 15 per cent to 16 per cent. To facilitate cross subsidization of PDC,
an enabling amendment is being made in the relevant law for the government to
levy PDL on transport fuels like CNG, LPG whenever considered necessary. It is also
being proposed to increase the rate of federal excise duty on telecommunication
services from 15 per cent to 21 per cent which is collected in VAT mode. It is,
proposed that 5 per cent FED may be imposed on the imports as well as on the local
supply of cars having engine capacity exceeding 85Occ. To keep our rates of FED in
line with the neighboring countries and to increase tax to GDP ratio, it is being
proposed that rate of FED on banking, insurance and franchise services may be
increased from 5 per cent to 10 per cent. The fixed rate of Federal excise duty on
cement is being proposed to be increased from Rs750 PMT to Rs900 PMT on
account of indexation of inflation.

Now, I highlight some of the important measures proposed for Direct Taxes: Despite
20 per cent annual increase in the number of taxpayers during the last three years
2.2 million taxpayers in a population of 160 million people is still very low in the
region. Like-wise tax to GDP ratio having remained static at about 11 per cent for
the last so many years does not reflect any appreciable performance. Your
government proposes to take two steps to improve the tax base:

a) Withdrawal of 35 income tax exemptions which would be a landmark

achievement and bold initiative compared with the past governments.
b) Launching of a liberal “Investment Tax Scheme" whereby taxpayers are proposed
to declare past business, capital formation and assets acquired, by paying just 2 per
cent on their market value and come forward to play their constructive role in the
advancement of documented economy. The declarants would not have any fear of
investigation in their tax affairs for the past. A massive campaign would be
undertaken to make the scheme a success so that there is a fair improvement in tax
to GDP ratio and number of taxpayers.

Following are the Tax Relief through Direct Taxes:

a) Minimum tax @ 0.5 per cent on declared turnover is levied on loss making
companies or companies whose income is not chargeable to tax due to specific
exemption provided in law. This tax is obviously paid out of equity in the absence of
income for the year and is also regressive. It is proposed to abolish levy of minimum
tax to improve economic growth and incentivize the taxpayers to grow in business.
b) Basic Exemption of Rs150,000 for salaried taxpayers is being raised to Rs180,000
and for Rs200,000 to Rs230,000 for the women taxpayer. This measure would
provide relief to more than 75,000 taxpayers.
c) Taxation of salaried persons was rationalised to provide 21 income slabs for
levying income tax starting from 0.25 per cent to 20 per cent. However, hardship
has been caused in the shape of higher tax incidence, when income crosses a slab
to next higher slab and tax rate. This may happen frequently due to incremental
changes in salary income. To provide relief to salaried class, it is proposed to allow
marginal relief in tax at every incremental slab of income.

Following are the Direct Tax Revenue Measures:

Advance income tax is collected on import of goods @ 1 per cent to 5 per cent on
individual and commercial importers. Instead of a facilitation measure it has caused
dichotomy where manufacturers statedly misuse low rate of tax and possibility of
maneuvering tax payment at import stage by applying incorrect withholding tax
rates in connivance with the state functionaries cannot be ruled out. To make the
tax payment transparent a uniform tax rate of 2 per cent is proposed for
commercial as well as industrial importers. This tax has also been made adjustable
in the case of companies who are engaged in manufacturing activities. Industrial as
well as commercial consumers of electricity are proposed to pay advance tax @ 10
per cent on their electricity bills exceeding Rs20,000 per month, which would be
adjustable against their final tax liability. It will help to discharge their tax liability in
12 installments.

A couple of years back income tax on property income was levied @ 5 per cent of
the gross rent where the rent amount, being only income of an individual or
association of persons, was above Rs150,000. It was a clear favour to the higher
income group and disincentive for the lower income bracket. To make it equitable
on the principle “the
“the more you earn the more you pay”, pay”, it is proposed to provide
progressive withholding tax rates for higher income brackets, ranging from 5 per
cent to 15 per cent on different income slabs. The most lucrative investment in
recent past has been investment in real estate which has really retarded industrial
growth in the country. Development of land into housing schemes, construction of
high-rise residential and commercial building attract huge profits but the tax
contribution in this field is very low, it is therefore proposed that the developers and
builders should pay Rs100 per sq. yard on developed plots sold during the year and
Rs50 per sq. ft. on the sale of constructed property as minimum tax.

This is a budget that will herald a new era of economic stability, social justice and
prosperity to all sections of the society. This vision of Pakistan is the one which was
given by Shaheed Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto on that historic day of 14th April, 1972 as
President of Pakistan, when he addressed the National Assembly which first met to
frame a constitution for Pakistan. He said: ‘Apart
‘Apart from the obvious requirement of
justice and equity between man and man and between regions, there is a
fundamental philosophy governing [our] approach. Our economic muscle and
national cohesion can grow only with a just economic and social order. It is only
when every peasant and every worker and the entire population of all the regions
are convinced in their own mind that each one of them is striving and struggling for
the good of all, that the creative energies of the entire nation will be fully
harnessed. Otherwise, we shall not overcome our national crisis.’
crisis.’ This budget is for
all the people of Pakistan. It is seeking sacrifices from all sections who can afford it.
It is protecting the poor and the weak. It gives an inclusive message, a sense of
sharing. The crises we are facing are daunting but this nation has been tested in the
past and we will prove that we are worthy of successfully facing and overcoming
these challenges.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 13.06.08

– Lawyers sign accord to keep march peaceful

The government and representatives of the legal community signed a 20point
agreement on Thursday to maintain law and order in the federal capital where
lawyers’ long march and protest programme will culminate on Friday. The
organisers of the protest march have been told that they will be responsible for any
disturbance in the city on the occasion. “The
“The agreement has been signed with the
consent of coalition partners and representatives of lawyers’ community,”
community,”
Information Minister Sherry Rehman said at a press briefing on Thursday. The
agreement has been signed by Islamabad’s Deputy Commissioner Amir Ali and
Rawalpindi Bar Association President Sardar Attaullah and Islamabad Bar
Association (IBA) Secretary General Riasat Ali Azad. The community assured the
government that the march would not enter the Constitution Avenue which has
been declared ‘red zone’ and will be cordoned off during the protest programme.
“Due to safety of diplomatic enclave and other important buildings, including the
Parliament House, the area has been declared red zone and no one will be allowed
to enter into it,”
it,” the minister said.

“But in case of any violation of the agreement and law and order situation, the
responsibility will devolve on the organisers,”
organisers,” she said. The minister said PPP co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari would provide food to the lawyers while the local
administration would provide water and make arrangements for toilets. She said
that the route and final destination of the protesters had been decided. The
government, she said, had accepted the demands of lawyers and would facilitate
them in setting up dais at the agreed venue at the parade ground, the area close to
the Parliament House. Giving details about the agreed route of the long march in
Islamabad, she said the participants would enter the federal capital between 11am
and 2pm on Friday from Faizabad and after going through the Zero Point, Kashmir
Highway, Abpara Chowk, Suhrawardy Road and Embassy Road they would reach the
parade ground.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani presided over a meeting of a

committee formed to finalise security arrangements for the long march and
expressed satisfaction over the agreement signed by the two sides.The meeting
was attended by Prime Minister’s Adviser on Interior Rehman Malik, Ms Sherry
Rehman, Labour Minister Khurshid Shah, Law Minister Farooq Naek and PML-N
leaders Ishaq Dar, Ahsan Iqbal and Khawaja Asif. The information minister said the
lawyers’ representatives had assured the government that they would remain
peaceful. The minister said there was no possibility of any PPP leader, including the
prime minister, taking part in the lawyers’ programme. Security departments sealed
the Constitution Avenue on Thursday night with large containers on all entry points,
but some lawyers who had come from Sialkot to take part in the march, managed to
enter the red zone. However, they were persuaded by security officials to leave the
area. Paramilitary force and police from Punjab have reached Islamabad to assist
the local police in maintaining law and order. About 16 close-circuit cameras have
been installed at different places near the venue of the protest meeting with control
rooms at the district administration office and the interior ministry. Security
departments have also installed more than a dozen security gates to stop suspects
from joining the gathering. Dozens of police pickets have been set up on different
roads in the city where vehicles are being searched. Armed personnel carriers
equipped with anti-riot equipments, including tear-gas shells and rubber bullets
have been placed to cope with any breakdown in security.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 13.06.08

– Nawaz rules out ‘safe exit’, sees off long march

Seeing off participants of the lawyers’ long march from Lahore, PML-N chief Mian
Nawaz Sharif said President Pervez Musharraf could not escape accountability by
fleeing the country. Speaking at a gathering of lawyers and political activists at the
Ravi Chowk on Thursday, he praised the courage shown by the deposed judges in
saying “no
“no to a dictator”.
dictator”. Praising the valour of the deposed judges, he said “the
“the
dictator is likely to flee the country but we’ll foil it”.
it”. He asked workers of his party
raising anti-Musharraf slogans not to waste their energy for Musharraf was already
on his way out. Led by Supreme Court Bar President Aitzaz Ahsan, Ali Ahmad Kurd
and Hamid Khan, participants of the long march riding a caravan of buses, wagons
and cars left for Gujranwala in the evening through the Grand Trunk Road. They
took almost three hours to reach Ravi Chowk from the Lahore High Court, a distance
of just a couple of kilometres. The caravan is scheduled to reach Islamabad on
Friday to “lay
“lay siege to the Parliament House”
House” to force the government to reinstate
the judges deposed by Mr Musharraf on Nov 3. Activists of PML-N, Jamaat-iIslami,
Tehrik-i-Insaaf, Labour Party, Khaksar Tehrik and a couple of civil society
organisations, led by Javed Hashmi, Liaqat Baloch, Khwaja Saad Raiq and Raja
Ashfaq Sarwsar, accompanied the lawyers.

Labour Party’s Farooq Tariq and his colleagues were manhandled by police when
their procession joined the main caravan at Ravi Chowk, where some portraits had
been erected showing President Musharraf with a chain around his neck. In his
speech, Mr Aitzaz objected to presence of these portraits and sought their removal.
He said Justice Iftikhar and other judges would do justice with the president after
their reinstatment. Mr Nawaz asserted that if President Musharraf was not brought
to book, future adventurers could not be deterred. He warned that if the masses did
not take a decisive stance on independence of judiciary then none would be able to
protect the solidarity of the country. Condemning the recent US attack in Mohmand
Agency, Mr Nawaz regretted that policies of President Musharraf had weakened the
country to an extent that foreign troops were freely killing civilians as well as
soldiers. There was a heavy police deployment around the venue as police had
taken positions on all nearby buildings, including the Lady Wellingdon Hospital, in
front of which a stage had been prepared. No one except journalists and senior
party workers were allowed to go near the podium and they too were made to walk
through double security gates as the road on the hospital side had been closed to
traffic from Ravi Chowk and Taxali Gate by erecting barriers.

Author Location Dated

Prof. Mohammed Rafi 13.06.08

– Evolution of Islamic legal system

Law is generally defined as a body of rules, regulations and principles that govern
the affairs of a country. It is enforced by a political authority in conformity with an
established legal system. As Islam makes no distinction between religious and
social values, its laws cover not only the ritual, but every aspect of life. Four main
sources of Islamic law include the Quran, as the supreme source, Sunnah or the life
of the Prophet (SAW) as an example, the consensus of the Muslims (Ijma) and
reasoning by analogy (Qiyas). Another important source which seems to have been
forgotten is `ljtihad’ or the process of making a legal decision by independent
interpretation of the legal sources in the context of prevailing circumstances. One of
the fundamental features of modern resurgence of Islam is the call to restore Sharia
or Islamic law. This has generated Islamic movements in many Muslim countries. It
is tragic that an independent study of the history of Islamic law remains unexplored
in the Muslim as well as nonworld. Most of the Western thinkers like Dawkins,
Hitchins, Davies and Pipes have not been able to go beyond Mohammedanism as
Islam.

In the olden days, Islam was preceded by the existence of three empires: the
Byzantine in the NorthWest, the Sassanid in the North-East and Yemenite in the
South (an ally of the Eastern Roman empire). Between the Byzantine and the
Sassanid empires, existed a vast area inhabited by the Arab Bedouin, who,
according to Wael Hallaq (The origins and evolution of Islamic law) were called
‘camel nomads’. These people had embraced Islam. The Arab society had two sets
of laws; those dealing with agricultural and commercial needs and those governing
nomadic tribal conditions. The Yemenite kingdom had a trade code and a set of
laws dealing with foreign traders. The early system of appointing Qazis reflects an
important step in the Islamic legal system. They were appointed by Muslim rulers
and were confined to the garrison towns. They also collected taxes. The Sunnah of
the Prophet is the second most important source of Islamic law. In pre Islamic
Arabia, a person renowned for his ethical and moral behaviour was taken as a role
model within his clan and his Sunnah as guide. Caliph Omar declining the invitation
of the Patriarch to pray inside the Church in Jerusalem constituted a Sunnah which
was later emulated by the Muslims. It was customary to refer to the Nabi’s life and
events as his Sirah’ and constituted a normative exemplary model. The difference
between the practice based on Sunnah and Hadith (tradition) is that the majority of
the former was prophetic authority mediated by the practices of the companions,
whereas the latter conveyed Prophetic authority through the documented chain of
transmitters. Later, the status of the two became equal. Different sects of Muslims
have their own set of Sunnah and Hadith and is usually a basis of the sect’s
alienation from other sects.

The expansion of the Islamic world brought masses into direct contact with the
Christians (mostly Arabs) and Jews and led to the developments within the judicial
system. Due importance was given to the Law of Evidence and witnesses were
appointed by the Qazis and not the litigants. Judicial decisions had to be determined
on the basis of Quranic principles. The genealogy of the Islamic legal system
(Usoolgoes back to the conflict between the Rationalists (Ahland the Traditionalists
(Ahli-Hadith). By the end of the third century, we see a compromise between these
two schools of thought. Another important source is ‘Istihsaan’ or reasoning that
departs from the revealed text but leads to conclusions different from ‘Qiyas’. Blind
following has been responsible for retarding the growth of Islam as a dynamic
system of life. The system also gave birth to the jurisconsult or Muftis whose legal
opinion was always respected, but later this school degenerated due to exploitation,
greed and ambition of some people. It is sad to note that the dynamic Islamic legal
system has taken the back seat after restrictions on the contemporary practice of
ljtihad were imposed by religious establishments and by repressive governments in
Muslim countries. Freedom of inquiry and expression is essential to the practice of
ljtihad and to the successful reconciliation of Islam and modernity. Revolutionary
reforms in the Muslim educational system are also necessary. According to Shah
Waliullah, the prophetic teachings were meant to train one particular people and to
use them as nucleus for building a universal Sharia. Those Sharia values cannot be
enforced strictly in the future generations and can only provide the data and
background for development of the Islamic legal system in line with the teachings
and injunctions of Quran.

It was mainly because of this reason that Imam Abu Hanifa, who had a deep insight
into the universal character of Islam, made particularly no use of these traditions.
The fact that he introduced the principle of ‘Istihsan’ (juristic preference that
necessitates a careful study of actual conditions in legal thinking) throws further
light on the motives which determined the attitude towards this source of Islamic
law. In Islam obedience to the Divine Laws has to be disciplined and ordered under
an organised system called the state in present day terminology. It is controlled by
a central authority. The first central authority being Muhammad (SAW). Obedience
to the central authority is obedience to Allah. Quran says, ‘One
‘One who obeys the
Rasool (messenger) obeys Allah’ Allah’ (4:80). The Rasool adjudges everything
according to Quran (5:48). Barring a few exceptions, Quran gives fundamental
principles without touching subsidiary laws. There is Hadith which says that Allah
has placed certain obligations, fulfil them; there are some restrictions, do not
violate them, some have been left unspoken of without being overlooked; do not
probe them unnecessarily. Quran calls upon the Muslims to consult among
themselves in the affairs of society (3:158). While he lived, Muhammad (SAW)
determined subsidiary laws in consultation with his companions. After his death, the
process had to go on. Quran says, ‘Muhammad
‘Muhammad is but a Rasool (messenger)
there have been several Rasools before him. Will you turn back on your
heels if he dies or is slain’
slain’ (3:143). The enforcement of the basic laws is
preceded by the formulation of introductory subsidiary laws bearing directly on the
prevailing conditions. These basic laws are unchangeable but introductory laws
change with the change in circumstances. New subsidiary laws have to be deduced
to satisfy fresh social, political and economic developments. According to Allama
lqbal, ‘the
‘the question which confronts the Muslims today and in the near future, is
whether the Law of Islam is capable of evolution, a question which will require great
intellectual effort and is sure to be answered in the affirmative.’
affirmative.’ While Islamic laws
are meant to ensure the dignity of human being, people are afraid of these laws as
they feel that their freedom will be restricted in a theocratic system which is against
the basic Islamic legal system. Perhaps that is why we do not see this system in
operation in any of the fifty-seven Muslim countries.

Author Location Dated

Javed Hassan Ali jha45@yahoo.co.uk 13.06.08

– A warped concept of patriotism

The ordinary citizens of Pakistan may perhaps be the most gullible darlings that
nature ever suffered to crawl under the heavy boots of dictatorship; ever willing to
live in the dreams of a rosy world conjured up for them by their rulers — civil or
military, both equally despotic. They are supposed to bear the pain of the present
under an anaesthetic of promises for the future. They are desensitised to their
surroundings under claustrophobic clouds of want and need; fed on slogans, while
the rulers contrive, compete and survive only to enhance and secure their personal
wealth and power. Pakistan was created through an ardent struggle of the Indian
Muslims’ civil society under the leadership of a lawyer of indomitable will and
unflinching faith in constitutionalism. For the founding fathers, the first and
foremost objective and obligation of the state was the greatest good of all the
peoples of Pakistan. Pakistan was its people, nothing more and nothing less. The
goal of the government had to be the social, economic, cultural and material
welfare of the people by providing them ample opportunity to realise their potential
as a great civilisation — without let or hindrance, and without bar or prejudice. But
soon it was forgotten that the state was for citizens and governments for the
people. Governments found other agendas more fascinating and politically
productive.

The Pakistan movement was inspired by and revolved around the enlightened civil
society; free from dogma, petty biases and bigotry. For them Muslim separatism
was a political demand. The obscurantist mullah was, therefore, never in consort
with this movement and kept a safe distance from it. But come the creation of
Pakistan, these ill-read bigots (with vast influence over the illiterate masses)
pounced upon the booty. They hijacked the ideological import of the movement and
soon the Aug 11, 1947 speech of the Quaid-i-Azam was buried under the
overwhelming weight of the Objectives Resolution, as a declaration of intent by the
new state. Islam, and not the Muslims of the subcontinent, became the purpose of
Pakistan; and people lulled into a stupor to forget the pains of poor governance and
corruption inflicted upon them by the rulers. The stalwarts of the Pakistan
movement were soon hounded out by the first military dictator in the name of
stability, and later economic development. National security and national
integration (institutionalising the rule of the minority) were now the purposes of the
government, replacing the people of Pakistan — en masse — as the primary
objective of the state. The government helped making the rich richer by design;
creating a new class of entrepreneurs prospering on privilege and protection. The
people were expected to survive with fond hopes of redeeming the promised trickle-
down effect. That it never came about has been of no concern to successive
governments. For them Pakistan — its people really — are irrelevant to their myopic
designs of survival.

A continuum of military governments and several civil governments under their

tutelage, have sanctified national security as a purpose of the state in itself;
distinguishable from security as an attendant good of the welfare of the people. It
has opened vast vistas for the armed forces to demand, acquire and arrogate to
themselves a major chunk of national resources — domestic or borrowed. That as a
by-product it also enables senior commanders to enrich themselves personally,
through hefty service and retirement benefits for merely doing their duty — at best
honestly — is perfectly acceptable for governments with no moral compunction. For
keeping everyone focused on national security, bogeys may have to be created and
sustained to instil the fear of our masters in the minds of the masses with mouths
gaping with need. In the decade of the sixties national integration was also a major
concern of the state; essentially cosmetic, and insensitive to the real good of people
at large. There may have been many political motives behind this assertion of
national purpose, particularly ensuring the subordination of the majority by a
minority of elite. It shifted the focus from the needs of the people and Pakistan first
was actually West Pakistan first. The eighties recognised ideology as the only
purpose of the government and the state. Pakistan and its people could be
mortgaged for ever in the hands of obscurantist dogma, articulated by men learning
by rote, without research, a curriculum more than 350 years old. Their
interpretation of Islam is archaic; with ‘ijtihad’ unnecessary for their political
objectives.

The 21st century ushered in new actors in the political power play, making
enlightened moderation the theme of their soliloquies. The script dictated by the
powerful playwrights — World Bank et al, at a cost — now had the slogan of
governance as the mantra of the state, its real purpose; with masses shrouded
somewhere in an envelope of ambiguity created by this new buzzword. Mr Shaukat
Aziz would tire no end in emphasising good governance as his sole goal. In practice
he may have been the worst culprit in violating basic tenets of governance. He was
a deft practitioner of tools of ill governance — introducing state largesse for a
pliable senior bureaucracy for obtaining unquestioning subservience. His new
paradigm was not concerned with Pakistan and its people — other than stock
brokers and brokers turned bankers. Recent years saw a new spin on the slogan
‘Pakistan first’ by President Musharraf. It seems that to him Pakistan was
synonymous with his own person and the people of Pakistan had no place in his
scheme of things. The political protégés of Ziaul Haq now display a warped concept
of patriotism where personal material enrichment through manipulation of state
policy precedes an autocratic public service. People again are a secondary
consideration in a political agenda which is a queer mix of hearsay ideology and
business. The amoral descendants of socialist populism, on the other hand, are
content with cronyism and underhand deals in pursuit of perpetuation of political
power. Where are the people of Pakistan then? The lawyers’ movement, under the
brilliant stewardship of Aitzaz Ahsan and his tribe, has reignited the hopes of civil
society. Equity and justice through a moral and constitutional judiciary may compel
governments to focus on the real purpose of this country —its people.

Author Location Dated

13.06.08

– Budget or a wish list?

Budget 2008-09 is an ambitious document bordering on the wishful, considering the
current chaotic international economic environment and the tight domestic
resource situation. One has no dispute with its size or its targets for growth,
budgetary and current account deficits, the rate of inflation and so on and so forth.
There is so much to be done and so little to go by. Still, the budgetary proposals for
the next fiscal year announced by Finance Minister Naveed Qamar appear totally
oblivious to the economy’s current resource generating ability. Neither do the
authors of the budget seem to have kept in mind the current inflationary fires in the
country while estimating expenditure. Never ever in Pakistan’s fiscal history has the
country managed to expand its revenue income by 25 per cent in a matter of a
year. Drastic reforms are needed to be introduced in the Federal Board of Revenue
(FBR) to build its capacity to estimate and collect revenues more efficiently. Nor has
the government ever succeeded in keeping expenditure from going through the
ceiling by at least 10 per cent by the end of each fiscal year. In order to be able to
keep expenditures within budgetary estimates the government would first need to
give up all those activities which overlap those of the provinces. It is, therefore,
essential that the concurrent list is removed from the constitution urgently. It has
become a tradition with successive finance ministers, whether they have attainted
the position through a political process or those selected by military dictators, to
overestimate income and underestimate expenditure. They have all been selling
dreams through annual budgets to a people undergoing a never ending nightmare.

Indeed, one can hardly find any fault with the priorities of the next year’s budget or
its aims. The budget speech contained all the right ideas and the proposals included
all the right economic measures needed to be taken at this point in time. But then
that has been the case with all the previous budgets and all the mid-term economic
plans made in this country over the last 61 years. Our official economic managers
have a knack with rhetoric. They have been known to have drafted the most ideal
plans and most effective speeches. Remember the story about South Korea
adopting one of our five year plans in the early 1960s and becoming a tiger? We as
a nation are very good at words but lack pathetically when it comes to action. It is
at the delivery stage that we fail, partly because of inefficiency of the implementing
personnel and the agencies, partly because of vested interest and partly because
Islamabad over the years has ceased being sensitive to the public’s needs. The
finance minister has announced a number of seemingly sound measures to boost
growth in the agricultural sector. One can hardly question the logic of any of these.
But then as they say, the taste of the pudding is in the eating. Unless these
measures are implemented earnestly and according to the plan and on schedule,
there cannot be any positive change in this sector by end year. Here it would not be
out of place to emphasise that with food prices sky rocketing the world over, we
would be in a hotter soup if we failed to implement the proposed plan and; if we did
we stand to earn a lot of much needed foreign exchange by exporting surplus food.

Similarly, the measures to boost growth in the manufacturing sector also appear, on
the face of it, rather sound. One would, however, like to point out that since most of
our industry except textile is heavily dependent on imports, especially chemicals,
machinery, medicine, two and four wheelers etc. and that too from far away lands it
would be in the fitness of things to see if we could import these items from
neighbouring India and China because with oil at $138 a barrel and expected to
reach $150 soon the shipping freight rates would make these imports from the
present sources rather too exorbitant. The finance minister has pledged to
significantly reduce borrowing from the State Bank for budgetary purposes and to
mobilise the required resources from non-baking sources. This measure would help
curb inflationary trends. Also, one would not take issue with the proposal to slash
subsidies. But then care must be taken to see that the indigent do not suffer much
from this step. There are a number of measures in the proposals to put some extra
spending cash in the hands of the poor, the salaried classes and the pensioners.
The Benazir card is a welcome measure but care should be taken that it is not
distributed only among the supporters and workers of the ruling coalition parties.
Only a feeble attempt has been made to get the real estate sector to contribute its
due to tax revenue. To encourage investment and documentation, the rich have
been asked to whiten their black money by paying a two per cent tax. And the stock
brokers have been allowed exemption from capital gains tax for two more years.
These measures would only widen the gap between the rich and the poor and give
rise to serious social inequities. The government could still keep these inequities
within limits if it adhered strictly to its development projects in education, health
and infrastructure. And there was nothing in the budget speech to back the
government’s earlier claim that the defence budget would no more be confined to
one line.

Author Location Dated

Anushka Asthana London, England 13.06.08

– Children find English too hard to read

The English spelling system is “absolutely,
“absolutely, unspeakably awful”.
awful”. That is the
conclusion of new research that has found that children face 800 words by the age
of 11 that hinder their reading because of the way they are spelt. Monkey,
asparagus, spinach, caterpillar, dwarf, banana, handkerchief, pliers, soldiers,
stomach, petal and telescope have all been included on the long list of words that
baffle children because they contain letter combinations that are more commonly
pronounced in a different way. The words have all been identified as problematic for
reading, as opposed to writing, because of their “phonic
“phonic unreliability”,
unreliability”, according to
the study The Most Costly English Spellings. It was presented last weekend at the
conference of the Spelling Society, held at Coventry University, England. Masha
Bell, the literacy researcher who carried out the work, argued that there were 200
words on the list that could be improved by simply dropping “surplus
“surplus letters”
letters” such
as the “i” in friend or the “u” in shoulder. “English
“English has an absolutely, unspeakably
awful spelling system,”
system,” said Bell, a former English teacher and author of the book
Understanding English Spelling. “It“It is the worst of all the alphabetical languages. It
is unique in that there are not just spelling problems but reading problems. They do
not exist anywhere else.”
else.” Bell argued that the spelling system was a huge financial
burden on schools and was to blame for poor literacy results compared with the rest
of Europe.

In Finland, where words are more likely to be pronounced as they look, children
learn to read fluently within three months, she said. In the UK, academics have
found that it takes three years for a child to acquire a basic level of competence.
The tricky spellings make English particularly difficult for children with dyslexia and
those from disadvantaged families, who are less likely to be read to regularly by
their parents. In the research Bell highlights examples of words that have the same
pronunciation but different letter combinations. Examples include to and two; clean
and gene; same and aim; day and grey; kite and light; and stole and coal. Then
there are those that look alike but sound different with the combinations of “ea”,
“ee” and the letter “o” causing most trouble. Among the words falling into that
category are eight and height, break and dreamt, and move and post. The letters
“ough” can also be pronounced in a number of different ways. Simplifying the
system would transform literacy results, according to Bell, but she said people were
resistant to change. “People
“People feel that they have suffered so much at the hands of
English spelling that they are reluctant to look at it,”
it,” she said. Yet other countries
have made changes. Last month the parliament in Portugal, where the spelling
system is also thought to be complicated, voted to reform and simplify it, bringing it
into line with Brazil. “In
“In 1928 the Turks changed their entire alphabet from Arabic to
Latin,”
Latin,” said John Wells, professor of phonetics at University College London and
president of the Spelling Society. “It
“It happened in the Soviet Union.”
Union.” In Germany
there were changes made in the 1990s to make the writing system more consistent.
English has also developed with words such as “olde” and “worlde” dropping the
“e”.

Wells wants to see things change again and feels there are two possible
approaches. The first would be to simplify the way in which words are spelt and
then allow people to choose whether to use the new or old system, while the second
approach would involve a complete change. “The “The Spelling Society favours the first,”
first,”
he said. Chris Davis, spokesman for the UK’s National Primary Headteachers’
Association, said the spelling system had a major impact on children’s literacy
progress: “It
“It definitely slows English children down. In international comparisons,
languages that are phonetically uniform always come top.” top.” But he said that
teachers would be reluctant to see things change. “It “It would be such a major
revolution that people would find it very difficult to contemplate,”
contemplate,” he said. “There
“There
are already problems because of the different spelling system in America, but there
would also be resistance about going down that route. I think it is an ownership
thing, that it is our language.”
language.” Davis argued that people felt that spelling was linked
to the origin of words.

Author Location Dated

Charles Babington Chicago 13.06.08

– Obama learns to take critical decisions

One was gone within hours. Another lasted a few days. The most famous hung on
for weeks. In dealing with associates who have dragged him into controversies,
Barack Obama has shown great patience with a longtime friend, but much less
forbearance with those whose ties are weaker. The varying approaches suggest the
likely Democratic presidential nominee is feeling his way on how to handle staff
crises. He also is learning that it’s one thing to set high standards for conduct, and
another to enforce them in the imperfect worlds of politics and personal friendships.
On Wednesday, Obama parted ways with adviser Jim Johnson, one day after
shrugging off Republican criticism of the man who had led his search for a running
mate. Republican aides denounced Johnson steadily after a weekend Wall Street
Journal article cited loans he had received on favourable terms from a company
embroiled in the nation’s mortgage crisis. Obama ignored them on Monday, and
largely dismissed them on Tuesday. Johnson, who had conducted similar searches
for previous Democratic presidential candidates, was an unpaid volunteer with a
“discrete task”, Obama said. “I“I am not vetting my V.P. search committee for their
mortgages,”
mortgages,” he said a bit huffily. Less than 24 hours later, as aides to Republican
presidential candidate John McCain hammered away, Johnson stepped down. It was
his choice, said Johnson, a former chairman of mortgage lender Fannie Mae,
although similar claims are sometimes made when advisers are shoved aside.

Johnson marked something of a middle ground in terms of longevity after political

attacks begin. Foreign policy adviser Samantha Power left Obama’s campaign
almost immediately after a Scottish newspaper reported that she had called Hillary
Rodham Clinton then Obama’s top rival – “a monster”. Obama’s ties to Power were
not as strong as those he had with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his longtime former
pastor and friend. As Obama and Clinton fought for the nomination, news outlets
and websites repeatedly aired video clips of sermons in which Wright cursed
America and accused the government of conspiring against blacks. As pressure built
on Obama to distance himself, he gave a highly publicised speech on race in March.
Obama said Wright had erred, but that “I “I can no more disown him than I can disown
my white grandmother”.
grandmother”. Six weeks later, Obama broke it off after Wright went
before TV cameras at the National Press Club and restated some of his most
incendiary views. When a visiting minister later ridiculed Hillary Clinton from the
pulpit Wright had occupied for two decades, Obama took the final step and left his
longtime church, Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. All political leaders
struggle with such decisions. President George W. Bush infuriated many fellow
Republicans by keeping Donald H. Rumsfeld as defence secretary long after the Iraq
war had proven more deadly and politically unpopular than the administration
imagined. Obama’s campaign declined to discuss details of his decisions regarding
Johnson or other advisers. But his supporters are quick to note that McCain has
suffered his share of personnel embarrassments. At least five aides have left his
campaign after criticism of their links to lobbying and special interests.

Hillary has had staffing headaches, too. Bill Shaheen, a co-chairman of her national
and New Hampshire campaigns, had to apologise and step down after he said
Obama’s admitted use of drugs as a teenager could be used against him if he
becomes the Democratic nominee. At least one Obama adviser has proven that
aides can reemerge from the dog house. Economist Austan Goolsbee reportedly had
told Canadian officials earlier this year that Obama’s criticisms of the North
American Free Trade Agreement were not as deeply felt as they appeared on the
campaign trail. Obama’s spokesman, Bill Burton, said at the time that Goolsbee was
not representing the campaign when he visited Canada. Not much was heard from
Goolsbee for months. This week, he co-hosted a campaign conference call touting
Obama’s economic proposals and criticizing McCain’s.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal, Syed Irfan Islamabad, Pakistan 14.06.08
Raza, Munawer Azeem,
Muddassir Raja and Sher
Baz Khan

– Flood of lawyers, political activists pummels capital

A political tsunami pummelled the capital on Friday as hundreds of thousands of
charged lawyers and slogan-chanting political activists poured into Islamabad to pile
pressure on a foot-dragging parliament to reinstate judges sacked by President
Pervez Musharraf when he imposed emergency rule in November last year. Former
prime minister Nawaz Sharif, whose faction of the Pakistan Muslim League quit
cabinet posts in May, told journalists upon arriving in Islamabad that Pakistan was
incomplete without the judges who were put out of work by the president when he
enforced the controversial Provisional Constitution Order. “Let
“Let me tell you that the
reinstatement of judges is very near,”
near,” he said. While there was no official word if
President Musharraf was in the capital, two flags flew over the presidency,
indicating that the occupant of the house --- within a stone’s throw of the
demonstration’s venue --- was indeed in Islamabad. However, Asif Ali Zardari,
cochairman of the Pakistan People’s Party, chose to be in Karachi, where he gave a
pep talk to union activists of the Pakistan Steel Mills who recently romped to victory
in a referendum. Athar Minallah, a spokesman for Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry, told Dawn that the deposed chief justice of the Supreme Court would not
address the marchers because they comprised members of the legal fraternity as
well as red-hot, flagwaving political activists. A large number of members of civil
society, including students of Jamia Fareedia, family members of victims of
‘enforced disappearances’,
disappearances’, ex-servicemen and retired bureaucrats, were in
evidence. Reception camps were established in Rawalpindi and Islamabad to
welcome the demonstrators of the long march protest, some of whom reportedly
refused to break bread at a PPP camp.

Elaborate security arrangements were in place and the entire Constitution Avenue,
which had been declared a ‘red zone’ on Thursday, was sealed so that the
Parliament House, President House, Supreme Court building and other main
buildings remained off-limits to the marchers. The local administration in Rawalpindi
stayed its hand when it took no action against some of the marchers who strayed
into the cantonment area. On their part, the demonstrators withstood the
temptation of marching on to the Army House. Heavy contingents of Rangers and
Punjab police were deployed at different places in the capital to assist the local
police to prevent an eminently possible breakdown of law and order. A helicopter
flew over the main venue of the demonstration. Earlier, president of the Supreme
Court Bar Association Aitzaz Ahsan and former vicechairman of the Pakistan Bar
Council Ali Ahmed Kurd led the marchers into Rawalpindi. They were accorded a
rousing welcome. While their convoy entered the cantonment city at around 1pm,
they had not come to the main demonstration venue in Islamabad till the filing of
this report. A large number of lawyers came all the way from the NWFP to
participate in the long march. The political leaders who took part in the rallies
included PML-N leaders Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Chaudhry Tanveer Khan, Jamaat-i-
Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed, Liaquat Baloch and Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaf chief
Imran Khan. Cross-country caravans consisting of hundreds of slow-moving buses,
mini-wagons, cars, jeeps, trucks streamed into the capital as a large number of
demonstrators came on foot. They were encouraged by bystanders who
enthusiastically chanted pro-judiciary slogans.

Posters bearing the images of the deposed chief justice and Aitzaz Ahsan and
banners inscribed with anti-Musharraf slogans greeted the demonstrators as they
entered Rawalpindi and Islamabad. In a curious development, many PPP activists
and members of the People’s Lawyers Forum also took part in the demonstration.
Dr Israr Shah, who lost his legs to a bomb attack on a rally held to welcome the
deposed chief justice on July 17, 2007, also spoke at the demonstration on Friday
night. Imran Khan of the PTI urged PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif to table a resolution in
the National Assembly to reinstate the pre-emergency judiciary if the PPP was in a
dither about fulfilling its pre-election promises. His suggestion was greeted with a
sharp rise in slogan chanting. Lawyers from across Pakistan commenced their long
march simultaneously from Karachi and Quetta and, after making several stopovers
in Sukkur, Multan, Bahawalpur, Sahiwal, Gujrat, Wazirabad, Lahore, Jhelum and
Rawalpindi, converged on Islamabad’s Parade Avenue in a forceful show of
strength.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 14.06.08

– It’s people power versus hesitant parliament

A lawyer-led movement for the reinstatement of deposed judges that stormed into
Islamabad on Friday made it a unique event in Pakistan’s history of people power
versus a hesitant parliament. Budget debates due to begin in both the National
Assembly and the Senate on Saturday morning were bound to be overshadowed by
the largest assemblage of protesting lawyers ever held in the country with tens of
thousands of supporters of their cause from as diverse sections of the society as
political activists, rights campaigners, ex-servicemen and retired bureaucrats — all
united against President Pervez Musharraf. Never before in nearly 61 years of
Pakistan’s chequered history so many people had to come to parliament to plead
for a popular because the elected representatives of the people dithered for reasons
ranging from a claimed strict adherence to a constitutional path to suspected
hidden compulsions that could give relief to an isolated president. The convoys and
processions of protesters from all over the country pouring into the capital even
after midnight were likely to spur a debate whether parliament should act under
pressure or on its own, but there have hardly been any forceful voices raised to
question the right of any section of the society to exert such a pressure for its
cause. It was not immediately known how long the protesters will stay in the capital
where they camped, ironically, at the same venue — near the Parliament House and
the presidential palace — where President Musharraf addressed a public rally on
May 12 last year that his critics interpreted as a celebration of the massacre of
nearly 50 people the same day in Karachi in the early days of the 15-month-old
struggle for the independence of the judiciary.
As the 342-seat National Assembly and 100-seat Senate meet simultaneously at
10am on Saturday, roars from the nearby protesters’ camp will likely divert the
direction of the scheduled general debate on the budget for fiscal 2008-09. The
lawyers want that the National Assembly, or both houses of parliament, pass a
resolution for the reinstatement of about 60 judges of the Supreme Court and the
four provincial high courts sacked under President Musharraf’s controversial
emergency proclamation of Nov 3, 2007 and that the 75-day-old government issue
just an executive order to undo an illegality. But the coalition government leader
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) says the restoration should come as part of a
constitutional package it has proposed, which also seeks to clip the presidency of its
controversial power to dissolve parliament, sack a prime minister and appoint
armed forces chiefs and provincial governors. But the ruling coalition lacks the
required two-thirds majority in both houses of parliament to amend the
Constitution. The PPP, which leads the coalition after emerging as the largest single
party in the National Assembly in the Feb 18 elections, seems to have suffered
politically after its leadership failed to keep two deadlines agreed with its major
coalition partner Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) to reinstate the judges through
a parliamentary resolution though the main leader of the lawyers movement
happened to be a PPP stalwart, Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz
Ahsan. The PML-N apparently gained politically by quitting the cabinet last month
and joining the lawyers’ struggle, though continuing to be part of the coalition,
which also includes the Awami National Party and Jamiat Ulema-iIslam as smaller
partners. Political sources said it would amount to a legal revolution if the lawyers’
gathering succeeded in forcing a positive declaration from the government on the
judges’ reinstatement and failure could mean a prolonged confrontation.

Author Location Dated

Shadaba Islam Brussels 14.06.08

– Saying farewell to Mr Bush

Its been a long goodbye, complete with ceremonial smiles and handshakes, long
speeches and even longer communiqués hailing transatlantic friendship. But as he
toured across key European states last week for a last hurrah, it was clear:
European Union (EU) leaders are waiting impatiently for the end-year departure of
President George W. Bush and the election of a new US leader who can implement
fresh policies on issues as diverse as Iran, Iraq and the Middle East, climate change
and the Doha round of talks on global trade liberalisation. While Senator Barack
Obama is the undisputed favourite among ordinary Europeans, EU policymakers are
still undecided on whether they prefer the young and charismatic Democrat
presidential hopeful or his Republican rival John McCain. But although they may
disagree on the merits of the two candidates, there is almost universal agreement
among EU policy pundits that the next occupant of the White House will inevitably
be a better president — and world leader — than the discredited Mr. Bush. Europe’s
relief at the end of the Bush era is not difficult to explain. The last eight years have
been especially difficult for the transatlantic relationship, with America and Europe
often at loggerheads on an array of vitally important global questions. The US-led
war on Iraq, vociferously opposed by Germany and France but endorsed by Britain,
Italy and Spain, created a deep rift not only in EU-US relations but also triggered
difficult-toheal divisions among EU states.
While many EU countries have sent troops to Iraq, officials in Brussels and other EU
capitals remain concerned at continuing instability in the country, fearing that the
US presence in Iraq is fuelling the rise of religious extremism in many parts of the
Muslim world. EU policymakers are dismayed at Washington’s failure to deliver on
efforts to end Middle East violence and fear that American policies in Afghanistan
are further aggravating an already messy and increasingly bloody conflict in the
country. While worried about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, EU governments are uneasy
about President Bush’s anti-Tehran rhetoric and insist that there can be no military
option to end the crisis. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana will in fact be in Iran on
June 14 -15 to urge a resumption of negotiations on nuclear issues. Europeans are
also rattled by Mr. Bush’s demand at a Nato summit in Bucharest in April for Ukraine
and Georgia to be put immediately on the path to membership. Many EU
governments fear this will needlessly anger Russia which opposes Nato entry for the
two states. Although both French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor
Angela Merkel are much more proAmerican than their predecessors, Jacques Chirac
and Gerhard Schroeder, their attention is increasingly focused on the man who will
succeed Mr. Bush in January 2009. There are strong hopes the next US president
will end years of ‘cowboy diplomacy’ and formulate a more nuanced, mature,
reasoned and reasonable view of the world.

Obama, who would be the first black US president, seems the favourite among
Europeans. A recent poll in London’s Daily Telegraph showed him with 52 per cent
support across five major countries, Britain, France, Germany, Italy and Russia,
while McCain received only 15 per cent. Many Europeans admire Obama’s stated
willingness to talk to Iran and other US foes largely shunned by Mr. Bush and also
like his promise to wind down US military involvement in Iraq. Obama and McCain
both win high marks in Europe for calling for the closing of the Guantanamo military
prison where terrorism suspects are held. Obama and McCain are also both
dedicated to the need for American leadership on climate change. They have each
accepted some form of limiting greenhouse gas emissions through a cap-and-trade
system similar to what Europe has adopted. In addition, the next US Congress will
almost certainly pass new legislation requiring greater fuel efficiency — something
that the Europeans, through high gasoline taxes, accepted long ago. Both also
realise that the US needs to demonstrate renewed leadership among Western
democracies in building a more productive and more equitable partnership with an
increasingly assertive and oil-rich Russia.

McCain, however, has aroused criticism in many EU capitals by advocating the

creation of a socalled ‘League of Democracies’ that many Europeans fear could cast
a fatal blow to the United Nations and also create problems in relations with China
and Russia who would be outside the club. Europeans are especially uneasy at the
Republican candidate’s call to punish Russia’s authoritarian tendencies under
Vladimir Putin by expelling it from the Group of 8 industrial democracies. Still,
McCain has also won applause in European capitals with his call for a new round of
negotiations that could lead to dramatic cuts in US and Russian nuclear arsenals.
Europeans are hoping a new strategic arms reduction deal could also help fortify
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Obama, meanwhile, has raised some concerns
by saying he would seek to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement,
covering Canada and Mexico as well as the US, in order to introduce tougher labour
standards. Europeans fear that Obama will be similarly restrictive on global trade
issues. Fears of a resurgence of protectionism in the US if Obama becomes
president have in fact prompted the EU — and other members of the World Trade
Organisation — to try and clinch a long-elusive Doha trade deal by end-July. Even as
they say farewell to Mr. Bush, therefore, EU leaders will be looking ahead to the
next US presidential visit — when President Obama or President McCain — will come
to Strasbourg in April 2009 to celebrate Nato’s 60th anniversary summit and,
hopefully, inject new vitality and warmth into transatlantic relations.

Author Location Dated

Syed Sharfuddin 14.06.08

– Musharraf’s last legacy

It is an old subcontinental proverb that an elephant costs no less than a 100,000 but
a dead one costs even more. The same applies to President Musharraf. He is more
important today than he was when he was combining all powers in one person — as
president, chief of army staff, chief executive and the sole undisputed decision
maker in Pakistan. He was then so important that his enemies aimed thrice at his
life but failed. Today, when President Musharraf has given away most of his powers
save the authority under Article 58-2 (b), which he says he has no intention of
using, he appears to be even more important for the country — so important that
Pakistan’s international development partners and strategic allies want to make
sure that the elected government works in tandem with the president in order to
complete the unfinished business of rooting out terrorism and eradicating poverty
through sound economic policies and sustained political stability. But the real
reason why President Musharraf is important today is because he is the sun around
which Pakistan’s small universe revolves. In an ironic way, he is the apple of the eye
for the judiciary, political parties, civil society and even the Islamists. The moment
President Musharraf decides to throw in the towel, the grand shows that are being
staged in different parts of the country, the speeches, the street marches,
numerous press briefings and last minute revelations on television screens will
come to a halt. The continuing excitement in Pakistan’s politics which is providing a
smokescreen to hide the grim reality of world economic recession, rising commodity
prices and a bleak investment outlook for the foreseeable future will disappear
quickly like vine withering away in a rainless hot summer.

It is important to understand why President Musharraf is good for the country even
if he is being called names and held responsible for every thing that went wrong in
the last eight years. After all, in a dictatorship there is no such thing as a team. For
as long as the King rules, there is no shortage of courtiers praising his every move
and taking advantage of his favours. Once the King is deposed, all those courtiers,
save a few foolish loyalists, jump the ship and join the side of the rising Regent. No
wonder then that a number of retired generals who benefited under Musharraf with
positions and extensions in their service are today eager to spill the beans in the
name of a clear conscience. There are also numerous well looked after politicians
who are eager to leave the King’s party and join the rising powers in parliament. In
this grand march of shifting opportunity, all prominent professions are on parade —
politicians, military chiefs, former diplomats, lawyers, bankers, media and civil
society leaders. This is the way of the world and President Musharraf should have
known when he was in total control that this is how power falls. A famous Urdu poet
and writer, Ibn-eInsha in his book Urdu ki Akhri Kitab (the Last Book of Urdu)
narrates the story of an old man whose sons were very unruly and spent most of
the time fighting over petty matters. He counselled them many times on the
advantages of being a united family but they never reformed. When on his
deathbed, the old man asked his sons to fulfil his last wish. They started quarrelling
with each other on whether their father should be allowed to make a wish. What if
he asked for something impossible! After exhaustive discussions, they agreed. The
dying father asked them to bring him some wooden sticks that he wanted tied
together with a rope. This led to a near riot. Finally, the eldest son said to his
siblings: our father is dying; let us do it for him one last time. At last better sense
prevailed and they tied the sticks together with a rope. When the old man, who was
by then too close to death, asked them to break this bundle the sons unanimously
declared their father insane. There was no argument this time. They all said to their
father; forget it sir; we have unanimously agreed to ignore your last wish. The old
man was contented and died happily in the knowledge that he had finally
succeeded in uniting his sons even if the price was his own humiliation at the
consensus on his insanity.

If Ibn-i-Insha were alive today, he would agree that President Musharraf is like that
old father who is on his way out, yet he is making every effort to keep all the
disparate groups, political parties, civil society, media and people of various
dispensation in Pakistan — whether they were his supporters or critics — united
over their dislike for him. Some of them want to see him resign as president
immediately. Others are united in the belief that he must be held accountable for
overthrowing a democratically elected government and undermining an important
institution of state. Still some more want him to be accountable for the hard
strategic decisions that were taken during the last eight plus years, costing precious
lives in Kargil, Balochistan, North Waziristan and Lal Masjid operations. Whatever
their gripe, they are united in their hatred for Musharraf. As long as he is in office as
president, the nation stands united — even archrival political parties whose leaders
suffered so much at each others’ hands have decided to ignore their half healed
wounds. They have become brothers just to take on Musharraf. This is a great
achievement for a man who said in 1999 that the army intervened in the political
process because the politicians did not play their cards right. Musharraf said the
political institutions were underperforming, inefficient and corrupt; political parties
were at each others’ throats; the opposition pleaded with the army chief in every
government to overthrow a working prime minister. By keeping them united and
not making any mistakes this time, Musharraf’s presence has acted as a catalyst for
respect, tolerance and liberal traditions among the political parties in order to
reinforce democracy and political ascendancy over the institutions of state. But will
this survive his exit whenever it takes place?

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 14.06.08

– Taseer on long march Restoration of judges not masses’

problem
Governor Salmaan Taseer said on Friday the restoration of deposed judges was not
the basic problem of the masses. “Food,
“Food, electricity, water and their provision (to the
masses) should be our top-most priority,”
priority,” he told newsmen here after meeting an
Omanese journalists delegation. Terming the long march a ‘short march’, Taseer
said that issue (of restoration of judges) was being highlighted by a few private
television channels. According to a handout, he said since it was a constitutional
matter, it was the responsibility of parliament to resolve it. He said the PPP and the
PML-N wanted to restore the deposed judges but in different ways. The governor
said one could not justify the baton-charge of poor clerks if they protested for their
rights when ‘protocol’ was being extended to a ‘few’ political workers participating
in the long march. He said the PPP was a democratic party and it believed in the
freedom of expression. He said rallies and protests were a part of the democratic
system, but the government would not allow anyone to disrupt the law and order.
Taseer said there were a large number of TV channels on air nowadays, and if they
could not adopt a policy of self-accountability, this industry would deteriorate.
“Therefore, media should play its role with full responsibility on various national
issues.”
issues.” He said by negating the trend of criticism for the sake of criticism, media
should display both sides of the picture so that government and the people could
attain guidance. Talking to the delegation, Taseer said impartial and active media
played a vital role in the development and progress of any society. He said today
every Pakistani was free to express his opinion.

He said the media played the role of opposition besides providing guidance to the
government. He said media, with the help of its positive analysis and news, could
draw the attention of government to various public welfare issues. US ambassador
Annie Peterson called on Taseer at the Governor's House on Friday. The governor
said the PPP had always discouraged extremism in the Pakistani society. He said
due to open policies of the government, every one was free to express his stance.
The governor informed the American ambassador that the demands of free
economy had been kept in view for the enforcement of revolutionary reforms in the
economic sector. The US ambassador said Pakistan and America were important
allies in the campaign against terrorism, but the foundation of friendly relations was
very vast. She said her government was extending financial assistance in the
promotion of universal education in Pakistan. She said it was heartening that public
sector universities, especially in Punjab, were introducing new disciplines and
enrollment in universities had increased.

Author Location Dated

M . Qaiser Khan 14.06.08

– Renaming the NWFP need not be delayed

The Pakistan People’s Party co-Chairman is now on board on the matter of renaming
the NWFP. There is a consensus among the ruling coalition members on this long-
delayed project. It must have gladdened many living in this historical province of
Pakistan but the question which continuously agitates the minds of its inhabitants is
whether the government will really be able to cut this Gordian knot. After the end of
the British Raj, successive governments, both military and elected ones, promised
to resolve the matter in accordance with the wishes of the people living in the
province but failed to do so. The idea was first floated in the second half of the 20th
century by Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan (Bacha Khan) and was later pursued by his
son, Khan Abdul Wali Khan but the federal government did not agree to the name of
Pukhtunistan because it, as the then establishment thought, smacked of a
secessionist movement. Bacha Khan, in 1980s, put up the case before ex-president
Zia-ul-Haq but found him unwilling to concede the popular demand. The ex-dictator
did not agree because to him Pakhtunistan looked like the name of a country. The
former came up with a new name, Pakhtunkhwa , but it too was difficult to swallow
for him. Bacha Khan, having judged Zia’s mind, wrote him a letter (in Pushto) to
give up his efforts if he felt so constrained. The issue gained prominence again prior
to the 1997 elections. The Pakistan Muslim League-N guaranteed its help to the
Awami National Party in return for the latter’s support in the national and provincial
assemblies. The elections ended in a resounding victory for the PML. To test its
political muscle, the issue was taken up by the provincial Assembly in the latter half
of 1997.

After a brief debate, the NWFP Assembly speaker Hidayatullah Chamkani called for
a vote on the motion, asking those members opposing it to stand up. This move
caught the Muslim League members off guard as they had already decided not to
support the renaming of the province although the Pakhtoonkhwa resolution was
supported by the PPP and the JUI-F, with only two votes going against it. The
resolution’s passage evoked a backlash in the right-wing press and the reaction of
conservative supporters of Nawaz Sharif in Punjab in particular was intense. The
issue was then addressed at the federal level as a formal renaming could only be
done through a constitutional amendment requiring a two-thirds majority. The PML-
N government backtracked on its previous commitment. But in an attempt to save
the alliance, Nawaz Sharif made efforts to resolve the issue by offering a
compromise name like Nuristan or Abasin which was, however, rejected by the ANP.
The ANP withdrew from the federal and provincial governments. Now, the current
PPP-led governemnt has once again given a solemn pledge to the ANP, its key ally
both at the centre and in the province. One can’t say much about the future of the
issue, but the people of the NWFP have again found a hope to have their own
identity like other provinces. There are elements who fear the renaming of the
NWFP may spark a wave of seccessionist movement if conceded. History is replete
with examples when the name, and even the boundary, have been changed to
either facilitate or appease the people of a given territory. One can find a living
example in the case of our neighboring India, which had altered the states’
boundaries almost immediately after its independence, and did away with the A., B.,
and C. formula to give a sense of equality to the people of different territories of the
country. This process had started on the directive of India’s first prime minister,
Jawahar Lal Nehru, who constituted a Reorganization Commission, called Fazal Ali
Commission. It started its work on December 1, 1953, and the Reorganization Act
became fully enforced on November 1, 1956. This was a an apolitical
gerrymandering. Later many cities were renamed to honour the wishes of their
inhabitants.

Mumbai (old Bombay) had been the first city to undergo a name change in 1995.
The local Marhatis constituted the majority in this city, capital of Maharashtra; but
now this majority had considerably declined for many more from other ethnic
background inhabited it. The ratonale for this change was to fulfil the demands of
the local Kolis, who, it is said, had named the city after their divine protector
Mumbadevi. When the Portuguese colonised India, they altered the name of this
island city to “Bom Bahia”, meaning “Good Bay” or “Good Harbour.” Later, this city
was given to King Charles II of England in dowry for marrying the Portuguese
princess, Catherine de Braganza, in 1661, at which point the name was anglicised to
‘Bombay’. In 1996, Madras, a city of Tamil Nadu, was renamed as Chennai. The
history of this historical city is again very interesting. In 1639, the Raja of
Chandragiri allowed the East India Company to build a fort near the town of
Madraspatnam. As the Company developed the town, the locals decided to build
another town nearby. One of the rulers managed to get it named Chennapatnam,
after his father Chennapa. As the two towns bloomed together, the English kept the
name Madras, while the local Tamils called it Chennai. Well before the allotment of
the forts, the Portuguese had set up a settlement, “Madre di Dios” and the British
eventually shortened the name to Madras. But since the local Tamils felt at ease
with Chennai, the BJP-led coalition respected their claim.

One may notice that the older names of these two cities originated from Portuguese
and British rule, while the new names represent regional pride and are in the
language that the majority speaks. If the abovementioned renaming exercises can
pass on without much fuss in multiethnic India, then how come one fears that a
similar exercise in Pakistan would fan the fire of secession? The people of the NWFP
are as much Pakistanis as are others living in the country. The reason of their
irritation is their lack of identity. Territories are like human beings. When a child is
born, its parents give it a name; but the name doesn’t necessarily alter its fate.
However, it gives the child a sense of responsibility and respect in society. A child
without a name is known as illegitimate. By the same token, a territory without a
name is merely a geographical location, or, to borrow Prince Metternich’s words, a
geographical expression; And history tells us that on a geographical expression,
every state has a claim. So, it is high time the policy-makers adopted a holistic
approach on this issue. At present, the government is in a very favourable position
to win back the populace of this disgruntled province who are long aspiring for their
identity. Giving identity to a given community removes the threat, if any, to the
existing order. It can, instead, be helpful in the larger interest of the country. The
21st century is a century of pluralism, where one will have to engage all the
stakeholders in formulating a unified policy; an age, where one will have to ‘mend’,
as Bill Clinton said about China, ‘and
‘and not end multiculturalism’.
multiculturalism’. The age of
repression was rejected 360 years back in the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), in which
the traditional authority of the Church was done away with and the authority was
bequeathed upon the state with the promise that the latter will ensure the welfare
of its dwellers. And it was that promise which the West has kept, and is now
deciding the fate of the whole world. It is this promise which the government needs
to keep. The matter may indeed sound difficult; but where there is a will, there is
way.

Author Location Dated

David Espo Washington, D.C. 14.06.08

– Guantanamo detainees McCain, Obama at loggerheads over

ruling
In a campaign dominated by the US economy and the Iraq war, the Supreme Court’s
5-4 ruling on Thursday on detainees at the Guantanamo Bay US Navy jail marks a
forceful reminder that John McCain promises one course and Barack Obama pledges
another in picking future justices. In the current controversy, McCain quickly
expressed his disapproval of the opinion, while Obama issued a statement of
support. It fell to outsiders to point out the broader implications in the race for the
White House. “With
“With the replacement of a single justice from the majority ... today’s
four dissenters could become tomorrow’s majority,”
majority,” said Nan Aron of the Alliance
For Justice. The group supported the court’s decision, which said detainees in the
war on terror held at Guantanamo have a right under the US Constitution to
challenge their incarceration in US federal courts. Security must exist “in
“in fidelity to
freedom’s first principles”,
principles”, wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy for a majority seeking to
balance the nation’s security needs with individual rights enshrined in the
Constitution. He went on to criticise the Bush administration and Congress for
yielding too much to the former at the expense of the latter. Of the five justices who
created a majority in the case of the Guantanamo detainees, Justice John Paul
Stevens is 88, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75 and David Sootier and Stephen Brier are
69. Kennedy is 71. The generally younger dissenters were Chief Justice John
Robbers, 53, and Justices Samuel Alit, 55, Clarence Thomas, 59, and Antenna
Scalier, 72.

Since Supreme Court seats are lifetime appointments, vacancies do not always
occur in the four years allotted to a presidential term. That makes any discussion
about the impact of a campaign on the high court inherently speculative. But hardly
pointless. In the last 80 years, Jimmy Carter, a one-term president, was the only
chief executive who did not have an opportunity to make a Supreme Court
appointment. George W. Bush has filled two seats, and in the process strengthened
a conservative shift that began four decades ago with Richard Nixon, ran through
the presidencies of Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and managed to outlive
Bill Clinton’s two terms in office. Based purely on the ages of the current justices,
the nation’s 44th president can reasonably expect to fill at least one vacancy. By
their votes in the Senate and their comments as candidates, Obama and McCain
signal supporters of their intentions without saying they would apply the type of
litmus test that might infringe on the independence of the judiciary. Often, but not
always, these comments are addressed largely to supporters and opponents of
abortion rights. “I
“I would not appoint somebody who doesn’t believe in the right to
privacy,”
privacy,” the underpinning to abortion rights, Obama said in a campaign debate in
Las Vegas in November 2007. Pointing out that he once taught constitutional law,
he added: “Part
“Part of the role of the courts is that it is going to protect people who
may be vulnerable in the political process, the outsider, the minority, those who are
vulnerable, those who don’t have a lot of clout.”
clout.” McCain offered a different view in a
Republican debate in May 2007. “One “One of our greatest problems in America today is
justices that legislate from the bench, activist judges,”
judges,” he said. He elaborated seven
months later in another debate. “The“The judges I would appoint are along the lines of
Justices Robbers and Alit, who have a proven record of strict interpretation of the
Constitution of the United States,”
States,” a commitment he has repeated often. McCain
voted to confirm both Robbers and Alit, while Obama opposed both. McCain sought
political advantage in that during his cam paign by saying his rival “went
“went right
along with the partisan crowd”
crowd” with his opposition, despite claims that he works
across party lines.

Both men also describe their intentions by reacting to other contentious rulings.
When the court handed down an opinion that upheld a ban on a procedure its critics
call “partial
“partial birth abortion”,
abortion”, Obama said he worried that “conservative
“conservative Supreme
Court justices will look for other opportunities to erode Roe v. Wade”,
Wade”, the landmark
ruling that granted abortion rights to women 35 years ago. Last year, Obama
complained about a different 5-4 decision, one that ruled against Lilly Ledbetter, a
long-time manager for Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co., who claimed job
discrimination because of her sex. McCain, seeing the case through a different lens,
defended the decision and called it a defeat for trial lawyers who sought to sue
companies. Whatever the particulars of the present case and both Obama and
McCain have urged the closure of Guantanamo it is a debate likely to reverberate
through the campaign. And then resume in earnest when one of the two rivals wins
the White House and wields the power of Supreme Court appointment. “Both “Both a
Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time,”
time,” Obama said
during the Roberts confirmation hearings. Justice Ginsburg is the court’s most
liberal member. “What
“What matters at the Supreme Court is those 5 per cent of cases
that are truly difficult. ... That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s
deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world
works and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.”
empathy.” McCain answered derisively in
a recent speech recalling Obama’s reference to a judge’s “deepest values” and
“empathy”. “These
“These vague words attempt to justify judicial activism,”
activism,” he said.
“Come to think, they sound like an activist judge wrote them.”
them.”

Author Location Dated

Simon Denyer Kathmandu, Nepal 14.06.08

– Nepal’s king bows out gracefully amid chaos

In the end, it was hard not to feel a little bit sorry for Nepal’s deposed King
Gyanendra. He had seemed an impossibly distant, arrogant figure in the past, but
on Wednesday, addressing the press before leaving the palace, in his first and
possibly final news conference, he kept his dignity and showed a previously unseen
human side. So it was a pity his swansong and that of a once-cherished 239-year-
old monarchy was surrounded by chaos, with more than 200 journalists jostling for
a view in the palace’s small main hall, constantly pushing and shoving each other.
As Gyanendra read from a prepared text in the palace’s small main hall, two stuffed
tigers behind him, people shouted aggressive questions as the former king
ploughed on, his amplified voice alternately booming and then dropping out
altogether. He may have spent most of his time in his gaudy pink Kathmandu
palace cut off from reality, ultimately unloved and unlistened to, and some may
have felt his final farewell was a fitting end. But for a monarchy traditionally revered
as incarnations of Hindu gods, here was a king almost pouring his heart out and the
media hardly seemed to be listening. Gyanendra took over as king in 2001 after the
death of his more popular brother and many of his family in a royal massacre, which
he said was a time of “overwhelming grief”, and was ousted after a specially
elected assembly voted to abolish the monarchy. In the years between, he
alienated most of his subjects by seizing absolute power and doing little good with
it. Most Nepalis are glad to see the back of him. Being jostled at that rugby scrum of
a news conference, I wondered how Gyanendra could ever have hoped to be a
success when he grabbed the reins of the state. In the end, royal rule failed to
rescue Nepal from civil war and economic decline, leading instead to street protests
and ultimately his ouster two weeks ago. Gyanendra, 60, said he accepted the
decision to abolish the monarchy. He did not quite apologise for his mistakes, but
he did express sorrow for any suffering he said he may inadvertently have caused.
He spoke movingly of the massacre, when King Birendra and eight other members
of the royal family were shot dead in the same pagoda-roofed palace by Crown
Prince Dipendra, who then turned the gun on himself. He said dignity of office
prevented him from shedding tears but that accusations he might have been
complicit in the murder were “very
“very painful to us and are still so”.
so”.

In the new corridors of power, former Maoist rebels, who fought a decadelong war
to abolish the monarchy but are now on the verge of forming a government, talk of
a “New Nepal”. But the sight of yawning, lackadaisical immigration staff, broken
airport trolleys and chaotic roads on arrival in Kathmandu show the old Nepal is
going to take some shifting. This is one of the world’s poorest countries, where
politicians have a reputation for squabbling and stealing, and bureaucrats are
widely seen as lazy and lacking initiative. Millions of Nepali people live in abject
poverty but the deposed king is widely believed to have a fortune invested in tea,
tobacco and casinos. He will not want for much in his new life as a commoner. But
his family is being forced to leave its home in disgrace and will stay, for the time
being, in a modest tin-roofed hunting lodge on the outskirts of the capital. His
stepmother and his step-grandmother, in their 80s and 90s respectively, have
refused to leave and have been allowed to stay on, in small houses in the palace
grounds. In the old days, Gyanendra had more than 700 staff and retainers, but
these days the palace apparently cannot find anyone to mow the lawn. Those who
are left seem to have lost their spirit. “Many
“Many are weeping and have not eaten meals
for a long time, because they are sorry,”
sorry,” said Madhav Bhattarai, the former king’s
chief religious adviser. “It
“It is natural, some of them have worked there for 40 or 50
years.”
years.” Most Nepali people now believe the country is better off without its
monarchy and a few jeered at Gyanendra as he swept out of the palace in a black
Mercedes for the last time on Wednesday night. But without such a convenient
scapegoat as the king, politicians could face more pressure to achieve something.
In a country as difficult to govern as this, that may take some doing.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 15.06.08

– Budget debate in NA
Both taunts and acclaim marked the start of the budget debate in the National
Assembly on Saturday, but the house seemed much relieved after lawyers closed
their “long march” programme near the parliament house at dawn without a long
sit-in. Since the lawyers seeking reinstatement of deposed judges had kept plans
about the final stage of their highly organised protest to their chests, many people
had expected them to stage a sit-in for at least another day after their arrival in the
capital on Friday night in what could have been a standoff with parliament when
both houses were to meet on Saturday morning to begin their general debates on
the national budget for fiscal 2008-09. But as the National Assembly and the Senate
met, the protest camp had already been folded up after march leader Aitzaz Ahsan
announced the conclusion of the programme. The government feigned unconcerned
after the peaceful end of the lawyers’ protest though the event seemed to be on the
mind of every parliament member, some of whom used their budget speeches to
call for an early reinstatement of the judges of the Supreme Court and the four high
courts who were sacked under President Pervez Musharraf’s controversial Nov 3,
2007, emergency proclamation. Opposition leader in the National Assembly
Chaudhry Pervez Elahi taunted the ruling coalition for a rift between the two main
partners — the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-N
(PML-N) — over the judges’ issue as he lambasted the budget in his opening speech
for what he called a lack of “any
“any vision or a political philosophy”
philosophy” that could reflect
the thinking of the new government’s five-year term.

But the former Punjab chief minister reserved his severest criticism for PML-N,
which leads the new coalition government in the province after a humiliating defeat
of his Pakistan Muslim League (PML) in the Feb 18 election, particularly for what he
saw as an irresponsible attitude of Senator Ishaq Dar as the finance minister in
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s cabinet that he quit with eight other PML-N
ministers because of the differences on how to restore the judges. “This
“This coalition
has many mouths,”
mouths,” he said, adding that the people and the administration are in a
dilemma over which voice to trust and which to disregard as untrue. But Mr Elahi
had stirred up a hornets’ nest with strong rebuttals coming from the treasury
benches including those by former opposition leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman,
whose Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam is a smaller partner in the government, PML-N’s Ahsan
Iqbal and the prime minister’s economic affairs special assistance Hina Rabbani
Khar, who was a minister of state in the previous government. The JUI leader said
the new budget had been prepared within the limits of resources and crises
inherited from the alleged eight-year misrule of President Musharraf but hoped the
direction set by the new government could overcome these problems in one or two
years. Mr Ahsan Iqbal, who resigned as education minister last month, described the
budget as “the
“the best effort in worst conditions”
conditions” and called for the establishment of a
special commission to determine who was responsible for Pakistan’s present
problems such as the energy deficiency, food shortages and a huge trade deficit. He
also called for an early reinstatement of the deposed judges and ouster and
accountability of President Musharraf. Ms Khar blamed what she called a “complete
“complete
policy inaction”
inaction” of the previous government for the current price hike and accused
the opposition leader of mismanaging the affairs of Punjab as chief minister. But she
came under a sharp flak from a former party colleague of the PML, Ms Donya Aziz,
who quoted from some of Ms Khar’s speeches in praise of the previous government
as its minister. Abdul Kadir Khanzada of the Muttahida Quami Movement praised the
budget for some of its proposals such as freezing the defence budget and
increasing salaries and pensions of government employees, but criticised the
reduction in subsidies on wheat, electricity and gas, and called for the release of
what he called blocked funds for development plans in Karachi.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 15.06.08

– Long march ends on bitter note

The lawyers’ long march ended on a bitter note after a group of lawyers and
political activists insisted on staging a sit-in outside the Parliament House and
accused Aitzaz Ahsan of striking a ‘deal’ with the government. About 50 agitated
protesters tried to scale the ship containers set up at the D-Chowk and enter the
protected area where the Parliament House, President House and Supreme Court
are located. They removed barbed wires and beat up some security personnel. They
said they had been promised that their protest would continue until their demands
were met. Aitzaz Ahsan, the president of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA),
delivered an emotional speech and said that those who were accusing him of
striking a deal should realise that he had once turned down an offer of premiership
made by the president. “The“The president told me that he could ask the then prime
minister, Shaukat Aziz, to step down ‘in 15 minutes’, but first I had to stop
supporting the deposed chief justice.”
justice.” Mr Ahsan said he had sacrificed a lot for the
cause and refused to become a joint PPP-PML-N candidate for two National
Assembly seats. “I“I can assure you that I or my colleagues cannot compromise on
the issue of the judiciary,”
judiciary,” he told the people who wanted to proceed towards the
Parliament House. Persuading them to disperse peacefully, he said: “One “One thing
which I did not want to say before the full glare of the media is that if we go ahead
and stage the sit-in, this huge gathering will dwindle to just 2,000 and the impact of
this show of strength will be spoilt. “We will not relent on the issue until
independent judges are reinstated,”
reinstated,” he said.

Urging the people to go home, Mr Aitzaz said: “We “We will fight the war at the right
time and at the right place.”
place.” Earlier during the rally, lawyers, representatives of civil
society and politicians called for President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation and the
reinstatement of deposed judges, including Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry,
‘with honour and dignity’.
dignity’. Participants of the largest demonstration in Islamabad yet
criticised the role of Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), especially Asif Ali Zardari, and
accused it of delaying the restoration of the judiciary. They said the time had come
for President Musharraf’s impeachment, adding that he should be held accountable
for his nine-year-long ‘misrule’. “President
“President Musharraf will not be given safe passage.
He will be impeached and held accountable for his deeds,” deeds,” chief of the Pakistan
Muslim League-N Nawaz Sharif said. “The “The president must be held accountable for
the killing of innocent children in the Jamia Hafsa and the Lal Masjid, unprecedented
price hikes, shortage of flour, the killing of 50 people in Karachi on May 12 last year,
military operations in Balochistan and tribal areas and the virtual collapse of the
economy,”
economy,” Mr Sharif said. The lawyers’ long march turned into a public meeting in
Islamabad and was at tended by representatives of civil society, ex-servicemen,
workers of the PPP, PML-N, Jamaat-i-Islami, Pakistan Tehrik-iInsaaf, the Khaksar
Tehrik, doctors, former diplomats, Madressah students, traders and businessmen
and remained at the parade venue for more than 14 hours – from 3pm on Friday to
5am Saturday. The PML-N chief, who joined the gathering at 3am, urged
participants to keep up the pressure. “I “I can see the country’s destiny changing
because of your tremendous resolve.”
resolve .”

Mr Sharif said that he could not understand why the PPP co-chairman was reluctant
to honour the Murree Declaration. “Although
“Although I am a coalition partner, I will always
support the lawyers’ demand … for restoring the pre-Nov 3, 2007, judiciary.”
judiciary.”
However, he urged the protesters to avoid staging a sit-in because they had
recorded their protest and given a stern message to the circles concerned. “This “This
was the first step. My party is with you. We will come again … but before staging
the sit-in (in front of the Parliament House), all stakeholders must agree, otherwise
we will leave,”
leave,” Mr Sharif said. A timely interference by some lawyers stopped a
group of young protestors from proceeding farther into the Red Zone, otherwise an
uncontrollable law and order situation could have arisen. The programme ended at
5am and people dispersed except for some youths who kept their vigil till 3pm on
Saturday. Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik, along with senior
security officials, visited the venue and expressed satisfaction over the peaceful
conclusion of the protest. Terming the lawyers’ protest a success, the adviser
estimated that about 20,000 people had attended the event.
Author Location Dated
Bruce Wallace Tokyo, Japan 15.06.08

– A trail of digital tears

“I’m going to kill people in Akihabara. I’m going to crash into a crowd of people and
when the car is down I’ll use a knife. Goodbye everyone”
everyone” Text message believed to
have been posted on the web by Tomohiro Kato at 5:21am the day seven people
were slain in Tokyo’s Akihabara district. In the days leading up to Sunday’s deadly
violence, Tomohiro Kato is believed to have written hundreds of anonymous text
messages posted from his cell phone to an Internet bulletin board, exposing
intimate details of his unhappy life. The writer complained that his parents ditched
him when he reached high school, blaming his plummeting grades on their refusal
to help him study. He lamented that he was ugly and had no girlfriend. “That’s
“That’s the
source of my problems,”
problems,” police believe the 25-year-old temporary auto parts worker
wrote. “I’m
“I’m in a mood to kill people regardless of who they are.”
are.” The warning was
not enough to avert a rampage that left seven dead and 10 injured in the popular
Akihabara district. The internet can link people from around the block and around
the world, but it can also, as Kato’s experience seems to show, be a lonely place, a
black hole for data. Kato is now reportedly telling police that his repeated internet
threats to kill people were a cry for help. If so, they had about the same effect as a
man standing in a closet and screaming with a bucket over his head. “Despite
“Despite his
appeal, nobody responded to him,”
him,” said Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara in an
interview. The head of Japan’s massive metropolis has been a prominent critic of
what he sees as the loss of old social ties and the atomisation of younger
generations of Japanese. No amount of online living could compensate for Kato’s
loneliness, he argued.

“He was in a virtual world,”

world,” Ishihara said. “He
“He was not connected to anyone.”
anyone.” Police
believe Kato blogged about his progress as he traveled from his home 60 miles
south of Tokyo to Akihabara, the capital’s sacred turf for digital youth culture.The
chosen location is laden with significance. Akihabara is Tokyo’s subversive neon
playground for young Japanese males, the place they come for the pleasures of the
maid cafes where young women dressed in tunics and lace cater to their non-sexual
fetishes, or to browse for animated films and manga comics that drip with themes of
sex and sexual violence. Akihabara is also the cradle of Kato’s own kind: awkward
loners devoted to cartoon worlds populated by animated characters and robots. In
the posts, Kato allegedly professed to be interested only in “two-dimensional
“two-dimensional
girlfriends”.
girlfriends”. The five-minute spasm of violence on Sunday, during which Kato
allegedly struck at least three people while driving a truck before leaping out and
slashing his way through the crowd with a survival knife, has injected a dose of dark
reality into Akihabara’s fantasies. The sidewalk shrines of flowers and green tea that
swelled in the aftermath were for real victims: a retired dentist shopping with his
son for a computer, a music student, a cook. “Japan“Japan is the Petri dish for how far you
can go replacing your real life with a virtual one,”
one,” said Roland Kelts, author of
Japanamerica, a study of the global appeal of Japanese pop culture. “But “But there’s
also a dark side to that. Is a virtual life really satisfying? Is it an adequate substitute
for a wife and kids, or friends? And if you look at Kato’s postings, you see the outer
limits of virtual life.”
life.” If Kato is confirmed as the blogger who dropped a trail of
digital breadcrumbs leading to his crime, he would be just one of millions of young
Japanese who have come to diarize the details of their lives. Tokyo is awash in
young people offering a real time description of where they are now, what they’re
doing now, how they feel at this moment. Kato reportedly told investigators he
picked Akihabara because he knew it would be packed with shoppers and gawkers
on a Sunday afternoon, when its main thoroughfare is limited to pedestrian traffic.
There was no refuge for the dead and injured.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 15.06.08

– Opposition, treasury assail amendments through Finance Bill

In a unique show of unanimity of views, both treasury and opposition members in
the Senate on Saturday criticised the government for continuing the legacy of
bringing “irrelevant
“irrelevant”
” legal amendments through the Finance Bill, including
increasing the number of Supreme Court judges. The Leader of the House, Mian
Raza Rabbani, said: “In
“In my opinion 12 of the 26 proposed amendments in the bill
have no relevance to finance. Twelve are related to financial matters while 80 per
cent of two legislative pieces were partially related to finance.”
finance.” He said that such
legislation should have been avoided through the bill. The upper house of the
parliament started a debate on the Finance Bill 2008 contained in the budget
statement under Article 73 of the Constitution. Earlier, in the absence of the Leader
of Opposition, Kamil Ali Agha, Anwar Bhinder of the PML-Q initiated the debate and
condemned what he called a strange tendency of introducing irrelevant
amendments through the Finance Bill. The Senate is expected to complete the
general debate on budget on Monday by continuing it on Sunday. It will continue
the debate on Tuesday and Wednesday after the house finance committee finalises
recommendations on the issue. Mr Rabbani also criticised the increase in allocations
for the presidency and said he had proposed the removal of the president’s name
from article 50 which made him part of parliament. Terming the budget “lacklus
“lacklus tre
and unimaginative”,
unimaginative”, Wasim Sajjad said it offered no relief to the poor people and
would lead to increase in food prices. He said the coalition government had failed to
resolve issues of unemployment and price hike. He said that education and food
security should be considered as fundamental rights in constitutional amendments.
He criticised Ishaq Dar of the PML-N for painting a dismal picture of the economy
which had caused the depreciation of the rupee against the dollar and discouraged
foreign investors. He said the government should encourage the agro-based
industry and added that instead of scrapping the Kalabagh dam, it should try to
create consensus on the project. He said that in order to resolve the judges’ issue,
the constitutional package related to judges might be de-linked from the rest of the
package.

Mr Bhinder said the government’s move of incorporating legislative pieces in the

Finance Bill was a clear breach of the privilege of the Senate, which was thus
bypassed, adding that he would move a privilege motion against it. Deploring the
government for holding no pre-budget session of the National Assembly and Senate,
he said the elected representatives had been deprived of giving their input in the
process. Kamran Murtaza of the MMA urged the government to resolve the financial
problems of Balochistan. He regretted that the government had not taken any
initiative regarding the National Finance Commission in the budget to fulfil the
constitutional requirements. He called for resolving issues between the centre and
the provinces. He said the 20 per cent increase in salary of government employees
would provide little relief to low-grade employees. Saadia Abbasi of the PML-N
criticised the increase in GST and said the measure would lead to an increase in
prices of essential food items. She said the government should ask the US for
enhancing its assistance in the war on terror. Senator Khalid Ranjha said that about
22 of 26 laws in the Finance Bill contradicted its definition. He said that making no
allocation for strengthening the judicial system had exposed the sincerity of the
government to provide people with cheaper and quicker justice. Criticising the
increase in the number of Supreme Court judges, he said it would be justified if the
number of family, civil, session and high courts judges had also been increased.
Senator Dr Mohammed Saeed of the Jamaat-i-Islami urged the government to
abolish sales tax and customs duty on food items. He described the imposition of
fixed tax on sale of real estate as ‘unreasonable’ and demanded that the Federal
Bureau of Statistics should be privatised to avoid any future fudging of figures. Prof
Ibrahim of the JI proposed a 50 per cent cut in salary of the president, prime
minister, ministers and lawmakers to cope with budgetary constraints.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 16.06.08

– Budget debate fails to interest senators

Senators showed little interest in the discussion on the budget, resulting in lack of
quorum during the two Senate sessions on Sunday. Most of the time their numbers
fluctuated between 10 and 12 against a required minimum of 25 and arguments
continued because no one pointed out the lack of quorum. Leader of the Opposition
in the Senate Kamil Ali Agha said it was not a welfare-oriented budget. He said the
industrial sector was facing grave problems because of unprecedented increase in
oil prices. He said that cheap hydro-electricity was the answer to people’s problems.
He proposed that all loans up to Rs200,000 should be written off. He said the
government’s decision to control non-development expenditure was a positive step,
but it still remained to be implemented. Mr Agha said that it was time to strengthen
parliament and “solve
“solve issues here, and not on the streets”.
streets”. Senator Mushahid
Hussain claimed that the budget had been prepared by the team left by Shaukat
Aziz. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is facing a crisis of governance because no one knows who is
making decisions.”
decisions.” Praising the decision to bring the defence budget in parliament,
he said that there was a need to redefine ‘national
‘national security’.
security’. Criticising the
government, Mushahid Hussain said that it was victimising its political opponents.
“Cases are being registered … in Sindh, Balochistan and Punjab.”
Punjab.” He said that the
opposition had not been provided a copy of the constitutional package yet, adding
that it could not be adopted without the opposition’s cooperation. He said that the
PPP had announced holding an all-parties conference on Balochistan, but so far no
concrete step had been taken. He said that his party wanted the coalition
government to be “successful
“successful … because we all have stakes in the success of this
system … We are ready to cooperate”.
cooperate”.

Prof Sajid Mir said that before scrapping the Kalabagh dam project, it should have
been discussed in parliament. He opposed the proposal to withdraw subsidies on
foodstuff and electricity bills. Senator Dr Kausar Firdaus said the budget lacked
long-term solutions for tackling the problems of unemployment and inflation. She
said that at least Rs100 billion should have been allocated for education, health and
water sectors. Senator Tahir Hussain Mashhadi called for abolishing the concurrent
list and granting greater autonomy to provinces. “Stronger
“Stronger federating units
guarantee a strong centre.”
centre.” Criticising the budget, he said that no special attention
had been given to address the problems of price-hike, unemployment, energy crisis
or other problems in education and health sectors. Senator Simeen Siddiqui called
for a phased withdrawal of subsidies on utilities and foodstuff to control the budget
deficit. She said despite being an agricultural country, domestic farming sector
remained the “most
“most neglected area of the national economy”.
economy”. She suggested that
male health workers should also be appointed to supplement Lady Health Workers.
Praising the issuance of Benazir card scheme, she said that Rs1,000 was insufficient
to help the poor. She urged the government to simplify the procedure for setting up
new industries and said irritants hampered investment. Senator Sameena Rauf
urged the government to review the national trade policy and said only surplus
items should be exported and domestic needs should not be overlooked. She also
called for strengthening the farm sector and said that the irrigation system should
be improved to control wastage of irrigation water.

Senator Sahibzada Khalid Jan praised the budget and said that more attention
should be paid to the agriculture sector, particularly in the field of agricultural
research. He said that the Benzair Income Support Programme was a good step, but
it should not be run on the pattern of Pakistan Baitul Mal and the Zakat Fund. He
said that several projects under the Tameer-i-Watan and Tameer-i-Pakistan
programmes remained incomplete and called for an investigation by a Senate
committee. Senator Talha Mehmood said that billions of rupees had been “wasted “wasted
on operations in Swat and Waziristan”,
Waziristan”, which could have been used for providing
subsidies to control prices of daily use items. He said: “It
“It was strange that we have
the world’s fourth largest coal reserves but still face an energy crisis”.
crisis”. Senator
Haroon Akhtar defended the previous government’s policies.

Author Location Dated

Ghazala Rahman 16.06.08

– Street fighting days

Who in Pakistan believes elections mean democracy? Iraqis learned beheading
Saddam heralded neither freedom nor democracy. Even many Americans
discovered they went to war ‘not in our name’ since WMD never turned up in Iraq.
Worldwide it is possible to participate in seemingly free and fair elections, vote for a
party and then face a government that doesn’t represent you. However, despite its
systemic historic/current flaws, Americans continue their engagement with
democracy in numerous painstaking and persistent ways. One shining example is
that 45 years after Dr King’s “I have a Dream” speech, America finally produced
African American Barack Obama, (middle name Hussain) as their democratic
nominee. However, ‘direct democracy’ happens when citizens bypass
representatives and legislatures and make policy and law decisions in person. An
example is the New England Town Meeting where anyone can walk in, debate and
then vote on town policy. (Imagine being able to do this in Karachi or any where
else in Sindh!) But to continually fine tune local politics Americans realised that this
form of direct democracy works only for some communities. Low attendance at
many town meetings makes them somewhat undemocratic. Being genetically
innovative, some Americans then proposed a ‘new ‘new and improved’ (always!) way to
‘do’ direct democracy. They focused on widespread (high tech) voting schemes that
captured almost continual voting by millions of citizens on whatever proposals
surfaced. The method lacked organised public deliberation about issues in question.
Apparently, this form of democracy led to mere gathering of opinion polls and not
an exercise of citizenship. “Wise
“Wise solutions to public problems won’t likely come off
the top of a hundred million heads….”,
heads….”, is one problem associated with this type of
democracy.

A third approach to direct democracy is the ‘initiative process’. It is practicable even

in beleaguered Sindh as it is locale-friendly. This method allows anyone to propose
a law, get it cosponsored by fellow citizens (signing petitions) and voted upon by
the entire electorate in the next election. But experience tells us that apparent
empowering of grassroots is frequently a ruse. This process has often been co-opted
by special interest groups; usually moneyed in the case of the US and gun-toting
hoodlums in the Pakistani instance. If all three approaches to direct democracy raise
questions about how wise or democratic they are in practice then how does one
satisfy democracy’s existential demand: participation by the broad citizenry or at
least those affected by the decision? This may sound bizarre and naive in a
Pakistani newspaper (since the lame duck president is still in his white house), but
wisdom requires that now is exactly when, at this sickening, lurching juncture,
Pakistanis contemplate and offer focused consideration to such issues. The
consequences involved in various democratic options always require ongoing
examination. Under prevailing conditions perhaps all we can manage is a virtual
rehearsal for a viable democratic life. Perhaps this time around too, we (‘demo’: the
ordinary people of a community or nation) can practice (‘–cracy’: rule, government,
power) only in our heads; and that too late at night, or in the dream state, while
holding some daytime vision of getting it right someday….

So where does wisdom come from? In a democracy, a vital source of collective

wisdom is informed deliberation among people whose diversity approximates the
diversity of their community or country. Democratic innovations that embody this
understanding are uncommon in Pakistan but there was a shining moment in this
country’s history. Talking about his ‘Street
‘Street Fighting Days’
Days’ Tariq Ali (2008) said, that
while many revolutions (e.g., Czechoslavakia) of the Sixties failed, “…There’s
“…There’s one
country where they fought for three months, the students in Pakistan, against a
military dictatorship. And the struggle began on Nov 7, 1968, went on ‘til March 10,
1969 … if you look at the chronology of that struggle … it gets bigger … white-collar
workers join, lawyers … women … judges come out on the streets, prostitutes get
organised … It became a massive social struggle every day, the number of people
getting killed gets bigger …We still don’t have accurate figures of how many people
the police and army shot dead in Pakistan…. “ “…finally, when … workers began to
disrupt the railways … demand was very simple: end of dictatorship, and
democratic free elections…. But … Field Marshal Ayub Khan, backed by Washington
and London, was standing firm, ‘til he realised he couldn’t carry on. And in March,
he was toppled.”
toppled.” Can we extend the term ‘deliberation’ to de-tracking railways? But
then what should an informed citizenry do under a dictatorship? Violence is never
condonable but it is not so hard in the Pakistani paradigm (since alternate roads are
perennially blocked) to view people’s struggle in 1968-1969 as a deliberation; a
huge, unwieldy but magnificent deliberation. Such deliberation produces public
judgment, a far higher form of collective intelligence than mere public opinion. It
would be very nice to do things peacefully. It is still the case though that broadly
recognised citizen deliberation and public judgment do bring public wisdom to
public power. And this power is always bestowed by direct democracy. But this
power is also always, particularly in Pakistan, crushed by autocracy, whether
dressed in uniform or silk.

Still, such a combination of power and wisdom begins to approach an ideal

democratic form. At a minimum, at least a semblance of a bearable public life
emerges where the majority of people experience a shared timbre at the heart-
mind level. This has occurred in a few, magical and unforgettable instances in
Pakistani history. Sadly, the anarchy which accompanied the uprisings (that were
only attempting to pry open an avenue of democracy) deteriorated into mobocracy.
This then, as we witnessed, fed upon itself until it was spent or bent. Mobocracy is
the state we inherited in 1947, amidst the chaos of mass immigration that is now
estimated at a million plus lives. Post dictatorships (military and civilian) and post
61 years of an impotent education system, no one expects a Gandhian political
response in Pakistan. Still it matters that there are, on the planet, examples of small
communities and large societies’ that practice a peacetime version of the level of
advanced, though chaotic, democracy, like that winter-spring (1968-69) in Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Hilda Saeed 16.06.08

– The unfinished agenda

Even to minds hardened by daily reports of violence and abuse of women, reading
an overview of the issue comes as a shock. The wide span of cruelty that one
human being can inflict upon another is overwhelming; the estimates, and the types
of violence, are frighteningly high. The geographical spread of brutality seems to
indicate that abuse of women is part and parcel of everyday Pakistani life,
everywhere. As it is, Pakistan has a reprehensible reputation for most of its basic
social sector indicators — poverty, gender balance, health, education — in each of
these, we are at the bottom of the ladder. In case of violence against women,
Pakistan is globally near the shocking top of countries that are prone to abusing
their women. Crimes range from incest, rape, burning, bondage, trafficking, dowry
deaths, watta satta, pait likhi, karo kari and other forms of honour killings, to acid
attacks and spousal murder. Feudal landlords and tribal leaders have their own
private dungeons. Violence and abuse of women in Pakistan is estimated to be in
the tragic range of 70 to 90 per cent.

Clearly, the odds are heavily stacked against Pakistani women; equally clearly, the
violence is gender-based. The international group Human Rights Watch (HRW) is of
the opinion that women’s situation, vis-à-vis men, is one of systemic subordination.
The reasons are attributed to uneven socio-economic development and wide social
disparities. The impact of tribal and feudal social formations is significant. HRW
maintains: “There
“There is no question that Violence Against Women (VAW) in Pakistan is
an enormous problem. The state response so far has been minimal…we found
staggering cases of intra family VAW, generally interpreted as a private family
matter, not subject to government intervention”. Sharing these views, the Human
Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) considers women from poor and middle
classes to be the worst victims. They face multiple forms of violence: sexual abuse
by family members, burning, and disfiguration with acid, beatings, threats, custodial
abuse, torture and even spousal murder. “Their
“Their resourcelessness”,
resourcelessness”, states HRCP,
“makes them primary targets of police and criminals; it also renders them
vulnerable to oppressive customs and mores inside homes and outside.”
outside.” Since
1979, the introduction of laws which proved discriminatory to women worsened an
already disturbing situation. The combination of discriminatory laws and customary
practices denied women their human rights. Pervasive institutional and judicial
discrimination, along with illegal detention and custodial violence make it nearly
impossible for women to obtain justice. In extreme cases women may be driven to
suicide. Admittedly, various governments have made an effort to address this
critical issue. The Women’s Protection Act, 2007, went a long way in ameliorating
some of the worst abuses, but greater efforts at implementation are needed;
traditional and customary violence also needs to be stopped.

So great is the range and extent of physical violence that verbal violence and
psychological abuse perforce have to take a back seat. It is a well-known fact
worldwide, that two thirds of all psychiatric patients are women: much of this may
be stemming from abuse within the home. Certainly there are more reasons than
abuse alone for this, but only too often, what the family physician classifies as
psychosomatic illness may have its roots in abuse at home. Many in the medical
profession are concerned: it is they who treat the end result of violence, battering,
and sexual abuse. Numerous research papers vouch for their growing concern. The
UN General Assembly in 1993 defined VAW as “any “any act of gender-based violence
that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, social or psychological harm or
suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation
of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life”.
life”. The World Health Organisation
(WHO) reports that worldwide, at least one out of three women have been beaten,
coerced into sex, or otherwise abused. Overwhelmingly, men are the abusers, and
the victims, women. While recognising that VAW is pervasive throughout the world,
it also needs to be recognised that a fair amount of such abuse is prevalent in this
country. Gender-based violence is both a human rights and a public health concern,
yet the Ministry of Health is in no way involved. Abuse of women is known to
increase during pregnancy, leading to the woman’s own continued illness,
miscarriages and possible death. The baby also suffers: premature birth, low birth
weight babies, infant morbidity and death are common findings. Additionally, there
is heightened risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS. VAW further
leads to unwanted/unintended pregnancies (and often, unsafe, ‘illegal’ abortion).

The problem remains grim, and by no means adequately addressed. The national
statistics on VAW are at variance with the ‘happy family’ picture that Pakistanis are
keen to portray. Is that united, loving family largely a superficial daydream? Are our
cultural norms and traditions set in stone? Can they never be changed? No matter
how damaging they are to society? Do those statistics also indicate that the
Pakistani male habitually vents his frustration on the woman closest to him, his
intimate life partner, because she is powerless to retaliate? Does it mean that
winning the sexual power game is more important to him than having an amicable
marital relationship? Going by the high prevalence of sexual harassment, do these
statistics also indicate that many men regard girls and women as easy prey? All
men are not abusive, yet the estimates of VAW, and the unsavoury reputation that
Pakistan is gaining, seem to point to their abusive behaviour. Despite repeated flack
from human rights bodies and activists, despite daily reports of these crimes in our
newspapers, the state has continued to be lax in addressing this critical issue.
Agreed, it may not have the same significance as the many political crises that
engulf us, but nonetheless, it is important if it affects half the country’s population.
The shame of VAW has been with us since Pakistan’s inception; if the aim is real
gender justice, and elimination of violence and abuse, when can we look forward to
greater justice? One can only agree with eminent lawyer Rashida Patel when she
says, “Change
“Change can only come about when the political will exists to achieve
change”.
change”. Can we hope for that political will?

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Farruki faruqui@pacbell.net 16.06.08

– A bomb at all cost

Is the bomb necessary to Pakistan’s survival? And is Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, widely
credited with being its creator, the mastermind of the global nuclear weapons
proliferation ring? These questions have surfaced yet again because in a recent
interview over the telephone to The Washington Post, Dr Khan stated that it was
Pakistan’s humiliating defeat in the 1971 war with India that sparked his desire to
help Pakistan build the bomb. Khan also said that the development of a nuclear
weapons programme was a proud accomplishment for Pakistan, adding that the two
rival nations had not gone to war since the atomic explosions in May 1998. Dr Khan
also withdrew the confession that he made on national television in 2004, saying he
was coerced into it by people who said, “No“No one will believe it. This statement has
no legal value. Everyone knows you are a national hero.”
hero.” Emboldened by
Musharraf’s slipping power, Dr Khan has taken the offensive and declared that the
Musharraf government was blameworthy for the proliferation of weapons to Iran,
Libya and North Korea. He also promised that in due course of time, “the “the truth will
come out”.
out”. Dr Khan seems to have left the door open to having disseminated
nuclear weapons technology legally because he claims to have only carried out the
government’s bidding and to have briefed then Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto
regularly. He also denies violating any laws since Pakistan did not sign the Nuclear
NonProliferation Treaty. The acclaimed scientist also endorsed the most enduring
myth in Pakistan’s strategic culture — survival depends on having, but not using,
the bomb since India is Pakistan’s inveterate enemy and the war of 1971 is living
proof of its malevolence. But this fable does not stand up to the test of history. It
was not India that precipitated the civil war in East Pakistan but Gen Yahya’s
myopic policies. The civil war triggered a mass exodus of refugees into India which
ultimately invited artillery shelling from across the border. Even then, a fullscale war
could have been averted. But after Pakistan bombed Indian airfields in the western
theatre on Dec 3, defeat in the eastern theatre was a matter of time. The fact that it
happened in less than two weeks was simply a comment on how martial law had
sapped the fighting will of the Pakistani army.

Going further back in time to August 1965, we find the same symptoms. Based on a
misreading of India’s intentions and an exaggerated assessment of its own
capabilities, the army sparked a guerrilla insurgency in Indian Kashmir, hoping to
stir up a revolt. That never happened. Some of the guerrillas were turned over to
Indian authorities by native Kashmiris and spilt the beans on All India Radio. The full
scale war that erupted when India retaliated against Lahore in September was
initially touted as a victory by the generals in Rawalpindi. But with the passage of
time, and as one Pakistani general after another penned his memoirs, it emerged as
a military debacle of immense magnitude; one in which all the mistakes of the
misadventure of 1947-48 were repeated on a grander scale, with armour and jet
fighters. Contrary to Dr Khan’s assertion, the bomb simply makes the Pakistani
establishment even more war prone. How else does one explain the debacle in
Kargil? Instead of contributing to the nation’s survival, the bomb is inexorably
contributing to its decline. On the one hand, national sovereignty has been
compromised by myriad interventions from the West to ensure that nuclear
weapons do not fall into evil hands. On the other end, the political culture has been
destroyed as suicide bombings have been employed to bring about political change.

As to the second issue of Dr Khan’s role in the proliferation ring, we still don’t know
the truth and may not live to know it. The topic continues to spawn debate across
the world. The latest contribution comes from Adrian Levy and Catherine Scott-Clark
who have written a copious book, Deception: Pakistan, the United States and the
Global Nuclear Weapons Conspiracy. Levy and Scott-Clark state that contrary to
popular perception, Pakistan’s search for nuclear weapons was not hidden from the
US. President Ronald Reagan simply looked the other way so that the covert war
against the Soviets in Afghanistan would not be compromised. The authors allege
that there were people in the US government who wanted to blow the whistle on
Pakistan’s nuclear programme but they were silenced by a bevy of American
defence contractors and their counterparts in the Pentagon. Decades after
President Eisenhower warned of the existence of a military-industrial complex, it
was very much alive and well. They also argue that when aid was cut off by the
original President Bush, Pakistan had already acquired bomb-making materials and
resorted to selling its technology and know-how to other countries as a means of
financing its ever expanding nuclear programme. The country was in a nuclear arms
race with India from which there was no exit. The doomsday scenarios kept getting
scarier. And tensions along with expenditure on conventional weapons did not
diminish either. There was no ‘nuclear dividend’. The book also suggests that Dr
Khan could not have set up and carried out an international proliferation ring
without the blessings of GHQ. To back-up their assertions, the writers cite numerous
interviews that they conducted with senior American and Pakistani officials. But this
information is hard to verify.

Few would deny that Dr Khan was instrumental in bringing the bomb to Pakistan. He
richly deserves whatever accolades such an accomplishment generates and merits.
Whether he was responsible for global proliferation or not, only time can and will
tell. Until such time it is unfair to accuse him. But on one fundamental issue, Dr
Khan is not only wrong but a danger to Pakistan’s future. He has confused cause
and effect in history when he argues that the bomb has made Pakistan stronger. In
fact, it has made it weaker. It would be best for him to stay out of military strategy,
a subject which is clearly not his territory. Surely being immortalised in a future
Hollywood production as the Dr Strangelove of Pakistan is not one of his ambitions. ¦
The writer is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the
University of Bradford.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 16.06.08
 – Govt under fire in NA Impeachment motion soon, says PML-N
The Pakistan Muslim League-N told the National Assembly on Sunday that it planned
to table a resolution soon for the impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf.
Speaking on the second day of the general debate on the budget, Hanif Abbasi of
the PML-N wondered how any change in policy could occur when the legacy of Gen
(retd) Musharraf persisted and the same people who served under him held key
posts, including the attorney-general, the Capital Development Authority chairman
and the Pakistan Cricket Board chief. He said he would not talk much about the
budget, but would say only that it had disappointed the common people by bringing
hardship for them through withdrawal of subsidies and proposing no step for
providing relief to them. He said the trader community had rejected an increase in
General Sales Tax after withdrawal of subsidies, saying that it would increase
inflation and the government would not be able to control prices. Criticising Defence
minister Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar for his muted response to the recent missile
attack on Mohmand Agency, he said the government owed an explanation to the
nation as to what was the purpose of keeping 550,000-strong armed forces and the
nuclear capability if the country was not able to defend its land against foreign
aggression. “The
“The aggressors need to be warned that their planes will be shot down
if they intrude into Pakistani territory again,”
again,” Mr Abbasi said.

The government faced some anxious moments when coalition lawmakers came
down hard on it for giving a tax-laden budget without providing any relief to the
poor and adopting what was termed an unconstitutional way of increasing the
number of Supreme Court judges to 29 through the Money Bill. Some hardcore PPP
legislators took upon themselves the duty of defending the budgetary provisions
and claiming that they included many incentives for the common people. Justice
(retd) Fakhrunnisa Khokhar of the PPP termed the government’s move of including
the legislation to increase the number of Supreme Court judges in the budget
unconstitutional. She said that if the government wanted to increase the number of
judges, it should do so for the high courts to cope with the backlog of cases. She
said Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani’s orders of paying salaries of the
deposed judges had been implemented only for the high court judges and not for
those of the Supreme Court. She also criticised the government over its failure to
levy capital gain tax or wealth tax on a few bigwigs of the stock exchange who,
according to her, had made the market hostage. She accused Arif Habib (a friend of
former prime minister Shaukat Aziz), Aqeel Dhedy and Ejaz Shah of being involved
in stock exchange manipulations. Farzana Raja of the PPP said Speaker Dr Fehmida
Mirza had taken a courageous decision by not allowing Rangers to enter the
premises of the Parliament House during the long march. Riaz Pirzada of the PML-Q
said that the budget had been prepared by the bureaucracy under dictation from
somewhere else as had been done in the past and the blame of its bad aspects had
been put on the shoulders of politicians. He proposed that the budgets should be
presented two to three months earlier, saying that the country no more needed to
wait for foreign help in preparing the document. He called for accountability of all
segments of the society, in cluding parliament, judiciary and the executive, to make
Pakistan an egalitarian welfare state.

Mr Pirzada held the intelligence agencies responsible for most of the country’s ills.
He said some political leaders were in the habit of supporting ruling individuals by
saying that their remaining in power was necessary for the country. He said a
parallel judiciary would emerge if the number of judges of the Supreme Court was
increased. Iqbal Qadri recommended withdrawal of GST on edible items to bring
their prices down and enhancement of health budget to four to five per cent of the
GDP. He claimed that about half of the medicines in the country’s markets were
fake. He said there were 264 medicines on the drug list but over 20,000 medicines
were registered in the country. Chaudhry Abdul Ghafoor said the country had
received about $70 billion in foreign remittances and aid since 1999 but the amount
had not been utilised properly. He said Pakistani nationals had been handed over to
the US in exchange for dollars in the name of fighting terrorism. Dr Attiya
Inayatullah criticised PML-N’s role of being part of the coalition government and
leading the long march against it at the same time. She said the National
Reconciliation Ordinance had benefited some individuals while the budget would
add to the suffering of the people. She said that the Benazir Card scheme was more
likely to benefit party ‘jialas’ than deserving people because the National Database
and Registration Authority did not have any details about the income of the people.
She said people would come to know of the effects of the budget when the subsidy
on certain items and utilities would be withdrawn from July 1.

Author Location Dated

S. M. Naseem syed.naseem@aya.yale.ed 16.06.08
u

– A budget in midst of political turmoil

This year’s budget, presented in the midst of political uncertainty, especially in the
shadow of the lawyers-led long march, as well as in the absence of a unified
visionary leadership and prepared with the help of a mixed bag of experts, could
hardly be expected to overcome either the enormous economic challenges or meet
the high hopes for change raised by the 18 February elections. The challenging task
of preparing the current budget was shared by two former finance ministers Mr
Ishaq Dar and Mr Naveed Qamar but, after the former resigned, it fell to the latter’s
lot to finalise it. Mr Dar had been preoccupied with attending the IMF-World Bank
meetings and preparing a white paper on the host of fiscal, financial and balance of
payments problems created by the strategically flawed policies of the three-year-
long Shaukat Aziz regime and the tactical inaction by the caretaker government
headed by another Citibanker, which created a mayhem in the economy. While Mr
Dar was engaged primarily in mending the fragile and faltering economy through
improving investor confidence, the midstream change to Mr Naveed Qamar
presented the PPP, which had reluctantly foregone the economic ministries to
accommodate its coalition partners, a welcome opportunity to focus on its populist
agenda — especially to counter the unfavourable effects of its feet-dragging on the
judges’ restoration issue. His task became even more challenging, as in addition to
repairing the wrecked economy, he also had to deal with relieving the burden of the
poor who were groaning under unprecedented rise in inflation especially in the
basic wage goods, such as food, fuel, transport and housing.

While the past regime’s ingenuous window dressing of its macroeconomic

performance came home to roost only recently, the comeuppance of its distributive
policies had been apparent for much longer and was treated cavalierly as an
acceptable cost of growth – a fallacy which brought the regime’s downfall. Whether
by incompetence or by design, the previous regime also failed to make appropriate
infrastructure investments, especially in water and power, which is now manifesting
itself in critical shortages of supply of food and fuel, exacerbated by a global
inflation. By delaying the necessary fiscal and monetary adjustments in light of
prevailing domestic and global economic environment, the problems were further
aggravated. The decision to address these issues was deferred, until after the
impending elections in the hope that it would help it in winning the elections or, if
that didn’t work, it would put pressure on the new government not to deviate from
the political and economic policies of the Musharraf-Aziz regime. All these factors
created serious multiple imbalances in the economy, which could hardly be
addressed in a single year’s budget, hurriedly put together in the midst of a political
maelstrom whose strength and direction remain unknown.

The present budget, therefore, can best be viewed as a holding operation until such
time as the political horizon gets clearer and a comprehensive economic strategy to
obliterate the deleterious effects of the elitist and inegalitarian policies of the
Musharraf era can be articulated. The best it has been possible to do in the budget
in order not to disappoint PPP’s core vote bank – which it may need to tap into once
again in the not too distant future – are some welfare measures which strongly
smack of tokenism and are incapable of solving the immediate problem of food
inflation facing the poor, much less the basic issues of growth, poverty and
inequality, which need a much more concerted and organised effort than marginal
changes in the past poverty alleviation programs. These measures, such as the
Benazir Income Support Card Programme to supplement the incomes of those
unable to cope with the food inflation and the 20 per cent increase in the “basic”
salaries of government servants and pensions and a number of employment-
generating measures, which are largely a repackaging of old schemes which have
not been successful in the past. Not only Rs1200 (or less than $20) per family per
month or about Rs200 (or about $2) per person per month woefully inadequate by
any reckoning, the number of families covered and the mechanism of reaching the
targeted families (3.3 million or about a third of those below the poverty line) seem
to inadequate to alleviate the suffering of those now threatened by the menacing
increase in the prices of food and fuel which are unlikely to stop any time soon.

The hope to contain inflation through monetary policy is illusory under the current
circumstances. The only way to protect the poor seems to be through raising their
wages commensurately with their cost of living and enhancing their entitlements of
essential commodities. The process of monetization and financial liberalization has
gone too far and has affected the poor who work mostly in the informal sector
adversely, while the rich whose consumption of the food and other essential items
is relatively small, are much less affected by the current wave of inflation. In
situations like this, even developed countries resort to rationing and non-market
solutions. While the bureaucratic machinery to administer them is weak and
susceptible to corruption, it can be reinforced by involvement of the civil society
and NGOs in identifying the target groups at various levels. One hears a lot about
publicprivate partnerships, but not enough of public-NGO partnership, which could
be critical in reaching out to the poorer sections of the population. The budget’s two
other main objectives have been its attempt to reduce the fiscal and current
account deficits to manageable levels and to check the precipitous decline in the
growth rate of the economy, which has slipped below six per cent for the first time
in the last five years and is projected to go down further in 2007-08.
For achieving the first objective, a number of proposals to reduce subsidies and
non-development expenditures and raise taxes (mainly indirect) have been
proposed, which are likely to be debated and contested by the different interest
groups affected by them. In general, the budget has been, in keeping with our elitist
ethos, it has been obliging, if not generous, towards the privileged, by asking for
token sacrifices (e.g., in terms of increase on customs duty on cars and other
luxuries) and big breaks as in deferring the much-anticipated capital gains tax,
while being tight fisted, if not callous, towards the poor, by giving them token
concessions and asking them to swallow the IMF-mandated increases in the price of
oil and in the GST on electricity and gas. An analysis of the incidence of the various
increases in taxes and reduction in subsidies leaves no doubt about the
configuration of the losers and gainers. It is unlikely that the budget will have any
significant effect on the rising income inequality. Neither is likely to prevent a
substantial increase in the incidence of poverty. As for economic growth, the
budget’s emphasis is on the agricultural sector, whose performance continues to
depend on the vagaries of the weather. There is undoubtedly a need for increasing
productivity and overall output in order to cash in on the secular rise in agricultural
prices stemming from a host of demographic and geographic growth factors and to
protect ourselves from food insecurity. However, in promoting agricultural growth,
its distributive consequences should be kept in view by making small farmers,
tenants and landless labourers equal partners in agricultural growth. Investment in
rural infrastructure such as roads, irrigation channels, solar energy, silos, schools
and health centres would not only increase employment opportunities but also
enhance land productivity.

While the rise in the procurement price of wheat will be a big incentive for
production, part of the increase in incomes of big farmers should be channelled into
infrastructure investment which would create employment and benefit small
farmers and the landless labourers as well. The industrial sector has always
received more attention in the budgets, because of its importance in promoting
exports. However, it has failed to diversify itself and become the dynamic engine of
growth it once was. Unless investments in new and dynamic industries, such as
electronics and information technology, are not undertaken, the industrial sector
will continue to exhibit low growth rates and remain a drag on economic growth,
especially because of its high reliance on imported inputs. The government needs to
adopt a new industrial strategy for diversifying the industrial and export base. A
welcome feature of the new budget has been the announcement – not yet
implemented – that the defence budget will be spelled out in some detail and
subjected to parliamentary oversight. The last eight years have made the military
the centre of political debate. It has been called a state within a state and many of
its activities in the economic field, especially real estate and industrial units, have
lacked transparency and have been beyond the purview of public scrutiny. In view
of the severe resource constraints that the country is facing, the military should
offer themselves to be subjected to public scrutiny. In particular, the question of the
shifting of the GHQ to Islamabad, should be made transparent and subjected to
parliamentary debate. The new budget has been constrained by many political
factors. However, the main limitation on the real space for making radical economic
policy changes by the present government is the insistence that the economic
policies pursued by the last regime should be continued. “Continuity of policies” has
almost become a conditionality for the transfer of effective power to the newly-
elected regime.

In case of continuity of policies, the IMF and the World Bank, who have already
started shedding crocodile tears about the rising inflation of food, fuel and other
commodities and the burden they are imposing on the developing countries, will
regain their influence in our policy corridors. Very soon they will start concessional
(read addictive) loans and grants with ever new conditionalities to “save” us from
this new external shock created by their market-friendly (except in their own
protectionist agricultural backyard) policies and liberal financial policies which help
to satisfy the developed world’s voracious appetite for fuel and cheaply-
manufactured industrial goods from developing countries. If the government is at all
keen to initiate measures which would signal a break from the past, it needs to take
the matter of reorganization of the Planning Commission and the Economic Advisory
Council and other instruments of policymaking and research, much more seriously
than it has done so far. Ad hoc decision-making and frequent visits to and from
Washington are not the solution.

Author Location Dated

Rupee Report 16.06.08

– Rupee up against dollar

The rupee, after remaining stable for more than four years, significantly lost its
value against the dollar during the first eleven months of the current fiscal year. The
exchange rate remained much more volatile, particularly in the past three weeks,
which forced the central bank to intervene in the market and adopt money
tightening measures, to curb speculative trading in currencies in the local currency
market thereby restricting sharp decline in the value of rupee against the dollar and
euro. The SBP efforts were fruitful in bringing down the rupee/dollar parity in
reasonable range. The rupee has fallen to record lows crossing Rs70 barrier at one
stage. The outgoing week observed a strong rupee with its value improving
significantly against the dollar and euro. Most currency analysts, however, fear that
the rupee will fall to Rs70 against the dollar in the next fiscal year. The rupee in the
inter bank market commenced the week on dismal note as strong dollar demand
exerted downward pressure on the rupee which shed 15 paisa against dollar
changing hands at Rs67.65 and Rs67.75 on June 9 against previous week close of
Rs67.50 and Rs67.60. On June 10, the , however, failed to hold its overnight
firmness against the dollar and shed 10 paisa trading at Rs67.60 and Rs67.70. On
June 11, easy dollar supplies, amid dull trading in the pre budget session helped the
rupee to recover 30 paisa against the dollar. The dollar was at Rs67.30 and Rs67.40
at close. On June 12, the rupee maintained its overnight winning streak on the inter-
bank market, rising by another 40 paisa and trading at Rs66.90 and Rs67.00. The
rupee weeklong firmness persisted on June 13 on improved dollar inflows. It further
gained 15 paisa on the buying counter and another 20 paisa on the selling counter
changing hands against the dollar at Rs66.75 and Rs66.80. During the entire week,
the rupee in the inter bank market managed to recover 75 paisa against the dollar.
In the open market, the rupee traded unchanged at its weekend level against dollar
changing hands at Rs68.20 and Rs68.40 on the first two consecutive trading days of
the week in review. On the third trading day, however, the rupee lost five paisa on
the buying counter but it remained unchanged on the selling counter finally closing
the day at Rs68.25 and Rs68.40 against the dollar. The rupee firmness over the
dollar extended further in the open market on the fourth trading day, when it
managed to post sharp gains to the tune of 35 paisa on the buying counter and just
10 paisa on the selling counter to trade at Rs67.90 and Rs68.30. The rupee
continued its advancement over the dollar on the fourth trading day posting fresh
gains of 25 paisa on the buying counter and another 35 paisa on the selling counter,
changing hands at Rs67.65 and Rs67.95. This week, the rupee in the open market
managed to recover 55 paisa on the buying counter and another 45 paisa on the
selling counter holding firm ground against the American currency.

Versus European single common currency, the rupee shed five paisa on the opening
day of the week and traded at Rs106.85 and Rs106.95 on June 9, after closing last
week at Rs 106.80 and Rs 106.90 on June 7. The rupee, however, managed to stage
a strong recovery from overnight losses on the following day, gaining 70 paisa in
relation to euro and traded at Rs106.10 and Rs106.20 on June 10. On June 11, the
rupee extended further gains over euro, gaining 25 paisa more to trade at Rs105.85
and Rs105.95. On June 12, the rupee remained firm against the euro as it further
recovered 50 paisa and traded at Rs105.35 and Rs105.45. The rupee continued its
ride over the euro on June 13 gaining 50 paisa on the fifth trading day changing
hands at Rs104.85 and Rs104.95.The rupee thus managed to hold firm grounds
versus the European single common currency this week, recovering Rs1.45 on
cumulative basis.

Author Location Dated

Huzaima Bukhari and Dr 16.06.08
Ikramul Haq

– Unfair taxation regime

The Finance Bill 2008 unveiled in the parliament on June 11 by the PPP minister, Mr
Naveed Qamar, has again proved that politicians cannot prevail over the
bureaucrats sitting in the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). For the last many years,
tax proposals have had no purpose other than burdening the poor while giving more
and more incentives to those who control the economic resources. The revenue
proposals are mostly based on irrational presumptive and indirect taxation, the
burden of which will be more on the poor and negligible on the wealthy. The tax
baboos have managed to include in the bill all the provisions that give them
discretionary powers without harming their unscrupulous business friends. They
have added new presumptive taxes on developers and contractors, the burden of
which can easily be passed on to the end consumers. They again did not consider
positive and constructive proposals from trade bodies, tax bars and tax
professionals. They have imposed heavy taxes on manufacturers that will raise cost
of inputs and impact adversely on exports. Strangely, the bill imposes a number of
new tax obligations on citizens as withholding tax agents, performing state
functions without any compensation, but oft-repeated, long over due demand of
introducing Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights has again been conveniently ignored. The rate
of sales tax and federal excise has been enhanced “to“to meet dire national needs”,
needs”,
but wealth of leaders, civil-military bureaucrats and stock mar ket players, remains
untouched. Now they can get tax-evaded money whitened by just paying two per
cent tax. The following tax proposals are going to increase miseries of the poor and
in many cases the burden of indirect taxes will be passed on to the following:
 – widows, pensioners and senior citizens will have to pay tax of 10 per cent in
respect of profit from pensioners’ benefit scheme and behbood (welfare)
fund.
– immunity from probe in respect of any moveable and immoveable assets on
the value of which tax at two per cent is paid, whereas the tax-evaders
should have been penalised.
– the limit of donations eligible for tax credit in the case of
individual/association of persons and companies admissible at 30 and 15 per
cent respectively are proposed to be reduced to 10 per cent of the taxable
income, which is to dissuade the people from charitable and welfare
activities.
– withholding tax on cash withdrawal from banks collected at 0.2 per cent is
proposed to be enhanced to 0.3 per cent, which will hurt the common man
and small business concerns.
– builders and developers would be required to pay tax at Rs50 per sq. ft. of
the covered area of a unit. The developer of open plots would be subjected to
tax at Rs100 per sq. yard of the plot. This being presumptive tax will be
passed onto the buyers. Instead of boosting up housing industry, it will rather
retard its growth.
– rate of sales tax and federal excise duty has been increased from 15 to 16
per cent “to meet revenue targets”, without realising that it will hurt
consumers.
– rate of Federal Excise Duty (FED) on all kinds of telecommunication services
is being enhanced to 21 per cent that is going to be a substantial burden on
consumers.

If these revenue generation measures were necessary “to “to meet the dire needs”
needs” of
the State, one can legitimately ask why progressive taxes on incomes and wealth
have not been introduced. The Finance Bill 2008 is detrimental for the economy,
social justice, business and industry. Those who possess more economic power
(income and wealth) should contribute more to the public exchequer. The ability-to-
pay principle is regarded as the most equitable and just method of taxation. It is
emphasised primarily for its redistributive role. In Pakistan, our rulers have
completely deviated from this principle which is in fact, a constitutional obligation of
the government. The tax policy has not been redesigned to improve resource
mobilisation. In fact, Finance Bill 2008 is aimed at overtaxing the already ailing
economy, which will be disastrous for future growth. The common man is subjected
to sales tax of 16 per cent plus many other withholding taxes at sources on
essential commodities [even salt sold under brand names is subjected to sales tax].
But it is tragic that in a country where billions of rupees are being made in
speculative transactions in real estate and shares, tax-to-GDP ratio is pathetically
low [just 10 per cent in fiscal year 2007-08] and these sectors remain under taxed.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 17.06.08

– Another opportunity goes waste

Pakistan in 1947 was a stunningly different place from the country we know now, so
different that most of today’s young people would have trouble imagining it. The
size, structure and potential of the economy are much different than was the case
at the time of the country’s birth. Pakistan’s economy, looked at in terms of its
performance over the 61-year period since the country’s birth, has done well. Its
GDP has increased at the annual average rate of 4.4 per cent with the result that
the economy now is 18 times larger than what it was in 1947, and income per head
of the population is four and half times higher. In 1947, what is Pakistan today had a
population of 30 million. With the current size of population estimated at 162.5
million, there are now five and half times as many people living in the country as
was the case at the time of birth.

However, economic progress was not even during this period. Pakistan has had as
many periods of rapid economic growth as of sluggish performance. The economy
grew rapidly over a period of 27 years, from 1960 to 1969, from 1977 to 1988 and,
more recently, from 2002 to 2007. The average rate of growth during these periods
was 6.3 per cent. For the remaining 34 years, the economy performed less well,
growing at a rate of 3.8 per cent. The rollercoaster ride the economy followed was
in large measure due to the availability of foreign capital flows. Pakistan relied on
external savings to augment the low rate of domestic savings. External savings
were large whenever the United States needed Pakistan for strategic reasons. This
was the case in 1960-69 when the country joined the US effort to stop the spread of
communism; in the 1980s, when Pakistan joined the US in forcing the Soviet Union
out of Afghanistan; and again in 2001-07 when Pakistan became the ‘frontline state’
in Washington’s ‘war on terror’. In the case of Pakistan rapid economic growth was
not a part of a paradigm shift as was the case with neighbouring India. In the mid-
1980s, India began to reform its economy, dismantling the ‘licensing raj’ in favour
of a more open economy. One important consequence was that India, after 1986,
was able to climb out of the ‘Hindu
‘Hindu rate of growth’
growth’ and move on to a higher growth
trajectory. It has remained on that trajectory for the last 20 years whereas
Pakistan’s seems poised to take another plunge, continuing with the roller-coaster
ride of the past six decades. Having seen its economy grow at seven per cent a year
in the five-year period between 2002 and 2007, the country is likely to see a two to
2.5 percentage point decline in the rate of growth in 2007-08 and for a couple of
years beyond.

This will happen for a number of reasons, including a possible decline in the
quantum of external flows. But even more important, weighing on the economy are
serious macroeconomic imbalances: both fiscal and balance of payments deficits
have increased to unsustainable levels. These have produced inflationary pressures,
further exacerbated by the increase in world commodity prices. There is need for an
adjustment in the approach to economic management. What should be the direction
of economic policies as new administrations at both the federal and provincial levels
settle down? There are basically two options: the government could do what it has
always done in periods of crises in the past or it could attempt to restructure the
economy to ensure progress along a trajectory that would ensure high rates of
growth with significant impact on the incidence of poverty and distribution of
income. On previous occasions, the governments usually focused on short-term
measures rather than on long-term structural change. This may be a good time to
alter the stance and attempt to bring about a fundamental change in the structure
of the economy. It should be noted that the current economic downturn is different
from some of the previous ones in that it has not been caused by a sudden and
sharp decline in foreign flows that brought about previous reductions in growth. This
time the crisis is largely the cause of internal dynamics reinforced by some
developments in the world’s commodity prices. The present crisis is the result of the
failure of the previous set of Islamabad-based policymakers to foresee the
consequences for the economy of the model of development they had adopted.
That model placed the economy under the control of an unconstrained private
sector with the state withdrawing so much to the sidelines that it failed to do what it
must to maintain equilibrium. The suspension in the legitimate role of the state has
meant that the country was left with a number of serious problems.

Among them are a tax system that yields resources for the government well short
of the public sector’s need for investment thus continuing the economy’s
dependence on external flows. There is a public educational system that does not
educate and adequately train a very large number of young people. The system of
public health does not provide adequate health care for the poor. Ours is an
economic system that does not produce enough jobs for a rapidly increasing work
force. Our cities do not provide some of the basic needs of the citizenry. Ours is an
agriculture sector that, in spite of its size and endowments, is unable to feed a
growing population. Our economic structure does not mesh with the structure of the
global economy; and severe power shortages that have produced great suffering for
the poor and dislocations for many parts of the economy. Given the state of
economic affairs, the government has to do three things simultaneously. It has to
adopt policies of adjustment in order to restore macroeconomic stability; it has to
reignite the process of growth so that it can be sustained over time; and it has to
not only provide for the poor but also work to reduce their number and reduce
income inequalities. The government, in other words, has to work on both the
immediate and the medium to long-term. Short-term measures and long-term
strategic policy must support each other and take the country in the same direction.
The budget for the financial year 2008-09 presented an opportunity for the new
policymakers to set the country on a new track. But unfortunately it was not taken.
Why I believe that another opportunity was lost is a question I will take up next
week.

Author Location Dated

S. Akbar Zaidi 17.06.08

– The failure to act

If the economy is in as bad a shape as the two finance ministers since March this
year have suggested, then the budget presented in parliament last week, fails to
address issues to turn the economy around. In fact, by not addressing pressing
problems at this juncture, the government is digging yet another grave to find itself
buried in, within a very short space of time. This lost opportunity to move forward
on the economy is symptomatic of the way this government has been functioning, a
fact displayed in the two other critical areas — with regard to the president and the
judiciary — where it has been unable to act and to forge ahead. Its failure to act
clearly and forcefully on the economic front, in a timely manner will, in all
probability, only add to causes which will result in its own undoing. Moreover, in a
broader political-economy framework, one can add to this line of argument, the fact
that the inability of the government to use the annual budget in order to deal with
what the last finance minister kept referring to as the economy’s ‘meltdown’, only
underscores the point made by many observers that this government will be unable
to govern and to move forward, unless it deals with the two most pressing problems
facing it. As long as the issues of the president and the judiciary hover over the
head of the government and its allies, governance will be ineffective and weak.
Hence, economic revival will also not be possible.
Of course, the present government is in no way responsible for the numerous
problems that afflict Pakistan’s economy, yet the fact that it is in power, assumes
that it must take responsibility if it fails to address these problems. While we
celebrate the return of the democratisation process, albeit one which continues to
be partial and interrupted, we also have expectations from the government that it
must fulfil its responsibilities.

The main economic indicators show that a deteriorating trend has been in process
for some months now. The GDP growth rate expected to be 5.8 per cent, is still
considerably higher than the average for the 1988-2003 period, but is lower than
the trend seen over the last five years. While perhaps this slowing down in the
growth rate was to be expected given adverse international commodity prices and
on account of the fact that the previous growth was built on weak foundations,
expectations suggest that growth is going to be lower for some years to come. With
a growing fiscal deficit at present around seven percent of GDP, the highest in over
a decade, and a current account deficit worsening as oil prices rise, all estimates for
GDP growth seem to be optimistic. While these three key indicators need to be
addressed soon by the government, what is particularly important from the point of
view of a democratic and popular government is to be able to address the single
most important issue which affects all citizens, namely inflation. With inflation at
around 11 per cent, the highest in the last three decades, any government would
have had a major task dealing with causes which are not in its control. The rise in
food and oil prices globally are the main reasons why inflation is so high, although a
number of poor decisions and an equal number of indecisions by the Shaukat Aziz
government and the caretaker government, have made things far worse. Moreover,
the economic policies of the previous government are responsible for creating an
artificial bubble which has resulted in a substantial deterioration in income
distribution.

The finance ministry must realise the scale of the issues it has to confront and has
to quickly deal with if it is to make its mark on the economic front and stop the
economy from deteriorating further. However, the budget does not show any
substantial sign of an attempt to turn around the economy, and although a couple
of measures have been taken, they are insignificant to deal with the nature and
scale of the problems. The imposition of import duty on luxury items was long
overdue, and the attempt to provide an income support programme for the poor, is
welcome. Development expenditure has also been raised, as is standard practice,
and one can only hope that better and effective targeted provision of all
government expenditures take place. What is troubling, however, are a number of
measures announced in the budget, and many that are conspicuous by their
absence. The cut in subsidies might help marginally lower the fiscal deficit, but will
probably result in higher prices for oil, power, fertilisers and food items for
consumers, especially the poor. Similarly, an increase in the proportion of indirect
taxes will also have a disproportionately higher incidence on lower income earners.
Neither of these two measures will help the poor and will further challenge their
ability to survive under worsening economic conditions mostly related to rising
inflation. With a tax-to-GDP ratio of a mere 10 per cent and with a fiscal deficit of
around seven per cent of GDP, one would have expected the government to be
considerably more imaginative on the revenue generation front. It is unforgivable
that the government has allowed the exorbitant profits from the stock market to go
untaxed for another two years. There is no reason why profits from speculation
should be untaxed under stable and normal circumstances, and under conditions
where the economy is facing serious crises, such generosity is criminal.

The government should have gone out of its way to give inflation and food
shortages its highest priority. It should have had a short-term, immediate, focus
which would have meant compromising on other issues at the moment, and a
medium and longer term economic agenda. One would have expected that the
Peoples Party election manifesto, launched with much fanfare, would have had
more substantive issues addressed with regard to the economy, some of which
would have found expression in its first budget. The disappointment one has with
regard to last week’s budget is just another indication of the democratically elected
government’s failures to act on a number of critical issues. In fact, one can argue,
that only after a new president is elected and the old judiciary is back, will other
issues be addressed. For one thing, the main coalition partner — PML-N — will be
back to participate in government and the problem regarding political uncertainty
resolved. Perhaps only once these ‘political distractions’ are dealt with, will we get
better and effective economic management.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 18.06.08

– Parliament breaks taboo, debates defence budget

For the first time in the country’s history, details of the defence budget for the
current as well as the next financial year were placed before parliament amid
applause from both treasury and opposition benches. The Leader of the House in
the Senate, Raza Rabbani, laid before the house the papers containing service-wise
break-up of the Rs295.306 billion budget for the next financial year and Rs276.186
billion revised budget for the current year. At the outset of the session, which
started two hours late, Mr Rabbani termed the move a step towards sovereignty of
parliament. He said that in the past “only
“only one-line defence budget”
budget” was presented
and the issue was never debated in parliament. He said the Pakistan People’s Party
and the Pakistan Muslim League-N had agreed in the Charter of Democracy that the
defence budget would be brought to parliament for debate. Mr Rabbani admitted
that complete details were still not being provided to the Senate, but expressed the
hope that next time more details of defence expenditures would come before the
house for discussion. The defence budget details were put before the Senate on the
last day of a general debate on the budget, which is expected to be passed by the
National Assembly by June 26.

Senators were given only two hours for discussion on defence spending after which
Finance Minister Naveed Qamar wrapped up the debate. A total of Rs295.306 billion
has been allocated for defence services, as against Rs276.186 billion for the current
year. An amount of Rs99.09 billion has been allocated for employees-related
expenses, Rs82.84 billion for operating expenses, including Rs12.08 billion for travel
and transportation and Rs70.75 billion for general expenditures, Rs87.63 billion for
physical assets and Rs25.73 billion for civil works. According to the revised budget
for the current year (2007-08), Rs95.74 billion had been allocated for employees-
related expenses, Rs74.33 billion for operating expenses, including Rs12.54 billion
for travel and transportation and Rs61.79 billion for general expenditures, Rs82.91
billion for physical assets and Rs23.20 billion for civil works. The service-wise break-
up for 2008-09 shows that Rs128.699 billion has been earmarked for the army,
Rs71.006 billion for the air force, Rs29.133 billion for the navy and Rs66.467 billion
for defence procurement (DP) establishment and other accounts organisations.
During the current year, the allocation for army was Rs123.290 billion, for air force
Rs63.332 billion, for navy Rs26.454 billion and for DP establishment and other
organisations Rs63.109 billion.

Of the Rs128.699 billion allocated to the army, Rs71.274 billion has been set aside
for employees-related expenses, Rs22.337bn for operating expenses, including
Rs4.682bn for travel and transportation, and Rs17.654bn for general expenditures,
Rs21.527bn for physical assets and Rs13.560bn for civil works. Of Rs71.006 billion
allocated for air force, Rs10.706 billion has been kept for employees-related
expenses, Rs16.463 billion for operating expenses, including Rs2.183 billion for
travel and transportation, and Rs14.279 billion for general expenditures, Rs39.597
billion for physical assets and Rs4.239 billion for civil works. Of the Rs29.133 billion
proposed for the navy, Rs6.750 billion has been allocated for employees-related
expenses, Rs3.910 billion for operating expenses, including Rs1.432 billion for travel
and transportation and Rs2.477 billion for general expenditures, Rs15.712 billion for
physical assets and Rs2.759 billion for civil works. An amount of Rs66.467 billion
has been proposed for DP establishment, ISOs and accounts organisations. Of the
allocation, Rs10.359 billion has been set aside for employees-related expenses,
Rs40.129 billion for operating expenses, including Rs3.786 billion for travel and
transportation and Rs36.342 billion for general expenditures, Rs10.8 billion for
physical assets and Rs5.176 billion for civil works.

While some members of the ruling coalition called for slashing the defence budget
because of its interference in politics, opposition members suggested that the
allocation should be increased because of the tense situation at the country’s
border. Treasury Senator Khalid Soomro criticised the army for carrying out
operations in the tribal areas and Lal Masjid and suggested that the defence budget
should be curtailed by 50 per cent. At this, some of the opposition women senators
protested over the criticism on the army by treasury members and threatened to
stage a walkout. However, Opposition Leader in the Senate Kamil Ali Agha
persuaded them not to do so. Mr Rabbani said the PPP did not want confrontation
with any institution, but one thing was clear: parliament was the supreme
institution. “Parliament
“Parliament is the supreme institution and all other institutions are
accountable to it,”
it,” he maintained. He said the PPP and the PMLN had also defined
the role of intelligence agencies in the Charter of Democracy and that would be
ensured in future. Mr Agha lauded the government’s decision to place the defence
budget before parliament, but said there should be no confrontation among
institutions.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal Lahore, Pakistan 18.06.08
 – BB made Musharraf quit army: Asif
Pakistan People’s Party’s co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari said on Tuesday that the PPP
had never recognised President Pervez Musharraf as a constitutional head of state
and it continued to hold the view. “When
“When I was in jail, and Mr Nawaz Sharif was in
jail, we had the option of joining Gen Musharraf. But we didn’t. We chose to extend
a hand of friendship towards Mr Sharif,”
Sharif,” Mr Zardari told newspaper editors and
senior journalists at the Governor’s House. Punjab Governor Salman Taseer was also
present. “We
“We have suffered immensely and languished behind bars for years under
Gen Musharraf’s rule. But we never supported him. (Even when Gen Musharraf
extended an offer to the PPP to form its government after the 2002 elections) we
told his emissary that he had to doff his uniform,”
uniform,” Mr Zardari said. He said Benazir
Bhutto had never accepted Gen Musharraf as the constitutional president of the
country and it was she who had actually forced him to hang his uniform. “Now “Now if
someone else tries to take the credit for this and our other achievements, it is not
fair,”
fair,” the PPP leader said. Mr Zardari said the ruling coalition would last for five
years in spite of a difference of opinion between him and Mr Sharif on different
issues, including the deposed judges and immediate impeachment of the president.

“You don’t find 100 per cent agreement on every issue even in a family. In Sindh
and the NWFP, we have difference of opinion on certain issues with our coalition
partners. Even our chief minister in Balochistan has reservations on the
appointment of the provincial IG (of police) and matters relating to the (provincial)
budget. Yet such differences are not unusual in a coalition setup. It is just that we
do not have a history of coalitions except for a brief experiment in Sindh,”
Sindh,” he said.
“They (the PML-N) have taken a certain position (on the restoration of the pre-Nov
3, 2007, judiciary), which they consider politically advantageous for them. There is
another position that we have taken. After all, both the parties have to go into the
election tomorrow. This is about politics. So, in my opinion, both the coalition
governments (in the centre and Punjab) and the differences would continue to co-
exist,”
exist,” he said. Mr Zardari said he also wanted reinstatement of the deposed judges.
“But it will happen at a time of our choosing. Ms Bhutto did not lay down her life for
the reinstatement of Mr Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry as chief justice. She gave her
life for democracy,”
democracy,” he said in reply to a question. The PPP leader laid emphasis on
reconciliation to steer the country out of the present political and economic
quagmire. He rebutted a suggestion that he was not agreeing with Mr Sharif on the
restoration of the judiciary and impeachment of the president because he wanted to
reciprocate Gen (retd) Musharraf’s gesture of quashing all cases against him under
the National Reconciliation Ordinance. “Let
“Let me tell you that thousands of people
have benefited from the NRO, not just me alone. Further, the NRO was issued after
the government failed to prove any charge against me and after Gen Musharraf’s
cabinet accepted that all the cases against us were politically motivated.”
motivated.” Mr
Zardari said the PPP did not believe in revenge. “We
“We have a political way of seeking
revenge. When Ms Bhutto was given oath as prime minister in 1988, she said she
had taken revenge from her tormenters. She also insisted on my being sworn in (by
president Ghulam Ishaq Khan) as a minister (in 1993). That vindicated our politics.”
politics.”
He said the country was passing through a dangerous situation with insurgency
going on in Balochistan, militants armed with sophisticated weapons daring the
state and the military in the NWFP, and Nato increasing its presence in Afghanistan.
He said Sindh had not forgotten the killing of Ms Bhutto.
He said there was a method in the ‘madness’ of those who wanted to weaken the
institution (of the military) and encourage ‘baradari-ism’. “I“I myself am a victim of
the army; our party is a victim of the army. But if it is weakened the country will be
captured by warlords. And if baradari-ism is allowed to prevail it will eat into the
very foundations of the nation. That is why I keep saying that the country is facing a
grave danger.”
danger.” In reply to a question, he said free judiciary did not mean
reinstatement of the deposed judges. “It “It is about building the capacity of this
institution and purging it of incompetent and corrupt elements. It is a huge issue.”
issue.”
He said people were more concerned about rising food prices, water shortage,
power cuts, hunger, disease and their deteriorating economic conditions. He said
the government was trying to overcome those problems but that would take time.
“It can be your opinion, not mine,”
mine,” he shot back when a questioner urged him to
reinstate the deposed judges first and stop insisting too much on his policy of
reconciliation.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 18.06.08
om

– Benazir’s birthday gift

It somehow seems much longer, possibly because the first half of the year has
proved unusually eventful, but it isn’t quite six months yet since the assassination
of Benazir Bhutto. Would her continued presence in the political sphere have
substantially altered the post-electoral dynamics, or would the differences mainly
have been stylistic? There’s room for conjecture here, although any conclusions
based primarily on the experience of previous Bhutto administrations are bound to
be less than complimentary. Theories about the conspiracy behind the former prime
minister’s murder, meanwhile, are also restricted largely to the realm of
speculation. The government’s request for an investigation by the United Nations
seemed somewhat pointless, given that there has been no starring role for a foreign
hand in even the wildest rumours about the dastardly act. There was, of course,
never any guarantee that UN-sponsored detectives would have been able to
establish anyone’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Given the will, a coordinated
effort by Pakistan’s network of intelligence and investigative agencies could
probably have succeeded in identifying the culprits. As things stand, chances are
that the whole truth will never be known, in keeping with the national norm: where
such acts of violence are concerned, there is no precedent in Pakistan for complete
disclosure and, consequently, no tradition of appropriate closure. Even in the case
of Benazir’s father, although the identity of his murderers was hardly a secret, the
precise circumstances in which he was put to death continue to be the subject of
hearsay.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s judicial assassination cut short an eventful life that had barely
crossed the half-century mark. His daughter would have turned 55 next Saturday.
Thirty years earlier, when the political and personal burden she bore was certainly
uncommon, even by subcontinental standards, for a 25-year old, her father offered
her an unusual birthday gift: a crash course in international affairs, which he hoped
would come in handy for his political heir. He was, of course, consciously emulating
a politician whom he tremendously admired: Jawaharlal Nehru, whose daughter,
Indira, was a frequent recipient of long, educative letters from prison during the
years her father was incarcerated by India’s British rulers. Nehru’s erudite
summation of global history was eventually published in book form, as the slim
Letters From a Father to His Daughter and the more elaborate Glimpses of World
History. Bhutto undertook a considerably less ambitious task in considerably more
unpleasant circumstances, resting the sheets of writing paper on his knee in the
extreme heat of his death cell. His aim was an overview of the present rather than
the past, based largely on experience and aimed primarily at enlightening his
daughter about the ways of the world. It would be unfair to compare it with Nehru’s
literary endeavour in terms of depth or style, but Bhutto’s effort — published as My
Dearest Daughter some 10 years after it was written — is certainly not
uninteresting.

Apart from all else, it reflects its author’s mental processes at a time when he was
well aware that his days were numbered. It is also instructive to be reminded of how
remarkably different the world looked 30 years ago. But, arguably above all, the
document’s pertinence lies in illuminating how Benazir eventually decided that Papa
didn’t know best. Because, if there is any overarching theme in ZAB’s somewhat
rambling discourse, it is related to the foreign policy flaws of the United States. He
notes time and again that the appeal of communism to nationalist sentiments in the
Third World, particularly in Africa, is based not so much on Soviet, Chinese or Cuban
influence as on the proclivities of elites supported and sustained by the opposing
superpower. He notes with approval the efforts of Andrew Young — a veteran of the
civil rights movement appointed by Jimmy Carter as ambassador to the UN — to
correct the American course in Africa, but predicts (accurately as it turned out) that
his services would be dispensed with sooner rather than later. He also refers more
than once to the apparent anomaly whereby Washington was reaching out, in the
spirit of détente, to Moscow and Beijing, while its approach towards non-communist
Third World countries that were on good terms with the Soviet Union or China
remained intolerant. Nations ostensibly in the American camp were even worse off,
because even the minutest disagreement was deemed unacceptable by the US.

“In Western estimation,”

estimation,” he wrote, “it
“it is preferable to be a communist leader of a
communist state than to be a non-communist leader of a non-communist state
having friendly relations with communist states.... It is even more dangerous to be
pro-West. One disagreement in defence of a national cause and out goes that
civilian leader by a coup d’etat. He gets replaced by a tinpot military dictator who
would not dare to disagree about anything.”
anything.” He returns to the theme shortly
afterwards, becoming more clearly self-referential: “When
“When we try to protect the
legitimate rights of our country or try to make it a more useful member of the
international community, our endeavours are misunderstood. Coups are engineered
and after the success of such coups, remarks are made to the effect that ‘he was
getting too big for his boots’.”
boots’.” Bhutto’s intention clearly was to warn his daughter
about Uncle Sam’s unreliability as a friend. More broadly, he leaves little doubt
about his inclination towards nonalignment. She evidently drew a different
conclusion from the lesson, and became determined never to convey the
impression that she was getting too big for her chappals. Hence the kowtowing to
the Reagan, Bush and Clinton administrations, never more embarrassing than when
she successfully lobbied the neoconservatives as a means of regaining a political
foothold, in the process defending the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. Chances
are Bhutto would have been disappointed, perhaps even shocked, by his daughter’s
misinterpretation of his warnings and her abject acquiescence in 21st-century
imperialism. My Dearest Daughter is replete with opinions that testify to Bhutto’s
broadly progressive instincts (he defends Sukarno while criticising Suharto in the
Indonesian context, and is complacent about the communist takeover in Kabul), but
also suggests that he was incapable of acknowledging his follies, be it in relation to
East Pakistan or Balochistan, even in a letter to his heir apparent. The latter
tendency, at least, was genetically encoded in Benazir. Not long after Bhutto’s
murder, Salman Taseer published his political biography of ZAB in which he
concluded — in a characteristically blatant effort to curry favour — that Benazir
encapsulated all of her father’s redeeming features but was free of his flaws. He
was way off the mark. In truth, give or take the odd quirk, it’s largely the other way
around. ¦ The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 18.06.08

– The clearing fog

The Asif-Musharraf axis has won; the warrior judge has lost; and the black coat will
not go down in history as a symbol of revolution. The transition is back on, and the
country is better off for it. We now know how the judicial crisis will end: the PCO
judges will stay; Chief Justice (CJ) Iftikhar’s powers and tenure will be cropped; and
Dogar will be CJ again one day. It’s been Asif’s roadmap for a while now, but he
hadn’t figured out how to get his partners to compromise. Turns out they had no
real stomach for confrontation. Nawaz is the media’s latest darling, delighting them
with his fulminations against Musharraf. But the significance of his sound and fury
was lost on many. By refusing to send his workers over the barricades and the
coalition government into oblivion, Nawaz demonstrated a degree of political
maturity many doubted he had. Sure, he will continue to try and prise Musharraf
away from the presidency, but a bright red line has been drawn – po litical rhetoric
aside, the fate of the president will not be decided by the street. Legend has it that
Governor Jilani, Zia’s henchman in Punjab, went to the Sharif household in search of
an adoptive son of the army, a figure who would become the civilian facade of the
military establishment. The governor wanted the younger, more capable Sharif
brother, but ‘Abbaji’ offered Nawaz instead. The country suffered the foolishness of
that decision for a quarter of a century as a lethal combination of dullness and ego
reduced national politics to a zero sum game. Until last weekend. Nawaz is clearly
obsessed with removing Musharraf but by stopping short of hijacking the long
march as a vehicle to finish the job, he signalled a new pragmatism.

Structural ambivalence is the new game in Islamabad. The N-League will keep its
foot on the president’s neck even as it learns to live with an Asif-Musharraf axis. It’s
a messy arrangement, but Asif must be happy. His perma-grin could only have
widened as the marchers dispersed peacefully. After the Bhurban gamble failed,
Asif must have wondered if his government’s last rites would be read on Parade
Avenue. Instead, things have moved back inside the relatively sober walls of
parliament where the numbers are in his favour. Pakistan being Pakistan, political
theatre and brinkmanship will rear their heads ever so often, though hopefully
nothing that can’t be smothered by Asif’s cheerfulness. He has a plan in hand to
deal with the judges, now he must execute it quickly and let the cabinet get on with
the business of governance. The problem with Asif’s attritional approach to
resolving the judicial crisis is that it creates time and space for events to overwhelm
his plan. Right now there are winners on many fronts; Musharraf keeps the
presidency, Asif keeps the centre, Nawaz keeps Punjab and Aitzaz keeps alive the
hope of a triumphant return to party politics. This particular configuration may not
last long, so the constitutional package needs to be sliced up. Get the judicial
amendments out of the way first and return later to correct institutional imbalances.
The big loser of the long march is Chief Justice Iftikhar. His dream of returning to the
Supreme Court to vanquish his nemesis, Musharraf, is gone. The biggest threat in
the lawyers’ arsenal – the long march – has been deployed and it didn’t even quell
talk of paring the CJ’s powers or tenure. In fact both seem more likely than ever, as
Aitzaz and Nawaz have all but yielded to Asif’s roadmap.

The problem for Chief Justice Iftikhar was that he needed to play politics while
appearing not to be politicised. His strategy was to allow Aitzaz and later Nawaz to
take up his cause, using the bar associations and the Nleague party workers to swell
the numbers protesting for his reinstatement. It was a strategy born of necessity
and suffered from an inherent weakness: he was at the mercy of the political
calculations of Aitzaz and Nawaz. And in the rough and tumble world of Pakistani
politics, it’s best not to be at the mercy of others. Assessing the legacy of Chief
Justice Iftikhar is premature at this point. At the very least he will be remembered
for his heroic defiance of an army chief. However, to enter the pantheon of greats
he must do something more. The problem is that since last July, he has decided that
the something more is to send an unpopular president home. Compounding that
problem is the fact that he lined up the Supreme Court against parliament, much of
the political firmament, the army, the establishment and a superpower. These were
simply institutional strains the Supreme Court was never designed to withstand.
This hardnosed assessment often rubs Chief Justice Iftikhar’s supporters the wrong
way. To them it equates power with legitimacy, for illegitimate power must be
rejected at the earliest and Musharraf’s power is patently illegitimate. From this
perspective, the Chief Justice’s earlier sin of validating Musharraf’s first coup can be
forgiven because it was too early to challenge Musharraf’s illegitimately acquired
power. But with Musharraf’s popularity sinking and the people behind the chief
justice, 2007 was the year to aggressively challenge illegitimate power.

Chief Justice Iftikhar’s supporters are only two-thirds correct. Yes, illegitimate power
must be rejected and it must be rejected at the earliest. But illegitimate political
power must be opposed politically. If Nawaz harangues Musharraf into resigning or
Zardari quietly slips a knife in the president’s back while embracing him, then let
the nation rejoice. There was another, more practical reason for the chief justice’s
Supreme Court to step back from its catastrophic challenge to the president. The
chief justice and his band of avenging judges had an array of small devices at their
disposal to systematically reduce the president’s sphere of influence. As army chief,
Musharraf had only one tool to cut a recalcitrant judiciary down to size: a second
coup. In the battle between the warrior judge and the warrior president, the country
was always going to suffer collateral damage. It is good that the politicians have
stepped back from inflicting further damage of their own.

Author Location Dated

Zafar Iqbal 18.06.08
 – Who controls the prime minister?
The Constitution of Pakistan is supposed to be modelled on whatever we
understand to be the British constitution which evolved over several hundred years
beginning, one presumes, with the Magna Carta 1215/16. The civil wars of the 17th
century limited the power of the monarch. The war was between the long haired
and the short haired: Cavaliers versus the Roundheads. It resulted in the beheading
of Charles I by the Roundheads. The monarchy was restored under Charles II, but
matters again came to a crisis in 1688 when James II was ousted for trying to re-
establish Catholicism. It resulted in the Bill of Rights. The dispute was whether the
King was above the law or the law was above the King. However, the law could only
be changed by the King in Parliament. It ultimately resulted in parliamentary
supremacy but according to most writers on the English constitution not in
parliamentary sovereignty. A.V. Dicey, in the middle of the 19th century propagated
the idea of parliamentary sovereignty but other important constitutional authors
have not agreed with it although they were all very proud of the British constitution.
On the other hand, our legal brains claim to be committed to the views of Dicey. As
far as Pakistan is concerned, this has nothing to do with reality. Our parliament is
the servant of the executive. There are no dissenting back-benchers.

The important writers on the British constitution were not necessarily lawyers. They
were journalists or academics, or even a practicing politician. They were conscious
of the role in the constitution played by civil servants. As far as running the ship of
state was concerned, the civil servants knew what was what. As a British writer on
the constitution says “…British
“…British civil servants, although servants, were not meant to
be, and almost invariably were not, remotely servile. The most senior officials were
men (and latterly women) of high intellectual calibre, equipped with good
education, assertive personalities, and, in a majority of cases, a well developed
sense of their own worth.”
worth.” Harold Laski was professor of government at the London
School of Economics. More important than the House of Lords or the monarchy
both, Amery and Laski, correctly divined, was the civil service. It is said that
Clement Attlee told him to shut up before the 1945 election. Under the British
constitution the legislature, in theory, controls the courts. With the passage of time
the leader of the winning political party became more and more powerful. He
became a ‘Chief Executive’ and the concept of primus inter pares (first among
equals) no longer exists. The nature of executive supremacy depends upon the
personality of the prime minister and the composition of his kitchen cabinet. One
wonders why our political scientists and lawyers imagine that the British
constitution can be transplanted into Pakistan. In Britain, prime ministerial power is
contained by public opinion and the fact that backbenchers of the party in power
can revolt, as happened with Mrs. Thatcher and possibly, Tony Blair. Pakistan’s
Constitution of 1973 was designed to promote prime ministerial dictatorship. All
succeeding prime ministers have tried to uphold this doctrine as far as they could
manage. As far as one could see, given ZAB’s civil service reforms, he was in the
process of creating a ‘one party’ state. The problem that he faced was that the
army was not entirely under his control, although he thought he had managed it by
appointing Ziaul Haq as chief of army staff.

As far as the 1977 elections were concerned, he had almost complete success in
the Punjab because of a well integrated servile civil administration. It didn’t work
quite so well in the other provinces because the administration was not so well
integrated. The agitation started in Karachi and finally moved up to Lahore. That
was the end and the army made plans to move in. Free and fair elections are not
possible without a nonpolitical and relatively secure bureaucracy. Two issues, which
may ensure some sort of democratic rule, stand out: good governance and the rule
of law. Unfortunately, few people in power are interested in good governance or the
rule of law. In India they claim to be interested in both. As a result their similarity to
the British civil servant may be true given the elite Indian Administrative Service
(I.A.S.). This development was emphasized and supported by Sardar Patel not by
Jawahar Lal Nehru. ZAB destroyed the concept of an elite service. Gen Musharraf
destroyed district administration which the Indians have not done. He also demoted
the Public Service Commission and made everything political on the insistence of
Shaukat Aziz. Without an elite service it is not possible to attract individuals of a
high calibre and without a certain sense of security and political independence in
the civil infrastructure, free and fair elections are unlikely to happen. Gen Musharraf
was probably hoping that the nazims would support him. Some of them may have
tried but on the whole they were probably looking into the future and went along
with the ‘hate Musharraf’ surge in some sections of public opinion.

The Economist of May 24 has quoted a senior British officer referring to a ninth
century Muslim scholar, Ibn ”There
”There can be no government without an army No army
without money No money without prosperity And no prosperity without justice and
good administration.”
administration.” Except for the early years of Pakistan, no government has
been interested, including the present one, in justice or good government. Since
1972, things have tended to decline. In Pakistan ‘prime ministerial’ dictatorship has
been far from benevolent. Article 58 (2) b is opposed by political parties who expect
to be in power — the PPP joined PML-N in its repeal by Nawaz Sharif in 1997 and
PML-N will join the PPP in repealing it now. Perhaps as a substitute Gen Jehangir
Karamat suggested the formation of a National Security Council and was made to
resign by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif for making this statement. We, nevertheless,
need some constitutional device to contain prime ministerial dictatorship if we are
serious about a better Pakistan. What do we do? Much serious thought is needed
except that our clever people tend to fall back on cliches about what is supposed to
be the Westminster model; completely forgetting that Pakistan is not Britain. Our
electorate is still not properly educated, besides we are still a semitribal society
with a substantial element of provincial prejudice. All governments have been
against good administration or justice. Besides, there has been little prosperity
except when the US decides to favour Pakistan. This has always, roughly, coincided
with a military takeover.

Author Location Dated

Agencies Islamabad, Pakistan 18.06.08

– A.Q. Khan denies selling N-weapon blueprints

Top nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan on Tuesday denied selling blueprints for an
advanced nuclear weapon to Iran or North Korea, telling AFP that western countries
were to blame. Mr Khan’s comments came a day after a former arms inspector said
in a report that the United States and the UN atomic watchdog International Atomic
Energy Agency must be allowed to question Mr Khan to learn if he sold the plans.
“This is all a lie there is no truth in this. It is total bullshit,”
bullshit,” Khan told AFP by
telephone from his Islamabad villa. “It’s“It’s pure lies and nonsense. It’s part of
America’s campaign to pressure Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Khan told Reuters by telephone. “The
“The
Western countries are suppliers of the technology, they sold it and they are the
proliferators.... Why don’t they publish juicy stories about Israel? There is not a
single word about Israel on the nuclear issue,”
issue,” he added. Former UN arms inspector
David Albright said on Monday, after details of his draft report appeared in US
newspapers, that there was a danger that Mr Khan might be released without
having to answer questions about the sensitive blueprints. The plans show how to
build a warhead compact enough to fit on a ballistic missile.“Khan
missile.“Khan may be released
from house arrest. And we may never get to the bottom of this,”this,” Albright told CNN
television. “So
“So I think it’s very important that we start to put pressure on the
governments involved in this to find a way to get to the bottom of it.”it.”

Mr Khan was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf in 2004 after making a

televised statement admitting to passing nuclear secrets to Iran, North Korea and
Libya but has not been allowed out in public. However, after Musharraf’s allies lost
general elections in February, Mr Khan retracted the confession and said that it was
forced, while asserting he merely gave Tehran and Tripoli advice on where to get
atomic knowhow. The new government has recently relaxed restrictions on Mr
Khan, including allowing him to meet friends at a scientific institute and take phone
calls, although he remains effectively confined to his house. “The
“The statement is just
aimed at putting pressure on (the) Pakistan government. The story came when
there were talks about removing restrictions on me,”
me,” said Mr Khan, who was
diagnosed with prostrate cancer two years ago. “We
“We never prepared (such
blueprints), we are not the designer, we are not the proliferators,”
proliferators,” Mr Khan said. But
Albright said that files found on computers by Swiss authorities prosecuting three
members of Mr Khan’s network contained information about the compact nuclear
warheads.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 19.06.08

– Judges issue, impeachment Asif, Nawaz fail to bridge

differences
Two rounds of talks, within three hours, between PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari and
PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif on Wednesday failed to bridge their differences on a
possible impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf and reinstatement of deposed
judges. The two leaders, who also held a one-to-one meeting over lunch at the
Raiwind residence of Mr Sharif, agreed only to meet again on Friday. Neither of
them faced the ‘uninvited’ media personnel waiting outside the venue. Raja Zafarul
Haq, Shahbaz Sharif, Ishaq Dar, Javed Hashmi, Zulfikar Khosa and Ahsan Iqbal
assisted Mr Sharif while Rehman Malik, Jehangir Badr, Raja Riaz, Chaudhry Ghulam
Abbas and Azizur Rehman Chan accompanied Mr Zardari. The talks focused on the
judges’ issue, the proposed constitutional package and differences between the two
coalition partners over the Punjab government. Ahsan Iqbal, PML-N’s information
secretary, admitted that the two sides had differences on modalities for reinstating
the judges, but said efforts were on to overcome them. He said discussions on the
constitutional package would continue and Mr Zardari would call on the PML-N chief
again on Friday to sort out differences. Mr Ahsan said his party had set two targets
— restoration of the judiciary as it was on Nov 2 and strengthening the coalition
government. He said the PML-N was sticking to the Murree Declaration to ensure
“survival of the country” and the rule of law. He said his party wanted the coalition
to succeed so that the ‘designs’ of President Musharraf and “other
“other powers out to
damage the democratic government are thwarted”. Terming the lawyers’ long
march successful, Mr Ahsan said it had once again showed that the masses were
unwavering in their commitment to see the “exit of President Musharraf and his
associates”. He said the change for which the masses had brought the two parties
to power could be realised only after the removal of President Musharraf. The PML-N
had once again refused to join the federal cabinet until the reinstatement of the
judges, Mr Ahsan added. Ghulam Mustafa Khar, the former Punjab chief minister,
also called on Nawaz Sharif.

Author Location Dated

Bakhtawar Mian Islamabad, Pakistan 19.06.08

– APDM warns Asif of exposing his ‘corruption’

The All Parties Democratic Movement has warned PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari
of exposing what it called his corruption of billions of rupees if he failed to restore
judiciary to its pre-emergency status. The warning came as APDM leaders met here
on Wednesday on the first day of a two-day meeting at the residence of Jamaat-i-
Islami leader Mian Aslam. They called for restoration of judiciary, release of the
missing people, release of Dr Qadeer Khan, inquiry into the May 12 incident in
Karachi, killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti and restoration of the Constitution to its
preOct 12, 1999, position. More than 100 leaders of component parties attended
the meeting. APDM convener Mehmmod Khan Achakzai said that the country was in
the grip of several crises and appealed to the nation to unite to steer the country
out of this grave situation.He said there was a consensus in the APDM on a four-
point agenda: an end to army interference in politics, restoration of the
Constitution, polls under an independent election commission and restoration of
judiciary. Mr Achakzai criticised US presence in the country and sought an end to
military operation in Fata and Balochistan. Jamat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmad
said the army should play its role in accordance with the Constitution. He said
Pakistan was an ideological state and if the ideology was properly adhered to, there
would be provincial autonomy, a free judiciary and rights of minorities would be
ensured. He demanded restoration of the Constitution to its pre-Oct 12, 1999,
position, regretting that the parliamentary system had been turned into a
presidential form of government.

The Jamaat chief said the United States had become a world terrorist and it
considered interference in other countries’ affairs as its right. He said the American
adventurism had endangered peace and criticised the government for what he
called playing into the hands of the US. He demanded provincial rights and royalty
on gas and electricity, adding that there should be a fair distribution of water
among provinces. He said lack of justice and equality had endangered the security
of the country. He said the Nov 3 PCO should be declared illegal through an
executive order. Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan said the prevailing
situation had proved that the election boycott was a correct decision. Justifying the
boycott, he said it was done in accordance with a resolution passed by the Pakistan
Bar Council. He said prevailing crisis could have been averted if Justice Iftikhar
Mohmmad Chaudhary was reinstated and President Pervez Musharaf impeached. He
said Mr Nawaz Sharif and Ms Benazir Bhutto came to Pakistan only because of
lawyers’ movement, but the political leadership had badly disappointed the nation.
He praised the long march of lawyers and said the movement for restoration of
judiciary was a movement of every Pakistani. He said the constitutional package
presented by the PPP was just a drama. He also criticised the budget, saying it was
no different from the budget of Shaukat Aziz. He said a new GHQ was being built in
Islamabad at a cost of Rs900 billion, but the current parliament was silent on such
an important issue.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 19.06.08

– Aitzaz justifies termination of long march

Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz Ahsan has justified termination of
the lawyers’ long march without staging a sit-in and insisted that the purpose of the
event was not to storm the Parliament House or the Supreme Court building but to
register a protest against delay in the restoration of pre-Nov 2 judiciary. Talking to
media personnel here at his Islamabad residence on Wednesday, Mr Ahsan said:
“One signal from me would have made the parliament building a heap of rubble but
not a single glass was broken or any untoward incident was reported during the
march attended by all sections of society from across Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” The march had
improved the image of Pakistan because it was the biggest and most peaceful
gathering in the history of Islamabad, he said, adding that over half a million people
belonging to almost all walks of life could have destroyed the parliament house, but
they remained peaceful, which was a great success. The Wednesday’s press
conference of Mr Ahsan was more of an attempt to dispel the impression that he
had decided on his own to end the long march without consultation with other
leaders. He explained that other leaders of the lawyers’ community were on board
to end the march, even former presidents of SCBA, Muneer A. Malik and Tariq
Mehmood, had also suggested against staging a sit-in. On Monday, a member of the
Pakistan Bar Council (PBC), Hamid Khan, had regretted that unexpected conclusion
of the march without staging a sit-in was a setback to 15-month struggle and that
members of the implementation committee of the march were under the impression
that lawyers would prolong the protest at least for a day. Mr Ahsan, however, said
though he respected sentiments of the young participants of the march, yet the
decision to end the event had been taken with a consensus. He warned that lawyers
would not show any flexibility if the senior judges were not reinstated and promised
of staging more protests. “If
“If restoration is further delayed, we will launch another
massive march and stage a sit-in outside the parliament house,”
house,” he said, adding
that people would love to stage a sit-in. Mr Ahsan said not sending an invitation to
PBC vice-chairman Haji Syed Rehman for attending the march was a mistake and he
regretted it.

Author Location Dated

S. M. Naseem syed.naseem@aya.yale.ed 19.06.08
u

– Fate of the lawyers’ movement

The six-day-long long march ended before dawn in Islamabad on June 14 with
conflicting — almost Rashomon-like — perceptions about its failure or success. For
those who participated in it, either as individuals or as members of a group, it was a
statement of their resentment of what happened on and since March 9, and of their
hopes of what would follow if the central demand of the lawyers-led march, the
restoration of the higher judiciary, is met — sooner rather than later. The lawyers
themselves were divided as to whether the march should have ended as anti-
climatically as it did. Some, presumably younger and hot-headed amongst them,
would have liked it to continue both in time and distance visibly pointed towards the
destination which was almost a stone’s throw away from where they had gathered,
although there was no trace of the fleeing ‘tyrant’. Some of the non-lawyer groups,
especially the Jamaat-iIslami (JI) and Tehreek-i-Insaaf (TI), as well as the PML-N,
were inclined to get more political mileage from the march than the lawyers could
ill-afford to do. Some even called it a ‘selloff’; others thought its agenda had been
‘hijacked’. For those who had little or no sympathy with the lawyers’ movement as a
solution to the country’s mounting political problems, the long march was a failed
exercise, if not a fiasco and an admission of defeat by the lawyers who were forced
to call off the indefinite sit-in threat that some of the more firebrand leaders had
given. Many, including Mr Rehman Malik, assigned by the government to
camouflage its opposition to the march with a display of indulgence towards the
participants, put the numbers participating in it at a few thousand, rather than a few
hundred thousand to half a million, as claimed by its organisers. Whatever may
have been the exact count, it was undoubtedly the most impressive rally ever held
in Islamabad, barring the annual independence and republic day parades which are
notable more for their military precision and official pomp than for their
spontaneous fervour. Its ambience, bonhomie and cultural and class diversity, stood
in marked contrast to an evening thirteen months earlier in the same location in
which the president, the prime minister and other dignitaries did the bhangra in the
midst of a hired crowd brought by the Q-League supporters to celebrate the foiling
of the chief justice’s visit to Karachi on May 12, 2007.

The memories of that vulgar display of power, authority and insensitivity stand
erased after the long march. While the Zardari regime may be accused of hypocrisy
and equivocation on the judges issue, it has at least demonstrated the difference
between a democratic and a dictatorial regime in dealing with public protests. On
its own merits, the long march has achieved much that the lawyers’ movement can
be justly proud about. But questions are being asked about the possible political
ramifications of the lawyers’ movement if its immediate goal of restoring the judges
dismissed on Nov 3, 2007 is soon achieved and if it expands its agenda to becoming
a movement for social and economic reform. When it began in March 2007, its
limited aim was to protest against the high-handed action of the president and his
military and political allies in dismissing the chief justice and initiating an illegal
reference to the Supreme Court against him. This incensed not only the lawyers’
community, but also most of the opposition political parties and the public at large.
The political parties, which had almost despaired of the prospects of fair and free
general and presidential elections scheduled in 2007, found in the lawyers’ protest
an opportunity for prying open the door of democracy long padlocked for them by
the military. There emerged a convergence between the interests of the political
parties and the lawyers. The lawyers’ movement, which also received strong
support from the media, despite pressure on the owners by the government, was
focused on convincing the public as well as the judiciary, that the chief justice had
received a raw deal and needed to be restored. In this it finally succeeded on July
20, 2007 when a 13-member Supreme Court bench reinstated him unanimously and
unequivocally. There is no doubt that without the mobilisation of public opinion by
the lawyers, it would not have been emboldened to take that decision. However, the
chief justice’s reinstatement was a bitter pill to swallow for the Musharraf regime,
which had made preparations for getting it elected for another five-year term with
the president in uniform and without Benazir and Nawaz Sharif returning home.
Musharraf, piqued by the revived Supreme Court’s challenge to his authority and
perceiving it as a threat to the continuation of his rule, decided to disband it and
recreate it in his own image by rewriting the constitution with an executive order.

The political landscape has undergone a sea change since the epic struggle that
began 15 months ago. It is not unlikely that PPP PML-N coalition in the interests of
its survival may accept the restoration demand in some convoluted form, spelling
the demise of the existing lawyers’ movement. Such a sudden death would be
unfortunate both for the lawyers’ movement and society at large. The movement
has now changed its goal posts well beyond its initial objective. It now aims at
achieving a ‘social revolution’ and changing the mindset of the rulers and the
character of the state. Laudable as these objectives are, it is questionable whether
these can be achieved by lawyers without coalescing with other professional and
political groups. (Lenin was criticised for assigning the nascent proletariat the
vanguard role in transforming feudal Russia. Pakistani legal community is similarly
ill-suited to perform a social catharsis). Pakistani lawyers can at best play a catalytic
role in bringing about a social and political revolution. The lawyers’ movement will
have to transform itself into a Chinese-style cultural revolution or its more recent
South African incarnation as a Truth Commission, if it wants to pursue those broader
objectives. In such a reincarnation, the movement can play an important role as a
pressure group on ruling elites and governments to achieve the establishment of a
just, democratic and progressive society. For that it may have to reinvent itself as a
keeper of the country’s conscience, not merely as a trade union for the legal
profession.

Author Location Dated

Ameer Bhutto 19.06.08

– The masses must awaken

Pakistan is floundering in a maelstrom of crises. The future of the judiciary is likely
to pivot one way or another depending on how, or if, the judges’ restoration
conundrum is resolved. The growing budget deficit has compelled us to crawl before
foreign powers, begging bowl in hand, compromising any shreds of national
sovereignty and pride that remained. The electricity shortage has made life
unliveable for everyone in the searing summer heat and is also bound to have
profound economic repercussions. Spiralling poverty, runaway prices of oil and
essential food commodities, lack of opportunity, uncertainty, corruption and a
harrowing law and order situation, because of which no one is safe even in their
homes, have all but destroyed the common man. The collapse of the writ of the
state and virtually all state institutions has prompted some to label Pakistan a failed
state. The promise of meaningful change heralded by the verdict of the masses at
the Feb 18 polls has been reversed by those who crept into power by virtue of a
tragic kink of events and who, even before the polls, allied themselves with the
forces of the status quo through a shady deal. That the concept of change is lacking
from their intent is proved by the dubious constitutional amendment package they
are promoting as the panacea for our pains. In it, they dangle the carrot of restoring
the judges, but in such a handicapped form as to make their restoration
meaningless, hamstringing the judiciary forever. They propose to restore genuine
parliamentary democracy by curbing the president’s powers, but at the same time
wish to give the president a constitutional umbrella to sanctify his actions, including
the illegal Nov 3 Provisional Constitution Order (PCO), which they continue to vilify
in public. They beat their chests in public, calling for the president’s impeachment,
but at the same time maintain a backdoor channel with him. This constitutional
package has been deliberately designed to be unacceptable by mingling good with
bad. It is an exercise aimed only at buying time.

That this government appears to show no genuine commitment to implementing

real change should come as no surprise. They are products of a deal hatched under
the status quo and, therefore, have a vested interest in preserving it. Though the
electorate delivered an unequivocal verdict against the status quo, they could not
have placed the responsibility for change on more ill-suited shoulders. These are
the ‘hollow men’, T.S. Elliot wrote of in his famous poem. But not everyone in
politics is hollow. The people had a choice. However, the voters rejected all others
to elevate those with a failed and stained past to power. They made a decision
through the ballot box based purely on emotions rather than reason and are now
paying the price for it. They should expect no better from these leaders than the
current mess. C.S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man,
Man, writes: “In
“In a sort of
ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men
without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honour and
are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the gelding be
fruitful.”
fruitful.” This government is what it is and can do no better than that which its
natural propensities permit. The people must suffer the consequences of their
choice until either providence or their own initiative provides an opportunity for
them to redeem themselves. But what is really shocking is that though the people
now realise their mistake, they seem to be in no mood to make amends for it. As if
in a trance, they continue to bear the brunt, mumbling their discontent, rather than
holding their leaders accountable. At a time when many are forced to scavenge for
food on rubbish heaps for mere survival, hundreds of ministers and advisors live it
up on a lavish statesubsidised ego trip and are squandering millions from the public
coffers on luxurious vehicles, palatial homes and other perks and benefits. Yet the
people remain silent. While the country squirms in the grips of multiple crises, our
leaders jet set all over the world and make decisions regarding our future on flights
to Dubai and London! But the people remain unmoved. Millions of rupees are
wasted on protocol and security arrangements for those who hold no public office
and relatives and friends of those in power. But the people remain mute.

Far from holding them accountable, people actually legitimise their perverse rule by
flocking to these rulers to seek jobs and other favours. They are baton-charged and
humiliated to keep them at bay, but still they keep coming. It is a sickening sight.
Sooner rather than later, people will have to understand that they, not the rulers,
are the masters. They must realise that the succour they crave from burdens and
hardships comes not from degrading themselves by begging and crawling before
unworthy rulers. It comes from establishing a sound system run by clean, honest
and competent leaders, so that they no longer have to de-humanise themselves to
obtain that which is theirs’ by natural right. This can only come about by taking a
firm, principled stand against all that is wrong and making rational, sensible choices
at the polls rather than being swept away by emotions and sycophancy. Left to the
devices of corrupt, incompetent and self-serving leaders, this ship will inevitably
sink. The masses must awaken and become masters of their own destiny. No one
should expect that changing the course of a nation’s destiny will be an easy affair.
Of course it will involve hardship and sacrifice. As the saying goes, revolutions are
not made with rose water. This is where the problem lies: everyone wants
something now and no one is prepared to bear hardship and make the requisite
sacrifices. But the alternative is far more painful and ruinous. Plato wrote, “The
“The
price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men.”
men.” We
have had more than our share of evil over the last six decades. Time has come to
clean house. This is a task no one but the masses can fulfil.

Author Location Dated

Tariq Fatemi 19.06.08

– Obama, McCain on major issues

Sadly, there is no escape for Pakistanis from the political turmoil currently engulfing
their homeland, though during my recent visit to Washington, I tried to remain
focused on a most exciting US presidential campaign. Admittedly, there are multiple
centres of power in the US and no policy initiative is successful unless it enjoys
broad support of various institutions. The president, nevertheless, remains the most
influential and effective voice on the formulation and execution of foreign policy. My
primary interest therefore was in ascertaining how the two nominees would conduct
their foreign policies. If most of us reflect our lifetime experiences, then McCain and
Obama’s attitudes can best be discerned from their writings. McCain was born into
a family of distinguished military officers, with his father leading the US invasion of
the Dominican Republic that installed a fascist ruler. Not surprisingly, he extols his
father’s admiration for the British Raj, a position that his foreign policy adviser Niall
Ferguson believes should be emulated by the US. Though held a prisoner in
Vietnam for five years, McCain has been critical of what he calls the “utterly
“utterly illogical
restraints on the use of American power”.
power”. Obama’s background and experience
could not be more different. Son of a Kenyan goatherd, he was able to move to the
US and marry a white girl from Kansas. Though abandoned by his father when only
two, Obama was able to derive from the latter’s experience a disdain for ‘imperial
cultures’ and a rejection of ‘unthinking application of force’. No two persons could
therefore be more different than McCain and Obama.

The Bush Administration’s departure is likely to be welcomed in the expectation

that US foreign policy would become more balanced and less abrasive. But McCain
represents, to a large degree, a continuation of the Bush policies. For example, on
Iraq, which remains the most polarising issue in the US, McCain is not only proud of
his vote in favour of the invasion but has advocated that, if need be, the US should
be prepared to remain engaged in it for the next 100 years! Obama, on the other
hand, has always viewed the invasion as wrong and inadvisable and has called for a
swift disengagement as essential for domestic reconciliation and for restoration of
American image and credibility abroad. Both are opposed to Iran’s nuclear
programme, but have radically differing views on how to resolve the issue. While
McCain would not hesitate to approve use of force against the Islamic regime,
Obama favours a more nuanced approach, with an initial effort focused on
diplomatic dialogue with Tehran. The Republicans have exploited this as evidence of
his inexperience and naïveté, but Obama has remained undeterred in advocating
negotiations as essential for political resolution to problems.

On the Middle East, McCain has been totally supportive of Israel, as all American
politicians are wont to do. Not surprisingly, he enjoys support of the powerful Jewish
lobby. Given his origin, Obama, has however faced serious questions about his
commitment to Israel, a fact that has been exploited by the McCain camp to sow
doubts in the minds of the powerful Jewish lobby. To counter this, Obama has had to
reaffirm his strong commitment to the security and well-being of Israel, going to the
extent of recently declaring that Jerusalem was the one and undivided capital of
Israel. Nevertheless, the expectation is that his administration would take greater
interest in the peace process. As regards India, McCain is likely to build on Bush’s
policy of forging strategic ties with New Delhi. Obama has also spoken of a ‘close
strategic partnership’ with India but he was one of the few in the Senate who had
serious reservations about the US-India civilian nuclear deal. Although he eventually
voted for the Hyde Amendment, Obama also extended support to nonproliferation
groups. Moreover, some of his advisers believe that Bush made far too many
concessions and that a more ‘balanced’ approach was required. His administration
is also likely to press India to sign the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty as well as the
Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, two agreements that were far removed from Bush’s
radar screen. While McCain favours renewing the nuclear offer to India, Obama is
opposed to it.

But it is Obama’s view on Kashmir — an issue which Bush refrained from raising
with the Indians — that has surprised Delhi. Writing in the Foreign Affairs, Obama
declared that he will “join
“join with our allies in insisting — not simply requesting — that
Pakistan crackdown on the Taliban, pursue bin Laden and his lieutenants and end
its relationship with all terrorist groups. At the same time, I will encourage dialogue
between Pakistan and India to work towards resolving their dispute over Kashmir
and between Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their differences and develop the
Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look towards the east (India) with confidence,
it will be less likely to believe its interests are best advanced through cooperation
with the Taliban”.
Taliban”. One of Obama’s foreign policy advisers pointed out to me that
this may well be the first instance of an American presidential candidate offering his
views on Kashmir, this early and with such clarity. There is, thus, some anxiety in
Delhi that Obama may be offering Pakistan diplomatic activism on Kashmir in return
for Islamabad’s cooperation in fighting Al-Qaeda. Undoubtedly, Indo-US relations
have over the years acquired a strategic character, primarily because of the
initiatives taken by Bush. Obama may however be more sensitive to non-
proliferation issues and therefore not in favour of making exceptions to the
international regime to cater to New Delhi’s wishes. On the flip side for Pakistan,
Obama is likely to be even tougher than Bush on the issue of Islamabad’s
cooperation on the war on terror and less tolerant of our ‘duplicitous policy’ on this
issue. In fact, he would be quite willing to consider beefing up American military
presence on our borders with troops that would be released from Iraq. He is also
likely to be less tolerant of any effort by us to ‘assist’ the militants in occupied
Kashmir and also more sympathetic to our democratic aspirations. What the US
thinks and does matters to all of us, especially at a time when it is facing
tremendous challenges, both at home and abroad. An intelligent, moderate and
sensitive White House occupant would therefore be a most welcome change.

Author Location Dated

Javed Naqvi jawednaqvi@gmail.com 19.06.08

– Religion and cholesterol

A recent report in the Daily Mail says British Airways have taken beef off its menu
for economy-class passengers on most international flights in a bid to avoid
offending Hindus. The carrier, whose second-biggest long-haul market is to India,
has instead switched to a fish pie or a chicken portion, citing ‘religious restrictions’.
And of course, true to form a group called the Hindu Council in the United Kingdom
immediately welcomed the deletion of beef from economy-class menu of ‘most’
international flights. The council’s spokesman also added, “It’s
“It’s good to see
evidence of how (Hindus) are literally flying the British flag by choosing British
Airways. Hindus are tolerant of beliefs of others and do not expect everyone to stop
eating a food because they don’t eat it.”
it.” If the claim were true it would be very
good, but going by so much agitational politics traversing India about people’s food
habits, particularly surrounding beef, the council’s claim doesn’t hold. In any case,
as the situation exists, roughly half of India permits eating beef while the other half
has banned it. The northern Indian states are known as the cow belt because they
were the first and for a long time the only ones to impose the rule. Now that the
Hindu religious groups have wrested power on their own strength for the first time
in a southern state, there is every chance that a bit of the cow belt would be
extended into Karnataka too.

It is not as though all the cows thus saved from the butcher’s knife are put on a
pedestal for worship, as many are led to believe. Take the Indian capital where the
bovine population often spills onto precariously congested streets, holding up traffic
and causing accidents. The callousness is only heightened when you see the stray
cow chewing potentially fatal plastic bags they pick up from the open garbage bins.
Elsewhere the surplus bovine population, despite claims to the contrary, is
smuggled out of the country, miraculously through the heavily fenced borders, into
Pakistan. There is this delightful story from a Pakistani diplomat who used to have
many friends in the Indian media during his tenure in Delhi. In one of their meetings
that India’s Border Security Force (BSF) and Pakistani Rangers had in Islamabad, the
Indian side complained about how large volumes of heroin were being smuggled
across the border. How was that possible with the fence in place, they were asked
by Rana Chander Singh, Pakistan’s minister dealing with the smuggling issue. Why
of course there was this occasional bag of heroin that was found stuck on the fence,
which showed the drug was being tossed across the border, came the BSF’s reply. If
so, then how come the Indians had never found a cow that got stuck on the fence,
guffawed Chander Singh, or so the story goes. The implication was that if smuggling
was happening — cattle, drugs or whisky — it could be possible only with the
complicity of those who controlled the gates of the fence. In this situation the buck
never seems to stop.

In any case, I wonder why we can’t follow a simpler, less confrontational argument
against beef-eating; one that has the objective wisdom of science to support the
campaign and not a people’s subjective beliefs? Red meat, the doctor says, is
harmful for human beings because it plays havoc with the levels of bad cholesterol
in the blood. Logically the world should listen to the Hindu sages and others who
prescribe vegetarian eating as the pious way. Forget the pious bit if you are not
religious, but who can deny that vegetarian food is easier to digest than meats? Any
yoga teacher would explain this very simply. There are of course a few laughable
myths about meat-eating and even cricketer Navjot Singh Siddhu suggested that
Indian bowlers were not as fast as Pakistanis because they didn’t eat enough
chicken. The logic of such an argument would take you to South Korea. Its Olympic
performances are infinitely better than what we can ever hope for. Is it because
Koreans consider dog meat a delicacy? A leading heart doctor at a specialist clinic in
Delhi once swore to me that if he had his way he would add cholesterol-reducing
statins to the city’s municipal water supply — such is the tendency of the South
Asian gene to accumulate lethal levels of lipid in the body. It is another matter that
the dairy culture of milk, butter and ghee prevalent in the regions surrounding Delhi
has been found to be just as harmful for its high cholesterol content. (Lord Krishna,
born in neighbouring Mathura, as the legend goes, used to steal butter — and there
is so much music, both thumris and bhajans, including a beautiful song by K.L.
Saigal — celebrating this aspect of the deity when he was a child!) Of course if they
were to follow the doctor’s instructions on healthy eating, most Indians would
starve, as there is not enough of the good food going around. That’s perhaps why
former Lok Sabha Speaker G.G. Swell, an MP from the tribal state of Meghalaya,
protested strongly when Prime Minister Vajpayee, during his 13-day tenure in 1996,
introduced a ban on cow slaughter as one of his government’s priority objectives. It
takes courage to question the axiom of the holy cow, but the alternative before
Swell was to see his people starve to death.

The Daily Mail report raises several other questions, the obvious one being: What
does British Airways have on offer for beef avoiders who may be travelling in a
higher class? Or aren’t there enough of them travelling Business or First for the
airline to bother to craft a special menu? Here the point of view of a member of
Sharjah’s royal family presents a simpler, if also an amusing solution. It so
happened that the emirate of Sharjah, the third largest state of UAE, was losing its
once flourishing hotel business to Dubai, which was ironical. Everyone who came to
watch the popular cricket fixtures in Sharjah would be checking into hotels in the
neighbouring emirate. The reason soon became obvious. Sharjah, under heavy
financial obligations to Saudi Arabia, had cracked down on alcohol and had banned
its consumption even in five-star hotels. Yet the breakfast tables would be piled with
cold meats including pork, ham and sausages, forbidden in Islam. So I asked the
ruler’s close relative about the logic behind serving pork while banning alcohol in
hotels, particularly when it was driving away customers. The answer would be of
interest to British Airways. “The
“The reason is very simple my friend,”
friend,” said the sheikh
with a wink. “Pork
“Pork is not as tempting as alcohol.”
alcohol.” ¦ The writer is Dawn’s
correspondent in Delhi.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Kardar kardar@systemsltd.com 20.06.08

– Budget — on a wing and a prayer

The PPP government had, admittedly, inherited a difficult situation. Unfortunately,
however, it took a casual view of the challenges that lie ahead. The finance
minister’s budget speech did not articulate a vision or medium-term strategy to
address these, partly because the government has been thrown into the deep end,
given the political uncertainty and the timing of election. That we find ourselves in
this situation is not just because of the unparalleled increases in international prices
of commodities like oil and food grains but because government expenditures had
run wild. It is important to understand our predicament because of this factor, since
the foremost issue is not the level and volume of taxation but what tax payers are
being provided from their tax contributions. To illustrate the point take the following
examples of what has been happening to expenditures with tax revenues increasing
from Rs386bn in 1999-2000 to a trillion rupees in 2007-08.

Defence expenditures have risen from Rs150bn to Rs320bn (including military

pensions), this works out to US$34 per capita against US$23 for education and
health combined. New F-16s are being purchased and Rs75bn were overspent
during the year just ending. And there is no debate on whether we are getting value
for our money. Similarly, take the case of civil administration. The expenditure has
grown from Rs48bn to over Rs140bn. Six aircrafts were bought in recent years for
the president, the prime minister and the four chief ministers, with countless bullet-
proof and luxury high fuel consuming cars, innumerable lavish foreign trips of VIPs
(and nothing has changed with the prime minister, who two weeks ago took an
entourage of 84 for Umrah). Again, the Public Sector Development Programme
(PSDP) of Rs550bn supports additional homes for federal ministers although the
concurrent list is being abolished. Add to this list the schemes that should be
implemented by the provincial or local governments, low priority projects not being
dropped, etc. and you get a flavour of the quality of the much celebrated PSDP. The
assumptions on the budget deficit (4.7 per cent of GDP) and inflation (12 per cent)
are optimistic. Although the announcement to freeze non-salary expenditure
components, the ban on purchase of new cars and the reduction in the budget for
the PM’s secretariat (the latter having symbolic importance) deserve praise, we do
not see a serious effort to cut expenditures. And these are our bane — particularly
the spending on defence, administration and the general untargeted subsidies on
oil, fertilisers and electricity consumption of the more affluent.

The target of the budget deficit is ambitious for the following reasons:
a) The current expenditures appear to be significantly underestimated, the best
example being provided by the decision to allow interest charges to go up nominally
despite the increase by almost 20 per cent in debt, to raise interest rate by two
percentage points on the National Savings Schemes and shift borrowing to sources
other than the State Bank.
b) The full cost of the 20 per cent salary increase and the enhancement of pensions
of retired civil and military personnel have not been fully factored in, with this bill
being particularly steep for the provinces.
c) While increased reliance on indirect taxes has been preferred, it is estimated that
collections from direct taxes could go up by another Rs100bn with little additional
tax effort. But this may not actually happen.
d) The target of 25 per cent growth in tax revenues looks unreasonable even if we
factor in the tax mobilisation proposals of Rs66bn. This is so because industrial
production and competitiveness (and thereby economic growth and government tax
revenues) are expected to be hit by energy shortages, the increase in interest rates
as monetary policy is tightened further, the L/C 35 per cent cash margin
requirement and the phasing out of oil and electricity subsidies. In other words, the
budget deficit may well be two percentage points of GDP higher.

Sadly, no attempt has been made to begin to tackle the structural and systemic
issues that saddle the tax regime. The government has chosen to tax the already
taxed sectors (by simply increasing GST to 16 per cent and by enhancing excise
duty on cement, telecommunications, financial services) rather than improving the
structure, removing the distortions in the incentive systems and expanding the
coverage/base to other exempted (agriculture) or lightly taxed sectors like services
and trading in listed shares. This will simply incentivise evasion. Nor has the issue of
definitions been resolved, with trading incomes of stock market and real estate
brokers continuing to be treated as capital gains and exempted from taxation,
without the Capital Value Tax (CVT) on transactions being raised. Yet another —
fourth one — amnesty whitener scheme at two per cent has been announced
despite the tried, tested and failed experience of such initiatives. Duty on all
imports has been increased by one per cent and on 300 ‘luxury items’ by 3035 per
cent — ostensibly to narrow the trade deficit by discouraging imports. Although the
measure is well-intentioned given our weak administrative mechanisms and
systems this is more likely to succeed in encouraging under-invoicing and
smuggling.

Also, while passing on the increase in international prices of oil over a shorter period
there is a need to consider reducing the GST to five per cent (or to a specific
subsidy) to ensure no revenue loss for two years to raise it back to 15 per cent
when the economic situation improves. Moving to the direct poverty addressing
measures, the scope of the cash transfer programme (the Benazir card) is
disappointing considering that there are around 10 million households below or
hovering around the poverty line that need help urgently for the next year or so.
Moreover, the use of this card as an instrument of payment will not be transparent.
To prevent leakages we need public display of the names of the beneficiaries and
public distribution of the grant. The other worrying aspect for which there are no
easy answers, except that perhaps the untargeted subsidies should only be
withdrawn (with all the implications for the budget deficit) when the system of cash
transfers is fully in place. Whereas the demand is for immediate relief setting up the
system could take as much as six months, and is likely to continue to exclude a
sizable chunk of eligible beneficiaries (in Fata, Balochistan, interior Sindh) with no ID
cards. The government has chosen not to spell out its strategy to finance the
massive current account deficit projected at US$13bn for next year, especially if the
domestic and international environment for privatisation and floatation of Global
Depository Receipts (GDR) remains murky. Although there has been a net capital
inflow, the bulk of them are sources either volatile or tenuous in nature, raising
serious questions about the stability of the external sector. However, the biggest
challenge for the government will be the management of public expectations. This
holds especially true with respect to subsidies (particularly of wheat flour from the
three million tons of high cost imported wheat and the R&D subsidy for industry).
The planned reduction in subsidies will require significant increases in electricity
tariffs, oil and wheat flour prices, a politically daunting task.

Author Location Dated

Aisha Siddiqua Ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 20.06.08
 – Is it transparent now?
The new government has made the defence budget relatively transparent. The new
defence budget now discloses expenditure on personnel, operations and assets. It
also contains service-wise breakup. Although the disclosure is still not perfect and a
lot of people expect more details, the availability of some information as compared
to the one-line budget of the past is an essential first step. It shows that the new
military leadership had realised that it could not improve the organisation’s image
without making some basic concessions including relative transparency of its
spending. How far the appetite for greater information will be satisfied will depend
on this — and the successive — government’s ability to capitalise upon this
opportunity to expand its power vis-à-vis the armed forces. Broadly speaking, there
are two patterns of transparency in military expenditure. The first relates to the
Nato definition of defence spending which clearly specifies that it would include all
activities, even those in the civilian sector and by paramilitary forces, which are
designed to strengthen the military’s capability. The Nato classification includes
pension, defence industry, special projects and all other defence related spending.
The other pattern relates to the Indian definition of the defence budget that
provides certain amount of details but does not meet the Nato definition. The Indian
budget gives breakdowns for the three services and also figures of annual capital
expenditure versus operations spending. Since there is no hard and fast rule about
what each country will reveal, Pakistan seems to have followed the latter approach.
This pattern represents the via media between civilian demand for greater
information and the military’s sensitivity for some amount of secrecy.

It could be argued that it is not impossible to follow the US and British pattern of
disclosure of defence estimates, but given the colonial nature of the military
institution, the figures which have been provided now are better than the complete
opacity of the past. This transparency is a historic milestone on, hopefully, what will
turn out to be a road to greater transparency and better civilian control of the
defence sector. Improved civilian authority over the armed forces is a corollary of
greater transparency and vice versa. A more confident civilian government means
the one which makes the military and the country at large confident of its ability to
deliver and govern the state. In Pakistan’s historical context, the military is a
political force to reckon with and it would have to be convinced of the ability of the
political dispensation to govern the country to cooperate more. A glance at the
recently released budgetary figure of Rs295.306bn shows that the armed forces are
spending 34 per cent on personnel, 28 per cent on operations, 4.1 per cent on
travel, 29.7 percent on physical assets (meaning weapons), 8.7 per cent on civil
works and 23.9 per cent goes on general expenditure. The service-wise breakdown
is 43 per cent is the army’s share, 24 per cent is for the air force, and 9.8 per cent
for the navy and 22.5 per cent goes to inter-services and defence production
institutions. The teethto-tail ratio appears negative. The defence budget does not
include approximately Rs45bn in military pensions nor does it necessarily disclose
off-budget financing. There are definitional issues as well such as where to classify
retired military personnel that continue to work in civilian departments whose pay
and personnel cost is not charged to the defence budget. Then there are other
expenses incurred by the civilian local governments on behalf of military
establishments or in cantonment areas which does not show up as part of military
expenditure.
One could go on and on with details of where the lines between military and civilian
spending are fuzzy. Tabulating all such figures we could reach a total of Rs350-
360bn. This does not mention the spending on the nuclear programme, not all of
which can be found in this more transparent defence budgetary figure. But let’s not
complain about the current level of transparency. The greater problem is with the
other claim regarding the possible reduction of defence spending which cannot
happen due to the following reasons. First, the current configuration of the military
does not allow for a substantial reduction of the military’s long-term liabilities such
as personnel cost. A noticeable reduction can happen in two situations: (a) a
unilateral decision by Pakistan (within a regional arms control framework) to disarm
and (b) change the structure of the military by making it less labour intensive and
more capital intensive. These are serious political decisions which cannot be taken
until the government is stable and the Defence Cabinet Committee of the
Parliament (DCC) is strong enough to make such decisions. Second, currently the
DCC depends upon the military for input. The 22 parliamentary committees, which
were formed during the 1970s as a result of ‘higher defence re-organisation’ of the
Bhutto days, do not have a system whereby independent opinion is sought to
corroborate the information provided by the military intelligence services and the
service headquarters. For example, during the 1980s, the air and naval
headquarters had played up external threat to force the government to allow the
services to buy a certain category of French missiles. Since the government then
did not have an alternative source of information, it gave in to the demands. The
present parliament could either encourage a system of lobbying by various
stakeholders as happens in the US or allow for the streamlining of the defence
bureaucracy for better information.

This brings me to the third issue of the lack of capacity of the existing Ministry of
Defence (MoD). Over the years, the MoD has become impotent due to its
militarisation and lack of expertise. The MoD should be manned by experts who
know management of defence. This means training of bureaucrats and bringing in
outside experts. The Pakistani civilian bureaucrats, especially of the MoD, are no
comparison to their more powerful counterparts in India. The appointment of
military officers in key positions in the ministry has completely weakened the ability
of the civilian bureaucrats to deliver. An under-capacitated MoD bureaucracy cannot
reduce the wastage in the defence budget which is estimated to be over 20 per
cent. This means that we cannot have reduction in the short or medium terms.
Fourth, accountability is a crucial factor. There are structural flaws in the military’s
accounting and auditing system which currently encourages wastage. Finally, given
the military’s existing plans to carry out military modernisation, it does not seem
that immediate defence burden will reduce substantially in the short to medium
term. Thus, a short-term suggestion one could offer the existing parliament is to
hold a conference of experts on military expenditure and defence accountability in
which international and national experts could apprise the government about how
to go about its business of dealing with the defence burden. If the cat is to be
belled, let it be done properly. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and
political analyst.

Author Location Dated

Kuldip Nayar 20.06.08
 – Wounds heal, scars remain
It was a conflagration — the emergency imposed by Mrs Indira Gandhi in June 33
years ago. In 19 months, the period for which it lasted, every institution got scarred.
The constitution was mutilated. Personal freedom was forfeited. The press was
gagged. The judiciary was shackled. Parliament had its tenure extended. The
largest democracy in the world put more than 100,000 people under detention
without trial. And, as the then attorney general said, the state could kill anyone with
impunity. The institutions have regained their health but the scars are still visible.
What has probably been lost for ever is the people’s sensitivity. They do not react to
the abuse of power. I thought that those brutalities would never revisit the country.
I see all of them coming back with a vengeance: false encounter killings, custodial
deaths, kidnappings, violations of human rights and detentions under the security
law. What has probably happened to the people is that once Mrs Gandhi wiped out
the thin line dividing right from wrong, moral from immoral they do not mind or feel
where they stand. There is no compunction in hitting below the belt or committing
even the gravest wrong. In fact, the wrong itself has undergone a change in
meaning. It has become a relative term. The Manmohan Singh government has five
ministers whose hands are tainted with the excesses committed during the
emergency. They are: Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee, Commerce Minister
Kamal Nath, Law Minister H.R. Bhardwaj, Minister for Heavy Industries Santosh
Mohan Dev and Tourism Minister Ambika Soni.Soni. They should quit giving face to
morality and ethics.

The judiciary has been the biggest casualty. Mrs Gandhi transferred 16 judges.
President Pervez Musharraf, when he clamped the emergency in Pakistan dismissed
some 60 of them. But there had to be a difference between a military dictator and a
civil dictator. Judges in India were restored to their positions. But in Pakistan the
dismissed judges have become victims to the politics of behind-the-scenes
bargains. The Shah Commission which went into the excesses during the
emergency in India warned: “The “The state owes it to the nation to assure that this vital
limb (the judiciary) of the government will not be subjected to strains which might
even indirectly operate as punitive.”
punitive.” But this has had little effect. Chief justices in
India are vying with each other to oblige the government on transfers or, for that
matter, appointments. Judgments are generally at the asking. The highfalutin
phrases like the independence of the judiciary are primarily on paper. Corruption
was inevitable once the standards came to be compromised. Mrs Gandhi regretted
‘certain mistakes’,
mistakes’, but never the emergency and brought back the officers who
were instruments of tyranny during her rule. Not only did she punish those who had
pursued cases of excesses against her and her son Sanjay Gandhi, who was an
extra-constitutional authority, she divided the bureaucracy into ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’.
The civil service is now a set of sycophants and supplicants who allow themselves
to be used by politicians. There was one Sanjay Gandhi at the centre then. Now
every state has a chief minister’s son or a nephew emulating him. And it was no
surprise that she threw out even the recommendations by the National Police
Commission to reform the force because the police were used by her
indiscriminately. She preferred to stay with the Indian police system, structured on
an Act of 1861 and rejected the draft bill which the Police Commission had
recommended to release the force from the stranglehold of politicians.
Since the baby was thrown out with the bathtub, even the recommendations to
make police accountable were not implemented. The Supreme Court has picked up
the thread and made it obligatory for states to implement the recommendations.
The states have not done so. What is seen in Kashmir, the northeast or elsewhere in
the country is a cumulative effect of unbridled authority given to the force. It does
not know, much less cares about normal, acceptable methods to deal with a
situation. The IB and CBI are loaded with assignments which are not really theirs.
Keeping track of opposition leaders and critics of the government, intercepting their
mail and taping their telephones is not what the two agencies should be doing. The
worst fallout of the emergency has been that the public servants have invariably
become an instrument in the hands of ministers at the centre and in the states. The
ethical considerations inherent in public behaviour have become generally dim and
in many cases beyond the mental grasp of many of the public functionaries. Desire
for self-preservation has become the sole motivation for their action and behaviour.
Manmohan Singh who has been a top civil servant should have devised some steps
to retrieve them. Anxiety to survive at any cost forms the keynote of approach to
the problems that come before public servants. The training academies live in an
ivory tower because their elitist approach makes them too distant from the common
man. It should be obligatory for the trainees to work with NGOs at the grassroots.
They may learn, if not imbibe, the qualities of humility which officials lack. And
there has to be a mechanism to punish the errant civil servants. None was even
demoted or sacked for deliberately flouting laws and harassing those who were
against the emergency. Some of them occupy key positions today: N.K. Chawla, the
hatchet man and Lt. Governor Kishen Chand is a member of the Union Election
Commission.

The journalists’ role was pathetic. They were afraid to join issue with the
government. L.K. Advani said aptly: You were asked to bend and you began to
crawl.
crawl. In contrast, the Pakistani media came out on the streets when restrictions
were imposed on the telecast of the lawyers’ agitation. True, at present, there is no
visible dictation in India. But it looks as if it is not necessary. The different pieces
are beginning to fall into place without anyone making an effort. Already there is a
tendency to go along and not to question. If without the emergency people start
‘behaving’ there is something wrong with the system. Once the desire to act
according to what is right goes, there may be no realisation of what is wrong. This is
precisely what is happening. ¦ The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Author Location Dated

New York 20.06.08

– Headscarved women kept away from Obama event

Senator Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has offered apologies for keeping
Muslim women wearing headscarves out of a key shot at his Detroit rally despite
invitations. The two Muslim women wearing hijab (headscarves) told news media on
Wednesday that the volunteer who stopped them cited political atmosphere in the
country while barring their seating on the podium. Hebba Aref said that she and
Shimaa Abdelfadeel were among 20,000 supporters who had gathered to see Mr
Obama. The volunteer “explained
“explained to me that because of the political climate and
what’s going on in the world and what’s going on with Muslim Americans it’s not
good for her to be seen on TV or associated with Obama,”
Obama,” Koussan, who is a law
student at Wayne State University was quoted by a newspaper. A spokesman for
Obama said such actions were “not
“not the policy of the campaign.”“It is offensive and
counter to Obama’s commitment to bring Americans together and simply not the
kind of campaign we run. We sincerely apologise for this behavior,”
behavior,” the statement
read.

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 20.06.08

– Assembly sees signs of life as budget debate begins

The Sindh Assembly session on Thursday, which was first day of general discussion
on the budget for financial year 2008-09 and supplementary budget 2007-08,
turned out to be quite lively when participants from both sides of the house equally
highlighted pressing issues being faced by the people and the province. They
stressed the need to root out sifarshi culture, adopt a merit-based system, and
utilize development funds with honesty so that the objectives of rule of law and
good governance could be achieved. Before Speaker Nisar Ahmed Khuhro called it a
day to reassemble at 9am on Friday to continue the discussion, a total of 13
members – 11 from the treasury (six from the Pakistan People’s Party, five from the
Muttahida Qaumi Movement) and two from the opposition benches – took part in
the discussion. Mr Khuhro, in the past assembly as leader of the opposition, used to
appeal to the chair to hold a minimum four hour sitting. True to his words he made
it clear to Law Minister Ayaz Soomro when the session was called to order two hours
behind its scheduled time at 11.30am, that the session would have a sitting of four
hours. “If
“If the proceedings start late, they will have to sit and make up the time,”
time,” he
said. After recitation from the Holy Qur’an and Na’at, two new members, who were
elected unopposed – Ameer Ali Shah from PS 44 (Matiari) and Sharjeel Memon from
PS-62 (Tharparker), both from the PPP, were administered oath. They were greeted
along with Jam Madad Ali on his becoming leader of the opposition. Among those
offering felicitations were Ayaz Soomro, Senior Minister and PPP parliamentary party
leader Pir Mazharul Haq, and MQM’s parliamentary party leader and minister Sardar
Ahmad.

Expressing gratitude to his colleagues for reposing confidence in him and for the
kind sentiments expressed by members of the treasury, Jam Madad Ali assured
them of full cooperation on behalf of his colleagues in finding solutions to the
problems being faced by the people of Sindh. However, he also pointed out what he
claimed was political victimisation of the district nazim of Umarkot and taluka Tando
Bagho by registering “baseless” FIRs and also raised the issue of the harassment of
eminent social worker Abdul Sattar Edhi, who had recently been issued notices by
the Auqaf department regarding rent pay ments of the Edhi Centre in Mithadar. The
law minister said the PPP believed in democracy and had never indulged in the
politics of victimisation, even though, as he claimed, the party had suffered the
most. “We
“We will hold a fair inquiry into the matter and the complaints will be
addressed.”
addressed.” Excise and Taxation Minister Mukesh Kumar, on a point of order, asked
the ministers, MPAs and bureaucrats to change the fancy number plates and tinted
glasses from their vehicles. Pir Mazhar said the PPP was pursuing a philosophy of
reconciliation, which was the guiding principle of Benazir Bhutto, which was why
they had extended a hand of friendship to all, including the MQM. MPA Shama
Mithani, on her point of order, drew attention towards the escalating price of milk
and suggested that a committee of MPAs should be formed to bring the milk price
under control, which appeared to be beyond the control of the city government.
Shamim Ara said that cases registered against her and her family by previous
government on “fictitious charges” should be withdrawn. Humera Alwani asked
about the recommendations of the committee, which had been formed to update
the rules of business and include provisions for call attention notices.

Information Minister Shazia Marri, showing betel-nut packets being sold with the
photographs of PPP leaders Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto, stressed the
need for administrative action as pictures of the leaders could not be allowed for
commercial use. Anwar Mehar of the PPP termed the budget “people friendly,”
referring to the measures proposed for employment, reduction of poverty,
improving agricultural production and increasing the MPA fund from Rs5 million to
Rs10 million. Pointing out that power was the province’s biggest problem, he
suggested that Sindh should generate its own electricity through coal-fired power
plants. Mr Mehar also suggested that the governor hand over control of secondary
and higher secondary boards of education to the Sindh government as was the case
in other provinces. He also lamented the province’s law and order situation,
particularly the issue of tribal clashes. Jam Tamachi of the PPP said that during the
last decade or so, all institutions had been demolished and whatever was left was
decimated by the caretaker government during its three-month rule. He called for
an end to sifarshi culture and urged that the appointments of SHOs should only be
made by the SPs. Jam Tamachi termed Wapda the “biggest “biggest enemy of Sindh,”
Sindh,” which
had cut off power supply to villages for no mistake of the common man, who was
left to suffer power outages for 10 to 12 hours. He suggested that an operation be
carried out in the irrigation department to end water theft. He decried the situation
of roads in the interior and deplored the fact that the education system had been
“destroyed.” He said the situation of the health sector was no better as most basic
health units were lying vacant as there were no doctors, medicines and other staff
or equipment. ‘Hard work’ required Jam Tamachi said that whatever he had said
was not a disclosure but in the knowledge of all the ministers. He pointed out that
people had a lot of expectations from the government, which could not be met with
public dealing exercises but only through hard work. “The “The issues cannot be resolved
by paying flying visits to districts, but only if ministers ensure their presence in
every district for two to three days to attend and address the people’s problems.”
problems.”
He lamented that when in the opposition, they had awareness of all the issues but
after coming into power, their wavelength had totally changed.

Heer Ismail Soho of the MQM, referring to allocations in different heads for
implementation of public welfare schemes, praised the government for presenting a
budget which would benefit the common man. She also mentioned water problems
of tail-end farmers of Thatta and Badin, where Ghora Bari, Shah Bander and Keti
Bander areas were at the verge of destruction. She demanded a special package for
Thatta and Badin districts. Shahryar Khan Mehar of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q
advised the government not to mock the people by declaring the budget as a “poor
man’s budget,” as there was nothing to provide relief to people. He said wheat flour
was not available to them and by increasing GST on all articles, prices would be
increased. He said that although 65 per cent of Sindh’s people live off agriculture,
this sector was ignored in the budget. He suggested the need for creating a new
force on the pattern of the motorway police, which would help in reducing
unemployment. Stephen Peter of the MQM said that in the last budget, Rs100
million were allocated for minorities but could not be utilised. He suggested that
before preparing next year’s budget, all MPAs should be asked to submit schemes
which were needed most in their localities. He suggested that five per cent of
development funds from each MPA should be reserved for minority areas. Dr
Sikandar Mandhro of the PPP said that out of a total 139 oil wells in Pakistan, 112
are in Sindh and out of 140 gas fields, 107 are located in Sindh, which produces 56
per cent and 71 per cent respectively. He said: “we
“we are not serious about getting
our rights. Our economy is slipping. If we want to improve the situation in the
province, we have to change our approach.”
approach.” He lauded the PPP-MQM coalition and
said it augurs well as both parties had the people’s mandate and if the leadership of
both parties demonstrated largeheartedness and forgot past hatred, they could
deliver. Qazi Shamsuddin Rajar of the PML-F, Mazahir Amir Khan of MQM, Ghulam
Mohammad Shaliani of PPP, Ghulam Mujadid Asran of PPP, Mohammad Alim-ur-
Rehman of the MQM and Mohammad Tahir Qureshi of the MQM also spoke.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mahmood Lahore, Pakistan 21.06.08

– PML-N to support 29-judge SC

Despite having differences with the PPP over modalities for reinstatement of the
deposed judges, the PML-N will support the Finance Bill seeking an increase in the
number of Supreme Court judges from the present 16 to 29. Briefing the media
after over four hours of talks between PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and PPP
cochairman Asif Zardari at the former’s residence here on Friday, PML-N leader
Khwaja Mohammad Asif said his party would not oppose any part of the bill.
Meanwhile, talking to reporters at a function in the evening, Mr Sharif said he
wanted restoration of the judges through a resolution and that their seniority must
remain as it was on Nov 2, 2007. He regretted that the preemergency judiciary
could not be restored despite the passage of four months. Khwaja Asif said
differences between the two coalition partners over modalities for impeachment of
President Musharraf and reinstatement of the deposed judges still persisted and
more rounds of talks would be held. “Had
“Had there been any breakthrough on the two
issues, Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari themselves would have informed the media about
the details,”
details,” he added.

The new round of negotiations, he said, would be held next month after Mr Zardari
returned from abroad on July 2. Justifying the need for more talks, he said the two
leaders had to consult with their respective parties as well as with other allies,
including Asfandyar Wali’s ANP and Fazlur Rehman’s JUI, on important issues. In
reply to a question about the finalisation of a candidate to replace President
Musharraf, he said the issue would be taken up after the Presidency was vacated.
About rejoining of the federal cabinet by the PML-N, he reiterated his party’s stance
that the decision would be taken only after the reinstatement of judges. It was the
second meeting between the two leaders over the past three days. The first
meeting, which lasted for about three hours, was held on Wednesday.

Author Location Dated

Shadaba Islam 21.06.08
 – How Europe views Pakistan
After an initial bout of upbeat reporting on Pakistan following the breakthrough
February elections, the country’s image in Europe and the United States is once
again being badly damaged by infighting between key political leaders, tensions
with Afghanistan and a seemingly ramshackle national approach to dealing with
insurgents and religious extremists. Not surprisingly, therefore, the flurry of
optimistic articles and arguments about Pakistan’s political and economic prospects
has given way to a more sceptical view of the country’s future. Patience with the
new democratically-elected leaders has not yet run out completely in either the EU
or the US — or indeed within the Nato military alliance. But as was made clear at a
recent high-level conference on Pakistan held in Brussels, the government in
Islamabad will have to act urgently to restore its credibility if it is to maintain
international trust and confidence. Building democracy and stabilising Pakistan will
require a constructive mix of sustained national effort as well as targeted aid,
technical assistance and long-term political support from the US and the EU,
according to participants at the conference organised by the European Policy
Centre, an independent think-tank based in Brussels.

On the domestic front, Islamabad faces the challenge of strengthening its

democratic foundations, tackling inflation and high food and fuel prices as well as
spreading good governance, underlined Khalid Mahmood, Pakistan’s former
ambassador to Poland and Oman who now heads the Institute of Public Policy,
Beaconhouse National University in Lahore. Pakistan’s ‘predatory elite’, constituting
less than one per cent of the population, has dominated the state and rigged the
market to obtain the benefits of economic growth, Mr Mahmood said. He also added
that under-investment in education is one of the most alarming indicators of the
economic development experience of Pakistan. While Washington was a vital
partner for Islamabad, the former envoy criticised current US policy towards
Pakistan, saying the lion’s share of American assistance had gone to Pakistan’s
military sector instead of being spent on education and health. “The
“The hot and cold
wars that Pakistan has fought with and for the US have extracted a political,
psychological and social price from the people of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” he warned. With the US
focused exclusively on links with the army, the EU must provide Pakistan with
assistance, tools and support needed to consolidate democracy and the rule of law,
Mr. Mahmood said. The EU’s experience in helping countries like Spain, Portugal,
Greece and Poland move from military rule to democracy could be replicated in
Pakistan, for instance. “The
“The EU has expertise in developing know-how in reforming
economic and political infra structure in different countries,”
countries,” Mr. Mahmood said,
adding that such assistance included job training, skill formation, delivery of basic
services to people and governance related issues.

Tariff concessions through a so-called ‘GSP Plus’ scheme were also needed to
provide Pakistan with a level playing field in the trade sector. Europe should deploy
“sensitive and smart diplomacy” in its dealings with Pakistan and try to increase its
current 50m euros a year budget for Pakistan to 500m euros, added Mr. Mahmood.
Relations with Pakistan could be a “test
“test of the EU’s profile as the world’s biggest
donor, an engine for reforms and a soft power making hard choices,”
choices,” the
ambassador concluded. Karl Inderfurth, former US Assistant Secretary of State for
South Asian affairs who is currently professor at the George Washington University
Elliot School of International Affairs, highlighted that Pakistan was living a
“democratic moment.” However, political uncertainty, economic fragility and
security threats threatened to overshadow the country’s democratic renewal, he
warned. The US focus on President Pervez Musharraf and the military meant that in
recent months, Washington had been “on “on the wrong side of democracy”
democracy” in Pakistan,
Mr Inderfurth told the conference. The US must not try and “micro-manage”
Pakistan, he said, while also criticising US aid to the military and lack of focus on
health and education. EU director for Asia, James Moran insisted that post-election,
Europe was determined to forge a “new, reinvigorated approach” with Pakistan,
given the country’s strategic importance and the challenges its faces in political
transition and economic development. The deployment during the elections of up to
130 EU election monitors was an indication of Europe’s rising interest in helping
Pakistan’s transition toward democracy, said Mr. Moran. But the current crisis in the
ruling coalition, uncertainty over the role of the parliament and confusion over the
status of a president, who while challenged on his political legitimacy, still had the
right to dismiss the legislature, were undermining Pakistan’s reputation, warned Mr.
Moran. Economic challenges were a further source of concern, he added.

The senior EU official commended the people of Pakistan for giving a clear verdict in
favour of democratic rule and moderation and said that the country’s vibrant civil
society had also helped ensure the move to democracy. However, “if “if the transition
to civilian governance and legitimacy is to be effective, political parties now in
power will have to earn respect on a number of issues,”
issues,” he said. As such, there
must be a longterm plan to strengthen governance, the rule of law and social
development, with political parties also undergoing reform, elections and
reorganisation, Mr. Moran added. As regards peace deals with tribal leaders, the EU
would support efforts in as far as they were designed to isolate militants rather than
allowing them safe place and did not involve negotiations with terrorists. “A “A multi-
track approach is required on the border, combining a developmental approach
with political reforms while ensuring security,”
security,” he underlined, adding that the EU
was unlikely to increase its aid to Pakistan tenfold as suggested by Mr Mahmood but
a three-fold increase in EU assistance had already taken place. Given their domestic
priorities, Pakistan’s new leaders may not have the time or energy to focus on
perceptions of the country in Europe and the US. However, while many European
and American policymakers continue to harbour goodwill and patience towards
Pakistan for the moment, these are precious commodities that could be exhausted
in the medium term. ¦ The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

Author Location Dated

Salahuddin Ahmed 21.06.08

– Is the judiciary independent?

The Objectives Resolution adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1949 and
acknowledged as the grund norm of constitution-making in Pakistan contained an
express commit ment that the ‘independence of the judiciary shall be fully secured’.
These words formed part of the preamble to all subsequent constitutions including
the present one. This commitment was further reinforced when the resolution was
made an enforceable part of the constitution through Article 2-A. As a practical step
towards the achievement of the objectives of the judiciary’s independence, the
Constitution of 1973 explicitly stated in Article 175-3 that the judiciary shall be
progressively separated from the executive within three years. (This deadline was
later extended to 14 years but that too expired decades ago.) This provision,
requiring the separation of the judiciary from the executive, gave specific meaning
and content to the concept of securing independence of the judiciary. The Supreme
Court held that according to the consensus of jurists, the independence of the
judiciary meant that this body is independent of the executive and the legislature
and has jurisdiction directly or by way of review over all issues of judicial nature.
Thus directions for placing subordinate courts and services of judicial officers under
the administrative control of respective high courts were issued and the
constitutional mandate was made effective in respect of the subordinate judiciary.

Unfortunately, the recently introduced and much trumpeted ‘constitutional

package’, insofar as it seeks to amend provisions of the constitution related to the
judiciary, attempts to destroy the very concept of its independence instead of the
avowed commitment to strengthen it. With what intention was a document
purporting to place the judiciary under executive control for all times to come
prepared? The desire to bring about reforms in the judiciary is well-intentioned.
After all it must be conceded that the performance of the judiciary has not always
been entirely enviable. However, reforms could have been enacted through a
serious application of mind by finding a viable solution according to the spirit of the
constitution. Instead, what we have is an attempt to create a judiciary whose
appointment and tenure is placed under effective executive control. It is also
denuded of the authority to enforce fundamental rights of citizens. It needs to be
realised that the constitution is a living document expected to survive for times to
come. The government should therefore look ahead. Here we shall examine the
different provisions relating to the judiciary contained in the proposed package.
Some solutions to existing problems are also offered.

Judicial Appointments: Under the existing provisions of the constitution though

appointment to the superior courts are technically made by the president (on the
advice of the prime minister) the constitution itself mandates him to consult judicial
functionaries before effecting such appointments. In the first instance, a judge of
the high court can only be appointed in consultation with the Chief Justice of
Pakistan, the governor of the provinces and the chief justice of the concerned high
court. The constitutions of 1956 and 1962 contained similar provisions and this was
also the practice in prePartition days. It is, therefore, a complete fallacy to assume
that such appointments were ever intended to be in the exclusive domain of the
executive. One may add that as a matter of practice fresh appointments in the high
courts are made by way of additional judges for a limited duration (normally a year)
and while the executive does contribute to the initial selection process at the stage
of a regular appointment on permanent basis, which largely depends on the
performance of the selectee, the recommendations of the chief justice as a matter
of propriety are generally honoured. The practice of appointing additional judges in
the first instance is generally approved which provides an opportunity to rectify a
wrong selection and also enables an appointee to opt out if he finds it difficult to
adjust to a judicial office.

As a matter of well entrenched convention, having acquired the force of law, the
senior most serving judge is almost invariably appointed the chief justice of that
court and there have only been two cases of deviations from this practice in the
Supreme Court in Pakistan’s 60-year history which gave rise to considerable public
criticism. In one case, the legality of the appointment was questioned before the
court which held that the convention had acquired the force of law and the
appointment made in its deviation was unconstitutional. Without commenting on
the merits of the decision, it is obvious that the convention is followed only to
insulate the judiciary from executive pressures and there could be no justification
for abandoning it now. While the independence of the judiciary from the executive
is spelt out in the constitution, its independence from legislative supervision and
control is also clearly implied. Lord Denning spoke of this principle (which generally
applies to all parliamentary democracies) in his book The Family Story.Story. He wrote:
“The keynote of the rule of law in England has been the independence of judges. It
is the only respect in which we make any real separation of powers. There is no real
separation between the executive and legislative powers because a minister who
exercises executive powers also directs a great deal of legislative power of
parliament but the judicial power is truly separate”.
separate”. Considering that we have a
written constitution which requires each organ of the state to act within its elected
sphere and guarantees justiceable fundamental rights to citizens, the concept of
supremacy of the constitution and not that of the parliament has been recognised.
The court has the authority to strike down any law made by parliament in
transgression of the authority conferred upon it by the constitution or in violation of
constitutionally guaranteed rights of the citizens. It is, therefore, impossible to hold
the courts subordinate to the parliament under our constitutional system. It is
equally interesting to note that even in Britain, where the theory of sovereignty of
parliament ruled the legal system for generations, it has been recently abandoned.
In the case of X. Ltd. and another v/s. Morgan Grampiani Ltd. and others (1990 2
AER 1) decided by the House of Lords in 1990 Lord Bridge laid down the following
rule in clear terms “the
“the maintenance of rule of law is in every way as important as
the democratic franchise”.
franchise”. He added, “In
“In our society the rule of law rests upon twin
foundations: The sovereignty of the Queen in parliament in making the law and the
sovereignty of the Queen’s Court in interpreting and applying the law.” law.” In asserting
the above principles their Lordships reversed the observation of the Court of Appeal
to the effect that courts were servants of the parliament. ¦ To be continued…

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfan.husain@gmail.com 21.06.08

– A state in denial
Just as Dr A.Q. Khan was back in the limelight in Pakistan, and there were
indications that he might be freed after five years under house arrest, reports in the
western media have again surfaced, tying him to the notorious proliferation network
he is alleged to have set up. At the heart of the latest revelations are the designs
for miniaturised atomic warheads that have been found on the hard disks of
computers in the possession of a Swiss family that was allegedly working with Khan.
The ‘father of the Pakistani bomb’ has denied any link to this design, but it is
doubtful that he will be allowed to get off the hook so easily. Newspaper reports
suggest that western governments will exert pressure to ensure that Khan is kept in
custody. There is continuing concern that in case he is freed, he will return to selling
nuclear secrets to all comers, including terrorists. Many Pakistanis see Khan as a
national hero, forgetting all the other scientists who laboured for years to build the
bomb. In their eyes, this western preoccupation with the ‘Khan nuclear network’ is
yet another example of selective criticism. Why, they ask, doesn’t the West pick on
Israel and India? The answer lies in the fact that scientists in neither country have
figured in the kind of scandal Khan did. This is just one instance of the state of
denial that colours our response to criticism. When radical Muslims from all over the
world travel to Pakistan to receive training in bomb-making, and indoctrination in
extremist interpretations of Islam, we hold up our hands and claim we are not
responsible. Never mind that these training camps are located within our borders,
and those running them are well known to our intelligence agencies. When
graduates from these camps kill and maim innocent people in the West, we wash
our hands of all responsibility.

Similarly, when drugs were a major export from Pakistan, we conveniently blamed
the addicts for pushing up demand and prices in the West. When illegal immigrants
from Pakistan cross borders all over the world, we claim we can do nothing to halt
this traffic. And when supporters of the Taliban cross over into Afghanistan, or when
jihadis traverse the Line of Control into Indian Kashmir with or without the
connivance of our intelligence agencies, we pretend complete ignorance. All these
examples I have cited underline the failure of the state to impose the law of the
land on its citizens. In some cases, such as the A.Q. Khan episode, the state turns a
blind eye, or is an active partner. Ditto for those crossing international borders to
commit mayhem in neighbouring areas. But the problem is that by making
exceptions in certain cases, the state itself weakens the rule of law. Once border
guards and intelligence agencies are told they must let certain groups cross borders
without proper documents, the same state functionaries will then indulge in private
enterprise and let drugs, arms and illegal migrants through as well. When the state
itself becomes a major law-breaker, we should not be surprised when others follow
suit, not for any grand policy, but to make money. So if a scientist is instructed to
secretly aid another country in its nuclear programme, why should we be shocked if
he decides to do some lucrative freelance work? In Khan’s case, it was common
knowledge that he was running a consultancy service out of Dubai long before his
alleged network was rolled up in 2004. His lifestyle and his extensive properties
were totally out of proportion to his government salary.

Despite Pakistan’s role in the war against terror, it is widely regarded as the hub of
Islamic terrorism. Time and again in trials of militants in the West, it has emerged
that they had travelled to Pakistan to receive training and indoctrination. Despite
this vast mountain of evidence, we remain in denial, unwilling or unable to grasp
that we have become virtual pariahs around the world. But if we have become a
lawless society, it is because successive governments have ignored the law when it
has suited them. Corrupt individuals have taken advantage of this vacuum to
further their personal agendas and enrich themselves. And now, the likes of
Baitullah Mehsud and Jalaluddin Haqqani, seeing that the writ of law does not
extend to them, have set up their own fiefdoms from where they direct their
brainwashed foot-soldiers to attack targets in Pakistan and in Afghanistan. Is this
trend irreversible? Can we claw our way out of this descending spiral? Apart from
the framework of the law, society itself has succumbed to an amoral code of
behaviour where only money counts. Today, drug smugglers and corrupt
bureaucrats and generals are the darlings of high society because they can throw
lavish parties and have money to burn. The fact that they are plugged into the
system and know the right people, also gives them a standing they would not enjoy
in more law-abiding countries. Many pious Pakistanis would argue that we are at
this pass because we have stopped observing the tenets of Islam. Unfortunately,
many of the categories I have mentioned here pray regularly, perform Hajj, and
even give to the poor. For them, this token observance guarantees a place in
heaven. Indeed, some of the most corrupt and nasty people I have met were
outwardly very religious. What then is the answer? For starters, we need to clear up
the confusion on what the law of the land actually is. Currently, we seem to have a
surplus of laws: there is civil law that derives from the much-amended constitution;
there is a version of Islamic law that is now demanded and imposed in places like
Swat, Malakand, and the tribal areas; and then there is tribal law itself.
itself. In this
plethora of laws and legal systems, it is easy to seek recourse to whichever system
suits a person best. Thus, when the Taliban say that there are no national borders in
Islam, they are taking advantage of the confusion that exists today. Above all,
political will is essential to lay down the law. Before any government can lay claim
to the moral high ground, it must respect the law.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 21.06.08

– Treasury discusses budget, opposition stays away

As the Punjab Assembly continued a general discussion on the budget on Friday,
treasury members discussed budget details as well as development schemes for
their constituencies in the absence of the opposition, which stuck to its boycott
decision. The protest camp of the opposition, however, remained empty because
only a few members turned up. Those taking part in the discussion praised the
government for presenting “the
“the most balanced and pro-people”
pro-people” budget for the year
2008-09. They gave suggestions for the development of health, education and
agriculture sectors. They sought more time to highlight the problems being faced by
their voters, saying that they got a very little time to get development schemes for
their constituencies incorporated in the budget. Pakistan People’s Party’s Azma
Bukhari accused the PML-Q of “worst
“worst corruption and injustice”
injustice” in Punjab. She said
the PML-Q government spent Rs1.13 billion from Kafalat Programme, but the
assembly had been provided no details about the spending. She said the previous
government gave Rs2 million to the Nakai family in the name of financial assistance
and Rs18 million to Syed Ali Murtaza for his daughter’s treatment. She said the
house must be informed about the person, who was given such a hefty amount. She
criticised the previous government for recruiting people on lucrative salaries. Ms
Bukhari demanded that all those who plundered the public money be brought to the
book. She said more funds should be allocated to raise women’s status. PML-Q’s
Ehsanul Haq Naulathia said the previous government put extra burden on people by
taking direct loans from the federal government and foreign banks. He said
presently Punjab was burdened with Rs304 billion loans. He praised the government
for imposing direct taxes on haves and sought maximum relief for have-nots. He
asked the government to resolve the flat Abiyana rate issue, contending that
currently growers were being forced to pay taxes on the entire land they own
instead of the cultivated land.

Iftikhar Ali Khaitraan asked the government to pay special attention to the
development of neglected areas, especially southern Punjab. He called for an
investigation into the installation of water filtration plants without prior need
assessment surveys. He said the underground water in many areas where these
plants had been installed had arsenic, adding that these plants could not filter
arsenic from water. Speaking on a point of order, senior minister Raja Riaz informed
the house that the PPP had decided to set up special blood camps all over the
country, where each party worker would donate one pint of blood to pay tribute to
the late Benazir Bhutto on her birthday. Minister for Prisons Chaudhry Abdul
Ghafoor said on a point of order that barracks of all Punjab jails would be named
after national leaders and heroes to acknowledge their struggle for democracy. He
said the barrack where PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was imprisoned would be
preserved and named after him. He said a library would be set up in this barrack.
Similarly, he said, the barracks where Nawaz Sharif, Ghazi Ilam Din Shaheed and
Sardar Bhaghat Singh were imprisoned would be named after them. Opposition
member Dr Samia Amjad attended the house proceedings for a few minutes. On a
point of order, she said she just came to the house to see what was happening. She
said she was ‘disappointed’ to see that legislators were discussing ‘other matters’
instead of the budget. “For
“For God’s sake, do have some discussion on the budget,”
budget,”
she passed a comment. Mian Muhammad Rafique, Joel Amer Sahotra and Amina
Butter also took part in the discussion. As most members sought more time to
discuss the budget, the acting speaker announced two sessions for Saturday (today)
first session from 10am to 2pm and the second from 4pm onwards.

Author Location Dated

Alix Rijckaert Maastricht, Netherlands 21.06.08

– Human-robot relationships may be a reality by 2050

Romantic human-robot relationships are no longer the stuff of science fiction
researchers expect them to become reality within four decades. And they do not
mean simply, mechanical relationships. “I “I am talking about loving relationships
about 40 years from now,”
now,” David Levy, author of a book, said at an international
conference held last week at the University of Maastricht in the south-east of the
country. “...
“... when there are robots that have also emotions, personality,
consciousness. They can talk to you, they can make you laugh. They can ... say
they love you just like a human would say ‘I love you’, and say it as though they
mean it ...”
...” These would have electronic speech and sensors that make them utter
“nice sounds”
sounds” when a human caresses them. But to build robots as real partners
would take a bit longer, with conversation skills being the main obstacle for
developers. Scientists were working on artificial personality, emotion and
consciousness, said Levy, and some robots already appear lifelike. “But
“But for loving
relationships that is something completely different. In loving relationships there
are many more things that are important. And the most difficult of all is
conversation. “You want your robot to be able to talk to you about what is
interesting to you. You want a partner who has some similar interest to you, who
talks to you in a manner that pleases you, who has a similar sense of humour to
you.”
you.” The field of human-computer conversation is crucial to building robots with
whom humans could fall in love, but is lagging behind other areas of development,
said the author.

“I am sure it will (happen.) In 40 years ... perhaps sooner. You will find robots,
conversation partners, that will talk to you and you will get as much pleasure from
it as talking to another human. I am sure of it.”
it.” Levy’s bombshell thesis, whose
publication has had a ripple-effect way beyond the scientific community, gives rise
to a number of complicated ethical and relationship questions. British scholar Dylan
Evans pointed out the paradox inherent to any relationship with a robot. “What “What is
absolutely crucial to the sentiment of love, is the belief that the love is neither
unconditional nor eternal. “Robots cannot choose you, they cannot reject you. That
could become very boring, and one can imagine the human becoming cruel against
his defenceless partner,”
partner,” said Evans. A robot could conceivably be programmed
with a will of its own and the ability to reject his human partner, he said, “but
“but that
would be a very difficult robot to sell”.
sell”. Some warn against being overhasty. “Let
“Let us
not exaggerate the possibilities!”
possibilities!” said Dutch researcher Vincent Wiegel of the
Technological University of the eastern town of Delft. “Today,
“Today, the artificial
intelligence we are able to create is that of a child of one year of age.”
age.” But Levy is
unyielding. He is convinced it will happen, and predicts many societal benefits.
“There are many millions of people in the world who have nobody. They might be
shy or they might have some psychological hang-ups, they might have personality
problems, they might be ugly ... “There will always be many millions of people who
cannot make normal satisfactory relationships with humans, and for them the
choice is not: ‘would I prefer a relationship with a human or would I prefer a
relationship with a robot?’ the choice is no relationship at all or a relationship with a
robot.”
robot.” They might even become human-to-human relationship savers, he
predicted.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 21.06.08

– Obama apologises to headscarved women

Barack Obama’s belaboured attempts to hide his Muslim past is beginning to hurt
the Democratic presidential candidate, forcing him on Friday to apologise to two
Muslim women barred from a group picture with him for wearing hijab. One of the
women, Shimaa Abdelfadeel, told the reporters that Mr Obama called her “to “to
personally convey his deepest apologies and acknowledge that this was
inexcusable.”
inexcusable.” Mr Obama also left a voice mail for the other woman, Hebba Aref.
Muslim leaders had urged the White House hopeful to personally apologise to the
women. “We “We both immensely appreciate the Senator's phone call and his
commitment to remedy this issue,”
issue,” Abdelfadeel said. “We
“We commend him for
displaying qualities befitting an effective President.”
President.” Speaking about the incident,
Abdelfadeel said that on Monday, “two “two volunteers denied us seating behind the
stage the Senator would soon take.”
take.” She said: “The
“The volunteers informed us that we
were not allowed to sit in that area due to the hijab.”
hijab.” Abdelfadeel, a Sudanese-
American, said that the “incident
“incident was unfortunate and extremely disappointing.”
disappointing.”
But she added that “we“we will continue to support Senator Obama in his campaign
and wish him the best as the race continues.”
continues.” Mr Obama’s campaign has blamed
the incident on volunteers. “The
“The actions of these volunteers were unacceptable and
in no way reflect any policy of my campaign,”
campaign,” Mr Obama said in a statement.
“Our campaign is about bringing people together, and I'm grateful that Ms
Abdelfadeel accepted our apology and I hope Ms Aref and any who were offended
accept my apology as well,”
well,” he said. “Although
“Although we welcome the Obama campaign's
apology, we are extremely concerned about the level of Islamophobia in our society
that would prompt other minorities to view Muslim supporters as potential
liabilities,”
liabilities,” said Corey Saylor, national legislative director for the Council on
American-Islamic Relations. CAIR is the largest Muslim civil rights group in North
America and had led the call for a personal apology from Mr Obama. Since he
announced his intention to run for the White House almost two years ago, Mr
Obama has struggled to counter false Internet rumours that he is a Muslim. The
rumour mongers, however, point out that Mr Obama’s father was a Kenyan Muslim
while his step father was a Muslim from Indonesia. Mr Obama lived in Indonesia as a
child and went to a school where children used to say Friday prayers together. Mr
Obama's vigorous denials of his Muslim past have frustrated some Muslims in the
US because of the implication that there is something wrong with the religion.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 22.06.08

– Gift of life for condemned prisoners Two-minute silence in NA

for Benazir
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani on Saturday announced that his government
would recommend to the president to commute death sentences of thousands of
prisoners into life imprisonment as part of a birthday tribute to slain PPP leader
Benazir Bhutto. Paying tribute to Ms Bhutto during a session of the National
Assembly, the prime minister said he had already sent an advice to the president
for a 90-day remission to prisoners of Adiala jail. He asked the interior ministry to
send a summary to the president for the conversion of capital punishment into life
imprisonment. According to a human rights group, over 7,000 prisoners are on
death rows in Pakistan. He said that being an inmate of Adiala jail himself he
wanted to provide relief to other inmates of the jail as mark of homage to Ms
Bhutto. Analysts said the decision might require a legislation to permanently
convert capital punishment into life imprisonment which had been a longstanding
demand of the US, Europe and Britain. According to reports, 62 countries maintain
death penalty in both law and practice, while 92 countries have abolished it. Ten
countries have retained it for crimes committed in time of war. On December 18
last year, Pakistan had voted against the Resolution on a Moratorium on the Use of
Death Penalty at the UN General Assembly. Sources said that during the first PPP
government in the 1970s, the life imprisonment had been enhanced to 25 years
from 14 years with the aim that the capital punishment would be abolished.
However, the Ziaul Haq regime kept both life sentences of 25 years and death
penalty intact. The sources said that immediate beneficiary of the decision would be
Sarabjit Singh, an Indian national condemned to death for his alleged involvement
in four bomb blasts in Pakistan in 1990.

Prime Minister Gilani also announced setting up a “Benazir Trust” aimed at

providing education and catering to the needs of children whose parents have died
in terror-related incidents. He announced renaming Murree Road and Rawalpindi
General Hospital where the slain leader breathed her last after Benazir Bhutto. He
said that a monument of Ms Bhutto would be raised at the site of the assassination,
adding that Rs50 million had been approved for renovating a hospital on the Murree
Road.The prime minister said a special programme would be launched to control
Hepatitis. “The
“The present coalition government is a symbol of her initiative on
national reconciliation,”
reconciliation,” he said. Earlier at the outset of the session, Information
Minister Sherry Rehman requested the house to observe a two-minute silence in
remembrance of the late PPP leader and offer fateha for her departed soul.
Lawmakers from both opposition and treasury benches paid tribute to the PPP
leader for her lifelong struggle for the cause of democracy. Riaz Pirzada of the PML-
Q, Syed Haider Abbas Rizvi of the MQM, former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan
Sherpao, PML-N’s Sheikh Aftab Ahmed, Shabaz Bhatti, Maulana Ataur Rahman of
the JUI-F and Aftab Shaban Mirani and Beelam Hasnain of the PPP paid homage to
the personage of Benazir Bhutto. Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza said since there was a
long list of speakers who wanted to pay homage to Ms Bhutto, it would be better
that all MPs write their expressions in a register kept in the speaker’s chamber.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 22.06.08

– Debate on foreign policy

Senators from both sides of the aisle argued the other day that the current pro-
American policy, a product of the military establishment, should give way to an
independent stance. Mr Raza Rabbani, a PPP spokesman and leader of the House,
endorsed this call and added that his party had never had any connection with the
‘establishment’ and its fashioning of a pro-American policy. These assertions are not
correct. Pakistan adopted a distinctly pro-American policy beginning about 1954
when a civilian government was in place. It joined US-sponsored anti-communist
alliances in the Middle East and Southeast Asia and began receiving American
military and economic assistance. This policy direction continued during Ayub
Khan’s rule and, in varying measure, during subsequent military regimes. But it is
wrong to say that the military establishment had initiated it. It should be noted here
that the so-called alliance with the United States did not keep Pakistan from
developing close relations with China, the communist giant in Asia whose influence
the United States also wished to contain. American officials did not approve of
Pakistan’s advances towards China but made no serious moves to stop them.
Relations between Pakistan and the United States during Gen Ziaul Haq’s rule and
then again during Gen Musharraf’s regime became more specifically transactional
than those of a generalised rapport. America needed Pakistan’s assistance for the
attainment of its objectives in Afghanistan (expulsion of Soviet forces from that
country during the 1980s and more recently the eradication of Islamic militants).
Pakistan provided the needed assistance and received compensation for services
rendered. The transaction did not make Pakistan a ‘friend’ or ally of America
(except in the wishful thinking of some Pakistani commentators). Their relationship
has remained essentially like that between a buyer and seller, even though it has
included some peripheral American interest in Pakistan’s well-being. It was a
bargain that governments in Pakistan made quite willingly.

Each side has had some minor dissatisfactions. Pakistan wants to be treated on par
with India, which the United States has declined to do on the ground that Pakistan is
not potentially the world power that India is. American officials approve of
Musharraf because he has done a good job as an instrument of their policy, but they
have not been happy with his being a military dictator. They have urged adoption of
genuine democracy, honest elections, and respect for human rights. The United
States is not keeping Pakistan from pursuing an ‘independent’ foreign policy. It does
not seek to influence Pakistan’s relations with the rest of the world, and Pakistan is
able to reject its advice in those few cases in which it is offered. Pakistan has
declined to support the American campaign to isolate Iran, and it has gone ahead
with negotiating a gas pipeline deal with the Iranian government, and no American
penalties have ensued. The United States has been advocating peace between
Pakistan and India and this is a policy that successive governments in Pakistan have
accepted for their own reasons regardless of American urgings. The Bush
administration is more than satisfied with Pakistan’s role in combating extremism
and the accompanying terrorism. It is this area of policy that invites criticism from
certain political forces in Pakistan. It is a complicated issue. Both Pakistan and
America disapprove of extremism as such because it disrupts the good order of
society. There is thus a mutuality of interest and identity of views on a vital issue.

But each side also has its own reasons for wanting to eradicate extremism and
terrorism. Islamic extremists are anti-American. They want to expel American
presence and dominance from the Muslim world. It is Pakistan’s assistance in the
suppression of this anti-American drive to which critics in the Senate and elsewhere
object. Pakistan, they say, is fighting America’s war and its army is killing its own
people in its tribal region bordering Afghanistan. But ‘our own people’ here are
killing others of ‘our own people’. The critics believe that negotiations, and not
force, should be employed to persuade them to stop their operations within
Pakistan. American officials, who used to be sceptical, are now willing to give
negotiations a chance and see what they will accomplish. If negotiations do not get
anywhere, Prime Minister Gilani’s government will have to decide whether to use
force against the militants or yield our territory and people to their control. Let us
now take up the matter of the PPP’s connection with the ‘establishment’. Raza
Rabbani asserts that there never has been, and there isn’t now, any. He is a good
old socialist, true to his party’s professed ideological commitments, and a man of
honour. He declined a post in Mr Gilani’s cabinet because he did not wish to be
sworn in by a president whom he regarded as illegitimate. I believe he has no desire
to be an ally of the military establishment, and that he has had no part in the
fashioning of its pro-American policy. But he does not control the thinking of his
party’s top leaders.

It is a well-known fact that following the 1988 elections, President Ghulam Ishaq
Khan invited Benazir Bhutto to form a government only after she had conceded the
military establishment’s primacy in certain areas of policymaking. In her second
term as prime minister, her inability to get along with successive army chiefs was a
major reason, among others, for her dismissal. It is also a well known fact that she
had been negotiating a deal with Gen Musharraf for almost a year, and finally made
one before her return to Pakistan in October 2007. After her assassination last
December, Mr Zardari has continued to honour it. It is equally well-known that her
return to Pakistan had been facilitated by the Bush administration’s intercessions
with Musharraf. She came lavishly praising the American anti-terrorism campaign in
Afghanistan and Pakistan’s tribal areas bordering that country. She declared her
own resolve to eradicate the likes of Al Qaeda and the Taliban living in Pakistan. She
went out of her way to present herself as America’s vice regent in Pakistan — a
stance that may have cost her life. This is where the PPP has stood with regard to
the military establishment in this country and its interaction with the United States,
Mr Rabbani’s preferences in these matters notwithstanding. ¦ The writer,
professor emeritus at the University of Massachusetts, was until recently
a visiting professor at the Lahore School of Economics.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 22.06.08

– Party chiefs and the government

Whenever Asif Zardari finds himself surrounded by his slogan-raising partymen, as
he was the other day in Lahore’s Governor House, he tells them not to worry about
the judges and the president. The ‘new order’ he is working on will take care of both
and forestall all such crises in the times ahead. It sounds as menacing as did
Musharraf’s devolution order. Under the new order, the presidency too, he assures,
will reverberate with Bhutto slogans — as the Governor House did on that day. What
new order he has in mind, Asif Zardari doesn’t disclose. But as always on that day
too, in the very next breath, he recalled a Pakistan of the dreams of his martyred
father-in-law and martyred wife. Today, Z.A. Bhutto’s dream of Pakistan being a
polity in which the government commanded the heights of the economy and all
power belonged to the people (as represented by the party and its founder) stands
consigned to history. Now the government is a mere regulator and the power of the
people must show itself through state institutions. Benazir Bhutto’s half-hearted
efforts to establish herself and the party as the source of ‘people’s power’ only led
to the premature collapse of her two governments that were haunted by charges of
indiscipline and corruption. Mr Zardari, in these changed times, should not be
relating his new order to the dreams of either Zulfikar Bhutto or Benazir Bhutto.
Their party now stands much diminished and he lacks the charisma of the Bhuttos;
hence he must rely entirely on the institutions of the state and the rule of law to
sustain himself in power for five years. The same is true for Nawaz Sharif, whatever
plan or picture of statecraft he may have in mind, and will remain true whether the
two agree to collaborate or go their separate ways which appears more likely.

Both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, the former more than the latter, look set on a
course where their personal and party interests appear to supplant institutions.
When that happens inadvertently or when party chiefs control the institutions of
state by design, even democratically elected governments tend to become
totalitarian. The authority continuing to reside outside the institutions after the
elections would be like following the pattern set by the previous regime where
President Musharraf exercised all power even after the prime minister was notified
as chief executive in the constitution. Three prime ministers in succession owed
their office to him and served in subordination to him. For that, Musharraf drew his
authority from the army (which, so to speak, was his party) and not from the
constitution. He came to grief only when he overstepped his limits, even as army
chief, at a time when popular discontent was growing and legitimate contenders for
power had emerged from the shadows. His hold on state authority then loosened
notwithstanding the elaborate structure he had erected to preserve it. Asif Zardari
and Nawaz Sharif, again the former more than the latter, must take note that the
power of the state that they usurp by virtue of their popular standing or party
position will surely erode the institutions which are there to underpin the stability of
their governments. It is common knowledge that Mr Zardari is the de facto prime
minister. Why doesn’t he become de jure when nothing in law or propriety stands in
the way? Likewise, why shouldn’t Nawaz Sharif become leader of the opposition
when he is the only one who can credibly fill that position.

The contradictions inherent in the current situation are distorting not the power
structure alone but also state protocol. It is hard to imagine how Mr Salman Taseer,
the constitutional governor of Punjab, justifies treating his party chief as head of
state. The PPP and PML-N must let the parliamentary institutions perform the role
that the constitution envisages for them and then get down to removing equally
troublesome contradictions in the administrative apparatus down the line. Surely,
Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif are not unaware of the disappointment of the people
with the state of affairs both at the centre and in the provinces. Nor do they see the
behaviour of the leaders and performance of the governments improving in the long
run. Lack of policy direction and divided leadership are the basic reasons behind
this. Another reason is the plentiful number of ministers to whom the establishment
is unable to provide the offices, homes and vehicles they insist they must have
before they get down to work. In any case, they are too many for the work available
— even if every department were to be broken into many bits. Most will just have to
saunter or swagger to the disgust of the people. (It is to be hoped that Shahbaz
Sharif doesn’t add, or is pressed to add, more to the 16 he already has).The
collective responsibility of the cabinet and secrecy of its discussions, which is a
central feature of the parliamentary system, is thus bound to succumb to party
caucuses and the cabal of advisers. This is a situation which, understandably, even
the party bosses cannot do much about. But they can surely reform the
administration below the political level to work better in the service of the people.

The problems at the non-political level are best illustrated by some examples of
maladministration chosen out of many that are reported every day. The Balochistan
government had turned away the inspector-general of police sent there by the
federal government; a district education officer in Sindh had issued appointment
letters for 4,500 schools teachers while the provincial government had banned all
appointments; Karachi’s water and sewerage board has two heads — one appointed
by the nazim, the other by the minister for local government. These examples
mirror the conflicts and confusion caused by the police and district government
system introduced by Musharraf over which he directly presided. Uncertainty now
surrounds its future. Politics may be a fascinating game but the new rulers must
find time to attend to the administration of public affairs which is all but paralysed
at the moment. Let them pose this question to the provincial governments: who is
responsible for maintaining law and order and who is accountable for their breach?
They would surely draw a blank.

Author Location Dated

Kim Murphy London, England 22.06.08

– Islamic law has a place in Britain

It was a clear case of irreconcilable differences. The wife said there was no love left
in the marriage, she wanted a divorce. The husband insisted that she had been put
under the influence of a “taweez”, a talisman, that had erased her affections for
him. He refused to divorce. “The
“The husband says he has been pushed away from his
home because of this taweez business,”
business,” said Sheik Haitham al-Haddad, a judge in
North London’s Sharia council, a panel of Muslim scholars gathered in a backroom
of London’s biggest mosque to determine whether the woman should be granted a
divorce under Islamic law. For British Muslims, many of whom have one foot in
Piccadilly Circus and the other in Pakistan, Bangladesh or Somalia, the British legal
system is available, as it is to all. But it is singularly impotent when it comes to civil
issues such as marriage, divorce and other disputes whose dispensation in heaven
often is perceived as more crucial than any ruling that might be handed down by an
English judge in a horsehair wig. A tumultuous debate was set off in Britain this year
when the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said it was time to consider
“crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory
law of the United Kingdom”.
Kingdom”. Eventually, he hinted, this could mean allowing
Britain’s 1.8 million Muslims to seek legal recourse in Islamic courts in certain
limited cases, such as marriage and divorce, as an alternative to the civil court
system. Little known to the general public, though, is that Sharia is being applied
quietly every day in Britain, via Sharia councils that dispense Islamic civil justice in
more than half a dozen mosques across the country.

The councils do not involve themselves in criminal law or any aspects of civil law in
which they would be in direct conflict with British civil codes. The vast majority of
their cases cover marriage and divorce. By consent of all parties, they also may
arbitrate issues of property, child custody, housing and employment disputes,
although their rulings are not binding unless submitted to the civilian courts.“It
courts.“It is
known that English judges are willing to accept agreements like this that are
reached in Sharia courts, as long as it has been put into proper form,”
form,” said
Mohammed Siddique, a paralegal who advises the Sharia council in Dewsbury, in
northern England, on the technicalities of British law. “It
“It saves time and hassle for
the court, and it shows that both parties are willing to compromise and reach some
sort of agreement.”
agreement.” In some cases, women have no trouble obtaining a divorce in
civil court but run into unforeseen difficulties when they approach Muslim scholars
to seal it with their blessing. A few weeks ago, a Somali woman whose husband had
been wounded and subsequently disappeared during the turmoil in her homeland
several years ago approached the Sharia council in North London. She was
accompanied by her neighbour, who had been helping her care for her children, and
had offered to marry her if she obtained an Islamic divorce in addition to her civil
divorce. Instead of the expected rubber stamp, the couple got a tongue lashing.
“How do you allow a man who is not your husband to interfere with your life? He’s
proposing to marry you while you’re already married? How come, sister?”sister?” Haddad
asked. “Because
“Because I haven’t seen my husband in eight years,”
years,” said the woman,
looking confused and a little panicky. “And
“And you, brother,”
brother,” Haddad said, turning to
the man, “do
“do you allow this for any one of your relatives, that she is married, and
while she is married, you allow someone to interfere?” “I didn’t interfere with her,
and Allah knows I didn’t interfere,”
interfere,” the man said.

The judges told the woman to find a Somali cleric, who might be able to help her
prove her husband is dead, or had abandoned her. Should that happen, they said,
she could have her divorce, and marry whom she pleased. Government officials
have raised no objections to the councils, which first emerged in 1982 in
Birmingham, because they operate in cooperation with British civil law, and British
courts still issue all necessary legal decrees. People who advocate granting some
official status to the councils’ deliberations, as the archbishop of Canterbury
seemed to suggest, point out that Jews in Britain operate religious courts whose
rulings, when all parties voluntarily participate, are recognised under civil law as a
form of binding arbitration. “Almost
“Almost everything, Muslims living in Britain, or other
societies that traditionally have not been Muslim societies, can arrange for
themselves. They can arrange to have food slaughtered in halal fashion. They can
set up Islamic financial instruments. They can build mosques. The one key area
where there’s a vacuum regards the access of women to divorce,”
divorce,” said John R.
Bowen, professor of anthropology at Missouri’s Washington University, explaining
the need for the Sharia councils. Under many interpretations of Islamic law, men
easily can obtain a divorce known as “talaq” by simply declaring their intention
three times. A woman, however, usually needs the pronouncement of a Muslim
judge who is a scholar in the field of Islamic jurisprudence. “In
“In most other European
countries, there is no such council or judge. Many imams are approached at the
mosque and asked, ‘Can you give me an Islamic divorce?’ And they have to say, ‘I ‘I
have no standing to do that,’”
that,’” Bowen said.

Suhaib Hasan, who sits on the North London council, said it tries to complement the
work of the British civil courts. At the same time, he said, the Sharia council offers
divorces that are less expensive and quicker than those available in the British
courts, although a civil decree is still needed for legal dissolution of the marriage,
and in the case of any property or child custody disputes. “A “A woman can get a
divorce from the civil court, but she will still come to us,”
us,” he said. “Why?
“Why? Because
she has to satisfy her conscience as well. And in this way, we are providing a
service to the Muslim community, and complementing the British legal system.”system.”
Shawzia, a 32-year-old physician who obtained a “khula”, the Islamic term for when
a woman ends a marriage, through the London mosque this year, said her civil
divorce didn’t feel sufficient. “Before
“Before this happened, I didn’t consider myself
divorced, spiritually,”
spiritually,” she said. “I
“I couldn’t move on with my life. I needed
completion. I still felt married.”
married. In the case of the judges foundering over what they
”
saw as the irrelevant issue of the taweez, the husband said he had paid about
$10,000 to have the spell undone, but it seemed to have been wasted money. “It “It
seems these taweez people are just going into business now, one doing taweez, the
other undoing taweez,”
taweez,” said Hasan, with just a trace of irritation. “We
“We cannot take
into consideration taweez in deciding Sharia matters,”
matters,” said the council president,
Mohammed Abu Said. What to do? Call in the parties, see who might still love
whom. “A“A meeting should take place,”
place,” Hasan declared, and the judges flipped to
the next document in their thick stacks of troubled lives.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 23.06.08

– Assembly passes first budget, expands SC

The National Assembly on Sunday easily passed the troubled coalition government’s
first budget with a Finance Bill that also provided for a controversial expansion of
the Supreme Court so it could include judges deposed or handpicked by President
Pervez Musharraf. The adoption of the 152-page Finance Bill with several
amendments after a nineday debate marked the formal passage of the Rs2.01
trillion budget for fiscal 2008-09, which minister in charge for finance Naveed
Qamar had unveiled on June 11. The minister said 51 of the 76 non-mandatory
proposals formulated by the upper house in its own debate in the past week had
been accepted in the final document as the house took up the Finance Bill after
adopting demands for grant for the government’s ministries and divisions over the
past three days. Although the vote on other clauses of the Finance Bill and
amendments proceeded quickly as a mere formality, the clause for increasing the
number of Supreme Court judges to up to 29 from 16 was marked by a brief row,
with the opposition Pakistan Muslim League (PML) abstaining in protest against the
use of a money bill to amend an act of parliament and one member from a ruling
coalition party calling the move a “mockery” of the Constitution. No legal defence
against the criticism for using a finance bill, instead of a normal act of parliament,
to do the job was offered either by Mr Qamar or any of his colleagues in the
coalition-leading Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) except that it was a joint move of the
allies, including the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N), which resigned from nine
ministries in the cabinet last month over a continuing row over how to restore the
deposed judges.

Opposition to the bill’s controversial clause was also voiced during the Senate
debate on the budget, with the critics including PPP’s Raza Rabbani, who represents
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani as leader of the house there. On Mr Qamar’s
request, reflecting Senate proposals or the coalition’s own reconsideration, the
house omitted seven clauses of the original bill mainly in deference to objections
that they did not qualify for inclusion in a money bill, which needs to be passed only
by the lower house and does not go to the upper house to become law. But in what
seemed to be a blatant disregard of that analogy, the minister did not move for the
omission of the clause that sought to amend the Supreme Court (Number of Judges)
Act of 1997 to provide for increasing the number of the judges of the country’s top
court by substituting the new words “not be more than twenty-nine” for the original
words “be sixteen”. These words, Finance Bill says, “shall
“shall be deemed always to
have been so substituted on the 3rd day of November, 2007”,
2007”, the day President
Musharraf enforced his controversial, extraconstitution emergency (in his later
abandoned capacity of army chief) under which about 60 judges of the Supreme
Court and the four provincial high courts lost their jobs for refusing or not being
called upon to take a fresh oath of office under a Provisional Constitution Order. The
government has begun paying salaries to the deposed judges with arrears from Nov
3 but has not come out with a declaration whether the new amendment would in
effect mean their restoration after missing two deadlines based on a “Murree
Declaration” signed by PPP cochairman Asif Ali Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz
Sharif and the departure of the PML-N ministers from the cabinet over the PPP
leader’s hesitations.

While the 1997 act fixed the strength of the Supreme Court at 16, no such law
exists for the provincial high courts. Dr Atiya Inayatullah, whose PML seems to be
still suffering from a guilty conscience for using the finance bill for amending other
laws during its previous government, announced the abstention from the voting on
the controversial clause by her party, whish she said had no objection to increasing
the number of Supreme Court judges but was opposed to the mode chosen now.
Quoting her party’s legal minds, she argued that since the number of the Supreme
Court judges was determined by an act of parliament as envisaged by the
Constitution, any amendment to that law must be made by a similar act, which
must be passed by both the National Assembly and the Senate while a money bill
needs to be passed only by the National Assembly. She was supported by two other
party members with Shahnaz Sheikh calling for a strict adherence to legal norms
and Riaz Hussain Pirzada saying he had not expected the two major coalition
partners to do what “our rulers” had been doing in the past to weaken the system
of justice. But the sharpest attack came from PML-N member Ayaz Amir after
Speaker Fehmida Mirza allowed him to speak only after voting on the bill’s clauses
just before the final vote.
“Do we realise what we have agreed to?”
to?” he asked about the clause and said: “We
“We
are making a mockery of our constitutional structure.”
structure.” He said a 29-judge Supreme
Court could even surpass the United States or any other county. He added that like
dictators in the past “we
“we are also becoming a party to make a mockery of the
judiciary”.
judiciary”. It was then that Mr Qamar came out with a soft but possibly an
embarrassing retort for the estranged PML-N, saying that “the
“the clause was drafted”
drafted”
by PML-N’s Senator Ishaq Dar, who resigned as finance minister with eight other
party ministers on May 12. The speaker disallowed Mr Amir to speak again while
another PML-N stalwart, Mrs Tehmina Daultana, was persuaded by some PPP
members against speaking about Mr Dar’s role before the house was adjourned
until 10am on Monday, when the government is likely to present supplementary
demands for grants for the outgoing fiscal 2007-08 for approval.

Author Location Dated

Zulfiqar Memon Nawabshah, Pakistan 23.06.08

– PPP man from Sindh will be president soon: Asif

Asif Ali Zardari has said the day is not far off when a People’s Party man from Sindh
will be in the President’s House. The PPP co-chairman said at a press conference at
Zardari House on Sunday that since PPP workers had rendered numerous sacrifices
for democracy, the party had the right to choose its own president “in “in the name of
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto”.
Bhutto”. He said that some “remnants
“remnants of the dictatorship”
dictatorship” were
trying to force the break-up of the PPP-PML-N coalition. However, Mr Zardari added,
PPP would continue its struggle for the country’s sovereignty and the coalition
would go from strength to strength. Recalling Benazir Bhutto’s assassination, Mr
Zardari said the country was facing polarisation, but her philosophy saved the
country. He said three of his predecessors at PPP helm — Z.A Bhutto, Ms Bhutto and
Begum Nusrat Bhutto --- had been ‘martyred’. Rationalising his description of Nusrat
Bhutto as a martyr, the PPP co-chairman said she had been turned into a ‘lost soul’
because of the lingering effects of an injury she got in the 1980s when she was
baton-charged at a rally. “Now
“Now she is neither dead nor alive. Therefore, she should
be considered a martyr.”He said he was a “Bhuttoist” and his party’s belief was to
serve humanity. He said a democratic system without unified armed forces was
bound to fail and no timeframe could be given in politics. He said the issue of
judges’ restoration had been politicised as the Supreme Court Bar Association
president was a politician. He said the PPP wanted to strengthen judiciary by taking
all political forces on board. He said the young generation was in a hurry as it was
commenting that there was no change in the country. He said his party had only
passed 60 days in government but already there was some change. Soon the nation
would feel a lot of change. Responding to a question, he said the PPP would further
strengthen its alliance with the PML-N because it wanted all parties to equally
participate in a successful democratic process.He said that agencies were
conspiring to divide people at the district, taluka and mohalla levels to weaken the
PPP. He said that Rs38 billion was allocated in the federal budget for poverty
alleviation and a huge amount would be reserved in the next budget. About the
participation of the PML-N in the long march despite being part of the government,
he said it was the beauty of the new style of politics obtained by them which was
not easily understood by some. He said he and the PML-N had different views over
the issue of reinstatement of judges but soon there would be an agreement.
Author Location Dated
Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 23.06.08

– Finance Bill backed to avoid clash: PML-N

Pakistan Muslim League-N leaders said on Sunday that their party was against
inclusion of a clause in the Finance Bill pertaining to increasing the number of
judges in the Supreme Court but they had voted for it to avoid unnecessary
confrontation with the Pakistan People’s Party at this stage. Talking to journalists
outside the Parliament House, PML-N’s parliamentary leader in the National
Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said: “So “So far as the reinstatement of the judges
deposed through the Nov 3 action is concerned, we still believe that it must be
done under the Bhurban accord. This is also the stance of the lawyers’ movement.”
movement.”
He said the inclusion of the clause in the Finance Bill would create a
misunderstanding that the deposed judges would be reinstated through the bill. “In “In
our view the deposed judges can only be reinstated through an executive order
issued in order to restore the genuinely independent judiciary,”
judiciary,” he said. He said
finance officials had given an impression that the clause was needed to regularise
the salaries of the judges which had been paid from discretionary funds.

“We still stand by our position that the deposed judges can be reinstated through
an executive order as agreed in Bhurban and the talks of our leadership have failed
to achieve any breakthrough on this issue,”
issue,” he said. However, the PML-N and the
PPP had come close on the question of impeaching Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf in
the latest round of their talks in Lahore, he said. Chaudhry Nisar said MNA Ayaz
Amir’s statement in the house was close to the party’s stance on the issue of
judges. PML-N senior vice-president Tehmina Daultana said her party had supported
the Finance Bill including the proposed increase in the number of judges despite its
reservations to avoid a clash. She told reporters that her party had fulfilled the
pledge made by its leadership in the Lahore talks to help pass the Finance Bill
without raising any objection. She said the party was pursuing the stand it had
undertaken before the election and its candidates had taken an oath to strive for
reinstating the judges. PML-N spokesman Siddiqul Farooq said the party had
supported the bill because it lacked the majority in the assembly required to amend
the Constitution. Talking to a private TV channel, he said the party’s leadership had
indicated during the Dubai talks that it could accept the current judges on an ad hoc
basis. He said the PML-N would rejoin the federal cabinet only after the
reinstatement of the deposed judges. Party leader Khwaja Saad Rafique said the
sole purpose of accepting the increase in the number of Supreme Court judges to
29 was to ensure the restoration of the judiciary to the position of Nov 2, 2007.
Commenting on the passage of the Finance Bill, he said the PML-N had not given up
its basic demand of reinstatement of the judges.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 23.06.08

– PPP view on judges’ restoration ANP supports, PML-N opposes,

JUI-F adopts middle course
The four-party ruling Pakistan Democratic Alliance stands divided on the issue of
restoring the deposed judges through a constitutional amendment, as announced
by Law Minister Farooq Naek on Sunday, with the PML-N opposing the plan, the ANP
backing it and the JUI-F adopting a middle course. According to PML-N Chairman
Raja Zafarul Haq, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari will be meeting in the first
week of July to discuss the matter and resolve differences. He said in case the
differences remained unresolved, forces wanting to destabilize the democratic
system would be rejoicing. “We
“We are resolved to go to any extent to save the
coalition”,
coalition”, said the PML-N leader. He said his party stuck to its view that the judges
should be restored through a resolution and an executive order, not a constitutional
amendment for which the coalition did not have the required numerical strength in
the Senate. ANP Secretary-General Ehsan Wyne said his party supported the idea of
restoring the judges through a constitutional amendment. He said a resolution of
the National Assembly did not have legal sanction and it was for this reason that the
ANP wanted the matter resolved through an amendment. If Gen Musharraf had
unconstitutionally removed the judges, it did not mean the coalition should also
pursue an unconstitutional course to reinstate them, said the ANP secretary-
general. He said the ANP would support the PPP’s plan to impeach President
Musharraf and reinstate the judges.

JUI-F amir Maulana Fazlur Rehman said the PPP and the PML-N alone were dealing
with the judges’ issue and they had not taken his party into confidence. He said
both the major parties should evolve a consensus on the subject and then refer it to
the JUI-F. “Regrettably”, the JUI-F chief said, “the
“the PPP and the PML-N did not have
similar views on the issue, and we have no authority to decide it alone”.
alone”. He said if
an executive order or a resolution could reinstate the deposed judges, then these
instruments should first be used to get reinstated former chief justice
Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, former prime minister Nawaz Sharif and former president
Rafiq Tarar as they were all removed from their positions unconstitutionally. The JUI-
F chief said his party was willing to cooperate with the PPP and the PML-N for the
annulment of the 17th constitutional amendment, to which both the parties were
strongly opposed. Maulana Fazlur Rehman said his party was willing to play its role
in returning the Constitution to its October 1999 shape before Gen Musharraf
overthrew the PML-N government.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 23.06.08

– Obama comes up with proposals to check oil

White House hopeful Barack Obama pushed on Sunday for a clampdown on energy
speculation with new proposals that his campaign argued would more than halve
the record-high price of oil. The Democrat attacked the socalled Enron loophole, a
2000 deregulation of oversight by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission that
critics say opened the way to a speculative free-for-all in the oil markets. “For
“For the
past years, our energy policy in this country has been simply to let the special
interests have their way — opening up loopholes for the oil companies and
speculators so that they could reap record profits while the rest of us pay four
dollars a gallon,”
gallon,” Obama said in a statement. “My
“My plan fully closes the Enron
loophole and restores common-sense regulation as part of my broader plan to ease
the burden for struggling families today while investing in a better future,”
future,” the
Illinois senator said. After a week of furious controversy over Republican John
McCain’s call for energy companies to be allowed to drill for oil off the US coasts,
Democrats said they would introduce new anti-speculation bills in Congress this
week. Congressman Ed Markey, the Democratic chairman of the House of
Representatives select committee on energy independence, said a new rise in oil
production by Saudi Arabia would have only a “marginal” affect on prices. “There
“There is
without question, in my mind, speculation going on, manipulation going on,”
on,” he said
on ABC News. “The
“The Democrats are going to put bills on the House floor this week to
deal with that issue.”
issue.” Obama’s campaign noted that the Enron measure was
shepherded through Congress by former senator Phil Gramm, who is now the
campaign co-chair for McCain — proof, it said, that the Republican was out of touch
with US voters.

The loophole, enacted under strong lobbying by the Enron trading company before
its spectacular collapse, exempted energy traders who deal electronically from US
regulation against price manipulation. Traders were allowed to deal in oil without
taking physical possession of the commodity, so speculators have since been able
to rapidly buy and sell futures contracts on overseas markets such as London for
maximum profit. According to Florida’s Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, the real
price of oil based on the laws of supply and demand should be about 55 dollars a
barrel — but he said that speculation has driven it up to nearly 140 dollars. The
Enron loophole was dealt with partially in a recently passed Farm Bill, but Obama
said he would go further by requiring all US energy futures to be traded on
regulated exchanges where suspected manipulation can be monitored. After
announcing the Saudi output boost at an emergency energy summit in Jeddah, King
Abdullah on Sunday railed against speculators but US Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman said the real problem was lack of supply.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington 23.06.08

– Whites consider Obama a risky choice: survey

More than half of America’s white majority voters consider presumptive Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama a ‘risky’ choice for the White House, whereas
twothirds believe Republican candidate John McCain is a ‘safe’ pick, a new survey
has revealed. The survey by The Washington Post/ABC News also opens up
apprehensions of the race factor being whipped up by white supremacist groups as
a way to stop the first serious African contender for the White House from winning.
The survey has shown that over half of whites called 46-year-old Illinois senator a
‘risky’ choice for the top post, while two-thirds said Mr McCain is a ‘safe’ pick. About
two in 10 white voters said Mr Obama would over-represent the interests of African-
Americans. But 43 per cent of the whites also said that he has sufficient experience
to serve effectively as president. An overwhelmingly majority – nine out of ten – said
they were open to the idea of electing an African-American to the presidency; but
fewer whites – twothirds – said they would be “entirely comfortable” with it.

The survey urged the Obama campaign to give more attention to the race factor,
suggesting that it could play a critical role in states like Ohio, West Virginia and
Indiana where racial feelings run high. Overall, 51 per cent of white voters
contacted for the survey called the current state of race relations “excellent” or
“good”. More than six in 10 AfricanAmericans, however, rated race relations as “not
so good” or “poor” while 53 per cent of whites hold more positive views. Unlike in
the recent Newsweek poll where Mr Obama had a 15-point lead over 71-year-old Mr
McCain, the Post/ABC survey showed the Illinois Democrat leading by only six
percentage points. The Obama campaign is working hard to minimise the issue of
race in this November’s presidential election. Earlier this month, the campaign
launched a website to defuse rumours that the hate-mongers spread on the
internet. The site lists a series of untruths about Mr Obama — that he is Muslim;
that his books contain racist passages; that his wife, Michelle, used the word
“whitey” — and discredits them.

Author Location Dated

Ashfaq Yusufzai Peshawar, Pakistan 23.06.08

– Passage of package to worsen crisis: Rashid

The passage of constitutional package by National Assembly and increase in
number of Supreme Court judges would plunge the country into crisis, said
president of the newly-formed Awami Muslim League (AML) and former federal
minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. “The“The measure to increase number of judges through
finance bill would unveil many secrets and further exacerbate the prevalent
situation in the country,”
country,” he told a news conference here on Sunday. Sheikh Rashid
said that he requested several times Chaudhris to revamp the party at grassroots
level but they refused to do so which forced him to quit the former ruling PML-Q. All
such requests, he said, fell on deaf ears and the party faced crushing defeat in the
general elections. The passage of the finance bill by the parliament increasing the
number of Supreme Court judges was a setback for those claiming to restore the
judges deposed by President Pervez Musharraf on November 2, he added. The PPP-
led coalition government at the centre, he said, was all set to aim their guns at the
president through impeachment that would beset the country with far more deeper
political uncertainty.

Sheikh Rashid said that people were upset over the country's economic conditions
and were transferring their assets to foreign banks. Apart from soaring prices of
daily use items, he said, people lived in constant fear of their lives due to the
worsening law and order situation. The AML chief said those sitting in the
government were ‘inefficient’ and ‘incapable’ to handle the situation and steer the
country out of the existing mess. Regarding the situation in Swat and the federally
administered tribal areas (Fata), the former federal minister said that government
had adopted a dual policy of running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.
Either they should clinch a deal with Taliban and withdraw army from the tribal belt,
or join hands with the United States in its war against terror, he added. “You
“You can't
soothe the two sides at the same time,”
time,” he opined. Afghan President was
unthankful person, who had lived here along with his families for decades, he said
about Karzai's recent threat of ordering his troops to enter into Pakistani tribal
areas. He said that Karzai was doing so at the behest of someone else. The former
federal minister said that purpose of his visit to Peshawar was to organise his newly-
formed party here.

Author Location Dated

Afshan Subohi 23.06.08

– Subsidies: good or bad

Today when subsidies worldwide shield consumers from record oil prices, the
representative government in Islamabad has decided to gradually withdraw it. The
government will also continue to levy the sales tax that tends to increase the oil
price by about 15 to 20 per cent. In the budget 2008-09, the allocation for food,
fuel, power subsidies has been slashed by 25 per cent from current Rs404.48 billion
to Rs295.20 billion during the year ahead.There is no mention of exempting
essential items from government levies to provide some relief to consumers. Given
the current rising trend, the price of petroleum products is likely to register a
massive increase over the period ahead unless the price bubble bursts on increased
oil production and the slump in global demand on US recession. Apart from
withdrawal of subsidy from other essentials, just oil price increase will affect the
prices of consumer items in the range of 10 to 20 per cent of the increment.
According to an exercise carried out in Karachi essential items became dearer by
Rs2 when the price of petroleum was increased by Rs6 recently. The double digit
inflation has more to do with overall economic policies rather than international
price hike or a fall in local production. People are being penalised for government’s
inefficiency and the country’s economic mismanagement. The higher-ups in the
economic ministries reached in Islamabad over phone called the withdrawal of
subsidy a compulsion that cannot be delayed. When asked whether the slashing of
subsidies could be interpreted as a callous attitude of an elected government
towards electorate already reeling under backbreaking pressure of prices, these
officials prayed for more time to set things right.

”It is strange to me as the subsidy was provided when it could have been
rationalised and now when the tough economic situation of average Pakistani
warrants it, the government has decided to start its withdrawal”,
withdrawal”, said a senior
member of government hierarchy outside the economic ministries. The officials at
the finance ministry spoke of difficult economic conditions the coalition government
has inherited and the worsening current account deficit threatening the viability of
the economy. With prospects of internal mobilisation of resources not bright in what
they termed ‘temporary
‘temporary period of stabilisation’
stabilisation’ the government needs support from
overseas development partners. The external support, they said, will not be
forthcoming unless these donors get the clear signals that the government is
serious in improving the vitals of the economy by bringing fiscal and current deficits
to acceptable levels. Ishaque Dar placed the deficit at above nine per cent of the
GDP when he became the finance minister. Naveed Qamar, the de facto finance
minister, claimed to have brought it drastically down to close the year with budget
deficit at 7.5 per cent. The government aims to bring it further down to 4.7 per cent
by June next year.

Over the issue of insensitivity of the government towards the plight of vulnerable
segments, the government functionaries boasted of Rs34 billion Benazir support
programme designed to protect poorest of the poor from economic vagaries
through cash transfers. ”A”A representative government cannot be oblivious to the
needs of the people who put them in power.The Benazir support programme will
provide them the support they so desperately need to keep them going during the
current painful period”,
period”, said a government senior officer who wished not to be
identified. He failed to explain why it should be assumed that this subsidy would
reach the targeted families when such earlier programmes have failed. The
administrative costs of such schemes have often been higher than the economic
gains in a set-up riddled with corruption. ”The
”The power structure especially in rural
areas where majority of the targeted beneficiaries of the Benazir support scheme
are located is obstructive and most of such transfers ultimately land in pockets of
the patronised and not necessarily the eligible. I see no reason to assume that the
fate of this scheme to be any different. The Rs34 billion allocated for Benazir
programme should have been used for food or oil subsidy where misappropriation
of funds at mass scale is comparatively difficult”
difficult” said a senior economist talking to
Dawn over telephone from Washington. Senior officials in Islamabad tried to defend
the government decision as they said a subsidy creates distortions in the working of
free market leading to careless wastage of valuable resources by consumers and
producers who get it cheap. This again is an argument put forward by the World
Bank and IMF in their literature very often.

However, one wonders why champions of free market US, EU and Japan have such
high agriculture subsidies. What keeps these nations from letting their agriculture
vanish if it is not affordable and when food abundant developing world can feed
them at much less a price. They defend their protectionist policies with their own
logics, get away with it and continue to dominate the world on the strength of their
economic prowess. A country can be a free market economy and be protectionist
towards sectors it deems necessary. It is about development priority as well as
economic logic. Despite rhetoric about free market, production and exports are
subsidised the world over in varying degrees. The argument of government
bankruptcy to persuade people to endure more economic pain lose weight when
fleets of shinny jeeps with party flags fluttering are visible all over and aeroplanes
are parked at ministers whims to carry friends back and forth.

Author Location Dated

Rupee Report 23.06.08

– Rupee weakens on dollar demand

The rupee remained mostly fluctuated this week against the American and
European single common currencies. Strong dollar demand from importers, amid
tight supplies persisted in the local currency market on the opening day of the
week. The rupee in the inter bank market lost 30 paisa against the dollar on the
buying counter and another 24 paisa on the selling counter and traded at Rs66.95
and Rs66.99 on June 16, against previous week close of Rs66.65 and Rs66.75.
However, the rupee managed to recover overnight losses, gaining five paisa on
buying and four paisa on selling due to some improvement in dollar supplies on June
17, when the dollar was seen changing hands at Rs66.90 and Rs66.95. On June 18,
the rupee again weakened against the dollar. The rupee failed to hold its overnight
firmness versus the American currency amid rising dollar demand and shed five to
trade at Rs66.95 and Rs67.00. The rupee continued its falling trend on June19,
posting fresh losses of 45 paisa on buying and 50 paisa on selling due to sharp
increase in importers demand for dollars, which traded at Rs67.40 and Rs67.50. The
rupee was able to reverse its overnight falling trend against the dollar on June 20,
gaining five paisa for buying and 10 paisa for selling to trade at Rs67.35 and
Rs67.40. This brings cumulative decline in rupee value against the dollar in the inter
bank market this week to around 75 paisa amid fluctuations.
In the open market, the rupee/dollar parity commenced the week on a negative
note. The rupee suffered a sharp decline in relation to dollar, losing 20 paisa and
trading at Rs67.85 and Rs68.10 on June 16, after closing previous week at Rs67.65
and Rs67.90. The falling trend persisted on the open market on June 17 as strong
demand for dollar continued to exert downward pressure on the rupee. The rupee
posted fresh losses of 30 paisa for buying and 25 paisa for selling with dollar
changing hands at Rs68.15 and Rs68.35. On June 18, the rupee sustained its
overnight level against dollar on the buying counter, while gaining 10 paisa on the
selling counter to trade at Rs68.15 and Rs68.25. On the following day, the rupee
failed to hold its firmness versus the dollar making fresh losses of 20 paisa on
buying and another 25 paisa on selling as it could not resist demand pressure,
trading at Rs68.35 and Rs68.50 on June 19. However, the rupee managed to
assumed upward trend on June 20 recovering from overnight losses against the
dollar. It gained 25 paisa on the buying counter and 15 paisa on the selling counter,
changing hands versus the dollar at Rs68.10 and Rs68.35. This week, the rupee in
the open market lost 45 paisa versus the US currency.

Versus the European common currency the rupee, however, rose by 15 paisa and
traded at Rs104.25 and Rs104.35 on the week’s opening day after ending last week
at Rs104.40 and Rs104.50. The rupee weakness persisted on the second trading
day, when it further lost Rs1.15, changing hands at Rs105.40 and Rs105.50. The
rupee however, managed to recover from overnight weakness over the euro on the
third trading day, gaining 15 paisa to trade at 105.25 and Rs105.35 on June 18. On
June 19, the rupee extended its weakness and shed 30 paisa to trade at Rs105.55
and Rs105.65. On June 20, the rupee extended gains versus euro, rising 25 paisa as
the dollar managed to recover its ground in terms of the of world leading
currencies. It traded at 105.30 and Rs105.40 against the European single common
currency. During the week in review, the rupee in the inter bank market lost 90
paisa against the euro.

Author Location Dated

Syed Faisal Shakeel Lahore, Pakistan 24.06.08

– Nawaz barred from by-poll LHC allows Shahbaz to remain in

office
The Lahore High Court on Monday disqualified Pakistan Muslim League-N leader
Mian Nawaz Sharif from contesting the June 26 by-election. A full bench of the court
also declared that an election petition against the candidature of Punjab Chief
Minister Shahbaz Sharif would remain pending, but he would continue to serve as
the provincial chief executive until an election tribunal decided about his
nomination. The bench, comprising Justice Abdul Shakoor Paracha, Justice M. Bilal
Khan and Justice Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi, was constituted on Saturday after two
members of an earlier bench had refused to hear the petitions. The Sharif brothers
have faced legal challenges to their nomination. On May 5, an election tribunal
comprising two LHC judges had handed down a split verdict on the objections raised
against them. Following the tribunal’s decision, the Election Commission had
allowed them to remain in the run. But Syed Khurram Shah, a voter, and Noor Elahi,
an independent candidate against Nawaz Sharif for National Assembly seat NA-123
had moved the High Court against the commission’s decision to permit the PML-N
leaders to contest the by-election on technical grounds without deciding about the
legal status of their nomination. The Sharif brothers did not contest the case on the
ground that they did not accept the ‘PCO judges’. The high court was proceeding ex
parte against them after turning down applications by several of their supporters,
including lawyers and the speaker of the provincial assembly, to become a party to
the case.

Still, several lawyers, including Akram Shaiekh, Ashtar Ausaf Ali, A.K. Dogar and
Khwaja Haris defended them on behalf of the Punjab Assembly speaker, the
provincial government and the Pakistan Lawyers’ Forum. Independent candidate
Noor Elahi contended through advocate Qazi Mohiuddin that Nawaz Sharif was a
“convict, a dishonest person and a defaulter”.
defaulter”. He said PML-N’s argument that the
presidential pardon under Article 45 of the Constitution had removed all charges
against Mr Sharif could not be taken into consideration because the president could
end a punishment, but not a conviction under a court order. Advocate Raza Kazim,
representing Khurram Shah, said the Election Commission had not allowed the
process of scrutiny of Shahbaz Sharif’s nomination papers by deeming the split
verdict of the election tribunal as final. “The
“The chief election commissioner has the
power to increase the number of judges in the tribunal as well as the time limit for
holding the election. He could have inducted another judge into the tribunal and
changed the election schedule to allow the complete scrutiny of the papers to go
through,”
through,” he argued. Advocate Akram Sheikh argued that Mr Shah had no legal
power to challenge Shahbaz Sharif because he was not a candidate. “Shahbaz’s
“Shahbaz’s
election has already taken place after the Election Commission has declared him
successful for being opposed by no other candidate,”
candidate,” he argued. Mr Sheikh also had
an altercation with Justice Bilal when the bench sought his views on Mr Kazim’s
argument. “If“If you shout, I would shout too,”
too,” he said after the judge told him to stick
to the point and not indulge in self praise.

Advocate Ashtar Ausaf Ali said the court had sent the case against Shahbaz Sharif
to a tribunal that did not exist. The Sharif brothers and their supporting lawyers said
they would not challenge the decision in any court, but Mr Ali said a decision in this
regard would be taken in a party meeting. The PML-N Lawyers’ Forum held a
demonstration on the court premises and criticised the PCO judges for handing
down an adverse verdict against their leader. The Punjab Assembly adjourned its
proceedings till Tuesday as soon as news about the court decision broke out. PML-N
legislators held a demonstration outside the assembly building and alleged that the
decision was politically motivated.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 24.06.08

– PML-N disowns SC expansion

Tempers frayed in the National Assembly on Monday as the Pakistan Muslim
League-N dissociated itself from a controversial expansion of the Supreme Court
through the Finance Bill in a move that could aggravate a rift in the ruling coalition
over a promised restoration of deposed judges. But the Pakistan People’s Party
maintained a mysterious silence over its handiwork as the PML-N and its arch-rival
Pakistan Muslim League-Q fought a wordy duel before the house approved
supplementary demands for grants for the outgoing fiscal 2007-08 and two other
previous years in a lively finale of the new government’s first budget. Minister in
charge for finance Naveed Qamar told the assembly on Sunday that a Finance Bill
clause that provided for increasing the Supreme Court strength to 29 judges from
the present 16 had been drafted by PML-N Senator Ishaq Dar after a PML-N lower
house member called it a “mockery
“mockery of our constitutional structure”
structure” even though the
key coalition partner had not announced opposition to the move or an abstention
from the vote. But PML-N parliamentary leader Nisar Ali Khan, who was not present
in the house when the Finance Bill was passed, said at the start of Monday’s
proceedings that his party had reservations about the court expansion and that it
had not voted for the controversial clause though it supported the bill as a whole,
which gave effect to the Rs2.01 trillion budget for financial year 2008-09. He said
that Sunday’s strong remarks by PML-N member Ayaz Amir against the judges’
clause “reflected the party policy” and added: “We
“We did not vote for this clause.”
clause.” The
bill’s clauses were passed one by one by voice vote and nobody was heard saying
“no” when the clause about the Supreme Court was put to the house because the
main opposition PML-Q party abstained from voting with its ally Muttahida Qaumi
Movement apparently going along without a formal announcement.

Some PML-Q members said at the time their party had no objection to increasing
the number of judges but was against doing it through a finance bill, which does not
go the Senate, rather than a normal act of parliament that must be passed by both
houses of parliament. PPP’s reasons for seeking the increase through the Finance
Bill are that an ordinary bill could not get through the 100-seat Senate where the till
recently ruling PML-Q and its allies are still in a majority and the ruling coalition is in
a minority. Mr Nisar’s disavowal of the move contrasted with the previously known
party position that the PML-N would agree to increasing the court strength despite
its reservations, which a party spokesman confirmed on Monday, and could add to
tensions with the PPP over the issue of deposed judges. “We “We supported the bill
knowing this clause was there,”
there ,” PML-N spokesman Siddiqul Farooque told Dawn.
While no PPP minister or member rose to respond to the PML-N parliamentary
leader, the PML-Q took up the cudgels with its former minister of state for law Raza
Hayat Harraj questioning Mr Nisar’s talk of reservations after the bill had been
passed and asked: “Who
“Who are we trying to fool?”
fool?” Mr Harraj as well as PML-Q
parliamentary leader Faisal Saleh Hayat and two other members — Ms Donya Aziz
and Ms Marvi Memon — used their speeches on the supplementary demands for
grants to describe the controversial clause as an indemnity for a Provisional
Constitution Order (PCO) issued by President Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007,
under which about 60 judges of the Supreme Court and four high courts were
sacked for refusing or not being called upon to take a new oath of office.

Strangely, even this charge evoked no response from the PPP, although it says it
regards the president’s Nov 3 emergency proclamation and the PCO as
unconstitutional steps but does not want to throw out the president’s handpicked
judges who took the oath under the PCO while seeking to restore those who were
deposed, including Supreme Court chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. The
Finance Bill clause amends the Supreme Court (Number of Judges) Act of 1997 to
increase the number to a maximum of 29 from 16 to be effective from Nov 3, which
the PML-Q members said amounted to indemnifying the Nov 3 PCO. Political sources
said the issue is likely to heat up after a bench of three PCO judges of the Lahore
High Court on Monday disqualified PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif from contesting for a
National Assembly seat in byelections on June 26. The PML-N wants reinstatement
of the deposed judges through a resolution of the National Assembly as agreed in
the “Murree Declaration” it signed with the PPP in March. The PPP, which has come
under attack from both friends and foes for missing two deadlines for such a
restoration, wants it to be done through a constitution amendment package that
also seeks to clip the president’s controversial powers to dissolve the National
Assembly, sack a prime minister and appoint armed forces chiefs and provincial
governors. But the package seems to have little chances of success as coalition
allies do not have the required two-thirds majority in the Senate to pass a
constitutional amendment, although they have this majority in the 342-seat
National Assembly.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 24.06.08

– PML-N terms LHC verdict political

Criticising the Lahore High Court decision, the PML-N said on Monday that it would
announce its future line of action within 24 hours. Party president and Punjab chief
minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif termed it a political rather than a judicial decision. He
said the verdict had broken all the past records of rigging. Wondering how a two-
time elected prime minister who had been declared as eligible to contest the 2002
polls could be disqualified in 2008, PML-N general secretary Iqbal Zafar Jhaggra said
the party’s final stance on the issue would be given after legal experts’ opinion
within 24 hours. Alleging that the LHC verdict was the outcome of the pressure of
“remnants of the dictator”, he said the judges feared about their future after the
sacking of their 60 colleagues in Nov 2007. He said that the PCO-judiciary allowed a
man in uniform to contest the presidential election against all constitutional
provisions and democratic norms but barred “a “a leader who enjoyed support of 86
per cent Pakistanis, as depicted in an international survey, from entering
parliament”.
parliament”. He said that the judges had risked their repute while their verdict
would fail to deviate Nawaz from the war he had launched for free judiciary. Mr
Jhaggra said that the country would be facing crisis after crisis till Gen Musharraf
was there calling the shots from the presidency.

PML-N spokesman Dr Asif Kirmani said that on one hand all cases were being
withdrawn under the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) and on the other
Nawaz was being penalised though then President Rafiq Tarar had pardoned the
punishment given to the former prime minister under the so-called high treason
case. He demanded that the PPP should openly condemn the verdict which, he
alleged, had been given under pressure from the presidency. MNA Khwaja Saad
Rafiq, without naming the senior coalition partner in the PPP, said it was time “to
“to
ask our allies that if they want to side with democracy and the nation, they will
have to do two jobs, impeaching Musharraf and restoring the deposed judges”. He
said that Nawaz would not approach the Supreme Court for relief as it would mean
accepting the PCO judges sitting there. PML-N MPAs who had abandoned the budget
debate immediately after they knew the verdict and came on The Mall in protest,
said they would hold another demonstration on Tuesday outside the Punjab
Assembly building.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 24.06.08
 – Shahbaz may lose CM slot: Zafar
A central leader of the PML-N, who is also a senior lawyer, is of the view that after
Election Commission's notification that Mian Shahbaz Sharif has been elected
unopposed as a member of the Punjab Assembly from PP-10 (Rawalpindi), his seat
PP-48 (Bhakkar), on the basis of which he became chief minister for a second time,
has fallen vacant under Article 223 (4) of the Constitution. Syed Zafar Ali Shah said
while talking to Dawn on Monday that if PP-48 fell vacant, it would not be possible
for the PML-N president to stay as chief minister. And once the chief minister quits,
the provincial cabinet also ceases to exist. The PML-N leader said the situation had
far-reaching consequences for the political future of Mian Shahbaz Sharif as in case
he quit, he could not become chief minister again. Explaining the point, he said
under "The
"The qualification to hold public offices order, 2002 (Chief Executive Order 19
of 2002)"
2002)" nobody could become chief minister for a third time unless the law was
amended with the approval of the president. Mian Shahbaz, Zafar Ali said, remained
chief minister twice (once in 1997-99 and then after winning the Bhakkar seat in
2008). And if he had to quit and was made to quit, he would not qualify to hold the
office yet again. He said Shahbaz Sharif could become a member of the Punjab
Assembly after taking fresh oath as a representative from PP-10 (Rawalpindi).
However, he said, he could not continue as the chief minister.

Zafar Ali Shah said Article 223 (4) says: "Subject

"Subject to Clause 2 if a member of either
house or of a provincial assembly becomes a candidate for a second seat which in
accordance with clause 1 he may not hold concurrently with his first seat, then his
first seat shall become vacant as soon as he is elected to the second seat".
seat". He said
this clearly showed that after getting elected from PP-10, Mian Shahbaz Sharif's
seat PP-48 (Bhakkar) had fallen vacant since the date of the notification. Punjab
Election Commissioner Javed Khurshid confirmed that a notification for Shahbaz
Sharif's victory from PP-10 had been issued and that by-election on this seat would
not be held on June 26. The PML-N leader held people around Mian Shahbaz Sharif
responsible for the situation facing the Punjab chief minister. He said had the
political and legal teams given Mr Shahbaz Sharif the right kind of advice, he could
have withdrawn his nomination papers from PP -10 after getting elected from PP-48.
He said some PML-N leaders were involved in conspiracies against Mian Shahbaz
Sharif. He said the failure to take back nomination papers from the second seat was
a major lapse for which the PML-N president could have to pay a very heavy political
price.

Author Location Dated

Zulqernain Tahir Lahore, Pakistan 24.06.08

– Nawaz’s disqualification sparks MPAs’ protest

Fatigued by the day-long discussions on 2008-09 budget, the Punjab Assembly
members on Monday got a rare relief when the chair adjourned house proceedings
for the next day to provide a chance to PML-N MPAs to protest outside the assembly
the disqualification of party chief Mian Nawaz Sharif. The abrupt ending of the
session also meant the period set to pass the budget had lapsed. Going by the
tradition, budget has to be passed on the fourth day of discussion following
concluding remarks by the finance minister. The session was in progress when PML-
N’s Mohsin Latif, on a point of order, informed the house at 6.35pm about the
Lahore High Court’s decision of disqualifying Nawaz Sharif for contesting bye-
lections. Following the news, panic gripped the house that forced Deputy Speaker
Rana Mashood Ahmed, who was in the chair, to adjourn the proceedings at 6.40pm.
The members and some ministers proceeded to Faisal Chowk and staged a sit-in for
a few minutes, causing a brief traffic jam on The Mall. They were chanting slogans
against President Musharraf and the ‘PCO judges’. The legislators then converged
outside the assembly building and continued their protest against the decision till
dusk. Finance Minister Tanvir Ashraf Kaira and the other PPP members remained
present in the protest to dispel the impression that their party had anything to do
with the decision. Terming the decision a conspiracy to sabotage the democratic
system in the country, Mr Kaira said his party would fully support its coalition
partner. Minorities’ Minister Kamran Michael and Food Minister Malik Nadeem said
the nation had voted for Nawaz Sharif on Feb 18 and even the returning officer did
not reject his nomination papers. Rana Mashood said the decision was highly
regrettable and would create more problems for the people of Pakistan. He
maintained that they would make the ‘PCO judges’ accountable whom he described
as an extension of President Musharraf.

Soon after the legislators dispersed a group of PML-N activists who had gathered at
the Faisal Chowk and blocked the road by burning tyres. During the evening session
which started at 4.15pm, Sanaullah Masti Khail called for trial of the military
dictators. He said: “Gen
“Gen Ayub and Gen Zia should be hanged ceremonially besides
all those who had facilitated the imposition of martial laws in the country.”
country.” Haji
Nasir called for a probe into the previous government’s programme ‘Parha Likha
Punjab’. He said a number of schools and colleges in the hometown of former chief
minister Pervaiz Elahi were without buildings, furniture and even heads. Nargis
Awan, Chaudhry Ali Asghar and Shahn Malik asked the chair to enhance budget
allocation for the development of their respective constituencies. Zubia Malik was
the only PML-Q legislator who attended the second session and explained about the
problems the people of her constituency were facing.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 24.06.08

– Abolition of death sentence criticised

Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s announcement to abolish death sentence was
criticised in the Punjab Assembly on Monday. Opposition’s Sheikh Allauddin said on
a point of order that the move to abolish death sentence was against the injunctions
of the Holy Quran and the Sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon him). He
said the government had no right to convert death sentence into life imprisonment.
“Only the heirs of the victim can pardon the offender and the state has nothing to
do in this connection. The announcement has been made just to please the non-
government organisations. This is against the divine law. Who will ensure justice to
the heirs of victims?”
victims?” he added. The decision, if implemented, would encourage
criminals and the crime rate would further increase. “There
“There are 7,000 or so convicts
on the death row and their release would affect at least 70,000 families. We should
not pardon criminals on the instruction of ‘outsiders’ whose own societies were
deteriorating. I condemn it in strongest words whether or not any other member of
the house joins me,”
me,” Sheikh added.
Raising another point of order, Maulana Ilyas Chinioti maintained that even in old
and new testaments, the punishment for a murder by intention has been death. No
law could be made in Pakistan that would be in violation of the injunctions of the
divine laws. PPP’s Azma Zahid Bukhari, however, disagreed with the two legislators
and said that death sentences were being given to people under the penal code and
not under the Hudood laws. Requesting the two legislators not to mix up things, she
said that no change was being made in the Islamic laws. The federal government
would give remission to prisoners, convicted under the penal code. Deputy Speaker
Rana Mashood did not allow further debate on the issue, urging the members to
focus on budget and not to waste time on items that were not on the agenda.

The deputy speaker also ruled that any document, signed in the public interest to
facilitate the masses, should not be kept secret. Referring the privilege motion
moved by Abdur Rahman Rana to the house committee, the deputy speaker,
however, kept other similar motions pending. The mover had drawn the attention of
the house to non-provision of a copy of the agreement signed between a private
company and the communication and works department for the collection of toll tax
from the users of Lahore-Faisalabad Road and said that the authorities concerned
were not providing details about it on the pretext that it was a “confidential”
document. Food Minister Malik Nadeem Kamran informed the house that the
company constructed the dual carriageway and established a centre there to collect
toll tax under the agreement. A clause in the agreement stated that its whole
contents would not be made public. The company had also been allowed to increase
toll taxes by 5.74 per cent annually. The minister’s reply made many legislators
stand up and demand that the matter be referred to the privilege committee. The
food minister proposed that a house sub-committee be formed for the purpose but
the deputy speaker referred the motion to privilege committee while asking that
why a public matter was being kept secret. Mashood, however, kept the privilege
motions of Hafiz Hayat Kathia and Chaudhry Zaheeruddin pending, as they were not
present in the house.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 24.06.08

– Rice calls Musharraf author of his troubles

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has underlined the Bush administration’s
dilemma in dealing with President Pervez Musharraf: continue to support him as a
key ally now in trouble or abandon him as someone who cannot be rescued. In a
lengthy interview to CNN, Ms Rice indicated that President Musharraf quit the army
on Washington’s advice but stops short of admitting that in doing so he clipped his
own wings. Instead, Ms Rice blamed Mr Musharraf for the troubles he faces now,
telling the interviewer that she told the former general “he
“he made a number of
mistakes,”
mistakes,” which led him to where he finds himself now. Aware that both Mr
Musharraf’s friends and allies may interpret her statement as indicating that
Washington is distancing itself from the besieged president, Ms Rice also said:
“President Musharraf has been a good ally. He did a lot for Pakistan in bringing it
into civilian rule. And he’s somebody that we will continue to treat with respect.”
respect.” Mr
Musharraf’s future came up for discussion when the interviewer — Farid Zakaria of
Newsweek — said that the United States has studiously avoided calling for the
restoration of deposed judges in Pakistan. Ms Rice repeated the US stance on this
issue: “It’s
“It’s best that (the judicial dispute) be worked out between Pakistanis.”
Pakistanis.”

Reminded that the US silence on this issue is seen in Pakistan as supporting Mr

Musharraf because if the judiciary is restored it may nullify the extra-constitutional
measures he took on Nov. 3. “Well,
“Well, I don’t know how this would turn out if the
judiciary were to come back into being, because one doesn’t know under what
circumstances or how they would do it,” it,” said Ms Rice. “We
“We have worked with
President Musharraf. President Musharraf did a great thing for his country, he took
off the uniform, and he brought them back to civilian rule. He really did set them on
a course that was not an extremist course.”
course.” But he put the chief justice under house
arrest and he suspended half the judiciary, the inter viewer reminded her. “I “I have
said — and I said to him that he made a number of mistakes. And I thought that the
state of emergency was a mistake,”
mistake,” said Ms Rice. Do you think he should resign
now and give Pakistan a new start, she was asked. “This “This is clearly a Pakistani
matter. He’s the President of Pakistan and we’ll treat him as the President of
Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Ms Rice said. But she quickly balanced her stance, indicating that
Washington would accept any change brought about by the political forces in
Pakistan. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is in a period now of bringing its new democratic institutions
into being. They will work through these matters,”
matters,” she said. The US secretary of
state indulged in yet another balancing act while talking about current tensions
between Pakistan and Afghanistan. “I “I think it’s probably not wise to talk about
Afghan cross-border operations,”
operations ,” said Ms Rice, referring to Afghan President Hamid
Karzai’s recent threat to send troops into Pakistan to fight insurgents.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 25.06.08

– Govt to move SC against Nawaz bar

The government on Tuesday offered its main ally Nawaz Sharif only legal help
against an election bar ordered by a controversial court as the ruling coalition came
under renewed pressure to make up for broken promises for the reinstatement of
deposed judges. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and Law Minister Farooq H. Naek
both told the National Assembly the government would appeal before the Supreme
Court to challenge Monday’s ruling by a three-judge bench of the Lahore High Court
that disqualified the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader and two-time former
prime minister from contesting for a lower house seat in by-elections on Thursday
because of a previous conviction. Mr Gilani, speaking in the absence of PML-N
lawmakers who had walked out in protest after fiery speeches by some of them,
said his government would also seek a postponement of the polling in the NA-123
constituency in Lahore for which Mr Sharif was standing till the decision. Mr Naek
earlier said the appeal before the Supreme Court would seek a stay of the order
issued by the Lahore High Court judges before whom Mr Sharif had refused to
appear or send a lawyer to argue for him because he did not recognise their
legitimacy for having taken oath under a Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) issued
by President Pervez Musharraf on Nov 3, 2007 as part of his extra-constitutional
emergency under which about 60 judges of the Supreme Court and the four
provincial high courts were sacked for refusing or not being called upon to take a
new oath.
The speech by the prime minister, who came at the fag-end of the day’s
proceedings before the house was prorogued after a 23day budget session, seemed
falling far short of PML-N members’ demands from the coalition leading Pakistan
People’s Party (PPP), such as taking a clear stand on the legitimacy of the socalled
“PCO judges” handpicked by President Musharraf and implementation of the
“Murree Declaration” signed by the two parties last March that had called for the
restoration of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary through a National Assembly resolution within
30 days of the formation of their government. But, speaking in Urdu, he said he
shared the sentiments of PML-N leaders over the ruling that “dismayed
“dismayed the whole
nation”,
nation”, and added: “We“We wish institutions get strengthened and take decisions
which are acceptable to people so their credibility is not compromised.”
compromised.” The prime
minister said he consulted PML-N leaders Nisar Ali Khan, Javed Hashmi and Ahsan
Iqbal, all of whom earlier spoke in the house, as well as the law minister and Interior
Adviser Rehman Malik about the government’s options and came to the conclusion
in favour of filing an appeal before the Supreme Court. “We
“We will also make a request
(to the Election Commission) to postpone the election for NA-123 till the decision of
the case.”
case.” Some of the PML-N members, taking the floor after the issue was first
raised by PPP veteran Zafar Ali Shah, cast doubts about the PPP leadership’s
sincerity about the judges’ issue and about the usefulness of a proposed
constitution amendment package through which it now says the deposed judges be
restored rather than a National Assembly resolution as promised in the “Murree
Declaration”.

Two deadlines set for restoring the judges under the “Murree Declaration” — April
30 and May 12 — were missed because of a perceived dithering by PPP cochairman
Asif Ali Zardari, and there was no official word yet when the package would come to
parliament to be passed by the required two-thirds majorities in both houses of
parliament, which the coalition has in the 342-seat National Assembly but lacks in
the 100-seat Senate. Mr Naek said the government had opposed the petition
against Mr Sharif’s candidacy in the Lahore High Court through a deputy attorney-
general and would make every effort to have that order vacated by the Supreme
Court. “Now
“Now I hope a correct decision will come.”
come.” He said it was unfair to accuse the
PPP of trying to protect the PCO judges and, while reiterating the government’s oft-
repeated commitment to restore the deposed judges, added: “If “If somebody thinks it
should be done instantly with a ‘danda’ (stick), that we don’t want.”
want.” In an apparent
reference to President Musharraf, PML-N parliamentary leader Nisar Ali Khan blamed
“strings pulled from the background”
background” for Mr Sharif’s disqualification and urged all
members of the house and coalition partners to make their position clear whether
they stood by forces of democracy or of dictatorship and about the position of PCO
judges. He said his party had a still undisclosed tape-recording of a “big
“big personality
giving directions to PCO judges”,
judges”, similar to the one the party had previously claimed
was a recording of former Punjab chief minister and present opposition leader in the
National Assembly Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, telling somebody about arrangements to
get Sharif brothers disqualified. PML-Q chief whip Riaz Hussain Pirzada, who said he
was speaking only for himself on a private members’ day, said he would “side “side with
democratic forces when the time comes”
comes” even if he had to lose his seat in the
house. PPP’s Zafar Ali Shah called the Lahore ruling a “mini
“mini 58(2)(b)”
58(2)(b)” — a reference
to the constitution’s article of the same number empowering the president to
dissolve the National Assembly and sack a prime minister — which he said had now
been used in the by-elections and “could
“could be used later against us”.
us”.
Author Location Dated
Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 25.06.08

– PML-N won’t accept SC ruling

The Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) will not accept the verdict by the
Supreme Court if it upheld the Lahore High Court’s judgment against the eligibility
of Mian Nawaz Sharif to contest by-election, a spokesman for the party said on
Tuesday. “We
“We believe that Mian Nawaz Sharif is quite eligible to contest the
election. “Any judgment against his candidature will be against the Constitution and
we’ll not accept it,”
it,” said Mr Siddiqul Farooq while talking to Dawn about the party’s
stance in case the apex court came up with a decision unfavourable to the former
prime minister. The spokesman said the federal government was filing an appeal
against the Lahore High Court judgment on its own, not with the concurrence of the
PML-N. He said the PML-N did not recognise the PCO judges and would not change
its stance at any cost. He said the Punjab government had approached the Lahore
High Court when the eligibility of Chief Minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif was challenged
and it was perhaps for this reason that the federal government was also following
the same course when the Lahore High Court had disqualified Mian Nawaz Sharif.
He said the PML-N wanted the reinstatement of deposed judges as many problems
facing the country would stand resolved with their return. In his opinion now that all
matters concerning the judiciary had been settled, the return of the deposed judges
should not take more than a few days to take place.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 25.06.08

– Plea against LHC decision delayed

An appeal before the Supreme Court by the government against PML-N chief Nawaz
Sharif’s disqualification from contesting the June 26 by-election, which was
supposed to be filed on Tuesday, has been delayed for a day due to procedural
limitations. “Now
“Now a civil petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court
order of barring Nawaz Sharif from the coming by-election will be moved before the
apex court on Wednesday,”
Wednesday,” deputy attorney-general Raja Abdur Rehman told Dawn
on Tuesday. There is likelihood that the appeal after filing will be taken up by the
Supreme Court the same day as the apex court will also be requested through a
separate application to hear the matter urgently. The delay occurred because the
certified copies of the impugned judgment of the high court reached Islamabad in
the evening, much after the Supreme Court time was over. While deciding the
petitions of Syed Khurram Shah, a voter, and Noor Elahi, an independent candidate,
the LHC had disallowed Nawaz Sharif from contesting by-election for National
Assembly seat NA-123 but kept pending a separate petition against the candidature
of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif till an election tribunal decided about his
nomination. The decision sparked countrywide protest and even Prime Minister
Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani had to say in the National Assembly that he felt sorry over
the disqualification and that the government would file appeal against the decision.
The competent authority (federal government) has asked, Raja Abdur Rehman said,
to get the order of the high court set aside from the Supreme Court. Therefore, the
government will be asking the apex court not only to suspend the disqualification
but also postpone the June 26 by-elections.
Author Location Dated
Lahore, Pakistan 25.06.08

– LHC verdict says Nawaz ‘abusing’ judiciary

The Lahore High Court has observed that PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif has been
“scandalising, abusing, disobeying and ridiculing”
ridiculing” the judiciary. In its detailed
verdict on Mr Sharif’s candidature for by-election for a National Assembly seat, the
LHC bench comprising Justice Abdul Shakoor Paracha, Justice M. Bilal Khan and
Justice Shabbar Raza Rizvi said he was “a
“a convict who had submitted a false
affidavit”
affidavit” along with his nomination papers. “… Hence he is disqualified to contest
upcoming by-election in view of the express provisions of Article 62 and 63 of the
Constitution to be read with Section 99(f)(g) of the Representation of Peoples Act of
1976.”
1976.” Referring to the observations made by one of the members of the election
tribunal, Justice Hafiz Tariq Naseem, the bench said: “We
“We agree with the counsel for
the petitioner that maligning, defaming and abusing of judiciary is not targeted by
the respondent against any individual, rather it is against the whole judiciary which
is also obvious from respondent’s letter addressed to the Chief Election
Commissioner.”
Commissioner.” The bench said Mr Sharif had been convicted by an accountability
court in a reference against him whereby he was sentenced under Section 10 read
with Section 9(a)(v) of the NAB Ordinance and sentenced to 14 years rigorous
imprisonment and a fine of Rs20,000,000 in default of payment of the fine he was
to undergo three-year imprisonment.

He had also been disqualified for 21 years from being elected, chosen, appointed or
nominated as member or representative of any public office or any statutory or
local authority of government of Pakistan.The bench also agreed with the
petitioner’s counsel that the Presidential Order under Article 45 of the Constitution
“does not exonerate the respondent from the sentence and conviction recorded by
the court of competent jurisdiction, particularly, when he failed to produce the
presidential order”. The bench held that the finding of the returning officer allowing
respondent to contest elections “is“is not correct in the presence of the orders of the
returning officer earlier passed on Dec 3, 2007 at the time of general elections.
There is no justification for the returning officer to observe that no document
regarding conviction of the candidate was produced before him. The order of
conviction passed by the accountability court in the Attock Fort in a reference was
available on record”. “The member of the election tribunal,”
tribunal,” the bench said, “had
“had
rightly observed that the orders of the returning officer was not in consonance with
the provision of the law, and thus, set aside the orders of the returning office and
declared him disqualified to contest bye-elections.”

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 25.06.08

– Unlearnt lessons
Politics 101: compromise good; confrontation bad.
bad. It’s a lesson our democracy
brigade refuses to learn. The complaint that the long march should have achieved
something more is really code for wanting to give the government a black eye. If a
frenzy had been whipped up on Parade Avenue, parliament had been stormed and
the damn politicians had been taught a lesson, the long march would have been a
success. But the marchers dispersed peacefully without getting their way, leaving
the march a dismal failure and an exercise in futility. In Pakistan, if you think you
are right then you must get your way. Trouble is everyone seems to think that they
are right. Living to fight another day, perhaps even another battle, is for the weak,
the gutless, or worse, the collaborators. Was the long march a success? Yes, without
a doubt. It’s a pity few are willing to acknowledge the fact. Five years ago, on Feb
15, 2003, ten million people gathered in sixty countries to protest against the
impending invasion of Iraq. London saw a million people gather in Hyde Park; a
million and a half turned out in Barcelona; Rome witnessed three million on its
streets; and Australia half a million. They were protesting against the relentless
drumbeat of war emanating from the White House which climaxed in shock and awe
a month later. In comparison with the Iraq war, the dismissal of Chief Justice Iftikhar
and his band of judges is small hat. Yet the anti-Iraq war protesters disbanded
peacefully at the end of the day, and were stronger for it. The protests have gone
down in history as an awesome show of dissent. Patrick Tyler, chief correspondent
of the New York Times, famously declared that there may be two superpowers on
the planet: the US and world public opinion.
opinion.

Or take a look at the blasphemy law here in Pakistan. It is an odious law, jealously
guarded by the mullah brigade. The law is bravely opposed by human rights
activists and the few good people amongst us. Forget constitutional imbalances and
illegitimate power, the blasphemy law is, literally, a death sentence. But nobody
opposing the law is talking about storming parliament or cuffing the law minister for
not revoking it. Somehow opposing the lawyers’ movement elicits vitriol that
exceeds anything thrown at the Iraq war and the blasphemy law. I got an earful
from a protagonist of the lawyers’ movement. I didn’t know how many articles of
the constitution were affected by the 17th, 8th and 5th amendments. I didn’t know
how many missing persons the Supreme Court was looking into and hadn’t read the
court record. I didn’t know that the Charter of Democracy wasn’t effectively dead
after BB played footsie with Musharraf. My command, or lack thereof, of the
minutiae of the constitutional package rendered anything I have to say on it wrong.
My sin: suggesting that no charter, declaration or constitutional package was
relevant to what the politicians would ultimately do. And that the constitution’s
position on coups, judges, prime ministers and treason is irrelevant when a man in
uniform wants to get his way. Another lawyer — with degrees from Yale, Harvard
and Cambridge — claimed, after a little prodding, that a bit of mayhem on the
streets of Islamabad in front of the cameras would have put real pressure on the
government.

The law is not a joke. It is serious business and requires dedicated study. Neither is
the entire Pakistani constitution a joke. But the fact is that this particular round of
constitutional rejiggering was precipitated for no other purpose than to create a
specific set of circumstances to keep a specific set of people out and another set in.
That’s it. There was no higher cause or logic. If you want to call it a charade, go
ahead. It is. And a farce, a joke and daylight robbery. Musharraf and company are
dancing on the graves of jurisprudence. It is galling. Worse, it is galling to be told
that fighting beyond a point is bad. Why should one side play by the rules when the
other side — the Musharrafs and their collaborators — refuses to do so? What good
is working for stability if the other side is creating instability? Well, that’s how a
democratic system, even a highly developed one, works. You can’t pummel the
other side into obeying the rules. You nurse your wounds, you campaign, you lobby,
and you lie in wait until the next elections. The fact is that a space has been created
in Pakistan for indirect civilian rule through elected representatives — your regular,
vanilla flavoured democracy the world over. The whys of this reality are for political
scientists to debate. It could be that the military is suffering from governance
fatigue. It could be that the people have found their democratic voice. It could be
that the Americans want it. It could be all of the above. Whatever the reason, there
is no doubt that this space exists. We have had relatively fair elections; we have a
National Assembly that is relatively representative of the electorate; we have two
genuinely popular political parties that dominate the assembly; and we have two
leaders of those parties who are unquestionably in control and are talking to each
other. The lawyers genuinely want to add another element to this reasonable
mixture: a relatively independent judiciary. We would all like to add the elements of
democracy as quickly as possible and must constantly look for opportunities to do
so. But the issue is also one of trajectory — are we headed in the right direction or
not.

And while undiluted, unconditional reinstatement of the judges is a course, it isn’t

the only course. In fact, given the vehemence of Musharraf and the reluctance of
Asif, it’s sure to send the trajectory of democracy into a downward spiral. And there
is no doubt that waiting in the wings are people who can inflict new lows and new
forms of damage on the country. The lawyers have expressed what most Pakistanis
feel: a deep unease about who we are and what we have achieved. But those
mocking the lawyers for failing and counselling them to raise the stakes aren’t
pinning their hopes on democracy; they are hoping for change brought about
somehow, anyhow. Eight years ago the winds of change blew in Musharraf; today it
is Chief Justice Iftikhar. But why not the politicians? John Lennon saw Vietnam and
just wanted to give peace a chance. For eight years, ugliness has stalked this land.
Can’t we just give politics a chance now?

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 25.06.08

– The Executive & the Judiciary

The government’s dilly dallying over the reinstatement of some sixty members of
the superior judiciary deposed on Nov 3, 2007 is hardly surprising if seen in the
context of judiciary-executive relations in Pakistan. Throughout the country’s
history, the executive has sought to control the judiciary and divest it of its
independence — and has done so with success. The courts have been made to put
their seal on the most controversial executive actions including abrogation or
suspension of the constitution. The judges who do not succumb to pressure from
the executive are penalised in one way or another. The direction of judiciary-
executive relations was set by the verdict of the federal court, now the Supreme
Court, in The Federation of Pakistan versus Moulvi Tamizuddin.
Tamizuddin. In 1954, the
governorgeneral dismissed the first Constituent Assembly and the dismissal was
challenged by its president, Moulvi Tamizuddin in the chief court, now the Sindh
High Court. The chief court declared the dismissal of the assembly invalid. However,
headed by Justice Muhammad Munir, the federal court reversed the chief court’s
decision on technical grounds. The federal court’s verdict is arguably the most
important judicial decision in the history of Pakistan. Had it upheld the verdict, the
history of parliamentary democracy and judiciary-executive relations in Pakistan
would have been altogether different.

The second test of the independence of the judiciary came when the apex court was
called upon to adjudicate on the legitimacy of the 1958 martial law regime in The
State versus Dosso and Others. The court, again headed by Justice Munir and
drawing inspiration from Hans Kelsen’s doctrine of necessity, held that a successful
revolution or coup d’etat was an internationally recognised method of changing a
constitution. Hence, the Laws (Continuation in Force) Order 1958 promulgated by
Gen Ayub constituted the new legal regime from which all legal instruments and
institutions including courts derived their validity and legitimacy. The judicial verdict
had far-reaching implications; the most significant being that success was the only
test of the legitimacy of a military coup and no judicial decision could make it
illegitimate. Another implication was that the courts derived their authority from the
new legal regime put in place by the chief martial law administrator and were
therefore bound to uphold the supremacy of that regime. The decision was thus an
invitation to future military adventurers to step in. The decision in the Dosso case
came in for sharp criticism from the apex court itself in Asma Jilani versus
Government of the Punjab.
Punjab. The court observed that it was difficult to appreciate
under what authority martial law could be proclaimed. By itself a military coup or a
legal regime put in place by a military ruler was not legitimate. Rather they
acquired legitimacy only when courts recognised them as de jure. The Supreme
Court landmark judgment created the hope that in future the judiciary would not
put its seal on unconstitutional actions of the executive. However, contrary to that,
in Begum Nusrat Bhutto versus Chief of Army Staff and Federation of Pakistan,
Pakistan, the
apex court again declared a military coup, this time by Gen Ziaul Haq, legitimate on
the basis of state necessity and welfare of the people.

We all know how much the Zia regime worked for public welfare or safety of the
state. But that is a different story. It is however pertinent to mention that an
independent judiciary is essential for protecting public rights without which the
notion of public welfare is meaningless. The Zia regime, true to its character, tried
to put the judiciary in chain through various measures, the most infamous of which
was the provisional constitutional order (PCO) 1981 under which the superior court
judges who were not administered oath under the PCO ceased to hold their office.
The Supreme Court decision in judges appointment case (March 1996), represented
a valiant attempt by the judiciary to assert its independence and free itself from the
shackles of the executive. The decision ended the executive’s discretion in the
appointment of the members of the superior judiciary. That is why the then PPP
government had sharply criticised it. The row between the judiciary and the
executive during the second Nawaz Sharif government (1997-99) is an ugly chapter
in the constitutional history of Pakistan. The crisis erupted when the government
showed reluctance to elevate five judges to the Supreme Court on the
recommendations of the Chief Justice of Pakistan. The prime minister was
summoned to the Supreme Court on the charge of contempt of court. As contempt
of court proceedings against him were in progress, a mob ostensibly at the behest
of the government attacked the court and the judges had to run for their life. The
1999 coup which brought Gen Pervez Musharraf at the helm was also indemnified
by the judiciary, again under the doctrine of necessity. One of the judges who sat on
the Supreme Court bench which validated the coup was Justice Iftikhar Muhammad
Chaudhry, who was later elevated to the country’s highest judicial office. However,
when the same Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry showed some independence, he was made
a target of the executive’s whims. Seen in the context of the traditional role of the
judiciary in Pakistan, the Supreme Court’s verdict against the suspension of the
constitution on Nov 3, 2007 was nothing less than historic and easily the boldest of
all judicial decisions in Pakistan. The judges who delivered that verdict along with
more than fifty other members of the superior judiciary were deposed by the
military ruler. Reinstatement of these judges should have been the priority of an
elected government. However, that has not been the case. Though our judiciary
may have changed, the executive has not and remains ill-disposed towards the idea
of an independent judiciary. All said and done, the rule of law is impossible without
an independent judiciary and without the rule of law, democracy cannot take root
nor can state safety or public welfare be ensured.

Author Location Dated

Beena Sarwar beena.sarwar@gmail.com 25.06.08

– Minus one, minus two

Cheif Justice Iftikhar Mohammed Choudhry has put up a memorable fight. Starting
from his first resolute ‘no’ to President Gen Musharraf, his defiance was the ‘spark
that lit a prairie fire’ — as Mian Ijazul Hasan put it in June 2007 while visiting the US
as Benazir Bhutto’s spokesman gathering support for her return and for the lawyers’
movement. His observations shared with some expatriates in Boston remain valid
today: “The
“The rallies demonstrating support for the suspended chief justice have been
spontaneous,” he said,said, “People flock on their own in the thousands to see and hear
the chief justice, and most remarkably, there has been no violence or damage to
public property.”
property.” The lawyers’ recently concluded long march also bore all these
hallmarks. Plus, “for
“for the first time the higher judiciary is working with the people
rather than with the army or the bureaucracy. And right now there is only one issue
in Pakistan — the restoration of the chief justice.”
justice.” A year later, this observation too
remains valid, despite all the changes since then, including the transformative
experience of Benazir Bhutto’s assassination. The year that was saw a new hope
dawn when the Supreme Court restored the chief justice to office, a decision
Musharraf accepted even if reluctantly. Over the next few months, the superior
courts were seized of several significant cases with the potential to deeply impact
Pakistani politics. Some related directly to restrictions imposed by the military
dispensation, like the right of an exiled politician to return and participate in politics,
or police brutality on lawyers and journalists. Moved by the families of the
‘disappeared’, the courts had since the summer of 2006 even begun to engage in a
kind of ‘judicial activism’ that was rocking the status quo, shaking up the
intelligence agencies and leading to the production of several missing persons in
court. However, it is noteworthy that only after the elected government was
installed did the courts —headed by the PCO judges — order the release of political
prisoners like Safdar Sarki and Akhtar Mengal. The superior courts were also hearing
cases related to the National Reconciliation Ordinance that Musharraf promulgated
on the eve of the presidential elections, clearing the way for Benazir Bhutto’s return
to Pakistan without being arrested for the corruption charges instituted after she
was ousted from power in 1996. The PPP reciprocated by abstaining from the
presidential vote, allowing Musharraf to remain in office (heavily backed by
Washington).
The ‘deal’ also paved the way for general elections and the subsequent transition to
a democratic path that Ms Bhutto had long been arguing for. Whether or not there
was substance to the charges, there were political motivations behind them (Ms
Bhutto always noted that they were never proved in court). Perhaps the most
significant case before the courts related to petitions against the validity of
Musharraf holding the dual offices of president and army chief. After he pledged to
quit the army before starting a new presidential term, the court in a short order
dismissed these petitions as “not maintainable”, enabling Musharraf to contest the
presidential elections while remaining army chief. In its final judgment, the court
may well have declared Musharraf’s presidential election invalid — a possibility
neither he nor his supporters in Washington were (or are) willing to contemplate.
Before this could happen, the jittery president reneged on his end of the US-
brokered ‘deal’, imposing emergency rule on Nov 3, 2007 and sending all those
judges packing who refused to take fresh oath of office — an unprecedented two-
thirds of them. Most were placed under house arrest. Leaders of the lawyers’
movement were imprisoned, and many suffered solitary confinements and harsh
conditions that resulted in severe illnesses to some of them, such as Munir A. Malik
and Justice (retd) Tariq Mahmood. Many, including the chief justice, were released
only after the new government took oath. Whatever good Musharraf did (like the
revival of women’s seats and joint electorates) now pales before his short-sighted
and downright dangerous refusal to face his obvious unpopularity and illegitimacy
(which even those who are working with him concede) and step down. The peaceful
lawyers’ movement over the past year was instrumental in convincing Washington
that there were other alternatives in Pakistan to their man Musharraf. Clearly, these
alternatives had to be a political party. After elections ushered in a democratically-
elected government, despite the pre- and postelection manoeuvrings, it was time
for civil society and the lawyers to ‘hand
‘hand over the torch’
torch’ to elected representatives,
so they could hammer out the restoration issue constitutionally in whatever time it
takes. This at least is the view taken by one faction of the pro-democracy camp.

Another faction (joined by others with dubious democratic credentials) wants street
agitation to counter the Zardari-led PPP’s delay in its pledge to restore the judges.
Interestingly, those who were in favour of boycotting the elections are also in the
forefront of this agitation, apparently oblivious to the democratic potential that the
elections have unleashed. The government’s recently-announced increase in the
number of judges appears to be part of a move towards restoring the ‘non-PCO
judges’ — the sticking point appears to be the man who sparked the prairie fire.
Those who have been keeping the pressure on regarding the judges’ restoration
refuse to consider this possibility, citing the suffering that the ‘chief’ and his family
have faced in months of incarceration and the tremendous symbolic position he
now occupies. The ‘chief’ himself is not willing to indicate that if restored, he would
not resume office on the grounds that he has become too politicised for the
position. There are related concerns about the sanctity of the judiciary having been
compromised, given the recent activism and its elimination of the requisite distance
between judges and lawyers — how are they to appear before each other in court?
The chief justice’s defiant ‘no’ to a uniformed army chief last year was admirable.
His defiance today may prove disastrous in a situation where it is critical to support
the coalition and ensure its survival, even at the expense of an individual. From the
president, one can hardly expect any such magnanimous and wise gesture. But
from the chief justice, such a unilateral and unconditional gesture could open the
doors to a new era in Pakistan even if the president stubbornly clings to his position.
The failure of the coalition will throw us back into the lap of undemocratic forces
who are only waiting for such an opportunity. ¦ The writer is an independent
journalist and documentary filmmaker based in Karachi.

Author Location Dated

Zulqernain Tahir Lahore, Pakistan 25.06.08

– No ambiguity, rules chair Shahbaz to retain Bhakkar seat

Punjab Assembly Deputy Speaker Rana Mashhood Ahmad ruled on Tuesday that
Shahbaz Sharif was a constitutional chief minister of the province and he would
retain his Bhakkar seat (PP-48). In the chair, Rana maintained that he was
responding to the point of order raised by PML-Q’s Syeda Bushra Gardazi. She had
pointed out in Monday’s session that under the constitution Shahbaz Sharif would
have to take a fresh oath as MPA after he was elected unopposed from Rawalpindi
(PP-10). Seeking a ruling from the chair, Ms Gardazi maintained that the Election
Commission of Pakistan had issued a notification of Shahbaz Sharif’s election from
PP-10 and under the Article 223 section (4) his first seat, PP48, had fallen vacant
and that he had to seek oath afresh. Rana ruled: “I “I hold without an iota of doubt
that Shahbaz Sharif is a constitutional and competent chief minister to hold his seat
from Bhakkar.”
Bhakkar.” Mashhood said he was a lawyer and had thoroughly studied relevant
rules and was of the considered opinion that there was no ambiguity in the case. In
Tuesday’s session Saeed Akbar Nawani, who had vacated his Bhakkar seat for
Shahbaz Sharif, was the first to seek the attention of the chair to the “elements
“elements
busy in searching technical grounds to de-seat Shahbaz Sharif.”
Sharif.” He requested Rana
Mashhood to first pass the ruling over the issue and then do anything else to dispel
the impression that the chair was not taking ‘dictation
‘dictation from any quarter’.
quarter’. The
session on Tuesday began about two hours behind its schedule at 11.55am amid
desk thumping and sloganeering like “Go Musharraf go and go PCO judges go.” On
the demand of almost all members, the chair deferred the budget 2008-09 debate
and allowed them to give a vent to their anger over the disqualification of PML-N
chief Mian Nawaz Sharif to contest the bye-election.

Prime Minister’s son Syed Abdul Qadir Gilani, sworn in on Tuesday, was among the
30 or so legislators who got the opportunity to express their views on the issue.
Speaking on behalf of his party (PPP), Finance Minister Tanvir Ashraf Kaira
maintained that it condemned and rejected the decision of Nawaz Sharif’s
disqualification. He said his party was with the PML-N at the testing time and would
not be part of any conspiracy to roll back the democratic process. Prisons Minister
Chaudhry Abdul Ghafoor said had the judiciary been free, Bhutto would not have
been hanged. He said his party (PML-N) was not against the army but the dictator
and not against the judiciary but the PCO judges. Abdul Qadir Gilani said that we
had lost Benazir Bhutto but we would not like to lose Nawaz Sharif now. He said all
political forces should join hands to save the country from any further crisis. PPP’s
Sajida Mir was of the view that a conspiracy was being hatched to defame
democracy. She said certain elements wanted to pit political parties against each
other to gain their nefarious designs. Khwaja Abdul Islam, Rana Shaukat, Sayed
Nazim Husain Shah, Allah Rakha Chaudhry, Ghazala Saad Rafiq, Navid Sajid,
Jehanzab Waren, Asif Manzoor Mohil, Samina Aslam, Asif Manzoor, Rana Tajamal,
Sanaullah Masti Khail, Rifat Sultanana, Malik Amar Dogar, Shamsa Gohar, Qazi
Ahmed Saeed and Ahmed Baloch were among the legislatures who took the floor to
condemn the decision.

Author Location Dated

Simon Denyer New Delhi, India 25.06.08

– Complacency puts India at risk

This is supposed to be India’s century, but the dangers of complacency have been
starkly underlined with inflation hitting a 13-year high and stellar economic growth
expected to tail off. India is far from alone in struggling with higher global oil and
food prices, but as the stock market crumbles, economists are wondering if some of
the shine has not come off the India story, if the miracle was partly a myth. As
elections approach, it is also a major headache for India’s unruly coalition
government, which must be rueing its failure to take tough decisions last year to
raise fuel prices and tighten monetary policy before things span out of control. “It “It
was a gross miscalculation,”
miscalculation,” said D.K. Joshi, principal economist at domestic ratings
agency CRISIL in Mumbai. “In “In the middle of last year, inflation was 3-4 per cent.
That was the right time to start passing on higher crude prices to the economy,”
economy,” he
said. “It
“It was complacency, and some opposition from coalition partners.”
partners.” India
raised heavily subsidised fuel prices earlier this month, but only by a fraction of the
global rise. Even so, its headline inflation rate soared to over 11 per cent. After a
populist budget in April and fuel tax cuts, the country’s fiscal outlook is also
deteriorating and of increasing concern to investors. A target to reduce the deficit to
2.5 per cent of gross domestic product now looks unattainable. Finance Minister
Palaniappan Chidambaram said “no “no one in his wildest dreams”
dreams” expected crude oil
prices to rise nearly 40 per cent since he presented his budget in April. Yet last year
the finance ministry downplayed the central bank’s concerns the economy was
overheating. The Asian Age newspaper said what many people feel: on inflation, the
government “failed
“failed to act in time”.
time”.

Others say the government should have abandoned the outdated idea of controlling
and subsidising fuel prices long ago. Either way, the central bank is likely to raise
interest rates, in a bid to contain inflation by curbing economic growth. But the
problem is not whether Indian authorities misread the economic cycle, analysts say.
It is that hard decisions are tough in a country ruled by disparate coalitions, where
the need for some decisive policies is obscured by an often inflated sense of
wellbeing. In a sense India’s economy is still coasting on the back of reforms that
began in 1991. Manmohan Singh was finance minister at the time, but as prime
minister he is said to be enormously frustrated that he has failed to build on those
reforms in the past four years, because of opposition from the government’s
communist allies. Reforms of the labour market, power and financial sectors have
been stymied. Efforts to improve ports, highways and other infrastructure have
failed to keep pace with demand. “His“His view is that all this euphoria over the Indian
Century is overstated,”
overstated,” Vir Sanghvi wrote in a Hindustan Times column. “We “We have
only a small window to establish ourselves as one of the superpowers of the future.
With the coming of the global recession, that window is already closing.”
closing.” Corporate
India is much stronger than ever before, and no one is suggesting India’s economic
emergence is a mirage. But some of the euphoria is beginning to cool. The stock
market is more than 30 per cent off its peak, and fickle foreign investors have sold
$5.9 billion in Indian shares so far this year, after buying a record $17.4 billion in
2007. Fund flows come and go, but Goldman Sachs takes a longerterm view. In a
new report, it says India still has a lot to do to realise its enormous potential.
“Having potential and actually realising it are two different things,”
things,” it warned.

Governance, basic education, infrastructure and agricultural productivity need to be

dramatically improved, while trade and the financial sector need to be liberalised. It
recommends inflation targeting and a more credible fiscal policy too. The fault lies
not just with this government — its predecessors are also accused of failing to
address some of India’s most pressing problems of infrastructure and inequality. But
Goldman Sachs says India’s growth environment scores below major emerging
market competitors Brazil, China and Russia, and in many areas below the average
of developing states. “Everybody
“Everybody started believing the rhetoric, that India is going
to be a global force, be a superpower and so on,”
on,” said one of the report’s authors,
Tushar Poddar, adding complacency was a real risk. “That “That is one of the reasons for
our report.”
report.” CRISIL’s Joshi shares that view. Politically and economically, that’s vital
to India’s future, he said.“But
said.“But we will have to wait for another crisis, otherwise
nobody will wake up,”
up,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 25.06.08

– Growing no-go areas in Pakistan

Last night at a dinner party in London, I was seated next to a lady who is soon
setting off on a road trip to Gilgit and Hunza in Pakistan, and then on to Kashgar, in
western China. She is going with her journalist husband and three children. An 18-
year old daughter is planning to teach English at a school in the Northern Areas for
six months. Instead of telling her what to see and where to go, I found myself
warning her of the dangers and pitfalls that awaited her and her family. A week ago,
I tried to dissuade a young Brit, fresh out of the army, from venturing out on a solo
trekking expedition to the same area. This is a truly sad reflection on the state of
Pakistan today. Last year, we were bringing an English friend to Islamabad for a trip
to Skardu, but then had to cancel at the last minute because of the government
action in Lal Masjid and its bloody fall out. The truth is that Pakistan is not a
foreigner-friendly country any more. Don’t get me wrong: at a personal level,
Pakistanis are as hospitable as ever. But in public, reactions to the presence of
foreigners range from outright hostility to rude, intrusive curiosity. Over the years,
as the number of outsiders visiting Pakistan has dropped steadily, a generation has
grown up without any contact with non-Pakistanis. This insularity and isolation,
coupled with the anti-West sentiments whipped up by the media, has made our
country a very dangerous place for foreigners. So instead of encouraging visitors,
we tend to prepare them for the risks they face.

Not that Brits are beating a path to our shores: almost daily, newspaper and TV
reports talk of the rising tension and violence on our Afghan border, and the
political turmoil within the country. As a Pakistani, I feel a sense of relief each time I
open a newspaper that does not contain any news from Pakistan: no news is good
news in our case. Over the weekend, we were at a friend’s place called the Net
House just outside Hay-on-Wye. I have written about this spot before as it is my
favourite place in Britain. Situated on the river Wye, the little town (population:
1,800) has become a centre for books because of its annual literary festival. It has
some 40 second-hand bookshops that together contain around two million books.
Over the years, I have spent hours browsing, and never come back empty-handed.
But the attraction for the scenic beauty of the place is equally strong. The Net
House is situated on a bend in the river where the water murmurs over a small
cascade. Ducks glide along, to be overtaken by arrogant-looking swans. The
occasional salmon surfaces with a small slash to break the stillness. Behind the river
rise the Black Mountains, a range of austere hills where thousands of sheep and
wild horses graze. Looking at my idyllic surroundings, I was reminded of the fact
that we have many such spots in the Northern Areas in Pakistan, and our mountains
are far more spectacular. Alas, many of them have become no-go areas over the
past few years, especially for foreigners. But even in safer days, how many
Pakistanis actually travelled there?

Another huge difference I notice almost daily is the approach people take to politics
in the two countries I now divide my time between. In Pakistan, the tone is loud,
angry and passionate. Here, politics are anodyne and tame, not the blood sport we
Pakistanis are accustomed to. The other day, for instance, I heard Nawaz Sharif
speaking at the Islamabad rally held on the conclusion of the lawyers’ ‘long march’.
Among other memorable things the PML-N chief said was and I quote verbatim: “I “I
know Pakistanis are facing enormous problems. Food and fuel prices have shot up.
But once the dismissed judiciary is reinstated, I swear by God (Khuda ki qasam), all
your problems will be solved!”
solved!” If a leading politician had made this kind of promise
in Britain, he would have been flayed by the media. But to the best of my
knowledge, Nawaz Sharif has not been asked to explain how the reinstatement of
Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry and his colleagues will solve the growing mountain of problems
facing Pakistan today. In Britain, as both major political parties jockey for position to
occupy the centre, there are fewer differences to separate them. Apart from
personalities, it makes very little difference if you vote Labour or Conservative. This
makes for safe, dull politics. In fact, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s humourless,
plodding approach makes him an easy target for cartoonists and columnists alike.
Opposition leader David Cameron comes across as much more positive and
dynamic by contrast. But this about sums up what separates the two parties, given
their convergence on most major issues.

Against this backdrop, it is no surprise that young Brits are completely turned off
politics. Turnout in local and national elections for under30s is low, and falling.
When contrasted with the electrifying effect Barack Obama’s candidacy is having on
American politics, Britain comes across as tediously grey. Nevertheless, growing
inflation is causing even the most complacent to sit up and take notice of what’s
going on. Alarm bells are ringing at the prospect of inflation hitting 4 per cent. I
wonder what would happen if the price hike were to touch our minimum inflation
rate of 14 per cent. Newspapers are full of tips on how to save money at a time the
economy is heading for a recession. This advice ranges from the lowest mortgages
to cheaper insurance rates. Websites pinpoint petrol pumps selling fuel (nearly
double Pakistani prices) cheaply in areas close to where you live. There is a growing
unease about economic prospects, and already people are beginning to tighten
their belts. After over a decade of unprecedented prosperity, Brits (and the entire
developed world) are coming to terms with the iron rule of economics and gravity:
what goes up must come down. Often, English friends complain to me about how
boring their politics is compared to ours. I just tell them to count their blessings.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 26.06.08

– Partial relief provided to Nawaz Apex court stays by-poll in NA-

123
The Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered postponement of byelections to the NA-
123 Lahore constituency from where PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has been barred by
the Lahore High Court from contesting. “The
“The election is stayed and case be fixed for
next Monday,”
Monday,” announced a three-member bench. Justice Mohammad Moosa K.
Leghari, Justice Syed Zawwar Hussain Shah and Justice Mohammad Farrukh
Mahmood returned the verdict on an appeal by the government against the high
court decision. The bench assembled after normal court timings to take up the
hastily moved appeal. The by-elections to the five remaining National Assembly and
25 provincial assembly seats will be held on Thursday as per schedule. Chief
Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammad Farooq notified postponement of the by-
election for the NA-123 seat. On Monday, the LHC, acting on petitions filed by Syed
Khurram Ali Shah, a voter, and Noor Elahi, an independent candidate, had
disallowed Nawaz Sharif from contesting the byelections, but kept pending a
separate petition against the candidature of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif
until an election tribunal decides about his nomination. The petitions in the high
court were filed after the Election Commission allowed the Sharif brothers to contest
the by-elections on technical grounds without deciding about the legal status of
their nominations to offset a split verdict of an election tribunal on appeals
challenging the candidature of the PML-N leaders. Justice Hafiz Tariq Nasim had
allowed the Sharifs to contest the June 26 by-polls while Justice Mohammad Akram
Qureshi held them ineligible.

The federal government, in its petition, requested the Supreme Court to set aside
the high court judgment by hearing the matter urgently and also staying the
byelections in Nawaz Sharif’s constituency. The SC bench also put on notice other
respondents in the appeal of the federal government, including Nawaz Sharif, the
returning officer for NA-123 Lahore VI, Additional District and Sessions Judge Lahore
Chaudhry Badar-ud-Din, the Election Appellate Tribunal for NA-123, the Election
Commission and Syed Khurram Ali Shah. Attorney-General Malik Mohammad
Qayyum pleaded before the court that the instant appeal was a very important one
and no harm would come if the by-election was stayed and the main appeal heard
after two or three days. “Nawaz
“Nawaz Sharif is the head of a political party and with his
ouster, no political party will be in the field in the elections,”
elections,” he said, adding that
the recent amendment to Section 14 of the Representation of the People’s Act had
conferred the right upon even a voter to appeal in case of any grievance. In reply to
an argument by Advocate Akram Sheikh that Nawaz Sharif did not want to appear
before the judges who had taken oath under the PCO, the attorney-general
emphasised that presently there existed no PCO judges in the country because all
the judges had taken oath under the Constitution. “PCO “PCO judge is a term used for the
ones who took oath of allegiance under the Provisional Constitution Order to
President Pervez Musharraf who proclaimed emergency as the army chief on Nov
3,” Mr Qayyum contended.
Explaining the federal government’s decision to come in appeal, Deputy
AttorneyGeneral Raja Abdur Rehman told the court that the government was
aggrieved because the high court had delivered its judgment in contravention of
constitutional provisions and the petitioner who had challenged the candidature
before the high court was not even a voter in the constituency. Justice Moosa
Leghari observed that the court could have given relief in a few minutes had the
aggrieved person come before it in person. Advocate Akram Sheikh said Noor Elahi
was a candidate and instead of knocking at the doors of the election tribunal, he
had filed the petition in the high court, against the provisions of the law. Earlier, the
bench heard similar appeals of Mehr Zafar Iqbal and Shakil Baig, argued by Akram
Sheikh and A.K. Dogar. Advocate Dogar cited the Asma Jillani case in which a
question was also raised as to why the Supreme Court remained silent when martial
law was clamped and suggested that in future judges of the superior courts should
be arrested in case of the imposition of another martial law.

Author Location Dated

Bureau Report Hyderabad, Pakistan 26.06.08

– PML-N voices bitterness over verdict

Activists of Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz and Muslim Students Federation staged
rallies and demonstrations in a number of cities of the province on Wednesday in
protest against Lahore High Court’s decision to disqualify Mian Nawaz Sharif for
contesting by-polls while the MSF called for province-wide strike and
demonstrations on Friday. The federation announced that black flags would be
raised on the rooftops of educational institutions on Friday. The president of Sindh
chapter of MSF, Roshan Ali Baloch, and other leaders said at a news conference at
the Hyderabad press club that the disqualification proved beyond doubt that the
President’s House continued to be at the centre of conspiracies. Mr Baloch urged
Asif Ali Zardari and leaders of other allied parties to make their policies clear and
help expose anti-democratic and anti-Sindh forces. Disqualification was a crude
attempt, which might lead division of the federation but people of Pakistan and
democratic forces would foil such attempts, he said. He said the name of Mian
Sharif had become synonymous with solidarity of Pakistan and democracy.
“President Musharraf should tender an unconditional apology to nation for violating
the Constitution, imposing emergency to safeguard his personal interests,
launching military operations in Lal Masjid, tribal areas and Balochistan, detaining
Dr Qadeer Khan, Kargill debacle and price hike,”
hike,” he said. He said that about 200
workers of Sindh People’s Students Federation had joined the MSF. Activists of PML-
N led by Sultan Shaikh advocate, Malik Shahid and others staged a march in the city
against the court decision. The march began from the district council building and
terminated at the press club. Mr Shaikh said that Mr Sharif was the most popular
leader of the country and his disqualification was an insult to the people of the
country. Mian Sharif did not need any eligibility certificate from anyone, he added.

In Nawabshah, PML-N activists staged a rally and a demonstration outside the press
club. The rally, led by local PML-N leaders, Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah, Malik Nazar
Abbas and Fakir Mohammed Advocate started from PML-N House, carrying placards
and banners and chanting slogans against President Musharraf and PCO judges. It
marched on different roads and main streets of the city before terminating at the
press club. The protesters alleged that Musharraf had once again hatched a
conspiracy against democracy but the day was not far when the unconstitutional
president and PCO judges would be sent packing and the country would be put back
on road to true democracy.They termed the decision ‘unlawful’ and vowed that no
power could not force PML-N to budge from its stand on the restoration of deposed
judges. In Badin, PML-N leaders and activists who participated in rallies in the city
appealed to PPP government to replace President Musharraf if it wanted true
democracy in the country. Led by Ali Ahmed Jokhio, Dino Chandio and Ibrahim
Kamboh, the protesters gathered at Fazil Chowk and after marching on different
roads reached Aiwan-iSahafat where they staged a sit-in.

Author Location Dated

Mudassir Rawalpindi, Pakistan 26.06.08

– Ex-judge has to wait for a lucky break

Hopes of a former ad hoc judge of the Lahore High Court that he would be released
on bail on Tuesday after spending 22 years in jail collapsed when he was informed
he has to appear before a concerned court on June 28. Dr Mustafa Ismail Qazi, the
former judge, says he was put in jail in 1986 after he ordered the then First Lady to
appear in his court in a drug trafficking case. Though granted bail in 1998 in two of
the several cases registered against him, he continued to rot in jail. On May 9 he
was shifted from Multan to Rawalpindi’s Adiala Jail where he was informed this week
by court officials that Special Judge Central (SJC) Justice Shaukat Ali Sajid had
verified that he was granted bail in 1998 against surety bonds worth Rs200,000 in
the two cases registered against him with the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA)
and that he would be released after the orders were sent to the jail authorities. Jail
sources said the former judge could not be released as the concerned judge put off
the hearing of his case till June 28, despite the fact that he had already been
granted bail in the two cases charging him with extorting money from people on the
pretext of sending them abroad.

Dr Qazi, who holds a PhD in Arabic, told Dawn that there was no legal justification
for keeping him in jail after he was acquitted in all other cases except the two
registered in Rawalpindi. Even in these two cases he was granted bail 10 years ago
and was still intact. He said he was shifted to Adiala Jail on May 9 from Multan after
he was cleared in all cases registered against him in Multan, Karachi and Hyderabad
to face two cases registered by the FIA in 1986. “Since
“Since May 9, I am being kept in
unlawful confinement as the bail orders of the court are not being implemented,”
implemented,” he
said. Dr Qazi, who has remained an under-trial prisoner for 22 years, burst into tears
of joy after he learnt that he might be released Tuesday evening. Instead he got the
shock of another appearance before a court on June 28. He could not be put on trial
as the police files of his cases got lost over the years. Dr Qazi alleged that he was
kept in the jail for a long time without any legal aid because as a judge he had
summoned wife of a former president of the country in a drug case. “Can “Can anybody
bring back my lost 22 years? I am an old man now and will not get another life,”life,”
asked the elderly Dr Qazi, a diabetes patient, with tears rolling down his cheeks.
Even when released, there would be nobody to receive him outside the jail, he said.
His only daughter lives abroad and his parents, an elder brother and his two wives
are all dead.
Author Location Dated
Lahore, Pakistan 26.06.08

– Shahbaz took oath in a hurry: S.M. Zafar

Former law minister S.M. Zafar is of the opinion that Mian Shahbaz Sharif had taken
oath as chief minister in a hurry and in violation of the provisions of Article 223 of
the Constitution. “But
“But as there is no penalty mentioned in the constitution for this
violation, this will remain an issue of interpretation”,
interpretation”, he said in a statement here on
Wednesday. Zafar, who is also a PML-Q Senator, said there seemed to be some
ambiguity in the constitution on the subject which, he hoped, would be taken care
of in the constitutional package. He differed with the opinion expressed by various
people that under Article 223(4) of the constitution, Mian Shahbaz Sharif was no
longer the Punjab chief minister or that the seat PP-48 (Bhakkar) on the basis of
which he had been elected a member of the provincial legislature stood vacated
after the notification of his unopposed election on PP-10 (Rawalpindi). The former
law minister said Article 223 catered for two different situations. Its clause 2 deals
with a candidate who fights election for more than one seat. Clause 4 of the article
is about an already elected member who decides to contest election from another
seat. “In
“In the latter situation when a member of any assembly contests election and
gets elected, he loses first seat automatically. But this clause doesn’t apply to Mian
Shahbaz Sharif because he was candidate for two constituencies: PP-48 (Bhakkar)
and PP-10 (Rawalpindi). When he was contesting the election, he was not a member
of the assembly”.
assembly”. S.M. Zafar said: “No“No doubt the result of the Rawalpindi seat was
announced subsequent to his election on the Bhakkar seat, but this doesn’t mean
the vacation of the latter seat. “His case will be covered by Clause 2 and he has a
choice to resign from his Rawalpindi seat to continue with his Bhakkar slot. And he
has 30 days to do so”.so”. Senator Zafar said: “But
“But the problem arises on account of
another clause of Article 223 which says that a candidate who is contesting on more
than one seat should not take oath before he has resigned from all other seats
except one”.
one”. He said Shahbaz Sharif had taken the oath as an MPA from Bhakkar
seat before his victory from the Rawalpindi seat was notified. “To “To this extent, it
appears that he took oath in a hurry and in violation of the provisions of Article 223.
But as there is no penalty mentioned in the constitution for this violation, this will
remain an issue of interpretation”.
interpretation”.

Author Location Dated

Muneeza Naqvi New Delhi, Pakistan 26.06.08

– Hindu group prays for Obama’s victory

A dozen priests chanted around a sacred fire in New Delhi on Tuesday as a group of
Indians offered prayers to the Hindu monkey god Hanuman asking him to grant US
presidential hopeful Barack Obama an election victory in November. Several dozen
people took part in the prayer ceremony held at a Hanuman temple. Many said they
believed an Obama victory would bring positive change to the world. “From
“From the
land of Gandhi we convey our best wishes to Mr Obama for the forthcoming
presidential elections in the United States,”
States,” said Brij Mohan Bhama, a local
businessman who organised the event. Bhama said an Obama victory would be
good for India and the rest of world “because
“because he stands for change”
change” and would help
stem rising prices, poverty and terrorism. Bhama said he got the idea for Tuesday’s
event after reading reports in Indian media that among the many good luck charms
Obama carries is a replica of Hanuman. Hanuman is one of the most popular gods in
the crowded pantheon of Hindu deities, and devout Hindus ascribe great strength
and valour to him.

Hanuman’s most famous feat, as described in the Hindu epic the Ramayana, was
leading a monkey army to fight the demon King Ravana and rescue a kidnapped
princess. Bhama said he plans to send Obama a 2-foot-tall, 33-pound statue of
Hanuman that has been polished with gold. Bhama does not represent any official
group in India, but Carolyn Sauvage-Mar, the chairwoman of the US group
Democrats AbroadIndia, attended Tuesday’s ceremony. Sauvage-Mar, is one of 22
delegates who will represent overseas Americans in August at the Democratic
National Convention in Denver, Colorado. “I “I will definitely and happily bring their
best wishes with me,”
me ,” she said of Obama’s Indian fans. Taking the idol may prove
more difficult. Sauvage-Mar said US federal law prohibits senators from accepting
any gifts that cost more than $10. But Bhama said he was certain the idol would
make its way to Obama. “It“It is understood that representatives of Mr. Obama will
help with sending the idol to him,”
him,” he said without providing details.

Author Location Dated

New York 26.06.08

– Obama holds lead over McCain

Senator Barack Obama, the presumed Democratic nominee for the presidency of
the United States, is holding a double-digit lead over Republican Senator John
McCain among registered voters, according to a new poll released on Wednesday.
Obama holds a 12-point lead over McCain in a head-to-head match up, 49 per cent
to 37 per cent, the Los Angeles Times, Bloomberg poll said. But when third party
candidates Ralph Nader and Bob Barr are added to the list, Obama’s lead over
McCain extends to 15 points — 48 per cent to 33 per cent. The survey is the second
in a matter of days to indicate that McCain may face a sizable deficit as the general
election campaign kicks off. A Newsweek poll released four days ago showed the
Illinois senator with a 15-point lead. According to a CNN analysis of five recent
national surveys, Obama holds an 8-point lead over his presidential rival. CNN
Polling Director Keating Holland notes a substantial lead in June does not always
lead to a decisive victory the following November. “Historically
“Historically speaking, when June
polls show a tight race, the race usually remains tight all the way through
November. But when June polls have shown a big lead for one candidate, that lead
has often melted,”
melted,” Holland said.

Bill Clinton was leading Bob Dole by up to 19 points in June, 1996; Clinton won by
eight. Michael Dukakis had a 14-point lead over George Bush the Elder in June,
1988; Bush won by seven. Jimmy Carter was up nearly 20 points in June, 1976 but
in November eked out a two-point win. And Richard Nixon managed an even
smaller victory in 1968 even though he had a 16-point margin that June, June, Holland
noted. The Los Angeles Times/ Bloomberg poll indicates Obama is clearly benefiting
from the nation’s economic troubles. Voters rate the economy as the most pressing
issue facing the country and say Obama is likely to handle the issue better than the
presumptive Republican nominee. Voters say McCain is better suited to handle the
war against terror, but the poll indicates that is not currently their top concern.
Author Location Dated
Lahore, Pakistan 27.06.08

– Ruling coalition sweeps by-polls

Voters’ response to by-polls for five national and 19 provincial assembly seats in
Punjab, the NWFP and Sindh remained mainly dull on Thursday, leading to very low
turnout, with reports of violence and kidnapping of a presiding officer in Punjab. Pre-
poll deals between candidates and their parties also added to voters’ disinterest in
the exercise besides their bitterness over the prevailing socio-political conditions.
The PPP suffered a setback when it lost two seats of the Punjab Assembly vacated
by its candidates in Khanewal and Muzaffargarh. Both the seats — PP-219 and PP-
258 — were won by independent candidates. In other contests, PPP candidates lost
to PML-N nominees in Faisalabad and Bahawalnagar and a PML-Q candidate in
Mandi Bahauddin. The PML-N had bagged six provincial and three NA seats, two of
the provincial assembly. Two seats of the Punjab Assembly went to independent
candidates and one to the PMLQ. Of seven provincial assembly seats in the NWFP,
two each went to the Awami National Party, PPP and independent candidates and
one to the PMLN. Polling in Punjab was largely held in a peaceful manner but for
violence in some areas. Voting at some polling stations for PP-118 of Mandi
Bahauddin and PP-219 of Khanewal was briefly suspended after rival parties
exchanged fire. An SHO was injured and six people were wounded before police
made some arrests to control the situation.
According to reports, activists of the PPP kidnapped an assistant presiding officer of
PP-118 with results. Under an agreement, the PPP and the PML-N did not field
candidates against each other, rendering polling in most of the areas dull and one-
sided, with most of the candidates of the two parties winning with a clear margin.

The Leader of the Opposition in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi of
the PML-Q, alleged that candidates of his party were harassed and at many places
polling agents were forced out of polling stations. He expressed the fear the turnout
would be artificially increased to manipulate results in the absence of polling
agents. Polling for PP-107, Hafizabad, was postponed after an independent
candidate, Yaqoob Mohal, died of cardiac arrest. Election for NA-123 of Lahore, for
which PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif is also a candidate, had been stayed by the
Supreme Court. In Rawalpindi, PML-N easily won two NA seats. According to
unofficial results, Haji Pervez Khan won from NA-55 with 25,237 votes and Capt
(retd) Mohammad Safdar NA-52 seat with 54,917 votes. The voters’ turnout in both
the constituencies remained below 25 per cent. The NA-55 seat had been vacated
by Makhdoom Javed Hashmi and NA-52 by Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan. Former minister
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed had won from NA-55 for six times in previous elections.
Independent candidate Ijaz Khan Jazi was the runner up from NA-55 with 12,005
votes and Raja Nasir of the PML-Q from NA-52 with 22,773 votes. The losing
candidates alleged that PML-N leaders had used their influence and the Election
Commission had delayed assigning polling staff in the PML-Q strongholds.

Polling was held at 562 polling stations in the two constituencies amid strict security
arrangements but no untoward incident was reported except for a short brawl
between women councillors of PML-N and PML-Q at a polling station in NA-52. PPP’s
Khanzada Khan won the lone NA seat up for grabs in the NWFP in Mardan. He
received 21,000 votes, while Tajul Ameen Jabal of Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal got
18,000 votes. The ANP and PML-N had not fielded candidates against Mr Khanzada.
According to unofficial results, Haji Mohammad Anwer and Malik Bacha Saleh of the
PPP won from PF-91 and PF-92, respectively, in Upper Dir. Sher Shah Khan and
Taimur Khan of the ANP clinched PF-81, Swat, and PF-20 Charsadda, respectively.
Sardar Shamoon Mehtab of the PML-N, son of MNA Sardar Mehtab Ahmad Khan, won
from PF-45, Abbottabad. Independent candidate Dr Khalid Raza Zakori won the
byelection from PF-75, Lakki Marwat, whereas Taj Mohammad Turand won from PF-
59, Battagram. With the results, the number of ANP’s members in the 124member
NWFP Assembly has risen to 48, PPP to 32 and PMLN to 10. In Sindh, PPP’s Syed
Bachal Shah Jilani defeated PML-F’s Shafqat Mahessar in by-polls for PS-30, Kingri
(Khairpur-II), which elicited a comparatively dull response from voters. The polls
were held in a peaceful manner. According to unofficial results, the PPP candidate
received 27,880 votes and his rival got 15,523 votes. The PML-F candidate claimed
that visits by PPP ministers to the constituency before the polls had influenced the
results a polling station in Ulra village had been shifted without his consent to Odha
village just a day before the polling. The PPP candidate dismissed the allegations.
The seat had fallen vacant after PML-F leader Pir Sadruddin Shah Rashdi retained
his National Assembly seat.

Author Location Dated

APP Islamabad, Pakistan 27.06.08

– IHC rejects Maulana Aziz’s bail plea

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) here on Thursday dismissed a bail plea of former
Lal Masjid chief cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz. A division bench comprising Justice Syed
Qalb-i-Hassan and Justice Raja Saeed Akram announced the decision in a short
order. Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui, the counsel for Maulana Aziz, had prayed for the
cleric’s release in a case of alleged forcible occupation of the Children Library. On
June 23, the same division bench had reserved its judgment after hearing
arguments from both sides. The counsel contended that the criminal sections
inserted in the FIR were baseless and irrelevant. He pointed out that the court had
already granted Maulana Aziz bail in four major cases. Ilyas Siddiqui, counsel for the
federation, defended framing of different criminal sections against Maulana Aziz,
and said a baton-wielding brigade had occupied the government property on his
instructions. The in charge of library had himself stated in the FIR that he personally
approached Maulana Aziz and his brother Abdul Rashid Ghazi, but both refused to
persuade their students not to indulge in the unlawful act. He stressed that all the
actions were against the writ of the government and therefore an FIR about the
“terrorist acts” was registered.

The federation’s counsel pleaded that the matter may be deferred as the federation
had taken the grant of bail to Maulana Abdul Aziz in four cases to Supreme Court,
which was expected to decide the matter in a week. Maulana Abdul Aziz had
already been acquitted by trial courts in 26 out of total 27 cases. A case was
registered by the Islamabad police against former Khateeb of Lal Masjid after Jamia
Hafsa students took over the Children Library adjacent to the mosque. The
Islamabad High Court Thursday reserved its judgment in a case related to the use of
public area in Blue Area by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for a food
park. A division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Munir Paracha and Justice Dr
Sajid Qureshi heard a writ petition moved by various shop owners of the commercial
centre. Their counsel contended that the CDA had no authority under its rules to
use public places for commercial use and claimed that the food park in question
was impeding free public movement. Barrister Masroor Shah, counsel for the CDA,
argued that the authority had lawful right to make use of public places under its
possession.

The Islamabad High Court will hear on Friday a writ petition against the
government’s move to increase the number of Supreme Court judges from 16 to 29
through the finance bill. The single bench of Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Aslam
will hear the writ filed by Azhar Maqbool, an advocate of the Lahore High Court. The
petitioner has stated that his earlier writ was dismissed on June 18 by the IHC on
the grounds that it was premature. Now that the National Assembly has passed the
finance bill and the president is constitutionally bound to approve it, the petition
should be taken up by the IHC, Mr Maqbool pleaded. The petitioner has contended
that normal legislation could not be made part of the finance bill. The federation,
minister for finance and top officials of the ministries of finance and law, justice and
parliamentary affairs have been made respondents in the petition.

Author Location Dated

Khalid Durrani 27.06.08

– Ensuring timely justice

An honest and law-abiding citizen serves the people diligently. He endures severe
hardships to save some money in the hope of providing post-retirement security to
his family. For instance, a poor person purchases a small residential flat, gives it on
rent to someone so that he could repay his loan and also use it after retirement. But
the tenant occupies the flat and refuses to pay rent. The owner is advised by his
friends to hire a gangster to deal with the tenant but he chooses to go to the court
to seek justice. He keeps attending the court for, say, two years but fails to get
relief. He gets no rent; the loan keeps piling up; he retires and is forced to vacate
his official accommodation. Now he thinks he is left with only two options: either to
take the law in his own hands and kill the tenant or to put an end to his own life. He
is too weak to use the first option so he commits suicide and finishes his own life.
Who is responsible for the loss of this innocent life and irreparable disaster to his
family: the person who illegally devoured his property or the system that could not
provide timely justice to the victim? The answer is obvious. Justice or ‘Adl’ as it is
called in the Quran is most vital for sustenance of human society. The very basis of
creating this universe is the divine plan of trial and justice. Allah sent the divine
code of conduct through His Books and messengers so that human race may enjoy
the blessings of nature in this world and also become entitled to the eternal life of
peace and tranquillity in the world hereafter. At the same time He granted the
request of Iblees (Satan) and gave him respite till the day of judgment to try
misguiding man and prove his assertion that human race is ungrateful and unjust
and is inferior to Iblees.

According to Ayah 18, Surah Al-Aaraaf, Allah said, “Get “Get out from this, disgraced and
expelled. If any of them follow thee’,
thee’, hell will I fill with you all”.
all”. On the other hand,
Ayah 25 of Surah Al-Baqra promises due reward for those who follow the code of
conduct. Allah expects His servants, the human race, to abide by the same principle
of trial and justice in this world, to ensure peaceful sustenance of life on earth.
According to the divine commandments the essentials of justice include:
– Timely justice on merit for all, rich or poor, friend or foe.
– No room for influence of wealth, position or recommendation (safarish).
– No concealment of witness or evidence.
– Enforcement of justice with an iron hand without delay.

Any violation of the above essentials of justice is akin to wilful disobedience of

Almighty Allah. No reason whatsoever including strikes, protests, vacations etc. can
justify any delay in providing timely justice to the aggrieved party. Justice is an
attribute of Allah and to stand firm for justice is to be a witness to Allah. Very
serious responsibility lies on the shoulders of those servants of Allah who have been
endowed with the duty of imparting justice. Any delay or partiality in providing
justice to the aggrieved party amounts to betrayal of trust that Allah has imposed
on the judges. Ayah 58 of Surah An-Nisa says, “Allah “Allah commands you to render back
your trusts to those to whom they are due. And when you judge between man and
man that you judge with justice: Verily how excellent is the teaching that He gives
you! For Allah is He who hears and sees all things”.
things”. Ayah 135 of Surah An-Nisa says,
“You who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witness to Allah, even as against
yourselves or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for
Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lust of (your hearts) lest you swerve, and
if you distort (justice), verily Allah is well acquainted with all that you do”.
do”. The Latin
principle of justice is, “Let
“Let justice be done though heaven should fall”.
fall The Islamic
”.
principle of justice is even higher. Dispensation of justice, without fear or favour, is
a sacred trust and has been declared by Allah, as an essential part of piety (taqwa).

Surah Al-Maidah, Ayah 1, categorically commands, “You “You who believe! Fulfil all
obligations”.
obligations ”. Abdullah Yusuf Ali in his commentary on this Ayah has written that this
verse is so comprehensive that it forms a paragraph or a chapter by itself. The
Arabic word “Uqud” (translated as obligations) implies so many things that a whole
chapter of commentary can be written on it. There are divine obligations that arise
from our spiritual nature and our relations to Allah. Then there are worldly
obligations that govern the existence of human society. Administering justice in this
world is an important obligation for ensuring the very existence of human society
and is therefore even more sacred than our spiritual relationship. Ayah 152 of Surah
Al-Anaam reads, “…whenever
“…whenever you speak, speak justly, even if a near relative is
concerned; and fulfil the covenant of Allah: Thus does He command you, so that
you may remember”.
remember”. It is obligatory for us to support the truth and provide
immediate, unbiased justice to those who deserve. Ayah 119 of Surah At-Tauba
commands, “You “You who believe! Fear Allah and be with those who are true (in word
and deed)”.
deed)”. Ayaat 32-35 of Surah Al-Muarij (70) promise rewards and blessings for
those who justly fulfil their worldly obligations. “All
“All those who fulfil their trusts and
covenants, who uphold their testimonies, and those who are mindful of their
devotional obligations, they will live in gardens with honour”.
honour”. It is indeed important
that justice should not only be theoretically announced but it should be
implemented with an iron hand. Timely compliance of justice must be ensured with
full force of law. Ayah 25 of Surah Al-Hadeed explains this vital point in the following
words: “When
“When We sent Our apostles with clear signs and sent down with them the
books (code of conduct) and the balance (of right and wrong) that men may stand
forth injustice. And we sent down iron in which is (material for) mighty war as well
as many benefits for mankind that Allah may test….. for Allah is full of strength,
exalted in might”. Allah has sent His code of conduct for the human race through
his scriptures and messengers. Timely justice in the worldly affairs without fear and
favour is in no way less important than the spiritual obligations. Persons entrusted
with the responsibility of administering justice among men (judges) have a huge
responsibility on their shoulders. Delay in providing justice to the aggrieved party
cannot be justified under any pretext whatsoever and it amounts to betrayal of the
sacred trust imposed on judges by the Allah Almighty. Criminals, anti-social
elements and violators of law must be handled with a strong arm symbolised by iron
in the holy Quran (surah Al-Hadeed).

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqua ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 27.06.08

– Defending subsidies
The federal minister for defence and commerce, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, spoke
about withdrawing subsidies on gas and electricity insisting that people would have
to live without these. Since the minister is an elected representative who has to
interact with people regularly and be answerable to them, one would shirk from
calling him heartless. The fact is that the government cannot afford to bankroll
subsidies on oil and gas for which it would have to borrow money from the banks.
Qualified economists and those with experience of working with the IMF and the
World Bank get very angry at the suggestion that Pakistan should not remove
subsidies. They are of the view that the country would, in any case, have to pay the
price difference for oil and gas and electricity which it could pass on to the
consumers or pay itself through bank borrowing. This, in turn, would increase the
government’s financial burden which will eventually be passed on to the public.
Additionally, this would reduce the efficiency of the government and influence the
growth of the economy. Not to forget that the multilateral aid donors these days are
full of believers in private sector and smaller governments who would not like to see
any government increase its sphere of influence. What’s good for the developed
world is good for the developing world as well! To the aid donors, countries and
people have to make a choice about when will they pay their dues. The people of
Pakistan, for instance, will have to bear the burden of a price hike in the energy
sector be it today or tomorrow. What is inevitable is that they will have to pay up.
For a good economist, people taking responsibility for paying the subsidies is a
smart move which will be good for the economy. But socioeconomic development is
not purely a function of the economy but is linked with the politico-economy of a
state.

More important, removal of subsidies is bound to increase the short-term burden for
the poor man, which, in turn, could lead to greater instability. Using economic
progress as the logic for putting immediate burden on the people is hardly
convincing. Nor does the idea impress anyone that the greater burden falls on the
rich and not the poor. Increased prices might eat into the rich man’s savings and
reduce his/her profit margins, but the rich are in a better position to survive than
the poor once subsidies are removed. An equally boorish idea is that of trickledown
to the masses. This concept has never worked except in Europe after the Second
World War and there too the US had provided ample resources to counter the
Communist threat. So, the bottom-line is that increasing financial burden in the
short-term hurts as much and has an equally long-term effect on the poor. The
more significant issue, however, is to question what does a government define as
an item important enough to be subsidised? Why is it that the government is willing
to pass on the burden of fuel adjustment to the poor consumer but willing to foot
the bill for other conspicuous state consumption? Electricity and fuel, at least, are
items consumed by all including poor people. It matters if the price of these two
items goes up as it increases the burden on the poor as well as the cost of other
things which, in turn, further enhances the burden on the poor. But then there are
other subsidies which government officials hardly talk about in the form of
privileges for a select few.

The grand golf courses, the huge officers’ housing schemes (be they for civilians or
the military), sports complexes, gyms, opulent facilities for civilian and military
bureaucracy and political leadership, or many other similar structures also
constitute subsidies which are more expensive because the benefit is for a limited
number of people rather than the public at large. Such subsidies do not constitute
public good despite the fact that these use public spaces. This is not to suggest that
Pakistan is the only country where the elite get subsidies from the state. However, it
is important for people’s representatives to negotiate subsidies favouring the poor
as well to balance out the negative impact of concessions for the rich versus those
for everyone. For instance, India has a large programme of subsidies for poor
farmers. The idea is to protect the farmers from the threat of famine and starvation.
Many efficiency-minded analysts and economists have problems with the
programme which they consider as being highly inefficient and prone to corruption.
Under the programme, farmers get assistance to purchase food through a large
bureaucratic system. However, the counter argument is that the programme might
be inefficient but it is necessary to keep the balance within the larger society. After
all, the Delhi government spent billions of dollars to construct a metro to subsidise
the rich capitalist who wanted his workers on the job on time. So, why complain
about the subsidies provided for the poor people?

The price adjustments are there to stay which means that commodity prices are not
going to go down. The government in Islamabad seems to shirk from removing
subsidies which, as mentioned earlier, would hurt only a limited number of people
who seem to have accumulated most of the capital. For instance, there is so much
resistance to apply the capital gains tax as opposed to the general sales tax which
will affect everyone including the poor. Perhaps, while making claims about
withdrawing subsidies the commerce minister or even the finance minister have not
thought their financial policy through. It is supposedly a people’s government which
is expected to offer more to the common man than what we have had in the past. If
the finance officials have not given serious thought to the issue of subsidies it could
be due to the fact that the government has had no time to plan its policies. It is
surprising that Pakistani political parties do not make shadow cabinets once they
are out of power. Such a tradition prepares them well in advance for the time when
they are in power and cater for the eventualities. The problem of the current
economic plan is one of the ramifications of such lack of planning. It will certainly
help if the present regime would carefully think about how it distributes resources
and opportunities amongst different classes. ¦ The writer is an independent
political and strategic analyst.
Author Location Dated
AFP Washington, D.C. 27.06.08

– Obama leads McCain in four states

Democrat Barack Obama has opened up leads of five to 17 points over Republican
White House rival John McCain in four battleground states, according to Quinnipiac
University surveys on Thursday. Obama is ahead in Colorado, Michigan, Minnesota
and Wisconsin amid rising support from women, ethnic minorities and younger
voters, said the Quinnipiac polls conducted with the Wall Street Journal and
Washingtonpost.com. In Colorado, which voted for President George W. Bush in
2004 and 2000, Obama leads McCain by 49 per cent to 44 per cent for McCain. In
Michigan, whose auto industry is in dire straits and voted for Democratic in the last
two elections, Obama has 48 per cent to McCain’s 42. Obama led 54-37 in
Minnesota and 52-39 in Wisconsin. Both states voted for Democratic nominee John
Kerry in 2004, although his margin over Bush in Wisconsin was razor-thin.
“November can’t get here soon enough for Senator Barack Obama. He has a lead
everywhere, and if nothing changes between now and November he will make
history,”
history,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling
Institute.“But
Institute.“But Senator Obama should not be picking out the drapes for the Oval
Office just yet,”
yet,” he stressed. “His
“His lead nationally, and double digits in some key
states, is not hugely different from where Senator John Kerry stood four years ago
at this point in the campaign.”
campaign.” The Quinnipiac pollsters also found reluctance
among voters in the four states to see Obama select his defeated Democratic rival
Hillary Clinton as his running mate.While most registered Democrats in the four
states backed the idea, voters overall were against with independents voters
opposing Clinton as vice president by 16 to 29 percentage points. “There
“There is a clear
consensus among voters in all of these states that they don’t want Senator Hillary
Clinton as vice president and that they see her as a liability for Obama, not an
asset,”
asset,” Brown said.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 27.06.08

– US top court upholds right to own guns

The US Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that Americans have a constitutional right
to bear arms, ending a ban on owning handguns in the capital city in its first ruling
on gun rights in 70 years. The court’s 5-4 landmark decision — on whether the right
to keep and bear arms is fundamentally an individual or collective right — said the
city’s law violated the second amendment of the US constitution which the justices
said guaranteed citizens the right to keep guns at home for self-defence. “There
“There
seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second
Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms,”
arms,” wrote Justice
Antonin Scalia in the court’s decision. He added that while the court took seriously
the problem of handgun violence: “The
“The constitution leaves the District of Columbia
a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating
handguns. “The enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain
policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held
and used for self-defence in the home.”
home.” It was a victory for gun rights advocates
and could have a far reaching impact on gun control legislation across the country.
Opponents may now challenge other laws in cities such as New York that restrict
the ownership of handguns in the name of public safety.

The high court had never before issued a precise ruling on the interpretation of the
second amendment to the constitution, which states: “A “A well regulated militia,
being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and
bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
infringed.” Washington, home to the White House and the
United States administration, has some of the toughest gun control laws in the
country. Private possession of handguns is strictly banned here, and any rifles or
shotguns must be kept unloaded in homes or under a trigger lock. City government
officials argued the ban, instituted in 1976, was necessary to stem rising gun
violence, and that the second amendment protects gun rights for people associated
with militias, not individuals. Lawyers for the plaintiffs in the case, District of
Columbia vs. Heller,
Heller, first argued in 2003 that the DC gun ban violated second
amendment rights. Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, questioned
whether the city’s gun ban curtailed crime, saying they have “accomplished
“accomplished nothing
except to prevent law-abiding citizens from exercising their constitutional right to
keep and bear arms.”
arms.” The court, however, said the right to own guns was “not
unlimited” and that its ruling did not cast doubt on laws prohibiting convicted
federal criminals or mentally ill patients from keeping guns. Bans on concealed
weapons or on carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government
buildings remained legal, it said. The case, originally brought by a federal building
guard who carries a handgun on duty and wanted to keep it in his home for self-
defence, attracted national attention and a flurry of “friend of the court” amicus
briefs filed on both sides. Supporters of gun rights include groups as varied as Pink
Pistols and Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, Jews for the Preservation of
Firearms Ownership, 126 Women State Legislatures, and the powerful, well-financed
gun lobby, the National Rifle Association. The Supreme Court last took up the issue
in 1939, but its ruling on a case involving alleged bank robbers and registration of
certain firearms did not directly address the question of the individual versus
collective right to bear arms.

Author Location Dated

James Bloom Texas, U.S.A. 27.06.08

– Robots ready for support in battlefield

At a desert test site in Texas, a street battle rages between US soldiers and local
“insurgents”. It’s much like any other training exercise, except the soldiers are
accompanied by a Mule (Multifunctional utility/Logistics & Equipment), an armed
robot the size of a Humvee. The insurgents are positioned overlooking an
intersection, a potential kill zone. The commander pulls out what looks like a
PlayStation gamepad and the Mule is sent forward. It presents a tougher challenge
than the typical human soldier. The Mule can fire Javelin antitank missiles and has a
turretmounted machine gun, in addition to a digital “eyeball” with laser and heat-
recognising target acquisition systems for aiming its weaponry. It is semi-
autonomous, using GPS to navigate and localised perception to avoid trees and
buildings. Its six wheels are on pneumatic legs, enabling it to climb over cars and
barriers. Within minutes, the formerly deadly intersection is secure. In just a few
years’ time, Lockheed Martin will start shipping the Mule to conflict hotspots. The
US army has 1,700 on order for 2014. Fifteen Warfighter brigades will be equipped
with the units, constituting a human to robot ratio of 29:1. Many will be used to
clear minefields and carry gear, but half will be armed. Unfriendly fire Foster-Miller
is another company fielding Armed Unmanned Ground Vehicles (AUGVs). (AUGVs). Three
Swords robots tracked devices the size of a chest of drawers fitted with light
machine guns - were tested in Iraq last summer by the US army. Apparently they
were a success (tinyurl.com/6bf47y). The company is now promoting a heavily
armed version called Maars, which, according to the brochure, (tinyurl.com/qpn4n)
can be programmed to recognise no-fire zones. “The “The robot hasn’t fallen over once,”
once,”
says David Byers, assistant program manager for the Mule. “In “In fact, last summer in
testing, it was being used to pull soldiers out of a ditch.”
ditch.”

In the past five years, military use of robotic systems has increased dramatically.
The US army alone has fielded more than 6,000, many of them in Iraq and
Afghanistan. They are mostly used to conduct reconnaissance and disarm
explosives, but there are regular news reports of Uncrewed Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)
performing missile strikes on insurgents they were monitoring (Launching a new
kind of warfare, October 26, 2006). “A“A lot has been learned from UAVs,”
UAVs,” says David
Chang at West Point Military Academy. “UGVs
“UGVs are almost a decade behind UAVs in
development and the technological challenges are far greater. Picture the
difference for a UAV at 20,000 feet with no obstacles, and contrast that with a UGV,
which must navigate in a dense urban environment. Sensors, fusion of information,
detecting negative obstacles and real-time control is imperative to ensure safety.”
safety.”
Byers says autonomous convoy experiments with the Mule, where the UGVs follow
each other in a flocking pattern, have been going well. “If
“If the robot is lost, inertial
navigation systems can put it out of harm’s way. If the operator is taken out”out”
injured, killed or loses contact – “then
“then control can be transferred to another
authorised party”.
party”. The reaction from the US army has been overwhelmingly positive
(tinyurl.com/544nrt).

The British army would not comment on whether it plans to use armed robots, but it
already incorporates many of the unarmed models in its operations. Stefan Kern,
one of the organisers of the European Land Robot Trial, says: “The
“The German army is
strongly investigating the use of unmanned ground vehicles, but armed robots are
not the focus of this process. Short-term realisable robots are the major challenge
at the moment.”
moment.” No one thinks the robots will be completely autonomous any time
soon. Chang says: “There
“There are still challenges to be overcome in situational
awareness and tactical behaviours. When these units are eventually fielded, there
will always be a human in the loop to make the tough decisions.”
decisions.” Byers adds:
“There will always be a soldier involved, at least part-time.”
part-time.”

In Australia, a company called Metal Storm has adapted the Packbot, produced by
its American partner iRobot. The Packbot is usually used to gather sensory data on
dangerous locations, and has been adapted into a semi-autonomous killing machine
called the Warrior: it can automatically acquire and fire at three targets in
approximately 1.2 seconds, selecting the appropriate munition for each target.
Stationary versions of Metal Storm weapons are already used for perimeter security.
According to Joe Dyer of iRobot, the real benefit of the system is its resilience. As he
succinctly puts it: “A
“A robot can shoot second.”
second.” Nimblett of Lockheed is confident
that army units with robotic capabilities will have a clear advantage over their
enemies. “Battlefield
“Battlefield perception is much better with the robots,”
robots,” he says. “So
“So the
real advantage is in our situational understanding.”
understanding.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Kathmandu, Nepal 27.06.08

– Nepal PM quits, clears way for Maoist govt

Nepal’s Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala resigned on Thursday, clearing the way
for former Maoist rebels to form a new government after their surprise win in
elections two months ago. Koirala’s move came after criticism from the Maoists that
the veteran politician was unwilling to hand power to them even after his party lost
the elections for a constituent assembly held in April. “I
“I announce in this house that
I have abandoned the post of the prime minister,”
minister,” Koirala said in an address to a
special assembly in Kathmandu. The Maoists welcomed the move. “His “His
announcement is positive,”
positive,” Maoist chief Prachanda, who is tipped to become the
new prime minister, told reporters. Koirala, 83, became prime minister in April 2006
after weeks of street protests forced then king Gyanendra to end his brief absolute
rule and hand power to political parties. That prompted the Maoists to declare a
ceasefire and join a peace process with the government. Although Koirala, chief
architect of a 2006 peace deal that brought the Maoists from jungles to the
corridors of power, has been elected to the special assembly it is unclear what
position he will hold under the new government led by the Maoists.

Some analysts say Koirala was negotiating with the Maoists to become president, a
ceremonial position, after the country abolished its 239-year-old monarchy and
turned into a republic. But the Maoists have refused any such role for Koirala. “It
“It
basically shows that he lost in the power struggle with the Maoists who flatly
refused to accept him as president,”
president,” said Kunda Dixit, editor of the Nepali Times
weekly. Koirala’s Nepali Congress party, the second biggest group in the assembly,
says deputies will sit in the opposition in the assembly meant to prepare a new
constitution after the abolition of the monarchy. The Maoists won 220 seats in the
601-member assembly to become the biggest group but are still negotiating with
other political parties to form the government.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 28.06.08

– Movement may go violent, warns Aitzaz

Aitzaz Ahsan, the leader of the lawyers’ movement, has warned that further delay in
restoring the deposed judges could lead to violence. Addressing a captive audience
at Amnesty International’s US headquarters, Mr Ahsan urged the United States to
stop supporting the forces opposed to an independent judiciary in Pakistan. He also
rejected suggestion that he has come to Washington to delay or stop US economic
and military assistance to Pakistan. Mr Ahsan said that when he says that continued
refusal to restore the judges may plunge the country into violence, “I “I am not issuing
a threat. It is a warning.”
warning.” The country, he added, wants the judges restored and if
it’s not done, “the
“the movement will go out of our hands. Not Aitzaz Ahsan but
somebody else may lead the lawyers’ movement and they may not be as peaceful
as we are.”
are.” He said the suggestion to make compromises, such as asking the
deposed chief justice to opt out, was like “asking
“asking a rape victim to be silent and
withdraw her complaint.”
complaint.” To ask the judges to accept a framework created by
President Pervez Musharraf was like “asking
“asking a rape victim to sleep with the rapist”
rapist”
to placate him. Mr Ahsan was vocal. He was impressive. And he appeared
committed to the cause of judiciary. He criticise all those opposed to his cause and
did so with conviction and was fair in his criticism. But he danced around questions
suggesting that now is the time for him to quit the PPP or if he counted Asif Zardari
among those opposed to an independent judiciary.

“Yes, I have differences with the party leadership on this one issue. But we agree on
hundreds of other issues,”
issues,” said Mr Ahsan when asked why he does not resign from
the party. “I
“I am PPP. I will not quit the party.”
party.” Asked if Mr Zardari is blocking the
restoration of judges, he said: “I“I go by what people say and he has said that he
wants the judges restored.”
restored.” Mr Ahsan went into the history of the “de facto
doctrine” – from the Texas military courts of 1921 to the judgments of the Pakistani
courts following the Nov 3 decree – when asked if an independent judiciary could
undo the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) that wiped the slate clean for Mr
Zardari and revive corruption cases against him. “What“What judges might or might not
do, I don’t know … they may or may not review the NRO and reopen the corruption
cases,”
cases,” he said. “There
“There is a de facto doctrine (to deal with such situations) as you
cannot reopen everything.”
everything.” Mr Ahsan said that the judgment that has to go is the
one that “perpetuates
“perpetuates the alleged usurper … so the only judgment that ought to be
reviewed is the one that justified the Nov 3 decree.”
decree.” He noted that the current
Supreme Court had to validate Mr Musharraf to validate itself and that’s why this
judgment has to be reviewed. “It “It may or may not be possible to do so in the NRO
case.”
case.”

Author Location Dated

Iqbal A. Ansari iqbalnsari35@gmail.com 28.06.08

– Defining ‘terror’ and ‘riots’

The political class in India and the governments have been treating terrorism as a
major threat to the nation, whereas ‘communal riots’ are treated as events causing
some disturbance, which can be taken in the national stride. Is this so because its
victims are mostly minorities, i.e. ‘the other’? Classifying and labelling of incidents
of mass violence into ‘communal’ and ‘terrorist’ and the unlawful use of force by the
state being treated as mere ‘excesses’ have caused serious distortion in public
attitudes and the thinking of policymakers in India. Unless this is corrected, it will
continue to impair the capability of the state and society to effectively deal with all
varieties of violence, the victims of which are innocents. It is well that the
Administrative Reforms Commission’s fifth report on public order as well as the
apex court’s observations on two occasions in the course of hearing of cases of the
Gujarat carnage in 2002,
2002, have characterised communal violence as a greater threat
to the state and society than terrorism. Even more important is the linkage between
them as definitively established by Justice Srikrishna Commission for the Mumbai
serial blasts of March 1993 and by Justice Gokula Krishna for the Coimbatore blasts
of 1998.
1998. The learned trial judge of Coimbatore blasts took cognisance of the
targeted killings of Muslims by the police during the ‘riots’ in 1997, which made
sections of angry, frustrated Muslim youth desperate, who having lost hope in the
system, took recourse to terrorism.
How would one label the targeted killings of Muslims by state forces, the worst
examples are provided by Hashimpura (Meerut) and Malliana (May 23, 1987)? The
Provincial Armed Constabulary (PAC) of UP picked up more than 40 Muslims from
their homes in Hashimpura under search orders, took them in a truck to the Ganga
canal and Hindon river and shot them dead, throwing their dead bodies in the canal
or river. It stirred the conscience of the nation. There was expression of horror from
all quarters and severe condemnation. Nikhil Chakrovarty called it a “Nazi
“Nazi pogrom
to terrorise an entire community”.
community ”. Such gruesome murder by the PAC is the worst
but not the only example of state terrorism committed with hate motive. How would
one label the demolition of Babri Masjid? Was it a ‘communal’ riot? While deciding
its label, it needs to be kept in mind that this act of state aided terrorism, which was
spread over 48 hours, took place in the presence of full strength of the PAC. It
brought in its wake a trail of blood in large parts of the country, and the first
incident of retaliatory Muslim terror in Mumbai. Acts of terrorism arouse an extreme
sense of outrage, as its victims are always the innocent masses. However, the
barbarism of rioters who can burn people alive, rape women and kill them is still
worse. Terrorists’ designs are fiendish; but their acts are anonymous in the sense
that they do not select individual victims and kill or burn them before their own
eyes. Whereas both terrorism and ‘riots’ cause undeserved suffering of the
innocent, repugnant to the conscience, in ‘riotous’ acts communal hate motive is
more intense and directed against weak and vulnerable members of the targeted
community. Ripping open the stomach of a pregnant woman and crushing the
foetus to death, as was done in Gujarat 2002,
2002, is definitely an outrageous deed. But
so is planting a bomb at a place where those killed by splinters of the blast include
children.

Is there a generic difference between ‘riot’ and ‘terror’? The nature and modalities
of riots in pre-independence India could be treated as a distinct class from ‘terror’
as then practiced by some political groups against the British. But in post-1947
India, most major riots have been caused by the pursuit of the agenda of hate and
revenge against Muslims by the Sangh Parivar,
Parivar, with varying degrees of complicity of
the state’s law-enforcement system under political direction based on cynical
calculations in the game of power. What are the goals of those who engineer such
‘riots’? Apart from short term political and social gains, the organised Hindutva
group wants to instil fear in the hearts of minorities, especially Muslims, so that they
may submit to their will. The long term goal is to terrorise Muslims into submission,
accepting to live in India as second class citizens. Terrorism is inherent in the Sangh
ideology of Hinduisation of polity and militarisation of Hinduism. Its leaders have
showered praise over Hitler and his ways of dealing with the Jews. The Rashtriya
Sawayam Sevak Sangh (RSS) is organised on the model of the military. Its
constitutional scheme of the country is based on denial of rights as citizens to
followers of religions of non-Indian origin, especially Muslims and Christians. Its
leaders have made no secret of their faith in the use of force to achieve their goals.
Nathu Ram Godse, who killed Mahatma Gandhi by his bullets, was inspired by this
ideology. Given this analysis of the role of different players in spreading communal
terrorism by the Sangh and desperate retaliatory acts of terrorism by isolated
Muslim youth, possibly with the support of non-Indian outfits, terrorism of this
variety cannot be successfully tackled merely by more stringent laws and better
intelligence. Thankfully acknowledging the current unanimous campaign of the
Muslim community organisations and leaders in India against terrorism of all
varieties, the majority community needs to demonstrate similar abhorrence of
communal terrorism of the Sangh Parivar. It needs to undertake a vigorous
campaign against all violence — by the state, militants and communal groups —
whose victims are innocent persons, defeating the Sangh’s agenda of hate and
revenge. It is time for a common civil society campaign in India and Pakistan
including Jammu and Kashmir for mobilisation over a common minimum agenda of
peace in terms of protection of innocents in all situations of use of force by the
state, the organised armed groups and communal organisations. ¦ The writer is a
retired professor of Aligarh Muslim University, India and a human rights
activist based in Aligarh and Delhi

Author Location Dated

Sabihuddin Ghausi Karachi, Pakistan 28.06.08

– Balochistan facing resource constraints

With a megasize cabinet of more than four dozen members, the Balochistan
government is facing political pressures, resource constraints and physical and
social infrastructure demands. The province is almost half of Pakistan, with a tiny
population that is widely scattered, and is in need of capital-intensive development
schemes for logistics, education, health, business operations and what not. For the
next fiscal year 2008-09, beginning from July, the Balochistan government is taking
up implementation of Rs15.74 billion development plan which has a built-in deficit
of Rs8.30 billion. Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has promised a Rs3 billion
special grant, but it remains a tentative possibility and hence has not been shown in
the provincial budget as an income. Balochistan Finance Minister Mir Asim Kurd,
however, in his budget speech on June 21 said that release of this amount would
reduce budget deficit from Rs8.30 billion to Rs5.30 billion. The planners in
Balochistan government want to complete 300 plus development schemes in the
next fiscal year so that they could bring down the development budget from the
existing Rs34 billion to a level which is manageable for them.

“Completion of schemes in larger durations has its own consequences,’’

consequences,’’ said Ahmed
Baksh Lehri, Additional Chief Secretary and boss of planning in Balochistan, adding,
“planning and development in Balochistan is not an enviable task where resource
constraints are an unending problem and there is no end to mounting political
pressures from a coalition.”
coalition.” Groaning under an overdraft of Rs19 billion from the
State Bank of Pakistan, for which it was made to pay penalty at the rate of four per
cent every year till it was converted into a soft loan last year, Balochistan started
the year 2007-08 in a very difficult condition. It announced a development outlay of
Rs13 billion with Rs10 billion deficit, but it ended up spending Rs10.8 billion and
completed 226 development schemes. The throw forward was brought down from
Rs37 billion to Rs34 billion. Balochistan carries a huge backlog of development task.
It emerged as a province in 1970 on Pakistan map. Before getting a provincial
status, Balochistan was an administrative unit controlled by the executive. For those
who were given task to control Balochistan from 1947 to 1970, their focus was
Quetta. Sui gas was discovered in early 50s and that sustained Pakistan’s economy,
but Balochistan remained out of the agenda of planners of the federal government
when it operated from Karachi or from Islamabad. “After
“After getting status as a
province in 1970, Balochistan started with a development budget which was less
than Jinnah Hospital, Karachi,”
Karachi,” Lehri informed with a sarcastic smile.
As he recalled, the first-ever university of the province was established in 1971 in a
college building. Few more colleges were added, primary school buildings were
established “but
“but the donor driven ideas caused serious gaps in the educational
system.”
system.” There was no end to woes and troubles for Balochistan after it emerged as
a province. The four-year bloody war from 1973 to 1977 left deep scars on
Balochistan’s economy and social conditions. Rolling of Soviet tanks in Kabul
sometimes in 1979 or so launched the big game in the region. There was an
unending influx of Afghans. It changed the socio-economic and even moral fabric of
traditional Baloch secularism and chivalry. Balochistan emerged as a hub of drug
trade and gun-running on international highway. How the planners in the federal
government were looking at Balochistan when all these troubles were taking place.
In 1970, the federal government provided only Rs90 million for development budget
to Balochistan. This was reduced to Rs62 million in 1971-72. It was Rs120.50 million
in 1972-73. It was only Rs344 million in 1977-78. It was in 1985-86 that Balochistan
got Rs938 million and Rs1.17 billion in 1986-87. In 1991-92 when provinces were
given for the first time right on their natural resources, Balochistan development
budget soared to Rs4.40 billion but were scaled down for four years. “In“In last 37
years, total development investment in Balochistan had been only Rs150 billion,’’
billion,’’
Mehfooz Ali Khan, the Balochistan Finance Secretary, revealed.

Not only that bureaucrats and politicians are unhappy on federal government’s
attitude towards Balochistan, but the businessmen are also critical of Islamabad’s
indifferent approach. “Logistics
“Logistics is the key issue for expansion of business in this
province,”
province,” Khalifa Tahir, a former president of Balochistan Chamber of Commerce
and Industry, said. He blamed the federal government for applying a criterion
worked out for densely populated Punjab and NWFP on Balochistan. “A “A stretch of a
mile road in the Punjab or NWFP may service about 10,000 persons,”
persons Khalifa Tahir
,”
argued who said perhaps a 100-mile stretch of road in Balochistan may connect two
villages with about 20 to 40 houses. “We
“We don’t have an I. I. Chundrigar Road where
we can provide jobs to thousands in Balochistan in a small cluster,”
cluster,” Mehfooz Ali
Khan, the Finance Secretary, said. Here, he said the government would have to
invest many times more than in Sindh, Punjab or NWFP.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 28.06.08

– Rs651bn acquired from SBP Record borrowing made in 100

days
The present government in its first 100 days has borrowed much more than what
the previous government borrowed from the State Bank in first eight months of the
ongoing fiscal year completely ignoring the frequent warnings issued by the central
bank which termed it as catalyst for inflation. The SBP calculations showed that the
total government borrowing from July 1, 2007 to June 14, 2008 was over Rs651
billion. Surprisingly, since the formation of new cabinet on March 31, 2008 the
government geared up its pace of borrowing sharply. It borrowed Rs355 billion
during three and half months while the previous and interim governments
collectively borrowed Rs296 billion till March 1, 2008. The continued rising trend of
borrowing reflected that the PPP-led government denying the impression that it
would adopt different measures to meet the budgetary deficit. The SBP had been
issuing warnings that record government borrowings for budgetary support would
further escalate inflation. The central bank held the government responsible for
destroying all its effort to control the inflation. The new government has already
announced that it will reduce borrowing burden from the State Bank but it looks
that its plan would be implemented from next fiscal 2008-09. However, analysts
said the rampant borrowing would seriously inflict the economy as its adverse
impact would continue to hurt it even in next fiscal year if the government stops
borrowing from the SBP.

The government has planned to launch securities papers to mobilise deposits from
the public and reduce burden on the SBP. The rate of return on National Savings
Scheme has also been increased by two percentage points to muster maximum
deposits from the public. Analysts believe that despite these efforts the government
would require more money to meet the ambitious spending plan. “The “The slowdown in
economic growth will not create much revenue for the government to meet its
spending target and it will have to again rely on SBP borrowing,”
borrowing,” said research head
of a brokerage house. A total budget outlay of Rs2,010 billion was announced for
2008-09 and revenue collection target was projected at Rs1,250 billion. On the
expenditure side, a record amount of Rs550 billion, 27 per cent of total expenditure,
has been allocated for development expenditure. “The
“The revenue target is highly
ambitious and unlikely to be achieved which means more borrowing to meet the
expenditure,”
expenditure,” said the analyst. Moreover, in view of the prevalent oil prices, the
government has allocated oil subsidy of Rs140bn as against Rs15bn last year. The
government has already set main inflation target at 12 per cent for the next fiscal
year. The record borrowing from the State Bank pushed inflation to 11.5 per cent
during the current fiscal year.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 28.06.08

– Oil prices top $142

Oil prices struck record highs above $142 on Friday as the US currency weakened
and stock markets tumbled at the end of a volatile week for investors worldwide.
New York light sweet crude hit a historic peak of $142.26 a barrel and Brent North
Sea crude reached an all-time high of $142.13. “Crude
“Crude oil futures made fresh record
highs, with higher oil prices fuelling inflationary fears and thus hurting stock
markets, which in turn triggered a further rally in commodities as investors seek
better returns,”
returns,” Sucden analyst Michael Davies said in London. Prices “continued
“continued to
be buoyed by the dollar as the greenback continues its free fall descent this week,”
week,”
he added. Opec’s president on Thursday predicted that oil prices could reach $170
this year owing to a weak dollar and geopolitical unrest. Crude futures crossed $140
for the first time on Thursday following the price forecast made by Opec’s president,
Algerian Energy Minister Chakib Khelil, in an interview with television news channel
France 24. After the records set on Friday, New York’s main oil futures contract,
light sweet crude for August, slipped back to $140.85, still showing a gain of $1.21
from Thursday’s close as traders banked their profits.

Brent North Sea crude for August stood at $140.81, up 98 cents. The cost of oil has
doubled in a year, with consumers blaming the surge on insufficient output from the
Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. However Opec, which produces 40
per cent of the world’s oil, argues that speculators are responsible for pushing up
prices in reaction to a falling dollar and tensions in oil-producing countries, such as
Iran, Iraq and Nigeria. A weak US currency makes oil priced in dollars cheaper for
foreign buyers, thus pushing up demand for the commodity. In a volatile trading
week, oil prices had closed down $3.50 on Wednesday after official data revealed
an unexpected rise in stockpiles in the United States, the world’s biggest energy
consumer. The US Department of Energy said crude stockpiles had risen for the first
time in six weeks, by 800,000 barrels, in the week to June 20. Analysts had
expected a drop of 1.1 million barrels. Oil prices had rallied at the start of the week
after major energy producers ruled out significant output increases.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 28.06.08

– PML-N paints the city black

The PML-N on Friday observed a black day in the city to protest disqualification of
party chief Mian Nawaz Sharif to contest polls. Several rallies of the party activists,
including MNAs and MPAs, started reaching Regal Chowk on The Mall, blocking it to
traffic in the evening where a public meeting was held after sunset. The
participants, including lawyers, were carrying portraits of their leader and placards
inscribed with slogans against President Musharraf and PCO judges. Some of the
them were: “Qadam
“Qadam barhao Nawaz Sharif hum tumharay saath hain”, “PCO judges
namanzoor”, and “Masharraf ka jo yaar hae ghaddar hae ghaddar hae”. hae”. They also
torched effigies of Musharraf. Speaking to the protesters, MNA Khwaja Saad Rafiq
alleged that the PCO judges allowed a serving army general to contest polls to save
their jobs while they were disallowing a political leader to contest the polls who was
representing the voice of 160 million people. He said the PCO judges should not
become a hurdle in the way of the Feb 18 mandate of the masses. Criticising
President Musharraf for saying that he would not give in to political pressure, Saad
said he would have to because his (the president’s) policies had given a bloodbath
to the Frontier province.

Recalling that Nawaz Sharif while in exile had assembled all nationalist parties on a
single platform, the PML-N leader alleged that Musharraf instead gave a licence to
kill to ‘terrorist’ Altaf Husain in Karachi. He warned the allies in the ruling coalition
against wasting the sacrifices offered by the masses for democracy and free
judiciary by delaying restoration of the deposed judges and impeachment of
President Musharraf. He asserted that if Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif advanced
towards the presidency jointly, Musharraf would be left with no choice but to bow
out. MNA Hamza Shahbaz recalled that his uncle, Nawaz, did not compromise when
Gen Musharraf ousted his government having two-thirds majority and accepted
exile instead of striking any deal with the army dictator. He also recalled that Nawaz
also did not bow to Gen Musharraf’s pressure when the former prime minister was
barred from attending last rituals of his father, Mian Sharif, in Lahore. Hamza said
his uncle would not compromise even on the issue of the PCO judges.

Author Location Dated

Rosa Brooks Los Angeles, California 28.06.08
 – Rice’s rhetoric improves, but does it really matter?
In 2000, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice published an essay in Foreign Affairs,
“Promoting the National Interest”.
Interest”. Back then, Rice was a Stanford professor and
presidential candidate George W. Bush’s senior foreign policy adviser, and the
Washington establishment hung on her every word. The article was brash, bold and
widely seen as a Bush campaign manifesto. In it, Rice made the case for a hard-
nosed US foreign policy, one that would keep our national interests front and center
and not be led astray by mushy globalist or humanitarian instincts or a foolish
yearning for ideological purity. Rice insisted that “it “it is simply not possible to ignore
and isolate other powerful states that do not share (American) values”. values”. Realpolitik
had to trump ideology. And she worried about what she saw as the “thinly “thinly stretched
military”
military” left “close
“close to a breaking point”
point” after eight years of values-based Clinton-
era military interventions. Although she asserted that our “commanding
“commanding
technological lead”
lead” gave our military “a “a battlefield advantage over any competitor”
competitor”
(Rice failed to predict insurgents or suicide bombers), she warned against nation
building. “The
“The military is ... not a civilian police force, it is not a political referee.
And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society. ... It is one thing to
have a limited political goal and to fight decisively for it; it is quite another to apply
military force incrementally, hoping to find a political solution somewhere along the
way.”
way.” Mmm-hmm.

Eight and a half years later, Rice has an essay in the July/August issue of Foreign
Affairs. This time, she’s “Rethinking
“Rethinking the National Interest”.
Interest”. Good plan. She begins
with a politician’s rhetorical trick: When possible, evade responsibility with the
passive voice. “What is the national interest?”
interest?” she muses. In 2000, she now writes,
“monumental changes were unfolding changes that were recognised at the time
but whose implications were largely unclear”.
unclear”. Then, after 9/11, “the“the United States
was swept into a fundamentally different world. We were called to lead with a new
urgency and with a new perspective”.
perspective”. Presumably, being “called
“called to lead ... with a
new perspective”
perspective” explains all the administration’s numerous foreign policy
aboutfaces. In “Rethinking
“Rethinking the National Interest”,
Interest”, there’s little trace of the steely-
eyed Kissinger disciple who warned against humanitarian diversions. Instead, Rice
now tells us that the US must focus on promoting democracy, human rights and
economic development, especially in the poorest countries. Analysing the root
causes of terrorism, Rice at times sounds like she wandered into the wrong political
party. “In
“In the broader Middle East,”
East,” she asserts, for too long the US “supported
“supported
authoritarian regimes”,
regimes”, but this “produced
“produced false stability ... there were virtually no
legitimate channels for political expression”.
expression”. No wonder, then, “that“that Al Qaeda found
the troubled souls to prey on and exploit as its foot soldiers. ... Our theory of
victory, therefore, must be to offer people a democratic path to advance their
interests peacefully to develop their talents, to redress injustices and to live in
freedom and dignity. In this sense, the fight against terrorism is a kind of global
counterinsurgency: The center of gravity is not the enemies we fight but the
societies they are trying to radicalise”.
radicalise”. Right on.

On nation building, Rice admits her change of heart: “In“In 2000, I decried the role of
the United States, in particular the US military, in nation building. In 2008, it is
absolutely clear that we will be involved in nation building for years to come.”
come.” She
goes on to say that we must take a “whole-of-government
“whole-of-government approach”
approach” to preventing
state failure, with US civilian agencies taking the lead. (A nice thought but one not
likely to be accomplished with the scant 1,400 new civilian positions Rice proposes.)
Rice’s article is wiser, subtler, humbler and sadder than her 2000 essay at times,
it’s almost apologetic. There’s still plenty not to like, but take out her reflexive
defense of the Iraq war and a few rhetorical flourishes, and it could almost have
been written by any of several leading Democrats. For all that, Rice’s latest essay
has been almost universally ignored. No one seems to care much, one way or the
other, about the secretary of State’s foreign policy philosophy. Maybe that’s just
Bush administration fatigue. Or maybe it really doesn’t matter what Rice says. The
philosophy she articulated in 2000 made no difference, and her revised one won’t
matter either. With Bush and Dick Cheney at the helm, Bush foreign policy will be
what it’s always been: morally bankrupt, intellectually incoherent and
incompetently executed. And we’re stuck with it for another seven months.

Author Location Dated

AFP San Francisco 28.06.08

– Gates leaves Microsoft after 33 years

Bill Gates spent his last day at Microsoft on Friday before turning his attention full
time to philanthropy after decades spent building the software colossus. The
Microsoft co-founder, 52, known for his boyish face and nerdy manner, spent his
final day at the software giant he helped found 33 years ago. After decades devoted
to Microsoft, Bill Gates plans to turn his attention full time to the philanthropic Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation he established with his wife. Gates leaves Microsoft
to wrestle with a fast-changing computer era and growing challenges from Internet
juggernaut Google and long-time rival Apple, which makes Macintosh computers.
Three people will essentially fill the void Gates leaves behind at Microsoft. Gates’s
job as chief software architect is being handled by Ray Ozzie. Craig Mundie
inherited Gates’s chief research and strategy officer duties, while former Harvard
University classmate Steve Ballmer is chief executive officer of the Redmond,
Washington-based software firm. Gates remains chairman of the Microsoft board of
directors and its largest shareholder. Microsoft is losing Gates at a time when “cloud
computing” is shaking the packaged software foundation on which the company’s
fortune is built. Cloud computing refers to a trend in which firms such as Google and
Salesforce.com let people use programs on the Internet instead of having to install
and maintain software on their own computers. Microsoft competes in the “software
“software
as a service”
service” arena, but tends to combine offerings with packaged products in a
“software-plus” marketing model, according to analysts. Meanwhile, Microsoft’s
Windows Vista operating system released in January of 2007 has flopped with
customers, many of whom are clinging to its predecessor Windows XP. Vista
loathing is heightening interest in free Linux open-source software and Macintosh
computers, which use operating systems built by Apple. Rivalry between Microsoft
and Apple is legendary in Silicon Valley. Apple ads and press conferences take
swipes at Microsoft, and devotees of competing systems routinely swap barbs in
cafes and other social venues. The culture-shifting popularity of Apple’s iPods and
iPhones is credited with increasing interest in Macintosh machines. While Windows
is still used on 90 percent of the world’s computers, Macintosh computers have
grown to more than five percent of the market.

Author Location Dated

AP Unity, New Hampshire 28.06.08
 – Obama, Hillary in show of unity
Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton made a show of unity on Friday in a
hamlet named for it, their first joint public appearance since the divisive Democratic
primary race ended. A big crowd was gathered to watch in one of the wide-open
fields of the tiny town of 1,700. It’s a carefully chosen venue in a key general
election battleground state: Unity awarded exactly 107 votes to each candidate in
New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary in January. “Hello,
“Hello, Unity! Hello, New
Hampshire!”
Hampshire!” Clinton said as she and Obama took the stage together. “Well, “Well, Unity is
not only a beautiful place as we can see, it’s a wonderful feeling isn’t it? And I know
when we start here in this field in unity, we’ll end on the steps of the Capitol when
Barack Obama takes the oath of office as our next president.”
president.” In turn, Obama
praised both Clinton and her husband, Bill Clinton, as allies and pillars of the
Democratic Party, saying: “We
“We need them. We need them badly. Not just my
campaign, but the American people need their service and their vision and their
wisdom in the months and years to come because that’s how we’re going to bring
about unity in the Democratic Party. And that’s how we’re going to bring about
unity in America.”
America.” Clinton, for her part, needs Obama’s help in paying down $10
million of her campaign debt, plus an assurance that she will be treated respectfully
as a top surrogate on the campaign trail and at the Democratic Party convention
later this summer.

Author Location Dated

Andrew Clark 29.06.08

– Gates reinvents himself

In a corner office on Microsoft’s low-rise campus in suburban Seattle, a
bespectacled, slightly portly middle-aged man has been packing his belongings. Bill
Gates logged off on Friday after 33 years in day-to-day control of the world’s
biggest software company. Gates, 52, is retiring to spend more time giving away his
$58bn fortune. In a glossy video produced by Microsoft to mark the occasion, he
expressed quiet satisfaction: “We’ve
“We’ve really achieved the ideal of what I wanted
Microsoft to become.”
become. ” Gates delivered a valedictory address to the software
company’s 90,000 employees on Friday. Staff around the world watched via a
webcast. He will remain part-time chairman of the board, but the reign of the one-
time wonder boy is officially over. After a trip to the Beijing Olympics he plans to set
up an office in Seattle’s Eastside to delve into the world’s medical, biological and
environmental challenges for his Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Foundation. “I’ll
“I’ll miss doing
the work here,”
here,” Gates told reporters this week. “This
“This is a big milestone.”
milestone.” He has
been gradually “transitioning” out of Microsoft for two years and to many in the
technology industry the company itself has been fading from prominence — it
hasn’t released a blockbuster product for 10 years and its mantle as a leading-edge
innovator has been usurped by Google. Yet Rob Helm, research director for an
independent consultancy, Directions on Microsoft, says Gates kept a close eye on
the company until relatively recently through “Bill G reviews”. “A “A team would go
into his office with other interested parties and Gates would grill them about the
project they were working on — both from a business and a technical standpoint,”
standpoint,”
says Helm.
Gates’s encyclopaedic mind has almost legendary status at Microsoft. He used to
take a book when his family took him to watch the University of Washington football
team as a child. Aged 11, he won a bet with a local pastor that he could memorise
all three chapters of St Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount word for
word. He established Microsoft with a school friend, Paul Allen, in Albuquerque in
1975. They got their big break five years later by landing a deal to provide
operating systems to IBM. But Microsoft’s history has been peppered with
controversy over its robust attitude to competition. The company has repeatedly
been accused of making it hard for rival developers to make applications
compatible with its operating systems. When Microsoft was threatened with a
break-up by the US competition authorities and fined by the European commission,
Gates’s reputation reached a nadir. A US judge described the company in 2000 as
“untrustworthy”. Since then, Gates has reinvented himself as a philanthropist. Some
believe Gates is getting out at the right time. Microsoft remains hugely profitable
but its two main products, which command near monopolies, Word and Office, are
facing challenges — notably from free word processing and spreadsheet
applications hosted on the internet by Google. Critics say that Microsoft has
struggled to grasp the trends shaping the latest generation of the internet, dubbed
“Web 2.0”. Gates is likely to spend more time with his three young children at his
mansion overlooking Lake Washington, but the business world hasn’t quite seen the
last of him.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 29.06.08

– Facts stranger than fiction

There is the impression in certain quarters that Mr Asif Ali Zardari is running this
country, that is, to the extent that any running visible to the naked eye is taking
place. This is in spite of the weird fact that he holds no public office, elective or
appointive. How did he get to have such a role? He is co-chairman of the PPP, the
ruling party at the centre and in Sindh, and a partner in the Punjab government. It
may be said that he is therefore entitled to a directive role in governance. Such is
not the custom in democracies. Ms Sonia Gandhi in India is president of the ruling
Congress party and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh probably consults her on major
issues of policy and strategy, but she does not intervene in his government’s day-
to-day operations. Mr Zardari’s placement as the PPP’s co-chairman was itself a
strange affair. Two days after Benazir’s assassination, he met with members of the
party’s central executive committee, who were in Larkana to mourn her death. He
read out to them portions of a hand-written document, which he said was her will,
and in which she had recommended his appointment as her successor. Her murder
had been a traumatic event for the entire nation, and this was no time for her loyal
associates to do anything other than honour what had been represented to them as
her dying wish. They elected Mr Zardari as the party’s co-chairman. He does call
meetings of the executive committee; its members discuss issues, but instead of
putting the matter to vote and letting the majority view prevail, they turn it over to
Mr Zardari to settle. They have not seen it fit to limit his role to one of presiding
over their meetings and offering counsel that might be considered along with that
of others. Members of this committee are not fresh out of school. Several of them
are veteran politicians, having grown with the party and participated in its journey
through good times and bad.
Makhdoom Amin Fahim, Jehangir Badar, Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Aitzaz Ahsan,
Raza Rabbani, Yousaf Raza Gilani, Farhatullah Babar, among others, would answer
this description. Mr Zardari, on the other hand, has never before been an active
politician. He has had no nationwide recognition except as Ms Bhutto’s husband.
How then does he manage to act as the party’s director general? The answer, I
think, lies in the PPP elders’ reluctance to give up the cult of personalised politics
and convert their party into an institution. I once asked Jehangir Badar how the PPP
would fare if Ms Bhutto were to depart from the scene. He said it would fall apart.
The Bhutto name, he thought, worked as the bond that made the party a whole. All
of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s descendants are gone, except daughter Sanam, who has no
interest in politics. There is his daughter-in-law Ghinwa, Murtaza’s wife, and a
granddaughter Fatima, Murtaza’s daughter, who carry his name. But the party did
not think either of them would do as its custodian. Mr Zardari did have a connection
with the Bhutto name; he had been Benazir’s husband. But is that connection good
enough for him to be the ‘king of the castle’ where Zulfikar Ali Bhutto once ruled? Is
it good enough when one considers that he and Benazir went their separate ways
much of the time even when he was out of jail and free. Consider also that he is not
honouring her legacy. She wanted Amin Fahim to be prime minister, but he said no.
She said the deposed judges must be reinstated; he says yes, but adds caveats that
change his yes to never.

Mr Zardari has heard of the ways and means of waging politics. His instructor may
also have mentioned its more desirable ends, but he prefers to ignore them. He
does nothing to solve the problems he says face the country. He is content with
being the overlord of a ‘do-nothing’ government. The PPP elders would seem to
have concluded that if the ship of state is to go nowhere, it doesn’t really matter
who the helmsman is. The fact is even stranger that Mr Zardari has been able to
steer Nawaz Sharif away from his professed goals. His spokesmen claim that his
position on the reinstatement of judges and Gen Musharraf’s impeachment remains
unchanged. Actually, it has softened to an extent. His latest position is that the
judges will be reinstated at an ‘appropriate’ time. He also seems to have
understood Mr Zardari’s contention that they simply do not have the votes needed
to pass a bill of impeachment against Musharraf. Why this mellowing, and why
haven’t his own people moved a resolution in the National Assembly calling for the
reinstatement of judges? The reason may well be that PML-N wants to retain its hold
on the Punjab government in which the PPP is its junior partner. It would fall if the
PPP withdrew its support. The Sharifs, I think, reckon that the retention of their
ruling authority in Punjab is more important than a quick reinstatement of the
judges or the president’s impeachment. This gives Mr Zardari the leverage he needs
to tame Mr Nawaz Sharif. The great majority of the people in this country want the
judges to be restored and the president to be impeached. Mr Zardari seems to
believe that his defiance of public opinion will cost him and his party nothing. That
remains to be seen. Stranger than all of the above may have been Mr Aitzaz
Ahsan’s dismissal of the long march after it had reached the appointed spot near
the Parliament House in Islamabad. Upon his urging several thousand lawyers from
all over the country had come to participate in this venture undertaken to
pressurise parliament to do the needful for the reinstatement of judges. In the event
neither the parliament nor any other organ of the state felt any pressure. Why he
organised this march at all, if this was the intended outcome, is surely an enigma.
Given Mr Ahsan’s dedication to the cause of the deposed judges, and his reputation
as a man of honour, I cannot imagine that Mr Zardari had any part in changing his
mind at a time when the object of his and the legal community’s labours and
sacrifices over the last 15 months might have been so close to fulfilment. Will
wonders never cease? ¦ The writer, professor emeritus at the University of
Massachusetts, was until recently a visiting professor at the Lahore School
of Economics.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 29.06.08

– Our dependent judiciary

Mian Nawaz Sharif is of late somewhat sidelined from his running mania that he
claims has much to do with the ‘restoration’ of the judiciary and the upholding of an
independence it has never enjoyed, whereas in reality it is all about ridding himself
of and getting his own back on President Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. What now
distracts him is his disqualification from standing for a by-election, handed down to
him by the judiciary he is also trying to get rid of. He must also be pondering upon
who is behind it all, who is engineering things, and who has stabbed him in the solar
plexus. The emerging Taliban is not as worrying for Nawaz as his latent tendencies,
going by his record, swing towards the Taliban way of life. We must not forget his
15th ‘ameer-ul-momineen’ amendment bill which luckily for us came to naught. We
must also never forget Nawaz’s tampering with the judiciary during his second
round as prime minister. A very fine and precise narrative of the events leading up
to the storming of the Supreme Court on Nov 28, 1997 and how it evolved is given
in Shuja Nawaz’s book, Crossed Swords, which should be on every shelf. Shuja has
written after extensively interviewing the then president of the Republic, Farooq
Leghari, and the then chief of army staff, Gen Jehangir Karamat, an honourable
man. Elected in February 1997, one of the first steps taken by Nawaz was to push
through his 13th constitutional amendment, annulling the 8th amendment and thus
Article 58-2 (b), eliminating the presidential power to dissolve parliament and giving
himself powers to appoint the armed services chiefs. Both president and army chief
gave their assent to this move.

He then turned to the judiciary which he felt was hostile under Chief Justice of
Pakistan (CJP) Sajjad Ali Shah, who could be rather a thorn in the flesh. To quote
from Crossed Swords : “Leghari
“Leghari recalls Sharif coming to see him in the company of
Shahid Hamid (erstwhile friend of Leghari who had appointed him as governor of
the Punjab but now had been won over by Sharif) to ask him to remove the chief
justice. Sharif said that Hamid would make the case against the chief justice.
Leghari said to Hamid, ‘Why didn’t you tell Nawaz Sharif my expected answer. It
would be the same as Benazir Bhutto’s time. No!’ No!’ Hamid retorted, ‘At
‘At that time the
judges were united. Now they are divided. We can do it!’ Leghari ... warned against
this move.... But Sharif was not deterred.”
deterred.” He somehow managed to get round
Karamat, and instigated a revolt among the judges against the CJP who, meanwhile,
had dismissed as unconstitutional Sharif’s 14th amendment which made it illegal for
any parliamentarian to break ranks with his party when voting in the assembly.
Sharif was furious, criticised the chief justice on the floor of the assembly, at which
the chief justice filed a case of contempt against him. Karamat was brought into
play, as was the chief of the ISI, Lt Gen Nasim Rana. Leghari arranged a meeting to
which all the principals were summoned. Gen Karamat started by asking the CJP
whether he would withdraw the contempt case. Leghari recalls the CJP’s face
turning red. ‘How
‘How can you interfere with cases?’
cases?’ asked Shah. ‘I‘I came here at the
request of the President, not to decide cases.’
cases.’ When Sharif asked Shah for ‘mercy’
what he got was ‘I‘I am the chief justice not for mercy but for Justice!’.”
Justice!’.” No date is
given for this confrontation, but it must have been sometime late November as
Sharif’s next move was to get the Balochistan High Court to file an appeal on Nov
26 against Shah’s original appointment. Leghari passed on this information to
Karamat and also told him that Shah was about to restore Article 58-2 (b). That
night at 10 pm Sharif rang Leghari and asked to meet him. He arrived with Karamat,
Senate chairman Waseem Sajjad, former law minister Khalid Anwar, Ilahi Bakhsh
Soomro, and Gen Rana.

The law minister produced a case against the chief justice and presented a
judgment dismissing Shah for Leghari’s signature. Leghari had learnt that
“suitcases of money had been taken to Balochistan to obtain this judgment against
the chief justice by his fellow judges,”
judges,” and said he would rather resign than sign.
Resignation would be the best course, as Sajjad, who would take over as president,
would do as they wanted. Leghari was urged by Karamat and Rana not to resign
(Soomro chipping in with ‘Why should you resign for the sake of a mad old Sindhi
judge?’) They all went home at 4 am, Karamat on departing telling Leghari that if he
resigned he too would resign. Leghari’s retort to that was to tell Karamat not to do
so as it would give Sharif total power — like giving ‘a monkey a razor’. Later that
day, Nov 28, “the
“the PML supporters stormed the Supreme Court.”
Court.” By Dec 2, both
Leghari and Shah had resigned, leaving Sajjad free to do as he liked as acting
president and a new CJP, Justice Ajmal Mian. Karamat lasted until October the
following year, when he was pushed by Sharif into resigning. What a sorry tale!
Nothing changes. Nawaz Sharif and his men are back, as are Asif Zardari and his
bunch of dangerous cronies, all preaching democracy. They, with the advancing
Taliban, will destroy, even maim and kill, to get their way. And the poor will suffer
on — and on. The one piece of bright news to come our way in Karachi last week
came via the Consul General of France, Pierre Seillan, a considerate and kind man
who takes much interest in the welfare of the poorer and the deprived of the city.
For some time, the prisoners in Karachi Central Jail have been given the opportunity
to attend art classes. Pierre, together with Mohammad Yamin Khan, the Sindh
Inspector General of Prisons, organised an exhibition at the Alliance Francaise of
paintings and drawings produced by the prisoners. As the invitation card announced
it was an exhibition of ‘Imprisonistic’ drawings and paintings — and it was most
impressive and even more touching to see what transpires in the minds of these
unfortunate men. Overheard at the opening of the exhibition was a classic remark:
Whilst the poor petty thieves and druggies suffer inside …, the Grand Larcenists are
out and about, their crimes forgiven and forgotten, trumpeting their love and
affection for an ‘independent’ judiciary, something they could never either tolerate
or live with.

Author Location Dated

Samia Altaf thesouthasianidea.wordpre 29.06.08
ss.com

– Transformations & trajectories

There was a music programme in Washington, recently in which the three
performers on stage were of South Asian origin — the vocalist was from
Bangladesh, the tabla player from Pakistan and the harmonium player from India.
All three were young and together, they created beautiful music. The Indians in the
audience asked for Faiz, the Pakistanis for Nazrulgeeti, and the vocalist herself sang
the verses of poets from India. The programme was a huge success lasting over five
hours. It was an occasion that was symbolic of what was possible in terms of
coexistence. Is that an unrealistic dream for South Asia? The election primary in the
US this year is a ready reminder of the transformations that are indeed possible. A
mere fifty years after the Civil Rights Act when black Americans were second-class
citizens afraid of being lynched and cities were burning with anger, a black
American has emerged as the nominee of the Democratic Party. Much conscious
effort has gone into making this social and political transformation possible but it is
clear that American society has reached a point where the young have transcended
the poison of racial bias. Yes, there are voices from the past but they are recognised
as just that — the fearful screams of those who have been left behind.

Of course, the battles are far from being won in the US. The day is yet to come
when a Muslim or a Hindu candidate would be able to get to the position that
Barack Obama has attained. But it is the trajectory that matters and looking at the
new generation it is quite obvious that things are moving in the right direction.
South Asia, however, is moving along a different trajectory. Pakistan, of course, is
the poster child for the dismal politics of state-supported exclusion. It was optimistic
to think that a polity created on the foundation of differences could turn around
overnight and become the home of harmony. The vivisection of society has
proceeded apace with various minorities paying the price in turn, one after another.
But the same trends are discernible in an India that has remained democratic and
has tried to remain secular over sixty years. There was a time when leaders of the
stature of Gandhi and Nehru were willing to protect religious minorities against
strong lobbies. Today, the Indian state is ambivalent about its constitutional
responsibility and in some cases has actively abetted violent attacks on religious
minorities. The targeting of Sikhs in Delhi and of Muslims in Ahmedabad are the
most egregious examples. It is also the case that an India that set out to eliminate
the differentiations of caste — one of the main reasons why Nehru entrusted the
stewardship of the Constitutional Committee to Dr Ambedkar — has now more
castes than ever before. The emergence of ‘scheduled
‘scheduled castes and other backward
classes’
classes’ is an ironic outcome of that noble endeavour. It is true that there are
literally hundreds of civil society organisations in India undertaking heroic actions
on behalf of minorities and the politically excluded. But it is equally clear that
without the kind of national commitment that marked the Civil Rights Act in the US
and without the supporting reform of curricula and teaching in schools, civil society
organisations are fighting a losing battle. When civil society organisations find
themselves arrayed against state indifference or antipathy, the most they can
achieve is to safeguard the cultural rights of minorities and turn them into the
exotic ‘other’. They can rarely turn them into equal citizens entitled to the same
rights and responsibilities as everyone else.

We need to understand why the states in South Asia are moving in the wrong
direction. And we need to figure out how to make them commit to a credible
implementation of constitutional rights free of religious, ethnic, sectarian and
gender biases. One starting point is the knowledge that individual rights were
ignored from the very introduction of electoral politics in British India. Rather, it was
the rights of groups that were given precedence. First, separate electorates
transformed religious communities into political interest groups. Second,
castebased affirmative action in India after 1947 turned caste affiliations into a
factor in the political calculus. The first ended in the immense human suffering of
the Partition. An example of the second can be seen today in the violent protests by
the Gujjar community in India to be reclassified as a ‘scheduled tribe’ from their
current status as ‘other backward classes’. Affirmative action in the US worked in
relative terms because the boundary between the two groups was not fuzzy — a
white could not reclassify himself as a black to take advantage of reservation
benefits. In South Asia, however, separate electorates triggered movements to
reconvert low-caste Hindus who had converted to Islam and prevent further
conversions through violence. And castebased reservations opened up the
continuous manipulation of affiliations for political advantage. Even when intentions
are good, wrong rules can lead to a cloudy future. When intentions themselves start
to slip, the darkness of tragedy begins to loom large on the horizon. ¦ The writer is
the 2007-2008 Pakistan Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International
Centre for Scholars in Washington, DC

Author Location Dated

Syed Rashid Hussain Riyadh, Saudi Arabia 29.06.08

– Saudi action fails to cool heating oil market

It was a big show, bringing together 36 countries, 25 oil majors and seven
international energy organisations. And despite the Saudi decision to jack up their
output to 9.7 million barrels per day, the highest in decades, the overheated global
energy markets did not cool off instantly. Yet many here felt it did signify
seriousness among the stakeholders to bring down prices. Availing the occasion,
King Abdullah urged the World Bank to organise a meeting of the donor countries
and regional and international financial institutions to discuss ways of handling the
burden of the poor and emerging countries. He also called for setting up a $1 billion
Opec fund for international development, announcing the Saudi readiness to
contribute to both the programmes. Besides, the King also announced $500 million
soft loans through the Saudi Fund for Development to undertake energy-related
development projects in the developing countries, deeply affected by the rise in
global crude prices. This would be of interest to point out here that when Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and PPP Co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari visited Saudi
Arabia earlier this month requesting the Saudi oil facility, they were told the issue
would be taken up sympathetically after the energy summit. Analysts here feel one
of the reasons for deferring the decision on the Pakistani request could have been
the above mentioned Saudi initiative.

The most important item on the meeting agenda was to somehow agree and
identify on the factor(s) responsible for the current situation. Not an easy task by
any means – full of political landmines. As the sun set in at the Jeddah Hilton last
Sunday, after a hectic day of meeting and talking, while summing up the entire
situation, a senior energy analyst very rightly quipped, “take
“take politics out of the
energy equation and things would stabilise.”
stabilise.” The tone of the meeting was set with
the host King Abdullah clarifying, emphasising and underlining that the Opec was no
more dictating and setting oil prices. Despite the fact that for decades the Opec has
left the issue of crude pricing to the market forces, and despite the keenness of the
producers in meeting the growing global demand, the King lamented that the Opec
was not being appreciated and accusations were still coming in its way. And with
heavy-weights, including Gordon Brown and Samuel Bodman, mincing no words in
expressing openly their viewpoint -- blaming the fundamentals with onus on
producers – oil minister Ali al Naimi - the ‘Silent Saudi’ - had a cut out task in hand.
He had to defend and push forward the producers’ viewpoint before the august
gathering. He had to stand up. And he did so deftly and calmly -- shredding the
counter arguments to literal pieces. Delineating the role and the contribution of
speculators in the industry, he coolly argued the case with mathematical precision.

“Price rises and volatility are being fuelled by a wide range of other factors which lie
beyond the ability of the petroleum industry to address or even influence. Perhaps
foremost among these are the recent trends in the global financial markets,
including weak equity and bond markets that have encouraged investors to move
their capital into commodities like oil. Consider that the bond and equity markets in
the US alone are valued at roughly 50 trillion dollars, and that if money managers
decided to reallocate a nominal one half of one per cent of those assets into the oil
commodity space, the resulting $250 billion influx of funds would equal the value of
the entire NYMEX WTI markets.”
markets.” The minister indeed had a point. Speculators today
are buying and selling contracts dating all the way out to 2016, and their
expectations seem to be pulling prices to new heights every day. Blaming the
fundamentals does not seem to be working. A diplomat friend attending the
conference – interestingly representing one of the largest consuming countries --
confided that the sales of one of their leading oil companies has gone down by
almost 30 per cent this year as compared to the last year sales – indicating
softening of the markets. High prices are taking their toll. And if this is the trend, it’s
definitely then not a case of demand and supply fundamentals. Other factors are
definitely at work. No one expected the conference to be able to tame the bull the
next day. But a process seems to have been set into motion — definitely — and that
is important. A working group to follow up on the deliberations has been set up,
discussions are set to continue and London is to host the next one — perhaps at an
even higher level. With the two sides on talking terms, the world could expect a
miracle to finally happen - one day not be too far in future.

Author Location Dated

London, England 29.06.08

– UK royalty costs $1.30 per taxpayer: accountant

Buckingham Palace accountants insisted on Friday that the cost of maintaining
Queen Elizabeth II and the royal family is a bargain for taxpayers, despite a price
tag of 40 million pounds ($80 million), while a prominent anti-monarchist group said
many of the true costs are hidden. The Republic group also complained that the
queen and her husband, Prince Philip, spent more than 22,000 pounds ($44,000) of
public money to take a helicopter to the Kentucky Derby during a prolonged official
visit to the United States. “She
“She took a day off and went to the horse races and it
cost the taxpayers a lot of money,”
money,” said Republic spokesman Graham Smith. “We’re
“We’re
going to raise serious questions about that. Why are we paying for a day at the
races?”
races?” The figures released on Friday are incomplete, he said, because they don’t
include such things as security and the costs to local governments of royal visits. In
their annual report on the use of public money to support the queen and senior
royals in their officials duties, Buckingham Palace officials stressed that the cost of
the monarchy for each taxpayer is just 66 pence ($1.30) for each British subject. It
costs each Briton “less
“less than the cost of two pints of milk or a download to an iPod”
iPod”
to fund the monarchy, according to a statement posted on Friday on the queen’s
website. Palace officials said public spending on the monarchy has increased from
38 million pounds ($76 million) to 40 million pounds ($80 million) for the year
ending March 31 compared with the year before, but accountants said this was
because of rising travel and maintenance costs, not a freespending lifestyle.
Accountants pointed out that real costs had dropped more than 3 per cent in the
last seven years due to cost-cutting measures. Sir Alan Reid, Keeper of the Privy
Purse, said the queen’s financial advisers pay “continuous
“continuous attention to obtaining
value for money.”
money.” He said the increase in overseas travel spending is a result of a
higher number of requests from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for the
queen and other senior royals to make official visits abroad.

Author Location Dated

Rupert Cornwell London, England 29.06.08

– America loves both the law and the gun

You can live in a country for more than a dozen years. You can marry one of its
citizens, and watch your son grow up to be one of its citizens. Yet on occasion, here
in the United States, I still feel like an alien from the opposite end of the universe.
This week provided one of those moments, when the Supreme Court threw out the
District of Columbia’s 32-year ban on handgun ownership, ruling in the process that
the second amendment of the country’s constitution guaranteed the right of every
American to possess firearms. A statement of the blindingly obvious, you might
think, given that the gun population of the US is not far short of its 300 million
human one. But that did not prevent this affirmation of the status quo being
trumpeted by leading newspapers, with headlines of the size normally reserved for
terrorist attacks and presidential election results. The majority and dissenting
opinions in the 5-4 decision, and the shifts from the nine-man court’s previous
pronouncements on the issue, have been parsed and dissected with the zeal
classics masters from my schooldays used to apply to the finer points of Greek
grammar. And, it must be said, not without reason.

The crux of the debate is in the language of the amendment, second of the 10 that
form America’s bill of rights, that noblest of charters of basic human rights, but also
perhaps the most picked-over body of words on the planet. It reads as follows: “A “A
well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
infringed.” Try disentangling that one,
and its idiosyncratic use of commas that would have appalled my classics master
had the text been written in the language of Demosthenes. How exactly are the
thoughts of statesmen of the late 18th century to be divined and applied to gun
control in the first decade of the 21st century? Previously, the court has upheld
ownership of firearms as a collective right n in the context of those citizen militias
who 220 years ago were a safeguard against any attempt by Britain to regain the
colonies that had the cheek to fight for, and win, their independence. This time the
conservative majority on the court went further. The amendment, it declared,
guaranteed an individual’s right to own a gun for self-defence, whatever the crime-
ridden District of Columbia or anyone else might have to say on the subject. So, you
might think, the floodgates have been opened. We should brace ourselves for even
wider gun ownership and a jump in the murder rate. Surely there will be more of
those shooting sprees that in foreign eyes are the hallmark of modern America be
they the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech which generated global headlines, or
incidents seemingly so common they are scarcely noticed any more, such as in
Kentucky on the very eve of the Supreme Court’s decision, when a disgruntled
worker at a plastics factory shot dead five of his colleagues and then himself. Oddly,
though, even for those to whom common sense dictates the fewer handguns around
the better, the ruling may have been the preferable option.

Yes, there will be a flurry of efforts to roll back gun controls in other cities, and
expand gun ownership rights. The National Rifle Association,
Association, the powerful gun
lobbying group, is backing lawsuits against Chicago, Detroit and New York, which
have laws similar to, but less draconian, than DC. There are fears, too, that the
decision will prove the thin end of the anti-gun control wedge. If handgun ownership
is fine, then why not the possession of semi-automatic rifles and assault weapons?
And shouldn’t a man have the right to carry a gun with him in the street, concealed
or unconcealed? And, for that matter, what’s wrong with citizens being allowed to
install mortars in their back gardens to repel marauders? All, of course, in the name
of those “well regulated Militias”, so relevant in their day, so dear to the Founding
Fathers. In fact, I doubt there will be any increase in the shooting rampages. The
court majority made clear that it was not seeking to remove existing prior checks on
would-be gun purchasers, or the ban on gun ownership by criminals and the
mentally ill. Nor, foreign readers will be mightily relieved to hear, have the justices
made life harder for Barack Obama, the world’s overwhelmingly preferred option for
the White House in November. The Democrats have long tried to lay to rest notions
they are anti-gun remember those pictures from campaign 2004, of candidate John
Kerry dressed up in hunting camouflage, rifle at the ready, out at dawn to slaughter
ducks in swing-state Ohio? Obama himself is on the record as supporting individual
gun rights. Probably, the court has taken the issue off the political table, and with it
one of the Republican election-winning troika of “God, guns and gays”. Finally, and
to return to where the ruling was specifically directed, it will have no impact on the
crime rate here in Washington DC. Three-quarters of the city’s 181 murders last
year were carried out with guns, despite the ban that has now been overturned.
Alas for the district, it has an undefended border with the great Commonwealth of
Virginia, whose most recent contribution to gun control was to limit a person’s
purchase of handguns to one per month. But suppose for an instant the justices had
done the truly unexpected, and opposed individual handgun ownership. The NRA
would have gone berserk; guns would be right, left and centre in the election
campaign, and the authorities would be confronting the nightmare of 200 million-
plus weapons out there, many of them now illegal. Now that would have been the
stuff of banner headlines. The real lesson of last week, obscured in the fog of
jurisprudence, is another. In this most legalistic of countries, the ruling has
demonstrated the vast importance of the Supreme Court. We have George Bush,
who appointed two of the nine justices, to thank for the body’s present conservative
tilt. But at least two, perhaps three, vacancies are likely soon. If a President Barack
Obama can shift the balance back, it will be his most enduring legacy.
Author Location Dated
Dr. Shahid Siddiqui shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.co 30.06.08
m

– Gender bias in film, theatre

Films and theatre are supposed to simulate real life situations and enact the
potential social life on screen and stage. In the subcontinent, we have a rich
tradition of mobile stage theatres. These theatres, in the absence of modern day
cable television and films, were a great source of entertainment. We then see a
phase of silent movies where life was emulated in the form of motion pictures. But
the real revolution came when the walky talky took over and, with the passage of
time; India became a centre of film making. Now every year in India hundreds of
movies are produced, which are shown in thousands of cinemas to millions of
people in and outside the country. A large number of people in India and Pakistan
watch these movies on CDs. In Pakistan, the film industry is relatively not very
active but theatre is doing relatively well especially in big cities like Karachi and
Lahore. The popularity of film and theatre in the subcontinent suggests a vital role
they play in the construction of social realities such as gender. Gender, unlike sex,
is a social construct that varies from context to context and is learnt by the masses
through various social institutions. These institutions include family, places of
learning, centres of religious congregation, judiciary, etc. A more powerful source of
gender construction is the media. Here I shall focus on the role of films and theatre
in the process of gender construction with special reference to the use of language
in the subcontinent.

Before we look at the triangular relationship of language, gender and films and
theatre, it is important to understand that language is not a neutral and passive tool
of communication. It is also important to realise that the reflection of outer
happenings is not the only function of language. Language is in fact involved in the
construction of social reality and it also plays an important part in perpetuating the
stereotypes prevalent in a society. A number of gender-related stereotypes have
been constructed, popularised, advocated, legitimised, and perpetuated by films
and theatre and since they are very popular media, their impact travels fast. In the
movies of the sixties we see a submissive prototype of women whose docility is
their virtue. On the other hand, men are presented as strong, brave, and
patronising. The so-called active role for women can be found in ‘dances’ where
women are portrayed as sex symbols. Indian films are different from western
cinema in terms of the number of songs and dances. The dances, on most
occasions, have nothing to do with the context of the story line. They are there to
meet commercial needs as it is believed that the main attraction for the masses
that come to the cinemas are provocative dances with scant clothing and ‘creative’
camera angles.

Another ingredient to enhance the desired impact of a dance is inevitable rain that
creates the requisite environment. Here, women are presented as objects of
display. In a number of film scenes, women dance to entertain men. The dances
have become such an integral part of films that huge funds are invested in the
setting and costumes prepared for the dances. The vulgarity of theses dances is
more obvious in the cheap theatre where the masses come for entertainment. The
choice and use of words in movies underwent a tremendous change over a period of
time. In the early fifties and sixties we see the use of formal language which was
literary in nature. This Hindi/Urdu language used in movies was highly persianised.
The female characters had to strictly behave according to the prevalent cultural
norms. The heroines in the movies were required to speak in a soft, low melancholic
tone with a tinge of coyness. The language became simpler and more direct with
the passage of time. The flavour of Persian diminished and English words became
common in the dialogues. If we look at the titles of some contemporary Indian
movies we see a blend of English and Hindi words. The image of the heroine
changed from a coy woman to an outgoing girl. But in both these roles exploitation
of a different nature was evident. The heroines of present day films are Phoolan
Devi, Miss Hong Kong, Miss Colombo, Jano Kapatti, and others. This is another kind
of misrepresentation of women. Some songs employ dual meanings and manifest
obscenity. This is very common in the stage plays where dialogues cross the limits
of decency and women are put in an embarrassing position. The female characters
are often presented as dumb and are made the butt of jokes. The language of
theatre plays is usually so obscene that they can hardly make for family
entertainment.

Most of the stereotypes about women, for instance, are: women are weak,
cowardly, dependent, emotional, dumb, capricious, talkative,
talkative, etc. These are
perpetuated and promoted by film and theatre. Conversely, some positive
stereotypes about men are depicted in these movies. For instance, men are strong,
brave, independent, stable, and smart. All this is done in such a playful and subtle
manner that the audience takes them as reality. A large number of people who
watch these movies in cinema or on CDs are influenced by them in an unconscious
way. Who is responsible for the misrepresentation of women in films and theatre?
They may include film financiers, directors, story writers, dialogue writers, and song
writers. The majority of them are men. Men try to represent women with their own
biases and desires. Consequently it is not an honest representation. Some female
directors tried to bring some changes but others opted to move with the tide. Is it
possible to bring a change in terms of themes, language, and representation of
women? The answer is a definite yes but for that a more creative approach is
required. We do find some good movies that tackled some social issues by using the
crutches of songs and dances and misrepresentation of women. For this change we
need a more educated, talented, and creative group of people. We also need more
women in the fields of scriptwriting, song-writing and direction. It is time that films
and media were used to challenge some of the taboos of this society instead of
strengthening and perpetuating them. ¦ The writer is director of Centre for
Humanities and Social Sciences at Lahore School of Economics and author
of Rethinking Education in Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Andleeb Abbas andleeb@franklincoveysoutha 30.06.08
sia.com

– Liberty or democracy?
The ‘Constitutional Avenue’ and ‘Shahrah-i-Jamhooriat’ in Islamabad are huge
contradictions to their names. Most government buildings on these roads have
given a false sense of power and absolutism to the tenants of these public offices.
The heady feeling of being above the law, especially for those who reside in the
palatial buildings of the Parliament House, Prime Minister and President House has
always proved to be an unsustainable illusion. These buildings have a completely
unreal feel to them. They represent everything which Pakistan is not. They are rich,
lavish, highly protected, secure and organised. It is perhaps this total disconnection
with reality which makes us repeatedly witness politicians going in there with a
supposedly elaborate agenda of reforming the ills of the country in their belief that,
despite their continuous failure, they remain the only messiahs who can save this
country, even if the public is clamouring for a change in their policies, or, for that
matter, their removal. This is the feeling millions of people sitting out at the
Parliament House must have experienced as they clamoured for the restoration of
the judges with no response whatsoever from the men in authority. Justice delayed
is justice denied. Never has this quote seemed truer. As time slides by, the public
disbelief of government claims increases. The buoyant mood of the people on Feb
18 has given way to despondency and distress.

With clear indications that the PPP has no intention of letting go of the Provisional
Constitution Order (PCO) judiciary, people have become cynical and doubtful about
all political statements and stances. Thus even people like Aitzaz Ahsan have come
under fire for not making the long march conclusive. The people of Pakistan are
undergoing political fatigue and emotional exhaustion and are totally fed up with
the constant aboutturns that the government does on all its promises. The
government, on the other hand, feels that procrastination will make its case
stronger. This delay will prove taxing on people’s nerves, making them drift into a
comfortably numb zone where they will be so embroiled in fighting for their basic
livelihood and other socio-economic pressures, that they will stop caring about who
rules the Supreme Court. The other hope that the establishment has is that by
giving time to parties that support the lawyers, it is engineering a situation whereby
contrasting party philosophies will eventually lead to rifts in decision-making and
principles, which will create enough conflict to dilute their strength; thus, their focus
from the restoration issue will shift to issues of peaceful coexistence within anti-
government groups. This guessing game played by the government, according to its
own interpretation, is all in the name of democracy. The government has been
praising itself on the democratic manner with which it dealt with the long march
participants and did not take them on. It has claimed that this is the true spirit of
democracy. The government needs to take a basic course in ‘fundamentals of
democracy’.

As Fareed Zakaria, editor of Newsweek, in his book The Future of Freedom writes,
“For people in the West democracy means ‘liberal democracy’; a political system
marked not only by free and fair elections but also by the rule of law, a separation
of powers, and the basic protection of speech, assembly, religion, and property. But
this bundle of freedoms — what might be termed “constitutional liberalism” — has
nothing intrinsically to do with democracy”.
democracy”. In the case of our government, the
interpretation of democracy is “free
“free and fair elections, and once in rule, all rules to
be mended and amended to suit the rule makers, ensuring protection of the ruler’s
rights to crime, deceit, corruption and the unrestrained power to destroy all
systems or individuals that threaten their sustainable political supremacy”.
supremacy”. This
interpretation reeks of ‘pretended democracy’ with barely disguised, hard core
autocracy. By not taking on the long marchers, the government has claimed
democratic victory, but by not paying heed to the basic demand of millions of
people who had gathered there, it has exposed its true intention of doing exactly
what suits the powers that be with complete disregard for the wishes of the very
forces that gave the establishment the right to sit in palatial political castles and
‘serve’ those who continue to weather injustice. Many governments in the
developing world have resorted to democracy without the restraints that they need
to exercise through laws that ensure equality of freedom and liberty, regardless of
rank and file. Without such a level playing field, might will always be right. The long
march was symbolic in many ways. It reinforced our belief that the people of this
country are now a force to be reckoned with; that they are united in their intention
of giving this country its right to be respected and honoured. They are motivated to
do whatever they can to strengthen its systems and institutions; and that they will
not waiver in their determination to make the government accountable for its
promises.

Many cynics have written off the long march as a fruitless anti-climax. This may be
because the objectives of the march were not clarified in the beginning. The long
march was not the end, but a means to an end; the end being repeated public
pressure on the government to make the rulers answerable for their actions, which
contradict their claims in various written and verbal agreements. As we have seen
recently in Nepal, it was prolonged public pressure which finally made even the
almost invulnerable King give up his palace and power. The true spirit of democracy
is thus constitutional liberalism which seeks to protect an individual’s autonomy and
dignity against coercion, whatever the source — state, religion or society. The true
spirit of a free, alive and passionate nation is an unbending resolve to continue with
the struggle to take on forces which not only endanger democracy but the liberal
right of people to live with fearless freedom and endless confidence in the rule of
law — the long march was a turn in this direction. ¦ The writer is a consultant
and chief executive of FranklinCovey

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Faruqui faruqui@pacbell.net 30.06.08

– A war of succession
A war of succession is being waged in Pakistan today, not unlike the ones that
would follow the death of a Mughal. But there is one notable difference. The
emperor is still in residence. In a sign of his declining fortunes, US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice stated recently that Musharraf made a mistake by declaring
an emergency on the Nov 3. This was the first time that a senior member of the
Bush administration has questioned Musharraf’s decisions. A few weeks back,
Islamabad was awash with rumours that a wide-body aircraft had been flown in to
whisk away ‘an important family’ to a foreign destination, possibly the dome-and-
minaret-lined Istanbul. A few days later, Musharraf held a press conference and said
he had no intention of resigning and would ‘live and die’ in Pakistan. But, he added,
if new laws stripped him of the (dictatorial) powers that he had assumed during the
past eight years, he might leave office rather than be reduced to a ‘useless
vegetable’. That was a clear broadside directed at the parliamentary system of
checks and balances envisaged in the Constitution of 1973 under which the
president is a titular head of state. Musharraf had made a similar comment early in
his rule.
As cited by Ahmed Rashid in his remarkable new book, Descent into Chaos, Chaos, he had
said, “I
“I am not power hungry. But I don’t believe in power sharing. I believe in unity
of command. That is the army’s way of doing business.”
business.” The fact that no democracy
in the world was governed through unity of command did not bother him in the
least because Pakistan was unique and different. True to form, a few days later the
ex-army chief contradicted his statement about leaving office if parliament reduced
his political powers. He threw the gauntlet and said he would only quit if it was clear
to him that parliament would impeach him. Such brash talk reveals that Musharraf
has not changed an iota from the man who launched the foolhardy incursion into
Kargil in the winter of 1999 and then, when things went awry and he was about to
be held accountable for his actions in the fall, he overthrew the prime minister and
had him arrested. Ahmed Rashid cites a former army chief’s assessment of
Musharraf: ‘a‘a good tactician and a poor strategist’.
strategist’. Ironically, this fits the
commando image that Musharraf has cultivated since day one. Of course, Musharraf
flatters himself into thinking that his decision making is on a par with that of
Napoleon Bonaparte. He frequently draws inspiration from Napoleon’s maxim that
two-thirds of every decision is based on analysis and one-third is a leap in the dark.
Musharraf has done his analysis and concluded that he won’t be impeached since
the coalition government does not have the necessary two-thirds majority in the
combined houses. But he also knows that the current political order is fraught with
uncertainty and that is where he has leapt into the dark. Yes, he has made a deal
with Asif Zardari that drops all legal charges against him and, in return, presumably
obtained a commitment to (a) delay indefinitely the restoration of the judges and
(b) not pursue impeachment. But he also knows that Zardari is not the final arbiter
of what happens on the political stage.

There is first of all the army that Musharraf no longer commands. His at-risk status
is analogous to that of President Iskandar Mirza in October 1958 when he made
Ayub, his army chief, the chief martial law administrator. Ayub himself became at
risk in March 1969 when he asked Gen Yahya to declare martial law. And then there
is the pesky lawyers’ movement. Even though the long march did not culminate in a
parliamentary sit-in that could have decided the fate of the judges, it sent a very
strong and visible statement that reverberated throughout the globe, that the
people of Pakistan wanted the parliamentarians to fulfil their electoral promise. Until
the core issues of judicial independence is addressed, one should expect to see
more protests and long marches and possibly parliamentary sit-ins and wheel jam
strikes. Asif Zardari knows that without the lawyers’ movement, he would simply
have been Mr Ten Per Cent and Musharraf would still have been occupying the
office of the army chief, not just his residence. It is unfortunate that some leaders of
the PPP have taken to black-balling the lawyers’ movement. They are questioning
the motives of the deposed judges and of the attorneys calling for their restoration.
Some are seeking to discredit the movement by saying it includes people with a
questionable pedigree. Others are saying; don’t resort to agitation on the streets
unless you wish to invite another coup. Still others are saying, stop raising the issue
of restoring the judges because the restored judges will immediately go about
invalidating Musharraf’s presidency, triggering political mayhem, annoying the
White House, stopping American aid and cause an economic meltdown. But the new
Economic Survey tells us that the meltdown has already begun. Ties with the US are
frayed and not just because of the confusion over Musharraf’s future role but
because of the ham-fisted way in which the war on terror is being waged.
And as for the lawyers’ movement, it is not about the lawyers but about the
restoration of the rule of law. So what if there are a few bad apples in the
movement. Every mass movement in history attracts its share of unsavoury
characters. The mob that stormed the Bastille on July 14 and set off the French
Revolution was no exception. But when the noble movements succeed, yesterday’s
villains become tomorrow’s heroes. Because of Musharraf’s refusal to step down
voluntarily, the country is engaged in a costly power struggle. This could have been
avoided if Musharraf had made the building of civilian political institutions a priority
instead of dissembling about restoring genuine democracy. But hubris blinded him
and he focused on extending his rule, using the war on terror as a convenient
excuse. The world has tired of his double dealing. Little wonder that a global poll of
the world’s unpopular leaders puts Musharraf at the top of the heap, ahead of
George W. Bush. Now that is no minor accomplishment. ¦ The writer is an
associate with the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of
Bradford.

Author Location Dated

John Naughton London, England 30.06.08

– Bill Gates’ adventure ends in tears and torpidity

The scene: a tasteful, wooded corporate retreat north of Seattle. The time: one day
last March. A large group mainly chaps in their mid-forties stands around. They
seem to be in quite a state. Here’s how one described the scene: ‘Steve Ballmer
was sobbing. Minutes passed as he tried to regain his composure. But the audience
of 130 of Microsoft’s senior leaders waited patiently, many of them crying too. They
knew that the CEO was choked up because this retreat ... was the last ever for
company co-founder Bill Gates, as well as for Jeff Raikes, one of the company’s
longest-tenured executives. “I’ve spent more time with these two human beings
than with anyone else in my life,” Ballmer finally said. “Bill and Jeff have been my
North Star and kept me going. Now I’m going to count on all of you to be there for
me”.’ Aw shucks. There’s been a lot of ‘end-of-an-era’ talk about the departure of
Gates from the company he founded with Paul Allen in 1975. There have also been
acres of speculation about ‘whither Microsoft after Gates?’ Both topics are, well, a
bit passe. The eclipse of the Gates ‘era’ began with the arrival of Google 10 years
ago. And the succession plan that he and Ballmer engineered nearly two years ago
effectively handed direction of Microsoft to a triumvirate of Ballmer, Ray Ozzie and
Craig Mundie. So let us dispense with the Kleenex and take a detached view of Mr
Gates’s contribution to civilisation. The headline is that he is the John D Rockefeller
de nos jours in the sense that he shaped an emerging industry and revolutionised
philanthropy. The big difference is that, unlike Rockefeller, Gates did not wait until
the closing years of his career to engage in good works, and the $100bn
endowment of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will ensure that his name lives
on. His great contribution to the computer business was to impose order on a
fragmented industry by creating a de facto standard in the shape of the MS-DOS
(and, later, Windows) operating system. This, allied with the fact that IBM had lent
respectability to the industry by deigning to market a personal computer, was what
enabled the astonishing growth of the software business as programmers saw a
platform for which it was worth developing products.
The great irony is that operating systems were not part of the original plan.
Microsoft’s core business was producing compilers for programming languages. But
when IBM dropped the opportunity of a lifetime into his lap, he was smart enough to
spot it and exploit it. He was the biggest beneficiary to date of what economists call
the ‘network effect’ where the value of a network increases dramatically as more
people join it. The company he co-founded turned out to be a corporate extension of
his personality. That is to say, it was smart, arrogant, paranoid, hyper-competitive
and curiously cautious. (Microsoft has never carried significant debt, and Gates ran
the company on the basis that it could run unchanged for an entire year without
earning a cent in sales revenues.) The high point of the Gates corporate mindset
was the way Microsoft set about exterminating Netscape, the company that
developed the first big commercial browser. The anti-trust suit that followed
revealed the extent of Gates’s hyper-competitive, arrogant temperament. In video
testimony he was shown swaying back and forth in a rocking chair, giving resentful
answers to lawyers’ questions, like a teenager under interrogation for suspected
vandalism. He simply couldn’t understand why the government had the temerity to
interfere in his business. Under Gates, Microsoft exploited its monopoly to produce
revenues and profits beyond the dreams of Croesus. But in the process, the
company became bloated (it now has 90,000 employees), middle-aged and torpid.
Its stranglehold on the PC platform seems to have blinded it to the fact that the
network was becoming the computer, and people were getting computing services
via their browsers. Google has been the prime beneficiary of this new kind of
network effect, and Microsoft has struggled to get to grips with a world in which its
old monopolies have little leverage. The company Gates leaves behind will continue
to be prominent in the computing industry. But as it has aged, it has lost much of its
edge and focus. Its great days are behind it: the excitement has gone. No wonder
Ballmer wept.

Author Location Dated

Meera Jamal Karachi, Pakistan 30.06.08

– Women’ right to divorce: an under-employed provision

Although Pakistan has in some areas moved slowly towards pro-female legislation,
most women remain either unaware of their legally-recognised rights or are
prevented from using them by a patriarchal society and a traditional mindset.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the case of Section 18 of the Muslim marriage
contract, which — subject to the groom’s agreement at the time of marriage – gives
a wife the right to institute divorce proceedings. Lawyers and women’s rights
groups point out that although this clause allows women to file for divorce using the
same legal procedures as are ordinarily followed by men, in 99 per cent of the cases
Section 18 of the nikahnama is struck out at the time of marriage and rendered not
applicable, thus stripping women of a right that is recognised under the law. The
right granted under Section 18 of the nikahnama refers to Section 8 of the Muslim
Family Laws Ordinance 1961. When invoked, it allows a woman to divorce her
husband using Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, which defines
the procedure for talaq (divorce). Significantly, it allows a woman to institute
divorce proceedings while retaining her rights over the dower amount, or haq
meher, agreed upon by the contracting parties and recorded on the nikahnama.
The clause is of vital significance since a woman who does not have the right of
divorce under Section 18 of the nikahnama must resort to pleading for khula
(dissolution of marriage), a procedure during which she loses her claim over the
dower, alimony or maintenance. The usual procedure for divorce (as opposed to
khula) is that under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, the
husband presents a notice to the nazim of the relevant union council. If the nazim’s
efforts to bring about reconciliation fail, a certificate of divorce is issued within 90
days. Section 8 of the same ordinance dictates an identical procedure for women
who have the right of divorce under Section 18 of the nikahnama. Despite the
advantages of this clause in the nikahnama, lawyers and clerics told Dawn that in
actual practice, barely one per cent of women contracting marriages claim the right.
‘One of a thousand retain right’
right’ Even though the law recognises a woman’s right to
institute divorce proceedings under Section 18 of the nikahnama, the procedure
nevertheless remains controversial. University teacher Professor Abdul Ghafoor, for
example, claimed that women cannot be granted the right of divorce. “Islam “Islam gives
women the right to separation and men the right of divorce,”
divorce,” he maintained.
“These rights cannot be reversed.”
reversed.” He added that in his long experience of
conducting nikah ceremonies – over 600 – he had never come across a woman or
family that asked for the right of divorce under Section 18 of the nikahnama.

This may appear to question the relevance of the law concerned, which states that
“Where the right to divorce has been duly delegated to the wife and she wishes to
exercise that right […] the provisions of Section 7 shall […] so far as applicable,
apply” (Section 8, Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961). But lawyer Aftab Bano
Rajput argued that since the provision has remained part of the law for decades,
there is little point in continuing to debate whether or not it is appropriate for
women to be granted the right of divorce. Nevertheless, she conceded, there is a
great gap between theory and reality. “I “I think that perhaps one out of a thousand
women would have been given the right,”right,” she commented. “About
“About ten years ago, I
came across one case where the woman had the right under Section 18 of the
nikahnama, and that too because her sister was a lawyer.”
lawyer.” Refuting the suggestion
that retaining the right paved the way for a troubled marriage, she added that she
knew a couple of women who had the right to divorce but remained happily
married. “When
“When a woman is granted the right of divorce, she is given a terra firma,”
firma,”
she opined. “The
“The husband subsequently remains somewhat cautious since he
knows that if she is tested beyond endurance, she could simply leave him.” him.” The fact
that Section 18 of the nikahnama is rarely invoked is confirmed by Noor Naz Agha of
the Women Lawyers’ Association. “Less “Less than one per cent of the women or their
families demand the right of divorce,”
divorce,” she told Dawn. “First,
“First, few people know what
the right means or entails and secondly, many feel that it is inauspicious to ask for
this particular right at the time of marriage.”
marriage.” Nevertheless, she pointed out, there is
a stark contradiction since no one gives a second thought to the man’s right to
divorce, but the same thing becomes objectionable when it refers to a woman.

Saeed Ghani, who has served as a nazim for Union Council 4 for over four years,
said that among the few cases of divorce that come to him, hardly any are filed by
women. Nevertheless, there have been instances where the right to divorce has
been granted as a matter of course. Irfan Aziz, for example, is a professor who gave
his wife the right under Section 18 of the nikahnama, although he admits that
neither his family nor that of his bride gave the provision a thought – or even knew
about it. “The
“The fact is, however, that the days are long past when women were
considered irrational. Today, they are educated and logical and compete with men
in every field,”
field,” he commented. Mr Aziz said that he came to know about the clause
through debates on TV, and resolved to give his wife the right to divorce. However,
he did not tell his family what Section 18 of the nikahnama pertained to, since he
believed that they would have trouble accepting it. The fact that few women or their
families retain the fundamental right to divorce is a sad indictment on citizens’ level
of familiarity with their legal rights and obligations. In most cases, a number of
sections of the nikahnama are struck out at the time of marriage, and Section 8 is
one of the most common casualties.

Author Location Dated

30.06.08

– Rupee loses value on $ demand

Continued increase in crude oil prices in the international market is exerting
downward pressure on the rupee/dollar parity in the local currency market. Year-
end payments need have compelled importers to make fresh buying of dollars in
the local currency market. Surge in the oil prices in the world markets played a
basic role in the sharp rise in the local market. The demand for dollar has surged
significantly at a time when there is an outflow of dollars due to weak economic
indicators and uncertain political outlook. The current account deficit has broken all
record at about $13bn in 11 months of the current fiscal year. Though, SBP
measures in the past few months have resisted sharp declines in rupee value
against the dollar and euro, dealers said outflows from the stock market were likely
to add some pressure on the rupee in the coming days. The rupee commenced the
week on a firm note in the inter bank on June 23, as it managed to hold its firmness
due to easy inflows of US currency. It depicted no major change in the weekend
level on the buying counter but shed five paisa on the selling counter, trading at
Rs67.40 and Rs67.50 against the dollar after closing previous week at Rs67.40 and
Rs67.45. However, increased dollar demand particularly from importers on June 24,
mainly to cover up their oil payment bills, which have risen sharply in the face of
increasing oil prices in the international market pushed the rupee down further.The
rupee posted fresh losses of up to 30 paisa against the dollar in single day trading,
changing hands at Rs67.70 and Rs67.80. The rupee continued its slide versus the
dollar on June 25, as high dollar demand persisted exerting downward pressure on
the local currency, which further shed 10 paisa on the buying counter and five paisa
on the selling counter to trade at Rs67.80 and Rs67.85. The downslide persisted in
the rupee/dollar parity on the fourth consecutive day with the rupee suffering fresh
losses of 15 paisa on the buying and another 10 paisa on the selling counters to
trade against the dollar at Rs67.85 and Rs67.90 on June 26. Finally, the rupee
closed the week on June 27, at Rs68.00 and Rs68.05 after shedding 15 paisa more
against the dollar. The rupee in the inter bank market suffered up to 60 paisa fall
against the American currency this week.

In the open market, the rupee firmly held its overnight levels against dollar on the
first trading day of the week, trading unchanged at its overnight levels of Rs68.30
and Rs68.50. But the overnight firmness in the rupee/dollar parity proved short
lived on the second trading day, when the dollar gained 10 paisa versus the rupee,
changing hands at Rs68.40 and Rs68.60 on June 24. The rupee continued weak
against the dollar on June 25 and suffered fresh losses of 10 paisa against the dollar
to trade at Rs68.50 and Rs68.70. The rupee extended its weakness versus the US
currency on June 26, making some fresh losses of five paisa on the buying counter
but remained unchanged on the selling counter, changing hands in relation to dollar
at Rs68.55 and Rs68.70. On June 27, the rupee, however, gained 15 paisa versus
dollar on the buying counter and another 10 paisa on the selling counter, changing
hands at Rs68.40 and Rs68.60. This week, the rupee in the open market lost 25
paisa against the dollar on cumulative basis.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee showed a fluctuating trend
this week. It opened the week on a dismal note as the rupee failed to maintain its
steady trend and posted 30 paisa loss over the previous week close, changing
hands at Rs106.10 and Rs106.20 on June 23, against Rs105.80 and Rs105.90 on
June 21. On the second trading day, however, the rupee firmed up gaining 75 paisa
to trade at Rs105.35 and Rs105.50 on June 24. On the following day, the rupee
suffered a sharp decline against the euro, shedding 45 paisa to trade at Rs105.80
and Rs105.95 on June 25. On June 26, the rupee extended its overnight weakness
versus the European single currency posting fresh losses of 80 paisa and traded at
Rs106.60 and Rs106.75. On June 27, the rupee gained 10 paisa against euro and
traded at Rs106.50 and Rs106.65. During the week in review, the rupee lost 85
paisa against the European single common currency.

Author Location Dated

Zohaib Ali Khan 30.06.08

– Dollar as a reserve
In spite of several international financial crises, the dollar has remained the
international reserve currency because of the size of the US economy and the
volume of American trade, while vulnerabilities of the dollar and the euro as a viable
alternative have been widely discussed. The decision of the Gulf countries to
continue their peg to the dollar despite its falling value and rising inflation in the
Gulf economies calls for a further enquiry into this dogged loyalty to the greenback.
International monetary system is inevitably linked to commodity markets, of which
oil is the most important globally trading item. Several factors can be attributed to
the relative weakening of the dollar since the World War II. United States is the
largest debtor nation in the world because of its rising trade and budget deficits.
These deficits are being financed through government borrowings which are being
provided by countries like China, the Far East and the Gulf nations flushed with
dollars from booming export-led growth and petro-dollars, and the domestic US
debt.

Second, the global economy is experiencing shifting bases of economic power due
to rising productivity in Japan, the formation of a single euro block and sustainable
high growth in emerging countries like China and India. The ability of the US to
maintain its economic supremacy has come under speculation. If the forecast data
given by IMF is projected up to 2013, we see a converging trend. The share of large
emerging economies like India, China and Brazil is increasing where as that of the
developed world is decreasing rapidly. Inevitably, questions have also been raised
about the US foreign policies regarding the Middle East, leading to unrest and
dissent in the world community at large. Iran and Venezuela’s proposals for
removing the dollar denomination of oil have received support of the Muslim world.
Euro has emerged as a stable currency and is becoming stronger against the dollar.
“The Euro Area has, in terms of membership, 43 per cent of the share of the G7
(economies), 20 per cent of the G20, 40 per cent of the OECD and eight per cent of
the WTO. It holds 24 per cent of IMF quotas and is the provider of a large number of
UN contributions.”
contributions.” Smaghi (2003) However, certain considerations prevent euro
from replacing the dollar as reserve currency: First, the Euro Zone is not a
homogenous currency region as is the US. Second, euro is not integrated in many
fiscal aspects. Countries like France and Germany have violated the deficit targets
of EU in order to bring their economies out of a slump. Third, their foreign policies
differ and even contradict one another and finally, ECB is not functioning as planned
as there are certain flaws in the system highlighted by Grauwe (2006). Oil is the
most important international traded commodity. With the membership of the EU
rising, the oil consumption is bound to increase to a level more than that of US, the
largest sovereign user of oil. Due to rising currency risk and the EU’s bargaining
power, the EU might put pressure on Opec and non-Opec oil producers to trade oil
in euros which due to trade compatibility will also reduce currency risk for these oil
producing countries. This might persuade non-Opec producers to start
denominating their oil in euros. Hence, if not solely, euro-based but a dual currency
pricing of oil is a possibility (Sharma et al., 2004).

Other countries have to earn the dollar by selling their goods to other countries and
US and if they fall short of earning enough dollars to purchase oil, they have to
borrow from supranational financial institutions. These loans must be paid back in
dollars with interest creating further demand for the dollar generating outside US.
Compared to this, all the US has to do is to print dollar bills to pay for their oil
(Sharma et al., 2004). If the major dollar holding are converted into euro, there is
bound to fall, and so will the wealth of many countries holding them. Most of the
dollars and sovereign funds of Asian countries and oil producers alike are invested
in US securities and a sliding dollar will erode the value of their savings. To protect
their prior savings, these countries can neither remove the dollar denomination of
oil nor can they convert their reserves to another reserve currency such as euro.
With the euro zone, China, India and Japan constituting larger proportion of world’s
output, the dollar’s position as an international currency should and will change
inevitably; but to bring about this key change in the least injurious way to the world
economy, especially to the developing world, is a question requiring further study.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
JULY 2008
Kamaal Lalany - HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
July 2008 of the DAWN Compilation
Series, put together by Kamaal
Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Anwar Islamabad, Pakistan 01.07.08

– ‘PPP’s package not a panacea’

An “interactive session” on the constitutional reforms proposed by the PPP here on
Monday produced lots of laments but not a solution to the latest constitutional
impasse. Retired bureaucrat Masud Mufti who chaired the session, arranged by the
South Asia Free Media Association,
Association, had to conclude that “the
“the invisible constitution”
constitution”
of the vested interests that has ruled Pakistan for the past 60 years will continue to
operate until a pro-people political leadership and party emerge. Opening the
discussion Zafarullah Khan, executive director of the Centre for Civic Education,
Education,
observed that majority of the 62 points in the PPP’s constitutional package concern
judiciary. “By
“By and large the points are within the basic structure of the Constitution
and the Charter of Democracy (CoD) signed by the PPP and PML-N in 2006,” 2006,” he said.
However he found departures too from the CoD. Like the CoD called for abolishing
the Concurrent List altogether but the package proposes to remove just 10 items
from the list. Three major promises made in the CoD find no place at all in the
package — that Fata will be merged with NWFP; local bodies will be elected on party
basis and that a Federal Constitutional Court will be established. Mr Khan suggested
making the “Principles of Policy” set for the government part of the Constitution as
Gen Ziaul Haq had made the Objectives Resolution part of the Constitution. Lawyer
Athar Minallah who followed him argued for long that the question was not to
reform the constitution “but
“but to inculcate the spirit to respect the constitution”.
constitution”.

Though he had no quarrels with PPP’s “claims” that it wanted the parliament to be
supreme, believed in institutions and not individuals and did not recognise President
Musharraf’s acts of November 3, 2007 as constitutional, he found the package
aiming at the very contrary. What was “extremely alarming” was a proposal in the
package that, he said, would whittle away Supreme Court’s constitutional
jurisdiction under Article 184(3). “This
“This article gives the Supreme Court the power to
rule on matters of public importance and that relate to fundamental rights. It took
notice of or decided such issues as privatisation of the Steel Mills, environment,
missing persons and pro-people suo motu actions,”
actions,” he said. Similarly, he said, the
package proposes to out the Chief Justice from the appointment and removal of
superior judges and leave it “to
“to the mercy of the prime minister, the law minister”
minister”
and the members of parliament. “Judges
“Judges are proposed to be removed by a
commission to be headed by a ‘non-politicised’ former chief justice of the Supreme
Court. Which judge would qualify as ‘non-politicised’ — Justice Saeeduzzaman
Siddiqui? Justice Wajeehuddin? Fakhruddin G. Ibrahim? or those who have the
reputation of being unscrupulous and corrupt?”
corrupt?” he asked. “It
“It is a minus one
formula,”
formula ,” he said about the judicial reforms in the package.

Though the PPP claimed it was not indemnifying President Musharraf’s November 3
actions, Mr Minallah said, the addition of Article 270-AAA and 270-CC that it
proposes in the package “go“go much beyond indemnification”.
indemnification”. Article 270-CC would
recognise and treat as valid Judges Order 2007 which altered the Oath of Judges.
“That is the only indemnification Musharraf requires,”
requires,” he said. Article 270-AAA, he
added, would revive all ordinances issued between July 15, 2007 and December 15,
2007 that had lapsed for want of parliament’s approval, he said asking ‘why’?
Legalising NRO under it would be understandable but not the ordinances issued
after November 3 amending the Army Act to extend it to civilians, the Pemra law
and the Bar Council and Practitioners Act were intended “I “I think, to jeopardise the
supremacy of the constitution”.
constitution”. Mr Minallah also disagreed with Mr Masud Mufti’s
view that political parties and their leaders were equally insincere and responsible
for today’s sorry state of affairs. They thrive on Noora Kushti (mock fights) and take
turns to share the misrule by “the
“the military-Mullah-Wadera alliance”,
alliance”, said Mr Mufti.
“For the sake of democracy, don’t blame the politicians,”
politicians,” pleaded Mr Minallah,
seeking time for them to prove themselves. “I “I don’t think the political parties took
advantage of our (lawyers) movement or hijacked it. Our movement has gained a
lot as the outside world no more consider us as a nation of terrorists,”
terrorists,” he said
responding to a comment from the audience that the movement politicised its
mission with “Go Musharraf Go” slogans after deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry was restored in his post on July 20, 2007.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 01.07.08

– PML-N leader warns of quitting coalition over judges issue

The PML-N ratcheted up pressure for reinstatement of the deposed judges on
Monday by calling upon the PPP not to link the reinstatement to the constitutional
package because such a course would not only amount to recognising the
“unconstitutional steps” taken by President Musharraf on Nov 3 but would also
delay the matter. Party’s secretary-general Iqbal Zafar Jhagra said that if the
demand was not met, the PML-N could decide to sit on opposition benches in the
National Assembly. However, he hastened to add that his party would continue to
extend support to the PPP on a ‘case-to-case’ basis to avoid what he termed
derailment of the democratic process. Mr Jhagra said the deposed judges could be
reinstated to work within no time with a simple resolution by the National Assembly,
as agreed upon in the Murree Declaration. He pointed out that it would take the
government a long time to evolve a consensus on the package as parties had
differing views on a number of issues incorporated in the document. “We“We are not
very enthusiastic about the constitutional package. We have not yet finalised our
recommendations”.
recommendations”. The PML-N leader said it was regrettable that the PPP-led
federal government had made no progress on judges’ issue although both the
parties had initially set a 30-day deadline for the purpose. Mr Jhagra said his party
had given no deadline to the PPP to resolve the judges’ issue, but the PML-N would
like the matter to be settled as soon as possible. In a related development, other
PML-N leaders, including parliamentary leader Chaudhry Nisar and spokesman
Siddique Al Farooque, severely criticised the government for launching an operation
in Khyber Agency without taking them into confidence or even informing them
about the plan. The PML-N leaders said that such actions of far-reaching
consequences should not have been taken without consulting a key coalition
partner.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 01.07.08

– Seeking a way out of the crisis

There are times in the lives of nations when they must think about the course they
need to take to pull out of a grave crisis and move towards ensuring a better future
for their citizens. Pakistan has reached such a point. It faces challenges on many
fronts. Serious questions are being raised about the ‘idea of Pakistan’ — the idea
that the Muslims of what was once British India — needed their own space to ensure
better lives for themselves. Questions are also being asked about the way the
country governs itself. There is a consensus that democracy is the only way to
ensure the citizens the future they crave. But what does a democratic system
imply? What is meant by empowering the parliament? What should be the role of
the judiciary within a democratic system? For Pakistan these and many other issues
pertaining to political development have acquired great urgency since the country
is in the process of changing tracks; it is trying to move from an autocratic system
towards one that is a broadly representative one. There are also questions about
the role of religion not only in politics but also as a force guiding the way the society
conducts itself. Are people totally sovereign in setting their goals and determining
the course they should take to reach them? Or, should their collective will be
constrained by the purpose of the Almighty? These are all important questions but
they lie way outside the area in which I can claim some expertise.

Although Pakistan is now faced with a serious economic crisis, it is not too difficult
to define the broad course on which it must proceed to get out of this situation. It
must increase the share of domestic resources in total investment. It must aim
economic policies at improving the situation of tens of millions of poor who continue
to live in abject poverty. The recent increases in food and fuel prices will
significantly increase the number of people whom we define as absolutely poor. And
public policy must aim to reduce income disparities among people, among the
provinces and among the regions within the provinces. Persistent inequalities sap
the will of the people and this has begun to happen in the case of Pakistan. These
are all long-term goals. In the meantime while public policy is being defined to
reach them the country must also stabilise the economy. This means reducing fiscal
and balance of payment deficits. However, in restoring economic balance
policymakers must not lose sight of the fact that the ultimate objective of economic
development is to produce what economists have begun to call ‘inclusive growth’.
The main objective of this exercise should be to free Pakistan from the rollercoaster
ride the country has been on ever since it gained independence. It sees a fast
increase in the size of its economy only when large amounts of external flows
become available to augment the paltry savings that are obtained from within. The
repeated ups and downs in economic growth that have resulted from this approach
did not produce investor confidence. The community of investors both from within
the country as well as those looking at it from the outside must have the confidence
that the capital they would commit will produce respectable returns over a long
period of time. That confidence does not exist at this time.

It is the development of this confidence that has taken India to a growth trajectory
the country has been on for the last two decades, making it one of the wonder
economies of the developing world. India’s economic progress has not been
disturbed by sharp changes in its political leadership. New Delhi was governed by a
number of different leaders and by different political parties during this period of
high growth. In spite of the many ups and down in the political arena, economic
progress was not affected since the mid-1980s when the first series of reforms was
undertaken. This has not happened in Pakistan. Since the stranglehold on the
economy of a few very powerful vested interests has prevented the country from
breaking loose from the pattern it has followed for more than six decades, this may
be a good time to turn to the outside world for pressuring the country to change. It
is now recognised in the western world that its own security is tied, to some extent,
to Pakistan’s economic, political and social development. The country’s tribal areas
are now considered to be the most dangerous places on earth. Even if this
assessment is not fully correct, the fact remains that the tribal folks living in this
area are being rapidly radicalised and are not keen to accept the writ of the
Pakistani state. It is necessary to address the many economic problems faced by
these people to wean them away from radicalism.

Since in the past policymakers in Pakistan have failed to take the opportunities,
crises often bring to institute serious structural reforms, the country may seek
outside assistance to achieve that end. Two options are available in that context.
One, to return to the IMF and negotiate a programme to be funded by that agency.
Pakistan has been on that route several times before but with unhappy
consequences. The Fund’s standard recipe is to focus on stabilisation even at the
expense of compromising medium and longterm growth prospects. Given the long
history of Pakistan’s involvement with the IMF, it would not be wise to go back to
that path. The other option is to put out an appeal to the donor community to help
the country with the capital it needs to climb out of its present difficulties. But this
approach should include not only commitments by the donors but also by the
Pakistani government. The main purpose should be to craft a programme for
bringing about economic change that would put the country on a sustainable path
of growth and to ensure that the rate of growth is high enough to help millions of
people out of poverty and narrow the income gap between various segments of the
society.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 01.07.08

– ‘Enough numbers to impeach president’

Pakistan Peoples’ Party’s Punjab Information Secretary MNA Farzana Raja says the
government is reversing policies of President Musharraf and has the support of
required number of members of parliament for his impeachment. At a Meet-the-
Press Programme at the Lahore Press Club on Monday, she said the constitutional
package given by her party was for changing the system and striking a balance
between the powers of the president and the prime minister. She said 36 of 80
points in the package had been taken from the Charter of Democracy. Article 58 2-B
would be repealed and powers of constitution of the National Finance Commission
and the Council of Common Interest would be transferred back to the prime
minister after the adoption of the package, she said, adding that president’s fate
would be decided by the parliament. She said the PPP was pursuing the policy of
reconciliation at national and international fronts in accordance with the wish of the
late Benazir Bhutto because it was necessary for changing the present political
system. The coalition partners, she said, were committed to respect each other’s
mandate and desist from toppling any democratically elected government with the
help of establishment. The government was committed to restoration of judges to
November 2, 2007, position and was continuing negotiations with its allies for
keeping the coalition intact. She said the government had to make a substantial
increase in POL prices because the previous regime was paying subsidy of Rs17 per
litre on petrol and had delayed its revision to avoid risking the popularity of its
candidates during the general elections. She said six pilot projects had been
launched to honour the party’s promise of developing one million housing units in
the country. She denied that the government had launched any military operation in
tribal areas, claiming only ‘civilian forces’ were undertaking targeted strikes in
certain areas.
Author Location Dated
Matthew Bigg Atlanta 01.07.08

– US blacks on long road to political equality

For black Americans, the road to political inclusion that has allowed Democratic
candidate Barack Obama to make a serious bid for the White House has been long
and difficult. After the Emancipation Proclamation ended slavery in 1863, a series of
laws and amendments to the US constitution allowed Hiram Revels to be elected to
the senate in 1870 in Mississippi as the country’s first African American
congressman. But only a small number of black Americans have entered the US
senate or become state governors since then and most of those who have found a
slot on a presidential ticket had no chance of winning. The most unlikely black
American on a presidential ticket was Frederick Douglass. Born into slavery in
Maryland in 1818, Douglass taught himself to read, illegal for blacks at the time,
fought a slave master and was repeatedly whipped. He escaped to New York in
1838, where he became a prominent lecturer, newspaper publisher and a
spokesman for the abolition of slavery and for women’s rights. His autobiography
became a bestseller and he advised President Abraham Lincoln during the civil war
and delivered a stirring eulogy at Lincoln’s funeral. But when Victoria Woodhull ran
for president for the Equal Rights Party in 1872 and named Douglass as her vice-
presidential candidate, Douglass, who supported incumbent President Ulysses
Grant, never acknowledged that he was on Woodhull’s ticket and never campaigned
on his own behalf. “It
“It was a publicity stunt to generate attention to some for the
issues she believed in,”
in,” said Eric Foner, a leading expert on the period.

In the decades after the end of the civil war, two black Americans were elected to
the US Senate before a series of laws ushered in an era of disenfranchisement,
segregation and lynchings, all of which stifled black political participation. In 1932,
1936 and 1940, James Ford, a labour organiser, ran as the Communist Party’s vice-
presidential candidate. Though the party gained less than one per cent of the vote
in 1932, some blacks including prominent intellectuals were attracted to its
commitment to end racial discrimination as part of the drive for equality for all
oppressed workers. Until that point, most Americans would have laughed off the
idea of a black presidential bid as far-fetched. But a change started when, in the
teeth of violent opposition, the civil rights movement set winning the right for
blacks to vote in the South as a goal. After landmark acts in 1964 and 1965, blacks
were able to vote in large numbers. Eldridge Cleaver, a leader of the militant Black
Power movement,
movement, ran for president in 1968 on a pro-civil rights, anti-Vietnam War
platform. The same year, comedian and activist Dick Gregory ran for president for
the Freedom and Peace Party,
Party, which had broken off from Cleaver’s Peace and
Freedom Party.
Party. That year, Charlene Mitchell, another communist, became the first
African American woman on a presidential ballot she ran in two states. Shirley
Chisholm, the first black woman elected to Congress, was also the first African
American to vie for a major party’s nomination, attempting to become the
Democratic party’s candidate for president in 1972. “With
“With her, it was something of
a symbolic political exercise that people, including blacks, didn’t think was
possible,”
possible,” said Lee Edwards, presidential historian at the Heritage Foundation,
Foundation, a
Washington-based think-tank. “People
“People were not seriously thinking that Chisholm ...
could become president,”
president,” Edwards said.
Rev. Jesse Jackson, who marched with Rev. Martin Luther King for civil rights, won
primary elections in five states during his 1984 bid for the Democratic nomination
and in at least 11 states in a repeat bid in 1988, when he was briefly considered the
front-runner. “My
“My first run was to put the civil rights agenda, the structure of
equality agenda, on the front burner,”
burner,” Jackson said in an interview. “It
“It broke a
cultural barrier.”
barrier.” Jackson set his own bids in the context of a process that began in
1954 with a landmark Supreme Court decision on public school desegregation that
laid the groundwork for democratic equality and civil rights. Obama was “running
“running
the final lap of a marathon”
marathon” that had lasted for decades, Jackson said. He said
political access for minorities was already entrenched whether Obama won or not,
an argument partly backed up by the increasing number of black Americans who
have run for president in recent elections. Activist Lenora Fulani was the first black
woman to have her name on the ballot in 50 states at the 1988 election. Alan Keyes
ran for the Republican nomination in 1996 and in 2000. Rev. Al Sharpton
campaigned for the Democratic nomination for the 2004 presidential election, a
campaign in which Sen. Carol Moseley Braun was also briefly a candidate. While
none has matched Obama’s prominence, he is not the only black candidate in 2008.
Cynthia McKinney, an African American former congresswoman from Georgia, is the
Green Party’s presumptive nominee.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 01.07.08

– Future of US Supreme Court underplayed

The next president of the United States may be able to appoint several Supreme
Court justices — the powerful judges whose rulings affect the daily lives of
Americans — yet the issue is underplayed on the presidential campaign trail. The
US Supreme Court has nine justices, of which five are considered conservative and
four are considered moderate or liberal. Supreme Court experts believe that at least
three of the justices — John Paul Stevens, 88, Ruth Ginsburg, 75, and David Souter,
Souter,
who at 68 has always felt uncomfortable in the spotlight — are likely to retire in the
next four years. While two of them were appointed by Republican presidents, all
three are now strongly identified with the court’s liberal bloc. If Republican John
McCain is elected president he could appoint conservative judges and steer the
court firmly to the right — but if Democrat Barack Obama is elected and appoints
liberal judges, he could only maintain the current balance, barring unforeseen
health crises among the other court members. “The“The composition of the high court is
one of the most important issues at stake in the November election,”
election,” wrote online
news site Slate senior editor Dalhia Litwick in a recent editorial. “While
“While the justices
cannot bring down gas prices or bring the troops home, their decisions in the
coming years will affect just about everything else,”
else,” the legal expert wrote.

This year many of the court’s decisions were reached by consensus, such as those
concerning business rights and workplace discrimination. But the conservative-
liberal split was sharp on crucial issues like the legal rights of prisoners held at the
US military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the ruling stating that capital
punishment must be reserved for murder cases, and the overturn of the ban on
handguns in the home in the nation’s capital. Obama has promised, if elected, to
appoint justices showing “empathy.” McCain has vowed to name only conservative
judges like Chief Justice John Roberts and Samuel Alito, both in their 50s and
appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush. Adding one, two or even three
conservative judges would heavily tip the Supreme Court’s balance to the
conservative side. While McCain and Obama have commented on the Supreme
Court’s latest rulings, no new rulings are expected before the election, and the
crucial issue is likely once again to underplayed on the campaign trail. McCain has
made some overtures to the Republican party’s right-wing base, saying he would
appoint conservative judges, while Obama has stressed party unity and steered
away from bipartisan squabbling in his campaign. Under the US constitution all
Supreme Court nominations must be confirmed by the Senate, where Democrats
will likely increase their majority in the November election regardless of the
presidential vote outcome. So if McCain is elected president, there would likely be
an epic confirmation battle over his future choice for a Supreme Court justice.

In the current court the swing vote is held by Justice Anthony Kennedy — nominally
a conservative but who voted to for Guantanamo prisoner rights and against
imposing the death penalty on child rapists. Conservative activists have seized on
these two ‘setbacks’ to stress the court’s need for more ‘good judges,’ in order to
deprive Kennedy of this pivotal role. Liberals, on the other hand, have raised the
alarm. “One
“One more Bush Justice on the Court, and the decision would likely have
gone the other way,”
way,” said Kathryn Kolbert, president of the left-wing group People
for the American Way.
Way. Kolbert’s comment came after the Guantanamo ruling giving
war-on-terror prisoners the right to challenge their detention in a civilian court.
“That’s why it’s so important for Americans to realise that in this election year, the
Supreme Court is on the ballot,”
ballot,” she said.

Author Location Dated

AFP Manama, Iran 01.07.08

– Iran won’t be allowed to close Strait of Hormuz: US

The commander of the US navy’s Fifth Fleet warned on Monday that the United
States will not allow Iran to shut the Strait of Hormuz,
Hormuz, the Gulf sea lane through
which much of the world’s oil is supplied. “They
“They will not close it... They will not be
allowed to close it,”
it,” Vice-Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff told a press conference in
Bahrain, where the Fifth Fleet is based. His remarks followed comments by the chief
of Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, who issued a
new warning last week against any attack against his country over its controversial
nuclear drive. “It
“It is natural that when a country is attacked it uses all of its
capabilities against the enemy, and definitely our control of the Persian Gulf and the
Strait of Hormuz would be one of our actions,”
actions,” Jafari said. The strait between Iran
and Oman is a vital conduit for energy supplies, with as much as 40 per cent of the
world’s crude passing through the waterway from Gulf suppliers.

“Certainly if there is fighting... the scope will be extended to oil, meaning its price
will in crease drastically. This will deter our enemies from taking action against
Iran,”
Iran,” Jafari said. Cosgriff said: “The
“The latest Iranian statements are not helpful.”
helpful.” He
insisted that that the international community will work to protect navigation in the
Strait of Hormuz, adding that any action by Iran “will
“will not be an action against the
United States but against the international community”.
community”. According to news reports,
more than 100 Israeli warplanes staged a training exercise with Greece earlier this
month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike and as a warning to Tehran. But
Cosgriff said he did not see “any
“any reason for Israel to strike Iran”
Iran” in the short term.
Iran has been slapped with three sets of UN sanctions over its defiance of Security
Council ultimatums to suspend uranium enrichment, the process which produces
nuclear fuel for civilian reactors but in highly extended form can also make the
fissile core for an atomic bomb. Iran insists its nuclear ambitions extend only to
generating electricity for a growing population but both Israel and the United States
suspect it of trying to develop a bomb.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 01.07.08

– Law urged to check harassment at workplace

Holding the absence of a law against sexual harassment at the workplace
responsible for a surge in such incidents, speakers at a seminar on Monday said
that a relevant legislation could act as deterrence and would help control the
situation. They were speaking at a seminar organised by the Aurat Foundation to
discuss the proposed Sindh Prevention of Gender Harassment at Workplace bill. bill. The
speakers said that the fear of getting caught, tried and punished would force the
culprits to refrain from committing such crimes. Speaking as chief guest, retired
Justice Majida Rizvi suggested that provisions in the proposed bill should be made
so that the people working in the informal sectors could also be protected and some
mechanism be formulated under which they got registered properly so that they
could also get the benefits and protections available to the workers associated with
the formal sector. She said that besides the formulation of relevant laws, efforts
should be made to change the mindset of the members of society and for this
everybody had to play their due role in creating awareness about the issue. MPA
Humaira Alwani, who is working on the proposed bill, said that during the
preparation of the bill she had conducted a survey and the results were startling as
the issue was more rampant than she had earlier imagined. Citing some examples,
Ms Alwani said that she came across a banker who was being denied promotion
despite being an efficient professional, because she was not “obliging” her boss and
was not fulfilling his “off-duty demands”. She also gave another example of a
teacher, whose husband was a drug addict, and her principal continuously harassed
her that her contract would be terminated if she did not give in to his “demands”.

The legislator said that owing to economic pressures more and more women were
coming out of their homes to pool into the family income. She said that the moment
a girl stepped out of her house for getting education or for work she was harassed
in the streets, bus stops, in the public transport, workplaces etc. MPA Farheen
Mughal said that a housemaid was raped and subsequently burnt by the rapist and
her family first raised the issue but after getting some money from the culprit’s
family the matter was hushed up. Lala Hassan of the Aurat Foundation said that
during the first quarter of the current year as many as 113 cases including 61
rapes, 18 gang rapes, and 34 cases of sexual assaults had been reported from all
across the country. He said that 34 rape cases, eight gang rapes and 13 cases of
sexual assaults were reported from Punjab while 14 rapes, 10 gang rapes and six
assaults were reported from Sindh whereas nine cases of rape and 10 assaults were
reported from the NWFP. As many as three rape cases and three cases of sexual
assaults were reported from Balochistan while one rape and two assault cases were
reported from Islamabad. Similarly, over 119 cases of domestic violence were also
reported in the country during the same period, he added. Nusrat Abbasi and
Shamimara Panhwar (MPAs), Nausheen Noor and others also spoke.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 02.07.08

– West helped military, not people: Asif

The West paid a huge price for using Pakistan for achieving shortterm objectives
and investing more on arming its military than on its people, according to PPP co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari. “We“We were exploited under colonialism, manipulated …
during the Cold War, made to fight a proxy war against the Soviets in Afghanistan,
and when that war was won, Pakistan and Afghanistan were abandoned to the
forces of extremism and fanaticism,”
fanaticism,” he said in his keynote address at the Socialist
International Congress in Athens on Tuesday. He said that Pakistan was now “the “the
Petri dish of international terrorism … that was a product of failed international
politics and not our creation”.
creation”. The PPP leader said Pakistan could still be converted
into a successful model of modernity for 1.3 billion Muslims but it needed
international community’s help. “We “We can’t do it alone. We need the help of the
world. If we succeed, we will contain extremism and terrorism. But if we fail, the
world will fail with us”.
us”. Mr Zardari urged the world to convene a South and Central
Asia regional conference to coordinate a multi-faceted international programme to
not just militarily contain terrorism, but to suffocate the “fire
“fire of terrorism by
rebuilding economies and infrastructure of our region”.
region”. “A
“A prosperous Pakistan will
smash the remnants of terrorism from our frontiers better than the bullets, missiles
and tanks of the superpowers,”
superpowers,” he said. He sought help for Pakistan’s socio-
economic development and said it would ensure stability in Pakistan in particular
and the world in general. He said Pakistan was resisting terrorism not as
“surrogates but as partners”
partners” of the civilised world because “we“we are fighting for the
very soul of Pakistan,”
Pakistan ,” adding that Pakistan had suffered more casualties in fighting
terrorism than any other nation, including the United States on September 11,
2001.

“Has the UN, or the United States, or the United Kingdom, contributed one cent to
the victims of terrorism in our land”?
land”? The PPP leader said the people of Pakistan had
confidence in their future and it was imperative to address their long-neglected
social, economic and infrastructure needs. “We “We will restore law and order to our
land and attack fanaticism and terrorism wherever it rears its ugly head.”
head.” The PPP
co-chair man said that the Pakistani government planned to transform tribal areas –
hotbed of terrorist activity – economically, politically and socially, and integrate
these areas into mainstream Pakistani society. He said that Pakistan was also facing
a looming energy and water crisis that threatened its progress. He said that to meet
the challenge, the government would set up new power generating units, producing
2,200 megawatts this year alone and tackle the water issue on an emergency basis,
reducing water consumption by half. He claimed that education had been made a
high priority “not
“not just because it is right, but also because it is in the long-term
strategic interests of Pakistan and the world.”
world.” Referring to politics in Madressahs
and their educational curriculum, he said: “In“In Pakistan, political Madressahs have
spread hatred and intolerance. We will move to provide a uniform and responsible
national curriculum, both for public and seminary education, so that Pakistani
children have an opportunity for a future free of intimidation and coercion. And if
political Madressahs will not conform … we will shut them down.”
down.” He also paid
glowing tribute to Benazir Bhutto.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 02.07.08

– Govt says CNG price raised by Rs5.58 a kg, not Rs13

A ‘calculation/conversion error’ admitted by the federal government in announcing
a Rs13 increase in price of compressed natural gas (CNG) could have earned gas
stations windfall gains overnight, but consumers lost millions of rupees. Officials
woke up to the error some 20 hours late, issuing a ‘clarification’ late on Tuesday
evening claiming that the “actual/intended” increase was Rs5.58 a kilogram. On
Monday night the government had dropped a bombshell by announcing a hefty 31
per cent increase in gas tariff for all consumer categories, pushing the retail price of
CNG to over Rs52 a kg – just a day after raising the petrol and diesel prices by at
least 10 per cent. However, the director-general of gas, Ministry of Petroleum and
Natural Resources, came out with an explanation that “wrong
“wrong calculation in the
actual increase of gas price”
price” had resulted in the release of “incorrect
“incorrect information”
information”
and that the “actual
“actual increase was Rs5.58 per kg and not Rs13”.
Rs13”. “It
“It shows the
government’s incompetence and its non-serious attitude towards the people
already hit hard by price hikes,”
hikes,” Mr Waseem told Dawn at a gas filling station. He
doubted that the government’s admission of the mistake or its apology was genuine
and said that it would do him no good because he had already paid at the rate of
Rs51.8 a kg for the CNG.

“The government cannot justify this legalised robbery … They (people running the
government), are indifferent to people’s misery,”
misery,” said another consumer, Mr
Iftikhar, who had to pay Rs450 for CNG refill, far more than what he had to pay
earlier. According to a government handout, the actual increase in the price of
natural gas being supplied to CNG stations was “Rs4.3
“Rs4.3 a kg, and not Rs13 kg as
inadvertently replied … during a briefing by Shah Mehmood Qureshi, who is looking
after the petroleum portfolio”.
portfolio”. According to the handout, the revised price of natural
gas being supplied to the CNG stations, as notified by the Oil and Gas Regulatory
Authority (Ogra),
(Ogra), was Rs388.32 per million Btu (British thermal unit) against the
previous price of Rs291.36 per million Btu. “Due
“Due to a conversion/calculation error, it
was stated to be an increase of Rs13 per kg, instead of the actual increase of Rs4.3
per kg, excluding the government taxes.”
taxes.” “Thus
“Thus the net increase in natural gas
price for CNG stations, including government taxes, works out to be Rs5.58 per kg.”
kg.”
The government also regretted the inconvenience caused to the public.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 02.07.08

– Boucher calls on Nawaz in Lahore World powers urged not to

meddle in internal affairs
PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has told US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher
that Pakistan’s political system should be allowed to find solutions to national
problems. “If
“If world powers that call themselves friends of Pakistan cannot facilitate
things … then at least they should not meddle in the country’s internal affairs,”
affairs,”
PML-N’s parliamentary leader in the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan
quoted Mr Sharif as telling Mr Boucher. Briefing media personnel after the meeting
between Mr Sharif and Mr Boucher here on Tuesday, Mr Khan said the PML-N chief
had opposed the use of force and US-led Nato forces’ attacks in Pakistan’s tribal
areas and made it clear that only a policy made in Pakistan could solve domestic
problems. “The
“The problem can be solved only through talks as (President Pervez)
Musharraf’s eight-year policy of running affairs at gunpoint has failed and it can
neither settle issues nor protect our interests,”
interests,” Mr Nisar quoted Mr Sharif as saying.
The PML-N chief also urged the US to stop supporting President Musharraf and said
that the deposed judges should be reinstated in accordance with the mandate given
by the people in the February polls, he added. “Democratic,
“Democratic, political and judicial
affairs cannot move forward unless this hurdle is removed.”
removed.” Answering a question
about the president’s future, the PML-N leader said his party believed that
Musharraf was the biggest hurdle in the country’s progress and restoration of an
independent judiciary.

Admitting that Mr Boucher’s stance was “not“not close to that of ours”,

ours”, Chaudhry Nisar
quoted the US official as saying that his country wanted to befriend Pakistani
masses, especially the new leadership in parliament, and not just one person. “We “We
want to usher in a new era,”
era,” Mr Boucher was quoted as saying. Answering a
question about the Fata operation, he said that immediately after the polls polls, Mr
Sharif had raised the issue with the allies and demanded a review of the policy. At
that time, the coalition allies had been briefed by security agencies and there was a
consensus that the problem should be settled through talks. But, he said, later the
PPP-led government neither shared information about the talks nor clarified who
was handling the policy -- the federal or the provincial government or the armed
forces. Then, he said, an operation was launched without any consultation with the
allies and without informing them what had led the government to take such an
extreme step. The PML-N leader said his party would discuss the issue with the
prime minister on Wednesday. He also cited reports about a lack of resistance from
the so-called militants and the failure of the forces to seize the huge quantities of
weapons which they allegedly possessed. He told a questioner that Mr Boucher had
been told that President Musharraf had been using the ploy of killing some local
people just before the arrival of any official from Washington to prolong his rule and
the present government was following the same policy.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 02.07.08

– PPP losing popularity: Fahim

PPP Senior Vice-Chairman Makhdoom Amin Fahim on Tuesday expressed
dissatisfaction over the three-month performance of the PPP-led coalition, saying
people were committing suicides but those at the helm were doing nothing to solve
their problems. Talking to this correspondent, he said the situation would have been
quite different if Benazir Bhutto had been alive, as she knew problems of people
belonging to all walks of life and had the capability and commitment to solve them.
He regretted the situation in two provinces had deteriorated to an extent that the
government's writ was nowhere to be seen and people were being killed in the
ongoing operation. Disappointed with the prevailing situation, the senior PPP leader
said he would not like to suggest any remedial measure as the people now calling
the shots were the ones who had been living out of Pakistan for the past eight years
and had just no idea about the ground realities in the country. These people faced a
number of charges and had played no role in the party matters, said the senior PPP
leader without naming anyone but leaving no doubt who he was referring to. "I "I
don't know who should one talk to".
to". Asked why he had to say that senior leaders
had been sidelined and those who had played no role in the struggle for democracy
for the past eight years had been given the key positions, Mr Fahim said those who
had spent some four decades with the party and offered all kinds of sacrifices in
various situations had been ignored by the new leadership. "Now
"Now such leaders have
landed in key positions as are facing several charges; who remained out of the
country during the past eight years, playing no role in the party".
party".

Citing his own example, he said he had been with the party for some 40 years but
had been sidelined. Similarly, those who had laid down their lives for the party had
also been ignored. Mr Fahim said some people were expressing their grievances
through the media because they were feeling disappointed. However, he said there
were many others who shared the same views but were keeping silent. Such a
reaction, he said, was also understandable as there were many who would give
their lives for the party but would not say a word of complaint. Answering another
question, he said the PPP was losing its popularity because of its inability to address
people's problems, but other parties in the setup were growing in popular support.
He criticized the priorities set by the new leadership. "Would
"Would the constitutional
package or the reinstatement of deposed judges bring down the skyrocketing
prices? Will the electricity and gas tariff be reduced if the deposed judges are
brought back to work?"
work?" "I
"I don't think this is common man's problem",
problem", he said of the
demand for the restoration of judges sacked by President Musharraf on Nov 3. He
did not say anything about his future course of action, but made it clear that he
would never like a split in the PPP. Replying to another question, he said he had
allowed his son Jamiluzzaman, a minister in the Sindh cabinet, to chalk out his line
of action independently. He recalled that after the 2002 elections, President
Musharraf wanted to make his son chief minister of Sindh provided he left the party.
But, he said, since his son did not like to part ways with the PPP, the offer was
rejected.

Author Location Dated

Alistair Lyon Beirut 02.07.08

– Israel keeps world on edge over Iran attack

Israel seems content to keep Iran and the rest of the world guessing uneasily about
whether and when it might attack the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities. It has
done little to douse speculation stoked by a big Israeli air force exercise last month,
an Israeli cabinet minister’s remark that military action was “inevitable” and a
prediction by former US official John Bolton that this might occur in the final weeks
of President George W. Bush’s term. Iran derides the chatter as “psychological
“psychological
warfare”
warfare” and threatens dire retaliation if any assault materialised. Gulf Arab states
whose oil exports could be among Iranian reprisal targets shuffle nervously, as
crude prices push higher. “Should
“Should Israel be stupid enough to attempt an attack on
Iran, as has been repeatedly threatened, then of course Tehran has the perfect
right to retaliate in kind,”
kind,” wrote the Dubai-based Gulf News daily in its editorial on
Monday. “But
“But it does not quell the existing nervousness of people in the region by
Iran stating that as part of its retaliation it would block ... Gulf oil routes,”
routes,” the
newspaper added. The Israelis may believe that mere talk of military action can
spur Iran to alter its behaviour, or at least prompt tougher international action to
induce Tehran to curb its nuclear quest which the Iranians say is only to produce
energy, not bombs. Ephraim Kam, deputy director of the Jaffee Center for Strategic
Studies at Tel Aviv University,
University, said Israel preferred for now to let diplomatic
pressure run its course. “The
“The talk (of military options) is designed to project
deterrence, pressuring the Europeans to increase their pressure in hope this will
curb Iran,”
Iran,” he said in Jerusalem.

Yet the Israeli military is presumably honing contingency plans, given Israel’s deeply
rooted fears that a nuclear-armed Iran would threaten its existence even though the
Jewish state has its own powerful, if undeclared, nuclear deterrent. “The “The IDF (Israel
Defence Forces) should be ready for all options,”
options,” former army chief of staff Moshe
Yaalon told reporters last week. “A“A military strike in Iran is not an easy ride. It
should be a last resort, but we shouldn’t exclude it.”it.” He described Bolton’s idea that
an Israeli attack could take place between the US election in November and the
presidential inauguration in January as “very
“very interesting speculation”.
speculation”. Bolton, who
advocates using force against Iran, sees little chance that the Bush administration
will do so, especially after a US intelligence report last year said Tehran had halted
work on a nuclear bomb, while forging on with other atomic activity. Leaked reports
of a major Israeli military exercise over the Mediterranean on June 2 amplified
debate over Israel’s posture. US officials, who asked not to be named, said the drill
involved 100 aircraft, but would not confirm or deny a New York Times report that it
was a dry run for bombing Iran. Some defence analysts argue that even a full-scale
US air campaign would only delay Iran’s nuclear plans by a few years Israeli forces
operating far from home could not hope to destroy all of its many dispersed and
fortified atomic installations. Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the UN nuclear watchdog,
the International Atomic Energy Agency,
Agency, warned last month an attack on Iran would
turn the Middle East into a “fireball” and prompt Tehran to try to build nuclear
bombs as fast as possible. But Israel might decide to go ahead anyway after
weighing all the risks of retaliation, regional instability and damage to the world
economy against what it sees as an existential threat.

“Anyone who knows the Israelis knows they are not going to sit back and hope for
the best. They take big risks for their security,”
security,” said a senior European diplomat in
the region. “They
“They will be very resolute. They won’t be afraid to drag others in.” in.” That
moment has not yet come. When Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz said last
month that strikes on Iran looked unavoidable in view of that country’s nuclear
progress, critics at home accused him of exploiting strategic security issues for
political gain. The Jaffee Centre’s Kam said Israel could expect criticism for any
assault on Iran, even from its allies in the West. “But
“But I think in the end there would
be understanding abroad, perhaps even a sense in the West that the Israelis did its
dirty work. Iran doesn’t have that many friends out there,”
there,” he added. The United
States has repeatedly shielded its Israeli ally from censure by the UN Security
Council for military action against its Palestinian and other Arab foes. A strike on
Iran, however dire the consequences, might be no different. “It “It is very difficult to
see the US chastising Israel,”
Israel,” said Trita Parsi, a Washington-based expert on
relations between the two countries and Iran. “The “The US may adopt a quiet attitude,
while celebrating the attack behind the scenes.”
scenes.” Bruce Riedel, a former CIA officer
now at the Brookings Institution, said senior Israeli military planners believed a
mission to dent Iran’s nuclear programme was feasible. “History
“History shows Israel will
use force to maintain its monopoly of nuclear weapons in the Middle East,” East,” he said,
citing past Israeli attacks on Iraq and Syria. “Israeli
“Israeli political leaders may see the
last months of a friendly Bush administration as a window of opportunity.”
opportunity.” Noting
that US forces in the Gulf and Iraq were likely targets for Iranian retaliation, which
could also spark another war in Lebanon and send oil prices soaring, Riedel said:
“Washington has vital strategic interests at stake here and needs to enunciate
clearly its view on the wisdom or dangers of an Israeli operation.”

Author Location Dated

Steve Holland Washington, D.C. 02.07.08

– US presidential campaign going abroad

Time was when the idea of US presidential candidates taking their campaigns
abroad would have had their political operatives shaking their heads in amusement.
But Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain are doing just that
Obama going to Europe and the Middle East and McCain to Mexico and Colombia
and their visits carry significant risks and rewards. Some time before the
Democratic nominating convention in late August, Obama will go to France,
Germany, Britain, Jordan and Israel. Iraq and Afghanistan visits are also planned.
The first-term Illinois senator needs to convince Americans that he is not a foreign
policy lightweight to inoculate himself against McCain’s charge that he is naive and
inexperienced. McCain, on the other hand, has more tactical reasons for going to
Latin America this week his popularity among Hispanics has been eroding and he
urgently needs to shore it up. Hispanics are the fastest-growing minority group in
the United States and account for about nine per cent of the national electorate.
They could be a critical swing voting bloc in November battleground states like
Florida and in the US Southwest. “Clearly
“Clearly he understands that he must do better
than he’s doing so far with the Hispanic and Latino vote,”
vote,” said Larry Sabato, a
political science professor at the University of Virginia. McCain will also use a visit to
Colombia to try to score political points against Obama on free trade. McCain wants
a free trade accord with Colombia that Obama opposes.

The Obama campaign hopes television images of its candidate overseas will help
convince Americans, who vote on Nov 4, that they can trust him with the
presidency. He is in a position similar to that of Democrat Jimmy Carter, a little-
known Georgia governor and peanut farmer who rose from obscurity to win the
White House in 1976 over Republican incumbent Gerald Ford. Carter had no foreign
policy experience at the time, and he prepared for his successful 1976 race by
meeting then-Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir in 1973 and visiting Japan in 1974
gaining some much-needed foreign policy credibility. Obama, leading McCain in the
polls on a message of change from eight years of George W. Bush’s presidency,
must avoid making any missteps abroad that could draw attention to his
inexperience. “With
“With any trip like this for somebody running for president, there’s
always the risk of a gaffe. And that would reinforce the current uncertainty that a
lot of people who are just learning about Barack Obama still have,”
have,” said Democratic
strategist Bud Jackson. On the other hand, Jackson said, “there’s
“there’s more reward for
him by being successful on his trip. He can start to establish himself on an
international stage and then that will help people answer in their own mind whether
or not he is up for the job of being commander-in-chief.”
commander-in-chief.” Generally speaking,
presidential candidates have eschewed foreign travel this late in the campaign,
preferring to concentrate on US states.

But there is a summer lull in the long battle and in these days of instant news cycles
and chattering cable television coverage, candidates are injecting different styles
into the campaign to try to keep themselves in the news. “This
“This is new, this notion of
killing a couple of weeks of the summer months by going abroad and campaigning.
Traditionally you don’t go anywhere where you can’t get a vote,”
vote,” said presidential
historian Douglas Brinkley. Obama’s visit to Iraq carries particular importance. He
has campaigned hard on a pledge to remove US troops from Iraq all without talking
to the generals leading the war effort and who have made progress in reducing
instability there in recent months. “He
“He will come under a great deal of pressure by
the military not to throw away the gains that have been made,”
made,” Democratic
strategist Jim Duffy said. Bruce Buchanan, a political science professor at the
University of Texas, said McCain also has risks in going to Latin America. “The
“The
downside maybe for him is that (Latin America) doesn’t seem to rank very high on
their priorities. They’re worried about the economy,”
economy,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Brenna Maloney Washington, D.C. 02.07.08

– How does a snake eat things bigger than its head

If you had a head like a snake’s, you could swallow a watermelon whole, no
problem! All you need is a flexible skull, backward-curved teeth and very elastic
skin. A snake swallows the prey’s head first, and produces lots of saliva to ease the
prey down its throat. Let’s start with that skull: The bones are connected by elastic
ligaments, which have a lot of stretch. The joint of the upper and lower jaws is set
far back in the skull, allowing the mouth to open as wide as possible. The bones of
the lower jaw are not fused at the front, enabling the snake’s lower jaw to widen to
make room for its meal. The skin stretches. The quadrate bone, loosely attached on
each side of the joint, enables the snake’s lower jaws to move independently side to
side. And the teeth? A snake’s teeth are angled toward the throat and act as hooks
to prevent live prey from wiggling loose. The snake uses these teeth to help “walk”
the prey down its throat. Snake teeth are attached to the bone and can grow back
when lost. A snake may have several sets of teeth throughout its lifetime. A snake
swallows the prey’s head first, and produces lots of saliva to ease the prey down its
throat. In some cases, it may take more than an hour for the snake to swallow an
animal. Once the prey has been swallowed, the snake reconnects its bottom jaw
with a wide yawn. Remember, the snake’s jaws were designed to do this, so it
doesn’t hurt. How does the snake breathe while its mouth and throat are full? The
windpipe can be pushed forward over the tongue and out the mouth so the snake’s
airway is not blocked.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran, Iran 02.07.08

– Khamenei’s aide chides Ahmadinejad over hard line

A senior adviser to Iran’s top authority said “provocative” speeches could damage
the country’s nuclear cause in its row with the West, a thinly veiled criticism of
outspoken President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ali Akbar Velayati, reflecting rare
public criticism from a politician so close to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei,
told the daily Jomhuri-ye Eslami that the government should tread more careful in
its comments on nuclear issues. “The
“The government is responsible for the nuclear
issue,”
issue,” Velayati said in remarks published on Tuesday. “Officials
“Officials ... should avoid
illogical and provocative sloganeering.”
sloganeering.” Velayati, foreign affairs adviser to
Khamenei, did not mention the president by name but it was a clear reference to
Ahmadinejad. Some of Ahmadinejad’s staunchest opponents say his speeches on
the nuclear issue have exacerbated Iran’s isolation. But Khamenei, who has the last
word on nuclear and foreign policy, has praised Ahmadinejad for his
uncompromising nuclear views. Iran is embroiled in a dispute over its nuclear
programme. Western nations have led an effort to isolate Iran, resulting in three
rounds of UN sanctions, because Tehran has refused to halt work they fear is aimed
at making atomic bombs. Iran says it will not halt work it insists has peaceful aims
but has yet to give a formal response to a package of trade and other incentives
offered by world powers for Tehran to stop. “The
“The P5+1 counts on every word of
such speeches and slogans. We have to speak out with more care,” care,” Velayati said.

Velayati, echoing other top Iranian officials, brushed off the impact of sanctions,
even though analysts say the penalties are deterring investors and adding costs for
Iranian businesses. Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, is however
benefiting from record oil earnings as crude prices have surged, which officials say
is giving them a cushion of cash. “We
“We should use the time and continue our talks
with the P5+1 and other European countries,”
countries,” Velayati said. “America
“America and Israel
want to isolate Iran in the world by saying that Iran does not want to resolve the
(nuclear) issue through talks,”
talks,” he added. But he ruled out the P5+1’s central
demand that Iran halt uranium enrichment, the process that Tehran says it is
mastering to make fuel for power plants, but which Western capitals say will be
used to make bomb material. Speculation has mounted that Israel, whose demise is
regularly predicted by Ahmadinejad, could attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Such talk
was heightened by a U.S. newspaper report this month saying the Jewish state had
practised such a strike. Velayati said, even if it went ahead, it would not stop Iran.

Author Location Dated

Mubarak Zeb Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 03.07.08

– Confusion over new price of CNG

Confusion prevailed over the price of CNG after the government claimed the
increase was Rs5.58 per kilogram while some gas retailer associations calculated it
to be as high as Rs9. On Wednesday, outlets in various areas of the country
continued to sell CNG at Rs51.25 a kg even after the government clarified that the
increase was a mistake. Many outlets continued selling CNG at the pre-increase rate
of Rs38.25 per kg in compliance with their associations’ decision. Two Sindh-based
organisations decided to raise the price to Rs47.25 instead of Rs51.25, while a
Punjab-based organisation — All Pakistan CNG Association which claims national
representation — said it would wait for two days to announce new rates. The
association’s chairman Sanullah Rehman told Dawn after a meeting that his
association had decided to sell CNG at Rs38.8 a kg for the next two days to
compensate its customers for over-charging because of the government’s mistake.
An official told Dawn that the petroleum ministry had failed to persuade
stakeholders in the CNG sector to sell at government-specified price of Rs43.9 per
kg. The official said that the associations had rejected government-calculated rates
and told the ministry officials that they would raise the price by including overhead
expenses like electricity charges and the cost of petrol to run generators during
loadshedding. The government on Monday increased the price for CNG stations to
Rs388.32 per MMBTU from Rs291.36 – an increase of over 31 per cent. Official
calculations of the petroleum ministry available with Dawn showed on the basis of
this increase the gas price for CNG stations rose to Rs17.09 per kg without taxes
and other charges from Rs12.79, showing an increase of Rs4.30.

With the increase in gas rates, the general sales tax rate was increased to Rs4.11
per kg from Rs3.07, an increase of Rs1.04 and the rise in withholding tax was
Rs0.87 per kg from Rs0.63, an increase of Rs0.24 The delivered cost, including
taxes, to the CNG stations rose to Rs22.07 per kg after the recent increase from
Rs16.49, showing an increase of Rs5.58 per kg. However, CNG stations were
charging Rs21.84 per kg, which raised the consumer price to Rs38.33 per kg
previously. According to the official, CNG stations owners are now pushing for
including other charges, including salary and electricity bills, which will further raise
the retail price. As representative of more than 1,000 members across the country,
Mr Rehman said the actual increase would be calculated after two days in
consultation with association’s members. “We
“We have not calculated yet.”
yet.” The
chairman of the Karachibased CNG Station Owners Association (CSOA),(CSOA), Malik Khuda
Buksh, issued a statement after the meeting and announced that his association’s
members would sell CNG at Rs47.25 per kg – Rs9 higher than the previous rate –
from July 3. He agreed with the after-tax rate of Rs43.83 per kg, but said the
association had also added Rs3.42 as cost of diesel and petrol (to run generators
during power cuts), staff salary and other costs of running their businesses. He said
the prices of CNG in Lahore would be Rs47.05 a kilo, in Peshawar Rs49.5 and
Islamabad at Rs47.8. Chairman of the CNG Dealers Association Abdul Sami Khan,
who also claimed countrywide representation, said that his association would sell
CNG at Rs47.25 a kg from July 3.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Islamabad, Pakistan 03.07.08

– Stations to charge old price for two days CNG consumers lost
Rs62m in a single day
CNG consumers are believed to have paid a whopping Rs62.6 million in a day
because of the government’s erroneous announcement of Rs13 per kg increase in
its price before revising it to Rs5.58 per kg. If the tanks of one-third of a total of 1.7
million gas-run vehicles in the country were filled with a maximum capacity of
8.5kg, the gas station owners made a windfall profit of Rs62.6 million. According to
the Economic Survey of 2007-8, there are 2,068 CNG (compressed natural gas)
stations and approximately 1.7 million vehicles using the fuel. On Monday night, the
government announced a hefty 31 per cent increase in gas tariff for all categories of
consumers, pushing the retail price of CNG to over Rs52 a kg — just a day after
raising the petrol and diesel prices by at least 10 per cent. But realising the mistake
20 hours later, the government issued a clarification on Tuesday evening claiming
that the ‘actual/intended’ increase was Rs5.58 per kg. However, the sale of CNG
continued at Rs52 per kg. To compensate the consumers for the error, the CNG
station owners have decided to sell the gas at the old rate of Rs38.8 for two days
until they come up with a new sale price. This means that the revised increase of
Rs5.58 is not acceptable to them.

Blaming the government for the confusion, the All Pakistan CNG Association
expressed the apprehension that two more similar hikes could end the difference
between the prices of diesel and natural gas. The government’s plan of importing
CNG buses would also go down the drain, it said. Addressing a press conference,
the association’s chairman Sanaullah Rehman, spokesperson Malik Tariq Kandan
and vice-chairman Ghiyas Abdullah Paracha demanded accountability of those
responsible for the miscalculation. They alleged that the government was violating
the CNG Rules of 1992 which suggested that the gas station owners would
determine the sale price. They said such a policy would discourage the use of
environment-friendly CNG and encourage the use of diesel cars. They said the use
of gas in vehicles substituted about 220 million litres of oil per month, reducing the
import bill. They said the government had already withdrawn incentives provided to
the CNG industry, making its tariff higher than the commercial tariff, and more
levies would render the industry unviable. The high price of gas fuel would also
result in a loss of Rs61 billion public investment made on vehicular conversions,
they said. Meanwhile, the recent increase in the prices of petroleum products and
gas was challenged in the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The petitioners pleaded
that the increase in the prices through notifications was illegal because Article 77 of
the Constitution prohibited levying taxes without presentation of a money bill in
parliament.

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman 03.07.08

– Debating death penalty

The government has not abolished the death penalty. That will need much more
than an order by the chief executive. Yet the move to commute the death sentence
to life imprisonment in many cases has given rise to a debate that is likely to be
messy and bitter. A satisfactory conclusion will be possible only if discussion is
objective and comprehensive. For a variety of reasons Pakistan authorities have
kept the people unexposed to the international discourse on justice, criminology
and human rights. Thus whenever new standards in these areas are mentioned,
people feel some fresh conspiracy has just been hatched against them. The reaction
to the move regarding the death penalty cannot be any different. The fact is that
the movement against the death penalty had its origins over a hundred years ago in
efforts aimed at replacing the medieval concept of retributive justice with
reformative justice. These trends led to the realisation that capital punishment
deprived the guilty of an opportunity for atonement and thus did not contribute to
the establishment of justice.

Thus, in 1863 Venezuela became the first country to abolish the death penalty. By
now, over 115 states have joined it. In the meantime, the United Nations has
adopted a protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, just
signed by Pakistan, which calls for the abolition of the death penalty. However,
international humanitarian protocol only stipulates that offences carrying death
penalty should be as few as possible and that this punishment should be awarded in
extreme cases and then too after a trial that meets international standards, or in
times of war. In the process, two myths have been demolished. First, it was proved
that the death penalty did not act as a deterrent; indeed crime rate generally fell in
societies that shortened the list of capital offences. This finding is in accord with
Pakistan’s own experience. Secondly, the progressive human mind grew out of the
notion that a criminal’s punishment alone could compensate the victim. Society
came to be held at least partly responsible for each crime it failed to prevent and
therefore compensating the victim became the responsibility of the state. When it
was realised that miscarriage of justice could not be ruled out, this became an
argument for avoiding a punishment that could not be reversed. Unfortunately the
discussion in Pakistan has been dominated by clerics who work themselves into holy
rage at the slightest reference to any curtailment of the death penalty regime, as if
Islam prescribes a single punishment for all offences — beheading.

The matter has been examined in detail by the Council of Islamic Ideology (CII).(CII).
Although there is a difference of opinion among students of law on the application
of belief to criminal laws, those who advocate enforcement of religious laws have no
reason to question the advice of the CII. In a wide-ranging report issued in 2007, the
council has reiterated the jurists’ consensus that Islam sanctions death sentence
only in case of murder and fasad fil-arz (riot in the world). In the same report the CII
has argued that the final Islamic punishment can be awarded only when evidence
against an accused is so complete that no doubt about his culpability is possible.
Pakistan’s penal code says the same thing when it admits of the capital punishment
only when the guilt of the accused is established beyond a shadow of doubt. Given
the state of the judiciary, the extent of corruption in society and the dearth of
people learned in religious concepts, it is doubtful if the strict test prescribed for
awarding death sentence can be met in Pakistan. Thus, belief cannot be invoked to
demand death penalty for most of the crimes that have been added to the list of
capital offences. The need for interpreting fasad fil-arz narrowly and not broadly is
obvious. While there may be reason to condemn the killing of innocent people by
sectarian militants as fasad fil-arz, every violation of law cannot be put in this
category. Many victims of crime and their families are also quite vociferous in
demanding death for culprits. This is the result of brutalisation of society during Gen
Ziaul Haq’s reign of terror. It was in that period that the masses started loving the
spectacle of human beings dangling by the gallows and worshipping rabble rousers
who vowed to hang all offenders (especially their political rivals) by the lamp post.
All such people need to be convinced that justice is not promoted by clamouring for
the head of an offender.

One of the most devastating attacks on the system of justice has been the
enforcement of the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance and the way it is interpreted. Murder
is no longer a crime against society; it is now a private affair between the killer and
the victim’s family. If a murderer can persuade the victim’s family to forgive him
either by accepting blood money or out of fear of further mischief by his party, he
can go scot-free at any stage of the case. This is contrary to law which clearly
allows courts to punish murderers even if they win over the victim party. Besides,
nobody becomes entitled to pardon unless he is found guilty. But such is the fear of
challenging anything prescribed as dogma that resourceful criminals have been
winning acquittal before they are tried. A man killed his daughter, and asked his son
to confess to the crime. Shortly afterwards the father, the killer, exercised his
prerogative as the victim’s wali to forgive the accused and he walked out of prison a
free man. In another case, a man who had been found guilty of killing his wife was
not given a death sentence on the ground that he was his children’s wali. The power
of celebrated criminals to oblige families of their victims to forgive them was
underscored when a woman led her children into a court and begged the judge to
forgive the killer of her husband because she did not want her little ones killed.
Those who invoke belief to justify the death penalty forget the Islamic dicta that the
execution of an innocent is far more reprehensible than the acquittal (for lack of
evidence) of an offender, and that forgiveness is preferable to revenge-seeking. All
those interested in the subject should consider whether Pakistan has promoted
justice by prescribing death penalty for 27 offences instead of two at independence,
and whether anyone should be sent to the gallows when chances of miscarriage of
justice are as great as everyone knows them to be. At the same time the
government should learn to educate the people on its reform ideas instead of
springing surprises on them.

Author Location Dated

AP Washington, D.C. 03.07.08

– More people will invite Obama than McCain to barbecue

People would rather barbecue burgers with Barack Obama than with John
McCain.While many are still deciding who should be president, by 52 per cent to 45
per cent they would prefer having Obama than McCain to their summer cookout,
according to an Associated Press-Yahoo News poll released on Wednesday. Men are
about evenly divided between the two while women prefer Obama by 11
percentage points. Whites prefer McCain, minorities Obama. And Obama is a more
popular guest with younger voters while McCain does best with the oldest. Having
Obama to a barbecue would be like a relaxed family gathering, while inviting
McCain “would
“would be more like a retirement party than something fun,”
fun,” said Wesley
Welbourne, 38, a systems engineer from Washington, D.C. Party label means a lot,
with three-quarters of Democrats picking the Democrat Obama and the same
number of Republicans picking McCain, a Republican. Independents are about
evenly split. “John
“John and I would probably have a lot to talk about,”
about,” said Republican
Michael Mullen, 53, of Merrimac, Massachusetts, like McCain a Navy veteran. One in
six people saying they'd vote for McCain prefer Obama as their barbecue guest; just
one in 20 Obama backers would invite McCain. The AP-Yahoo News survey of 1,759
adults was conducted online by Knowledge Networks from June 13-23 and had an
overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. The margin
of sampling error for subgroups was larger.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 03.07.08

– US general warns against opening of third front

Opening up a third front would pose a challenge for the US military already
deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, a top US military chief said on Wednesday amid
concerns Israel may attack Iran. “From
“From the US military perspective, opening up a
third front right now would be extremely stressful on us,”
us,” the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Admiral Michael Mullen told a press conference. “That
“That doesn’t mean we don’t have
capacity or reserve. But that would really be very challenging and also the
consequences of that sometimes are very difficult to predict.”
predict.” Tel Aviv has said it
will stop Tehran developing a nuclear bomb at all costs, amid speculation that it is
seeking Washington’s tacit approval for a strike against Tehran’s atomic program.
The US army is already stretched with thousands of troops committed to fighting in
Afghanistan and Iraq. Admiral Mullen, who has just returned from a visit to Israel,
refused to comment on what the US ally might be planning. “But “But I’m convinced that
the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian
behaviour, include diplomatic, financial and international pressure. “There is a need
for better clarity, even dialogue at some level.”
level.”

President George Bush on Wednesday sought to tamp down speculation that Israel
will launch a military strike against Iran before he leaves office. He said all options
are on the table but military action would not be his first choice. “I“I have made it
very clear to all parties that the first option ought to be solve this problem
diplomatically,”
diplomatically,” Bush said at a White House news conference. “And “And the best way to
solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a
focused message — and that is, you will be isolated, and you will have economic
hardship if you continue to enrich.”
enrich.” Iran says its nuclear program is aimed only at
generating electricity and cites its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
to pursue uranium enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a nuclear
reactor or material for a warhead.The United Nations has demanded Iran suspend
enrichment and has imposed three rounds of similar financial sanctions on Iranian
companies and individuals. The United States and European allies have been
pushing Iran to halt enrichment and offering incentives, to no avail. Bush also said it
has been a “tough month” in Afghanistan, where more US and Nato troops died
during the past two months than in Iraq. He said he was weighing whether to send
more US troops to Afghanistan. The president said that one reason for the rising
deaths “is
“is that our troops are taking the fight to a tough enemy...of course there is
going to be resistance.”
resistance.” It has also been a “tough
“tough month for the Taliban,”
Taliban,” he said.

Bush spoke ahead of a trip to Japan this weekend to participate in the annual Group
of Eight economic summit. In June, militants killed more US and Nato troops in
Afghanistan than in Iraq for the second straight month. It was the deadliest month
for US troops in Afghanistan since the war began. Asked whether he might send
more troops before 2009, Bush said: “We’re
“We’re constantly reviewing troop needs,
troop levels.”
levels.” Bush outlined his goals for his last G-8 summit of nations, which are
the United States, Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan and Russia. The
debate about what to do about global warming will be front and center in Hokkaido
too, although the discussion will be on the sidelines of the actual summit. Bush is
hosting a meeting of major economies to urge nations to embrace long-term
commitments to reduce green house gas emissions, but he appeared to be lowering
expectations. “The
“The first step is to agree to a long-term goal,”
goal,” Bush said, adding that
his advisers think other nations are “now
“now coming to that clear understanding that
we’re going to have to come to a longterm goal. Hopefully, we can do it at this
meeting. If not, we’ll continue to press forward to get it done.”
done.” Bush also said
Congress was in part to blame for rising gas prices that have stung American
consumers. He said lawmakers continue to block his proposals, including lifting
prohibitions on offshore oil drilling. The president has also called for allowing oil
drilling in a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling, easing the
regulatory process to expand oil refining capacity, and lifting restrictions on oil
shale leasing in three western states.
Author Location Dated
Karachi, Pakistan 03.07.08

– KESC’s takeover by foreign firm delayed

Takeover of the Karachi Electric Supply Company’s management by a Dubai-based
firm, Abraj, has been delayed by a few days to complete certain formalities. This
was disclosed by Federal Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf while
talking to newsmen after the federal cabinet’s meeting at the Governor’s House on
Wednesday. He noted that the power supply situation would not have been so bad if
the privatized management of the KESC had fulfilled its obligations of investing in
400 megawatts additional generation capacities. But he promised that the situation
would ease a little in the coming months as additional generation would be
available through rental units and the independent power producers (IPPs). Mr
Ashraf said the government was working out ways to provide relief to the
consumers who did not cross the 200-unit limit. He pointed out that it was decided
by the Economic Coordination Committee that IPPs and GENCOs of Wapda would
get uninterrupted fuel supply round the year. This would help them generate
uninterrupted electricity round the clock, he added. The minister said the
government was aware of the menace of unscheduled load-shedding being carried
out in Karachi. However, he said it was not yet clear why the company resorted to
prolonged load-shedding when Pepco was supplying 500MW to the KESC and the
government already accepted the demands of the KESC’s management. About the
alternative energy sources, the minister said that a roundtable international
conference on Thar coal would be held in the USA next month. He said the world’s
top investors and experts in coal development and power generation had been
invited to attend this conference. “Thar
“Thar coal could generate plenty of electricity at
lesser cost,”
cost,” the minister said, adding that the government initially planned to
generate at least 6,000 megawatts from the Thar power project within the next one
year. He said that planning had been completed in this regard. “The
“The conference
would help attract foreign investment and latest technology in coal-based power
generation,”
generation,” he observed. Announcing that there would be no load-shedding in the
country from 2009, he said people would start feeling improvement in power supply
from August this year.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 04.07.08

– PML-N distances itself from oil price decision

The Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) on Thursday distanced itself from the
government’s recent decisions of increasing prices of petroleum products and
launching operation in tribal areas. “When
“When we are (Pakistan People’s Party’s)
coalition partner and supporting them then why did they not take us into
confidence on important national issues?”
issues?” PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif said. Talking to
reporters at the Islamabad airport before leaving for London on Thursday morning,
Mr Sharif asserted that coalition partners had agreed in a meeting held at the Prime
Minister’s House two months ago that the situation in tribal areas would be handled
through negotiations. He said his party was not aware what had forced the PPP to
change the decision and launch an operation in tribal areas. He asked the PPP to
apprise the coalition partners of actual reasons for launching the operation.
Referring to Information Minister Sherry Rehman’s statement that all coalition
partners had been on board on the issue of operation in the Khyber Agency, Mr
Sharif claimed his party had not been taken into confidence over the issue. He said
that the present parliament was not sovereign and it had failed to come up to the
expectations of the people. The PML-N chief also claimed that the PPP did not
consult the coalition parties before raising prices of oil, gas and electricity. He,
however, evaded a question about the possibility the PML-N quitting the coalition
government. “We
“We are very keen to keep the coalition intact. We don’t want
disintegration of Pakistan. Therefore, we are not leaving the PPP, but it is not taking
us into confidence,”
confidence,” he said. Later in the afternoon, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz
Sharif told reporters at the Punjab House that his party had differences with the PPP
over some issues, but it would remain part of the coalition government. In reply to a
question, the PML-N chief expressed apprehensions that the country could face
disintegration if the government did not resolve the issue of reinstatement of the
deposed judges. When his attention was drawn to a statement of US Assistant
Secretary of State for South and Central Asia Richard Boucher that Washington
considered Mr Musharraf as President of Pakistan, Mr Sharif said that he had told Mr
Boucher that Mr Musharraf was an “unconstitutional president”. He said only the
people, and no foreign country, would decide the fate of President Musharraf. “It “It is
our internal matter,”
matter,” Mr Sharif said, adding that the people of Pakistan knew what
should be done with an “unconstitutional
“unconstitutional president”.
president”.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 04.07.08

– PML-Q’s ‘white paper’ on govt’s 100-day performance

The Pakistan Muslim League-Q has released a ‘white paper’ on what it termed
failure of the government to fulfil promises made in the 100-day programme
announced by Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani after securing a unanimous
vote of confidence from the National Assembly. PML-Q’s parliamentary leader in the
National Assembly, Makhdoom Faisal Saleh Hayat, said at a news conference here
on Thursday that the coalition government had failed to solve any of the problems
faced by the poor people. He said the parliamentary democratic system was in
jeopardy because of disputes among the coalition partners on domestic and foreign
policies. He refuted the government’s claims of providing relief to the common man
and said its policies had caused an inflation of 22 per cent in two months against
last year’s four per cent. Prices of petroleum products, he said, had been increased
by 45 to 66 per cent. He said food prices had also risen sharply. Mr Hayat said that
government functionaries were making contradictory statements about the
operation launched in the tribal areas and it seemed to have dropped the option of
dialogue and opted for use of force. He said the country was drifting towards a
disastrous situation because of the incompetence of the rulers.

Criticising the petroleum ministry, he said CNG stations had fleeced consumers
because of its erroneous announcement regarding increase in prices. He said only
corruption cases had been withdrawn under the National Reconciliation Ordinance
(NRO) during the past 100 days and no steps had been taken to mitigate the
sufferings of the people. He rejected reports about conspiracies being hatched by
the presidency and said that Prime Minister Gilani had claimed that he was enjoying
all the powers of the chief executive. He said the PML-N had voted for increasing the
number of Supreme Court judges to 29 but it was now claiming that it had not
proposed the amendment in the Finance Bill. He said the coalition government was
continuing with the policies of its predecessors and had failed to change the policy
about the United States. Mr Hayat said the opposition had fulfilled its promise of
playing a positive role but the government had not been able to take off even after
having spent 102 days in office. He said the opposition had set a new tradition of
accepting election results and avoiding actions which could create chaos. He
accused the rulers of betraying the mandate of the people by making false
promises.

The PML-Q leader said that the leadership which had promised to reduce the prices
of essential commodities to the 1999 level was increasing the prices of every item
of daily use. He said the coalition government had neither implemented the ‘Charter
of Democracy’ nor the election manifestos of the parties in the government. He said
it was evident from the fate of the ‘Bhurban accord’ that the Pakistan People’s Party
and the PML-N had lost confidence in each other. Mr Hayat said the prime minister
had ordered release of the detained judges but his government had failed to
reinstate them. He said the allegation that the previous government was
responsible for the economic woes made no sense because the county had not
witnessed in the past anything like the chaos that was now prevailing.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 04.07.08

– MQM sees bid to ‘Talibanise’ Karachi

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) has expressed concern over ‘attempts to
Talibanise’ Karachi and fan flames of fanaticism, sectarianism and extremism in the
metropolis. According to a statement issued after an emergency meeting of the
party’s central coordination committee in London on Thursday, “the “the members
expressed their deep concern over settlement of jihadi extremists from all over the
country in Karachi through a deliberate and sustained process”.
process”. It claimed that a
conspiracy to ‘Talibanise’ Karachi had been hatched. It alleged that the settlement
of extremists was being carried out under the patronage of “certain“certain elements of the
agencies of the establishment”.
establishment”. “These
“These elements are not only illegally occupying
land in different localities of Karachi but also resorting to loot and plunder, theft,
kidnapping for ransom and extortion,”
extortion,” it said. It said the elements were also writing
sectarian slogans on the walls in different parts of the city. The committee
demanded that the government should take stern action against all groups involved
in such criminal activities, especially the forces using the city as a springboard to
further their extremist agenda.

Author Location Dated

Sidrah Unis 04.07.08

– No coercion in faith
What is the Islamic view on freedom of religion? Is Islam intolerant towards other
faiths? Do Muslims and non-Muslims enjoy equal rights in an Islamic state? These
questions are frequently raised in the western world. To begin with, there is an
immense difference between what the Quran and the Sunnah declare and what
some misguided Muslim groups and govenments actually do. Even a cursory
reading of the Quran and the Sunnah clearly shows that tolerance is an essential
obligation that Muslims are required to abide by. Though Islam encourages the
spread of faith by way of preaching and discussions with nonMuslims, Muslims have
been instructed to do it in the most respectful and kind manner, “Call“Call thou (all
mankind) unto thy Sustainer’s path with wisdom and goodly exhortation, and argue
with them in the most kindly manner.” (16: 125) If non-Muslims disagree with the
message of Islam, Muslims are not allowed to employ any method of intimidation or
compulsion, “There
“There shall be no coercion in matters of faith.” (2: 256) “Thus, (O’
Prophet) if they dispute with thee, say, ‘I have surrendered my whole being unto
Allah, and (so have) all who follow me.’ And ask all those who have been
vouchsafed revelation aforetime, as well as all unlettered people, ‘Have you (too)
surrendered yourselves unto Him?’ And if they surrender themselves unto Him, they
are on the right path; but if they turn away, thy duty is no more than to deliver the
message.” (3: 20) “And had thy Sustainer willed, all those who live on earth would
surely have attained to faith, all of them. Wilt thou then force men till they are
believers?” (10: 99) “And say: ‘The truth (has now come) from your Sustainer. Let,
then, him who wills, believe in it, and let him who wills, reject it.”’ (18: 29) Thus,
Muslims are not only prohibited from imposing their faith on non-Muslims, Islam
instructs them to treat non-Muslims with kindness: “As for such (of the unbelievers)
as do not fight against you on account of (your) faith, and neither drive you forth
from your homelands, Allah does not forbid you to show them kindness and to
behave towards them with full equity: for, verily, Allah loves those who act
equitably. “Allah only forbids you to turn in friendship towards such as fight against
you because of (your) faith, and drive you forth from your homelands, or aid
(others) in driving you forth: and as for those (from among you) who turn towards
them in friendship, it is they, they who are truly wrongdoers.” (60: 8-9)

In fact, the Quran goes to the extent of forbidding Muslims from using any insulting
remarks about any deity worshiped by any nonMuslim. It says, “But “But do not revile
those (beings) whom they invoke instead of Allah.” (6: 108) The following charter
granted by Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to the Christians of Mount Sinai is an
excellent example of how non Muslims are supposed to be treated in an Islamic
state: “This
“This is a message from Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those
who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them. Verily, 1, the servants and
helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and, by
Allah, I hold out against anything that displeases them. “No compulsion is to be on
them; neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs, nor their monks from
their monasteries. No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to
carry anything from it to the Muslims’ houses. Should anyone take any of these, he
would spoil Allah’s covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and
have my secure charter against all they hate. No one is to force them to travel or to
oblige them to fight. Muslims are to fight for them... Their churches are to be
respected... No one of the nation (of Islam) is to disobey the covenant till the Last
Day.”
Day.” The principles given in the Quran and the Sunnah regarding tolerance and
pluralism were observed by the Pious Caliphs as well as later rulers. Al-Qarafi,
explaining the responsibility of the Islamic state to the Dhimmis (non-Muslim
citizens), said: “It
“It is the responsibility of the Muslims to the People of the Dhimma
to care for their weak, fulfil the needs of the poor, feed the hungry, provide clothes,
address them politely, and even tolerate their harm even if it was from a neighbour,
even though the Muslim would have an upper hand. The Muslims must also advise
them sincerely on their affairs and protect them against anyone who tries to hurt
them or their family, steal their wealth, or violates their rights.”
rights.” Non-Muslim citizens
have the same rights to life, religion, respect, education, expression, property, and
enterprise as given to Muslim citizens. No govenment can curtail or restrict these
rights and liberties granted to Dhimmis. One must not forget that an Islamic state is
fundamentally an ideological state. Due to this ideological nature of the state, the
responsibility of managing its affairs rests with the Muslims. Citizens not adhering to
Islam are simply not capable of governing the Islamic state. However, they can be
requested for assistance. In other words, in an Islamic state there is no political
equality between Muslims and non-Muslims. There are several similar examples of
political inequality in different systems and Muslims must not be apologetic about it.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 04.07.08

– Rupee sinks to record low vs dollar

The rupee sank further against the US dollar to a record low of Rs69.90 on
Thursday, while currency dealers said the local currency would keep on sliding as it
has been “unofficially” linked with petrol price in the market. With the beginning of
the new fiscal year, the dollar moved faster to depreciate the local currency and it
touched the record price. The rupee had sunk to Rs69.40 against dollar in mid-May,
but later it recovered mainly and gained strength from the tall claims of State Bank
of Pakistan and the government. The SBP assured the market that a sum of $3.5
billion was expected till June 30. These dollars were to come from friendly countries
and donor agencies. Frequent announcement of expected inflow of $3.5 billion
boosted sentiments in the currency market and the rupee gained artificial strength.
“Now the claim of $3.5 billion proved false and the rupee lost hope to show strength
against the US dollar, of which the demand is so high that it never was,”
was,” said Atif
Ahmed, a currency dealer in the inter-bank market. The currency dealers have
similar views that the announcement of $3.5 billion inflow was to retain the rupee
depreciation to a certain level till the end of the fiscal 2007-08. However, currency
experts and dealers discovered a strange relation of rupee with the petrol (motor-
sprit) prices in the country and believed that it was unofficially linked with each
other. They said the rupee was allowed to depreciate against the dollar to the price
of one litre motor sprit. “The
“The rupee was at Rs68 to Rs69 (equal to a US dollar) until
recently which was the price of one litre petrol and now petrol price has increased
to about Rs76 per litre,”
litre,” said Atif. He said the rupee has been set free to chase the
petrol price and depreciate against the dollar to Rs76. “The“The government wants to
sell petrol for one dollar per litre which may save it from shocks of ever-increasing
petrol prices in the world market,”
market,” said another currency dealer. “The
“The government
has started withdrawing subsidy on oil prices and passing on the impact to
consumers.The higher oil prices may yield more money as sales tax for the
government,”
government,” said the dealer. However, all major world currencies have shielded
themselves from record-breaking oil prices by appreciating their currencies against
the US dollar. The euro, yen, pound and the Canadian dollar have substantially
appreciated against the greenback to offset the impact of increasing oil prices. The
dealers said the dollar demand was high as fiscal year has ended and a lot of
payments are in the pipeline, waiting to be made. At the same time, both the
central bank and private importers of petroleum products were in the market to buy
dollars. The daily oil price increase in the world market compels the importers to
buy more dollars, thus pressuring the exchange rate. The currency dealers were
sure that the rupee would lose further against the greenback “until
“until inflows from
friendly countries prove true and reserves of the SBP rise.”
rise.” According to data issued
on Thursday, the SBP’s foreign exchange reserves fell by 35 per cent or $4.685
billion in the fiscal 2007-08.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 04.07.08

– Oil flies beyond $146

The price of oil set a record high above $146 a barrel here on Thursday owing to
falling reserves of US crude, simmering tensions over Iran and a weak dollar,
traders said. Brent North Sea oil for August delivery surged to a life-time peak of
$146.69 a barrel after breaching $146 for the first time earlier on Thursday. New
York’s main oil contract, light sweet crude for August delivery, leapt to an all-time
pinnacle of $145.85 on Thursday. “Prices
“Prices rose to set new all-time highs ...
supported by a decline in US crude oil inventories,”
inventories,” said Barclays Capital analyst
Kevin Norrish. After hitting new heights, Brent crude stood at $145.13 a barrel in
electronic deals, up 87 cents from Wednesday’s close as traders banked profits.
New York crude was 28 cents higher at $143.85. Oil prices, which have doubled in
value over the past year, were driven by news that American crude stockpiles fell
by 2.0 million barrels to stand at 299.8 million barrels in the week to June 27. The
US government’s Energy Information Administration had also revealed on
Wednesday that crude inventories were 15.3 percent lower than at the same stage
one year ago. “It
“It was the first time inventory fell below the psychologically critical
300-million-barrel threshold since January,”
January,” said PetroMatrix analyst Olivier Jakob.
The latest record-breaking price surge also came after Iranian Oil Minister Gholam
Hossein Nozari said that Iran would react fiercely to any military attack against it.

Author Location Dated

S. Raza Hassan Karachi, Pakistan 04.07.08

– Into the heart of Lyari’s darkness

Jamia Masjid Maqbool is perhaps a unique mosque. Unlike other mosques of the
city, its iron gates remain locked and only open five times a day. The grill doors are
opened at prayer time and after the completion of prayer, the mosque is locked
again. No one hangs around in the street where the mosque is located off
Slaughterhouse Road in Lyari, as it is located in the middle of the war zone where
the men of Rehman Dakait and Ghaffar Zikri battle it out. A few days ago a passer-
by fell victim to gunfire near the mosque when gangsters opened fire from the
narrow alleyways, a local resident told this reporter. As the area is devoid of any
commercial activity, it remains silent when the guns are not in use. In the nearby
narrow streets, children come out and stand at the corners of narrow alleyways
whenever a police armoured personnel carrier (APC) appears. “Armed
“Armed youths take
up positions behind these kids in case the police decide to come into the narrow
streets,”
streets,” said a senior police officer of Lyari. Ahmed Shah Bukhari Road marks the
dividing line between the areas controlled by Rehman Dakait and Ghaffar Zikri, the
two main gangsters said to be behind the Lyari gang war. A visit to the affected
area shows that even in daytime, the streets present a deserted look and all the
small shops are closed. In the narrow streets where rival gangs have taken up
positions, they have dug up trenches to trap anyone daring to intrude onto their
turf. These trenches are a stark reminder of the Karachi operation of the nineties, as
similar trenches were also dug on the streets leading up to the notorious Khaji
Ground in the now defunct district central. At several spots the police have tried to
fill up the trenches, but each time the gangsters dig them up again. “Interestingly,
“Interestingly,
these trenches are not visible, as they have been camouflaged in an attempt to
trap anyone trying to enter,”
enter,” an officer explained while pointing out a trench hid
den by a pile of garbage in the area opposite Phool Patti Lane.

Police have strict orders not to move into the narrow streets, especially at night, no
matter how urgent the matter. “The“The troubled area where the gang warfare is taking
place hardly constitutes five or six per cent of entire Lyari,”
Lyari,” remarked a local
councillor, adding that the total population is somewhere close to 14,000. Rehman
Dakait has changed his tactics and has also started sponsoring demonstrations in
front of the Karachi Press Club against his rival gang. On the other hand, he also
keeps a close watch on his opponents on the streets of Lyari. Ghaffar Zikri, who is
the frontman of Arshad Pappu, on the other hand, rules over the Zikri Mohallah with
an iron fist. “It
“It would not come as a surprise for the people of Lyari if Abdul
Rehman, better known as Dakait, is elected nazim of Lyari Town,” Town,” observed a
professor residing in Lyari. “Actually,
“Actually, it is a proxy war that is taking place here,”
here,” he
remarked. In case of an offensive launched by the police, Zikri has been known to
use women and children for cover. There is a park by the name of Maulvi Usman
Park on Tannery Road, yet no child dares to play there as it is situated in the no
man’s land which divides the respective territory of Rehman and Ghaffar Zikri. On
this stretch of road the traffic remains slim while pedestrians also avoid going
through the area. Just behind Maulvi Usman Park there are two V-shaped narrow
streets. Both the streets were totally deserted and the buildings were pockmarked
with bullet holes. Both streets are ruled by armed gangsters, where they have taken
up positions. In close proximity, the police have occupied a building and turned it
into a police post.

Standing close to the Juna Masjid – another landmark of Lyari – one can see flags of
different political parties. Flags of the Pakistan People’s Party were seen fluttering
from some rooftops, while banners of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement and the
proscribed Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan were also visible from buildings on Shah Beg
Lane. A visit to the strife-torn area gives one the impression that in actuality, the
gangsters are using the symbols and flags of these parties as a cover. On the other
hand, even the PPP – which considers Lyari its stronghold – seems disinterested in
the festering issue of gang warfare in the area. “Merely
“Merely posting a competent police
officer in Lyari is not enough. Proper resources and political will are essential to
finding a solution to the problem,”
problem,” a senior law enforcement official observed. Inside
the APC This reporter got a chance to visit the sensitive areas of Lyari inside a
police APC. From the inside, the vehicle looked like it had seen action in the Second
World War. “Not
“Not just any driver can handle this APC,”
APC,” an officer remarked. “A
“A
sudden plunge can break its shaft, which makes it immovable,”
immovable,” he explained. “This
“This
is the fittest APC we have got,”
got,” he added. The vehicle had an air-conditioning
system, but it seemed to be only for psychological support. After over an hour’s
drive into the narrow streets, the vehicle was filled with body odour and the smell of
diesel. The remaining APCs are in even worse condition and cannot be relied upon
during hostilities.
Author Location Dated
Karachi, Pakistan 04.07.08

– Fahim termed asset to PPP

In an attempt to dispel the impression of any internal party differences over policy
matters, Sindh Information Minister Shazia Marri said that the Pakistan People’s
Party (PPP) was united under the leadership of its cochairman Asif Ali Zardari and
determined to achieve the goals that had been set by its late leader, Benazir
Bhutto. Without making particular reference to Makhdoom Amin Fahim’s statement
regarding the sidelining of the old guards in the party, she said that the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto had come as an unbearable shock and everyone
was reacting to it in a different manner. She said that it was really difficult for the
party workers to overcome the shock and join hands to strengthen the party, the
province and the government. The information minister was speaking at a press
conference at the New Sindh Secretariat on Thursday. She said that people actually
wanted relief, food, and shelter and they were not interested in the politics of
controversy. When her attention was drawn towards the meeting of Makhdoom
Amin Fahim with Mumtaz Ali Bhutto at the residence of Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi, she
said it was his personal matter and there was no bar on such courtesy calls. The
minister said that Makhdoom Fahim was the senior vice-chairman of the party, and
a great asset to the party who had worked with late Benazir Bhutto, as such he
commanded due respect and party workers looked towards him for guidance.

However, she added, the party was going through a crucial phase as the
government had hardly completed a few months and therefore such personalities
were required to encourage the government and extend cooperation to the
coalition. The provincial minister said confidently that all these loyal party workers
would be on the forefront in times of distress. She said that it was the second visit
of Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani to Sindh after the formation of the
government a few months back. The minister pointed out that on Wednesday (July
2), the prime minister gave an assurance that all the constitutional obligations
would be met in the upcoming NFC award. Similarly, the issue of provincial
autonomy would also be addressed according to the wishes of the people, she said.
The prime minister also assured all-out cooperation in the implementation of Thar
coal power project, which was one of the biggest projects in Sindh and with its
implementation, not only the province but the entire country would benefit from it,
she said. In reply to another question, she said that the party was continuously in
touch with the Pakistan Muslim League-N at every level from the federal to the
provincial.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Dr Khan’s remarks cause stir, create confusion

Detained nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan on Friday accused President
Pervez Musharraf and the army of being involved in transferring nuclear technology
to North Korea. Dr Khan’s statements given to foreign news agencies and his
remarks later made in interviews with national TV channels created a lot of
confusion. In his first statement to Associated Press he directly accused the
president and the army of sending consignments of centrifuges to North Korea in
2000. But later, in DawnNews’ programme ‘News-Eye’ he said the secret had
already been unveiled by the president in his book ‘In the Line of Fire’ which was
launched in the United States on Sept 25, 2006. He said no sensitive shipment could
be sent to any country from any airport in Pakistan without the knowledge and
supervision of the army. “People
“People know that a military aircraft or a foreign country’s
plane was used for sending the consignment,”
consignment,” he said. In one of his statements, Dr
Khan said that the uranium enrichment equipment had been sent from Pakistan in a
North Korean plane which was loaded under the supervision of Pakistani security
officials. Asked what was his involvement in the transfer of nuclear technology, he
said only that centrifuges had been picked from Kahuta. Defence Minister Chaudhry
Ahmed Mukhtar said that being a scientist Dr Khan should not have given such
statements to the media. “Such
“Such statements can be harmful for the country”
country” and
could also create more problems for Dr Khan who was already under virtual house
arrest.

The scientist who had confessed to being involved in the illegal transfer of nuclear
technology to some country in 2004 later said that he had been pressurised to
make the confession and that he had been made scapegoat at that time. Dr Khan
said the army had “complete knowledge” of the shipment of used P-1 centrifuges to
North Korea and that it must have been sent with the consent of Musharraf, who
was the army chief and president. “It“It was a North Korean plane and the army had
complete knowledge about it and the equipment,”
equipment,” Dr Khan said. “It
“It must have gone
with his (Musharraf’s) consent.”
consent.” When asked why had he taken the sole
responsibility for the nuclear proliferation, Dr Khan said he had been persuaded to
do so by friends, including PML-Q chief Chaudhry Shujjat Hussain, a key figure in the
ruling party at the time. They said that it was in the best national interest. He said
that he had been promised complete freedom in return, but “those
“those promises were
not honoured”.
honoured”. Dr Khan also said that he had travelled to North Korea in 1999 with
a Pakistan army general to buy shoulder-launched missiles. Meanwhile, the
government is reported to be contemplating how to respond to the series of
statements and interviews that Dr Khan has been giving since restrictions imposed
on him were relaxed by the PPP government. Now he has access to telephone and
frequently gives interviews and statements.

Analysts said even today Dr Khan enjoys support of a majority of people but such
statements from him could create problems for the country. It is learnt that the
government is considering to make public details of interrogation in which Dr Khan
talked about his nuclear proliferation activities. In this regard a detailed briefing has
been given to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has also
been briefed on the interrogation. AP adds: Dr Khan’s allegations, reported earlier
on Friday by the Japanese news agency, Kyodo, are his most controversial yet and
could prove deeply embarrassing for both the army and Musharraf. Army and
Foreign Ministry spokesmen declined to give immediate comment. Musharraf’s
spokesman said he would respond to Khan’s allegations after speaking to the
president. “No
“No flight, no equipment could go outside without the clearance from the
ISI and SPD and they used to be at the airport, not me,”
me,” Dr Khan said, referring to
the powerful InterServices Intelligence agency and the Strategic Planning Division
that manages Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal. Dr Khan said he had visited North Korea
twice, in 1994 and then in 1999, when he was sent to procure missiles during the
so-called Kargil conflict. Dr Khan told Kyodo that the missiles were shoulder-fired SA
15. Dr Khan told AP that Musharraf had requested him to make the second trip and
he did so accompanied on a special plane by General Iftikhar Hussain.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Apex court acts on govt plan to commute death sentence

The Supreme Court on Friday took suo motu notice of a news report about
government plans to commute death sentence of around 7,000 convicts into life
imprisonment and asked the government to explain its position. Chief Justice Abdul
Hameed Dogar asked Attorney General Malik Mohammad Qayyum and ministries of
interior and law to submit written replies in a week explaining the government’s
position on death-row prisoners. A senior court official told Dawn that the matter
would be taken up by the apex court on July 14. This is the second time that the
issue has been taken by the apex court. On April 28, the chief justice had asked the
attorney general to find out if the government had plans to bring a legislation to
commute death sentence into life term. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had on
June 21 announced that his government would recommend to the president to
commute the death sentence of thousands of prisoners into life imprisonment as
part of a birthday tribute to slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto. On July 2, the cabinet
approved the PM’s initiative.

According to reports, 62 countries in the world still maintain death penalty in both
law and practice while 92 countries have abolished it, whereas 10 countries retain
it, but only for crimes committed in exceptional circumstances, like crimes
committed during war. Though 33 countries maintain laws permitting death penalty
for ordinary crimes, they have allowed the maximum punishment to fall into disuse
for a decade. On December 18, 2007, Pakistan voted against the Resolution on a
Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty at the UN General Assembly. In 1970s
during the first government of the PPP under the premiership of late Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, the life sentence was enhanced to 25 years from 14 years with an idea that
the capital punishment would be abolished. However, the Zia regime kept both the
sentences, 25-year life term and death penalty, intact.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 05.07.08

– A voyage into inner space

At a time when the world is shrouded in doom and gloom, good news is hard to
come by. For Pakistanis, especially, rising prices, terrorism and political uncertainty
have all combined to produce a dire scenario. But for me, there is a silver lining: the
Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at Cern on the FrancoSwiss border is about to be
commissioned. Okay, this might not be a signal for universal celebration and the
sound of thousands of champagne corks popping, but for those of us caught up in
the excitement of standing at the edge of a brand new frontier in quantum physics,
it is a very exciting moment. Before readers think I have finally lost my marbles, let
me explain what the LHC is, and what it means to physicists the world over. Just to
give you a small idea about the scale of the Collider, it should be sufficient to say
that one of its four detectors, Atlas, weighs as much as a hundred Boeing 747s. The
tunnel around which particles will be accelerated to near light speed forms a circle
of 27 kilometres. It has taken two decades and $10bn to construct, with several
European countries collaborating to build it. (Some of this information is from a
recent booklet published by the Guardian). So what do scientists expect to discover
once the Collider is operational? Nothing less than the ultimate composition of
matter itself. Since the quantum theory was first postulated a century ago, many
sub-atomic particles have been discovered. At this level, things get truly weird, and
appropriately, particles get names to match. Neutrons and protons are made of up
quarks, and these are known as up, down, and strange. When another quark was
discovered in 1974, it was dubbed the charm quark to welcome its arrival. Binding
quarks together are particles called gluons. Despite this proliferation of particles
and sub-particles, there are many gaps in our knowledge. Perhaps the biggest
mystery in the universe is the composition of ‘dark matter’: this is the invisible stuff
that holds galaxies together, and constitutes the bulk of all matter.

Some forty years ago, Peter Higgs proposed the existence of a particle — named
the Higgs boson in his honour — that would be the missing ingredient in the
Standard Model of particle physics. However, if this particle is not found at the LHC,
other theories will gain currency. Among these, my personal favourite is the so-
called ‘string theory’, a complex model that allows for the presence of an infinite
number of parallel universes. Alas, no empirical evidence has yet been discovered
to underpin this exotic theory. Many people question the usefulness of spending so
much money on this enterprise. For me, the cooperation that has made the LHC
possible is the finest example of what can be achieved if nations work together
instead of making war. Some of the finest minds in Europe have collaborated to
produce this monument to the human spirit. For if any one quality defines us as a
species it is our endless curiosity. The questions surrounding the beginning of the
universe have occupied theologians, scientists and philosophers for centuries. Step
by step, physicists and mathematicians have pieced the jigsaw puzzle together, but
a few pieces still remain. Perhaps the LHC will answer the remaining questions. By
creating conditions that existed a billionth of a second after the Big Bang some 14
billion years ago, the scientists at Cern hope to study what the universe looked like
at the beginning of time. In order to accelerate subatomic particles to 99.9 per cent
of the speed of light, the entire 27 kilometre tunnel is currently being cooled to near
absolute zero, and air is being pumped out to create a vacuum. In fact, when it has
reached its lowest temperature, the tunnel will be the coldest place in the universe.
The particles will then be fired in opposite directions, and accelerated by
superconducting magnets. When they smash into each other, the violent collisions
will be recorded by four detectors monitored by over five thousand scientists.

For those who think that such scientific quests are a waste of time and resources, it
might come as a surprise to know that the Internet was first invented in Cern. In
1989, Tim BernersLee, an obscure computer scientist, came up with an idea that
would allow physicists to share information over a distributed net that he named the
World Wide Web. In order to handle the incredible volume of data that will be
generated by the LHC, a network of some 20,000 desktop computers distributed
over 11 academic computing clusters will be connected to form a supercomputer of
immense power. On the average day, the LHC will produce some 40,000 gigabytes
of useful information. Bizarrely, some individuals in Hawaii have moved a court to
halt the Cern experiment on the grounds that it might generate black holes that
would grow and swallow the world. Indeed, it is one of the hopes of scientists that
black holes will be created, but they will be so tiny, and will last for such a brief
moment, that there is no danger to the facility, or to the rest of us. Every time
mankind seeks to explore the unknown, there are people who mutter warnings and
predict the worst. Luckily for us, these doom-and-gloom merchants have not
succeeded in halting the march of progress. If a civilisation stops exploring new
frontiers, it stagnates and ultimately dies. Over the last half century, as man has
tried to step off this planet, there have been naysayers who have objected to these
expensive expeditions on the grounds of expense. Their argument is based on the
widespread poverty that blights our planet. But oddly, they do not object to the
billions we spend on weapons and armies. So far, the US has blown over $600bn on
its Iraq misadventure, and that’s only the official figure. And yet, few people have
said the war should never have been fought on the basis of its cost. The truth is that
if we had done a cost-benefit analysis before undertaking every voyage of
discovery, we would probably still be in the Stone Age today.

Author Location Dated

Aamir Shafaat Khan Karachi, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Rs47.25/kg set for Karachi Dealers, CNG pump owners to fix

price
The petroleum ministry has finally cleared the way for CNG dealers and owners
associations to fix the rate on their own, thus alienating itself from providing any
protection to the consumers against higher prices. Presently, about four kinds of
rates of CNG are prevailing in the country starting from as low as Rs38.25 per kg,
while many dealers are found charging Rs43.25, Rs47.25 and Rs51.25 per kg. The
ministry on Friday came out with the factual position regarding reports that the
government had actually fixed the price after negotiations with various CNG
associations. It said that the price notified by the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority
(Ogra) on July 1, for the gas supplied by Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and Sui
Northern Gas Pipelines Limited to CNG stations is Rs388.32 per MMBTU. The normal
GST and withholding tax is also payable by the CNG stations. The notified price plus
the taxes is the input gas price for CNG stations.The Ogra and the government are
responsible to the extent of the said prescribed price only. The owners of CNG
stations add their own operating expenses, which being deregulated, are
determined arbitrarily by them, the ministry said adding that the notified price,
including taxes and operating expenses etc of the CNG stations, is the ultimate sale
price at the CNG outlets. There is no point, as being printed in the media, in the
government agreeing to any ultimate sale price, as a result of reported meetings
with the associations, the latter being totally dependent to work out their costs.

Therefore, the ministry said, any controversy arising out of the statements of
various associations should stand settled as the government/Ogra notifies the input
price only being charged by the SNGPL/SSGCL from the various CNG stations. It has
been surprising that three associations of dealers and station owners are
simultaneously operating in the country claiming to be genuine and registered with
the commerce ministry. However, there should be one representative body to deal
and negotiate with the government on all Pakistan level. All Pakistan CNG
Association Chairman Sana-ur-Rahman said that the issue of price fixing was
resolved on Friday and there would be no confusion in the rates after ministry’s
clear point of view. Claiming to be the only association registered with DTO, he said
that the dealers had fixed the rate at Rs47.28 per kg for Lahore, Rs48.36 per kg for
Potohar area, Rs49.77 per kg for NWFP, Rs47.25 per kg for Balochistan and Rs47.25
per kg for Karachi and Sindh. He, however, claimed that the profit margin of CNG
stations had declined to 16 per cent as compared to 20 per cent. He added that it
was the only association, which ensured sale of CNG at Rs38.05 in the country for
more than two days till the final settlement on price was made on Friday.
Meanwhile, CNG Dealers Association Chairman Abdul Sami Khan told newsmen on
Friday that the government had raised the CNG price by Rs13 per kg on July 1, but
the petroleum ministry withdrew its decision next day by saying that the actual
increase in gas price had been only Rs5.58 per kg. On July 2, the association
representative had disputed the Rs5.58 per kg rate with additional secretary
petroleum in Islamabad because the latter had not included other expenses.

The additional secretary explained that the government had only increased the gas
rate and asked dealers to include other charges and expenditure in the CNG price
as the government had nothing to do with these charges. The other expenses
worked out to be Rs3.45 per kg thus making a cumulative impact of Rs9 per kg on
CNG. The new retail rate had been fixed at Rs47.25 per kg. Sami Khan had also
released a paper to show how the new price had been calculated keeping in view
the 31 per cent increase in gas prices. He said that an independent judge be
appointed to calculate the price of CNG in view of rising price of natural gas and
expenses and the association would accept it. When asked that the petroleum
ministry had finally allowed a free hand to dealers to fix the rate, he said this was
what the association had been clamouring that the Ogra and the ministry cannot
intervene to fix the retail rate of CNG. However, he said, that if the government
takes back the 31 per cent hike in gas rates then the CNG price would come down
to old level of Rs38.25. He added that the dealers had initially raised the rate to
Rs51.25 per kg after a misconception that the five per cent gas development levy
(GDL) on compressed natural gas (CNG) was also included. The association finally
fixed the rate at Rs47.25 per kg in Karachi and Sindh while some other associations
in Rawalpindi, Islamabad and Peshawar were insisting on Rs49.70 per kg and the
Lahore-based dealers were demanding price fixation at Rs48.70 per kg.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Karachi, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Rupee off from record low

A lull in dollar demand from importers helped the rupee steady on Friday from a
record low set the previous day, but dealers said outlook remained bearish. The
rupee closed at 69.55/60 to the dollar, off Thursday’s record closing low of 69.80/88.
The rupee is now back at levels last seen in late May, when a precipitous fall
prompted the central bank to take steps to stabilise the currency and dampen
speculation. But there has been a steady drip in foreign currency reserves since
then because of the weight of demand for dollars from importers, particularly oil
buyers. The currency has dropped 13 per cent this year as the economy feels the
brunt of rising oil and food costs. “Until
“Until the fundamental problems such as the
widening fiscal and current account deficits are not resolved, it’s unlikely the rupee
will recover,”
recover,” said a dealer. Traders said central bank intervention would stabilise
the rupee in the short run but State Bank’s reserves are running low. Foreign
exchange reserves have fallen to just $11.3 billion, in spite of fresh inflows coming
in, from a record high of more than $16 billion in October. Traders said the central
bank would probably have to increase interest rates in a policy review later this
month to try to bring rising prices under control. Analysts feared political infighting
was distracting attention from restoring economic stability, though a budget
announced last month set targets to bring down an unsustainable fiscal deficit, and
the government is seeking loans from friendly governments and multilateral
lenders.

Author Location Dated

AFP Tehran, Iran 05.07.08

– Nuclear programme Iran responds to world powers’ offer

Iran on Friday handed world powers its “constructive
“constructive and creative”
creative” response to their
letter presenting proposals to end the five-year standoff over its nuclear
programme, top officials said. “The
“The Islamic republic has prepared and presented a
response to the letter of the six countries with a constructive and creative view and
a focus on common ground,”
ground,” state television quoted top nuclear negotiator Saeed
Jalili as saying. A spokeswoman for the EU’s Javier Solana later confirmed that the
response had been delivered in a letter to the European Union’s foreign policy chief
and to the foreign ministers of the six countries that submitted the offer. She gave
no details of the letter. The spokeswoman, Cristina Gallach, had earlier said Solana
had held “positive” talks with the Iranian side. Jalili’s comments came in a
telephone call to Solana, who has fronted talks with Tehran on behalf of Britain,
China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States. Last month Solana gave Iran
a letter from the six foreign ministers and a package offering Tehran technology
and negotiations if it suspends uranium enrichment, which the West fears could be
used to make atomic weapons. The semi-official Mehr news agency quoted an
informed source as saying that the response to Solana was handed over by Iran’s
ambassador to Brussels. Jalili did not elaborate on the contents of the Iranian
response, nor did he say if it would be a simple “yes or no” answer to the package
offered or something more vague. The source quoted by Mehr said the response
was specifically to the world powers’ letter, implying there could be another
response to the package attached to the letter.

Jalili also said both sides had agreed that talks would be held again by the end of
the current Iranian month of Tir, which ends in two weeks, without elaborating.
Gallach said: “They
“They had a positive, constructive conversation. They agreed to
remain in contact.”
contact.” Iran has also put forward its own more all-embracing offer
aimed at solving world problems, including the nuclear issue, and has said there is
common ground between the two packages. There has been considerable
speculation in recent days that Tehran is softening its tone on the nuclear standoff.
Ali Akbar Velayati, the foreign policy adviser to supreme leader Ayatollah Ali
Khamenei, said it would be in Iran’s interest to accept the negotiations. Foreign
Minister Manouchehr Mottaki has also spoken of a “new process.” However, Velayati
said on Thursday his comments had been misinterpreted, insisting that “I “I talked
about accepting negotiations and not accepting the proposed package.”
package.”
Washington has never ruled out taking military action against Tehran, and in recent
weeks speculation has mounted that Israel was preparing pre-emptive strikes
against its atomic sites. In a sign of continued tensions, the head of Iran’s elite
Revolutionary Guards, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, warned: “Any “Any action against
Iran will be interpreted as the start of a war. “Iran’s response to any military action
will make the aggressors regret their decision.”
decision.”

US media reported that more than 100 Israeli warplanes staged a training exercise
with Greece last month to prepare for a possible long-distance strike and as a
warning to Tehran. In an unusual move, the letter from the six world powers was
personally signed by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice along with her
counterparts. “Formal
“Formal negotiations can start as soon as Iran’s enrichment-related
and reprocessing activities are suspended,”
suspended,” said the text of the letter, which was
addressed to both Mottaki and Jalili. “We
“We want to be clear that we recognise Iran’s
rights under the international treaties... But with these rights come responsibilities,
in particular to restore the confidence of the international community in Iran’s
nuclear programme.”
programme.” World powers fear that Iran could use enrichment to make a
nuclear weapon. Tehran insists its atomic drive is peaceful and aimed only at
producing nuclear power for a growing population. No Iranian official has suggested
that Tehran is ready to give ground on the key question of enrichment, which Iran
must suspend in order to enter the talks offered by the world powers.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 05.07.08

– US hunt for Osama to be allowed: report

When Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani meets President George W. Bush at the
White House on June 28, he will tell the US leader that Islamabad will tolerate a US
incursion into Fata if it is directed specifically against Al Qaeda leaders Osama bin
Laden or Ayman Al Zawahiri – but nobody else, says a report published on Friday.
Quoting senior US and Pakistani officials, the Time magazine reported that the
prime minister, however, would also tell Mr Bush that Pakistan would not allow
incursions into its territory for any other Al Qaeda or Taliban leaders. “If
“If they do a
raid and they find No. 3 or No. 4 or No. 5 but don’t get Bin Laden, it’s going to be a
real problem,”
problem,” said the report, quoting a senior Pakistani official. The magazine
noted that while such incursions could destabilise the Pakistani government,
“risking Pakistan instability may be the only way”way” for President Bush to get the two
top Al Qaeda leaders before he completed his second and final term later this year.
US counter-terrorism officials told the magazine that the best hope for nabbing No.
1 and No. 2 might lie in the capture of second-tier Al Qaeda commanders who knew
where their bosses were hiding. The magazine also quoted a recent CIA report
speculating that Bin Laden had longterm kidney disease and might have only
months to live. The Pentagon has already sent an official request to President Bush
asking him to sign an “executive order” to expand its authority to go after terrorist
leaders hiding in Fata, the report said. The Pentagon’s request for cross-border
strikes from Afghanistan into Pakistan was awaiting consideration by President Bush
and his top advisers, the report added.

Some in the Bush administration, however, are reluctant to cross that line for fear of
destabilising Pakistan’s recently elected government, the report said. The Bush
administration limited cross-border operations when Gen Pervez Musharraf was in
charge in Islamabad, on the grounds that they might undermine the authority of a
key ally in the war on terrorism. The magazine noted that it’s a “difficult decision”
for President Bush to make. “If“If Mr Bush signs the execute order, he will be
increasing the risk that faulty intelligence could produce tragic mistakes – and
public relations disasters – like the US air strike on June 10 that killed 11 Pakistani
paramilitary soldiers near the Afghan border, causing explosive outrage
nationwide.”
nationwide.” On Thursday, the Pentagon extended the deployment of 2,200 marines
in Afghanistan by an additional 30 days, breaking an earlier promise to send them
home on time. The marines are from 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit, which is doing
combat operations in the volatile southern parts of Afghanistan. The new order
means they will come home in early November rather than October as the Pentagon
promised earlier this year, according to David Nevers, a Pentagon spokesman.
“Their extension comes at the request of International Security Assistance Force,
and with the approval of Defence Secretary Robert Gates,”
Gates,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 05.07.08

– We will not leave coalition: Shahbaz

Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz president and Chief Minister of Punjab Shahbaz
Sharif has ruled out the possibility of withdrawing his party’s support to the Pakistan
People’s Party-led coalition government in the centre over different approaches with
regard to the restoration of the judiciary. He said it was for the first time in the
history of Pakistan that those who had been opponents in the past had joined hands
to solve problems being faced by the country and promote democracy and put the
last nail in the coffin of dictatorship. Mr Sharif, who arrived here on Friday afternoon
for a one-day visit to attend the Chehlum of his party’s slain Karachi-based leader
Tariq Khan, was responding to questions of journalists after the Fateha at the
murdered leader’s residence. “In “In the Bhurban meeting, it was decided that the
judges would be restored and we were clear and committed to this. Would you like
us to fall out on this issue and derail the democratic government?”
government?” he asked. “We“We
are making efforts to reach a consensus so that democracy can flourish in the
country and we can put the last nail in the coffin of dictatorship.”
dictatorship.” He said no society
could survive without an independent judiciary. Quoting Hazrat Ali, he said that an
infidel system could work, but a system based on injustice could not last. He said
efforts were being made to restore the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position not for the
sake of a person or party, but in the interest of the nation. “If
“If the judiciary would
have been independent, there would not have been repression in Balochistan and
the NWFP and people would not be suffering from injustices.”
injustices.” Regarding differences
over the operation in Fata and the withdrawal of subsidies, the PML-N leader said
differences cropped up even among brothers, which could be resolved by coming
together and discussing issues. The chief minister recalled that in his Friday
meeting with Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, the prime minister had fully agreed
with him that if there were differences among the coalition partners, they should sit
together and sort out the issues. “No “No conspiracy would be allowed to succeed at the
federal or provincial level,”
level,” Mr Sharif said.

Regarding the controversy over the role of Punjab Governor Salman Taseer, the
chief minister said the governor was a symbol of the federation and he had a
constitutional role, while as the chief minister, he had a democratic role. When his
attention was drawn towards the reported white paper issued by the PML-Q
regarding the first 100 days of the government, Mr Sharif asked what right they had
to issue a white paper about a government which had only been in power for three
months while “during
“during their eight year rule, they had destroyed the country.”
country.” The
Punjab chief minister said the government was under compulsion to pass on the
burden of the rising price of petroleum to the people, which had gone to $146 per
barrel. ‘We
‘We are political people’ “We are political people and do not have a gun in
our hands to bring down prices. Rest assured, we will not rest until the prices are
brought under control,”
control,” he said. He said in Punjab, he had prepared a package of
Rs22 billion to provide relief to those people living below the poverty line. He
expressed his belief that the Sindh government would also prepare a similar
package for the poor in the province. The chief minister said whether it was the
water issue or the NFC award matter, these issues were always resolved by
democratic governments. He said the NFC award should be based on the principle
of equity, fairness and fair play, in which all four provinces should have due share
keeping in view their resources, population, backwardness and problems. In reply to
a question regarding the Kalabagh Dam, the PML-N leader said that solidarity of the
country was over and above every dam and no project should be initiated which
could be harmful for the unity of the country. He said it was Pervez Musharraf who
had politicised the Kalabagh Dam and had taken up the project without consensus
among the four provinces. In reply to a question, he said he had discussed the issue
of the progress of Tariq Khan’s murder case with the late politician’s father. He said
he would also take up the issue with Sindh Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah at a dinner
planned for Friday evening, adding that he hoped the Sindh government would
leave no stone unturned in arresting the killers of Tariq Khan. Earlier, on arrival
Shahbaz Sharif was received at the airport by Senior Minister Pir Mazharul Haq and
from the airport he went straight to the Chief Minister’s House, where he was
received by Qaim Ali Shah. He was also presented traditional gifts of Ajrak and
Sindhi cap.

Author Location Dated

S. Raza Hassan Karachi, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Operation in Lyari begins

A large contingent of the police assisted by the Rangers moved into strife-torn Lyari
on Friday evening in an effort to establish the lost writ of the government in the
locality. The gang war between the groups of Rehman Dakait and Arshad Pappu has
been raging in the area for years and has cost hundreds of lives. Scores of innocent
passers-by and bystanders have been caught in the crossfire between the warring
criminal gangs. Subsequently, several parts of Lyari have virtually turned into no-go
areas. “It’s
“It’s not a one-day exercise. Basically, it’s a well-planned deployment, which
will remain in place till the objectives are achieved,”
achieved,” Provincial Police Officer Sindh
Sultan Salahuddin Babar Khattak told Dawn. Last week during a meeting at the
Sindh Chief Minister’s House, the Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Affairs
Rehman Malik had given the green signal for the operation against gangsters in
Lyari and criminals in the interior of Sindh. Explaining the strategy, the Sindh PPO
told Dawn that the police are being deployed in the strife-torn area by creating new
police posts at important intersections and subsequently, in the peripheral areas.
“Armoured personnel carriers (APCs) and police mobiles are being used in the
deployment,”
deployment,” he added. “Our “Our objective is to restrict and arrest the criminal
elements. The police presence will remain in the area till we achieve our target,”
target,”
PPO Khattak said. He said that an approximately 700-strong police force is being
deployed in the area along with the Rangers. “It’s
“It’s an integrated plan with the
Rangers,”
Rangers,” the PPO said. In May, the police had launched an operation by cordoning
the Ali Mohammad Mohallah, during which two gangsters were killed. However, the
siege was lifted the next day. Over 100 policemen had taken part in that operation.
Later, the police was criticized by certain quarters for launching the operation only
against Ghaffar Zikri, who is the frontman of Arshad Pappu. Asked if the operation is
directed against any particular group, the PPO Sindh said that all the criminal
elements present in Lyari would be dealt with evenhandedly.

A press statement issued by the Pakistan Rangers Sindh said that in accordance
with the federal government’s directives, the Rangers would take an active role in
order to assist the police in a grand operation against miscreants and terrorists in
violence-plagued Lyari. In this connection, the DG Rangers, Major-General Liaquat
Ali, issued the necessary directives to the Rangers officials concerned to formulate
a viable strategy with the police. The Rangers contingent, along with the police, will
formulate a comprehensive operational plan keeping in view the densely populated
locality. The DG Rangers also urged people to extend all possible cooperation with
the law enforcement agencies in order to eliminate the criminal elements from
Lyari, the statement added. SP Lyari Raja Umar Khattab said that nine pickets have
been set up in the most sensitive areas, which include Eidhu Lane, Ali Mohammad
Mohallah and Tannery Road. Nine other pickets have been set up in the rest of
Lyari. “In
“In the next phase, when normalcy returns to the area and shops reopen, the
police and Rangers will act against the criminal elements,”
elements,” the SP explained. Till the
filing of this story, no resistance was reported from either of the two gangs as the
police and Rangers were busy in their deployment.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 05.07.08

– Lyariites seek PPP help for peace

Expressing concern over the deteriorating law and order and socioeconomic
conditions in Lyari, prominent community members have made an impassioned
appeal to the leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) to take serious notice
of the situation. They were of the view that the rampant lawlessness in the area,
considered to be the stronghold of the PPP in the city, was tarnishing the image of
the party. These views were expressed at a meeting of intellectuals and select
group of social personalities held at the Lyari Welfare Centre,
Centre, Chawkiwara, with Prof
Ali Mohammad Shaheen in the chair. They termed the ongoing gang warfare in
parts of the town a perpetual source of concern for the area people who according
to them had been made hostage at gunpoint by unscrupulous elements. The
situation had forced a number of old residents of the area to move to safety leaving
behind their ancestral properties at the mercy of the gangsters roaming freely in
the town, they said. The speakers deplored that once again Lyari had been
neglected in the recently announced budget wherein only Rs73 million were
allocated for this underdeveloped area, while the previous government had
earmarked Rs79 million, which was later increased to Rs87 million. They said that
the town had become a victim of indifference of the relevant authorities. They
identified rampant unemployment, insufficient civic facilities, violence, crime, open
sale of narcotics and inadequate health and educational facilities as some of the
problems, which needed immediate attention. Despite the deteriorating law and
order, they added, it was strange that Rs6 million had been slashed from the Lyari
police budget.

“Surprisingly Rs171.6 million has been earmarked for Clifton Town police, which is
considered a peaceful town, while Lyari Town, infested with criminal elements, has
been ignored in the allocation of funds for the local police,”
police,” they remarked. Coming
to the education sector, they said that there was no regular monitoring and
inspection system in the public sector schools and most of those schools were in a
bad shape and the quality of education had fallen drastically. They were of the view
that the law-enforcement agencies seemed to be less interested in busting the
criminals; instead the police was allegedly patronising the gangsters. The speakers
suggested that Lyari should be given adequate representation in the PPP’s setup
and the elected MNAs, MPAs should be involved in addressing the grievances of the
people and committees dealing with health, education, employment, crime and
civic problems should be formed under the supervision of these elected members.
The meeting was attended by Sher Mohammad Raees, Ghulam Abbas Baloch, Haji
Abdul Ghani, Mohammad Yusuf Baloch, Advocate Habibur Rehman, Shabir Baloch,
Pir Mohammad Baloch, Advocate Abdul Hakim and Abdul Hafeez Baloch. The
meeting also decided to send a memorandum in this regard to the leadership of the
Pakistan People’s Party.

Author Location Dated

Anjum Niaz 06.07.08

– Islamabad Dateline: Rich Man/Poor Man

One of the games we played as kids was a fortune-telling rhyme. We counted
buttons and flower petals while singing this rhyme. It went like this: Tinker, Tailor/
Soldier, Sailor/ Rich man, Poor man/ Beggar-man, Thief. We didn’t know then what
the words meant or why they were arranged so, until one day the time of reckoning
arrived. Loss of innocence happened. A career path beckoned. The road not taken
or the road taken sealed our fate forever. Today, the second part of the rhyme that
we seldom sang as kids suddenly makes the design of life come clear: Army, Navy/
Medicine, Law/ Church, Nobility/ Nothing at all. It will take me a truckload of
columns to list out the names of sons and daughters of army, navy, medicine, law,
church, nobility and nothing at all. Nonetheless, it would be a rewarding exercise for
one undertaking it. He or she would leave a record for posterity to read and
understand that this country was made perhaps for the sons and daughters of the
influential to rule, lord, fleece and pollute with abandon.

For the moment let me stick to the present. When I read about the scions of our
‘nobility’ and how their moms and dads chart the course of their lives, envy
overtakes. These kids have everything going for them irrespective of whether their
moms and dads live or die. They have it all set. The rest of us must slog to make it
in life. How unfair. But when was life ever fair? Let me quickly jump into what I am
trying to say before I lose you and your attention. My ishara (a favourite word of our
TV anchors) is towards the sons and daughters of our politicians — both the ruling
and those in the opposition. Let’s begin with Bilawal. The teenager suddenly found
himself as the leader of the biggest political party in Pakistan after his mother left
him this title. His father anointed him with the surname ‘Bhutto’ because that name
carried more currency than Zardari. With the appendix ‘Bhutto’ to his name, Bilawal
has become a hot favourite election symbol. Governor Salman Taseer of Punjab has
announced that he will on behalf of Bilawal launch an election campaign that will
sweep the teenager to power in Punjab. It is not yet clear which election the good
governor is referring to. Meanwhile Dad Zardari has sworn that Punjab will soon
reverberate with the name ‘Bhutto.’ Has the PPP slogan roti, kapra aur makaan
been replaced by ‘Bhutto?’

Also in the news is Bakhtawar. According to Newslocale.org, a report datelined

London recently announced the appointment of Benazir’s eldest daughter
Bakhtawar, 17, as the head of PPP women’s wing. “I “I definitely want to help the
people in Pakistan. I want to continue my mom’s mission in any way I can, whether
it is politics or something else — I haven’t decided yet,”
yet,” Times Online said that
Bakhtawar’s appointment had led to “speculation
“speculation that she, rather than her brother,
might be the next star of the Bhutto dynasty.”
dynasty.” Hold it, not so fast. What about the
Bhutto cousins? Did you see the photo of Fatima Bhutto welcoming her cousin Sassi
Bhutto along with her brother Zulfikar Junior and mother Ghinwa in the newspaper?
Sassi, the daughter of the late Shahnawaz Bhutto arrived in Karachi for the first
time in her life. She is a splitting image of Begum Nusrat Bhutto. Many in the West
wager Fatima to be the main challenger to Zardari and his children taking over the
PPP. She seethes with anger at the murder of her father Murtaza when his sister
was the PM. Well, another son also rises. I mean the son of Shahbaz Sharif. Hamza
Sharif recently took oath as a member of the National Assembly. His opening
statement was not too bright and belied Uncle Nawaz’s contention that the PML
would never accept the PCO judges! What the young Hamza blurted out to the
media was that the PML-N had agreed to extend the number of Supreme Court
judges to 24 and not 29 as was done through the Finance Bill. In other words,
Hamza let the cat out of the bag. I don’t think his uncle would have been too happy
with him.

Ah, well, the son-in-law also rises. While Nawaz Sharif was rudely told that he could
not contest a by-election just two days before the polls dashing his dream of
becoming the prime minister for the third time, worry not, for his son-in-law, the
erstwhile army captain Mohammad Safdar, has won the election from NA-52
Rawalpindi. Question: how come folks of Rawalpindi elected Safdar as their MP
when his real hometown is Mansehra? Should he not have been elected from there?
Well, someone can turn around and say, “Look,
“Look, this is the beauty of democracy!
What is it to you which town chooses to elect whom?” I guess I won’t have an
answer to give. Prime Minister Gilani has also got his son elected to the National
Assembly. Gilani's adviser Manzoor Wattoo, ageless, crafty and conscienceless, has
managed to get his son Khurram Jehangir elected on a PPP ticket to the NA. He is
now wangling a cabinet post for “baita Khurram” while “baitee Robina” sitting in the
Punjab Assembly dreams of ministership. How cozy is that, with dad as the advisor,
son as a federal minister and daughter as provincial minister! The Watoos of this
world will forever hold power irrespective of who comes and goes. Three cheers for
democracy and long live dynasties. What a heady brew.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 06.07.08
 – Govt’s riposte to A.Q. Khan’s tirade Offer to share ‘proof with
neutrals’
The Strategic Planning Division has said irrefutable evidence is available to prove Dr
Abdul Qadeer Khan’s involvement in nuclear proliferation. “We “We are ready to share
the evidence with a select group of neutral persons,”
persons,” Lt-Gen (retd) Khalid Ahmed
Kidwai, the head of the division, said on Saturday in reaction to Dr Khan’s claim the
previous day about the involvement of the Army in the smuggling of centrifuges to
North Korea. Khalid Kidwai, however, said it was for the government to decide about
the ‘set
‘set of select people’
people’ with whom the evidence can be shared. This was the first
official comment by the security establishment since Dr Khan started giving
interviews claiming he was coerced into confessing that he had transferred nuclear
technology. The SPD chief said it was the presence of a “pile
“pile of evidence”
evidence” that had
forced Dr Khan to tender an apology to the nation leading to a conditional pardon
by the president. He said such “irresponsible
“irresponsible statements”
statements” were against the national
interest and in violation of the conditions agreed to by Dr Khan for his pardon.
Briefing a select group of reporters at the SPD, he said Dr Khan had voluntarily
opted out of the option of trial and adopted the path of tendering apology to the
nation, leading to his pardon. He said Dr Qadeer had tried to revive a closed chapter
by making a false claim which may have negative repercussions for the country. He
said the then Director General Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) General Ehsan and he
held a series of sessions with Dr A. Q. Khan in 2003. He said initially he started with
denials, but as evidence mounted, he desired that his request for mercy be
conveyed to President Musharraf. He said President Musharraf insisted that this was
nothing personal between him and Dr Khan and therefore he should apologize to
the nation. He rejected the claim by Dr Khan that he was forced to sign a document
in the office of the President. He said the draft seeking pardon was prepared by NCA
and was amended at more than one place by Dr Khan with his pen before signing it.

He said the pardon had two major conditions. The first was an undertaking by Dr
Khan that he will not make a statement that may affect country’s security. The
other condition was that the pardon would be ineffective if an evidence of illegal
export of “nuclear-related
“nuclear-related material”
material” to some country other than Iran, North Korea or
Libya was found. He said there were no threats hurled on either Dr Khan or his
family. He said it went through a legal procedure with the involvement of the
Attorney General. He rejected the claim about a deal with Dr Khan. “There“There were go-
betweens, there were no facilitators, there was no deal. He may have tried
something privately.”
privately.” General Kidwai said Dr Khan was making offensive
statements in violation of the conditions. He, however, said the proposal of
reviewing the conditional offer was not under consideration at this point of time.
“But the government was grappling with the issue as how to handle the situation
arising out of recent developments.” He said Dr Khan had been offered to see his
friends and relatives at their place several times. “He
“He wants total freedom without
security, which was not possible.”
possible.” He said during his visit to National Sciences
Academy,
Academy, Dr Khan also asked a member of the proliferator’s group to reach there.
He said Dr Khan was asked to give a list of frequent visitors, who could be instantly
facilitated when they come to see him. He said the list of 30 persons given by him
included names of four persons who were quizzed in connection with the nuclear
proliferation episode. He said Dr Khan has tried to turn the whole situation upside
down and make everybody else guilty except him. Government and security
officials privy to the proliferation scandal say Dr. Khan’s recent outburst is largely
based on the premise that the country’s nuclear establishment is not in a position to
go public with the results of his ‘debriefing’ and investigation as some of the
information may compromise matters of national security. But a senior members of
the government said if his diatribe continued his bluff may soon be called, most
probably in the form of an in-camera trial.

Author Location Dated

London, England 06.07.08

– ‘UK Muslims feel like aliens in their own country’

Britain’s first Muslim minister Shahid Malik, who is of Pakistani origin, has kicked up
a media uproar here, saying that many Muslims in the UK feel targeted like ‘the ‘the
Jews of Europe’.
Europe’. Mr Malik who heads the Department for International Development
(DFID) has said that it has become legitimate to target Muslims in the media and
society at large in a way that would be unacceptable for any other minority.
Hastening to add that he was not equating the situation with the Holocaust, he,
however, warned that many British Muslims now felt like “aliens
“aliens in their own
country”.
country”. He said he himself had been the target of a string of racist incidents,
including the firebombing of his family car and an attempt to run him down at a
petrol station. “Somehow
“Somehow there’s a message out there that it’s OK to target people
as long as it’s Muslims. And you don’t have to worry about the facts, and people will
turn a blind eye.”
eye.” Mr Malik expressed these views in a Channel 4 Dispatches
programme which was widely reported in the British media on Saturday. The
interview is to be broadcast on Monday to coincide with the third anniversary of the
London bombings of July 7. A poll to accompany the documentary highlights the
growing polarisation of opinion among Britain’s 1.6 million Muslims, who say they
have suffered a marked increase in hostility since the London bombings.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 06.07.08

– Dr Khan says he made confession under duress

Nuclear scientist Dr A. Q. Khan has claimed that he had been coerced into making
the confessional statement about the proliferation of nuclear material and the
pardon President Musharraf gave him was not conditional. “If “If at all there were
conditions attached to the pardon, a document got forcibly signed by a person has
no value,”
value,” he said while talking to Dawn on Saturday. Commenting on the
statement by Director-General Strategic Planning Division (SPD) General (retd)
Khalid Ahmed Kidwai that irrefutable evidence was available against him, he said
“they can say whatever they like.”
like.” Rejecting the charge that he had caused harm to
the national interest by his statement, the scientist said that he had sacrificed for
the sake of the country and could not cause harm to the national interest. He said
General Pervez Musharraf had caused harm to the national interest by authoring a
book while he was in uniform. He pointed out that the book had a chapter
pertaining to smuggling of centrifuges to North Korea. Dr Qadeer confirmed that he
had amended the draft of the request for pardon prepared by the National
Command Authority. He said he did so because there was a lot of rubbish in it. He
said he had not been allowed to see his friends and relatives at their place. “Why
“Why
would I refuse to accept such an offer if given to me. Am I a scoundrel,”
scoundrel,” he
questioned.
Author Location Dated
Reuters Karachi, Pakistan 06.07.08

– Dollar marches past Rs70

The rupee crossed Rs70 to the dollar on Saturday, the weakest level ever, due to
rise in dollar demand from importers and the country’s uncertain economic and
political uncertainty. The rupee closed at a record low of Rs70.13/18 to the dollar,
compared to Friday’s closing of Rs69.55/60. The rupee is now beyond levels last
seen in late May, when a precipitous fall prompted the central bank to take steps to
stabilise the currency and dampen speculation. There has been a steady drip in
foreign currency reserves since then because of the strong demand for dollars from
importers, particularly oil buyers. The rupee has dropped 13.8 per cent this year as
the economy feels the brunt of rising oil and food costs. Pakistan’s annual inflation
has jumped to a three-decade high and it is facing widening fiscal and current
account deficits. “There
“There was an increase in demand for dollars from importers,”
importers,” said
a currency dealer. “But
“But we also have a widening trade deficit, high inflation so it’s
really our fundamentals which are not intact, along with political uncertainty.”
uncertainty.”
Traders said central bank intervention would stabilise the rupee in the short run but
State Bank’s reserves are running low.

Author Location Dated

Anwer Iqbal Washington, D.C. 06.07.08

– Obama ready to make history; is US ready too?

Americans have been celebrating July 4 as their independence day since 1776 when
they won freedom from Britain. For most of the world, this date has meant little
more than watching a colourful display of fireworks on their television screens. But
this year is different. This year America is only four months away from electing its
first nonwhite president; an event the entire world awaits with bated breath. The
man who created this opportunity for the Americans to put behind centuries of
racial prejudices and elect a black man spent the independence day weekend in the
Republican heartland, hoping to win over those who have always voted for the rival
camp. On July 4, Senator Barack Obama was in Montana, doing all a good American
is expected to do: flipping burgers, eating hot dogs and watching a parade. Montana
has voted for a Democratic presidential candidate just twice in 50 years. Recent
opinion polls, however, show that Senator Obama already has an edge over his
Republican rival John McCain in this conservative state as well 48 to 43 per cent. Yet
this election is not about statistics alone. It has deeper meanings and nobody knows
that better than Mr Obama. “I “I know that there is no other country out there where I
could be standing before you as somebody who could potentially be president of
the United States,”
States,” he told his would-be voters. “We
“We are going to change the world.”
world.”
He definitely has a point when he talks about changing the world. If he is elected on
Nov 4, it will change the US political history. But Mr Obama is promising much more.

In campaign appearances, Mr Obama regularly mentions his multicultural

background, invoking his interactions with Muslims in Africa, Indonesia and Pakistan
to show that he is uniquely qualified to end the confrontation between western and
Islamic worlds. “A
“A lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs is not what I just
studied in school. It’s actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in
these other countries live,”
live,” he said. “The
“The day I’m inaugurated, I think this country
looks at itself differently, but the world also looks at America differently.”
differently.” But before
he goes about changing the world, Mr Obama has to win the election. And in the
election campaign, the senator’s multicultural background cuts both ways. While his
supporters see this as a qualification, his opponents argue that it disqualifies him
from occupying the highest office in a country at war with the Muslims. As the
election approaches, the attacks on Mr Obama get worse, targeting particularly his
alleged Muslim past. Even a random search of the web brings 4,270,000 entries for
“Obama Muslim”. Readers learn that “Obama’s
“Obama’s father was a Muslim polygamist
from Kenya. His step-father was from Indonesia where he studied Islam, attended a
madressah, went to the mosque for prayers, took religious classes and studied
Arabic.”
Arabic.” One such website invites readers to “think carefully” why a young Obama
visited troubled areas in Pakistan and India in 1981. “Lot
“Lot of young Muslim students
trying to define their identity often visited Karachi and Hyderabad, India, cities that
were a hot bed of religious strife and extremism.”
extremism.”

Daniel Pipes, a neoconservative American historian, warns that Mr Obama’s

conversion to Christianity may annoy the Muslims, giving them yet another reason
to hate America. “How
“How would more mainstream Muslims respond to him; would they
be angry at what they would consider his apostasy? That reaction is a real
possibility, one that could undermine his initiatives toward the Muslim world.”
world.” An
email quoted in a Washington Post article on this issue warns: “The“The Muslims have
said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out. What better way to start
than at the highest level, through the president of the United States, one of their
own!”
own!” Obviously, none of these writers paused to think that what they are saying
could be offensive to four to six million Muslims living in the United States and to
more than a billion across the world. “The
“The underlying point is that if you can
somehow pin Islam on him, that would be a fatal blow,”
blow,” says Ibrahim Hooper of the
Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Washington-based Muslim advocacy
group. “It’s
“It’s offensive. It speaks to the rising level of anti-Muslim feeling in our
society.”
society.”

Author Location Dated

AFP Tehran, Iran 06.07.08

– Tehran threatens to close Hormuz

Iran’s military chiefs warned on Saturday that the Islamic republic would shut down
the Strait of Hormuz vital for oil exports and use “blitzkrieg tactics” in the Gulf if it
came under attack. “All
“All the countries should know that if Iran’s interests in the
region are ignored, it is natural that we will not allow others to use it (the strait),”
strait),”
said army chief General Hassan Firouzabadi, quoted by the Fars news agency.
However, Iran’s armed forces joint chief of staff stressed his country’s priority was
that the Strait of Hormuz remain open. Speculation has been rife that Israel could
be planning a military strike against Iranian nuclear sites, using force to halt
Tehran’s controversial atomic activities. The chief of Iran’s elite Revolutionary
Guards militia, General Mohammad Ali Jafari, meanwhile, warned that his forces
would use “blitzkrieg tactics” in the Gulf if his country came under attack. “The
“The
Guards are equipped with the most advanced missiles that can strike the enemies’
vessels and naval equipment with fatal blows,”
blows,” Fars quoted the Guards chief as
saying. In case of attack, “blitzkrieg
“blitzkrieg tactics and operations of the Guards’ boats will
not leave a chance for the enemies to run away.” ”These words do not mean that
the prerequisites of war are being set but these are the strategies that our alert
armed forces have prepared for any hypothesis,”
hypothesis,” he added.

The new commander of the US Fifth Fleet, Vice Admiral William Gortney, said on
Saturday that the American naval presence in the region was “a “a very clear message
that we are here to maintain security and to provide stability.” ”The chief of naval
operations wanted me here, I think, because of my experience,”
experience,” Gortney, who was
navy chief during the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, told reporters in Bahrain
where the fleet is based. His predecessor, Vice Admiral Kevin J. Cosgriff, has warned
that Fifth Fleet would not allow Iran to close the Strait of Hormuz. The strait
between Iran and Oman is a vital conduit for energy supplies, with as much as 40
per cent of the world’s crude passing through the strategic waterway. US President
George W. Bush has not ruled out using force in the nuclear standoff between Iran
and the West, but emphasised that he preferred a diplomatic solution. Iran insists
its atomic drive is peaceful, but Western powers fear Tehran is using the
programme to develop nuclear weapons.

Author Location Dated

Shamim-ur-Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 06.07.08

– PPP lashes out at nazim’s remarks

The Pakistan People’s Party has taken serious exception to the ‘uncalled for’
remarks of the Karachi nazim against the party and the Pakistan Muslim League-
Nawaz leadership at a dinner for President Pervez Musharraf on Friday night, asking
the Muttahida Qaumi Movement leadership to ensure that such elements within its
ranks are not allowed to derail the democratic process. Addressing a hurriedly-
called news conference here on Saturday, Sindh Information Minister Shazia Marri,
however, appreciated the Muttahida leadership’s decision to distance itself from the
nazim’s stance. In response to Syed Mustafa Kamal’s remarks that the PPP
leadership should be ‘ashamed’ of sitting in a coalition with the PML-N whose leader
Nawaz Sharif was propelled into politics by the same general who had sent Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto to the gallows, she said if such outbursts continued without showing any
respect for the process of reconciliation, one could then ask who enjoyed the
patronage of the ISI. The nazim had also come down on those who had criticised Mr
Musharraf for his actions against Dr A.Q. Khan. Besides, he criticised some TV
presenters, alleging that they were serving the interest of India, Israel and the US.
Terming the nazim’s statement “indecent,
“indecent, undemocratic and an act of treason,”
treason,” Ms
Marri demanded of the MQM to take action against him. “The “The PPP co-chairman is
taking up the matter with the MQM leadership,”
leadership,” she said, though at the same time
she welcomed the position taken by the MQM on the issue. Saying that it was Asif
Zardari who visited Nine-Zero and offered Fateha at the graves of Muttahida leaders
and workers as the party wanted to bring in a new political culture, the minister
urged the MQM leadership not to bring those people to the forefront who had no
respect for the process of reconciliation.

She said as the PPP had a track record of struggle and had seen enough blood in the
past, it had agreed to pursue the policy of reconciliation and was prepared to sit
with anyone to achieve a bigger goal. She called upon the nazim to act within his
parameters. The minister urged all political forces to show maturity otherwise
people would have no option left but to consider all politicians immature. In an
emotional tone she said, “Yes,
“Yes, shame on the PPP for its struggle and sacrifices for
democracy and refusal to follow the dictation of intelligence agencies. We will
welcome the criticism of the people but will never accept the conditions of
dictators.”
dictators.” Referring to an advertisement about the balloting for land, the minister
said the chief minister and other members of the provincial cabinet, who were
pictured in the ad, were neither consulted nor were they aware of it. “The
“The Sindh
government had nothing to do with the ad,”
ad,” she said, while making it clear that
those involved were trying to hoodwink the people. The minister also reacted
angrily over certain remarks of the president, saying that the February 18 election
results had proved who the people were with. “Why
“Why was Pervez Musharraf not
moved when Akbar Bugti was killed in Balochistan or when dozens were gunned
down in Karachi on May 12?”
12?” she asked. She condemned the July 5, 1977 military
action against the late Z.A. Bhutto’s government and said the same mindset still
prevailed on July 5, 2008, which was reflected at the Friday dinner.

Author Location Dated

Haider Warraich 06.07.08

– Snakes and Spiders

Modernism is — some might say — a revolution of fear. Yet it is not merely the
modern society whose basis is formed by fear — ancient humans lived less and
feared more. They were helpless and inadequately informed about the reality of
their environments. Going grocery shopping would probably be as taxing as a
complete season of Survivor. Fears can be divided into rational and irrational fears,
and since rationality has been the subject of constant upheavals and turnarounds
due to the ascendancy of human knowledge and awareness, what was rational once
is not so anymore. Like most psychiatric disorders, phobias have slipped into
popular culture and their use is commonplace. Though most phobias are trivial, part
of the vast template of what can be considered normal, they are recognised as a
specific clinical entity. Considering how common they are in society, and the
amount of discomfort they cause the person who is afflicted by them, a lot of work
has gone into understanding how they come to be and how to go about treating
those who have them. A phobia is a step ahead of a simple fear. It is something of a
lifestyle, stemming from someone’s total revulsion of a certain object or situation.
Not only does the stressor develop deep fear and revulsion in the phobic person, it
causes behavioural changes such as conscious avoidance of the stressor as well as
constant anxiety caused by fearing proximity or exposure to the specific phobia.
Phobias are one of the most prevalent psychological conditions in the world.
According to cross-sectional studies, a quarter of the world’s population develops a
phobia at a certain point in their lives. These phobias usually develop during
childhood.

There are many theories as to how phobias originate. Children develop a lot of fears
partly because of their sense of vulnerability and partly through being conditioned
by overzealous parents. Though most childhood fears are deciduous, shedding by
the time adulthood blooms, some persist and become phobias. It is interesting,
though slightly irrelevant, that a young infant learns to smile first, before it develops
a fear of strangers. This fear, xenophobia, can be seen to be derived from human
beings’ constant clash of interest with outsiders of their own species. Xenophobia is
the basis of nationalism and racism. Stressful events can precipitate a lifelong
phobia in the wake of the shock the psyche receives at their hands. This, coupled
with even a mild family history of phobias, can also give rise to a specific phobia.
Psychoanalytic theories provide the most interesting yet least scientific explanation.
According to them, the externally displayed phobia stems from an internal source of
anxiety and stress not related to the externally displayed phobia. It is deemed a
disguised messenger from the Dark Continent within. Yet because of the ego’s own
defences, namely denial, repression etc, the true stressor is neither recognised nor
addressed. However, the widely accepted theory is that phobias develop through
association learning by being paired with stressful events. This means that a person
might develop a fear of water if s/he has witnessed a loved one drowning. Some
situations, objects and natural phenomena carry a predilection for being associated
as phobic for example spiders as opposed to kittens. According to clinical
psychiatry, phobic disorders are part of the broader group of anxiety disorders.
Anxiety disorders carry with them a fear that does not have a singular face, but
whispers from every plane of everyday life. Patients of anxiety disorders usually
complain of a vague sense of impending doom.

Phobic disorders are divided into specific phobias, social phobia and agoraphobia.
Though there are many lists of phobias, which involve a lot of Latin words ending
with the ‘phobia’ suffix, modern classification divides specific phobias into ‘animals’,
‘aspects of the natural environment’ (for example lightning), ‘blood, injection and
injury’, ‘situations and other provoking agents’ (for example dental treatment, fear
of choking). Social phobia is the experience of extreme stress in situations where a
person feels he is being subjected to criticism by others around him and his actions
are being scrutinised. Such a phobia usually develops during adolescence when a
stressful event occurs in a public place. The person, thereon, avoids public
situations, and if that is not possible, tries not to garner too much attention.
Avoiding eye contact and conversation and sitting in an inconspicuous place is
common. Social activities bear great stress on the person. Social phobia can either
be generalised, or elicited only in certain situations for example public speaking,
performing on stage etc. Some people fear excreting in public places, and avoid
doing so in public restrooms. They gear their whole lives in a way that they never
have to use a washroom other than their own. Social phobia results from a fear of
negative evaluation, excessively high standards demanded of the self in social
situations, low self image, and a heightened sense of self-awareness, wherein the
person evaluates each of his actions as they are performed. Sometimes, social
phobia develops due to poor communication skills. This can occur in people of low
IQ or even in those who fail to register facial expressions. Their responses are
usually inappropriate, they are unable to communicate or respond in normal social
settings. However, in most of these people, there is reduced insight with regards to
their inappropriateness; hence, they do not experience anxiety as a patient of social
phobia does.

Agoraphobia is another very prevalent phobia. Agoraphobic patients fear situations

where they are away from home, or in crowded and confined places. They are
especially fearful of situations where they cannot ‘escape’ from without getting
unwanted scrutiny for example watching a film in a cinema hall. Something as
simple as getting a haircut becomes the cause of convulsions and nausea. Heart
beats race and their might even be fainting spells. One of the behaviour-modifying
treatment modalities is exposure therapy. In this treatment, patients are exposed to
their fears in a controlled setting, and gradually their resistance is built up until they
can effectively overcome their fears. This method has been effective for many
settings. A lot of people with an undue fear of air travel have been placed in air
flight simulators. However, these sessions carry a high dropout rate, and their
effectiveness remains questionable. Many people suffer greatly during these
sessions because of intense arousal. Cognitive behavioural therapy is another
treatment available in Pakistan. This form of therapy seeks to hone in on the
thoughts and thought processes that lead to a phobia arising in the mind of the
patient. It then seeks to make modifications not only in thinking but the resultant
behaviour of the patient as well. In social phobia, for example, CBT aims to
overcome the excessive self-monitoring and low self esteem, while reducing actions
taken by the patient to avoid social settings. CBT aims at three central fears: fear of
fear, fear of symptoms, and the fear of negative evaluation.
evaluation. Although some
clinicians might also prescribe drugs that relieve anxiety and depression, the true
effectiveness of these medications beyond their placebo effect is questionable. It is
true that like most psychiatric disorders, phobias remain a mystery. However, a lot
is being understood about them and how they originate. The true difficulty is to
mark a line between the normal and the abnormal psyche, the rational and the
irrational fear, the justified and the exaggerated response. While phobias remain
shrouded beneath the haze of neuronal activity, we must try and help those with
phobias on a personal level. It is always best to accommodate the fears of those
one loves; a little reassurance can go a long way in soothing the nerves of the
phobic souls around us.

Author Location Dated

Zahra Ali Syed 06.07.08

– It’s all in the head!

The next time you hear someone say ‘what‘what we think determines what happens to
us’
us’ you better believe it, for recent researches have shown that our mind affects our
health in ways never imagined before. Brain biologists have discovered that the
brain might actually help our immune system fight disease, ease chronic pains,
encounter addictions, defeat depression, overcome phobias and put a stop to
spreading cancers. It began back in 1975, when Dr Robert Ader, director of the
Division of Behavioural and Psychosocial Medicine at University of Rochester, New
York, first reported that our immune system, nervous system and endocrine or
hormone system work together, and each system influences the other. The study of
these complex interactions was originally termed Psycho Neuro Immunology,
Immunology, or PNI.
Although today it is most commonly referred to as the mindbody connection. By
1980, researchers from Harvard University reproduced and confirmed Ader’s
studies. PNI is now taught at most leading medical schools as the scientific field of
study that investigates the link between bi-directional communications between the
nervous, endocrine and immune systems and implications of these linkages for
physical health. In the year 2000, Dr Tracy, a neurosurgeon, immunologist and
director of the Feinstein Institute of Medical Research,
Research, New York, after careful study
of two decades, reveals through his study that the stimulation of the vagus nerve —
a major nerve that runs from our brain stem to our belly and regulates our
heartbeat, breathing and intestines — stops severe sepsis. It does so by utilising
neurochemicals to signal immune cells, which prevents them from releasing alarm
molecules that spur inflammation and cause damage. Latter in 2006, he discovered
a brain circuit that could stimulate the vagus nerve to stop inflammation. If patients
with severe sepsis can learn to slow down their heartbeats, they might be able to
control their brains to modify the vagus nerve, which will calm the inflammation to
fight disease.

Moreover, a strained and stressed mind can lead to surfeit physical and mental
disorders, which can directly affect our immune system. Higher levels of stress are
interlinked with chronic and intense anger, which can lead to heart disease, stroke,
cancer and even conventional physical illnesses such as flu, cold and generally poor
health. Studies have shown that stress hormones can encourage cancerous cells to
release two particular compounds that help them travel within the body through the
blood stream. The third compound supplies nutrients to the existing tumour. Thus
by reducing stress level, cancers can also be fought. Anger not only affects our lives
and relationships but is also directly associated with depression. A person suffering
from depression is likely to have severe mood swings, fatigue, and lack of energy,
decreased or lost appetite, anger and anxiety. In severe cases of depression,
patients become hopeless and distance themselves from society, which may result
in excessive isolation, loneliness and even suicide attempts. Anxiety may also
trigger depression. It is therefore essential to pacify and relax our minds to control
palpitations, racing pulse and excessive panting. Phobias, panic attacks, physical
and mental disorders, anxious or depressive collapse or nervous breakdowns are
caused by intense depression and stressful psychological conditions. But a peaceful,
tranquil mind can rebound these fiends. In modern times, doctors and scientists
have and are still working together to train people so that they can control and
harness their minds. Many studies and observations have been made to understand
the influence of the healing power of the mind on the human body. Stress should be
fought with fortitude, for if left intact, it will gradually impair your strength. The best
way to confront stress is to adopt positive thinking patterns, which will help
immunise your mind and body, producing positive and durable results. Meditation
may also help repose your mind. In addition, it is also important that the family and
friends of people dealing with stress fully support them during their recovery by
believing in them, understanding and encouraging them and by helping them set
targets and achieve their goals. The mystifying healing power of the mind still
needs to be studied in depth. However, always remember that energy of the
subconscious mind used consciously, will not only bring peace to your soul, but will
also bring ease to physical illness and disorders.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza/Munawer Islamabad, Pakistan 07.07.08
Azeem

– Suicide bomber avenges Lal Masjid crackdown; 15 policemen

killed
At least 15 policemen and two other people were killed and more than 40 injured in
a suicide attack near the Melody Market on Sunday right after the culmination of
the “Lal Masjid Shuhada (martyrs) Conference” held to observe the first anniversary
of the military operation against the mosque and seminary. Several fiery speeches
were made at the conference against the authorities responsible for the operation.
The attack is being considered a revenge action for the operation in which at least
103 people, including 95 alleged militants or madressah students, were killed in July
last year. Prime Minister’s Adviser on Interior Affairs Rehman Malik confirmed the
death of seven policemen of Punjab and five of Islamabad, including Sihala SHO
Chaudhry Mohammad Safdar. “It “It was a suicide bombing in which the attacker
targeted security personnel,”
personnel,” the adviser said. According to unofficial sources, 17
people were killed, 15 of them policemen. About 5kg of explosives was used. The
government formed a joint investigation team comprising officials of Inter-Services
Intelligence and the Federal Investigation Agency. Blood and human limbs were
scattered at the site on Sadar Road near Melody Market. The blast took place at
around 7:45pm and it was heard miles away. Smell of explosive and burnt bodies
engulfed the area which was cordoned off by security forces. According to a security
official, the suicide bomber sporting a beard and clad in white Shalwar Qameez
struck a police party comprising 35 to 40 personnel deployed to provide security to
the people attending the conference.
Bodies and injured were taken to the three main hospitals of the capital.

Residents of Sector G-6, where Melody Market is located, came out of their homes
with their children in panic after receiving telephone calls from friends and relatives
within the country and abroad. Mr Malik, who earlier claimed that foolproof security
arrangements had been made for the conference, paid a brief visit to the blast site.
“We are in a state of war and time has come for the people to expel anti-state
elements from their ranks,”
ranks,” he said. He said the investigators had seized batteries
of the suicide vest used in the attack and limbs of the bomber. “The
“The blast was an
attempt to de-stabilise the country,”
country,” he said. When asked if the attack had been
carried out to avenge last year’s Lal Masjid operation, the adviser said it would be
premature to say anything. Those killed in the blast included Sub-Inspector Zafar
Iqbal; Punjab Police Assistant SubInspector Nawaz; constables Haji Ilyas, Aftab,
Babar Ali Shah, Qamar Abbas, Shahid Maqsood, Mohammad Attaullah, Haq Nawaz,
Khalid Mehmood and Amjad; and civilians Mohammad Siddiqui and Abdul Sattar.
More then 3,000 police personnel from the capital, Punjab, the NWFP and Azad
Kashmir had been deployed to avert any untoward incident during the conference.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 07.07.08

– Attempt to Talibanise Karachi will be resisted, vows Altaf

Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain has said that the people of Sindh,
particularly those living in Karachi, will never allow Taliban to occupy their province
or the city and would rather prefer to sacrifice their lives than accept the gun-toting
and batonwielding Sharia of fanatics. In a telephonic address from London to a
gathering of business community at a local hotel, Mr Hussain said a conspiracy was
being hatched to Talibanise Karachi and a number of people from the NWFP and
tribal areas were being brought to the mega city in trucks. “These
“These people are being
settled in different localities in order to blockade Karachi at all its entry or exit
points,”
points,” the MQM chief said. Mr Hussain said that some rogue elements in the
establishment and intelligence agencies were supporting the Taliban and bringing
them to Karachi and helping them in land-grabbing. He said the people of Karachi
did not want any confrontation and they were ready to provide shelter to people
coming here from tribal areas. However, they would never allow Taliban to take
over their city by force and would resist any such move. He asked businessmen,
traders and industrialists to come forward to foil the conspiracy of Talibanisation of
the financial capital of the country. “You
“You will have to arrange your security by
adopting a watch and ward system,”
system he said.
,”

The MQM leader said that the people of Karachi always gave shelter to oppressed
people from all over Pakistan but it did not mean that they would accept the
enforcement of gun–toting and baton-wielding extremists. He strongly condemned
the suicide bombing in Islamabad and termed it an act of terrorism. He said in a
statement that the bombing was a cowardly, inhuman and barbaric act aimed at
spreading terrorism and challenging the writ of the government. Mr Hussain called
upon the president, the prime minister and the interior adviser to take stern action
and arrest those responsible for the attack and punish them accordingly. He
expressed his heartfelt condolences for the people who lost their lives and prayed
for the early recovery of those injured in the attack.

Author Location Dated

Bakhtawar Mian Islamabad, Pakistan 07.07.08

– Call for Lal Masjid operation trial

Religious leaders addressing a conference on the first anniversary of the Lal Masjid
operation on Sunday demanded trial of President Pervez Musharraf for the
bloodshed caused by the operation. They told thousands of madressha students
that the then corps commander of Rawalpindi, the interior minister and other
officials who had taken part in the operation, should also be tried and punished by
the government or the and warned that if it was not done the students would use
force to bring them to justice. But a statement issued by the organisers of the
conference made no mention of President Pervez Musharraf and other people, but
demanded registration of an “FIR
“FIR against the people actually responsible for the
Operation Silence”.
Silence”. They demanded constitution of an inquiry commission
comprising impartial and independent people, to investigate the matter. They also
pledged to oppose government interference in all madressah, adding that the
gathering was a beginning of ‘Protection Movement’ for each and every mosque
and madressa in the country. They also announced that similar gatherings would be
held in the four provinces and a protest programme in font of the Parliament House.
One such gathering will be held in Lahore on August 10 and another on July 10 in
Quetta. They conference demanded unconditional release of Maulana Abdul Aziz,
reconstruction of Jamia Hafsa and reopening of Jamia Faridia. They said that their
next gathering would be held in Jamia Faridia and warned that the administration
would be responsible if any untoward incident took place. They also announced that
from Monday tents would be erected at the site of the Jamia Hafsa where regular
classes would be held. JUI-F central leader Hafiz Hussain Ahmad, Wafaqul Madaris
secretary general Qari Muhammad Hanif Jalandheri, Maulana Ahmad Ludhianvi of
the banned Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan, Mufti Kifayatullah, Qari Saeedur Rehman and
others spoke on the occasion.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 07.07.08

– Probe ordered into Islamabad bombing

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani has condemned the Islamabad blast and
ordered an inquiry. According to an official handout, Adviser on Interior Rahman
Malik, who updated the prime minister on the overall law and order situation, with
special reference to demonstrations and day-long conference on the first
anniversary of the Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa crackdown in Islamabad and the
operation in tribal areas. The prime minister said that such incidents were against
the teachings of Islam and did not serve any purpose. Expressing grief over the loss
of lives, the prime minister asked the authorities to provide the injured with the best
possible medical care. The anniversary of the Lal Masjid siege was marked by a
conference held outside the mosque, not far from the site of the blast. The prime
minister is reported to have asked the ministry of interior to ensure people’s
confidence in government measures for maintaining law and order and assure them
that it was taking all possible measures to avert such incidents. The adviser told the
prime minister that after the operation against the Lashkar-i-Islam, Ansarul Islam
and Haji Namdar’s group, which were running a parallel government in the tribal
area near Peshawar, the situation was calm and under complete control of civilian
forces. Federal Minister for Water and Power Raja Parvaiz Ashraf and Adviser on
Religious Affairs Allama Hamid Saeed Kazmi also called on the premier to inform
him about their ministries’ performance. The prime minister said the government
believed in resolving all issues through consultations and dialogue and considered
using force only as the last option. Referring to the handling of Lal Masjid
demonstration, Mr Malik said that on the directives of the prime minister, police had
been kept ‘invisible’ and instructed to avoid use of force. Raja Parvaiz Ashraf
updated the prime minister on steps being taken by his ministry to overcome
energy shortage. The prime minister called for ending load-shedding by the end of
next year.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 07.07.08

– Waiting for mutation

The last time a ‘government’ was toppled by the raw power of the Pakistani
populace was in 1969 when Ayub Khan’s reign was brought to an end. The ‘power’
gene is present in all communities and nations. When a nation is prospering, this
gene stays contended, or in its ‘inactive’ state but if pressed to the wall, it mutates
into its ruthless ‘active’ form: the form which enabled the Indian Muslims to unite
and gain independence; which made the Iranians rally behind Imam Khomeini and
overthrow the Shah; which powered the Pakistani people to overthrow the Ayub
government; which has been the backbone of the independence struggle of the
Palestinians and Kashmiris, etc. Coming back to 1969, after Ayub’s government was
done with, this power of the nation’s gene, quite inexplicably, went into a prolonged
period of inactivity; it even stayed that way when our elected prime minister was
tried in a comic court and then hanged; or when two elected governments were
ousted by military dictators; or when a two-time former PM was assassinated, in a
security lapse. And if such high-profile events weren’t able to set off the ‘power
gene’, it would be foolish to believe that issues like the price hike of basic food
items and fuel and the government’s refusal to ban exports of these very items
would be able to do that. It seems our people have become better practitioners of
the law of omerta than the Italians themselves, and that a further mutation is the
need of the hour to make them forget this law.
But before that happens, we have to identify the causes that have rendered our
power gene inactive. One reason is an identity crisis. Are we Muslims? Or Sindhis,
Punjabis, etc? Or, most worryingly, are we supporters of the PPP or MQM or PML (N)
or ANP? This question seems to be plaguing each of us today. For me, however, it is
enough that we’re human beings and citizens of Pakistan; two identities which
entitle me to all scores of rights, including those of expression, health, education
and employment among others, as envisaged under the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as well as our Constitution. It was this crisis that prevented the
majority of people of Punjab, Balochistan and the Frontier from coming on the
streets (and quite a population of Sindh too, I may add) when Benazir Bhutto was
assassinated. Conversely, it was the absence of this crisis-confusion that enabled
the Lebanese to forget their allegiance to either the pro-Syrian government or the
Hezbollah and to not only withstand, but also repel attacks by an infinitely more
resourceful Israel. On any given day, thousands of people would gather on our
streets etc to listen to our leaders, but wouldn’t come on the street to protest
against the price hike, which has affected them more than it has the very same
leaders. Why is this so? Because for decades our rulers have encouraged a policy
which all of us have studied in our history, but which the majority of us haven’t
been able to recognise, i.e. the ‘divide and rule’ policy. By dividing us on the basis
of geographical, cultural and ethnic lines, our rulers have ensured that we won’t be
able to gather together for any one purpose. This policy was deemed to be the
easiest way possible for gaining access to the corridors of power, and we duly
ensured that it was so. Now we’re reaping the rewards for our own confusion and
mistakes. However, it’s still not too late. The lawyers have had their power gene
activated after a lapse of 60 years; all it took was the event of March 9, 2007. I had
honestly thought that Benazir Bhutto’s assassination would have done so for the
rest of us, but I was sadly mistaken. Only God knows what we’re waiting for. Maybe
the current economic crisis would turn on this gene that has eluded the Pakistani
populace for the better part of 38 years. For if it doesn’t, then I may well start
praying to God to mutate our power gene Himself, and would also advise the rest of
you to follow suit.

Author Location Dated

Aneela Babar 07.07.08

– What does language mean to me?

On a second reading of an article on taking pride in being non-conformist, it was the
writer’s exchange with a young student being chided for speaking in a language she
is comfortable with, that stayed with me. Sadly the Pakistani citizen’s relationship
with language remains convoluted and reflective of how schizophrenic we all are
when it comes to dealing with a ‘Pakistani identity’. I realised very soon that what I
spoke at home did not fit in with the Holy Trinity — English, Urdu and Arabic —
therefore it had no place in the classroom. And if I were to forget and let a word slip
in, it would lead to serious rebukes from teachers and ridicule from classmates. For
Fairclough, and others in the academia, language exists not only for the
coordination of social activity but “(functioning)
“(functioning) as the medium in which identity is
constituted, in which we understand and define ourselves”.
ourselves”. And when we get into
analysing the conversations we enter into, we can further deconstruct the ways in
which we communicate (or are not allowed to). We might conclude that these are
constrained by the structures and forces of the very social institutions which are
essential to how we live and function. Similarly the language employed in the state
discourse is also an instrument of control as well as of communication. Feminists
have critiqued language by taking into account the relationships between
masculinist authority and language, and as Gerda Lerner concludes “demonstrated
“demonstrated
the ways in which women have been subsumed by generic masculine, trivialised
and degraded through derogatory metaphors, deprived of access to sacred
languages, or silenced altogether”.
altogether”. Coming to Pakistan, it is ironic that though this
year marks the International Year of Language we continue to be as others have
labelled us as “illiterate
“illiterate in more than one language”.
language”. If I were to put myself under
the microscope per se I realise I speak Pushto but cannot write it. I can read and
offer my prayers in Arabic but with no conversational skills. Pakistani students also
sit in for the infamous Persian class in the Bachelor’s degree course where we only
have to swot one book and answer in Urdu to get good grades. Then there is the
‘foreign’ language that all good convent girls should take up (German in my case,
but I speak German as I would Pushto!) My Urdu and English require major help
when it comes to grammar. So where does that leave me? I frequently question
myself, what do I know of the languages of Pakistan?

In fact what does anyone who is not Seraiki or Sindhi or Balochi know of the
language? A ‘sadkey deeva’ we get from an Asghar Nadeem Syed play, singing
along to Sheiki and Alan Faqir’s ‘Humma Humma’ or the ubiquitous Rajasthani
tapestry on our walls does not a language make. I admit that while growing up I
rejected Urdu as a ‘colonising’ language. Perhaps some of this came courtesy PTV
dramas that would drum in every evening that being ‘Urdu speaking’ and quoting
Mir Taqi Mir was a sign of being sophisticated and any Pushto or Punjabi was left to
the character playing the servant or the village bumpkin. I regret my aversion
tactics now when I come across a snatch of Ghalib and realise the beauty of the
words and promise myself to get back to it one day. In addition to the aversion that
the Pakistani government has towards the language of its people, it has also
complicated matters by looking towards the Middle East and Saudi Arabia in
particular for ‘affirmation’ and taken its cues from the region whether it is regarding
its foreign policy, political and economic support, and even culture (which has
added to its schizophrenia regarding its national identity). So circa the late
seventies we have seen the introduction of an Arabic news bulletin on state
television, the introduction of Arabic as a compulsory subject in certain public
schools and the increasing ‘arabisation’ of the Urdu language and purging all that
sounds ‘South Asian.’

Ayesha Jalal in her book, The State of Martial Rule: the origins of Pakistan’s political
economy of defence,
defence, has also pointed out how it was right and proper for even the
most liberal urban families to employ a maulvi for their children’s religious
education which involved a compulsory reading of the Quran in Arabic, usually
without a translation. She is of the opinion that, “exposed
“exposed to Arabic while speaking
in a regional language or dialect at home and learning English and Urdu in schools,
and in Balochistan also Persian, most of the first generation of upper-and middle
class Pakistanis grew up being literate not in one language but practically illiterate
in at least four.”
four.” Zia Mohyeddin puts it best when he speaks about his relationship
with languages. I am quoting from his interview with Zameen: “What
“What does language
mean to me? I think essentially, language means to me...culture. Language is
nothing but culture. When you use language accurately and when you are able to
appreciate a language correctly, you become at ease with that culture. Once you
feel that you have acquired not just the rudiments of that language but the
expression of that language, then its misuse is a travesty.”
travesty.” These are words to
remember and live by. Especially in Pakistan, with all its trouble of a populace living
with a multiplicity of belongings whether its culture or religion or our diverse
ethnicities. It is only when we are at ease with difference and appreciate the rich
tapestry of colours, sounds and languages of our beautiful land that any silly digs at
how a particular language sounds, or reprimanding a student, would be as
Mohyeddin identifies it — a “travesty”.

Author Location Dated

Abdul Sami Paracha Kohat, Pakistan 07.07.08

– New Taliban group issues ‘code’ for public activity

A new group with the name of ‘Haidri Taliban’ has warned the people of Ustarzai
town to restrict their religious and public activities to Imambargahs, mosques and
hujras, while threatening the clerics against charging fee for delivering sermons on
special occasions. Leaflets distributed in Ustarzai also threatened women of dire
consequences, if they visited shrines in fashionable dresses along with mobile
phones. They asked all the caretakers of seminaries to bring them under central
command of a committee and the record of the funds collected in the name of
religion and construction of mosques should be assigned to honest people. They
also asked the people to limit mourning for only two months instead of holding
majalis (religious gatherings) round the year. A warning was also issued to the
visitors and shopkeepers of Mian Khel bazaar to wear and sell Islamic dresses. Syed
Zahid Jan adds from Upper Dir: Barbers in the town of Darora have been warned to
stop shaving beards of customers, residents said on Sunday. “Barbers
“Barbers have stopped
trimming and shaving beards in the town following circulation of a threatening
letter (leaflet) by a group of Taliban,”
Taliban,” a local said.

A militant group, claiming affiliation with the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, pasted

leaflets on the doors of barber shops, warning them to stop trimming and shaving
beards immediately otherwise ‘action’ would be taken against them. The barbers
had received similar threatening letters in the past as well, particularly in the areas
of Dir Khas, Usherai, Bibyawar and Wari, but no group had claimed responsibility for
those letters earlier. The leaflets in Darora were distributed after a year’s gap. The
area was feeling presence of militants for the last one month as girls schools were
burnt and bombed in Bibyawar and Wari areas. In the past, such warnings were
usually ignored, but the new leaflet has sent a wave of terror among the local
barbers, who were already facing difficulties in the region. The leaflet, written in
Urdu, has threatened that those barbers, who would continue to shave beards in
defiance of the ‘order’, would be responsible for the killing of people in their shops
that would be bombed. “Our“Our dear Muslim brothers,”
brothers,” it reads, “God
“God has created us
to worship Him, and keep the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet (Hazrat Muhammad,
peace be upon him). Therefore, it is to be said that shaving off and trimming beards
is banned not only here, but also everywhere. Anyone, failing to abide by this order
would be responsible for his own life.”
life.” With Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan written on the
lower-half, the leaflet also carried a note, saying that in case of bomb blasts, the
barber would be held responsible for killings and “he “he would go to hell.”
hell.”
Author Location Dated
AP Grand Rapids, Michigan 07.07.08

– Boxer accuses TV channel of racial discrimination

Recently retired boxer Floyd Mayweather Jr. accused the American pay-TV channel
Home Box Office of bias against him and other black fighters. Mayweather, a 31-
year-old former Olympic bronze medallist from Grand Rapids, told The Grand Rapids
Press in an interview Friday that HBO “is “is great,”
great,” but criticised its boxing analysts.
“They talk about Kelly Pavlik, a white fighter, like he’s the second coming. Or they
go crazy over Manny Pacquiao. But I’m a black fighter,”
fighter,” Mayweather said. “Is
“Is it
racial? Absolutely. They praise white fighters, they praise Hispanic fighters,
whatever. But black fighters, they never praise.”
praise.” HBO and Showtime are the two
major American pay-TV channels that televise many of the high-profile boxing
matches. “I’ve
“I’ve noticed it for a long time but I couldn’t say anything because I had to
do business with them. I’ll still do business with them, but I’m done holding my
tongue.”
tongue.” HBO Sports president Ross Greenburg said in a statement that the
network, which has carried many of Mayweather’s bouts, was disappointed to hear
of the boxer’s remarks and denied his claims. “Floyd“Floyd is a tremendous athlete who
gave his all to the sport. We have nothing but admiration for what he accomplished
in the ring,”
ring,” Greenburg said. “His“His remarks regarding HBO broadcasters and
executives are unfortunate and we could not disagree more.” more.” Mayweather gave the
interview on the first day of a threeday retirement celebration in downtown Grand
Rapids. He abruptly retired last month at the peak of his athletic skill and earning
power. “I’m
“I’m happy. I feel clear. I feel free as a bird,”
bird,” he told the newspaper. “I “I feel
good that I can finally speak out, and say the things I want to say.”say.” Mayweather
retired afer a remarkable 18-month stretch in which he beat Oscar De La Hoya and
Ricky Hatton, made more than $50 million (euro31.9 million) in the ring and became
a bankable celebrity outside it. In the past year alone, Mayweather has appeared on
the American television show “Dancing With the Stars,” worked on his record label,
served as the honorary starter at the Indianapolis 500 automobile race and entered
the wrestling ring for a choreographed tussle.

Author Location Dated

07.07.08

– Rupee still vulnerable vs dollar

The recent political uncertainty, coupled with the continuing rise in oil prices in the
international market had made the rupee vulnerable against the dollar in the money
market during the last fiscal year 2007-08. The leading factor behind the rupee’s fall
was the costlier payments as a result of record breaking oil price in the world
markets. In the international markets, the oil prices are near to $144 per barrel. In
the local currency market, the rupee has so far lost over 12 per cent against the
dollar and by more than 32 per cent against euro. The outlook continues weak
because of growing concern about widening fiscal and current account deficits and
inflation at a 30-year high as well as political uncertainty. The inter-bank
rupee/dollar parity continued its downtrend on the last day of FY 2008, and
commenced the first week of FY 2009 on a negative note with the rupee shedding
20 paisa against the dollar on June 30, due to persistent high demand for dollars
amid rising prices of crude oil in the international market, which has made imports
costlier. The dollar traded at Rs68.40 and Rs68.45 as against previous week close of
Rs68.20 and Rs68.25. The inter bank trading remained suspended on July 1 being
Bank Holiday. When trading resumed on July 2, the rupee crossed Rs69 barrier after
posting sharp losses against the dollar. It shed 58 paisa in single day trading,
changing hands Rs68.98 and Rs69.02 due to hectic dollar buying on the second
trading day of the week in review. Mounting demand for US currency to cover
import payments kept the rupee under downward pressure on July 3, when the
rupee lost 77 paisa on the buying counter and another 83 paisa on the selling
counter to trade at Rs 69.75 and Rs69.85 against the dollar. Later in the day, the
rupee rebounded slightly recovering 35 paisa closing the day at Rs69.50 and
Rs69.60 against the dollar. At this level, the rupee was lower by 52 paisa on the
buying counter and another 58 paisa on the selling counter against the previous
day close of Rs 68.98 and Rs69.02. On July 4, the rupee dropped further against the
American currency, losing 60 paisa to trade at Rs69.58 and Rs69.62. This week the
rupee in the inter bank market was costlier by 138 paisa against the dollar.

In the open market, the rupee lost 10 paisa in relation to dollar and traded at
Rs68.55 and Rs68.70 on the opening day of the week. The rupee further shed 10
paisa on the buying counter and another 5 paisa on the selling counter, changing
hands versus the dollar at Rs68.65 and Rs68.75 on the second day of the week in
review against previous week close of Rs68.55 and Rs68.70. Due to the closure of
inter bank market on account of Bank Holiday, the rupee in the open market was
under significant pressure on July 1. The rupee continued its fall against the dollar
on July 2, posting fresh losses of 15 paisa on the buying counter and 25 paisa more
on the selling counter, trading at Rs 68.80 and Rs69.00 against the American
currency. On July 3, the rupee suffered the sharpest single decline of 80 paisa
against the dollar, changing hands at Rs69.60 and Rs69.80. On July 4, the rupee
extended its weakness against dollar, shedding 15 paisa for buying and 20 paisa for
selling, changing hands at Rs69.75 and Rs70.00 versus the dollar. During the week
in review, the rupee in the open market lost 120 paisa on the buying counter and
130 paisa on the selling counter against the dollar.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee shed 30 paisa for buying
and 10 paisa for selling to trade at Rs107 and Rs107.10 on the first trading day of
the week in review after closing previous week at Rs106.70 and Rs107.00. It further
shed five paisa for buying and 15 paisa for selling to trade at Rs107.05 and
Rs107.25 on the second trading day of the week. The rupee/euro downtrend
persisted on the third trading day when euro traded at Rs107.65 and Rs107.80 after
posting fresh losses of 60 paisa on the buying counter and 55 paisa on the selling
counter. On the fourth trading day, the rupee slipped to Rs108.50 and Rs108.70
against the European common currency after shedding up to 90 paisa over its
overnight levels. The rupee, however, gained 50 paisa in relation to euro for buying
and 60 paisa for selling on the fifth trading day to close the week at Rs108.00 and
Rs 108.10, bringing cumulative losses versus the European single common currency
to 130 paisa on the buying counter and 110 paisa on the selling counter during the
entire week in review.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 07.07.08
 – Fuel for electric power
It does not need hindsight to come to the conclusion that it was a colossal failure of
public policy during the period when President Pervez Musharraf was in charge of
the country to plan for increase in the supply of electricity. The President was aware
of the fact that unless the state made investments in generating additional power,
the country will have to face serious power shortages. These have materialised and
in the summer of 2008, the number of hours that people have to go without
electricity continues to increase. It is said that President Musharraf’s strategy was to
concentrate on the constructions of large dams, preferably the one at Kalabagh on
the Indus. There is no doubt that the President worked hard to develop a political
consensus that would have made the construction of Kalabagh possible. That did
not happen and later in his tenure, the President gave up the attempt leaving his
administration with no contingency plan to meet the anticipated demandsupply
gap. The data on supply and demand presented in accompanying Table 1 provides
some interesting information. It shows a surplus of 1265 MW in 2003, three years
after Musharraf had removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif from office. The surplus
was largely the consequence of the power policy adopted by the administrations
that were in charge in the 1990s. They encouraged investment in the electric sector
by private entrepreneurs. But the surplus did not last beyond 2004. By 2005,
demand-supply gaps had appeared and began to increase in size as no increase in
supply occurred. In 2004, demand exceeded supply by 2.5 per cent, increasing to
15 per cent by 2008, the last year of the administration headed by Musharraf. It is
estimated that by 2010, the demand-supply gap will increase to almost 27 per cent
of supply. It is clear that urgent action is required on the supply side. Policy makers
must find answers to two questions: One, how to take care of the shortages that are
already seriously hurting the economy and causing some discomfort to the
citizenry? Two, what should be the sources for generating electricity over the
medium and longterm? Whatever choices are made by the government, it will have
to take cognizance of the fact that it takes a long time to bring additional
generation capacity into operation. In this context, the short-term strategy will have
to be looked at differently from the strategy for the long-term.

At this time, individual households and small business have starting installing small
generators. Somewhere between 100,000 to 250,000 have been imported and
installed at cost of well over Rs30 billion. The combined output of these generators
is possibly between 100 and 150 MW.This is a very expensive way to meeting the
power shortage. Since a significant proportion of these are run on imported diesel
fuel they are adding to the high fuel bill as well as putting an additional burden on
the already strained urban environment. Also, meeting the supply-demand gap by
installing generators in individual households and small business is an option
available to a small segment of the population. This solution is perhaps feasible for
no more than 20 per cent of the households. By further turning to their own devices
for filling a function that should be provided by the state or by the public utilities
operating under the supervision and regulation of the state, the rich and the well-to-
do are further isolating themselves from the ordinary citizenry. They are sending
their children to expensive private schools; many of them have turned to private
security operators to purchase protection not provided by the police; and they have
begun to purchase their second homes in the Middle East and Europe to escape
from Pakistan when the weather becomes hot or the temperature of political
discourse rises. Now, by installing private power generators, they have created
another little island for themselves.Thus the use of private generators to deal with
power shortage have all kinds of high costs, economic environmental, political and
social. How then to deal with the grim problem of power shortage given that any
reasonably economic situation has a long gestation period? The only option is to
buy or rent barges that have reasonably large generators installed on them. The
government may quickly consider obtaining several barges and anchoring them
outside. The power generated by them, say 1000 MW, could be delivered into
Karachi’s distribution system. An equal amount of power could be fed into the
national system for feeding the areas north of Karachi.

A more permanent supply situation would involve a decision on what is the most
important fuel for generation given the domestic resources as well as the cost for
obtaining them from the outside. In this context, the data presented in Table 2 are
instructive. The table shows that Pakistan now has a very different mix of fuels for
power generation when compared to the rest of the world. For the world coal is by
the far the most important fuel for power generation; for Pakistan, on the other
hand, natural gas is the dominant fuel for power. At one point in its history, Pakistan
had an abundance of gas. However, after the construction of two vast pipeline
networks, the use of gas for several different purposes has increased to the point
that the reserves have been seriously depleted. Given the possible uses of gas as a
household fuel and as a feedstock for various chemical industries (including
fertiliser), to use it for producing electricity may not be a good strategy. Fuel oil
(most of it imported) is the second most important input for power generation,
accounting for 20 per cent of the total production of electric power. For the world,
the share of fuel oil is considerably smaller, only seven per cent. Given the recent
sharp increases in the price of oil, Pakistan has to carefully review the fuel-for-
power-generation policy it has pursued. At this point, it might be useful to take a
moment to examine the dynamics that seem to be operating in the oil markets. This
is what Alexey Miller, the chief executive of Gazprom,
Gazprom, has to say about the future of
oil: “We
“We are living in the time of a great surge in oil and gas prices: a structural shift
in the market, which well end with prices at a radically new level. Fierce
competition is unveiling for access to energy resource Oil price rises are linked to a
major revision of long-term forecasts. They demonstrate global energy supply
demand imbalance in the coming decades.”
decades.” Miller believes that oil could reach $250
barrel a day next year. His arithmetic is based on continuing demand increases in
the rapidly growing developing countries. “The “The past 10 years (1997-2007) saw
China’s consumption almost double and India’s grow over 1.5 fold.” fold.”

There is also the belief that the structural change in the oil market is occurring on
both the demand as well as the supply side. Some experts suggest that “peak oil” –
the point at which the world’s oil production can no longer be increased and begins
to fall – has been reached. According to this view, oil production is peaking because
the geological limits of available resources are being reached. However, this
explanation does not command general support among oil experts. The third view –
in addition to the views about unrelenting increases in demand – and limits on
supply – places emphasis on speculation by a large number of operators in the oil
markets.This view was advanced vigorously at the summit the held in June in Saudi
Arabia by a number of governments’ representatives from the countries that are
large oil producers and exporters. But this explanation for the sharp increase in the
price of oil misses the point that every forward purchase of oil must also be a
forward sale. As those who don’t accept this view point out that commodities in
which there is no activity by financial investors such as rice have also been rising
sharply. For strategists in Pakistan, it would be safe to assume that the period of
low oil prices is gone; that the demand for the commodity will continue to increase
in the rapidly growing developing economies and that this growth will more than
compensate for the slow down in demand in more developed countries. It would be
prudent for the policy makers to opt for using inputs for generating power that are
not under price pressure (such as domestic coal), that have an abundant domestic
supply (coal and water) or that are renewable (wind and solar). In other words, the
structure of electricity supply should be considerably different from the one it has
today. Coal and hydro, and renewables must play a larger role in power generation
than is currently the case.

Author Location Dated

M. Nawaz Khan nkhan@magic.net.pk 07.07.08

– Riba and inflation

The State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) has recently issued instructions/guidance to
Islamic banks and dedicated bank branches offering Shariah-compliant products. In
the guidelines, various products have been divided into three modes i.e.
participatory mode; trading mode and debt-based mode. While reading these
instructions, the first question that comes to mind is, “Does
“Does the establishment of
these ‘Islamic banking institutions’ amounts to compliance with Quranic injunction
on prohibition of Riba or, for that matter, constitutional provision regarding
elimination of Riba from the economy”.The
economy”.The second question that needs to be
answered is, “Will
“Will these ‘Institutions’ eventually lead to elimination of Riba from the
economy?”
economy?” There are other related issues which we will also discuss under the five
headings: meaning of Riba; Islamic banks (so-called); full implications of the Quranic
injunction; how to go about the task of eliminating Riba; and are we ready to
undertake the task? Meaning of Riba: There is no consensus among the scholars as
to when a rate of interest becomes exploitative or usurious. Be that as it may, in the
present global economic environment Riba can only be defined as ‘real rate’ of
interest as opposed to ‘nominal rate’.
rate’. Real rate means nominal rate, i.e. the rate
actually charged by banks, minus current rate of inflation. When there was no paper
currency, there was hardly any difference between purchasing power of bullion and
gold or silver coins used as currency. Every one knew gold or silver content of each
coin. When a borrower returned the same amount of coins to the lender that he had
borrowed, he returned the same amount of bullion unless the coins had been
deliberately debased by that time. The lender suffered no loss.

Now a days when high rates of inflation are common, the lender will suffer a loss if
he is paid back the borrowed amount, in paper money, without compensating for
inflation. In order to get back the same amount of purchasing power which he had
lent to the borrower, the lender must be compensated for inflation. This also
appears to be the intention of Quranic injunction on prohibition of Riba. Verse 2:279
says: “If
“If you repent you shall have (the right to) your principal, wrong not and you
shall not be wronged.”
wronged.” If we insist, as some orthodox ulema do, that a lender, be he
an individual or a bank, is entitled to get back the same amount that he lent in the
currency in use at the time of re-payment, would he not be wronged? By not
compensating him for inflation would we not be ignoring Quranic injunction to
wrong neither the lender nor the borrower? Acceptance of the above definition of
Riba does not, however, mean that all problems have been solved. Far from it. It
will, however, clear the way for elimination of Riba.

SBP’s guidelines would show that any financial institution that restricts its operation
to so-called Shariah compliant modes of banking and finance, could hardly be called
a banking institution in the present sense of the term. And if it performed other
banking functions also it would be a hybrid institution hardly deserving the title of
an ‘Islamic Banking Institution’. Financing provided under the six approved trading
modes turns a bank virtually into a trader, buying and selling different commodities.
Let us take the example of a farmer needing finance for agricultural inputs.The
guidelines require that the bank buys the inputs, directly or through an agent, and
then sells them to the farmer on deferred payment. What happens is that
documents are drawn up as if such a transaction has taken place when, in actual
fact, the farmer and the bank both know it is a loan to be repaid with interest.
Similar was the case with long-term foreign currency bonds sold by government a
few years back. The documents were drawn up to show that the government had
mortgaged the land under the Motorway to the bond buying consortium who then
leased the same land back to the government. While redeeming the bonds, the
government also paid the accrued interest, which was termed as lease charges on
the land which had been notionally mortgaged by the government and then leased
back to it by the consortium of lenders. Such a transaction was called by our
medieval jurists as heela. A heela may be defined as a device to comply with the
letter of the law without complying with its spirit and substance. Medieval books of
Fiqah are filled with examples of heela used by unscrupulous lenders and
borrowers.The irony, that even banks owned by non-Muslims have been allowed to
practice ‘Islamic banking’, seems to have been lost on the State Bank. If we must
persist in this charade let us call it interest free banking instead of ‘Islamic Banking’
though it is not even that. Musharka and Leasing are the only two financing
methods which are interest-free, but can we cover the whole spectrum of banking
activities by these two instruments?

Another issue left unresolved by the SBP’s guidelines is relationship of banker and
depositor. Under the existing banking laws, a banker is his depositor’s debtor,
whether the depositor is a time depositor, saving account holder or a current
account holder. The depositor is, therefore, not entitled to any profit on his deposit
under the Sharia. The depositor is entitled to get back only the amount lent by him
to the banker. On the other hand, if the relationship is defined as that of a
Rabbulmal and Mudarib, then it is not a banking relationship at all. If the banker is
considered to be a trustee of depositor, he cannot use his money for any purpose
under the Sharia. In order to evolve a proper Riba-free model of a banking institute,
we will have to think afresh and discard the medieval trading modes in which we
have boxed ourselves. Ijtehad would be needed to resolve the problem of
relationship between banker and depositor. To think that Quranic injunction against
Riba requires us only to establish banking institutions that go under the name of
Islamic banks, or even genuinely interest free banks, is to misread the relevant
verse of the Quran. Prohibition of Riba means, in essence, that capital alone cannot
be allowed to create additional wealth. This is the reason why when a person is lent
money, even for productive purposes, the lender is entitled to get back only the
sum lent by him. Since he did not participate in the productive process, nor did he
share the risks of the entrepreneur, he cannot demand a share in the additional
wealth that his capital may have helped to create. To eliminate Riba, we have to
create an economy based on equity capital instead of debt or equity-cum-debt. A
question may be raised at this stage that if entrepreneurs are not allowed to borrow
from the capital market, they will not be able to raise investment capital. This is an
unfounded apprehension. If investment is a function of savings, as all economists
tell us, investment will take place if there are savings in the economy. Problem may
arise if sufficient domestic savings are not available and capital needed for
economic development has to be obtained from abroad. Since all the required
capital may not be forthcoming as equity investment, we will have to allow payment
of interest on borrowed foreign capital. How such an economy could be created,
provided there was the will to do so, is discussed in the next section. The writer is
a former head of a nationalised bank, To be continued…

Author Location Dated

Tahir Siddiqui Karachi, Pakistan 08.07.08

– Series of blasts terrorises, mystifies Karachi

Terror struck the city six times within an hour on Monday as unknown terrorists
triggered a series of blasts that wounded over 50 people, including children and
policemen. The blasts occurred between 7:05pm and 7:50pm, with an interval of
eight to 10 minutes, at Banaras Chowk, Orangi Town, Pak Colony and Shahrah-i-
Noorjahan. The DIG of Karachi West, Aleem Jaffery, told Dawn that 41 people were
injured in the series of blasts at five places. “No
“No one was killed in the blasts,
however,”
however,” he added. Observers and analysts found the serial bomb attack in the
provincial capital different from the usual pattern of terrorist strikes in the country.
Most of the bombs used were of a low intensity and designed more to spread panic
than to cause large-scale human casualty. Most of the suicide attacks over the past
one year have targeted law-enforcement personnel or, in the case of some areas in
the North-West Frontier Province, political or sectarian rivals. Also, there was no
clue to gauge who could benefit from a destabilisation of the country’s financial hub
at a time when most of the political or ethnic rivals in Sindh are partners in the
ruling coalition. DIG Jaffery said low intensity locally made devices were used in the
blasts. “The
“The series of blasts was aimed at sowing terror,
terror, ” he added. The DIG said
strict security measures were taken following the explosions. “Law “Law enforcers have
been deployed heavily in certain areas,”
areas,” he added. A rangers’ spokesman said that
contingents of Sindh Rangers had been sent to the affected parts of the city.

True to pattern for the city, there was no immediate claim of responsibility.
Witnesses said the first bomb exploded at a garbage den at Banaras Chowk. They
said enraged people took to the streets and started pelting vehicular traffic with
stones following the blast. However, the witnesses added, the violent protest came
to an abrupt halt when another blast occurred at a nearby pavement. Sixteen
people were injured in the two blasts. Not long after the Edhi and Chheepa
ambulances began shifting victims to hospital, a third blast rocked neighbourhoods
in North Nazimabad, leaving the city in a daze. The device was planted in a
Shahzore truck and at least eight people were wounded in the blast. A senior police
officer told Dawn that the truck had a refill from a petrol pump in Banaras, where
two blasts took place. Witnesses said the fourth bomb exploded near Khyber Hotel,
in Frontier Colony, Orangi Town. They said while bewildered people were still trying
to make out what had happened, a big bang caused by another blast at nearby
Qasba Chowk set off a wave of panic. Residents said two bomb blasts occurred in
parts of Pak Colony, wounding over a dozen people and destroying four
motorcycles, a taxi and a house. The police, however, said only one bomb blast took
place in the vicinity, while the other incident was a gas cylinder explosion.

Emergency was declared at the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital, where most of the
wounded were taken. Witnesses said a large number of ANP workers also reached
the hospital and assisted volunteers in taking care of the victims. Babar Khattak,
Sindh’s police chief, told AFP that it appeared 150-200 grams of explosives were
used in each of the six explosions, only enough to create a relatively small blast. “It
“It
seems the series of blasts was carried out to create harassment and fear among
citizens,”
citizens,” Khattak said. He said it was worth noting that the areas struck by the
bombs had a large number of Pukhtuns, adding the explosions may have been
aimed at sparking ethnic unrest. Rehman Malik, the prime minister’s adviser, was
quoted by the APP as saying that the blasts appeared to have been pre-planned and
aimed at destabilising the city. Tension gripped several neighbourhoods affected by
the bombs, with mobs pelting cars with stones, burning tyres and chanting anti-
government slogans.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 08.07.08

– Maulana Aziz moves SC against bail plea rejection

Former chief cleric of Lal Masjid Maulana Abdul Aziz on Monday moved an appeal
before the Supreme Court challenging rejection of his bail in children’s library case
by the Islamabad High Court (IHC). Maulana Aziz has been granted bail in 25 out of
a total 27 cases, while in one case he was acquitted, pleaded that he had been
behind the bar since his arrest on July 4, 2007 and denial of bail to a person who,
according to him, himself was a victim of state terrorism would mean ‘adding
‘adding salt to
the wounds’.
wounds’. The Supreme Court is also seized with a similar appeal moved by the
government seeking cancellation of bail of Maulana Abdul Aziz earlier granted by
the IHC in different cases stating these cases were registered under ‘Terrorism Act’.
The Lal Masjid stand-off between the government and the mosque management
had begun on January 22, 2007 after Jamia Hafsa students took over the Children’s
Library adjacent to the mosque. The cases in which Maulana Aziz was granted bail
earlier by Division Bench of the IHC involved abduction of Chinese nationals,
shooting on Rangers, abduction of law enforcement personnel on duty and terrorism
against state, etc. However the high court rejected his bail request in the case
involving occupation of Children’s Library. Refusal of the concession of bail in the
instant matter is not only harsh, but unprecedented as well, contended the petition
filed by Advocate Shaukat Aziz Siddiqui before the apex court.

Citing a case in which it was held by the apex court that courts while deciding bail
applications must look into the probability of ultimate conviction, the petition
pleaded that in the instant matter there was no probability of conviction of any of
the accused person, more particularly the petitioner, for the reasons that property
with regard to which instant case was registered had already been demolished by
the government after ‘ruthless’ operation in Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa. The petition
recalled that it was prosecution’s own case that Maulana Aziz’s name was brought
on record through supplementary statement and that there was no evidence on
record that petitioner was ever found in possession or occupation of the library at
any stage. It is also a matter of record that police inserted section 6 and 7 of Anti
Terrorist Act (ATA) after more than nine months of the Lal Masjid standoff. Moreover
not a single person from the vicinity, the petition stated, came forward as a
complainant or witness showing any sense of insecurity.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 08.07.08

– SBP introduces new Rs5 and Rs50 banknotes

The State Bank of Pakistan reintroduced on Monday the five rupee banknote and
launched a newly-designed Rs50 note. Addressing a press conference, SBP
Governor Dr Shamshad Akhtar said that all field offices of the SBP Banking Services
Corporation would start issuing the new notes from Tuesday. The central bank had
scrapped the Rs5 note in 2005 on the ground that its life is only three months while
a metal coin has a minimum life of 30 years. Dr Akhtar said that advanced security
features had been incorporated in the new notes, minimising the possibility of
counterfeiting. The vignette of Gawadar Port is printed on the reverse of Rs5 note
and the vignette of the 8,611m Karakoram Peak is printed on the reverse of Rs50
note. The SBP has already introduced newly-designed 10-, 20-, 100-, 500-, 1,000-
and 5,000-rupee notes. The series, which was started on August 13, 2005, with the
introduction of the 20-rupee banknote, has now been completed. The central bank
started issuing the new orange-green-yellow colour Rs20 note on March 22 this
year, but the old brown colour note will continue to remain a legal tender. The SBP
governor said that all old notes would continue to remain in circulation along with
the new banknotes.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 08.07.08

– Rupee hits record low against dollar

The dollar went up sharply against Pak rupee on Monday as it gained 2.86 per cent
mainly because of very high demand resembling to panic like situation. Currency
dealers in inter-bank market said the market witnessed a free fall of rupee against
the greenback as no resistance was shown from any quarter even the State Bank
remained on the sideline. In the first session, the dollar gained Re1 to touch
Rs71.10, while the second session proved more fatal for rupee as it further fell by
50 paisa and settled at Rs72.10. The rupee depreciated by 5.6 per cent since first of
this moth reflecting a highly weak position of the local currency. The currency
dealers have earlier noted that the rupee-dollar parity has been pegged with the
petrol price in the country. They said rupee has started moving fast towards Rs76,
which is equal to the price of one litre. However, it was more crucial situation for the
export-oriented industry as the input cost would make their products uncompetitive
in the world market. The export-oriented industry usually consumes 33 to 35 per
cent imported constituent to produce export goods. Some analysts said the
devaluation of rupee would not work to boost exports. They said the sharp
devaluation against the dollar would not make exporters to take advantage of this
situation as the decline was ‘unplanned’. Currency dealers said there was no sign of
intervention by the State Bank to support the falling rupee as it had been a common
practice earlier. It simply supports the assumption that the rupee would be allowed
to fall to some ‘required
‘required position.’
position.’ Bankers denied that it was the pressure of
backlog of payments at the end of the fiscal 2007-08. They said the actual pressure
was the rising demand of the importers who did not want leave the counter.

Currency dealers said the State Bank was no more in a position to come out with a
bag full of dollars to support the falling rupee. They said the reserves of the SBP
have already shrunk to alarming level, especially in the wake of rising oil and
commodity prices. The burden of petroleum prices and widening trade deficit has
put more pressure on dollar, while the inflows through foreign direct investment
have reduced by 14 per cent. The SBP shifted 25 per cent to 30 per cent oil import
to the private sector, which was another cause of concern for the currency dealers.
They said the private oil importers wanted more and more dollars to avoid rising
dollar value. The currency dealers said the tall claims of the SBP and the
government that $3.5 billion would flow into the country till end of the fiscal on June
30, 2008, also proved false. “We
“We have been waiting for the friendly inflows. If the
inflows of dollar still remain away from Pakistan, the dollar might see the figure
beyond our imagination,”
imagination,” said an analyst. Since October 2007, the country’s
reserves have fallen to $11.3 billion from $16 billion. The fast depletion requires
immediate action to hold the reserves, which are now much lower than the trade
deficit.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 08.07.08

– Oil plunges below $140

Oil prices dived below $140 a barrel on Monday as the US currency firmed and
tensions eased over major crude producer Iran, analysts said. New York’s main oil
contract, light sweet crude for August delivery, slumped $5.64 to $139.65 a barrel
in pit trading. The contract had punched a lifetime high of $145.85 on July 3. On
Monday, Brent North Sea crude for August fell $3.83 to $140.60 a barrel in
electronic deals. Brent had struck a record high 146.69 dollars last Thursday. US
floor trading had shut last Friday owing to Independence Day in the United States.
Oil futures slid on Monday, “with
“with New York catching up with Brent as traders in
America were coming back to work after a long holiday weekend,”
weekend,” said Sucden
analyst Andrey Kryuchenkov. “The“The greenback was stronger (on Monday),
Monday), extending
gains from the end of last week and helping to put more pressure on oil prices,”
prices,” he
added. A strengthening US currency makes dollar-priced crude more expensive for
buyers using weaker currencies, dampening demand for oil. The dollar rallied
against major currencies on Monday after US President George W. Bush, speaking
over the weekend ahead of a Group of Eight (G8) summit in Japan, said his
administration backed a “strong” dollar. Oil blazed a record-breaking trail last week,
driven by geopolitical tensions over Iran, a weaker US dollar and tightening global
supplies, traders said.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Dubai, UAE 08.07.08

– US holds naval exercise in Gulf

The US Navy said on Monday it was carrying out an exercise in the Gulf, days after
vowing that Iran will not be allowed to block the waterway which carries crude from
the world’s largest oil-exporting region. “The
“The aim of Exercise Stake Net is to
practise the tactics and procedures of protecting maritime infrastructure such as
gas and oil installations,”
installations,” Commodore Peter Hudson said in a US Fifth Fleet
statement. The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said in remarks published late
last month that Tehran would impose controls on shipping in the Gulf and the
strategic Strait of Hormuz if it was attacked. Speculation about a possible attack on
Iran because of its nuclear programme has risen since a report last month said
Israel had practised such a strike. Vice-Admiral Kevin Cosgriff, the commander of
the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, said last week the United States would not allow Iran to
block the Gulf. Fear of an escalation in the standoff between the West and Iran, the
world’s fourth largest oil producer, has helped propel oil prices over $140 a barrel.
Two US vessels were taking part in the exercise alongside a British warship and one
from Bahrain, a Gulf Arab ally which hosts the Fifth Fleet. “Stake
“Stake Net seeks to help
ensure a lawful maritime order as well as improve relationships between regional
partners,”
partners,” the fleet’s statement said. Western powers say they fear Iran is seeking
to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear programme. Tehran
says the work aims to generate electricity. A cargo ship hired by the U.S. military
fired warning shots at two unidentified boats which approached it in the Gulf in
April. In January, the United States said five small Iranian speedboats aggressively
approached three US Navy ships in the Strait of Hormuz and a radio message was
transmitted, warning they could explode. Iran said its boats were simply trying to
identify the US vessels and military experts have since said the warning may have
come from an independent radio operator.

Author Location Dated

AP Beijing, China 08.07.08

– One-child rule leaves 100 million Chinese with no siblings

China now has over 100 million people with no siblings since introducing rules in the
late 1970s that limit many couples to only one child, a state news agency reported
on Monday. China is the world’s most populous country, with 1.3 billion people. The
government says the onechild rule has prevented about 400 million births. The 100
million-plus only children make up about 8 per cent of China’s population, Xinhua
News Agency reported, citing information from a weekend forum hosted by the
Shanghai Population Welfare Charity Fund. The one-child policy was designed to
control China’s exploding population and ensure better education and health care.
The law includes exceptions for ethnic groups, rural families and families where
both parents are only children. In 1982, Chinese households averaged 4.4 people. In
2005, the average was 3.1 people, the agency said. Critics say the policy has also
led to forced abortions and sterilisations as local authorities pursue birth quotas set
by Beijing, plus a dangerously imbalanced sex ratio as families abort girls out of a
traditional preference for male heirs. Though commonly called a one-child policy,
the rules offer a welter of exceptions and loopholes, some of them put into practice
because of widespread opposition to the limits. For example, in large parts of rural
China, most families are allowed a second child, especially if the first was a girl.

Author Location Dated

Jason Szep Boston, U.S.A 08.07.08
 – Technology reshapes America’s classrooms
From online courses to kid-friendly laptops and virtual teachers, technology is
spreading in America’s classrooms, reducing the need for textbooks, notepads,
paper and in some cases even the schools themselves. Just ask 11-year-old Jemella
Chambers. She is one of 650 students who receive an Apple Inc laptop each day at
a state-funded school in Boston. From the second row of her classroom, she taps
out math assignments on animated education software that she likens to a video
game. “It’s
“It’s comfortable,”
comfortable,” she said of Scholastic Corp’s FASTT Math software in
which she and other students compete for high scores by completing mathematical
equations. “This
“This makes me learn better. It’s like playing a game,”
game,” she said.
Education experts say her school, the Lilla G. Frederick Pilot Middle School in
Boston, offers a glimpse into the future. It has no textbooks. Students receive
laptops at the start of each day, returning them at the end. Teachers and students
maintain blogs. Staff and parents chat on instant messaging software. Assignments
are submitted through electronic “drop boxes” on the school’s website. “The “The dog
ate my homework”
homework” is no excuse here. The experiment at Frederick began two years
ago at cost of about $2 million, but last year was the first in which all 7th and 8th
grade students received laptops. Classwork is done in Google Inc’s free applications
like Google Docs, or Apple’s iMovie and specialised educational software like FASTT
Math. “Why
“Why would we ever buy a book when we can buy a computer? Textbooks
are often obsolete before they are even printed,”
printed,” said Debra Socia, principal of the
school in Dorchester, a tough Boston district prone to crime and poor schools. There
is, however, one concession to the past: a library stocked with novels. “It’s
“It’s a
powerful, powerful experience,”
experience,” added Socia.

Average attendance climbed to 94 per cent from 92 per cent; discipline referrals fell
30 per cent. And parents are more engaged, she said. “Any “Any family can chat online
with teacher and say ‘hey, we’re having this problem’.”
problem’.” Unlike traditional schools,
Frederick’s students work at vastly different levels in the same classroom. Children
with special needs rub shoulders with high performers. Computers track a range of
aptitude levels, allowing teachers to tailor their teaching to their students’ weakest
areas, Socia said. The internet is also a catalyst for change. US enrollment in online
virtual classes reached the 1 million mark last year, 22 times the level seen in 2000,
according to the North American Council for Online Learning,
Learning, an industry body.
That’s only the beginning, said Michael Horn, co-author of “Disrupting
“Disrupting Class: How
Disruptive Innovation Will Change the Way the World Learns”.
Learns”. “Our
“Our projections
show that 50 per cent of high school courses will be taught online by 2013. It’s
about one percent right now,”
now,” said Horn, executive director of education at
Innosight Institute,
Institute, a nonprofit think tank in Massachusetts. K12 Inc., which provides
online curriculum and educational services in 17 US states, has seen student
enrollment rise 57 per cent from last year to 41,000 fulltime students, said its chief
executive, Ron Packard. Much of the growth is in publicly funded virtual charter
schools. “Because
“Because it is a public school, the state funds the education similar to what
they would in a brick and mortar school, but we get on average about 70 per cent
of the dollars,”
dollars,” Packard said. “We
“We don’t usually get capital dollars, or bond issue
dollars. Sometimes we don’t get local dollars. So on average it works out 70 per
cent of the per pupil spending that an average school in the state would receive,”
receive,”
he said. “We’re
“We’re getting the kids who the local school is not working for. And the
spectrum goes from extreme special education to extremely gifted kids,” kids,” he said.
US investment bank Morgan Stanley says K12 and similar companies look set to
capture an increasing share of the $550 billion publicly funded US education market
for children aged from about 5 to 18 as more US states adopt virtual schools.
Virginia-based K12 recently opened an office in Dubai to expand overseas. Packard
says he expects strong offshore demand for American primary and secondary
education tailored for foreign nationals who want to enter US universities. Apex
Learning Inc, based in Bellevue, Washington, is seeing a similar surge in demand.

Author Location Dated

Khurshid Hyder 08.07.08

– ‘The support for women in Iran is tremendous’

It is common for outsiders to think that Iranian women are living a suppressed life in
a state controlled by clerics. Dr Faiza Azimzada, a professor and deputy head of
research studies at Imam Sadiq University, Iran, was quick to dispel this view,
stating that women were as proactive as men in all walks of life. She was in Karachi
recently and spoke of her government’s measures for the betterment of the people
in general and women in particular. She said women could work in any department
with complete freedom. “In “In Iran, women have important positions in universities, in
government jobs, in culture and other fields. The support for women in society is
tremendous,”
tremendous,” she said. “If“If a woman has a baby, she can go home early, and her
wages will not be cut. She can also take six months leave with pay. The government
is very particular about this.”
this.” Commenting on the punishment for rape, she said
women got speedy justice from courts. “In “In Iran if a woman kills a man while being
raped, she will not be punished as she is protecting herself. “If a woman is harassed
on the street, or anywhere, the punishment for such behaviour is very severe. If a
woman goes to court for redress of anything, she gets justice right away. For a
society to live in harmony, it is necessary for courts to give speedy justice. Every
person, be it a man or woman, a foreigner or a native, Muslim or non-Muslim, will
get speedy justice from the courts. It is not left pending and courts are not biased,”
biased,”
commented Dr Azimzada. While working with men, do women face problems at the
workplace as is common in the world? “When “When a woman wears hijab, it protects her
from everything, from harassment at the work place or anywhere for that matter,” matter,”
said Dr Azimzada. “If
“If a woman doesn’t cover herself properly, she is inviting
trouble. The rules are enforced very strictly, especially in government
organisations. If the police are called for help, they will arrive at once.”
once.” There is no
quota fixed for women representatives in parliament in Iran. Men and women may
participate in elections equally. “If
“If she has the capability, she will be elected. She
cannot become president, but she can become vice-president. We have a woman
vice-president. There are ministries that are headed by women also,” also,” she stated.

“There are 18 women in parliament comprising 290 members. Of the one-fourth

women who wanted to contest for the seats, many were rejected on the basis of not
having master’s degrees. You have to have an MA degree to participate in
elections.”
elections.” Most educational institutions in Pakistan – except the NWFP – have a
large majority of female students. The situation is somewhat similar in Iran. “In
“In the
past there were fewer women. Now after a recent census there are 67 per cent
women in higher educational institutions as compared to 33 per cent men. And
because of the large majority, there will be a greater representation of women in
parliament in the near future,”
future,” said Dr Azimzada. After the revolution, wearing hijab
was made compulsory. We hear of women who are not happy about this rule. When
asked about it, Dr Azimzada’s views were clear on the subject. “When
“When you work in a
hospital, you wear a coat or a nurse wears her uniform, a policewoman will wear her
uniform. So if a woman loves Iran, she will wear hijab, which has been decreed by
the government as mandatory. It is compulsory for her to wear it if she steps out of
her home; she cannot do otherwise even if she wants to. Foreigners and non-
Muslim women also have to wear hijab. They can wear dupatta on the head unlike
the Iranian Muslim women. When a woman is inside the home — even in a party —
she can wear what she wants to, but she will have to cover herself when she comes
out on the street.”
street.” Dr Azimzada emphasised that there were many political parties
in Iran and that they had freedom of thought and speech. The government
supported them financially even if they were in the opposition. Contrary to the
popular belief, most of the universities in Iran are co-educational. Till class five,
education is compulsory and free up to the college level. After completing high
school in the rural areas, there are hostels in the city where students can go and
continue their studies. Adults are also encouraged to study and facilities are
provided to them. Health facilities for women in the rural areas and far-flung areas
are very good, states Dr Azimzada. “Iran
“Iran is one of the leading developing countries
in health-care. It is polio-free now and has been acknowledged abroad for it. It is
also one of the 14 countries which have been acknowledged internationally for their
work on health in the country. The health system is good because students who
become doctors are sent to the rural areas for four years and they get their degrees
from the government after they have completed the tenure. So, in this way they get
their experience and people in villages also have doctors.” “The government is very
strict about corruption in all walks of life. Punishment is very severe and speedy so
it is a great deterrent to keep corruption at bay. As for honour killing, we do not
have honour killings in Iran. If a young man and woman run away from their homes,
they will have to get married. But we have strict punishment for adultery,”
adultery,” said Dr
Azimzada.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 09.07.08

– Sweeping changes in foreign exchange regulations State Bank

acts to save rupee
The State Bank made sweeping changes in foreign exchange regulations to protect
the rupee against US dollar by suspending forward cover facility against imports
and reducing advance payment against imports to 25 per cent from 50 per cent. “It “It
has been decided to temporarily suspend forward booking against all types of
imports,”
imports,” said a circular issued by the SBP. Previously, authorised dealers were
allowed to purchase dollars against letters of credit (L/Cs). Now, dealers have been
advised not to sell foreign exchange in advance against imports. The SBP said
commitments made before the announcement of new rules would be honoured “in “in
accordance with the terms of related contracts subject to compliance of related
rules and regulations”.
regulations”. SBP’s decision regarding advances against imports would
affect traders’ liquidity. Importers were previously allowed to buy dollars in advance
to the extent of 50 per cent of the value of imports. “The
“The facility will now be
available only to the extent of 25 per cent of the FOB (Freight on Board) or CFR
(Cost and Freight) value of the goods to be imported,”
imported,” said the State Bank. The
central bank said it would provide foreign currency directly to dealers for buying
furnace oil or other POL-related products against Form ‘M’ approvals, issued by the
SB’s Exchange Policy Department. Previously, authorised dealers were required to
buy dollars through the interbank market.

“(The) SBP will also continue to provide foreign exchange to banks for the import of
all other POL products, including (furnace oil and POL-related purchases through
Form ‘M’ approvals).”
approvals).” The central bank also cut banks’ timings for dealing in foreign
exchange. The cut-off time for all foreign exchange transactions will be 4:30pm,
Monday through Friday, and till 1pm on Saturdays. According to the circular,
currency dealers have been informed that the cut-off timing for public dealings and
inter-bank trade has been set till 2pm Monday through Thursday and till 1pm on
Fridays and Saturdays. Authorised dealers are, however, allowed to conduct foreign
exchange swap transactions in the inter-bank market till 4:30pm Monday through
Friday and till 1pm on Saturdays. Measures taken by the SBP show that exchange
rate is spinning out of control and the rupee is not able to find any support against
the dollar. The rupee has lost 7.2 per cent against the dollar over the past week.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 09.07.08
om

– The harbingers of doom

There’s plenty of irony, intended or otherwise, in the fact that the terrorist attack
that claimed at least a dozen lives last Sunday targeted policemen who had been
deployed to guard a conference marking the first anniversary of the Lal Masjid
siege. If anything, the bomb blast served as a reminder that however unfortunate
the military operation to flush out the mosque and its seminaries may have been, it
was also necessary. And probably inadequate. It would obviously have been much
better for all concerned had the mosque not been permitted, in the first place, to
become a sanctuary for violence-prone obscurantists, who also used it as a
repository for weaponry. It wasn’t merely a case of folks in high places turning a
blind eye to insidious goings-on right under their noses: there was also active
collaboration. And suspicions abound, both within the country and among its allies
that instances of this nature remain commonplace. Take the case of Mangal Bagh,
whose comfort zone on the outskirts of Peshawar was the focus of police action in
the wake of growing concern that the NWFP capital was being hemmed in by
militant Islamists and in due course might be overrun. A former bus driver who at
some point discovered a higher calling, Bagh heads an outfit called Lashkari-Islam
with the declared aim of establishing his writ throughout the Khyber tribal agency.
His goons were reportedly responsible for the recent kidnapping of 16 Christians
from Peshawar (who were freed soon afterwards), and his forces are engaged in a
deadly territorial dispute with an outfit called Ansarul Islam. There is a distinct
possibility that what the rival gangs share in terms of nomenclature is little more
than a cover for activities of a criminal nature.

That’s not an uncommon feature among groups of this ilk: it serves as a recruitment
tool and provides the convenience of a confessional justification for rough justice.
It’s equally possible, of course, that the piety may be more than a pose. Either way,
(war)lording it over Bara — with its legendary marketplace — and its environs is
probably a highly lucrative proposition. And once you’ve tasted the fruits of Bara,
nothing short of Peshawar is likely to take your fancy if you’re inclined to expand
operations. After the incursion by the Frontier Corps into Mangal Bagh’s zone of
influence, the federal government’s security factotum Rehman Malik advised the
residents of Peshawar to “sleep easy tonight” because “we are awake”. They are
unlikely to heed that advice if they share the apprehension of the Awami National
Party’s Afrasiab Khattak, who believes that Bagh and his not particularly merry men
are creatures of the ISI. “In
“In the past such operations have been inconclusive,”
inconclusive,” The
New York Times quoted him as saying, and the low-key negotiated aftermath is
likely to have strengthened his suspicions. The Washington Post’s correspondent,
meanwhile, quoted “a “a senior Pakistani government official in Peshawar”
Peshawar” as saying
that “high-ranking
“high-ranking military intelligence officials in Islamabad... had ordered
authorities in Peshawar to allow Bagh to continue operating his shadow
government”.
government”. Such reports do not necessarily lend credence to longstanding
concerns that elements in the military intelligence have continued consorting with
elements of the jihadi variety in violation of their superiors’ orders. They provide
considerably greater cause for alarm, given that rogue junior officers would hardly
have the gumption to issue instructions to senior government officials.

Back in the early 1990s, the ISI helped create the Taliban and eventually captured
Kabul by proxy. One of the moving forces behind the enterprise was Benazir
Bhutto’s interior minister Gen Naseerullah Babar, who apparently considered it a
good opportunity to export the produce of the madressahs that had sprouted across
the North West. Perhaps the possibility of blowback never crossed his mind. The ISI
ought to have known better. Perhaps it didn’t care. Maybe it remains unconcerned
by the consequences as it continues to engage in the old game of playing favourites
— which brings to mind the old witticism that military intelligence is a contradiction
in terms. It is all very well to accuse the new government of being out of its depth in
the context of the so-called war on terror, but the old one — which lives on despite
Asif Ali Zardari’s sporadic exclamations to the effect that a Sindhi jiyala will shortly
be ensconced in the presidency — can hardly claim much credit. It is annoying, of
course, to hear Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani repeat ad nauseam that his
government will negotiate only with militants who lay down their arms, when he
must be aware that all manner of contacts exist without this condition being met.
(Nor would such a strategy necessarily make much sense.) But Gilani can plausibly
plead ignorance in some cases, given that the army doesn’t keep the civilian
authorities informed of all its activities. This luxury isn’t available to Pervez
Musharraf — or at least it wasn’t for as long as he was army chief.

Now that full authority in matters related to military operations has been handed to
Musharraf’s successor Gen Ashfaq Kayani, it remains to be seen whether he is
inclined to dismantle the khaki-jihadi nexus, and whether under his command the
combination of negotiations and military force can be implemented intelligently, in
a manner that establishes the government’s writ in frontier regions without further
alienating those sections of the local population that desire little more than a
peaceful existence and means of sustenance. It is a huge, but not insurmountable,
challenge. The alternatives are exceedingly unpleasant to contemplate, even if one
is disinclined to swallow wholesale Maulana Fazlur Rahman’s warning about the
complete loss of government control in the NWFP, let alone permanently exiled
MQM chief Altaf Hussain’s visions of doom about a Taliban takeover of Karachi. At
the same time, the temptation to follow the preferred US prescription of massive
attack must be resisted. Nato’s concerns about the cross-border movement of
militants are understandable, but this is hardly the sole factor behind the western
failure to sow stability in Afghanistan. It is inevitable that, in the wake of Monday’s
dastardly attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, fingers will once again be pointed
in Pakistan’s direction, and it may well be the case that the accusation is not
entirely without substance. It is vital, however, not to lose sight of the bigger truth
that, ultimately, stability in the region is contingent on Afghanistan regaining its
sovereignty (provided, of course, that Pakistan does not foolishly relinquish its own).
That’s still a remote prospect and Pakistan must, in the meanwhile, soldier on — but
not in the direction dictated by the likes of Mangal Bagh or Baitullah Mehsud. ¦ The
writer is a journalist based in Sydney.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 09.07.08

– Oil dips to $136 on demand worries

Oil prices nosedived by almost $5 on Tuesday as falling global equities and
resurgent concerns about an economic slowdown stoked fears about future energy
demand, traders said. The oil market, which hit record heights close to $147 a
barrel last week, also sank after the Group of Eight (G8) rich nations warned on
soaring crude costs and appealed for more production, they added. Brent North Sea
oil for August delivery plunged $4.88 to $136.99 a barrel. New York’s main oil
contract, light sweet crude for August delivery, tumbled by $4.95 to $136.41. Crude
prices fell heavily “amid
“amid concerns over the general health of global economies
following a sharp sell off in equities,”
equities,” said Sucden analyst Nimit Khamar. “Many
“Many
economies face a bleak economic outlook which could reduce the demand for oil,
especially at current prices.”
prices.” In Japan on Tuesday, eight of the world’s most
powerful leaders called for efforts to cool sizzling oil prices, warning soaring fuel and
food costs were a threat to world economic growth. “It “It seems to me like oil traders
are looking with some interest at the headlines coming out of the G8 meeting,”
meeting,” said
Dave Ernsberger, Asia director of global energy information provider Platts in
Singapore. The London Brent contract hit an all-time peak of $146.69 and New York
crude struck a record high of $145.85 last Thursday. Oil slumped on Monday, losing
almost $4 in New York, on the back of easing geopolitical tensions over Iran’s
nuclear programme and a strengthening US dollar. However, jitters about key crude
producer Iran returned on Tuesday.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 09.07.08

– Dollar rises to Rs73.90, Meeting to check rupee fall today

A meeting has been called on Wednesday at the State Bank of Pakistan to discuss
ways to arrest the free fall of rupee against the dollar, which once again forced the
former to shed 2.6 per cent to Rs73.90 on Tuesday. Finance Minister Naveed Qamar
and SBP Governor Dr Shamshad Akhtar will jointly discuss the situation arising from
the sinking of local currency. Presidents of major banks have also been invited to
the meeting. Banking sources believe that the meeting might take some important
steps to tackle the situation.“There
situation.“There is no possibility of a sudden stop in this trend,
which forces the rupee to shed weight against the greenback every day. However,
the market can be influenced to restrain the fast erosion of value of the local
currency,”
currency,” said a senior banker. The market is extremely shaky about the real price
of the dollar in future; however, the dollar rates in forward booking were quoted as
Rs75 for 3 months, Rs76.9 for 6 months and Rs80.6 for one year. Bankers said the
forward booking allows speculation about the rupee-dollar parity, which finally
results in favour of speculators or money makers. Earlier, on May 9, when the dollar
touched Rs69.45, a loss of 3.5 per cent, the SBP forced the exchange companies to
stop taking UK pound sterling, euro and UAE dirham out from the country and
compelled the large banks to sell dollars in the market. The action helped the local
currency to recover against the dollar and it gained what it lost that day, though,
the gain proved short-lived because of the greenback’s high demand.

Currency dealers said the Tuesday witnessed the same fast erosion of value of
rupee as it was noted on Monday. They felt that the rupee would soon touch the 76
mark, which is the price of one litre petrol.They believe that rupee is left free to
devalue itself to touch the figure of Rs76. Since the beginning of July, rupee
devalued fast against the dollar to shed a total 7.2 per cent. This erosion in value
sent waves of concern across the country as not only the import will become
costlier but the entire economy will be plagued with the unexpected high inflation.
The government set the inflation rate at 12 per cent for the current fiscal year but
analysts believe that the oil price hike and devaluation of rupee would push it much
higher than the target. “Dollar
“Dollar is directly linked with our economy, it will not only
make the import costlier but the inflows of dollar will cause inflation,”
inflation,” said an
analyst. “Another
“Another major factor which will seriously dent the economy is the
widening of trade deficit and devaluation will make it more dangerous for the
economy,”
economy,” the analyst said adding that nation would have to borrow heavily from
the donors to meet the deficit. The country already pays about $4.5 billion annually
as interest and instalments of liabilities, which has reached $42 billion.

Author Location Dated

Dan Williams Jerusalem, Palestine 09.07.08

– Israel trying to isolate Iran through diplomacy

A flurry of indirect talks between Israel and its closest enemies Syria, Lebanon’s
Hezbollah and Palestinian Hamas may not bring peace, but it could help the Israelis
contain a future war with arch-foe Iran. Speculation Israel and its US ally might
bomb Tehran’s nuclear sites has generated a regionrattling reprisal scenario:
ballistic missiles from Iran and rockets fired by its Islamist allies across the Jewish
state’s border, with Syrian support. That spells a strategic bind for Prime Minister
Ehud Olmert, who has vowed to deny Iran the means to make atomic weapons but
wants to avoid a reprise of the 2006 Lebanon war, when Hezbollah shelling drove a
sixth of Israel’s population into shelters. Stop-gap rapprochement appears to be one
Olmert recourse. In recent weeks he has unveiled Turkish-mediated peace talks
with Syria, accepted an Egyptian-brokered truce in Hamas-ruled Gaza and approved
a prisoner swap with Hezbollah giving some ground, de facto, to those Israel
condemns as Iranian proxies. Some deride Olmert’s multiple moves as intended to
distract from a graft scandal but many see real diplomatic potential. Israeli Defence
Minister Ehud Barak voiced hope the contacts with Syrian President Bashar Assad
would “remove
“remove (Damascus) from the circle of belligerence”.
belligerence”. A member of Olmert’s
security cabinet said similar logic could apply to Hamas and Hezbollah.
In any future war with Iran, the security cabinet official said on condition of
anonymity, “whether
“whether its proxies join in depends on us persuading them that they
have much more to gain, as well as much less to lose, by keeping out. And that
means serious and sincere Israeli engagement of some kind or another”.
another”. Those
familiar with the thinking of Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas argue that current contacts
with Israel, despite the intercession of major powers like Turkey and Egypt, are
nowhere near advanced enough to offset their longtime loyalties to Iran. Israeli-
Syrian disputes over the future of the occupied Golan Heights remain deep, and
Hamas and Hezbollah show no sign of forswearing commitments to destroying
Israel. “There
“There is a very strong feeling of partnership among all three,”
three,” said Patrick
Seale, a British expert on the Middle East who has written extensively on Assad. “In “In
the event of an attack on Iran, it would be very difficult for them to stay out.”
out.”
Michael Oren, an AmericanIsraeli military historian, said that Olmert “is
“is
undoubtedly engaging in multi-dimensional diplomacy in order to isolate Iran and
neutralise its allies”.
allies”. But he added: “Negotiations
“Negotiations are no guarantee of neutrality.”
neutrality.”

Though Syria has defence pacts with Iran going back 30 years and Hamas and
Hezbollah look to Tehran for material support, lock-step policymaking among them
is not a given especially as divisions and self-interest inevitably arise in wartime.
Assad, who will see Olmert at a multinational summit in Paris this weekend, did not
retaliate for Israel’s bombing last September of a Syrian desert facility which the CIA
described as a nascent nuclear reactor, amid denials by Damascus. Hamas held its
fire during Israel’s 2006 assault on Hezbollah, as did Hezbollah when Israel
intensified its Gaza strikes in February and March. That latter restraint followed a
message secretly passed by the Olmert government to Assad that it would hold
Syria responsible for any major aggression by Hezbollah. Still, the consensus among
experts is that Hezbollah would be likely to attack Israel on behalf of or perhaps
even in lieu of Iran, its Shia patron. Sunni Hamas and secular Syria are seen
preferring indirect or deferred retaliation. “Hamas
“Hamas effectively has a state in Gaza,
and that means that, like Syria, it has concerns about national self-preservation,”
self-preservation,”
said Giora Eiland, a former national security adviser to Olmert. An Arab diplomat
close to the Palestinians said the June 19 truce, which gave Israel respite from
Hamas rockets and Hamas respite from Israel’s embargo on Gaza, “helps “helps moderate
Hamas”.
Hamas”.

But the situation could quickly unravel, the diplomat said, should a marginal
Palestinian faction like Islamic Jihad renew attacks in support of Iran, drawing Israeli
crackdowns on Gaza. The impending prisoner swap in which Israel will recover two
soldiers whose seizure by Hezbollah triggered the 2006 war may put that conflict to
rest, but not Lebanese enmity. A similar 2004 exchange did nothing to prevent the
war two years later. Yet Israel may be on the verge of mollifying a last major
Lebanese grievance by agreeing to give up the Shebaa Farms, a small, occupied
border zone. Washington last month urged a resolution to that dispute, which also
involves Syria. A Lebanese political source said that while Hezbollah “would oblige”
if Iran wanted to open a second front against Israel, “eventual
“eventual withdrawal from
Shebaa Farms would place the group under increased pressure, especially
internally, regarding the continued presence of its armed wing and its margin to
engage Israel in anything other than purely defensive measures”.
measures”.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 09.07.08

– ‘The Jews of Europe’

It is just over three years ago to the terror bombings on London transport on 7/7,
and there have been a spate of articles and TV programmes that look at the
phenomenon of Islamophobia that has become rampant since then. In ‘It ‘It shouldn’t
happen to a Muslim’,
Muslim’, a Dispatches documentary shown on Channel 4, the producers
establish the extent to which Muslims are now being targeted to a widespread hate
campaign supported by the right-wing tabloid press. Even normally liberal Brits now
question the loyalty of the two million Muslims who live on these islands. The shock
of 7/7 was caused not so much by the sheer brutality of the attacks, but by the fact
that they had been carried out by young Brits, born and brought up in the country.
Since then, a number of arrests and trials of alleged Muslim terrorists have done
much to reinforce the negative image of the British Muslim community. This
atmosphere of fear and mistrust has made Muslims the ‘Jews‘Jews of Europe’,
Europe’, a
reference to the pre-war status of Jews as second-class citizens who could be (and
were) attacked both in the press and in the streets. The statistics cited in the
Dispatches programme underline the depth of the divide. For instance, 56 per cent
of all Brits say they have no Muslim friends. Sixty-four percent of Muslims in Britain
say they encounter more hostility than they did before 7/7, and 36 per cent say
they have either suffered this hostility themselves, or know somebody who did.
Seventy per cent of all Brits think prejudice against Muslims has increased. And
while only one percent of Muslim women wear the full burqa, many see them as
supporting extremist ideology.

With this background of increasing anti-Muslim sentiment, the tabloid press is

reinforcing the stereotypes. The presenter, Peter Oborne, explored one story that
had made the headlines a few months ago. Muslim nursing students at Leeds
University were supposed to be refusing to disinfect their hands because a new
procedure required that they roll up their sleeves. According to the Sun, this put the
lives of patients at risk. When Oborne asked a university official about the truth of
the story, he was told that all that had happened was that a Muslim student had
requested a clarification about whether the new procedure was mandatory. When
told that it was, all the students accepted it, and had been using it ever since. When
the story broke, the university issued a denial which was never printed. This has
happened time and again, with stories being published about Muslims that would
never be accepted if they had been directed against any other ethnic or religious
minority. When asked to explain why this anti-Muslim slant was being projected,
one right-wing journalist replied that mainstream Brits did not have the same
problems with other minority communities that they did with Muslims. He gave the
example of the widespread subjugation of women, apart from the violent ideology
espoused by extremist Muslim groups. But as one imam said in an interview with
Oborne: “All
“All rapists are male. Does this mean that all men are rapists?”
rapists?” Mosques
have become flashpoints where young racists often gather to target Muslims. Often
fistfights break out. But more usually, individual Muslims are targeted for verbal and
even physical abuse. BNP, the British National Party, has long been known for its
fascist, racist views. For years, they had an anti-Semitic agenda, but seeing which
way the wind is blowing, they have switched targets and are now urging Jews to join
them in an anti-Muslim campaign.
But before readers get the impression that Britain is universally anti-Muslim, let me
clarify that it remains a bastion of tolerance. Today, there are 1,600 mosques
across the country, and by and large, Muslims are left to themselves by the vast
majority of people here. Unfortunately, some extremists help to vilify the majority
through their hate-filled words and actions. But when you think how most Pakistanis
would react to such an attitude from a minority in our country, you realise how
amazingly secular and tolerant Britain is, despite the post-7/7 spike in anti-Muslim
sentiments. Recently, Mark Steyn, a right-wing Canadian journalist, was accused of
indulging in ‘hate speech’ when he wrote in Maclean’s, Canada’s biggest monthly,
that ‘extremist’ Muslims will become the ‘successor population’ in Europe because
of their higher birth rate. When Muslim groups complained against the 2006 article,
the Canadian Human Rights Commission took up the issue, and both magazine and
the author could face unspecified sanctions. This case has generated a lot of
comment in Canada and the US, with some commentators defending Steyn’s right
to express his opinions, while others have argued that free speech should not
become a license to target vulnerable groups. This debate is a recurring theme in
the British media. Many writers complain that ‘political correctness’ is preventing a
healthy discussion of social issues. While this might be true of mainstream
newspapers, no such compulsion inhibits the tabloid press. For instance, a couple of
years ago, several English friends were very upset by a news item that informed us
that in one area of London, the local council had re-named its annual Christmas
lighting as ‘winter lights’. According to the story, this had been done in view of
objections to the Christian name from Muslims. Naturally, this was perceived as
caving in to extreme, unreasonable demands that were eroding British values and
customs. However, when Oborne investigates the truth of the allegation for the
Dispatches programme, he discovers that the councillors had agreed to re-name the
lights for that particular Christmas because a number of religious holidays
happened to coincide with the winter holidays, and not because the Muslims in the
area had demanded it. Such distortions sell newspapers, but they also whip up anti-
Muslim feelings among mostly working class Brits who already harbour a deep
distrust of foreigners and their different habits, dress and their tendency to stick to
themselves. It is true that among many of the younger generation of Muslims in
Britain, there is a new aggressiveness that has alienated other ethnic and religious
groups. As long as Muslims do not make more of an effort to integrate, they will
continue to remain isolated.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran, Iran 09.07.08

– Iran to hit Israel, American ships if attacked

, July 8: Iran will hit Israel, US shipping in the Gulf and American interests around
the world if it is attacked over its disputed nuclear activities, an aide to Iran’s
Supreme Leader was quoted as saying on Tuesday. “The “The first bullet fired by
America at Iran will be followed by Iran burning down its vital interests around the
globe,”
globe,” the students news agency ISNA quoted Ali Shirazi as saying in a speech to
elite Revolutionary Guards. The United States and its allies suspect Iran is trying to
build nuclear bombs. Tehran says its programme is peaceful. French President
Nicolas Sarkozy said major world powers had decided to send European Union
foreign policy chief Javier Solana to Iran for talks on an incentives package they
offered last month to induce Tehran to change its nuclear policy. Sarkozy did not
say when Solana would travel to Tehran. Iran formally replied on Friday to the offer
by the United States, France, Britain, China, Russia and Germany. France said Iran’s
response had ignored the world powers’ demand for a suspension of uranium
enrichment before talks on implementing the package -- a condition rejected on
Monday as illegitimate by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Shirazi’s
comments intensified a war of words that has raised fears of military confrontation
and helped boost world oil prices to record highs in recent weeks. “The
“The Zionist
regime is pressuring White House officials to attack Iran. If they commit such a
stupidity, Tel Aviv and US shipping in the Persian Gulf will be Iran’s first targets and
they will be burned,”
burned,” Shirazi was quoted as saying. Shirazi is Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s representative to the Revolutionary Guards. In Jerusalem,
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokesman, Mark Regev, declined to comment
on the threat to hit Tel Aviv, saying only: “Shirazi’s
“Shirazi’s words speak for themselves.”
themselves.”
Israel, believed to be the Middle East’s only nuclear-armed power, has vowed to
prevent Iran from acquiring an atomic bomb. The United States says it wants to
resolve the dispute by diplomacy but has not ruled out military action.

In April, Israel’s Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who is a former army

general and defence minister, told Israeli media: “An
“An Iranian attack will prompt a
severe reaction from Israel, which will destroy the Iranian nation.”
nation.” Iran has
threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz if it comes under attack. About 40 per cent
of globally traded oil moves through the Gulf waterway. The Revolutionary Guards’
commander of artillery and missile units, Mahmoud Chaharbaghi, said 50 brigades
of his forces had been equipped with what he called smart cluster munitions. “All“All
our arms, bullets and rockets are on alert to defend Iranian territory,”
territory,” Hemayet
daily quoted him as saying. US and British naval forces wrapped up military
exercises in the Gulf and said they were “unrelated” to tensions with Iran. The
Bahrain-based US Fifth Fleet said Exercise Stake Net took place in the central and
southern Gulf and was part of training aimed at protecting the region’s oil
infrastructure.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 09.07.08

– Indictment in Gulgee murder case on 24th

The district and sessions judge, South, Arjun Ram K. Talreja, on Tuesday deferred till
July 24 the indictment of the suspects in the murder case of renowned artist Ismail
Gulgee, his wife and a maidservant. Gulgee, Zareen Gulgee and their maid Asiya
were strangled by unidentified men in their house situated in the Boating Basin
police limits on Dec 19, 2007. When found, the bodies were three days old while the
driver and a servant had gone missing with a car of the victim family. The police
registered a case (FIR 490/07) at the Boat Basin police station under Section 302/34
of the Pakistan Penal Code. Suspects Akram Ali, the Gulgees’ driver, and his
associate Anwar were arrested on Feb 16 by the Anti-Violent Crime Unit in a hotel
near the Cantt railway station and were sent to jail.

Author Location Dated

AP Tehran, Iran 10.07.08

– Iran tests long-range missiles

Iran testfired nine long- and medium-range missiles on Wednesday during war
games that officials said aimed to show the country can retaliate against any US or
Israeli attack, state television reported. The exercise was being conducted at the
mouth of the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic waterway through which about 40 per
cent of the world’s oil passes. Gen Hossein Salami, the air force commander of
Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, said the exercise would “demonstrate
“demonstrate our resolve and
might against enemies who in recent weeks have threatened Iran with harsh
language,”
language,” the TV report said. Footage showed at least six missiles firing
simultaneously, and said the barrage included a new version of the Shahab-3
missile, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles (2,000 kilometers) and
is armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead. That would put Israel within striking
distance. “Our
“Our hands are always on the trigger and our missiles are ready for
launch,”
launch ,” the official IRNA news agency quoted Salami as saying on Wednesday. The
report comes less than a day after Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
dismissed fears that Israel and the United States could be preparing to attack his
country, calling the possibility a “funny
“funny joke.” “I assure you that there won’t be any
war in the future,”
future,” Ahmadinejad told a news conference on Tuesday during a visit to
Malaysia for a summit of developing Muslim nations called D-8 group.
But even as Ahmadinejad and other Iranian officials have dismissed the possibility
of attack, Tehran has stepped up its warnings of retaliation if the Americans or
Israelis do launch military action, including threats to hit Israel and US Gulf military
bases with missiles and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region. US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice called on Wednesday’s tests “evidence
“evidence that the missile
threat is not an imaginary one.” “Those who say that there is no Iranian missile
threat against which we should build a missile defence system perhaps ought to
talk to the Iranians about their claims,”
claims,” Ms Rice said while travelling in Sofia,
Bulgaria.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 10.07.08

– Rupee bounces back against dollar

The falling rupee bounced back on Wednesday as it gained 3.2 per cent against the
US dollar which was the direct outcome of a series of measures taken by the State
Bank of Pakistan on Tuesday. Currency dealers in the inter-bank market said dollar-
rupee parity witnessed fluctuations as it first dipped to Rs71.40, then rose to
Rs72.10 and finally settled at Rs71.40-71.50. The SBP has suspended forward
booking of dollars, reduced trading time, curtailed advance payment against
imports from 50 to 25 per cent and announced to make payments for oil imports.
These steps suddenly reduced the demand for the greenback while the SBP told the
market that it was ready to buy at Rs71.4850, said a currency dealer. Corrective
measures by the SBP were necessary to arrest the fast depreciation of the rupee,
and these supported the local currency to regain its lost value against the dollar,
said a dealer. Since beginning of the current month, the rupee lost 7.2 per cent and
importers and manufacturers started questioning the viability of their sectors. This
mounted pressure on regulators to stop free fall of rupee. However, few analysts
said the steps which stopped deprecation of rupee would not last for a longer
period. “The
“The market demand is the same and will rise with economic growth.The
country needs higher inflows and reserves of the dollars to stabilise the exchange
rate,”
rate,” said Atif Ali, a currency dealer.
The inflows through portfolio investment are almost negative, foreign direct
investment has declined and expected inflows from friendly countries are still out of
sight. “The
“The government should speed up its privatisation process and launch the
proposed Global Depository Receipts (GDRs) to bring dollars which are required to
meet the record trade and current account deficit,”
deficit,” said an analyst. He said that the
inflow of dollars is also needed to protect rupee from strong world currencies,
including US dollar as depreciation of rupee is ‘multidimensional.’ The rupee lost
value against all major currencies, like euro, British pound and Japanese yen. The
fast depleting reserves of the country are sending wrong signals to speculators in
the currency market and they are still hoarding dollars waiting to get maximum
benefit. “I
“I did my best to persuade them to sell dollars, but currency hoarders,
especially small hoarders, were not ready to sell them. How much benefit they want
from the dollar is not known,”
known,” said a currency broker. He said those having several
hundred dollars were in real panic with the fall of dollar against rupee, but they
decided to keep it with them till it reaches a level they have set in their mind.

Author Location Dated

London, England 10.07.08

– Oil price rebounds

Oil prices recovered some lost ground on Wednesday on fresh fears about possible
supply disruptions after crude producer Iran tested a long-range missile capable of
hitting Israel, analysts said. A day after oil prices slumped more than $5, the market
was also digesting a pledge by world leaders at their G8 summit in Japan to make
the crude market more transparent. New York’s main oil contract, light sweet crude
for August delivery, rose $1.35 to $137.29 per barrel. London’s Brent North Sea oil
for August gained 65 cents to $137.08. Prices rose further on Wednesday after the
US Department of Energy (DoE) said that American crude reserves fell 5.9 million
barrels in the week to July 4. That beat market expectations for a drop of 2.1 million
barrels. “Oil
“Oil futures bounced back up (on Wednesday), with investors buying on the
dips after a sharp selloff on Tuesday,”
Tuesday,” said Sucden analyst Andrey Kryuchenkov.
“Tensions in the Middle East were back in investor focus, supporting crude prices.”
prices.”
Oil producer Iran on Wednesday test-fired a missile it said is capable of reaching
Israel, angering the United States amid growing fears that the standoff over the
contested Iranian nuclear drive could lead to war. Oil prices had nosedived on
Tuesday as falling global equities and resurgent concerns about an economic
slowdown stoked fears about future energy demand. Group of Eight leaders pledged
on Wednesday to improve transparency and the supply and demand balance in the
oil market by boosting dialogue between producing and consuming nations. “In “In
response to the sharp rise in oil prices, we agreed to improve balance in supply and
demand through efforts and dialogue by both producing and consuming countries
to improve transparency,”
transparency,” they said in a final statement following their summit in
Japan. A week ago, oil prices jumped to record highs of almost $147, further igniting
worries about inflation and a global economic slowdown. Meanwhile, Anglo-Dutch oil
giant Shell said on Wednesday that it has lifted its force majeure provision on
production of 225,000 barrels per day from its offshore Bonga oilfield in Nigeria.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 10.07.08
 – ‘Judges issue more important than impeachment’
A Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) leader says his party will not lay an equal
stress on the impeachment of President Musharraf but the Pakistan People’s Party
(PPP) and the PML-N should resolve the judges’ issue as early as possible because of
the serious challenges the country faced. He said on Wednesday PML-N ministers
who had quit the federal cabinet on May 12 would not rejoin the cabinet unless
there was some agreement on the deposed judges' issue. He said his party would
not set any deadline for the purpose. PML-N sources said a meeting between Nawaz
Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari could be productive only if the PPP co-chairman carried
some solid proposals on the judges' issue. They said the PML-N would not rejoin the
federal cabinet unless the PPP restored the judges of superior courts along the lines
of Sharif’s suggestions. There are reports that the PPP now plans to fill cabinet
posts. It is said about half a dozen ministers would be taken from the PPP while one
ministry would go each to the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F and the Awami National Party.
PPP leaders did not fill the slots vacated by the PML-N ministers, hoping that
differences between the two coalition partners would ultimately be settled and
those who tendered resignations would resume their functions in the cabinet.
Additional charge of these portfolios was given to sitting ministers in an attempt to
make the PML-N leadership believe that the PPP was still keen on keeping its
alliance with them intact. The PML-N also did not lose hope, and it was for this
reason that despite quitting the cabinet, the party did not sit on the opposition
benches.

Author Location Dated

AFP Paris, France 10.07.08

– Unmanned mission to bring soil from Mars

Space experts on Wednesday set a date of 2018 for launching the Mars “sample
return mission”, billed as the most complex and costliest exploration of the Red
Planet ever planned. The unmanned mission aims to pick up soil and rocks from
Mars and bring them back to Earth, where big labs can wring far more data from
them than by remote control using small instruments on a scout vehicle. “2018 “2018 will
start the era of Mars sample return,”
return,” Doug Mc Cuistion, director of Nasa’s Mars
exploration programme, told a press conference. The preliminary report, issued in
Paris by a working group, sketched a mission profile and flight design, but also
cautioned that many challenges lay ahead. Its authors said that, regardless of the
start date, it would take five years for the precious 500-gram sample to be brought
back to Earth and space powers had to pool resources to achieve the extraordinary
goal. Stephane Janichewski, deputy director of France’s National Centre for Space
Studies (Cnes),
(Cnes), said “at
“at least a transatlantic cooperation”
cooperation” was needed between
Europe and the United States to fulfil this “very challenging” project. “It’s
“It’s a sort of
(Holy) Grail we are looking for,”
for,” said Janichewski, referring to the project’s scope. In
the most optimistic scenario, a US Atlas A 551 rocket would lift off in 2018 carrying
a mobile ro ver -- or alternatively, a non-mobile lander -- that would be dropped
down to Mars to pick up samples selected to give the broadest picture possible of
the planet’s geological past.

Included in the package would be a small rocket, a Mars ascent vehicle, which
would later blast off with the sample onboard. In 2019, a European 5 ECA heavy
rocket would take off, sending an orbiter to Mars. The Mars ascent vehicle would
leave the red planet with the sample container and drop it off in Martian orbit,
where it would be captured by the orbiter. The orbiter would then start the long
haul back to Earth, eventually dropping off the sample in an “Earth entry vehicle”
designed to survive the fiery descent through the terrestrial atmosphere. It would
then be retrieved and analysed. Mars has exerted a fascination for thousands of
years, reflected in ancient mythology and superstition. Scientists, too, are
engrossed with Mars, as it is the most Earth-like planet in the solar system. “Of
“Of the
various places of interest for evaluating whether or not life exists or has existed
elsewhere in the universe, Mars is by far the most accessible,”
accessible,” the preliminary
planning report noted. The document says the cost would roughly range from 4.5 to
eight billion dollars, “depending
“depending on the final requirements and international
cooperative structure”.
structure”.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 10.07.08

– Iran missile tests irk US

The United States has reacted angrily to Iran’s missile tests, saying Washington
retains the option to use force to prevent it from making weapons of mass
destruction. “We
“We view force as an option that is on the table but as a last resort,”
resort,”
Undersecretary of State William Burns told a congressional hearing. In a separate
statement, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called the tests “evidence
“evidence that the
missile threat is not an imaginary one”.
one”. Ms Rice said: “Those
“Those who say that there is
no Iranian missile threat against which we should build a missile defence system
perhaps ought to talk to the Iranians about their claims.”
claims.” At the White House, a
spokesman called the tests “completely inconsistent” with Iran’s obligations to the
world. “The
“The Iranian regime only furthers the isolation of the Iranian people from the
international community when it engages in this sort of activity,”
activity,” said Gordon
Johndroe, spokesman for the National Security Council. On Capitol Hill,
Undersecretary Burns called the test a “provocative” act but said the US has not yet
exhausted “all
“all diplomatic possibilities”
possibilities” for persuading Iran to give up its nuclear and
missile programmes.

Author Location Dated

S. Raza Hassan Karachi, Pakistan 10.07.08

– Lyari residents return to wasteland

The internally displaced people of Lyari, who had been forced to abandon their
homes in the strife-torn area, have started returning only to find their dwellings
looted, plundered and devastated by the gangsters, who fled the area ahead of the
recently launched operation. “They
“They have only left a suction pump in the house. The
rest of our belongings, including the fridge, television etc., are all gone,”
gone,” Abdul
Sattar, an elderly man, told Dawn. Sattar, along with his family, had abandoned his
house in Street No 2 of Eidu Lane about two-and-a-half months ago. “We “We could not
even step out of our house due to the intense firing coming from all directions. At
one stage we ran out of food,”
food,” he recalled. Mr Sattar, who was not sure of his age,
had moved into a rented house in Mowach Goth after being forced out of his Lyari
house. He returned to his house on Wednesday morning after hearing the news that
the area had been ‘librated’ by the law enforcement personnel. Sattar was not
alone in complaining about plunder by the gangsters; the relatively younger Haji
Liaquat also complained about a missing fridge, television, ceiling fans and other
household articles from his Eidu Lane house. However, the residents were reluctant
to name the gangsters they felt were responsible for the pillage. A visit to the strife-
torn area showed that the gangsters had developed passages by carving out holes
in the walls to enable quick escapes without being detected. Even on Wednesday
evening, several houses in the area still remained abandoned, the walls and roofs
pockmarked with bullet holes. After visiting the area, one felt one had stepped into
a war-torn patch of Iraq or Afghanistan.

This reporter entered the area from the Bhangi Para side and – moving through
carved out holes – exited into Eidu Lane. “They
“They had developed the network of
passages through houses by carving out holes from one house to another in the
entire neighbourhood,”
neighbourhood,” SP Lyari Raja Umar Khattab said. “Without
“Without coming on to the
road, they had the ability to travel in the entire neighbourhood,”
neighbourhood,” he explained. The
law enforcement personnel have found a few AK-47 rifles and a sub-machine gun
from the area and some suspects have been rounded up, but none of them are
prominent. The respective leaders of the warring gangs – Rehman Dakait and
Ghaffar Zikri, a lieutenant of Arshad Pappu – are still at large. A few of the suspects
have been cleared and released, said a police officer. Though the areas of Eidu
Lane, Bhangi Para, Ali Mohammad Mohalla and Tannery Road have been cleared of
gangsters, residents are reluctant to return to their homes, afraid of what will
happen after the police’s withdrawal and the lack of basic facilities in the area.
“There is no water, electricity or gas in Eidu Lane. How can people restart their
lives?”
lives?” resident Haji Liaquat asked. A woman, who identified herself as Jameela, was
busy cursing the criminals, careful not to name names. “They“They have ruined our
house. They (criminals) assured us that they would not harm the house. They
forced us to run for our lives,”
lives,” she recalled. “The
“The bullets were landing in our
courtyard from all directions. How could we have survived here? We could not even
go into our kitchen,”
kitchen,” Jameela said.

A senior police officer didn’t have a satisfactory reply when he was asked how long
the police and Rangers planned to stick around in Lyari. What happens when the
law enforcement personnel are withdrawn from the area remains to be seen. Till
Wednesday evening, no politician, even from the Pakistan People’s Party, which
considers Lyari as its stronghold in Karachi, had bothered to visit the ‘liberated’
area. “Since
“Since the present government likes to announce packages, some sort of
relief package to the displaced residents of Lyari would be in order so that they
could repair their houses,”
houses,” remarked an officer requesting anonymity. “The“The people
here at least deserve to get electricity, water and gas to make the neighbourhood
liveable again,”
again,” Jameela said. There are electric poles installed in Eidu Lane and
Zikri Mohalla, but all the wires are ripped out. The presence of gas is evident from
the fact that at several places, this reporter found gas leaking from the roadsides,
but in most of the houses even the gas meters are missing. With none of the high-
profile gangsters in custody yet, lasting peace in Lyari seems a far cry.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 11.07.08

– Portfolio changes, expansion of cabinet likely

Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Syed Yousuf
Raza Gilani are reported to have agreed during talks in Dubai to expand and
reshuffle the federal cabinet to improve governance and contain unrest in the party
ranks. The PPP leaders have also finalised the names for parliamentary secretaries
and chairmen of standing committees of the National Assembly to be appointed in a
few days. Sources told on Dawn Thursday that the Dubai meeting had decided to
expedite efforts to bring the Pakistan Muslim League-N back into the cabinet. It was
decided that for the time being only ministers of state would be appointed to
ministries vacated by PML-N ministers. The PML-N ministers quit the cabinet on May
12 in protest against government’s failure to reinstate the deposed judges. Full-
fledged ministers would be appointed only after a ‘final no’ from the PML-N to the
PPP’s request to rejoin the cabinet, the sources added. At present the PPP ministers
are overburdened, holding more than one portfolio. They have been complaining to
the prime minister that they are not able to pay attention to the work of their
ministries, affecting the overall performance of the government. After the
resignation of nine PML-N ministers, 41 federal ministries were distributed among
13 PPP, one JUI-F, two ANP and one Fata ministers.

About 12 to 15 ministers of state are expected to be inducted into the cabinet. They
will be given important portfolios like food and agriculture, commerce, culture and
youth affairs, education, railways, communications, petroleum and natural
resources, science and technology, religious affairs, women development and
tourism. Three or four new federal ministers are also likely to be inducted. The
sources were not certain about the cabinet reshuffle plan, but some of them hinted
that Sherry Rehman, who is looking after four ministries, might lose the prized
portfolio of information. However, a source close to Ms Rehman denied that a move
like that was in the offing. The PPP leadership had in March assured a number of
MNAs who had been lobbying for ministries that they would be accommodated in
the second phase soon after the passage of the budget in July. Keeping in view the
large number of aspirants, the PPP leadership has now decided to appoint chairmen
of 44 NA standing committees and a dozen parliamentary secretaries.

Addressing PPP office-bearers and workers in Dubai, Prime Minister Gilani said the
government would soon expand the cabinet and reshuffle the portfolios. He said the
number of ministers and state ministers would be increased for better coverage of
areas of public importance. Mr Zardari, who had gone to Dubai last week after
visiting Greece and Turkey, had called senior party members, including the prime
minister, to Dubai for consultation on important national issues and party matters.
The prime minister who was in Malaysia to attend the D-8 Summit was asked to
stop over in Dubai on his way back home. Information Minister Sherry Rehman,
Kashmir Affairs and Information Technology Minister Qamaruz Zaman Kaira and
Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis Minister Syed Khursheed Shah also
dashed to Dubai for the meeting. PPP sources told Dawn that the main purpose of
the Dubai meeting was to discuss the future relationship with the major coalition
partner, PML-N, which had adopted a tough position on the issue of reinstatement of
the deposed judges. Several PML-N leaders have already stated that their party
would wait till the end of this month for restoration of the judges and after that the
PML-N may withdraw its support for the coalition government at the centre.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 11.07.08

– The great conspiracy

Dr. A.Q. Khan recently spoke about the great American ‘conspiracy’ to destroy
Pakistan. He was of the view, aired in a television programme, that an American
think tank had predicted the break-up of the country by 2015. Furthermore, the
frontier province will join Afghanistan, Sindh will find its own way and Balochistan
will opt out as well. This will leave Punjab which according to the great scientist
represents about 60 per cent of Pakistan and has the nuclear weapons as well.
Since Punjab does not have any animosity with India or Afghanistan, it will be forced
to sign the NPT and thus surrender the nuclear weapons. Interestingly, Dr Samar
Mubarakmand, who is another shining star of Pakistan’s nuclear establishment, also
subscribed to the theory that there is a conspiracy to destroy the country. Although
there are some who do not believe in such a conspiracy theory, there are many who
are convinced of the presence of a serious threat to the country. The war and
conflict that has engulfed major parts of the country might not just be a case of
inept policies. External forces always provide an impetus to an internal conflict. In
fact, as is obvious in India’s case as well, the involvement of external forces deepen
conflicts which survive due to mismanagement by the state’s bureaucracy.

The problem in Pakistan’s case is that it does not take a lot to deepen the conflict in
a situation where the internal forces, such as the ruling elite, are completely blinded
by greed. The ruling classes are so focused on their interests that they fail to make
longterm policies or provide direction to the people. It does not take a nuclear
physicist to see that the politicians will fail to push back the military which might
return in the days to come. Such an eventuality would further weaken the already
fragile fabric of the state. Pakistan’s ruling elite is mercenary and depends on
foreign capital inflows. Therefore it has failed to plan for the country’s political,
economic and social progress. The internal friction will intensify the confusion and
conflict which already exists. The policymakers appear divided between their
inability to curb their own greed and fighting the external forces through support
ing elements. This will further drag the country towards chaos and conflict. We
cannot support foreign forces to attract their capital and at the same time try to
curb their influence by producing other violent elements. Mir Jaffar and Mir Sadiq
are not just names of individuals but convoluted policies as well. But referring to Dr
Khan’s prediction, there are a few points in his claims which are highly interesting
such as his belief that the nuclear weapons will eventually be retained by Punjab in
the new dispensation. To reiterate his opinion, Punjab will be forced to sign the NPT
and give up its nuclear weapons once it is all that remains of Pakistan. Logically
speaking, the concentration of 60-70 nuclear warheads in such a small territory will
be dangerous and the international community will feel nervous about it.

Dr Khan believes that since Punjab does not have any animosity with India or
Afghanistan, it will have no reason to retain the nuclear weapons. One would like to
remind the great doctor of a couple of things. First, in this scenario, Punjab will feel
more insecure and thus will have a greater reason to retain its weapons. A Pakistan
concentrated in Punjab will be a landlocked territory with no access to a seaport or
source of water. If one is to believe that the other parts of the federating unit will
break away, it is hard to imagine that these units will be friendly enough to
negotiate facilities like access to seaports, water, gas, oil and other resources. If the
military and nuclear weapons are concentrated in just one territory, then whoever
has the military might will try to hold on to it to force the breakaway units to
cooperate. Second, Dr Khan’s statement does not reflect any understanding of our
national history. For instance, he has completely forgotten that bad relations and
friction with India is a fetish of the Urdu-speaking and Punjabi elite. The fact that
Altaf Hussain has gone and made statements in India or that the two Punjabs are
trying to improve trade relations does not hide the fact that the obsession with
1947 is limited to Punjabis and Pakistanis of North Indian origin.

Historically, these two ethnic groups have dominated the Pakistani state and its
policymaking. These are also the two groups most affected by the partition of the
Indian subcontinent. So it is a fallacious assumption that Punjab does not have
problems with India and Afghanistan. The policy of strategic depth, which was
meant to create a friendly government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, was partly
conceived by a GHQ dominated for many years by officers from Punjab. The
institutional memory of the military and civil bureaucracies does not look at its
traditional rivals sympathetically. The belief is that India will never leave any stone
unturned to destroy Pakistan. Furthermore, the belief is that it has now paired up
with the US to harm Pakistan. But the more important issue is the ease with which
Dr Khan has assumed that the other federating units will secede from the union. Is
this just an individual thought or the thinking of the deeper establishment as well?
The statement reflects an utter lack of trust in the smaller provinces. The message
between the lines is that since these people are lesser Pakistanis they will leave the
federation at the first opportunity. Such thinking is problematic because it does not
address the problems faced by the people of the smaller provinces.

It may be a fact that external forces are involved in pinpricking in Balochistan but
this does not address the larger issue of the disenchantment felt by the Baloch
people. For so many years the state has ignored its own people and partnered with
tribal leaders who are now being blamed for the lack of development in the
province. The same applies to Sindh and the Frontier. Despite the fact that a lot of
Sindhi landowners have always remained part of the government, the people were
punished severely during the 1980s and the 1990s. If Dr Khan and the rest of the
establishment look hard they will see that the federation and its nuclear weapons
can be saved if the powers that be were to show lesser callousness and greed. ¦
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.analyst.

Author Location Dated

Razi U. Ahmed 11.07.08

– Clothing matters
At a time of an economic downturn and the requisite accompanying fiscal
tightening, our politicians’ appearance matters to bring home the point of
empathising with the classes impacted by spiralling food and fuel prices. In the
larger scheme of things, the sartorial choices politicians make act as signifiers of
their communion with their people, forging a spirited sense of nationalism.
Anthropologist Emma Tarlo presents the case of Mohandas Gandhi in Clothing
Matters (Chicago, 1996) who successfully differentiated himself from his own past,
his comrades, and the coloniser by adopting his trademark white, homespun khadi.
His sartorial style became integral to advancing his Hindswaraj. In choosing to
adopt a vernacular mode of dress, Tarlo contends, Gandhi captured the imagination
of millions, flaming the movement he spurred towards the 1947 decolonisation of
India. Such is the power of symbolism. The spinning wheel and loincloth became the
rudiments of the Gandhian architecture. These successfully countered the British
Raj’s heavy-handed weaponry and tactics by unfastening the Raj’s grip on a
dejected, disempowered populace. The power of clothes is potent in Tarlo’s
narrative.

Mohammad Ali Jinnah, despite his western proclivities, also realised the appeal of
the native dress code. His signature ensemble consisting of the Jinnah cap (the
Karakul hat was named after him for having made it popular), sherwani and white
churidar pyjama closely resonated with the Muslims of Uttar Pradesh. Even though
this attire wasn’t as generic as Gandhi’s and it certainly wasn’t the uniform dress of
subcontinental Muslims, Jinnah’s transition, albeit merely symbolic, from Savile Row
to Lucknow’s labyrinth nonetheless fortified Muslim nationalism in united India. It
will, however, be an exaggerated claim that in case Gandhi and Jinnah hadn’t
embraced these powerful sartorial symbols, their visions for self-rule and two states
may not have been realised. But it is true to claim that their oratory and struggle
gained a new meaning through the embrace of native garb. Even though Jinnah
may not have had a command of Urdu or Gujarati, it can be said without
diminishing the power of translation that his listeners derived meaning from his
dress and demeanour. Democrats in India have proudly, not necessarily out of
jingoism but inhered cultural practice, worn clothes that belong to their land. From
Jawaharlal Nehru to Indira Gandhi to Rajiv Gandhi to Manmohan Singh, the dress
has been decidedly vernacular even though the cuts and styles reflected the
zeitgeist.

Rulers in Pakistan have, however, oscillated between indigenous and foreign garb.
The first democratically elected Prime Minister of Pakistan, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto,
popularised the shalwar kameez across the country’s class, ethnic and racial lines.
That did not restrict Bhutto to the dress he electioneered in during 1970. He every
now and then reverted to his meticulously tailored suits, continuing the tradition
espoused by the post-independence Pakistani leadership. Still, sartorial iconography
remained powerful during the Bhutto years, arguably distinguishing Bhutto from
Gen Ayub and symbolising their divergent ideologies. Marking Bhutto’s socialist
leanings, he brought to Pakistan fusion dressing not seen among its politicians
before, with his Nehru jackets and Mao caps. He bridged his Sindhi and worldly
moorings, building at the time a socialist political party that remains Pakistan’s
single largest political force with grassroots representation across the federation.
Clearly, the western-dressed Gen Ayub couldn’t cobble together a sustainable
political party, largely because he was an unelected leader and that coupled with
his departure from traditional dressing made him appear wooden. Another telling
case is of former Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz’s penchant for persisting with his
hard-to-shed banking cast. His suits, immaculate though they were, made him
removed from the shalwar kameez-clad masses. Compounding his failure to root
himself were his apolitical past and parasitic premiership subsisting off of the
presidency. His attempts at bespoke shalwar kameez, distinctly Aziz’s, failed to
conform to local tastes and preferences. With his departure, his brand of shalwar
kameez fizzled out as well.
The reason why Indian leaders and politicians have consistently stayed native
sartorially is because of nationalism, which is not as acute in our country. Gandhi
remained loyal to his transformation upon his return to India, not somersaulting
between the loincloth and English-tailored suiting. The straddling of western and
regional sartorial idioms by Pakistani politicians, on the other hand, has
exacerbated our collective national identities and agendas. Perhaps the post-
independence Pakistani leadership’s wholehearted acceptance of western clothing
may have been a counter-reaction to Indian expression of nationalism through
native garb. The implicit logic of western suiting in the Pakistani mindset seems one
of upward social mobility and aristocratic distinction. But if Jinnah and Bhutto could
popularise their variants of the national dress, the present leaders of the PPP and
PML-N must try at least to re-establish that missing link in this increasingly
Manichean world between the political elites and the toiling masses.

Author Location Dated

London, England 11.07.08

– Rushdie wins ‘Best of Booker’ award

Salman Rushdie’s novel “Midnight’s
“Midnight’s Children”was
Children”was named on Thursday as the
greatest Booker Prize winner ever, scooping a special “best of the best” award for
the second time. The British author’s second novel edged out five others chosen
from the 41 winners of the highly-regarded Booker Prize, in a public vote. One of the
literary world’s most prestigious awards, the annual Booker Prize goes to the best
work of fiction by an author from the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland. The
Best of the Booker award was to celebrate the prize’s 40th anniversary. Odds-on
favourite “Midnight’s Children” was Indian-born Rushdie’s second novel and won the
1981 Booker Prize. It also scooped the Booker of Bookers — the only other time a
celebratory award has been created for the prize — in 1993. New York resident
Rushdie, 61, touring the United States promoting his latest novel “The
“The Enchantress
Of Florence”,
Florence”, said it was “marvellous news”. “I’m
“I’m absolutely delighted and would
like to thank all those readers around the world who voted for ‘Midnight’s
Children’,”
Children’,” Rushdie said in a pre-recorded message. His sons Zafar and Milan were
at London’s Southbank Centre to collect the award.

Rushdie was awarded a knighthood by Britain last year, prompting protesters in

Pakistan to burn his effigy. His 1988 book “The
“The Satanic Verses”
Verses” prompted Iran’s
then spiritual leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to issue a fatwa against him the
following year for blaspheming Islam. Five other books were nominated for the prize
by a panel of judges. They were “Disgrace
“Disgrace”” by South Africanborn author JM Coetzee,
which won the 1999 Booker; “The“The Siege of Krishnapur”
Krishnapur” by the late British writer JG
Farrell (1973); “The
“The Conservationist”
Conservationist” by South African novelist Nadine Gordimer
(1974); Australian author Peter Carey’s “Oscar
“Oscar and Lucinda”
Lucinda” (1988) and “The
“The Ghost
Road”
Road” by British writer Pat Barker, the 1995 winner. Novelist and critic Victoria
Glendinning, who chaired the judges, said: “The
“The readers have spoken — in their
thousands. And we do believe that they have made the right choice.”
choice.” She said the
panel felt the six nominated novels represented the best fiction-writing of the past
four decades and each would stand the test of time. Some 7,801 people voted
online or by text message, with 36 per cent plumping for “Midnight’s Children”.
Votes came in from across the world, with 37 per cent of online votes from Britain
and 27 per cent from North America. More than half the voters were aged under 35.
A total of 41 books have won the prize since it was launched in 1969, because the
award was shared in 1974 and 1992. Contenders must have been published in the
past year and originally written in English. Booker Prize nomination all but
guarantees worldwide readership and an upsurge in book sales.

Author Location Dated

Matthew Lee Washington, D.C. 11.07.08

– US and Iran appear set on Mideast collision course

The United States and Iran appear on a collision course in the Middle East, firing off
mixed messages that are raising world tension and roiling oil markets amid fears
that an eventual confrontation may be military. Both insist war is not imminent, but
their sharp words and provocative actions are stoking uncertainty as Washington
and Tehran joust for strategic supremacy in the oil-rich region where American
might along with that of its top ally in the area, Israel has long been dominant.
Concern spiked on Wednesday when Iran test-fired nine long- and mediumrange
missiles during war games in the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to show it can retaliate
against any US or Israeli attack. The display followed a joint military exercise by
Israel and Greece last month in the Mediterranean that many saw as a warning to
Iran. The Iranian missile tests drew a quick response from Washington, which said
the launches were further reason not to trust a country that it already accuses of
fomenting instability in Iraq, supporting Israel’s foes and attempting to build nuclear
weapons. The testing sent oil prices higher before they calmed down later in the
day. This despite the fact that leaders on both sides President George W. Bush and
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had just this week tried to tamp down
speculation that the use of force is inevitable.

As he nears the end of his presidency, Bush says repeatedly that diplomacy is his
preferred option to deal with any threat posed by Iran’s nuclear programme,
although he has just as often refused to take the military option off the table.
Ahmadinejad, who has often spoken of wiping Israel off the map, this week
dismissed talk of war as a “funny joke”. “I“I assure you that there won’t be any war in
the future,”
future,” Ahmadinejad said on Tuesday during a visit to Malaysia. Shortly after
Wednesday’s missile tests, the White House didn’t fling out any dire new warnings
to Iran but settled for saying the testing was “completely
“completely inconsistent with Iran’s
obligations to the world”
world” and served to further isolate the country. Defence
Secretary Robert Gates and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stood clear of
discussing possible military responses, arguing that the tests instead were proof
that a proposed missile shield for Europe, a system that has drawn vehement
opposition from Russia, is vital to defending US interests and allies. At a Pentagon
news conference, Gates allowed that there had been a “lot “lot of signalling going on”
on” in
the escalation of rhetoric between Iran, Israel and the US, but he added he does not
think confrontation is closer. So why does speculation about conflict continue to
grow? A main reason may be that neither side appears able to judge the other’s
true intent. US officials say they can’t discern Iran’s motivations, citing the closed
nature of the regime and ostensible differences between the country’s hardline
Islamic religious leaders, its Revolutionary Guards and moderates. Some Iranian
leaders may want peace, but not others, they say.
While Ahmadinejad tones down his rhetoric, others in Tehran have stepped up
warnings of retaliation if the Americans or Israelis launch military action against
Iran’s nuclear sites. They threaten to hit Israel and US regional bases with missiles
and stop oil traffic through the vital Gulf region. Wednesday’s launches
“demonstrate our resolve and might against enemies who in recent weeks have
threatened Iran with harsh language”,
language”, said Gen Hossein Salami, the Revolutionary
Guard’s air force commander, according to state media. “Our “Our hands are always on
the trigger and our missiles are ready for launch,”
launch ,” he was quoted as saying. At the
same time, the Iranian leadership may face a similar quandary in judging US
intentions. While Bush, Gates and Rice are stressing diplomacy, other, more
hawkish, elements of the administration, notably Vice-President Dick Cheney, are
using more bellicose language similar to that of Israeli officials who have been more
outspoken about the possible use of force. And, with Bush’s second term waning,
Iran’s calculations are also likely to be guided by what it thinks the policies of the
next US president will be. The Republican and Democratic candidates, John McCain
and Barack Obama, both agree Iran is a threat. But they differ on how to deal with
it. Obama said the tests underscored the need for direct diplomacy with Tehran,
while McCain’s response mirrored that of the Bush administration and focused on
tougher sanctions against Iran. Some analysts believe Bush will act militarily against
Iran before he leaves office in six months and that if he doesn’t, McCain will, if he is
elected. John Pike, the director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defence, security and space
intelligence consultancy, is one.“Bombing
one.“Bombing is either going to be the last thing Mr
Bush does or the first thing Mr’ McCain does,”
does,” he said.

Author Location Dated

AP Tehran, Iran 11.07.08

– Iran tests more missiles of ‘special capabilities’

Iran test-fired more long-range missiles on Thursday in a second day of exercises
aimed at showing the country can defend itself against any attack by the US or
Israel, state television reported. The weapons fired overnight have “special
capabilities” and included missiles launched from naval ships in the Persian Gulf, as
well as torpedoes and surface-tosurface missiles, the broadcast said. It did not
elaborate. A brief video clip showed two missiles being fired simultaneously in
darkness. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice warned Iran that Washington
would not back down in the face of threats against Israel. “We
“We are sending a
message to Iran that we will defend American interests and the interests of our
allies,”
allies,” Rice said on Thursday in Georgia at the close of a three-day Eastern
European trip. Among the missiles Iran said it tested on Wednesday was a new
version of the Shahab3, which officials have said has a range of 2,000km and is
armed with a 1-ton conventional warhead. That would put Israel, Turkey, the
Arabian peninsula, Afghanistan and Pakistan all within striking distance.
Wednesday’s missile tests were conducted at the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic
waterway at the mouth of the Persian Gulf through which up to 40 per cent of the
world’s oil passes. Iran has threatened to shut down traffic in the strait if attacked.
Oil prices jumped on news of Wednesday’s tests, rising $1.44 to $137.48 a barrel in
electronic trading on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

But another Iranian state channel, Press TV, quoted a senior Republican Guard
commander on Thursday as saying Iran would maintain security in the Strait of
Hormuz and the larger Gulf. Gen Mohammad Hejazi, chief of the Guards’ joint staff,
called the missile tests a “defensive
“defensive measure against invasions,”
invasions,” according to the
channel’s website. Iran will not jeopardise the interests of neighbouring countries,
he said without elaborating. Even as Hejazi appeared to downplay possible regional
jitters over Iran’s missile tests, Tehran’s standoff with the West coincided on
Thursday with news that French energy giant Total SA would not invest in Iran for
now. “The
“The conditions are not present for investing in Iran today,’’
today,’’ said Total
spokeswoman Lisa Wiler. “We “We hope that the political relations will improve so that
we can invest.”
invest.” Total had been in discussions for developing a liquefied natural gas
project linked to Iran’s South Pars gas field with Malaysia’s Petronas.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 11.07.08

– Edhi backs capital punishment

Criticising the government’s decision to withdraw the death sentence, renowned
social worker Abdul Sattar Edhi on Thursday said that the murderers of humanity
should be awarded death. Talking to PPI at a stall set up at the Mazar-i-Quaid to get
charity from the masses in connection with his “Bheek mission” to provide food to
the people, he said that although he was not a politician, he was in favour of a
violent revolution through which the cruel elements could be dealt with strongly.
The social worker said that he was struggling for the provision of food to the poor
and planned to collect Rs1 billion this year. Mr Edhi strongly criticised the present
government of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP). He said that had the assassinated
PPP leaders Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto been alive, they would have torn
the papers of the recently announced budget, which in no manner was a budget for
the poor. He said that the present government had still not fulfilled the hopes of the
deprived people. Regarding the collection of Bheek funds, he said that a generous
woman had donated Rs4.5 million and another gave $10,000 and he hoped that on
Thursday only he would collect Rs10 million. He said that he started the mission on
June 19, 2008 from Quetta and visited Peshawar, Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Jhelum,
Gujrat, Lahore, Sukkur and other small and big cities of the country. He said that
people of Pakistan had accorded him a warm welcome and supported his mission.
Mr Edhi said that as many as 325 centers had been established to provide free food
thrice a day to the poor people at a cost of Rs1 billion a year. He said that although
the people of many western and Arab countries including the United States and the
UK etc had offered him to pay charity but he only accepted funds from the people of
Pakistan as it was one of the most generous of all the nations.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 12.07.08

– PML-N want Judges restored in 4 to 6 weeks

The Pakistan Muslim League-N on Friday hinted that if the deposed judges were not
reinstated it could take a major decision about continuing its support for the
Pakistan People’s Party-led coalition government by the end of next month. “It “It will
be difficult to continue on this path indefinitely. We want the (judges’) issue to be
resolved in four to six weeks, either this way or that way,”
way,” PML-N information
secretary Ahsan Iqbal told Dawn after his return from the US and the UK. Mr Iqbal
said his party was keen to keep the ruling coalition intact, but it was getting difficult
to continue to support the government without judges’ reinstatement. Mr Iqbal said
his party was under pressure to take a clear stand on the issue and a meeting of the
party leadership to decide its future course of action was expected after the return
of party chief Nawaz Sharif from London. He said that despite the fact the PPP was
taking major decisions on key national issues without consulting the coalition
partners, the PML-N wanted the coalition government to succeed, believing that no
single party could steer the country out of the present crisis. Political analysts
believe that the popularity graph of the PML-N which was going due to the party’s
position on the judges issue started declining after the party’s unclear stand on the
PPP-led coalition government. Sources said some sections of lawyers, who were
appreciative of PML-N’s position, had also started criticising the PML-N leadership
for continuing its support to the PPP government which, according to them, was not
sincere in restoring the deposed judges.

Moreover, the PML-N decision to take part in the lawyers’ long march and hold
protest demonstrations while remaining a part of the ruling coalition had also drawn
criticism from different sections of society. Mr Iqbal said it was true that the people
wanted his party to take a firm position. He said there were occasions in the past
when the PML-N could have parted ways with and withdrawn it support for the
coalition government, but it avoided doing so. Citing examples, he said, that first
the government failed to implement the Murree Declaration and then it appointed a
controversial person as Punjab governor. Similarly, he said, the party demolished
patience when the judges who had taken oath under the Provisional Constitution
Order (PCO) of President Musharraf disqualified Nawaz Sharif from contesting the
by-election. Mr Iqbal alleged that his party had not been consulted by the PPP
before the launching of military operation in tribal areas and increasing prices of oil,
gas and electricity. Despite these unilateral decisions of the PPP, he said, the PML-N
continued its support, but it was now getting difficult for them to do so. Mr Iqbal,
however, avoided setting deadline for the PPP to restore the judges. He ruled out
the possibility of rejoining the cabinet without reinstatement of the judges.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 12.07.08

– ‘PPP wants PML-N back in cabinet’

Pakistan People’s Party spokesman Farhatullah Khan Babar said on Friday that
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani would himself make public the decisions
made during meetings with Co-chairman Asif Zardari in Dubai. Talking to Dawn, he
said the PPP had a desire to see the PMLN back into the federal cabinet and the
party leadership had started serious efforts in this regard. Mr Babar expressed a
hope that the deposed judges would be reinstated soon and PPP was working on a
plan to get them reinstated as early as possible. He said the cabinet would be
expanded even if the PML-N members did not return to the cabinet. Mr Babar
refused to give details about expansion finalised in the Dubai meeting. He, however,
said there was no truth in reports that Sherry Rehman was being removed from the
ministry of information. He said there was no reason to replace the information
minister as the party leadership believed that her performance was good. In
response to a question, Mr Babar said the PPP did not want to set any deadline for
PML-N to return to the cabinet. He also said that Mr Zardari would soon return home
and would meet PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, most probably in Pakistan.
Author Location Dated
Aqil Shah as2552@columbia.edu 12.07.08

– Games generals play

Nuclear proliferation is not child’s play. Nuclear weapons are not toys. But our
generals have behaved like little children and treated nuclear proliferation as a
game. When the heat was on, they simply denied involvement, blamed it on Dr A.Q.
Khan and locked him up. Chapter closed. Wishful thinking. Skeletons can be shoved
into a cupboard but they can pop back out any time. So they have. After four years
in virtual captivity, Dr Khan has come out guns blazing. He has made bombastic
statements targeting Pervez Musharraf against whom he understandably harbours a
grudge. In the most outrageous claim, Musharraf is accused of plotting with the
United States to break up Pakistan by 2015. In a first, though, Dr Khan has settled
scores with his tormentors in khaki by directly implicating the army in nuclear
proliferation. In the summer of 2000, he claims, the army under Gen Pervez
Musharraf supervised a shipment to Pyongyang of secondhand P1 centrifuge
machines used in uranium enrichment. In his own words, “no “no flight, no equipment
could go outside without … clearance from the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) and
the Strategic Plans Division (SPD) and they used to be at the airport, not me.”
me.” Dr
Khan claims he visited North Korea twice, once in 1994 and again in 1999. The main
aim of the first trip was to procure Nodong ballistic missiles, subsequently renamed
Ghauri. His mission on the second trip was to purchase shoulder-fired SA15 missiles
during the Kargil war. The veracity of Dr Khan’s statement can only be proved
through a neutral inquiry. It is no state secret that Dr Khan’s spectacular rise and
fall from grace was orchestrated by the military establishment. The man who stole
nuclear blueprints for his country was turned into a cult figure above reproach.
Eulogies were written, awards were conferred on him. When the crunch came,
however, he was discarded by the military in a flash. Of course, A.Q. Khan is no
angel. He is believed to have run Kahuta Research Laboratories with more than
justified autonomy. But it is a fact that the country’s nuclear programme depends
on a clandestine network of suppliers. The good doctor obviously bought nuclear
materials for the state and probably sold some along the way. But it would be
stretching credulity to breaking point if we believe that he acted as a rogue scientist
out to make a killing under the nose of the military.

Dr Khan has since tried to absolve himself by claiming he was coerced into a
confession and promised “full freedom” in return for admitting his guilt publicly.
Obviously, he did not have the mettle or the clear conscience to stand up to the
army at the time. But since the generals apparently failed to live up to their side of
the agreement by denying him his freedom for more than four long years, he sees
no reason to stick to his. Not surprising then that the military came back swinging
at Dr Khan for slinging mud at the army. The SPD chief Khalid Kidwai delivered a
Bond-esque version of the proliferation story exclusively to a group of “patriotic
journalists” summoned to the division’s headquarters. According to him, the military
reportedly got wind of Dr Khan’s suspicious activities somewhere in the year 2000.
It was then that the ISI raided Chaklala airport to stop a suspected shipment of
centrifuges. But the consignment never arrived at the airport as Dr Khan’s men
were tipped off in advance. The centrifuges were eventually recovered from inside
an “air-conditioning factory”. The retired general claims that when Dr Khan was
confronted with evidence of his culpability, he eventually broke down and begged
for a pardon. In other words, Dr Khan made a voluntary confession to avoid
prosecution. Musharraf then granted him a pardon. Under its terms, Dr Khan was
basically expected to remain hush. The pardon was reportedly subject to review if
the government were to find evidence of his involvement in other nuclear
proliferation activities.

Kidwai tried to bolster the credence of all his claims by assuring reporters that the
government was in possession of irrefutable evidence implicating Dr Khan in the
proliferation of nuclear materials. Kidwai added he was willing to share this proof “in
camera” with neutral persons, or present it in court if need be. Claiming that
proliferation was a closed case, Kidwai cited as evidence the determination made by
the United States in North Korea and the IAEA in Iran that proliferation in each case
was an individual act. The implication is that if only Dr Khan had had kept his big
mouth shut, everything would have been alright. If only things were that simple. Of
course, A.Q. Khan’s incriminating statements will reinforce the widespread
perception of Pakistan as a fragile state fraught with the threat of loose nukes
falling into terrorist hands. When the architect of the country’s atomic bomb hurls
grave accusations of nuclear wrongdoing at its military and vice versa in the full
glare of the global media, we have a grave situation on our hands that must be
resolved once and for all. We must face the issue head-on by holding the guilty
accountable rather than burying our head in the sand and wishing it will all go
away. The elected government must take charge and constitute a bipartisan
commission of inquiry to investigate the matter. The army has every reason to
cooperate with such an inquiry since it claims to have solid evidence that it was not
involved in proliferation as an institution. Ultimately, nuclear command and control
must be taken out of the military’s hands if Pakistan is to assure the international
community that its nuclear weapons are not up for grabs. The entire world seems to
have figured out that weapons of mass destruction are too dangerous and
important to be left to the generals. What are we waiting for? ¦ The writer, a PhD
candidate in political science at Columbia University, is conducting his
doctoral research in Pakistan.
Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Arif Hassan 12.07.08

– Only questions, no answers

I belong to a generation that has lived through many periods of hope — hope that
was shattered again and again. One of the reasons why hopes generated in such
periods were never realised was our strategic geopolitical location and the failure of
our leadership (such as there was) and society to come together and understand
this reality, and on that basis develop a common vision of what our country stood
for, how it was to be governed and how it should relate to powerful external
interests that have constantly been knocking at our door. As such, the hopes that
the movement for reform and democracy generated in the last year and a half were
not shared by me. There was an element of deja vu. A fear of another betrayal, the
likelihood of another failure. I tried to stay quiet as my younger friends and
colleagues discussed politics with enthusiasm; I did not write for newspapers unlike
in earlier periods of hope; and I did not appear on TV channels to discuss political
issues in spite of several invitations. Every morning I opened the newspapers with
fear in my heart. Many of my friends, who belong to the same generation as me,
had similar feelings. However, I continued to read the news and the beautifully and
often emotionally and well-argued analysis that appeared in the press. I also
listened with interest to the informative conversations and discussions on various
news channels until they became repetitive; the same experts, politicians and
lawyers saying the same things with increasingly less conviction and clarity, to the
same few anchors. Today there is an element of surrealism in reading the press and
listening to the TV. The news we receive is increasingly contradictory and so is the
analysis. Much of it is of fragments of our larger problems which have already been
discussed to death.

There are so many questions that I, like other Pakistanis I am sure, would like to
have answers to. I would like to know who is really in power, what are the policies of
our government rather than what appears on the surface, what are the conflicts
between the different organs of the state and why do they persist, who is fighting
whom in the border regions and to what end, and what are the objectives of the
great powers and our neighbours who are actively involved in our internal affairs
and whose interests have so often determined the course of events in our country?
Reading and listening to the media, I get totally different answers to these
questions, answers that are not simply contradictory but poles apart; answers that
are disturbing and give no hope for the future. Given the nature of these answers,
can the country have a coherent political establishment or an effective movement
for reform and democracy? However, one thing is clear from news and its analysis:
without a consensus between the Americans, the Pakistan Army and the elected
political establishment, there can be no peace in Pakistan.
Pakistan. But it is also clear that
such a consensus cannot last for there is a clash of interests between the army and
the Americans, the political establishment and the army, and the Americans and the
political establishment. Overtly they cooperate with each other but covertly they
pursue their own agendas, to the extent they can, because of pressure from their
different constituencies. So the consensus cannot last, as we have seen, and for the
time that it does it can do so only through coercion, buying and selling of loyalties,
constitutional deviations masquerading as national interest and covert deals with
the Americans; in short, everything that destroys the unity of our federation, the
fabric of our society, the effectiveness of our institutions and undermines our
sovereignty.

We are, as the Americans say, caught between a rock and a hard place. Our
position is similar to that of Norodom Sihanouk during the height of the Vietnam war
when, in spite of all his brilliance, he could not prevent that war from engulfing
Cambodia. How are we to get out of this impasse? The other issue is also disturbing.
Some of the local and international press and think tanks have indicated that they
believe the Nato troops in Afghanistan will tire and the Taliban will control the south
and east of the country. They feel that when this happens the Taliban will take with
them certain areas of the border regions of Pakistan. If this happens then what will
happen to our federation and how will the Americans secure the Baloch frontier —
something they are bound to attempt? Also, this state of affairs can only come
about after a major escalation of the war in Afghanistan and in the border regions of
Pakistan. Karachi is required to make this escalation possible for oil, food and other
supplies required for the troops in Afghanistan can only be sent through this city.
Does the recent statement by the Karachi nazim that the geography of the city and
the country will change in the future have something to do with this line of thinking?
It has to be remembered that Karachi was conquered by the British for the purpose
of supplying men and material to British troops in Afghanistan to prevent Czarist
Russia from reaching the Arabian Sea. In the First World War it was the
headquarters for British intervention in Central Asia and in the Second World War
support to the eastern front was provided from this city.

During the Afghan war against the Soviets, it played a similar role. Given these
realities, how will all this affect (or is affecting) the politics of the city and hence of
Pakistan in general and the rest of Sindh in particular? Does the battle for turf in
Karachi, the violence associated with it and the bomb blasts of July 8 have
something to do with this issue? Truthful answers to the questions that have been
posed in this piece are important. Without them there can be no effective policy to
overcome the crisis we are in. Without them people cannot be mobilised for change
and without them hopes cannot be realised and the reasons why hopes have not
materialised in the past cannot be understood. For reform and change, Pakistan
needs a commission for truth and reconciliation on the lines of South Africa. We
need to wash ourselves clean, however painful this may be. But this poses two more
questions. One, is it possible to have such a commission in the situation we are in
today? And two, if not, what sort of political movement is required to make this
possible other than anarchy and conflict leading to the reorganisation of the state?

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 12.07.08

– Oil leaps beyond $147

Oil prices rocketed to record highs above $147 on Friday as traders seized on the
weak US currency and tensions over Iran and Nigeria at the end of an extremely
volatile trading week. London’s Brent North Sea oil for August delivery jumped as
high as $147.50 to beat the previous record of $146.69 set on July 3. New York’s
main oil contract, light sweet crude for August, also topped $147 for the first time to
reach a historic $147.27. “Prices
“Prices soared to record highs on mounting geopolitical
tensions in Nigeria and Iran, while supply threats in Brazil add to supply woes,”
woes,” said
Barclays Capital analysts. Oil also swept back into record territory after the
European single currency briefly leapt above $1.59. The weak dollar boosts demand
for dollar-priced oil which becomes cheaper for buyers using stronger currencies.
After hitting the latest peaks, London Brent stood at $144.15 in late trade, up $2.12
from Thursday’s close. New York crude was $4.90 higher at $146.55. “As “As ever, the
market remains very sensitive to any potential supply disruptions and geopolitical
tensions,”
tensions,” said Sucden analyst Andrey Kryuchenkov. Oil rallied by almost six dollars
on Thursday on the back of simmering geopolitical tensions over key producer Iran
and worries over stretched global crude supplies, traders said. Prices had dived
below $140 on Monday as a result of a then strengthening US currency, underlining
the extreme volatility that the market is currently experiencing.

Author Location Dated

Sabih Mohsin 12.07.08

– Role of money in US elections

American presidential elections are the costliest in the world. But no eye-brows
need be raised because the US is economically strong enough to afford it. However,
the bulk of donations made in the election campaign is not without pre-conceived
selfish interests and is usually meant to achieve certain objectives by the donor.
These objectives might not serve the interests of the population at large, and might
even harm them. The donors, mostly interest groups, expect the winning candidate
or the party to take care of their special interests while formulating domestic and
foreign policies of the country. Thus, the sources from where money flows to the
candidates are of great importance to both US citizens and also the people abroad
who both are deeply affected by the outcome in terms of the policies to be pursued
by the winning party. The net amount contributed to election campaigns has been
constantly rising. In the 2004 polls, it was $881 million and is expected to go up
further during the current elections. Although commercial entities and corporate
bodies are not allowed to contribute, a major part of the donations comes from
them through invisible methods. The two industries that often influence America’s
foreign policies are the petroleum and arms manufacturing. As the dismemberment
of the Soviet Union also brought to an end the Cold War, the US spending on
defence was greatly curtailed. However, some organisations later came up with
ideas like ‘peace
‘peace through strength’
strength’ and ‘global
‘global leadership belongs to America.’
America.’
Though apparently pursuing a nationalist agenda, they were actually propagating
re-arming of the military and protecting the interests of the arms and the oil
lobbies. One of them, Centre for Security Policy,
Policy, was founded in 1988. It pleaded for
a militarily strong America. According to its annual reports, the Centre received
generous donations from arms manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.
The most influential group has been the Project for New American Century (PNAC)
formed in 1997. It emphasised the role of the US as the world leader and openly
demanded an increase in defence spending to make America strong enough to fulfil
this responsibility. The PNAC launched a vigorous campaign to punish Iraq for
‘possessing’ weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be false, and hence
need for a regime change. A number of its leaders including Dick Cheney and
Donald Rumsfeld who held senior positions in the two industries, later joined the
Bush administration.

Dick Cheney was the CEO of Halliburton Energy Services before becoming the
running mate of Bush. Halliburton and its subsidiaries spent around $4.6 million on
congressional and presidential elections during 2000-2004 period, mainly
supporting the Republicans. And that resulted in what a BBC report termed the
‘largest war profiteering in history’.
history’. The Halliburton Group was given supply
contracts for the US army in Iraq and for reconstruction work in that country after
the war ended. According to the BBC, around $23bn ‘may ‘may have been lost, stolen or
improperly accounted for’
for’ in these transactions. But the discussion of these matters
in the US is prohibited by an order covering 70 court cases against some of the top
US companies. Traditionally, Republican administrations have been more supportive
of the industry and therefore most of the donations from it have gone to them in the
past. But with the Democrats gaining control of the Congress in the last elections
and with strong chances of a Democrat entering the White House this time, the
arms industry has changed sides. At the earlier stage of the race for nomination,
Hillary Clinton was considered a favourite. She was also more hawkish. Besides
supporting the invasion of Iraq in the Senate, she talked in her campaign speeches
of attacking Iran. So, by October 2007, $52,600 from the arms industry had flowed
to her campaign account, compared to only $19,200 to the Republican McCain. In
1976 a Presidential Election Campaign Fund was set up with contributions of $1,
later raised to $3, made voluntarily by federal income tax payers. In the beginning,
many candidates availed of this facility. But after a few elections, most of the
candidates stopped accepting public finance for primaries so as to be free of the
national and state spending limits. The Election Fund provides a grant of $85 million
to each nominee of the two major parties for campaign purpose. But after accepting
this grant, they cannot receive any contributions from private donors nor can they
use their own money for campaigning. All the candidates had availed this facility so
far. Barack Obama has refused it.

Although there are prescribed limits to donations from private sources, yet ways
have been found to circumvent them. The limit for individual donations called ‘Hard
Money’, is $2300 for the primaries and also for the general election. However, a
person can gather individual contributions from his family members, community or
organisation and bundle them together for donation. This is known as ‘Bundling’
through which the limit for individuals is dodged. In the present elections, a number
of corporate bodies have donated large amounts to John McCain by bundling
together individual contributions of their employees and their family members.
Some of these are: Citigroup Inc ($235,110), AT&T ($155,305), Morgan Stanley
($146,851) and Pricewaterhouse Coopers ($73,350).
($73,350). There are other methods also
to bypass legal limits. Instead of contributing directly to the campaign fund,
donations can be made to organisations/committees supporting a candidate. Such
donations, known as ‘Soft Money’ carry no limits. It is used to support the candidate
indirectly by advocating his point of view on various issues and also for ads
eulogising the virtues of a candidate without directly asking the voters to vote for
him. Soft Money can also be used to oppose a candidate, thereby supporting his
rival. A well-known case of such funding was the one used against John Kerry (D) to
help George Bush (R). A group calling itself ‘Swift Boat Veterans for Truth’ alleged
that Kerry had made false claims in respect of his military service during the
Vietnam war. They ran TV ads and used other means to malign Kerry’s image. The
biggest financier for the group was a Texan who had made huge donations to the
Bush campaign. Barack Obama, who had earlier indicated that he would accept
public financing for general election, announced last month that he would not avail
it. Perhaps, he took this decision in the light of remarkable outcome of his
fundraising efforts during the primaries.

By May 20, he had received $272 million against his rival’s $100 million. He hopes
the same for general election, and that would mean far more funds than the mere
$85 million from the public exchequer. However, from the very beginning Senator
Obama had been trying to win over small online donors contributing $200 or less.
He thought that in this way he could protect himself from the manoeuvrings of
wealthy special interest groups that would try to seek unjustified favours from him,
in case he won. Although his opponents accuse him of accepting donations from
moneyed law firms and investment managers, semi-official statistics indicate that
47 per cent of his funds came in donations of $200 or less while only 23 per cent of
McCain’s funds were in that category.

Author Location Dated

AP Guantanamo Bay, Cuba 12.07.08
 – 9/11 accused says he’s not being allowed to defend himself
The alleged mastermind of 9/11 attacks said on Thursday that the US military was
making it difficult for him to serve as his own lawyer. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
who has rejected his Pentagon-appointed attorneys, says the military has not given
him paper in his cell and failed to deliver a legal motion he wrote to the judge on
this US Navy base in southeast Cuba. ‘‘We ‘‘We are not in normal situation. We are in
hell,’’
hell,’’ the Pakistani, who had a wide grey beard, told the judge in broken English.
Mohammed is one of the five Guantanamo prisoners charged in the attacks. They
face death sentences if convicted. He and two co-defendants who are also
representing themselves complain of delays in obtaining Arabic translations of court
documents and a lack of access to computers. Earlier on Thursday, one of the
alleged co-conspirators told the judge he would be ‘’proud’’ to have participated in
an attack on the US. ’’Any
’’Any attack I undertook against America, or even participated
or helped in, I am proud about it, and I am happy,’’
happy,’’ said Waleed bin Attash, a
Yemeni who allegedly ran a training camp in Afghanistan for 9/11 hijackers. The
Marine judge, Col Ralph Kohlmann, tried to persuade the men to accept their
Pentagon-appointed attorneys, warning them they would not be allowed to see
classified material because they lacked security clearances and would risk a greater
chance of being convicted. He also said they would be held to the same rules as
other lawyers. When Mohammed later pressed his complaint about the lack of
paper, Kohlmann instructed him to put the request in writing and file it to the
tribunal as a law motion.

The defendants were all transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons in
2006. Attorneys aiding Mohammed said they were awaiting guidance from the
detention centre on procedures for him to file motions. A Pentagon spokesman,
Navy Cmdr Jeffrey Gordon, said that the military had implemented a procedure to
handle the prisoners’ legal mail and filings. ’’It’s
’’It’s a fluid and complex process and
we’re moving forward,’’
forward,’’ he said. Bin Attash complained earlier that he did not have
an opportunity to read translations of court documents until he arrived in the
courtroom, prompting Kohlmann to order a recess for the prisoner to read them.
Army Col Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor for the war crimes trials at
Guantanamo, said the US was still sorting through what resources the defendants
would need to represent themselves. Kohlmann called the hearings this week to
explore allegations by military defence lawyers that Mohammed may have
intimidated the others into refusing Pentagon-appointed lawyers. Three said they
had not been intimated. A hearing for the fourth, Ramzi Binalshibh, was postponed
because he refused to leave his cell. Mohammed denied pressuring any of his co-
defendants. ’’I
’’I don’t think anyone can threaten me or I can threaten them,’’
them,’’ he told
the judge. ‘’We
‘’We are not gangs in the USA jails. ... Everyone respects his own view.’’
view.’’

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 13.07.08

– SC to take up death penalty issue on Monday

The Supreme Court will review from Monday a government plan to commute death
sentences to life terms. A bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar,
Justice Mohammad Qaim Jan Khan and Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf is scheduled to
take up the matter initiated by the court by invoking its suo motu jurisdiction. A
report has suggested that about 7,000 deathrow prisoners will benefit from the
plan. Apparently the suo motu notice was taken because the court could not take
any decision on a large number of pending appeals by convicts facing death
sentence, a legal expert told Dawn. Last week, the chief justice asked the
government to explain its position on the issue. On April 28, he had asked Attorney-
General Malik Mohammad Qayyum to find out if the government had plans to
introduce legislation on the matter. Initiating the suo motu proceedings, the chief
justice had directed the attorney-general and the ministries of interior and law to
submit their replies. On June 21, Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had announced
his government’s intention of recommending to the president to commute the
death sentences of thousands of prisoners into life imprisonment as part of a
birthday tribute to slain PPP leader Benazir Bhutto. Meanwhile, a bench comprising
Justice Mohammad Moosa K. Leghari, Justice Mohammad Akhtar Shabbir and Justice
Mohammad Farrukh Mahmud will resume hearing on the federal government’s
appeals against Lahore High Court’s order of disqualifying PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif
from contesting a by-election and referring a challenge to the candidature of Punjab
Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif to an election tribunal. A bench had postponed the by-
election for the National Assembly seat NA-123, Lahore, where Mr Sharif was a
candidate.

Author Location Dated

Shamshad Ahmad 13.07.08

– Evading ‘better’ evil

In politics, as in every other field of life, what people know and understand largely
depends on what they see, hear, and feel and how they think and act. In looking at
the unfolding events in our country, and at the acts of our current rulers, both
visible and invisible, real and surreal, we see what is not and see not what is
because all of us are prisoners of a system that takes the people for granted and
denies them any role or right in determining their own destiny. We have had
elections leading to the formation of a coalition civilian government but there are no
signs of the new government anywhere. The people had voted for a change but
there is no change visible anywhere. The country remains possessed by the same
invisible power that was responsible for destroying its constitutional edifice and
institutional integrity. The key faces of the outgoing regime remain untouched. The
same ghosts and the same wizardries continue to haunt our system. Decisions are
still being made in far lands hallowed by fantasy where our political muggles are
always at home in remembering their people and worrying for their well-being. We
are living with the same persons, the same problems and the same policies. Neither
the parliament nor the government inspires any hope or confidence in the common
man’s day-to-day life. The people stand disillusioned. They have been struggling for
democracy for nearly a decade. They now have an elected civilian leadership
brought to power with an overwhelming majority and a clear mandate for change in
the country. It was a vote of no confidence against Musharraf and for an end to
dictatorship. The people don’t see any change or feel that their situation is any
different from what they went through over the past nine years. The ‘dividend’ of
democracy continues to elude them.

Our people had voted for democracy and good governance. They also said no to
religious extremism and violence. They voted for the restoration of the 1973
Constitution and independence of the judiciary, rule of law and fundamental
freedoms including media freedom. They wanted the immediate reinstatement of
judges of the superior courts who were removed illegally on Nov 3 and those who
refused to take oath under the PCO. This was their verdict on Feb 18. The massive
popular support, as manifested in the election results and later in the
unprecedented unanimous parliamentary endorsement of the country’s new prime
minister, should have given the government enough strength and confidence to
acquit itself honourably and rescue a country trapped in a political, judicial and
constitutional maelstrom. Alas, Pakistan’s ‘democrats’ seem to have learnt no
lessons and within days of coming to power have gone back on what they promised
the people of Pakistan in the Bhurban Declaration and on everything they agreed to
in their Charter of Democracy in London two years ago. The deadline they had
themselves set for the reinstatement of the real judges is long past. Issues are
being fudged. Whatever the reasons or restraints, this is a clear post-election failure
of the ‘democratic’ leadership. Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto must be turning restlessly
in her grave given what her party is doing to the pledges she made to the nation
during the very last days of her life. She had pledged a genuine democracy rooted
in the will of the people, and had also promised to reinstate the real judges deposed
illegally by Gen Musharraf as army chief to escape a ruling against his eligibility for
‘re-election’ as president while still in uniform. She had told the chief justice that he
would soon be back in his chamber. The nation expected a faithful follow-up to this
solemn commitment. But we saw the new ‘democrats’ prevaricating on the issue
and seeking to link the judges’ reinstatement with grossly skewed constitutional
packages and other conditionalities. The people were asked to be patient. The
media was prodded not to overplay the issue. Now we are told there will be 29
judges. It seems the ground is being prepared for an implicit validation of Gen
Musharraf’s illegal acts of Nov 3, 2007.

Prime Minister Gilani had the opportunity of a lifetime to show his leadership
qualities. In order to be an effective chief executive of the country, he had to show
his personal calibre and authority to prove himself different from his predecessor,
the short cut of a prime minister, the one and only Shaukat Aziz. Only policies and
decisions implemented under his own signature would have made the difference,
imprinting his name on history. His first 100-day performance has been dismal. No
miracles were expected but at least some vision and direction could have been
made visible in the actions and policies of the government during this initial period.
The larger issues on his agenda, namely terrorism, poverty, illiteracy and
unemployment, will no doubt take decades if not longer to be addressed. For now at
least, a sincere effort could have been made to undo the constitutional, judicial and
economic wrongs of the outgoing regime. Regrettably, not only has the judges issue
been complicated by linking it with a larger constitutional amendment, the
government has also failed miserably in redressing the immediate problems of the
people. These include unbearable food and power shortages, spiralling inflation, a
serious law and order situation and rampant corruption. With the post-election
political and economic situation deteriorating rapidly, the country is in a state of
drift. We are now one of the top ten ‘dysfunctional’ states in the world. This is the
latest global honour we have been bestowed after already having been listed
among the world’s ‘most
‘most corrupt, most violent and most dangerous’
dangerous’ nations. But
who is to blame for this abysmal democratic downturn? Our politicians cannot for
ever lay the blame on the outgoing regime or continue to hide behind easy
scapegoats. The people are disappointed that parliament is being held hostage to
the whims of unelected political ‘laterals’. They are now beginning to wonder
whether they made the right choice in the February elections, and whether their
elected representatives have the capability or will to address their problems. Public
discontent is brewing and may soon reach a point where the people may start
thinking nostalgically of ‘better’ evil. These are exceptional times warranting
exceptional decisions. Ad hoc measures will not do. Show your grit before it is too
late.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 13.07.08

– Coalition politics
It has been strangely quiet on the political front with no report of any significant
development, except that the government may be toying with the idea of launching
an ‘operation’ against militants. More worrisome is the fact that not much is even
being said. Asif Zardari and Asfandyar Wali Khan may be believers in silence being
golden. Nawaz Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Qazi Hussain Ahmed and Mushahid
Hussain were all known for their loquaciousness, but they too seem to have taken to
taciturnity. It may be that they have chosen to be non-committal on the overriding
issue facing the country (dealing with militants). A few sparks have, however, flown
out of an otherwise cool pile of ash. Amin Fahim, still a vice-chairman of the PPP,
said recently that the ruling PPP was not the old and real PPP but a new one (new
presumably because it is now directed by Mr Zardari), and that he had nothing to do
with its governance. On July 3 Mr Zardari removed Abdul Qadir Shaheen, a veteran
party worker and devotee of Benazir Bhutto, from his post as head of the PPP’s
labour bureau. Mr Shaheen had committed the indiscretion of attending a function
in honour of Ms Bhutto, organised by Naheed Khan, a confidant of Ms Bhutto and
her secretary for many years, whom the party’s new leadership has left out in the
cold. Amin Fahim was the guest of honour at this function and other participants
included Aitzaz Ahsan, Senator Safdar Abbasi, Senator Enver Baig and many other
party loyalists disaffected with Zardari and company.

A PML-N spokesman stated on July 2 that his party had not been consulted about
the operation launched in Fata. The party is also said to have distanced itself from
the PPP government’s decision to raise oil and gas prices. Its differences with the
PPP over the reinstatement of deposed judges and the president’s impeachment
persist. These facts have led some observers to wonder if these two parties are
really in a coalition arrangement and, if they are, why don’t they reach agreement
on major policy issues. The nature of their coalition merits scrutiny. It was initially
made to form governments at the centre and in Punjab. Further, it was predicated
on the assumption that the partners would get the National Assembly to pass a
resolution calling for the reinstatement of deposed judges by April 30 (Bhurban
Declaration) or, at the latest, by May 12, 2008. The PPP, being the leading partner,
was to initiate this move. It went back on its promise, whereupon the PML-N
withdrew its ministers from the central government. But it said it would not join the
ranks of the opposition, and would support the PPP government in all situations
where it was doing the right thing. The coalition in Punjab continued to function. It
may then be said that there is no coalition between the PPP and PML-N in the
central government. The relationship between them consists only of a one-sided
declaration of intent that the PML-N made voluntarily. The party, however, is not
bound to support the government on measures which it considers to be wrong or
which are otherwise liable to lower its standing in public esteem. It follows also that
the PPP government at the centre is under no obligation to consult the PML-N, an
outsider, on issues with which it may be dealing. What do we then make of the PML-
N statement that it was not consulted about the Fata operation? I interpret it not as
a grievance but as a statement of fact intended to dissociate the party from a
potentially troublesome move.

The Sharifs may have figured that the PPP, being the recipient of the rewards of
power, should be the one to bear the responsibility (and blame) for an operation
which, howsoever necessary it might have been, was bound to invite strong
disapproval from several quarters, especially the Islamic parties and like-minded
others. The reinstatement of judges was a matter of honour for the PML-N
leadership. The PPP’s unwillingness to do anything about it could have been reason
enough for the PML-N to move to the opposition benches in the National Assembly.
That it has not done. If it did so, the PPP would not be able to form a viable
government, and the president would have to dissolve the assembly and order new
elections. This turn of events would not be welcome to the PML-N or the PPP. Apart
from the fact that a new election will cost a lot of money and effort, it may not
produce significantly better results for either of them. There is still another
consideration to be noted. If the PML-N deserts the PPP at the centre, the latter may
desert the PML-N government in Punjab and bring it down. The Sharifs would then
do all they can to keep the PPP on board in Punjab. Unlike the PML-N, the JUI-F,
Awami National Party and the MQM are partners in the coalition government at the
centre, and it may be said that they are therefore entitled to be consulted on issues
under consideration.

Maulana Fazlur Rehman recently said (on July 5) that his party had not been
consulted regarding the Fata operation and that the PPP is making decisions
unilaterally which, he thought, would cause trouble. It is known that the ANP has
reservations about the government’s Fata move, meaning that the PPP has not
taken this party on board either. The argument for consulting partners is valid but
its mode may be moot. Mr Gilani should not have to be running to heads of parties
in the coalition every time an issue is to be settled or a move made. If consultation
means securing of concurrence, the party heads will each have a veto they can use
to paralyse the government. Another way has to be found. The normal procedure in
democracies is to take the business at hand to the cabinet, which includes
nominees of the coalition partners, and get it settled there. These nominees can
present their respective parties’ views which will be considered as the discussion
proceeds. If the majority in the cabinet does not accept their positions, they should
let its decision prevail or, if they can’t live with it, resign. That is the way a cabinet
government works. ¦ The writer is professor emeritus of political science at
the University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 13.07.08

– A little bit of objectivity

When a man larger than life dies, tributes pour in. I tried to pay my tribute to a
great man, no matter that he was a main player on the stage of our ‘traditional
enemy’ over the border, in my column on Sam Manekshaw, field marshal of the
Indian army. It brought over 60 messages into my mailbox, mostly in praise of the
man, and a few castigating me for my lack of patriotism in praising the military
prowess of a man accused of the break-up of Pakistan. Truth and objectivity must
not be lost, though they are alien to the ethos of the Pakistani mindset as it is
today. Those responsible for the loss of half the country, and a bitter war with India,
24 years after its birth, were three men — President General Yahya Khan who
allowed himself to be manipulated and outdone by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto who refused
to play second fiddle to any other man, and Mujibur Rahman who wanted his own
country. That being that, back to Manekshaw, a soldier and a field marshal who did
his duty, whose exploits and sayings provoke tales of the exploits and sayings of
men like Sun Tzu and Clausewitz, Hannibal and Napoleon. One of the finest tributes
to the man and soldier, amongst the many, came from The Hindu, a newspaper of
his own country, which on June 28 carried three columns relating to the life and
times of Sam Bahadur. Under the heading, ‘A ‘A great soldier fades away’,
away’, was written:
“‘One
“‘One who excels at employing the army,’
army,’ wrote Sun Tzu in the sixth-century
classic, The Art of War, ‘leads
‘leads them by the hand as if they were only one man.’
man.’ Field
Marshal Sam Hormusji Framji Jamshedji Manekshaw, who passed away on Friday at
Wellington at the age of 94, will be remembered for his exceptional demonstration
of this skill during the Indian Army’s historic, nation-creating victory at Dhaka in
1971. He will also be remembered for representing the finest traditions of the Indian
Army: professionalism, discipline and an unwavering commitment to the core value
of democracy.”
democracy.” Manekshaw, though a military man to the core, had a great sense of
humour (as fortunately has President General Pervez Musharraf). His quips have
been quoted and misquoted but they convey the workings of the independence of a
military man who knows his own mind. One remark made to the officers of his
regiment, the Gurkha Regiment, is a huge regimental favourite: “If “If anyone tells you
he is never afraid, he is a liar or a Gurkha!”
Gurkha!”

His relationship with Prime Minister Indira Gandhi is well known and he managed for
a long time to get away with toying with her. One story goes that when, at one point
in time, she heard rumours of a possible army takeover, she summoned her army
chief, Sam, and asked him if there was any truth to them. “You
“You keep your nose out
of my affairs, Sweetie, and I will keep my nose out of yours,”
yours,” he is said to have
replied. But, as The Hindu relates, “Manekshaw’s
“Manekshaw’s fabled irreverence got him into
trouble with a vindictive Indira Gandhi who was jealous of his standing after the
war. A throwaway line to a news reporter at an airport soon after the 1971 victory
that had he decided to migrate to Pakistan at independence — thousands of Parsis
had opted to stay on — India would have lost the war infuriated Gandhi. She not
only castigated him publicly but withdrew some of the perquisites he enjoyed as
Field Marshal.”
Marshal.” Such is the pettiness of insecure politicians — and we over this side
of the border have certainly had more than our share. However, in war there is a
winner and there is a loser. In 1971, the losing general was our Rangila Raja,
President General Mohammad Agha Yahya Khan, a soldier Manekshaw knew well
and liked. Yahya was not as guilty as he was made out to be. What he was guilty of
in totality was the laxity of his personal habits which allowed him to be manipulated
by greedy and selfish politicians — that was his folly and his sin. Amongst the
diabolical lot holding sway in 1971 was Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Salman Taseer, self-
proclaimed newborn leader of the PPP, the party of Bhutto and his daughter, which
no longer is the party of the Bhuttos but which by a grossly cruel twist of fate has
fallen into the lap of Widower Asif Zardari, now holds sway in the Punjab as a
counter to the Brothers Sharif, Nawaz and Shahbaz. Very much an insider during
the era of Zulfikar, Taseer wrote a book, Bhutto — a political biography, published in
1979 by Ithaca Press, London (ISBN 903729-48/49). It is a good book, highly
readable and it tells it as it was.

As he writes on the 1971 loss of East Pakistan, “Blame

“Blame can never be satisfactorily or
finally apportioned to the major players in this grisly drama, but that Bhutto,
Mujibur Rahman and Yahya Khan share responsibility there can be no doubt. Many,
indeed, are inclined to the view that Bhutto, as the most surefooted politician of the
three and thus the best-equipped to assess the consequences of his actions, must
accept the lion’s share of the blame.”
blame.” And on the earlier, March 3, 1971, scheduled
meeting of the Constituent Assembly after the 1970 elections, Taseer has this to
say on its scuttling by Bhutto: “Perhaps
“Perhaps another politician with more moral scruple
and with a greater respect for democracy would have bowed before the will of the
majority and quietly entered the Constituent Assembly to debate the future of
Pakistan. Bhutto, however, possessed none of these gentle characteristics. He
never had much faith in the parliamentary process.”
process.” How little things and politics in
Pakistan change. The parliamentary process, in which the founder of the PPP had
little faith, is now floundering more than it has ever floundered under the flawed
leadership of an unelected usurper. As for Taseer, he is an extremely clever man,
and has reemerged on the political stage as the governor of Punjab. Serious
students of history are marking his rise. President Musharraf acknowledges him as
‘his’ man. Co-chairperson Zardari of the party Taseer champions is under the
impression that he is ‘his’ man, and it is said that Nawaz Sharif, yet to be elected, is
actually convinced that in spite of the front presented, Taseer backs the one and
future leader of the poor republic that is Pakistan — Nawaz makes no effort to
conceal his aim.

Author Location Dated

Chris Hedges Los Angeles, California 13.07.08

– Americans’ privacy in danger

If the sweeping surveillance law signed by President Bush on Thursday giving the
US government nearly unchecked authority to eavesdrop on the phone calls and
emails of innocent Americans is allowed to stand, we will have eroded one of the
most important bulwarks to a free press and an open society. The new FISA
Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance. It allows
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to review only general procedures for
spying rather than individual warrants. The court will not be told specifics about who
will be wiretapped, which means the law provides woefully inadequate safeguards
to protect innocent people whose communications are caught up in the
government’s dragnet surveillance programme. The law, passed under the guise of
national security, ostensibly targets people outside the country. There is no
question, however, that it will ensnare many communications between Americans
and those overseas. Those communications can be stored indefinitely and
disseminated, not just to the US government but to other governments. This law will
cripple the work of those of us who as reporters communicate regularly with people
overseas, especially those in the Middle East. It will intimidate dissidents, human-
rights activists and courageous officials who seek to expose the lies of our
government or governments allied with ours. It will hang like the sword of Damocles
over all who dare to defy the official versions of events. It leaves open the
possibility of retribution and invites the potential for abuse by those whose concern
is not with national security but with the consolidation of their own power.

I have joined an ACLU lawsuit challenging the new law along with other journalists,
humanrights organisations and defence attorneys who also rely on confidentiality to
do their work. I have joined not only because this law takes aim at my work but
because I believe it signals a serious erosion of safeguards that make possible our
democratic state. Laws and their just application are the only protection we have as
citizens. Once the law is changed to permit the impermissible, we have no recourse
with which to fight back. I spent nearly 20 years as a foreign correspondent for The
New York Times, as well as other news organisations. I covered the conflict in the
Middle East for seven years. I have friends and colleagues in Jerusalem, Gaza, Cairo,
Damascus, Tehran, Baghdad and Beirut. I could easily be one of those innocent
Americans who are spied on under the government’s new surveillance authority.
The reach of such surveillance already has hampered my work. I was once told
about a showdown between a US warship and the Iranian navy that had the
potential to escalate into a military conflict. I contacted someone who was on the
ship at the time of the alleged incident and who reportedly had photos. His first
question was whether my phone and emails were being monitored. What could I
say? How could I know? I offered to travel to see him but, frightened of retribution,
he refused. I do not know if the man’s story is true. I only know that the fear of
surveillance made it impossible for me to determine its veracity. Under this law, all
those who hold information that could embarrass and expose the lies of those in
power will have similar fears. Confidentiality, and the understanding that as a
reporter I will honor this confidentiality, permits a free press to function. Take it
away and a free press withers and dies. I know the cost of terrorism and the
consequences of war. I have investigated Al Qaeda’s operation in Europe and have
covered numerous conflicts. The monitoring of suspected terrorists, with proper
oversight, is a crucial part of our national security. But this law is not about keeping
us safe, which can and should be done in a constitutional manner and with judicial
oversight. It is about using terrorism as a pretext to permit wholesale spying and to
silence voices that will allow us to maintain an open society.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 13.07.08

– Suit filed against US law on surveillance

The American Civil Liberties Union has filed a lawsuit to stop the US government
from conducting surveillance under a new wiretapping law that gives the Bush
administration virtually unchecked power to intercept emails and telephone calls.
The case was filed on behalf of a broad coalition of attorneys and human rights,
labour, legal and media organisations whose ability to perform their work which
relies on confidential communications - will be greatly compromised by the new law.
The FISA Amendments Act of 2008,
2008, passed by the US Congress on Wednesday and
signed by President George W. Bush, not only legalises the secret warrantless
surveillance programme President Bush approved in late 2001, it also gives the US
government new powers to conduct surveillance of Americans’ international
communications. “Spying
“Spying on Americans without warrants or judicial approval is an
abuse of government power and that’s exactly what this law allows. The ACLU will
not sit by and let this evisceration of the Fourth Amendment go unchallenged,”
unchallenged,” said
ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “Electronic
“Electronic surveillance must be
conducted in a constitutional manner that affords the greatest possible protection
for individual privacy and free speech rights. The new wiretapping law fails to
provide fundamental safeguards that the Constitution unambiguously requires.”
requires.” In
its legal challenge, the ACLU argues that the new law violates Americans’ rights to
free speech and privacy under the First and Fourth Amendments to the
Constitution. The new law permits the US government to conduct intrusive
surveillance without ever telling a court who it intends to spy on, what phone lines
and e-mail addresses it intends to monitor, where its surveillance targets are
located, why it’s conducting the surveillance or whether it suspects any party to the
communication of wrongdoing.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran, Iran 13.07.08

– Iran threatens to hit 32 US bases, Israel

Iran would destroy Israel and 32 US military bases in the Middle East if the Islamic
Republic was attacked over its disputed nuclear programme, a senior Iranian official
was quoted as saying on Saturday. The Islamic Republic and Israel have been
embroiled in an escalating war of words in recent weeks, increasing speculation of
military confrontation and helping to send global oil prices to record highs. Iranian
missile tests this week further stoked tension and rattled financial markets. “The
“The US
knows full well that with the smallest move against Iran, Israel and 32 US military
bases in the region would not be out of the reach of our missiles and would be
destroyed,”
destroyed,” the semi-official Fars News Agency quoted Mojtaba Zolnour as saying in
a speech. Zolnour is the deputy of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s
representative in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards. Israel staged an air force
exercise last month that sparked speculation about a possible assault on Iranian
nuclear sites. Israel, long assumed to have its own atomic arsenal, has sworn to
prevent Iran from emerging as a nuclear-armed power. Washington has said it
wants diplomacy to end the row but has not ruled out military action should that
fail.

Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil exporter, has vowed to strike back at Israel, US
interests and shipping in the region if it is attacked, threatening to close the Strait
of Hormuz, conduit for about 40 per cent of globally traded oil. On Wednesday, Iran
said it tested nine long- and medium-range missiles, including one which it says
could reach Israel and US bases. Some US facilities across the Gulf are little more
than 200km from Iran’s coast. The United States has air and naval bases in nearby
Arab states, including Qatar and Bahrain. “Today
“Today the enemies know that they lack
the power to confront Iran’s missile attacks,”
attacks,” ISNA news agency quoted Zolnour as
saying. Earlier on Saturday, Iran’s government spokesman, Gholamhossein Elham,
warned the United States and Israel it would be “madness
“madness and stupidity”
stupidity” to attack
Iran. Elham said Iran was ready for talks in “fair conditions” but would not accept
giving up what it sees as its nuclear rights.
Author Location Dated
Khalid Chaudhary Karachi, Pakistan 14.07.08

– Defaming Barack Obama

That the ethnic and religious prejudices are very much alive and well in the US is
probably most apparent from how their election campaigns are conducted. The way
Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for the presidency, is being
pilloried and slandered in some circles is perhaps the leading example of many
Americans’ bias. A recent report by Dawn’s Washington Correspondent (July 6)
notes how some opponents of Mr Obama are trying to prove that he is even now a
Muslim, or, at least, his past association with the religion is too intimate and
questionable, for him to be made the president of the United States. One website
invites readers to ‘think carefully’ why a young Obama visited troubled areas in
Pakistan and India in 1981. It says: “Lot
“Lot of young Muslim students trying to define
their identity often visited Karachi (Pakistan) and Hyderabad (India), cities that were
a hotbed of religious strife and extremism”.
extremism”. As someone who was born and raised in
Karachi and can claim to know this city better than any American, I would like to
point out that it was the hotbed neither of religious strife nor extremism in 1981 and
even now the prevalence of these vices isn’t high enough to classify it as a ‘hotbed’.
As far as Hyderabad in India is concerned, I once had a friend from the area who
told me that the Muslims over there were so non-observant that even he, until the
age of 25, did not know how to say the ritual prayers, which is among the five pillars
of Islam. In 1981, he would have been around 20. This exposes the hollowness of
the charge of its being a place where Muslims could find their identity.

Another conclusion the person running that website could have drawn merely by
exercising his or her common sense is that if a visit to these places could have
fortified the strength of a Muslim’s faith, then Senator Obama would never have
converted to Christianity and be attending a Church regularly for the last two
decades. If anything, his trips to Pakistan and India appear to have had the opposite
effect. Another argument against him, given by the neo-conservative American
historian Daniel Pipes, who is also known for his pro-Israeli stand, is that Barack
Obama would not be able to make peace with the Islamic world, country to what is
being claimed by his supporters, because of the following reason. The senator’s
conversion to Christianity may annoy the Muslims, giving them yet another reason
to hate America. He further asks: “How
“How would the more mainstream Muslims
respond to him; would they be angry at what they would consider his apostasy?....
That could undermine his initiatives toward the Muslim world”.
world”. In think, as a
mainstream Muslim I could answer this much better than Mr Pipes’s
scaremongering. First, even a spokesman for Hamas, who are considered to be
religious extremists, had praised Mr Obama just a few weeks back, causing the
Republican aspirant for the White House, John McCain, to retort that Obama was the
Hamas candidate! This should have made it absolutely clear to anyone with an open
mind that the Democratic nominee could do business with even the Islamic
fundamentalists. Apart from that, I can say that most of my co-religionists in the
world think a principled and fair-minded politician like Mr Obama, his pre-election
rhetoric of unilateral action in our Fata notwithstanding, would be the best hope for
the Americans and the Muslims who could be expected to end the differences
between them. It is for this reason – which Mr Pipes again seems to have wittingly
or unwittingly ignored – that a meeting of hundreds of Muslim scholars and officials
at a conference in Qatar had supported Mr Obama’s candidature, a couple of
months back. The trouble is, if some Muslims support him, he is dubbed as their
agent but if they remain silent, he is said to be unacceptable to them. It is in the
Americans’ interest to be fair.

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Farruki faruqui@pacbell.net 14.07.08

– The two-page defence

By all accounts, the new coalition government’s budget marked a milestone in the
country’s fiscal history. The defence budget went from being a single line to two
pages. But is that enough? No, since we are talking about spending some four to
five per cent of the gross domestic product on defence, a burden that is twice as
high as that of many other countries including the large neighbour to the east. To
place the budget in perspective, it is necessary to put it through three tests. First,
what did we know about the economics of defence before the new budget came
out? Second, what do we know now? Third, what do we still don’t know? Previously,
we did know how much the country was spending on defence (sans nuclear
weapons and ballistic missiles). But we did not know whether that was the right
amount. We are no wiser now. It is possible that the last hundred million rupees that
are going to be spent on defence would have been better spent on educating the
millions who remain illiterate (and who fall prey to the miasma of terrorism, among
other ills), or on improving the health of the millions who suffer from chronic
ailments or on feeding the millions who get by on a meal a day. From international
sources, we knew that the strength of the army was much larger than the strength
of the other two services combined and that the other two services were much
more capital-intensive. Now we know that the army’s share of the budget exceeds
that of the other two services combined and that personnel costs account for half of
the army’s expenses and less so of the air force’s and navy’s expenses. No surprise
there.

But the budget fails to shed any light on several more fundamental issues. For
example, did the acquisition of nuclear weapons provide the nation with a dividend
in the form of lower spending on conventional forces? Given the emergence of
insurgencies along the north-western frontier, should new, lightly armed counter-
insurgency divisions be raised to replace at least some of the conventional infantry
and armoured formations? What existing weapon systems are irrelevant to
addressing the new threat environment? Should their replacements be produced
domestically or procured internationally? If the latter, from whom and how will the
purchases be financed? Will these international purchases be subject to sanctions if
a war breaks out with India? The budget is silent as the sphinx on these strategic
issues. This has to change. To paraphrase the French leader Clemenceau, defence
is too important a business to be left to the generals. So while the new openness
about defence spending is a step in the right direction and should be hailed, it is a
comment on the weak and fragile nature of the coalition government that the
presentation of the defence budget was limited to two pages. Even communist
China provides more detail about its military spending and often backs up the
budget with a white paper.
If parliament is to discharge its fiduciary responsibilities it needs a budget, not just
an accounting enumeration. A good budget should flow from a clearly articulated
defence strategy, an assessment of major and minor threats, and plans for
neutralising them. It should place military expenditure in historical and regional
contexts and discuss spending trends by category, such as personnel and capital
equipment. Aggregate spending should be shown as a percentage of GDP and this
figure should be benchmarked against neighbouring and distant countries. There
should be a discussion on what is being done to eliminate waste in military
spending and to ensure that the country does not shoulder a defence burden it
cannot bear. Moreover, the budget cannot be presented as a fait accompli. An open
and candid debate about defence spending should take place through the length
and breadth of the country. The budget should grapple with the fundamental
questions that arise in defence economics, such as those that are regularly
discussed in journals such as Defence and Peace Economics. For example, are the
last hundred million rupees that are spent on defence making the same contribution
to national well-being as the last hundred million rupees spent on human
development? And are the last hundred million rupees that are spent on the army
making the same contribution to national defence as the last hundred million
rupees spent on the navy and the air force? Until the government answers these
questions, it cannot expect parliament to make well-informed policy choices. So
while we should all praise the new transparency in defence spending, we should
also remind ourselves of the dangers that I. H. Burney warned us about back in
1963, since they are still “clear and present”.

To quote Burney, defence is “a “a cow of more than the sacred variety; there is a
touch of the forbidden in it. All that a layman is allowed to hear about it — apart
from paying for it — is that the nation’s armed forces are in fine shape to repel
aggression.”
aggression.” Alas, the fine shape of the armed forces was nowhere in evidence
during the war of 1965 and even less so in the war of 1971. Pakistan paid a heavy
economic price for pursuing national security through defence spending. The
military in Pakistan has largely modelled itself after its British and American
counterparts. But the similarity does not go beyond regimental structure, training
regimens, pageantry and weaponry. It merely adumbrates budgetary practices. It is
time to complete the story and to put an end to the notion that defence is an end to
itself. In a modern democracy, it is the job of the government to defend its budget
before the people as represented by the legislature. To give the process credibility,
there should be civilian intellectual involvement in the process. Experts at think
tanks and academics should be consulted to make sure the best decisions are
made. A two-page defence of the defence budget will just not do. The parliament is
owed a well thought out defence budget that takes up 75-100 pages. Brevity is the
soul of wit, Shakespeare said, but as one of Lewis Carroll’s characters may have
retorted, “a“a two-page defence is sure to leave the parliamentarians witless.”
witless.” ¦ The
writer is an associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the
University of Bradford.
Bradford.

Author Location Dated

14.07.08

– Gender benders, please

A woman’s education has always been seen as a cost rather than a benefit. The
developing world has rarely viewed it outside the confines of monetary gain.
Therefore, education policies have hardly focused on individual choice and equality.
Societal benefits of educating the female will penetrate generations by decreasing
infant mortality, fertility rates and unwanted pregnancies — as emphasised by the
World Bank in a recent statement on World Population Day. The Bank believes that
“fifty-one million unintended pregnancies in developing countries occur every year
to women not using contraceptives”
contraceptives” and that improved access to birth control and
education will slash these abysmal statistics considerably. Unsurprisingly, education
will also arm women with skills and independence, enabling them to secure jobs,
delay marriage and have a say in the number of children they want — rewards that
will be the birthright of their girl progenies, bringing the curse of male supremacy to
a welcome end. However, for Pakistan these ambitions are still mere musings.
According to the Education Development Index, Pakistan surfaces at the bottom of
the list, behind Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. The Economist’s Intelligence Unit’s latest
review of education sees “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s education system…among the most deficient
and backward in Asia”.
Asia”.

Meanwhile, local surveys reveal that 10.3 million children in Pakistan cannot afford
to go to school out of which seven million are girls and 42 per cent of the country’s
women cannot read. This is despite the fact that Pakistan is a signatory to the
Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and its article 10 clearly
specifies that women will not be discriminated against and will enjoy ‘equal
‘equal
opportunities in the field of education’.
education’. Goal three of the Millennium Development
Goals also speak of promoting gender equality. It specifically calls for the
elimination of gender disparity in primary and secondary education. Pakistan is
obliged to strive to achieve this goal. The great paradox, however, is that female
emancipation cannot be achieved without educating and sensitising the male. The
government must focus on inculcating insight amongst men through perhaps, door
to door campaigns that include family counselling sessions and emphasise social
behavioural reforms — force conservative clans to see the schooling of a girl child
as an ‘investment’ rather than a futile expense. On the other end, new means of
penetrating orthodox environs have to be sought such as increasing the number of
schools on wheels and home tutorial projects. These initiatives need donors who
believe in the promise of gender equality in learning and also in a woman’s right to
her body and mind.

Author Location Dated

14.07.08

– Rupee recovers against the dollar

Economic and political uncertainty and increasing oil prices in the world market
pushed up the demand for dollars, as a result of which the American currency
breached the barrier of Rs73 in both inter-bank and open markets this week. The
central bank has reportedly injected $150 million in the market since the start of
the month to satisfy mounting demand for the greenback. The demand has
accelerated sharply this week. Rising oil prices in the international market, shortage
of essential food items due to poor agriculture growth and low FDIs are some of the
major factors putting immense pressure on exchange rate. The country’s trade
deficit for the year ended June 2008 touched record level exceeding $20bn.
Increased dollar buying to meet rising import payment bill, amid short dollar
supplies, resulted in sharp decline in the rupee value against the dollar and euro.
With inflation at a three-decade high, sharply rising oil prices, widening twin deficits
and depleting reserves, the economy is presenting a bleak outlook. Recent
bombings in Islamabad and blasts in Karachi further compounded the law and order
situation in the country. This adversely affected dollar inflows, exerting substantial
pressure on the rupee. The rupee/dollar parity underwent sharp decline amid panic
trading in the local currency market this week, touching historic lows.

In the inter bank market, the rupee dipped to a new all time low versus the dollar
crossing Rs72 mark on the opening day of the week, after losing more than 185
paisa against the dollar due to panic buying by the importers. It hit Rs72.05 in early
trading session before closing the day at Rs70.95 and Rs71. Since the beginning of
July, the rupee has fallen significantly against the dollar. The rupee/dollar parity
continued its downtrend on the second trading day, when the rupee came under
renewed pressure on speculative trading. Mounting dollar demand pushed the
rupee further, which crossed Rs73 barrier against the US currency before closing
the day at Rs72.85 and Rs72.90 on July 8, about 195 paisa lower against the
previous day’s close. The State Bank of Pakistan did not intervened in the inter-bank
market despite hectic dollar buying on the first two trading days. It, however,
announced tight measures to resist further decline in rupee value against the dollar
after the closure of the day’s business on July 8. In line with the measures, the
central bank will make 100 per cent oil payment. It suspended afternoon session for
all types of foreign exchange transactions by authorised dealers with their
customers and in the inter bank market. In another move, the SBP suspended
Forward Cover Facility (FCF) against imports cutting advance payment against
imports to 25 per cent with immediate effect to rationalise the foreign exchange
markets. It also reduced the time for all types of foreign exchange transactions by
authorised dealers with their customers and in the inter bank market.

The SBP action had a positive impact on the rupee on July 9, when it managed to
make a strong recovery versus the dollar, gaining 245 paisa in single day to trade at
Rs71.40 and Rs71.50.The rupee further extended its gains against dollar on July 10,
recovering 27 paisa for buying and another 30 paisa for selling. As a result, the
dollar was seen changing hands at Rs71.18 and Rs71.20. Further gains were
recorded in the rupee value on July 11. The rupee recovered another 115 paisa on
the buying counter and 123 paisa on the selling counter. Finally, the dollar closed
the week at Rs69.95 and Rs70.05.The rupee had touched historic lows at 73.04
versus dollar in the inter bank market on July 8.

In the open market, the rupee weakened versus the dollar, shedding 170 paisa to
trade at Rs 71.50 and Rs 72.00 on the first trading day. By the close of the day, the
dollar had almost vanished due to sharp rise in demand, amid speculative trading.
Sharp decline in the rupee/dollar parity persisted on the second trading day. The
rupee attained historic lows after shedding 190 paisa versus the dollar. The dollar
was seen changing hands at Rs 73.40 and Rs 73.70 amid panic dollar buying. The
SBP measures boosted rupee in the open market on the third trading day. The
rupee recovered against the dollar, gaining 240 paisa to trade at Rs71 and Rs71.50
on July 9. It extended its overnight firmness verses the dollar on the fourth trading
day, when the American dollar was changing hands at Rs70.70 and at Rs71.20 after
the rupee had recovered 30 paisa on July 10. On July 11, the rupee posted fresh
gains 70 paisa, closing the week at Rs 70.00 and Rs 70.50 against the dollar. In the
entire week, the rupee managed to recover Rs 3.40 against the dollar in the open
market.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee commenced the week on a
dismal note. It shed Rs 3.10 in a single day trading and was seen changing hands at
Rs 111.70 and Rs 112.10 on July 7. The downtrend persisted on the second trading
day, when the rupee further shed 270 paisa to trade at Rs 114.40 and Rs 114.80 on
July 8. The rupee rebounded on the third trading day, when it recovered 380 paisa
against euro and traded at Rs 110.60 and Rs 111.00 on July 9. On July 10, the rupee
maintained its overnight firmness over the single currency, gaining 20 paisa at Rs
110.40 and Rs 110.80. At the close of the week in review, the euro was trading at
Rs 109.30 and Rs 110.30 after it managed to gain 50 paisa more against the
European single common currency on July 11, bringing cumulative gains during the
week to Rs 2.40.

Author Location Dated

Saleem Shahid Quetta, Pakistan 15.07.08

– Shahbaz suggests committee of chief ministers

Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif has proposed formation of a chief ministers’
coordination committee to discuss and resolve issues confronting the provinces.
Addressing a press conference at the end of a visit to Quetta on Monday, he said
that the four chief ministers should meet every three months to discuss inter-
provincial issues and take up these with the centre. Balochistan Chief Minister
Nawab Mohammad Aslam Raisani, PML-N chief organiser Raja Zafarul Haq, Ahsan
Iqbal, PML-N Punjab president Sardar Zulfiqar Khosa, Balochistan president Sardar
Yaqoob Nasar, Abdul Khaliq Achakzai and former NWFP chief minister Sardar
Mehtab Khan Abbasi were present. Mr Sharif condemned the killing of veteran
politician Nawab Akbar Khan Bugti and use of force against Baloch and Pashtun
people. He said that rights of every province should be respected. He said the
judiciary had been handcuffed on Nov 3 in the presence of what he called a rubber-
stamp parliament. He said the survival of Pakistan depended on independent
judiciary. Asked whether his party would quit the coalition government if the
deposed judges were not reinstated, he said: “Why
“Why should we leave the field open
for dictators and their cronies. We will remain in the assemblies to serve the people
and raise voice for rights of the provinces. We have taken the oath to get the
judges reinstated. Reinstatement of Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry does not
mean reinstatement of an individual, but of an institution.”
institution.” The Punjab CM said that
martial laws had repeatedly been imposed and dictators inflicted huge damage.

He said that dictators had not learnt any lesson from the past and continued to
conspire to derail the democratic system. “They
“They speak of use of force for resolving
all issues.”
issues.” Mr Sharif said: “It
“It is our responsibility to strengthen the Constitution
which guarantees development and prosperity of the provinces. Punjab is your real
brother rather than elder brother because we share each other’s sorrow and
happiness,”
happiness,” he said. He supported Balochistan’s demand for distribution of
resources on the basis of area, backwardness and population. He said his party
believed in provincial autonomy and rights of all federating units. He said that the
water accord had been signed by the four provinces in 1990 when Nawaz Sharif was
prime minister. He claimed that the issue of royalty on natural resources had been
settled during the PML-N government. Mr Sharif announced an increase in the quota
for Balochistan’s students in Punjab’s medical colleges, health institutions and
agriculture universities from 90 to 225 and assured financial support for deserving
and needy students from Balochistan. He also announced doubling of the wheat
quota for Balochistan to 100,000 tons till December. He said the Punjab government
would set up a cardiology institution in Quetta. He said Punjab would also extend
technical support for promotion of agriculture and construction of small dams in
Balochistan.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 15.07.08

– Student ends life after failing exams

A student dejected over failure in his matriculation examinations committed suicide
at his residence in Sector G-9/3 here on Monday. Police said Fakhar Ali, 18, shot
himself dead with a 30-bore pistol when he came to know that he failed in three
subjects after the Federal Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education (FBISE)
announced the examination results. The deceased was the son of a stenographer at
the Islamabad College of Girls. The police shifted the body to the Pakistan Institute
of Medical Sciences (Pims) for legal process and also seized the weapon used in the
incident. It was not clear that how the victim got hold of the pistol. According to the
police, the statements of the victim’s family were yet to be recorded as they were in
mourning.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 15.07.08

– Govt tells Supreme Court No ‘decision’ on death sentence

commutation
The Supreme Court was told on Monday that the government had not yet approved
a decision to commute all pending death sentences to life imprisonment. Attorney-
General Malik Mohammad Qayyum requested the Supreme Court on Monday to
grant two weeks’ time, stating that he could not consult the prime minister or the
law minister on the matter because both were abroad. A three-member Supreme
Court bench, comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar, Justice Mohammad
Qaim Jan Khan and Justice Chaudhry Ejaz Yousaf, is hearing a suo motu case taken
up on reports that the decision would benefit 7,000 death-row prisoners. On June 21
Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani had announced that the government intended to
recommend to the president to commute death sentences of all prisoners into life
imprisonment as a tribute to Benazir Bhutto. On July 6, the chief justice had ordered
the attorney-general and ministries of interior and law to explain the government’s
position on the matter. A legal expert told Dawn that the apex court had taken
action because it could not take decisions on a large number of appeals filed by
convicts who had been awarded death sentences. The court later adjourned the
case till August 1.

Meanwhile, the court accepted an application moved by advocate Syed Zulfiqar

Abbas Naqvi, requesting to include him as a party in the case. Mr Naqvi,
representing a large number of convicts who had been awarded death sentence in
narcotics cases, pleaded that many of them had been awarded capital sentence
under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act of 1997 (CNSA) on false charges. He
pleaded that under the act, death sentences could not be awarded as Qisas was not
involved because there was no victim. “Therefore,
“Therefore, no compensation is payable.”
payable.”
Terming the award of death sentences unconstitutional, he said that they had
“never been prescribed by the Holy Quran or the Sunnah”
Sunnah” and urged the court to
commute the death sentences awarded to these convicts.

Sixty-two countries in the world still maintain death penalty in both law and practice
while 92 countries have abolished it. Only 10 countries retain it, but only for crimes
committed in exceptional circumstances, like war crimes. Although 33 other
countries maintain death penalty for ordinary crimes, they have not used the
maximum punishment for at least a decade. Pakistan, however, voted against the
Resolution on a Moratorium on the Use of the Death Penalty at the UN General
Assembly on December 18, 2007. During the first PPP government under Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, the life sentence was enhanced to 25 years from 14 years. It was then
hoped that the capital punishment would be abolished in future. However, the
regime of Gen Ziaul Haq had retained both the 25-year life sentence and the death
penalty. Meanwhile, another bench comprising Justice Mohammad Moosa K.
Leghari, Justice Mohammad Akhtar Shabbir and Justice Mohammad Farrukh
Mahmud adjourned the hearing till August 11 on federal government appeals
against the Lahore High Court’s order disqualifying PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and
challenging the candidature of Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 15.07.08

– ‘Bugging devices still in Dr Khan’s house’

Barrister Iqbal Jaffrey, the counsel of nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan, said
on Monday that bugging devices remained installed in his client’s residence. Talking
to journalists after a meeting with Dr Khan, he urged the government to amicably
resolve Dr Khan’s issue, otherwise several “dignitaries” would be exposed and it
would open up a Pandora’s box. He urged the government to immediately release
Dr Khan from house arrest. “I “I have sent a letter to SPD (Strategic Plan Division)
chief Gen Khalid Kidwai. I will provide copies of this letter to media. Gen Kidwai
cannot reject the points I have raised in the letter. Bugging device are still installed
in Dr A. Q. Khan residence and these be removed immediately,”
immediately,” he said. The lawyer
said: “I
“I had filed application in the court that President Pervez Musharraf and
Adviser to PM on Interior Rehman Malik should also be made respondent so that the
factual position could come to light.”
light.” Dr Khan was being kept under habeas corpus
for four and a half years, Mr Jaffrey said, adding that the act was unjust and
inequitable. “I
“I would request the Chief Justice of Islamabad High Court that I along
with attorney general be heard in chamber so that any amicable solution to this
issue is found,”
found,” he said. The lawyer said he had gone to high court and the IHC chief
justice had ordered the law ministry to file a report in the court on the questions
raised by him and a copy be sent to him in advance. Mr Jaffrey claimed that neither
the report had been furnished nor any advance copy had been provided to him.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 15.07.08

– A Pakistani call to the donors

For a variety of reasons, Pakistan’s policymakers have either not fully realised
where the potential of the economy lies or were forced into taking decisions that
were not in the economy’s long-term interest. They did not make use of the
impressive endowments of the country to develop an economy that would have
grown rapidly without interruptions and could have become a vibrant part of the
global system. Had they promoted the development of agriculture, in particular high
value-added crops; encouraged the growth of small and medium-sized industries
using the skills traditionally available to the economy; invested in educating and
training the country’s large and young population; focused on using trade to better
integrate the economy with the global system; and created a political structure that
provided a voice to the diverse segments of the population, the country today
would be in a happier economic, political and social situation. Instead it faces
perhaps the worse economic crisis in its history. While a number of structural
weaknesses — low level of domestic savings, poorly developed human resources,
inefficient attention given to the country’s endowments, and a system of
governance that did not give a voice to the people — have been present since the
country’s birth more than six decades ago, another structural fault line developed
gradually over time. I am referring here to the system of economic governance.

Even under the British who ruled for 99 years — from 1848 to 1947 — there was
much greater autonomy available to the provinces than is the case in modern
Pakistan. Since Pakistan was managed most of the time by bureaucracies with
strong command and control traditions, power has shifted to the centre. For the first
11 years, members of the civil services (in particular the Civil Service of Pakistan,
the CSP) were important policymakers; since 1958, the military has governed for 32
years. Both institutions believe in highly centralised systems of economic and
political management. That approach left little room to the provinces even when —
as was the case with the Constitution of 1973 — the political structure was built on
two pillars, the central and provincial administrations. The model of economic
development followed in the past, particularly during the period of President Pervez
Musharraf, had one other consequence. Since there was a high level of dependence
on external flows, the economy plunged and went into a crisis whenever external
support was reduced or withdrawn. This happened in the late 1960s and in the late
1980s and the early 1990s, when the United States reduced its support for the
country. The crisis that now engulfs the economy is not the result of withdrawal of
official flows. It has been produced by a combination of external developments over
which Pakistan’s policymakers have no influence and because of the serious failures
of public policy, especially over the last decade. The situation has been exacerbated
by the process of transition from military rule that is currently under way. As several
observers have noted, policymaking in Islamabad is adrift with nobody really in
charge.

An analysis of the flow of official assistance to Pakistan reveals not only large
transfers during the periods Pakistan was needed by the United States for strategic
reasons. Also apparent from the data is a seeming association between economic
stress and official capital flows. This correspondence remains even if we factor out
the resources provided by the International Monetary Fund, an institution that
provides assistance to countries in economic difficulties. What the capital flow data
therefore suggests is that Pakistan was able to tap friendly countries during critical
periods. I can testify that this is the case from my own experience as finance
minister in 1996-97 when I took leave of absence from the World Bank to join the
caretaker administration that took office following the dismissal of the government
of Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto. After I assumed office it was revealed to me that
foreign reserves had declined to well below $100 million. The State Bank of
Pakistan, the country’s central bank, did not have enough in its reserves to pay the
bills that were due to such preferred creditors as the World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank. Pakistan faced default. I travelled to Beijing (where I met the
prime minister) and to Abu Dhabi (where I met the governor of the UAE central
bank) and was able to raise close to a billion dollars, enough to pay the bills during
my brief tenure in office. I was able to do this not because I had any special
negotiating skills. It was clear to me that several friendly governments would not
allow Pakistan to go under.

The Chinese and UAE decisions were similar in a way to the rescue operation
launched in March 2008 by the US Federal Reserve Bank, the Fed, to rescue Bear
Stearns, the investment bank, from collapsing under the weight of the debts it had
built up. The Fed acted to prevent contagion in the financial markets. Similar logic
applies to countries in Pakistan’s situation where serious economic problems could
produce unpleasant social and political effects in sensitive areas such as those in
which the country is located. This experience of the donors launching rescue
operations during periods of extreme distress has created a situation of moral
hazard for Pakistan: the belief that even if the policymakers don’t take corrective
measures and change the structure of the economy, the country will be saved by its
friends across the globe. If Pakistan is to be helped out of its present predicament,
as it should be, the donors should attach some conditions to the help they are
providing. Given the way the situation is evolving in and around Pakistan, this may
be a good moment for the community of international donors to step in vigorously
with the aim of guiding the country and its citizenry towards a better and a more
certain economic and political future. The donor response should be well developed,
based on a strategy of economic reform and political development along with the
promise of a large infusion of funds. But the donors will step in as a group only if
Pakistan appeals to them for help. At the moment it seems to be approaching
individual countries for assistance. Such an approach is neither good for Pakistan
nor for those in the world who would be willing to help the country out of a difficult
situation. What is needed is a concerted, collective action based on a promise of
reform by Islamabad.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 15.07.08

– Oil price rebounds on supply worries

Crude oil prices swung on Monday back towards last week’s record highs as oil
workers in Brazil began a fiveday strike that further tightened global energy
supplies, traders said. New York’s main oil contract, light sweet crude for August
delivery, added 82 cents to $145.90 a barrel. The contract had hit a peak of
$147.27 on the New York Mercantile Exchange on Friday. London’s Brent North Sea
oil for August gained 61 cents to $145.10, after hitting an all-time high of $147.50
last Friday. “Prices
“Prices are firm ... as the risk of supply disruptions around the world
looms large,”
large,” Barclays Capital analysts wrote in a note to clients on Monday. In
Brazil, workers in the country’s main oil-producing region began a five-strike on
Monday, cutting overall daily output by nearly a third, their union said. Traders said
mounting geopolitical tension in the oil-rich Middle East and unrest in key producer
Nigeria also provided underlying support for prices. “It “It seems clear that geopolitics
will continue to provide fuel for the seemingly relentless rally, with Iran and
Western nations still at a standoff over the Islamic republic’s pursuit of a uranium
enrichment programme,”
programme,” said Linda Rafield, senior analyst at energy information
provider Platts. Earlier on Monday, oil prices fell as investors followed the stronger
dollar and took profits from last week’s record-breaking surge. The strengthening
US unit tends to dampen oil prices because it discourages demand for dollar-priced
crude which becomes more expensive for buyers using weaker currencies.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Paris, France 15.07.08

– Iran attack to hurt US, Israel: Assad

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad warned on Monday that an assault on Iran over its
controversial nuclear programme would have grave consequences for the United
States, Israel and the world. “It“It will cost the United States and the planet dear,”
dear,”
Assad said in an interview with France Inter radio. “Israel
“Israel will pay directly the price
of this war. Iran has said so.”
so.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a senior
official not to interfere in the nuclear dispute with the West, in what analysts see as
a sign of internal concern that the president’s hardline tactics are further isolating
his country. Speculation about a strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities mounted
following a report that the Israeli air force rehearsed for such an attack. The United
States has refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails to stop Iran’s atomic
enrichment. Assad warned this would set of an uncontrollable chain reaction in the
Middle East “over
“over years or even decades”.
decades”. Logic was against it, he said, but the
Administration of President George Bush was locked in a “warmonger doctrine”.
Iran denies it is secretly trying to develop nuclear weapons under the cover of a
civilian atomic programme. Israel, widely believed to possess the Middle East’s only
nuclear arsenal, has sworn to prevent Iran from attaining atomic weapons. Iranian
tested medium and long-range missiles last week, further stoking tension. Fears of
war helped send global oil prices to record highs. Ahmadinejad has warned that the
Islamic Republic’s response to an attack would be quick and harsh. Critics at home
say his speeches are provocative. Ali Akbar Velayati, who is close to Supreme
Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, expressed unusual public criticism about
government language in the nuclear row. Ahmadinejad said Velayati was a
respected man and entitled to his opinion “but “but he is not involved in nuclear decision
making”.
making”. Khamenei, who has the last word, has praised Ahmadinejad for his
handling of the issue.

Tehran has so far refused to halt its uranium enrichment work, but is ready to
continue nuclear talks with major powers. The United States, Britain, France,
Germany, Russia and China have offered to hold preliminary talks ahead of formal
discussions, say Western diplomats. But Iran must freeze any expansion of its
nuclear programme, in return for the UN Security Council halting further sanctions
against it. EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana was due to meet Iran’s top nuclear
negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Geneva on July 19. Iran’s deputy Defence Minister,
Nasrullah Ezatti, said on Monday that the test-firings “helped
“helped the Islamic Republic to
go to the negotiating table with a full hand”. ”.
hand “ “The
The other party had claimed that Iran
should first accept suspension of enrichment so there would be the possibility of
negotiation,”
negotiation,” Ezatti said. But “it
“it was ultimately the opposing party which
succumbed to the Iranian desire”.
desire”. Assad said he would also help mediate with
Syria’s ally, in response to a request from French President Nicolas Sarkozy. “We“We
are going to have discussions with our Iranian friends to get to the heart of the
matter, to the details. This is the first time that we had been asked to play a role,”
role,”
Assad said.

Author Location Dated

Michael Tomasky Washington, D.C. 15.07.08

– Impact of European Obamamania

Average Americans are heading to the beach. Barack Obama is coming to Europe.
Both should profit from the change of scenery. The average American worker, with
just 13 annual days of vacation needs to cherish those precious, restorative days
off. Obama, who has had a rough couple of weeks that have seen his steady
sixpoint lead over John McCain cut nearly in half which is to say, it’s now within the
margin of error in many polls needs to find a milieu where he feels more
appreciated. After a handful of pirouettes on certain issues designed to move him to
ideological middle ground, Obama is now seen by just more than half of Americans,
according to one current poll, as someone who will tailor his positions for political
advantage. McCain has done just as much so-called flip-flopping, if not more. And
there is this difference between the two: whereas Obama’s ‘refinements’ on
domestic surveillance and Iraq policy have been toward the centre an expected and
traditional tack for general-election candidates to pursue – McCain’s have been
entirely towards the far right, because he still has to worry about nailing down the
enthusiasm of important right-wing constituencies. So, on tax cuts, offshore oil
drilling, social security and some other issues, McCain has abandoned the views
that once marked him as a Republican maverick and embraced the Bush agenda.
Most of the media, still showing strong traces of the McCain man-crushery that has
typified his coverage for the past decade (he was tortured, and besides he really
likes us, so we can’t diss him!), have failed to note this utterly crucial distinction.
The result is that Obama has paid a higher price for his changes than McCain has.

By the same token it must be said that the Obama campaign and the Democratic
National Committee have permitted the flip-flopper storyline to fester. So Obama
needs an event that can break this narrative. Is his trip the answer? I say that the
domestic impact of Obama’s trip to your shores will pry open a window onto a very
important question perhaps the fundamental question of this campaign - and one
I’ve been wondering about since even before Obama was a candidate. To wit: Has
George Bush failed so completely that Americans are ready to reject many of the
conservative assumptions that have governed their thinking since Ronald Reagan’s
ascendance and embrace profoundly sweeping change, or is that a (hopeful, from a
liberal point of view) over-reading of the situation? Asked more directly: Have
Bush’s failures been failures of ideology or merely of competence? If the former,
which most people around Washington seem to think, then we can feel pretty safe
predicting a smashing Democratic victory. If the latter, though, it could mean that
voters are still OK with conservative governance, they just want someone who will
administer it competently.
competently. It’s the dominant open question of this race. Here’s
where Europe fits in. Six years ago, no prominent Democrat would ever have set
foot in France or Germany (Britain got a pass, not only because Tony Blair made
war with Bush but for cultural and historic reasons, too). They were ‘old Europe’.
Enemies of freedom. Democrats, while maybe grumbling privately, bought into this
Bush-Donald Rumsfeld view publicly. They were terrified to do otherwise.

With this trip, Obama wants to signal: no more of that. I will govern an America that
will commit itself to liberal internationalism again. We’ll work with our allies, and our
country’s hideously sullied world reputation will be restored. Undoubtedly, he also
knows that, assuming the trip is gaffe-free, he will be received by adoring crowds
Obamamania is worldwide, and it is real. He and his people surely hope that the
images of those swooning crowds, transmitted back to America, will remind his
countrymen, if only subconsciously, of Bush’s worst failures, and why they were in
fact failures of ideology and not merely of competence (intentionally pushing old
allies away was an ideological choice). And, team Obama hopes, Americans will say
to themselves: “Yes,
“Yes, that was a disgrace. No more of that. I’m with Obama.”
Obama.” Then,
of course, there’s the Israel-Jordan leg, which has a double purpose. It, too, is meant
to do all the above, and to highlight the ways the Bush and by extension the McCain
approach has failed the region. But it is also intended to placate Jewish concerns
about Obama’s commitment to Israel, which is a different goal, and may make that
part of the tour harder to pull off. The showcase images, though, will come from
Europe; whether it’s the Brandenburg Gate or not isn’t that relevant. Will it work?
My guess is that enough Americans, 50 per cent or so, would agree that Bush’s
failures, especially in the realm of international relations, have been about ideology
as well as competence. Fifty-something per cent want to reconnect with Europe
under US leadership like that which Obama promises. So, while there may not be
much room for error, there is reason to hope that in the long term enough
Americans want to rejoin the world. And so in the short term it could help Obama
refind his footing.

Author Location Dated

Sam Taylor Kathmandu, Nepal 15.07.08

– Nepal Maoists back off giving Gurkhas the chop

Nepal’s legendary Gurkha mountain men, whose service in the British army helps
support tens of thousands of people in their impoverished homeland, will now get to
fight another day. The country’s new Maoist leaders, former far-left rebels who
oppose foreign imperialism in all its guises, had threatened to end what they see as
the humiliating recruitment of young Nepali men into the British armed forces. But
in what appears to be a nod to hardnosed practicality in a country where the annual
average salary is $470, the Maoists have backed off, saying they must first oversee
the new republic’s “economic revolution”. “We
“We don’t have any immediate plans to
stop the recruitment of Nepali youths into the British army,”
army,” Nanda Kishore Pun, a
deputy commander from the Maoist’s People’s Liberation Army, said. “For “For the next
few years we will be concentrating on bringing an economic revolution,”
revolution,” said Pun,
whose party is poised to form Nepal’s first government following the abolition of the
centuries-old monarchy. “Then
“Then we will deal with this issue,”
issue,” he added, saying a
review of the recruitment policy would not come for “five to seven years”. Another
deputy Maoist commander, Janardan Sharma, described their recruitment into the
British army as “shameful
“shameful and humiliating”.
humiliating”. “It’s
“It’s wrong to sacrifice Nepalis to
protect the sovereignty of foreign countries,”
countries he said.
,”

But the Gurkhas themselves don’t necessarily agree. “At “At least 30,000 families
depend on the salaries and the pensions of the British Gurkhas,”
Gurkhas,” said Lok Bahadur
Gurung, from the Nepal chapter of the British Gurkha Welfare Society. “They“They have
been significantly contributing to Nepal’s economy since the practice started nearly
200 years ago.”
ago.” Nepalis were first recruited into the army of the British East India
Company after the short but bloody Anglo-Nepali war that ended in 1816.
Impressed by the bravery and ferocity of their foes, the British saw to it that a
peace deal gave them the right to enlist prisoners of war in a private army. The East
India Company’s troops were eventually merged into the British Army, and the
Gurkhas have fought in all of Britain’s conflicts since, from Africa to Argentina often
on the frontlines. Their reputation for loyalty and fearlessness is legendary, as is
their use of the Khukuri, a long, curved knife employed in hand-to-hand combat.
Around 200,000 Gurkhas fought for Britain in World Wars I and II, and more than
45,000 have died in action. Entire front lines of Argentine troops were said to have
surrendered during the Falklands war on the mere whiff of a rumour that they would
be facing the Gurkhas. A Nepali entering the regiment today will get the same
$24,000 annual salary as his British contemporaries more than 50 times the
average annual salary in Nepal. About 3,500 Gurkhas are currently serving in the
British army, but the pensions of retirees support tens of thousands of people in
some of Nepal’s poorest places. In addition, thousands of former Gurkhas have
landed jobs as private security guards in war zones like Afghanistan and Iraq,
adding to Nepal’s income from remittances.

Last year, with around 230 places on offer, a staggering 17,000 potential recruits
applied subjecting themselves to rigorous mental and physical entrance tests,
which include hauling sacks of rocks up a mountain. “There
“There are very, very few job
opportunities here,”
here,” explained 49-year-old Ram Prasad Koirala, a retired British
Army Gurkha who now works as an airline security chief in Kathmandu. “The “The
Maoists have to consider the reality of Nepal and the sentiment associated with the
British Gurkhas,”
Gurkhas,” he said. “Serving
“Serving in the British army is very lucrative.”
lucrative.” The Maoists
are facing the blunt reality that the economic situation in Nepal, one of the world’s
poorest countries, is so desperate that their ideological fervour will have to be toned
down for the time being. Until they can create more jobs, thousands of Nepali youth
having helped vote in the Maoists so they could ditch the unpopular monarchy will
be vying to fight for somebody else’s queen and country. “We “We have a severe
shortage of jobs here, and the British Gurkhas is one of the best opportunities we
Nepali youth have,”
have,” said 21-year-old Suraj Ghimire, a student from Inaruwa, east of
Kathmandu, who has been trying to win a place in the regiment for several years. “I “I
don’t care if the country is a republic or not. What I want is a good job with a good
salary.”
salary.”

Author Location Dated

M . Ziauddin London, England 16.07.08

– Nawaz plans ‘final word’ with Asif on govt agenda

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif proposes to have a ‘final word’ with PPP co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari when the two meet later this month on what he described
as a simple agenda to take the country out of its present crisis and put it on the
road to progress and prosperity. The first on the list of his eightpoint agenda was
rule of law, followed by independence of judiciary, restoration of deposed judges,
blocking army intervention for all times to come, establishment of parliament’s
supremacy, no to foreign dictation, accountability and institution of a treason case
against Gen (retd) Musharraf. Lest the ‘final word’ is mistaken for ‘final ultimatum’
to his coalition partner, Mr Sharif hastened to add that he wanted the coalition to
continue and complete ‘this simple agenda’ and asked rather rhetorically, “what “what
would happen to Pakistan if this agenda is not fulfilled?” “Only God knows,”
knows,” was his
rhetorical answer. Mr Sharif was speaking at a gathering of UK’s wing of the PML-N
here on Tuesday. He did not specify the date or the venue of his proposed meeting
with Mr Zardari. He appeared to have accepted some kind of a fait accompli with
regard to restoration of the deposed judges when he said that they would be
restored, “if
“if not today then in 2009 or even 2010, but rest assured they would be
eventually restored, come what may.” may.” He said when he had met Mr Zardari after
Feb 18 elections he invited the latter to “join
“join hands with the PML-N to translate the
mandate into a reality”.
reality”. “I
“I told him, let us start implementing the Charter of
Democracy, get rid of 17th Amendment, make Musharraf accountable for all the
unconstitutional and illegal actions he had taken since October 12, 1999, and let us
stop all unwanted wars against our own people. “For all this I put no conditions. I
told him that we do not want any share in the government and that we will support
you without joining the government,”
government,” Mr Sharif recalled by way of explaining what
had happened since the elections.

When Mr Zardari insisted that the PML-N join the government, Mr Sharif said, he told
him that it was impossible because for one thing the party did not want to join the
government before the judges were restored and, secondly, because no one from
the PML-N wanted to be sworn in by Musharraf. “However,
“However, when Zardari Sahib said
that he would not form the government unless we joined them, I was reluctantly
persuaded to accede to his wishes,”
wishes,” he added. He said he and his party were
extremely disappointed when Mr Zardari wriggled out of his promise made in the
Bhurban Declaration by stating that the declaration was not a holy scripture. He
said despite all the setbacks his party would continue on its principled journey and
“ultimately we will achieve our goals”.
goals”. He accused the intelligence agencies of
having tried to destroy the PML-N and other genuine parties and craft in their place
fake parties like the PMLQ and the MQM. “Have
“Have we set up these agencies for this —
to destroy national politics?”
politics?” he asked.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 16.07.08

– Dr Khan case: out of court settlement urged

The Islamabad High Court on Tuesday urged the federation and Dr A.Q. Khan’s
lawyers to amicably settle the issue relating to his detention. On the directives of
Chief Justice Sardar Mohammad Aslam, Dr Khan’s lawyer Javed Jafferi and Deputy
Attorney General Raja Abdul Rehman agreed to meet and discuss the matter. The
court heard the main habeas corpus petition and initiated a contempt of court
proceeding against the deputy attorney-general for not submitting a reply within
stipulated time on making the president and the adviser to the prime minister on
interior parties to the case. The court directed both sides to seek “an“an amicable
solution”
solution ” by next hearing. The state requested the court to withdraw the telephone
and internet facilities enjoyed by Dr Khan, pleading that “his
“his free interaction … was
not in the best national interest and it will not be deemed unreasonable under the
peculiar circumstances of the case.”
case.” Dr Khan’s lawyer requested the bench to take
action against the respondents for not complying with the court’s June 25 orders.
Barrister Jafferi said there was nothing in the four-page reply submitted by the
federation which substantiated its stance. He said if the bench concurred to hear
the case in camera, he and his client were willing to appear in the larger national
interest under the Article 194 of the Constitution. The deputy attorney-general, he
said, had contended before the court that Dr Khan had not been restricted from
meeting his friends and relatives, but his statement had proved to be wrong. He
said the government should explain what it meant by “international
“international repercussions”
repercussions”
if Dr Khan’s confinement was ended. He rebuffed the claim that Dr Khan had made
any statement implicating state organs in nuclear proliferation and said “the “the
Japanese news agency had misquoted”
misquoted” him. “Dr
“Dr Khan is made responsible for
leaking official secrets. Such comments are … mere passing opinions,”
opinions,” he added.
He rejected the use of cellphones, internet and telephone facilities by Dr Khan was
against national interest, and said that the nuclear scientist should not be
restrained from meeting his relatives and friends and no one should have authority
to accord permission for such contacts. “His
“His health is deteriorating,”
deteriorating,” he said and
expressed dissatisfaction over the quality of medical treatment being given. He
urged the court to form a commission to probe the whole matter.

Ahmer Bilal Sofi, the counsel for the federation, said that no one was disregarding
Dr Khan’s contributions, but his statements could have serious international
consequences. He said Dr Khan’s recent statement had affected the country’s
relations with Iran, North Korea and Libya. “I
“I have diplomatic comments received
from Iran which can be shared with the bench in chamber,”
chamber,” he added. The lawyer
said that during 2004, the government of Pakistan had to “endure hard times”. On
the one hand it had to protect its national hero and on the other it had to face
international pressure over the proliferation issue. The counsel cited the inquiry
reports furnished by international watchdog bodies over the issue of nuclear
proliferation. He said the inquiry had found a nexus between Dr Khan and the group
involved in such activities in Dubai, Switzerland and South Africa. Highlighting the
country’s international obligations, he said giving certain relaxations to Dr Khan
would mean giving anti-state elements access to vital nuclear information. Mr Sufi
informed that as many as 11 inquiries had been initiated by global watchdog
bodies, but they had found no “authentic
“authentic proof of the involvement of the state of
Pakistan in proliferation”.
proliferation”.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 16.07.08
om

– Going nuts about Obama

There are two ways of looking at the direction Barack Obama’s presidential
campaign has taken since he effectively secured the Democratic nomination early
last month. One is that he is doing what it takes to get elected, and his pandering to
conservative causes probably means he has, in the interest of pragmatism,
temporarily relegated the relatively progressive ideals he previously espoused,
rather than abandoned them altogether. This approach can be excused on the
grounds that the goal of reaching the White House must take precedence over all
else, because without that none of the principled idealism can do anyone any good.
Besides, a shuffle towards the centre is a common post-primaries tactic among
Democratic and Republican candidates alike. The second way of looking at it, which
has proved attractive on both ends of the political spectrum, is that Obama’s quest
for the most powerful post in the world is based on little more than cynical self-
interest, and he is able to effortlessly switch positions on a range of issues because
firm principles are alien to his nature. He is willing to do what it takes, and is likely
to exhibit the same tendencies if elected.

The extremes of this school of thought’s right-wing branch are inhabited by

particularly outlandish theories and suspicions, such as that Obama is a closet
Muslim (which to most Christian extremists and to numerous secular ignoramuses is
synonymous with Islamic fundamentalist) or that, if elected, he is likely to enslave
the white race. On the left, meanwhile, there is talk of disillusionment, which makes
a little more sense — although, as Norman Solomon aptly pointed out on ZNet last
week, “The
“The best way to avoid becoming disillusioned is not to have illusions in the
first place.”
place.” Of course, some of these illusions were cultivated by the candidate
himself. It is not unusual for presidential candidates to portray themselves as
Washington outsiders — and the fact that this tactic invariably pays dividends is an
indictment of the American political system, as it points towards an abiding popular
distrust of activities on and around Capitol Hill. As a first-term African-American
senator with a reasonably liberal record, Obama found it easier than most people to
convince voters that he was cast in a different mould. The realisation that he is
essentially a politician like all others appears to have caused some disappointment.
But then, had it been other wise, chances are Hillary Clinton would have made
mincemeat out of him early on in the primary season. He may be an exceptionally
astute politician, one who is very good at the game he plays, but that does not
change his profession. As such, he knows he cannot restrict himself to the
traditional Democratic vote base, part of which does not favour him anyhow. He
needs to capture a majority of the independents and, to boot, make inroads into
Republican terrain.

John McCain, once portrayed without adequate cause as a maverick, has for months
now been trying to repair the damage caused by his reputation, chiefly by
shamelessly wooing the GOP’s right flank (which, from any reasonable vantage
point, essentially means the far right). But many of the evangelicals whose electoral
support hugely benefited George W. Bush remain unconvinced about McCain’s
credentials, and Obama has been keen to fill the void. He has promised to expand
Bush’s controversial faith-based initiatives, talked at length about submitting to
Christ’s will (after pointing out that his Kenyan father was an atheist), and taken
various other steps that could conceivably appease this constituency, apart from
appealing more broadly to conservatives in general. Among the most egregious of
these was his Senate vote in favour of a bill that retrospectively indemnifies
telecoms for collaborating with the Bush administration’s warrantless surveillance of
US citizens. He has also flirted with illiberal positions on issues ranging from gun
control to the death penalty and fair trade. Obama generally chooses his words
carefully and tends to leave himself with wriggle room. He insists that his statement
about refining his stance on Iraq after consultations with military leaders does not
affect his determination to complete a withdrawal within 16 months. But there is
talk, at the same time, of leaving some contingents in place, for training purposes
and the like — generally a euphemism for permanent military bases.

Afghanistan continues to be seen as a war worth fighting, despite progressively

more disastrous outcomes over nearly seven years. And the concept of dialogue
with Iran has increasingly been replaced by robust rhetoric of a militarist variety.
Besides, the customary kowtowing to the Israel lobby and the Cuban exiles in Miami
has been attended to with no discernible attempt at nuanced enlightenment. Earlier
in the campaign, Obama made quite an impression by suggesting that he was
determined to end not only the war in Iraq but also the mindset that leads the US
into such wars. One can only hope that some vestiges of that potentially
groundbreaking approach will accompany him into the White House next January.
The Obama campaign’s strategy appears to be based on the assumption that
efforts should be concentrated on winning over conservatives, as progressive
Americans will vote for him anyway, given that they have nowhere else to go
(barring the handful who might opt for Ralph Nader). There is a certain logic in this
approach but also a degree of risk. The balancing act is difficult to sustain and if too
many disenchanted liberals begin to feel that he isn’t really worth voting for, the
consequence may well be a continuation of the Bush presidency under a different
name, which would portend further disaster for the US and the world. Concerns
about Obama’s waywardness were underlined this month when the Reverend Jesse
Jackson was overheard accusing him of talking down to blacks. In the heat of the
moment, deploying a crudely nutty figure of speech, the civil rights veteran said
that he would like to castrate the candidate — and spent the next day profusely
apologising for his outburst, after being castigated by his own son, who happens to
be a co-chairman of the Obama campaign. On its own, the episode is unlikely to
seriously diminish Obama’s appeal, and may even enhance it among a certain
section of the electorate. But he needs to be careful. He may see little point in going
down as a principled loser but ending up as an unprincipled also-ran would be
considerably worse. Meanwhile, in the event of finding himself alone with Jackson,
the candidate ought to keep his legs closely entwined. The rest of us should keep
our fingers tightly crossed. ¦ The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.
Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 16.07.08

– Let’s bury hope

Hope is this nation’s enemy. If it wasn’t for hope and its distant cousin, inshallah,
Pakistan would be a very different country today — a better, more agreeable land.
Why, you ask? How Scrooge-like to turn on hope? The trouble with hope is that it
delegates, leaving the real, hard work of getting things done to others. Hope is the
black box in which we place all our problems and then wait for them to emerge
resolved. With hope there is no need for planning, let alone a Plan B. God willing,
Pakistan will be a democracy. We hope that CJ Iftikhar will fix this nation. We hope
to provide kapra aur makaan to the people. Hopefully Pakistan will be a prosperous
nation. Innocuous, innocent, cuddly hope has infected this land for so long that,
though we may not realise it, we are beyond hope, a nation of no-hopers dreaming
of success and achieving failure. But if we were to do away with hope we would be
left with nothing, right? Wrong. Do away with the romance of hope and what you
will be left with is a will to succeed. Nothing focuses the mind as knowing that there
is no one to rely on other than one’s self. Tough choices would be made
pragmatically and forthrightly, instead of shoving them in the hope box in the hope
that answers will emerge. What our country needs is a hypodermic needle full of
realism punched straight into its heart. For too long the placebo of hope has made
us think that Pakistan will get better while its innards have slowly vanished. Not
convinced?

The evidence abounds. After Feb 18, we hoped that a new day had dawned. Paeans
to democracy were sung, the people’s will was admired, and everyone hoped that
things would be better. Except the few who glanced at the numbers in parliament
and then at Asif, Nawaz and Musharraf and scratched their heads and wondered
how it would work. Undeterred, the country rode the wave of hope. Then the
cabinet split and the hope brigade was beached. Floundering in anguish, the
hopeful have wondered why they have been betrayed again. We hoped that the
politicians had learned their lesson, they cry. Yet, in their hearts they are still
hoping things will get better. The problem is that the politicians also drink at the
well of hope and sometimes hopes collide. Asif signed the Bhurban Declaration in
the hope that Nawaz wouldn’t pull the plug on a government that the League was a
part of. When Nawaz did opt out, Asif had no Plan B. So he has decamped to Dubai
and visited Turkey and Greece, no doubt hoping to come up with a new plan. Nawaz
is of course the purveyor of hope par excellence. What if Asif didn’t really mean to
restore the judges by a parliamentary resolution, as many suspected. Well, good ol’
Nawaz hoped Asif would or else, well, he still doesn’t know because he had hoped
Asif would do as he promised. So now we have a situation where the government is
limping along and the cabinet is denuded while Nawaz works out whether he wants
to remain a part of the coalition or not, no doubt still hoping that Asif will join him in
the hope that CJ Iftikhar will return to vanquish Musharraf. Or the epic monument to
hope that was built by the lawyers’ movement on the back of the heroic resistance
of CJ Iftikhar. All well and good, but few paused to consider if it was advisable to use
a supreme court to try and oust a dictator when no one who mattered was listening.
A million people outside the president’s front door would have been a more direct,
and perhaps successful, attack against Musharraf.

The militancy crisis too has been infected by hope, with disastrous consequences.
The politicians are hoping that the army will pull us out of the morass of militancy.
The army is hoping that the Americans won’t attack us for our policy of
distinguishing between Pakistani Taliban and Afghan Taliban. And Musharraf
authored that nonsense policy in the hope that the Pakistani Taliban would be nice
to us if we gave them room and board. There’s more hope. On the economic front,
the operative paradigm is based on the hope that wealth will trickle down. It hasn’t,
but there is no inclination to fix structural impediments, just the hope that more of
the same will work. Now the government is hoping that the world will come to our
rescue, banking on the moral hazard that we are too big to fail. It’s good that the
Saudis don’t hold grudges — remember how we vilified them for interfering in our
affairs when Nawaz was sent back to Jeddah like a chastened schoolboy last
September? No one is accusing the Saudis of interference now that they have
offered us six billion dollars. For that kind of money, we should be glad that they
didn’t ask for our souls. What would we do without hope? We would get things done.
Look at any portrait of Jinnah. Does he look like a man who was lifted to greatness
on the wings of hope? His austere demeanour suggests otherwise. BB wasn’t one
for hope either. Determinedly working her contacts in Washington she dragged
herself from political oblivion to the threshold of power. Yes, the stars may have
lined up in her favour as Washington looked to tweak its Pakistan script, but she
didn’t wait for luck to come knocking at her door. Make what you will of her politics,
but she had a fierce spirit. The indefatigable Shahbaz does not reek of hope, which
is the secret to his success. A methodical, no-frills chief minister, Shahbaz sets
about his work and soon produces results. If only other politicians learned from his
example, especially Nawaz, the sinner-in-chief when it comes to hope. Shahbaz may
look a little unsure nowadays, but anyone would if they didn’t know if they would
have a job tomorrow. So let’s stand up to hope, which for too long has seduced this
country and held us in its deadly embrace. What we need is a slap to the face, a
bucket of cold water over the head or a kick to the shins — something to make us
sit up and take notice of our plight — rather than the generous libations of hope
that have dulled our senses. Is there anyone to lead us out of the desert of hope?
Step forward, brave one. You will have at least one follower.

Author Location Dated

Gwynne Dyer 16.07.08

– Guessing Iran attack

The Iranians have clearly concluded that all the American and Israeli threats to
attack them are mere bluff. Israel could not destroy all of Iran’s nuclear facilities
unless it was willing to drop large numbers of nuclear weapons on Iran. The United
States could do the job using only conventional weapons, but in reply Iran could
close the Gulf to tanker traffic and cause a global economic crisis. So the US and
Israel must be bluffing, unless they are crazy. This explains the bravado of Iran’s
little propaganda show on July 9, when it test-launched a number of ballistic
missiles, including one that has the ability to carry a nuclear weapon and the range
to strike Israel. This elicited the usual veiled threats of an attack on Iran from both
Washington and Jerusalem, but the Iranians don’t believe them any more. The
Shahab-3 missile that the Iranians tested has flown before, and it could indeed
reach Israel. However, it lacks a proper guidance system, and probably could not
penetrate Israel’s anti-ballistic missile defences. More importantly, as the US
National Intelligence Estimate of last December affirmed, Iran has no nuclear
weapons, and closed down its programme to develop a nuclear weapons capability
in 2003. The main purpose of the tests was to strengthen the position of hard-liners
in domestic Iranian politics. The Iranian Revolutionary Guards,
Guards, the organisation that
carried them out, wants to keep the confrontation with the United States and its
allies alive because it fears that other elements in the regime might bargain away
Iran’s right to enrich nuclear fuel for civilian use.

If neither the United States nor Israel intends to attack Iran, this is a cost-free
strategy: you win the domestic political struggle and nothing bad happens to you
internationally. If you miscalculate, however, you get a war out of it. What are the
odds that the Iranians are miscalculating? President George W. Bush seems to have
convinced himself that something must be done about the “Iranian threat” before
he goes, but he faces the almost unanimous opposition of the US military and
intelligence establishment, who are horrified by the prospect of an unwinnable war
against Iran. Last December’s National Intelligence Estimate was a deliberate
attempt to undercut the Bush administration’s relentless propaganda about the
“Iranian nuclear threat.” Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s coalition government in Israel
might collapse if he chose to attack Iran alone, and the Israeli military are clearly
divided on the feasibility of such an attack. Besides, Israel could not do such a thing
without Washington’s approval — Israeli aircraft would have to fly through Iraqi
airspace, which is under US control — so it all comes back to what Bush decides. He
probably doesn’t know himself yet, and his main concern must be that senior
soldiers and spies in Washington would go public to oppose such an adventure.

In circumstances like these, I generally consult the International Institute for

Discussing Current Affairs Over Dinner, whose advice can be had for the price of a
good meal. Membership is limited to myself, my wife and my many talented
children. Like me, they are experts in everything, and one of our most effective
analytical tools is an exercise called Setting the Odds. A quorum of the Institute’s
membership is currently on holiday in southern Morocco, and we deployed this
technique at dinner last night. I offered my colleagues two-toone odds that neither
the United States nor Israel would attack Iran this year, and they laughed in my
face. Their response was the same at odds of four-to-one. At six-to-one one showed
a mild interest, but still declined the offer. From which I deduce that for all the
huffing and puffing in Washington and Jerusalem, an actual attack on Iran this year
is extremely unlikely. The Revolutionary Guards are right. You may object that this
technique lacks scientific rigour. I would reply that so does everybody else’s, and at
least you get a nice meal out of this one. Moreover, we have a good track record,
mainly because we assume that while individual leaders may lose the plot, large
institutions like governments and armed forces are generally more rational in their
choices. There are occasions when whole countries are so traumatised by some
shock that truly bizarre decisions become possible — the United States after 9/11
was like that for a while — but this is not one of those times. The US military have
been war-gaming possible attacks on Iran since the 1990s, and they have never
managed to find a scenario that resulted in a credible US victory. Some people in
the White House have convinced themselves that the Iranian people will rise up and
overthrow their government as soon as the first American bombs fall, but the
professional soldiers in the Pentagon don’t believe in fairy tales. Six-to-one says
that there will be no US or Israeli attack on Iran this year.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 16.07.08

– Cultural confusion and blasphemy

In the British media, there is currently an agonised debate on the controversy
surrounding the appointment of women as bishops in the Church of England.
Despite the emotive nature of the discussion, the only unseemly incident happened
when a heckler interrupted a speech being made by a gay American bishop to a
congregation of Anglican clergy. The sad truth is that if anybody had raised the
question of women leading the prayers at mosques, there would have been riots in
most of the Muslim world. When a car bomb devastated the Danish embassy in
Islamabad on June 2, its repercussions were felt more in the West than in Pakistan
itself. Over the years, Pakistanis have become so accustomed to terror attacks that
they tend to take such atrocities in their stride. And the fact is that by publishing a
sacrilegious cartoon of the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) again after the violent
reaction last year, the Danes had not made themselves very popular in the Muslim
world. The most common reaction to the embassy bombing, even among the
educated, was: “It’s
“It’s a terrible thing, but why did the Danes insult our Prophet?”
Prophet?” The
more zealous Pakistanis welcomed the attack with glee, saying, in effect: “Serve
“Serve
the Danes right!”
right!” Even when Al Qaeda accepted responsibility for the attack, there
was very little sense of outrage. The fact that all eight of those killed were Muslims
and Pakistanis (one of the victims was a Danish citizen of Pakistani origin) seemed
to count for very little.

Two days after the attack, a text message zipped from one cellphone to the next
across the country, an nouncing that the boycott of Danish products in the Muslim
world had cost the Scandinavian nation a billion dollars thus far. No source was
given for this information, but the jubilant tone was clear: “Keep
“Keep it up!”,
up!”, the
message concluded. It is difficult for a westerner to understand the depth of the
anger most practising Muslims feel about anything that is seen as an insult to their
Prophet. In Europe, in particular, religious belief has weakened to the point where
stand-up comics regularly poke fun at everybody from Jesus to the Pope. “The “The Life
of Brian”,
Brian”, the hilarious Seventies comedy by Monty Python parodying Christ’s life
and times, remains an iconic film. For a generation brought up in this utterly secular
environment where belief is an insignificant aspect of life, Muslim reaction to a few
badly-drawn cartoons in an unknown Danish newspaper has been absolutely
baffling. While Europe has been growing away from its religious moorings, Islam has
been witnessing a resurgence. The younger generation of Muslims is, by and large,
much more rigid in their faith than their parents were. At the same time, countries
like Pakistan have fewer contacts with the West at the personal level. This growing
distance has made it easier for extremists to demonise the West, casting it in the
role of Islam’s arch-enemy. Thus, each conflict involving Muslims is presented as an
anti-Islam conspiracy, whether it is the western presence in Afghanistan or Iraq, the
oppression of Palestinians, or the Russian excesses in Chechnya. All form part of the
sinister anti-Islam narrative.

In this super-charged atmosphere of paranoia and violence, the publication of the

cartoons in Denmark is seen as a deliberately provocative act. Muslims would never
dream of running similar caricatures of Moses or Jesus, both prophets of Islam. So
they cannot imagine why Christians would gratuitously insult the most revered
figure in Islam. Even for sophisticated Muslims, the freedom of speech does not
include this kind of behaviour. In a recent conference organised by the Cordoba
Initiative and the Malaysian government in Kuala Lumpur, Prince Turki al-Faisal, the
Saudi ex-diplomat and sometime head of the intelligence service, declared: “I “I can
never accept that freedom of speech is morally right when it offends my faith.”
faith.” To
put things in the Pakistani context, one unfortunate citizen was recently sentenced
to death for making remarks that witnesses swore were disrespectful of the
Prophet. Under the country’s blasphemy laws, anybody guilty of insulting the
Prophet or desecrating the Quran faces the death penalty. Over the years, this
legislation introduced by General Zia over 20 years ago has been used by people to
settle scores or grab their neighbours’ property. Invariably, the death sentence is
converted to a life term on appeal, but in the fanatical environment that prevails in
much of rural Pakistan, a charge of blasphemy is hard to shake off. Innocent people
have been beaten or burnt to death by rampaging mobs enraged by rumours that a
copy of the Quran had been burned. Against this backdrop, the bombing of the
Danish embassy in Islamabad makes for a kind of rough justice in the eyes of most
Pakistanis. Never mind that Pakistan’s image abroad, already at a record low, has
taken a further plunge. Never mind that all those killed were Muslims, and had
nothing to do with the publication of the offending cartoon. Never mind, too, that
most Pakistanis have not even seen the cartoon in question. The mere fact that a
bomb has destroyed Danish embassy was enough to satisfy millions of Pakistanis. In
parliament, some members from religious parties their numbers drastically slashed
in the recent elections urged the government to break off diplomatic relations with
Denmark. Even columnists and TV anchors who are staunch supporters of the
freedom of speech argued for anti-blasphemy laws in the West. Sadly, this is not the
first cross-cultural misunderstanding between the West and the Islamic world, and
nor is it likely to be the last.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 16.07.08

– Google-Yahoo tie-up draws fire on Capitol Hill

A proposed online advertising deal between Google and Yahoo drew fire from
Microsoft and others at a Senate hearing on Tuesday even as both companies
defended the alliance as positive for consumers and businesses. Microsoft senior
vice president and general counsel Brad Smith delivered a scathing assessment of
the tie-up, saying it would crimp competition and give Google “unprecedented”
control of the gateway to the Internet. “If“If search is the gateway to the Internet, and
most believe that it is, this deal will put Google in a position to own that gateway
and the information that flows through it,”it,” Smith told the Senate Judiciary
Committee subcommittee hearing. “Never “Never before in the history of advertising has
one company been in the position to control prices on up to 90 per cent of
advertising in a single medium. Not in television, not in radio, not in publishing. It
should not happen on the Internet.”
Internet.” David Drummond, Google’s chief legal officer,
argued that “the
“the online advertising marketplace is competitive, robust and
dynamic”
dynamic” and that the tie-up would be beneficial to Internet users and advertisers.
“This arrangement is not a merger, nor a joint venture,”
venture,” he said. “Why
“Why did Google
enter into this agreement? We think we’ll make money of course, and we think we’ll
do so by giving millions of consumers, publishers, and advertisers access to more
relevant online ads. Where Google’s system may provide better results, Yahoo will
be able to use it to complement its own advertising programme. The whole system
becomes more efficient.”
efficient.”

Yahoo general counsel Michael Callahan said he wanted to dispel “quite a few
misconceptions” about the plan. “This
“This is not a merger. Far from it — we will
increasingly compete with Google, and they with us. This is a commercial
arrangement between two companies who will remain autonomous and compete
aggressively — in search and display advertising, mobile, news, e-mail, finance —
you name it.”
it.” Callahan added that “the
“the claim some have made that Yahoo and
Google are price-fixing is entirely false. Prices for search terms are set by open and
fair market-based auctions, and advertisers only pay when consumers click on their
ads.”
ads.” The hearing was called after Yahoo spurned a takeover by Microsoft and
rushed into Google’s arms in the hope an alliance will improve its sagging fortunes.
The Yahoo-Google deal would put the Internet search king’s expertise to work
pumping money from advertising posted next to Yahoo Internet search results.
Google technology would be used to better target ads posted on a portion of Yahoo
search pages. Subcommittee chair Senator Herb Kohl pledged close scrutiny of the
deal. “In
“In examining the competitive impact of this deal, we will need to find
answers to a number of important questions,”
questions,” Kohl said.

Author Location Dated

New York 16.07.08

– New Yorker cartoon termed offensive

A cover cartoon in the latest issue of the
New Yorker magazine depicting Barack
Obama and his wife Michelle as flag-
burning and fist-bumping radicals has
come in for a bi-partisan condemnation
(except for some extreme right groups).
The cartoon, titled ‘The
‘The Politics of Fear’,
Fear’,
shows Obama wearing traditional Arab
Muslim dress – robe, turban and sandals —
while his wife Michelle has an assault rifle
slung over one shoulder and is dressed in
camouflage and combat boots with her hair
in an Afro. The cartoon, which Obama’s
campaign said was ‘’tasteless
‘’tasteless and
offensive’’,
offensive’’, is not explained inside the
magazine. The issue, dated July 21, also
contains a 15,000-word report about
Obama’s political education and early
years in Chicago. The timing of the cover is
considered ominous coming on the eve of a
trip to the Middle East in which Obama is to
meet Israeli and Palestinian leaders and
hopes to shore up his credentials with
American Jews who have been sceptical about whether he is a true friend of Israel.
In a statement, the magazine’s editor David Remnick said the cover combined
‘’fantastical
‘’fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions
they are’’.
are’’. ‘’I
‘’I can’t speak for anyone else’s interpretations, all I can say is that it
combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the
right but by some, about Obama’s supposed ‘lack of patriotism’ or his being ‘soft on
terrorism’ or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming
of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going
to come to the Oval Office,’’
Office,’’ Remnick said.

A national Islamic civil rights and advocacy organisation called the cartoon
inflammatory, intended to portray them as Muslim, militant, pro-terrorist and anti-
American. In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said:
‘’Unfortunately,
‘’Unfortunately, the New Yorker’s front cover cartoon failed to achieve its stated
goal of exposing and lampooning right-wing caricatures of the Obamas. These
inflammatory images and spurious associations will only serve to reinforce the
racism and anti-Muslim stereotypes that the magazine says it is out to challenge.’’
challenge.’’
Obama, who is Christian, has long fought rumours that he is secretly a Muslim. His
wife has endured her own attacks, including ones that claimed there was a
videotape of her criticising ‘’whitey’’ from a church pulpit. The Obama campaign
says there is no such tape because she never spoke at a church. Asked about the
cartoon, Obama himself said: ‘’I ‘’I have no response to that.’’
that.’’ His spokesman Bill
Burton said: ‘’The
‘’The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that
their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s rightwing critics
have tried to create.’’
create.’’ ‘’But
‘’But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And
we agree.’’
agree.’’ Obama’s Republican rival in the race for the White House, Senator John
McCain, concurred that the cover was out of bounds, calling it ‘’totally
‘’totally
inappropriate, and frankly I understand if Senator Obama and his supporters would
find it offensive.’’

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 16.07.08

– Obama threatens direct action in Fata

White House hopeful Barack Obama warned Pakistanis on Tuesday that if they
cannot root out terrorism from the tribal area, America will do it for them. Mr
Obama’s threat came minutes after US President George W. Bush promised to
investigate Afghan charges that Pakistani intelligence agencies are involved in a
series of terrorist attacks inside Afghanistan. “We
“We cannot tolerate a terrorist
sanctuary, and as president, I won’t,”
won’t,” he said. “We
“We must make it clear that if
Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like
(Osama) bin Laden if we have them in our sights.”
sights.” In a major foreign policy speech
in Washington, Mr Obama said that Al Qaeda had established a threatening
“terrorist sanctuary” in Fata and promised to shift US focus from Iraq to Afghanistan
to combat the threat emanating from Pakistan’s tribal areas if elected. “Al “Al Qaeda
has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan
sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia,”
Philadelphia,” Mr Obama said. “If“If
another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region
where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq
than Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan.” Mr Obama said the Bush administration’s “single-minded
“single-minded and
openended”
openended” focus on Iraq “by “by any measure … is not a sound strategy for keeping
America safe.”
safe.” He promised to make Iraqis provide for their own security and use
the troops freed from there for striking Al Qaeda in Pakistan. “Iraq
“Iraq is not going to be
a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one,”one,” he
said. Senator Obama has proposed adding two US combat brigades, about 9,000
troops, to the 36,000 troops already in Afghanistan and said this would be made
possible by a drawdown of troops from Iraq. He also called for changes to US policy
towards Pakistan, saying Bush had offered a “blank
“blank cheque”
cheque” to Pakistani President
Pervez Musharraf in the form of US military aid.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 17.07.08

– Provocative statements must be avoided, says Altaf

Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain has called upon the government
and all political and religious parties to refrain from issuing provocative statements
against foreign powers so as not to provide them an excuse to attack Pakistan.
Presiding over a party meeting in London, Mr Hussain said he had warned the
people at the helm of affairs towards deteriorating situation in tribal areas and
stressed that it might be too late if immediate steps were not taken to reverse the
situation. According to an MQM press release issued here on Wednesday, he said
his apprehensions had come true and US political and military leaders and Afghan
President Hamid Karzai had said they would no longer hold talks or share
intelligence with Pakistan, but take unilateral actions in tribal areas which were
being used by local Taliban for terrorist attacks in Afghanistan. Mr Hussain said that
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani himself had acknowledged that tribal areas
were harbouring Uzbek, Chechan and other foreign terrorists who were committing
acts of terrorism in Afghanistan. He said if the government did not take effective
stops to address the issue of terrorism, the US-led Nato forces would attack Fata
which would have detrimental effects for the country.
He said the legal fraternity should realise that the country was facing a serious
threat on its borders and lawyers must consider whether their priority should be to
join the struggle to save the country or to continue the movement for judges’
reinstatement. Mr Hussain appealed to the PML-N and PPP to resolve their
differences and take all coalition partners and opposition parties into confidence on
issues threatening the existence of the country. “There
“There are reports that our nuclear
assets are in danger, but instead of realising the gravity of the situation we are
busy in making tall claims about hoisting the national flag on the Red Fort in Delhi.
In a similar situation in 1971 we lost half of our country. We must refrain from
issuing provocative statements and adopt a sensible political approach,”
approach,” he said. Mr
Hussain offered his party’s unconditional support to the government and defence
institutions for the country’s safety and security.

Author Location Dated

Prof. Khwaja Masud 17.07.08

– What Americans really want

Averting the threat of extremism and preventing nuclear proliferation, the two
cornerstones of America’s policy in our region, are likely to figure prominently in
Prime Minister Gilani’s meeting with President Bush later this month. The overt
objectives of the policy are well known. Less well known to the wider public is the
covert working of the policy. Seymour Hersh, the veritable correspondent of The
New Yorker, often writes in meticulously researched articles about the concealed
designs of America’s covert policy in the region. So, instead of waiting a la Mel
Gibson for a knock on the head to find out what Americans really want, Prime
Minister Gilani should pay close attention to what Hersh writes — not just as a feast
for the mind but as deep insights into how America’s covert policy, more often hand
in glove with Israeli policy, is implemented in our region. The New Yorker is
christened by conservatives as the bible of East Coast intellectuals, famously known
as ‘limousine liberals’. If the conservatives are right then Hersh is The New Yorker’s
Lot, the prophet of doom who exposes the doomsday designs of American
intelligence operatives in our region. But unlike Lot people notice when Hersh
writes. He has a distinguished record of exposing American foreign policy lies, like
the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, and Abu Ghraib, and comes closest to epitomising
the notion of the correspondent as a star.
In his latest article Hersh writes about a $400m American operation to destabilise
the leadership in Iran through a secret military force operating in Iran and through
the support of rebellious Kurds, the Mojahedin-i-Khalq, Sunni fundamentalist groups
such as Jundallah, and the Baloch. As a result, there is a surge of violence in Iran for
which the Iranians correctly blame the ‘Great Satan’. The surge in Iran follows a
strategic shift in American policy (which Hersh described in an article last year)
after realising belatedly that “the
“the most profound — and unintended — strategic
consequence of the Iraq war is the empowerment of Iran”,
Iran”, and became convinced
“that the biggest threat is Iran and Sunni radicals are the lesser enemies.”
enemies.” President
Bush announced the policy shift in January last year: “Iran
“Iran is providing material
support for attacks on American troops…. We will seek out and destroy the
networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq.” Iraq.” This
was followed a few days later by Vice-President Cheney’s warning of the possibility
“of a nuclear-armed Iran, astride the world’s supply of oil, able to affect adversely
the global economy … [T]he entire region is worried. The threat Iran represents is
growing.”
growing.” As a consequence of this policy shift Hersh warned the public throughout
2006 and 2007 of intensified planning for a possible major air attack on Iran: “Air
“Air
Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American
combat troops have been ordered into Iran under cover to col lect targeting data …
to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot programme to enrich
uranium.”
uranium.” The present American surge in Iran, therefore, is the consequence of a
wider strategy and understanding with its partners in the region to counteract Shia
ascendance in the region.

The covert operations in Iran are modelled on a programme in Pakistan run by the
CIA, NSA, DIA, Special Forces, etc., using surrogates, Predators, satellite technology,
etc., to target Taliban leaders with the precision of a brain surgeon. Hence also the
surge in executions of people suspected by the Taliban to be American agents. A
similar programme worked well in the Horn of Africa. But Hersh says the Baloch and
others are marginal groups in an overwhelmingly Shia Iran so this ploy will not
succeed. But encouraging such insidious groups does not bode well for Pakistan.
The violence will inevitably spill over the border into our country. Thankfully, for
now our government is cooperating with Iran and bravely defying American
pressure, evidence of this being the recent agreement to hand over a Jundallah
leader to the Iranians. US operations inside Iran are ominous coming on the heels of
a major Israeli military drill that so resembles an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
The drill is not an aberration emerging from the mind of a fading prime minister
with a cloud of corruption over his head and popularity equal to the statistical
discrepancy. Neither is The Economist correct in describing the drill as
“warmongering noises” that few believe, else the “oil “oil price would be even higher.”
higher.”
Hersh describes it correctly as the logical unfolding of a long-term strategy
epitomised in Adm Mike Mullen’s latest press briefing after returning from Israel:
“Iran is on a path to get nuclear weapons, and I think that is something that needs
to be deterred.”
deterred.” Not surprisingly, the Europeans are scared. The Financial Times
raves about the unfolding of a “disaster
“disaster for the greater Middle East, for the world
economy and for western security.”
security.” Global markets already in the bear’s claws
would “rattle” if this happens. The short-term implications for us are clear — prices
would be driven sky-high, unemployment will surge adding to further distress and
social tension, and even more people will be pushed into poverty. America is strong,
wealthy and globally deployed but Pakistanis dislike imperial stretch in any form.
We cannot agree with a muscular American role off our coast. When Prime Minister
Gilani sits down for lunch with President Bush on July 28 he should convey to him
our strong misgivings about the escalation of tension in the region, our even
stronger desire for permanent peace in the region, and express in clear words our
full support for the people of Iran and for the democratic process in that country. ¦
The writer is a former principal of Gordon College, Rawalpindi.

Author Location Dated

Leonard Doyle 17.07.08

– Iraq: Obama’s warning

In his most ambitious foreign policy speech to date, Barack Obama robustly
defended his stance on Iraq on Tuesday, accusing the Bush administration of
pursuing a “single-minded” foreign policy that has cost thousands of lives, tarnished
America’s image and emptied the nation’s coffers. Ahead of a trip to Europe and the
Middle East next week, Mr Obama is emphasising that he intends to use soft power
— diplomacy and economic aid — rather than brute force to achieve America’s aims
in the post-Bush era. If he becomes president, he says he will restore alliances that
have been fractured by seven years of unilateralism from the Bush-Cheney
administration. Mr Obama has repeatedly stated he will start withdrawing US
combat forces from Iraq from his first day in the White House if he wins in
November, transferring as many as 10,000 combat troops to Afghanistan to engage
Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters operating from Pakistan. Mr Obama says that, as
president, he would completely revamp America’s approach to the world by dealing
with the challenges of Al Qaeda terrorism, nuclear proliferation, energy security as
well as climate change. “For
“For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy
that lectures without listening,”
listening,” he told his audience in a 38-minute address at the
Ronald Reagan International Trade Centre in Washington. “By “By any measure, our
singleminded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping
America safe.” “What’s missing in our debate about Iraq, what has been missing
since before the war began, is a discussion of the strategic consequences of Iraq
and its dominance of our foreign policy.”
policy.”

Mr Obama is making his first foreign trip as Democratic candidate at the weekend.
He travels first to Iraq and Afghanistan with the anti-war Democrat and Republican
senators Jack Reed of Rhode Island, and Chuck Hagel, of Nebraska. He then travels
to Jordan, Israel and the Palestinian territories. The highlight of the European leg of
his trip will be in Berlin, before he travels to France and the UK. Before he had
spoken a word on Tuesday, Mr Obama’s presidential rival, the Republican senator
John McCain, accused him of defeatism over Iraq and jumping to conclusions before
he had even put his feet on the ground. “Senator
“Senator Obama is departing soon on a trip
abroad that will include a fact-finding mission to Iraq and Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” Mr McCain
said. “In
“In my experience ... first you assess the facts on the ground, then you
present a new strategy.”
strategy.” Mr Obama said there was overwhelming evidence that
Washington’s focus on Iraq, where it has five times more troops than in
Afghanistan, has caused it to become distracted from “the “the central front in the war
on terror”.
terror”. “It
“It is unacceptable that, almost seven years after nearly 3,000
Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us are still at large,”
large,”
he said. “Osama
“Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri are recording messages to their
followers and plotting more terror.”
terror.”
Author Location Dated
I.A. Rehman 17.07.08

– Route to safety
There is no doubt that despondency is on the rise. All one hears is a lament on the
luckless Pakistanis. The popular refrain is: the people created a wonderful chance
for the restoration of democracy and removal of citizens’ grievances but those at
the helm of affairs are blowing this chance away. Some even say the opportunity is
lost already. This bodes ill for Pakistan. The most ominous aspect of the state of
despondency is that the chorus of discontent is not being orchestrated by the
government’s political rivals alone; equally unhappy are neutral observers and even
those who wish the coalition partners success. A competition is going on to
determine who can project the most terrifying scenario of doom. It may not be easy
in this situation to entertain optimism and yet the risks in being swept away by
frustration and not doing anything to arrest the downward slide are too great to be
ignored. The democratic experiment can perhaps be saved if those invested with
the people’s trust in February address their task with due sin cerity and diligence.

The first priority must be the preservation of the ruling coalition, whose formation
was as important an event as the election itself. A break-up will be disastrous. The
PPP may be able to stay in power but what ever arrangements it might make will
entail negation of the election mandate and an end to the transition to democracy.
It will also jeopardise its prospects in the next election which may come sooner than
expected. Also, the PML-N’s victory dreams may not materialise. Worse than
anything else, the state could be pushed back into the dark alley of despotism,
making the threat to national integrity insurmountable. Secondly, it needs to be
realised that a government’s strength does not lie in its parliamentary majority nor
in the shining livery of ministers and other factotums; it lies in retaining the goodwill
of the masses. No regime has ever survived a poor and friendless people’s wrath
stemming from denial of bread and the small needs of modest existence. The
French Revolution and the Soviet Union’s fall apart, hunger, joblessness and
insecurity played a significant part in the rout of the Unionists in Punjab (1945-46),
(1945-46),
in the fall of the first PPP government (1976-77),
(1976-77), and even in the fall of Gen Zia
(1984-88).
(1984-88). The people today are suffering beyond their endurance. They cannot be
satisfied by an administration reading charge sheets against the past government
or taking cover behind global phenomena. Something must be done to defuse the
time bomb of public disaffection. Thirdly, the government must define its immediate
tasks and fix priorities. In the present situation these cannot but include the
judiciary’s restoration, control of militancy and relief to all segments of society.
Making promises to do this or that is useless. Such gestures must be based on
proper studies and revival strategies. This should have been done immediately after
the February polls and the government saved from wasting many of its first 100
days on inquiries. A clear statement of objectives, organisation and means will help
even now.

Fourthly, responsible governance demands an efficient state apparatus, and finding

the right person for the right job. No government can survive a public perception
that instead of finding the right people for key jobs it is interested only in allotting
gainful slots to its hangers-on or persons who might have done its leaders favours.
Nobody has a right to pay for personal favours out of state resources. Some of the
favourite appointees may be experienced wheeler-dealers but their baggage will
always prevent them from gaining public confidence — a vital condition for any
administration’s success. It is necessary to drop some outstanding undesirables.
That may quench some fires of discontent. Fifthly, one of the tests people
everywhere apply to judge their rulers relates to the style of governance. Rulers in a
republic cannot afford to display the pomp and splendour of a monarch’s court. The
poorer a people the greater is their hatred for their rulers’ show of opulence. They
feel at home with rulers they can identify with — and this depends on how the rulers
live, how they travel, and what language and idiom they use for discourse. Even in
corrupt societies corruption in high places, and mere stories of such corruption,
undermine the people’s loyalty to the state. Such stories — not confined to a single
party — have already started fuelling gossip, and it seems quite a few people are
not interested in staying in politics for long. Corruption can bring down regimes
sooner than any other folly. A regime claiming to be democratic is more vulnerable
to corruption charges than a dictatorship because it does not have the means to
hide facts the way the latter can. Sixthly, colonial/authoritarian regimes thrive on
dividing their subjects along religious, sectarian, class and ethnic lines. A
government that claims to be democratic cannot afford to indulge in such suicidal
games. Pakistan is a multinational, multi-faith and multilingual state. Repudiation of
this reality has cost Pakistan dear. The government will do well to review its conduct
in this regard and intervene if any religious, ethnic or linguistic group is feeling left
out of the scheme of representative rule or the state’s benevolence.

Seventhly, Pakistani governments have traditionally created problems by reading

external policies wrongly. That a country’s external policy must be an extension of
its domestic policy is an axiom that need not be dismissed as a worn-out cliché.
Pakistan does have difficulties in devising an external policy that is in harmony with
the people’s interest and aspirations but the task must not be given up as hopeless
without a struggle. Eighthly, the government will do the people a great good if it
helps them grow out of the security syndrome created by half-baked strategists.
The country cannot be defended by soldiers and arms alone. Much greater is the
need for a contented society and the inculcation of a belief among the people that
the country and its resources belong to them. The presentation of the defence
budget in parliament was good, but only a small beginning (nobody among the
expert commentators is prepared to refer to it) and there is a long way to go before
sovereignty is restored to its rightful claimants — the people. Finally, the
government must ensure collective decision-making, a regular dialogue with the
people (not merely Ayub-style broadcasts) and transparency. Few seem to believe
the present leadership can rise to the occasion, but if they are duly trusted and
properly motivated the people can steer the ship of state to safety. Muneer Niazi
may have been right but however cruel the townsfolk no one is ordained to find
escape in death.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 17.07.08

– Obama, McCain differ over military action in Pakistan

White House hopeful Barack Obama supports a bill which seeks to triple US aid to
Pakistan to $15 billion over a period of 10 years. In a nationally televised speech on
Tuesday evening, Mr Obama said he was “co-sponsoring
“co-sponsoring a bill with (senators) Joe
Biden and Richard Lugar to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people and to
sustain it for a decade.”
decade.” The bill authorises $7.5 billion of non-military over the next
5 years or $1.5 billion annually. It advocates an additional $7.5 billion over the
subsequent 5 years. Mr Obama said the bill would also ensure that the US military
assistance to Pakistan is used to take the fight to the Taliban and Al Qaeda and not
for other purposes. The conditions on military assistance incorporate longstanding
US demands for increased Pakistani cooperation against Al Qaeda and the Taliban,
and for the military to refrain from interference in the political or judicial processes
of Pakistan. In an interview to CNN on Tuesday evening, Mr Obama said he is
seeking to “further
“further our relationship with Pakistan”
Pakistan” and his decision to co-sponsor
the aid bill aims at achieving this target. But he also said he would send US troops
into the tribal areas to catch Osama bin Laden. “We“We want to capture or kill him,”
him,” he
added. Like Mr Obama, Republican candidate John McCain also wants to send more
US troops to Afghanistan — but they differed over the details and over how they
would pursue terrorists operating next door in Pakistan.

Mr Obama said the US must apply new pressure on Pakistan to act on terrorist
activity within its borders. He said that the US must make clear that it is prepared to
take out high-level terrorist targets in Pakistan if the Pakistani government does
nothing. Mr McCain said that’s the wrong approach. Mr McCain said that Senator
Obama’s talking of unilateral military action in Pakistan “has
“has made it harder for the
people whose support we need most.”most. ” The Arizona Senator assured the gathering
that he will not bluster, and will not make idle threats. Mr McCain said that Pakistan
must be a part of the American regional strategy which emphasises convincing the
country that the war on terror is as much as in its favour as it is in that of the United
States. “A
“A special focus of our regional strategy must be Pakistan. As you know the
political situation in Pakistan is very unsettled. And terrorists today enjoy sanctuary.
This must end,”
end,” Senator McCain said at a campaign speech in New Mexico. He
emphasised on strengthening local tribes in the border areas who are willing to fight
the foreign terrorists there. “That’s
“That’s the same strategy that we use successfully in
Anbar and elsewhere in Iraq. We must convince the Pakistanis that this is their war
as much as it is ours. And we must empower the new civilian government of
Pakistan to defeat radicalism with greater support for development, health, and
education,”
education,” he added.

Author Location Dated

S. G. Jilanee 18.07.08

– Keeping one’s word

Promise has been deemed sacrosanct from ancient times. Keeping one’s word is
seen as a sign of character and integrity; hence the maxim “A “A man is as good as his
word.”
word.” Except complex deals, which need to be concluded in written form to avoid
misinterpretation, countless business transactions are clinched every day simply by
word of mouth. Prices are settled and orders executed simply on telephonic
instructions. This is possible because the parties ‘trust’ each other to be true to
their word. Moreover, all the commitments people make every day do not relate to
money or goods. And even in the case of every transaction involving money or
goods, it would be physically impracticable to have them written down and
witnessed. Trust is all the more important, because the sanction of the word of
mouth rests on a person’s integrity. Both parties to a verbal transaction know that it
would not be actionable in a court of law. The entire social edifice therefore rests on
mutual trust and the understanding that people would fulfil their obligations. History
is replete with chronicles of people who even braved death to fulfil a promise.
Consequently, those who renege on their promises are treated as pariahs and social
outcasts. Islam goes a few steps farther, because it envisages a homogeneous
society that is bound in a fraternal tie. The tie would snap and society would
disintegrate if people reneged on their contracts and covenants. It therefore gives
religious sanction to promises made and undertakings given by making them
actionable in a ‘court’.

In Bani Israel (17) verse 34,

34, comes the directive; “And
“And keep the covenant”
covenant” with the
warning: “Surely
“Surely of the covenant it will be asked (on the Day of Judgment).”
Judgment).” The
importance of keeping pledges occurs as early as Sura Aal-iImran, verse 76. 76. After
referring to how some People of the Book retracted from their promises to the
Gentiles, it says, “….but
“….but he who fulfils his pledge and fears Allah, for verily Allah
loves those who are pious.”
pious.” (The word used is muttaqeen which translates variously
as those who fear Allah, pious, et al). The fifth sura, Al Maida,
Maida, opens with the
straight command to the Believers: “O “O ye who Believe fulfil your undertakings.”
undertakings.” Still
further on, fulfilling covenants is described as one of the attributes of true believers.
Sura al Momenoon (23) begins with the good tidings that “Successful
“Successful indeed are the
believers…. that are caretakers of their pledge and their covenant….”
covenant….” Further on, al
Ma’arij (70), verses 32, 33, 35 adds more good news saying that those “who “who keep
their pledges and their covenant and those who are firm in their testimony”
testimony” will be
among the “honoured
“honoured ones in the Garden (of Bliss)”
Bliss)” All, these exhortations,
inducements, admonitions and warnings relate to oral undertakings. A mention of
written contract occurs only in al Baqara (282) where an elaborate arrangement has
been prescribed for deals “involving
“involving further transactions in a fixed period of time.”
time.”
Obviously because by their very nature such contracts are complicated, they are
required to be made in writing. The writing is to be done by a scribe as dictated by
the person who incurs the liability, and duly witnessed. Because people sometimes
swear an oath to buttress a promise, Islam takes note of this factor as well and
treats the case of broken oaths more seriously. For example, whereas the culprit
who breaks a verbal pledge would be ‘asked’ (on the Day of Judgment), the one who
breaks an oath must pay a penalty in this world.

Yet, while prescribing the penalty in verse 89 of al Maidah Allah draws a fine line
between wilful and unintentional oaths that admirably redounds to His compassion
towards His erring creatures: “Allah
“Allah will not take you to task for that which is
unintentional in your oaths but He will take you to task for the oaths you swear in
earnest. For expiation feed ten indigent persons on a scale of the average of what
you feed your own folk, or the clothing of them, or the liberation of a slave. If that is
beyond your means fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths you have
sworn. And keep your oaths.”
oaths.” But truth is an essential concomitant to the fulfilment
of promises and oaths. Unless a person is regarded as truthful, no one will entertain
his pledges and promises. The character of the Prophet offers a shining example in
this regard. He had won the sobriquet of “al-Ameen” (the Trustworthy) from friends
and foes alike, at quite an early age, owing to his reputation for truthfulness. Islam,
therefore, lays great stress on pure, unalloyed, truth. It deplores lacing truth with
falsehood, because, doing so could be more harmful than a clear lie, and it would be
done by design only to mislead people with some ulterior motive. Moreover,
whereas a lie can be brought home to the liar, the offender who dilutes truth with
falsehood may not be easy to detect so mischief may occur. Hence, the Quran, in al
Baqara: 42,
42, clearly admonishes; “Confound
“Confound not truth with falsehood, nor knowingly
conceal the truth.”
truth.” But it is not enough just to speak the whole truth. The real test
of truthfulness comes when one is giving evidence. The status of witness has
therefore been elevated as “witness for Allah” who must be steadfast in the cause
of justice, and not be swayed by any personal considerations. “O “O ye who believe! Be
you staunch in justice, witness for Allah, even though it be against yourselves, or
(your) parents or (your) near relatives, whether (the case be of) a rich man or a
poor man. “ (Al Nisa: 135).
135). It would therefore, be evident that Islam takes a holistic
view of personal transactions so as to promote fellow feeling and fraternity.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 18.07.08

– Red Mosque again

It seems that the Red Mosque is not going out of the news just yet. There was more
bloodshed on July 6 as supporters of the mosque’s former clerics congregated to
commemorate the first anniversary of the military operation in which approximately
150 people died. This time round the death toll was about 20. By the look of things,
it doesn’t seem that the original Red Mosque incident will be erased from the minds
of the people any time soon. The suicide attack, which killed mostly policemen on
duty near the mosque, says something about the problems that the Pakistani state
and society are confronted with. Reports on the July 6 incident point to two
interesting developments: (a) the composure of the young suicide bomber, and (b)
the security lapse.
lapse. Unlike the suicide attacks of the past, in this case the perpetrator
of violence did not rush into the crowd but calmly had a cup of tea before walking
towards the police contingent posted on duty that day. Moreover, he had walked
around with his explosive-laden jacket on a hot summer day without anyone
stopping him or noticing that he was wearing inappropriately heavy clothing. This
background information raises certain questions about the mental health of the law
and order and security establishment in the country. Is this an indicator of some
change that people have not noticed? How is the Red Mosque incident perceived by
those tasked with the protection of the state and how do they connect it with the
future of the state? The underlying assumption is that the security lapse mentioned
earlier is not an ordinary or random occurrence but an indicator of how a portion of
the law and order and security establishment, especially the junior and middle
ranks, might have begun to view last year’s events at the Red Mosque. Is it possible
that the suicide attacker was not stopped because those on duty were not
sufficiently vigilant as they did not consider the crowd which had congregated that
day to be threatening?

People, particularly police officials, are dying every day. So then why not suspect
those with a Taliban-like agenda? The issue, however, is that the majority of people
are suspicious of the manner in which the entire Red Mosque operation was
handled. Although opinion is divided on how many people actually died during the
operation, the scepticism is dangerous. If the perception amongst the law and order
establishment is that Maulana Abdul Aziz was purposely humiliated and that there
wasn’t a huge stash of weapons inside the mosque, which the army claimed to have
recovered, then we are looking at a real problem. The lack of trust amongst the
various agencies of the state is bound to create problems of coordination,
cooperation and efficiency. Reportedly, the operation was handled mainly by the
army’s Military Intelligence (MI) while the other agencies were kept in the
background. So what happened in Islamabad around the Red Mosque after July 3
was really within the purview of the army more than anyone else. Hence the
perception is that the MI or the army might have acted on orders from outside the
country or fulfilled an external agenda. This makes the Red Mosque gang and the
Taliban-type appear innocent in comparison with segments of the establishment.
The other issue pertains to the perception of the Taliban-type in general. Lest we
forget, the bulk of manpower in the country’s civil and military bureaucracies as
well as the law and order institutions comes from the lower-middle or the lower
classes. These are the people who have always been marginalised by the ruling
elite and are yet to reap the benefits of good or even better governance. These are
the people who have become increasingly sceptical of the ruling elite’s credentials
vis-à-vis the delivery of justice and good governance.

The Taliban-type, hence, are seen as a way out of the morass. With the hopes
pegged on the present government quashed within months, there are many who
have begun to talk about the Taliban being the only hope for the country. There are
those who believe that the Taliban will wipe out the myopic ruling elite of the
country which cannot be punished and obliterated because the possibility of a full-
blown revolution does not exist in Pakistan. (The general understanding here is that
our country is not ready for an Iran-style revolution though it badly needs one.)
Unfortunately, Pakistan’s ruling elite is comparable to what we can find in Rwanda,
Ethiopia, Uganda, Mozambique and Cambodia. In the last 60 years it has not learnt
to share resources and power or understood that creating bottlenecks for too long
does not help. It has not even learnt from others about the ruthless power of the
masses mainly because the perception is that Pakistan will not have a revolution.
After the 2008 elections it was hoped that the political elite, which is a segment of
the ruling elite, might have learnt from its past mistakes and would mend its ways.
But such an expectation seems to be a mistake in itself. The infighting continues
while threats to the people multiply. It is sad indeed if segments of the population
have come to think that the Taliban might rescue the state and society. They will, in
fact, increase the external dangers to the state, especially to one armed with
nuclear weapons.

The global forces that include the US, China, Russia and others will not allow
Pakistan to retain nuclear weapons if there is a threat of a Taliban takeover or an
increase in their influence. If the recipe then is to conduct a direct attack, which
seems more likely now than ever before, the risk of greater instability will increase
manifold. It is not just a matter of American interests but that of other nations as
well, including Pakistan’s ‘all weather’ friend China which is highly nervous about
the activities of religious fundamentalist forces in its adjoining regions. Returning to
the recent Red Mosque incident, what is most obvious is the fact that the law and
order and security apparatus seems to be crumbling because those who are part of
it no longer believe in the innocence of the top-most decision-makers. Such lack of
faith generates inefficiency which will put the state under further peril. One wonders
what it will take to make the elite conscious of the rapid changes under way in the
country. Today the people seek development, governance, progress and justice.
Tomorrow might be another day. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and
political analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 18.07.08

– Rupee loses 4pc against dollar in three days

The rupee remained under pressure on Thursday for the third consecutive day and
lost about four per cent against the dollar suggesting that the recent steps by the
State Bank of Pakistan have failed to check its devaluation. Currency dealers traded
dollar at Rs72.06 while the offered rate was Rs72.15 on Thursday, showing a rising
trend of the greenback. Dealers said the trading was being made strictly under the
tight guidelines of the central bank and almost all deals were made in the system,
but dollar was still rising. On July 8, the State Bank took some strict actions to
strengthen the exchange rate, and to save the rupee from further devaluation and
reduce the dollar demand by curbing the speculative activities. The measures
included reduction of time for currency trading, suspension of forward booking
system and cut in advance payment against import to 25 per cent from 50 per cent.
It was also decided that the State Bank will provide foreign exchange to the
authorized dealer for the import of all categories of furnace oil. The SBP had been
providing oil import bills up to 70 per cent while the private sector was responsible
for import of about 30 per cent oil. However, SBP once again took all responsibility
to pay oil bills, the biggest bill in the list of imported items for the country. The SBP
took these actions when rupee touched 73.90 against the greenback and lost 7.2
per cent against the US currency in just seven days. However, SBP’s measures
suddenly paid off and the falling rupee bounced back the next day to gain 3.2 per
cent against the US dollar in a single session.

The dollar started falling and fell even below Rs70 but impact of State Bank’s
measures could hardly last for a few days. “Inflow
“Inflow and outflow of dollars show a
complete imbalanced picture of our external accounts,”
accounts,” said a currency dealer. He
said neither the government is able to use its influence to receive the ‘promised
‘promised
$.3.5 billion dollars’
dollars’ from friendly countries, nor did it hit any agreement with
international donors to borrow dollars. The SBP took another measure on July 11 by
warning exporters to surrender their export proceeds which were not surrendered
even after expiry of the date. The SBP advised banks to launch a campaign to bring
the stuck up export proceeds into the country. “Now“Now the State Bank has used all
options to tighten its grip over the exchange rate but still the de-valuation of rupee
is not under control,”
control,” said Abid Saleem, an analyst. Analysts said there was no way
to stop rupee from falling as it reflects the weakness of the economy. Earlier, the
currency experts had been talking about fall of rupee up to Rs76 which is the price
of per litre petrol. They were of the view that rupee has been pegged with the dollar
equal to per litre petrol. The SBP’s series of measures negated the idea in first three
days since July 9 but once again the rupee started marching towards Rs76. “Banks“Banks
made forward booking deal at Rs4.10 for six months,”
months,” said a currency dealer which
reflected the weakness of rupee and approach of the market players.

Author Location Dated

Syed Faisal Shakeel Lahore, Pakistan 18.07.08
 – If restoration delayed... Coalition will become history: lawyers
Lawyers’ representatives warned the ruling coalition on Thursday their government
would become history if they continued dillydallying the restoration of the judges
sacked under the Nov 3, 2007, Provisional Constitution Order (PCO).
(PCO). “Stop
“Stop delaying
the restoration of the (deposed) judges in the name of expediency and respect the
mandate,”
mandate,” said Lahore Bar Association (LBA) President Manzoor Qadir while
addressing protesters outside the Punjab Assembly building. Governments acting
against the will of people perished soon, he warned. Lahore High Court Bar
Association (LHCBA) President Anwar Kamal said he agreed with Mr Qadir, adding
the lawyers’ movement would not die down until the restoration of judges. Besides
lawyers, activists of the Women’s Action Forum, Concerned Citizens of Pakistan,
Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf (PTI), Tehrik-i-Khaksar, Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N),
Jamaat-i-Islami (JI) and Pakhtoon Khwa Milli Awami Party were also present. They
chanted slogans against PCO judges while walking past the judges’ gate of the high
court. PTI workers criticised Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Co-Chairperson Asif Ali
Zardari for “delaying
“delaying the restoration of judges”.
judges”. PML-N workers, however, chanted
slogans against President Pervez Musharraf. JI workers kept shouting “…fight
“…fight to
continue till the restoration of judges”.
judges”. While protesters walked to Charing Cross
holding placards and pictures of deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry, a couple of PML-N leaders arrived there on their jeeps.

Civil society activist Syeda Diep said students had stayed away from the rally
because they were disappointed with the outcome of the long march. LHCBA
President Anwar Kamal told Dawn the strength of lawyers in the rally had gone
down because of the vacation in courts and PPP lawyers also did not join the rally.
Lawyers, however, violated their decisions of boycotting court proceedings as a
number of lawyers appeared before LHC judges. In the LHCBA general house
meeting, PML-N Lawyers’ Forum President Khwaja Mahmood called for unity among
lawyers. “Our
“Our foremost objective is to have an independent judiciary, and we
cannot rely on parliament to make this happen,”
happen,” he added. Rana Farman Sabir,
Supreme Court Bar Association executive committee member, emphasised the
need for civil participation in the lawyers’ movement. Pakistan Bar Council Member
Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari said political parties lacked the will to restore the
judges. He proposed inviting PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif to the bar to remove what
he called the mist surrounding his stance over the restoration of judges. Scottish
think-tank member Dr Kaiser Rasheed emphasised upon the supremacy of the
constitution and deplored the closure of Human Rights Cell set up by the deposed
chief justice. LHCBA secretary Rana Asadullah asked the bar members to register
their names for attending the convention in Bahawalpur, which would be presided
over by justice Chaudhry.

Author Location Dated

APP Lahore, Pakistan 18.07.08

– No external threat: PM War on terror in our own interest

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Thursday that Pakistan was a sovereign
country and not fighting a proxy war. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is not fighting the war of any other
country as the war on terror is in our own interest,”
interest,” he said while talking to
newsmen after the graduation ceremony of the 88th National Management Course
and the third Senior Management Course here at Administrative Staff College. He
said he had met the NWFP governor and other stakeholders of tribal areas,
including representatives of the districts hit by militancy, and added: “They
“They are as
loyal to the country as I am.”
am .” He said the government believed in dialogue and
action was a last option to maintain law and order in the tribal areas. The prime
minister said Pakistan was a nuclear state and there was no external threat to the
country. Gilani said people of FATA wanted development in health, education and
economic sectors. “To“To bring them into main stream of national development, talks
will be held with them besides initiating development schemes in these areas,”
areas,” he
added. About his coming visit to America, he said Pakistan had bilateral relations
with the US which was cooperating with Pakistan in science, health, information
technology and education sectors. “My “My visit will help strengthen bilateral relations
with the US,”
US,” he added. He said Islam is a religion of peace, but a handful of
elements were destroying its image by carrying out terrorist activities. The prime
minister said the PPP was sincere in restoring judges, and it was seeking
constitutional ways to restore them. About reports of Chaudhry Shujaat Husain and
Pervaiz Elahi’s meeting with Asif Ali Zardari, he said: “There
“There are always bridges in
politics, but I have no information about such a meeting.”
meeting.” The prime minister said
he had invited Asif Ali Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Maulana Fazlur Rehman and Asfandyar
Wali to discuss important issues.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 18.07.08

– Three compete for Nepal’s

The list of potential candidates for Nepal’s first elected head of state was narrowed
down to three on Thursday with the country’s warring political parties each putting
a name forward. The three men, all named Ram after a revered incarnation of the
Hindu god Vishnu, are vying for a largely symbolic post that is likely to take over
some of the ceremonial duties previously carried out by Nepal’s abolished king.
Manohar Prasad Bhattarai, chief election commissioner for the presidential election
-- which will take place by secret ballot on Saturday -- said no more names could be
added but candidates could withdraw their nominations. “Three“Three names for the
presidential candidacy have been filed,”
filed,” Bhattarai said. Ramraja Prasad Singh, who
was arrested in 1985 for throwing a small bomb at parliament as part of an anti-
royal protest, confirmed he was the presidential candidate backed by the majority-
ruling Maoists. “I’m
“I’m very happy that Maoists have supported my candidacy for
president,”
president,” said Singh, who is not a member of the Maoist party. “I “I am the first
person to seek the dream of a republic in Nepal.”
Nepal.” None of the parties have put
forward high-profile candidates. Analysts say the Maoists went for a lesser-known
candidate so that the position does not become a powerful one. The impoverished
Himalayan nation has effectively been without a proper government since May 28.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Damascus, Syria 18.07.08

– US presence at N-talks will help, says Iran

Iran’s foreign minister said on Thursday US participation in nuclear talks was
positive, but France said big powers still wanted Tehran to make specific proposals
to resolve a dispute over Tehran’s nuclear programme. The United States said on
Wednesday it was sending an envoy to Geneva to join nuclear talks with Iran for the
first time, to show to the Islamic Republic and others that Washington wanted a
diplomatic solution to the impasse. “The
“The American participation is positive,”
positive,” Iranian
Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference in Damascus. “We “We
look forward to constructive engagement,”
engagement,” he said, referring to a new round of talks
in Geneva on Saturday. Senior US diplomat Williams Burns will join EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana and officials from Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China for
the talks. The powers are seeking a more detailed Iranian response to their
enhanced offer of financial and diplomatic incentives to halt its nuclear activity.
French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said the US presence would be “an “an
additional asset”
asset” and that Iran’s readiness for more talks was encouraging. “We
“We are
waiting for an opening,”
opening,” he told reporters in English outside a European security
meeting in Vienna.

“I talked to (Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr) Mottaki and he was open, but
open to what? That is always the case. We talk and talk with the Iranians, but it’s
always disillusion.”
disillusion.” He said Tehran was still not addressing “the
“the core of the subject”
subject”
— an enrichment suspension, or an interim freeze on steps to expand the
proliferation-prone activity, to get preliminary negotiations going. “Iran’s
“Iran’s (written)
response to our offer said, ‘OK to dialogue’, but nothing about enrichment, as if
they had not read our letter,”
letter,” Kouchner said. Asked if she expected a positive
response from Iran, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said: “I “I don’t know.
“The point we are making is that the United States is firmly behind this diplomacy
and firmly behind and unified with our allies. Hopefully the Iranians will take that
message,”
message,” she told reporters. Washington has had no relations with Iran since 1980
and would have the most to offer it in terms of relief from international political and
economic sanctions, making US engagement crucial to resolving the standoff,
analysts say.

Author Location Dated

Lachlan Carmichael Washington, D.C. 18.07.08

– US pragmatism leads to policy shift on Iran

The Bush administration’s move to join Iran at nuclear talks echoes its pragmatic
steps toward North Korea and shows how far it has come from the ‘axis of evil’
days, analysts have said. William Burns, the third-ranking US diplomat, is due to
meet Iran’s nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili in Geneva on Saturday on a mission to
bolster international demands for Tehran to halt uranium enrichment, US officials
say. Having long insisted that Iran suspend enrichment before meeting its nuclear
envoys, officials from President George W. Bush’s administration have effectively
dropped their pre-conditions, according to analysts. “This
“This is a dramatic reversal for
the Bush administration. It’s similar to the switch they made in 2006 with the North
Koreans,”
Koreans,” non-proliferation expert Joseph Cirincione said. In October 2006, the
United States announced a return to sixcountry negotiations with North Korea after
taking a hard line that failed to prevent North Korea from staging its first nuclear
test. In both cases “the
“the administration had refused to have direct talks with their
adversary”,
adversary”, according to Cirincione, the president of the peace-promoting
Ploughshares Fund. “But
“But once they did with North Korea, it led to the breakthrough
that is now reversing perhaps permanently North Korea’s nuclear programme.”
programme.”
Following a landmark deal last year, North Korea last month moved to dismantle its
weapons-grade plutonium programme when it gave a partial accounting of its
atomic programs and promised to finish disabling its reactor. Although the
administration admits North Korea still has a long way to go toward total
denuclearisation, it no longer bows to US conservatives who demand Pyongyang’s
isolation. “From
“From the beginning of the administration there has been a struggle
between the pragmatists who have been willing to negotiate with both North Korea
and Iran and hardliners who are trying to overthrow those regimes,”
regimes,” Cirincione said.
“The pragmatists have finally won on North Korea in the last couple of years, and
now their position seems to be prevailing on Iran,”
Iran,” he added.

US officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice consulted with Bush before
deciding to send Burns to Geneva. Yet, in January 2002, Bush accused Iran, along
with Iraq and North Korea, of forming an ‘axis of evil’. Suzanne Maloney, a former
State Department policy expert on Iran, said the new US diplomatic move was
significant but in line with a long, tortured series of steps to engage Iran in nuclear
negotiations. “I
“I don’t know we’re at that conclusive a shift at this stage,”
stage,” the
Brookings Institution expert said when asked if Washington was about to engage
Tehran the way it has dealt with Pyongyang. For one thing, Washington’s decision to
send Burns to Geneva and yet prevent him from negotiating with Iran “appears “appears to
me to be sort of a ludicrous hedge on the part of the administration”
administration” that may block
results, Maloney said. “That
“That said, having direct exposure to an Iranian diplomat is a
huge improvement,”
improvement,” she added. Washington-based analyst Trita Parsi said the
administration has realised its strategy of “insisting
“insisting on preconditions has been
utterly counterproductive and has only made a bad situation worse”. worse”. At the same
time hardline political appointees “are
“are one by one leaving the administration,
creating space for career diplomats to start running the show”,show”, he said. “That’s
“That’s part
of the reason why we have seen a shift in America’s policy toward North Korea and
we’re starting to see a shift in its position toward Iran as well,”
well,” said Parsi, the
president of the National Iranian American Council.
Council . While hailing the US move, Parsi
doubted Iran would agree to negotiate a full suspension of its uranium enrichment if
the US continues to aim at eliminating rather than limiting Iran’s enrichment
programme. State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters that the
Iran-North Korea comparison was only a loose one. “If “If you’re trying to confront a
tough issue, it helps to highlight ... the various consequences, both negative and
positive for certain decisions by the par

Author Location Dated

Shadaba Islam Brussels, United Kingdom 19.07.08

– Europe waits for Obama

This column should really be about the decision by Yves Leterme, Belgium’s prime
minister, to tender his resignation, thereby plunging his country into another
political crisis. After all, this correspondent is based in Brussels and the future of
Belgium — its very survival — is, once again, at stake. Or is it? Frankly, we’ve been
there, done that. Another column about the infighting between Belgium’s French-
and Dutch-speaking communities would be boring and repetitive. Belgian political
crises have a tendency to go on and on. And this latest government resignation had
been expected for several months. As a close Belgian friend warned me earlier this
year, “It’s
“It’s going to be hot, hot, hot this summer.”
summer.” Politically speaking, it’s proving to
be a cold and rainy summer. July seems like autumn as fog and drizzle envelope
most of Europe in their cold embrace. Most inhabitants of Brussels and other
northern European capitals are rushing off to warmer and summer climes. No, it’s
not troubled little Belgium that is making the news. Instead, headlines across the
European Union focus on the imminent arrival in Europe of Barack Obama, the
charismatic Democratic senator from Illinois who could be the next US president
and who for the last few exciting months has set European pulses racing.

Starved of star-quality leaders at home, a majority of ordinary Europeans are

caught up in what newspapers describe as unbridled ‘Obamamania’. There’s no
doubt, say specialists, that if Europeans could vote Obama’s election as the next US
president would be a shoein. Polls reveal that if they could vote in the US, between
53 per cent and 72 per cent of the British, French and German public would pull the
lever for Obama. “If
“If Britons elected American presidents, Barack Obama would
have no worries,”
worries said a recent editorial in Britain’s Guardian newspaper. And small
,”
wonder why. Europe’s current crop of leaders is a sorry bunch. French President
Nicolas Sarkozy is widely derided as a showman whose only claim to fame at the
moment is his glamorous singer/model wife. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s
public approval ratings remain low — despite his recent attempt to portray himself
as a brooding Heathcliff. Italy’s Silvio Berlusconi continues to prompt exasperation
across Europe. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is respected but not seen as
inspiring as is Spain’s Jose Luis Zapatero. Obama, in contrast, inspires and shines —
and will get an enthusiastic reception in London, Berlin and Paris, the three capitals
selected for his European tour. Hungry for glamour and glitz, Europeans admire
Obama’s stand on combating global warming and his early opposition to the Iraq
war. Many are also tired of the Bush administration’s hardline policies and cannot
wait for the young senator to take charge.

Obama will begin his visit to Europe in Berlin, a city rebuilt with American money
after World War II, with its very unity a living symbol of shared US and European
endeavour in the Cold War. His visit will draw comparisons to the fabled visit to
Berlin in 1963 of President John F. Kennedy, to whom Obama is often compared by
supporters who see him also as a leader at the intersection of hope and history. The
Berlin visit has already become controversial, however, after Obama’s team
apparently looked into the possibility of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate, the
backdrop for another famous presidential visit, Ronald Reagan’s in 1987. German
Chancellor Angela Merkel reportedly baulked at the idea of a US campaign rally
being staged at such a potent national symbol, considering it inappropriate. Obama
is expected also to make a short trip to Paris on July 25, for talks with Nicolas
Sarkozy, and will wrap up his swing by meeting Britain’s Gordon Brown. The trip is
being hailed in Europe as proof that the young senator is committed to upgrading
the battered transatlantic relationship. However, while they are clearly hoping that
some of Obama’s charisma will rub off on them, Brown, Merkel and perhaps even
the less cautious Sarkozy will be careful not to seem to be promoting Obama’s
candidacy. After all, the elections are still almost four months away, and although
the polls show Obama ahead Europe’s top leaders do not want to be seen to be
putting their eggs in one basket.

Obama too will be eager to prove that he will not be ‘soft’ on Europe. The would-be
US president will demand that Europeans boost forces in Afghanistan to defeat the
Taliban, thereby matching his own plan to send two more brigades (10,000 troops)
to Afghanistan. He will also insist that Europeans send their soldiers to
Afghanistan’s volatile east and south, a message that Germans in particular are
unlikely to view with favour. The senator’s tough talking on free trade has also
worried many in Europe who fear that the US may be turning protectionist and is
losing interest in concluding the floundering Doha round of trade talks. On other
issues the visit should prove more pleasant, however. Obama is more fully
committed than President Bush to curtailing America’s greenhouse gas emissions, a
subject close to Europeans’ hearts. Obama also has to be wary of not being seen as
too pro-European. “To
“To be seen as Europe’s pet is the last thing a presidential
candidate needs — especially one who wants to shed his elitist image with white
workingclass American voters,”
voters,” the Guardian warned. While enthusiastic about
Obama and the prospect of a more harmonious relationship with the US, EU
policymakers note with regret that the senator’s European tour does not include a
visit to Brussels and a tête-à-tête with key EU leaders, including European
Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana.
By excluding Brussels from his itinerary, many fear that Obama may be signalling
that he prefers to deal with national European capitals rather than the EU itself — a
move that is out of step with the EU’s increasing power and clout in both European
and international affairs. Or perhaps the Democratic presidential hopeful was
merely advised by wary aides to steer clear of any controversial involvement in
Belgium’s tedious French and Flemish dispute. ¦ The writer is Dawn’s
correspondent in Brussels.

Author Location Dated

Julian Borger 19.07.08

– Iran: a crucial meeting

What will happen at Saturday’s (July 19) meeting? The EU foreign policy chief, Javier
Solana, will head a delegation of diplomats from six countries to meet Iran's chief
nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, in Geneva. Jalili is supposed to present Iran’s final
response to an offer of international economic and technical help in building a
civilian nuclear industry, in return for suspending Iranian enrichment of uranium.
The talks have been going on for years. What is different about Saturday? Iran has
been under pressure to give up uranium enrichment since its secret programme
was exposed in 2002. Three UN sanctions resolutions have been imposed to no
avail. But Saturday will nevertheless mark an important moment. The US is
breaking a three-decade policy of isolation by sending a senior official, William
Burns, to the talks to sit shoulder-to-shoulder with his counterparts from Britain,
France, Germany, Russia and China, as the US embarks on a final push to force a
deal. What is expected to come out of it? Tehran has so far not given a straight
answer to the bargain it is being offered, presumably because a debate is raging
within the Iranian government. Saturday is supposed to be the absolute deadline for
a yes or no. One possibility is that Iran will try to buy time by agreeing to one part of
the of fer — a “freeze for freeze” formula in which it stops expanding its enrichment
programme while the security council stops deepening its sanctions.

That would provide a six-week breathing space during which preliminary talks could
take place, establishing mutual confidence. A full suspension of uranium enrichment
would require a further leap by Tehran, one it has so far shown no readiness to
make. What are the stakes? They are extremely high for the region. Israel and Iran
have been making increasingly warlike noises and gestures. Israeli officials insist
they will not stand by while Iran perfects the capacity to enrich uranium, and thus
the potential for making a bomb. Some say the point of no return will come in the
next year or 18 months. A definitive no from the Iranians would also strengthen
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president, and the hawks in the Bush administration, and
perhaps resurrect the idea of US military intervention. At the least there would be a
push for new UN sanctions in the autumn. A positive result would open the way for
intensive negotiations, strengthening moderates in the US and Iran. It would almost
certainly pave the way for the opening of a US interests section in Tehran, with US
diplomats returning to the Iranian capital for the first time in nearly 30 years.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfan.husain@gmail.com 19.07.08

– A world without joy

Imagine a world without joy: a world in which music, dancing and art are prohibited;
where women have been declared nonpersons and banished from public view; and
where games and sports of all kinds have been banned. In this dreary,
monochromatic world, poetry, prose and drama have no place, and dissent is
punishable by death. This is a world with endless lists about what citizens are not
allowed to do, and most human activity is focused on imposing yet more
restrictions. In short, a world devoid of everything that makes life worth living.
Actually, it is not very difficult to imagine such a barren place as this is the bleak
vision the Taliban imposed on Afghanistan when they were in power. And now, their
Pakistani counterparts are trying to transform Pakistan into this hell on earth in the
name of Islam. The surprise is not that these medieval holy warriors should be
trying to take us back to the stone age: what amazes me is that so many normally
sensible Pakistanis do not see who their true enemy is. Instead of perceiving the
obvious threat, educated people are jumping up and down, fulminating about the
infringement of our sovereignty by western forces.

Over the centuries, the rough terrain that today constitutes the Durand Line has
been crossed by an unending succession of conquerors, smugglers, traders,
mercenaries and shepherds of diverse nationalities. When the British imposed this
border on Kabul to separate their Indian colony from an unruly neighbour in 1893,
they never imagined they were creating yet another fault line that would trouble the
peace of the world a century later. Today, Pakistan’s side of this inhospitable region
plays host to Arab and Central Asian fighters from several countries. The Afghan
Taliban, heroin smugglers and gunrunners come and go at will. For years, nobody in
authority in Pakistan took any notice of these repeated breaches of our sovereignty;
no TV talk shows focused on this growing menace; and no angry editorials were
written about it. Suddenly, all hell breaks loose because the Americans are saying
they might exercise their right of hot pursuit and attack the Taliban in their
sanctuaries on our side of the border. The truth is that we have never really
asserted our sovereignty in this region, largely as a result of a fuzzy constitutional
arrangement whereby the tribal areas continued to enjoy the same degree of
autonomy they had under the British. But having given up control over the area by
default, we are now making a big fuss about western forces threatening to do what
our government has been unable to do. The fact that their troops are suffering
significant casualties as a result of our inability to crack down on the Taliban and
their local allies in Pakistan seems to be unimportant to our authorities, as well as
much of our public and our media.

This double standard is visible when it comes to casualties in Pakistan: when vicious
thugs slaughter hundreds of people through suicide bombings in the name of Islam,
there are no public protests, and few denunciations in our media. But when western
forces accidentally kill civilians and soldiers in Pakistan, there are angry calls for
jihad and threats of retribution. For poor, illiterate tribesmen to behave in this
fashion is understandable, but for educated Pakistanis in major cities to have such
unthinking knee-jerk reactions just shows the depth of anti-western sentiment that
has come to dominate our mindset. And yet, if those foaming at the mouth over the
recent American words and actions over the Taliban threat would pause to draw a
deep breath, they would realise that both the West and Pakistan face a common
enemy. Even deeply conservative Pakistanis were shocked at the excesses the
Taliban committed in the name of Islam when they were in power. In their heart of
hearts, few Pakistanis would welcome Taliban rule here. But because Americans are
fighting them, many normally sensible people think the Taliban must be right. In
this distorted view, the maxim ‘My enemy’s enemy is my friend’ takes on a new
dimension. However, no matter how much we might oppose and resent American
actions in other parts of the world, the fact is that in Afghanistan their cause is just.
Their country was attacked by Al Qaeda operating from Afghanistan, and when they
demanded that Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants be handed over after 9/11,
Mullah Omar and his Taliban government refused. Under similar circumstances, I
doubt any other country would have shown restraint and forbearance, especially if
they commanded the kind of power the United States does. But in this case,
American interests coincide with ours: both face a major threat from terrorist
groups operating along the Pak-Afghan border. Therefore, logic and selfinterest
dictates that we should make common cause with western forces.

What would happen if Nato and American forces were to withdraw from Afghanistan
tomorrow? The Taliban would be back in Kabul, and very soon they and their
Pakistani friends would be knocking on our gates in Islamabad. Already, Peshawar is
under threat. How long before the darkness falls over the rest of the country? A
recent article in The New York Times shows how the authority of the Pakistani state
has ebbed in recent years. Near Ziarat in Balochistan, a marble mine had been
inactive for years due to a tribal feud. Despite the government’s best efforts, no
stone was being quarried. However, the Taliban stepped in, enforced a truce, and
got the operation going again. They received $45,000 for their trouble, and now get
a fee for each loaded truck leaving the mine. The article went on to say how many
of the state’s functions the Taliban had taken over, including running courts as well
as a tax system. And yet I hear nobody complaining about a loss of sovereignty to
the Taliban. Let me be absolutely clear: the Taliban’s vision of how we should lead
our lives is diametrically opposite mine. And since they do not believe in civilised
discourse, they must be opposed by force. Just as I would not like to impose my
views and beliefs on anybody, I will not have the Taliban (or anybody else) impose
theirs on me. To think that we can make deals with them, as many in Pakistan do, is
to live in a fool’s paradise.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 19.07.08
 – Economic meltdown looks increasingly real
The picture couldn’t be more dismal and disturbing, even to a casual observer of
the national scene in Pakistan. The writ of the government, especially in the prickly
tribal belt of the NWFP, is more conspicuous by its absence at this critical juncture
than it ever was. The militants are becoming a law-unto-themselves blowing up
forts of the Frontier Constabulary (FC), gunning down the FC jawans by the dozen,
taking scores of them prisoners, collecting huge cache of weapons as the booty for
their intransigence and, to rub salt into the wounds of the state apparatchiks,
setting up their own courts to enforce their archaic and nihilistic brand of Sharia.
Flexing their own muscles, vis-à-vis a paralytic state of Pakistan, the Taliban of
Swat, digging their heels where Alexander the Great couldn’t, have brazenly
announced the suspension of their dialogue with the government because, in their
version of events, it has failed to honour the agreement of last May 21 with the
provincial government. The economy of the country is stagnating, to put it very
mildly, with a free-falling rupee-dollar parity, resource-starved industries padlocking
themselves behind walls of fright erected by total loss of faith in the ability of the
government to turn the economy around, a rapidly shrinking foreign currency
reserve, and a whopping $20 billion balance of trade deficit.

The chickens are coming home to roost in foreign affairs, too. India has put an all-
too-obtrusive damper on the process of normalisation with its traditional adversary
and is, now, pointing the finger at its notorious intelligence apparatus for being the
trigger for the suicide blast outside the Indian Embassy in Kabul last week. The
national security adviser of India, raising the ante, is calling for the liquidation of ISI,
in particular. In short, relations with India are, putting the best possible spin on it,
on hold, if not sliding into haemorrhage. Even an obsequious Hamid Karzai, with his
own writ in tatters and serving masters in both Washington and Delhi, is mutating
his squeak into a roar — virtually like a mouse-turned-lion — and warning Pakistan
of dire consequences. The mouse seems to have been injected with a lot of iron by
its keepers and is becoming menacing. But, perhaps, the unkindest cut of all is the
exacerbating jingoism and sabre-rattling of its chief ‘ally’ and mentor, Washington.
The neocon minions of George W. Bush are getting desperate in their quest to give
a trophy of war to their soon-to depart mentor and see bright prospects of it in
Pakistan’s tribal belt along Afghanistan. Since these warmongers know of no other
policy option than shooting-from-the-hip, they are assembling a large force on the
border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, just in case they could smell highvalue
booty on our side of the Durand Line. The latest news filtering out of the tribal
thicket is that of this force moving ever closer to the PakAfghan boundary in a
threatening posture.

The man in the street is alarmed that Uncle Sam, ever so trigger-happy on George
W. Bush’s watch, is getting into stride to launch a major military offensive against
its nemeses in Fata. The mealy-mouthed pundits and mandarins of our Foreign
Office may denounce this popular angst as unwarranted but there are, increasingly,
few takers of what these puffed up spokesmen regard as the fruit of their expertise.
Washington has long been suspected by a layman in Pakistan as being the greatest
threat to its integrity and the knee-jerk military build-up, under the Nato flag to
serve as the fig-leaf, is proving the naysayer right. With war clouds threatening to
burst open in the country’s troubled north — and the ground virtually disappearing
from under the feet of a moribund economy — one would have thought the
establishment in Islamabad would become truly electrified. But the reality is just the
opposite of it. It looks like the centre in Islamabad has got jammed into auto-pilot,
with the plane in a nosedive. The establishment, in an astonishing, ostrich-like,
move has shifted itself, bag-and-baggage to a more salubrious Dubai, where there’s
definitely far greater room for its free-wheeling-and-dealing than in a crisis-plagued
Islamabad. The rulers of Pakistan may have none of the vision of the Sultans of
Delhi but have been trying their best to emulate their habit of taking the capital to
wherever their fancy so dictated. Ayub Khan had moved the capital to Islamabad
from Karachi because its hills provided him a more secure and safe ambience to
lodge his ruling apparatus in. The new kingmaker of Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari, feels
more at home in Dubai with its worldly cosmopolitanism and where everything
seems to just go. He may not have any blueprint for reviving the fortunes of
Pakistan but may well lay a claim on reviving the kingly style of the Sultans of Delhi
by summoning Islamabad’s estab lishment to Dubai at his whim, and they go
running up to him like indentured slaves.

Escaping from a discomforting reality is not a trait exclusive to Zardari, in our

pantheon of ‘leaders,’ past and present. But the lackadaisical performance of this
set of putative leaders of Pakistan is, no doubt, setting a new standard of damn-the-
people, damn-the-country. In the process, that so-called mandate the people of
Pakistan had given the PPP, last February 18, has fallen by the wayside or, to be
closer to re ality, somewhere in the deep blue waters of the Arabian Sea separating
Pakistan from Dubai. The February 18 mandate wasn’t so much a carte blanche to
Mr Zardari to cash it in favour of putting the problems of Pakistan in a deep freeze
and just count his blessings in the cool of his air conditioned abode in Dubai, or
wherever. That vote was a plea to get rid of the old order and the old guards
standing on their watch to preserve and perpetuate it. But Zardari’s antics have
merely helped the status quo to gain longevity, for want of a better description.
Pervez Musharraf, who epitomised the old order, is still there, comfortably cooling
his heels in the Presidency while the country burns and his countrymen sweating
without the ‘luxury’ of a cooling fan because they have been denied the privilege of
electric ‘power.’ He is, in fact, in an enviable state of political comfort: he can’t be
blamed for the melt-down of the country any longer because it’s not his hands on
the wheel, though he could well be manipulating things from the comfort of his
station, but isn’t being seen do ing that. The first order of business for Zardari and
his team, having got the people’s mandate, should have been to act in concert with
the likes of Nawaz Sharif to get rid of Musharraf and his ancien regime. But that
option was never given the priority because he is in a symbiotic relationship with
Musharraf. Both owe fealty to the same foreign ‘sponsor’ or master, one directly,
and the other indirectly. A natural corollary to Musharraf’s lease given an indefinite
prolongation is that the other popular demand, i.e. the restoration of the judiciary
has not been honoured at all. The demise of the old order and restoration of pre-
November 3 judiciary were two faces of the same coin. So inaction on one has
automatically stymied progress in regard to the other.

The restoration of judges dethroned by Musharraf is no longer making the

headlines, even in the supposedly-independent news media because the PPP
hierarchy has been quietly turning the screws on it. Mr Zardari’s frequent and
mysterious sojourns in Dubai have a lot to do with the gagging of the non-
governmental news machinery in a style closely resembling the Mafioso arm-
twisting. The torpor of the democratic government, in these circumstances, in
Islamabad is well understood. Gilani cuts a pathetic figure as a rubber stamp prime
minister totally subservient to his party co-chairman who is inclined to give him no
latitude or leeway. Never before in the history of Pakistan, not even under
Musharraf, has a PM been so handicapped as Gilani. The man is there simply to
keep the seat warm. Who is he keeping the seat warm for, is a million dollar
question at this stage. Where do we go from here is an obvious question to ask but
tough to answer. There’s virtually no light at the end of the tunnel to keep optimism
in a quick turnaround alive. The writ of the state in the tribal areas of the NWFP and
Swat is unlikely to be enforced any time soon. Coupled with this dilemma is a real
threat of erosion of sovereignty at the hands of a belligerent US getting out of
control on its perceived threat from Al Qaeda’s regrouping and the Taliban’s
resurgence.

Obama’s foreign policy discourse from Washington on July 15 shows he is

determined to make ‘finishing
‘finishing off Al Qaeda and the Taliban,’
Taliban,’ with or without
Pakistani help (emphasis added). What could have been dismissed as his campaign
rhetoric is now a policy plank that shouldn’t be brushed aside with ease. PPP’s
mendacity on Musharraf and the judges is so jarring and obvious that no amount of
spin or sophistry could justify it as mere posturing. But this time-tested and failed
policy of trying to fool too many people at one time is not only eroding the centre
and trust in its ability to halt the country’s slide into an abyss, but is also
threatening to split the party right down the middle. The old guards of the party
may, eventually, rally around the sidelined Makhdoom Amin Faheem to challenge
Zardari’s monopoly of party leadership. An economic melt-down looks increasingly
real, especially with no obvious signs of any new availability of resources—such as
an expanded taxation base, among others — or hefty doses of foreign assistance to
shore up a really sick economy. There’s, likewise, little relief in sight on the oil
prices front, unless Saudi Arabia and some other wealthy Gulf sheikhdoms took pity
to Pakistan’s plight and favoured it with large supplies of oil on deferred payment
basis. Gloom is what pervades the Pakistani land scape from all around. No political
pundit likes to be typecast as a Jeremiah by choice. But such is the mushrooming of
problems and crises in, and for, Pakistan that any effort to seek a silver lining
somewhere on the dark clouds hovering over our horizon threatens to end like
looking for a needle in a hay stack. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Syed Iqbal Ahmed 19.07.08

– NRO and the politics of plunder

The promulgation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance, 2007 on Oct 5 last year
on the basis of an approved draft by the top leadership of the PPP was bitterly
criticised by other political parties, lawyers’ fraternity, human rights activists and
civil society on the grounds that how could a state functionary, and that too in
uniform, unilaterally withdraw cases of heinous crimes and high-profile corruption
registered against certain political figures in violation of the constitution and in
derogation of legal, civilised norms and ethics, and put the national exchanger to
losses of billions of rupees and dollars. Suffice it to say that the NRO, as it stands, is
a travesty of justice and fair play. Hence the ordinance is the very negation and a
great insult to the famous TRC (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Nelson
Mandela’s South Africa).
Africa). Since the TRC was based on truth, rule of law and equality
before law, it proved to be very effective and rewarding on the issue of
reconciliation. The formation of Truth and Accountability Commission under the
Voluntary Disclosure Ordinance, 2008, recently approved and proposed by the
military-controlled government of Bangladesh on the pattern of TRC of South Africa,
though also criticised there as surrender to the pressure of influential corrupt
politicians and other persons, is much better, decent and civilised than the NRO of
Pakistan. The truth commission may allow suspects to voluntarily confess to their
corruption, deposit their ill-gotten wealth in the public exchequer and seek mercy.
Such persons will further be debarred from participating in national or local
elections or holding any public office in associations, banks or financial institutions
for a period of five years. Hence the comments of the writers and mediapersons on
the NRO were bitter and harsh.

Dr Mubashir Hasan, a veteran politician, took an initiative and filed a petition on Oct
8, 20007, challenging the National Reconciliation Ordinance (LX of 2007),
2007), followed
by four more similar petitions. He called the ordinance one of the bleakest moments
in the history of Pakistan. He argued that “in
“in violating the guarantee of Article 25
(equality of citizens), the ordinance has, in fact, attempted to subvert the letter and
spirit of the constitution by seeking to usurp the judicial power of the state by
granting de facto ‘legislative acquittal’ to persons being probed pursuant to
proceedings initiated between Jan 1, 1986 and Oct 12, 1999.”1999.” A Supreme Court
bench, comprising Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammd Chaudhry, Mr Justice Muhammad
Nawaz Ababsi and Mr Justice Mian Shakirullah Jan while issuing notices on Oct.12,
2007 to the respondents and the attorney general of Pakistan for the hearing, to be
fixed after three weeks, however, did not suspend the ordinance but observed in its
order that “any
“any benefit drawn or intended to be drawn by any of the public office
holder shall be subject to the decision of the listed petitions and the beneficiary
would not be entitled to claim any protection of the Ordinance, under any principle
of law, if this Court concludes that the impugned Ordinance and particularly its
these (i.e. sections 6 and 7 of the ordinance), provisions are ultra vires of the
constitution”.
constitution”.

It needs no emphasis that Musharraf was so worried and desperate to save his
presidency at any cost and his masters in Washington too were so keen for their
own interests to retain him for the services being provided by him in this strategic
region. Musharraf, in his capacity as army chief, had earlier devised a dubious and
disastrous ordinance and then planned a deceptive and motivated action of
imposing a second martial law by way of promulgation of emergency on Nov 3 last
year. It killed two birds with one stone. The objective was to pre-empt any judgment
of the apex court against his alleged claim of being a valid candidate under the
constitution for his re-election to the presidentship of the country from an eleven
members bench of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the hearing of which was at the
fag end and thereafter to obtain a favourable judgment from his hand-picked PCO
judges of a newly constituted court under Mr Justice A. H. Dogar as Chief Justice.
The other objective, which was equally important for Muhsarraf, was to have full
power and keep complete control of the civilian set-up of the government, that
would emerge after the general elections under a power-sharing deal with the PPP
and that objective could be achieved by ensuring that the petitions challenging the
National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) are not fixed for hearing before the same
bench of the Supreme Court, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
and that no judgment was passed by that bench declaring the NRO as ultra vires of
the constitution. Both the objectives have, no doubt, been achieved by Pervez
Muhsarraf in spite of the facts that no such action is taken nor such a law is enacted
in any civilised country much less even in any banana republic. The nation,
however, paid a very heavy price in the assassination of a national leader of the
calibre of Ms Benazir Bhutto, the last legacy of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto.

There seems to be logic in the statement of the former chief of army staff, Mirza
Aslam Beg made while addressing a meeting of Lahore Bar Association that Benazir
Bhutto was murdered because of her anti-American policy. He said that Ms Bhutto
had initially worked out a deal with the US administration to return to Pakistan but
after judging the intensity of anti-Musharraf feelings in the country and her
popularity in the masses she could not toe the US line. No equation was, therefore,
developed between the two nor they trusted each other. Now the US is dealing with
Asif Ali Zardari to achieve its interest, remarked the former army chief. There was
no other immediate alternative as Asif Ali Zardari has stepped into the shoes of his
illustrious wife on the basis of an alleged will. One may note that at no time she
mentioned in her book or publicly announced any political role for Zardari to steer
the ship of the PPP in stormy weather and turbulent atmosphere that might occur
after her demise. Nor she suggested any such role in an answer to a specific query
put by Sajjad Mir while giving an interview before her death to TV-One, retelecast
on June 21. As said earlier, the candidacy of the general in uniform was, thus,
regularised on Nov 19, 2007 by the PCO judges of his choice, notification for his re-
election also issued by the Election Commission and he was sworn as president by
the PCO Chief Justice A.H. Dogar. All the formalities were completed in an undue
haste.

Likewise, a bench of PCO judges of the apex court on Feb 27 recalled the order of
the Supreme Court’s bench, headed by Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry
on three NRO petitions, passed on Oct 12, 2007 thereby authenticating the validity
and credibility of the NRO to the satisfaction of all the beneficiaries. It goes without
saying that some high state functionaries and stakeholders do not want an
independent judiciary in Pakistan. General (retd) Musharraf would certainly not like
Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Choudhry and his fellow deposed judges to come
back and decide his fate once again. It may be said without any exaggeration that
the hands and feet of the present civilian rulers, who have reaped the benefits of
the NRO, have been tied up by its impregnable strings by General (retd) Musharraf
and they cannot even raise their fingers, though their mouths remain open for
rhetorics only for public consumptions. An opposition leader has aptly said that
Musharraf and Zardari are two faces of the same coin and are, in fact, cast in the
same mould. The fears and apprehensions of President Musharraf, whose
presidency is in danger, the PPP rulers whose billions are at stake and the PCO
judiciary headed by Mr Justice A.H. Dogar, whose position and power is also
uncertain, are all intertwined and none of them, in their own personal interest, can
afford to have Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Choudhry and his fellow Judges in
the Supreme and High Courts restored to preNov 3 position. They are all, in one way
or the other, quite vulnerable in that Pervez Musharraf would not like to give up his
presidency, PPP leaders their billions and the MQM activists may not like to face the
courts for justice. ¦ The writer is a Karachi-based Barrister-at-Law.

Author Location Dated

Chris Baldwin Moscow, Russia 19.07.08

– Last tsar ahead of Stalin in poll on greatest Russian

Ninety years after Bolshevik revolutionaries shot dead the last tsar, Russians are
fighting over who to lionise: Tsar Nicholas II or Josef Stalin. They are vying for first
place in an online poll organised by Russian television to choose the greatest hero
in the country’s history. Soviet state founder Vladimir Lenin is third. By Friday
lunchtime, the last tsar led the survey with 419,476 votes, followed by Stalin with
381,361 and Lenin with 201,285. Some 2.8 million votes had been registered.
Russia’s penchant for strong leaders is evident in the poll. Tsars Peter I and
Catherine the Great feature in the top 10, along with crusading mediaeval prince
Alexander Nevsky. Ivan the Terrible, who murdered his own son, is in 12th place.
Stalin, blamed by historians for 20 to 40 million deaths in political purges and
agricultural famines during his 31-year rule, is popular with some Russians for
defeating Nazi Germany, industrialising the Soviet Union and building a strong
state. The poll may not be all it seems. Alexander Lyubimov, the contest’s
organiser, has openly encouraged online groups to form and campaign for particular
candidates. The contest website www.nameofrussia.ru encourages participants to
vote as many times as they like for any of the 50 candidates. “What
“What is happening
on the internet is entertainment, and that’s beyond my scientific responsibility,”
responsibility,”
said Efim Galitskiy, a sociologist at the Public Opinion Foundation (FOM), a pollster
which oversaw an earlier stage of the contest. When Lyubimov noticed Stalin
surging into the lead, apparently after the opposition Communist party encouraged
its members to vote for him, he decided to organise what he called a ‘flash mob’
online in support of the last tsar. A flash mob is a large group which assembles
quickly, performs an unusual act and then suddenly disperses again.

The contest began when state television channel ‘Rossiya’ released in May a list of
500 significant Russians and asked FOM to whittle the names down to the 50 most
influential, using private polling. Stalin and Lenin figured second and third. “Peter
“Peter
the Great was first, but that list was research, conducted in people’s homes across
Russia,”
Russia,” Galitskiy said. In June ‘Rossiya’ opened voting online at
www.nameofrussia.ru to narrow the 50 to 12 for September’s broadcast. Within
days Stalin jumped into the lead. Some cultural giants appear in the top 20, but with
much lower votes than those of Stalin, Lenin or the last tsar. Nineteenth-century
poet Alexander Pushkin’s 126,600 votes put him in sixth place and Yuri Gagarin, the
first man in space, is eighth with 112,400. Composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky trails in
22nd place with just 19,700 votes. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, the former
president, is excluded because he is still alive. So is the last leader of the Soviet
Union, Mikhail Gorbachev. Nicholas II, caricatured in Soviet times as the face of
imperial Russia and symbol of its social inequalities, has become for many Russians
a martyr and symbol of lost glory. The Bolsheviks shot Nicholas II and his family in
July 1918.

Author Location Dated

AFP Ankara, Iran 19.07.08
 – Iran says talks with US possible on outpost, air route
Iran is open to the idea of talks with the United States on establishing a diplomatic
presence in Iran and launching a direct air link, Foreign Minister Manouchehr
Mottaki said here on Friday. He also welcomed as “positive” US participation in
international talks in Geneva at the weekend on Tehran’s suspect nuclear
programme and said he expected progress in the negotiations. “In “In my opinion, talks
and a deal on an American bureau in Iran and direct flights between Iran and the
United States is possible,”
possible,” Mottaki told reporters after talks with Turkish Foreign
Minister Ali Babacan. He said Tehran knew through media reports of a US plan to
open a diplomatic mission in Iran, the first such link between the two foes in nearly
30 years. London’s Guardian newspaper reported on Thursday, without identifying
its sources, that Washington would announce in the next month plans to establish
an interests section staffed with diplomats in Iran, similar to its outpost in Cuba. “In
“In
recent years, there are many people from the United States — students, academics,
businessmen, artists — who want to visit Iran. We support such a development
between the two peoples,”
peoples,” Mottaki said. He said several US companies were already
operating in Iran but refused to identify them “because
“because of the delicacy of the issue.”
issue.”
Iran and the United States have not had diplomatic relations since 1980 after
Islamist students stormed the US mission in Tehran and held its diplomats hostage
for more than a year. Mottaki was speaking ahead of Saturday’s talks in Geneva
between Iran and six world powers on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear programme. In
a major policy change for Washington, the talks will be attended by US
Undersecretary of State William Burns.

The US participation is “a“a new positive approach,”

approach,” the Iranian minister said. “I
“I hope
this progress (in the negotiation format) will also reflect on the content of the talks,”
talks,”
he said. “If
“If the negotiations continue in this way, I hope there will be a positive
outcome.”
outcome.” Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who met US national
Security adviser Stephen Hadley on Thursday before meeting Mottaki on Friday,
also welcomed the US move. “We “We believe a positive and constructive process has
begun,”
begun,” Erdogan told reporters here, adding that Ankara might be called on in the
future to help facilitate dialogue between Iran and the West. “I “I believe we will play
a role in this issue...The parties may have expectations from us as they have had in
the past. Turkey may be asked to step in at difficult times,”
times,” Erdogan said, but
refused to elaborate Saturday’s meeting will see Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed
Jalili and EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana discuss a package of incentives
offered to Tehran by Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States
in return for freezing its uranium enrichment programme.

Author Location Dated

AP Washington, D.C. 19.07.08

– Judge sets stage for first Guantanamo war crimes trial

The United States can begin trying Osama bin Laden’s former driver next week at
Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, a federal judge ruled on Thursday, rejecting the
defendant’s plea to halt the first trial in the military system set up following the
Sept 11 attacks. In a victory for the Bush administration, US District Judge James
Robertson ruled that civilian courts should let the military process play out as
Congress intended — a decision that could clear the way for military commissions to
begin prosecuting other suspects, including those charged directly in the 2001
attacks. Had the trial been delayed, as requested by Osama bin Laden’s former
chauffeur Salim Hamdan, it would have been a sign that the entire trial process
might crumble under the weight of judicial scrutiny. Hamdan argued that he should
be given a chance to challenge the legality of the military trials, based on last
month’s Supreme Court ruling that said Guantanamo Bay prisoners could oppose
their detentions in federal civilian courts. If judges hold that to be the case, every
detainee at the US naval base in Cuba could use court challenges to delay his trial
for months or years. But Robertson refused to step in to stop the Hamdan trial,
which is scheduled for Monday. “Courts
“Courts should respect the balance that Congress
has struck,”
struck,” he said, adding that “Hamdan
“Hamdan is to face a military commission
designed by Congress acting on guidelines handed down by the Supreme Court”. Court”. At
Guantanamo Bay, military prosecutors said the ruling gave them more confidence
that the trials would go forward against 80 detainees, including alleged Sept 11
mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others charged in the attacks. Col
Lawrence Morris, the chief prosecutor, predicted the trials would soon become
routine. “It
“It will start looking like the space shuttle,”
shuttle,” Morris told reporters. “At
“At some
point you look and somebody asks, ‘Is there a space shuttle orbiting or not,’ and
you don’t know anymore because it’s no longer an extraordinary event.” event.”

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 19.07.08

– Opposition issues charge-sheet against PPP rule

Assessing the 100day performance of the Pakistan People’s Party-led Sindh and
federal governments, Leader of the Opposition in the Sindh Assembly Jam Madad Ali
said on Friday that the current set-up had miserably failed to provide any relief to
the masses. Terming the 100-day performance of the government “dismal”, he said
that instead of much-awaited relief, problems being faced by the people had
multiplied owing to the unprecedented hike in the prices of essential commodities
and the fast deteriorating law and order situation. He said the gravity of the
situation could be gauged from the fact that more and more people, particularly
those belonging to the lower strata of society, were inclined towards committing
suicide or were left with no choice but to give away their children to various welfare
centres as they could not manage for them even a single meal. Jam Madad Ali,
accompanied by Arif Ali Khan Jatoi, Nusrat Abbasi, Marvi Rashdi and other members
of the opposition benches, was addressing a press conference held at a committee
room of the Sindh Assembly. Referring to the press conference of Sindh Chief
Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah recently held at the completion of the PPP’s 100 days
rule, he said that the chief minister had nothing to boast about except for some
ongoing projects or those still in the pipeline.

The opposition leader bitterly said that the only achievement of the present
government, which was visible to all and sundry but not mentioned by the chief
minister, was the emerging groupings and growing differences within the Pakistan
People’s Party. Criticising the overall performance of the PPP, he said that so far
most of the actions taken by the PPP had dishonoured the mandate of the people
given to them by the people of Sindh in the wake of the assassination of Benazir
Bhutto. Even the PPP co-chairman, Asif Ali Zardari, had also expressed his
dissatisfaction over the dismal performance of the Sindh government, Mr Jam
recalled. The opposition leader said it was unfortunate that whenever the issues
facing the masses were raised by the opposition benches, the government tended
to save its skin by putting all the blame on its predecessors. Mr Jam said that while
people were craving for wheat flour as its price had gone beyond their reach, the
government, instead of taking remedial measures by slashing its non-productive
expenditure, was busy spending millions on holding cabinet meetings in different
provincial capitals and throwing away the tax-payers’ hard-earned money on
frequent visits to Dubai. He said that millions of rupees could have been saved by
holding meetings in the country and the funds could be better utilised in providing
subsidy to the masses on wheat flour. Mr Jam deplored that the province was facing
a severe food crisis and the food minister was sitting abroad.

The opposition leader said that flour prices had increased by 58 per cent, prices of
Basmati rice had gone up by 26 per cent, Irri rice by 46 per cent, Soybean oil by 8
per cent, rates of pulses had increased from 14 to 19 per cent, sugar by 28 per
cent, onion by 119 per cent and the rates of potato had increased by 85 per cent.
Similarly, he added, prices of milk had been increased from Rs32 per litre to Rs43 a
litre and that of ghee from Rs125 per kilo to Rs150 a kilo. In April, he said, petrol
was Rs53.78 per litre, diesel was available at Rs37.81 per litre and the rate of CNG
was Rs33.50 per kilo but within two to three months the prices of petrol, diesel and
CNG had shot to Rs75.77 per litre, Rs55.23 per litre and Rs47.25 per kilo
respectively. “Similar
“Similar is the case with the tariffs of power and gas,”
gas,” he said, adding
that if the prices continued to move upwards in the similar manner, the situation
would get even worse during Ramazan which was drawing closer.

Commenting on the law and order situation, he said that according to an estimate
during the period between April 12, 2008 and July 14, 2008 as many as 595 people
were killed, 152 committed suicide, and 61 became the victims of karokari and 125
incidents of armed robberies were reported. He also said that there had been a
complete breakdown of law and order in Lyari, which he described as a stronghold
of the PPP in Karachi. In Karachi district alone 347 cars were snatched, 1,152 were
stolen, 760 motorcycles were snatched while 2,483 were stolen, 6,006 cellphones
were snatched while 8,331 were stolen and as many as 25 persons were kidnapped
for ransom. The opposition leader also countered the government claims of doing
away with OPS (own-pay-and-scale) officials, pointing out that still 136 officials were
working on an OPS basis in Thatta, Khairpur, Sanghar, Qambar Shahdadkot,
Mirpurkhas, Shikarpur and Jacobabad. He said that the cases of Altaf Unnar,
Sadaquat Ali Jatoi, Shirazi brothers, Ghaus Bux Mehar, and Abid Jatoi were glaring
examples of political victimisation. Mr Jam told newsmen that as many as 163 FIRs
had been registered against political opponents in which 4,002 persons were
implicated. He said that the highest number of FIRs (63) had been registered in
Khairpur in which 1,030 persons were implicated, followed by Thatta (62 FIRs) and
Mithi/Umerkot (22 FIRs). During the last 100 days, he said, the Sindh Assembly,
comprising 168 members, had total sittings of 62 hours including budget sessions
which lasted 55 hours. During the period Rs66 million was spent costing Rs1.064
million per hour to the exchequer. During these proceedings, the opposition was
denied its private members day and no motions, resolutions, adjournment motions
from the opposition were admitted, he said.
He deplored that despite the fact that he was leader of the opposition he had not
been provided with a chamber. Unfortunately, Mr Jam added, he was being forced to
vacate the office which had been in his use since his tenure as the chairman of the
Public Accounts Committee in the previous government. Agriculture sector Mr Jam
accused the government of adopting a non-serious attitude towards the agriculture
sector. He said that despite announcements made by the chief minister so far
neither a support price for cotton had been announced nor a rotation system from
irrigation had been abolished. He was of the view that the actual problem was not
water shortage but mismanagement which he described as the real culprit.
Likewise, he said, agriculturalists were deprived of their due share from the good
wheat crop when a ban was imposed on wheat movement. As a result investors and
middleman took advantage of the situation, he added. He recalled that after a
series of bomb blasts in the city on July 7, the chief minister had ordered suspension
of certain police officials for negligence but they were still performing their duties as
usual. Mr Jam said that most of the sugar mills owners were PPP supporters, and,
therefore, the government could easily force them to pay the growers the rates
fixed by the government ie Rs63 per ton instead of Rs56 per ton. He also demanded
subsidies on fertilizers, quality seeds, pesticides and on tube wells for agri cultural
use.The opposition leader said as the coalition government had no agenda to
summon the assembly’s session, and the joint opposition, despite being small in
number, was considering moving a requisition to consider increasing
unemployment, crash of the stock market and economic slowdown.

Mr Jam termed the formation of the Thar Coal Authority by the federal government
a move to curtail provincial autonomy and asked the government to withdraw its
notification. He said that those officials who had benefited from the NRO were
reportedly being given important assignments in the government. At least they
should not be tasked with important assignments in the financial institutions, he
said. Regarding the Kalabagh Dam, the opposition leader said that the PPP had
made tall claims of burying the Kalabagh Dam project for good during the Sindh
assembly session, he, while welcoming the move, had asked the government to
follow the rules for its proper disposal as a mere announcement was not enough.
“Now our Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah during his recent visit to Punjab reportedly
said that the fate of Kalabagh Dam would be decided after developing a consensus
among all the four provinces,”
provinces,” he said. Arif Ali Jatoi said that the opposition was
working to move bills in the next session to enforce Sugar Act 2008, setting up
Sindh Bank, Small Claims Act and for the amendments to the Factories Act to
provide cover of EOBI to the Haris and workers.

Author Location Dated

Ihtasham Ul Haq Islamabad, Pakistan 20.07.08

– ‘Dictatorship’ creating hurdles, says Gilani •‘Good news’ on

judges issue soon •Mismanagement mars first address
Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Saturday that the PPPled coalition
government would fulfil all its promises, including the restoration of sacked judges,
controlling price hike and loadshedding. In his first address to the nation on radio
and television after becoming the prime minister, he, however, said that like always
dictatorship was causing problems for elected representatives and that the people
should extend support to the government to deal with challenges and pull the
country out of the problems. He said that the new government has inherited the
problem of terrorism, extremism and law and order due to which it was becoming
difficult to run the affairs of the country particularly to deliver in terms of protecting
the lives and the property of the people. The premier’s first speech was
mismanaged by his media team. The speech was delayed for three hours, starting
at 11pm instead of the scheduled 8pm, forcing Mr Gilani to speak live. Again he was
badly advised to read through teleprompter and, as was expected, he started
faltering. The speech was then disrupted for couple of minutes and then he started
reading from the written copy. The prime minister declared that his government
would not allow any foreign country to operate from Pakistan against terrorists and
said that Pakistani forces would do the job for which the international community
has been taken into confidence. He said Pakistan was passing through a critical
phase which demanded that, “we “we should not waste our time in levelling allegations
against each other”.
other”.

The prime minister appealed to the nation to give time to the elected government
to deliver specially in improving the deteriorating economic situation. “Oil
“Oil price
increases and food inflation are international phenomena and we can hardly do any
thing to reverse it”,
it”, he said adding that priorities were being set to improve
economic conditions so as to remove food inflation, unemployment and poverty
from the society. The prime minister speech lacked any major decision to deal with
price hike, load shedding, hoarding and profiteering. Most of the time, Mr Gilani
repeated the decisions already announced in the new budget and such it looked a
budget speech of the finance minister. The prime minister recalled some of the
achievements of his government like the release of the judges, removal of Pemra
laws and assuring the freedom of press. Like always, he said, the PPP government
took over when the country was phased with serious challenges. He expressed
hopes that PML(N), ANP, MQM and JUF of Fazlur Rehman would continue extending
their cooperation to the PPP to fully remove dictatorship and restore real democracy
in the country. “ We will soon give a good news to the nation to restore the judges”,
judges”,
the prime minister said that enough measures were being taken to give up the path
of political revenge in the country. He said he fully realised that the issues like price
and load shedding were causing immense problems to the people. He said that
price of oil in the international market has increased from $70 to $140 per barrel
due to which both the developed and developing countries were suffering. The
prime minister regretted that the increase in cars and mobile phones were termed
as the sign of development and progress in the country. “We “We have been made a
consumption economy while the agriculture sector was ignored”,
ignored”, he said adding
that various measures taken to improve agricultural production will help remove
food shortage and thus price hike. He said the financial institutions were made
crippled and no attention was given on the development of agricultural and industry
due to which the country was today facing numerous problems.

However, he assured that his government would eliminate hoarding and

profiteering to provide certain respite to the people. The prime minister appealed to
the investors not to take the capital out of the country. He said there was
unnecessary extra use of oil and edible oil due to which government’s deficit has
increased manifold. The prime minister said that the government had increased the
support price of wheat from Rs475 to Rs624 per forty KG which he said would be
further increased before the arrival of new crop. He said that farmers will be given
additional Rs30 billion loans to help increase agricultural production in the country.
The government, he said, had already announced 20 per cent increase in the
salaries of government employees and the pensioners. The prime minister said that
the menace of load-shedding will be removed by extending new power projects to
the IPPs as was done during the second government of late Ms Benazir Bhutto. From
next year, the problem of load-sheeding would be restricted to some major extent,
he said adding that $14 billion new investment will be made by the IPPs to deal with
the issue. Similarly, he said that Thar Coal Authority has been set up toestablish
coal fired power projects. In this regard he referred to a round table conference in
Washington on July 29 which will be participated by investors and energy experts.

Author Location Dated

Kabul, Afghanistan 20.07.08

– Obama in Afghanistan, meets US commander

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama met the commander of US
troops in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday to talk about the war he says is not
getting enough attention from the Bush administration. Obama made Afghanistan
the first stop on an overseas trip aimed at proving his foreign policy credentials. He
will also visit Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and Britain. “I
“I want to, obviously,
talk to the commanders and get a sense, both in Afghanistan and in Baghdad of ...
what ... their biggest concerns are,”
are,” he told reporters before boarding a military
flight from the United States. “And
“And I want to thank our troops for the heroic work
that they’ve been doing.”
doing.” Obama wants to send two more brigades, or about 7,000
US troops, to Afghanistan to shift emphasis from what he calls the Bush
administration’s “singleminded” focus on Iraq. He has called for a withdrawal of US
troops from Iraq in 16 months. The United States has about four times more troops
in Iraq than the 36,000 it has in Afghanistan. But more of its soldiers were killed in
Afghanistan in both May and June than in Iraq. It is more than six years since US-led
and Afghan forces toppled the Taliban for sheltering al Qaeda leaders behind the
Sept 11 attacks, but violence has risen sharply in recent months and there are no
signs the insurgency is weakening. Obama and fellow senators Jack Reid and Chuck
Hagel got a briefing from US General Jeffrey Schloesser, the commander of Nato-led
forces in the east and US-led coalition forces across the country at Bagram airfield,
close to Kabul.

“Following the briefing, the senators were able to meet service members from their
respective states at Bagram, and also at Jalalabad Air Field,”
Field,” the US military said in
a statement. Jalalabad is close to the eastern border with Pakistan. Nato says
attacks are up by 40 per cent in the east this year due to ceasefires between
Pakistan and Taliban militants in its tribal belt. Obama’s Republican presidential
rival, John McCain, also wants three more brigades in Afghanistan and pledged to
find the extra troops by “asking
“asking Nato to send more and by sending US troops as
they become available.”
available.” But despite the violence, many Afghanistan analysts
doubted sending more troops was the answer. “I “I don’t think decreasing or
increasing troop numbers is going to yield a long-term stability here, or peace,”
peace,” said
Matt Waldman, policy adviser to Oxfam International. More effective aid, rural
development and conflict resolution at a local level are the real priorities, he said.
Foreign spending on aid and development is dwarfed by that spent on military
operations in Afghanistan. The US military alone now spends some $100 million a
day, aid agencies say, compared with $7 million a day spent by all aid donors.
McCain criticised Obama for announcing his strategy on Afghanistan before leaving
for the fact-finding trip. “Apparently,
“Apparently, he’s confident enough that he won’t find any
facts that might change his opinion or alter his strategy,”
strategy,” McCain said in his weekly
radio spot. “This
“This is similar to the mistake Senator Obama made when he confidently
declared that the surge in Iraq could not possibly reduce sectarian violence there,”
there,”
he said. “And
“And it is precisely the success of the surge in Iraq that shows us the way
to victory over the Taliban.”
Taliban.” Asked whether he would have some tough talk for
Afghan President Hamid Karzai and Maliki, Obama said: “I’m “I’m more interested in
listening than doing a lot of talking.“And I think it is very important to recognise
that I’m going over there as a US senator. We have one president at a time, so it’s
the president’s job to deliver those messages.”

Author Location Dated

Masood Mufti 20.07.08

– The unfolding script

It sounds like a chorus in a Greek tragedy. Almost everyone — politicians, the
media, lawyers and civil society — is loudly asking the same questions. What is
happening in our homeland? Is there any government? Who is governing us? Is it
the four-party coalition created by the popular vote on Feb 18? If so, why is it
inactive and insensitive, and inaccessible to its own helpless voters who are
groaning under the extended policies of Gen Musharraf and continued exploitation
by vested interests? Why are the suspended judges not being restored? Why is the
‘representative’ parliament facilitating the gradual comeback of a military dictator
rejected by the people? And what is so sacrosanct about this ‘coalition’ that the
PML-N, ANP and JUI, the minor partners at the centre, are reluctant to leave in spite
of the intellectual dishonesty of the PPP, the major partner? One hears disjointed
answers to each individual question but seldom finds a consistent explanation for
the repeated betrayal of the people’s will by their own leaders throughout
Pakistan’s history. As an eyewitness to this betrayal in the former East Pakistan, and
in today’s Pakistan, I have frequently drawn attention to the similarities between
1971 and 2008, parallels that can be attributed to the perpetuation of the same
ruling elite with the same components and the same mindset. A two-stage outline is
given below as a combined answer to all the questions being raised in 2008, and
the many similar questions that were being asked in East Pakistan before December
1971.

We start with stage two, which began on March 9, 2007. Today Pakistan is being
governed by the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO),
(NRO), which was conceived by
Gen Musharraf, negotiated by other generals, guaranteed by foreign hands and
promulgated on October 5, 2007, a day before Gen Musharraf’s re-election, to lure
the PPP and secure its support. Designed in the spirit of the legal framework orders
(LFOs) of Yahya, Zia and Musharraf, the sole objective of the NRO, like its
forerunners, is to safeguard the socio-political structure invented, developed and
perfected by the four military dictators. The only difference is that each LFO was
openly promulgated in advance of its implementation while the NRO is the one-
tenth visible tip of the iceberg of corruption with nine-tenths — the secret deals —
hidden below the surface. Long after the ordinance’s promulgation, the hidden
script of deals is unfolding through day-to-day implementation and we are seeing
how the coalition is paying back Musharraf. Stage two is intricately dovetailed with
stage one which germinated in 1951 with the Rawalpindi conspiracy and murder of
Liaquat Ali Khan. It matured in 1954 (when a commander-inchief sat in the federal
cabinet as defence minister), bore fruit in 1958 (Ayub’s martial law) and ripened
into the seeds of the feudal-army axis of power during the sixties. This axis felt
threatened by the vocal and democratic majority of East Pakistan and conspired to
get rid of it through a mock war and quick surrender in 1971.

The Hamoodur Rahman Commission (HRC) report of July 12, 1972 found that this
situation was deliberately created in East Pakistan, leading to a civil disobedience
movement and armed revolt. Gen Yahya Khan “permitted
“permitted and even instigated the
surrender”.
surrender”. The commission recommended the court martial of 13 generals,
including the then president and army chief, Yahya Khan. The report also found the
role of the Pakistan People’s Party and Awami League to be negative and
detrimental to national interests (Dawn, Dec 31, 2000). The HRC report remained
hidden for 28 years before it was partially declassified (but not released to the
public) on December 30, 2000 because the dual axis of power had expanded since
1971 into a triple mullah-military-wadera collusion. It is noteworthy that all the
political parties and their leaders — including Benazir and Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and
the religious leaders — were as much part of this collusion (including the
treacherous hushing up of the HRC) as the unending line of military dictators.
Combining the two stages, we find that over the last 60 years the family jagirs of
our undemocratic and dictatorial political parties were an integral part of the anti-
people socio-political system repeatedly imposed on the nation at gunpoint. They
have always betrayed the people and offered life-saving elixirs to military dictators.
Through crafty mock fights (nura kushti) with the men in khaki they have been
fooling the nation for half a century. Turn by turn, as assigned by the ringmaster,
one of them noisily challenges the military dictator to stir up public sympathy, only
to peevishly surrender at the last moment to give him another lease of life.
Invariably they all claim to have swallowed a bitter pill for the public good. Limited
space precludes examples but this happened a few times in the second stage, many
a times in the first, and again after the Feb 18 elections.

The so-called constitutional package is a brazen delaying tactic that is part of the
currently unfolding script of the NRO. So is the inconsequential preservation of an
ineffective coalition. The betrayal which began in 1951 and dismembered the
country in 1971 continues to this day. It will go on and the questions will remain
unanswered, as happened in 1971. But if answers are ever on offer, they will be too
late in coming and thus irrelevant, like the HRC report. The deep-rooted and
ruthless tripartite system has no intention of restoring the suspended judges or
holding Musharraf to account or easing the misery of the people. The system reaps
heavy dividends from this misery. It has almost nullified the surge of people’s power
since March 9, 2007 and successfully dented the lawyers’ movement.
Circumstantial evidence suggests another coronation of Gen Musharraf and the
reemergence of the army from behind the curtain in one form or another. Our
political parties, as always, appear to be full participants in this game while
maintaining the facade of a fight. The only way to get rid of this monstrous system
is to bypass it. People should leave the political parties to their nefarious games and
raise a new, genuinely democratic political party from the grassroots. New
leadership should be found through multi-tier elections at district, division,
provincial and national levels. People will continue to be betrayed by the mullah-
military-wadera collusion until they are mentally prepared to abandon the existing
political leadership and themselves chase the military dictators out. A beginning has
been made by the lawyers’ movement. It needs to be fully supported and turned
into a real show of people’s power.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 20.07.08

– Nepal assembly fails to elect first president

Lawmakers in Nepal on Saturday failed to elect the country’s first president and end
weeks of political deadlock following the abolition of the Himalayan monarchy,
official television said. The selection of the country’s first post-royal head of state
would have paved the way for Nepal’s Maoists, who hold the most seats in a
recently elected assembly but do not have a majority, to form a government. But no
candidate won the 298 votes necessary, Nepal Television reported, after a secret
ballot in the country’s constitutional assembly. The leading candidate, Ram Baran
Yadav, was just four votes short of a majority to take the largely ceremonial
presidency, the channel reported. Die-hard republican Ramraja Prasad Singh, the
candidate backed by the Maoists although he is not a member of their party, won
282 votes, the channel said. Both men are ethnic Mahadhesis who hail from the
troubled lowland area bordering India known as the Terai, where demands for an
autonomous federal state have seen frequent deadly clashes. Singh, who was
arrested two decades ago for throwing small bombs at parliament and the palace as
part of an anti-royal protest, was earlier pegged as the favourite by political
analysts. The country has been stuck in political limbo ever since the assembly,
which will write a new constitution for Nepal, sacked unpopular king Gyanendra and
abolished the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy in a landmark meeting on May 28.
Interim prime minister Girija Prasad Koirala has since resigned, but with no one in
power to accept his resignation, the elderly centrist has lingered on as a weak
caretaker.

The three main parties, who are also leading a two-year-old peace process that saw
the Maoist rebels lay down their arms after a decade-long struggle, had hoped to
select a president by consensus. But political infighting led to a falling out and to
Saturday’s election. It was not yet clear when a new vote would take place. The new
president will take over some of the ceremonial duties previously performed by
ousted king Gyanendra. In the past seven weeks, as arguing continued over the
symbolic post, Nepal has been largely ungoverned. The Nepali fiscal year ended on
July 15 without a new budget, although the assembly did approve a supplementary
spending bill. The country has lurched from strike to strike, over fuel prices, wages
and working conditions. But once a president is in place, that will pave the way for
the formation of a government headed by a prime minister, most likely Maoist
leader Prachanda — whose group is still classed as a “terrorist” organisation by the
United States. “The
“The president will accept the resignation of the (interim) prime
minister and then the Maoists can form a government,”
government,” explained Yubaraj Ghimire,
editor of the Nepali-language news weekly Samay.

Author Location Dated

Humair Ishtiaq 20.07.08
 – A matter of perception
When Samad Khurram recently turned down his Harvard scholarship as a mark of
protest against the US strike on Pakistani territory, he basically wanted to underline
the chasm that exists between the two divergent ways in which the rulers and the
masses perceive American interference in our affairs. That his decision was met
with thunderous applause from the audience only shows the intensity of the
prevailing anti-US sentiment as far as the Pakistani people are concerned. When it
comes to the leadership, however, it is an entirely different matter. Successive
governments have failed to acknowledge the simple anthropological fact that in the
event of an unnatural friendship between a tiger and a deer, the former will always
call the shots. The ‘deer’ can have visions — illusions, if you like — of having some
say in some affairs, but they will always be just illusions. The moment there is even
a semblance of difference between the two, the writ of the latter becomes the
destiny of the former. And yet, Pakistani leaders have continued to court Uncle Sam
who has never believed in undertaking the guilt trip over being the designated
global thug.

As recorded in history, the Quaid-i-Azam told Lord Ismay before Partition that
Pakistan would have to ally itself with one of the superpowers. He enumerated three
of them: the erstwhile Soviet Union, the United States and the Great Britain. He
ruled out the first one immediately, and preferred the British over the Americans
because “after
“after all, the devil you know is better than the devil you don’t.”
don’t.” Yet,
recorded in history is the fact that a mere two weeks after independence, the
government of Pakistan sounded out the US about lending a couple of million
dollars. As expected, nothing came out of it. The policies followed by those who
followed the Quaid are also there in the record books. Declassified American papers,
for instance, show Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, taking his two close aides — Ghulam Mustafa
Khar and Hayat Sherpao — to meet the US ambassador at the time to assure him
that their anti-US stance was basically for public consumption and there was
nothing to be worried about. It is no wonder, then, that the politicians today believe
that access to Islamabad is routed via Washington. Perhaps it does. Things being
what they have been, who knows? It is interesting to see what the other side — the
tiger — has been doing all this while. A State Department memo to White House as
far back as May, 1950, saw the potential of Pakistan “as “as a place from which US
aircraft could operate.”
operate.” This is almost exactly 58 years ago. Interesting, isn’t it? But
there is more to it. After talking of the said potential, the memo hastened to add:
“However, this should not be openly stressed since it negates our oft-expressed
interest in helping the region for economic reasons.”
reasons.” Clear in mind. Cut-throat in
approach. The tiger at its best.

During the 1971 crisis when the US openly condemned Indian movements across
the border, President Nixon showed the true colour of American policy while
discussing South Asia with his close aides. He showed great understanding of the
Indian desire, saying that breaking up Pakistan is what he might to do if he were in
New Delhi. The record of this meeting is dated August 11, 1971 — some four
months before the fall of Dhaka, and, ironically, just five weeks — 34 days, to be
precise — after Pakistan had facilitated Henry Kissinger’s historic trip to China!
Despite all this, and much more, being on record, the leadership in Pakistan — both
civil and military — has, without fail been dazzled by the crumbs that Washington
keeps throwing its way. In fact, things have only gone from bad to worse in terms of
both arm-twisting and the blatant manner in which it is executed. From times when
the US ambassador would hold a discreet meeting with the leaders, things have
come to such a pass that American officials of all denominations today openly visit
the politicians, members of civil society, media organisations, even city government
and water board offices. This only adds to the antipathy among the masses, but
who cares? The American machinery in Pakistan certainly doesn’t. Against this
backdrop, what Samad Khurram did is indeed praiseworthy for he did it in the
presence of the US ambassador which in itself takes a lot of doing in view of the fact
that timidity, not defiance, is what the Americans expect of Pakistanis. As Madam
Ambassador and her seniors would have realised, the leaders and the masses often
represent two different — sometime divergent — entities.

Author Location Dated

Khaleeq Kiani Islamabad, Pakistan 21.07.08

– Petrol costlier by Rs10.97 per litre, kerosene by Rs8.64

Highest-ever increase in fuel prices
The government on Sunday allowed the highest ever increase in the prices of
almost all petroleum products — ranging between 10 and 18 per cent. New prices
came into force with immediate effect. According to a notification issued by the Oil
and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra),
(Ogra), the highest increase of 17.4 per cent was in
the price of kerosene, followed by 15 per cent in that of light diesel oil. Prices of
petrol and high octane blending component have gone up by 14.5 per cent and
eight per cent, respectively. The price of petrol has been jacked up by Rs10.97 a
litre to Rs86.66 from Rs75.69 per cent, an increase of 14.5 per cent. This is the
single largest increase in motor spirit prices. The price of kerosene was increased by
17.4 per cent or Rs8.64 per litre –from Rs49.73 to Rs58.37. A 15 per cent increase,
of Rs7.45, was allowed in the price of light diesel oil to Rs56.50 per litre from
Rs49.05. HOBC price is now only a few rupees away from crossing the psychological
barrier of Rs100 a litre. Its new price is Rs96.08, up by Rs7.23 per litre from the old
price of Rs88.85. The price of jet fuel JP-1 has been increased by 10 per cent or
Rs8.26 per litre to Rs90.36 per litre from Rs82.10. After nine per cent increase, JP-4
will now be sold at Rs6.96 a litre higher – Rs83.75 from Rs76.79. JP-8’s price has
been increased by 9.4 per cent or Rs8.25a litre – from Rs87.79 to Rs96.04 per litre.

The increase in the petroleum prices was notified by Ogra after its approval by the
prime minister who decided to delay the quarterly price review for a week,
apparently because of his first speech to the nation on the 100-day performance of
his government. The oil price revision is usually made on the first and 15th of every
month. This is the seventh increase in petroleum prices since February 17 this year
and sixth allowed by the PPP-led coalition government since its inception four
months ago. The prices of LDO, kerosene, petrol, and HOBC have surged by about
73 per cent, 65 per cent, 61.4 per cent and 48 per cent, respectively. The price of
petrol was Rs53.70 at the end of February. It was raised to Rs58.70 on March 1 and
Rs62.81 on March 16. On April 18, the price of petrol was increased to Rs65.81, to
Rs68.81 on May 1 and Rs75.69 on June 29. Even before the official announcement,
retailers slowed down their sales to earn a windfall on available stocks. A salesman
at a retail outlet said petroleum dealers could have earned up to Rs50,000 to
Rs70,000 in a few hours while petroleum companies’ profits would be close to a
billion rupees.

The soaring oil price in the

international market is causing
severe problems for
developing economies like
Pakistan because it is creating
inflationary pressures,
increasing budget deficit,
upsetting the balance of
payment and slowing down
economic growth. In its announcement, the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra)
said the increase had become “inevitable due to a record surge last fortnight in the
international prices” and that the impact was “passed on partially” to the
consumers. It said the retail prices still carried a subsidy of Rs33.93 per litre on
kerosene, Rs29.40 on light diesel and Rs35.42 per litre on high-speed diesel,
although the government did not announce new HSD price.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 21.07.08

– Obama softens stance, says he will work with Pakistan

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has softened his attitude towards
Pakistan, telling a Sunday talk show that instead of sending US troops into Fata, he
will work with the Pakistani government to root out terrorist camps from the area. In
an interview to CBS News, Mr Obama said that the United States could not solve the
security problems in Afghanistan without engaging the Pakistan government. Asked
if he would consider unilateral US action against Pakistan, if the Pakistanis refused
to take out known terrorist hideouts, Mr Obama said: “I “I will push Pakistan very hard
to make sure that we go after those training camps. I think it’s absolutely vital to
the security interests for both the United States and Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Asked if he would
like US forces to take out terrorist training camps inside Fata, Mr Obama said: “Well,
“Well,
I think that what we would like is to see the Pakistani government take out those
training camps.” “And if they won’t”,
won’t”, he was asked. “Well,
“Well, I think that we’ve got to
work with them so they will,”
will,” he said.

Mr Obama, who visited US troops in Afghanistan and held private talks with US-
installed President Hamid Karzai on Sunday, suggested that the US should use its
military and economic assistance to persuade Pakistan to act against the
insurgents. “I
“I think that the US government provides an awful lot of aid to Pakistan,
provides a lot of military support to Pakistan. And to send a clear message to
Pakistan that this is important, to them as well as to us, I think that message has
not been sent,”
sent,” he said. Mr Obama, who in the past had advocated using direct
military action to make Pakistani cooperate, said his remarks were misunderstood.
“What I’ve said is that if we had actionable intelligence against high-value Al Qaeda
targets, and the Pakistani government was unwilling to go after those targets, that
we should,”
should,” he said. “My
“My hope is that it doesn’t come to that — that in fact, the
Pakistan government would recognise that if we had Osama bin Laden in our sights
that we should fire or we should capture him.”
him.” Mr Obama agreed with the
interviewer that the Bush administration was already following this policy. “I
“I think
actually this is current doctrine,”
doctrine,” he said. “There
“There was some dispute when I said this
last August. Both the administration and some of my opponents suggested, ‘Well,
you know, you shouldn’t go around saying that.” But I don’t think there’s any doubt
that that should be our policy.”
policy.”

Mr Obama said that a change at the White House would not affect this policy of
targeting terrorist leaders on actionable intelligence. “I “I don’t think there’s going to
be a change there,”
there,” he said. “I
“I think that in order for us to be successful, it’s not
going to be enough just to engage in the occasional shot fired. We’ve got training
camps that are growing and multiplying.”
multiplying.” In a separate interview, chairman of the
United States Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen warned that the crossborder
attacks from Pakistan’s tribal belt was affecting the US ability to move forward in
Afghanistan. He insisted that Pakistan’s tribal areas had safe havens “for “for foreign
fighters, for Al Qaeda, for Taliban and the insurgents that are now freely — much
more freely able to come across the borders.”
borders.” This, he said, was a big challenge for
the United States and its allies and was “having
“having an impact on our ability to move
forward in Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan ”.

Author Location Dated

Leonard Doyle Washington, D.C. 21.07.08

– Hazards for Obama

As Barack Obama jets around Europe, the Middle East and Afghanistan this week,
his every utterance will be closely monitored back in Chicago, ground zero for his
administration in waiting. A single misstep, an off-the-cuff foreign policy initiative or
even a mispronounced name will be pounced on by his Republican rival, John
McCain. There are hazards aplenty ahead as he travels from Iraq on to Israel and
the West Bank before arriving in Western Europe during the second half of the
week. He is the first black candidate with a shot at the presidency, and is likely to
be met by an adoring public, but there is nevertheless anxiety in the chancelleries
of Europe. Before he enters Downing Street to greet Gordon Brown or sits down with
David Cameron, the Democratic candidate will be as carefully briefed as though he
were a sitting president. Britain needs to know just what Mr Obama has in mind
when it comes to direct talks with the Iranian leadership, or how abruptly or
carefully managed he would withdraw US forces from Iraq. To help him avoid any
political landmines while abroad, the candidate will be relying on a team of 300
foreign policy advisers who keep him as fully briefed as possible. Most were senior
foreign policy players in the second Bill Clinton administration. By 8.00 am every
day these advisers in Chicago have sent him two emails: a news briefing on world
developments and a series of questions and suggested answers for questions that
are likely to come his way during the day.

The core team is led by Anthony Lake (Bill Clinton’s national security adviser from
1993 to 1997) and Susan Rice, the assistant secretary of state for Africa under
Clinton. Ms Rice was the top national security adviser in John Kerry’s failed 2004
presidential bid. Mr Obama has already pledged a new era of inclusive American
diplomacy. But during this trip he will be putting Europe leaders’ feet to the flames,
demanding that they respond in kind to his overtures by sending far more their own
soldiers to fight and if necessary die in the battlefields of Afghanistan and
elsewhere. ”The
”The stakes are very high for Obama,”
Obama,” said Lee Hamilton, of the
Woodrow Wilson International Centre. “Foreign
“Foreign policy is one area where they
[voters] have their doubts”
doubts” about him. Mr Obama is due to deliver a major foreign
policy speech in Berlin, amid arguments with the government of Angela Merkel
about whether it will be at the Brandenburg Gate or elsewhere. Huge crowds are
expected for this event.

Author Location Dated

Tripti Lahiri Kathmandu, Nepal 21.07.08

– Former king writing poetry, surfing Net

With few friends coming to visit and his son and one-time heir now living in
Singapore, the new life of Nepal’s ousted king as a commoner is by all accounts a
lonely, meditative one. Former king Gyanendra spends his time writing poetry,
praying, surfing the Internet and taking walks in the forest around the Nagarjun
hunting lodge where he lives just outside the capital Kathmandu, guards and his
spiritual adviser said. “The
“The former king has been spending most of his time inside
the bungalow,”
bungalow,” said a military guard at the lodge. “Occasionally
“Occasionally I have seen him
sitting in front of a computer or reading books. The place is quiet.”
quiet.” Kanchha
Shrestha, who runs a small sweet stall opposite the guarded gates of the reserve,
has also noticed a lack of activity at the lodge. “I
“I haven’t seen many people coming
to visit except some former royal secretaries,”
secretaries,” said Shrestha, adding that the ex-
king rarely left the premises. “Sometimes
“Sometimes he leaves once a week, sometimes once
in 15 days.”
days.” Those outings are most likely to involve visits to his elderly step-
mother, in her 80s, who continues to live in Narayanhiti Palace in the heart of the
city. The concubine of Gyanendra’s grandfather, in her 90s, also continues to reside
at the palace, which was turned into a museum after the king’s departure last
month. Gyanendra’s new life looks set to become even quieter after his son, former
crown prince Paras, left for Singapore earlier this month. The departure was
followed by that of Paras’ wife and three children on Thursday. But the former king
may have taken some comfort this week as he watched the political parties that
ousted him in May and ended the 240-year-old Shah monarchy fall out over their
choice for a new head of state. The three main parties had each put forward a
candidate for president but a vote by assembly members on Saturday failed to
produce a clear winner and end the political deadlock that has delayed the
formation of a new government.

Author Location Dated

21.07.08

– Stocks crash exerts pressure on rupee

The deteriorating situation on both political and economic fronts forced the rupee to
surrender its previous week’s gains against the dollar this week. Last week, timely
intervention by the State Bank of Pakistan had saved the rupee from crossing Rs75
barrier in the inter bank market. The central bank’s measures proved successful in
arresting the alarming situation in the local currency market arising from panic
dollar buying and brought the rupee/dollar parity down in Rs69 range in the inter
bank as well as open market. But this week, the rupee again came under pressure
after stock market crash lead to law and order situation amid prevailing economic
and political unrest. In the inter bank market, the rupee commenced the week on a
positive note, moving both ways against dollar. It gained 32 paisa for buying and
another 31 paisa for selling and traded at Rs69.60 and Rs69.65 on July 14, after
closing previous week at Rs69.92 and Rs69.96. However, on the second trading day
of the week in review, the rupee gave up its overnight gains against the US
currency as importers continued dollar buying to meet the payment requirement.
The rupee shed 70 paisa on the buying counter and another 75 paisa on the selling
counter to trade at Rs70.30 and Rs70.40 against the dollar on July 15. On July 16,
uncertainties over the political and economic fronts pressured the rupee down
against dollar on the inter-bank market, which shed 70 paisa on the buying counter
and 65 paisa on the selling counter, changing hands versus the dollar at Rs71.00
and Rs71.05. Stock market crash continued to exert pressure on the rupee in the
inter bank market on July 17. The rupee lost 105 paisa in single day trading and
crossed Rs72 mark this week. It closed the day at Rs72.05 and 72.10. However,
sharp recovery was seen on the inter-bank market on the closing day of the week in
review as supply of dollars improved in the inter bank market after local stock
market staged a modest recovery. The rupee in the inter-bank market managed to
gain 105 paisa on the buying counter and another 100 paisa on the selling counter,
changing hands versus the dollar at Rs71 and Rs71.10 on July 18. During the week
in review, the rupee in the interbank market lost up to 114 paisa against the dollar.

In the open market, the rupee commenced the week on a dismal note, posting
sharp fall of 110 paisa and changing hands at Rs70.80 and Rs71.20 against the
American currency on July 14. The rupee had closed last week at Rs69.70 and
Rs70.10. It, however, managed to recover from its overnight weakness on July 15 as
it gained 60 paisa on the buying counter and 80 paisa on the selling counter to
trade at Rs70.20 and Rs70.60. Unable to hold its firmness over the dollar on July 16,
the rupee posted fresh losses of 100 paisa and traded at Rs71.20 and Rs71.60. The
rupee continued its fall against dollar due to strong demand on July 17, making
fresh losses of 50 paisa for buying and 70 paisa for selling to trade at Rs71.70 and
Rs72.30. On July 18, it slipped further, falling 20 paisa for buying and 10 paisa for
selling to trade at Rs71.90 and Rs72.40. This week, the rupee in the open market
lost up to Rs2.40 against the dollar on cumulative basis.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee assumed a fluctuating
trend. It shed five paisa and traded at Rs110.95 and Rs111.15 on the opening day
of the week. The rupee had ended previous week at Rs110.90 and Rs111.10. On the
following day, however, the rupee managed to rebound against the euro, gaining 35
paisa and trading at Rs110.60 and Rs110.80 on July 15. But it was unable to retain
its overnight firmness versus the European single common currency on July 16,
when it was seen changing hands at Rs111.25 and Rs111.45 after registering a
sharp fall of 65 paisa in single day trading. The rupee further extended its weakness
versus euro on July 17. It posted another sharp decline during the day losing Rs1.20
to trade at Rs112.45 and Rs112.55. On July 18, the decline against the European
single common currency continued, as the rupee further shed 45 paisa on the
buying counter and 55 paisa on the selling counter, closing the week at Rs112.90
and Rs113.10. During the entire week, the rupee lost Rs2 against euro.

the deteriorating sit- Location Dated

uation on both political
and economic fronts
forced the rupee to sur-
render its previous week’s
gains against the dollar
this week. last week,
timely interven- tion by
the state bank of pakistan
had saved the rupee from
crossing rs75 barrier in
the inter bank market. the
central bank’s measures
proved successful in
arresting the alarming
situation in the lo- cal
currency market arising
from panic dollar buying
and brought the
rupee/dollar parity down
in rs69 range in the inter
bank as well as open
market. but this week, the
rupee again came under
pressure after stock
market crash lead to law
and order situation amid
pre- vailing economic and
political unrest. in the
inter bank market, the
rupee commenced the
week on a positive note,
moving both ways against
dollar. it gained 32 paisa
for buying and another 31
paisa for selling and
traded at rs69.60 and
rs69.65 on july 14, after
closing previous week at
rs69.92 and rs69.96.
however, on the second
trading day of the week in
review, the rupee gave up
its overnight gains against
the us currency as im-
porters continued dollar
buy- ing to meet the
payment re- quirement.
the rupee shed 70 paisa
on the buying counter and
another 75 paisa on the
selling counter to trade at
rs70.30 and rs70.40
against the dollar on july
15. on july 16,
uncertainties over the
political and economic
fronts pressured the rupee
down against dollar on the
in- ter-bank market, which
shed 70 paisa on the
buying counter and 65
paisa on the selling
counter, changing hands
versus the dollar at
rs71.00 and rs71.05. stock
market crash continued to
ex- ert pressure on the
rupee in the inter bank
market on july 17. the
rupee lost 105 paisa in
sin- gle day trading and
crossed rs72 mark this
week. it closed the day at
rs72.05 and 72.10.
however, sharp recovery
was seen on the inter-
bank market on the
closing day of the week
inv review as supply of
dollars improved in the
inter bank market after
local stock market staged
a modest recovery. the
rupee in the inter-bank
market managed to gain
105 paisa on the buying
counter and another 100
paisa on the selling coun-
ter, changing hands
versus the dollar at rs71
and rs71.10 on july 18.
during the week in re-
view, the rupee in the
inter- bank market lost up
to 114 pai- sa against the
dollar. in the open market,
the ru- pee commenced
the week on a dismal
note, posting sharp fall of
110 paisa and changing
hands at rs70.80 and
rs71.20 against the
american currency on july
14. the rupee had closed
last week at rs69.70 and
rs70.10. it, however,
managed to recover from
its overnight weakness on
july 15 as it gained 60
paisa on the buying
counter and 80 paisa on
the selling counter to
trade at rs70.20 and
rs70.60. unable to hold its
firmness over the dol- lar
on july 16, the rupee
posted fresh losses of 100
paisa and traded at
rs71.20 and rs71.60. the
rupee continued its fall
against dollar due to
strong de- mand on july
17, making fresh losses of
50 paisa for buying and 70
paisa for selling to trade
at rs71.70 and rs72.30. on
july 18, it slip- ped further,
falling 20 paisa for buying
and 10 paisa for selling to
trade at rs71.90 and
rs72.40. this week, the
rupee in the open market
lost up to rs2.40 against
the dollar on cu- mulative
basis. versus the
european single common
currency, the rupee as-
sumed a fluctuating trend.
it shed five paisa and
traded at rs110.95 and
rs111.15 on the opening
day of the week. the
rupee had ended previous
week at rs110.90 and
rs111.10. on the following
day, however, the rupee
managed to rebound
against the euro, gaining
35 pai- sa and trading at
rs110.60 and rs110.80 on
july 15. but it was unable
to retain its overnight
firmness versus the
european single common
currency on july 16, when
it was seen changing
hands at rs111.25 and
rs111.45 after registering
a sharp fall of 65 paisa in
single day trading. the
rupee further extended its
weakness versus euro on
july 17. it posted another
sharp decline during the
day losing rs1.20 to trade
at rs112.45 and rs112.55.
on july 18, the de- cline
against the european sin-
gle common currency
contin- ued, as the rupee
further shed 45 paisa on
the buying counter and 55
paisa on the selling
counter, closing the week
at rs112.90 and rs113.10.
during the entire week,
the rupee lost rs2 against
euro. in the international
financial markets, the
dollar rose from a near
record low against the eu-
ro on the week’s opening
day af- ter the united
states an- nounced an
emergency plan to restore
confidence in mortgage
finance companies fannie
mae and freddie mac. the
plan hel- ped calm market
concerns about the health
of the us fi- nancial and
housing sectors. in new
york, the euro was down
0.2 percent at $1.5911
after slipping to $1.5842.
the dollar fell 0.1 percent
to 106.10 yen. the pound
was trading steadily
against the dollar at
$1.9904, having
recovered from an earli- er
session low of $1.9816. on
july 15, the euro jumped
to a record peak of
$1.6037. it was flat at
$1.5902. sagging global
stock markets sent in-
vestors toward the safe-
haven japanese yen. the
dollar fell as low as 104.17
yen, its third con- secutive
day of declines. it last
traded at 104.76 yen,
down 1.3 percent. sterling
hit a 3-1/2 month high
against the dollar after uk
consumer inflation rose to
an annual 3.8 percent,
dampening expectations
of an early rate cut. it was
up 0.6 per- cent at
$2.0062, after earlier
reaching $2.0153, its
highest rate since mid-
march. on july 16, the
dollar rose further from a
record low against the
euro, as a slide in oil
prices and surprisingly
strong earnings at wells
fargo & co soothed fears
about the us economy and
financial sector. the
turmoil around fannie and
freddie and fears about
more credit losses at
regional banks drove the
dollar sharply lower a day
ago, with the euro hitting
a record high at $1.6037.
the dol- lar also edged
when federal reserve
chairman reiterated to a
house of representatives
panel that the risks to us
growth have in- creased
along with upside infla-
tion risks, mirroring
remarks he made a day
earlier before the senate.
concerns about the us
finan- cial sector receded
a bit after wells fargo, the
fifth-largest us bank,
raised its dividend de-
spite a 23 percent decline
in profit caused by bad
loans. the euro was 0.6
percent weaker at
$1.5817, well off a record
high above $1.60 set a
day ago. the dollar was up
0.3 percent at 105.01 yen
and 0.9 percent at 1.0174
swiss francs. sterling re-
treated from recent 3-1/2
month highs against the
dollar. it had fallen 0.3
percent against the dollar
to trade at $1.9991, re-
treating from previous
day’s 3- 1/2 month high at
$2.0153. on july 17, the
dollar surged against the
yen and erased ear- lier
losses versus the euro as
oil prices plunged and
investors worried that high
energy costs and financial
market turmoil were
slowing global growth. the
euro, which set a record
above $1.60 on july 15, at
one point fell below $1.58
for the first time this week
as investors began
focusing on the head-
winds facing the euro zone
economy. the dollar last
traded at 106.45 yen, up
1.3 percent, its best daily
performance since early
april. it touched a session
high of 107.09 earlier in
the session. the euro
exited new york trade up
about 0.1 percent at
$1.5840 after falling to a
ses- sion low of $1.5784. it
had hit a record of
$1.6037 earlier this week.
but the dollar’s gains re-
mained tentative, analysts
said, particularly given the
state of uncertainty
surrounding us fi- nancial
markets and the slump-
ing housing market. the
pound was up 0.25
percent on the day versus
the dollar at $2.0037,
edging back towards a 3-
1/2 month high at $2.0153
set on july 15. at the close
of the week on july 18,
dollar inched lower af- ter
posting its biggest daily
gain against the yen in
more than three months
the day be- fore when us
stocks rallied on a sharp
drop in oil prices. in tokyo,
the dollar was capped
around 106.60/70 yen by
export- er selling while
support was seen around
105.80 yen. the eu- ro was
little changed, at $1.5867
off a session low of
$1.5822 hit after
european central bank
president said in
comments that euro zone
growth is likely to be weak
in the second and third
quarter before staging a
recovery. the pound was
down 0.3 percent at
$1.9956. Author
Mohammad Sarim Irfan 21.07.08

– International oil bubble: the way

Traditional economics lead us to believe that the soaring oil prices can be explained
away by the law of demand and supply. The increasing demand is attributed to the
growing consumption in the emerging economies like China and India. While the
militant attacks on the production units in Nigeria and strike calls mainly account for
the disruptions in the supply side. There is so much talk on increasing oil output and
cutting off subsidies. China has cut subsidies to restrict its growing demand. And
the Opec is being held responsible for not increasing the production and for
cartelization. So, it just seems to be a simple issue of supply and demand as made
out by the US government. But there is another side of the story. Each stakeholder
has its own version of the present oil crisis. US is the largest consumer of oil,
accounting for more than the combined consumption of China, India, Japan and
Russia. The present trend of recession in US has cut its growth in demand for oil
significantly. So even if the demand is growing, it is not outdoing the supply to an
extent depicted by the prices.

Events like these did not trigger such crises in the past when supplies were
disrupted for 19 months due to American invasion of Iraq, let alone the Gulf war.
And Opec members seem to be rightly blaming the weak dollar and speculation for
such abnormal price hike. US economic slowdown, poor economic data and the
prevailing cred it crunch have weakened the dollar significantly. A weak dollar has
three fold effects on the oil prices. As the oil is widely sold in dollar with the future
contracts also denominated in US currency, a weak dollar makes the oil cheaper for
countries in eurozone, China and India, resulting in greater demand which pushes
the prices up. Second, as many oil companies are big multinationals, their retail
receipts are denominated in dollars while the cost of production is in currencies
other than the greenback, depending on the individual oil producing countries. So
with dollar weakening, the receipts tend to get lower as compared to the costs and
this also discourages more investment. Third, with dollar on the slide, the
multinationals have started hedging their foreign exchange risks through the oil
futures and a rush in futures has resulted in a speculation fever which has distorted
the basic demandsupply theorem of determining the prices.

Oil futures are the contract to buy 1000 barrels of oil at a specific price at a
specified date and are regulated by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission
(CTFC).
(CTFC). To hedge the uncertainty of higher prices in near future, companies enter
into the future contracts at a fixed price. So when the contract matures (after the
specified time), they get the oil on the specified prices, ideally (although there are
risks involved). The trading was limited by CTFC to only oil and energy companies
so that the stakes did not get high, without the intention of actually buying the
commodity. But after the stock crashes in the early 2000’s, outside investors
stepped in and to avoid the CTFC regulations, set up International Commodities
Exchange (ICE) in London where they could invest in futures freely. Instead of using
commodity futures as an effective hedge, most outside investors used these as an
investment and created speculative hedges against weak dollar (since when dollar
goes down, oil prices go up, so losses and gains are offset).

Many of the institutional investors have put heavy investments in commodities

market as the Federal Bank has slashed the interest rates in a move to save the US
economy from going into recession; so it makes commodity futures even a more
lucrative investment. Surprising is the five per cent margin requirement in the
futures market (the initial sum which is deposited as a guarantee and maintained at
day’s end to cover the losses) as compared to the 50 per cent margin in stock
market equity investments. As the closing date of the futures draws nearer, the
margin increases so instead of buying the oil at the specified date, investors sell
their futures and roll over their investments. This low margin has resulted in cheap
entry in a highly volatile futures market. So many multinationals over hedge their
foreign exchange and oil prices exposure. Since, there are a large number of
investors who are willing to pay prices that high in hope of future gains, this
increases the demand of future contracts and pushes the prices even higher defying
the traditional actual oil demand supply hypothesis. And, as we all know that the
prices of tomorrow affect the prices of today as well so high speculation has
pumped a big oil bubble. Like George Soros, the billionaire investor commented
“The price has this parabolic shape which is characteristic of bubbles.”
bubbles.”

Weak dollar is the essential element for the successful expansion of big US
multinationals. Auto manufacturers, tourism industry and big multinationals have
blossomed in the past due to weak dollar. As dollar gets weaker, the exports get
cheaper for foreign buyers, increasing the sales and this contributes to the
competitive edge over the European producers.This also results in huge revenues
through tax collections. But the policy of weak dollar is hurting the US economy the
most as US is the largest importer of oil and prices have reached to such an extent
that it is contributing to huge deficits. This is time that the US think tanks revisit
their economic policies as we know that when giants collapse, the waves affect all
the economies of the world. To counter the range of crises caused by a weak dollar,
Iran and Venezuela have proposed a basket of currencies in which oil should be
traded. The move may not only slow down speculation but may help simple demand
and supply determine the prices. But it is more of a political than an economic issue
and it is pretty hard to overcome the influence of US policies. Regulations should be
imposed on ICE on the same lines as in CTFC and to cap the investments that can
be held. For starters, the margin requirement should be increased even if
temporarily, to slow down the market.

CTFC has already entered into an agreement with ICE to share the trading data on
daily basis so as to monitor the speculative positions of investors. But, unregulated
over the counter agreements will also need to be monitored as these form a huge
part of total trading. Under foreign pressure, Saudi Arabia has agreed to increase its
daily production by 200,000 barrels per day. This will not help bring down prices as
output is too little to influence the market, especially when the same amount of low
cost refined Nigerian oil is being lost daily due to political unrest. And it also a signal
that market is not reacting to supplies to a big extent but to other factors. Another
solution could be to release some oil from the State Petroleum Reserves of US
which has storage of more than 700 million barrels of oil. The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act authorises the use of reserves if the president finds that (a) there
is an emergency situation due to lack of supplies (b) prices have shot up
considerably due to such circumstances (c) prices are adversely affecting the
national economy. All the three conditions apply in the present scenario.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 22.07.08

– Court gags Dr Khan, but allows visits to relatives, friends

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Monday barred nuclear scientist Dr Abdul
Qadeer Khan from speaking on the nuclear proliferation issue, but allowed him to
meet relatives and travel inside the country after security clearance. “The
“The petition
is disposed of in the following terms,”
terms,” IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Aslam
ruled and spelled out five conditions determining his freedom. The terms allow Dr
A.Q. Khan to meet close relatives and friends subject to security clearance and
necessary precautions taken for his security and safety which the five-page
judgment said was of paramount importance. Dr Khan is required to inform security
agencies of details of close relatives or friends so that the government could make
necessary arrangements. The judgment said that Dr Khan would not convey,
transmit or relay any comments or give interview to any channel, news reporter,
print or electronic media in any manner, whatsoever on issue of nuclear
proliferation.

Recently, Dr Khan gave interviews to the electronic media accusing President

Pervez Musharraf and the army of being involved in transfer of nuclear technology
to North Korea. Later, Dr Khan sent a hand-written note to the high court, putting all
the blame on the media for “misquoting” him on several occasions but not
publishing his rebuttals. Dr Khan would be provided heath-care facility by a doctor
of his choice as and when asked for and no restriction will be placed on his visit in
Pakistan to meet any of his close relatives subject to security clearance. Dr Khan is
required not to convey any information about nuclear proliferation to any of his
relatives or friends by any means whatsoever. Adequate arrangements would be
made for Dr Khan to visit Science Foundation (for research work) under strict
security arrangements.

Dr Khan had confessed on television to having transferred nuclear secrets to Iran,

Libya and North Korea. He was pardoned by President Musharraf, but was placed
under house arrest. “I“I am meeting Dr Khan in the evening to discuss the possibility
of filing a review against the decision,”
decision,” Dr Khan’s counsel Barrister M. Javed Iqbal
Jafree told Dawn after the announcement of the judgment. He said the judgment
had addressed only one of many issues which had been raised, like a request to
initiate contempt of court proceedings against a government lawyer for allegedly
making an incorrect statement about his detention. The judgment had used the
word ‘detenue’ for Dr Khan, thus admitting that he was under illegal confinement,
Mr Jafree claimed. During the pendency of the case, Ms Hendrina Khan, the wife of
Dr Khan, had moved the high court by writing a letter disputing the government’s
claim that her husband was not under any illegal detention and requesting for his
release, especially after he had been pardoned by the president. The court rejected
a request made by Dr Khan’s counsel to allow the electronic media to have a
glimpse of the scientist from a safe distance.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Jerusalem 22.07.08

– Brown warns Iran in nuclear standoff

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown warned Iran on Monday it faced growing
isolation if it rejected an offer from major powers on its disputed nuclear
programme. In the first address to Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, by a British
prime minister, Brown pledged to stand by Israel and said Iranian President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s threats to wipe the country off the map were “totally
abhorrent”. “Iran
“Iran has a clear choice to make: suspend its nuclear programme and
accept our offer of negotiations or face growing isolation and the collective
response not just of one nation but of all nations around the world,”
world,” Brown said. He
said Britain, which as a permanent member of the UN Security Council has helped
push through three sanctions resolutions against Iran, “will
“will continue to lead ... in
our determination to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapons programme”.
programme”. The United
States, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China have offered Iran financial and
diplomatic incentives to halt nuclear activity which the West fears is a cover for
making bombs. Tehran says it is aimed solely at generating electricity. After talks in
Geneva ended in stalemate on Saturday, the six major powers gave Iran two weeks
to answer calls to rein in its nuclear activities or face tougher sanctions. British
government officials with Brown said if Iran did not accept the incentives, the next
step would be to ratchet up sanctions, possibly including sanctions on the oil and
gas industry. They said such sanctions could seek to target Iran’s domestic energy
market by making it difficult for Iran to obtain equipment and spare parts for its
refineries.

Tensions between Iran and the West have helped drive up crude oil prices to record
highs in recent months. Before Brown spoke, the speaker of the parliament, Dalia
Itzik, said it was unbelievable that 63 years after the Holocaust, “we
“we are again
facing the threat of extermination from the Iranians, with whom we have no
conflict”.
conflict”. Brown, who began his speech with the Hebrew phrase for “peace be with
you”, said a historic peace with the Palestinians was within Israel’s grasp. He urged
Israel to freeze the expansion of Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and
to withdraw from them in a future peace deal. That comment drew heckling from
one person in the chamber but Brown received a standing ovation at the end of his
speech. Brown described the current leadership of the Palestinian Authority as the
best partner Israel has had for peace in a generation and said it must fulfil its
security obligations.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 22.07.08

– Osama’s driver pleads not guilty

Osama bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, pleaded not guilty at the opening
on Monday of the first war crimes trial before a special military tribunal at the US
base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, officials said. “The “The trial has started and he pleaded
not guilty,”
guilty,” Cynthia Smith, spokeswoman for the US Defence Department, said.
Hamdan, from Yemen, is the first “enemy combatant” in Guantanamo from the “war
on terror” to face a full-scale trial since the prison camp at the remote naval base
was opened in late 2001. Hamdan, whose trial is expected to last two weeks, faces
charges of “conspiracy” and “material support for terrorism”, and could receive life
imprisonment if convicted by the controversial tribunals set up by President George
Bush. Australian national David Hicks was to face a military trial last year, but
pleaded guilty at a hearing before it began. After being held without trial for five
years, Hicks admitted to providing material support to terrorism as part of a deal
that allowed him to return to his country, where he served the remainder of his
sentence.

The Pentagon is withholding the identities of the 13-member jury pool brought to
Guantanamo over the weekend, but all are US military officers. The Bush
administration set up the special military commissions in the wake of the Sept 11,
2001, attacks in the United States, saying terror suspects could not be adequately
prosecuted in regular courts. The military commissions were declared illegal in 2006
by the Supreme Court, only to be restored a few months later by the US Congress.
They have since faced a series of legal battles and hitches including a Supreme
Court decision last month that granted foreign terror suspects captured abroad the
right to challenge their detention in US courts. The indictment against Salim
Hamdan, who is about 40 years old, alleges that he met Osama bin Laden in the
Afghan city of Kandahar in 1996 and “ultimately
“ultimately became a bodyguard and personal
driver”
driver ” for the Al Qaeda leader. It alleges that Hamdan received training in the use
of rifles, handguns and machine guns in an Al Qaeda camp and also “delivered
“delivered
weapons, ammunition or other supplies to Al Qaeda members and associates”.
associates”.
Hamdan was transferred in 2002 to Guantanamo -- where he has spent much of his
detention in isolation -- and ordered tried by a military tribunal. Lawyers for Hamdan
say he is not implicated in any terrorist activity even though he served as the Al
Qaeda mastermind’s driver.

They also argue that he was mistreated while in US custody and was subjected to
sleep deprivation, including being awakened every hour by guards during a 50-day
period in 2003. The Bush administration has faced heated criticism from human
rights groups for detaining prisoners for years at Guantanamo without giving them
the right to defend themselves in court. Hamdan’s case will be an important test of
the military commission system. Of the 260 detainees currently in Guantanamo,
only around 20 have been charged with a crime and the government plans to put
only 60 to 80 of them on trial. Hamdan has been described by US journalists who
attended his hearings at Guantanamo as haggard, with difficulty walking due to
back pain.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 22.07.08

– Maoists suffer setback Nepal elects its first president

Lawmakers in Nepal voted in the Himalayan nation’s first post-royal president on
Monday, but their rejection of a candidate backed by the Maoists was likely to lead
to more political deadlock. Ram Baran Yadav, who was supported by the centrist
Nepali Congress party, won 308 out of 590 votes cast in Nepal’s constitutional
assembly in a run-off between him and Maoist-backed rival Ramraja Prasad Singh.
The selection of a president has been seen as a vital step to ending weeks of
political impasse after the assembly ousted unpopular king Gyanendra and
abolished the 240-year-old monarchy in May. But the result showed other parties in
the assembly ganging up against the Maoists -- who won the largest single block of
seats in elections to the new assembly earlier this year but not an outright majority.
Yadav, a former health minister and trained medical doctor, told AFP he would use
his new position to try to unite Nepal and address grievances among the country’s
ethnic communities. “The“The immediate need of the nation is to address the lack of a
fair political culture,”
culture,” said the 61-year old Yadav, a son of a farmer. “I
“I want all
Nepalese to join hands in harmony and move ahead in the development of the
country.”
country.”

The Nepali Congress party said the outcome of the vote showed how democratic the
country’s new political system was. “We
“We are very happy that a common man’s son
has become the first president of the republic of Nepal. Yadav is not of the Nepali
Congress, but of all the people of Nepal,”
Nepal,” said the party’s general secretary,
Bimalendra Nidhi. “This
“This result is a process of democratic multi-party politics. The
country used to be divided into left and others, but this alliance is truly democratic
because all forces have joined hands together.”
together.” The presidency is a largely
ceremonial position, but Yadav’s victory could delay efforts by the Maoists to form
Nepal’s first republican government. Even if the Maoists succeed in forming an
administration, they may find themselves with little chance of implementing key
platform pledges like land reform and will face constant risk of being toppled by
rivals. Maoist spokesman Krishna Mahara said his party was now considering its
next move following the political blow. “We
“We haven’t decided how the Maoist party is
going to go ahead,”
ahead,” Mahara said. “We“We might not go to form the government, but we
haven’t decided yet.”
yet.” The Maoists’ continued involvement in mainstream politics is
seen as crucial to the survival of Nepal’s peace process, which ended a decade of
civil war that left at least 13,000 dead and crippled the already impoverished
country. Political analyst and columnist Prashant Jha said having a president that
was not backed by the Maoists would bring new “problems and challenges” of
powersharing. He said if the Maoists refused to form a government, there would be
no political stability in the country, and that writing a new constitution -- the main
task of the assembly -- would be “extremely difficult.” “Their
“Their recent statements
suggest they might prefer to stay outside the government. If they decide to stay as
opposition, it will be a tragedy for democracy and the peace process,”
process,” Jha said.

Author Location Dated

Tahir Siddiqui Karachi, Pakistan 23.07.08

– Asif’s chief security officer gunned down in Karachi

Khalid Shahanshah, the chief security officer of PPP co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari,
was assassinated on Tuesday afternoon outside his Clifton residence, police and
witnesses said. They said that gunmen on a white car sprayed him with a volley of
bullets while he was stepping off his double-cabin vehicle in front of his house at
Khyaban-i-Bukhari. Darakhshan police said the 45-year-old PPP leader, who was
stated to have been instrumental in the recent operation against gangsters in Lyari,
reached his house along with a friend at about 2.45pm. Mr Shahanshah parked his
vehicle outside his bungalow as the gate of his porch was being repaired, while his
friend, Manzar Abbas, went inside. The victim’s friend, a businessman, told police
that he went inside the house and Shahanshah was parking the vehicle. He said he
stayed back when he heard the sound of gunfire. A private security guard at the PPP
leader’s house rushed out, only to find Mr Shahanshah lying in a pool of blood near
the main entrance. He told Dawn that Mr Shahanshah managed to call the police
from his mobile phone, although he was critically wounded.

The fatally wounded victim, father of two, was immediately taken to a nearby
campus of the Ziauddin Medical University Hospital, but he died. Hospital sources
said the slain PPP leader had received at least five bullets, three of them in his
upper torso, from a very close range. Party leaders, including Rashid Rabbani and
Waqar Mehdi, immediately reached the hospital. Sindh Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar
Mirza, who also rushed to the hospital, described the incident as another attempt to
destabilise the government. Police said that 18 empties of sub-machine gun and a
dozen of .222 rifles were recovered from the scene. SHO Inspector Khalid Mehboob
said there was no eyewitness to the killing. “The
“The private security guard could not
see the faces of the occupants of the car that sped away after the swift operation,”
operation,”
he added. The Darakhshan police chief said it was clearly a case of target killing.
“But nothing could be said about the motive behind the incident at the moment,”
moment,” he
added.
The car used by the assailants was found abandoned in the evening in Defence
Society. Police sources said the attackers had fired from inside the car. They said
that at least five shots had been fired from behind the windscreen of the car. Police
also found empties in the car. The sources said the car bore a fake provincial
government registration number (GS-3909). A case was registered against unknown
assailants on the complaint of the victim’s younger brother, Haider Ali. Shahanshah
was once said to have links with underworld don Dawood Ibrahim. Other two
associates of Dawood were Shoaib Khan and Ibrahim alias Bholu. The former died in
mysterious circumstances in Karachi’s Central Jail and the latter was kidnapped and
killed. Shahanshah was also a close associate of the slain chief of PPP’s student
wing, Najeeb Ahmed. Shahanshah contested the 2002 election for a National
Assembly seat from the Azizabad constituency on a PPP ticket. He went abroad for
some time and returned with Benazir Bhutto on Oct 18 last year. He was also with
Ms Bhutto when she was assassinated on Dec 27. He was interviewed by the
Scotland Yard team which visited Pakistan to investigate the assassination of
Benazir Bhutto.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 23.07.08

– ‘Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic’

The Pakistan Army’s withdrawal from politics is strategic and not tactical and it will
not return to politics unless there’s a crisis in the country, scholars said at a seminar
in Washington. “The
“The army realises that the last years have hurt the institution
badly,”
badly,” said Shuja Nawaz, the author of a recent book on the Pakistan Army. “They “They
are out and they want to stay out.”
out.” The discussion on US-Pakistan military ties was
held against the backdrop of the recent increase in attacks on US-led coalition
forces in Afghanistan. The speakers also noted that Pakistan grappled with its own
burgeoning Taliban insurgency in the tribal borderlands. Such developments, they
noted, had created new challenges for US-Pakistan military ties. They said that
more aggressive coalition counter-insurgency tactics in eastern Afghanistan were
bringing US troops closer to the border with Pakistan and the situation required ever
closer communication and joint efforts to strengthen counter-terrorism cooperation.

The organisers, the Heritage Foundation,

Foundation, pointed out that the US frustration with an
entrenched terrorist safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal areas and lack of faith in the
efficacy of Pakistani negotiations to deal with the problem “also
“also are creating
misunderstanding and crossed wires.”
wires.” In this charged atmosphere, what are the
future prospects for addressing terrorism challenges on a joint basis? Should the US
shift its strategy vis-à-vis Pakistan? What can be expected from Pakistan in the near
and long-term? How can both sides build trust in each other and strengthen the
chances of overall success against the terrorist scourge in South Asia? These were
some of the questions the speakers addressed in their presentations. David Smith, a
senior director for Pakistan at the Office of the US Undersecretary of Defence,
highlighted a change in Islamabad, saying that the Pakistani policy makers now
realise the need to coordinate their defence needs with economic developments
and are willing to spend more on social projects. He disagreed with the suggestion
that the Afghans were getting tired of the US military presence in their country. “I“I
have not seen any indication that the tolerance for US presence is decreasing,”
decreasing,” he
said. Mr Smith also disagreed with another suggestion that the weapons given to
Pakistan for fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda will be used against India. The US
military assistance to Pakistan cannot bring any significant changes to the
conventional balance of power in South Asia, he said. “Besides,
“Besides, the 2006 joint
statement also talked about meeting Pakistan’s genuine defence needs,”
needs,” he added.

The US official rejected the suggestion that Pakistan was protecting the Taliban so
that it can use them to fight its war in Kashmir. “Whatever
“Whatever utility anyone thought
they had is false,”
false,” he said. “They
“They are a threat to the Pakistani army, they are a
threat to the Pakistani government and they are a threat to the Pakistani nation.”
nation.”
Mr Smith insisted that the militants had established a safe haven in Pakistan’s tribal
areas and were using it to attack US and coalition forces in Afghanistan. “We “We will
not rest until that goal (of destroying the militant groups) is achieved,”
achieved,” he declared.
Mr Nawaz, who is the younger brother of Gen Asif Nawaz Janjua, the 10th army
chief, emphasised the need for the United States to expand its ties with Pakistan
and reach out to democratic forces. “The“The United States should move away from the
what-youhave-done-lately- for-us approach,”
approach,” he said. “If
“If the Americans insist on
dealing with the military alone and on ignoring the politicians, it will hurt US
interests in Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Mr Nawaz noted that the new army chief, Gen Ashfaq Parvez
Kayani, has categorically assured Pakistan’s new rulers that they army has no plan
to return to politics. “Now
“Now it is up to the politicians to ensure that the country is not
plunged into yet another crisis because if there is a crisis, the army may come
back,”
back,” he warned. Mr Nawaz advised the new government to “take “take difficult but
useful decisions, so that the army learns to respect you.”
you .”

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 23.07.08

– Withdrawal of Dr Khan gag order sought

A lawyer on Tuesday filed a petition seeking a review of Islamabad High Court’s
Monday’s judgment restraining Dr Abdul Qadeer Kahn from making statements on
the issue of nuclear proliferation. In its judgement on a habeas corpus petition
moved by Advocate M. Javed Iqbal Jafree, the court had barred Dr Khan from
speaking on the issue but allowed him to meet his relatives and travel within the
country after security clearance. Dr Khan had told Dawn on Monday evening that he
would counter any statement issued to malign him. The three-page handwritten
review petition in Urdu requested the court to declare that Dr Khan was a free
citizen. It said the restriction on giving media interviews on proliferation of nuclear
technology appeared to be unnecessary. It also requests an early hearing of the
case. “The
“The media has also assured us that in compliance with the directions of the
court they will not attribute any statement to Dr Khan about the proliferation of
nuclear technology,”
technology,” the petition said. It said the government had not responded to
a list provided by Dr Khan of his relatives and friends whom he wanted to meet.

The petition sought a declaration that if the government failed to respond to a

request for a visit by a relative or friend within 24 hours then the person should be
allowed to meet Dr Khan if the latter so desired. Though Dr Khan was not a party,
the petition said, it was his desire that he should be freed from ‘detention’ to the
pre-2004 position. It said Dr Khan believed that he had been victimised and coerced
with the slapping of unprecedented and unnecessary restrictions. The responsibility
of his security rested entirely with the government. It should also be declared that
Dr Khan was free to offer prayers in a mosque close to his house, visit any library
for research and establish contacts with any educational institutions after informing
the authorities, the petition said.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 23.07.08

– A triple crisis
The transition to a more democratic system is in peril. A triple crisis of politics,
militancy and the economy is the battering ram at the door of Pakistan’s
government. Each limb of the crisis is feeding off and compounding the other. While
the vultures may be circling, the victim, the government, is prostrate and making it
easier for them. Each week brings a new candidate for the leader of the
incompetent — our political class. Last weekend the country bumpkin in the PM
House staked his claim. So ghastly was the PM’s performance that damage control
has overshadowed a speech that was itself meant as an exercise in damage control
of the government’s evaporating reputation. The speech itself though wasn’t the
problem but a symptom of what is wrong in Islamabad right now. Let’s start at the
beginning. For better or worse, a space has been created for politicians to govern.
So far it has been a baptism of fire. Economic turmoil and rampaging militants have
challenged the government mightily. But there is no doubt that space for the
civilians to govern exists — for now. The political problem boils down to this: Nawaz
wants the judges in and Musharraf out; Asif wants the judges out and Musharraf in. in.
Sure, Asif may not — indeed cannot — really care about the judges and Musharraf’s
fate more than his own, but political commitments have forced him to hitch his star
to their fate. It is what it is.

So now what? Asif’s strategy has been to wait it out in the hope that Musharraf or CJ
Iftikhar will do something stupid and make their positions untenable or that Nawaz
will yield. Neither has happened so far. The problem is the economic and militancy
crises have not stayed still. But this was entirely predictable. What has been
disastrous for the transition is a government that has vacillated in response to its
problems. Economically there is not much the government can do at the moment —
our plight may have worsened more quickly than should have been the case, but it
is driven by international factors that are out of our hands. Yet international
weaknesses have nothing to do with local distortions. The oil pricing mechanism in
Pakistan is loaded in favour of oil marketing companies and retailers but they are
considered too powerful to be taken on. PM Gilani told us that he knows who the
wheat hoarders are but no handcuffs have been slapped on anyone. The stock
market fundamentals may be weak but small investors are getting a raw deal from
the clubby world of market regulators and the big fish. Targeted subsidies to the
poor have been promised but the sense of urgency to get food and cash in the
hands of the poor is lacking.

These are not economic challenges, they are political and administrative roadblocks
that ought to be tackled in times of crisis at least. You don’t keep fumbling for the
keys to your house if it is on fire, you break down the door. The policy to deal with
militants acting with impunity across the country is the other failure. The militants
rampaging across the country will not be defeated in a week, a month or a year.
The problems are too deep, the system too corrupt and the issues too complex for a
ready solution. But a week, month or year of drift in Islamabad can cause long-term
damage that years of smart strategy will struggle to undo. The reason is simple: at
this moment the militants are in the ascendant and looking to expand their areas of
control. Dislodging militants once they have pressed forward has proved notoriously
difficult because it is deeply unpopular politically. That does not mean nothing can
be done. The government can fight a more effective battle for the hearts and minds
of the public. Right now it is on the defensive — a coy, reticent demeanour
presented when what is required is the pounding of fists.

The prime minister talks of talks with militants but the details are vague. This is part
necessity and part confusion. It is by design because there is no one cause of
militancy. Local and Afghan Taliban; sectarian warriors; followers of different
schools of Islamic thought; Al Qaeda; and middle eastern, north African and central
Asian militants are fighting the Pakistan state, the Afghan government, the
Americans, Isaf and each other in overlapping, confusing local and regional
conflagrations. The method of dealing with each aspect of this toxic brew of
militancy depends on the local resources — political, military and counterinsurgent
— of the state and the degree to which a particular area is currently inflamed. There
will necessarily be differences between how Mohmand is handled compared to
Khyber or how Hangu is treated compared to South Waziristan. But what is
damaging for the government is the muddled articulation of its anti-militancy
strategy and its inability to keep the centre, the NWFP government, the army and
the political administration of the tribal areas on the same page. Assume Gen
Kayani genuinely intends to have his army follow the political leadership’s directions
in the war against militants. Policy confusion will encourage him to think twice. Now
assume Gen Kayani does not genuinely intend to have his army yield to the
civilians. Policy confusion will give his army the excuse it needs to exert wider, and
maybe more direct, control. Either way, the transition to civilian, elected rule is in
trouble, fuelled by the government’s deficit of trust and confidence.

Politics affects the economy and militancy; the latter affect politics. Right now all
are pulling each other down. But if it’s so obvious, why are the politicians behaving
so recklessly? What’s wrong with Pakistan? The answer: clearly plenty. Depending
on who you speak to, the diagnosis will range from the triple crisis to poverty and
illiteracy and from politicians to the judges and Musharraf. And befitting a nation of
talkers, there are plenty of people with a prognosis, gloomy or otherwise. But, like
our reckless politicians, few seem to recognise that often half the solution to a
problem lies in asking the right questions. When the coalition leaders meet, the
nation will demand answers on the judges, Musharraf and the price of fuel. But
before working on those answers, the leaders should reflect on what the right
questions are for Pakistan right now. The transition to a more democratic future for
Pakistan may depend on which set of questions they choose to address — the
obvious one or the important one.

Author Location Dated

Syed Amir 23.07.08

– Obama: fine-tuning the message?

In early June, Barack Obama emerged as the presumed nominee of the Democratic
Party in the US presidential elections. He was propelled to the top spot by his
youthful, charismatic personality, his eloquence and, not least, the enthusiasm and
passion he aroused among young college-educated voters, a phenomenon not seen
since the days of John Kennedy in the early sixties. Many were attracted by his
refreshing optimism and the clear and sharp contrast he drew between his domestic
as well as international policies and those pursued by President Bush for the past
seven years. Obama promised to end the war in Iraq and bring American troops
back home, and to seek a negotiated solution to the crisis with Iran. The superiority
of his campaign organisation translated into unprecedented success in raising huge
funds to support the fall election campaign. He raised at least $290m dollars,
mostly from small donors and much of it through the Internet. Having secured the
nomination, which required the majority support of mostly liberal and progressive
democrats, Obama now needs the vote of independent and moderate Americans —
mostly conservative, highly patriotic and strongly religious who generally align with
the Republican Party.

Similarly, women and working-class white males were not enthusiastic about his
candidacy in the primaries. In order to seek their support, he has to modify some of
his positions that seemed to work so well in the primaries. Traditionally, once they
get their party’s nomination, candidates, whether on the right or left of the political
spectrum, moderate their message to broaden their base and attract the maximum
number of voters at the general election. However, such moves have to be
calibrated skilfully lest they give the impression that the candidate holds no core
beliefs and can alter them conveniently. Four years ago, the Republicans were
successful in characterising the Democratic candidate, Senator John Kerry, who
opposed President Bush, as a flip-flopper without any bedrock convictions and
willing to change his positions to suit the occasion. The Kerry campaign could not
counteract the negative stereotyping of their candidate, and the charge stuck.
Similar charges are being currently levelled against Obama. Unlike his Republican
opponent, McCain, who has been in politics for a long time, Obama is relatively new
to national politics and the public is still struggling to define him and his policies.
Despite his repeated denials, for example, some 15 per cent of the public continues
to believe that he is a Muslim. He has recently come under attack for changing his
positions on several issues. Initially, his signature subject was his opposition to the
war in Iraq and his repeated pledge to withdraw forces from that country in 16
months.

In recent days he has nuanced his statement, adding that he would make the final
determination about withdrawal after consultation with the military commanders in
Iraq and his forthcoming visit to that country, giving himself some flexibility. In a
recent op-ed article in The New York Times, however, he reaffirmed his pledge
about his timetable for withdrawal. While the policies of the two candidates diverge
in respect to Iraq, there is no major disagreement concerning the Taliban and Al
Qaeda insurgents in Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan. Obama will
redeploy American resources from Iraq to Afghanistan, increasing troop strength by
at least two combat brigades and, if necessary, send forces into Pakistan’s tribal
areas to flush out the militants. Few issues in America incite as much passion as the
question of US support for Israel. No candidate can hope to win an election without
the financial and electoral backing of the highly successful and influential Jewish
community which tends to be strongly supportive of Israel. Some commentators
have accused Obama of not being sufficiently committed to the security of the
Jewish state, reducing his appeal to Jewish voters. To the embarrassment of his
campaign staff, a Hamas official in Gaza issued a statement welcoming his
candidacy. Obama at least partially addressed this problem in a speech at the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
Committee, a powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, in
early June. He promised $30bn in aid to Israel and reassured the audience that
Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of Israel. The speech, however,
provoked a strong protest from the Palestinian Authority and other Arab countries,
and the Obama campaign was subsequently obliged to clarify his stand on
Jerusalem. They backtracked on his statement, explaining that whatever plan the
Palestinians and Israelis agree to would also be acceptable to him.

Two other issues that have also caused problems for Obama relate to the reversal
of his position on granting retroactive immunity to those telecommunication
companies in America that had participated in wiretapping telephone conversations
of ordinary citizens in the aftermath of 9/11 to detect any terrorism-related
activities. After initially opposing the immunity, he recently voted for it in the
Senate along with 69 other senators. Some of Obama’s liberal supporters
characterised his vote as a repudiation of the principles enunciated early on in the
campaign, but Obama defended his decision saying that the resolution had been
modified and had become more acceptable to him. On a different issue, his need to
entice evangelical Christians to vote for him appears to have diluted his dedication
to the principle of separation of religion and the state, making his liberal supporters
uneasy. Their disillusionment notwithstanding, it is unlikely that they vote for
McCain. There are nearly four months until the US presidential election in
November, and the eventual winner cannot be predicted with confidence. Much will
depend on what happens in the intervening period. The most recent Washington
Post-ABC News poll shows Obama to be eight percentage points ahead of McCain
among registered voters. The country is currently going through a difficult phase,
with the economy faltering, some financial institutions in danger of failing, and fuel
prices and inflation both escalating. Worries about the economy and high energy
costs have now replaced the Iraq war as areas of top concern. While McCain is
credited with having a better knowledge of world affairs, it must be reassuring to
the Democrats that a clear majority of the electorate believes that Obama is more
qualified than McCain to deal with the acute economic problems the country is
facing.

Author Location Dated

AP Brussels 23.07.08

– EU won’t support military action against Iran

European Union foreign ministers said on Tuesday they will not support a military
strike on Iran and want more talks to resolve worries Tehran might be developing
nuclear weapons. British Foreign Secretary David Miliband said it was now up to Iran
to respond after talks in Geneva on Saturday between Iran and global powers. “We “We
are 100-per cent focused on a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian issue,”
issue,” Miliband
said. “The
“The offer that has been made to Iran on the one hand ... and the sanctions on
the other, if they refuse to engage and reply, is exactly the right approach.”
approach.”
Miliband said Tehran had to “get serious” about answering questions over its
nuclear enrichment project. Solana said “no other route” but diplomacy was
envisioned for the foreseeable future. The US and Israel have not ruled out a
military strike on Iran if it continues uranium enrichment and refuses to heed UN
Security Council demands.

“The position of the European Union is clear. ... We want to find a diplomatic
solution to this, in particular to clarify to the fullest the nature of their nuclear
program,”
program,” Solana said. Solana said he expected “to have clear and simple answers”
from his Iranian counterpart in two weeks’ time. Sweden’s Foreign Minister Carl
Bildt said that while little progress was made at Saturday’s talks it did mark
“another small step,” in international efforts to convince Tehran to cooperate over
its nuclear plans. Solana briefed EU ministers on the outcome of Saturday’s meeting
between Iran and Germany, China, Russia, France, the United States and Britain.
The six countries, plus Solana, sought to encourage Iran to stop enrichment of
uranium, which can be used to fuel atomic weapons, in exchange for economic and
political incentives. Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili had been expected
to respond to a package of incentives on offer, but stonewalled his counterparts.
The US administration broke with longstanding policy to send a top diplomat to
support the offer.

Author Location Dated

Bhagwandas Karachi, Pakistan 23.07.08

– Strike cripples life in Karachi

Hundreds of thousands of commuters in the city suffered on account of a transport
strike as operators of buses, minibuses and coaches kept their vehicles off the road
on Tuesday to protest against the recent hike in fuel prices and to demand a
matching increase in fares. However, transporters agreed to call off their strike on
an assurance by the minister that he would look into the issue. Though the fare was
not officially raised, various associations of the transporters announced that they
would bring out their vehicles on the road on Wednesday. The thoroughfares, which
normally remain choked with buses and minibuses, wore a deserted look
throughout the day in their absence. Rickshaw and taxi drivers, however, had a field
day. They charged exorbitant fares from the commuters. Some goods transport like
trucks were also seen taking passengers on Sharea Faisal. The passengers were
reportedly charged from Rs15 to Rs20 for a trip from Quaidabad to the city centre.
The strike also caused thin attendance in offices as few people made it to work. The
downtown shopping centres and business districts wore a deserted look in the
absence of visitors, while many workers also failed to reach their workplace. Flocks
of people were seen awaiting the public transport at different bus stops during the
morning rush hours. After waiting for hours at the bus stands most of the
unsuccessful commuters returned home, while a few others managed to cover short
distances to their offices on foot.

The failure of successive governments to run a circular railway or introduce a

workable mass transit system during the last six decades was a common complaint
of the people, who were affected by the strike. Many commuters were heard
criticising the authorities over non-availability of government buses and for leaving
the public at the mercy of transport mafia. While the motorcyclists were generally
seen offering a lift to people standing at the bus stands some motorists too picked
up passengers. Passengers were also critical of the government for not taking pre-
emptive steps to negotiate with the transports to avoid the strike. They feared that
the government would succumb to the transporters pressure and raise the fare
according to their demands putting additional financial burden on the common man.
People were already overburdened with ever-increasing inflation, they said.
Proposal sent to CM Sindh Transport Minister Akhtar Jadoon, meanwhile, regretting
the inconvenience caused to the general public by the transport strike said that the
transport department had not been informed about any demands for raise in the
fare before the strike call was given. All the issues should be resolved through
negotiations, he asserted.

The minister said that bus fare had been enhanced twice sometime back and there
was no justification for an unacceptable raise as was being demanded by the
transporters. However, he said, keeping in view the recent rise in fuel prices that
adversely hit the transport sector, proposal with a minimum rise in fares had been
sent to the chief minister for consideration. He said that a proposal suggesting a
Re1 rise for up to five kilometres and Rs1.50 for beyond had been forwarded to the
chief minister. The minister said that the rise would be notified after its approval by
the chief minister. Strike called off On Tuesday morning, a delegation of the
National Transport Ittehad, led by Salim Bangash, called on the transport minister
and disassociated themselves from the strike. The association announced that the
member transporters would not observe a strike on Wednesday instead they would
bring out their vehicles on roads as a matter of routine. Karachi Transport Ittehad
chief Irshad Hussain Bokhari, meanwhile, said that the strike call for Wednesday
had been withdrawn after the transport minister requested for it. Responding to
Dawn queries, he said that Sindh Transport Minister Akhtar Jadoon had come to his
office for a meeting with the transporters to discuss their problems on Tuesday. He
said that the transporters had demanded that the July 20 raise in fuel prices be
withdrawn, which was not accepted by the minister. However, Mr Bokhari said, the
minister accepted to look into the possibility of incorporating the raise in fuel price
while fixing the increase in the fares after meeting all the stakeholders during the
next three days.

Food shortage In view of the shortage of food stuff and other essential commodities
in the country, the Karachi Goods Carriers’ Association called off strike on Tuesday.
Speaking at a meeting of the transporters, Khalid Khan representing the association
said that various areas of the country were already facing a shortage of essential
items, particularly food stuff. He said it had been decided in the wake of food
shortage that the strike should be called off so that essential commodities could
reach every nook and corner of the country from Wednesday. Lauding the unity
shown by the transporters owing to which the work remained suspended at the
Mauripur Truck Stand and Hawkesbay Truck Stand, he said that the organisation
would discuss the matter with all the stakeholders and a new date for strike would
be announced shortly so that the fare could be raised in accordance with the
increase in the fuel prices.

Author Location Dated

Javed Hasan Aly jha45@yahoo.co.uk 24.07.08

– We have failed Pakistan

Last month a columnist pleaded in these pages for opportunity for politics (and
politicians) as in his opinion politics has not been allowed enough space to be
practised unhindered in this country, resulting in the crisis we face today of a
rudderless state. The underlying assumption can only be made under the
misconception that bureaucracies, particularly the military, do not play politics
during their continuing wielding of power, directly or indirectly. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Politics is a calling that is not pursued in a vacuum or in
isolation. It is interactive, not only with the citizens directly but also with various
state institutions, forces of reality and the international community. These
interactions define and mould the shape politics takes in a society and also reflect
the strength or otherwise of the participating politicians. So if politics by
professional politicians failed in this country in quality and sustainability, it was not
only because of the stranglehold of the civilmilitary bureaucracies’ nexus but also
due to the poor capacity, and even poorer intentions, of the politicians themselves.
The military has practised politics, as a player or a puppeteer, right since the early
fifties and the politicians have eagerly played into its hands satisfied with the
lollipops on offer. It plays more politics than its ostensible role, with pliant, selfish
politicians playing eager second fiddles. Politics has not been strangled due to lack
of opportunity.

Barring most of the founding fathers and a noble and notable minority of exceptions
we have all betrayed Pakistan in some measure and manner, particularly in as
much as narrow, selfish motives have driven our energies. The country to us has
been no more than a mere slogan used for politicking and as a deceitful cover for
extraneous agendas. Ethnic, sectarian, regional and economic divides have pitted
people against people. The successful opportunists have amassed wealth and
influence to further enhance their advantages to the detriment of the country and
its people at large. The state apparatus is so geared to the security of the elite that
even when, like now, the government is visibly inert, it continues to protect the
interests of the powerful elite through an institutional momentum and habit. Vital
national interests are of no concern to us. Every group, vested interest or institution
— be it the mullahs, the military, a political party or any coterie of corrupt interests
— can have agendas in conflict or variance with the interests of Pakistan. Their aim
is to pursue their self-proclaimed higher goals. Pakistan’s interests are irrelevant, or
at best secondary, to them. To achieve their objectives they are ready to cajole the
state and government through blackmail, selfishly and persistently. Politicians have
betrayed this country through poor governance, weak capacity and evil intentions.
During the fifties they demonstrated a sheer lack of capacity to discern and defeat
the manipulations of the bureaucracy. They were conveniently embroiled in
infighting, intrigue and inveterate selfishness. For them Pakistan could be
postponed.

Since then the military has taken over politics. It produces its own political
progenies and trains them, tries them, manages them or dismisses them — not for
the sake of Pakistan but for the sake of one institution’s supremacy. A vast majority
of the current crop of politicians was sowed, manured, nurtured and harvested by
their patrons in the military. For them Pakistan is secondary; their primary loyalty is
to their genetic engineers within the armed forces. Whatever the ex-servicemen’s
society may now say in a futile attempt to rehabilitate the armed forces in the
hearts of the people, the military has failed Pakistan as much as all of us have.
Every time the military has acted beyond its mandate (and this has happened
several times, the retired generals admit), it has failed Pakistan. For decades it has
claimed to be the sentinel of our ideological frontiers, something that is not the
charter of the armed forces. And the ideology it purports to protect is one of its own
creation and not of the founding fathers who created this country. The mullah as a
political force was created by the army and America, and it flourished on the fertile
soil of circumstance. Exploiting illiteracy and blossoming in a greenhouse provided
by the military umbrella, obscurantist religious leaders have come to acquire an
influence not justified by their personal endowments. They live in an imaginary
world, feed on ignorance and are inspired by quixotic and unreal explanations of the
world. Islam for them is only a slogan, something to justify an irrational explanation
of religiosity. Pakistan as a nation state of tolerant Muslims is not their goal, and
betraying it perhaps religious duty for them.

Now the bigots — any bandit with an unkempt beard and a flowing mane can claim
to be a Talib these days — have acquired military weaponry to fight the state (of a
garbled political conviction) and betraying Pakistan is part of a higher mission for
them. Unfortunately they are guided by a half-baked scholarship of dubious
intellectual content. The irrelevance of Pakistan for such religious ‘scholars’ is
revealed by a recent pronouncement of Umme Hassan, now an influential seminary
leader. She has declared that Islam can only be established through khilafat and not
through democracy. Obviously she finds some fundamental contradiction between
khilafat and democracy — perhaps without comprehending either. For her these are
terms of endearment, or the opposite; her knowledge is purely a product of
propaganda, not learning. The civil bureaucracy, true to its inclination and
postcolonial heritage, is not to be left behind. It has demeaned itself to the depths
of servility for the sake of some crumbs of authority and state largesse. They will
gladly treat Pakistan as a cumbersome mother-in-law — any time, any day. Civil
society is perhaps the only hope. Energised by the struggle of the lawyers, it seems
now to have discovered Pakistan as a purpose in itself. It could force politicians to
change their objectives. All credit to the leaders of the bar, for Aitzaz and his noble
companions have reinvigorated the elite with a compulsion to recognise and
resurrect the purpose and function of a state. Recently there have been attempts to
belittle the lawyers’ struggle — it was suggested that the long march had petered
out into a picnic party. Whatever the reasons for its less than dramatic finale, we
cannot ignore its marshalling of national emotions and its repeated knocks at the
consciences of state institutions to wake them up to a show of loyalty to this
country.

Author Location Dated

AFP Tokyo, Japan 24.07.08

– Japanese say goodbye to Harry Potter after long wait

Hundreds of Harry Potter fans dressed up in costume on Wednesday as they
snapped up the Japanese translation of the seventh and final book of the series, a
year after it appeared in English. Readers gathered in costume at bookstores, some
of which opened as early as 7:00 am (2200 GMT) to start selling the Japanese
version of “Harry
“Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows.”
Hallows.” “I’m
“I’m so excited I feel like crying.
I’m totally enchanted,”
enchanted,” said a breathless young Japanese woman who gave her first
name as Erina. She said she had waited outside the Tokyo bookstore since Tuesday
afternoon. “I“I feel sad that this is the end but since I’ve followed him throughout the
years I will be seeing him out, and that comforts me,”me,” she said, wearing a blonde
wig as Luna, one of the main characters. “We
“We believe in magic thanks to Harry,”
Harry,”
Erina said. Bespectacled 28-year old Saori, who was dressed up as Harry, said the
magic never died throughout the seven books. “Even“Even if this is the end, I will always
have Harry Potter moving around in my head,”
head,” she said. “I
“I have the feeling that
perhaps he’s somewhere in this city, and that there might be an entrance to that
other magical world.”
world.” Online bookstore Amazon Japan said it received about 95,000
orders for the Japanese version of J.K. Rowling’s book, the most ever for a book in
the Harry Potter series, topping its bestsellers chart. But some bookstores said the
excitement for the latest book was not as much as expected, in part because
readers inevitably have found out much of the plot in the year since the work was
originally published in English. Even the release of the original book last year was
marred by controversy over leaks about the contents that made their way into
newspapers and the Internet. “The
“The readership isn’t so zealous, even though we
thought they would get more excited over the final novel,”
novel,” said Shiro Nakamura,
the store manager of the Yaesu book store near central Tokyo Station.

Author Location Dated

Deepesh Shrestha Kathmandu, Nepal 24.07.08

– Nepal’s first president sworn in

The first president of newly republican Nepal was sworn into office on Wednesday,
but the country remained in political limbo, with the former Maoist rebels refusing to
form a government under him. Ram Baran Yadav took his oath in Nepal's new
constitutional assembly, which had voted on May 28 to sack unpopular king
Gyanendra and abolish the Himalayan country's 240-year-old monarchy. “I, “I, in the
name of God take the oath of office that I will remain committed to the nation and
its people to fulfil the duty with my utmost honesty and protect the sovereignty and
freedom of the nation,”
nation,” the new president said. The president, who was supported
by the centrist Nepali Congress party, was voted in on Monday, infuriating the
Maoists — who hold the largest bloc of seats in the assembly but not an outright
majority. The presidency is a largely ceremonial position but the Maoists — who
ended a decade of civil war to enter mainstream politics — are refusing to form a
government. They had insisted their choice of president should be elected, arguing
Yadav's victory would give them little room to manoeuvre should they form a
government, and little chance of implementing key platform pledges like radical
land reform.

Maoist party chief Prachanda did not attend Wednesday's swearing-in ceremony,
instead sending his deputy Baburam Bhattarai and another senior party member,
Dinanadh Sharma. Sharma said his party remained committed to the rewriting of
Nepal's constitution. “We
“We are really very happy. Because of our struggle — without
any compromise — the agenda that we laid has been institutionalised officially on
this day,”
day,” he said. “Of
“Of course all the problems will not be over. We have to
industrialise the country and we have to bring about an economic and cultural
revolution. Our main priority will be to draft the new constitution and we will be
involved in that even if we are not part of the government.”
government.” France's ambassador to
Nepal, Gilles-Henry Garault said that the swearing-in of Yadav was a historically
significant day for the impoverished Himalayan nation and would set it on the right
path for the future. “Nepal
“Nepal has just passed through the most difficult period of
history by abolishing the monarchy. It's a very important day for Nepal and the
international community as Nepal has got a first president,”
president,” he said. “It's
“It's the first
step towards building a peaceful and prosperous Nepal.”
Nepal.” Yadav, who arrived at the
assembly building in a Jaguar once used by the former king for official duties, also
administered the same oath to vice president Parmananda Jha. Yadav, a 61-year-old
former health minister and trained medical doctor, has said he plans to use his new
position to try to unite Nepal and address grievances among the country's ethnic
communities. In a statement congratulating Yadav earlier this week, UN chief Ban
Ki-moon has urged all parties to “cooperate
“cooperate in forming a new government which will
carry forward Nepal's peace process.”
process.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Sderot, Israel 24.07.08

– Nuclear Iran poses ‘grave threat’: Obama

US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Wednesday a nuclear
Iran would pose a “grave threat” and that the world must stop Tehran from
obtaining an atomic weapon. Obama told reporters during a visit to Israel that if
elected, he would take “no options off the table” in dealing with the Iran issue and
said tougher sanctions could be imposed. “A “A nuclear Iran would pose a grave threat
and the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,”
weapon,” Obama told
reporters after visiting the Israeli town of Sderot, which lies close to the border with
the Hamas-run Gaza Strip. He said the international community should immediately
offer “big sticks and big carrots” to persuade Iran to halt its nuclear programme.
The West suspects Iran wants to build atom bombs but the Islamic Republic says its
aims are peaceful. “Iranians
“Iranians need to understand that whether it’s the Bush
administration or the Obama administration, this is a paramount concern to the
United States,”
States,” he said in Sderot, which has been hit by cross-border rockets fired
by Gaza-based militants.

Author Location Dated

AFP Sderot, Israel 24.07.08

– Obama calls Israel ‘miracle’, reassures Palestinians

Barack Obama called Israel a “miracle” as he courted Jewish voters back home on
Wednesday and left Palestinians with the impression he would plunge into
peacemaking if he makes it to the White House. On the latest stage of his
presidential-style tour through the Middle East and Europe, the Democratic
candidate met top Palestinian and Israeli leaders, as he tried to convince Americans
he is ready for the world stage. US polls showed Obama is yet to solidify the
normally solidly Democratic bloc of American Jewish voters, and he took pains to
portray himself as a staunch friend of Israel, just over three months before the US
election. Battling fatigue, the Illinois Senator held a volley of talks with Israeli
leaders, toured the country’s cramped topography by helicopter, and paid homage
to Holocaust victims at the Yad Vesham memorial. Obama paid his respects to
President Shimon Peres, and his role in Israel’s history, before meeting Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert. “You
“You have been deeply involved in this miracle that has
blossomed and we are extraordinarily grateful not just as Americans but as world
citizens for your outstanding service to your country,”
country,” Obama told Peres.
During a day spent mostly with Israeli officials, Obama drove to the occupied West
Bank and held just about an hour of talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud
Abbas in Ramallah. “Obama
“Obama told President Abbas if he wins the election in the
United States he will be a full and positive partner in the peace process and will not
lose a single moment in pursuing it,”
it,” Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat said. “He
“He
supports a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and said from the first
moment of his presidency he will be a very important partner in the peace process.”
process.”
Obama angered Palestinians last month by saying an undivided Jerusalem must
remain Israel’s “capital”, while the Palestinians want the occupied eastern sector of
the city as the capital of their promised future state. Obama made no statement
after the talks. On Tuesday, he said peace hopes were dimmed because Palestinian
politics was divided between Abbas’s secular Fatah party and the Islamists of
Hamas, and turmoil was wracking Israel’s fragile government. “It “It is a very difficult
process. There is a lot of history that exists between those two people(s). That
history is not going to vanish overnight,”
overnight,” he said in Jordan. “So
“So I think it’s unrealistic
to expect that a US president alone can suddenly snap his fingers and bring about
peace in this region.”
region.”

Many Palestinians welcome the change that Obama might represent after eight
years with little to show from the administration of George W. Bush, but they think
it’s unlikely he will bring about an end to the decades-old conflict. “Change
“Change is good.
Maybe Obama understands the Palestinian issue, but the question is whether he will
do anything about it,”it,” said a resident of occupied East Jerusalem, Munir Kort. After
visiting the West Bank, Obama journeyed to the southern Israeli town of Sderot, a
few miles from the Gaza border, which has been a long time target of Hamas
rockets and mortars. Earlier, the Democratic senator toured Yad Vashem Holocaust
memorial in Jerusalem to the Jews who perished under the Nazis. Wearing a white
kippa, Obama laid a wreath at the Hall of Remembrance, where ashes recovered
from Nazi extermination chambers are interred. Despite the round of presidential-
style meetings, Obama’s team insisted he would not attempt to interfere in current
US policy on the Middle East in his meetings. “The“The United States of America has one
president at a time, that president is George W. Bush, so he will not be engaged in
any shape or form in negotiations or policymaking or the like,”like,” said Obama foreign
policy aide Susan Rice.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 25.07.08

– Senate body criticises inclusion of ‘irrelevant’ laws in money

bill
A Senate committee has criticised the inclusion of increase in the number of
Supreme Court judges and amendments to various other “irrelevant laws” in the
money bill, and directed the ministries of finance and law to explain their position in
its next meeting. Members of the Senate Committee on Rules of Procedure and
Privileges criticised what they termed a gross violation of the Constitution, and
observed that nowhere in the world the number of judges of top courts was
increased in this manner, according to a senator who attended the meeting held on
Thursday. They said the government had bypassed Senate in the process of
lawmaking by including in the money bill legislative issues irrelevant to it, and had
thus breached the privilege of Senate. The committee, which met under the
chairmanship of Senator S. Tahir Hussain Mashhadi, considered privilege motion
about inclusion of 27 acts and ordinances in the money bill and amendments to
laws which did not conform to definition of money bill under Article 73 of the
Constitution.

The motion was moved by Senators Chaudhry Muhammad Anwar Bhinder, Kamil Ali
Agha, Col (retd) S. Tahir Hussain Mashhadi, Agha Pari Gul, Nilofar Bakhtiar, Bibi
Yasmeen Shah, Haroon Khan, Khalid Ranjha and Dr Muhammad Ali Brohi. Brohi. Law
Minister Farooq H. Naek was not there because he was attending a meeting on the
repeal of Frontier Crimes Regulations (FCR),
(FCR), while Finance Minister Syed Naveed
Qamar came an hour late. Senator Mashhadi asked both the ministries to submit
detailed and comprehensive replies, giving their points of view on the subject by
July 31. He said special requests be made to the ministers, National Assembly
secretary and all members to attend the next meeting because it was a matter of
paramount importance. Finance Minister Naveed Qamar assured the committee he
would ensure his presence in the next meeting along with the law minister. He
appreciated the hard work done by the committee on finance to formulate
recommendations to be incorporated in the federal budget. He said that although
the increase in the number of judges had financial implications, he would agree to a
full debate on the issue when the minister for law and justice was free to devote
more time. Mr Mashhadi said it was the constitutional right of Senate to know how
and why it had been done. This was a pertinent question which needed to be
answered in detail.

On the issue of judges, he observed that the Constitution was very categorical as
there was a clear provision that this number “shall” be increased only by an Act of
the Parliament. (Had there been a “may be”, according to him, the situation might
have been different). Senator S.M. Zafar said the practice of associating apparently
unconnected matters with the finance bill had been going on for quite some time
and it had been repeated this year. Senator Bhinder regretted that briefs had not
been provided to members by the ministries concerned. He expressed surprise over
inclusion of 27 acts and ordinances in the money bill and asked if the law division
had actually vetted the bill before giving its consent. He said the upper house had
been bypassed by the ministries concerned.

Author Location Dated

Sheikh Khushid Hassan 25.07.08

– Criteria for reward and punishment

The Holy Quran is a unique book, which provides guidance to the Faithful, enabling
them to lead an honourable, happy and successful life. The divine commandments
contained in the Holy Book are so comprehensive that they cover various aspects of
human life right from the cradle to the grave. The message of the Holy Quran is a
universal one. It underlines the need for the deepest contemplation, which opens up
the flood gates of knowledge and consciousness of man. The salvation of human
beings mainly lies in doing good deeds in this earthly life. Allah had ordained His
Messengers to eat all such things, which are clean and do things, which are good.
(23:51) It follows that good deeds are dependent upon adopting such means of
livelihood, which are pure and clean. Similar commandments have also been given
to the faithful to eat only such things of the earth that are lawful and good. (2:57
and 168 and 5:88). Besides honestly earned livelihood is better and more enduring
than accumulation of worldly riches. (20:131).

According to the traditions of the Holy Prophet (PBUH), the best course of livelihood
is to earn with one’s own hands. Lawful earnings bring both prosperity and
happiness, in addition to manifold blessings from Allah. The persons earning their
livelihood through lawful means will get the highest award from Allah. Likewise, the
traders doing their business with honesty will in the Hereafter be equated with
Prophets, Righteous and Martyrs. (Sahih Bukhari, Masnad-e-Ahmad etc). The
unlawful source of livelihood brings painful chastisement. (9:3435). Besides,
acquisition of wealth through illegal means is frequently condemned in three ways
in the Holy Quran. (a) Do not acquire anything wrongfully or on false pretences, (b)
Do not hoard or bury or amass wealth for its own sake, but use it freely for good
cause and (c) Be particularly careful not to waste it for idle purposes, but only so
that it may fructify for the good of the people.
people. According to the traditions of the
Holy Prophet (PBUH), a man whose means of substance are based on ill-gotten
money (Haram), his ultimate abode will be in the hell. According to some other
traditions, the prayers of those whose upbringing is based on illegitimate source of
income will not be acceptable to Allah. Any charity given from ill gotten money will
be of no avail.

One cannot wash out his misdeeds by distributing alms from such earnings.
According to the teachings of the Prophet, the prayers (Salat) of a person will not be
honoured by Allah so long he puts on such garments, partially purchased with some
amount of unlawful earnings even if it involved a fraction of a dirham. Such
commandments were strictly followed by the orthodox Caliphs, who were the
temporal head of the Muslim Ummah. There are instances when some of the
Caliphs, subsequently knowing that the food stuff offered to them by certain
individuals contained some elements of impurity, had to take it out by way of
vomiting. (Sahih Muslim, Bukhari). Almighty Allah is most Beneficent and Merciful.
Allah is nearer than man’s jugular vein and listens to His supplication. (50:16). Allah
listens to the prayers of every supplicant when he called on Him. (2:186). According
to Surah 40:60, Allah will answer our prayers if we call upon Him. Allah’s bounties
with regard to the acceptance of our prayers are further explained in the traditions
of the Holy Prophet. These include; (a) Whosoever prayer to Allah, doors of His
grace are opened for him, (b) always seek the divine favour, because Allah likes
that His supplicants ask for His forgiveness, and (c) Allah is annoyed with those who
do not ask for His blessings. (Tirmizi).

However, a question arises that despite the fact that Allah is most beneficent and
Merciful as to why our prayers go astray? The answer is that since the means of our
sustenance are mostly saturated with illgotten money, our deeds cannot claim
legitimacy and thus our prayers are not responded by Allah. Our deeds will
undoubtedly serve as an arbiter of our ultimate destiny in the Hereafter. According
to Surah 2:286, the criteria laid down for reward (Jaza) and punishment (Saza) on
the Day of Judgment will be. ‘Each
‘Each soul will enjoy what good he earns as indeed
each will suffer from the wrong.
wrong. In other words ‘, as you sow, so shall you reap! This
principle also applies to the nations. (2:134) Divine revelations are quite clear about
the reward and punishment awarded to the faithful, depending upon their good
deeds or bad deeds. It has been explained that whosoever does wrong, does so for
himself. Likewise whosoever does wrong bears the guilt himself (41:46). Rizaq-i-
Halal not only ensures good deeds by the faithful, but also acts as a shield against
misdeeds.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 25.07.08

– Aid and conflict resolution

Last week I had the pleasure of attending an international conference on peace and
sustainable development, courtesy the German Development Agency. It was highly
romantic to listen to papers for a week in an academic environment in Belgium
about alternative methods of peacebuilding and economic development. The
emphasis was on interfaith dialogue success stories, interaction between parties in
conflict through the assistance of European and American donors, and projects for
the empowerment of indigenous communities. Although the participants were
supposed to take home lessons about how conflicts can be resolved through
investment of funds and efforts by external and internal players, some of us were
equally inspired to question the above-mentioned methodology. While it might
sound silly to be sceptical, the fact of the matter is that the ‘project’ approach to
peace, development, poverty reduction and empowerment creates islands that do
not necessarily inspire change in the world around them.

For instance, it was quite emotional to hear a JewishAmerican peace

activist/academic, an African pastor and a Muslim woman from Egypt talk about
how they abandoned their personal prejudices and are now fostering love between
communities in their areas. However, such cases do not necessarily address the
wider lack of understanding of other faiths and the anxieties felt by different
communities. You can spread love until kingdom come and yet not release the
tension which arises primarily because we live in a fiercely competitive world where
the Thomas Friedmans have no sympathy for the ‘other’, and where there is
definitely no scope for human dignity and self-respect. (The market economy, as
the Europeans as opposed to the Americans are learning, does not exclude social
justice.) Maybe the conference organisers or the community of financial donors and
peacebuilders need to seriously ask themselves why their financial investment does
not have an impact. Is it that the people in Africa, Asia and Latin America are
genetically unintelligent and comfortable with corruption and bad governance? Is it
that societies in developing countries are inherently praetorian and hence cannot
have a better system of politics and governance? Or is it because some religions (as
opposed to others) cannot deal with democracy, modernity and development? Or is
it that non-secular societies just cannot modernise? These are not simply questions;
they reflect how the donor community conceptualises problems in the developing
world.

The aforementioned analysis naturally leads to a certain type of solution, such as

supporting segments of indigenous communities that are considered better than
others. This means providing political and financial assistance selectively to
individuals and institutions. This is also when Samuel P. Huntington’s or Morris
Janowitz’s argument that militaries or bureaucracies are the most modern
institutions begins to make sense, and when Idi Amin, Francois Duvalier, Saddam
Hussain, Slobodan Milosevic, Ziaul Haq or Pervez Musharraf are born. Moreover, the
emphasis is on providing funding for select projects which concurrently benefit
citizens of the donor countries — a lot of the funds are milked as fees for foreign
consultants — and create a class of local people who get rich from being
consultants. Also, the donor strategy considers western democracy and secularism
to be akin to modernity.

There are four obvious problems in this development approach. First, it builds on
the principle of exclusion rather than inclusion. The underlying assumption is that
since a particular society is too backward or underdeveloped, it would be best to
salvage part of it. The ones who become partners are always those who are also fit
to serve the larger strategic interests of the donors. Second, the ones bailed out are
not necessarily integrated with the rest of the community. Since the rest of society
remains underdeveloped, those on the receiving end of investment tend to partner
with their international benefactors or the local elite that has partly facilitated the
process, thus drawing a wedge between different segments of society. Third, and
more importantly, since western donors in particular equate secularism with
modernity, the people chosen in this case are part of the elite and given to
corruption as a group. This is not to suggest that religious, conservative people are
not corrupt but to point out that using secularism as a benchmark does not help
either. Finally, most of the development work is routed through the ruling elite
whose behaviour both politically and financially is questionable. In fact, the major
flaw in the donor-driven development approach is that it depends too much on a
select group of people who are often part of the elite or aspiring to it.

If the developed world would care to look more closely it would begin to notice that
in certain societies poverty, underdevelopment and conflict become cyclical
processes that do not seem to end despite all efforts. For instance, Iraq is no better
today than when Saddam Hussain was there. Pakistan and Afghanistan have not
improved in spite of the funds poured into the two countries by the donor
community. The two common denominators in these three cases or those similar to
them in other continents are: (a) rentseeking and corrupt elites and (b) soft and
hard foreign intervention. The fact of the matter is that rent-seeking states can
never get out of the cycle of underdevelopment and conflict until the ruling elite
agrees not to loot and pillage and to become productive. So, for instance, the
temporary boost in Pakistan’s foreign exchange reserves or the expansion of the
mobile phone market does not necessarily mean development. There is no
sustainable economic development due to a lack of stability which Pakistan will
never have until the elites understand that they have to become productive and
negotiate resources with their rivals and the general public.

The reason that this maturity does not come is because there is no pressure to
mature. Since the elite is dependent on outside power for resources and political
legitimacy, the political logic is entirely different. Social justice and improving
governance are not the priorities because the domestic elite’s main audience is not
its people but the governments outside. Thus the internal-external link becomes a
driver of poverty, corruption and underdevelopment. The recipe, then, for bringing
improvement to African nations, Afghanistan or other countries is this: western
governments must de-link themselves from the elites and governments of those
countries. Let them find their path to survival. Unless the elites become answerable
and responsible to a domestic audience, there can be no sustainable development.
Developed countries cannot ignore this formula just because they have shut their
own doors pretty tight through strict visa regimes. This underdeveloped world is
bound to haunt them one day. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and
political analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 25.07.08

– Oil price continues falling

World oil prices fell slightly on Thursday but held close to $125 per barrel, as Libya
said it would halt fuel supplies to key energy customer Switzerland. Libya is a
member of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries,
Countries, the cartel that
supplies about 40 per cent of the world’s crude oil. Crude futures had slumped on
Wednesday by about $4 a barrel after a bigger-than-expected increase in US
gasoline reserves amid weaker demand in the United States, the world’s biggest
energy consumer. “Given
“Given the huge fall recently, there has been increasing talk the
oil prices may have peaked,”
peaked,” said Sucden analyst Michael Davies. New York’s main
contract, light sweet crude for September delivery, lost 25 cents to $124.19 a barrel
in electronic deals on Thursday. Brent North Sea crude for September delivery
eased 14 cents to $125.15 in early London trading.

Libya said on Thursday it would stop fuel supplies to key oil client Switzerland in the
latest reprisal for last week’s brief detention in Geneva of Hannibal, a son of Libyan
leader Moamer Kadhafi. The General National Maritime Transport Company and the
Port Authority said in a joint statement they had “decided
“decided to halt Libyan oil tankers
carrying oil products to Switzerland.”
Switzerland.” The state-run companies also decided to “bar “bar
Swiss ships from unloading or entering Libyan ports,”
ports,” it added. An official with the
transport company told AFP the decision was taken on Wednesday but was unable
to say if it had yet been enforced. Crude oil prices have shot to a series of record
highs this year, partly because of political tensions surrounding oil producing
nations, notably in Iran over its nuclear programme. However prices have tumbled
by about $22 since striking record heights above $147 a barrel on July 11. They also
slumped on Wednesday as Hurricane Dolly in the Gulf of Mexico veered away from
offshore oil installations.

Author Location Dated

Intikhab Hanif Lahore, Pakistan 25.07.08

– No rose without thorn, Taseer tells PML-N

In a clear-cut message to the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz, Governor Salmaan
Taseer said on Thursday one should assume responsibility of unpopular decisions on
national affairs like security and inflation instead of just enjoying power. “It’s
“It’s very
easy to enjoy power and avoid unpopular decisions. Those who think that the
worsening situation will lead to fresh elections are mistaken because rolling back of
the present system will not benefit anyone,”
anyone,” he said while talking to reporters at the
Governor’s House. When asked whether he was giving caution to the PML-N, the
governor said he was addressing everyone. “But “But the PML-N should also join the
federal government, if it is heading the Punjab government.”
government.” He said there should
be a consensus on security and economic issues of Pakistan. “Political
“Political games
continue in every country, but on these issues we should move together.”
together.” He
warned against any ‘political mischief’ in the food stamp schemes because “this
“this
would simply spoil the subsidy programme”. “On the same pattern, Benazir cards
will be given to those already enlisted by the Baitul Maal. And any impartiality in
making lists for the provincial food stamp schemes will spoil them,”
them,” he said.

He said it was wrong if the Punjab government was pressuring the local councils by
adopting unconstitutional means. The leader of the opposition should be notified in
Punjab without any further delay, he said. “Will
“Will the military tolerate political
opponents, if they are not tolerated by political parties?”
parties?” he asked. He ruled out the
possibility of imposition of governor’s rule in Punjab, and said his meeting with
President Musharraf and Mr Asif Ali Zardari was not a conspiracy against anyone. He
said the PML-N was not the sole ruling party in Punjab. Instead it was a senior
partner of the ruling alliance. “It’s
“It’s not a reminder to the party. It’s a simple reality,”
reality,”
he said. The governor said the PPP wanted continuation of the coalition government
and the present democratic system because this was the need of the hour. It had
announced in the very beginning that it would make the PML-N a senior partner in
the Punjab government and kept its word. “We “We could sabotage the arrangement in
the very beginning in Punjab and the NWFP. But we did not do so and even kept the
MQM with us despite having differences with it in the past,”
past,” he said.

The PPP, according to the governor, went an extra mile to accommodate the PML-N
in Punjab. “I
“I took oath from Mr Shahbaz Sharif without wasting any time despite the
filing of an objection against his election. I would not have accepted the resignation
of Mr Dost Khosa, if I had any ill will against Mr Sharif.”
Sharif.” He said he wanted to make
it clear that the PPP believed in democracy and it would continue to fully support
the PML-N. “People
“People time and again accuse me (of foul play), but the reality is that I
have gone a hundred extra miles to support the PML-N,”
PML-N,” he said. He said the
present system could be discarded in three ways - dismissal of the assembly by the
president, or on the advice of the prime minister, and/or through an extra-
constitutional step. “The
“The first two options are not viable, and the third will destroy
everyone.Therefore, it is in the interest of political forces to show flexibility, stop
seeking petty gains, and look at the bigger picture,”
picture,” was what the governor
advised. He said the PPP would not allow destabilisation of the country, internally
and externally. Instead of shifting responsibility (like others), it owned trouble at
borders and inflation. “People
“People are annoyed with us, but who will run the country in
this difficult hour.”
hour.” The governor said the surveys being published to indicate
political personages’ popularity were bogus, rejecting the allegations that the
government has failed to deliver in its first three months in power.
“Political parties are elected for five years, and their popularity is checked at the
expiry of this term. They take difficult decisions at the outset and have time to
benefit people afterwards. We will also do the same,”
same,” he said.

Replying to questions, the governor said parliament could remove the president if it
wanted to do so. He had nothing to do with the impeachment or the continuation of
the president, he said. He said if the PML-N’s claim of getting people’s vote on the
issue of restoration of judges was true, then it must be kept in mind that it claimed
22 per cent of the total votes. People voted only for their betterment. The PPP
wanted restoration of democracy and independence of the judiciary was directly
linked to it, Mr Taseer said. He denied the allegation that the PPP was planning to
abandon the PML-N and form its government in Punjab in league with the PML-Q,
linking this to a recent reported meeting between Mr Zardari and Chaudhry Pervaiz
Elahi. “This
“This is baseless,”
baseless,” he said. The governor supported the local government
system and said it was a part of the Constitution. He said the system had some
shortcomings, but its concept was good. The local governments should be allowed
to complete their terms, he said, stressing that the next elections should be held on
a party basis. Referring to recent statements of Pervaiz Elahi regarding the
wrapping up of the present system, Governor Taseer said any attempt to do so
would prove disastrous for the country. Nothing of the sort would happen, he said
with an advice to Pervaiz Elahi to talk of his role as an opposition leader.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Vienna 25.07.08

– Iran hopeful of fresh start in nuclear talks

The head of Iran’s atomic energy organisation said on Thursday he was hopeful
talks over the Islamic state’s nuclear programme could start based on proposals
made by Iran and the six powers at recent talks in Geneva. The Geneva talks ended
in stalemate on Saturday with the major powers giving Iran two weeks to answer
calls to rein in its nuclear programme, which the West says is intended to produce
nuclear bombs, or face tougher sanctions. The six powers have offered Iran
economic and other incentives in return for its suspending uranium enrichment. But
prospects of ending a row that has triggered regional tensions and rattled oil
markets looked dim as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator insisted in Geneva Tehran
would not even discuss a demand to freeze uranium enrichment. But Gholamreza
Aghazadeh, who is also Iran’s vice president, said on Thursday: “Both
“Both sides have
received the messages of the other side and are carefully studying the concerns
and expectations of both sides.” “I am very hopeful that the negotiations will be
started in a framework of both sides being fully committed to the expectations that
are already there,”
there,” he added. Aghazadeh told reporters in Vienna that talks
between Iran and the six powers — the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China
and Germany — would also help resolve a range of issues from the Middle East
tensions to rising oil prices. “If
“If the negotiation starts, many important problems
would be resolved,”
resolved,” Aghazadeh said after meeting the UN nuclear watchdog’s head,
Mohamed ElBaradei, at the International Atomic Energy Agency’s (IAEA) Vienna
headquarters.

“The problem of the Middle East, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and also Iraq and also the
problem of the oil price,”
price,” he added. He was speaking in Farsi and his remarks were
translated into English by Iran’s IAEA envoy Ali Asghar Soltanieh. Aghazadeh did not
address Iran’s enrichment programme at his news conference. Enriched uranium
can provide fuel for power plants but also material for bombs if refined much more.
Iran rejects western suspicions that it is secretly developing atomic weapons, saying
its nuclear programme is a peaceful drive to generate electricity so it can export
more oil and gas. The IAEA said in May that Iran’s alleged research into nuclear
warheads was a “serious concern” and that Tehran should provide more information
on its missile-related activities. Aghazadeh said he believed it was not the IAEA’s
business to look into those allegations, but added that Iran would address them in
other ways. He did not elaborate. “The
“The topic of alleged studies ... is outside of the
domain of the agency, this is something that will be dealt with in another way,”way,” he
said. “Steps
“Steps have already been taken in that direction and if in the future there are
measures that are necessary ... we will do it if necessary.”
necessary.”

Author Location Dated

Matthew Bigg Miami Beach, Florida 25.07.08

– Obama strives to overcome doubts among US Jews

If US presidential candidate Barack Obama’s trip to Israel is to be judged a success,
one of the things it must do is help overcome doubts about him among some Jewish
voters back home. That is particularly true in Florida, a state whose support proved
decisive for US President George W. Bush in 2000 and which could help determine
November’s election. Nationally, 74 per cent of Jewish voters backed Democratic
candidate John Kerry in 2004, according to exit polls, making them a potential
treasure trove of votes for Obama, this year’s presumptive Democratic nominee. In
Florida Jewish voters make up five per cent of the electorate. But many Jewish
voters have significant doubts about the strength of the Illinois senator’s
commitment to maintaining the traditional US position of stalwart support for Israel
coupled with staunch opposition to Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Questions about him
have arisen among Jewish voters because of Obama’s association with a prominent
Palestinian academic and radical comments made by his former pastor Jeremiah
Wright, several south Florida rabbis said in interviews. They are also concerned
about links between his former church in Chicago and Louis Farrakhan, a militant
black Muslim leader. Some of those concerns were exacerbated by emails that
circulated in the Jewish community this year spreading rumours about Obama that,
while easily refuted, have proved persuasive to some people, they said. One email
erroneously said he was a Muslim.

At root, many Jewish voters are unsure what Obama stands for because he is newer
to the national stage than his rival Republican John McCain, the rabbis said. “A“A
number of people who would normally be supporting a Democratic candidate
because of his positions on the economy and social issues are nervous of him as far
as Israel goes,”
goes,” said Josh Broide, executive director of the Boca Raton synagogue in
south Florida. In part to address uncertainty about his foreign policy aims and
credentials as a potential commanderin-chief, Obama went to the Middle East this
week. He hailed Israel as a “miracle” on Wednesday during a visit that included a
stop in Sderot, a town hit by rockets from the Hamasrun Gaza Strip. In an indication
of the importance he places on Jewish votes, he answered questions at a town hall
meeting in May at a synagogue in Boca Raton, south Florida. Florida Democratic
Rep. Robert Wexler, a prominent Obama supporter, has also led a vigorous
campaign to win the Jewish community over. Wexler said an opinion poll this week
by the pro-Israel group J Street of 800 Jewish voters showed 60 per cent viewed
Obama favourably against 37 per cent who view him unfavorably. Wexler said that
showed concerns about his stance on Israel were overplayed. Other polls show
Obama and McCain running about even among all Florida voters. Jewish voters were
not a monolithic bloc and responses to Obama and McCain varied widely across
social demographics as well as religious and political affiliation, said Dan Levin,
senior rabbi at the Temple Beth El in Boca Raton. At the same time, not all placed
equal importance on the strength of a candidate’s support for Israel.“One
Israel.“One of the
things that people appreciate about Obama is that he is ... a more complex thinker
(than Bush). But when someone is a more complex, people will read that as
weakness and ask: ‘Are you pro-Israel or not pro-Israel,’”
pro-Israel,’” Levin said.

An afternoon at a kosher delicatessen on Miami Beach provides a glimpse of the

range of Jewish opinion. Joseph Gold, an orthodox Jew buying a meal-to-go, said he
would vote for Obama because of what he called his “economic liberalism”. For a
worker on a low wage, Gold said he would pay less tax under Obama. He also
voiced a view echoed by others at the deli that once a candidate became president
they had little opportunity to depart from the basic US position of support for Israel.
“Once they become president their hands are tied anyway (when it comes to Israel)
by Congress and lobbyists,”
lobbyists,” said Gold, who works as a warehouse manager. Bob
Grover, an independent voter, said Obama’s tendency to avoid making specific
commitments made him less convincing as a supporter of Israel. “Obama
“Obama just says
what people want to hear and doesn’t allow himself to be pinned down .... I’m still
waiting (for specifics) and because of that I have great fear,”
fear,” said Grover, an
attorney.

Author Location Dated

Michael Shermer Los Angeles, California 25.07.08

– Toward a ‘type 1 civilisation’

Our civilisation is fast approaching a tipping point. Humans will need to make the
transition from nonrenewable fossil fuels as our primary energy source to renewable
energy sources that will allow us to flourish into the future. Failure to make that
transformation will doom us to the endless political machinations and economic
conflicts that have plagued civilisation for the past half-millennium. We need new
technologies to be sure, but without evolved political and economic systems, we
cannot become what we must. And what is that? A Type 1 civilisation. Let me
explain.

In a 1964 article on searching for extraterrestrial civilisation, Soviet astronomer

Nikolai Kardashev suggested using radio telescopes to detect energy signals from
other solar systems in which there might be civilisation of three levels of
advancement: Type 1 can harness all of the energy of its home planet; Type 2 can
harvest all of the power of its sun; and Type 3 can master the energy from its entire
galaxy.
galaxy. Based on our energy efficiency at the time, in 1973 astronomer Carl Sagan
estimated that Earth represented a Type 0.7 civilisation on a Type 0 to Type 1 scale.
(More current assessments put us at 0.72.) As the Kardashevian scale is logarithmic
where any increase in power consumption requires a huge leap in power production
we have a ways to go before 1.0. Fossil fuels won’t get us there. Renewable sources
such as solar, wind and geothermal are a good start and coupled to nuclear power
could get us to Type 1 eventually. Yet the hurdles are not solely or even primarily
technological ones. We have a proven track record of achieving remarkable
scientific solutions to survival problems as long as there is the political will and
economic opportunities that allow the solutions to flourish. In other words, we need
a Type 1 polity and economy, along with the technology, in order to become a Type
1 civilisation. We are close. If we use the Kardashevian scale to plot humankind’s
progress, it shows how far we’ve come in the long history of our species from Type
0, and it leads us to see what a Type 1 civilisation might be like:
Type 0.1: Fluid groups of hominids living in Africa. Technology consists of primitive
stone tools. Intra-group conflicts are resolved through dominance hierarchy, and
between-group violence is common.
common. Type 0.2: Bands of roaming hunter-gatherers
that form kinship groups, with a mostly horizontal political system and egalitarian
economy.
economy. Type 0.3: Tribes of individuals linked through kinship but with a more
settled and agrarian lifestyle. The beginnings of a political hierarchy and a primitive
economic division of labor.
labor. Type 0.4: Chiefdoms consisting of a coalition of tribes
into a single hierarchical political unit with a dominant leader at the top, and with
the beginnings of significant economic inequalities and a division of labor in which
lower-class members produce food and other products consumed by non-producing
upperclass members.
members. Type 0.5: The state as a political coalition with jurisdiction
over a well-defined geographical territory and its corresponding inhabitants, with a
mercantile economy that seeks a favorable balance of trade in a win-lose game
against other states.
states. Type 0.6: Empires extend their control over peoples who are
not culturally, ethnically or geographically within their normal jurisdiction, with a
goal of economic dominance over rival empires.
empires. Type 0.7: Democracies that divide
power over several institutions, which are run by elected officials voted for by some
citizens. The beginnings of a market economy.
economy.
Type 0.8: Liberal democracies that give the vote to all citizens. Markets that begin
to embrace a nonzero, win-win economic game through free trade with other states. states.
Type 0.9: Democratic capitalism, the blending of liberal democracy and free
markets, now spreading across the globe through democratic movements in
developing nations and broad trading blocs such as the European Union.Union. Type 1.0:
Globalism that includes worldwide wireless internet access, with all knowledge
digitized and available to everyone. A completely global economy with free markets
in which anyone can trade with anyone else without interference from states or
governments. A planet where all states are democracies in which everyone has the
franchise.
franchise.

The forces at work that could prevent us from making the great leap forward to a
Type 1 civilisation are primarily political and economic. The resistance by
nondemocratic states to turning power over to the people is considerable, especially
in theocracies whose leaders would prefer we all revert to Type 0.4 chiefdoms. The
opposition toward a global economy is substantial, even in the industrialized West,
where economic tribalism still dominates the thinking of most politicians,
intellectuals and citizens. For thousands of years, we have existed in a zero-sum
tribal world in which a gain for one tribe, state or nation meant a loss for another
tribe, state or nation and our political and economic systems have been designed
for use in that win-lose world. But we have the opportunity to live in a win-win world
and become a Type 1 civilisation by spreading liberal democracy and free trade, in
which the scientific and technological benefits will flourish. I am optimistic because
in the evolutionist’s deep time and the historian’s long view, the trend lines toward
achieving Type 1 status tick inexorably upward. That is change we can believe in.
The Los Angeles Times Shermer is an adjunct professor in the School of
Politics and Economics at Claremont Graduate University in California, the
publisher of Skeptic magazine and a monthly columnist for Scientific
American. His latest book is “The Mind of the Market”.

Author Location Dated

Zulfiqar Ali Peshawar, Pakistan 26.07.08
 – ‘New formula to resolve judges issue on the cards’
The Leader of the House in the Senate, Mr Raza Rabbani, has said the ministry of
law is working on a new formula for reinstatement of the deposed judges.
Addressing a press conference here on Friday, he said the coalition government was
committed to restoring the judiciary to the pre-November 3 position. He said there
were two opinions about reinstatement of the judges, adding that there were a
number of people who thought that the judges should be reinstated through a
constitutional package while others contended that it could be done with an
executive order. “The
“The law ministry is working on a formula to find a middle way and
prevent a clash among institutions,”
institutions,” Mr Rabbani said, adding that the government
would not give any deadline in this regard. In reply to a question about the Supreme
Court Bar Association’s announcement that it would launch another long march if
the judges were not restored by Aug 14, he said it was lawyers’ fundamental right
to organise marches and rallies. Asked when would the government invite
President Pervez Musharraf to address a joint session of parliament, he said:
“Musharraf has no right to address this parliament.”
parliament.” He said people had given a
clear verdict on February 18 and Pervez Musharraf should have quit the presidency
afterwards. “The
“The longer Pervez Musharraf remains in power the more unstable the
country will be,”
be,” he said, adding that the coalition would impeach the president
whenever it was in a position to do so.

Mr Rabbani said that in Peshawar he had held meetings with Chief Minister Ameer
Haider Hoti and Speaker Kiramatullah Khan Chaghermati and discussed with them
various constitutional matters and issues between the centre and the province. He
said he would also visit other provinces to discuss political issues with chief
ministers and speakers. He said he had discussed with Mr Hoti the issue of the new
National Finance Commission award and asked him to nominate NWFP
representatives to the commission. He said the previous commission was
unconstitutional because the president had no authority to announce the award. He
said the 1973 Constitution did not authorise the president to announce the NFC
award, adding that the coalition government would soon announce a new award. He
said the Council of Common Interests would be reconstituted to resolve some key
issues, including water distribution. Mr Rabbani said the PPP had prepared a
constitutional package under which the Concurrent List would be removed from the
Constitution. He said that the sixth schedule would also be removed because it did
not allow the assemblies to amend laws without the consent of the president.
Senator Rabbani said the government had adopted a threepronged strategy to
combat militancy and restore peace in tribal areas and the NWFP.

Author Location Dated

Shadaba Islam 26.07.08

– EU’s interest in Pakistan

A column on European concerns over Pakistan’s uncertain political future may seem
irrelevant as Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and his top aides prepare to visit
Washington. But here’s the rub: while America can provide Pakistan with military
hardware to tackle urgent security risks, consolidating democracy and avoiding
economic collapse will require help from a variety of actors, including support and
assistance from the European Union. Security and democracy/development are
closely interconnected — as are US and EU interests in Pakistan. European
governments are just as concerned and frustrated as the US administration at the
mounting casualties among their troops in Afghanistan. Both the US and the EU are
increasing pressure on Pakistan to take stronger action against the Taliban forces
taking sanctuary on its territory. Nato Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer will
be in Pakistan in early autumn to press home the point, albeit probably in a less
stark manner than recent warnings by senior US officials, including Joint Chiefs of
Staff Chairman Mike Mullen. However, while they may harbour similar fears about
the increase in Taliban activity both in Afghanistan and within Pakistan, US and EU
policymakers appear to be approaching the challenge in different ways.

The US continues to view Pakistan through a relatively narrow security prism. The
Pentagon has a strong — some would argue the strongest — say in US policy
towards Pakistan. Bolstering Pakistan’s military through assistance that includes
financial aid is therefore likely to remain a top US priority, even under the next US
administration. In contrast, European policymakers are taking a broader,
multifaceted approach to tackling the challenge of increasing militancy, religious
extremism, and democracy and development in Pakistan. The focus is on building
and reinforcing ramshackle state institutions, not backing personalities. It is about
consolidating Pakistan’s still ramshackle reform efforts, improving the functioning of
the National Assembly and encouraging the protection of minorities as well as
protecting human rights. Recent EU discussions have focused on possible funding
for development projects in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) although
implementing such a blueprint is conditional on the security situation in the area.
Europeans could also support recent suggestions by some Pakistani economists for
the convening of an international conference to draw up a badly needed balance-of-
payments aid package to help Pakistan weather the current economic crisis.

Europe’s determination to step up its engagement with Pakistan is certainly new

and almost as certainly linked to the worsening situation in Afghanistan. EU
governments, reluctant to forge stronger ties with Pakistan under military rule, see
opportunities for cooperation with the country’s democratically elected leaders.
“We have to do more in Pakistan now that it has a democratic government,”
government,” EU
External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner told this correspondent
recently, adding that the focus of EU actions in the country would be on
encouraging democracy and reform. Turning those good intentions into concrete
actions remains a challenge, however. Hurdles exist on both sides. Initial European
optimism about Pakistan’s future following the February elections is giving way to a
more sceptical assessment of the coalition’s policies and priorities. European
diplomats admit to being discouraged by the infighting within the government,
disagreements with and over President Musharraf and the focus on political score-
settling which they warn is distracting Pakistani policymakers from tackling the twin
challenges of rising religious extremism and a rapidly deteriorating economy. The
overriding fear, say many Europeans, is that Pakistan’s perpetually squabbling
politicians are ignoring vitally important security threats, especially Taliban efforts
to destabilise Pakistan.

Finding out just who is in charge in Pakistan is the overarching problem, according
to some senior diplomats. While the prime minister is definitely a first port of call for
EU ministers and officials, many also know they must meet Asif Zardari or his allies
in the Pakistan People’s Party as well as representatives of Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan
Muslim League. Anxious to consolidate the role of the National Assembly, Europeans
also try and make a point of meeting members of the legislature as well as
members of provincial governments, especially the ruling Awami National Party
government in the NWFP. And then there’s Gen Parvez Kayani. EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana made it a point not to meet Kayani during his visit to Islamabad
earlier this year as proof of European backing for the new civilian government. But
many in Europe recognise that when it comes to key security issues, Kayani and the
army cannot be ignored. Distractions also exist in Europe. While Pakistan and
Afghanistan are high on the EU agenda at the moment, Europe’s main priorities
continue to lie in its immediate neighbourhood. Meetings of EU foreign ministers are
dominated by discussions on the Balkans and the Middle East.

Of the 27 EU states, Britain remains the most consistent in its focus on Pakistan but
upgrading relations with Islamabad has not so far been a key priority for EU
heavyweights like Germany and France. This could change, however, if French
Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner makes good on his promise to put relations with
Pakistan higher up on the bloc’s agenda during the current French EU presidency.
Building a stronger pro-Pakistan lobby within the increasingly influential European
Parliament also remains a challenge. The EU assembly has so far invested a great
deal of time and energy in discussing and passing resolutions on the situation in
Kashmir. In the process, however, the interests of Pakistan per se have been
ignored. Many in Pakistan appear to make no distinction between US and EU
policies. That can be expected from the general public, used to viewing ‘the West’
as a monolithic entity. The EU is partly to blame for its failure to project a stronger
profile in Pakistan, and in other parts of Asia. Uncertainty over the future of the
reform treaty — which will create the post of an EU foreign minister and a
diplomatic service — following its rejection by Irish voters in June is partly
responsible for Europe’s lack of visibility in Asia and elsewhere. America will
undoubtedly remain the most powerful foreign player in Pakistan for decades to
come. But it’s time Pakistani policymakers sought broader international support.
The message from Brussels is that the EU is ready and willing to provide such
backing — but Islamabad must first get its act together. ¦ The writer is Dawn’s
correspondent in Brussels.

Author Location Dated

Brig (r) Qurban Ali Barlas Rawalpindi, Pakistan 26.07.08

– Defaming Barack Obama

Khalid Chaudhry in his letter (July 14) says: “American
“American historian Daniel Pipes, who is
also known for his pro-Israeli views, says that Barack Obama would not be able to
make peace with the Islamic world.”
world.” This is a thoughtless and biased conclusion
drawn by the historian. Obama is not only an American requirement, it is the entire
world which needs a leader like Obama who has all the qualities of a great world
leader. The Americans in general and the world at large do not assess a leader by
the colour of the skin or the rituals he performs. Those who want to stick to the
status quo have no head and those who assess Obama by peeping into his personal
life have no heart. These are Putin's words which I have suitably altered to convey
my point, but Putin has said this in a different context pertaining to the break up of
the USSR. Being a student of American history, I have read about all the American
presidents, and in Obama I find a happy blend of all the qualities of great presidents
of America and other world headers who have changed the course of history for the
good of mankind. Those historians or scholars who assess Obama in a narrow funnel
have got to get out of the shell which their forefathers took centuries to break.
Recall the dream which Dr Martin Luther King had visualised.

In the history of mankind the world has never been so dangerous and unsafe as it is
today. It needs a leader who is out of the ordinary to lead it to peace. Mediocrity in
the past seven to eight years has brought the world at the dangerous edge. Obama
has already been chosen by the law of nature to lead the world, now it is up to
voters to elect their leader. I feel pity for such thinkers and scholars who divide the
world into various worlds. It is only one world and all human beings live in it and
they are all alike. It is the animal world which has different species, which have
different tails and trunks. We need a leader who is loved and respected rather than
feared and hated. The world has seen enough of ‘shock and awe’ which has
bounced back on its initiators. In Obama I find a reflection of Lord Tennyson’s
words: For I dipt into the future far as human eye could see Saw the vision of the
world and all the wonders that would be. be.

Author Location Dated

Michael McCarthy 26.07.08

– The new oil race

The future of the Arctic will be less white wilderness, more black gold, a new report
on oil reserves in the High North has signalled this week. The first comprehensive
assessment of oil and gas resources north of the Arctic Circle, carried out by
American geologists, reveals that underneath the ice, the region may contain as
much as a fifth of the world’s undiscovered yet recoverable oil and natural gas
reserves. This includes 90 billion barrels of oil, enough to supply the world for three
years at current consumption rates, or to supply America for 12, and 1,670 trillion
cubic feet (tcf) of gas, which is equal to about a third of the world’s known gas
reserves. The significance of the report is that it puts firm figures for the first time
on the hydrocarbon riches which the five countries surrounding the Arctic — the US,
Russia, Canada, Norway and Denmark (through its dependency, Greenland) — have
been eyeing up for several years. It is the increasingly rapid melting of the Arctic
sea ice, which last September hit a new record summer low, and of landbased ice
on Greenland, which is opening up the possibility of the once frozen wasteland
providing a natural resources and minerals bonanza, not to mention a major new
transport route — last year the fabled North-West Passage from the Atlantic to the
Pacific along the top of Canada was navigable for the first time. Scientists consider
that global warming is responsible for the melting, with the high latitudes of the
Arctic warming twice as fast as the rest of the world.

Environmentalists see this as a massive danger, with the melting of Greenland’s

land-based ice adding to sea-level rise, while the melting of the sea ice uncovers a
dark ocean surface that absorbs far more of the sun’s heat than the ice did, and
thus acts as a “positive feedback” reinforcing warming. The melting of Greenland’s
ice sheet has accelerated so dramatically that it is triggering earthquakes for the
first time, with movements of gigantic pieces of ice creating shockwaves with a
magnitude of up to three. Conservationists are also concerned about the threat to
the Arctic’s unique ecosystems and wildlife. The Arctic countries’ governments, on
the other hand, see it as a massive opportunity, and are already positioning
themselves to claim stakes in the seabed of the Arctic Ocean, if — as many climate
scientists now believe will happen — it becomes ice-free in summer within a couple
of decades. Just a year ago, to much media fanfare, the Russians planted a flag on
the seabed some 2.5 miles beneath the ice at the North Pole, and dispatched a
nuclearpowered icebreaker to map a subsea link between the Pole and Siberia, as
part of an effort to circumvent a UN convention limiting resource claims beyond 200
miles offshore.

Canada said earlier this month that it plans to counter the Russian overture with “a
very strong claim” to Arctic exploration rights. This week’s oil and gas study, carried
out by the US Geological Survey, does not raise the national competitive stakes
appreciably as it reveals that most of the reserves are lying close to the shore,
within the territorial jurisdiction of the countries concerned. Much of the oil is off
Alaska; much of the natural gas off the Russian coastline. There appear to be only
small reserves under the unclaimed heart of the Arctic. “Before
“Before we can make
decisions about our future use of oil and gas and related decisions about protecting
endangered species, native communities and the health of our planet, we need to
know what’s out there,”
there,” said the US Geological Survey’s (USGS) director, Mark
Myers, in releasing the report. The geologists studied maps of subterranean rock
formations across the 8.2 million square miles above the Arctic Circle to find areas
with characteristics similar to oil and gas finds in other parts of the world. The study
also took into account the age, depth and shape of rock formations in judging
whether they are likely to contain oil. More than half of the undiscovered oil
resources are estimated to occur in just three geologic provinces: Arctic Alaska (30
billion barrels), the Amerasia Basin (9.7 billion barrels) and the East Greenland Rift
Basins (8.9 billion barrels).
barrels). More than 70 per cent of the undiscovered natural gas is
likely to be in three provinces: the West Siberian Basin (651 tcf), the East Barents
Basins (318 tcf) and Arctic Alaska (221 tcf),
tcf), the USGS said. The study took in all
areas north of latitude 66.56 degrees north, and included only reserves that could
be tapped using existing techniques. Experimental or unconventional prospects
such as oil shale, gas hydrates and coal-bed methane were not included in the
assessment.

The 90 billion barrels of oil expected to be in the Arctic in total are more than all the
known reserves of Nigeria, Kazakhstan and Mexico combined, and could meet
current world oil demand of 86.4 million barrels a day for almost three years. But
the Arctic’s oil is not intended to replace all the supplies in the rest of world. It
would last much longer by boosting available supplies and possibly reducing US
reliance on imported crude, if America developed the resources. The report did not
include an estimate for how long it might take to bring the reserves to markets, but
it would clearly be a substantial period. Offshore fields in the Gulf of Mexico and
west Africa can take a decade or longer to begin pumping oil. But clearly, the
massive amount of industrial infrastructure necessary to find the oil, extract it, and
transport it to where it is wanted will come with a very considerable environmental
cost. Senior US oil executives are urging the relaxation of prohibitions against
offshore drilling, including much of Alaska, although Democratic leaders in both
houses of Congress rejected President George Bush’s effort on July 14 to end a 25-
year moratorium on drilling in most coastal waters. But change may well be coming
now. Frank O’Donnell, president of the US environmental group Clean Air Watch,
Watch,
said not only do polar bears and other wildlife within the Arctic Circle face losing
their habitat due to global warming, they would be hurt by companies searching for
oil.

Author Location Dated

Izzud Din Pal izzud- 26.07.08
din.pal@videotron.ca

– The challenge facing the new government

The PPP-led government is working under a cloud of uncertainty, in the context of a
deep economic crisis and rising threat of militancy. In addition, its alliance with
other political parties is somewhat precarious. It seems that a part of the situation is
of its own making, but a major factor contributing to the disquiet about its policies
relates to the legacy of the Musharraf regime. The results of the February 2008
elections were hailed as a clear verdict in favour of democracy, and an indictment
against the old order. The underlying assumption behind this victory would be to
follow the next step and establish new power structure in line with the verdict given
by the electorate. That this normal procedure would be followed by General
Musharraf, however, was not in the cards. The optimists had obviously ignored, or
under-estimated, the PCO framework built by the general as a defence line for
himself, with the blessings of the Bush administration. The ink was hardly dry on the
results of the elections, when the US State Department representatives landed in
Pakistan to make sure that in any future political setup the position of the general
as the “elected” president would be protected. It is safe to assume that the main
objective of their visit was to make sure that the understanding reached in the
AngloAmerican negotiations with Ms Bhutto was still in place, including the rights
and obligations associated with the NRO.

This was all part of the usual US strategy towards client states, to build a façade of
democracy in order to bolster the position of the “trusted” ally. When the people are
given an opportunity to cast their vote, however, their wishes quite often do not
coincide with those of the “trusted” ally and his mentors. The general was quite
aware of this possibility. He made careful plans for the elections, focusing mainly on
the pre-poll machinery, knowing that the old “ballot box” technique might not be
available. Therefore, the actual voting on the day of elections turned out to be
relatively free and fair. His strategy was to facilitate the victory of the PML-Q, the
king’s party, as a balancing move visa-a-vis Ms Bhutto. The alternatives could be a
docile parliament with none of the parties as clear winners, or for the least
undesirable scenario acceptable to the general was to have the PPP gaining more
seats than other parties, as a post humous public support had already become a
certainty. As it turned out, the results of the elections left enough scope for him to
manoeuvre his position in the future parliament, along with the existing
configuration in the Senate. How committed was the general to the so-called
“transition” to democracy? A few weeks prior to the elections, in his interview with
Ms Jemima Khan the general was quite optimistic about the future of the king’s
party and confident about his PCO (e.g. Chief Justice Chaudhry as “scum of the
earth”). In his trip to Europe he had claimed that Pakistanis did not deserve
democracy and were ill-disciplined.
Now fast forward. On July 4, 2008, the general in his speech to a group of
businessmen as hosts, and other supporters including the Nazim of Karachi,
announced that he had deliberately kept quiet since the elections, and that now it
was time to declare that the present uncertainties and instability “have
“have been
created because political leadership had let the people down in tackling the real
issues.”
issues.” This is the pot calling the kettle black. His PCO is well and alive. Men of his
choice are in high places, exercising power or as power-brokers in the current
government. He believes that the PPP government would be inclined to get along
with him, and so far he seems to be correct about his assessment, notwithstanding
occasional threats about possible impeachment and all that. Three factors seem to
support this view: the well-organised pre-poll rigging which left none of the parties
with a clear majority, as mentioned above; the NRO; and the support for the
“trusted” ally from the Bush administration.
administration. The comic side of this situation is that a
very unpopular “elected” president is supported by the most unpopular US
president in modern times. We do get a glimpse into his thinking about his future
plans when he boastfully suggests that, “I “I am not afraid, I have deliberately kept
this posture under a well thought-out plan because I have been trained to respond
both in offensive and defensive manner, especially defending the national
interests.”
interests.” Kargil does not give much clue to his claim and his definition of national
interests is now quite well-known. The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is
out of touch with reality, and is dangerous.

Now coming to PPP`s own part in creating uncertainty. When the party formed the
government, its leaders were quite aware of the problems they were going to face,
both on the economic front and in the political arena. There was the PCO structure
in place, but the question about this structure in relation to the 1973 Constitution
was not addressed. Lurking behind this question was the issue of reinstatement of
judiciary as the focal point for this question. On the economic side, it is well known
that behind the façade of record- breaking growth during 2002 and 2007, as
claimed by the Musharraf regime, this was in fact a great bubble that had taken
place in which the real growth, especially in agriculture had shown a modest
increase. The rest consisted of speculative activity and reale state bonanza. Many
businessmen were direct beneficiaries of this activity and, as supporters of General
Musharraf, they are now nostalgic about the good old days. The cracks were already
appearing in the economy and the crunch came during 2006 and 2007, as
illustrated by the situation with regard to wheat. And the storm gathered
momentum, with the global crisis in food and energy which engulfed most
developing countries including Pakistan, coinciding with the formation of the new
government. Under these circumstances, the promise of “hundred days” to bring
the situation under control was an unrealistic aspiration.

The government was faced with several important issues when it was sworn in. It is
the nature of democratic process that all important issues have to be dealt with
promptly and firmly. This is why the system of cabinet responsibility is an important
part of democracy. To dither on one of these issues, would affect prospects about
the others, because appearance of weakness or indecision promotes an
unfavourable public image about the leaders. In the case of the PPP-led
government, the judiciary has turned out to be its crucible. It is not a matter just
about reinstatement of Chief Justice Chaudhry, it is a larger question of PCO versus
the 1973 Constitution. To ask Justice Chaudhry to call it a day does not solve the
question and, therefore, becomes a crude gratuitous gesture towards him. The
government must attend immediately to the challenge of inflation and food crisis,
but it cannot ignore other issues unless it takes the risk of declaring its position
openly. To accommodate the question of judiciary (indirectly) in the budget, or to
shove it into a slow-moving constitutional package, or to try to create a split in the
lawyers’ movement are dilatory tactics, which do not enhance the party’s
credibility. The image of the government is not helped much by the strange
relationship that Mr Asif Zardari has developed with the government. If he is the
prime minister in waiting then he should take necessary steps to accomplish his
goal. Otherwise, the government should be allowed to do its business in an
autonomous manner, within the guidelines of the party.

In India, for example, a somewhat similar situation exists and one does not hear
much about what role Sonia Gandhi is playing in influencing the policies of
Manmohan Singh government. All these factors weaken the government`s ability to
provide effective leadership which is a prerequisite for resolving the long term
economic problems facing the country. The fundamental issue which cannot be
ignored is the place of the PCO in relation to the 1973 Constitution. They contradict
each other in their objectives and the political parties have to adopt a clear position
about which value system for guiding the future of the country they will prefer, that
of the consensus 1973 Constitution or the PCO devised by the general for his own
promotion with the help of a legal wizard, a self-proclaimed friend of the Quaid-i-
Azam. Mr Nawaz Sharif has so far redeemed his reputation and public opinion
seems to recognise this fact. It is possible that Pakistan may continue to face the
current transition until the next elections, unless the general decides to take an
early retirement, in the name of national interest. ¦ The writer taught economics
at Pakistani and Canadian universities until his retirement.

Author Location Dated

Ilhan Niaz niazone@yahoo.com 26.07.08

– How politics of religion was allowed to take root

I, Ahmed, in his capacity as the interior secretary, submitted a confidential note on
the internal situation to Khwaja Nazimuddin, the then prime minister. The interior
secretary reported “a“a noticeable loss of public confidence in the Government”
Government” which
was universally seen as “weak
“weak and, except at certain levels, far from competent.”
competent.”
The public mood indicated that Pakistan was “on “on the downgrade internally”
internally” while
“political and provincial”
provincial” disharmony had “increased
“increased everywhere.”
everywhere.” Indeed, “an
“an
undercurrent of restlessness”
restlessness” pervaded the country while the Muslim League, its
questionable success in the recent Punjab elections aside, had “lost“lost considerable
ground”.
ground”. “Fissures”
“Fissures” had “developed everywhere”
everywhere” and “the“the Party machine”,
machine”, never
noted for its effectiveness, had “stopped
“stopped working altogether.”
altogether.” The reason for this
was the mindset of the politicians and their increasingly medieval attitude towards
the acquisition and exercise of power. The interior secretary felt deeply concerned
that it seemed as if “the
“the present idea of their obligations in the minds of most
Members of the legislature seems to be either to seek advantage from the
Government for themselves or their friends and relatives, or to advertise and
exploit the supposed grievances of their constituents.”
constituents.” While the politicians at all
levels treated the state as a personal estate, the provincial politicians had, adopted
“an intensely parochial line irrespective of the interests of the country”
country” or the
federal government.

While the “communist

“communist virus”
virus” had been checked following the discovery of the
Rawalpindi Conspiracy, the greatest threat to the state, which was spreading
confusion “in“in the minds of the general public”
public” was “the
“the parrotlike repetition by
politicians of the slogan that Pakistan is an Islamic State.”
State.” This rhetoric was
“fraught with considerable danger.”
danger.” It was being “fully
“fully exploited by the enemies of
Pakistan to discredit it abroad as well as by the obscurantist elements inside the
country.”
country.” The impression “among“among the intelligent section of the people”
people” was “that
“that
talk of an Islamic State on part of the politicians”
politicians” was essentially a “device
“device to keep
themselves in power.”
power.” The politicians appeared “to “to be banking on reactionary
forces for political support”
support ” which put Pakistan in danger of “degenerating
“degenerating into the
primitive levels of certain countries in the Middle East.”East.” These concerns had gained
widespread validation due to “the “the ease and freedom with which it has been possible
for orthodox Mullahs to make Pakistan a happy hunting ground.” ground.” Mosques and
seminaries throughout Pakistan were being used to preach “superstitious
“superstitious and
unenlightened religiosity”
religiosity” and it seemed that the government was “pandering
“pandering to
orthodoxy.”
orthodoxy.” The politicians were playing a very dangerous game by trumpeting
Islamic ideology and “raising
“raising expectations which, because they vary according to
the prejudices and predilections of individuals or groups, would be impossible to
fulfil.”
fulfil.” It was ultimately suicidal for the modernist Muslims, who led the struggle for
Pakistan and whom the traditionalists considered infidels, to pursue such a course
of action. The interior secretary advised that “there“there should be less talk of Islamic
ideology and no encouragement whatever of orthodoxy in any shape or form.” form.” The
politicians did not take G. Ahmed’s sound advice though it is creditable that its
declassification makes known that it was offered. Instead, they went about doing
the exact opposite of what he had suggested and thus set the stage for their own
downfall.

In the 1951 Punjab elections the Muslim League used the state apparatus and allied
with the Majlis-i-Ahrar and Jamiat-Ulemai-Islam, Pakistan (JUI-P), and secured a
majority in the province. Mian Mumtaz Daultana became the chief minister but his
party members soon got involved in speculation, hoarding, and wreaking havoc
upon the food distribution system in order to manipulate prices as many of them
were wealthy agriculturalists. The Ahrars thought it an excellent moment to renew
their campaign to have the Ahmedis declared non-Muslims. As agitation spread in
the province, both Daultana and Nazimuddin encouraged it. Daultana believed he
could use it to put the centre on the defensive and rally the provincial Muslim
League behind himself, while Nazimuddin thought he could render his government
above questioning or challenge by stoking orthodox Islamic sentiment. By the end
of July 1952, the Punjab Muslim League had voted 264 against 8 in support of the
agitators’ demand. Section 144, reluctantly imposed by Daultana in parts of Punjab
on the insistence of Inspector-General, Police, Qurban Ali Khan, was rescinded.
Nazimuddin tried to outdo the Punjab Muslim League and constituted an Islamic
Advisory Board in which the Muslim clergy were invited to come and give their
advice to the Basic Principles Committee of the Constituent Assembly.
Assembly. These
manoeuvres precipitated the eclipse of the Nazimuddin government, created
conditions for martial law in Lahore and the direct involvement of the military and
its bureaucratic mentors in the political process.
The episode narrated above and many others like this show that our leaders are
blissfully unaware that the history of the subcontinent is characterised by long
periods of political disintegration, warlordism and criminal anarchy punctuated by
interludes of imperial order and relative peace. The last imperial peace ended in
August 1947 and in the decades since then the region has steadily descended into
internal disorder and external antagonism. British India was different from earlier
imperial states, which were in effect personal estates of their rulers mediated
through a class of imperial servants and legitimised by divine sanction. The British
Indian state was, in contrast, a state of laws and comprised autonomous institutions
ranging from the civil service, higher judiciary and military, to private property, civil
society organisations and political parties. Consequently, the descent into chaos
that normally took only a few years or at the most a generation after the decline of
earlier imperial orders was substantially delayed. The residual ethos and structure
of the British Indian state fought back against the arbitrary, proprietorial and
delusional behaviour of post-colonial elites. A stage is now being reached where the
continuation of this long rearguard action is no longer tenable and the
administrative institutions upon which the executive function depends are
enfeebled to the point where criminal gangs, tribal chieftains and religious militants
can openly defy the government.

One particular aspect of the process of reversion to pre-British modes of exercising

power is the ascendancy of religious obscurantism, be it Hindutva in India or
Islamisation/Talibanisation in Pakistan,
Pakistan, as the state apparatus in the IndoGangetic
plain is enervated beyond redemption. The Talibanisation phenomenon has
captured the attention of the international media and focused attention on the
ability of the Taliban and their sympathisers to defy significant military pressure
from Nato and Pakistan military forces. After seven years in Afghanistan, the United
States and its allies are confronted with increasing levels of violence and militancy
on both sides of the Durand line. In what is clearly a sign of exasperation and
growing awareness of the futility of their military intervention, the major
components of the US-led alliance now routinely blame each other for their
collective inability to counter the Taliban. For Pakistan the problem is in large
measure self-inflicted. Like India, Pakistan inherited a secular state from the British.
But successive Pakistani rulers, beginning with Liaquat Ali Khan, openly used Islam
to legitimise their hold on power. This process culminated in General Zia-ul Haq’s
Islamisation which coincided with American assistance to the anti-Soviet insurgency
in Afghanistan. At some point in the late 1980s or early 1990s, the influx of money,
arms and volunteers, combined with a weakening state apparatus to ensure that
the Pakistani government lost control of the process. The loss of control was
masked during the 1990s by a confluence of objectives with the religious militants
being used to punish Pakistan’s real and perceived enemies, India and the Afghan
communists in particular. It was only after the American intervention in Afghanistan
in 2001 and Musharraf’s decision to reverse course that the inability of the state
apparatus to deal with religious militancy has been exposed.

This inability is the product of the prolonged neglect and abuse of the institutions
responsible for the maintenance of internal peace. The poorly disciplined, politicised
and demoralised police that barely performs its routine functions cannot cope with
determined opposition from religious fanatics. Similarly, the chaotic local
governments created by Musharraf do not have the requisite coherence to deal
effectively with a crisis of existential proportions. Meanwhile, the abolition of the
deputy commissioner’s posts has left the law and order function of the state without
an effective area of administration. Negotiating with the militants or sending in the
military won’t produce any meaningful results if between the negotiations and the
military operations an administrative vacuum is left on the ground. ¦ The writer is
a faculty member at the Quaid-i-Azam University, Department of History,
and author of An Inquiry into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Moonis Ahmar amoonis@hotmail.com 26.07.08

– Obama factor in German politics

When the former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld called Germany and
France part of ‘old
‘old Europe’
Europe’ in 2003 for opposing Washington’s Iraq invasion,
America’s standing suffered a big plunge in Europe. German public opinion resented
the manner in which the Bush administration carried out its foreign policy agenda
particularly its ‘war
‘war on terror.’
terror.’ Barack Obama’s visit to Germany on July 24 has,
however, repaired the damage. Germans see the Democratic Party presidential
candidate a charismatic and prudent leader capable of restoring the goodwill
between the two countries. The ‘Obama
‘Obama factor’
factor’ in Germany needs to be analyzed
keeping in view the fact that he is admired for his clear stance on war in Iraq, for his
commitment to deal with the issue of global warming and giving preference to
European allies, particularly Germany in his foreign policy agenda. Earlier, he was
criticised in some European capitals for not giving enough importance to the
transatlantic alliance. Obama’s visit to France, Germany and United Kingdom was
aimed to dispel misgivings about his lack of interest in Europe and to assure he
intended to strengthen close relations with Europe in the years to come.

The city of Berlin has a distinguished position in Europe because of its historical
status. For around 44 years the city remained divided into western and eastern
parts because of the Cold War between the Soviet Union which controlled east
Berlin and the West which controlled the western part of Berlin. Berlin became the
first battleground between the West and the Soviet Union resulting into its blockade
by the Soviet Union in 1948 for several months and the construction of a wall
separating eastern parts from the western in 1963. On June 12, 1987, the then US
President Ronald Reagan in his famous address at Berlin wall had said, “Mr. “Mr.
Gorbachev, tear down the wall.”
wall.” And it was finally dismantled in November 1989
because of changed policies of Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. In 1963,
Kennedy speaking at the town hall hadexpressed his solidarity with the people of
the divided city by declaring, “ic“ic hin en Berliner!”
Berliner!” Now 19 years after the collapse of
Berlin wall, Obama’s visit to this city has aroused for the people of Berlin new hopes
and expectations from his leadership. More than two thirds of German people
support Obama over the Republican candidate Senator John McCain because of
former’s young and charismatic leadership and his initiative to speak to the people
of Berlin. His high profile visit to several countries is viewed as shrewd tactics to win
over not only American voters but also to establish credentials about his foreign
policy agenda. German public, sick with the policies of the Bush administration is
now looking forward to the Democratic Party’s presidential candidate Barack Obama
as something who can take effective damage control measures by providing a
sound and prudent leadership to the world and dealing with pressing issues like
growing energy and food crisis, global warming, trade, terrorism, extremism and
American military adventures in Iraq and in Afghanistan.

A controversy created over Obama’s visit to Berlin proved how divided is German
society on political grounds. The coalition government composed of Christian
Democrats and Social Democrats differed over the venue of Obama’s address in
Berlin, i.e. the famous Brandenburg gate.
gate. The German Chancellor Angela Merkel,
who belongs to Christian Democrats, expressed her reservations over Obama’s
intention to give an address before the Brandenburg gate since in the past the
venue was used only by elected American presidents. Senator Obama was advised
to look for some other location in the capital city for his address. But Merkel’s
opposition was resisted by her foreign minister and vice chancellor Frank-Walter
Steinmeier, belonging to rival Social Democratic Party and her possible opponent in
next year’s elections. But technically, it is the city council and not the Chancellor
office which is authorised to give permission. And, the city council is controlled by
the Social Democrats. Mayor of Berlin Klaus Wowereit also dismissed the
reservations from Chancellor’s office about Obama speaking before the
Brandenburg gate as the spokesman for the Berlin city council said that
“Brandenburg Gate would certainly be a nice place.”
place.” Obama’s visit to Berlin made
things difficult for Chancellor Merkel as her party which is at odds with its junior
coalition partner Social Democratic Party made it clear that Berlin, particularly its
Brandenburg gate, should not be used by foreign leaders for political purposes. But,
her arguments that Brandenburg gate was reserved for elected world leaders only
were challenged by other leaders.

It seems Obama’s visit to Berlin has not only aggravated rift between the coalition
partners, Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, it may also have far reaching
impact on the German national elections due next year. If Chancellor Merkel was
hard on Obama’s address at the Brandenburg gate, the foreign minister and the
vice chancellor, belonging to the Social Democratic Party approved and supported
Obama’s plan to address at the Brandenburg gate. Merkel’s sound equation with
President George W. Bush and her support to his policy on Iraq is another source of
criticism in the German public opinion circles. Obama shrewdly avoided himself to
be dragged into the controversy of his giving speech at the Brandenburg gate by
simply stating that he would not like to create any problem in Germany because of
his visit. But, it is utmost clear that ‘Obama
‘Obama factor’
factor’ is certainly a cause of drawing
battle lines between the conservatives i.e. Christian Democrats and the left of the
centre i.e. the Social Democrats. Obama, who is Afro-American and the first
presidential candidate in the US elections belonging to the Democratic Party in his
Berlin visit must have remembered the fact that it was the same city where 72
years ago a political party came into power whose political philosophy was based on
racism and anti-semiticism. ¦ The writer who is Professor and Chairman of
International Relations Department, University of Karachi, is currently a
Visiting Fellow at the Max Planck Institute, Freiburg, Germany.

Author Location Dated

Meena Janardhan Dubai, UAE 26.07.08

– US shift on Iran viewed with relief, anger

The turnaround in Washington-Tehran ties is being viewed with relief on the one
hand and anxiety and anger on the other by various quarters within the six-nation
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) bloc. In a major policy shift by Washington, a senior
US State Department official attended the July 19 Iran-EU talks in Geneva to discuss
a package of incentives offered by world powers to first suspend and then
permanently end Tehran’s nuclear enrichment. More importantly, Washington is
considering a proposal to open a de facto embassy in Tehran, similar to the one in
Cuba, and send lowlevel diplomats for the first time in three decades. After US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held a meeting in Abu Dhabi on July 21 with
ministers and officials from the GCC comprising Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi
Arabia, Oman and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iraq, Jordan and Egypt,
Egypt, to
ease concerns, the UAE expressed readiness to support all efforts aimed at
achieving security, peace and stability in the region. Endorsing this view, the ‘The
National’ published from Abu Dhabi said “the
“the news is not necessarily bad. One
cannot miss the signs of a regional thaw, but neither should we overstate them.
There has been more stability in the region than one would have expected a few
years ago. Warring parties are talking to each other everywhere… This is good
news: the Gulf does not want to see another war harm its citizens … economic
development, nor does it want a dramatic shift in the balance of power. It is the
shared responsibility of Iran and the US, but also of the larger world community to
find a reasonable compromise.”
compromise.”

Saudi Arabia’s ‘Arab News’ felt, in an editorial, that “there

“there is no guarantee that Iran
will decide between confrontation and cooperation. But, after all the threats and
counter-threats, the fact that Iran and the US got together for the first time
represents a huge turnaround for both and provides distinct signs that a collision
course is being averted”. “What has been said and done have not been figments of
the imagination. The recent Israeli military exercise; the Iranian test-firing of
missiles in reply; Iran’s threat to block the Strait of Hormuz if attacked, were all real
and still have the world worrying,”
worrying,” the Arab News editorial added. However,
academics this reporter spoke with viewed the developments with caution. “Contact
“Contact
with Iran should be encouraged, but it is too soon to tell what the US intention really
is. There are still many in the White House who see this as the last chance to fix the
problem before the change of administration,”
administration,” said Christian Koch of the Gulf
Research Center.
Center. After the Geneva talks, Washington warned Iran that it has two
weeks to respond seriously to the international offer to halt its sensitive nuclear
work or face further “punitive measures”. “Moreover,
“Moreover, even if the US does get
seriously involved, the GCC would like to be informed. Unfortunately, this is not the
case in the current EU3 dialogue format. So, contact yes, but not at the expense of
GCC interests,”
interests,” the director of international studies at the Dubaibased think-tank
said. That’s precisely what worries some like Ebtisam Kitbi of the UAE University.

While the rapprochement between the United States and Iran is good for the world
at large, it is certainly not good for the GCC countries, according to the assistant
professor of political science, because “they “they will become weaker with every step of
Iran’s empowerment”.
empowerment”. “By “By negotiating with Tehran, Washington is trying to sell us
(GCC countries). After sidelining Iran for decades, the United States is now
facilitating the return of Iran into the mainstream of regional and international
politics. In fact, Iran is trying to reorient this region away from Washington, which
Washington itself is facilitating,”
facilitating,” Kitbi complained. “It
“It is rewarding Iran for
continued defiance and punishing the GCC countries for being good allies,”
allies,” she said.
Alleging that the turnaround in the US-Iran ties is part of an uncrystallised, yet
mutually beneficial exchange, Kitbi pointed out that the United States is eyeing Iran
first, for its oil resources to tame high fuel prices; second, to counter China’s
growing influence in the region, especially with the Shiite state; third, achieve a
face-saving exit from Iraq, where Iran is an influential player; and fourth,
consolidate the political gains made in Lebanon, where Iran is a key supporter of
Hizbollah. On the other hand, Iran gains by inching closer, first, to being officially
crowned as the undisputed regional superpower; second, keeping open the option
of pursuing its nuclear programme at a later stage; third, continuing to wield
significant influence over Iraq, while spreading its Shia ideology in a Sunni-
dominated region; and finally, ensuring regime survival, the opposite of which has
been Washington’s goal for nearly three decades, she added.

The third factor is particularly worrisome for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain,
which have large Shia populations, which could become a source of instability in the
future. The fact that Iraq participated in the Abu Dhabi meeting with Rice could be
linked to the efforts aimed at bridging the sectarian divide. Baghdad’s participation
is being seen as a signal of Sunni Arab leaders’ willingness to consult Iraq’s Shia
dominated government amid a reconciliation process that witnessed the return of
six Sunni ministers to the Iraq coalition this week. While the GCC governments have
encouraged the western powers to pursue diplomatic efforts, they have also been
very open to warming up to Iran in recent years to keep war at bay not only to
maintain the prevailing economic boom, but also to respect Arab public sympathy
for Iran because of its stance against the United States and Israel. “The
“The GCC
countries should remember that the Dutch, Portuguese and British were in this
region for about a century each. If history teaches anything, it may be that the
American century is about to end too. On the other hand, Iranians and Arabs have
lived together in this region for thousands of years and will continue to do so,”
so,”
Iranian-born academic Ali Sheikholeslami said. “During
“During the Iran-Iraq war, the GCC
countries spent nearly $100 billion to support Saddam Hussein. Iranians now expect
the GCC countries to show goodwill to compensate for the past,”
past,” added the
emeritus professor at Oxford University in Britain. Kitbi of the UAE University
summed up the situation thus: “On “On the whole, we are back at square one. We may
be further from war than before, but closer to being dominated by Iran. In this
tragic reality, the GCC countries suffer either way.”
way.”

Author Location Dated

Ed Pilkington New York 26.07.08

– Expert warns against excessive use of cellphone

The head of a leading cancer research institute has reignited the controversy over
the health risks of using mobile phones by sending a warning to staff that they
should limit the use of the devices because of the risk of cancer. Dr Ronald
Herberman’s alert to 3,000 staff at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute is
believed to be the first of its kind from the director of a leading research centre. His
call for action stands in contrast to the existing advice from many health
authorities, which have pointed out that evidence of the dangers of mobile phone
use is inconclusive. In a memo posted to staff, Herberman admits that the evi dence
is still controversial and no hard conclusions can be reached, but he says he has
become convinced that there is sufficient information “to
“to warrant issuing an
advisory to share some precautionary advice on cellphone use”.
use”. He has had his
memo peer-reviewed by an international panel of more than 20 experts from
countries including America, Canada and France. He is likely to arouse considerable
interest in his warning by adding that he bases it partly on “early
“early unpublished data”
data”
from ongoing research projects. It is thought that may refer to new findings from a
monitoring project across 13 countries, known as Interphone. Herberman advises a
10-point programme to reduce the risks of using the devices, which he calls
“precautionary”. Top of his list of advised precautions is that children should use
mobiles only for emergencies in recognition of the fact that their growing brain
tissue is likely to be more sensitive to the electromagnetic radiation emitted by
them. That is in tune with advice already given by several European countries and
Canada.

The list goes further than most existing advice by advocating steps that include:
Avoid using mobile phones in public places such as buses as you might passively
expose your neighbours to radiation; Do not keep phones near your body at night,
such as under the pillow; - Restrict calls to just a few minutes to avoid accumulation
of exposure; - Try not to use a phone where the signal is weak or when moving at
speed, say in a car or train, as this raises the power of the device as it seeks to find
a connection; Use hands-free devices and if forced to hold a phone to the head
switch sides while talking to avoid concentration on one part of the brain.
Herberman’s decision to go beyond current medical orthodoxy prompted a sceptical
reaction from some colleagues. Professor Will Stewart of Southampton University,
University,
England, an expert on optoelectronics, said: “One
“One cannot refute the ‘early findings
from unpublished data’ since we have not seen them. But there is enough published
data to make the advice sound alarmist.”
alarmist.” The Wireless Association,
Association, representing
the mobile phone industry in the US, said research “published
“published in scientific journals
around the globe show that wireless phones do not pose a health risk”.risk”. The largest
study published so far tracked 420,000 phone users in Denmark, thousands of
whom had used the devices for more than 10 years. It found no increased risk of
cancer.

Author Location Dated

AP Jerusalem, Israel 26.07.08

– Israeli paper criticised for publishing Obama’s Western Wall

prayer
An Israeli newspaper’s decision to publish a handwritten prayer that Barack Obama
left this week in the cracks of the Western Wall has been drawing criticism as an
invasion of his privacy and his relationship with God. In the note, placed at
Judaism’s holiest site, Mr Obama asks God to guide him and guard his family. “Lord,
“Lord,
protect my family and me,”
me ,” reads the note published in the Maariv daily. “Forgive
“Forgive
me my sins, and help me guard against pride and despair. Give me the wisdom to
do what is right and just. And make me an instrument of your will.”
will.” Maariv
published a photograph of the note on its front page on Friday. It said the note was
removed from the wall by a student at a Jewish seminary immediately after Obama
left. The paper’s decision to make the note public immediately drew fire from
religious authorities. The rabbi in charge of the Western Wall, Shmuel Rabinovitz,
said publishing the note intruded in Obama’s intimate relationship with God. “The
“The
notes placed between the stones of the Western Wall are between a person and his
maker. It is forbidden to read them or make any use of them,”
them,” he told Army Radio.
The publication “damages
“damages the Western Wall and damages the personal, deep part
of every one of us that we keep to ourselves,”
ourselves,” he said.

Many visitors to the 2,000 year-old Western Wall leave notes in its crevices bearing
requests and prayers. Obama did so during a pre-dawn visit there yesterday
following a day spent meeting Israeli and Palestinian leaders. Obama bowed his
head in worship after placing his small note of prayer into the wall. The Western
Wall is the lone remaining outer retaining wall of the second biblical Jewish temple,
which was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70, and is revered at Judaism’s holiest
site. It stands where the bible says King Solomon built the first Jewish Temple, which
was destroyed by the Babylonians in 586 BC. “It’s
“It’s inappropriate that the prayers of
a person at the Western Wall should become a subject of public knowledge at all,” all,”
said Jonathan Rosenblum, a Jerusalem-based analyst of the religious community
and director of the Orthodox Am Ehad think-tank. “There
“There is a rabbinic prohibition
against reading other people’s private communications and certainly anyone who
goes to the wall expects that those communication will be protected.”
protected.” Another
Israeli paper, Yediot Ahronot, published an article today saying it had also obtained
the note but decided not to publish it to respect Obama’s privacy. Nearly all other
Israeli media outlets ignored the story. Thousands of notes and prayers are stuffed
into the cracks of the wall. In recent years, The Western Wall Heritage Foundation,
Foundation,
which operates the site, has opened a fax hot line and a Web site where people
overseas can send their prayers and have them printed out and placed in the wall.
The wall is emptied of its notes several times a year. These are treated as a prayer
book and buried, rather than burned.

Rosenblum said the Maariv publication showed “a “a lack of sensitivity,”

sensitivity,” toward
Obama and the wall. However, the extraction and publishing of the note do not
appear to be illegal. Police said today it was not investigating the incident. Obama
spokesman Robert Gibbs would neither confirm nor deny the note was Obama’s.
The handwriting appeared to match a message Obama inscribed Wednesday in the
guest book at Yad Vashem, Israel’s official Holocaust memorial, and was written on
stationery from the King David Hotel, where Obama stayed while in Israel. Obama
signed the Yad Vashem message. The note from the Western Wall was unsigned. At
the Western Wall, Obama was greeted by a crowd of curious onlookers and
photographers. He donned a white skullcap, listened to a rabbi read a prayer, and
inserted a folded white piece of paper between the stones. One hardline Israeli
protester shouted, “Obama,
“Obama, Jerusalem is not for sale.”
sale.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Paris, France 26.07.08

– Iran should not wait for next US president, says Obama

U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama said on Friday Iran should not wait for the
next administration to halt its uranium enrichment programme. Speaking at a joint
news conference with French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, Obama said Iran
should accept the trade and technical incentives the six world powers have offered
in exchange for ending its uranium enrichment. “Iran
“Iran should accept the proposals
that President Sarkozy and the EU 3 plus 3 are presenting now. Don’t wait for the
next president because the pressure, I think, is only going to build,”
build,” he said.
Sarkozy and Obama joked about their common immigrant backgrounds as,
respectively, the son of a Hungarian and of a Kenyan. By the end of the news
conference, Sarkozy was calling Obama by his first name. “France
“France is happy to
welcome Barack Obama, firstly because he’s American and the French love
Americans,”
Americans,” he said, before making a long, pointed pause during which the
comment drew laughter from the travelling US press corps. He stopped just short of
actually endorsing the 46-year-old senator but made it clear he would be happy if
he won the November presidential election. “Good“Good luck to Barack Obama. If it’s him,
France will be happy and if it’s not him, France will be a friend of the United States
of America,”
America,” he said. Obama repaid Sarkozy in kind, praising him for his dynamism.
“I’m asking him what he eats so that I can find out how I can always have as much
energy as this man beside me. He’s on the move all the time,”time,” he said. Obama’s
brief visit to Paris was part of a fast-paced international tour intended to counter
charges that he lacks the foreign policy experience needed to be Commanderin-
Chief. He left for London after the meeting with Sarkozy.

Author Location Dated

M. Ziauddin London, England 27.07.08

– Terror fight Pakistan’s own war: Gilani

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has described the war on terror as Pakistan’s own
war, a war to defend peace in the country and to contribute to world peace. Talking
to the media at Heathrow airport after his arrival on Saturday en route from
Islamabad to Washington, the prime minister said Pakistan was fighting terrorism in
the interest of its own progress, prosperity and development and not to “oblige
“oblige any
outside entity”.
entity”. He was replying to a question regarding the recent statement of US
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging Pakistan to “do“do more on terrorism”.
terrorism”. He
said he would be meeting Ms Rice in Washington, “and “and I will be able to inform you
how the talks go after this meeting”.
meeting”. In reply to another question, he said that at
the political level India-Pakistan relations were on course. “I
“I have congratulated
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on winning a vote of confidence and perhaps I
would have an occasion to meet him in Colombo during the Saarc summit.”
summit.” He gave
an impression that the recent statement of the Indian foreign secretary that
relations between the two countries were under stress after the bombing outside
the Indian embassy in Kabul would not make any difference to the ongoing peace
process.

Mr Gilani said Pakistan and India shared a lot of commonalities and “we“we have
decided to settle all our outstanding issues, including the Kashmir dispute, through
dialogue”.
dialogue”. He rejected a perception that his government lacked coherence and said
he was in full control of the government and those who believed otherwise were
being misled by rumours. In reply to a question, he said he had no plans to meet
Nawaz Sharif in London. “Media
“Media reports to the effect are untrue. “There is this
impression in the country that the leaders of Pakistan meet only when we are
abroad and do not do so in Pakistan. So we have decided not to meet when we are
in foreign countries. Mr Sharif also agrees. He will be coming to Pakistan soon and I
will make a courtesy call on him then,”
then,” he added. The prime minister was received
by High Commissioner Wajid Shamsul Hasan and officials of the HC. Mr Gilani’s
entourage includes his adviser on interior Rehman Malik, Information Minister
Sherry Rehman and Minister of State for Economic Affairs Hina Rabbani, PM’s press
secretary Zahid Bashir and Foreign Office officials.

Author Location Dated

Shamim Ur Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 27.07.08

– Deposed judges welcome to take new oath: Naek

Reiterating the government’s commitment to the reinstatement of deposed judges,
federal Law Minister Farooq H. Naek on Saturday said that the judges were welcome
to resume their responsibilities. They only had to take a fresh oath under the Third
Schedule of the Constitution to resume their responsibilities, he said, adding that
the seniority of such judges would not be affected. Mr Naek was talking to the
media at the Quaid-i-Azam International airport on arrival from Islamabad, amid
mounting criticism of the Pakistan People’s Party-led government over the judiciary
issue. Amid reports that the government was secretly trying to woo some of the
deposed judges of the Sindh and Lahore high courts and also the Supreme Court, Mr
Naek denied any such move and said there were no secret contacts with the
deposed judges. “No
“No backdoor diplomacy is going on. We believe in independence
and supremacy of the judiciary and we will welcome any judge who wishes to
resume his responsibility,”
responsibility,” he remarked.

The minister said he wanted to see deposed judges take oath under the aforesaid
schedule of the Constitution. Supreme Court Bar Association president Aitzaz Ahsan
has, however, declared that any judge who takes fresh oath will be considered a
PCO judge. Mr Naek said that restoration of judges was being delayed because the
PPP’s coalition partners had yet to come up with their views and suggestions on the
draft constitutional package. He said the idea behind sending the draft was to
resolve the contentious points in a joint meeting of the coalition. While Mr Naek was
reiterating the government’s stance, there were reports that attorney general had
arrived in the city.

Author Location Dated

Jamal Shahid Islamabad, Pakistan 27.07.08

– Add-ons to phone bills baffle subscribers

For many consumers, figuring out their monthly PTCL phone bill has become
equivalent of deciphering hieroglyphics, with baffling new charges creating a thicket
of items from top to bottom of the bill. Some of the add-ons are new, like the
"Pakistan Plus," "Basic Plus" and "Value Plus". Others like the “PRS Charges”, “SMS
Charges”, "Special Facility Charges” or the “Miscellaneous Charges” which many of
the consumers could not comprehend what they really are and which add to the
growing portion of an average monthly bill. Although line rents and taxes have been
around for a long while, they have been growing. More consumers today are
complaining that such fees have become a backdoor way for Pakistan
Telecommunication Company to raise prices. What has really pricked PTCL
consumers in their sides are the more than 200 per cent increase in local call
charges that consumers used to enjoy the cheapest not so long ago. Helpless
consumers have been observing for past several months how PTCL – either with
tacit approval or with complete ignorance of officers concerned of Pakistan
Telecommunication Authority (PTA) with regard to their duties to look after
consumer’s interest – has been taking citizens for a ride.

Numerous PTCL subscribers spoke out on those all too familiar experiences of
having to pay excessive phone bills as they expressed overwhelming and nearly
unanimous opposition to increase in rates. “Without
“Without having brought any major
improvements in their performances, PTCL is minting money at the cost of its
unsuspecting subscribers by playing very clever tricks through manipulating calling
packages/times/charges,”
packages/times/charges,” said Wg Cdr ® Muhammad Najeeb, complaining of his
excessive phone bills. According to several subscribers, PTCL had gone even more
expensive than mobile companies by reducing time limit of a local call to 2 minutes.
Consumers failed to understand how Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA)
could allow a dominant player to abuse its monopolistic position and allow more
than 200 per cent increase. A 5 minutes local call which used to cost Rs2 was now
being charged Rs6 due to policies and lack of positive control of the PTA. “The
“The
latest affront to consumers is charging calls for directory assistance. It is the duty of
the PTCL to provide a free telephone directory with every connection and new
issues,”
issues,” Rizwan Butt, a resident of Islamabad. PTA charged hefty licence fees from
mobile companies who had established completely new networks with direct foreign
investments of billions of dollars and generated thousands of white collar jobs while
maintaining strict quality and price control on their packages either directly or
through creating fair competition.

But what the PTCL subscribers failed to comprehend was how the company was
given free hand by the PTA to continue penalising their customers who had not
been provided any viable fixed line alternative choice. “It
“It costs less than a rupee a
minute to call a number in the UK, thousands of miles away but it now costs more
than that if I call my next door neighbour, thanks to PTA and the PTCL policies,”
policies,” said
Jamil Ahmed, a consultant. Adding insult to injury, Pakistan Packages etc were
compulsorily charged on all phones unless one opted out. “Many“Many have no regular
access to print or electronic media. Those who could not opt out were charged and
the PTCL coffers kept filling without having done any major improvement in their
services/network or having done any new capital investment like mobile
companies,”
companies,” said Col S Hamid Ali Shah. He was also apprehensive that many calls
like a busy number or an out of order/non-answering number or even recorded
messages, were being charged, adding, “When“When will all those claiming to be working
and controlling public welfare see the folly of the way local calls are priced?”
priced?”
Likewise, many PTCL’s DSL users saddled with extra charges for their so called
“quality service” also complain about poor performance. “Not “Not once since its
installation has PTCL come over to fix it,”
it,” she complained about her DSL service
which had been completely down since last three days and had not been fixed.

Ms Rukhenilofar, a resident in sector I-8 complained about her phone bill going up in
return for a DSL service that never worked proper from the day she had it installed
six months ago. Nasir Iqbal who had the PTCL’s DSL installed for important work
related assignments was also “completely
“completely dissatisfied”
dissatisfied” with its working. “I’m
“I’m
helpless. I can’t even send a simple email,”
email,” he said. And Imran Ali who applied for
installation of PTCL’s DSL, had not heard from them since last two weeks. Written
complaints to PTA and Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP) have turned out
to be a futile exercise. Nonetheless, PTCL subscribers urged the PTA to exercise its
due role like it did in case of cellular mobile companies, and allow three to four fixed
lines services.They requested the CCP to “order” PTCL to revoke reduction of time
to 2 minutes in local call duration, distribute latest directories to all subscribers and
calls to directory assistance may not be charged as it is formed part of normal
customer services. “Failing
“Failing these, CCP should impose penalties of unfair non-
competitive cartel-like trade practices on PTCL/PTA under relevant sections and
ordinances,”
ordinances,” said Wg Cdr (Retd) Muhammad Najeeb.

Author Location Dated

Ihtasham Ul Haque Islamabad, Pakistan 27.07.08

– Donors put conditions for financial support

Major international donor agencies have asked Pakistan to “put “put its house in order”
order”
to qualify for an increase in external support. Informed sources told Dawn on
Saturday that the International Monetary Fund (IMF),
(IMF), World Bank and the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) had told the government to achieve the much-needed
stability, without which they would not offer any ‘significant
‘significant assistance’.
assistance’. Foreign
inflows of $2 billion, as promised by some donor agencies, could not be achieved by
the end of June because of the coalition government’s failure to achieve political
and economic stability. A special reference has been made by the donors over the
government’s failure to timely pass on the increase in oil prices to consumers,
further complicating the economic situation. A senior official at the ministry of
finance told Dawn that the country was expecting adequate financial support from
international financial institutions to improve its economy and foreign exchange
reserves. He said the donors had been informed that import of oil and food items at
higher prices had caused real problems, knocking off $5.5 billion from foreign
reserves in a short period of time.

The official regretted that the country’s reserves had been “pushed back” to the
level of 2002-03, adding that the consumption-led growth was hurting economy
gravely. The official said the donors had also been requested to help bring $7 billion
foreign investments to overcome a power shortage of 7,000MW. “While“While we need to
encourage the installation of 100-150MW of small power units, we will have to
persuade the donor agencies to help build bigger power plants to end power
shortages by 2009.”
2009.” He said a decision had been taken to freeze non-development
expenditures at the revised level of last year to improve the government’s
budgetary position.“A
position.“A ban has been imposed on the purchase of physical assets
and expenditures of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, Senate and the National
Assembly have been cut,”
cut,” he said, adding that budget of the National Accountability
Bureau had also been cut by 30 percent. The official said that a number of
measures were being taken to limit the government’s borrowing from the central
bank.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 27.07.08

– US concerns on Fata likely to dominate Gilani-Bush talks

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s first plunge into the centre of American power
begins on Monday with a meeting and working lunch with US President George W.
Bush at the White House. He will then hold separate meetings with Vice President
Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. His hectic, three-day
schedule also includes appointments with lawmakers, academics and journalists.
Officials at the Pakistan Embassy in Washington said that he might meet
presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain as well. The prime minister,
who faces daunting economic problems at home, exacerbated by skyrocketing oil
prices, also is to meet members of Mr Bush’s economic team and address business
leaders. His envoy in Washington, Ambassador Husain Haqqani, worked hard to
make his visit smooth: meeting dozens of key US officials, lawmakers, journalists
and think-tank experts during the last two or three weeks. The list includes Mr
Cheney, Secretary Rice, Defence Secretary Robert Gates, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and key congressional leaders from both
Democratic and Republican parties. Mr Haqqani wants the prime minister to return
home with some substantial gains, which may include half a million tons of wheat,
$230 million for upgrading F-16s and permission for non-stop flights to and from
New York.

But there’s one front on which Mr Haqqani had little success: allaying US concerns
on the presence of Taliban and Al Qaeda insurgents in Fata. And there’s one
assurance that will neither be sought nor given during the prime minister’s visit: the
United States will not attack suspected terrorist targets inside Pakistan. The
Americans may have many doubts about the war on terror but not on this issue.
From President Bush to Admiral Mullen, everybody is absolutely clear that if they
have “actionable intelligence” about the presence of senior Al Qaeda and Taliban
leaders anywhere in the world, they will act and act immediately, with or without
the consent of the local authorities. The Pakistanis also know this. Apparently,
there’s no confusion between Islamabad and Washington over this issue. The
problem is in the media, both in Pakistan and the United States. The US media want
their administration to say that they will bomb each and every suspected terrorist
target in Pakistan without consulting the Pakistani government. The US
administration is not willing to say that. The Pakistani media want their government
to say that they will use all their resources to prevent the Americans from attacking
targets inside Pakistan. The Pakistani government knows that it cannot do so but is
not willing to concede.

Recently, an American news magazine — Time — reported that when Mr Gilani

meets President Bush, he may offer to allow US military actions inside Pakistan if
they target only two individuals — Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and his deputy
Ayman alZawahiri — and not anyone else. The question of US strikes into Pakistan is
linked to the larger issue of the presence of Al Qaeda and Taliban elements inside
Fata. Recent, US intelligence reports claim that as many as 12,000 foreign fighters
may be hiding in the tribal areas and they are supported by thousands of locals,
both Pashtuns and non-Pashtuns. Pakistan acknowledges the presence of terrorists
in Fata, but says that the reports are exaggerated. The Americans want Pakistan to
continue its own military campaign against the terrorists, saying that Islamabad’s
recent decision to hold talks with the militants will only exacerbate the situation.
Pakistan disagrees. It insists that while military action will be taken against the
miscreants, it has to engage others to seek a negotiated settlement to the dispute.

Author Location Dated

Birmingham, England 27.07.08
 – UK supports Pakistan’s anti-terror strategy
British Foreign Secretary David Miliband has said London supports Pakistan’s
comprehensive and multi-pronged strategy against terrorism. Speaking at a joint
press conference on Friday evening, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood
Qureshi and his British counterpart David Miliband noted the complexity of the issue
and said it could be resolved through sustained efforts by all the stakeholders. The
British foreign secretary said the UK and Pakistan stood united in “our
“our
determination against the danger posed by terrorism, not only to the UK but also to
Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. “We
“We need to make sure that we work bilaterally so as to recognise that
we share interests within the borders of Afghanistan and outside,”
outside,” Miliband added.
He dispelled the impression that the UK was not giving the new government in
Islamabad the breathing space to make its own strategy to meet the challenges of
terrorism and said: “Britain
“Britain backed up its support not only with political statements
but with a very large economic package.”
package.” Mr Qureshi informed the media of his
deep and substantive interaction with Mr Miliband in London on a number of
bilateral issues and ways and means of further strengthening bilateral ties.

Asked if the new government in Islamabad had failed to win the confidence of the
international community and that was why it could not sell its strategy on terrorism
to the world, he said the new democratic government needed space and time to
settle down. But he also claimed that his government had the support of both the
UK and the US and other western countries that were all keen to see the
strengthening of its democratic institutions. The foreign minister said Pakistan
needed an action plan to implement its strategy and to achieve these objectives the
country required international support and assistance to deal with the menace of
extremism and terrorism. Answering a question, Mr Qureshi said the Pakistan
government was not talking to militants but with tribal elders and elected
representatives of Fata. He said the objective was to wean away those with
extremist tendencies through talks and through uplift of the under-developed areas.
He said that in his discussion with Miliband they had commonality of interest and
views and there was a desire on both sides to work together. Mr Miliband said
Britain remained a good friend of Pakistan and it was important for the two
countries to work together to address the global concerns on security and economic
issues.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 27.07.08

– Recalling a conspiracy
When two or more persons make plans to commit a crime, they may be said to
have hatched a conspiracy. Discussion of the project does not become a conspiracy
unless the participants have agreed to carry it out. It has been said repeatedly in
recent weeks that conspiracies are being hatched in the presidency to disrupt the
rapport between the PPP and PML-N. If this is indeed happening, the enterprise may
be called dirty politics but, strictly speaking, it is not a conspiracy since breaking a
rival coalition is not a crime. We have had only a few known conspiracies in our
history. There was the Rawalpindi Conspiracy to overthrow Liaquat Ali Khan’s
government in 1951, a conspiracy between President Iskander Mirza and Gen Ayub
Khan to dismiss the civilian regime and bring in military rule (1958), and a
conspiracy between Gen Yahya Khan and some of his associates to use military
force to crush the separatists in East Pakistan (1971). One may also refer to a
conspiracy between Gen Ziaul Haq and his commanders to overthrow Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto’s government (1977).

Participants in only one of these cases, the Rawalpindi Conspiracy, were arrested,
tried and convicted. The specifics of this case are not generally known and I should
like to share them with readers. Maj Gen Mohammad Akbar Khan was its author.
Born into an affluent Pakhtun family in 1912, he went to Islamia College, Peshawar,
after finishing high school, entered the British Indian Army, graduated from the
famous Sandhurst Military Academy, returned to the Indian Army as a
commissioned officer (1934), fought the Japanese in Burma during World War II,
received a gallantry award, and joined the Pakistan Army as a brigadier after
independence. He commanded the regular and irregular forces fighting Indian
forces in Kashmir, did not approve of the ceasefire and wanted the fighting to
continue. He was greatly dissatisfied with what he considered was the inadequate
support the government extended to the Pakistani men fighting in Kashmir. Gen
Douglas Gracey, chief of the Pakistan Army at the time, and on his advice the prime
minister, did not want the army to get too deeply involved in Kashmir. That is why
they were circumspect in their support of the operation.

Akbar Khan was inclined to be impulsive and rather indiscreet, and he talked too
much. He freely conveyed his criticism of the government to fellow officers. His
wife, Nasim (daughter of the celebrated woman politician Begum Jehan Ara
Shahnawaz), was even more of a talker. She too went around criticising the
government. Word of their talking eventually reached the intelligence agencies,
who began to watch them. Akbar Khan was nevertheless promoted to the rank of
major general in December 1950. Gen Ayub Khan, who was now commander-
inchief, posted him as chief of the general staff at the headquarters, partly to keep
an eye on him and partly to keep him away from officers out in the field. This,
however, did not stop his tirades against the government. In fact he now began to
discuss with friends a plan to overthrow the government. On Feb 23, 1951 about a
dozen officers (ranking from major general to captain) and three civilians met at
Akbar Khan’s house. The civilians included Faiz Ahmed Faiz, Syed Sajjad Zaheer
(general secretary of the Communist Party of Pakistan) and Mohammad Hussain
Ata. Akbar Khan presented his plan: Governor General Nazimuddin and Prime
Minister Liaquat Ali Khan, who were expected to be in Rawalpindi during the
following week, would be arrested. The governor general would be forced to dismiss
the government and install an interim regime headed by Akbar Khan. Elections
would be promised but no definite date given. The new regime would set things
right (eradicate corruption, provide education, healthcare and other amenities of life
to the poor).

The meeting lasted more than eight hours, and reportedly the participants agreed
that the plan should be implemented. Akbar Khan had reached an understanding
with the Communist Party along the following lines: he would stop the intense
persecution to which the party leaders and workers were being subjected at the
time, and he would let the party function like any other political organisation. This
guarantee included the right to contest elections. In return the party and the trade
unions affiliated with it would welcome his government, and The Pakistan Times, of
which Faiz Ahmed Faiz was the chief editor, would support it. A senior police officer
in the NWFP, Askar Ali Shah, had been Akbar Khan’s friend and confidant for a time
and had known of his opposition to the government. He did not participate in the
meeting on Feb 23 but learned of its proceedings, got cold feet, and blurted them
out to the provincial IGP. The latter reported them to the governor, who promptly
informed the prime minister. On the morning of March 9, Maj Gen Akbar Khan and
three of his co-conspirators, including Faiz, were arrested. Begum Nasim, Sajjad
Zaheer and several others were arrested a few days later. They ended up in
Hyderabad jail (where a wing had been specially prepared for them) and were tried
on the charge of “having
“having conspired to wage war against the king.”
king.” A special tribunal
consisting of Sir Abdul Rahman of the federal court, Justice Mohammad Sharif of the
Lahore High Court and Justice Amir-ud-Din of the Dhaka High Court was constituted
to try the accused. The trial began on June 15 and lasted several weeks. A.K. Brohi
appeared as the chief prosecutor while Hussain Shaheed Suhrawardy, Z.H. Lari, and
several other wellknown lawyers appeared for the defence.

The defence argued that while the accused had met and talked, they had not all
agreed to take any action. But two of the conspirators (Col Siddique Raja and Maj
Mohammad Yousuf Sethi) turned approvers and were persuaded to testify that the
accused had indeed come to an agreement. Gen Akbar Khan and the other officers
were sentenced to imprisonment for 12 years but the civilians got away with four
years in jail. ‘Enemies of the king’ are usually made reasonably comfortable in
prison. Forced solitude gives them time to reflect. Faiz wrote some of his finest
poetry during his years in jail. The charge of conspiracy did not lower these men in
public esteem, Faiz continued to be honoured after his release and Akbar Khan
landed a high post in the national security apparatus in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s
government. ¦ The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 27.07.08

– Fresh polls show McCain catching up with Obama

The US White House race tightened on Saturday after new opinion polls suggested
Barack Obama’s shine was wearing off and Republican John McCain was gaining
ground in several important states. The Illinois Democratic senator was greeted like
a rock star by some 200,000 people in Berlin, as he continued his week-long foreign
tour visiting crucial hotspots and important allies, demonstrating his foreign policy
credentials in the race to be the next US president. But voter polls inside the United
States showed McCain chipping away at Obama’s lead in the race, which remains
between one and six points. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll published on
Wednesday showed 55 per cent of US voters considered Obama the riskiest choice
for US president, while just 35 per cent said the same of McCain. The same poll
found that 58 per cent of voters identified more closely with McCain’s values and
background, against 47 per cent who said the same of Obama. A separate study
published on Thursday by Quinnipiac University showed McCain has gained ground
in several key battleground states, and has overtaken Obama in Colorado. The
survey showed McCain close on Obama’s heels in Michigan and Minnesota, and
other polls have put McCain ahead in some key states usually considered
Democratic bastions, such as New Hampshire.
“Well, I do understand it,”
it,” Obama said in an interview with NBC news, about the
number of people viewing him as a risky choice. “I’m “I’m new to the scene. John
McCain’s been around 25, 30 years in public life. I have just recently emerged in
terms of our national politics. And so it’s not surprising that people would say that,”
that,”
Obama said. Obama’s fast journey to Iraq, Israel and Afghanistan, and then stops in
Germany, France and, on Saturday, Britain, is aimed at showing he has presidential
skills, meeting top leaders and pressing the Europeans to keep their troops in
Afghanistan. In an interview with CNN, he insisted he was not trying to interfere
with the official US foreign policy. However, he added, the principle idea he wanted
to communicate in meetings with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French
President Nicolas Sarkozy, and Brtish Prime Minister Gordon Brown, was to make
them understand “that“that we’re going to have to have a sustained commitment in
Afghanistan, that it’s not going to be a situation where we can do this on the
cheap.”
cheap.” While his reception at each stop on the trip has been generous, the polls
showed his message was having less impact among some segments of the US voter
population. A Gallup poll found Obama leading McCain 47-41 per cent, a four-point
gain for the Republican hopeful from earlier in the week. “The “The drop-off in Obama’s
support earlier this week ... suggests caution in assuming that the trip will have any
lasting impact on the structure of the race,”
race,” said Gallup editor Frank Newport. “The
“The
jury is still out.” ”To the extent that he’s acting as if he’s already president when
the election is over 100 days away, and everyone expects it will be a very close
race, raises questions about how in touch he is,” is,” opined Alex Conant, spokesman
for the Republican National Committee.

“The fact that Obama is out of touch with voters... is certainly something we’ll
continue to reiterate,”
reiterate,” Conant added. McCain’s continues to do well among his main
supporters, white males and people over 65 — groups that are likely to turn out
strongly for the November 4 presidential election. Some experts say McCain’s down-
home approach, which he worked on this week while visiting working-class voters
and grocery stores in Pennsylvania and Ohio, seems to be bearing fruit, especially
among American voters whose main concern is the economy and not the war in
Iraq. “With
“With voters saying that the energy issue is now more important to their
presidential vote than is the war in Iraq, this group represents an opportunity for
the Republicans,”
Republicans,” said Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University
Polling Institute.
Institute. Obama, who returns to the United States on Saturday evening,
sought to connect his popular position on the Iraq war with voters’ economic fears.
“If we have more Nato troops in Afghanistan, then that’s potentially fewer American
troops over the long-term,”
long-term,” he said on CNN. “Which
“Which means that we’re spending
fewer billions of dollars, which means we can invest those billions of dollars in
making sure that we’re providing tax cuts to middle-class families who are
struggling with higher gas prices,”
prices,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Paul Ritcher Washington, D.C. 27.07.08

– Bush gets the worst from Obama’s trip

Barack Obama’s electoral rival is John McCain, but Obama’s overseas trip this week
has given heartburn to another Republican President Bush. In stop after stop across
the Middle East and Europe, Obama was embraced as the man whose promise of
change meant a change from Bush: on Iraq, Middle East peace, the treatment of
terrorism suspects, climate change, alliance relations and more. The tour has
brought into focus how world leaders are positioning themselves for a new
American president. In Baghdad, Iraqi leaders who have appeared to be intimate
allies of the White House suddenly were saying they wanted the kind of rough
deadline for US troop withdrawal that Obama has endorsed and Bush repeatedly
has rejected. In Jerusalem, key leaders signalled they could accept Obama’s
proposal for high-level talks with Iran, an approach that Bush labeled
“appeasement” in an appearance at the Knesset, Israel’s legislature, only last
spring. Obama’s debut appearance on the international stage was the most vivid
demonstration yet that the world is moving beyond the Bush era, even while the
White House works frantically in its last six months to salvage what it can of its
foreign policy agenda.The trip had to come as a jolt for administration officials, said
Wayne White, a senior US State Department intelligence official in Bush’s first term.
“I’m sure it was a bit rattling for the administration to see someone treated with
such deference,”
deference,” he said.

The Iraq visit brought to light frictions in the US-Iraqi relationship and might have
jeopardised the Bush’s administration’s chances of concluding negotiations over the
US military role in Iraq that the administration had hoped to wrap up by the end of
the year. Last weekend, in tense exchanges, administration officials succeeded in
persuading Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki partially to take back his July 18
comment to the German magazine Der Spiegel that he favoured Obama’s plan to
withdraw US combat troops from Iraq in 16 months. Yet when Obama arrived in
Baghdad on Monday, alMaliki spokesman Ali Dabbagh set aside that promise and
said that withdrawing troops by the end of 2010, a few months past the timetable
suggested by Obama, sounded just about right. The comments appeared to change
the debate from the question of whether the United States could draw down in Iraq
to how to deal with the next challenge, the militant threat in Afghanistan and
Pakistan. That’s the discussion Obama has been urging.

Israeli leaders have been steadfastly loyal to Bush, and sometimes described him as
the strongest supporter of Israel ever to inhabit the Oval Office. Yet last week,
several Israelis including former prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu of the hawkish
Likud Party signalled they were ready to set aside Bush’s insistence that it would be
foolish to talk with the Iranians unless they first halted nuclear activities that could
give them the ability to make a bomb. These Israelis said they were willing to
accept Obama’s plans to talk to top Iranian leaders as a means of exhausting
diplomatic possibilities. Nathan J. Brown, a specialist in Arab politics at George
Washington University,
University, said Obama’s visit came at a time when the Bush
administration has a “very weak hand” in the Middle East because of “its “its failure to
build strong partnerships, the unrealistic goals it has set, the overstretch in terms of
military positions, and the natural effects of reaching the end of the term”.
term”. The trip
“may have highlighted this weak position and prompted some regional leaders to
position themselves toward a new administration”,
administration”, Brown wrote in an email. In
France on Friday, President Nicolas Sarkozy who has gone out of his way to repair
relations with Bush presented himself as Obama’s “buddy” and said France would
be “delighted” to see the Democratic candidate elected as the next US president.
Sarkozy said the two share “converging” views on issues including climate change
and Iran’s nuclear programme. Obama’s appearance with Sarkozy contrasted with
McCain’s low-key visit to Europe and the Middle East in March. There was no joint
news conference for McCain in Paris; he answered journalists’ questions in a
courtyard without Sarkozy.

White House officials insisted Friday that their relationships with the Iraqis and
Israeli governments remain strong and that Obama’s conversations were not
disrupting plans. “We’re
“We’re not going to let this trip be a distraction,”
distraction,” Press Secretary
Dana Perino said. Perino otherwise refused to talk about Obama’s trip but said
pointedly that when Bush and the Iraqis decide a “general time horizon” for a
change in the US role, “these
“these will not be dates plucked out of thin air based on an
American political calendar or based on an American, you know, inside the Beltway
decision of, we think this would be a good date to remove troops”.
troops”. Conservatives
objected that Obama’s presidential-style appearance to an adulatory crowd in Berlin
was presumptuous, and some predicted there would be an American backlash
against a candidate who had such backing from foreigners. One US official
acknowledged that the administration was fully aware that its standing, as much as
McCain’s, was on the line. “The“The message would be pretty hard to miss,”
miss,” said the
official, who insisted on remaining unidentified because he was not authorised to
speak on the subject. In his single appearance before a large crowd, at the Victory
Column in Berlin, Obama offered a generally conciliatory message about the need
for Americans and Europeans to work together on their common interests. Although
his language was muted, it was still clear that he was offering himself as the
unBush, promising a less ideological American partner who would join forces on
climate change, “reject
“reject torture and stand for the rule of law”,
law”, and work together for
nuclear disarmament. “The “The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic
cannot stand,”
stand,” he said. Obama’s speech contained a number of messages less
welcome to the Germans, including that their military needs to take on a bigger and
more dangerous role in Afghanistan. Der Spiegel,
Spiegel, the German magazine, cautioned
its audience before Obama’s arrival that they might not like what they hear from
“the American idol”.
idol”. Yet Europeans, it said, “have
“have fallen in love with Obama mostly
because he’s not Bush”
Bush”

Author Location Dated

Robert Burns Baghdad, Iraq 27.07.08

– Things looking up for US in Iraq

The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited,
sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to
continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the US now are able to
shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace a
transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago. Despite
the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents,
who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability
of the central government. That does not mean the war has ended or that US troops
have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the
time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on
training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran,
supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the
integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in
rebuilding the economy. Scattered battles go on, especially against Al Qaeda
holdouts north of Baghdad. But organised resistance, with the steady drumbeat of
bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital
daily, has all but ceased.

This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in
the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They
launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have
switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political
support. Gen. David Petraeus, the top US commander in Iraq, said this past week
there are early indications that senior leaders of Al Qaeda may be considering
shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan. Ryan Crocker, the US
ambassador to Iraq, said on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered
to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future. “Very
“Very clearly, the
insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to
challenge it,”
it,” Crocker said. “It’s
“It’s actually almost in no position to try to confront it.
By and large, what’s left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on.”
on.” Shia militias,
notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada alSadr, have lost their power
bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing
of Shia extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring now a quiet
though not fully secure district. Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still
talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support
among a Shia population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists
as they were two years ago.

Despite the favourable signs, US commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or

promising that the calm will last. The premature declaration by the Bush
administration of “Mission
“Mission Accomplished”
Accomplished” in May 2003 convinced commanders that
the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with
the warning that “security
“security is fragile”
fragile” and that the improvements, while encouraging,
are “not
“not irreversible”.
irreversible”. Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries,
power struggles within the Sunni and Shia communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions,
corruption.
corruption. Anyone could rekindle widespread fighting. But the underlying dynamics
in Iraqi society that blew up the US military’s hopes for an early exit, shortly after
the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.
Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because
of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighbourhoods purged of minorities in
2006. That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital.
People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn
are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.
Statistics show violence at a four year low. The monthly American death toll
appears to be at its lowest of the war four killed in action so far this month as of
Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent
attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this
month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13. Beyond that, there is something
in the air in Iraq this summer.

In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with
their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible
signs of a turnaround emerged. Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to
take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability. The questions
facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from
the US military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as
the US presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal
and the other insisting on staying. Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the
US military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full
sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a
similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the
sacrifice could be squandered. US commanders say a substantial American military
presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that
have been sustained over the first half of this year as the Pentagon withdrew five
Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 the remaining troops could be used
as peacekeepers more than combatants. As a measure of the transitioning US role,
Maj-Gen Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in
the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 per cent of his time
working on combat-related matters and about 20 per cent on what the military calls
“nonkinetic” issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government
institutions and humanitarian aid. Now Hammond estimates those percentage have
been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond
consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest
Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district
of southern Baghdad an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital’s
most violent zones.

“We’re getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq,”
Iraq,”
says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised
Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it’s over, but he sees the US
mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace. Although Sunni
and Shia extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have
lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered US
approach to countering the insurgency a Petraeus-driven move to take more US
troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighbourhoods where they
mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust. Army Col Tom James, a
brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm
this way: “We’ve
“We’ve put out the forest fire. Now we’re dealing with pop-up fires.”
fires.” It’s
not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace. Maj-Gen Ali
Hadi Hussein alYaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes.
“Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today’s Baghdad,”
Baghdad,” he says.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran, Iran 27.07.08

– Iran possesses over 5,000 centrifuges, says Ahmadinejad

Iran has more than 5,000 active centrifuges for enriching uranium, its president was
quoted as saying on Saturday, suggesting expansion of the nuclear work the West
suspects is aimed at making bombs. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s comments
may irritate major powers which have offered the Islamic Republic economic and
other incentives to persuade it to suspend enrichment activity that can have both
civilian and military uses. Western officials said after a meeting with Iran’s chief
nuclear negotiator in Geneva on July 19 it had two weeks to reply to an offer of a
halt to new steps towards more United Nations sanctions if Iran froze the expansion
of its nuclear programme. Iran has so far ruled out a freeze to start preliminary talks
or suspension of enrichment to start formal talks on the incentives package
proposed by the six world powers — the United States, Russia, China, Britain,
France and Germany. “Today,
“Today, we have more than 5,000 active centrifuges,”
centrifuges,” state
television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying. The UN nuclear watchdog, the
International Atomic Energy Agency,
Agency, said in May that Tehran had 3,500 centrifuges
working at its Natanz facility in central Iran. The UN Security Council has imposed
three sets of sanctions in a stand-off that goes back to the revelation in 2002 by an
exiled opposition group of the existence of a uranium enrichment facility and heavy
water plant in Iran.

Tehran’s N-right Iran, the world’s fourth-largest crude producer, says its nuclear
activities are aimed solely at generating electricity. It says it is ready for
negotiations but will not accept any preconditions or threats in a row that has
helped send oil prices sharply higher, despite falls in the last two weeks. “Iran
“Iran does
not negotiate with anyone over its obvious nuclear right,”
right,” Ahmadinejad said in the
city of Mashhad. State radio quoted him as saying the West had retreated in the
dispute and had now “accepted
“accepted that Iran would continue uranium enrichment with
its current 6,000 centrifuges.”
centrifuges.” In a policy shift, a US diplomat attended the Geneva
talks and Ahmadinejad said this represented a “success” for Iran. Iran launched
3,000 centrifuges, a basis for industrial scale enrichment, at Natanz in central Iran
in 2007. But they are the 1970s-vintage P1 design, prone to breakdown. It said in
April it had started installing 6,000 new centrifuges at Natanz and testing a more
advanced centrifuge. Iran says it aims eventually to have 50,000 centrifuges to
produce fuel for a planned network of power plants. Enriched uranium can also
provide material for arms if refined further. If running smoothly for long periods,
3,000 would be enough to make material for a warhead in a year, western experts
say. The United States has warned Iran that it will face more sanctions if it fails to
meet the twoweek deadline. It has not ruled out military action if diplomacy were to
fail.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 27.07.08

– Badr says no plans to expel Fahim from PPP

Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) Secretary-General Jahangir Badr has categorically
rejected any plans to expel any central leader, including senior vice-chairman
Makhdoom Amin Fahim, from the party. However, Mr Badr advised Mr Fahim to
express his reservations within the ranks of the PPP. Speaking at a press conference
here on Saturday, Mr Badr denied the impression that the new leadership of the PPP
had sidelined some old stalwarts, including Amin Fahim and Naheed Khan. “None “None of
the party’s leaders have been sidelined and as far as Mr Fahim is concerned, he
himself has preferred to keep a low profile,”
profile,” he added. He made it clear that there
was no plan to expel Mr Fahim from the party, despite the fact that he was openly
criticising the PPPled government and its top leadership. “As
“As PPP secretary-general,
I understand that he (Amin Fahim) has a right to criticize the party leadership and
ministers. But he should choose the right platform. I am ready to call a meeting of
the Central Executive Committee, where he could express his differences.”
differences.”
Reiterating his party’s stance that it never recognised Pervez Musharraf as a
legitimate president, he declined to comment on any impeachment plan or the
future role of the president. On the appointment of Salman Taseer as Punjab
governor, the Lahore-based politician said that the PPP had welcomed the decision,
even though the power to appoint provincial governors solely rests with the
president.

Mr Badr, who had lost the Feb 18 general election, said that there was no confusion
between the PPP and the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) – the two leading
coalition partners – on the reinstatement of deposed judges. “However,
“However, there are
some differences on modalities, which will be worked out soon,”
soon,” he added.
Defending the PPP-led four party coalition, he blamed the previous government for
most of the crises, including the law and order problem. However, he said that the
ruling coalition was facing some economic challenges due to rising oil prices in the
international market and the overall global economic situation, but the PPP
government was taking all-out measures to deal with them. The PPP leader
welcomed the coalition parties’ decision to hold dialogue instead of launching an
operation in the tribal areas to restore peace and order. He said that his party was
not in favour of military action in any part of the country. In reply to a question, he
expressed ignorance about any operation being carried out in Balochistan and
referred the question to the interior ministry. He lashed out at the top leadership of
the opposition PML-Q, which had recently issued a ‘white paper’ on the first 100
days of the PPP-led government, saying that it has no right to criticize as no
government could clean an eight-year mess within its first 100 days in power.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood Washington, D.C. 28.07.08
Haider

– Gilani in US, meets Bush today

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani arrived in Washington on Sunday on a three-day
visit to the US capital as Pakistan’s first elected prime minister after eight years of
military rule. Pakistan’s Ambassador Hussain Haqqani says the visit will help bolster
economic cooperation and security assistance and will end with the United States
declaring “unequivocal support” for democracy and the prime minister offering “full
cooperation” in the fight against terrorism. The US media, however, presents a
different picture, alerting the Pakistanis to expect a “testy” and “harsh” reception
because US leaders have lost patience with Islamabad’s failure to curb terrorism.
The prime minister, however, has urged understanding with his government’s
tactics of negotiating with the militants, saying that it will reduce terrorism both in
Pakistan and neighbouring Afghanistan. Mr Gilani also spoke of longstanding
relations between Pakistan and the United States and hoped that his visit would
further strengthen those ties. In an earlier statement, Mr Gilani had said that US
leaders “should
“should be patient with the new government for a year or so and see if it is
able to translate its ideas into actions”.
actions”. Mr Gilani said he had “high hopes” he could
make the US Congress understand the complicated nature of the Taliban’s place in
Pakistan’s foreign and domestic relations.

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi, Defence Minister Ahmed Mukhtar, Minister
for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashram and Ambassador Naquin received the
prime minister at the airport. The Americans, according to their custom, had sent
Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher and protocol officials. The US
president and officials like the secretary of state do not receive a guest at the
airport but they do attend welcome ceremonies at the White House. Information
Minister Sherry Rehman, PM’s Adviser on Interior Rehman Maliki and Special
Assistant to PM on Economic Affairs Henna Rabbani Khar are also accompanying the
prime minister. Mr Gilani begins his official engagements with a meeting and
working lunch with President George W. Bush at the White House on Monday.
During his first visit to Washington, Mr Gilani will also meet top Congressional
leaders and senior administration officials, including Vice- President Dick Cheney
and secretaries of state, defence and treasury. He is also hoping to meet US
presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and John McCain, although the aides of the two
candidates have not yet confirmed the meetings. Mr Gilani will address the US
Council on Foreign Relations on Tuesday.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 28.07.08

– Reduction in oil firms’ margins

The government is considering a proposal to reduce the deemed duty, dealer
commission and oil companies’ margin on all petroleum products by 25 to 50 per
cent from the existing level and then freeze them. Informed sources told Dawn that
the government had firmed up its plan about cuts in the three crucial heads of the
oil pricing mechanism that could reduce current prices of different products by Rs4-
6 per litre or reduce the subsidy being paid out of taxpayers’ money to oil
marketing companies and refineries. Under the plan, the deemed duty will be
trimmed by 50 per cent and the dealer commission and OMC margin by 25 per cent.
Finance Minister Syed Naveed Qamar and a team of officials of the petroleum and
finance ministries would discuss the move on Monday in Karachi with the oil
industry, including dealers, refineries and OMCs separately and then jointly with the
Oil Companies’ Advisory Committee – an umbrella association protecting interests
of refineries and marketing companies. The oil industry, particularly the refineries
and marketing companies, are understood to be resisting the initiative which could
substantially ease the oil price pressure on the people and boost government’s
political standing and image badly shaken by recent unprecedented hikes in oil
prices.

These sources said the government had finally accepted the public demand that
there was no justification for allowing 10 per cent deemed duty on diesel to oil
refineries. Therefore, it has decided to cut it by half and fix at 5 per cent. This would
reduce refineries’ windfall by a paltry Rs14 billion per annum assuming an
international oil price of $100 per barrel. The federal board of revenue (FBR) would
lose revenue by about Rs30 billion on account of taxes it earns on the deemed duty.
The proposed cut would pass on the Rs45 billion to consumers per annum. The
sources said the government was convinced in principle to completely do away with
the deemed duty but the FBR and refineries did not support the proposal for
obvious reasons of revenue erosion in one go. Had that been done, the refineries’
take would have come down by Rs27 billion, FBR revenue could have fallen by Rs64
billion and the consumers would have benefited by Rs88-90 billion per annum. The
general public has been demanding complete withdrawal of the deemed duty on
various oil products that the oil companies have erroneously been enjoying for eight
years now instead of the original plan of allowing it for one year for storage
expansion and quality improvement. Of late, the government withdrew the deemed
duty on all products except diesel.

Likewise, the OMCs margin and dealer commission on diesel and motor spirit
(petrol) will be capped at $100 per barrel of international oil price. That would mean
that the OMC margin on high speed diesel would come down to Rs1.13 per litre
from the current frozen level of Rs1.55 per litre, down by 25 per cent. The OMC
share on motor spirit would also fall to about Rs1.60 per litre from Rs2.12. The cap
would also reduce dealer commission from Rs1.77 per litre on diesel to Rs1.32 per
litre, a reduction of about 25 per cent. The dealer commission is also expected to be
reduced to about Rs1.80 per litre from Rs2.43 per litre, down by 63 paisa per litre.
The sources said the oil industry would oppose the straight cut in their profit
margins and would suggest to the government to link the capped-profit with
quarterly or six-monthly inflation rate to ensure sufficient returns to investors and
shareholders. Some of the oil companies have already started to pressurise the
government against such a move and have threatened to shelve their investment
plans. A few days ago, the government had capped the dealer commission and
OMCs margin at the level of July 1 when international prices stood at about $140
per barrel. The commissions and margins on oil prices have surged by 40-50 per
cent between February 17 and July 1 due to continuous rise in international oil
prices since these rates are linked proportionally with the product price.

Author Location Dated

Ibn-e-Inayat (Public) Karachi, Pakistan 28.07.08

– Obama’s warning to Pakistan

The Democratic candidate for the US presidency, Senator Barack Obama, warned
the Pakistanis that if they cannot root out terrorism from the tribal area, America
will do it for them (July 16). Specifically, “We
“We must make it clear that if Pakistan
cannot or will not act, we will take out high level terrorist targets like Bin Laden if
we have them in our sights."
sights." He is not the first American to have said that; some
senior US officials have also been saying things to this effect in recent months. The
Americans never seem to learn from history. In Vietnam they had set out to ‘do it’,
i.e. free its South Vietnamese allies and the rest of the ‘free world’ from the
communist menace and ultimately suffered a humiliating defeat. Mr Obama had
very sensibly opposed the invasion of Iraq from the outset, like the worldwide
Muslim community as well as some of America's staunchest European allies such as
France and Germany. Now, the Muslims stand vindicated, like the Illinois senator,
about the correctness of their stand. However, while the Bush administration ‘did it’
for the opponents of Saddam Hussain and, more importantly, for the sake of Israel,
instead of curbing Al Qaeda or terrorism, it ended up doing just the opposite. In
Afghanistan, too, Mulla Omer was willing to try Osama bin Laden in his country or a
mutually acceptable third Muslim country provided evidence was made available to
his government, but Washington very arrogantly refused to do that.

Similarly, OBL, who had been a product of the CIA and was a US sponsored mujahid
against the Soviets in Afghanistan, fell out with the Americans only after they
refused to honour his request to withdraw American troops from his country
because their dress and behaviour violated the code of conduct for the Holy Land of
Saudi Arabia. In his autobiography, President Musharraf has written about how the
US soldiers had got into a sticky situation in Somalia and were rescued by the
Pakistan army's Seventh Frontier Force Regiment: “When “When the UN decided to pull out
its force from Somalia (around 1993), the rearguard action was given to US and
Pakistani troops to execute. It was a Pakistani that battalion threw a security cordon
around Mogadishu, under cover of which all UN contingents withdrew into waiting
ships.... It was this battalion along with a US contingent that executed a tactical
withdrawal under fire.”
fire.” He then notes with regret that the American film ‘Black
‘Black
Hawk Down’
Down ’ ignored the role of Pakistan in Somalia. When US troops were trapped
in the thickly-populated Madina Bazaar area of Mogadishu, it was our Seventh
Frontier Force Regiment that reached out and extricated them. "The "The bravery of the
US troops notwithstanding, we deserved equal, if not more credit; but the
filmmakers depicted the incident as involving only Americans,"
Americans," Mr Musharraf
laments.

Thus, the Americans must not underestimate the capabilities of Pakistani military. If
OBL or any other Al Qaeda leader had been in Pakistan, it would have taken them
out. The real need is for the Americans to realise that we have a better
understanding of the ground realities, most importantly the sensitivity of the
Pakistani masses about the killing of Muslims supposed to be fighting the ‘enemies
of Islam’, be it in Afghanistan or anywhere else, including Pakistan. This war can
never be won by military means. The only way is to win the hearts and minds of the
ordinary Muslims, who are mostly moderate in their views. The best thing the US
can do at this time to win over Pakistanis is to respect the majority's wish (totaling
70 to 80 per cent), as determined by many American and other surveys, that they
want Mr Musharraf to go and the deposed judiciary led by Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry to be restored. Also, Washington must stop interfering in
Pakistan's internal affairs and its representatives shouldn't act like viceroys. The
results of doing this will pleasantly surprise the Americans, just as the Feb 18 polls'
outcome in favour of the moderate political parties did. After that, the extremists
will stop getting recruits and things will start returning to normal. Additionally, they
must put a leash on Mr Karzai and advise New Delhi not to keep maligning
Islamabad while also resolving the Kashmir dispute fairly.

Author Location Dated

Adil Zareef adilzareef@yahoo.com 28.07.08

– The time for peace is now

The coalition partners in Islamabad recently decided to oppose the use of force in
Fata. Was this in response to the ultimatum issued by the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan
(TTP), or is the government now exercising its political mandate? With Nato and US
officials coming down hard on Pakistan on the issue of cross-border attacks by
militants, the time has come to rethink the ‘strategic depth’ doctrine that our
policymakers uphold so faithfully. Images of mindless brutality and wanton
savagery have numbed our collective consciousness. On the western border, the
suicide attacks and bomb blasts in Afghanistan have ignited another exchange of
acrimonious allegations between the Indians, Afghans and Pakistanis. Although the
ANP government rejected the TTP ultimatum to quit in five days or face the
“consequences”, a tenuous peace holds in Swat, Hangu and Waziristan. According
to the ANP, “outside forces” are bent on sabotaging any progress towards peace.
Will the ANP be able to play its historical role of a peacemaker or will it be swept
away by the forces of politics? The three warring nations vented their ire through
the media and the clouds of war gathered on the horizon. Qazi Hussain Ahmed of
the JI, the JUI’s Maulana Fazlur Rehman and, later, PML-Q and PPP spokespersons
converged on Peshawar to accuse the Karzai government of fomenting lies by
“accusing the Pakistan Army and ISI of masterminding the Indian embassy attacks
as a prelude to an invasion of Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan”.

The ANP, however, chose to remain silent at this point. A TTP statement defending
the “sovereignty
“sovereignty of Pakistan to the last man”
man” was typical of the Pakistani
establishment’s harangue. The conflict zone may have shifted to the west but
bigotry and intolerance is everywhere. The sweeping and ruthless Taliban violence
in the borderlands has destroyed traditional tribal structures and the Salafi brand of
the Wahabi doctrine is now threatening the very existence of Pakistan and
Afghanistan. The main question to be asked now is whether Pakistan is ready to
embrace the extremist jahilia that the obscurantists call Islam. The moment we
make this distinction clear we will be able to make an objective appraisal of events.
It is imperative that the political parties, academics, policy experts and scholars for
once see the way things are without their ideological blinkers. Nothing can emerge
from the ashes of destruction. A reading of history would help rediscover the causes
of the Pakistan-Afghanistan animosity and throw light on what shapes the Indian
perception. It was in the aftermath of the Second Afghan War (1878-88) that
imperial Great Britain drew an arbitrary Durand Line in 1893 between the fellow
Pakhtuns of Afghanistan (making Fata a buffer zone between Afghanistan and the
Indian subcontinent). Ever since it has been a no-go area, ruled by the draconian
FCR with an iron hand.

When confronted by the communist threat, the US and Pakistan incited the worst
form of religious extremism to check the Soviet advance. They could have thwarted
the advancing forces by mobilising and empowering the entire Pakhtun nation. The
nationalists opposed the militants’ geopolitical strategic ambitions which were
cloaked in the guise of jihad. Ghaffar Khan even predicted a bloodbath in Pakhtun
areas as well as the entire subcontinent. Once again religion came to be used for
political purposes, as had happened decades ago when the subcontinent was
partitioned amidst blood and tears. Three factors have shaped Pakistan’s distorted
policy on Afghanistan. One, King Zahir Shah’s refusal to accept Pakistan until the
Durand Line dispute had been resolved. This irked the emerging nation state.
Second, India’s tacit support for Afghanistan ever since has added to Pakistan’s
sense of insecurity, prompting it to counter the situation by exploiting religious
lobbies as a bulwark against perceived ‘Indian hegemony’. Third, the nationalist
forces demanding more provincial autonomy have been put on the back foot by
those who have used the religious card to devastating effect.

In this crisis of confidence between Pakistan and Afghanistan, Afghan territory has
provided a training ground for Pakistani surrogates preparing for their war in
Kashmir. The Pakhtunistan issue has been neutralised by the Islamists’ explicitly
anti-tribal appeal. The Government of Pakistan until 2001, and even afterwards, had
conveniently ignored the presence of foreign jihadis in the tribal areas as well as the
settled districts of the NWFP. Ironically, in 1948, the Waziris formed the bulk of the
Islamic warriors that enabled Pakistan to wrest Azad Kashmir from Indian hands. As
was the case in the past in British military campaigns, Pakhtuns served as cannon
fodder for the Pakistan military on the front lines. Now they are being mowed down
on both sides of the dividing line, as security personnel and as combatants. The
populace at large, meanwhile, is staring death in the face for no fault of its own. Is it
not an irony of fate that as India and Pakistan mend fences with cross-border
cultural exchanges, Pakhtun youth are being indoctrinated into blind hatred for the
Indians on the western front? Dr Minhajul Hasan, a professor of history at the
University of Peshawar, recounted how a “trained jihadi” youth explained while
appearing in his Master of Arts oral examination that he and his ilk were supposed
to damn both Ghaffar Khan and Wali Khan as apostates and enemies of Pakistan.
Later, to his surprise, he discovered they were visionary men of peace and not the
demons he had been led to believe.

Thousands of impoverished and desperate Pakhtun boys — some as young as eight-

year old — from distant places like Chitral, Dir and Swat are still being transported
to Taliban-controlled madressahs for training as suicide bombers and mercenaries.
Is it not time to revisit history and reorient our policies? An Afghan scholar once
commented, “while
“while the world is exporting technology, Pakistan is still bent on
exporting the Taliban.”
Taliban.” Instead of fighting imagined enemies around the world is it
not time to reverse the trend of violence and turn to mutual coexistence as friendly
neighbours? Is it not time for the Karzai government to tame the warlords and drug
barons that rule his ungovernable country? It is finally time for the US to allow a UN
peace mission to pinpoint the underlying causes behind the rise of Al Qaeda,
extremism and terrorism. It is also time to invest in human development and not in
bombs that destroy lives and the future of this unfortunate land.

Author Location Dated

Jehangir Khattak mjehangir@aol.com 28.07.08

– Obama and US Muslims

The seven-million Muslim community in America is quite apprehensive about Barak
Obama’s cold attitude towards them. By snubbing two women wearing head
scarves he recently reinforced mounting scepticism about his promises to be fair
and accommodating vis-à-vis the community. Immigrants do not feel so reassured
by Obama’s message of ‘hope’ and ‘change’. The Democratic Party’s candidate has
not been vocal about his immigration policy. Neither has he articulated his views on
a foreign policy sensitive to American Muslims’ concerns or a civil rights position
that addresses hate crimes and Islamophobia. He has not spelt out an inclusive road
map to American unity. Unsurprisingly Obama did poorly amongst immigrants
during the tough primaries. He faced defeat in states with higher immigrant and
Muslim populations, such as California, New York and Texas. Hillary Clinton won
convincingly in these states, primarily because of her appeal amongst immigrant
and blue-collar voters. “Obama
“Obama should visit a mosque. He has repeatedly shown his
courage during this campaign; Americans have responded to his intellectual
honesty. One of the important things about him is the knowledge his Kenyan and
Indonesian experiences have given him of Islam as lived, rather than Islam as
turned into monstrous specter. This enables him to break the monolithic, alienating
view of a great world religion that is as multifaceted as Judaism or Christianity,”
Christianity,”
respected columnist Roger Cohen counselled Obama in a June 26 article in the The
New York Times.
The image of Muslim Americans in mainstream politics has been portrayed in a poor
light and the front pages of magazines like The New Yorker have satirised them
unfairly. Many blame the ultra-right media for pushing Obama to the wall in his
relations with Muslims by their negative projection. In an unrelenting media
campaign, Republicans are portraying Obama as soft on terrorism. Fox-affiliated
radio stations are propagating an unmistakable message inferring that Al Qaeda will
not attack America before the elections because it wants Obama elected. Such
insinuations have made Obama overly on the defensive. Representative Keith
Ellison, America’s first Muslim Congressman, was the first prominent Muslim to
receive a veiled snub for his enthusiastic support for Obama. Ellison was stopped
from canvassing in mosques for Obama by his campaign. Several Muslim groups
also report that their requests for meetings with Obama are being ignored. Obama’s
message of change will be incomplete without his embracing American Muslims. He
needs to court Muslim voters before they turn away disappointed and dejected.
Obama’s stakes are high as political fortunes are changing. Both McCain and
Obama are aligning themselves to the popular mood and adjusting their foreign
policy outlooks accordingly. Not surprisingly, they share an almost identical vision
about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq — an assurance to bring down troop levels in
Iraq, and building up troop strength in Afghanistan. The only difference is that their
time frames vary.

Obama is promising US withdrawal from Iraq within 16 months of his presidency.

McCain says he could complete the withdrawal by the end of his first term in office,
but strictly depending on the security conditions in Iraq. In fact McCain’s new agility
on Iraq is being attributed to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki’s undeclared
endorsement of Obama’s withdrawal timeline. Obama is also coming to terms with
the realities in Pakistan. Like McCain, his approach has become more conciliatory
following his visit to Afghanistan. Instead of approving of military strikes on
Pakistani territory, Obama now wants Islamabad to destroy militants’ bases on its
territory. In his July 20 interview with CBS News, he presented a watered down
version of his assessment of Pakistan’s role in the war on terror, displaying greater
pragmatism and understanding of ground realities. Obama’s apparent shift on
Pakistan has brought him closer to McCain’s advocacy for a stronger partnership
with Pakistan. But the two still differ on strategy. Obama wants to “press
“press Pakistan
hard”
hard” to act against the militants, while McCain advocates a replay of the strategy
adopted to stabilise Iraq’s Al Anbar province where the US armed the local
population to fight insurgents. As the debate moves to the specifics, American
voters might confront a choice between experience and inexperience for the
implementation of competitive but broadly identical foreign policies. Though foreign
policy alone will not decide the election, it could influence results in swing and
battleground states. Thus both candidates ought to be sympathetic to the concerns
of all voters, including the Muslims.

Roger Cohen so rightly sums up the popular Muslim sentiment: “Fear-mongering

“Fear-mongering
about Islam is a global industry. It thrives on ignorance. Obama has a unique power
to break the cycle, not least by emboldening moderate Muslims to denounce terror.
Nothing would do more in the long run for the security of the world.”
world.” John McCain
hopes to benefit from the immigrants’ disenchantment with Obama. The Arizona
senator carries respect amongst Muslims, not just because of his service to the
nation but also his ability to cross community lines on important issues. Muslims
welcomed McCain’s decision in May to reject the endorsement of Pastor Rod Parsley
of Ohio, who referred to Islam as an “anti-Christ
“anti-Christ religion”.
religion”. Bridget McCain, his
teenaged daughter adopted from an orphanage in Bangladesh in 1991, has also
earned McCain a measure of veneration within the Muslim community. But all this
will not ensure massive votes for him because it is feared that McCain’s presidency
could be an extension of George Bush’s term in office. Will Obama break his silence
on his relations with American Muslims and lay the foundations of an all-inclusive
America by bringing them into the mainstream, or will he offer the Muslim voting
bloc to John McCain on a silver platter? Or will both the discerning candidates
discourage Muslims until they are pushed out of the political mainstream into the
files of great American tragedies? ¦ The writer is a US-based journalist.
journalist.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Farruqui Faruqui@pacbell.net 28.07.08

– A U-turn for the US

President Bush observed recently that the single most important issue on the
agenda of the next American president will be Pakistan, ahead of Afghanistan and
Iraq. The presumptive nominees of the Democratic and Republican parties agree
with this assessment. Seven years on, the top leaders of Al Qaeda are still at large,
the Taliban are resurgent and radicalism is on the rise. Both presidential candidates
have concluded that the war on terror is not going well. Both are entertaining
proposals for sending more troops into Afghanistan and, yes, possibly into
Waziristan. While there may be some merit in raising troop levels in Afghanistan,
sending them into Waziristan would be tantamount to invading Pakistan. It is
difficult to imagine how it would be anything other than an unmitigated disaster. In
the days following 9/11, the US invaded Afghanistan and deposed a widely disliked
regime. However, as the evidence of collateral damage surfaced, there was an
upsurge in anti-American sentiment among radical Pakistanis. However, anti-
Americanism did not stay confined to the radicals. In the years that followed,
continued US support for an increasingly unpopular general-turned-president led to
the rise of anti-American sentiment even among moderate Pakistanis. Today, 83 per
cent of Pakistanis would like to see Musharraf removed from office but US support
for Musharraf remains firm. Increasingly critical voices are being raised against US
policies even by senior military officials in Pakistan ever since a US attack killed
several Pakistani soldiers.

How did we arrive at this juncture? To understand the answer, we have to view US-
Pakistan ties through the long lens of history. Whenever the White House has been
occupied by a Republican president, it has often been the case that the President
House in Islamabad has been occupied by the army chief. This happened first
during the Eisenhower administration, was echoed in the Nixon administration,
happened again in the Reagan administration and is happening now under the Bush
administration. Massive arms supplies to the Pakistani military in the mid-1950s
were the primary reason that Gen Ayub was able to declare martial law in 1958.
Sure, the political leaders had been playing musical chairs since the early deaths of
Jinnah and Liaquat. But had the democratic process not been disrupted, it would
eventually have yielded a robust polity. Ayub violated his own constitution in 1969
when he handed over power to his army chief, Yahya. Two years later, Yahya
refused to hand over power to the party that won an absolute majority in
parliament. This was no surprise since he had earlier declared his intention to rule
for 14 years. The ensuing civil war, which pitted 45,000 troops against 75 million
disenchanted citizens, was — to quote Henry Kissinger — “worse
“worse than a crime, it
was a blunder”.
blunder”. After the Soviets invaded Afghanistan, Zia became a hero in the
West, no longer an evil hangman in uniform. The US provided F-16s to the Pakistani
air force and the CIA funnelled billions of dollars to the mujahideen through the Inter
Services Intelligence (ISI).
(ISI).

Mauled badly by Stingers, the Red Army withdrew in 1989. But this was a pyrrhic
victory for Pakistan, to whom it bequeathed a guns-and-drugs culture. During his
visit to South Asia in 2000, President Clinton snubbed Pakistan’s fourth coup-maker,
Pervez Musharraf, when he made a five-hour stopover in Islamabad on the heels of
a five-day visit to India. After 9/11, by pledging “unstinted cooperation” in the war
on terror and making a U-turn on the Taliban, Musharraf became Bush’s best friend.
He moved 80,000 troops into the area bordering Afghanistan and the ISI turned
over hundreds of suspects to the US. But things nosedived last year when a
lawyer’s movement forced him to suspend the constitution and fire the full bench of
the Supreme Court. In the following elections, Musharraf’s party was defeated
decisively but he did not step down. The opposition parties formed a coalition
government but failed to honour their electoral pledge to restore the judges. Asif
Zardari, unelected to any seat and holding no government post, took on the mantle
of politician-in-chief. Earlier he had accused the military government of murdering
his wife and talked of presidential impeachment. Now he speaks of the need to
move on. The US brought tremendous pressure on the coalition government
through Zardari not to pursue the restoration of judges or the impeachment of the
president. Senior US diplomats and flag officers paid frequent visits to their
Pakistani counterparts with the same message: Don’t rock the boat.boat.

Buttressing these sentiments, Henry Kissinger wrote that it was never a good idea
to hold elections in unstable polities such as Pakistan’s. Ironically, at the same time,
US Secretary of State Condi Rice wrote in Foreign Affairs that every good thing that
had happened in Pakistan since 9/11 was because of the US commitment to
democracy. To the contrary, the Taliban have opened a new franchise in Pakistan.
During the past 12 months or so, they have mounted a series of increasingly well-
coordinated and lethal attacks on both civil and military targets, taken over the Red
Mosque in Islamabad and almost seized Peshawar. In a single fire fight on July 13 in
Afghanistan’s Kunar province, they killed nine American soldiers. The increased
militancy of the Taliban comes at a time when most Pakistanis see hypocrisy in US
policies toward the country. It is time for the US to make a U-turn. What Rory
Stewart says in the current issue of Time magazine about Afghanistan is valid even
more so for Pakistan. More troops are not the answer, since bombs and missiles
have only exacerbated the problem. For every person who is killed, 10 rise in his or
her place. For decades, the US has focused its energies on developing one
institution and on propping up one man in Pakistan. Only failure unrelenting has
flowed from this policy. But should the US invade Pakistan the failure will be
compounded. The next US president should emphasise human development and
focus on the building of schools and hospitals, the digging of wells and the building
of roads, the creation of jobs and the provision of food. This will enable the US to
reinvent its image with the 164 million Pakistanis who are not in uniform. The
ensuing goodwill may help turn around the war on terror. ¦ The writer is an
associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of
Bradford.
Bradford.

Author Location Dated

Rabia Akhter rabiakhter@gmail.com 28.07.08

– Ambiguous N-threshold
Literature on the nuclear thresholds of individual nuclear weapons states is very
limited and insufficient to undertake comparisons. The 2005 US Doctrine for Joint
Nuclear Operations states: “If“If the US clearly defined conditions under which it
would use nuclear weapons, others might infer another set of circumstances in
which the US would not use nuclear weapons.”
weapons.” According to the Russian draft
Military Doctrine released in 1999 and approved in 2000, “The “The Russian Federation
reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear or other
weapons of mass destruction against it and (or) its allies, as well as in response to
largescale aggression utilising conventional weapons”.
weapons”. An all-encompassing Russian
escalation strategy does not spare any nuclear power. “For “For the nuclear deterrence
strategy as a means of ensuring Russia’s national security to be effective, each of
the other nuclear states should be vulnerable to Russia’s nuclear forces under any
conflict scenario.”
scenario.” For Pakistan, the only referenced account of its nuclear threshold
has been cited in a 2002 report by the Landau Network. In this document, the
director general of the Strategic Plans Division of Pakistan’s National Command
Authority is said to have outlined four hypothetical threshold scenarios in which
Pakistan could contemplate the use of nuclear weapons. At the time these
thresholds were as follows: if “India
“India attacks Pakistan and conquers a large part of
its territory (space threshold); India destroys a large part either of its land or air
forces (military threshold); India proceeds to the economic strangling of Pakistan;
and if India pushes Pakistan into political destabilisation or creates a large scale
[sic] internal subversion in Pakistan”.
Pakistan”.

Though these nuclear thresholds are not absolute, and may have been part of the
signalling by Pakistan during the 2001-02 stand-off, they do provide researchers
with an avenue for an academic discourse. In addition to the four thresholds listed
above, two more clearly need to be added — technological and diplomatic.
diplomatic. The
technological threshold could be invoked if the adversary acquires a qualitative or
quantitative edge over Pakistan’s nuclear capability to match or counter the enemy
(e.g. sophisticated means of delivery, mini-nukes or a ballistic missile defence
system) coupled with aggressive provocation such as threats of annihilating
Pakistan. The diplomatic threshold could be invoked in the event of provocation or
signalling by the adversary that is aimed at mobilising the international community
into forming a coalition of the willing against Pakistan. This past decade has
witnessed the triumph of Pakistan’s strategic ambiguity with regard to its nuclear
red lines, the alert status of its strategic forces, its take on deployment strategies,
second-strike capability, nuclear use doctrine and, most importantly, the ‘minimum’
number needed to ensure credible nuclear deterrence. A decade later, the most
significant of all remains the adversary’s perception of Pakistan’s capability.
Pakistan is perceived as a risk-acceptant state and that worked well in our favour in
both the 1999 Kargil conflict and the 2001-02 stand-off with India. Signalling from
time to time will remain relevant in terms of sustaining the credibility of deterrence.
While strategic ambiguity remains important, explicit political will is essential to the
credibility of deterrence. Pakistan needs to identify the space between conventional
war/low-intensity conflict and an all-out nuclear war, thereby providing some clarity
regarding its likely threshold. For this, Pakistan will have to either work on a
quantitative conventional force buildup or qualitative conventional force
modernisation to express our resolve that conventional offences will be met with
conventional defence — and that nuclear arms are weapons of last resort, when
deterrence fails. Most analysts believe that Pakistan did not signal the resolve to
fight an all-out conventional war with India during the Kargil and 2001-02 crises and
resorted to the threat of using nuclear weapons much too soon. Thus Pakistan was
seen as a state with an appetite for a low threshold, thereby reducing the possibility
of a political solution to the problem. According to an Indian think tank, India’s
conventional ‘Cold Start’ doctrine “seeks
“seeks to disarm Pakistan’s nuclear ‘first use’
option through the possibility of a nuclear exchange restricted to Pakistani soil.”
soil.”
This obviously makes India more “venturesome”.

Gradual escalation through appropriate statements at appropriate intervals is thus

needed for crisis stability. A decade after overt nuclearisation, this ambiguity that
now vacillates somewhere between a low or high nuclear threshold — because of
inadequate signalling in crisis situations — needs to make way for an unambiguous
escalation strategy signalling a firm resolve that no gains can be secured below the
threshold. Furthermore, the illusion needs to be put to rest that India will be in a
position to gain either a conventional or nuclear edge over Pakistan because no
doctrine (Indian or any other) has, or ever will have, the capacity to restrict a
nuclear exchange to Pakistani soil. Once detonated, nuclear weapons do not
discriminate between adversaries and geographical boundaries. Having an effective
and workable operational strategy to ensure that weapons will work when needed is
an essential part of effective deterrence. This strengthening of deterrence will
enhance strategic stability. ¦ The writer is a doctoral candidate in defence and
strategic studies at Quaid-i-Azam University

Author Location Dated

Kim Murphy Seattle 28.07.08

– 64 years after unfair convictions, US army apologises

It was a crime so improbable that many had trouble believing it could have
happened at all: Three black soldiers stood accused of lynching an Italian prisoner
of war, found dangling from a wire on an obstacle training course at Fort Lawton in
the middle of World War II.
II. The subsequent trial of the three men, along with 40
other African-American enlistees charged with rioting, became the largest and
longest army court martial of the war, and the only recorded instance in US history
in which black men stood trial for a mob lynching. By the time it was over, 28 men
had been convicted on rioting charges, two of them also found guilty of
manslaughter in connection with the hanging. Despite protesting their innocence
and the government’s own secret investigation showing the prosecution’s case was
poisonously flawed, the men were sentenced to hard labour and forfeiture of
military pay and benefits and given dishonorable discharges. Many men went to
their graves with the stain of wartime dishonor still on their records. It wasn’t until
Saturday in a low-key ceremony on a wide lawn at the old army base in Seattle that
history switched gears. A senior army official handed out certificates setting aside
the convictions and converting the discharges to honourable status, in recognition
64 years after the fact that the prosecutors had committed “egregious
“egregious error”
error” that
resulted in a trial that was “fundamentally
“fundamentally unfair”.
”.
unfair “ “I
I grieve for an army that failed
to honour its own values at Fort Lawton,”
Lawton,” Ronald J. James, assistant secretary of the
army and the great-grandson of a slave, said as he handed out the certificates to
surviving family members.

“The army is genuinely sorry. I am sorry. Sorry for your husbands, loved ones,
fathers and grandfathers, for the lost years of their lives,”
lives,” he said, calling
Saturday’s ceremony a “belated,
“belated, long-overdue vindication”.
vindication”. Not a single one of the
soldiers was on hand to accept the apology. All but two are dead, and the one who
tried to attend, 83year-old Samuel Snow from Leesburg, Florida, had to be
hospitalised with heart palpitations in downtown Seattle just hours before the
observance. “My
“My father never held any animosity,”
animosity,” said his son, Ray Snow. “He
“He
said: ‘Son, God has been good to me. If I hold this in my heart, then I can’t walk in
forgiveness.’
forgiveness.’ Really, it energised him. It was the fuel that drove him: ‘Bring
‘Bring on all
the things that are supposed to stop me from achieving.’ This was all liquid oxygen
for him.”
him.” The case of the Fort Lawton 28 has been little known in recent years,
though the court martial in 1944 attracted widespread news coverage at the time. It
wasn’t until former television journalist Jack Hamann came upon the Italian soldier’s
grave in 1986 and began many years of research into what happened that archival
material was uncovered demonstrating the fatal flaws in the government’s case and
pointing to the likelihood that the Italian prisoner was in fact killed by a white man.
The army’s inspector-general had conducted an exhaustive investigation at the time
that raised major questions about the evidence against the accused. But the army
had appointed only two defence lawyers to handle all 43 men, giving them 10 days
to prepare their case, and they were not permitted to see the report.

The prosecutor was Col Leon Jaworski, who in 1973 became the special prosecutor
in the Watergate case involving the administration of President Nixon. “Jaworski
“Jaworski
disingenuously, and it’s clear now, illegally and unethically, said, ‘Sorry, that’s not
what you think it is, and you can’t have it.’
it.’ He fought and got the court to agree not
to let it in,”
in,” Hamann said in an interview. Jaworski died in 1982. Hamann wrote a
book about the case, “On “On American Soil”,
Soil”, which was published in 2005. Based in
large part on the evidence disclosed in it, the US Army Board for Correction of
Military Records reviewed the case last year and ruled unanimously to overturn the
convictions and grant retroactive honorable discharges. “I “I don’t think very often
they come out and say our largest and longest court martial of this giant war, World
War II, was fatally flawed,”
flawed,” Hamann said. “But “But the army has been a driver of this, by
getting out ahead of it and saying, ‘We want to let our constituents know we’re not
hiding behind this. We’ve read the evidence, we agree, we checked it out
ourselves.’ “ The junior defence counsel in the case, Howard Noyd, now 93, said he
and his partner had known from the beginning that “justice was sacrificed” and his
clients were wrongly charged. “It’s just a remarkable story. I didn’t expect we would
ever come to final justice.”
justice.” James, the assistant army secretary, ended his calm but
emotional address, with a declaration that he would not end it as most such
speeches conclude. “The“The usually closing is something like, ‘God bless the army, and
God bless the United States of America, but frankly that doesn’t seem right or
appropriate for this time I have unpaid debts and unpaid dues,”
dues,” he said. “Therefore
“Therefore
I would like to close by saying God bless Samuel Snow, God bless the Fort Lawton
28, and God bless your family and friends.”
friends.”

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 28.07.08

– Obama says won’t pick VP for funeral duty

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama said on Sunday that he will pick a
vice presidential running mate who will “help
“help me govern”
govern” and not just somebody
“who I send off to go to funerals.”
funerals.” Obama, in an interview with NBC’s Meet the
Press,
Press, said his vice presidential choice would be “somebody
“somebody who can help me
govern, who I can work with, who has a shared vision.” “I’m not interested in a vice
president who I send off to go to funerals,”
funerals,” he said. “I
“I want somebody who is going
to roll up their sleeves and be willing to work.”
work.” The Illinois senator declined to name
any possible running mates, but repeated that his rival for the Democratic
nomination, former first lady Hillary Clinton, would be on his “short list.” “I “I think
Hillary Clinton would be on anybody’s short list,”
list,” he said. “She
“She is one of the most
effective, intelligent, courageous leaders that we have in the Democratic Party.” Party.”
Obama also said that he would welcome help on the campaign trail from former
president Bill Clinton. “I
“I think not only do I want Hillary Clinton campaigning with
me, I want Bill Clinton, one of the smartest men in the history of politics, involved in
our campaign.”
campaign.”

Author Location Dated

Khaleeq Kiani 28.07.08

– Rising power tariff

Amid unprecedented power shortage in hot and humid summer, the consumers
would have to brave a huge rise in electricity rates very soon. There will be no
exception. Industry, business, agriculture, commercial and household including
lifeline consumers would have to bear the brunt of a continuous rise in electricity
rates for an unlimited period in the foreseeable future. This time bomb is ticking
before the public could absorb the recent unparalleled hike in petroleum prices.
Apart from social, economic and political impacts, the power tariff syndrome may
put the federation under strain as the centre takes steps that come under the
domain of Council of Common Interests (CCI).
(CCI). Then there are suggestions to
subsidise the three provinces at the cost of consumers in the fourth province (the
Punjab). Separately, the NWFP feels aggrieved for non-payment of net hydro-profit
as determined by a constitutionally constituted arbitration tribunal. The provinces
have already lodged their protests with the federal government for its decision to
revise power rates on monthly basis to pass on fuel impact under the automatic fuel
adjustment formula. They have informed the centre that any matter that could
affect the provincial interests could not be taken up by the national assembly. They
believe electricity is an inter-provincial matter being part of the concurrent list and
any change in the tariff pattern could only be made with the approval of the Council
of Common Interest (CCI).
(CCI).

The National Electric Power Regulatory Authority (Nepra) has just concluded the
process of public hearings for increase in base tariff requested by Wapda’s
distribution companies. Initial calculations by the regulator indicate that base tariff
would go up between six and 10 per cent even in the case of financially sound firms
like Islamabad, Lahore, Gujranwala and Faisalabad electric supply companies. The
tariff hike for poorly-managed Hyderabad, Multan, Quetta and Peshawar Electric
Supply companies would be 22-30 per cent higher than the existing rates. Given
such a huge tariff increase in Balochistan, Sindh and NWFP might be politically and
socially unviable for the central and provincial coalition governments, there have
been consultations for a uniform rate of increase across the country. That would
mean that the electricity rates would go up by an average 10-12 per cent for all
companies most probably in early August. Such a mechanism has an inbuilt
shortcoming to encourage corruptions, theft and inefficiencies and penalising
efficient management and paying consumers. Additionally, the electricity rates
would go up every month under the automatic fuel adjustment formula that allows
power companies including the KESC to meet increased expenditure of higher fuel
prices, double-digit consumer price index and the resultant increase in operation
and maintenance costs. For this to happen, the government has already amended
the Nepra Act through Finance Bill 2008-09.
2008-09. For the last many years, fuel cost,
inflation and O&M costs used to be passed on to the consumers on six-monthly
basis – an exercise that would now be made on monthly basis.

So the consumers would have to make a difficult choice between power shortage
and unaffordable power supply. How this is going to affect cost of industrial
production, exports, commercial activities, agricultural input cost or using a fan or a
bulb at home could be anybody’s guess. Already, the exporters and manufacturers
are struggling to survive. On the whole, the power distribution firms of Wapda are
estimated to have a total revenue requirement of about Rs455 billion for the current
year. Of this, about 80 per cent or Rs380 billion has to be paid for power purchases
from independent power producers. Estimates suggest that all these distribution
companies should be given an additional amount of Rs65-70 billion through
increase in base tariff. If the increase is allowed at a uniform rate, this would
translate into Rs1-1.50 per unit (kWh). In other words, the sale rate of electricity
would go up from about Rs6 per unit to Rs7-7.50 per unit. There are indications that
when the new base tariff is increased next month, the tariff would go up for poor
lifeline consumers who use 50 units per month.This slab will be increased to 100
units per month but the rate would almost be doubled from existing Rs1.40 per unit.
The second domestic slab of 100-300 units per month would remain partially
protected. The problem is that power rates for industrial and commercial consumers
are already too high and still subsidise domestic and agriculture consumers. So, the
industrial consumers cannot be overburdened further, the cost of increasing
agriculture tariff could have a spin-off effect on eatables and then it is politically
difficult to raise domestic tariff too much. The increase in tariff is inevitable but the
trade-off is very difficult and would require tough decisions.

Politically, the Punjab government would be more than justified to oppose uniform
electricity rates given the fact that except for the Multan Electric Power Company
(Mepco) all companies in the province are either profitable or require a minimal
increase of 5-10 per cent. Here too, the government has made an amendment in
the finance bill to impose a new power surcharge to subsidise loss making
companies like Quetta, Peshawar and Hyderabad. To be fair to these companies, a
major reason for their losses could be attributed to poor law and order situation that
makes it difficult to recover full cost of units supplied in these areas. Whether it is
war on terror in tribal areas and adjoining NWFP regions, a long-run military
operation in Balochistan or general law and order situation in Karachi and parts of
Hyderabad, the distribution companies suffer the most. Apart from provincial
bickering against such a power surcharge that is expected to be levied to finance
new power projects and maintain equal rates for all firms, the international lender
and commercial banks have legal objections. Since they have to provide loans for
the power companies and want timely repayments, they argue that the government
could use this power surcharge recovered through the electricity for any purpose
other than the power companies because this surcharge has to go into the federal
account.

This is just the tip of an iceberg. All the upcoming capacity additions are in the
shape of expensive thermal power projects. Indicative tariffs for all these projects
start from 18 cents per unit. With the fuel impact, most of the projects would be
selling electricity at about 29 cents per unit to the distribution companies that
would be passed on to the consumers on a monthly basis. Ironically, there has been
only a lip-service to the development of indigenous energy resources like hydro and
coal, which are not only environment-friendly but much cheaper than thermal and
could save on huge wastage of foreign exchange reserves. Against 18 cents per unit
cost of thermal power and natural gas based projects have a production cost of 6-7
cents per unit against 9.5 cents per unit of coal-based projects and 4.7-6.0 cents
per unit of hydropower generation. Still, the government attitude towards hydro-
power generation has been discouraging and most of the capacity addition would
come in thermal sector over the next 8-10 years. Last financial year, Pakistan’s oil
import bill stood at about $11.4 billion. Out of the total oil imports of about 18
million tons, 15 million tons of import accounted for diesel and furnace oil, mostly
consumed for power generation. When the new thermal power projects would come
into production, the oil import bill may cross $20 billion over the next couple of
years. Perhaps the most prudent approach for the government should be to
promote hydro-power projects on a war-footing under a lucrative upfront tariff. It
does not require anything more than common sense to choose between 18 cents
per unit and 5-6 cents per unit power generation cost to save future generations.
There should also be an explanation why it is hard to pay Rs12 or 18 billion annually
to NWFP to promote hydropower elsewhere than paying Rs380 billion per annum to
the thermal power producers.

Author Location Dated

28.07.08

– Rupee firm against dollar

Local currency market continued to witness mixed sentiments, with deteriorating
economic indicators, political uncertainty and mounting dollar demand exerting
downward pressure on the rupee. However, the central banks measures announced
after the rupee/dollar parity touched its weakest levels and crossed Rs74 barriers in
the first week of July have since then resisted any sharp decline in rupee value. This
week, the rupee remained escalated between Rs70 and Rs72 range, while it
continued to slip versus European single common currency. Bearish sentiment was
again witnessed on the interbank market on the opening day of the week, as the
rupee continued its sharp amid higher demand for dollars. It shed 45 paisa on the
buying counter and another 38 paisa on the selling counter, changing hands versus
the dollar Rs70.95 and Rs70.98 on July 21, after closing last week at Rs70.50 and
Rs70.60. On July 22, however, the rupee managed to show strength over dollar,
gaining five paisa to trade at Rs70.90 and Rs70.93. The rupee extended its
overnight firmness over the dollar on the third trading day of the week in review
and gained five paisa for buying and three paisa for selling to trade at Rs70.85 and
Rs70.90 on July 23. The dollar demand by the importers existed through out the day
but improved dollar supply helped the local currency to hold its strength versus
dollar. The dollar demand persisted on July 24 due to higher payments.
Consequently, the rupee extended its weakness falling further by five paisa and
traded against the dollar at Rs70.90 and Rs70.95. On July 25, the rupee/dollar parity
in the inter bank market stood unchanged at its overnight levels as rupee firmness
against the dollar prevailed in the market. The dollar continued to trade at Rs70.90
and Rs70.95 for the second day in a row. However, during the week in review, the
rupee in the inter bank market was lower against the dollar on cumulative basis by
40 paisa on the buying counter and 35 paisa on the selling counter.

In the open market, the rupee posted a sharp fall of 90 paisa on the buying counter
and 75 paisa on the selling counter to trade at Rs71.70 and Rs72.05 against dollar
on the opening day of the week. The rupee had closed last week at Rs70.80 and
Rs71.30. The weakness in the rupee/dollar parity persisted on July 22, when the
rupee further lost 30 paisa for buying and 25 paisa for selling to trade at Rs72.00
and Rs72.30 against the dollar. On July 23, the rupee staged a rebound against the
dollar recovering 20 paisa on the buying counter and another 10 paisa on the
selling counter. The dollar was seen changing hands at Rs71.80 and Rs72.20. The
rupee/dollar parity maintained its overnight levels on July 24, with the dollar trading
unchanged at Rs71.80 and Rs72.20. However, the rupee failed to maintain its
overnight levels against dollar on July 25 and shed 30 paisa on buying and 10 paisa
on selling, changing hands at Rs72.10 and Rs72.30 at the close of the week. This
week, the rupee lost 130 paisa on the buying counter and 100 paisa on the selling
counter against the dollar in the open market.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee continued its weakness,
further losing 95 paisa on buying and 105 paisa on selling to trade at Rs112.35 and
Rs112.55 on the first trading day of the week after having traded at Rs111.30 and
Rs111.50 last week end. It posted fresh losses of 110 paisa on buying counter and
another 100 paisa on selling counter, changing hands at Rs113.25 and Rs113.45 on
the second trading day. However, the rupee managed to recover its strength over
the euro on the third trading day of the week in review, as it managed to gain 110
paisa on buying and 105 paisa on selling. The euro traded against the rupee at
Rs112.35 and Rs112.50 during the day. The rupee further extended its gains
picking up 75 paisa for buying and 70 paisa for selling and traded against the euro
at Rs111.60 and Rs111.80 on the fourth trading day. The rupee decline versus euro
persisted on the fifth trading day, when it further lost 45 paisa for buying and 40
paisa for selling to trade at Rs112.05 and Rs112.20, bringing cumulative fall in the
rupee value to 75 paisa against the European single common currency this week.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 28.07.08

– United States: a fickle partner

There is serious talk in
the American policy
circles to change the
relationship with
Pakistan and to move
towards an association
that places much
greater emphasis on a
longterm arrangement.
Such an arrangement
would not only provide
assistance for
strengthening
Pakistan’s security
forces but also for
economic development. It has finally been recognized that there is no military
solution to Pakistan’s problems, especially those that emanate from the increasingly
disaffected populations of the tribal belt and the North West Frontier Province.
There is a deep and growing resentment among these people that the world, in
particular the United States, has not treated them well. This has especially been the
case since 9/11 when the United States, supported by Pakistan, launched an
intensive military campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. The
impression, widely held for some time in Washington, that the Taliban had been
decisively beaten turned out to be wrong. The Taliban are reasserting themselves
now and their revived campaign has begun to trouble not only the United States but
also its NATO allies who have an active presence in Afghanistan. What went wrong?

A number of things went awry. Taliban’s defeat brought to power in Kabul the
ethnic groups who had never been comfortable with the much larger Pakhtun
population that had economically and politically dominated Afghanistan for
decades. Political power brings economic rewards; the non-Pakhtun groups
benefited from the economic revival, albeit slight, that followed the occupation of
Afghanistan by the US and NATO. The Pakhtun were largely marginalised even
though Hamid Karzai, the country’s president, is a Pakhtun. In the absence of
secure bases of income, the Pakhtun population in the southern and eastern parts
of the country turned to the cultivation of poppy and Afghanistan became the
world’s largest producer and provider of heroin. There is now a close relationship
between the people who run the country’s drug economy and the dissidents who
constitute the Taliban. Since the majority of the Pakhtun population lives on the
Pakistani side of the border – Pakistan has an estimated 25 million of the 40 million
people who identify themselves as Pakhtun – it should not have come as a surprise
that the country’s tribal areas will join in the fight. Their discontent began to seep
into the rest of Pakistan and the rest of Pakistan also became restive.

The present economic downturn in the country is providing an added impetus to the
groups operating out of the northwestern hills to increase their activities not only in
their own areas but also in other parts of Pakistan. The only way to counter these
trends is to ensure that the Pakistani economy does not suffer a severe and long
term decline, that economic revival is not concentrated in the areas that benefited
from the short-lived prosperity that marked the second part of the period of
President Pervez Musharraf, that a broad based programme of economic
development is initiated that provides employment and incomes to the country’s
young population, and that a special effort is made to bring in the tribal areas and
the NWFP into the economic mainstream. The United States seems to be getting
ready to change its course in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. A bill has been
prepared by two powerful senators to reflect this change in sentiment. Its authors
are Joe Biden, a Democrat, who heads the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee
and Richard Lugar, a Republican, who is the senior most member representing his
party on the same committee. The bill will have Washington provide Pakistan $7.5
billion over a five year period and would be directed at the country’s economic and
social development.

“Our bill represents a genuine seachange – one which will set the United States’
Pakistan policy on a safer and more successful course. For too long our policy
towards Pakistan has been in desperate need of serious overhaul”
overhaul” said Senator
Biden while introducing the bill. “While
“While our bill envisions sustained cooperation with
Pakistan for the long haul, it is not a blank check”,
check”, added Senator Lugar, the bill’s
cosponsor. The two senators believe that the bill has the support of the House of
Representatives, the lower house of the Congress and, once passed, will be signed
into law by President George W. Bush. This process is planned to be completed by
September before the Congress departs for the election period. In addition to this
assistance for economic development and social improvement, the Americans will
continue to provide billion dollars a year for military purposes, an amount that
includes the logistics support Islamabad gives for Washington’s efforts in
Afghanistan. If the American policy towards Pakistan gets changed in the direction
that Senators Biden and Lugar want it to go, it will signify a fundamental change in
the relationship between the two countries.The date presented in the accompanying
table shows how fickle the US was in the past in aiding Pakistan. It provided large
amounts of support when the country was ruled by the military; on average $100
million a year during the first part of the period of Ayub Khan, $217 million a year
during the period of Zia ul-Haq and $333 million a year when Pervez Musharraf held
the reins of power.

While it is true that the American strategic interests were strong in the area in
which Pakistan is located when the latter was governed by the military, it is also the
case that Washington felt more comfortable in working with the military than with
the civilian leadership. If the initiative taken by Senators Biden and Lugar produces
the intended results, it will not only increase five times the flow of capital from the
US to Pakistan. It will also be the first time that such an increase would have
occurred when the civilians were in charge. As Pakistan enters into a new and
possibly economically more productive relationship with the United States, it is
important that the civilian leaders prepare themselves to deliver the expected
results. Their actions in the economic arena have not given the confidence that they
will be able to do that. While many economic problems the country faces today are
inherited from the Musharraf period, it has to be recognized that the transfer of
power took place nearly six months ago. This was a long enough time to display
competence, confidence in economic matters, and the willingness to take hard
decisions. The evidence of any of these is still not there. Pakistan has a long
tradition of postponing reform when large foreign capital flows become available.
There is also the feeling in the Pakistani political and economic establishments that
the country will be rescued by its friends when the times are really difficult. This has
happened in the past on several occasions. It seems to be happening again. The
world of finance has a phrase for this phenomenon. “Moral hazard” is the term
financial people use when managers postpone action and take risks in the belief
that their enterprises will not be allowed to sink. Policymakers in Pakistan have
behaved in much the same way. It has been recognized for many years that
Pakistan needs deep structural reforms in its economy. In many countries such
reforms have been undertaken when there was a crisis. In Pakistan’s case this was
not done since crises opened up foreign coffers. It could be different this time
around if the new leaders study the country’s history and draw some lessons from
it.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood Washington, D.C. 29.07.08
Haider

– US to respect Pakistan sovereignty, says Bush

President George W. Bush assured Pakistan on Monday that the United States
supported Pakistan’s sovereignty, hours after a US air strike had killed six people in
Fata. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is a strong ally and a vibrant democracy,”
democracy,” said Mr Bush after a
meeting with Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani at the White House. “And “And the United
States supports the democracy and supports the sovereignty of Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Before
ending his brief address, Mr Bush once again assured Pakistan that the US
respected its sovereignty. “I
“I repeat, (the US) respects the sovereignty of this
democracy,”
democracy,” he said. At least six people were killed and three others injured when a
US missile fired from Afghanistan hit a house in a Pakistani tribal area on Monday. A
senior Al Qaeda leader was also killed in the attack. Briefing the media after the
meeting, Information Minister Sherry Rehman said that while Pakistan had
conveyed its concerns to the United States on these strikes, the issue had not been
discussed in the summit. She referred to the US assertion that all such strikes were
carried on ‘actionable intelligence’, but said Pakistan had informed the Americans
that such actions were not helpful. “I
“I am not indicating that this issue was
discussed in the (BushGilani) meeting but we have conveyed our concerns to the
Americans.”
Americans.”

Asked why did President Bush express his support for Pakistan’s sovereignty on a
day his forces carried out the air strike, Ms Rehman saw no connection but insisted
that such assurances were helpful. “It“It is important because Pakistan is a frontline
state, a pivotal state right now. It has borders with Afghanistan and has a strategic
position. It is a good thing that Pakistan’s sovereignty and independence are clearly
manifested by President Bush and the prime minister, clearly outlining the US
commitment to respecting Pakistan’s sovereignty,”
sovereignty,” she added. Earlier at the White
House, Mr Bush stressed the need for Pakistan and the United States to jointly fight
the war on terror. Responding to the remarks, Mr Gilani assured the US president
that Pakistan took this fight as its own and would use all its resources to defeat the
terrorists. “And
“And we also appreciate the prime minister’s strong words against the
extremists and terrorists who not only would do us harm, but have harmed people
inside Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said Mr Bush. Describing his talks with the prime minister, Mr Bush
said: “We’ve
“We’ve had a good meeting in the Oval Office,”
Office,” he said. “And
“And then I’m going
to have lunch with the prime minister here in the main White House. And that’s
fitting. After all, Pakistan is a strong ally and a vibrant democracy.”
democracy.” Mr Bush said he
had discussed “areas of concern” with the Pakistani leader and was “going to spend
a lot of time” during the lunch on Pakistan’s economy. He said the United States
and Pakistan would continue to cooperate for economic benefits for all the people,
“of Pakistan and for our own country, for that matter”.
matter”.

Mr Bush, however, indicated that the talks focused on the common threat both
countries faced from extremists who “are“are very dangerous people”.
people”. The situation on
the Afghan border, he said, was also discussed and Mr Gilani and he agreed on the
need to make sure that the border was “secured
“secured as best as possible”.
possible”. Pakistan, he
said, had made a “very
“very strong commitment”
commitment” to ensuring security of this border. “I “I
told the prime minister that the United States is committed to helping the Afghan
democracy succeed, which is in Pakistan’s interest. After all, the prime minister
wants there to be a peaceful country on his border.”
border.” Prime Minister Gilani said he
appreciated what the US president said about supporting democracy and
sovereignty. The US president, he said, also had assured him that the United States
would help Pakistan look after its interests in a lot of other areas. “Pakistan
“Pakistan and the
United States have very cordial relations, and bilateral relations, and this is not of
today. This is for over 60 years, since the creation of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” he said. “We
“We were
inspired with their slogan of liberty and self-determination, and now we want to
further improve our relations.”
relations.” The prime minister said that Pakistan was committed
to fighting extremists and terrorists who were making the world unsafe. “This“This is our
own war. This is a war which is against Pakistan and we’ll fight for our own cause,”
cause,”
he said. “And
“And that is because I have lost my own leader, Benazir Bhutto, because of
the militants.”
militants.”

The prime minister rejected a perception that militants had popular support in
Pakistan. “I
“I assure the United States and the people of the United States that the
majority of the people of Pakistan and the people of those areas in the NWFP and
Fata — they are patriots, loyalists. They want peace in the world. And they want to
cooperate.”
cooperate.” The militants, he said, were a small minority and were opposed by the
local people. There were a few militants, there were a handful people, militants who
were disturbing peace, he said. “And
“And I assure Mr Bush we’ll work together for
democracy and for prosperity and peace of the world.”
world.” After the meeting, the two
leaders walked out of the Oval Office onto the Rose Garden of the White House,
enjoying their brief walk on a bright, sunny day. Media personnel were asked to line
up in the lawn, facing the garden. After the remarks, the two leaders walked back
into the Oval Office, ignoring the questions hurled at them. Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi, Information Minister Sherry Rehman, prime minister’s adviser on
interior Rehman Malik, Ambassador at Large Akbar Khawja, Economic Adviser Hina
Rabbani Khar and Ambassador Husain Haqqani accompanied the prime minister in
the talks and later at the working lunch. US Vice-President Dick Cheney, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice and other senior officials assisted Mr Bush.

Author Location Dated

Aziz Malik Hyderabad, Pakistan 29.07.08

– Army wants no role in politics, says Rasheed

Awami Muslim League founder-leader Shaikh Rasheed Ahmed has said that he can
say with responsibility that the army has no intention of interfering in politics and it
wants democratic institutions and democracy to take roots. “However,
“However, if the
politicians themselves are bent upon destroying democracy and democratic
institutions, then the army cannot be held responsible,”
responsible,” he added. Speaking at
“Meet the Press” programme at the press club here on Monday, he said that he
failed to understand why the politicians are afraid of ISI. Only time will tell whether
the president or some one else will be impeached, he said. He said the government
was not facing even the slightest opposition as all the parties had reposed
confidence in prime minister, Yousuf Raza Gilani. He, however, said that the present
government had greatly disappointed the nation and even the staunch supporters
of the present government were regretting their decisions having voted for the
present rulers. He said the present rulers had given nothing to the people except
hunger, privatisation, unemployment, poverty and price hike. He sarcastically said
that both leaders of coalition government seemed to prefer exile to their own
country and even when they were in power they were living in exile. He said the
only performance of the present government during the last four months was that it
had got registered thousands of cases against its political opponents, the entire
development work throughout the country had come to a grinding halt, the
development funds of the nazims were being withheld, the industrial units were
closing down one after the other and the stock exchanges and banks had almost
collapsed. Both the political and economic situation of the country had gone from
bad to worse, Mr Rasheed said and added that the coalition partners were speaking
different languages. He said the present government has been very active in the
transfers and postings of officials and its efficiency could be gauged from the fact
that it even cannot control the PTV which is the easiest thing to control in Pakistan.
How can such a government deliver the goods, Mr Rasheed questioned and added
that PPP itself was in the grip of chaos.

About the PPP programme, he said, instead of providing “Roti” to the people, they
were being sent to graveyards and instead of employment, they were forced to
commit suicide. He said the deposed judges were pronouncing judgements on the
roads by issuing statements and added that nothing was known about the
constitutional package. Those officers who have a track record of inefficiency and
were irresponsible have been posted as heads of the most important institutions of
the country, he said and added that due to utter disappointment and rejection, the
oppressed nation was now looking towards the sky. Answering questions, he said,
the control of Thar coal was being handed over to India and added that the
decisions were not being taken in the parliament but somewhere else. Number two
of Shaukat Aziz was ruling over the country, Shaikh Rasheed said and added that it
was not the rule of the government but of individuals. Answering another question
about the military action in the NWFP, the AML chief said that the militants were
protesting against American policies and urged USA to review its policies and called
upon the Pakistani rulers to hold negotiations with the militants. About the
impeachment of the president, he said the power was vested in the parliament and
added that even the president himself had declared that he would accept the
verdict of the parliament. The success of the Prime Minister’s American tour could
be gauged from today’s incident in Waziristan, Shaikh Rasheed said. Defending the
performance of the previous government, he said, it was much better than what we
are witnessing today. About his visit, he said, it was aimed at organising his party
and announced the names of party office -bearers for Hyderabad.
Author Location Dated
AFP Washington, D.C. 29.07.08

– Iran looking for new US approach, says Ahmadinejad

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in an interview aired on US television
on Monday that if the United States adopted a genuinely new approach to his
country Tehran would respond in a positive way. “Today,
“Today, we see new behaviour
shown by the United States and the officials of the United States. My question is, is
such behaviour rooted in a new approach?,”
approach?,” the president told NBC in a rare
interview with a US broadcaster.“In
broadcaster.“In other words, mutual respect, cooperation and
justice? Or is this approach a continuation in the confrontation with the Iranian
people, but in a new guise?”,
guise?”, he said from Tehran, speaking through an interpreter.
If US behaviour represented a genuine change, “we “we will be facing a new situation
and the response by the Iranian people will be a positive one,”
one,” Ahmadinejad said in
an excerpt of the interview, conducted in the presidential compound.
Ahmadinejad’s comments, which will be aired in full later on, came after the United
States took the unprecedented step of sending a top diplomat to meet Iran’s chief
negotiator at talks in Geneva over Tehran’s disputed nuclear programme. The
interview also follows Ahmadinejad’s announcement on Saturday that Iran had
boosted the number of uranium-enriching centrifuges to 6,000, in an expansion of
its nuclear drive that defies international calls for a freeze.

Iran is already under three sets of UN Security Council sanctions over its refusal to
halt uranium enrichment, which makes nuclear fuel as well as the fissile core of an
atomic bomb. Ahmadinejad reiterated in the interview that Tehran was not working
to build nuclear weapons. “We“We are not working to manufacture a bomb. We don’t
believe in a nuclear bomb,”
bomb,” he said when asked if Iran sought to be a nuclear
power. History had shown that possessing nuclear weapons did not help other
countries with their political goals, he added. World powers, seeking to resolve the
standoff, and concerned Tehran is pursuing a clandestine nuclear weapons project,
have offered to start pre-negotiations during which Tehran would add no more
uranium-enriching centrifuges and in return face no further sanctions. Iran was
given a two-week deadline to give a final answer to world powers after talks a week
ago in Geneva with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana ended in stalemate.
Ahmadinejad said he hoped the negotiations would yield progress. “They “They submitted
a package and we responded by submitting our own package. They again
submitted a work plan and we submitted our own work plan,” plan,” he said in the
interview. “It’s
“It’s very natural that in the first steps, we are going to negotiate over
the common ground as it exists inside the two packages. If the two parties succeed
in agreeing over the common ground, that will help us to work on our differences as
well, to reach an agreement.”
agreement.” When asked about the proposal from western powers
that offers improved trade terms and other incentives, Ahmadinejad said Iran was a
“mighty country” that was not at all isolated. “Well,
“Well, the world — the doors, rather,
of the larger world are not closed to us. This is a great and mighty country, a great
nation with a great economy, a rich culture, thousands of years of history and
civilization and we have very good economic and cultural relations with countries
around the world,”
world,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Michael Tomasky Washington, D.C. 29.07.08
 – Overseas trip Positive impact for Obama
Will I upset you if I offer the observation that, to us in America, the British leg of
Barack Obama’s tour came across as a bit of an afterthought? A Shakespearean
coda, after the bodies have fallen and the swords have been re-sheathed and one of
the side characters (Gordon Brown seems increasingly that, alas) steps forward to
offer a little homiletic summation. Even Obama admirers such as myself were
starting to suffer phenomenon fatigue and to think: “Enough
“Enough already, dude. Come
home and campaign.”
campaign.” But stop me - I don’t want to feed into that ridiculous
rightwing narrative about Obama thinking he’s the messiah. He’s a politician. He
happens to have special talents, to which some people respond passionately.
Others don’t. But that’s their problem. The Beatles didn’t order millions of teenage
girls to scream, and Obama did not put pixie dust in America’s, or the world’s,
watercoolers. He’s hardly responsible for people’s positive reactions to him. He
must, however, be pretty pleased overall. While the trip will not have the effect of
making Americans en masse rise up and carry his banner and declare the election
over, I think it’s safe to say that he’s banked some goodwill and credibility whose
domestic political benefits will reveal themselves slowly and become more apparent
this autumn, perhaps especially during the three presidential debates.

Before we look more deeply at the trip, let’s take a step back. It’s now almost
exactly 100 days until the election. It’s late July. The Olympics are coming, and then
the Democratic and Republican conventions. The campaign begins in earnest after
that, in early September. Your average American voter is someone who votes only
in presidential elections, and pays attention only from mid-September to early
November. This voter undoubtedly knows that Obama just took a big trip and will
have seen the images, and may even be able to name one substantive thing that
happened during the trip. But this voter still doesn’t know that much about Obama.
She or he is going to have to spend a lot of timing watching him over the course of
the autumn and thinking about whether to put him in the White House - just as she
or he is going to watch John McCain to see if he’s the old, familiar McCain who was
independent-minded and went his own way or if he’s this new, shrunken McCain
who never met a rightwing orthodoxy he couldn’t embrace. This explains why the
race remains close, at four or five or six points. People are still getting to know
Obama and they’re still trying to get their heads around the new and unimproved
McCain. So they’re going to watch the conventions and the debates (the last is on
October 15) and the candidate’s responses to events, and they’re probably going to
hang fire for some time while they do so.

If I had to guess right now, I’d say that barring some unforeseeable bombshell about
either man, Obama will reassure more voters than not that he’s the better choice
for the moment (plus, his nationwide armada of workers and volunteers will do a
more thorough job of getting the already-converted to the polls). But it’ll take time.
And this is where some of the things that happened on this trip will come back into
play when it matters. Most notable among them is Iraqi prime minister Nuri
alMaliki’s stated support for Obama’s withdrawal timetable. That July Christmas gift
will enable Obama to say, in the debates and on the stump, that he and the Iraqi
leader - George Bush’s man in Baghdad, no less - are on the same page about the
future. That’s a pretty strong card to play with regard to a war that’s costing $10bn
a month and that most Americans want to see end sooner rather than later. McCain
has a fair point about the troops surge, but it’s doubtful that argument about
something that happened two years ago will quite match what’s essentially an
endorsement from the Iraqi leader about the future.

Only a little less important was the Israel leg of the trip. Shimon Peres was most
effusive, praising Obama’s “moving humanity” and, without exactly saying so,
making it crystal clear who his preferred candidate is. The other elements of the
Israel dates came off without a hitch. The forces in America and Israel that don’t
want a settlement with the Palestinians will perform their mischief between now and
November, but they represent a minority viewpoint in America. Obama already
leads McCain two-to-one among Jews, and welltimed reminders of Obama’s
experiences in Israel should pump that up to the usual three-to-one Democratic
advantage. And finally, Obama is substantively right to talk about the strategic
importance of Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban have regrouped and Al
Qaeda is amassed. His successful meetings in Afghanistan reinforce that message.
Obama still has a lot of convincing to do. And McCain, if the past week was any
template, is clearly going to run a very negative campaign. Now that Obama’s back
home, he needs to start punching back, since he probably felt constrained from
doing so while overseas, and plotting how to make this trip’s ultimate dividends pay
out in October.

Author Location Dated

Prof. Khwaja Masud 30.07.08

– Obama and Pakistan

Mr Obama’s ‘tough’ remarks about Pakistan delivered during his recent visit to
Afghanistan, the ‘tone’ of the remarks, and his subsequent flip-flopping on the issue
have been meticulously parsed in our press to detect signs of ‘softening’ in his
attitude towards us. But the general, rather hasty, conclusion of this exercise is that
the prospect of his presidency should be a source of apprehension for us. This kind
of discussion is unhelpful, and the conclusion is misconstrued. Rather, as this article
attempts to do, we need to parse Mr Obama’s remarks against the backdrop of our
national interests, which they do not promote, and present a strong case to reject
them. While we do so we should bear in mind that Mr Obama is a product of
Chicago’s corrupt politics, where slum barons like his former mentor and financial
benefactor Mr Rizko rule the roost, and where what you see in a politician is not
what you will get. “In
“In Chicago,”
Chicago,” Saul Bellow famously noted, “politics
“politics and crime
occasionally overlap.”
overlap.” Mr Obama lacks Mrs Clinton’s strength of personality. Mrs
Clinton bravely champions the working class in the heart of the world capitalist
system and put 18 million cracks in the glass ceiling. No wonder she is so despised
by the American media and Karl Rove. Mr Obama has been called a person of
“seasonal principles”
principles” and a “standard-issue
“standard-issue politician who will say and do anything
to get elected.”
elected.” The Economist has also noted “disquieting signs” that Mr Obama
tends to “tailor
“tailor his message to whichever audience he is talking to.”
to.” So whatever Mr
Obama says about us now is no indication as to what his position would be as
president. Unfortunately, this means that the ad-hocism that mars our relations with
America may continue in an Obama presidency. If, therefore, we are to be
apprehensive it should be about the prospect of yet another weak and malleable
American president who, like President Bush, may be prone to blunder into foreign
policy catastrophes.
Fortunately, Mr Obama’s victory in the upcoming election is not as certain as our
pundits believe. Like a passing fad his lead over a very weak Republican opponent
is diminishing. It is now down to only a handful of points, according to the latest
Rasmussen poll. And the Republican sleaze machine has yet to unleash its ferocious
attack dogs to puncture Mr Obama’s Wizard of Oz mystique as it did with Mr Kerry’s
Vietnam war hero mystique. Mr Obama is not wrong about not ruling out the
possibility of unilateral American action inside our territory, which is ‘current
doctrine’. Anything otherwise would turn combat missions against the Taliban into
Mickey Mouse expeditions! But publicly announcing this is not current doctrine, and
it is wrong to change it. Broadcasting his ‘hot pursuit’ incursions into our territory
and cross-border shelling into our land broadcasts his unashamed disregard of
international law and principles, and gives the ene my ample justification to claim
the high moral ground of defending Islam against an infidel invading force. The
Financial Times correctly says this will “only
“only strengthen religious extremists inside
the country.”
country.” Mr Obama is also wrong because he fails remarkably to recognise the
new ground reality. He would be right with the old ground reality, that is a military
regime obsessed with the Indian menace, concentrating US aid on conventional
armaments to prepare for war with India, nibbling ineffectually at the Taliban
problem, and sacrificing hundreds of our brave soldiers by “playing
“playing footsie with the
Taliban.”
Taliban.” But this is no longer the ground reality. The new reality is epitomised by
Prime Minister Gilani’s recent address to the nation: “This
“This war is our war, and we
will fight it as our war.”
war.” The prime minister has also stopped the war dances on the
eastern front, and ordered the army to quell the Taliban with good initial successes.

According to Robert Novak of The Washington Post these successes contradict

“claims by Musharraf, his generals and friends in the US government that an
elected civilian regime would slack off in the war against terror…. Money from
Washington now flows into counter-guerrilla activities … and more raids in lawless
tribal areas are planned.”
planned.” Novak adds that the current assault against the Taliban
by the civilian government was predicted to him by Benazir Bhutto last year,
implying that it is not a knee-jerk reaction but a strategic policy shift. All this is
evidence that the civilian government has shown good judgment and decisive
leadership in tackling the festering Taliban problem. Regrettably Mr Obama does
not get this. He should get it, because it is so vital now to strengthen the hand of
our government in this fight. If Mr Obama is sincere about eradicating extremism he
should declare full support for our government’s current effort, and announce
additional steps to further build our counter-insurgency capacity. He should also
seriously follow up on Senator Biden’s proposal to triple development assistance to
us to $1.5bn per year, and to develop our relations on firmer foundations in a
mutually beneficial longer-term partnership. This kind of economic partnership will
create economic opportunities in our country and prevent our young citizens from
volunteering to blow themselves up. Mr Obama’s ‘tough’ remarks about Pakistan
led to a ‘butterfly effect’ that set off a storm in the local press. Though, in essence,
only a storm in a teacup it is a fine tribute to the work of the mathematician Edward
Lorenz who died recently in Cambridge. Lorenz coined the term ‘butterfly effect’ to
describe how small changes such as the flapping of the wings of a butterfly may
alter global weather conditions. If, like Lorenz’s butterfly, Mr Obama hoped to create
a storm in America and upend his Republican opponent by being ‘tough’ with us he
should be disappointed, because his misconstrued remarks only reinforce his image
of a vulnerable prospective commander-in-chief. ¦ The writer is former principal
of Gordon College, Rawalpindi.
Rawalpindi.

Author Location Dated

AP London, England 30.07.08

– Sikh girl wins UK discrimination claim

A Sikh teenager who was excluded from class for refusing to remove a religious
bracelet at school won her discrimination claim on Tuesday in Britain’s High Court.
The court ruled the school failed to promote equality when they banned 14-year-old
Sarika Singh from class last year when she refused to remove her Kara bracelet — a
thin steel bangle worn by observant Sikhs. The Aberdare Girls’ School in south
Wales argued the bracelet broke its policy allowing no jewellery. “I’m
“I’m so happy to
know that no one else will go through what me and my family have gone through,”
through,”
Singh said in a statement she read outside the court. When she refused to remove
her bracelet, Singh was taught in isolation from her fellow classmates for two
months before being suspended in November. She lost an appeal filed with the
school’s governing body asking for an exception to the school’s jewellery policy.
Justice Stephen Silber said in his ruling that the Kara bracelet is universally
accepted by Sikhs as an important part of their religious observance. The ruling
allows Singh to return to Aberdare in September and wear the bracelet in class. The
Kara bracelet is one of the five Ks — symbols that remind observant Sikhs of their
devotion to the Guru. The Kara is worn as a reminder to not do anything the Guru
would disapprove of. “Should
“Should Sarika wish to return to school in September, in
accordance with the judgment, she will be offered help and support to reintegrate
her into the normal day-to-day life of the school,”
school,” a statement from the school said.
Aberdare is 40 kilometres northwest of the Welsh capital, Cardiff. The case comes a
year after a British teen lost a legal challenge over a school ban on wearing a
chastity ring to class. Sixteen-year-old Lydia Playfoot argued it was “unlawful
interference” with her right to express her Christian faith, but Britain’s High Court
supported the school’s contention that the ring was not an integral part of the
Christian faith.

Author Location Dated

Reuters London, England 30.07.08

– Scholar sets out to debunk Eurocentric view of history

Leonardo da Vinci’s drawings of machines are uncannily similar to Chinese originals
and were undoubtedly derived from them, a British amateur historian says in a
newly-published book. Gavin Menzies sparked headlines across the globe in 2002
with the claim that Chinese sailors reached America 70 years before Christopher
Columbus. Now he says a Chinese fleet brought encyclopaedias of technology
undiscovered by the West to Italy in 1434, laying the foundation for the engineering
marvels such as flying machines later drawn by Italian polymath Leonardo.
“Everything known to the Chinese by the year 1430 was brought to Venice,”
Venice,” said
Menzies, a retired Royal Navy submarine commander, in an interview at his north
London home. From Venice, a Chinese ambassador went to Florence and presented
the material to Pope Eugenius IV, Menzies says. “I
“I argue in the book that this was
the spark that really ignited the renaissance and that Leonardo and (Italian
astronomer) Galileo built on what was brought to them by the Chinese. “Leonardo
basically redrew everything in three dimensions, which made a vast improvement.”
improvement.”
If accepted, the claim would force an “agonising
“agonising reappraisal of the Eurocentric view
of history”,
history”, Menzies says in his book “1434:
“1434: The Year A Magnificent Chinese Fleet
Sailed To Italy and Ignited The Renaissance”.
Renaissance”.

The urbane 70-year-old sold more than a million copies of his first book, “1421
“1421”,
”,
which argued Chinese sailors mapped the world in the early 1400s shortly before
abandoning global seafaring. His theories are dismissed as nonsense by many
academics Menzies says Chinese fleets reached Australia and New Zealand as well
as America before European explorers but have gained an international following
among readers. “This
“This whole fantasy about Europe discovering the world is just
nonsense,”
nonsense,” said Menzies. In his latest book published in the United States in June
and this month in Britain Menzies says four ships from the same Chinese
expeditions reached Venice, bringing with them world maps, astronomical charts
and encyclopaedias far in advance of anything available in Europe at the time.
Menzies says Leonardo’s designs for machines can be traced back to this transfer of
Chinese knowledge. Leonardo, born in 1452, is perhaps best known for his
enigmatic “Mona Lisa” potrait of a woman in Paris’s Louvre Museum, but he also left
journals filled with intricate engineering and anatomical illustrations. Menzies says
designs for gears, waterwheels and other devices contained in Chinese
encyclopaedias reached Leonardo after being copied and modified by his Italian
antecedents Taccola and Francesco di Giorgio. To support his argument, Menzies
publishes drawings of siege weapons, mills and pumps from a 1313 Chinese
agricultural treatise, the Nung Shu, and from other pre-1430 Chinese books, next to
apparently similar illustrations by Leonardo, Di Giorgio and Taccola. “By
“By comparing
Leonardo’s drawings with the Nung Shu we have verified that each element of a
machine superbly illustrated by Leonardo had previously been illustrated by the
Chinese in a much simpler manual,”
manual,” Menzies writes.

“It’s very suggestive, very interesting, but the hard work remains to be done,”
done,” said
Martin Kemp, Professor of the History of Art at Oxford University and author of
books on Leonardo. “He“He (Menzies) says something is a copy just because they look
similar. He says two things are almost identical when they are not,”
not,” Kemp said. “It’s
“It’s
not strong on historical method,”
method,” he added. But Kemp said he would look out for
any signs that Leonardo had access to Chinese material, directly or indirectly, when
studying his manuscripts in future. “I “I will keep my eye open, without thinking it is
going to turn Leonardo studies or any studies of 15th century technology upside
down.”
down.” Kemp said the source of the claimed Chinese influence was a separate
issue. “There
“There is a whole series of questions a historian would ask about mediaeval
technology, about Islamic technology, about transmission across trade routes, the
Silk Route in particular. “It’s a terrifically complicated area and having a Chinese
person in Florence in 1434 ends up giving that person a hell of a lot of work to do.”
do.”
Menzies bases his claim that a Chinese ambassador went to Florence on a copy of a
letter dated 1474 by Italian mathematician Toscanelli found among Columbus’s
papers. Menzies publishes a translation from the letter reading: “In “In the days of Pope
Eugenius there came a Chinese ambassador to him,” although this is not explicit in
the original Latin text. “It’s drivel”,
drivel”, said Felipe FernandezArmesto, a British expert
on maritime exploration who is a professor of history at Tufts University in the
United States and at Queen Mary College, University of London. “No “No reputable
scholar would think that there is any reason to suppose that the person referred to
by Toscanelli was Chinese,”
Chinese,” he said.

Geoff Wade, a senior research fellow at the National University of Singapore’s Asia
Research Institute, said Menzies’ book and theories should be reclassified as
historical fiction. “Certainly
“Certainly Chinese ideas came to Europe and European ideas went
to Iran and onwards,”
onwards,” Wade said in a telephone interview. “But“But the premise of the
book that there was a Chinese fleet in 1434 which went to Italy is completely
without any substance. “There is absolutely no Chinese evidence for it.” it.” Menzies
brushes off the criticism, pointing to shelves of files in the rooms of his basement
study filled with material he says supports his theories, much contributed by
readers of his books and associated websites. “I “I say the claim that critics make that
there is no evidence is absolute rubbish. There is stacks and stacks of evidence.
“It’s not me that’s the fantasist, it’s the historians who persist in this complete
rubbish which is currently taught as history.”
history.”

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 30.07.08

– Muslim alienation in the West

Questions about identity and loyalty among the Muslims who have chosen to live in
the West have been recurring themes since 9/11. As the number of suicide
bombings and attempted attacks has mounted, so too has suspicion about the large
and growing population of immigrants from the Muslim world. Especially among the
working class and rightwing sections of the population, Muslims living in their midst
are now seen as a fifth column, ready to wreak mayhem at the slightest pretext. As
the only Muslim many of my English friends know socially, I often find myself being
addressed as a sort of spokesman for the Islamic world, a role I do not exactly
relish. This happens more often late in the evening when several drinks have
dissolved notions of political correctness. “Why
“Why,”,” I am asked earnestly. “Do
“Do Muslims
come here if they hate our laws and lifestyle? Why do the ones living here not
return to where they came from if they are not willing to make any attempt to get
along with the rest of us? And why do they all stick together all the time?”
time?” Patiently,
I explain that immigrants, whether Muslim or not, are forced to leave their homes
due to political or economic conditions, so it is often not really a matter of choice.
Many of them are from a conservative background, and are shocked by the
easygoing attitudes and personal choices that have evolved in the West. As to
Muslims who have been born and brought up in Europe, they find themselves
caught between two cultures: exposed to a traditional home environment, they are
expected to conform to a Western lifestyle at school and at work. This produces an
identity crisis that leads some of them to choose extremism to resolve and simplify
these dilemmas. In short, I mouth a bunch of clichés without being sure how many
of them are really valid.

These conversations usually take place after some terrorist outrage, or an unusually
bizarre utterance from an extremist. Just the other day, a survey among Muslim
university students in Britain caused a stir among the media. Conducted by YouGov
on behalf of the Centre for Social Cohesion, ‘Islam on Campus’ has thrown up some
results that have startled observers. As Patrick Sawer writes in the Daily Telegraph
of on July 28: “The
“The findings will concern police chiefs, the security services and
ministers who are struggling with radicalisation among Muslim communities.”
communities.”
Among these findings is the figure of 40 per cent of those surveyed who support the
introduction of Shariah into UK laws for Muslims; 30 per cent said that killings in the
name of religion is justified; 40 per cent did not think it was all right for Muslim men
and women to meet freely; 25 per cent were of the view that men and women were
not equal in God’s eyes; 25 per cent had little or no respect for gays; 30 per cent
supported a worldwide Islamic caliphate; over 50 per cent supported the creation of
an Islamic party to represent Muslims in the British Parliament; and a third didn’t
know or think that Islam was compatible with Western democracy. The authors of
the survey, conducted on 12 British campuses, were of the view that many of these
extreme views had been planted by Hizb utTahrir, the militant organisation that
seeks a global Islamic government. In their opinion, this kind of thinking made it
easy for extremists to recruit radicalised young Muslims from university campuses.
Although some student bodies have denounced this study as being too narrow, and
for having polled only some 600 students, it is especially disturbing as it focuses on
university students, a group that had earlier been assumed to be less prone to
extremism. Now observers are asking: what about the less educated Muslims?

Thus far, the received wisdom had been that secular education was the antidote to
religious extremism. But as we have seen elsewhere, highly educated Muslims have
been at the forefront of the global jihad. Many of the 9/11 suicide bombers had
degrees from Western universities. Time and again, those providing the intellectual
and moral justification for terrorism have been intelligent, educated people adept at
distorting the scriptures to justify killing innocent people. Before the publication of
this survey, the Lord Chief Justice had caused a controversy by suggesting that
elements of the Shariah relating to personal and financial affairs of Muslims could
be incorporated into British law. A firestorm of protest followed. A flavour of the
response is captured in this letter to the editor of the Daily Telegraph from E.J.
Zuiderwijk of Cambridge: “Shariah,
“Shariah, which originated in medieval, desert societies, is
a system invented by men, controlled by men, and executed by men. Centuries of
conditioning may have made Shariah acceptable to some, but it is the last thing
one would knowingly want to inflict on any woman in Britain. I suggest that the
depressingly naïve remarks by the Lord Chief Justice and, earlier, by the Archbishop
of Canterbury, can be explained by the fact those positions are not occupied by
women.”
women.” And in response to a remark by Shahid Malik, a Labour MP, that British
Muslims now felt like “aliens in their own country”, Dominic Kirkham writes to the
editor of The Independent from Manchester: “…Just“…Just a couple of recent personal
examples. When I was handing round a plate of cakes at an introductory session of
an adult learning programme to a mixed ethnic and gender group, all were grateful
except the Muslims, who, instead of accepting like everybody else, questioned what
the cakes were made of as it might be against their religion to accept. In another
mixed group learning how to handle and use tools, the informal instruction was
challenged by a Muslim woman who warned that it was against her religion for a
man to touch a woman. “And so it goes on. In seemingly every area of cultural
contact, however open and welcoming, Muslims choose to distance themselves
from the generality on the basis of ‘their religion’. Unless they themselves are
prepared to question the arcane prejudices that lie at the root of ‘their religion’ they
will continue to feel like aliens in normal society by their own choice.”
choice.” Clearly, many
Muslims who have chosen to live in the West are not doing themselves any favours
by their stand-offish behaviour and their bizarre views.
Author Location Dated
Shamim-ur-Rehman/Tahir Karachi, Pakistan 30.07.08
Siddiqui

– Massive outages hit KESC network Two die as monsoon rain

lashes Karachi
Two people were killed and over two dozen injured on Tuesday evening when a
strong rain-bearing monsoon weather system hit Karachi, witnesses and hospital
sources said. The year’s first monsoon showers also wreaked havoc on the Karachi
Electric Supply Company’s frail distribution network, which was already reeling after
it collapsed following a light drizzle late Monday night. A 30-year-old woman was
killed when the wall of her house at Pahar Ganj collapsed. The body was brought to
the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where she was identified as Sakina. Meanwhile, a 23-
year old man was electrocuted at Kali Market in the New Karachi Industrial Area. His
body was shifted to the Abbasi Shaheed Hospital where he was identified as Ayaz
Ahmed, resident of Sector 5-G. Sources said at least two dozen people were injured
in rain-related incidents across the city. They said most of them were injured when
their motorbikes slipped. As the first monsoon drizzle hit the city on Monday night
the KESC’s generation, transmission and distribution system collapsed twice in less
than 24 hours, leaving almost the entire city without electricity, while no one from
the privatized utility was available to explain why the system could not work despite
tall claims of huge investments made to improve the company’s performance.

Many areas of the city were without electricity for the last 24 hours, but the KESC
management seemed least concerned. As Karachi received 28mm of rain when this
report was filed on Tuesday night (30mm at Masroor Base and 16mm at Faisal
Base), KESC consumers should be prepared for prolonged outages as the monsoon
system is likely to hover for 24 to 36 hours, providing further excuse to the KESC for
not tending to complaints. Lack of response from the KESC personnel was the
general complaint from power consumers across the city. The rain also clogged the
metropolis’s road network as rainwater flooded the roads, resulting in lengthy traffic
jams and gridlock on many of the city’s arterials, especially on Sharea Faisal and in
Sohrab Goth. A caller stranded in traffic at Lasbella Chowk told Dawn late Tuesday
night that the situation in the area was quite grim, as the road was filled with water
and many cars were stuck, including ambulances. The situation in other areas of the
city was no different. After the rain started early Tuesday evening, many of the
cellular networks also seemed to be jammed, as people complained of getting
constant busy signals when they tried to make calls on mobiles. When the first
showers were received in some parts of the city after midnight Monday, three Extra
High Tension (EHT) lines of the KESC collapsed and about 40 of the 52 grid stations
were knocked out, tripping all units of the Bin Qasim, KTPS and Gul Ahmad plants
and the DHA desalination plant, while de-linking the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant
(Kanupp).
(Kanupp).

Many areas of the city were still without electricity since the first breakdowns on
Monday as the KESC was facing a shortfall of 500 megawatts. While there was
demand for 2,350 MW, the utility had to depend on 500 MW supplied by Wapda.
The major casualty of the rain was the tripping of the 220Kv Pipri EHT transmission
line of the KESC, connecting the utility’s Bin Qasim Thermal Power Station with the
Queen’s Road grid station. Subsequently, the electricity output from six generation
units of the Bin Qasim plant was adversely affected and at least two of them
completely stopped generation. It took several hours for the KESC officials and
technical staff to rectify the faults and fully energise the circuits after the midnight
breakdown. The other major fault was at the transmission circuit connecting Kanupp
with the Baldia grid station, causing a disruption of 80 MW. Around 80 MW power
supply input from the DHA’s Cogen plant was stopped at midnight. The third
transmission line that tripped during the night was of the Gul Ahmed-Airport circuit,
further worsening the power supply situation of the city. This was perhaps the first
time that all the systems of the KESC caved in with the onset of the monsoon
drizzle, while there was no visible evidence of the power company’s rain
contingency plan in action. The retired army general who was made the KESC’s CEO
has vanished and there was no one in the utility prepared to own responsibility.

Even after energising and revival of the transmission lines, there was a persisting
shortfall of around 500 megawatts in meeting the power demand of the city, owing
to which power supply could not be normalised. Complaints of prolonged power
supply breakdowns were received from the areas of Nazimabad, North Nazimabad,
Federal B Area, Gulberg, North and New Karachi, Surjani, Malir, Gulistan-i-Jauhar,
Gulshan-i-Iqbal, PECHS, Mohammad Ali Society, Korangi, Defence, Clifton, Saddar,
Orangi, Lyari, Kharadar etc. People suffered a sleepless night in these localities due
to the frequent power outages. Reactivation delayed Many areas were still without
electricity when this report was filed. As a result of Tuesday’s heavy showers, at
least eight grid stations of the KESC remained offline, including Defence, Gizri,
Korangi, Jacob Lines, Garden and Queen’s Road, disrupting electricity to a number
of residential and commercial areas. The rains also delayed the process of
reactivating the grid stations. Citizens were enraged over the continuing power
outages despite promises to the contrary made by the KESC officials and the federal
minister for water and power. Besides domestic consumers, traders and
industrialists were also livid over prolonged outages. They accused the KESC
management of misleading the government and lying to both the government and
the general public. The government, which had allowed the privatization of the
utility to the Al-Jomaih led-consortium, seems to be least concerned about the plight
of the citizens of Karachi, who have been demanding that instead of allowing the
utility’s sale to a stockbroker or developer of Middle Eastern origin, the government
should appoint an administrator to deal with the situation. Workers of the KESC
demanded that the original members of the consortium who had “manipulated” the
utility’s privatization should be taken to task and an administrator should oversee
the KESC’s affairs. They opposed the decision to sell stakes to another foreign firm.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 30.07.08

– Transporters to raise fares on Aug 1

Public transport operators, angered over the delay in the release of a government
notification for an increase in fares, have decided to raise fares unilaterally from
Aug 1 and have also warned the government of an indefinite strike if they are
“harassed” for charging increased fares. The delay in the issuance of a notification
is attributed to the absence of the chief minister, whose approval is required for the
summary on the increase in transport fares. The chief minister has gone abroad and
is expected to return in a few days. Representatives of the Sindh Bus Owners
Association, Sindh AC and non-AC Bus Owners Association, Supreme Council of
Pakistan Transporters, UTS Bus Owners Association and Metrobus Owners
Association attended the meeting held on Monday. Talking to Dawn, Karachi
Transport Ittehad (KTI) chief Irshad Hussain Bokhari said that transporters were very
much concerned over the delay in the government notification for an increase in
fares and they had decided to increase fares by Rs2 and Rs3 for all buses,
minibuses and coaches. This raise in fares, he claimed, had already been agreed
upon by the government. “Transporters
“Transporters are continuously accruing losses owing to
the recent rise in fuel prices that has forced to halt operation of a large number of
vehicles. The minister concerned at a meeting on July 23 had promised that the
notification for an increase in transport fares would be issued on 26th, but that
didn’t happen. There is still time for the government to address our concerns, else
we would have to act unilaterally and raise fares.”
fares.”

Regarding the action against bus and coach owners already charging increased
fares, he said such cases were not many and the transport alliance would talk to the
transporters concerned if commuters approached the KTI with complaints. The
provincial secretary for transport, Rasheed Alam, told Dawn that a summary for the
notification had already been sent and it would take some time for approval. About
the unilateral move of raising fares by transporters and the warning of a strike, he
said: “If
“If transporters raise fares without a government notification that will be an
illegal act and action will be taken according to the rules.”
rules.” He condemned what he
called ‘pressure tactics’ of the transporters and said it was unfortunate that they
had decided to adopt an extreme position without acknowledging the fact that the
department officials were constantly in touch with them and had immediately
forwarded a summary for an increase in transport fares with their consultation.
“Nowhere in the country transport fares have been raised. Are transporters in the
city more affected by the fuel price hike? They must show some patience,”
patience,” he said,
adding that complaints of overcharging should be registered with the regional
transport authority.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 31.07.08

– Gilani hits back, cites US failure in Afghanistan

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has rebuffed demands for unilateral US action
against suspected terrorist targets inside Fata, saying that such strikes further
complicate an already difficult situation. “We
“We can do it ourselves,”
ourselves,” Mr Gilani told a
joint meeting of two Washington think-tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations and
the Middle East Institute, on Tuesday night. He, however, added that Pakistan
wanted better cooperation with the United States to share intelligence about foreign
militants who moved freely across the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border. The prime
minister rejected the suggestion that Pakistan had failed to curb terrorism in Fata.
He noted that despite having “all
“all sophisticated weapons they need,”
need,” the US forces
in Afghanistan also had failed to eradicate militancy from the areas under their
control. “If
“If we are not able to control them, you are not able to control them
(either),”
(either),” he said. Mr Gilani insisted that Pakistan was “no
“no one’s surrogate”
surrogate” in the
fight against extremists. “We
“We are fighting to save the soul of our homeland.”
homeland.” When
asked about the federal government’s lack of control over the tribal areas, the
prime minister responded that all elected senators from that region supported him.
Mr Gilani also rejected the suggestion that the ISI was not under his control. He
insisted that he had direct control over the agency which would now follow his
instructions. “And
“And now I am responsible for whatever they do.”
do.” He recalled that
during the Afghan war the US supported the spy agency and it preferred to deal
with military rulers. America’s sudden withdrawal from Afghanistan, he said,
“created vacuum in the region”
region” which allowed militants to establish themselves.

Talking about his meetings with President Bush and with Republican and
Democratic candidates for the 2008 US presidential election, Mr Gilani said all these
leaders had assured him that they supported the new democratic dispensation in
Islamabad and wanted to help establish democracy in the country. The prime
minister told the audience that Pakistan expected a similar nuclear deal from the
United States that it had offered to India. “There
“There should be no preferential
(treatment), there should be no discrimination. And if they want to give civilian
nuclear status to India, we would expect the same for Pakistan too,”
too,” he said. Mr
Gilani said that the Khan network was no more active, when a questioner suggested
that because of the activities of this network Pakistan cannot be offered a nuclear
deal. “Certainly
“Certainly it cannot happen again and that chapter is over. The network is
broken,”
broken,” said Mr Gilani. He said that the civilian government in Islamabad wanted to
have good relations with India, was working for enhancing bilateral trade and would
like to resolve all issues, including the “core issue” of Kashmir. On Kashmir, Mr
Gilani said: “They
“They (the United States) should encourage and support this issue. That
means only they can understand,”
understand,” but refrained from asking Washington to play the
role of a mediator.

However, when pressed by president of the Council on Foreign Relations Richard

Haas on whether Washington should appoint a special envoy or play a high-visibility
or mediatory role, Mr Gilani quipped: “Actually
“Actually what the United States really want,
they can do it.”
it.” Although the prime minister’s formal address was a well-prepared
document, which successfully presented Pakistan’s case in the war against terror,
balancing domestic concerns with its international obligations, the question-answer
session was a different story. Apparently, the prime minister had come to the
meeting without proper briefing and preparations. It was obvious that the format
was difficult for him. And it did not help that the CFR president conducted the
meeting. The method he used – a combination of wit and probe – could have shaken
even a seasoned speaker and had the desired effect on the prime minister as well.
Later, some in the audience observed that the prime minister’s team had failed him.
A PPP enthusiast suggested that “this
“this was a conspiracy to make the prime minister
look bad”.
bad”. Others saw no conspiracy but they, too, appeared unhappy.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 31.07.08

– Gilani rules out use of Article 58(2)b against govt

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has said that nobody in Pakistan could invoke
Article 58(2) b against his government. “There
“There are some people who keep
predicting that this government is going to fall, that the assemblies will be
dissolved,”
dissolved,” noted the prime minister. He called such people “professional
doomsayers” and said that their predictions would never come true. “There
“There is
nobody in Pakistan who can invoke Article 58(2) b against this government,”
government,” he
said. “Nobody
“Nobody can dissolve these assemblies.”
assemblies.” The prime minister said that his
government would not only complete its tenure but would also fulfil the promises it
had made to the people of Pakistan. He said that the government would resolve the
energy crisis in less than a year and would also overcome the food crisis in the
same period. Mr Gilani said that on Tuesday he had chaired a conference of
investors at the World Bank in Washington all of whom showed “great interest” in
investing in the power sector in Pakistan. The prime minister also announced a
donation of Rs100 million for setting up a Jinnah Centre in Washington, to be
housed in the former embassy building on the city’s main Massachusetts Avenue.
He urged Pakistani-Americans to donate generously to help establish the centre.

Author Location Dated

Afrasiab Khattak 31.07.08

– Fata’s growing disconnect

It is hardly an exaggeration that the security of Pakistan, Afghanistan, the entire
region and indeed that of the whole world will be defined by developments in Fata
over the next few months. Different scenarios are being painted by military
strategists and political experts. Al Qaeda, after regrouping in the militant
sanctuaries of the area, is acquiring the capacity to repeat attacks in North America
or Europe similar to those carried out in 2001 in the US. If reports about the
exchanges between Pakistan and the US at the highest level are anything to go by
it is pretty clear that the US will retaliate against Pakistan, probably even more
severely than it did against the Taliban-dominated Afghanistan. Similarly the use of
these militant sanctuaries for cross-border fighting is so large in scale (in fact all the
six political agencies bordering Afghanistan are being used) that denial in this
regard is no longer plausible. The federal government has to either admit defeat or
muster the political will to resolve the problem, or else justify the existence of
militant sanctuaries by explaining their usefulness to the national interest. We have
run out of time and this decision cannot be delayed any more as there are no takers
of the denial line. As if this were not enough, armed lashkars (armies) from militant
sanctuaries in Fata are poised to penetrate/invade the contiguous settled districts.
The events in Hangu some three weeks back are a case in point. The Hangu police
arrested four Taliban commanders from a car that also contained weapons,
explosive material and manuals for making bombs in a place called Doaba not far
away from the Orakzai Agency border.

Hundreds of Taliban surrounded the Doaba police station and demanded the
commanders’ release. They also blocked the HanguKurram highway. During this
confrontation the Frontier Constabulary was ambushed near Zargari village and 16
security personnel were killed. Subsequently the army was called in to launch a
military operation in Hangu. This action was not just in retaliation for the murder of
16 FC men but also came in view of the threat of attack by four to five thousand
Taliban from Orakzai and Kurram agencies. By now the said military operation has
been completed and the targets achieved to the extent that the Taliban have been
chased out of Hangu. Nevertheless, they have fled to Orakzai Agency where they
are regrouping and preparing for future attacks. The NWFP (Pakhtunkhwa)
government is in a quandary. It has to call in the army whenever armed lashkars
threaten to overrun a district as the police force simply does not have the capacity
to fight an everexpanding insurgency. After Swat the army has also been deployed
in Hangu. In view of the militant sanctuaries situated nearby, the army cannot be
withdrawn in the near future. Imagine if the story is repeated in other vulnerable
districts. Will the army also have to be deployed in all these other districts? Will
such measures not bring the existence of the civilian provincial government into
question?

Is it not amazing that in spite of such high stakes the presidency that has a
monopoly over governance in Fata seems to show no anxiety over the prevailing
situation? It is continuing with the policy of keeping Fata a black hole where terrorist
groups from across the globe run their bases. It is still a no-go area for the media
and civil society, and so far there is no corrective measure or policy change in sight.
So much so that we have failed to take even the most preliminary step of extending
the Political Parties Act to Fata. It is only natural that we are perturbed when attacks
are launched from across the border. But should we not be equally sensitive to the
loss of our sovereignty over Fata to militant groups? Strangely enough we do not
seem to be bothered about the militants’ total control of Fata. When the
international media carries reports about this situation we dismiss them as ‘enemy’
propaganda against Pakistan. We have failed to grasp the fact that in the post-cold
war world there is a universal consensus about two things. One, that all assault
weapons that can be used for launching a war cannot be allowed to be kept in
private possession. Two, that no state will allow the use of its soil by non-state
players against another state. The entire world is astounded by our fixation with the
cold war mode. We have developed an incredible capacity to live in unreality. This is
indeed dangerous for any state system but it can be catastrophic for a state
dancing in a minefield.

Where does all this leave the people of Fata? They are victims and not perpetrators
as some people would like us to believe. They are in fact in triple jeopardy. Firstly
they are groaning under the draconian Frontier Crimes Regulation (FCR) of 1901.
They have no access to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution of
Pakistan since they are not justiciable outside of the jurisdiction of the higher
judiciary. Secondly the tribal belt has almost been occupied by foreign and local
militant organisations that are better equipped, better trained and better financed
than the local population. More than 160 tribal leaders have been killed by terrorists
in North and South Waziristan who operate with total impunity. Today’s Fata is not
dissimilar to the Taliban and Al Qaeda controlled Afghanistan before 9/11. Thirdly,
the people of Fata get caught in the crossfire between militants and security forces
from both sides of the Durand Line. The socalled collateral damage has seen a
cancerous growth in Fata. The people of Fata have lost the support and protection
of the state. They have no access to the media, courts and hospitals or to
humanitarian assistance. The only intervention by state players takes place through
their armies and air forces in which people of the tribal area are mostly on the
receiving end. For any informed and sensitive Pakistani, the situation in the tribal
area is the top-most priority when it comes to policy formation and implementation.
We must realise that the question of dismantling militant sanctuaries in Fata and
taking short-term and long-term measures to open up the area and integrate it with
the rest of the country needs urgent national attention if we are to avoid the
impending catastrophe.
Author Location Dated
Reuters Tehran, Iran 31.07.08

– Iran won’t halt nuclear work, says Khamenei

Iran will pursue its nuclear path, the country’s highest authority, Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said on Wednesday, speaking just before a deadline set by
world powers in a nuclear dispute. Western powers gave Iran two week from July 19
to respond to their offer to hold off on imposing more UN sanctions on Iran if Tehran
would freeze any expansion of its nuclear work. That would suggest a deadline of
Saturday, although Russia, one of the six powers facing Iran, has opposed a
deadline while also telling Iran not to drag its feet. “They
“They (the West) know that the
Iranian nation is after using nuclear energy to provide electricity but they say
because this work gives you capability, we will not allow it,”
it,” Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was quoted by state radio as saying. The West accuses Iran
of seeking to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian power programme.
Iran, the world’s fourth largest oil producer, denies the charge. “The
“The Iranian nation
by depending on its useful experience and advantages of 30 years of resistance
does not pay any attention to such talk and will continue with its path,”
path,” Khamenei,
who has the final say in state policy, was quoted as saying. The freeze idea is aimed
at getting preliminary talks started, although formal negotiations on the nuclear,
trade and other incentives will not start before Iran suspends uranium enrichment,
which has both civilian and military uses. Iran has rejected suspension in the past
and has given no indication so far that it is ready for a freeze.

“One should not spoil negotiations by raising unreasonable conditions, since

Iranians are not ready to deviate from their rights by one iota,”
iota,” President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad said late on Tuesday, Iran’s Fars News Agency reported. The president
made his remark to South African Foreign Minister Nkosazana DlaminiZuma, who
has joined other ministers from the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) meeting in
Tehran. NAM, a group of 118 developing nations, is expected to issue a final
statement broadly backing Iran’s right to use peaceful nuclear energy. But
diplomats said the text had been watered down from an initial draft prepared by the
Islamic Republic. One NAM diplomat said Iran wanted “clear
“clear support from NAM,
unconditionally”
unconditionally” but said there had been several amendments to the Iranian draft
“to make it more moderate”.
moderate”. He said Iran should by “more flexible” on the issue of
building confidence. “I
“I could say some things as proposed by Iran have no
consensus,”
consensus,” said another NAM diplomat of the final statement, which is expected to
be adopted by NAM later on Wednesday. The statement is expected to broadly
follow NAM’s previous line backing the peaceful use of nuclear energy and
welcoming Iran’s continuing cooperation with the UN watchdog, the International
Atomic Energy Agency.
Agency. Diplomats said it would omit a call for sanctions to be lifted
swiftly, as proposed by Iran, but would include a statement opposing any attack on
Iran’s peaceful nuclear sites. The United States has refused to rule out military
action if diplomacy fails to end the row. It has said Iran’s failure to respond
positively to the offer would trigger steps towards more UN sanctions. Three sets
have been imposed since 2006.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
AUGUST
2008
Kamaal K. Lalany - HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
August 2008 of the DAWN
Compilation Series, put together by
Kamaal Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Mohammed Niaz 01.08.08

– Islamic view of natural world

Religious principles and guidelines for the conservation of natural resources play a
major role in the scheme of things. Islam perceives the natural world as a creation
of Allah that reveals His glory and that the individual entities and creatures are
reflections of supreme divine work. As a matter of fact, the teachings of Islam are
based on a moderate concept which means a balance is maintained in use of
resources which are to be to be protected and preserved for times come. All biotic
and abiotic elements in the surroundings make up the environment which includes includes
soil, water, air, forests, animals, birds, rivers, streams, insects, and other physical
components. None of the things is useless but meets human needs in this
diversified system of the universe. Human beings and biotic and abiotic entities that
Allah has created are inter-dependent and inter-related. Islam emphasises the need
for sharing the natural resources which not only benefit individuals but the whole
system. Several references in the Quran and Hadith provide guidelines and
knowledge about rational use of natural resources. Numerous verses relating to
environment in the Holy book explain vitality of earth, water, seas, birds, animals,
atmosphere and insects that reflect the entire spectrum of life on the earth called
biological diversity. In sura 13, verse 3, importance of earth, mountains, rivers and
fruits has been mentioned. In sura 15, verse 19 to 21, it is stated that “the
“the earth,
We spread it out and set there on mountains standing firm. We caused all kinds of
things to grow therein in due balance. Therein We have provided you and those you
do not supply with means of subsistence and there is not a thing but its stores are
with Us. We do not send it down save in appointed measures.”
measures.” This clearly reflects
the importance of physical components of the world. Similarly, the earth has been
blessed as productive and fertile entity.

The Holy Quran is replete with references to importance of water which is an

essential element of life on earth, without which the survival of living beings is not
possible. In sura 50, verse 9 to 11, water is described as celestial bliss benefiting
gardens, grains, tall palm trees, and reviving the land when it is dead. Why one
should not be thankful to Allah for this matchless blessing down on earth. Water
brings cleanliness to human beings. There are also several passages dealing with
the phenomena that occur in the atmosphere. The Quran maintains in sura 30,
verse 41, that “corruption
“corruption doth appear on land and sea because of (this evil) which
man’s hands have done”.
done”. This refers to the fact that human beings while perusing
their needs and wishes have tilted the level of the balance. Deforestation has
largely influenced the quality of atmosphere and is a threat gaining momentum.
Resultantly, clean air which is the right of all living beings to have an access to is
contaminated and polluted, due to decrease in area of trees or forests which are
lungs of nature. This has increased dangers of global warming, climate change,
ozone depletion, CFC, C02, S02, use of chemical and pesticides. Industrialisation
and urbanisation have stepped up the scale of nature’s deterioration. That’s why
the Quran warns in sura 55, verse 9 that “you
“you exceed not the measure”.
measure”. This is very
much true that once the balance in the system is upset it can result in its
destruction and total collapse. Similarly, it appears in Hadith, Ibni Maja, 2340, “do
“do
not harm others nor your self”.
self”. This explains explicitly that inflicting harm on any
element of the world in terms of use and utilisation will, no doubt, disrupt the whole
natural process. Over-use has also been discouraged in the Quran, which is
reflected in sura 7, verse 31. It is forbidden to over-exploit available resources.

The Holy Prophet (pbuh) had declared areas around Medina for about 20km as
protected, where tree-cutting and leaves-plucking was prohibited. The vegetable
kingdom is also referred to in the Quran. In sura 16, verses 10 and 11 it is
emphasised that “(Allah)
“(Allah) is the one Who sends water down from the sky. For you
this is a drink and out of it (grow) shrubs in which you let (cattle) graze freely.
Therewith for you He makes sown fields, olives, palm trees, grapes and all kinds of
fruit grow”.
grow”. In order to maintain the balance, Allah created things in pair as
reflected in sura 13, verse 3 “of
“of all fruits (Allah) placed (on the earth) two of a pair”.
pair”.
Allah has extended divine beneficence to man for his living and fulfilment of needs.
In sura 16, verses 5 to 8 state that Allah created cattle for you for warmth, services,
food and for bearing loads. It is also stated that “And“And He createth that which ye
know not”.
not ”. This shows that man is ignorant of the worth of many things Allah has
created. There are references to existence of animal communities such as ants,
bees, spiders and birds in the Quran. In sura 16, verse 79 it is mentioned “do “do they
not look at the birds subjected in the atmosphere of the sky. None can hold them up
except Allah.”
Allah.” Cruelty to animals has been discouraged. The Prophet states “leave “leave
the birds in their nests and dwelling places peacefully.”
peacefully .” At other place, he says “do
“do
not target any living being purposelessly.”
purposelessly.” The Quran describes Heaven as a place
of plants and greenery as mentioned in sura 85, verse 11. There are several kinds
of trees and plants mentioned in the Quran. In sura 29, verse 40, it is stated that “it “it
was not for Allah to wrong them but they wronged themselves,”
themselves,” a reference to
human activities. At several places justice and just use have been emphasised.
When the Noah deluge occurred, Allah ordered Noah to keep living beings in pairs in
his Ark. This clearly depicts the purpose to perpetuate biodiversity thereafter.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 01.08.08

– Belling the cat

The government’s decision to place the notorious ISI under the complete control of
the ministry of interior created a furore in many circles. While some believed that
this would have harmed the workings of the ISI, others felt that like any other
strategic intelligence agency it operates better under the ministry of defence.
Although the agency is under the administrative control of the prime minister’s
office, its operational management and finances are with the MoD. Why did the
government act at this juncture, why did it reverse the decision, and should
Islamabad have made such a move are three pertinent questions which will be
considered in this space. There are two reasons why the government tried to bring
the agency under a different control regimen. First, considering that the ISI is
notorious for destabilising civilian governments, it was logical to take such action.
The only problem was with the timing — the constitutional head of the government,
Yousuf Raza Gilani, could not defend the decision as he was not in the country at
the time. Second, there should be little doubt that this was done under pressure
from the US which appears extremely unhappy with the agency’s involvement in
Afghanistan and other places. Sources say that even the army chief, Gen Kayani,
admits that relations between the ISI and CIA have nosedived, which makes a US
attack on Pakistan probable rather than possible. Although one sympathises with
the military’s concern over India’s intelligence activities in and around Kabul,
Pakistani insiders in critical places have also been spilling the beans about the ISI’s
possible involvement in the bombing of the Indian embassy in the Afghan capital.

The government is under tremendous pressure to build confidence vis-à-vis

Washington. Some might call it a conspiracy against Pakistan but considering the
country’s historical dependency relationship with the US, doing what every other
civil and military regime has also done is certainly not a sin. The US cannot be
pushed out as long as we seek military and economic aid. So why blame Mr Zardari
alone for catering to the US? The reversal of the decision is less of a mystery
because it would certainly have been done at the behest of the military which was
uncomfortable with the change, especially when it was being seen as the result of
US involvement. The only odd thing about the decision was putting the agency
under the interior ministry. It would have made greater sense and been less of a
shock had the operations and finances been shifted to the prime minister’s office.
There are quarters who are not comfortable with the closeness of the ministry’s
higher management to both the British and American governments, especially their
intelligence agencies. The reversal yet again exposed the problems of the PPP’s
over-centralised decision-making apparatus. Now the issue is, should Islamabad
have acted the way it did? Many experts have referred to other agencies, arguing
that since the ISI is responsible for strategic intelligence there was no purpose in
taking away its operational and financial control from the MoD. But then the counter
argument one would like to make is that the ISI is not an ordinary organisation. And
can one blame the political government for making such a change given the
agency’s long history of political involvement? The fact that the ISI’s political
activities were started by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto does not in any way prevent a PPP
government from restructuring its management.

The ISI is an organisation which is not only notorious abroad but has an eerie
reputation at home as well. There is no information regarding its operations or
expenditure. It is known for running safe houses within the country, for picking up
people and making them disappear, for rigging elections and destabilising
governments, and for spending pot-loads of money from unexplained sources.
Surely these activities do not fall in the ambit of strategic intelligence. What is
popularly known about the organisation is that the bulk of its officers comes from
the armed forces, the majority being from the army, for a fixed period after which
the military men return to their parent services. Then there is a small cadre of
civilians that provides permanency to the organisation. Very few people amongst
the civilians know which portion of the agency’s manpower is the keeper of
institutional memory and how it operates in terms of shutting out its organisational
head if the officer concerned is thought to be pursuing his own agenda, as has
happened in the cases of LtGen (retd) Kallu and Lt-Gen Ziauddin Butt. Finally, has it
turned into a state within a state, as many argue, or is it a more disciplined force
following the will of the army chief? Given the ISI’s chequered history, it is not odd
for people within or outside the government to ask for greater accountability of the
organisation or its restructuring. Governments create new organisations as well and
the ISI needs to be restructured to take away its bite. The fact that the ISI is
technically under the prime minister’s office has never made any difference to how
the agency operates. This means that there was a need for something more radical
which, unfortunately, the government could not achieve.

This brings us back to the timing of the decision. Had Benazir Bhutto been alive she
might have done it differently, perhaps when her coalition was strong rather than
when there are rumours every day of the government’s imminent break-up.
Including Mian Nawaz Sharif in the decision would have made greater sense. After
all, restructuring civil-military relations was part of the Charter of Democracy and
cutting the powers of the ISI is an essential part of balancing the power equation.
Also, the move would have gone down much better had the government earned the
moral authority to take this big leap by first taking other tricky decisions such as
restoring the judiciary. Moreover, the series of recent faux pas which have proved
expensive in terms of the government’s credibility has made it hard for people to
swallow yet another reversal. I hope the government understands that it is
psychologically debilitating for its voters to see their elected government slipping
towards disaster, as such blunders would naturally indicate. The intelligence
agencies will now be keener than ever to plot against the government. ¦ The writer
is an independent strategic and political analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

Josh White Washington, D.C. 01.08.08

– Gates stresses ‘soft power’ to prevent extremism

Defence Secretary Robert Gates says that even winning the conflicts in Iraq and
Afghanistan will not end the “Long War” against violent extremism and that the
fight against Al Qaeda and other terrorists should be the nation’s top military
priority over coming decades, according to a new National Defence Strategy he
approved last month. The strategy document, which has not been released, calls for
the military to master “irregular” warfare rather than focusing on conventional
conflicts against other nations, though Gates also recommends partnering with
China and Russia in order to blunt their rise as potential adversaries. The strategy is
a culmination of Gates’ work since he took over the Pentagon in late 2006 and
spells out his view that the nation must harness both military assets and “soft
power” to defeat a complex, transnational foe. ”Iraq”Iraq and Afghanistan remain the
central fronts in the struggle, but we cannot lose sight of the implications of fighting
a long-term, episodic, multifront, and multi-dimensional conflict more complex and
diverse than the Cold War confrontation with communism,”
communism,” according to the 23-
page document, provided to The Washington Post by InsideDefense.com,
InsideDefense.com, a defence
industry news service. “Success
“Success in Iraq and Afghanistan is crucial to winning this
conflict, but it alone will not bring victory.”
victory.” Gates embraces the “Long War” term
that his predecessor, Donald Rumsfeld, invoked to equate the fight against
terrorism with struggles against Soviet communism and Nazi fascism. However, his
strategy departs from Rumsfeld’s focus on preemptive military action and instead
encourages current and future US leaders to work with other countries to eliminate
the conditions that foster extremism.

”The use of force plays a role, yet military efforts to capture or kill terrorists are
likely to be subordinate to measures to promote local participation in government
and economic programmes to spur development, as well as efforts to understand
and address the grievances that often lie at the heart of insurgencies,”
insurgencies,” the
document said. “For
“For these reasons, arguably the most important military
component of the struggle against violent extremists is not the fighting we do
ourselves, but how well we help prepare our partners to defend and govern
themselves.”
themselves.” It is unusual for a defence secretary to offer a comprehensive military
strategy so late in an administration’s tenure, and in a foreword to the document
Gates acknowledges that a new president will soon reassess threats and priorities.
Gates wrote that he perceives this document as “a blueprint to success” for a future
administration. Michele Flournoy, president of the Center for a New American
Security, said she was surprised to see Gates issuing such a strategy so close to a
presidential election, calling it a “strategy
“strategy destined to be overtaken by events”
events”
because one of the new administration’s first tasks will be to write such a defence
plan. She said the document appropriately emphasises irregular warfare — focused
on terrorists and rogue regimes bent on using insurgency or weapons of mass
destruction — but might go too far. ”I ”I think irregular warfare is very important,
particularly in contrast to preparing solely for conventional warfighting, but it
shouldn’t be our only focus,”
focus,” Flournoy said, adding that countries such as China
likely are preparing for “high-end” warfare and attacks involving anti-satellite
technologies and cyberspace.

The Defence Department has not officially released the National Defence Strategy
— which lays out a general plan for the Pentagon to deal with major threats and
was last issued in 2005 — but officials recently have provided copies to the House
and Senate armed services committees. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell
said the document distills what Gates has been saying in speeches over the past
few months, that “we
“we ought to be training our forces and procuring our weapons
systems to reflect the reality”
reality” of likely future conflicts. Defence sources said Gates’
strategy met resistance among the Joint Chiefs of Staff because of its focus on
irregular warfare. Gates met the Joint Chiefs to present the rationale behind his
strategy, and they expressed concerns over the long-term risks of shifting the focus
too far from conventional threats. The service chiefs have worried publicly about
shunning preparation for conventional warfare because it could give adversaries a
competitive advantage in key arenas, such as in the skies or in space. “The “The chiefs
were provided an opportunity to review the document by the secretary,”
secretary,” said Capt
John Kirby, a spokesman for Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
“They were grateful, and they did provide comment and are comfortable with the
final product.”
product.” The Joint Chiefs separately prepare a biannual National Military
Strategy for the armed forces, and Kirby said it is still being crafted and edited.
Gates singles out Iran and North Korea as threatening “international order” and
meriting US concern; his strategy also warns about potential threats from China and
Russia, and he urges the United States to build “collaborative
“collaborative and cooperative
relationships”
relationships” with them while hedging against their increasing military capabilities.
Gates also points to India as an ally he hopes will “assume
“assume greater responsibility as
a stakeholder in the international system, commensurate with its growing
economic, military, and soft power.”
power.”

The strategy calls on the US military to balance its risk between irregular threats
and conventional warfare involving competing armies and Cold War-style standoffs.
Gates says the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan exemplify the type of conflict the
United States will face in the years ahead. ”US
”US predominance in traditional warfare
is not unchallenged, but is sustainable for the medium term given current trends,”
trends,”
the document says. “We“We will continue to focus our investments on building
capabilities to address these other challenges, while examining areas where we can
assume greater risk.”
risk.” James Jay Carafano, a military expert at the Heritage
Foundation, said he finds it refreshing that the Defence Department acknowledges
that China and Russia are potential adversaries, but he said he believes the
strategy is too heavy on battling extremism. ”It
”It is overstating the case to say that
extremist Islamic ideology is going to define the next 20 or 30 years,”
years,” he said. “I
“I
think that’s not helpful because you’re sacrificing everything for this one fight. But
it’s a transition document. Either McCain or Obama could walk in the door and live
with that document and do all kinds of things.”
things.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Jiayuguan Fort, China 02.08.08

– Darkness rules with sun still in the sky

Darkness fell on Friday over the last outpost of the Great Wall of China, where a
rare total solar eclipse delighted sky watchers a week before the Olympics open in
Beijing. The dramatic spectacle — when the moon passes between the sun and the
Earth — began in Canada, tracked across Greenland and crept into Siberia, before
ending at sunset in China. In north-western China, cheers went up from the
Jiayuguan Fort as excited tourists welcomed the eclipse. “It’s“It’s really doubly special,
because I’m standing here on the Great Wall and watching it,” it,” said Feng Lei, a
backpacker from the south-western province of Sichuan, who was making his way to
Beijing for the Olympics. Eclipses were considered dark omens by ancient
astronomers. But many Chinese view this one as particularly fortunate, since it
comes just before the torch is lit in Beijing for the Games, designed to restore
China’s pride and showcase its achievements. “I “I have a really deep feeling,
especially because it’s exactly eight days before the Olympics,”
Olympics,” said Chuai Rui, a
college student from Xi’an. Chinese consider eight a lucky number.

In Russia, thousands had flocked from around the world to Novosibirsk, awe mixed
with excitement as day turned into night. They gazed in wonder as an eerie silence
descended on the Siberian city and gusts of unusually strong wind tore through the
crowd. Birds stopped chirping and the temperature suddenly dropped. “It’s “It’s very
dramatic and awe-inspiring when the darkness suddenly comes,” comes,” said Jay Pasachoff,
a professor at Williams College who led a team to Novosibirsk for his 47th eclipse. In
northern Europe, a partial eclipse also drew thousands. “There’s
“There’s a strange light
now,”
now,” said Norwegian astronomer and popular author Knut Jorgen Roed Odegaard
as the midday light in Oslo grew slightly dimmer with a silvery sharpness. Families
crowded into a park to watch images transmitted from an air force plane in the
Arctic. “You
“You just feel part of nature ... This is so rare,”
rare,” said Lev, a software specialist
in St Petersburg. In Pakistan and other Asian countries a partial eclipse was
witnessed. The Chinese hope the Olympics will usher in a new era where China is
once more as modern, wealthy and important as it was more than 10 centuries ago,
when imperial astronomers were among the world’s best scientists. Chinese
astronomers in the state of Lu, the present-day Shandong, carefully recorded solar
eclipses that can be dated as far back as 720 BC. Superstitious Chinese courtiers
and peasants once banged drums to scare away the dragon they thought was
eating the sun. Eclipses were sometimes linked then to the death of emperors, said
F. Richard Stephenson, who studies ancient eclipses.

Author Location Dated

Mohammad Waseem 02.08.08

– Will Musharraf strike again?

In 1999-2000 Gen Musharraf launched an institutional war against the legislature
and judiciary, and also worked to decimate the executive. All the three wings of the
state took an enormous beating at the hands of the fourth coup-maker in the
history of Pakistan. The judiciary again suffered a brutal attack in 2007, first in
March and then more disastrously in November. The first violation of the
constitution by Musharraf took place on Oct 12, 1999 when the elected government
of Nawaz Sharif was dismissed. The second violation occurred on Nov 3, 2007 with
the imposition of an emergency, which transcended all the relevant provisions in
the constitution. Is Musharraf now bracing for a second attack on the legislature? Is
Pakistan moving back to the model of the late 1980s and the 1990s when the
National Assembly, along with the provincial assemblies, was dissolved in 1988,
1990, 1993 and 1996? We can outline four major features of the recurrent pattern
of the use of Article 58-2(b) to dissolve the parliament. These features can be
characterised as prerequisites for taking blatantly anti-democratic measures against
the parliament by the extra-parliamentary forces led by the president.

First, the timing is crucial. A mass mandate provides legitimacy to the newly elected
government. The president cannot, straight away, afford to act against the popular
sentiment. He has to wait for months or even years for the right moment to strike. A
reasonable period of time must pass before he can send the elected representatives
back home. The temporal dimension of the process plays a pivotal role in this
regard. After the elections were held on Feb 18, and governments were formed a
few weeks later, the legitimacy of the PPPled coalition government was riding high.
The elections brought into operation a message of change. The national mood was
expressly against Musharraf. The legitimacy rooted in the mass mandate drew
heavily on three factors: the restoration of judges, the economic crunch in the last
phase of the Musharraf-Shaukat Aziz rule, and Benazir Bhutto’s assassination.
assassination. The
judges issue remains unresolved. The government has visibly distanced itself from
it. The economic meltdown has continued unabated. The apocalypse is here. The
Benazir factor, as could have been expected, lost its grip over the public
imagination after a while. Thus, the first condition for dissolving a parliament that is
gradually losing legitimacy seems to be within reach of the president as he follows a
wait-and-see policy. He seems to be in quest of the right moment. The second
condition for dissolution of parliament relates to deficit performance. President
Musharraf will think twice before striking down a government which enjoys
popularity for good performance. In other words, the performance deficit must first
sink into the public mind. The scandalous rise in prices of various commodities and
the acute shortages of food and electricity, which helped the ruling coalition garner
support in the February elections in the first place, now alienate the public with a
similar cost to the government. Thirdly, a good strategy is to hit when and where it
is least expected. The myopia of the ruling dispensation is a prerequisite for a
strike. The government must feel secure, confident and sure of its popularity. Junejo
did not imagine in his wildest dreams that he would be dismissed on May 29, 1988.
Nor did Benazir when she called President Ishaq on August 6, 1990, expressing
amazement about rumours relating to his impending action against her
government. The fourth condition for bringing the axe down on parliament is that
the government should crack from within and thus create a profile of weakness vis-
à-vis the mighty force of the establishment. Benazir Bhutto’s government could
never recover from the deadly exit of the MQM from the ruling coalition in 1989 as a
result of the latter’s secret deal with the president.

As always, the establishment comprising extra-parliamentary forces would like to

drive a wedge between the coalition partners in the parliamentary government. The
ruling coalition of the PPP and PML-N has already been showing cracks. The man in
the street perceives his fate in terms of the dictum: divided they fall. The ruling set-
up in Islamabad has lost the support of millions of PML-N voters. The pro-Nawaz
Sharif sections of the media and intelligentsia have moved away. Nationalist
elements from Balochistan stand alienated in the absence of any meaningful
development in terms of policy or patronage. Every passing day is making the Gilani
government increasingly an easy prey for a trigger-happy president. What will
happen if the muchdreaded Article 58-2(b) finally comes into operation? It will be a
black day for democracy in Pakistan. The balance between the civil and military
wings of the state will be further upset. However, fifthly, there will be no
constitutional crisis. The ruling party has already agreed to keeping the
controversial article in the statutes book, at least pending a comprehensive
initiative to delete it. The president would then claim to be within his constitutional
rights to strike again. Sceptics might think that this scenario is too clean to be real.
In the case of new elections, the PML-N as an alternative may not suit the president.
The largescale mobilisation by lawyers and civil society in general would be
reactivated from its current position of recess. Washington would be shy of seeing
Musharraf swim through the muddy waters of street agitation and public anger.
Moving away from a situation of relative political order to one of uncertainty and
potential disorder may not be an American priority. But this underestimates the
latent hostility of various elite sections of the population towards what they consider
a bunch of uninitiated, unimaginative, uneducated and unsophisticated politicians.
They see the failures of the government as failures of democracy itself. This smacks
of a negative attitude towards societal input in the business of the state. If
Musharraf strikes again, he will do so with the support of this unrepresentative and
career-oriented elite which is imbued with a supremacist ideology rooted in
paternalism.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 02.08.08

– Duplicity along the Durand Line

While speaking to the media in the US on his recent visit, Prime Minister Gilani is
reported to have said that one reason Pakistan’s fight against extremists was going
badly is that our forces lacked “modern equipment”. But more than weapons and
communication equipment, what we really need are equal measures of political will
and clarity of purpose. And this infusion of reality and common sense is not likely to
be part of the American aid package. Although several visiting western officials
have arrived with a blunt message for Pakistan to ‘do more’, they cannot really alter
the mindset of our generals, or their hawkish civilian cheerleaders in the media. The
truth is that since the government of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was toppled in 1977, it has
been the army that has shaped the destiny of Pakistan. In particular, our Afghan
and Kashmir/Indian policies have been determined in army GHQ and ISI
headquarters. Civilian input has been virtually zero. When Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif tried to make peace with India, their governments were soon sacked
by the establishment. So what are the threat perceptions that are driving the
Pakistan military’s agenda, and why are they now at odds with western
expectations as well as national aspirations? For many years, India has been seen
as the biggest threat to us, and the army’s entire focus and raison d’etre have been
to somehow neutralise the danger our giant neighbour is perceived to pose. Thus,
hundreds of billions have been poured into building up and maintaining a
conventional force we can ill afford. Further billions have flowed into developing a
nuclear arsenal and a delivery system.

After 9/11 and the rapid collapse of the Taliban, an ISI creation and proxy, military
planners in Pakistan watched with growing alarm as India established a substantial
presence in our war-ravaged neighbour. With an aid package of $750m, the Indian
effort was second only to the Americans. Having alienated Iran through its pro-
Sunni, anti-Shia policies in Afghanistan as well as in Pakistan, Islamabad now feared
a Kabul-New Delhi axis. In this altered regional scenario, the army’s vision of
‘strategic depth’ in Afghanistan had been replaced with the nightmare of
encirclement. How to prevent this from happening began to override considerations
of being a staunch ally in the American ‘war on terror’. But clearly, our generals
could not be seen as being openly pro-Taliban, and hence the charade of cracking
down on militants. Although some 100,000 troops have been deployed on our
porous, largely unmarked border with Afghanistan, the fighting has been largely
desultory. And while this shadow-boxing has gone on for the last few years, the
Taliban and their local allies have made steady progress. Clearly, our army is
caught in a dilemma: how to prevent the militants from operating within Pakistan,
while allowing the Taliban to remain a viable fighting force. Currently, they are
regularly disrupting Indian aid efforts within Afghanistan, thereby playing a role in
GHQ’s strategy of preventing the advance of our enemy’s interests. So when
Washington demands that Pakistan should ‘do more’, it is actually asking the
Pakistani army to act against its perceived interest. Equally obviously, the
government cannot say this openly to the Americans who are losing more soldiers
to the Taliban, partly because of the sanctuaries they have built up in Pakistan. And
although the government issues its stock denials when confronted with evidence of
duplicity, nobody really believes that it is not allowing the Taliban a free hand.

On July 28, Canada’s respected Globe and Mail daily led with this headline: “UN “UN
envoy backs Karzai against Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. The story went on to cite the Afghan
president accusing Pakistan’s ISI as having had a hand in the suicide bombing of the
Indian embassy in Kabul last month. While this charge is not new, what was
remarkable was that Chris Alexander, a Canadian diplomat currently serving as a
UN deputy special representative to Afghanistan, agreed with Karzai publicly. When
asked how Islamabad might react to the accusation that it was waging a proxy war,
Alexander replied: “I’m
“I’m not sure, but there’s only one way to find out. The project
on which we are embarked — with its high stakes, with its serious investment, with
its sacrifices — deserves at least that level of courage … Otherwise we are really
pretending that Niagara Falls doesn’t flow.”
flow.” In an editorial on the subject the next
day, the newspaper wrote: “By “By stating his belief that the ISI is behind some major
terrorist attacks in Afghanistan, Chris Alexander … has performed a valuable
service. Ever since the founding of Pakistan in 1947, its armed forces have
perceived their role in terms of the country’s rivalry with India. In particular,
relations with Afghanistan were subordinated to this regional struggle. It was
always a narrow point of view … “The military’s control of [the] ISI must be
relinquished, but the current Islamabad government, a shaky coalition, appears
powerless to bring about the necessary change…. In the end, Pakistan’s own
governance, sovereignty, stability and peace will depend on the government’s
taking full, normal control of its own territory — as well as its own intelligence
agencies.”
agencies.”

This is only one such comment to appear in the foreign media in the last few days.
Indeed, hardly a day goes by without more or less open accusations of latitude
being given to militants along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border, and along the Line
of Control dividing Kashmir. Each charge is met with the same increasingly less
credible denials from Islamabad. The recent fiasco surrounding the government’s
attempt to control the ISI underlined the agency’s power, as well as the coalition’s
weakness. Soon after assuming office in 1988, Benazir Bhutto set up a committee to
review the workings of various intelligence agencies in Pakistan. Air Marshal Zulfiqar
Ali Khan headed this body and produced a report containing many sensible
recommendations. But the government was too weak, and was toppled too early, to
implement any of the proposals. Ms Bhutto’s nominated head of the ISI was
routinely bypassed by his subordinates as he had not been appointed by the army
chief. Nawaz Sharif’s appointee, Gen Ziauddin, was equally ineffective in controlling
the all-powerful agency. But now, the ISI and the army seem to be on a collision
course with the United States. This adversary may prove to be firmer in resolve
than the civilians who have tried to curb the establishment so far.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 02.08.08

– Washington offers a mixed bag to keep Pakistan in tow

There couldn’t be a worse domestic backdrop to Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s
maiden visit to Washington. With an economy in total shambles and a rupee in
virtual free-fall against all major currencies, the clouds on Pakistan’s national
horizon couldn’t be darker or more ominous. The people of Pakistan couldn’t care
less where their novice PM, in office for nearly four months, was heading for if only
they had enough bread on their table and electricity to run their fans in oppressive
summer. But they have neither and are fed up with a government that promised to
turn a lot around in its first 100 days but has virtually nothing to show on the plus
side of the books. So the people, clamouring for bread, are manifesting their anger
in more civilized ways than most would have expected of them. In an opinion poll
conducted by Geo Television, and cleverly released just in time to coincide with
Gilani’s safari to Washington, 54 per cent of them have given his government a
failing grade. But that’s still better than a 67 per cent negative vote for Musharraf
who, despite all the tell tale signs and writings on the wall against him, continues to
hang in there, impervious to the gathering storm. But an economy teetering on the
brink of collapse isn’t the only Achilles’ heel of Gilani’s virtually dysfunctional
government. Chaos reigned supreme, just on the eve of Gilani’s departure for
London, en route to Washington, in regard to the control of instruments of power
and governance in the country. The powerful American lobby, comfortably
ensconced in the hardcore of the new government, thought the iron was hot, and
the timing perfect, to strike at the core instrument of military power in Pakistan.

The ‘notification’ issued but retracted within hours when the bluff was called, to
transfer the levers of control over the ISI, from the PM’s office to the interior
ministry, was, without doubt, a leger de main of Rehman Malik, the ‘adviser’ on
homeland security, who has virtually been behaving like a czar. Together with
Hussain Haqqani, pegged in Washington, and Mehmoud Durrani, pitch-forked in the
heart of the national security apparatus in Islamabad, these three — a triumvirate
as true to its American salt as there could be one — are watch-dogs of a wide-
spectrum of American interests in Pakistan. The triumvirate may have thought the
military establishment, chastened considerably since Musharraf’s disconnect,
wouldn’t challenge the ‘snatch,’ especially since ISI has been a pariah in
Washington for long and a thorn in the side of the Americans on the war on terror
and their strategy in Afghanistan. But the American votaries were dead wrong in
their judgment. For tactical reasons, the army in Pakistan may have receded into
the background, after eight long years upfront. Discretion is, undoubtedly, the
better part of the valour for the army in this ambience of chaos and confusion. But it
hasn’t been sleeping on its watch. So it didn’t lose a moment in calling the bluff of
the new pigmies stalking the Pakistani landscape. Gilani, thus, arrived in
Washington with his handicaps intact and the American roster of complaints and
grouses against the ‘rogue’ elements in Pakistan’s intelligence establishment as
bulky as ever. Only two days before Gilani’s arrival in D.C. Condoleezza Rice
forcefully remonstrated about Pakistan not doing enough to check the alleged
infiltration of terrorists from its side of the border into Afghanistan. On his maiden
venture into high-stakes, Gilani’s deck of cards had a number of aces missing.
Those supposed to be smoothing the kinks out of his way had, actually, ended up
littering it with more nails and thorns for the novice ‘statesman.’ The Bush
administration, on its part, didn’t exactly roll out the red carpet for him, either.

Barely hours before Gilani landed in Washington, a CIA-operated ‘predator’ drone

unleashed another barrage of deadly missiles into a border village, Azam Warsak, in
South Waziristan close to the border with Afghanistan, killing at least six. Those
killed were ‘terrorists’ in American books and were targeted because of their Al
Qaeda connection. For even better measure, in this particular incident, a top Al
Qaeda operative, with a $5 million bounty on his head, is being claimed among the
victims of US visitation. Abul Khabab Al-Masri was said to be an explosives expert
and was believed to be the mind behind the abortive ‘shoe bomb er,’ Richard C.
Reid, who unsuccessfully tried to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic, on the heels
of the cataclysm of 9/11. Irrespective of how many were killed, the message for
Gilani couldn’t be more unambiguous and categorical: U.S. was getting close to the
end of its tether with Pakistan, as far the strategy on combating the menace of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban was concerned. The Bush administration, never known for its
diplomatic finesse, couldn’t be more undiplomatic in telling Gilani that it attached
zero significance to the consensus among coalition partners in government that
dialogue was their preferred option in dealing with the terrorists and their threat to
Pakistan. Instead, it remains committed to a policy of brazen use of force, even if it
means violating Pakistan’s sovereignty, which, in any case, it has been doing with
impunity for a long, long time. Gilani, against the expectations of many a Jeremiah,
did well in walking tall with Bush in the customary walk from the Oval office to the
Rose Garden, and in telling the world that what Pakistan was up against, on its soil,
was a challenge to its own survival; it was a war targeting Pakistan much more than
the US, hence Pakistan was the one that should be fighting this war on its terrain
and not anybody else.

Gilani didn’t flinch in telling the Americans, to their face, that they were being
impatient. He held his own against a media bully like Wolf Blitzer and even if not as
articulate as Musharraf or Shaukat Aziz, still managed to put across Pakistan’s
philosophy of a peace approach to combat the groundswell of terror rather than
deploying force in a purblind gamble of arrogance of power. The Americans — in
what is a worst-case scenario to many a hawk in the Bush administration — have no
choice but to stay in lock-step with Pakistan, if they want to take their involvement
in Afghanistan, or the war on terror, to any logical conclusion. Short of nuking
Afghanistan, they have no better strategy than to have Pakistan on board with
them, for without Pakistan their fire power would take them nowhere. So the Bush
administration, now in the twilight of its tenure, is using a mixed-bag of stick-and-
carrot to keep Pakistan in tow behind its endless war on terror, and, as yet, its
timeless presence in Afghanistan. Washington’s stick of choice is the endemic
‘visitation’ of its predator drones on Pakistan’s soil to keep its denizens in awe of US
fire power. But if the Pentagon had any sense of the psychology of the tribal people,
it should have been forewarned that the antics of no other imperialist power in
history ever succeeded in sowing fear in their hearts. Instead, it only makes it much
easier for the Taliban or Al-Qaeda to find fresh recruits for their ‘cause,’ whatever it
may be.

But Washington seems to be also trying to soften the impact of its stick by blending
it with carrots, for both the military and civilian power brokers in Pakistan. Only
days before Gilani made it to Washington, the administration sanctioned $260
million, out of the funds allocated to Pakistan for counter-terrorism measures, to
refurbish its ageing fleet of F16s of the 80s vintage. Gilani’s visit was also greased
with the delivery of four new F-16s to the Pakistan Air Force. Washington may not
like some aspects of the Pakistani defence establishment but it has little choice
other than keeping it well-equipped to fight its war on terror. Lest the civilian half of
the Pakistani diarchy felt neglected or short-changed, Bush announced a gift of
$115 million in food aid to Pakistan, including $42 million in the next nine months.
Nothing could have delighted Gilani more than to carry with him glad tidings for the
flour-hunting people of Pakistan of American wheat trailing his tracks home. Both
Gilani and his hosts in Washington may have reason to claim success at the
conclusion of his visit. Bush may draw satisfaction from the fact that a civilian
government hobbled by all sorts of challenges, some apparently too grave for its
limited capacity to handle, would strive ever so hard to retain the goodwill of the
foreign power, and mentor, that has always mattered so much to any Pakistani
government. He has thrown some toys and trinkets in its lap to keep it contented.
Gilani, on his part, may congratulate himself for not faltering, or falling out of step,
in his first major exposure to the outside world. Getting Washington’s cachet of
endorsement has always been regarded a plus point in the dispensation of power in
Pakistan. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 02.08.08

– Nuclear programme US sets weekend deadline for Iran

The United States on Friday set a weekend deadline for Iran to answer an
international offer to freeze its nuclear drive and warned of new sanctions if it
rejects the package. However, its European Union partners in the drive to stop
Iran’s uranium enrichment program stopped short of insisting on a strict deadline
and said a reply within a few days would suffice. Iranian Foreign Minister
Manouchehr Mottaki said on Thursday that there was no deadline and that his
country had already replied. The US State Department had been vague about the
deadline but narrowed it down on Friday. “We “We want and we expect a response this
weekend,”
weekend,” the State Department’s acting spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told
reporters. “They
“They were given two weeks. The two weeks is up this weekend.”
weekend.” Oil
prices surged higher on Friday as New York’s main contract, light sweet crude for
September delivery, leapt as high as $128.60 per barrel, before pulling back to
stand at $126.76, up $2.68 from Thursday’s close. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice had given Iran two weeks to come up with a “serious” reply after an
international meeting in Geneva on July 19 which saw Tehran broadly accused of
stonewalling. White House spokeswoman Dana Perino warned: “Negative “Negative
consequences await if they don’t have a positive response to our very generous
incentives package, and that would possibly come in the form of sanctions.”
sanctions.” Perino
also said it was difficult to discern Iranian intentions, calling them “a little bit
unpredictable” as she spoke to reporters in Kennebunkport, Maine. “The “The Iranians
sent mixed messages this week and it’s very hard to tell what the bottom line is,” is,”
Perino said. Perino said the United States would coordinate any action with its
partners in the P5-plus-1, or the permanent UN Security Council members — the
United States, Russia, China, Britain and France — plus Germany.

The United States has taken a more conciliatory approach lately. In a policy shift,
Washington sent top diplomat William Burns to the talks in Geneva to encourage
those in Iran who want to cooperate with the West in order to ease the economic
and financial fallout from UN sanctions. Washington had until then refused to sit
down with Iran until it suspended uranium enrichment. Iran expert Gary Sick said
Washington had learned that its past desire to isolate Iran with increasingly stiff
sanctions had failed to stop Iran from enriching uranium. The West charges Iran
with trying to build an atomic bomb. Iran denies the charges and says the program
is for peaceful nuclear energy. The P5-plus-1 has offered Iran benefits in civil
nuclear energy, trade, finance, agriculture and high technology if it freezes uranium
enrichment. If Iran accepts the package, there would be pre-negotiations during
which Tehran would add no more uranium-enriching centrifuges and, in return, face
no further sanctions. European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana delivered the
incentives package to Tehran in June. In Brussels, an EU diplomat who spoke on the
condition of anonymity said the European Union is “in no rush” to have a response
“in the next 24 hours,” adding: “There’s
“There’s no real limit. “We hope to have a clear
answer either today or tomorrow. But if it comes Monday what difference does it
make,”
make,” the diplomat added. After meeting Iran’s negotiator in Geneva, Solana
asked for a response in two weeks, but “if
“if it’s in 16 days instead of 14 it’s not a
problem. We are not obsessed with a date.”
date.”

Author Location Dated

Mark Z. Barabak/Nicholas Racine, USA 02.08.08
Riccardi

– McCain accuses Obama of playing race card

The race issue, long a subtext of the 2008 presidential contest, flared into the open
on Thursday when John McCain and his campaign chief accused Barack Obama of
playing “the race card” to seek political advantage. Angry Democrats said McCain
was cynically fanning fears by raising the subject and blaming his opponent. Obama
ignored the charge but questioned the substance of his rival’s campaign. The
exchange, which elevated tensions in a contest grown increasingly testy, arose from
comments Obama made on Wednesday at a stop in rural Missouri. The Illinois
Democrat said Republicans would try to scare voters by questioning his patriotism
and “funny name” and by pointing out he “doesn’t
“doesn’t look like those other presidents
on those dollar bills”
bills” all of them white and, save for Ulysses S. Grant, older than
Obama when elected to the White House. In response, Rick Davis, the manager of
McCain’s campaign, issued a statement on Thursday saying Obama had “played “played the
race card ... from the bottom of the deck. It’s divisive, negative, shameful and
wrong”.
wrong”. Speaking to reporters after an appearance in Wisconsin, McCain said he
agreed with Davis’ statement, adding, “I’m “I’m disappointed that Obama would say the
things he’s saying.”
saying.” The Republican hopeful from Arizona, an underdog by his own
account, has stepped up his attacks over the past week, suggesting that Obama
would rather win the White House than the war in Iraq and mocking the adulation
that greeted the freshman senator on his recent trip abroad. A new TV ad likens the
46-year-old Obama to celebrities Britney Spears and Paris Hilton and questions his
capacity to serve as president. Obama alluded to that ad on Thursday at a
campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. “I “I do have to ask my opponent,”
opponent,” he said. “Is
“Is
that the best you can do? Is that what this election is really all about? Is that worthy
of the American people?”
people?”

Obama is seeking to become the nation’s first black president, which, by itself,
introduces the issue of race into the campaign. However, both sides have largely
avoided the subject. That changed, McCain aides said, when Obama made his
comments in Missouri. “The“The most negative, abhorrent, nasty, vicious comment
made in this race was the insinuation by Barack Obama that John McCain was going
to run a racist campaign,”
campaign,” Steve Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist, said in an
interview. “The
“ The McCain campaign will not stand for it. There is no evidence of it. It’s
not true, and we will rebut it.”
it.” An Obama spokesman denied that the candidate
suggested any such thing. “Barack
“Barack Obama in no way believes that the McCain
campaign is using race as an issue”,
issue”, said spokesman Bill Burton. “But
“But he does
believe they’re using the same low-road politics to distract voters from the real
issues in the campaign.”
campaign.” Privately, campaign aides said Obama’s comments alluded
to falsehoods widely spread on the internet and to racially tinged comments that
have plagued his campaign from the outset. Obama has made similar remarks
about his “otherness” in the past; during his 2004 Senate campaign he made forays
into rural Illinois and mocked his name with references to “yo mama”. Other
Democrats, however, flatly accused McCain of using race as an issue to undercut
Obama. “He
“He learned a lot in South Carolina in 2000, apparently not all of it good,”
good,”
said Dick Harpootlian, the former Democratic chairman in the state, which has a
long history of racially tinged politics. McCain lost the 2000 South Carolina GOP
primary and his first shot at the presidency in part because of a whispering
campaign that accused him of fathering an illegitimate black child. “What “What they did
to McCain in 2000 is what McCain’s trying to do to Barack Obama in 2008,” 2008,”
Harpootlian said. Schmidt rejected the assertion as “totally,
“totally, totally without merit”,
merit”,
adding “the
“the injection of this issue into this race was done by the Obama campaign.
We responded to it.” it.”

Race flickered on-and-off as an issue in the hardfought Democratic primary between

Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York. Obama supporters took
umbrage on several occasions at remarks uttered by Clinton surrogates. Former
President Clinton, in turn, complained at one point that Obama had “played
“played the
race card on me”
me ” a comment that McCain echoed on Thursday. At a Town Hall
meeting in Racine, the Republican hopeful was asked about the growing nastiness
of the campaign. A young woman reminded the senator that he repeatedly
promised to refrain from heaving mud. “But“But recently, especially last week with
Obama in Europe, it seemed like there were a lot of campaign ads you put out that
were doing that,”
that,” said the woman, who did not give her name “And “And the one
yesterday comparing him to Paris Hilton and Britney. I was like, OK ... it seems to
Americans like me you may have flipflopped.”
flipflopped.” McCain responded that “there
“there are
differences, and we are drawing those differences”.
differences”. “I’m
“I’m proud of the campaign we
have run,”
run,” McCain said. “We’re
“We’re proud of that commercial.”
commercial.” McCain is set to appear
before a largely black audience Friday when he delivers the keynote address at the
Urban League’s national convention in Florida.

Author Location Dated

Qasim A. Moini Karachi, Pakistan 02.08.08

– Eclipse casts spell on astronomy enthusiasts

The heavens above Karachi on the afternoon of August 1 did not turn ominously
dark; nor did any cataclysmic cosmic event take place as a fair number of people
consisting mainly of media-persons, students and astronomy enthusiasts trudged
up the hillock which hosts the cold war era observatory run by the University of
Karachi’s Institute of Space and Planetary Astrophysics (ISPA),
(ISPA), to catch a safe
glimpse of the partial solar eclipse. The sky-gazers were not completely
disappointed by the spectacle in the afternoon sky as with a strong wind blowing
from the west and wispy cloud cover, looking through the viewfinder of the six-inch
telescope housed in the blue domed observatory, one could see the sun partially
obscured, as if someone had actually taken a bite out of the blazing orange fireball,
as was believed by the ancients. “It’s
“It’s just another solar eclipse. We were lucky as
clouds were coming and going. It was a good opportunity for our fresh MPhil
students to see how an eclipse is observed and photographed,”
photographed,” M. Shahid Qureshi,
the ISPA incharge, told Dawn. While the eclipse started at 4.40pm in the metropolis,
Mr Qureshi added that the “maximum
“maximum sun disc coverage in Karachi was 45 per cent
between 5.30pm and 5.32pm.”
5.32pm.” Though sky-gazers in Pakistan could only get to see
a partial view of the celestial event, people in parts of Canada, Russia, China and
Mongolia were luckier as they got to see the whole show. “There “There is hardly any
difference in the intensity of light during a partial eclipse,”
eclipse,” Mr Qureshi observed. He
said it is just a natural phenomenon, brushing aside myths and legends associated
with eclipses as old wives’ tales. “For
“For amateur astronomers, it is a beautiful sight. It
has aesthetic appeal. For professionals it helps in certain scientific calculations,
especially problems related to time. Eclipses, occultations and transits all help in
performing calculations,”
calculations,” he added.

Interestingly, seen through the telescope, the image of the moon partially obscuring
the sun seemed to be an inversion, as the moon approaches the sun from right to
left, in an anticlockwise fashion, whereas through the viewfinder it was the other
way round. Also, when the telescope zoomed in, one saw the jagged edges of the
lunar surface. The telescope at the ISPA observatory is of German origin, said to be
a Russian gift to Pakistan and dates back to around 1957. It was installed at KU in
1967. It is fitted with proper solar filters for safe viewing of eclipses. “Solar
“Solar rays are
just as dangerous during an eclipse,”
eclipse,” the institute’s head told Dawn before the
event. There are two other major telescopes in Karachi: the Space and Upper
Atmosphere Research Commission (Suparco) has the most powerful – 14 inches –
while the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (Fuaast) has an
eight-inch device. However, neither of the telescopes is fitted with solar filters. The
telescope at the Planetarium, a four inch machine, is nothing to write home about,
say experts. Obscured by pollution “We “We are trying to get a mobile observatory
operational as light and industrial pollution as well as vehicle exhaust have made
viewing celestial objects in Karachi increasingly difficult,”
difficult,” Mr Qureshi told this
reporter. He said with a mobile telescope, if one were to go to a remote area, there
would be chances of observing celestial bodies beyond our galaxy. “The “The only extra-
galactic object we have observed here is the Andromeda Galaxy.” Galaxy .” He said when he
started scanning the heavens in the early eighties, the sky was much clearer and
apart from the city centre, where there was quite a bit of light, one could examine
the skies with relative ease and clarity. The ISPA head added that because of the
erratic power supply, the telescope’s motor has been affected, as it is essential for
the device to move in consonance with the earth’s rotation in order for it to capture
accurate images. However, ISPA has just procured a generator to try and tackle this
problem. He said the institute also faces a security problem, as its location atop the
hillock isolates it from the rest of the university. “The
“The majority of our work is done
at night. The security guards who are deputed here stick around for a night or two
and then run off. There have been several break-ins as well. Then there is the
problem of pests; the place is infested with chameleons, while there have also been
snake spottings,”
spottings,” Mr Qureshi told Dawn.

Author Location Dated

Asad Sayeed/Vikash Ahuja 03.08.08

– The oil pricing formula

After yet another price hike in petroleum products, people reeling under the burden
of a constant and seemingly endless inflationary spiral are legitimately asking the
question whether such sharp increases in petroleum prices are necessary? An
increasingly vigilant media having dissected the different components of the retail
price of petroleum products has challenged the government’s decision to keep
taxing petroleum products and for allowing the refineries, the oil marketing
companies (OMCs) and dealers to rake in huge profits at the cost of the consumer
by linking their returns to international oil prices. A number of these concerns are
valid. However a focused analysis of the different components of pricing is
necessary to understand who gets what and at whose cost. It is also necessary to
understand the compulsions of the government in light of the external and internal
imbalances it is confronted with. There are essentially four elements that constitute
the price that the consumer pays on petroleum products. The import parity price is
the first element. This comprises the import price, adjusted for government
subsidies and duties. To this cost is added the Inland Freight Equalisation Margin
(IFEM) that is charged by the OMCs to sell petroleum products at a uniform price
across the country. To these two elements is added a 3.5 per cent margin for the
OMCs, and four per cent for dealers, of the combined cost of the two elements
described above. The sum total of the above three is then subjected to 16 per cent
general sales tax by the government.
The frequent lament in the media is that a large chunk of the retail price is the sales
tax. The magnitude of taxation in the prevailing price of petroleum and high speed
diesel comes to Rs11.95 and Rs8.92 per litre respectively. Moreover, an increase in
the international oil price automatically increases the revenue yield of the
government. For the government to forsake revenue through the sales tax in given
conditions will be a folly for two reasons. Firstly, once we factor in the subsidy the
government provides, the relevant figure to look out for is net taxation (sales tax
minus subsidy) rather than sales tax per se. For instance, in the fiscal year 2007-08,
the subsidy on petroleum products was Rs175bn, whereas revenue from sales tax
was Rs118.2bn. Net taxation in the outgoing fiscal year was, therefore, Rs56.8bn. If
the government had reduced or removed the sales tax, the amount of subsidy
would have been proportionate to the foregone revenue. It is important to
emphasise that subsidies are not a free lunch. State subsidies are generally
financed either through bank borrowing (in other words by printing money) or by
borrowing from international or domestic capital markets. If the subsidy is financed
through printing money — as the Musharraf government did in the outgoing fiscal
year — it creates an inflationary spiral in the economy and wipes out the benefit
provided through the subsidy. Alternatively, if the subsidy is financed through
borrowing from capital markets, it creates a future liability on the taxpayer in the
form of debt servicing. Now if there are good tidings expected in the future — in the
form of a more favourable international environment and high GDP growth
domestically — then it may be worthwhile providing a generalised subsidy. But if
the future is uncertain, as it certainly is presently, then this becomes a risky
proposition.

Second, for a revenue-starved state (remember Pakistan’s tax-GDP ratio at 10 per

cent is one of the lowest in the developing world) the petroleum sector is a source
of least resistance for tax collection. Until the state broadens its tax base to devise
a truly progressive taxation structure and reallocates its expenditure away from
territorial to human security, removing the sales tax on petroleum products will only
amount to enhancing the fiscal deficit which will have to be paid by present or
future taxpayers, perhaps at even more onerous rates. In the present milieu, it only
makes sense to provide targeted subsidies to the most vulnerable sections of
society rather than subsidise everyone. The margins of OMCs and dealers, however,
have rightly come under fire and in the recent price increase their margins have
been frozen. But this is not enough. The formula of linking margins to a proportion
of the import parity price and the freight equalisation margin is fundamentally
unjust and irrational. It is irrational because distribution or dealership has no link
whatsoever with fluctuations in international oil prices. It is unjust because this
formula enables the OMCs and dealerships to rake in profits on the basis of
exogenous developments (international oil prices) at the cost of both the state and
the consumer. If there was ever an example of blatant profiteering — devised by
the Musharraf government, small wonder — as a consequence of collusion between
self-appointed policymakers and the corporate sector, this was it. Rather than
arbitrarily freezing the margin as has been done now, the formula needs to be
altered and margins should be determined on the basis of actual costs and
‘reasonable’ profits to the companies and dealerships. Rent-seeking by the OMCs,
however, is not limited to margins only. The freight equalisation margin is another
source of dubious profiteering by these entities. The IFEM is used to equate the
prices of POL products across Pakistan and covers primary transport costs incurred
by OMCs to transport petroleum products. IFEMs are recommended by the Oil
Companies Advisory Committee (OCAC) and are subject to adjustment on the basis
of actual monthly freight computations. Since IFEMs are added to IPPs to calculate
OMCs’ and dealers’ margins, it creates incentives for OCAC to set IFEMs at higher
than actual levels, which not only increases their actual reimbursement but their
margins as well.

To illustrate the extent of rent-seeking on the pretext of freight equalisation

consider the fact that between Sept 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008 freight margins were
increased by 348 per cent for motor spirit, 319.5 per cent for HOBC, 304.2 per cent
for kerosene, 81.4 per cent for light diesel and 82 per cent for high speed diesel.
This increase in freight charges is nothing short of daylight robbery on the part of
the OMCs. Thus, where the government is rightly moving in on curbing the margins
on distribution and dealerships, a serious review of the policy on freight equalisation
margins is also required. Another element in the pricing formula that adds to the
windfalls of the refineries is the deemed duty benefit that they receive in the import
parity price, primarily for diesel but also for other products. In 2001, it was decided
to allow the refineries to retain the duty that was charged on local finished products
for one year to upgrade their capacity. While some products have been taken off
the list, seven years later the refineries are still charging this amount on diesel
which constitutes the bulk of the volume consumed in the market. There is no
justification, therefore, in allowing this pilferage on the part of refineries to
continue. While the fact remains that the bulk of the price increase in domestic
prices is driven by surging world oil prices, some relief can be provided if the pricing
formula adopted by the Musharraf-Aziz combine to benefit big business at the
expense of the consumer is altered. Lately the OMCs and the refineries have
adopted a threatening tone with regard to reduction in their illegitimate
profiteering. It is high time their bluff is called and for the sake of the consumer, this
relic of the past is undone as soon as possible.

Author Location Dated

Khalid Chaudhary (Public) Karachi, Pakistan 03.08.08

– Obama and the Muslims

In his interesting article, ‘Obama
‘Obama and the US Muslims’,
Muslims’, US-based journalist Jehangir
Khattak has lamented that the Democratic candidate for the US presidency, Barack
Obama, has disappointed the American Muslims (and other immigrants) by his
attitude towards them (July 28).
28). He says “many
“many blame the ultra-right media for
pushing Obama to the wall in his relations with the Muslims by their negative
projection”
projection” of the latter. He has rightly suggested that in view of the forthcoming
elections, Obama needs to court the seven million-strong US Islamic community
before they turn away disappointed. Mr Khattak has also cited columnist Roger
Cohen from his June 26 NYT article, wherein Mr Cohen has summed up the popular
Muslim sentiment. “Fear-mongering
“Fear-mongering about Islam is a global industry. It thrives on
ignorance. Obama has a unique power to break the cycle, not least by emboldening
moderate Muslims to denounce terror. Nothing would do more in the long run for
the security of the world”.
world”. There is no doubt that Mr Obama, after entering the
White House, would be having a golden opportunity to win the world Muslims’
hearts and minds and, thereby, prevent a clash of civilisations. However, some of
the things Senator Obama has said and those that he hasn’t are already having an
impact on the Muslim community not just in the US but also globally and on the
likely course of relations between Islam and the US.

The most notable has been his wooing of the American Jewish community as well as
the statements made during his recent visit to Israel. For in stance, he showed his
partisanship by saying Jerusalem would be the capital of the Zionist state and that
its creation was a ‘miracle’. Incidentally, some veterans of the anti-apartheid
struggle paid a trip to Israel recently and were part of a 23-strong delegation that
had also included some South African Jews. They said the situation in that country
was worse than apartheid (July 14). Andrew Feinstein, a former ANC parliament
member, said he was shocked to see footage of Jewish “teenagers
“teenagers heaping abuse
on Palestinian children as they came out of school and throwing stones at them.
And that this should be done in the name of Judaism I find totally reprehensible”.
reprehensible”.
The June issue of Reader’s Digest has an article about Mr Obama, titled ‘Raising
‘Raising
Obama’.
Obama’. It gives a very touching account of his mother, a white lady named Stanley
Ann Dunham. Some of the notable points were that she loved the speeches of
Martin Luther King Jr; after her divorce from the young Obama’s father, ‘kept
‘kept up a
fond correspondence’
correspondence’ with him even after her marriage to the boy’s Indonesian
stepfather, Lolo Soetoro, to make sure her son knew about his father’s intellect,
government jobs and the courtship between his parents. After her second marriage,
she took up a PhD programme in anthropology in Indonesia, which shows her great
interest in human beings from all over the world. A friend of hers said: “She
“She was
always there for the little guy, particularly the little woman”.
woman”. The Indonesian
stepsister of Mr Obama revealed: “She
“She was … unflinchingly and unwaveringly
empathetic”.
empathetic”. Also: “She
“She had an ability to see herself in so many different kinds of
people, and that is something she was very strict about with us — that absence of
judgment, of acrimony. I think that’s something that’s been given to us”.us”. Sadly, this
wonderful lady died of cancer in 1995 at the age of 52. Barack Obama says that
without question she was the most positive influence in his life. The purpose of
mentioning all this is to express my belief that in reality Mr Obama has imbibed his
mother’s heartwarming impartiality and cosmopolitanism. Therefore, he should
ignore those right-wing extremists who are subtly or otherwise trying to alienate
him from the Muslims. The reason for the violence found amongst some adherents
of Islam and the generalised anger in almost all of them is the injustice meted out in
places like Palestine, Kashmir, etc. and America’s biased policies. The solution is for
America’s next president to be there for the ‘little guy’ — the oppressed Muslim —
just as Mr Obama’s mother used to be. Martin Luther King, Jr. had said: “Injustice
“Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”
everywhere.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 03.08.08

– Issues and ‘non-issues’

Senator Khalid Mahmood (JUI-F) recently called upon Mr Nawaz Sharif (July 14) to
stop raising “non-issues” such as the reinstatement of the deposed judges. Others
have spoken in the same vein. They assume that the government can tackle only
one issue at a time, and that concern with the judges is keeping it from dealing with
other more important issues. The present government consists of some 50 divisions
and related agencies where its work is done. Some items of business, regardless of
where they have originated, come to a cabinet meeting and get settled there along
with numerous other items on the agenda. Rarely is the cabinet called to meet to
discuss and decide a single issue. The fear that concern with the judges has become
an unacceptable distraction arises from ignorance of how governments work. It may
incidentally be noted that the judges are not distracting this government at all.
Guided by Asif Ali Zardari, it has no intention of restoring the deposed judges. Mr
Sharif’s statements for public consumption notwithstanding, he is aware of, and
reconciled to, Mr Zardari’s position in this regard. Addressing his supporters in
London on July 15 Mr Sharif claimed to have an agenda for putting Pakistan on the
road to progress and prosperity. It consisted of the following elements: (1) rule of
law; (2) independence of the judiciary; (3) restoration of the deposed judges; (4)
blocking the army’s intervention in governance; (5) parliamentary supremacy; (6)
exclusion of foreign dictation; (7) accountability; and (8) institution of a treason
case against Musharraf.
Musharraf. It will be seen that except for the president’s authority to
dissolve the National Assembly in the event of a constitutional breakdown, all of Mr
Sharif’s concerns are already met in the original version of the 1973 Constitution.
The first order of business should then be to reinstate that version. Next, there is
the fact that no government to date has been willing to follow the constitution,
including the ones headed by Mr Sharif. One may wonder if Mr Sharif will do better
next time if he gets another chance to be prime minister.

His professed goals are all worthy, but none of them is urgent in the sense that if it
is not achieved right away calamity will befall the nation. We have seen times when
we had no constitution at all and others when an unwanted constitution had been
imposed on us. Can Mr Sharif’s agenda put our people on the road to progress and
prosperity? In a manner of speaking, yes: if, for instance, our judiciary becomes
independent and our public officials are made accountable to the people through
appropriate organs of the state, progress may be said to have been made in the
area of our civic culture. But progress has several other dimensions with which
these developments have no causal connection. Progress can also refer to the
inclination to question the conventional wisdom, inquisitiveness, ingenuity and
inventiveness, attainment of excellence in arts and sciences, tolerance of the
dissident and, in sum, the ability to be at peace with complexity. Judicial
independence, a virtue in itself, has little if anything to do with these attainments.
Prosperity, in the ordinary sense of the term, means that folks have money enough
not only to meet their basic needs but also to make their living comfortable, even
save and invest. This happens when agricultural production and incomes increase
and commerce and industry expand, creating more jobs. These developments will
not take place if law and order has broken down, uncertainty and insecurity prevail,
or if governments are unstable and their policies infirm. But they are not likely to be
directly affected by the degree to which public officials are accountable and judges
are independent. If there is any relationship between these two areas of
development, it is probably remote and peripheral.

It is amazing that the fight against militancy and restoration of law and order do not
appear on top of Mr Sharif’s agenda. It is possible that he neglected to mention
them in a fit of absent-mindedness. In any case, these are the two most pressing
and urgent tasks to be accomplished if a state of utter chaos and impotence is to be
avoided. Resorting to the use of indiscriminate and naked physical force against
persons and property, kidnapping, arson and murder, and by waging war against
the state of Pakistan, the militants are striving to strike terror in the hearts of the
people and to bring the normal routines of life to a halt. They are out to destroy our
state and society, our institutions and culture. They must be stopped. Beyond the
havoc the ideologically motivated militants are wreaking, there is the breakdown of
law and order that conventional criminals cause. Criminals of all varieties — thieves,
robbers, kidnappers for ransom, rapists, murderers and the perpetrators of white-
collar crime — now abound. They too spread fear and insecurity among the people.
Their operation works like a vicious circle: the more the law is violated the more the
law-breakers increase. There are problems that cannot be made to go away in a
hurry regardless of who is at the helm. Food and fuel prices have risen dramatically
in Pakistan, America, and many other places. No government in Islamabad can
bring them back to where they were a year ago. There isn’t much that the
government, this or any other, can do to pull the economy out of stagflation
(recession and inflation at the same time). This is a state in which American and
numerous other economies are currently placed. I hear that they are going to stay
that way for another six months to a year, and that there is nothing the
governments concerned can do to help them out. But abatement of crime and the
restoration of law and order, being the first and foremost duty of any government,
should be within the capacity of the present administration. It is a matter of
assigning these missions the priority they merit and allocating the requisite
resources to pursue them. If Mr Gilani’s government does not have the will or the
know-how to tackle these tasks it should vacate the seat of power. Eradication of
militancy is admittedly a complicated and difficult undertaking. But it is not
impossible; it requires a firm resolve and adequate material resources to succeed,
which the present government has not been willing to assign it. ¦ The writer is
professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts
at Amherst.
Amherst.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 03.08.08

– The brutalising laws

“After the elections faces have changed but not policies”
policies” is the commonly held, and
freely expressed, opinion about the PPP government. One lets it pass for it is
substantially true. The ruling coalition also seems quite content with the policies it
had inherited or, what looks more likely, does not feel confident enough to change
them. But when the same is said, and more stridently, by Liaquat Baloch, general
secretary of the Jamaat-i-Islami, one is persuaded to ask him what policy change his
party and its ally, Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s Jamiat-i-Ulema-i-Islam, were able to
introduce when they were in power in the NWFP? Is vandalising billboards and
music/video shops a policy change? Social life, political shenanigans, corruption,
smuggling and all the rest went on in that province as it had before them and has
been going on since. Just a few miles from the seat of their Islamic government, the
raging battles between the armed religious lashkars vying for supremacy in Bara
and the Tirah valley became deadlier and the trade in narcotics also boomed. That
the tribal areas were administered from the centre could be an alibi but that is not
good enough. The Islamic coalition of the province could surely have used its
ideological influence and political patronage to calm down the warring tribal
factions. The point to emphasise here is that in the given circumstances no
government, whatever its complexion or commitment to the electorate, can have a
policy of its own. It can devise only a strategy for contending with the compulsions
and violence flowing from the adventures and disasters of the past and new ones
that come up or are still in the making. The long-term commitments and a variety of
forces that have come to the fore have made the basic policies in place all but
irreversible.

Interestingly enough, all such policies had their roots in personal ambition but were
given a religious colour. Gen Ziaul Haq’s Afghan policy for one. An Islamic republic,
he reasoned but only to prolong his rule, should be defending not just its own
territory but also its ideological frontiers — then threatened by the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan. In other words it was the duty of our armed forces to fight to defend
Islam in Afghanistan. Now, 20 years later, those very armed forces are finding it
difficult to defend our own physical frontiers. The Islamic resistance movement of
that time has since turned into world terrorism. Pakistan had to pay and continues
to pay a heavy price for its ideological ventures in the way of loss of trust abroad.
Every government in Pakistan since then has been a hostage to religious
extremism. Before Ziaul Haq, the religious elements did not take long to join forces
with the traders and industrialists hurt by Z.A. Bhutto’s nationalisation policy to
drive him out of power. The ground for that was paved by Bhutto himself when,
ignoring the founding father’s categorical advice to the contrary, he made religion
the business of the state by amending the constitution. Wily Ziaul Haq followed it up
with penal enactments to make religion a dominant force in politics. The sectarian
divisions since then have been exacerbating and turning violent. But no
government has been able to bring itself up to scrap the laws and policies which
have institutionalised intolerance and hate. Now all sections of society are its
victims — the majority as much as the minorities. An agenda that was essentially
political in the course of time has become a mindset to which the moderate, the
tolerant, the intellectuals and the judges all have been succumbing. Let it be
illustrated by a few recent events.

First, a gathering of religious leaders over which Mr Rafiq Tarar presided has ruled
that any Muslim who changes his religion must be put to death and his property
confiscated. Mr Tarar should have known that the country of which once he was the
president is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That
declaration enjoins religious freedom which expressly includes the freedom to
change one’s religion. If he was a conscientious objector to this policy of the state
he should have refused to become its president where, in any case, for all of his
tenure he remained a silent spectator of fateful events. Second, a prison vast
enough to accommodate 50,000 persons — men and women, young and old — may
soon have to be established if the courts of law agree with the police and state
prosecutors. These had held that by wearing badges which bore Quranic inscriptions
the entire population of Chenab Nagar (Rabwah) had committed an offence that is
punishable with imprisonment of up to three years under Pakistan’s penal code.
Third, 23 students (five among them girls) of Faisalabad’s Punjab Medical College
were summarily expelled from that college by the principal on the complaint of the
youth wing of a religious party that they were seen preaching their faith. Human
rights organisations worldwide have apparently taken notice of these incidents and
will draw their own conclusions which, at a time when Pakistan is in the limelight for
the prevalence of extremism and for sheltering terrorists, can be only scathing. Who
is to be blamed more for Pakistan’s descent from a peaceable to a brutalised polity
— the laws made by its assemblies or the bombers produced by its seminaries —
remains a dilemma. What is not in doubt is that public opinion and the courts of law
failed to play their part. There is much noise now about an independent judiciary
which signifies freedom from the pressures of the executive authority. To be really
independent the judges must also be free from the fear of the fanatics. That, sadly,
most of them are not. Will the campaigners for judicial freedom and my friends
Aitzaz Ahsan and Athar Minallah please expand their agenda?

Author Location Dated

Steve Pearlstein Washington, D.C. 03.08.08

– Farewell, free market

Not so many years ago, respectable people seemed to agree where the world was
headed. Communism had fallen to capitalism, and a particular strain of capitalism
the entrepreneurial, market-driven capitalism found in the United States and Britain
had proven itself superior to the more corporate and statist variety practiced in
Japan and western Europe. Free trade and the free flow of capital had lifted billions
of people out of poverty, and further globalisation seemed not only desirable but
also inevitable. Here at home, there was talk of a permanent Republican majority
dedicated to smaller government, lower taxes, freer trade and more deregulation.
It’s always risky to call turns in history, but my guess is that this consensus is
unraveling. Just as the Gilded Age gave way to the Progressive Era and the New
Deal gave way to the post-war era of big government, big business and big labour,
the current era of free-market capitalism seems to be giving way to something else.
To say that it is ending is not to suggest that it was misguided or illegitimate. It is
merely to acknowledge that these eras tend to last a generation but not longer. Like
the others, this one achieved what it could before taking things too far. That is
certainly the lesson that should be drawn from the final collapse this week of the
latest round of global trade talks in Geneva. The internationalist community is
already sputtering contemptuously about the triumph of mindless protectionism,
and certainly there was some of that. But the larger truth may be that the social
and economic costs of the next increment of globalization probably outweigh the
benefits for many people, and that reality has now been reflected in the political
marketplace.

For developing countries, there is still plenty more economic gain to be had from
more fully exploiting existing trade treaties without having to open up their own
uncompetitive industries to destabilising competition. If anything, these countries
have been growing too fast in recent years and need time to consolidate their gains
and rebalance their economies. Here in the United States, consumers have already
realised most of the possible gains from importing different and cheaper goods any
further liberalisation won’t help them much. But because the government has
refused to deal, in any serious way, with the dislocation and economic insecurity
that increased trade has spawned, too many lower-skilled workers have concluded,
with reason, that they are the inevitable losers from globalisation. Let’s be clear: It
is not the protectionists of the AFL-CIO or CNN who are primarily to blame for the
erosion of public support for trade in the United States, as bone-headed as they
may be. The blame lies squarely with a business community that continues to
support Republican politicians who refuse to raise the taxes and spend the money
necessary to provide the economic safety net for American workers that a free-
market economy has not, and will not, provide. Trade is hardly the only area in
which open, unregulated and lightly-taxed markets have failed to deliver economic
and social outcomes that Americans consider acceptable.

Despite the fact that the US healthcare system is the most privatised and market-
driven of any in the industrialised world, it has become one of least efficient and
effective, with extraordinarily high costs, mediocre results and a large and growing
pool of working families with little or no insurance and inadequate care.
Deregulated energy markets have, for the most part, failed to provide a steady
supply of affordable electricity to businesses and households due in large part to
imperfect competition that has allowed the industry to manipulate prices and earn
abovemarket returns. These same energy markets failed to anticipate the increased
global demand for oil and natural gas and to make the necessary long-term
investments in new supply and alternative sources of energy. More recently, they
produced a speculative price bubble that has brought the auto and airline industries
to their knees. As market failures go, however, few have been more spectacular
than the massive misallocation of credit and mispricing that led to the giant housing
and credit bubble of recent years. These bubbles had their roots in deregulated
credit markets that were hailed as models of innovation and market-driven
efficiency. Now that the bubbles have burst, it is more than a bit ironic that
government has had to step in to rescue the markets from their excesses and
prevent a meltdown of the financial system. And it is simply outrageous that in the
past few days, freemarket apologists have tried to divert attention from the colossal
screw-ups by builders, bankers and hedge fund managers by trying to shift the
blame to two government-sponsored enterprises, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,
which had only a minor role in the subprime debacle.

For the past 25 years, the United States has put its faith in open, unregulated and
lightly taxed markets, and there’s little doubt that, over time, that model has
expanded economic output and improved economic efficiency. But what Americans
have also come to realise is that the same model is less adept at providing other
things that we value highly things like safety, fairness, economic security and
environmental sustainability. And more often than not, these are "goods" that can
be had only by giving up some of that output and some of that efficiency. Over the
next decade, the central challenge of economic policy will be to rebalance those
goals and recalibrate those trade-offs. It’s too early to say what the new model will
be or what the new era will be called. But it’s a good bet that the task will fall not to
the ideologues of the left and right who continue to deny that no trade-offs are
necessary, but to those leaders like Roosevelt and Reagan who are willing to
embrace and articulate the challenge and address it with creativity, tough-
mindedness and hope.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Brussels 03.08.08

– Tehran ignores deadline on nuclear offer

Iran has so far ignored an informal Saturday deadline to respond to an offer by
major powers on its nuclear programme, a European Union official said, but the bloc
is ready to wait a few more days for an answer. Major powers asked Iran on July 19
to respond within two weeks to their offer to hold off from imposing more UN
sanctions if Tehran froze expansion of its nuclear work. Iran dismisses the idea of
having a deadline to reply and accuses the West of double standards. “There “There is
nothing new (from Iran),”
Iran),” the EU official said, adding that the bloc did not expect an
answer over the weekend. “One “One should not focus on the deadline too much ... what
matters is that we get a clear answer quickly, it’s not a matter of one day,” day,” said the
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the
nuclear talks. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana leads the talks with Iran for the
six major powers, the United States, China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany,
who in June offered Iran economic and other incentives to halt uranium enrichment.
“It’s unfortunate the Iranians have not responded to the P5+1’s generous
incentives package. It just further isolates their country,”
country,” White House
spokeswoman Dana Perino said on Saturday, referring to the offer by the six major
powers. “We
“We will be consulting with our allies,”
allies,” Perino said.

The West accuses Iran of seeking to build nuclear warheads under cover of a civilian
power programme. Iran says its uranium enrichment drive is aimed purely at
generating electricity and has vowed to press ahead on its nuclear path. Iran’s
representative to the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
(IAEA), Ali
Asghar Soltanieh, said the country is open to talks but does not consider it is bound
by any deadline to answer to the major powers’ offer. “We
“We have not had any
discussion (or) agreement of the socalled timeline of two weeks,”
weeks,” he told Iran’s
state Press TV satellite station in comments broadcast on Saturday. But German
Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier said Iran should to stop playing for time.
“Enough dallying about,”
about,” he told Der Spiegel magazine, adding that Tehran should
respond to the Western powers with a useful answer or else face tougher sanctions.
Oil prices rose on Friday after Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Iran
was on the verge of a breakthrough in its nuclear programme. The United Nations
has imposed three rounds of sanctions on Iran. The freeze-for-freeze offer is aimed
at getting preliminary talks started. Formal negotiations on the nuclear, trade and
other incentives will not start before Iran suspends uranium enrichment, something
it has shown no sign of doing. Solana and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili
could talk by telephone in the next few days, an EU diplomat said on Friday.

Author Location Dated

Azhar Ul Ashfaque Karachi, Pakistan 04.08.08

– Altaf asks people to prepare to resist Taliban

Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain urged the people of Karachi on
Sunday to adopt suitable measures to protect themselves and called upon the
president and the prime minister to take effective steps to prevent Talibanisation of
Karachi. Addressing a workers’ convention by phone from London, he cited various
instances which he said indicated that jihadi elements were trying to enforce
Taliban-style gun-baton Sharia in the city. A large number of workers including
women attended the convention. Mr Hussain expressed concern over activities of
Umme Hassan — wife of Maulana Abdul Aziz of Lal Masjid -- who had addressed
jihadi elements during her recent visit to Karachi on the pretext of a certificate-
distribution ceremony in some seminaries. He also spoke about activities of the
Taliban in Nazimabad, Gulbahar, Shah Faisal Colony, Liaquatabad and named a few
individuals who he alleged were behind the conspiracy of Talibanising the city.
”They are not locals, but have connections with Haqiqi terrorists,”
terrorists,” he said. Mr
Hussain said that the people of Karachi would strongly resist the imposition of the
Taliban’s gun-baton Sharia. People attending the meeting replied in negative when
the MQM chief asked whether they would accept Talibanisation in the city. Raising
slogans, they said they were not afraid of the Taliban and were ready to confront
them.

Mr Hussain said that it was against the teachings of the Holy Prophet (peace be
upon him) to impose restrictions on women and girls from acquiring education.
”Were we not practising Islam before Al Qaeda and Taliban’s arrival? What kind of
Muslims they (jihadis) want to make us?,”
us?,” he asked. He said that the MQM would
never allow anyone to harm the people of Karachi or the minorities living here.
”Problems could never be solved with slogans because the solution lies in practical
struggle,”
struggle,” the MQM chief said, adding that the people of Karachi should form
vigilance committees in their areas and the rich and the poor should take measures
to protect themselves from the threat posed by the Taliban. He asked
philanthropists to provide financial help to the poor who were ready to sacrifice
their lives to save Karachi from Talibanisation. He also asked the rich to take
measures to protect themselves. He appealed to the international community and
national and international human rights organisations to come forward to save the
unarmed people of the city. ”People
”People of Sindh will never allow Karachi to become a
Taliban-controlled city,”
city,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 04.08.08

– FBI concedes Aafia Siddiqui in US custody

Five years after her mysterious disappearance in Karachi,
the FBI has finally conceded that an MITtrained Pakistani
neuroscientist is alive and is in US custody in
Afghanistan. Aafia Siddiqui, 36, disappeared with her
three children while visiting her parents’ home in Karachi
in March 2003, around the same time the FBI announced
that it wanted to question her over her alleged links to Al
Qaeda. Her family’s lawyer Elaine Whitfield Sharp said
she believed recent media reports about Mrs Siddiqui’s
incarceration increased pressure on the US and Pakistani
authorities to divulge more information. “I “I don’t believe
that they just found Aafia,”
Aafia,” she said. “I
“I believe that she
was there all along.”
along.” The fate of her three young,
American-born children is still unknown. Before her disappearance, Mrs Siddiqui
lived in a Boston suburb of Roxbury and studied at Brandeis University as well as
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In a 2006 report, Amnesty International
listed Mrs Siddiqui as among a number of “disappeared” suspects in the war on
terrorism. On July 6, 2007, AI listed Mrs Siddiqui as a possible CIA “secret detainee”,
although she was still on the FBI’s Seeking Information - Terrorism list. Late last
week, Mrs Siddiqui’s photo still appeared on the FBI’s list of people wanted for
questioning. Since no charges were ever filed against her, human rights groups
treated her case as that of “extrajudicial
“extrajudicial detention”,
detention”, although no government ever
claimed detaining her. Even the FBI does not mention any charges in the notice
seeking information about her. “Although
“Although the FBI has no information indicating this
individual is connected to specific terrorist activities, the FBI would like to locate
and question this individual,”
individual,” says the notice.

On July 7, a British journalist Yvonne Ridley told a news conference in Islamabad

that a Pakistani woman had been held in solitary confinement for years at the
Bagram US base near Kabul. The identity of this prisoner remains unconfirmed. She
has been nicknamed the “gray lady of Bagram”. Ms Ridley, however, speculated
that she was Aafia Siddiqui. Moazzam Begg and several other former captives also
have reported that a female prisoner, prisoner 650, was held in Bagram. The former
captives claim that she has lost her sanity and cries all the time. Although it is still
not clear if the “gray lady of Bagram” is Aafia Siddiqui, her family’s attorney told
reporters on Friday that the FBI had finally conceded that Mrs Siddiqui is in US
custody. “It
“It has been confirmed by the FBI that Aafia Siddiqui is alive,”
alive,” said Ms
Sharp, who said she spoke to an FBI official on Thursday. “She
“She is injured but alive,
and she is in Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan.” For five years, US and Pakistani authorities denied
knowing her whereabouts. But human rights groups and Mrs Siddiqui’s relatives had
long suspected that she had been captured in Karachi and secretly taken into
custody. On Thursday, an FBI official visited Mrs Siddiqui’s brother in Houston to
deliver the news that she was alive and in custody, Ms Sharp said. FBI officials,
however, would not say who was holding her or reveal the fate of her children. “If “If
she’s in US custody, they want to know where she is,” is,” Ms Sharp said. “Who
“Who has got
her? And does she need medical care?”
care?” The FBI and the Justice Department
declined to comment. US military documents declassified in recent years suggest
that Mrs Siddiqui is suspected of having ties to several key terrorism suspects being
held at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre. She is believed to have links to
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks, and allegedly arranged travel documents for another suspected terrorist.
Papers in Guantanamo Bay also indicate that she married Ali Abd Al Aziz Ali, an
alleged Al Qaeda facilitator who intended to blow up petrol stations or poison water
reservoirs in the United States. The three men were among 14 high-value suspects
brought to Guantanamo Bay in 2006 after years of secret detention in CIA prisons in
Eastern Europe.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 04.08.08

– US, Pakistan need to combine powers to beat militants: Rice

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that only a combination US and
Pakistani powers can improve the situation in Fata, where the militants appear to
have gained an upper hand. “It’s
“It’s going to take all elements of Pakistan’s power,
national power, as well as some of ours, to improve that situation,”
situation,” said Ms Rice
while talking to Aspen Institute President and CEO Walter Isaacson, in Colorado,
Aspen. “It’s
“It’s a dangerous situation.”
situation.” A transcript released by the State Department
on Sunday also quotes Ms Rice as saying that Pakistan’s effort to engage the
militants had failed. “I’m
“I’m not going to comment on the intelligence reports,”
reports,” said Ms
Rice when Mr Isaacson asked her to comment on US intelligence reports of Pakistani
spy agencies cooperating with Taliban militias in Afghanistan. “Let“Let me just say that,
obviously, the situation on that border and in the region -- the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas -- has got to improve. It has got to improve and it’s got to
improve quickly.”
quickly.” Ms Rice warned that Fata had become a dangerous region, “a “a
region where efforts to forge peace agreements with the militants, I think, are
frankly not working. And instead, the militants are finding a place that they can
train and equip.”
equip.” She reminded the Pakistanis that the militants hiding in Fata were
not just a danger to Afghanistan. “They
“They are a tremendous danger to Pakistan. The
Baitullah Mehsud organisation, which is widely understood to have been behind the
assassination of Benazir Bhutto, is believed to operate there.”
there.” Ms Rice said it’s
extremely important for Pakistan to do something to improve the situation or it
would destabilise the entire region.

Also on Sunday, a Pakistani official privy to US-Pakistan talks during Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit, confirmed US media reports that Islamabad was sending
a commando unit and more army troops to Fata. “The “The US has asked for using
commandos and regular troops they say they have trained for the purpose,”
purpose,” the
official said. “Americans
“Americans say the Frontier Corps is not working and considering the
SSG commandos were trained to fight terrorism, they should be deployed.”
deployed.”
According to these reports, Pakistan wants to deploy a specially-trained unit of its
Special Service Group into the tribal areas. Pakistan’s military has told the Pentagon
that it is planning to move a major unit of its regular army into Fata. And senior
Pakistani officials have proposed a plan in which the intelligence services between
Pakistan and the US would work to end the conflict between the spies and
informants that each uses in the tribal areas and who have often been working
against each other.The Los Angeles Times has said in a report that US officials have
accused Pakistan’s top spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence, of assisting terrorists
linked to anti-western activities, including the bombing last month of the Indian
embassy in Kabul. Pakistan, in turn, has criticised the CIA for cultivating assets in
the region that it believes are against Islamabad’s interests.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Shahid Siddiqui shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.co 04.08.08
m

– Research trends in language

Research on language and gender is not very old. Linguists perhaps recognised the
importance of this field relatively late when in the 1970s we saw a number of
research papers and books published on this subject. Before we look at some
seminal trends in the research on language and gender, I would like to briefly
mention Jesperson’s work, Language: Its Nature, Development, and Origin.Origin.
Jesperson’s book, published in 1922, contained a chapter about women’s language.
The title of the chapter was ‘The
‘The Woman’
Woman’ which suggested a language deviant from
the norm. The norm in this case was the language spoken by men. The first
important book, completely devoted to language and gender research, was Robin
Layoff’s book, Language and Woman’s Place in 1975. 1975. The book focused on women’s
language and the attributes that make it ‘weak’. Some of the characteristics of
women’s language highlighted by Lakoff are: (a) women have a large stock of words
related to their specific interests, generally related to them as ‘woman’s work’; (b)
‘empty’ adjectives like divine, charming, cute; (c) tag questions, (d) the use of
hedges, for example well, y’know, kinda, and so forth; (e) the use of the intensive
‘so’; (f) hyper-correct grammar; and (g) women don’t tell jokes.
jokes. Lakoff talked about
the dilemma that women face. On the one hand society expects a woman to act
ladylike and on the other hand when women’s speech is ladylike their language is
said to have become weak. The Lakoff approach to women’s language is popularly
known as the deficit approach as it considers women language deficient. Lakoff’s
book was criticised for its non-scientific research methods as she relied heavily on
‘introspection and linguistic intuition’
intuition’ and also for its dichotomising language groups
on a sex basis. Despite this criticism Lakof’s book remains a central reference book
in research on language and gender. It is interesting to see that just after the
publication of this book, a large number of short courses, articles and books were
launched for women to train women on assertiveness. The intriguing part of it was
that the model or standard to which all the training was geared was in the assertive
style of men.

After Lakoff came Dale Spender who wrote an influential book, Man Made Language.
Language.
Instead of talking about the deficiency of women, this book focused on the
dominance of men. The book claimed that differences between the language of men
and women in fact reflect their social differences in real life. The men play a
dominant role in society and this dominance shows in language use as well.
Spender claims that “English
“English language has been literally man made [sic] and that it
is still primarily under man’s control …”
…” Like Lakoff, Spender dealt with men and
women as two distinct groups and did not take care to address the sub-groups
within the two major groups. This model (based on Spender’s book) is called the
dominance model. Both of these models, deficit and dominance, are accusative in
nature. A third book that influenced discussion on language and gender was
Deborah Tannen’s, You Just Don’t Understand.
Understand. This book offered a new thesis
regarding language differences. According to Tannen, men and women are brought
up in two different cultures, i.e. men-specific and women-specific cultures. This two-
cultures model is called the difference model. It is different from the deficit and
dominance models in the sense that it does not blame either men or women. But it
seems to be similar to these models as it also dichotomises men and women on the
basis of sex. Tannen’s book became an instant bestseller as people could relate to
their daily life communication experiences. At the same time the book came under
a lot of criticism from feminist critics as, according to them, the “difference model”
is not sensitive to the socio-political realities where men wield power because of
their dominant social roles. As the book doesn’t appreciate the socio-political
context of language it is termed as a ‘to do book’ that does not try to problemitise
the issue of language, gender, and power.

For a long period of time the focus of research on language and gender was on the
difference of language (grammar, lexicon, pronunciation, etc) spoken by men and
women. Gradually a more important question came into focus, i.e. language used
about women. This question raised the issue of power and representation. We see
some useful research in the discriminatory use of language, i.e. naming, titles, use
of the masculine pronoun, collocation, etc. But to understand the problem at a
deeper level we need to understand the politics of discourse and the hegemonic
role of language. We see some enlightening research by Jane Sunderland and Ruth
Wodak who approached the issue from a critical discourse analysis and tried to
trace the dynamics of hegemonic representation with special emphasis on the
construction of discourse. The feminist critique on the question of language and
gender came in the form of Deborah Cameron’s edited book called Feminist Critique
of Language.
Language. This book is structured around three themes, i.e. the theme of silence
and exclusion from language, the theme of naming and representation and the
theme of behavioural differences in language. Deborah Cameron’s critical
introductions to each of these themes are quite insightful. Hall and Bucholtz in their
book, Gender Articulated,
Articulated, suggest three directions of feminist research on language
and gender: “the investigation of how cultural paradigms of gender relations are
perpetuated through language; the study of women’s innovative use of language to
subvert this dominant belief system; and the examination of how women construct
social identities and communities that are not determined in advance by gender
ideologies.” The contemporary stance on language and gender is more
interdisciplinary in nature as the question of power needs to be explored from
various different angles. The other change is that instead of dividing men and
women on the basis of sex into two distinct groups the researchers realise the
significance of sub-groups formed not strictly on the basis of sex. A third change is
that instead of focusing on the language used by women, the emphasis has shifted
to the language spoken about women. The question of representation has come to
the forefront. ¦ The writer is director, Centre for Humanities and Social
Sciences at Lahore School of Economics and author of Rethinking
Education in Pakistan.
Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Public Karachi, Pakistan 04.08.08

– Obama and Pakistan

Professor Khwaja Masud’s article, ‘Obama
‘Obama and Pakistan’
Pakistan’ (July 30), is not a properly
researched piece of writing (July 31). One of its implications is that Mr Obama is a
politician of the Chicago brand in whom “politics
“politics and crime occasionally overlap.”
overlap.” It
also advised that “if
“if Mr Obama is sincere about eradicating extremism, he should
declare full support for our government’s current effort (to fight the Taliban)”
Taliban)” and
“he should seriously follow up on Senator Biden’s proposal to triple development
assistance to us to $1.5 billion per year….”
year….” The writer seems unaware of Barack
Obama’s life history and also the fact that he was a co-sponsor of Sen. Biden’s
move to triple the said assistance to Pakistan. Besides, after the 2005 earthquake,
Sen. Obama was one of the handful of legislators who had written to Dr
Condoleezza Rice to greatly increase the financial assistance being provided to
Pakistan by Washington so as to cover the reconstruction costs as much as
possible. Coming now to the suggestion, “we “we should bear in mind that Mr Obama is
a product of Chicago’s corrupt politics,”
politics,” one would like to detail some of the facts
from the Democratic candidate’s life.After his mother’s second marriage, the young
Obama spent four years in Indonesia and was subsequently put in the care of his
maternal grandparents living in Hawaii for much of his adolescence. He got a
scholarship to a private high school in Honolulu and was one of only a few black
students in the elite institution. Later on, he attended a university in California for
two years and the remaining two years were spent at New York’s Columbia
University, which is one of the prestigious ‘Ivy League’ varsities. Next, he moved to
Chicago, where he stayed for some years and then enrolled in the Harvard
University to get a law degree.

However, while living in Chicago, he engaged in the ‘hardest work of his life’, which
consisted of three-and-a-half years of community organising in the impoverished
neighbourhoods. His job was to work with a church-based effort to organise low-
income residents to improve local conditions. This proved to be a test of his mettle
and resilience. In Harvard, he did extremely well, where an employee remarked that
she had never encountered a bigger collection of egos, but he stuck out as being
very different. Upon returning to Chicago, he joined a local civil-rights law firm and
also started teaching part-time at the University of Chicago. In 1992 he had served
as the executive director of a voter-registration drive that added nearly 125,000
mostly black voters to the electoral rolls. From the foregoing it should be easy to
see that his upbringing and grooming took place in localities other than Chicago. His
character was thus already formed by positive influences and his life and work is
indicative of his humility, integrity, sincerity, concern for the rights of the poor and
adherence to principles. That is why he wanted the Pakistani sufferers of
earthquake to be helped very generously. We must be extremely careful when
writing about such issues. Also, as individual Pakistanis, we ought to serve as
diplomats and ambassadors to help improve the country’s standing and image.

Author Location Dated

Anees Jilani 04.08.08

– Our growing isolation

On July 25, eight small bombs exploded in quick succession across the south-Indian
city of Bangalore, killing a woman and wounding at least 15 people. So far the
Indian police has few leads into the bombings. The Bangalore Commissioner of
Police told the media that timer devices were used in all the bombs, and explosives
were used in a quantity equal to one or two grenades. India’s home ministry said
that it suspected “a small militant group” was behind the attacks, but has yet to
give any details. The next day, 16 blasts went off in Ahmedabad, resulting in more
than 29 people getting killed and hundreds others injured. Mercifully, Pakistan and
its premier intelligence agency, the ISI, have so far not been blamed. This is unlike
the huge blast on July 7 at the gates of the Indian embassy in Kabul, blame for
which was laid at the door of the ISI by a person no less than the Afghan president,
Hamid Karzai. Next in line was Indian National Security Adviser M.K. Narayanan who
called for the destruction of the ISI. “We
“We made this point, whenever we have had a
chance … There might have been some tactical restraint for some time, obviously
that restraint is no longer present,”
present,” Mr Narayanan stated. The Kabul blast was
followed by several low-intensity explosions in the Pakhtun-dominated areas of
Karachi which thankfully did not result in any deaths. Hopefully, the above blasts in
Kabul, Karachi and Bangalore are not interlinked and a consequence of internal
turmoil. Nevertheless, there is now little doubt that India-Pakistan relations are
again vulnerable despite the recent joint secretary-level talks in Islamabad, coupled
with Pakistan adding 136 items to its positive list of imports from India in its 2008-
09 trade policy and expressing an avowed interest in dealing with Indian traders
and investors in several areas.

All these developments are not a good omen for Pakistan. They go to show the
growing isolation of Pakistan in the international polity. It is high time the
policymakers realised the folly of their policies and made necessary changes. There
is in fact no harm in even publicly admitting the mistakes that the country made in
certain arenas and showing the world and of course the citi zens of Pakistan that
adjustments have been made in relevant policies. The government does not tire of
stating that parliament is supreme but parliament is nowhere to be seen. This is the
time to convene a session of the National Assembly and debate all these
developments in detail. The country is increasingly seen by world leaders as a
sanctuary for terrorists. The US Secretary of State just the other day stated that
Pakistan needs to do more in its north-western region to control the Islamic
militants; she rejected the plea that the terrain is difficult to operate in. The recent
killing of 11 Pakistani soldiers by US air strikes showed that the American-led war in
Afghanistan is relentlessly spreading into Pakistan. The B-1 heavy-bomber and F15
attacks were called “self-defence” by the Americans but there are reports that US
and Pakistani troops engaged in a direct clash and heavy firefight that was ended
by the American bombing. The US hunter-killer drones, US Special Forces and CIA
teams have been launching attacks inside Fata. US Defence Secretary Robert Gates
has been openly advocating major ground and air attacks by US forces in Pakistan.
American neoconservatives have been denouncing Pakistan as a ‘rogue state’ and a
‘sponsor of international terrorism’ and are calling for US air and missile strikes
against Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and reactors.

The Indians have been accusing Pakistan for almost the past two decades for
sponsoring and training the Kashmiri mujahideen who regularly hit targets inside
Indian-occupied Kashmir. The Afghan president does not mince his words while
holding his country’s biggest benefactor responsible for the “murder,
“murder, killing, and
the dishonouring of Afghans, and the resultant destruction and insecurity in the
country.”
country.” The irony is that Pakistanis are failing to realise this growing isolation of
their country. They are becoming more angry with each American and Pakistan
Army attack and do not see this whole campaign to suppress terrorism as their own
battle; they see it as a foreign-sponsored war imposed on the country against its
will. If this war is forced upon us by the Americans then it basically means that we
condone whatever the militants are doing either in Afghanistan or Kashmir or for
that matter even within our own country. The militants for a number of years
continued with the cruel practice of lining up Hindus in Indian-held Kashmir and
spraying them with gunfire: the purpose was to force them to leave the territory
and the militants succeeded to an extent in this endeavour. The Taliban are more
ruthless, perhaps because nonMuslims are not so easily available and thus many a
times take out their anger either in a sectarian manner or on people who refuse to
cooperate with them. The Pakistan government should come out openly with its
policy regarding this campaign to control the growing Talibanisation and put a stop
to this menace. This oscillation between making radical statements while meeting
American and European dignitaries and sounding like a soft Taliban when conferring
with the Taliban leaders has led us to the present imbroglio and can be hardly
expected to get us out of it. The whole state apparatus, including our military and
intelligence agencies, should be united and speak with one voice so that the
terrorists take the state seriously. Otherwise, the Taliban will employ the British
tactic of ‘divide and rule’ and will continue to conquer.

Author Location Dated

Afiya Sheherbano afiyaszia@yahoo.com 04.08.08

– The unelectables
There is something unique about Pakistan, where non-electable individuals can
continue to be president, run ministries, architect legislative and constitutional
packages and get embedded as governors — all this, under a supposedly
democratic government. One rung lower on the ethics hierarchy reside their
advisers, who hold no delusions of being representatives of the people. Instead,
they convince themselves that theirs is a job for which they are accountable only to
their benefactors — many of whom, as it stands, are technically not accountable to
anyone. Last year, the revived debate on transitional vs transformational
democracy ended with a seeming victory for the pragmatists who wished for a
trickle-down democracy rather than the uncompromised return to civilian
democratic rule. They even defended the call for reform rather than the restitution
of the constitution or judiciary. Today the institutional crisis has inevitably moved
from a deposed judiciary to the much more rooted institutions that are the
intelligence agencies. Those who repeatedly lament that the former has become too
politicised will only too soon learn about the more meaningful nexus that is the
military, the intelligence agencies, religion and politics. One wonders what
constitutional reform package is being dreamt up to transitionally cross this little
hurdle towards democratic change.

There were two central points that surfaced in the debate cited above and are
pertinent as they play themselves out today. One of the points raised against the
transformation argument was the need for transition through elections rather than a
principled boycott. This was based on realpolitik, the understanding that political
mobilisation had its limitations and a negotiation with Gen Musharraf was the only
viable guarantee against future military intervention and a safeguard against
abandonment by the Americans. The second was a more convoluted justification for
the NRO deal which suggested this should not be analysed on its merits for
individual benefits; rather it should be judged for its political moral ends — or
something like that. Within this argument, however, what got lost were the
democratic goals we thought we were struggling for. Restoring the constitution and
judiciary seemed like rational starting points but instead, it seems that unresolved
individual motivations did in fact seep right into the political morality framework
after all. Any good feminist could have told you, the personal is political and they
overlap without warning. The botched attempt to bring a military agency within a
democratic framework is merely symptomatic of the broader constitutional crisis
that lingers on. The juxtaposition of military and civilian rule is a ridiculous and
unworkable competitive process, which will only serve to dilute an already
precarious democracy characterised by paralyses rather than transition. So
accommodating Musharraf may theoretically prevent the military from directly
taking over the political reigns but, as we’ve seen, it certainly will not tolerate any
civilian attempt to democratise the role of the military or its agencies.
Are we in transition or in a trance then?

Since when did pragmatic politics depend on hope, prayer and patience to bring
self-corrective change? The clash of institutional purposes is inevitable and, for their
survival, political parties ought to retain the trust and faith reposed in them on Feb
18 so that the people support political democracy rather than succumb to despair
from the parochialism and failed sense of purpose demonstrated by the government
today. One of the exemplars of the transition process is the current special adviser
on economic affairs to the PM, Hina Rabbani Khar. Apparently, economic advice has
no ideology. Rabbani Khar used to be the poster girl from amongst the yuppie ivy-
leaguers employed by the Musharraf-Aziz PML-Q government, only to be
unceremoniously denied a ticket due to her apparent unelectability just prior to the
elections. However, the PPP, for all its scathing criticism of the previous
government’s economic policies, has seen it fit for her to advise their PM on future
economic policy. Is this continuity, contradiction or just plain confused principles? It
should be clarified here that the objection is not about qualification or the process
of becoming elected. The women’s movement has always insisted on reserved
seats for women and minorities as a corrective process. While this does not mean
that these members of the government are any less credible, neither does it mean
it’s a free lunch and they are therefore any less accountable.

The role of advisers to government is interesting because it is not as transparent or

traceable as that of an elected legislator. For example, much social policy advice is
drawn from an elite force that elusively refers to itself as ‘consultants’ and are often
multi-disciplinary in their talents. If pressed, an experienced consultant can advise
on economics, health, women’s issues, labour policy and the environment all by
himself. They have long resumes, publications to their names and research findings
which may not have been derived from any consensual, critical or democratic
process. But nonetheless, they lend acquired expertise to the unassuming and often
disinterested minister, bureaucrat or parliamentarian. Further advantages are that
consultants are not accountable to any party, voter or institution and they certainly
do not have to worry about being re-elected. Going by the current trends of political
decision-making in Islamabad, it seems this government is not too concerned about
reelection or accountability either. More importantly, advice, no matter how
informed, is no substitute for peoples’ support, goodwill and votes. It is obvious that
institutional reform, forget change, is a difficult task. But that the very obstacles to
change are accommodated for personal ends disguised as political necessity is a
morality no voter will accept in the future. Perhaps the best free advice for the
government today would be to avoid decision-making by the unelected and focus
more on collective decisions towards enforcing hard-core institutional changes. The
unelectables are merely buffers who are delaying institutional resolution and
making challenges more insurmountable than they already were.

Author Location Dated

04.08.08

– Rupee down on dollar demand

The country is facing severe political and economic crisis since the past few months.
Uncertain situation has eroded investment confidence and adversely affected
business and trade activities. The central bank has again taken some measures to
improve the situation. But many economists are of the opinion that simply raising
discount rate by one percentage point will not improve the situation. It would rather
add to the cost of doing business and could further aggravate the situation. The
inflation rate is already very high. Government borrowings for budgetary support
have set a new record. The fiscal deficit as percent of GDP has also risen sharply
and the trade deficit is also very high. In the present situation, the rupee is seen
depreciating further. Meanwhile, negative sentiments persisted in the inter bank
market on the opening day of the week as importers heavy demand for American
currency continued to exert downward pressure on the local currency. The rupee
fell against the dollar by two paisa on the buying counter and another three paisa
on the selling counter, changing hands versus the dollar at Rs71.20 and Rs71.25 on
July 28. The dollar had closed last week at Rs71.18 and Rs71.22. On July 29, the
rupee/dollar parity continued its downtrend, amid persistent weak economic
indicators. The demand for dollar continued to rise in the local market. As a result,
the rupee suffered fresh losses against the dollar, falling sharply by 25 paisa on the
buying counter and by another 30 paisa on the selling counter to trade at Rs71.45
and Rs71.55. The rupee/dollar parity continued its downtrend on July 30, with the
rupee further shedding 10 paisa on the buying counter and five paisa on the selling
counter to trade at Rs71.55 and Rs71.60 against the dollar. However, the rupee
managed to recover its lost ground versus the dollar on July 31 after the State Bank
of Pakistan raised discount rate by 100 basis points to combat inflation and
deteriorating trade deficit. The dollar traded at Rs71.45 and Rs71.50 after gaining
10 paisa despite rising importers demand for dollars. Strong demand by the
importers to cover payments pushed the rupee down further on August 1, when the
rupee failed to hold its firm ground versus the dollar and shed 10 paisa to trade at
Rs71.55 and Rs71.60, bringing cumulative fall in the rupee/dollar parity to around
38 paisa in the inter bank market this week.

In the open market, the rupee suffered sharp losses against the dollar on the
opening day of the week in review due to strong dollar demand in the local currency
market. It shed 70 paisa for buying and 50 paisa for selling to trade at Rs71.50 and
Rs71.90 on July 28, against last week close of Rs70.80 and Rs71.40. The rupee
extended its overnight weakness on July 29 further shedding 40 paisa, changing
hands against the dollar at R 71.90 and Rs72.30. The rupee traded unchanged
against dollar on July 30. However, it posted fresh losses of 30 paisa on the buying
counter while trading unchanged on the selling counter at Rs72.10 and Rs72.30 on
July 31. The rupee retained its overnight levels against the dollar and traded
unchanged at Rs72.10 and Rs72.30 for the second consecutive day on August 1.
During the week in review, the rupee in the open market lost 130 paisa against the
dollar on the buying counter. It lost 90 paisa on the selling counter.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee continued to weakened on
the first trading day of the week in review, losing 60 paisa for buying and 55 paisa
for selling to trade at Rs112.35 and Rs112.55 after having settled last week at
Rs111.75 and Rs112.00. The rupee further lost 35 paisa on the second trading day,
changing hands against euro at Rs112.70 and Rs112.90. On the third trading day,
the rupee managed to stage a turnaround versus the European common currency,
gaining 125 paisa at Rs111.45 and Rs111.65. But the rupee overnight strength over
the euro proved short lived on the fourth trading day when the rupee posted fresh
losses to the tune of 20 paisa against the euro which traded at Rs 111.65 and Rs
111.85. The rupee extended its decline versus euro on the fifth trading day of the
week in review, losing 15 paisa to trade at Rs111.80 and Rs112.00. This week, the
rupee moved both ways against the European single common currency. On
cumulative basis, it lost only five paisa on the buying counter, while it remained
unchanged on the selling counter over the previous week close.

Author Location Dated

Bilal Ilahi 04.08.08

– ‘China price’and export opportunities

In the last decade, increased production matched consistent improvement in the
quality of manufactured goods, and the resultant demand pressures led to
increases in price of raw materials and commodities. And yet despite all this, retail
prices of manufactured goods generally fell steadily over this period. An important
contributory factor to this global phenomenon has been what is now called the
‘China Price’ (i.e. the lowest possible price). Improved efficiencies and ever
decreasing costs allowed Chinese companies to either decrease prices or loose
business. Such was the impact of falling prices that despite healthy global GDP
growth, central bankers were able to tame inflation even as the consumer
benefited. The ‘China Price’ makes an interesting study. Weak enforcement of
intellectual property laws and steady supplies of efficient Chinese labour are well
documented and contributed to unprecedented GDP growth of 10 per cent plus over
a 30 year period. The main reason for this success however was a shrewd monetary
and fiscal policy. A consistent monetary policy insured a yuan-dollar peg at 8.28 and
favoured Chinese exporters. This was one of the main components of ‘China Price’
for over a decade. The yuan-dollar peg was broken in 2005 partly because of US
pressure, but mostly due to the mature thinking of Chinese policy makers. They
shifted the focus from exports as an engine of economic growth, to consumers —
and that too at their own pace. China’s continuing reliance on exports to the US
meant increasing the current account deficit of that country. The quantum of
Chinese exports to the US can be judged by the fact that the value of Chinese
exports to Germany—the 3rd largest national economy in the world—is less than
the value of Wal-Mart’s annual purchase from China! The increasing current account
deficit has led to the weakening of the US economy and the dollar.

In the days to come, weakening consumer spending in the US (reflected in falling

retail sales) will eventually impact adversely on manufacturing units in China. In
reducing exports, (to improve US current account deficit) Chinese policy makers
have also considered the fact that their foreign exchange reserves—equivalent of
$1.5 trillion, mostly in dollars—will otherwise lose value. To this end the yuan is
being allowed to appreciate against the dollar. For exporters in the rest of the world,
the threat of yesterday has turned into an opportunity. Because of a low ‘China
Price’ Pakistan’s exports had become relatively less competitive and as a result
many manufacturing units, particularly textile industry were hurt. While local
businessmen failed to move up the value chain and develop brands, the
government has also played a part in the industrial slowdown. By not adding to
electricity generation during 1999-2007, the policy makers are guilty of neglect.
Post 9/11, the government claimed credit for extraordinary and sustainable GDP
growth. How that government planned to meet the increasing demand on the
national electric grid without any electricity generation remains a mystery. Looking
ahead, the appreciating yuan offers two important opportunities for Pakistani
exporters. Firstly, opportunities for textile exports in world markets will increase as
Chinese exports become less competitive. Production costs in China and India
increased by 30 per cent during 2005-08, and as a result textile manufacturing has
gradually shifted away to new destinations like Laos, Kampuchea and Vietnam.
Efficient textile operators in Pakistan are beginning to benefit from this transition.
This is the time to re-enter the global market with renewed vigour. Most
importantly, our businessmen need to address development and management of
human resources. In business, development of human resource is the first step
towards value addition and brand development. This initiative would require a
financial commitment, but gains would be manifold. On the other hand, failure to
adapt to the changing dynamics in the textile market can have serious
consequences.
Falling textile exports cannot be compensated by improvement in other exports
simply because textiles constitute more than 60 per cent of our total exports. A
decline in exports would adversely affect our foreign exchange reserves which in
turn would have serious implications for the already weakened rupee. Second, the
strengthening of the yuan will lead to an increase in Chinese domestic demand. As
a result, there will be opportunities for Pakistani exporters in the Chinese market
itself. The global food crisis is a case in point. The price of rice in China has risen to
alarming levels since the beginning of the year. The Communist government is very
sensitive to food inflation as this can lead to civil unrest. We need to plan exporting
our food surplus but preferably after value addition. Additionally, China also has a
huge market for herbal medicines for which the Chinese manufacturers are
importing herbs and plants from Pakistan. Opportunities should be explored in
setting up plants in Pakistan under joint venture arrangements. As the aggregate
demand in China increases with the appreciating yuan, the global exporters will
focus on China with ever increasing attention. Our exporters should be looking at
new opportunities for our goods in the Chinese market and the world market where
Chinese products have become less competitive. Many issues like taxations policies,
inadequate road and rail infrastructure, and the poor quality of human resource
need to be addressed. However, the first and foremost has to be electricity supply.

Author Location Dated

S. M. Naseem syed.naseem@aya.yale.ed 04.08.08
u

– Foreign Aid vs. Social Policy

In the wake of stock market meltdown and falling value of the rupee, Pakistan’s
economic managers are hoping for some external help to bail the economy out of
trouble. Pakistan’s economic situation, especially its external indebtedness, which
has reached $46 billion or $10 billion more than it was a decade ago, is in dire
straits and without immediate remedial measures, it may again fall into the debt
trap which it found itself in at the end of the last decade. This cyclical merry-go-
round has been a feature of Pakistan’s economic history in the last five decades, as
military regimes have alternated with civilian ones with distressing decadal
regularity. The question is whether this circle will ever be broken or whether we will
get deeper and deeper into the vortex of debt and despair after the end of each
cycle. There seems to be two schools of thought on how to tackle the problem. The
first argues that we need to take advantage of our geopolitical situation and accept
the economic aid being offered by the United States and Saudi Arabia to enable us
to stabilise the economy and then bring about fundamental structural reforms in the
economy. The second school seems to think that the circle can be broken through
pursuing a more pro-active social policy in which foreign assistance need play only
a minor and transitory role. The former view, which has been the lynchpin of the
development strategy during the three major episodes of military-led development
of Ayub Khan, Ziaul Haque and Pervez Musharraf is being vigorously advocated by
seizing the opportunity of a recent landmark bi-partisan legislation introduced in the
US Congress, jointly by Senator Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar proposing non-
military aid to Pakistan be tripled to $7.5 billion over five years, and linking security
aid to performance. Included in the same category, though with different underlying
motivations, is the Saudi government’s reported offer to defer oil payments worth
$6 billion, although its details and terms have not yet been revealed.

The bipartisan US legislation authorises $1.5 billion annually for development

purposes, such as building schools, roads and clinics, for five years and advocates a
similar amount over a subsequent five-year period. The measure is being as
peddled as a “democracy dividend” and being held out as a carrot to Pakistan’s
democratic government to blindly follow the US lead in the war on terror, rather
than devise a way of solving its internal problems through negotiations and solution
of the economic and social problems, which have given rise to terrorism. It is clear
the United States deems the solution of these problems primarily through military
means. The total economic assistance expenditures in Afghanistan are a tiny
fraction of the military expenditure, which amounts to $100 million per day for the
United States alone. The offer of economic aid to Pakistan does not represent a
change in its strategy to fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but merely a
ploy to ensure that Pakistan does not deviate significantly from the script signed by
Musharraf making Pakistan an unquestioning ally of the US in the war on terror.
Along with the economic aid offer, the US is also luring Pakistan with offers of
upgrading military hardware, such as the F-16s, which it wants Pakistan to use
against the Taliban insurgency in Pakistan. Mr Shahid Javed Burki, understandably
eager to see Pakistan elevated to the ranks of middle-income economies, has
proposed that the country should pitch for a higher foreign aid target to be
mobilised in the next five years, amounting to $20 billion or almost thrice the
amount proposed in the Biden-Hagel bill, provided Pakistan promises to meet an
equal amount through domestic resource mobilisation. Mr Burki’s argument seems
to favour a return to the supposedly halcyon days of Ayub Khan’s Planning
Commission with experts imported from abroad or trained with the assistance of
donor agencies. He would like the scope of such assistance to be extended to
improving the quality of governance and the training of judges and
parliamentarians. He is of the opinion that, “Pakistan,
“Pakistan, at this critical time in its
history, does not have the capacity”
capacity” to formulate an appropriate development
strategy.

While Mr Burki’s prognosis has some degree of substance, his prescription is hardly
acceptable, as the economic and political environment facing Pakistan has
undergone a sea change, both globally and domestically, in the four decades since
Ayub Khan’s exit. What we need now is to seek the solutions to our economic
problems in the light of the present challenges, which are located largely in the
domestic economy and in our past neglect of social policy issues. While the global
economy does provide opportunities for increasing a country’s development
prospects, they depend largely on its ability to take advantage of them. Only a few
developing countries – mainly, in East Asia, which have exercised a degree of
autonomy in policy-making –have been successful in avoiding the harmful effects of
globalisation during their development process. This is well brought out by Alice
Amsden in her latest book, Escape from Empire,
Empire, which also highlights the changes
in the US foreign aid policy to developing countries, showing that it has ceased to
play a benign role since 1980s. Similarly William Easterly has questioned the
effectiveness of foreign aid in reducing poverty and promoting economic growth.
The complex problems of poverty of low-income societies can be solved by the
homegrown rise of political and economic institutions, rather than through influx of
foreign aid. Even if one were to ignore the political motivations of the US offer – and
believe that the aid being offered by Saudi Arabia would be manna from heaven,
would it solve the economic problems facing Pakistan and would it facilitate
Pakistan’s return to the path of vigorous economic and social development?

If Pakistan’s past experience – which is an object lesson in the failure of aid to

enhance development objectives – is any guide, this is most unlikely to be so. Our
experience with the Ayub era of foreign aid-led and inequality-inducing growth, the
military-aid led growth of Ziaul Haq and Musharraf eras and the failure of the
structural adjustment packages in the 1990s, do not have to be repeated. One must
turn to the second alternative of tackling the problem with the help of a pro-active
social policy which would change the structure of our institutions in a way that
would preclude the recurrence of political business cycles. Many economists who
subscribe to this view, look at the problem in terms of graduating Pakistan from the
low-income to middle-income category of nations, but alleviating the poverty of
more than a third — possibly up to a half after the current wave of fuel and food
inflation — of the population. Using a minimum income of Rs7000 per month and
assuming a third of the population as officially poor or nearly poor, around 55
million persons would require employment-income support. With one adult provider
for another six household members, eight million men and women would need
priority access to employment, requiring the guaranteed income annual provision is
nearly Rs600 billion[$10 billion], which, in turn, would require an investment of
Rs3000 billion[$50 billion] of assets would have to be vested in the poor, assuming
a 20 per cent rate of return. (These calculations are based on an unpublished paper
of Dr Aly Ercelan of PILER). The financing of this large sum – which is in the same
ball park as Mr Burki’s foreign aid-driven growth strategy – will be dependent on
greater domestic resource mobilisation and transfer of resources from the affluent
classes and sectors, including defence.

It would require quite a different configuration of social policy initiatives, including

education, human resource development, migration, regional and gender balance,
labour, land and water reforms than those implicit in growth-through aid strategy,
which is top-down and centred more on bureaucratic and governance reforms. One
of the major social issues that has defied solution and plagued Pakistani political
scene is the question of land reforms – although its focus is often restricted to
agrarian reforms – which has been put on a policy back-burner for almost three
decades. Without tackling it head on, it is difficult to see how the country can lay
the basis for political stability and economic equity. However, as pointed out in a
recent paper by Haris Gazdar, the question of land reforms is no longer restricted to
the agrarian economy, but has become multi-dimensional and has to be viewed in
varying regional contexts and historical evolution. As he cogently argues, “The “The
arrangements for holding land are deeply embedded in the social, political and
institutional fabric of the country”
country” and technocratic solutions, such as the
computerisation of land records, cannot in themselves provide the solution to a
complex problem, which needs to be researched and debated further. Neither the
foreign aid and nor the social policy approach can however deny the primacy of a
democratic political process which needs to debate the economic and social
alternatives thoroughly before taking a policy decision.

Author Location Dated

 Islamabad, Pakistan 05.08.08

– PPP may ask Musharraf to seek trust vote

The Pakistan People’s Party is considering to ask President Pervez Musharraf to seek
a vote of confidence from the National Assembly, in what is seen here as an effort
to placate the Pakistan Muslim League-N to ensure continuation of the ruling
coalition. PPP sources said on Monday the plan might be discussed when PPP co-
chairman Asif Ali Zardari met PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif on Tuesday to thrash out
the future of the four-month-old coalition which is divided over the issue of
restoration of the deposed judges and impeachment of the president. The sources
said the PPP move was designed to provide a respectable wayout for the president,
instead of impeaching him, and save the coalition from falling apart. This will also
clear the way for restoration of the judges through a fresh oath to be administered
by a new democratically-elected president. President Musharraf’s attorneys, Malik
Qayyum and Sharifuddin Pirzada, had given an assurance to the Supreme Court last
year that he would get a fresh vote of confidence from new parliament after the
2008 elections. On the basis of the assurance, the apex court had allowed the
announcement of presidential election results. Mr Zardari on Monday held
consultations with his close aides, including some federal ministers, and finalised
the agenda for his crucial meeting with Mr Sharif. PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar
told Dawn that Mr Zardari had convened the meeting at his residence to discuss a
wide range of issues, including war on terror, poverty and rising inflation, law and
order, status of coalition partners, the current debate on impeachment of President
Musharraf, restoration of sacked judges and other issues that might be raised
during the luncheon meeting with Mr Sharif. The sources said the PPP leadership
had decided to stick to its stance that the deposed judges would have to take a
fresh oath if they wanted to get themselves restored to the position of Nov 3, 2007.
But the PPP might try to placate the PML-N on the issue of president’s impeachment
and suggest a timeframe for it.

The PPP is reported to have finalised its own ‘roadmap’ to be handed over to Mr
Sharif in order to consolidate the coalition. According to the sources, the PPP
leaders also discussed a line of action to be followed in the event of PML-N deciding
to withdraw support for the coalition government and sit in the opposition. Punjab
Governor Salman Taseer and Prime Minister’s Adviser Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo were
specially invited to the meeting to discuss the likely situation in Punjab in case of
withdrawal of PML-N’s support. Federal ministers Syed Naveed Qamar, Farooq Naek,
Najamuddin Khan, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Qamar Zaman Kaira, Sherry Rehman,
Hina Rabbani Khar, Syed Khursheed Shah, Humayun Kurd, Nazar Gondal and Raja
Pervez Ashraf, Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik, National
Reconstruction Bureau chairman Dr Asim, PPP secretary general Jahangir Badar,
MNAs Fauzia Habib and Rukhsana Bangash and Mr Babar attended the meeting.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani was not invited, but he was later briefed by some
of the participants on the decisions taken at the meeting. Unlike Mr Sharif, who
discussed his party’s strategy for the meeting with Mr Zardari in a joint session of
the Central Working Committee and parliamentary group, the PPP co-chairman
preferred to consult only his close aides. Some PPP members were of the view that
the party should have convened a meeting of its Central Executive Committee to
finalise its line of action. According to a statement issued by Mr Babar, the meeting
took stock of political situation and issues facing the people and the coalition
government. Without elaborating, he said the meeting refined the party’s political
response to the issues to be placed before the PML-N leadership. It was pointed out
that the war on terror had turned into a war for the survival of Pakistan. The
participants stressed that it had become imperative to take effective and bold
measures to contain the menace which was threatening the social and political
fabric of the country. The meeting reiterated the cardinal principles of the coalition
government’s fight against militancy and terrorism.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 05.08.08

– Meeting will have to be decisive, says PML-N

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif warned on Monday that the ruling coalition might not
survive if his Tuesday meeting with PPP cochairman Asif Zardari did not prove to be
“decisive and effective”. “We“We are trying our best to resolve the issues (of
impeachment of the president and reinstatement of judges) with patience while
remaining in the alliance. But we are under immense public pressure and if (this
effort) fails to yield results, we’ll have to take some decision,”
decision,” he told a press
conference after holding consultations with the party’s central working committee
and lawmakers here on Monday. Unlike his past six meetings with Zardari since Feb
18 polls, this time he has made the meeting’s agenda public apparently to exert
pressure on the senior coalition partner. Mr Sharif said he earnestly desired to keep
the alliance intact and would try to persuade Mr Zardari on the issues he had
pointed out in a communiqué delivered to the latter in Dubai on July 16. Sharing the
contents of the communiqué with the media, he said that he had not yet received
any response from the PPP co-chairperson. The communiqué, he said, had called for
restoration of the judiciary in accordance with the Murree Declaration,
impeachment of the president and naming a new person for the presidency in
consultation with coalition allies, restoring the original 1973 Constitution as had
been decided in the Charter of Democracy, joint decision making on all issues, and
making the president act strictly on the prime minister’s advice.

The PML-N leader said he supported the coalition but it should take “decisions
“decisions in
accordance with the Feb 18 mandate, punish the dictator for unconstitutional steps,
reinstate the judges and implement the Charter of Democracy, instead of protecting
the actions of a dictator”.
dictator”. He said he would try to make his meeting “as “as decisive as
possible”,
possible”, but stopped short of giving any clear deadline. “It
“It will depend on the
meeting’s outcome.”
outcome.” Urging the PPP leader to act before it was too late, he said the
problems caused by “Musharraf’s
“Musharraf’s eight-year dictatorship”
dictatorship” could only be solved by
direct action. Complaining that the PPP was not taking the PML-N into confidence
over important issues, he refused to accept the responsibility for actions taken by
the government. “We“We take responsibility only for measures for which we have been
consulted.”
consulted.” Asked if the PML-N would accept the constitutional package for
restoration of the preemergency judiciary, Mr Sharif said the option could not be
considered because the coalition lacked a two-thirds majority in parliament.
Refusing to accept any ‘minus-one
‘minus-one or minus two’
two’ formula for the reinstatement of
judges, he said he wanted to restore the judiciary’s sanctity “through
“through the return of
real judges”.
judges”. Asked if his party would table any resolution in the National Assembly
calling for the judges’ reinstatement or impeachment of the president, he said it
would be better if the resolutions were moved jointly.
About the Fata operation, he said any policy on the matter should be formed in
parliament. Commenting on the president’s proposal for an all-party conference, he
said it would be more productive if the president vacated his office. He said
President Pervez Musharraf had no right to review the government’s performance
because the masses had rejected him in the general elections. Mr Sharif said the
president had forced the business community in Karachi to invite him, adding that
traders could not have invited on their own a man rejected by the nation. About
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s US visit, he said the Foreign Office should avoid
“extracting” invitations from friendly countries and curb its habit of be ing more
loyal than the king. Earlier, PML-N leaders remained divided on whether to part
ways with the PPP. Sources said that most of the unelected participants – retired
bureaucrats and political cadre – called for quitting the coalition. This group argued
that continuation of the coalition would hurt the PML-N’s popularity because the
alliance had so far been unable to fulfil the party’s promise for an independent
judiciary. The other group – comprising people with stakes in the present
dispensation – was against ending the alliance with the PPP. They contended that
the breaking up of the ruling coalition would strengthen President Musharraf and
encourage forces bent upon wrapping up the democratic system. They called for
setting another deadline of at least a couple of weeks for the PPP to resolve the
issues. The sources said that their argument had swayed the former prime minister
and now he was unlikely to turn his Tuesday meeting with the PPP co-chairperson
into a make-or-break event. Also on Monday, German Ambassador Dr Gunter Mullac
and Indian High Commissioner Satia Bharat Pal called on Nawaz Sharif. Former
finance minister Sartaj Aziz also attended the meeting.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 05.08.08

– Could it get any worse?

Things were not supposed to turn out this way. Pakistan was supposed to become a
better place for the governed once governance passed from the hands of people
who had limited contact with the populace to those who were the people’s elected
representatives. That happened more than four months ago but the trajectory of
the steep economic decline that began in 2007 has continued. The gulf between
those who govern and whom they govern has widened. There is an amazing
disconnect between the political establishment and the citizenry on one issue that
matters the most — economic growth and economic well-being of the population.
That the people are suffering under the heavy burden of so many different weights
could not possibly have escaped the attention of those who occupy positions of
power in Islamabad. They are politicians and they must be listening. But if that is
the case, why are they not acting? Why hasn’t anybody in power not delivered a
strong message that touches on at least three things: Why has Pakistan’s economy
unravelled so quickly? What does the government propose to do to put the
economy back on track? How can the people help by moving forward the process of
adjustment?

Let me begin with the point about unravelling. Some of us knew that the model of
development followed by the administration of President Pervez Musharraf was not
sustainable. That was for many reasons. It depended on the goodwill of foreign
governments and on the confidence in Pakistan’s economic future on the part of
foreign investors. It did not include generating resources from within the economy
as one of the important components of the government’s strategy, if such a
strategy existed. Foreign governments could change their mind if the policies
followed by Islamabad were not to their liking. Foreign investors could lose
confidence if they did not like the track the economy was following. Both have
happened; certainly in the case of the latter. There is growing concern in many
western capitals that Pakistan has gone off course.The model was also not
sustainable since it allowed the private sector unchecked space within which to
operate. Even Adam Smith, the founder of modern economics, had recognised two
centuries ago that while the quest for private profit was good for the overall health
of the economy — there was considerable social utility in private greed, he wrote —
the governments must have the will and the capacity to apply checks and controls
when circumstances justified such interventions. The Musharraf government
allowed the private sector freedom without appropriate checks and balances. It also
contributed to the weakening of the state. Although it concentrated an enormous
amount of authority in its own hands, the regime did not develop the institutional
capacity to handle it. It also sucked away power from the provinces, leaving them
increasingly dependent on central direction and federal largesse.

These moves towards centralisation were followed even within the federal
government. First the Ministry of Finance and then the Prime Minister’s Secretariat
became the repositories of power. But the power that was accumulated was
exercised without any careful strategic thinking. The third deep flaw in the
‘Musharrafian’ model was a by-product of the second. It did not show concern about
the very uneven distribution of the rewards of growth among different segments of
the population and among different parts of the country. The result is that today
Pakistan has one of the most skewed distributions of income and wealth in the
developing world. That these are some of the several flaws in the approach to
development pursued by the previous government is now well recognised. What has
not been worked out in any kind of strategic detail is how the situation can be
remedied. Some of us advocated the issuance of a clear-cut statement by the new
rulers on the course they wished to follow in the first 100 days they were in office.
That was done but the programme laid down — if it can be called that — was not
detailed enough or imaginative enough or sufficiently tuned to the conditions in
Pakistan to make a difference to the course the economy was following. In August,
Pakistan’s economic situation is worse than what it was in March when the transfer
of political authority took place. In the meantime, the country’s external
circumstances continue to worsen. Pakistan, heavily dependent on oil imports, has
had to deal with an unrelenting increase in the price of the commodity. It had also
to accommodate the sharp increases in food and edible oil prices in the
international commodity markets. The situation is such that any further
postponement of action would weigh very heavily on the already burdened
economy.

The government needs to move on four fronts simultaneously. It needs to focus on

its own finances, raising more resources through better tax administration and
controlling its expenditures. Attention needs to be given to non-development
expenditures. Watching the way the government’s senior officials are moving
around the globe in large numbers does not give me the sense of a country faced
with a serious financial crisis. Second, the government needs to bring down the
expenditure on imports. The drain on the accumulated foreign exchange reserves
continues at an unsustainable rate. The usable reserves are much lower than the
estimate put out by the government since the latter also includes bank holdings.
The third area that needs the government’s attention is help to the poor and
unemployed. I have been advocating the launch of large urban and rural works
programmes that will provide incomes to the poor in return for labour for
community development projects. The expenditure on such a programme should
come from reductions in government activities that are generally wasteful and don’t
contribute anything to good governance or to development. Finally, the provinces
should be asked to develop their own fiscal and expenditure programmes. Greater
space should be given to them to raise their own resources for undertaking high-
priority programmes. This would bring government closer to the people and also
reduce the burden on the federal system. There may be some appetite among the
donors who regard Pakistan as too important a country to fail. Approaching them
with a well-developed strategy for adjustment, reform and sustained development
might get them interested. The ball is in Islamabad’s court. One can only hope that
it will have the political will to play it.

Author Location Dated

Peter Whoriskey Washington, D.C. 05.08.08

– New multi-core chip coming up

The computer revolution has been powered by chips that operated at everhigher
frequencies. From the Ataris and Commodores of the late 1970s, which ran at
roughly one megahertz, to today’s devices that run at nearly four gigahertz, one
year’s star at the electronics store was typically outdone by higher speeds in the
next year’s model. But that era of progress may be drawing to a close. On Monday,
Intel, the world’s largest chipmaker, is revealing details about a new chip that seeks
to improve performance not by boosting frequency, but by putting more processors
or “cores” onto a single chip. While so-called dual-core and quad-core chips have
become commonplace in recent years, Intel expects to place more than 10 “cores”
or processors on its new project, code-named Larrabee. To keep up with the
demands of the increasingly digital world, the “multi-core” or “many core” approach
is necessary because by 2015, running chips at faster and faster frequencies could
have yielded products like laptop or desktop computers that create as much heat as
a nuclear reactor, engineers said. ”There
”There is a fundamental physics issue we can no
longer get around,”
around,” said Anwar Ghuloum, a principal engineer managing an Intel
group that addresses the software challenges posed by such chips. “If “If we kept
going as we had been, the heat density on a chip would have equaled the surface of
the sun.”
sun.” Intel is releasing features of the Larrabee project, in advance of an
industry conference scheduled for next week in Los Angeles.

First intended for graphics-intensive applications, such as games and other visually
intensive programs, company officials said the multi-core approach could become
the model for common desktop computers. Engineers expect it to be capable of
processing about a trillion instructions a second. The first product based on
Larrabee is expected in 2009 or 2010, and Intel officials anticipate that not long
after 2010, there will be laptops running on chips with more than 10 cores. The
drawback of the new approach is that it requires an equally dramatic shift in the
software industry. Some experts, such as Microsoft founder Bill Gates, initially
expressed reservations because of the disruptive nature of the transition. To take
advantage of a chip with many processors, software has to be broken into chunks of
instructions that can run in parallel on multiple processors. So, a computer program
that now consists of one set of sequential instructions would have to be parceled
into two, four or more than 10 sets of instructions, depending on the number of
cores, that can be run in parallel. Once chips with 10 cores reach consumer
desktops, however, the entire corpus of the world’s software may have to be
rewritten to take advantage of the extra power. To meet the challenge, new
programming languages are being created and technology leaders are encouraging
computer science departments at universities to bulk up in courses in parallel
processing. An array of technical possibilities — in language interpretation, robotics
and visual recognition — depend upon increased processing power.
Some game firms, such as Crytek and Valve, have hailed the advances. But multi-
core chips present massive and expensive difficulties. Executives at Microsoft
initially balked at the idea when they met with Intel several times about four years
ago. At the first one, Pat Gelsinger, a senior vice president at Intel, described why
the company intended to start developing multicore and then many-core chips.
Gelsinger had been warning the industry of the imminent change for years. Though
Microsoft had been researching the multi-core area since 2001, company officials
had hoped to delay the transition. ”It ”It was like, ‘thanks very much for your input,
Pat. Now, it’s wrong, go fix it,”’
it,”’ Gelsinger recalled of the response from Gates and
other Microsoft engineers. Gates and Microsoft were “testing
“testing Intel’s real sense of
needing to make this architectural shift,”
shift,” Microsoft said in a statement. The
statement added: “In “In 2004 it became clear this shift would begin in earnest by the
end of the decade.”
decade.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran, Iran 05.08.08

– Key oil route can be closed ‘easily’: Tehran

Iran can easily close a key Gulf shipping route if it were attacked over its nuclear
programme, the head of the Revolutionary Guards was quoted as saying on
Monday, a move that could choke off world oil exports. The statement by
commanderin-chief Mohammad Ali Jafari was likely to fuel tension over Tehran’s
disputed atomic ambitions, coming shortly after Iran again said it would press on
with nuclear work the West suspects is aimed at making bombs. Military analysts
say the United States could unleash vastly superior firepower against Iran, but say
the Islamic Republic could hit back against Washington’s forces in Iraq and by
disrupting oil supplies vital to the world economy. Iran’s armed forces have “the
“the
possibility of closing the Strait of Hormuz, easily and on an unlimited basis,”
basis,” state
radio quoted Jafari as telling a news conference. As well as threatening to shut the
Strait of Hormuz, Jafari said the elite Guards force had tested a naval weapon that
could destroy any vessel in a range of 300 km, media said. Iran’s recent missile
tests rattled oil markets. About 40 per cent of world oil exports passes through the
Strait of Hormuz, a choke point at the southern end of the Gulf, flanked by the
coastlines of Iran and Oman. Much of it goes to Asia, the United States and western
Europe. The United States and Israel have not ruled out military action if Iran
continues to enrich uranium, which can have both military and civilian uses, in
defiance of repeated demands by the United Nations Security Council.
Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, says its aims are peaceful and has
warned it would retaliate if attacked. It ignored an informal Aug. 2 deadline to reply
to an offer proposed by six world powers aimed at defusing the row. “In “In view of the
proximity of the Strait of Hormuz ... to our shores, this distance is within the range
of an assortment of weapons and its closure for us is very feasible and we face no
limitations from the point of view of time,”
time,” Jafari said. The US military has pledged
to keep the Strait open. Andrew Brookes of the International Institute for Strategic
Studies, a think-tank in London, doubted Iran would want to close a shipping lane
through which it exported its own oil. “I“I think it has the ability to cause severe
disruption in the Gulf,”
Gulf,” Brookes said. “But
“But the West led by the US would respond so
forcefully that Iran would find that its ports and ships were hit in such a fashion that
the disruption would not continue,”
continue,” he said. Energy consultant Mehdi Varzi said he
did not believe Iran could keep the Strait closed but a conflict would hurt supplies. It
would immediately impact prices by sending insurance rates for oil tankers
“through the roof” and reducing shipments. US forces are stationed in several
countries around the Gulf, including Bahrain where the US Navy Fifth Fleet is based.
Iran says US forces are in range of its weapons. Some military analysts say the
easiest way Iran could strike back would be by targeting US forces in Iraq using
proxies and allies, even though they said a stable neighbour was in Iran’s long-term
interest.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 06.08.08

– PPP, PML-N agree to act against Musharraf

Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N on Tuesday agreed to
formally ask President Pervez Musharraf to step down and to impeach him through
parliamentary measures if he did not oblige, sources in both the parties told Dawn
after talks between their leaders at the Zardari House here. PPP co-chairman Asif
Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif led their respective teams in the six-hour
talks amid growing concerns over the future of the ruling coalition because of the
differences over the issues of reinstatement of judges and the future of an
increasingly isolated president. Although there was no official confirmation, the
meeting left no doubt that the focus was on impeachment of the president. Later,
PML-N leader Khwaja Asif confirmed in an interview with a private television
network that “all
“all legal and constitutional hitches are being removed to impeach the
president”.
president”. The state-run news agency APP said that the issues of deposed judges
and the president’s impeachment dominated the talks. It is expected that Mr Sharif
and Mr Zardari will make an announcement at a joint press conference after their
second round of talks on Wednesday evening. According to PPP spokesman
Farhatullah Babar, Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif held one-to-one talks for more than an
hour after which they were joined by their aides. He announced that the talks would
continue on Wednesday and other coalition partners would be taken into confidence
late in the evening. Immediately after the meeting, a team of PPP and PML-N
negotiators, headed by Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, flew to Karachi to brief
Awami National Party’s (ANP) president Asfandyar Wali Khan and Jamiat Ulema-i-
Islam-F leader Maulana Fazlur Rehman about Tuesday’s deliberations.
This was considered by observers here as an indication that the two parties were
serious about their decision to act against President Musharraf. According to a
source, Mr Zardari also talked to the ANP president on phone. Later, Mr Zardari met
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani at the Prime Minister House and informed him
about the developments. Law Minister Farooq Naek also attended the meeting. It is
not clear what position would the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM),(MQM), a staunch
ally of President Musharraf, take if a serious move is made to impeach him. At
present, the MQM is sitting in the opposition in the National Assembly but is a
coalition partner of the PPP in Sindh. Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif,
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Ishaq Dar and Khwaja Asif assisted Mr Sharif while Mr
Zardari was assisted by Leader of the House in Senate Raza Rabbani, Syed Khurshid
Shah, Sherry Rehman, Qamaruz Zaman Kaira and PPP’s secretary-general Jahangir
Badar. Law Minister Farooq Naek, who was attending the Senate session, was called
to the Zardari House for legal opinion on some important matters. A large number
of local and foreign media personnel kept waiting outside the Zardari House despite
heavy rain, hoping that the two leaders might address a press conference.
However, at the end of the meeting, PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar issued a
joint statement which said: “Discussions
“Discussions held in a cordial atmosphere were very
positive, frank and productive. Major progress was made as broad consensus
emerged on key issues. It was decided to reconvene the meeting on Wednesday to
consult with other partners of the ruling coalition. Contacts with Fata leaders and
other allies will also be made during the course of the night to get their input for the
(Wednesday’s) meeting.”
meeting.”

According to insiders, PPP leaders had succeeded in persuading the PML-N not to
insist on reinstatement of the deposed judges before the removal of President
Musharraf and said that his removal would help the government to fulfil its promise
about the restoration of the judiciary. The two sides, they said, agreed that
President Musharraf was hindering the judges’ reinstatement and after his removal
from the office, the judges would have no objection to take a fresh oath under the
Constitution. Khwaja Asif later told the private TV channel that a chargesheet
against President Musharraf would be prepared by the two parties and under the
Constitution the president would be provided an opportunity to defend himself
before parliament. He expressed the hope that they would be “able“able to give a
complete timeframe for the impeachment by Wednesday”.
Wednesday”. He said charges against
President Musharraf were “known
“known to the entire nation”
nation” and they would be supported
by strong evidence.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 06.08.08

– Musharraf loyalists make ISI their cause in Senate

Loyalists of President Pervez Musharraf leading the opposition in the Senate picked
up ISI as their main cause on Tuesday as they stepped up attacks on the PPPled
coalition government on the second day of a debate on national security. Starting
with a protest walkout led by a former head of the country’s premier spy agency
under fire at home and abroad for alleged links with militants, a group of Senators
of the formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) sought a formal
withdrawal of last month’s government notification that placed the Inter-Services
Intelligence (ISI) under the administrative, financial and operational control of the
interior division. The group’s aggressive stance — one of them naming Pakistan
People’s Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari as head of a “triangle” allegedly seeking
to under mine the ISI and another calling for the withdrawal of the notification by
midnight — came as the PPP leader was having talks with Pakistan Muslim League-N
(PML-N) leader Nawaz Sharif in Islamabad about the future of their troubled
coalition and a possible parliamentary impeachment of the discredited president.
The opposition was not satisfied with the government’s apparent retraction made in
a statement hours after the July 27 notification that said the ISI would continue
under the prime minister’s control and promised a detailed clarification afterwards,
which is yet to come.

The opposition assault following a poor showing on the first day of the debate on
Monday began with a token walkout after former ISI director-general and retired
lieutenant-general Javed Ashraf protested at a private television report that quoted
leader of the house Raza Rabbani of the PPP as saying the government would not
withdraw the original notification and that the ISI would remain under the interior
ministry’s control. Mr Ashraf accused Mr Rabbani, who was not in the house being
one of Mr Zardari’s team in talks with the PML-N, of going back on his statement in
the house on Monday that the ISI would remain under the prime ministerial control
and that a detailed clarification was being “worked out” by the prime minister’s
secretariat. Mr Rabbani later denied making the statement attributed to him in the
television report aired hours before the fireworks in the Senate, where the harshest
attacks on the government came from two PML-Q women senators. Bibi Yasmin
Shah, who was seen reading from pages of prepared notes, described the July 27
notification as the “brainchild” of Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States
Hussain Haqqani, executed by Interior Adviser Rehman Malik with the final approval
coming from Mr Zardari and also alleged its links with the plans of India’s Research
and Analysis Wing (RAW) spy agency. “It “It was RAW’s plan to destabilise the ISI …
and Pakistan’s defences,”
defences,” she said.

With PPP ministers and most party senators absent from the house at the time
mainly because of the Zardari-Nawaz talks, there was little protest from the party
and house Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro even dismissed a demand from
Housing and Works Minister Rehmatullah Kakar of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam that he
expunge remarks against Mr Zardari as the PPP leader could not respond in the
house for not being its member. Senator Gulshan Saeed was almost hysterical as
she accused the government of trying to “destroy” the ISI, which she said “we “we will
not allow to happen”.
happen ”. She ridiculed Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s performance
during his recent US visit as well, as Mr Zardari and Mr Sharif who, she said, had
“been meeting at different places as a hero and a heroine”.
heroine”. Even senior PML-Q
figure S.M. Zafar did not spare the prime minister, comparing his US visit with a
puppet show and advised the government to seek reinstatement of deposed judges
through a constitutional amendment though he asked Law and Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Farooq Naek to withdraw his controversial constitutional amendment
package. However, former Senate chairman Wasim Sajjad, who leads the PML-Q
parliamentary group in the Senate, was less severe as he called for keeping the ISI
under the prime minister’s control although he suggested the creation of an
intelligence committee of the cabinet to coordinate information from different
intelligence agencies as well as an intelligence committee of the Senate. Earlier
opening the day’s debate, ANP’s Haji Adeel said the ISI should be answerable to
parliament and called for the creation of a parliamentary committee to probe the
agency’s conduct, including its role in Afghanistan. Abdul Rahim Mandokhel of the
Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party and Khalid Mahmood Soomro of the JUI also
criticised its alleged role in encouraging militant groups in the country.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider/Anwar New York 06.08.08
Iqbal

– Aafia Siddiqui faces charge of trying to kill US officers

US authorities have formally acknowledged arresting a Pakistani neuroscientist, five
years after her mysterious disappearance in Karachi. Michael J. Garcia, the United
States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Mark J. Mershon, Assistant
Director-in Charge of the New York Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
and Raymond W. Kelly, Police Commissioner of the City of New York, announced the
arrest of Aafia Siddiqui on charges related to her attempted murder and assault of
United States officers and employees in Afghanistan. Ms Siddiqui arrived in New
York on Monday evening and was to be presented before a US Magistrate Judge on
Tuesday in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. Aafia Siddiqui,
36, disappeared with her three children while visiting her parents’ home in Karachi
in March 2003, around the same time the FBI announced that it wanted to question
her over her alleged links to Al Qaeda. On Thursday, the FBI informed her brother
that she was alive and was in US custody in Afghanistan. According to the complaint
filed in Manhattan federal court on July 17 this year, police officers of the Ghazni
province of Afghanistan observed Ms Siddiqui outside the Ghazni governor’s
compound. Afghan police officers questioned her, regarded her as suspicious, and
searched her handbag. In it, they found numerous documents describing the
creation of explosives, as well as excerpts from the Anarchist’s Arsenal. Her papers
included descriptions of various landmarks in the United States, including in New
York City. Ms Siddiqui was also in possession of substances that were sealed in
bottles and glass jars. Elaine Whitfield Sharp, the lawyer representing Aafia
Siddiqui’s family told Dawn earlier on Monday that the MIT-trained Pakistani
neuroscientist was being detained for political reasons. But US authorities gave a
different version. According to them, on July 18 this year a party of United States
personnel, including two FBI special agents, a US army warrant officer, an army
captain and military interpreters, arrived at the Afghan facility where Ms Siddiqui
was being held. The personnel entered a second floor meeting room — unaware
that Ms Siddiqui was being held there, unsecured, behind a curtain. The warrant
officer took a seat and placed his M-4 rifle on the floor next to the curtain.

Shortly after the meeting began, the captain heard a woman yell from the curtain
and when he turned he saw Aafia Siddiqui holding the warrant officer’s rifle and
pointing it directly at the captain. She said: “May
“May the blood of [unintelligible] be
directly on your [unintelligible, possibly head or hands].”
hands].” The interpreter seated
closest to Ms Siddiqui lunged at her and pushed the rifle away as she pulled the
trigger. She fired at least two shots but no one was hit. The warrant officer returned
fire with a 9 mm service pistol and fired approximately two rounds at her torso,
hitting her at least once. Despite being shot, she struggled with the officers when
they tried to subdue her; she struck and kicked them while shouting in English that
she wanted to kill Americans. After being subdued, Ms Siddiqui temporarily lost
consciousness. The agents and officers then rendered medical aid to her. The 36-
year-old Pakistani who previously resided in the United States is charged in a
criminal complaint filed in the Southern District of New York with one count of
attempting to kill US officers and employees and one count of assaulting US officers
and employees. If convicted, she faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison
on each charge. Mr Garcia praised the investigative work of the Joint Terrorism Task
Force, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and New York City Police Department. He
also expressed his gratitude to the Office of International Affairs of the Criminal
Division of the United States Department of Justice and the United States
Department of State for their assistance in the case. Mr Garcia also thanked the
United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts for their assistance.
Mr Garcia said the investigation was continuing. Assistant United States Attorney
Christopher L. Lavigne is in charge of the prosecution.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 06.08.08

– Aafia’s sister rejects US charges

Dr Fauzia Siddiqui, a sister of Dr Aafia Siddiqui who is in US custody, and Iqbal
Haider, secretary general of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, have
dismissed as a pack of lies FBI’s claim of having found Dr Aafia possessing
documents about preparing chemical weapons. Addressing a press conference here
on Tuesday, they called upon the government and all political and religious parties
to rise and stop persecution of Dr Aafia and try to get her and her children released
and brought back home because they did not expect justice in a US court. They
distributed among journalists copies of the “chargesheet” against Dr Aafia
presented to a US magistrate judge in New York. Dr Fauzia said that her sister had
been tortured for five years until the day the US authorities announced that they
had found her in Afghanistan. This showed how they had abused their authority and
tortured an innocent woman. “The “The FBI on July 31 and August 1 confirmed that Aafia
is injured and alive and is in custody in Afghanistan”
Afghanistan” and now it has been stated
that she has been shifted to the US. Dr Fauzia pointed out that an FBI agent had
told the US court in an affidavit that Afghan police officers of Ghazni province had
found Aafia along with a teenage boy outside the Ghazni governor’s compound. She
said it was a joke because a woman who had disappeared while on way to the
airport in Karachi to take a flight for Rawalpindi in March 2003 had been found five
years later in Ghazni. Demanding information about her three children, she said
that her relatives in the US who wanted to fight her case were being denied access
to her. She said there was little hope of her sister getting a fair trial in the US,
adding that she feared for her life. Dr Fauzia also said that Aafia was not a
neurobiologist, but had specialised in helping mentally retarded children to improve
their memory. Answering a question, she said that she and her relatives had met
the relevant authorities in Pakistan soon after Aafia’s abduction and they promised
that she would be released soon, but all of it turned out to be farce. She also said
that members of her family had been receiving anonymous calls threatening them
of consequences if they spoke about Aafia. Mr Iqbal Haider pointed out that the US
State Department and FBI lied when they denied that Aafia was in their custody, but
only a few days after admitting that she was in their custody they came up with
false charges against her. He said that “US
“US and Pakistani authorities have been
callous and ruthless who abducted and illegally confined her in total disregard of
universal human rights charter”.
charter”. He said that the charges against Dr Aafia were
nothing but a pack of lies and most significant of them was about her obtaining an
M-4 rifle even while in custody and using it against US officials. “Why
“Why was she
charged with possessing documents about chemical weapons now and why was she
not tried five years ago when she had been abducted?,”
abducted?,” he asked. He termed it an
act of outright victimisation and terrorism by the US which championed the cause of
war against terrorism.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 06.08.08
om

– Inappropriate forms of intelligence

Out there on the international stage, the past 10 days must have proved rather
trying for Yousuf Raza Gilani. First of all, a gift he planned to take along in order to
impress his American hosts was snatched out of his hands. Partly as a result, when
George W. Bush asked his Pakistani guests about who controlled the ISI, he is
unlikely to have received a coherent response. Perhaps the least dishonest option
for Gilani would have been to say, “Don’t
“Don’t look at me, I’m not sure what you’re
talking about”
about” — at which point Bush may have nodded in sympathy and aired a
complaint or two about the company. Last week’s leaks from the US intelligence
establishment weren’t, however, aimed at embarrassing the American president. If
anything, the claim that there is clear-cut evidence of collusion between ISI
operatives and those behind last month’s attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul
offered the Bush administration grounds on which to base its interrogation of the
visiting Pakistanis. This is the very charge that was aired by India and Afghanistan
in the immediate aftermath of the suicide bombing, which claimed more than 50
lives. An Indian spokesman had, at the time, gone as far as to suggest that the ISI
ought to be dismantled. Whatever the merits of that idea, the events of July 26-27
demonstrated that it’s easier said than done. Gilani, meanwhile, is likely to have
been less than thrilled by the fact that, following his sojourn in the District of
Columbia, his next big engagement was the Saarc summit in Colombo, where
Manmohan Singh and Hamid Karzai lay in wait, and where terrorism was identified
as the region’s primary bugbear.

The precise circumstances of the announcement that the ISI would be brought
under the aegis of the interior ministry, followed by the reversal of that decision
within hours, are likely to remain shrouded in mystery. Did the government really
believe a measure of this nature could be accomplished without taking the defence
establishment into confidence? That it would suffice to present the generals with a
fait accompli? And, if so, should the aborted attempt be characterised as an act of
breathtaking audacity, of chutzpah based on hubris? Or should it be considered
simply as evidence of foolhardiness, possibly based on the naive assumption that
the army wouldn’t dare to countermand a move that enjoyed Washington’s
imprimatur? In circumstances where the truth is jealously guarded by those in the
know, plausible conjecture is the only available option. The following scenario does
not seem improbable. Amid mounting pressure from the US — including a visit from
Stephen Kappes, the CIA’s deputy director in charge of covert operations — to do
something about the waywardness of the ISI, the government decided inaction was
no longer an option. The suggestion that the agency could be placed under the
control of Rehman Malik’s interior division may well have come from Malik himself.
He was able to convince Asif Ali Zardari, who runs the government by remote
control from his Dubai redoubt, and the decision was communicated to the PM. Its
public notification was followed by Zardari patting himself on the back. He opted for
silence after it became clear the move had backfired. He may, of course, have
remonstrated privately with Malik along the lines of: “Here’s
“Here’s another fine mess
you’ve got me into.”
into.” In fact, anyone with even a vague idea of how Pakistan
functions ought to have realised that the army does not take kindly to being stuffed
about (although it has few qualms about periodically messing with civilian
institutions). Bringing the ISI under civilian control is not a bad idea, but it’s plain
silly to assume anything of the sort can be achieved without the cooperation of the
military high command.

The CIA has been well acquainted with the ISI since their close collaboration during
the 1979-89 Afghan war, when the US was only too happy to fund jihadi violence. It
subsequently found it necessary to perform a backflip. The ISI turned out to be less
inconsistent. In the aftermath of 9/11, Gen Pervez Musharraf struggled to purge the
ISI of Taliban sympathisers. He obviously did not go far enough. This may have had
something to do with the fundamentalist bias of recruitment criteria and
indoctrination under Gen Ziaul Haq, a favourite of the Reagan administration. In
Washington last week, Gilani described the ISI as “a “a great institution”
institution” and said that
sympathy for the militants within its ranks “is
“is not believable”.
believable”. Not all of his
colleagues were singing from the same hymn sheet. Sherry Rehman, for instance,
admitted the possibility that individuals in the ISI are “probably
“probably acting on their own
and going against official policy”,
policy”, and said that the authorities “need
“need to identify
these people and weed them out”.
out”. Other Pakistani officials frequently express
similar views in private. However, the US intelligence sources quoted by The New
York Times last Friday said the ISI officers whose communications with the group
that attacked the Indian embassy were intercepted were not renegades. A Foreign
Office spokesman in Islamabad dismissed the NYT’s allegations as rubbish, before
Gilani assured Manmohan Singh in Colombo that the charge would be investigated.
The question is, where will Pakistan find a credible ‘rubbish’ inspector? Will the ISI
be requested to itself look into the matter? Would any other agency be prepared to
explore the ISI’s darker recesses?

Gilani’s mantra that the struggle against Islamist militancy is “Pakistan’s war” is
perfectly credible: the nation’s future is at stake. But can this struggle be coherently
waged in the face of uncertainty about which side Pakistan’s premier spy agency is
on? Military intelligence needs to be reorganised and the pro-obscurantist
distortions of recent decades deserve to be swept away. A first step could be to
collate all the evidence that the US, India and Afghanistan are able to supply, and to
present it to Musharraf, Ashfaq Kayani and Nadeem Taj as part of an urgent call to
action. The trouble is, a coherent approach to this potentially existential threat — as
well as to most of the nation’s other problems — cannot reasonably be expected
from an administration whose preferred modus operandi is intrigue rather than
transparency, with decision-making powers restricted to an unelected co-chairman
whose attitude frequently resembles that of an absentee landlord. A return to the
murkiness of direct military rule would be a profoundly unsettling consequence for
Pakistan, but that may well be what lies ahead if the people’s elected
representatives once again make a complete hash of democracy. ¦ The writer is a
journalist based in Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 06.08.08

– Razzle-dazzle ’em
Every so often an optimist pipes up, “Pakistan
“Pakistan isn’t all that bad.”
bad.” It is. Forget
politics, militancy and the economy for a moment; this is still a wretched place. By
any measure, by any test Pakistan fails to provide its citizens a healthy, modern,
varied life. Thank God for women. Chicago, the Broadway musical and Hollywood
hit, came to Karachi and scored a triumph for women. The play’s lead characters
are sexy, saucy and bold. They are everything that a Pakistani woman is not
supposed to be — at least in public. Yet two Pakistani women took up the challenge
and didn’t flinch. They danced and sang and performed as the script required, not
as Pakistani norms demand. The critics will criticise and the musical aficionados will
throw in their tuppence but as a political statement it was an emphatic victory.
Elsewhere, friends Zeb and Haniya having been wowing the world of music. Their
debut video is about a woman who ends a relationship on a mature, sensible note.
Zeb and Haniya are cousins from Kohat so the media — home and away — has
leapt at juxtaposing the politics of that neighbourhood with female musical talent,
much to the chagrin of the cousins who would rather the focus be on their music.
These women ought to be celebrated. Sure, the rabid mullahs will chant prayers for
their souls and wish hellfire and brimstone upon them but that’s what rabid mullahs
do. While the Chicago actors and Zeb and Haniya are caught in a battle not of their
choosing, it ought to be of some consolation that they are on the right side. What
these bold women are doing is recapturing the public space that has been denied to
them since Zia. The generation that came of age during the time of the Islamist
dictator are all children of Zia — a generation whose public voice was stifled unless
it was used to intone religious mores. A decade of democracy and a near-decade of
enlightened moderation have followed but our national discourse — a lofty term for
the tripe that is offered for public consumption — continues to be framed by the
general. Everything we do, everything we drink, everything we say, everything we
think, the parameters of what is publicly acceptable or not has been dictated by
Gen Zia.

The Taliban — Zia’s ideological progeny — are simply taking his ideological purge to
the next level. Social scientists analyse the destruction of girls’ schools in antiseptic
academic-speak. Treatises on patriarchy and institutionalised misogyny and the
conflict between individual and society are trotted out. Less erudite people talk of
obscurantism and uneducated, poverty-stricken, wild-eyed, bushy bearded men
chewing tobacco and holding prayer beads while making the world in their likeness.
At its core though it remains what it is: a crude mechanism of social control which
acknowledges that a society without women is easier to tame. Nudge women out of
the mainstream and half the job of ideological purity is complete. The difficulty for
the moderates is that pushing back is dangerous. A media group took on the Lal
Masjid brigade and sundry militants with irreverent political cartoons and an
unequivocal editorial stance against militancy. Soon enough the death threats
poured in. In an email exchange, an editor told me “there’s
“there’s nothing we can do
about a strike if they choose to make one, short of capitulating or closing shop.
That’s the asymmetric advantage they enjoy over their opponents.”
opponents.” Most would
choose not to fight. Some — the brave — do. But what most unwittingly do is feed
the beast. It is true that most Pakistanis do not want the Talibanisation of the
country. But there is a hesitancy to criticise the Taliban and their ilk, if only because
they wrap themselves up in the cloak of Islam. The ascetic lifestyle, heroic
resistance and virtuous future that the Taliban offer tug at emotional strings that
are difficult to repulse. Even if most would — and do — choose the material over the
spiritual on a daily basis, there is a reluctance to judge the pious. It’s a general
feature of organised religions, but in Pakistan it is worsened by the failure to
distinguish between a Pakistan-for-Muslims and Pakistan-as-an-Islamist-state. The
Taliban are alert to this dilemma of Pakistanis, as were the Americans, the Saudis
and the ISI when they pumped money into the jihad culture here. Resistance is
futile.

Or is it? It is the sharpening of the wrong distinctions that has gotten us in this fix.
The Pakistan-state-has-failed versus the Islamist state-by-definition-is-a-success
model is a false choice that few are willing to explore. I tried to during the
quintessential cabbie conversation. A clean-shaven man with otherwise moderate
opinions, he surprised me by arguing for the Taliban and cursing the Pakistani state.
“I’m a sinner,”
sinner,” the cabbie told me, “but
“but I know the Taliban are right. They want to
bring Islam.”
Islam.” We happened to be driving through Karachi’s commercial district at
the time, so I pointed out the window to a skyscraper. Could the Taliban give him
that? Or even the taxi he was driving? Incontestably the economic argument is
neither sufficient nor necessary. Al Qaeda recruits are known to be middle-class and
educated. The connection between poverty and Islamic radicalism is often assumed
but far from clear. Yet economic progress is an undeniable aid in pushing back
religiosity, especially its more radical forms, at the level of society. A small family
would have paid the effective minimum monthly wage to watch Chicago. The play
would probably not have been staged were it not for corporate sponsors. The media
group debunking the militants’ lies relies on rising incomes to gain readers and
viewers. Zeb and Haniya’s musical expedition has been expensive and their
outreach would have been limited were it not for a fledgling music industry. So
while growth is important because it can dull the allure of a religious ideal for a
cabbie dreaming of a better future, it’s the spillovers that are perhaps the more
valuable. For a media group growth has meant more readers and viewers whose
false notions can be challenged. For the women of Chicago and Zeb and Haniya
growth has created the space to fight back through their art, knowingly or
otherwise. The first step to winning a battle is to acknowledge its existence. Next is
the hard part: fighting it. So far Pakistan has not shown much of an inclination to
wrest away the public space from the mullahs. That’s why it’s so important to tip
your hat to those who do put up a fight.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Tehran – Washington 06.08.08

– Iran hands over letter to big powers

Iran has not answered demands by world powers to halt nuclear activity, an Iranian
official said on Tuesday, a stand that could endanger the possibility of full talks and
lead to tighter sanctions. Iran handed a letter on Tuesday to European Union foreign
policy chief Javier Solana in response to an offer in June by major powers to refrain
from moving to impose more UN penalties if Iran froze expansion of its nuclear
work. “We
“We have received the letter,”
letter,” an EU official said in Brussels, without giving
details.One European diplomat said that the contents of the letter were “laughable”
but also declined to give details. An Iranian official told Reuters the letter did not
address the demands by world powers dealing with Iran — the United States, China,
Russia, France, Britain and Germany.
Germany. “The“The letter handed over is not an answer to
the offered package. The letter does not mention the freeze-for-freeze issue,”issue,” the
Iranian official said. The freeze-for-freeze idea was seen as a stepping stone to full
negotiations. Senior officials from the major powers will hold a conference call on
Wednesday to discuss whether to impose more punitive measures against Tehran, a
US State Department spokesman said. “If “If we don’t receive a clear message from
them, we will have no choice but to pursue additional measures,”
measures,” spokesman
Gonzalo Gallegos said. The Iranian official said the freeze idea was also not raised in
telephone talks on Monday between Solana and Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator,
Saeed Jalili. “During
“During the call, Jalili expressed his readiness to start formal talks,”
talks,” the
official said, adding he expected further contact between Solana and Jalili in the
next few days. In another development, a UN nuclear watchdog official will go to
Iran on Thursday. The International Atomic Energy Agency declined to specify the
purpose of the visit by Olli Heinonen, its deputy director overseeing inspections of
Iran’s nuclear program.

The head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said on Monday the country could easily
close the Strait of Hormuz, a key Gulf shipping route, if it were at tacked over its
nuclear program — prompting a warning on Tuesday from the United States.
“Shutting down the straits and closing off the Persian Gulf would be a sort of a self-
defeating exercise,”
exercise,” said Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell. “I “I don’t think it’s in
Iran’s interest,”
interest,” he told reporters. “They
“They have a very weak economy at this point,
which depends almost entirely on their oil revenue.”
revenue.” The six powers have said
formal talks on the package of nuclear, trade and other incentives can start only
once Iran suspends uranium enrichment, the part of the program that most worries
the West because it has military and civilian uses. Iran has repeatedly refused to
halt its atomic work. The UN Security Council has imposed three rounds of penalties
on Iran since 2006 in response. In a letter to the Council, Britain, France and the
United States, who have taken the toughest line with Tehran, said Iran’s central
bank and other financial institutions were trying to dodge sanctions by covering
their tracks and must be carefully watched. Iran’s central bank governor, Tahmasb
Mazaheri, said that in July that any move to impose sanctions on the bank could
destabilise an already rattled world financial system. His remarks followed a call by
a US Senate committee for Washington to designate Iran’s central bank as a
supporter of terrorism, a move that would trigger US sanctions. UN and US
sanctions have already targeted some big Iranian commercial banks.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 06.08.08

– White House forged letter to justify Iraq war: Book

A new book published on Tuesday accuses the Bush White House of forging
documents to justify invading Iraq. The forged documents included a back-dated,
handwritten letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein linking the
former Iraqi leader to the 9/11 attacks. The letter also supported the US claim that
Saddam Hussein was working on a plan to make nuclear weapons. In his new book
— ‘The
‘The Way of the World’
World’ — Pulitzer Prizewinning journalist Ron Suskind accuses
the Bush White House of ordering CIA to manipulate intelligence to support the Iraq
war. Mr Suskind claims that after a White House meeting, former CIA director
George Tenet went back to the CIA and ordered his staff to forge the letter. “Listen
“Listen
Marine, you’re not going to like this, but here goes,’ Mr Tenet told Rob Richer,
former head of the CIA’s Near East Division, according to Richer.”
Richer.” This letter, in the
handwriting of Tahir Jalil Habbush al-Tikriti, is dated July, 2001. It says that Iraqis
hosted Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers, who, “displayed
“displayed extraordinary
effort and showed a firm commitment to lead the team which will be responsible for
attacking the targets that we have agreed to destroy.”
destroy.” The letter goes on to
suggest that Iraq was importing uranium from Niger for a nuclear programme. The
book alleges that Mr Habbush, Saddam Hussein’s intelligence chief, was in CIA
protective custody after the 2003 invasion, that the White House ordered CIA
officials to have Mr Habbush write and backdate the letter, and paid him $5 million.
The author quotes two former CIA officials who claim to have seen a draft of the
letter on White House stationery.

Mr Suskind writes: “The

“The idea was to take the letter to Habbush and have him
transcribe it in his own neat handwriting on a piece of Iraqi government stationery
to make it look legitimate. CIA would then take the finished product to Baghdad and
have someone release it to the media.”
media.” The letter was released, and published in
2003 by the British and US media outlets — including The (London) Sunday
Telegraph and Fox News, Politico reports — as evidence of a Saddam/Al Qaeda link.
The author also claims that the Bush administration had in formation from a top
Iraqi intelligence official “that
“that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq –
intelligence they received in plenty of time to stop an invasion.”
invasion.” Mr Tenet, however,
called the charges ‘ridiculous’ and questioned whether Mr Suskind is a ‘serious
‘serious
journalist.’
journalist.’ “There
“There was no such order from the White House to me,”
me,” he said on
NBC’s Today Show. “The“The CIA resisted efforts on the part of some in the
administration to paint a picture of Iraqi-Al Qaeda connections that went beyond the
evidence. The notion that I would suddenly reverse our stance and have created
and planted false evidence that was contrary to our own beliefs is ridiculous,”
ridiculous,” he
said. Mr Suskind insists that his information is correct. The author said Mr Tenet
simply does not remember the letter — but Mr Tenet’s staff does. “I “I think this is
part of George’s memory issue....He seems not to remember it. That’s at least what
he claims. In this book, instead of going to George, I went to all the people around
George, close to George, who remember because they were involved in the thing,
and they remember what George says to them.” them.”

Author Location Dated

Max Hastings London, England 06.08.08

– Bombing Iran will be a folly

The favoured season for launching wars used to come when the harvest had been
gathered. This year, there is talk of an Israeli strike against Iran in November or
December, when it would no longer embarrass the US election process, but George
Bush will still preside in the White House during the presidential transition. Last
year, following a US intelligence submission which stated that Iran was not actively
pursuing the creation of atomic weapons, a direct American attack on the country’s
nuclear facilities became implausible and remains so. But Jerusalem and
Washington are talking seriously about a possible Israeli strike, for which American
collusion would be indispensable. In Washington at the weekend (Aug 2-3), Shaul
Mofaz, Israel’s deputy defence minister and a candidate for the premiership, said of
negotiations to halt Iran’s nuclear programme: “It’s
“It’s a race against time, and time is
winning.”
winning.” He repeated the familiar Israeli warning, that Iran’s possession of nuclear
weapons would be “unacceptable”. Optimists welcomed July’s meeting in Geneva,
at which the US under-secretary of state, William Burns, met Iranian delegates. This
was the highest-level contact for decades between the two nations. Yet there
remains no sign of Iranian retreat from its longstanding position, that it is entitled to
maintain a uranium enrichment programme. Pessimists fear that the Burns trip was
designed to highlight Tehran’s intractability, in advance of military action. Last
month, Tehran announced that it now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a dramatic
increase in its last declared figure. This was probably an exaggeration for
negotiating purposes, but gives no comfort at all to the UN, the EU or anybody else
seeking signs of a breakthrough towards a deal.

Most Europeans would like to hear their new American idol, Barack Obama, warn
the Israelis against undertaking military action against Iran. Even if Obama does not
yet sit in the White House, no Jerusalem government could lightly defy America’s
likely next president on an issue of such gravity. But no man who wants to win a US
election dares to qualify his support for Israel. Obama’s statements during his brief
visit to the country last month were indistinguishable from those of Bush. There
seem grounds for anticipating that Obama may be less radical, more indulgent
towards Israel, than visionaries suppose. A McCain administration, meanwhile,
would merely pick up where Bush leaves off. There is no doubt about the desire of
both the Israeli and US governments to destroy Iran’s nuclear plants by force. Two
years ago, a Washington political guru suggested to me that Bush’s last months
would be the time to watch, when he became obsessed with his legacy. “Solving”
the Iran nuclear issue, said my friend, would be foremost in Bush’s mind. So,
indeed, it seems today.The best prospect of averting this disaster and, of course,
many of us would perceive it as such lie in the intractable practical difficulties. The
US military has briefed the president that, with most of Iran’s facilities underground,
only nuclear bunkerbusting bombs offer a real prospect of achieving their
destruction. It remains hard to believe that the US could countenance the use of
such weapons, by their own aircraft or those of the Israelis. Conventional bombs
could inflict some damage. A limited attack would demonstrate Israel’s ability to
strike at will, if the Iranians persist with their programme. But the economic and
political costs of such an exhibition of force would be appalling. Oil prices would
soar to dizzier heights. Any possibility of dialogue between Iran and the West would
vanish for years to come. The Iranians would probably fulfil their threat, to retaliate
with terrorist action against US interests worldwide.

Former US air force colonel Sam Gardiner, a respected military analyst, suggests
that bombing Iran “would
“would be unlikely to yield the results American policymakers do
want, and ... likely to yield results that they do not”.
not”. The Iranian government may
be reckless even fanatical but it is not mad. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and
the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, have assuredly made these
calculations for themselves. The US is seeking to behave with the outward
assurance of a superpower, while crippled by its difficulties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The US wishes to bestride the Middle East as an armoured knight, but its foes know
that beneath the plates, it is bleeding badly. The Iranians appear to be gambling
that, at the last ditch, the US will flinch from taking military action, or from allowing
Israel to do so, because the costs would be unacceptably high. The implacable
unhelpfulness of Russia and China about western purposes towards Tehran
strengthens Iranian resolve. Moscow and Beijing have no more desire than the
Americans to see Iran possess nuclear weapons. But they both gain satisfaction
from Washington’s embarrassments, and from strengthening their own influence in
the Middle East at American expense. However deep is European distaste for the
Bush administration, for the Iraq war and for the excesses of Israeli policy, it seems
important not to lose sight of some basics. The Tehran government aspires to
regional hegemony, which it would be unlikely to exercise in an enlightened fashion.
It is deplorable that Israel and Pakistan possess nuclear weapons, but the world will
become an even less safe place if Iran also acquires them. Its desire to do so seems
hard to dispute, even if doubts persist about its proximity to fulfilment.

Thus, America’s fundamental objective deserves endorsement, which it receives

from the UN and the EU through their backing for sanctions. The difficulty, as usual,
is that so many issues are entwined Iraq and Israel foremost among them. Lawrence
Freedman has just published a new book, A Choice of Enemies,
Enemies, in which he
examines America’s relationship with the Middle East over the past 30 years. His
conclusion is that today’s problems stretch beyond anything which can be dignified
as solutions. They can only be “managed or endured”. This is unspectacular, but
seems right. The folly of American military posturing towards Iran is its absence of
credibility. That is to say, no one doubts Bush’s executive power to launch an air
attack, or sanction the Israelis to do so. However, it is evident to all but the neocons
and some dangerous people in Jerusalem that such action must fail in its purposes,
making matters worse rather than better. The dreadful Bibi Netanyahu, who may
soon again become Israel’s prime minister, declared that 9/11 was “good for Israel”,
and so from his viewpoint it was. It left the Muslim world almost friendless in the US,
and increased the readiness of Americans to perceive the Israelis as comrades in
arms against a common enemy. Yet the fallout from a putative Israeli attack on Iran
and I hope I am right to use the word only figuratively should cause even post-Bush
Americans to perceive that this is no way to order the world. Negotiating with the
Iranians is a maddening and frustrating business. But bombing them would be a
catastrophe for us all. Many fingers will need to be tightly crossed between now and
next January.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 06.08.08

– How terrorist organisations work like clubs

Days before the Sept 11, 2001 attacks, Osama bin Laden left his compound in
Kandahar in Afghanistan and headed into the mountains. His driver, Salim Ahmed
Hamdan, travelled with him. As US and Northern Alliance forces stood poised to
capture Kandahar a few months later, Osama told Hamdan to evacuate his family.
Hamdan’s wife was eight months pregnant at the time, and Hamdan drove her and
his infant daughter to the Pakistani border. It was on his way back that Hamdan was
captured by Northern Alliance warlords, said Jonathan Mahler, an author who has
pieced together the events in his upcoming book, “The
“The Challenge: Hamdan v.
Rumsfeld and the Fight Over Presidential Power”.
Power”. Hamdan’s captors found two
surface-to-air missiles in the trunk of his car. They turned him over to the Americans
and pocketed a bounty of $5,000. Hamdan recently became the first detainee at
Guantanamo Bay to face trial. Government and defence lawyers are arguing about
Hamdan’s significance in Al Qaeda and the extent of his knowledge of the group’s
activities, but it is the facts the lawyers agree on that raise an interesting question
for anyone who studies terrorist groups. Hamdan joined Osama after his plan to go
to join a jihad in Tajikistan hit a snag. For years, he ferried Al Qaeda’s leader to
camps and news conferences and was often bored, according to the testimony of
his interrogators. Mahler, who interviewed Hamdan’s family and attorneys, his FBI
interrogators, and the man who recruited Hamdan for jihad, said Osama’s driver
was not particularly religious for a poor man from Yemen, jihad was a career move
as much as a religious quest. The interesting question is why Hamdan and other
minor cogs in terrorist groups who have access to information that the United
States would gladly pay for rarely come forward to share it. Dozens of other
Hamdans today probably have leads on the whereabouts of Osama and other
terrorist leaders. Given that some of these potential informers are bound to be poor
and uneducated, why don’t they defect, take the money and run? “The “The generic
problem is the question of why people having useful knowledge can’t be bribed to
reveal it,”
it,” said David Laitin, a political scientist at Stanford University who has
studied why terrorist groups that specialise in suicide attacks are so rarely
undermined by defectors and turncoats. Along with Eli Berman, a political scientist
at the University of California at Santa Barbara, Laitin has developed a theory to
explain why the Hamdans of the world tend to stay loyal to the Osamas. Laitin and
Berman argue that it is because a group such as Al Qaeda is really an exclusive
club.

Most people think of clubs as recreational groups, but Laitin and Berman are using a
more subtle definition. Clubs are groups that tend to be selective about their
members. Unlike political parties and bookreading groups, which allow anyone to
join, clubs make it difficult for people to sign up. And once admitted, members must
make personal sacrifices to stay. In the case of an exclusive golf club, the sacrifice
might involve paying sizable dues. In the case of some religious orders, would-be
members might have to go through lengthy periods of initiation. The “club model”
of terrorism explains why cogs such as Hamdan stay loyal. Across all kinds of clubs,
when members make sacrifices, they are much more likely to become intensely
loyal to fellow members. Berman and Laitin think this is because the sacrifices that
members make to join a club reduce their value outside the club. If you devote
years to learning a religious text, that knowledge can give you social cachet within
your club, but your effort counts for little outside the club. “If
“If you have to spend
your life reading the Talmud, you are not very good at software,”
software,” Laitin said. “The
“The
sacrifices get you social welfare, but if you took a bribe, your value outside of that
club would be minuscule.”
minuscule.” Whereas software engineers who “defect” from one
company to another carry their value with them the skills are transferable – Al
Qaeda foot soldiers might enjoy high regard within that club but be worthless
outside it. This may help explain why religious cults and organised-crime syndicates
reward members for acquiring arcane cultural, scriptural and linguistic skills these
are skills that cannot be easily transferred to the outside world. In a detailed
analysis of terrorist attacks in Israel, Laitin and Berman showed that the degree of
“clubbiness” of terrorist groups predicted how violent they would be, especially
when it came to suicide attacks: Elite organisations demanded greater sacrifices
and elicited greater loyalty, and it was these groups that could plan and carry out
the most lethal attacks with little fear of betrayal. The political scientists are not
suggesting for a second that clubs are inherently violent most, in fact, are harmless.
But what Laitin and Berman are suggesting is that clubs offer the kind of
organisational structure that happens to provide the secrecy and loyalty needed to
run a terrorist group. What does this research mean for counterinsurgency efforts
and fighting terrorism? Laitin argued that nations that compete with terrorist
organisations to provide social benefits make it less likely that their citizens will be
willing to make great sacrifices to join clubs that seek to destroy them. When your
software industry takes off, in other words, fewer people need to seek out the social
welfare benefits that joining the local terrorist club offers.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 06.08.08

– ‘To govern is to exploit’

The divisions in American society were brought into sharp focus during the 2004
presidential elections: pundits carved up the country between ‘red’ states that
supported the Republicans, and the ‘blue’ states that were behind the Democrats.
The interesting thing was that the major coastal states of New York and California
were solidly blue, while much of Middle America was red. This divide has been
further elaborated this year, with college-educated professionals and ethnic
minorities generally favouring Barack Obama, while middle-class white Americans
are pro-McCain. More and more, these differences are surfacing across the media.
Regional newspapers and Fox TV are solidly behind the Republicans, while webzines
like Huffington Post, and liberal newspapers like the New York Times and the
Washington Post are pro-Obama. Echoes of this electoral battle are often heard in St
Andrews, the Canadian border town I am spending a few quiet weeks in. Situated
just above the American state of Maine, it attracts a number of Americans in the
summer, many of whom have had holiday homes here for years. Several of them
have become good friends, and we mostly discuss the tense presidential race.
Confirming the old saw about ‘birds of a feather’, we are all rooting for Barack
Obama as we agree that his election might change not just America, but the rest of
the world’s view about the only superpower. As we all know, Bush’s handling of
domestic and foreign policy has caused enormous damage to his country’s global
standing and image. Among this group of ‘summer Americans’ is Carl Sapers,
professor emeritus of law at Harvard, and a keen observer of the American scene.
As he is also a wonderful cook, he and his wife Judy are warm and generous hosts. A
few years ago, in a conversation about the rule of law, he made the point that the
American constitution had robust checks and balances built in to prevent the
executive from misusing its powers. But as we know to our cost, the Bush
administration has walked all over the constitution in the post-9/11 scenario, so
when we met recently, I reminded him of his words.

By way of response, he pulled out a cutting downloaded from the New York Times,
and handed it to me. It contains a quotation from James Madison, one of the
founding fathers of the American Republic, and a powerful voice in the drafting of
the constitution. Writing some 220 years ago, Madison wrote: “In
“In no part of the
Constitution is more wisdom to be found than in the clause which confines the
question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department…
War is in fact the true nurse of executive aggrandize ment. In war, a physical force
is to be created; and it is the executive will which is to direct it. In war, the public
treasures are to be unlocked; and it is the executive hand which is to dispense
them… It is in war, finally, that laurels are to be gathered, and it is the executive
brow they are to encircle. The strongest passions and the most dangerous
weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honourable or venal
love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace.”
peace.” Since Carl
gave me this quote a fortnight or so ago, I have re-read it many times for it seems
to encapsulate the abiding tension between the executive and the other two
branches of the modern state. Elegantly and presciently, Madison has gone to the
heart of the danger facing the young Republic. We in Pakistan are long familiar with
the conundrum of establishing a strong, effective executive that does not trample
over the jurisdiction of the legislature and the judiciary, thereby eroding the rights
of the citizen. Thus far, we have failed abysmally in reining in the powers of the
(mostly military) executive. But even states with a long and proud history of
democracy have often failed to control their elected leaders. The ongoing war in
Iraq is a case in point: Bush and Blair took their nations to war on the basis of
flawed and doctored intelligence without being brought to account. Torture of the
most unspeakable kind has been inflicted on adversaries without lawful authority.
And the executive hand has dispensed public treasures without proper oversight.
The one things denied the executive are the laurels to encircle its brow.

The truth is that Madison and his colleagues had presumed a certain degree of
honour and idealism among elected officials. Being decent, honourable men
themselves, they had thought that those who followed them would be similarly
motivated. Alas, we have generally seen a succession of amoral, venal politicians
more concerned with their own narrow constituencies than the wider public good. In
more developed democracies, this selfishness is better concealed than it is in
aspiring and emerging democracies. But lurking below the surface is a smug self-
regard. Bakunin, the 19th century Anarchist philosopher, once wrote: “To “To govern is
to exploit.”
exploit.” For me, this aphorism sums up the gulf between rulers and the ruled.
English friends are often shocked by my cynicism when it comes to politicians, but it
has been forged over the years I have spent in Pakistan, observing the ruthless
political games played by civilian and military leaders. In Pakistan, the state has
been militarised to such a degree that an elected civilian government cannot even
order the ISI to report to the interior ministry. So vice-like is the army’s grip on the
nation’s jugular that a debate on the extent of powers the executive should enjoy
seems academic and largely irrelevant. And as we have noted, even long-
established democracies like Britain and the US have seen human rights being
snatched away from citizens at the whim of the executive. But here, there are built-
in devices that correct imbalances over the long run. An Obama presidency, for
example, could well result in the closure of the camp at Guantanamo Bay. In the UK,
Gordon Brown might be unseated soon, partly for his support of the Iraq war. In
Pakistan, we have no way of making our military rulers accountable for their costly
and bloody mistakes in Afghanistan and Kashmir. Another lesson from history is that
political power is never handed over: it has to be taken by force.
force.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 07.08.08
 – Flip-flop over judges issue Coalition struggles to find a way out
A surprise move by President Pervez Musharraf to re-appoint eight deposed judges
of the Sindh High Court (SHC) threw a spanner in the works of the ruling coalition,
severely affecting their earlier agreed plan to impeach him. The day-long political
drama appeared to be turning into a farce in the evening when the presidency
deliberately leaked the news that a summary to re-appoint the judges had been
sent to the president by the law ministry and a notification was being issued. This
was enough to annoy PML-N leaders who felt betrayed and left the meeting at a
crucial time when a decision on modalities about impeaching the president was
being finalised, sources said. The PPP camp went into action and after intense
efforts persuaded PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and his colleagues to restart the
negotiations at Zardari House. The fate of the negotiations remained uncertain till
past midnight. The venue of the talks was first shifted from Zardari House to Punjab
House and later to the Prime Minister’s House. Till the filing of this report, PPP co-
chairman Asif Zardari and Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif were at the Prime
Minister’s House with their close aides and no breakthrough was in sight. A PPP
minister, who is a part of the negotiating team, told Dawn that the notification
about SHC judges would be held in abeyance till reinstatement of all the judges. In a
late-night interview with private TV channels, PML-N’s secretary information Ahsan
Iqbal said that progress had been made and a joint statement to be issued on
Thursday will give ‘good news’ to the nation.

On the other hand, the presidency in Rawalpindi remained active with President
Musharraf meeting loyalists, political friends and legal aides to finalise the plan to
deal with the impeachment move. Besides the PML-Q leadership, President
Musharraf also found a voice in his support from within the PPP as the party’s
sidelined vice-chairman Makhdoom Amin Fahim warned the ruling coalition against
impeaching the president. “Don’t
“Don’t do it. Don’t invite trouble,”
trouble,” Mr Fahim asked Mr
Zardari in an interview with a TV channel. He was of the view that it was not a
proper time for a move which could lead to confrontation among national
institutions. The leadership of the PPP and the PML-N after their six-hour talks on
Tuesday had agreed to formally ask President Musharraf to step down or face
impeachment and announced that they would meet again on Wednesday after
consultations with smaller coalition partners to give the final shape to their plan.
Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman also joined the talks which
started at noon. He, however, left the venue after some time but returned late in
the evening. Surprisingly, the ANP was not represented at the meeting although a
team of PPP and PMLN leaders had specially travelled to Karachi on Tuesday to seek
support of Asfandyar Wali Khan. Before the start of the meeting of the coalition
heads, five members of parliament from Fata also called on Mr Zardari. According to
sources, they promised their cooperation to the government but said they wanted
to consult their colleagues who were not present in Islamabad on Wednesday. A
large number of local and foreign journalists spent the second day outside Zardari
House hoping that the two leaders might address a press conference.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 07.08.08

– Musharraf, loyalists decide to fight it out

A beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf held consultations with his political
loyalists and constitutional and legal aides on Wednesday in what appeared to be
an effort to prepare himself to fight off the ruling coalition in its move to impeach
him. “I
“I will defeat those who try to push me to the wall,”
wall,” sources quoted the
president as saying. “If
“If they use their right to try to oust me I have the right to
defend myself. “I will go down fighting but will not give in to those who are doing so
to create more political divisions,”
divisions,” he said. He said he was an elected president and
would continue to serve the nation as long as the Constitution allowed him. Pakistan
Muslim League-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Leader of Opposition in the
National Assembly Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi and party leader Hamid Nasir Chattha
were the first to meet him. They assured him of their party’s unwavering support
“through thick and thin”.
thin”. Later, the governors of Punjab and Sindh met the
president to discuss the political situation. Sindh Governor Dr Ishratul Ibad is said to
have renewed support for President Musharraf on behalf of the Muttahida Qaumi
Movement. The president had decided in the morning not to visit China as a state
guest for the Olympics opening ceremonies but he was persuaded by his allies to
review the decision. It was decided that he would leave for Beijing on Thursday
morning, accompanied by Punjab Governor Salman Taseer. Before the rescheduling
of the visit, the Chinese ambassador in Islamabad called on the president.

Reports of a meeting of constitutional and legal advisers with the president were
not confirmed by the presidential spokesman Rashid Qureshi. The sources said that
the PMLQ leaders had asked the president to defend himself in person in
parliament. They also convinced him not to call off his visit to China which was a
tested strategic friend of Pakistan. Private TV channels also reported a meeting
between Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani and the president but it
was denied by Inter-Services Public Relations director general Maj-Gen Athar Abbas.
Chaudhry Shujaat told reporters after his two and half an hour meeting at the
president’s camp office that the impeachment bogie was aimed at diverting the
attention of the people from real issues. Ways of countering the impeachment move
were discussed at the meeting and the PML-Q assured the president that its
legislators would defend him in parliament and outside it. Chaudhry Pervaiz said:
“Gen (retd) Musharraf is an elected president who has the credit of holding free and
fair elections. He does not deserve this treatment and we will stand by him in case
of any effort to oust him.”
him.” He warned against any move which could sabotage
political harmony and create instability at this critical juncture in national history.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 07.08.08

– Gains made in Gilani’s visit to US, Qureshi tells Senate

Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi told the Senate on Wednesday that
Pakistan made substantial gains during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s recent
visit to the United States marked by a tripled development aid, dismissing
opposition claims the trip to the main Western ally was a failure. The minister,
winding up a three-day debate on national security, assured the upper house that
the four-month-old PPP-led coalition was following the right course in foreign policy
aimed at protecting and promoting national interests and also declared it would not
capitulate to militants while pursuing a multi-pronged anti-terrorism policy different
from the one of use of force only, charted by President Pervez Musharraf that failed.
The main opposition group belonging to the formerly ruling pro-Musharraf Pakistan
Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) had particularly targeted the prime minister’s first official
visit to the United States that they said had been a flop in different respects, and
accused his government of showing weaknesses against the traditional rival India
and some recent provocations from President Hamid Karzai’s government in
Afghanistan over a deadly bomb attack at the Indian embassy in Kabul. Some
opposition members, including PML-Q secretary-general Mushahid Hussain and
former information minister Nisar A. Memon, even questioned the government’s
understanding of issues of national security while leaders of coalition parties were
discussing moves for a possible impeachment of President Musharraf. But the
foreign minister, in an eloquent, hard-hitting speech delivered in Urdu, rejected the
charges as unfair and he and leader of the house Raza Rabbani, who briefly spoke
before him, recalled some major perceived acquiescences of the previous
government on issues such as the India-Pakistan civilian nuclear deal and
confidence-building measures with New Delhi over the Kashmir dispute. Mr Qureshi
said the government made a “substantial progress” during the prime minister’s US
visit in achieving its objectives to review bilateral relations at the highest level,
remove “misunderstandings”, set up a trust-based long-term relationship and win
economic and military assistance.

The prime minister, he said, also had interaction with all quarters relevant to
policymaking including the future US leadership, Congress, the IMF and the World
Bank, think tanks and prospective investors. Among the outcomes he cited were a
US commitment to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty (while fighting Al Qaeda and
Afghan Taliban), complete support to the democratic dispensation in Pakistan, a
strategic partnership dialogue beginning in September, an economic dialogue for
which American experts will arrive here on Aug 11, tripled $15 billion development
aid to be disbursed at the rate of $1.5 billion a year, an accelerated legislation to
set up reconstruction opportunity zones in the tribal areas, a commitment to
enhance Pakistan’s counter-terrorism capabilities, energy and education dialogues
and an agreement to strengthen an anti-terrorism tripartite Afghan-Pakistan-Nato
military commission. “If
“If you study these achievements, no intelligent and patriotic
Pakistani can say that the (prime minister’s) visit was a failure,”
failure,” he said. However,
he said, the Americans had some expectations from Pakistan such as not allowing
its soil to be used against any other country, expulsion of foreign fighters and
checking cross-border movement of militants, all of which were also in Pakistan’s
own interests. The minister said while the government would never capitulate to
terrorists, it would engage those people in a political dialogue who wanted to
respect Pakistani laws, undertake social and economic uplift of the tribal belt and
make a “measured use of force” as done lately in the tribal area near Peshawar and
Swat and Hangu areas of the North West Frontier Province. He also referred to talks
with the Indian and Afghan leaders that led to a revival of cordiality and dialogue
after recent tensions and rejected the opposition charges that the government had
changed its position against the Indo-US nuclear deal and that Islamabad’s request
for a UN probe into the Dec 27 assassination of former prime minister Benazir
Bhutto would damage the country’s national interests. Mr Qureshi announced his
intention to create an economic diplomacy wing in the foreign ministry and
promised to honour useful suggestions from the opposition in policy-making.

Author Location Dated

 07.08.08

– Isolating Taliban surrogates in Islamabad

It appears the elected rulers have no intention of ending the policy of appeasement
towards the extremists they inherited from the previous government… in fact they
seem to think that since the dictatorship allowed so much rope to this religious
mafia, a democratic dispensation can only do better by giving them a free hand to
implement their mad agendas. The one-day training camp that the Lal Masjid
brigade was helped to set up in the heart and capital of the republic some days ago
with full participation of sundry Maulanas and a section of our dreamy citizenry who
are waiting for the unlettered Taliban hordes to one day establish the Caliphate in
Islamabad, is proof enough of the old policy’s continuation. The presence of the
Maulanas, who never utter a word of displeasure when girls schools are bombed
and burned in Swat or elsewhere, at this ceremonial gathering of the Taliban’s local
surrogates to reassert their power by reviving and reopening a women’s seminary
that their supporters in the previous government had had to demolish when things
had got out of control, was quite in line with their real anti-women thinking. Burning
down regular schools where modern education is imparted to girls and reopening a
seminary where women are taught to take pride in their inferior status to men fulfil
the Taliban agenda of barring women from participation in national life. But the
absence of any elected representative from the ruling parties at the Lal Masjid show
does not encourage anyone to believe that their non participation in the black burqa
rally also meant their disapproval. If the zealots’ jamboree happened despite the
government’s disapproval (of which there were no visible signs) it shows the
administration’s helplessness in establishing its writ even in the country’s capital.
But it would be less difficult to understand it in terms of the government’s policy of
continuing with the appease ment legacy or its inability to understand the
difference between licence and liberty in a democratic society.

Given the intellectual caliber of the luminaries in power the last case seems to be
the likeliest. The elected government needs to be assured that it is more powerful
than any dictatorial regime because it is legitimate and represents the will of the
people in its right to rule. It can take harsh and unpalatable measures to establish
the people’s writ over the land. The government of the United States did not budge
from using force in quelling the illegal activities of the Branch Davidian cult led by
David Koresh. The FBI attacked the stronghold of the cult in 1993 which resulted in
the death of David Koresh himself alongwith 54 adults and 21 children. No dialogue
was held with Koresh and no Jirga of drooling elders was sent to him to reach an
accord or sign a deal for releasing kidnapped officials in exchange for accepting
illegitimate demands of the outlaws. Similarly China dealt with an iron hand with the
1992 Falun Gong movement which was trying to subvert the state through a clever
mystical ploy that ostensibly consisted in meditational exercises to make one a
better person but with its thousands of followers and practitioners was organizing
people against the state. It was fully supported by American agencies and its
leader, Li Hongzhi was invited to visit the States and enjoy 7-star hospitality. But
China said nothing doing sir, pack up and teach Falun Gong to Americans. We do
not need you. The movement ultimately petered out despite massive publicity on its
behalf in western media. No one hears of it any more.
The dreamy eyed amongst us in Islamabad who await the Caliphate and look
forward to a Pakistani Mulla Omar to emerge from the Lal Masjid, should be given a
sound lecture on the real aim of the Taliban which is to capture political power.
Their appeal to Islam is merely a ruse to befool simple people just as other
politicians use other attractive slogans. The Taliban have ordered cold-blooded
beheadings of our sol diers and sent suicide bombers in cities to rain death on
innocent civilians. They want to destroy the multicultural and multi-religious
structure of the Pakistani society. Their first targets will be the shrines of the saints
and places sacred to other sects of our faith. Then they will attack places of
learning. Since they have no knowledge of the higher things of life, they will soon
weaken the state from within and endanger the country’s security and peace in the
region. The people of Islamabad, specially the dreamy eyed who gather outside the
Lal Masjid every time the Taliban surrogates stage a melodrama complete with
hooded heroines, must know and try to understand why it is necessary to isolate
this misguided band in our city and Pakistan’s capital. Surely we cannot stop an
unsure government from sending another jirga to talk with the outlaws but this
much we can do.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 07.08.08

– Political thriller in the making, say pundits

The parliament may witness unprecedented events over the next few days, which
many believe would be quite stormy, as PPP-led coalition partners are gearing up to
impeach President Pervez Musharraf. Legal experts believe that the impeachment
process will prove to be a unique learning experience for parliamentarians and
constitutional experts alike. “It
“It will be interesting … if initiated, the process would
give rise to many questions because there is no precedent for impeaching the
president in Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said an eminent constitutional expert. He said that once the
charges had been framed, the president would be provided an opportunity to
defend his actions – by either personally appearing before a joint parliamentary
session or nominating someone to appear on his behalf. According to him, the
absence of a judicial precedent could impede the president’s ability to nominate a
lawyer or someone from outside parliament to defend himself, like former US
president Bill Clinton. The process, he said, could take months as the parliament
would thoroughly discuss the allegations, or it could empower some other institution
to conduct the inquiry. Disputing this point of view, another authority on legal
affairs said that during the joint sitting, parliamentarians could do nothing more
than speaking out in favour of the process. According to him, the president could be
removed from office only if a two-thirds majority in parliament voted in favour of the
impeachment motion. He said there were three grounds for the president to be
impeached – misconduct, incapacitation or violation of the Constitution.

Article 47, which deals with the removal or the impeachment of the president, says:
“… The president may … be removed from office on the ground of physical or
mental incapacity or impeachment on a charge of violating the Constitution or gross
misconduct.”
misconduct.” “Not
“Not less than one-half of the total membership of either house may
give to the speaker of the National Assembly or … the chairman (of the Senate)
written notice of its intention to move a resolution for the removal of, or … to
impeach, the president, and such notice shall set out the particulars of his
incapacity or the charge against him. “If (such) a notice … is received by the
chairman, he shall transmit it forthwith to the speaker.”
speaker.” It also stipulates the
National Assembly speaker to provide “a copy of the notice” to the president within
three days of its receipt and summon “a “a joint sitting not earlier than seven days
and not later than 14 days after the receipt of the notice”.
notice”. The joint sitting, it said,
might itself investigate or “cause
“cause to be investigated the ground or the charge upon
which the notice is founded”.
founded”. It entitles the president “to
“to appear and be
represented during the investigation … and before the joint sitting”. “If, after
consideration of the result of the investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the
joint sitting by the votes of not less than two-thirds of the total membership of the
parliament declaring that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity
or is guilty of violating the Constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall
cease to hold office immediately on the passing of the resolution.”
resolution.” Dr Sher Afgan
thought in the absence of a precedent, rules for the joint sitting of parliament were
sufficient for the president’s impeachment. However, he said, the coalition partners
would “never
“never succeed because they are not serious and there are differences
among them”.
them”. “Besides,
“Besides, the question will arise then who will be the next president
– whether Nawaz Sharif, who has been disqualified or Asif Zardari, who has been
accused of corruption, although he has been cleared through the controversial
National Reconciliation Ordinance.”
Ordinance.”

Author Location Dated

Yasir Abbasi dryiabbasi@yahoo.com 07.08.08

– What is your origin?

A few weeks ago I was chatting with a cousin who was born and brought up in
Britain. He had just returned from an informal meeting at his office and appeared
visibly annoyed. On inquiring he let out a tirade of emotions because a couple of
people at this meeting had asked him what his origin was. When he replied by
naming the English town he was born in, they seemed dissatisfied with the answer
and prodded further in a civilised manner, until they finally asked about the origin of
his parents. He appeared truly shocked at their questions and behaviour. He
claimed that they had never accepted him as a native and would be reluctant to call
him British. It was difficult for me to clearly understand the reasons behind his
cathartic outburst. Surely it is not that bad asking about someone’s origin; we do
that all the time in Pakistan! Unesco describes culture as a “set “set of distinctive
spiritual, material, intellectual and emotional features of society or a social group. It
encompasses, in addition to art and literature, lifestyles, ways of living together,
values systems, traditions and beliefs. Respecting and safeguarding culture is a
matter of Human Rights [sic].”
[sic].” It also goes on to report that around 175 million
persons are residing away from the country of their birth and one in every 10
persons in the developed regions is a migrant. Different things can at times signify
your roots. Some people can easily be identified by their names; others can be
grouped together because of the similarities in their physical appearance. You can
also correlate between groups of people by just noticing their cultural practices.

Our society in Pakistan is extremely heterogeneous but unfortunately we still have

not come to terms with the concept of multiple identities. To be proud of your
ethnicity is considered to be unpatriotic. How can persons whose ancestors have
been Sindhis or Pakhtuns for hundreds of years suddenly give up being what they
are and adopt just one identity which is just over 60 years old? Race or ethnicity
exists at multiple levels; it varies from your genetic make-up to how you practice
your culture. A completely independent subject of research is dedicated to this area
known as anthropology. But unfortunately only culture has come to take the burden
of race in our country. If we start from the basics and believe that all humans are
not the same and accept diversity as a fact rather than a burden, then we won’t go
astray. Why is it wrong for a person to retain their cultural or genetic identity and at
the same time adopt a new one? What is wrong in being a Pakistani of Sindhi or
Seraiki origin or Baloch or Kashmiri origin? A recent example can be taken from the
issue of renaming the NWFP. Why are we so afraid in giving the people what
rightfully belongs to them? When Chaudhry Rahmat Ali came up with the acronym
of Pakistan, the second letter (A) in this name actually stood for Afghania. The
people of the NWFP have actually made a compromise in agreeing to name their
province Pakhtunkhwa. The usual rhetorical argument given against renaming the
province is that it will increase the sense of separatism there and it is not just
Pakhtuns who live in the province. The interesting part is that we conveniently
forget other provinces with similar dilemmas. Punjab still retains its name even
though there is a large Seraiki population there. What about Balochistan which has
both Pakhtun and Brahvi people living there in substantial numbers and how can we
forget Sindh which has a large population of Pakistanis of North Indian origin (a
term recently coined by Ayesha Siddiqa for mohajirs or the Urdu-speaking
community).

These problems are not specific to Pakistan. In most of the developing world one
group of the population is trying to suppress another on the basis of ethnic, cultural
or religious differences. Even in our neighbouring country to the east, there is a
great deal of ethnic tension between the north and the south. But we need to
introspect first before we are even eligible to comment on others. We cannot have a
dialogue if we all think the same. So difference is necessary. And we all know that
the smaller the differences, the more fiery the dialogue may become. This can be
avoided by having a clear ideology and an agenda which caters to the needs of
everyone. But for this to happen we need to have sincere politicians and genuine
political will, a very rare entity to come across in Pakistan. We should be celebrating
our ethno-cultural diversity rather than suppressing it. This diversity should be our
collective strength rather than weakness. By accepting we are different at many
levels we can become more tolerant of each other. The more rights we give to
different ethnic groups the more they will participate in being true stakeholders in
the country. We should be studying different ethnic groups at an academic level
and should encourage research students to do PhDs in this area so that it gives us
more insight into different ways of life and hence into our society. We really need to
create a truly pluralistic society otherwise we shall disintegrate into the realm of
history without a trace.The road ahead of us is not an easy one. We are facing grave
difficulties in the form of economic instability, deep-rooted terrorism and morally
corrupt politicians. If we sincerely want our children to live in a country of civilised
people we really need to do something now. We can start by accepting our friends
and neighbours with an open heart and respect their right to love, live and
propagate their culture and religion. ¦ The writer is speciality registrar in
forensic psychiatry at the Sheffield Care NHS Trust, UK

Author Location Dated

Reuters Air Force One 07.08.08

– Further ‘punitive’ steps against Iran needed: US

The White House said on Wednesday it believed world powers had to take further
“punitive” measures against Iran because Tehran gave no concrete reply to their
demand that it freeze its nuclear activities. The US comments came hours ahead of
a conference call with senior officials from China, Russia, France, Germany and
Britain to decide how to proceed. The major powers say they fear Tehran wants to
build an atomic bomb. But Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, insists it is
only seeking to master nuclear technology to generate electricity. “In “In the absence
of a positive response to the generous offer that we provided for in our extended
package, we think that the allies will have no choice but to take further measures
that would be punitive,”
punitive,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said aboard Air
Force One. Iran’s one-page letter handed to European Union foreign policy chief
Javier Solana on Tuesday gave no firm reply to an offer from the major powers to
refrain from more UN penalties if Iran freezes expansion of its nuclear work. Iran
instead promised a “clear response” at an unspecified date. “I “I think that the
Iranians have long stalled on responding to the allies, so I think the most important
thing we can do is let the political directors have their conference call and decide on
their next steps,”
steps,” said Perino, travelling with US President George Bush in Asia.

The letter from Tehran said: “Iran

“Iran is ready to provide a ‘clear response’ to your
proposal at the earliest possibility, while simultaneously expecting to receive your
‘clear response’ to our questions and ambiguities as well.”
well.” Referring to the letter,
Perino said: “We
“We don’t have the decent and responsive statement from the
Iranians.”
Iranians.” French Foreign Ministry spokesman Romain Nadal agreed, saying Iran has
not answered the most basic question. “The “The question posed is clear and calls for a
simple answer: does Iran accept the “freeze for freeze” offer to launch
negotiations? It does not require further clarification,”
clarification,” Nadal told reporters in Paris.
“We regret that Iran has once again chosen not to answer clearly despite all the
efforts the six have made these past weeks to offer a framework for negotiations,”
negotiations,”
he added. A spokesman for Germany’s foreign minister told a news conference that
officials would use the conference call later on Wednesday to jointly analyse and
evaluate the letter. “The
“The German government believes it is important to maintain
the unity between the EU3 (Germany, France and Britain) plus 3 (United States,
China and Russia) and that this unity is an important recipe for the success of our
policy towards Iran.”
Iran.” Diplomats cautioned it would be difficult to pass a fourth round
of Security Council sanctions against Iran because of reluctance from Russia and
China, as well as Germany. Israeli cabinet minister Shaul Mofaz, a frontrunner to
succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, denounced his native Iran on Wednesday as
“the root of all evil” and said its nuclear programme constituted a threat to world
peace. He urged the West to impose stiffer sanctions to pressure Iran to stop its
nuclear programme. Israel is widely believed to have assembled the Middle East’s
only nuclear arsenal.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 07.08.08

– Deadline extended in Nepal for new govt

Nepal’s president has extended a deadline for ex-rebel Maoists to form the first
government of the new republic in a bid to end weeks of political deadlock, an
official said on Wednesday. Bitter wrangling has left the impoverished Himalayan
nation in political limbo with no formal government since it abolished its 240-year-
old monarchy and became a federal democratic republic in May. President Ram
Baran Yadav “has“has given the Maoists three days additional time to form a consensus
government,”
government,” Lokhari Pandey, joint secretary of the president’s office, said. Yadav
had asked the Maoists, who won the most seats in recent elections, to form a
national consensus government by Tuesday, but the party failed to bridge its
differences with rivals. “The
“The deadline was extended at the request of Maoist
chairman Prachanda after reaching an understanding with the other political
parties,”
parties,” Yadav said. The former rebels were working hard to win backing from the
other parties to establish a national government, Maoist spokesman Krishna
Bahadur Mahara said. “The“The talks are heading towards a positive direction and being
held in a conducive environment for reaching consensus,”
consensus,” Mahara said. “Hopefully,
“Hopefully,
we’ll be able to reach a common understanding in the next few days.”
days.” A spokesman
for the second-largest party, the Nepali Congress, echoed Mahara’s optimism,
saying chances of “a “a national unity government have increased.”
increased.” ”The
”The meeting of
the four parties along with Maoists has moved the process in a positive direction,”
direction,”
said spokesman Arjun Narsingh Khatri Chettri. The Maoists emerged as the single
largest party in a newly elected, 601-seat assembly whose task is to produce the
nation’s new constitution within two years. But the party is still short of a simple
majority to form the government on their own, which means they need to find an
ally. Earlier this week, the Maoists presented a policy programme in a bid to build a
consensus to lead the next government. It focused on land reform, youth
unemployment, and boosting fuel and food supplies. The Maoists, who waged a
deadly revolt for 10 years, want to overturn what they call a “feudal,” caste-ridden
system. The ultra-leftists ended their bloody uprising in 2006.

Author Location Dated

Sangeeta Sharma Jodhpur, India 07.08.08

– Baby born to surrogate Indian mother in legal limbo

The future of a 12-day old baby girl born to an Indian surrogate mother hung in
legal limbo on Wednesday after the Japanese couple who planned to take her home
divorced. Manji Yamada was born last month after eggs from an Indian donor were
fertilised using the Japanese man’s sperm and implanted in the womb of the
surrogate Indian mother. Her biological father split from his wife after the
fertilisation process, and his former spouse no longer wants the baby. In the
absence of a surrogacy law in India, the child who is an Indian citizen will have to be
adopted by her Japanese father Ikufumi Yamada, 45. But Indian law does not allow
the adoption of a girl by a single father, lawyers and doctors said. “There
“There is a legal
complication as the father is alone and Indian adoption law says a single male can’t
adopt a girl,”
girl,” Sanjay Arya, the doctor who is looking after the baby, said. Manji
cannot leave the country without a passport and is being looked after in Jaipur by
her paternal grandmother and an Indian friend of the father. “Yamada
“Yamada went to the
local passport office. He was told to go to the Japanese embassy, which asked him
to get a document from an Indian court to get custody of the child,”
child,” Arya said. “He
“He
felt like a football.”
football.” The baby’s father and grandmother were present at the hospital
for her birth. Yamada has since returned to work in Japan, and is expected to come
back to India after some headway has been made. “I “I spoke to him today. He can’t
plan anything till the baby’s passport is made,”
made,” said Ikufumi’s friend, Kamal
Vijayvargiya, who consulted legal experts. Arya, the doctor, said lawyers would file
a court petition on Thursday seeking adoption by the father and temporary custody
of the child by the grandmother till then. “The
“The surrogacy doesn’t matter. He is, after
all, the biological father,”
father,” the doctor said.

Manji was born on July 25 in western Gujarat state. The child’s father, identified by
the Indian media as a Tokyo surgeon, moved her to Jaipur city in Rajasthan state
after serial bomb attacks in Gujarat in which some 50 people died. “The “The baby is
alright, but the grandmother is very tense,”
tense,” and wants to take the infant back to
Japan as soon as possible, Arya said. The baby’s fate made front-page news in
Indian dailies. “Conceived
“Conceived in Japan, stuck in Jaipur”
Jaipur” read the headline of the largest-
selling English daily, The Times of India, saying the baby could become the
country’s “first surrogate orphan” if the problems were not resolved. “With
“With India
emerging as a destination for surrogate pregnancies, a law (to regulate surrogacy)
will have to be brought into effect,”
effect,” leading lawyer Indira Jaising told the Indian
Express newspaper. Critics call the practice “wombs for rent”, but surrogacy has
emerged as a booming business in India. Gujarat’s Anand town where the baby was
born has emerged as India’s surrogacy centre after the high-profile case of a
woman who gave birth to her own grandchildren on behalf of her British-based
daughter in 2004. Surrogate mothers in Anand charge about $2,500 for a
pregnancy and have been approached by a number of overseas Indian and foreign
couples who can have a surrogate baby at a fraction of the cost in western
countries. Surrogate mothers are often poor women who opt to carry a stranger’s
baby to help pay education and housing costs for their own families.

Author Location Dated

Qasim A. Moini Karachi, Pakistan 07.08.08

– Sindh minister rejects threats of Talibanisation in Karachi

Mincing no words, Sindh Home Minister Zulfiqar Ali Mirza denied that
‘Talibanisation’ was taking place in Karachi and said that no one would be evicted
from the metropolis without concrete proof of involvement in criminal or terrorist
activities. Dr Mirza was speaking at a press conference on Wednesday at the city’s
Central Police Office, flanked by the police top brass, including IG Sindh Sultan
Salahuddin Babar Khattak, Capital City Police Officer (CCPO) Waseem Ahmed and
the heads of the city’s three policing zones. The press conference seemed to mark a
new low in relations between the PPP and its coalition partner in Sindh, the
Muttahida Qaumi Movement. At a press conference on Tuesday the MQM’s
parliamentary leader in the National Assembly Dr Farooq Sattar had accused Dr
Mirza and the Sindh chief minister, along with unnamed political and religious
parties, of “hiding the truth” about creeping Talibanisation in Karachi. MQM leader
Altaf Hussain has also been issuing regular statements regarding the perceived
threat posed to Karachi by the Taliban, asking the government to take action
against the militant movement. “There
“There is no evidence of Talibanisation in Karachi,”
Karachi,”
the home minister told journalists. “As
“As long as no one is involved in criminal
activities, they will not be evicted from the city. “Illegal, terrorist activities will not
be tolerated in Karachi or Sindh as long as I am home minister. I mean business.
Our job is to provide citizens peace and security. I am not among those home
ministers who sell thanas. I know what I have to do and I shall do it.” it.” He said all
educational institutions – from madressahs to English-medium schools – were being
watched for signs of criminal or subversive activities. “There
“There are different types of
terrorism: there is religious terrorism and political terrorism. Some elements want
to destabilise democratic governments through acts of terrorism. “However, a
terrorist is a terrorist and a criminal is a criminal. There are no ifs, ands or buts
about it. Religion, language, ethnicity and political affiliation have no standing in
the eyes of the law.”
law.”

Referring to Dr Sattar’s comments made on Tuesday, the Sindh home minister said:
“As responsible cabinet members, our respected colleagues in the MQM gave the
impression that the Sindh government is asleep. “We are not asleep. We are awake.
We’ve been on high alert for the past one and-a-half months.”
months.” The minister said he
had raised the issue with the Sindh governor and communicated his reservations
about Dr Sattar’s statement. “The cabinet is the proper forum to raise such
concerns.” Dr Mirza also criticised the MQM’s performance in the last government,
asking whether the 2002 attack outside a fivestar hotel in Karachi, in which over a
dozen people, mostly French naval engineers, were killed and several attempts on
President Pervez Musharraf’s life happened during the PPP’s watch. “Our“Our brothers in
the government were part of the last set-up. It was out of compulsion to keep peace
in Karachi that we invited them to join the coalition government,”
government,” he said. Referring
to “Operation Zalzala” launched by the army in January this year against Taliban
militants in Waziristan and the subsequent influx of refugees into Karachi from that
region, the home minister defended the right of the displaced people to stay in
Karachi. “Pakhtuns
“Pakhtuns are just as much citizens of Pakistan as I am. They are our
brothers. They are against Talibanisation. As long as people are peaceful, they can
stay in Karachi as long as they want.”
want.” Dr Mirza also claimed that statements such as
the one made by Farooq Sattar were scaring away investors. “With“With apologies, I
want to tell my brothers in the government that these sorts of statements are
causing capital flight. Industrialists are packing up and leaving. Please avoid making
such statements.”
statements.”

As for the serial blasts that ripped through Karachi on July 7 this year, the home
minister said he was embarrassed to refer to the blast as bombs and said they
should instead be called explosions. “No“No religious group is responsible. We will tell
you very soon who is behind these explosions.The targeting of Pashto-speaking
leaders in the city, the (serial) explosions meant to create a rift between Urdu and
Pashto speaking citizens and the murder of (Bilawal House security chief) Khalid
Shahanshah are all part of a conspiracy to destabilise the Awami National Party,
MQM and PPP coalition in Sindh. This will happen over my dead body,”body,” he said.
Responding to questions, he said the MQM was being fed wrong information. To
another query he said it was necessary to differentiate between Afghan localities,
which had been around for about two decades, and Pakhtun neighbourhoods
inhabited by Pakistani Pakhtuns. When a journalist asked if he was targeting a
particular political party, Zulfiqar Mirza said he was not targeting anyone and that
his words should not be twisted. He said there was a difference between
Islamisation and Talibanisation. “Islamisation,
“Islamisation, yes, Talibanisation, no,”
no,” he said.
When asked about the wall-chalking and posters that have sprouted up across the
city warning citizens against the impending Taliban threat, Dr Mirza said it was an
“organised campaign to destabilise law and order.”
order.” To a question about Lal Masjid
cleric Maulana Abdul Aziz’s wife Umme Hassan’s recent visit to Karachi, the minister
said that as a Pakistani she was free to visit the city. “We
“We were watching her. She is
not a labelled terrorist.”
terrorist.” Asked about the insistence of some political circles to form
citizens’ committees to protect Karachi from the Taliban, Dr Zulfiqar Mirza said no
help was needed to maintain law and order. “Personal
“Personal armies and lashkars will not
be allowed.”
allowed.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 07.08.08

– Joint efforts under way on ISI issue: US

The Pentagon has described Pakistan’s problems with its intelligence services as a
“historical issue” and said the US and Pakistani governments are working together
to overcome these problems. Pentagon Press Secretary Geoff Morrell made the
observation at a regular briefing when asked if Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani
had assured the US that the ISI would cooperate with US forces to help stop cross-
border attacks into Afghanistan. “With
“With regards to the Pakistani intelligence services,
I think that’s been historically an issue in that country,”
country,” he said. “There
“There are signs
that it remains so. And … our two governments are working to deal with those
problems.”
problems.” Prime Minister Gilani visited Washington last week for talks with
President George W. Bush, senior members of his cabinet and with senior US
lawmakers. And according to White House Press Secretary Dana Perino, Mr Bush
and Mr Gilani “spent
“spent most of the time talking about counterterrorism issues”.
issues”.
Meanwhile, reports in the US media, published since Mr Gilani’s visit, claim that the
US and Pakistan are going to work together to reduce ISI’s role in the war on terror
and its influence in domestic politics. The reports also claim that there were no talks
on President Pervez Musharraf’s future at the Bush-Gilani meeting as the Americans
have already indicated to Islamabad that they regard this as an internal problem of
Pakistan and they will accept whatever decision is taken there. But Ms Perino, in a
briefing on Bush-Gilani talks, did emphasis Mr Bush’s personal feelings for Mr
Musharraf. “President
“President Bush got to know President Musharraf very well over a period
of many years, and they went through some pretty rough times together and
established a good friendship,”
friendship,” she said. Asked if the US had complained to
Pakistan about its inability to stop the militants, the Pentagon press secretary said:
“We’ve complained about it, to some degree, from here. … I would reiterate that we
have seen and continue to see Pakistani military operations in the Fata, and we are
pleased to see that.”
that.” But he also stressed the need for Pakistan to do more. “As“As
we’ve said before, this needs to be a concerted and consistent effort to go after the
militants to prevent them from either creating training grounds and safe havens
within Pakistan or going into Afghanistan and causing trouble there.”
there.” The US, he
said, would not only want Pakistan to continue its efforts to defeat militants but
wanted “to“to see probably even more robust efforts on Pakistan’s part”.
part”. Pakistan, he
said, remained a key US ally in the global war on terrorism and “we “we need their
assistance”.
assistance”.

Asked how the US could persuade Pakistan to do more, Mr Morrell reminded the
questioner that Pakistan was “a
“a sovereign nation which happens to have a lawless
area along the border with Afghanistan in which we have seen far too many
militants operate”.
operate”. The US and Pakistan, he said, were working together to confront
a threat that was shared by them. The Pentagon spokesman also rejected the
suggestion by an Indian journalist that the United States had given billions of dollars
to Pakistan. “You’re
“You’re saying … we’ve given billions of dollars -- and I would take
issue with the fact we’ve given it. We’ve reimbursed the Pakistanis billions of dollars
for operations they’ve conducted on our behalf within their borders,”
borders,” he said. But he
agreed with the journalist that despite this generous assistance, the US remained
unpopular in Pakistan. “That’s
“That’s a sad reality if that’s the case. And it’s something
that this (US) government is working hard to try to remedy,”
remedy,” he said. Mr Morrell said
that while the US was helping Pakistan fight the extremists, the Pakistanis needed
to realise that this was a more immediate threat to them than to the Americans.
“We saw that, you know, with the assassination of Benazir Bhutto,”
Bhutto,” he added. “And
“And
so, I would hope that Pakistanis would realise that we are their ally against this
mutual threat.”
threat.” The Pentagon official also conceded that the US needed to do a
better job in communicating all the good it did around the world, including in
Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider New York 07.08.08

– Aafia Siddiqui appears in US court, denied bail

Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist, was ordered to be held without bail by a
US federal court judge in Manhattan on Tuesday on charges that she tried to kill an
American soldier and an FBI agent while in US custody in Kabul. Ms Siddiqui,
wearing a maroon headscarf, gingerly walked into the courtroom with the help of
her lawyers. Looking frail and in pain recovering from a gunshot wound she
received in what the prosecution lawyers described as an encounter in Afghanistan
after police claimed they discovered suspicious documents about explosives and
landmarks from her handbag. Ms Siddiqui’s court-appointed probono lawyer,
Elizabeth M. Fink, told Judge Ronald Ellis that the allegation that her client, who
weighed 90 pounds, had picked up the rifle and attacked the Americans, was
“patently absurd”.
absurd”. “Is
“Is that what happened, Judge?”,
Judge?”, Ms Fink asked sounding
bewildered. She demanded Ms Siddiqui’s immediate release. Ms Siddiqui was held
without bail on one count each of attempted murder and assault stemming from
last month’s incident. She had been arrested in Afghanistan and flown to New York
to be formally charged, according to the Justice Department. Judge Ellis set an
August 11 hearing to determine whether Ms Siddiqui should be released on bail. He
also said he would ask prison officials to make sure she was receiving proper
medical care after a defence attorney told the magistrate that she had been shot.
“She has a wound, and it’s oozing.”
oozing.” The judge allowed her to remain seated.
Another hearing was set for August 19 to determine whether Ms Siddiqui should be
tried.

The judge expressed surprise at the quick extradition of Ms Siddiqui from

Afghanistan to New York noting that in such a short period one could not extradite a
person from Bronx (a New York Borough) to Manhattan. Ms Siddiqui was taken into
custody on July 17 after she was found loitering outside an Afghan police station
with suspicious items in her handbag, including documents describing the creation
of explosives, a criminal complaint filed by US district attorney in New York said. US
officials insisted that they had no knowledge of her whereabouts until she was
arrested by Afghan police for acting suspiciously outside the gover nor’s compound
in the central Afghan province of Ghazni on July 17. They said that Ms Siddiqui was
with a teenage boy at the time. Two FBI agents escorted by US soldiers interrogated
her the following day.The soldiers were unaware that she was being held behind a
curtain and a warrant officer put his M4 rifle on the ground, the complaint filed by
US attorney’s office said. Ms Siddiqui allegedly grabbed the rifle and fired two shots
at a US army captain but an interpreter pushed the gun away as she fired. As the
soldiers returned fire, she was hit at least once. “The
“The warrant officer saw and heard
Siddiqui fire at least two shots as Interpreter 1 tried to wrestle the gun from her. No
one was hit,”
hit,” the criminal complaint says. “The
“The warrant officer heard Siddiqui
exclaim, ‘Allah akbar!’ Another interpreter heard Siddiqui yell in English, ‘Get the
f*** out of here!’ as she fired the rifle.”
rifle.”

Ms Siddiqui is also alleged to have possessed descriptions of landmarks in the

United States, documents about US military assets and excerpts from The Anarchist
Arsenal. American intelligence agencies have said that she had links to at least two
of the 14 men suspected of being high-level members of Al Qaeda who were moved
to Guantánamo Bay in September 2006. The charges against her, however, do not
appear to be related to those allegations, but to what prosecutors say was her
assault on the Americans who were about to question her. Ms Fink said after the
hearing that her client was innocent and would fight the charges. The hearing
cleared up none of the mysteries that have surrounded Ms Siddiqui’s case since she
disappeared with her three children while visiting her parents’ home in Karachi in
2003. Her family and human rights groups have said they believe that she was
being held secretly; a family lawyer, Elaine Whitfield Sharp, said after the hearing
that it was “in
“in US detention”.
detention”. US authorities deny that assertion and say they have
no knowledge of where she was for the past five years, until she was taken into
custody last month. Sam Zarifi, the Asia-Pacific director for Amnesty International,
on Tuesday challenged the American government’s version of the events that led to
Ms Siddiqui’s detention, New York Times reported on Wednesday.

Author Location Dated

Shamim-ur-Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 07.08.08

– Overloaded KESC transformers may aggravate power crisis

While Karachiites continue to suffer power outages of more than two hours at least
thrice a day due to a shortfall of 250 megawatts, there are apprehensions that
Karachi might soon plunge into darkness due to burning out of most of the 112
transformers installed in the Karachi Electric Supply Company’s 46 grid stations
which are operating at capacity much higher than the specified international safety
standards. Sources said 31 transformers at some grid stations were operating at
100 per cent capacity against the international standard of 70 per cent. Twenty-one
transformers were operating at 90 per cent capacity while 25 were functioning at 80
per cent. Only 13 transformers were operating at 70 per cent. These transformers
are of 30 to 40 MVA capacities. Because of operating at much higher level of
international safety standards, these transformers, insiders fear, may burn out and
result in a total collapse of the KESC transmission and distribution system, as was
witnessed on the day the city received the first monsoon showers, causing
widespread losses. Owing to this critical situation with regard to the KESC assets
and liquidity issue, the Dubai-based Al Abaraj is dragging its feet on taking over the
utility unless those contentious issues are resolved, the sources said. There are
reports that Al Abaraj is not happy about the continuing dispute over outstanding
dues between the Water and Power Development Authority and the KESC. The new
owners, to whom Aljomaih group has sold the controlling shares of the KESC, and
thus the management of the KESC, are insisting that this matter be settled before
they formally take over.

While WAPDA is insisting that the KESC owes it about 40 billion rupees, the KESC is
maintaining that the outstanding amount is Rs13 billion. The matter has remained
unresolved because WAPDA is maintaining that its cost of fuel has swelled
considerably for supplying power to the KESC. The KESC, on the other hand, has
maintained that WAPDA should charge the cost of hydel energy. The clash of
interests of different groups within the utility has also marred the functioning of the
KESC owing to which there have been problems of generation, transmission and
distribution. In view of the deteriorating situation of the KESC, there are fears that
the government might appoint a liquidator rather than an administrator. Such a
move will save the investors but might deprive workers of their provident fund,
already mortgaged by the privatised management, and other dues. The general
secretary of the KESC Shareholders’ Association, Chaudhry Mazhar, has expressed
concern over the situation and urged the government to take steps to protect the
workers’ and the common man’s interests. He said that if a liquidator was appointed
in the present situation, it would endanger the Rs2.5 billion estimated to be in the
workers’ provident fund. He also expressed concern over the deteriorating
conditions of the KESC generation, transmission, and distribution system and urged
the management to immediately address the dwindling generation and overloaded
grids. He said if that was not done, Karachi would face widespread breakdowns very
soon. He named one of the directors of the KESC as being responsible for the delay
in the procurement of rental power and work on the 560-megawatt generation
facility at Bin Qasim. He said tender of that project was floated in 2007 and its
evaluation was done in June last year. But progress could not be made due to
vested interests of management officials. Had the processing been done on time, by
next year about 800 megawatts would have been added, he said. Meanwhile, there
are indications that the new chief financial officer of the KESC, Jaleel Tareen, will
take charge by Aug 15. Meanwhile, the CEO, Gen (retd) Amjad, has not resumed
office and there is no one to take command in his absence.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 08.08.08

– Countdown Begins
Leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and the Pakistan Muslim League-N
(PML-N) have agreed to begin impeachment proceedings against President Pervez
Musharraf, charging him with violating the Constitution, weakening the federation
and other state institutions and causing a critical economic impasse. “The
“The coalition
believes that it has become imperative to move for impeachment under Article 47
(of the Constitution),”
Constitution),” PPP cochairman Asif Zardari said at a news conference he
addressed here on Thursday along with his partners in the ruling coalition, including
PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, after three days of hectic dialogue. On the other hand,
President Pervez Musharraf again cancelled his visit to China where he was due to
attend the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics. Hours before the
announcement of the impeachment decision, the foreign ministry announced that
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, instead of President Musharraf, would attend the
Olympics ceremony. Mr Zardari read out a ‘joint communique’ issued after the final
round of talks with his coalition partners and said he had asked the PML-N to rejoin
the cabinet — to which Mr Sharif would respond after consultations. The
communique contains a complete plan for impeachment proceedings and an outline
of the charge-sheet that will be presented along with a resolution for impeachment
in a joint sitting of parliament. All the four provincial assemblies will adopt
resolutions demanding that President Musharraf should seek a vote of confidence
immediately in accordance with a commitment made in the Supreme Court. The
coalition decided to initiate the process if the president failed to take a confidence
vote.

Mr Zardari did not give dates for convening the sessions of the national and
provincial assemblies. However, according to sour ces, the government is planning
to convene the sessions on Aug 11 because it wants to complete the process of
impeachment by the end of the current month. The coalition claimed to have the
required strength in parliament to impeach the president. “We “We have the numbers
and we have the courage and will to do it,”it,” was Mr Zardari’s reply to a question.
However, at one point he said that he had 90 per cent hopes that the plan would
succeed. The coalition leadership resolved to reinstate “strictly
“strictly in accordance with
the Murree Declaration”
Declaration” all the judges removed through “extra-constitutional
“extra-constitutional
means”
means” by Gen Musharraf on Nov 3 (last year). The step would be taken
immediately after the president’s impeachment, said Mr Zardari. “I “I don’t think the
coalition and democracy are so weak that any person can use Article 58-2(b),”
58-2(b),” said
Mr Zardari in response to a question about the possibility of the president dissolving
the assemblies. He warned that if the president invoked the article it would be his
“last act against Pakistan and its people”.
people”. Mr Sharif, in an apparent reference to the
dissolution of the assemblies in the past, said it was not the 1980s and 1990s. He
said frequent military takeovers had weakened the country. When asked whether
the coalition wanted to hold a trial of President Musharraf after his ouster, Mr
Zardari said the matter would be decided by parliament. In response to a question if
the coalition had the backing of the United States and the army for the move, Mr
Sharif said they did not require any NOC (no-objection certificate) from any country
or person for impeaching the president. According to the communique, the coalition
felt that the people had given a clear mandate in the Feb 18 elections in favour of
democratic forces and voted for a change through the ouster of Gen (retd)
Musharraf by defeating his ‘King’s party’.

In spite of his clear commitment that he would resign if his party was defeated in
the elections, he continued to cling on to the office of the president.
Notwithstanding the constitutional position of his election on Oct 7 (last year) from
an outgoing parliament, he made a clear-cut commitment through his attorney
before the Supreme Court that he would get a vote of confidence from the newly-
elected assembly, which he failed to do.“He
do.“He also failed to address the new
parliament as required under Article 56 of the Constitution,”
Constitution,” Mr Zardari said. “The
“The
economic policies pursued by Gen Musharraf over the past eight years have
brought Pakistan to the brink of a critical economic impasse. The incompetence and
failure of his policies have thrown the country into its worst power shortage in
history. “His policies have weakened the federation and eroded the trust of the
nation in national institutions. He has worked to undermine the transition to
democracy through collusion with the King’s party, which was rejected by the
people of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” the communique said. The coalition partners resolved to
implement the Charter of Democracy signed by Mr Sharif and late PPP chairperson
Benazir Bhutto to work together to steer the country onto the path of constitutional
governance; to restore the supremacy of the Constitution, independence of the
judiciary and rule of law; to avert the impending economic crisis which the coalition
inherited on March 31 and to fight the menace of price hike, unemployment,
poverty, and loadshedding. “The
“The coalition also agreed to address the volatile
situation in Fata and the NWFP with policies shaped by the legitimacy of a
consensus in parliament,”
parliament,” it said. Haji Adeel of the Awami National Party (ANP),
Rehmatullah Kakar of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI-F) and MNAs Noorul Haq Qadri
and Hamidullah Afridi from the Federally Administered Tribal Areas were also
present. Meanwhile, PPP leader Makhdoom Amin Fahim once again warned his
party’s leadership against taking the ‘extreme step’. Talking to DawnNews TV, he
said the “coalition is playing with fire”. He was of the view that the move would
result in confrontation among state institutions. Senator Nisar Memon of the PML-Q
said his party had voted for Mr Musharraf and it would fully defend him in
parliament. He alleged that the coalition had announced the impeachment plan only
to divert the attention of the nation from the real issues and to hide its failure.
When asked about the options available with the president, the senator said he
would do whatever was in the nation’s interest. Expressing ‘disappointment’ over
the joint communique, a lawyer said a similar pledge had been made on March 9
after the signing of the Murree Declaration and the real test would be whether it
would be implemented in letter and spirit.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 08.08.08

– Weight of numbers against Musharraf

Though it seems a close call on paper, the numbers game in parliament could be
chilling for a besieged President Pervez Musharraf and his opponents forming the
present coalition government sound sure they will have more than the required
votes to impeach him possibly this month to terminate nearly nine years of his rule.
The coalition needs at least two-thirds, or 295, votes of the 440-strong total
membership of the National Assembly and the Senate in a joint sitting for the
success of the first such move in Pakistan’s history agreed to on Thursday by the
leaders of the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), the Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N)
and their allies, including some sitting on opposition benches. The anti-Musharraf
parties, which also include the Jamaat-iIslami and some Balochistan based
nationalist parties sitting on opposition benches, have a total of 274 members —
235 in the 340-seat National Assembly and 39 in the 100-seat Senate — which is far
short of the required numbers. But they could be sure of support from the majority
of a total of 27 independents with chances of anti-Musharraf vote by several
dissidents from parties of the previously ruling but the present opposition alliance
led by the Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q) with a total membership of 139 — 87
in the National Assembly and 52 in the Senate.
The coalition formally claimed
on Thursday of assured support
of 16 of the 20 National
Assembly and Senate members
from the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas
(Fata), two of whom sat with
PPP co-chairman Asif Ali
Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz
Sharif when the two leaders
announced the impeachment
move at a news conference
along with representatives
from smaller coalition partners
Awami National Party (ANP)
and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (JUI).
And one party official said
impeachment resolution could
be passed by up to 312 votes.
“We are very confident of a
clear win on numbers game,”
game,”
Information and Broadcasting
Minister Sherry Rehman told
Dawn. “We
“We have not come this
far without doing our
parliamentary homework.”
homework.” Law
and Parliamentary Ministry
adviser Izhar Amrohvi said the
coalition had the support of
305 members, including more
independents and possibly
defectors from the opposition
benches, and that the number
could go “up to 310 or 312”, though he declined to name any names. Former
women development minister Neelofar Bakhtiar formed an anti-Musharraf
sixmember “like-minded group” of PML-Q senators in February shortly after the Feb
18 elections lost by their party and another party activist in the National Assembly,
Kashmala Tariq, announced a similar group in the lower house recently, braving a
de-seating threat from party chief Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that was not carried
out. Formerly pro-PML-Q independent Senator Gulzar Ahmed Khan from the North
West Frontier Province, whose two sons are also independent senators, was seen
sitting on the treasury benches on Thursday when the upper house held an
inconclusive opposition-sought debate on the internal security situation in the
country. That meant the coalition gaining three votes that were cast for President
Musharraf in his controversial election by a parliamentary electoral college last
October.

While the PML-Q and PML-F of Pir Pagara have repeatedly assured support for the
president, the role of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), which has 25
members in the National Assembly and six in the Senate, will be keenly watched,
though the ruling coalition says its claimed numbers does not take the Karachi-
based party into account. The MQM has been a stout defender of the president and
is the second largest opposition party in both houses of parliament. But political
observers wonder whether the party, which has been under fire from most anti-
Musharraf parties for its alleged role in years of Karachi violence, can risk its place
in the PPP-led coalition government in Sindh province by voting for a president
unsure of winning what could be his last political battle. An MQM shift would surely
break the back of the proMusharraf camp. There are also speculations about the
role of PPP vice-chairman Amin Fahim, who appears sidelined by Mr Zardari and
who has publicly opposed the wisdom of opting for such move now. But party
sources said they would not expect Mr Fahim or some sidelined members like
senators Safdar Abbasi and Enver Baig to violate the party directive. While the
president had largely been isolated after the Feb elections won by his opponents,
the coalition parties seemed sure there would be no non-political intervention in
support of the former army chief when they decided to give him an opportunity to
ponder over his position rather than surprise him. The move also reflected the
coalition’s confidence that without such support from his former military
constituency, the president could not use his constitutional powers under article
58(2)b to dissolve the National Assembly and sack Prime Minister Yousuf Raza
Gilani. Their decision to ask the four provincial assemblies to pass resolutions
demanding that the president take a vote of confidence from parliament as he
committed to the Supreme Court before his October election, appeared aimed at
giving him enough time to make an exit by resigning instead of facing more
denunciations and less praise in impeachment proceedings in a largely hostile
parliament.

Since it is happening for the first time in 61 years of Pakistan’s life, it appears
unclear if an anti-defection article (63A) of the constitution providing for the de-
seating of a member voting against the party directive will apply to those voting for
the impeachment resolution against the president. But Mr Amrohvi thinks the article
will apply to the impeachment resolution, which he said must be passed by a voice
vote like any other resolution or, if challenged, by head count or lastly by a division.
The article could apply to a member on resigning from one’s party, voting or
abstaining contrary to the parliamentary party directive in the election of a prime
minister or a vote of confidence or no-confidence, or a vote on a money bill. It is
uncertain how long the impeachment proceedings will last after a notice for the
move is given by at least half of the total membership of either house of parliament
to be followed by the summoning of a joint sitting by the National Assembly speaker
“not earlier than seven days and not later than fourteen days after the receipt of
the notice”.
notice”. “The
“The joint sitting may investigate or cause to be investigated the
ground or the charge upon which the notice is founded,”
founded,” the relevant clause of the
constitution’s article 47 says. “The
“The president shall have the right to appear and be
represented during the investigation (of the charges), if any, and before the joint
sitting.”
sitting.” Another clause says: “If,
“If, after consideration of the result of the
investigation, if any, a resolution is passed at the joint sitting by the votes of not
less than twothirds of the total membership of Majlis-i-Shoora (Parliament) declaring
that the president is unfit to hold the office due to incapacity or is guilty of violating
the constitution or of gross misconduct, the president shall cease to hold office
immediately on the passing of the resolution.”
resolution.” The present National Assembly has
340 members, as two of its seats are vacant. But the Senate has its full strength of
100.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 08.08.08

– President falls back on trusted lieutenants

A beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf reiterated on Thursday his determination
to fight back and not to step down after coalition partners agreed to impeach him.
Sources said that the president had met his legal advisers and like-minded
politicians and rejected charges levelled against him by PPP co-chairman Asif Ali
Zardari at a news conference on Thursday. “I “I have done no wrong and whatever I
have done was in the best interest of the country. I have not abrogated the
Constitution and will respond to the charges against me in parliament,”
parliament,” he said. The
president has been holding meetings with his legal aides and loyalists over the past
two days. Prominent among those contacted by the president were PML-Q president
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, Chaudhry Hamid Nasir Chattha, PML-F chief Pir Pagara,
PPP-Sherpao president Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao and Awami Muslim League chief
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed. Mr Chattha told reporters after coalition parties’ meeting that
“the president will never give up and will fight it out till last”.
last”. According to a TV
channel, Pir Pagara ridiculed claims by the ruling coalition that it had a twothirds
majority in parliament. According to sources, the president held a threehour long
meeting with his chief legal adviser Sharifuddin Pirzada and discussed with him a
“bailout strategy”. Various suggestions, including the use of infamous 58(2)b and its
consequences, also came under discussion. Sheikh Rashid, however, denied that he
had talked to the president on phone. He told Dawn: “I “I have not talked to the
president and I cannot go for a rebuttal to TV channels’ reports.”
reports.” He said that
coalition parties did not have a twothirds majority in parliament. In reply to a
question why was he not meeting the president, he said: “There “There is no use of
meeting him as I have no vote for him.”
him.”

Author Location Dated

Sheikh Khurshid Hassan 08.08.08

– Betraying the trust

Our souls are indeed a trust with us. We have to guard them against all temptation.
Those who commit crime or indulge in evil practices betray that trust. The earthly
life is in fact a testing ground and as such our salvation lies in the successful
completion of the probationary period. We should not, therefore, get involved in
activities which are against the Quranic injunctions and the traditions of Holy
Prophet (pbuh). Some of those whose acts, which entail the displeasure of Allah, are
detailed below:

(a) Those who are ungrateful (39:7). Allah is independent of all wants and does not
need our prayers and prostrations. However, man’s gratitude and submission earn
Allah’s pleasure. Man’s ingratitude and rebellion, on the contrary, are displeasing to
Allah.

(b) Those who are wrongdoers (42:40). In addition to our misdeeds, the retribution
of evil is equal to the evil done. For instance, if we tolerate wrong or encourage
wrong by allowing it to become rampart, when we can prevent it, we fail in our duty
to Allah. Most commentators stress absolute prohibition of going beyond what is
right when defending one self against tyranny and oppression.

(c) Those who are proud and boasters (57:23). Allah does not love the egoist and
those who brag about themselves. The righteous does not grumble if someone else
has got worldly possession, nor those who out of self-conceit act in a boastful
manner. About his own assets, he neither covets nor boasts. If he has any
advantage, he shares it with other people as the benefit so accrued is not due to his
own efforts, but is a Divine gift.

(d) Those who are extravagant. Allah does not like those who are prodigal (6:141).
The meaning of Allah’s commandment is that we should be moderate in enjoying
the Divine blessings and be grateful to Allah. We should not indulge in the wastage
of Allah’s gifted resources. If we do so, we take away something from other needy
persons. Allah would not like our selfishness. In any case, we should not waste
Allah’s bounties as He does not love the wasteful.

(e) Those who are arrogant and do not believe in Hereafter. (16:22,23). Everything
points to Allah, the one True eternal God. If so, there is a Hereafter for He has
declared it. Insofar as people do not believe this; the fault is in their Will. They are
too arrogant to accept the idea of man’s utter dependence on and responsibility to
Supreme Being. Allah does not love the arrogant. Such men deprive themselves of
Allah’s grace.

(f) Those who are Transgressors (2:190). Divine commandments set out certain
conditions to wage war in the way of Allah against those who fight the faithful. To
be more specific, war is permissible in self-defence and under welldefined limits.
When undertaken, it must be pushed vigorously, but only to restore peace and
freedom for the wor ship of Allah. In any case, the strict limits must not be
transgressed.

(g) Those who betray the trust. (22:38). Allah does not like the traitors who deny the
truth. But Allah will surely defend the believers.
(h) Those who make good things unlawful. (5:87). According to Divine revelation,
the faithful should not deprive themselves of the good things of life, which Allah has
made lawful for them; the bonds of what is right should not, however, be
transgressed as Allah does not like such people.

(i) Those who dispute the signs of Allah (40:35). Those who dispute Allah’s
revelation with no authority having come to them, are greatly odious in the sight of
Allah. The arrogant transgressors having closed their hearts to the message of Allah
and to every appeal made to them, it followed by Allah’s law that their hearts were
sealed and their senses become impervious to good. Or in other words, their hearts
are hardened; they do not listen to the advice that falls on their ears. (2:7 & 7:100).

(j) Those who are proud and walk in insolence. (31:18). The English translation of
the verse reads ‘And
‘And swell not thy cheek (for pride) at men. Nor walk in insolence
through the earth, for Allah loveth not any ‘arrogant boaster’.
boaster’. According to a
commentator, the word ‘cheek’ in English too means arrogance or effrontery with a
slightly different shade added viz: effrontery from one in an inferior position to one
in a superior position. The Arabic usage is wider and includes smug self-satisfaction
and sense of lofty superiority.

(k) Those who are vainglorious. (28:76) In order to fully understand this aspect, the
Holy Quran has described the behaviour of Qarun, who was one of the followers of
Prophet Moses. Allah had bestowed upon him enormous treasures that a team of
wrestlers could hardly lift their keys. According to the Jewish religious books, the
weight of the keys was stated to be equivalent to the load of 300 mules. Under the
influence of false pride and self-exaltation he acted insolently towards his own folk.
Thereupon, his people told him ‘Exult
‘Exult not for Allah loveth not those who exult in
riches’.
riches’.

(l) Those who are faithless and commit crimes. For Allah loveth not those who are
given to perfidy and crime. (4:107) Besides, there are certain other persons whose
acts Allah dislikes. They include (1) those who are treacherous (8:58) and (2) those
who seek mischief in the land. (28:77). If we want to be among the honoured
supplicants of Allah, we should lead our worldly life like a true believer. The purpose
in view can be achieved, as in ordained by Allah (1:6&7), by following the path of
those whom Allah has blessed and not of those who have earned His anger as well
as of those who have gone astray.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 08.08.08

– Dreaming of revolution
People in politically troubled lands often begin to think nostalgically about the idea
of a revolution even though they might not have experienced one. Such a longing
indicates the level of frustration with their own ability to change conditions. Then
there are others who seem more hopeful than others. An army officer was recently
of the view that the current food crisis and price inflation problems could be solved
if the government agreed to subsidise three basic things — food, electricity and
water — which it must guarantee to the people. Since the gentleman was too
forceful it was difficult for others to draw his attention to the fact that a country that
is busy buying major weapons systems might find it difficult to find the money to
subsidise food. This applies to not just Pakistan but other countries as well including
our next-door neighbour. It is a matter of simple arithmetic. There are a few who
would argue that there is never a dearth of resources in the country but that the
civilian sector lacks the capacity to properly utilise resources. The poor capacity is
not an incorrect assumption except that civilian capacity can never build up in a
country where frequent military takeovers are a reality. The ‘good soldiers’ do not
realise that their show of efficiency always comes with a huge cost to the civilian
sector. Ours, unfortunately, is maimed at present and cannot improve unless
political conditions stabilise. Could one call it a coincidence that the officer himself
had joined the civil service and left a much-coveted military job?

The other side would argue that political stability can never come with the kind of
political leadership we have. In fact, as the gentleman I am referring to argued,
people will have to get up and march against bad politicians. He was probably
suggesting a mass movement, which can be a precursor to revolution. Furthermore,
his argument was that things would not improve if people did not shake off their
slumber and rise up against the questionable political leadership. There are many in
this land of the pure who argue that the problem with Pakistan is not with its
leadership but the kind of people we are: absolutely fickle in behaviour and prone to
electing poor leaders. Not that anyone can dare instruct a military man in history
but it would make a lot of difference if this gentleman and many others like him
take a few lessons in world history. If they do so they would see that mass
movements become difficult where states are extremely strong and societies weak.
Moreover, mass movements become difficult where the elite are not only predatory
but also rent-seeking and dependent on external forces for their survival. Pakistan
has a history of external dependency which has traditionally allowed foreign forces
to dictate their agenda to the Pakistani leadership. Usually the justification for
pleasing outside forces is the country’s financial dependency. We are told that if
certain countries and the multilateral aid donors influenced by the foreign powers
do not provide financial assistance the country would capsize or receive a poor
credit rating, which means that no one would willingly lend Pakistan money for
business or development ventures. Furthermore, foreign assistance is necessary so
that we can arm ourselves to strengthen national security.

Interestingly, our security has always re mained under threat because of the
embargo imposed by our foreign patrons. Surely the external patrons are not
entirely to blame if we do not agree with their agenda because they provide aid to
have their agenda followed rather than our own. This has become all too obvious in
the past few months. However, neither the military nor the civilian leadership has
the courage to refuse foreign assistance. What is even worse is that our ruling
oligarchs tend to use rhetoric regarding the need to maintain sovereignty to muster
support from the general public when they are the ones who constantly sabotage
the country’s political and diplomatic independence. The elite also fail to tell the
people that the country’s endemic political and financial dependence on foreign
powers is due to the rulers’ personal concerns rather than national security or
integrity. It was interesting to read in Shuja Nawaz’s book Crossed Swords how Gen
Ayub Khan, Pakistan’s then ambassador to the US Amjad Ali, and Governors General
Iskander Mirza and Ghulam Mohammad had established independent lines of
communication with the US seeking Washington’s support and friendship for
personal benefits. The situation today is exactly similar. Any nation that allows
foreign forces to intervene so willingly cannot produce good politics. One of the
consequences of this global system of patronage is that it creates a strong, top-
down state where the elite benefit from pursuing foreign agendas at home. The
state then extracts resources, develops a security framework and conducts other
functions to satisfy its foreign patrons instead of pursuing policies to satisfy society.

A glance at Pakistan will prove the point. The state’s lack of capacity to reorganise
relations between the centre and the federating units or amongst its various
institutions is due to the fact that it has to constantly shuffle to fulfil the
requirements of its patrons and its own oligarchs. For instance, the phenomenon of
the ‘disappeared’ stems from the need of the ruling elite to satisfy its various
external clients including the Americans, the Chinese and many more.
Understandably, the state has failed to provide any satisfactory answer regarding
the whereabouts of the missing people. A strong state and a weak society, which is
a ramification of the above-mentioned equation, is an unhealthy combination which
generates greater socio-political instability. For one, it creates a strong system of
domestic patronage in which various ruling classes or groups ape the system we
observe at the global level. So the political parties, civil and military bureaucracies,
financial groups and even the clergy have their own independent systems of
patronage which cater to the needs of the chosen few. Facilities are provided to
those that support a certain group once it is in power while others are ostracised.
The amount of authority or repression that is generally used under a regime also
depends on a particular government’s ability to use violence and power. This
behaviour saps the people’s energy to protest. In our case, the marriage between
global and domestic patronage has also killed or subdued all major sources of an
alternative ideology that could arouse the people and give them hope that there is
light at the end of the tunnel. So can we really blame the ordinary people for being
spineless given the collusion between the international and domestic oligarchies? ¦
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. analyst.

Author Location Dated

David Usborne 08.08.08

– Retaining death penalty

On Tuesday night, a lethal injection was administered to a Mexican national in
Huntsville prison, Texas, convicted in a case of gang rape and strangulation of two
teenage girls in Houston 15 years ago. The death of Jose Medellin brought an
instant diplomatic protest from Mexico, which had demanded that he and 50 other
Mexicans on death row in America be allowed consular access, as required by a
treaty to which the US is a signatory. The International Court of Justice in The Hague
has twice in the past five years ruled that the US should hold hearings on the status
of foreign nationals on death row. The White House had asked Texas at least to
delay the execution. But on Tuesday night, Texas defied George Bush and the world
after a last-minute appeal to the US Supreme Court on behalf of Medellin was
turned down. As of the end of last year, there were 123 foreign nationals awaiting
execution in the US. Although Mexicans make up the largest single contingent, 38
other countries are represented, including Germany and France, but not, according
to the Death Penalty Information Center, any currently from the United Kingdom.
Most are in California. Most countries balk at allowing the extradition of prisoners to
the US where a possible capital offence is involved and if the state seeking
extradition has the death penalty on its books. The British citizen Neil Entwistle was
extradited and recently convicted of murdering his wife and daughter in
Massachusetts, one of a minority of US states which do not execute prisoners.

Currently 36 states in the US have the death penalty on their books, including
liberal states such as New York and Maryland, while only 14 are without death rows
(plus Washington, DC). Since 1976, when a ruling by the US Supreme Court allowed
states to begin reintroducing capital punishment, a total of 1,115 people had been
executed in the country as of August 1 this year. Of those, 38 per cent were African-
Americans, far disproportionate to their share of the population (about 13 per cent).
The busiest year for executioners was 1999, when 98 condemned men and women
were dispatched. Texas has executed four times more inmates over the past three
decades than any other single state. The second most assiduous has been Virginia.
It’s true that the region loosely termed the South is far more likely to execute than
other parts of the country. Not every state that has the option of killing its prisoners
actually exercises it. New Hampshire is a capital punishment state but has not
executed anyone in decades. Isn’t there a move to scrap it? Yes, fuelled in part by a
growing acknowledgement that the risk of sending an innocent person to the death
chamber cannot be ignored. This, in turn, has been spurred by rapid improvements
in forensic technologies and the use of DNA to prove guilt and innocence. While
death row inmates were exonerated at a rate of 3.1 a year until 1999, the rate has
since leaped to about five a year today. Opponents of the death penalty have also
underscored the heavy cost to the taxpayer of every capital case. But it’s going too
far to suggest that there has been a real change of heart.

Death-penalty opponents seem to take one step back for every two steps forward.
They were disappointed most recently when in April the US Supreme Court ended a
brief nationwide moratorium on executions while it debated whether death by lethal
injection (overwhelmingly the preferred method of execution) constituted cruel and
unusual punishment. It said it did not, and Texas became the first state to resume
executions. But even the fact of the short hiatus might be considered a sign of
progress. But most polls show most Americans still support the death penalty even
though the strength of that support is slipping some. An important moment came in
2003 when the outgoing Governor of Illinois, George Ryan (since convicted on
corruption charges) commuted the death sentences on all inmates on the state’s
death row. He had earlier declared a moratorium on executions, citing mistakes and
unfair racial discrimination in the process. Hopes, however, that Illinois would then
move to abolish the death penalty have not been answered. But in an important
milestone, New Jersey last December became the first state officially to remove the
death penalty from its books since the Supreme Court reinstated it in 1976.
Legislatures in four other states — Maryland, New Mexico, Montana and Nebraska —
have also debating ending the death penalty in the past year. Maryland just this
month announced the formation of a special panel to report on the feasibility of
ending executions to the governor. China tops the world’s executions league table
(officially it used the death penalty 470 times last year, though Amnesty
International believes the true figure is far higher), followed by Iran and Saudi
Arabia. Among developed industrialised nations, only the US, Japan and South Korea
persist in retaining capital punishment. None of the United States’ European allies
entertain it nor do its neighbours, Mexico and Canada. Persuading the US to drop
capital punishment has become a major issue for human rights activists worldwide.
But as this week’s execution of Medellin demonstrates, what the rest of the world
thinks is not something many Americans lose sleep over.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Washington, D.C. 08.08.08

– Time running out for Tehran, warns

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice threatened Iran with more sanctions on
Thursday after it failed to give an adequate response to the latest bid by Western
powers to induce it to freeze uranium enrichment. “Iran
“Iran has a way out if they ever
wish, but we will seriously pursue sanctions if they don’t,”
don’t,” Rice told Yahoo! News
and the magazine Politico. “You
“You have to hope that there are reasonable people in
Iran who see this as not the way to run a country.”
country.” Tehran’s latest response to a
demand for the enrichment freeze in exchange for trade and technology incentives
“is not a really serious answer,”
answer,” she said in her first comments since six world
powers discussed the matter in a Wednesday conference call. In the interviews,
Rice said that the United States does not view Iran as “a “a permanent enemy,”
enemy,” and
has “been
“been pretty tough with them already”
already ” by backing three sets of United Nations
sanctions. “They
“They should have felt like time is running out quite a long time ago,”
ago,”
Rice said. “When
“When you are having trouble getting banks to come in, getting
investment, when export credits are going down from around the world, when you
have inflation roaring, time is running out,”
out,” she said. On Wednesday, Britain and the
United States said the six powers now had “no choice” but to seek new UN
sanctions after Iran failed to give a “clear positive response.” The two governments
said there was now agreement among the six powers, which also include China,
France, Germany and Russia, that a new sanctions resolution should be discussed
at the Security Council. Washington and its allies say Iran’s nuclear programme
could be a cover to develop atomic weapons. Iran insists it has the right to develop
nuclear technology, which it says is aimed at generating electricity for its growing
population.

Meanwhile, A top UN nuclear watchdog official began talks in Iran on Thursday

aimed at improving cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency over
Tehran’s nuclear programme. Diplomats in Vienna, where the IAEA is based, said
the visit was a fresh effort to extract Iranian clarifications about intelligence reports
suggesting it illicitly tried to design atomic bombs. Iran insists its nuclear work is
peaceful. “The
“The two parties will assess the trend of cooperation between Iran’s
Atomic Energy Organisation and the IAEA,”IAEA,” the official Iranian news agency IRNA
said. It said Olli Heinonen, the IAEA’s deputy director in charge of inspections, would
hold talks in Tehran on Thursday and Friday. An IAEA official said Heinonen was
expected back in Vienna early on Saturday. Western capitals have said Iran now
faces a new round of UN sanctions after it failed to respond positively by an informal
deadline last weekend to an enhanced offer of incentives from six world powers
aimed at ending the dispute. They proposed that Iran freeze any expansion of its
nuclear work in return for a halt to further UN sanctions. Three other rounds of
penalties have been imposed since 2006.

The freeze idea was aimed at getting preliminary talks going as a stepping stone
towards formal negotiations on a package of nuclear, trade and other incentives.
However, Iran would have to suspend uranium enrichment entirely for negotiations
to start. Iran has refused to halt enrichment, which it says is aimed only at
generating electricity. It has also given no indication that it is ready for a freeze. It
has promised to give a “clear response” to the sextet’s offer at an unspecified date.
Diplomats in Vienna played down speculation that Heinonen was on a special
mission to verify the current level of Iranian enrichment activity, noting Iran had
given no apparent sign of openness to the “freeze for freeze” idea. Enrichment is
the part of Iran’s work that most worries the West because it can be used to yield
fuel for power plants or, if the process is adjusted, material for nuclear warheads. In
its most recent quarterly report on Iran, the IAEA said in May that alleged Iranian
research into nuclear warheads was a “serious concern” and Tehran should provide
more explanation of questionable missile-related activities. Two weeks ago, Irans’
atomic energy director said after talks with IAEA officials in Vienna he believed it
was not the agency’s business to delve into those allegations. He said Iran would
deal with them in other ways, without elaborating.
Author Location Dated
Dave Lee London, England 08.08.08

– Profiles of the dead live on — online

Millions of people log on to social networking sites everyday, all sharing one thing in
common: we’re all going to die. What will become of our online lives? In almost
every case, profiles of the dead are left suspended in mid-air, open to unmoderated
comments, spam and even pornography. Today on Facebook, one such profile
reads: “Andrew
“Andrew has no recent activity.”
activity.” He died last year. Looking at his profile,
though, you wouldn’t know. You can still request to be his friend, send him a
message and, of course, poke him. Further down his page, there an objectionable
picture. The picture, generated by the third-party application FunWall, was posted
without Andrew’s consent. Other pictures and video from applications can include
offending pictures. Any wall comments made on Andrew’s profile appear
immediately. Fortunately, the comments are all positive. But this isn’t always the
case. MySpace, the biggest social network, has made headlines when profiles of the
deceased have been made public. Famously, the case of 17-year-old Joshua Anson
Ballard, who in 2005 posted his own suicide note as a MySpace bulletin, revealed
just how emotionally charged a remem brance profile can become. While MySpace
users have control over who their friends are, they have less control over what their
friends actually do. Phishing attacks have lead to spam comment posts from friends
appearing on profiles without either user’s knowledge. Typical posts will invite
people to adult sites, or to buy drugs. Administrators say they treat death on a
case-by-case basis, but there are limited options. “MySpace
“MySpace never deletes a profile
for inactivity,”
inactivity,” the site says. “However,
“However, if a family requests that a profile be
removed, we will honour their request and remove the profile in question.
“MySpace does not allow anyone to assume control of a deceased user’s profile
and, as with any profile in our network, the memorial profile must abide by our
terms of use.”
use.” So, the option is either to leave a profile untouched, open to
unmoderated comments, or to remove it completely.

LinkedIn, a social network for professionals, has a clear policy on user death: at the
family’s request, the profile is simply removed. “We
“We first of all offer our condolences
and then proceed to close their account so their details are no longer visible to
anyone,”
anyone,” says Cristina Hoole of LinkedIn. “Our
“Our focus is on making this process very
simple for the people left behind and therefore ensure this is dealt with
immediately.”
immediately.” She says that there have been no instances of abuse on this system,
but agrees that is probably down to LinkedIn’s more mature user base when
compared to other networks. Perhaps LiveJournal, a veteran of social networking,
has it right. For deceased users, a special memorial status has been implemented,
which in effect freezes the profile but leaves it there to be enjoyed without fear of it
being hijacked or spammed. The user’s friends can if the family wishes continue to
read all the existing journal entries. “This
“This status is typically applied at the request
of a family member,”
member,” explains Tim Smith of LiveJournal. “The“The support team then
does its best to be reasonably sure that the person is truly deceased. Ordinarily,
they get those assurances from simple things such examining the account activity
or looking for comments to the journal which would be consistent with the journal
owner being deceased.”
deceased.” But Smith says that this isn’t an actual written policy,
rather a process that has gradually emerged over time. “I “I wish I could point you to
a formal, written policy on the site,”
site,” he adds. “But
“But this has been a case where the
practice from the support team has emerged over time more from a combination of
common sense and common decency.”
decency.” Perhaps one group that could best handle a
users death would be the OpenID project, which aims to provide one single login for
various sites. By notifying OpenID of a user death, more than 4,000 sites, including
MySpace, could be informed at once. Bill Washburn, executive director of OpenID,
says such a scheme would depend on the co-operation of each individual site, and
believes it will take a high-profile court case to bring the issue to the web’s full
attention. “There
“There will be some set of judicial cases that get decided as to what is
and isn’t necessary and appropriate,”
appropriate,” he says. He is concerned that the decision of
what should be done with our online lives may not even be ours to make. “We “We sit in
a fairly unequal place with respect to what websites can do and what individuals
can do on the net. And that will only get more and more attention. End users don’t
fully own their identity.”
identity.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 08.08.08

– Impeachment process must be consistent with rule of law,

Constitution: US
The US State Department on Thursday advised all the parties involved in the move
to impeach President Pervez Musharraf to ensure that their actions were consistent
with the rule of law and the Pakistani constitution. Spokesman Gonzalo R. Gallegos
indicated at a regular briefing that the US was distancing himself from President
Musharraf when he declared: “We “We will continue our close ties with the
democratically elected government of Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” The US official also said the United
States did not believe the move to impeach the president might have a negative
impact on the situation along the Pakistan-Afghan border. However, he did not say
that the United States would oppose any move to impose a state of emergency in
Pakistan when re minded that under the Constitution the president was entitled to
do so and also to dissolve the parliament. “Any
“Any action should be according to the
rule of law and consistent with their Constitution. And this is a matter for the
Pakistanis to decide,”
decide,” said Mr Gallegos when told that the Pakistani Constitution
allowed the president to impose a state of emergency. Asked if US interlocutors had
urged President Musharraf not to impose a state of emergency, the spokesman
said: “I’m
“I’m very public about the statement that we believe that any actions in
Pakistan be consistent with the rule of law and with their constitution.”
constitution.” The
statement indicates that while the United States regards the impeachment move as
Pakistan’s internal affair, it would wait for the situation to crystallise before taking a
public stance on the issue. Asked if he saw imposing a state of emergency as a
possibility, Mr Gallegos said: “I’ve
“I’ve made the comment that I’m going to make about
the actions that are going on.”
on.” The US official said that he did not know if the issue
was discussed during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to Washington last
week. “In
“In terms of meetings with the president (Bush), you have to go to the White
House. I don’t have any information that it was discussed with the secretary (Rice).”
(Rice).”
Asked how the US would react if the move actually led to President Musharraf’s
impeachment, Mr Gallegos, who is leaving for Islamabad this week to join the US
Embassy as a senior diplomat, said: “We “We have consistently said the internal politics
of Pakistan is an issue for the Pakistani people to decide. Our expectation is that
any action will be consistent with the rule of law and the Pakistani constitution. It is
the responsibility of Pakistanis’ leaders to decide on a way forward to succeed as a
modern and democratic country. “But do you realise that by saying that it’s an
internal affair of Pakistan, you’re sending a huge message? I mean, basically, you’re
saying that they can do whatever they want to do with him,”
him,” he was asked. “Our
“Our
message to Pakistan has been consistent. We expect that any action will be
consistent with their rule of law and the Pakistani constitution,”
constitution,” said the US official.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 09.08.08

– PML-N rejoins cabinet Coalition readies censure plan

The Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) has decided to rejoin the federal cabinet as
part of a deal with the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), as the ruling coalition
formulated a plan for impeachment proceedings against President Pervez
Musharraf, which will be launched next week and is likely to be completed by the
end of the month. A PML-N spokesman said party chief Nawaz Sharif had accepted
the request of PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari to rejoin the cabinet and in the first
phase four of its nine ministers who had resigned would resume their functions on
Saturday. The ministers who will rejoin the cabinet are: Ahsan Iqbal (education),
Rana Tanveer Ahmed (defence production), Khawaja Saad Rafiq (culture and youth
affairs) and Sardar Mahtab Abbasi (railways).
(railways). The PML-N ministers had resigned on
May 12 after the expiry of the second deadline set by the coalition leadership for
reinstatement of the deposed judges. PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan told
reporters outside the Parliament House that the remaining ministers would return to
the cabinet only after reinstatement of all the judges. PPP spokesman Farhatullah
Babar told Dawn that Mr Zardari had taken the chief of the Pukhtunkhwa Milli
Awami Party (PkMAP), Mehmood Khan Achakzai, into confidence on the
impeachment plan. According to him, Mr Achakzai responded in a positive manner.
The spokesman said Mr Zardari would also inform Jamaat-iIslami chief Qazi Hussain
Ahmed and Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf leader Imran Khan about the move.

The coalition parties formed a ‘task committee’ to review progress. The committee
headed by Mr Zardari finalised on Friday the plan for completing the impeachment
process. It comprises Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Senator Ishaq Dar and
MNA Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan from the PML-N and Senator Raza Rabbani, Qamar
Zaman Kaira, Sherry Rehman, Farooq Naek, Khursheed Shah and Farhatullah Babar
from the PPP. Mr Babar said the impeachment process would kick off with the
adoption of resolutions by all the provincial assemblies next week urging the federal
government to ask the president to seek a vote of confidence. The resolutions
would urge the government to move for impeaching the president immediately if he
failed to take the vote of confidence, he said. He said a session of the National
Assembly had been convened from Aug 11 as part of the impeachment exercise
under Article 47 of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the impeachment
resolution is to be taken up in a joint sitting of the two houses and two-thirds of the
total membership of parliament will be required to adopt it. The motion has to be
moved by at least 50 per cent members of either house. PPP sources said it had
been decided that the motion would be submitted in the National Assembly soon
after the Independence Day. The sources said the provincial assemblies would
adopt resolutions asking the president to seek a vote of confidence in accordance
with his commitment made before the Supreme Court during hearing of petitions
challenging his election in October last year. It is learnt that the resolution will first
be passed by the Punjab Assembly, probably on Monday and then by the assemblies
of the NWFP, Sindh and Balochistan.

According to the sources, the coalition parties hoped that the president would never
seek the vote of confidence and the impeachment motion would be tabled in the
National Assembly between Aug 15 and 18. Under the rules, the speaker is bound to
send a notice to the president and the joint sitting has to be convened within seven
to 14 days after that. Meanwhile, President Musharraf who has not come out with
any statement since the announcement of the impeachment plan, continued
consultations with his legal aides and members of the PML-Q. A source told Dawn
that some of the lawyers had suggested to the president to move the Supreme
Court asking it to stop the coalition parties from initiating impeachment process.
However, Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani said that it was the
inherent right of parliament, being the electoral college for the presidential election,
to move for his impeachment. “The“The Supreme Court cannot prevent parliament from
discharging its constitutional responsibilities. It is purely a constitutional matter,”
matter,” he
said. He said it would be unfortunate if the president decided to move the Supreme
Court as it would create confrontation between national institutions. Information
Minister Sherry Rehman, meanwhile, claimed that 18 members of the opposition
had contacted the coalition since the announcement of the impeachment plan. She
told a TV channel that the president’s impeachment would be a historic moment for
democracy in Pakistan. It is a process to send a clear message that no individual or
institution is above accountability. “It
“It is a step towards democracy and
parliamentary sovereignty. We are just implementing the mandate given to us by
the public on Feb 18,”
18,” she said. “As
“As far as numbers in parliament are concerned, we
have done our homework, and have been contacted by several groups of senators
and MNAs from the opposition all through the night, ever since we made the
announcement. We already have the support of 18 members of the opposition.
They naturally want to be remembered as voting on the right side of history,”
history,” she
said. Replying to a question, Ms Rehman warned that the use of Article 58-2(b) to
dissolve the assembly could cause more destabilisation at a time when the
federation needed democratic forces. She said the next president should not live in
the Army House. “The
“The next president should be a civilian president and will be
required to function according to the parameters set for a civilian authority.
Democracy entails every institution to work within its mandate, while staying
answerable to parliament. We do not want to return to the system where all state
organs are subjected to the will of a single institution,”
institution,” she said.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 09.08.08

– US worries over impact

The United States fears that the move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf may
harm the global war on terror in which Pakistan plays a pivotal role, says a report
quoting US State Department officials. On Friday the top US commander in
Afghanistan publicly accused the ISI of “some complicity” over time with militant
groups fomenting violence in the neighbouring country. Another media report
claimed that senior Bush administration officials were urging President George W.
Bush to allow US troops to enter Pakistan’s tribal areas while pursuing Taliban and
Al Qaeda militants. The CNN report on the impact of the proposed impeachment on
the war on terror contradicts a public statement by a department spokesman
Gonzalo Gallegos saying the move will not affect the war. But CNN claimed
discussing the issue with senior State Department officials who feared that
Pakistan’s internal political turmoil, caused by the move to impeach President
Musharraf, would hurt US efforts to defeat the militants hiding in the country’s tribal
belt. The CNN report also quoted US officials as saying that there were “50-50”
chances of the impeachment move to succeed. Senior State Department officials,
according to CNN, believe that President Musharraf now had three options: step
down, topple the government and dissolve parliament or hold fresh elections.
elections. “And
“And
he can use any of the three options,”
options,” the report said.

At the regular briefing, spokesman Gallegos had said that the US would accept any
action, either by the elected government or President Musharraf, that was in
accordance with the Pakistani Constitution. South Asia experts in Washington say
that none of these three options negates the Constitution but they also have
warned the Bush administration not to get involved. “The “The US should stay as
removed as possible from the political machinations in Pakistan while urging all
sides to find a peaceful resolution to the political crisis that strengthens the
democratic institutions of the country and prevents a return to military rule,”
rule,” said
Lisa Curtis, a South Asia expert at Washington’s Heritage Foundation. In a report
released on Friday, Ms Curtis noted that the decision to impeach President
Musharraf “could
“could help end months of political paralysis in the country and stabilize
the new civilian government, which has been divided over whether Mr Musharraf
should stay in power.”
power.” She also noted that President Musharraf’s fate and the future
direction of Pakistan was largely in the hands of the Chief of Army Staff General
Kiyani and warned that any move to undo the current political setup “would“would be a
highly unpopular … with the Pakistani public and would likely result in potentially
violent street protests.”
protests.” Ms Curtis, however, acknowledged that despite its concerns
about political instability in Pakistan, the US continued to focus on “promoting
“promoting
stable democracy in Afghanistan and denying the Taliban and Al Qaeda a safe
haven from which to launch deadly international attacks.”
attacks.”

Lt-Gen David McKiernan, the US commander in Afghanistan, also focused on this

subject in his interview to CNN. “Do
“Do I believe that the Pakistani government must
do more? I absolutely do. Do I believe there has been some complicity on the part
of organisations such as the ISI over time in Pakistan, I believe there has been,”
been,” Gen
McKiernan said. “I“I don’t believe we can get to the right outcome in Afghanistan as
long as these militant sanctuaries exist across the border,”
border,” McKiernan said. “We’ve
“We’ve
seen the increased numbers of foreign fighters in eastern and southern Afghanistan
this year, and there is an expectation that the leadership in Pakistan will do
something about these militant sanctuaries in their country,”
country,” he said. Gen
McKiernan said Al Qaeda was heavily involved in the insurgency. “Al “Al Qaeda
provides financing, they help recruit fighters, they help with logistics, command and
control, intelligence for the Taliban,”
Taliban,” he said. In a separate report, a US news
agency claimed that senior US intelligence and military aides wanted President
Bush to give American soldiers greater flexibility to operate against Al Qaida and
Taliban fighters entering Afghanistan from Fata.

Author Location Dated

Aqil Shah as2252@columbia.edu 09.08.08
 – Enough with the coup-mongering
On July 26, the PPP-led coalition government kicked up a dust storm with the
decision to reign in the Inter Services Intelligence (ISI) by putting it under the
control of the interior ministry. Two weeks on the controversy generated in its wake
refuses to die. Retired generals, diplomats, defence analysts, TV anchors and other
usual suspects have since ripped into the government like sharks, citing the
decision and its quick reversal as evidence of the government’s incompetence,
ineffectiveness, chicanery and, above all, its desire to appease the Americans angry
over the ISI’s alleged support to the Taliban. In the words of one analyst, the
episode was akin to “buffoonery
“buffoonery with sinister intent”.
intent”. The few sane voices
emphasising the principle of civilian control over the ISI were naturally drowned out
in the deafening diatribe. Not that all the criticism of the decision was unreasonable.
But neither was it all reasonable. The retired generals were quick to remind us
‘bloody civilians’ that internal and external intelligence are two distinct functions
performed everywhere in the world by distinct agencies. Hence, the interior ministry
has no business controlling the ISI, an agency primarily concerned with counter-
intelligence like the American CIA, the British MI6 or the Indian RAW. That is indeed
true but in none of these countries is counter-intelligence run by the military. And
unlike the ISI none of these agencies are in the business of rigging elections and
destabilising elected governments. Neither do they run a foreign policy shop
without civilian oversight. And above all, they are civilianised and actually report to
their country’s chief executive.

In Pakistan the ISI too is responsible to the prime minister. Technically speaking,
that is. It is common knowledge that the ISI chief is a military officer whose
professional loyalties lie with the chief of army staff. When Prime Minister Benazir
Bhutto appointed a retired general, Shamsur Rehman Kallue, to the post in her first
tenure, he was reportedly kept out of the loop by his uniformed deputies. The same
was apparently the case even with Lt Gen Ziauddin during Nawaz Sharif’s second
tenure as he was considered close to the PM. Prime ministers, in other words,
usually have had little or no clue of what the ISI is really up to. After all, it was the
ISI’s ‘midnight jackals’ who tried to engineer a no-confidence motion against the
elected PPP government in 1990. Here is the problem: each civilian government
finds itself in the unenviable position of claiming responsibility over the military and
the ISI, as the prime minister did in Washington recently, but without the requisite
authority to fulfil that claimed responsibility. Lacking an independent, reliable
civilian source of intelligence, they rely on what the ISI tells them. Is it not unfair
that such a huge fuss was kicked up over one badly executed decision of an elected
government which has the publicly mandated right to be wrong? One rarely hears
loud protests when the army puts the entire constitutional structure of the state
under its unlawful command as it did for instance in October 1999. The then
‘reluctant’ coup-maker Gen Pervez Musharraf was obviously well within his rights to
lock up the elected prime minister under subhuman conditions and to usurp all
executive powers by brute force. No blurring of institutional boundaries there. After
all, how can the uniformed guardians of the state’s integrity do any wrong? They
are always ready to protect us from ourselves and the politicians we put in office.

No wonder the civilian government has been in office for just four months and its
funeral rites are already being delivered left, right and centre. The whispering
campaign against it appears to be gathering momentum in and outside the
electronic and print media. The army chief is being reminded by a few self-
appointed patriots of his responsibility to save Pakistan from growing internal and
external threats. The prediction in vogue: two more months and the present system
is history. Of course the civilian government has not done itself any favours by
appearing rudderless and indecisive. Of course it should better communicate and
coordinate its decisions with its coalition partners, the parliament and other
stakeholders. Of course it should have carefully weighed and deliberated its options
before taking the decision on the ISI and then stuck to its guns. But effective
leadership and governance do not arise overnight in countries with long histories of
military rule and entrenched military influence. The spectre of military vetoes and
pressures haunts governments in post-authoritarian contexts. Where national
leaders are routinely dismissed from office, jailed, exiled or killed, expecting the
miracle of instant statesmanship from politicians is a fool’s dream.

Even as doubts about the coalition government’s survival abound, the PPP and the
PML-N appear close to an agreement on the modalities of resolving the two key
issues straining the coalition: restoration of the deposed judges and Musharraf’s
impeachment.
impeachment. Their resolution will represent an important move towards
strengthening democracy and civilian supremacy over the military, as will the
repeal of presidential powers to sack governments and appoint military services’
chiefs. Once these critical bottlenecks are removed, the coalition government
should be in a better position to expend more time and resources on the pressing
economic, security and governance challenges facing Pakistan. Regardless, we
must not lose patience with democracy which is a cumbersome process. Mistakes
are common, policymaking can be slow and often stalled, and even when its kinks
are removed over time, democracy becomes ‘less imperfect’ at best. But to repeat
a truism, any non-democratic option is hardly ever better. The patent failure of
Musharraf’s authoritarian rule, if not those of his military predecessors, is here for
all of us to see and it should serve as a dreadful lesson to anyone itching for yet
another dose of ‘good governance’ under military auspices. If our own experience
with autocratic regimes is not sufficiently instructive for the coup-mongers amongst
us, they should take a cue from the German and Italian intellectuals who initially
welcomed fascism in the interwar period as an alternative to defective
parliamentary democracy. They had nothing but regrets once fascism bared its ugly
teeth. By then it was too late.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Mubashir Hasan mh1@lhr.comsats.net.pk 09.08.08

– A golden opportunity
The rule of our civil and military services under the titular leadership of Prime
Minister Benazir Bhutto and Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in the 1990s and that of
Gen Pervez Musharraf who succeeded them has brought Pakistan to the brink of a
cave-in. Civil war conditions obtain in Fata and parts of the NWFP. ‘Nationalists’ in
Balochistan are up in arms against Islamabad. Sabotage attacks against electricity
pylons, gas pipelines, railway tracks, police and military vehicles are common all
over the country. Bombers have taken a heavy toll on civilians and security
personnel alike. No one feels safe. It is a frightening situation for any state to be in.
The economy is tottering. Inflation and unemployment are out of control. There is
acute shortage of electricity and gas and the prices of food and transportation are
rocketing sky-high. The value of the Pakistani rupee is falling dangerously and there
has been a huge flight of capital from the country. One hundred and sixty million
souls yearn for adequate food supplies, potable drinking water, basic healthcare
and education. Hardly any social contract remains between the state and the
people. The grave national situation looks graver when one realises that Pakistan is
the main battleground of a world war raging between the United States and its allies
on the one side and Al Qaeda and an assortment of militant groups on the other. It
is a hot war. Both sides are going for the kill. The war has chillingly disturbed peace
in Pakistan.

The United States is trying to maintain its post-Second World War imperial
neocolonial role by waging a conflict. The failure to win a victory and the taste of
defeat is no deterrence for the superpower. It did not win in Korea, Vietnam and in
the two wars in Iraq. In Afghanistan it declared victory but had to come back
reinforced with Nato detachments. But it cannot abandon the fight because as
Noam Chomsky correctly diagnoses the US is waging not a war on terror but a war
of terror. The US is keen to achieve domination over strategically and economically
important territories like Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Towards that end it wishes
to rely on governance through pliant ‘democratic’ regimes and economies in the
hands of the private sector. This policy introduced by President Ronald Reagan has
manifestly failed. Columbia University’s Professor Joseph E. Stiglitz, winner of the
2001 Nobel Prize for Economics, observes: “The“The world has not been kind to neo-
liberalism, that grab-bag of ideas based on the fundamentalist notion that markets
are self-correcting, allocate resources efficiently and serve the public interest well.
“Neo-liberal market fundamentalism was always a political doctrine serving certain
interests. It was never supported by economic theory. Nor, it should now be clear, is
it supported by historical experience. Learning this lesson may be the silver lining in
the cloud now overhanging the global economy.”
economy.” Thanks to our ruling elites and
their neocon patrons, Pakistan is now landed with a disastrous economic doctrine
and a fragile ‘democratic’ dispensation, the latter headed by cliques imported from
exile through enacting laws which bestow on them reprieves and pardons. They
have reputations of gross corruption and crimes. They command neither respect nor
support among the masses, so essential for good governance.

Looked at from the point of view of Pakistanis who have suffered political
oppression and economic deprivation for the last 60 years, the situation offers a
golden opportunity. The people must reorganise themselves politically as the
present system of governing Pakistan is afflicted with political autoimmune
deficiency. It is incurable in its present state. The state needs restructuring. The
four provinces and Fata should decide what powers and authority they would like to
bestow on the federal government. In a new social contract the people should
restructure the government at three levels — citizens, provincial and federal. What
political and economic power can be exercised at a smaller population level should
not be decided and implemented by the body of an area with a larger population.
The citizens’ government at the level of a village or cluster of villages or tribes
should have the jurisdiction and authority for the protection of person and property
of the people, the management of local policing and the organisation of citizens’
courts for criminal offences. The citizens’ government at the level of tehsils and
talukas should have its own administration to maintain land records, adjudicate on
questions such as those presently dealt with by the revenue officials of tehsils and
talukas. It should also have its own civil courts. The provinces should exercise
power over all matters not specified in the jurisdiction of the federal and citizens’
governments. The principal responsibility of the provincial governments should be
to legislate for the governance of the provinces.

If so proposed by the provinces and Fata, the authority of the federal government
may be limited to external affairs, defence, communications, currency, the State
Bank, import, export, holding of elections, nationality and immigration, and
collection of income tax and customs duties. Money bills should be passed by the
Senate as well. The National Economic Council and National Finance and Planning
Commissions should be abolished. High court judges should be appointed by the
provinces. The power of the president to issue a proclamation of emergency should
be limited to the time when there is a threat of war or external aggression. The new
structure of state should guarantee all citizens facilities for work and adequate
livelihood; provide for the social security of the entire working population through
compulsory social insurance or other means; provide basic necessities of life to the
people, such as food, clothing, housing, education and medical care irrespective of
sex, caste, creed or race; and reduce disparity in the incomes of individuals. The
guarantee for the emergence of a sovereign Pakistan lies in its healthy relations
with the countries of South and SouthWest Asia. The defence of Pakistan should be
ensured through strategies and policies which are not largely dependent upon
defence-related agreements signed with the United States. The economy of
Pakistan needs to be rescued from the trap created by liberalisation, privatisation
and globalisation. Operating along with the private sector, the public sector needs
to be revived in several fields such as electricity and other forms of energy,
communications, water supplies and housing for the poor, food distribution and
buffer stocks. The vestiges of feudalism should be removed through land reforms
and other measures. The working classes desperately need laws to strengthen
unions to achieve common important goals such as improving wages, hours and
rules of work, procedures for registering complaints against working conditions,
rules governing hiring, firing and promotion of workers, and regulations in respect of
benefits and unionising of labour.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 09.08.08

– Four views of the Pak army

The last couple of years have produced at least four important, although very
different, books about Pakistan by Pakistanis. In their different ways, they discuss
the role of the Pakistan Army, and the institution doesn’t come out very well in any
of them. The first, In the Line of Fire by Gen Pervez Musharraf, is the least honest of
them. A self-serving, poorly written memoir, the book was nevertheless a bestseller
for it was about a man and a country currently in the eye of the storm. His account
about the unnecessary and disastrous conflict in Kargil, in particular, is both
dishonest and confused. The general really thinks he won a great victory. Ayesha
Siddiqa’s Military Inc is a pioneering study about the Pakistan military’s deep
industrial and financial involvement in the economy. In her scholarly survey, Dr
Siddiqa outlines the many facets of the vast empire the military has built up in
Pakistan. Being a serious work and not a popular journalistic investigation, it would
probably not have done as well as it did in Pakistan and abroad had it not been for
Musharraf’s crude attempts to muzzle it. By buying up all the copies when the book
was first launched, the government gave it publicity and circulation it might not
have achieved on its own. As it is, the author was widely and rightly acclaimed for
her research and analysis. Although it comes as no surprise, Dr Siddiqa’s conclusion
is that in order to protect and expand its huge financial stake in the economy, the
army needs to rule the country, either directly or indirectly.

The third book about Pakistan to cause a stir recently is Mohammed Hanif’s A Case
of Exploding Mangoes.
Mangoes. Unlike the other three on our list, this is a work of fiction,
although the story is very close to reality. Even some of the major characters are
based on real-life figures we are all familiar with. Hanif’s caricatures of generals Zia
and Akhtar Rehman would cause the blood pressure in family members of the
deceased to shoot up, had they been the types to read books. The story is based on
the plot to rid the world of Zia, and the author throws in many tantalising
possibilities. His take on the armed forces was gained the hard way: he was trained
in the Air Force Academy, so his portrait of the protagonist, Ali Shigri, bears the ring
of authenticity. Zia’s fake piety and his ruthlessness are captured in rollicking
passages of brilliant satire. In and out of the narrative weaves the enigmatic figure
of ‘Major Kayani’, an ISI operative, who orders torture in the infamous detention
centre at the Red Fort in Lahore. To her credit, one of Benazir Bhutto’s first acts
when she came to power in 1988 was to have this chamber of horrors demolished.
As in the best satires, Hanif’s book forces the reader to think hard about the issues
it discusses. Zia’s dictatorship changed Pakistan forever, and we are still living with
the evil institutions and groups he created. Even though this is a work of fiction,
Hanif’s novel gives us a chilling reminder of what life was like under Zia. The fact
that it has been included in the list of Booker Prize contenders will do its sales no
harm at all.

For around three decades, Ahmed Rashid has been the best-informed and the most
intrepid journalist to have reported on Afghanistan and Central Asia. He was
catapulted to international fame in the aftermath of 9/11 when his book Taliban was
the only authoritative account of the benighted holy warriors of Afghanistan. But
long before that, he had been filing reports on the Soviet invasion of our
neighbouring state, and then on the civil war that engulfed it. In the process of
observing the past and present conflicts in Afghanistan, he has made many friends
from Hamid Karzai to the many warlords and tribal chiefs of the region. His first-
hand knowledge and deep sympathy for Afghanistan are on display in his new book
Descent into Chaos.
Chaos. This is, above all, an indictment of the various players who are
making a huge mess of the fight against extremism. It goes without saying that
major protagonists in the ongoing struggle are the Pakistani army and the ISI.
Although the author analyses closely the decisions taken in Washington and how
they impact on the region he has studied, his primary focus is on Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Meticulously, Rashid traces the rise of the Taliban, and lays bare their
close links with the Pakistan Army and the ISI. While much of this has been written
about before, Rashid has marshalled his evidence closely in a wide-ranging and
depressing account of the self-destructive urge that has impelled our generals to
create the monster we are struggling against today. There are no heroes in this
book, only knaves and well-intentioned fools. Even Rashid’s close friend Karzai is
seen to be a flawed figure, tolerating drug dealers and refusing to allow the
emergence of political parties.

Rashid concludes by giving a set of recommendations on how to sort out the mess
in the region. But the problems he outlines are so enormous and complex that the
average westerner could be excused for throwing up his hands and saying: “I’m “I’m
outta here!”
here!” However, this is not a luxury we in the neighbourhood can afford. And
nor, given Afghanistan’s track record as a breeding ground for global terror, can the
West walk away from the mess. Above all, if there is to be a resolution to the
Afghan problem, we will need to reorient our own army’s priorities first. As all the
four books show in their own ways, our officer corps has been brainwashed into
taking a rigid ideological position that is hopelessly out of step with regional and
global realities. Although it has convinced itself that it is the country’s saviour, in
reality it has made Pakistan a far less secure place than we have a right to expect
after the billions we have poured into our defence. And as all four writers have
shown (even though that was probably not Musharraf’s intention), the army is now
so much a part of the problem that it cannot possibly also be part of the solution.
But while we have all been saying this for years, we are no closer to solving the
‘army problem’ today than we were when the generals began interfering in the
political process half a century ago.

Author Location Dated

Ilhan Niaz niazone80@gmail.com 09.08.08

– Trouble with the coalition paradigm

Once again, Asif Ali Zardari has succeeded to woo Nawaz Sharif by agreeing to
implement what was their coalition government’s original agenda of impeaching
Musharraf and reinstating the deposed judges after wilfully postponing such a
happening for four months. His changed approach looks unconvincing and despite
the eruption of euphoria the new agreement has caused, one will have to wait to
see if Zardari will really let it happen. Generally speaking, coalition governments are
notorious for working slowly. Decisions taken normally reflect the lowest common
denominator amongst the governing parties. Decisions delayed reflect the desire of
the coalition partners to hang on to power and avoid confrontations that could bring
down the government. Recriminations are to be expected and, for better or for
worse, it is expedient for the leading components of the government to blame each
other for whatever goes wrong. In a federal parliamentary system the complexity of
running a stable coalition is often exacerbated by having to balance partnerships at
the central and provincial levels simultaneously. The coalition government that
came to power after the February 2008 elections suffered from all the operational
deficiencies inherent in the exercise. It thus took time to choose a prime minister
and, understandably, to work out the details of the political alliances. It, however,
possessed a singular advantage in that while no single party emerged with a
majority it was clear that the Pakistani electorate had handed the PPP and PML-N a
synchronous and overwhelming mandate.

First and foremost, the people had had enough of Musharraf. Confirmed and
reconfirmed by opinion polls before and after the elections in which his loyalista
were routed, Musharraf’s popularity is a meager 20-30 per cent. Even George Bush
does somewhat better in the United States. Second, for the aware citizens the
restoration of the preNovember 3 judiciary was, and still is, the litmus test of the
commitment of the coalition government to the rule of law. Third, for the masses
the dissatisfaction with the proMusharraf government had a lot to do with its
economic pretensions and hollow performance. Energy and food shortages
combined with high inflation and growing administrative failure, for which
incidentally the devolution plan was substantially responsible, to undermine
whatever little public confidence there was in the economic management of the
1999-2007 era. During this time Pakistan successfully created an economy
specialised in consumption and speculation — the number of motor vehicles on the
roads doubled, the stock market boomed, the price of real estate skyrocketed,
coffee shops and fancy restaurants multiplied and mobile phones proliferated. Since
these trends were not adequately backed by increases in productive capacity, they
did not augment the share of taxable resources and did not trickle down. Finally,
the coalition government has a mandate to restore order. The mere fact that five
months after the elections Musharraf is still president shows as many would argue
that the PPP has struck a deal that flies in the face of 70 per cent of public opinion.
The logic of the continued cohabitation being that both the president and the PPP
want to stay in power and are afraid of the palpable increase in the popularity of the
PML-N. This trend is strengthened by the perception that the PML-N is not
particularly eager to be in power and is evidenced by its phased withdrawal from
the cabinet. Admittedly, the situation has become far more complicated, but the
government’s prevarication on this matter is causing it to haemorrhage popularity
that it badly needs to deal with other issues.

On the restoration of the judiciary the lawyers and their java-consuming allies have
by now become disappointed with the PPP, one evidence being resignation of
deposed chief justice of Singh High Court. The sordid exigencies of practical politics
represented by the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) have triumphed over
zeitgeist. For ordinary people bread-andbutter issues are the critical front and the
coalition government has a lot of hard decisions to make on the economy. Pakistan
cannot afford to consume more than it produces. It certainly cannot continue to
subsidise consumption of energy given escalating oil costs and lagging power
generation. In March 2003 the price of oil was around $35 a barrel. Today it is about
four times that amount. The previous government’s policy of absorbing some of the
increase was unsustainable in a country with a 10 per cent tax-to-GDP ratio and a
sluggish export sector. On this front the government was inevitably going to take a
bad hit. It cannot control the international price of oil. Pakistan has neither its own
oil fields nor the technological prowess to switch to renewable energy sources. The
only viable longterm solution is to collect enough taxes on the incomes of the rich in
order to restore subsidies at some point in the future or invest the same amount in
improving living conditions for the poor.

On law and order the performance has been decidedly mixed. Since February 2008
suicide bombings have occurred far less frequently. That, in itself, is a big plus. If
this has been achieved through better law enforcement and intelligence gathering
then the relative calm is sustainable. If it is primarily the consequence of
negotiations that give the militants the time and space they need to emerge
stronger than before then the situation is liable to deteriorate. Reduction in the
frequency of suicide attacks notwithstanding, little seems to have been done as
regards dealing with the administrative vacuum left in the wake of the devolution
plan. There were indications that the government was thinking about either
abolishing or reforming the local governments and streamlining the administration
to ensure an effective executive presence at the local level. Beyond a debate in the
National Assembly and some fiscal measures by the Punjab government nothing
more has materialised. The government could have moved decisively on a couple of
fronts that would have earned it popular appeal before making hard economic
decisions. Instead it has avoided taking decisions on political and constitutional
issues and been forced by fiscal pressure to make unpopular decisions on the
economy. Combined with indifferent performance on the administrative front, it
seems that the government is losing momentum and direction. ¦ The writer is a
faculty member at the Quaid-i-Azam University, Department of History and
is the author of An Inquiry into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent.
Subcontinent.

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 09.08.08

– Pitfalls of the Constitutional Package

The constitutional package drawn up by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) seeks to
amend several provisions of the constitution. Because the constitution establishes
fundamental principles and institutions, any amendment in it must stand a two-fold
test. One, it ought to be within the basic framework of the constitution
(constitutionality test). Two, it is essential for obtaining a major national objective
(necessity test), such as strengthening of institutions. In the light of this two-fold
test, let’s look into the constitutional package. Certain proposed constitutional
amendments, if enacted, will strengthen parliamentary democracy. Easily the most
important of these is the proposed deletion of Article 58-2b, which empowers the
president to dismiss the National Assembly and the federal government in his
discretion on the ground of breakdown of the constitutional machinery. As the
country’s political history bears out, Article 58-2b has defaced the constitution by
making parliament and the prime minister subservient to the president. There is
little doubt that parliamentary democracy cannot take root unless the
aforementioned article is scrapped. Article 90 vests the executive authority of the
federation in the president, to exercise it “either
“either directly or through officers
subordinate to him”.
him”. In a country with well-established constitutional conventions
such a provision should not cause any problem as the president being a figurehead
acts on the advice of the cabinet. However this does not apply to Pakistan where in
the absence of constitutional conventions the president is not likely to confine
himself to the role of a figurehead.

Quite rightly, therefore, Article 90 will be amended to provide that the “executive
“executive
authority of the Federation shall be exercised in the name of the President by the
Federal Government, consisting of the Prime Minister and the Federal Ministers,
which shall act through the Prime Minister who shall be the Chief Executive of the
Federation.”
Federation.” Hence, the proposed amendment to Article 90 will make the office of
the prime minister stronger. Similarly Article 48 will be amended making it binding
on the president to act “on
“on and in accordance with”
with” the advice of the cabinet or the
prime minister, except in matters where he is empowered to act in his discretion,
within fifteen days. Article 91 will be amended to provide that the National
Assembly shall meet within thirty days after general elections. At present, there is
no time limit within which the first session of the National Assembly is to be held.
The result is that the president may delay the summoning of the Assembly to pave
the way for the government of his liking. This is what happened after 2002 general
elections when summoning of the National Assembly was delayed to enable the
PML-Q to form the government by making some members of the PPP cross the floor.
Couple of clauses of the constitutional package will add to the independence of the
judiciary. Articles 181 and 182 will be amended to the effect that the appointment
of an acting or ad hoc Supreme Court (SC) judge shall not be for more than a year.
At present, an acting or ad hoc SC judge may continue to serve indefinitely. Ad hoc
or acting appointments do not augur well for the independence of the judiciary and
therefore the same should be for as short a period as possible.

The package also contains provisions for making the federation strong through
greater provincial autonomy: Proposed amendment to Article 105 provides that the
provincial governor, a nominee and representative of the federal government, shall
act on and in accordance with the advice of the cabinet or chief minister and the
same shall be binding. Likewise Article 129 will be amended to provide that the
executive authority of a province shall be exercised “by
“by the Provincial Government,
consisting of the Chief Minister who shall be the Chief Executive of the Province.”
Province.”
Powers of the governor to sack the provincial assembly, under Article 112, will be
scrapped. Article 130 will be amended to provide that a provincial assembly will
meet within 30 days after elections. The above-mentioned proposed amendments
meet both constitutionality and necessity tests. However, questions arise with
regard to several other provisions of the constitutional package. Take, for instance,
proposed amendments to Article 184, under which the Supreme Court (SC) is
empowered to make an order in cases where a question of public importance with
regard to the enforcement of fundamental rights is concerned. It was primarily the
exercise of that power by the deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan (CJP) that was
anathema to the past government. The package seeks to curtail that power by
proposing that the SC will make only a “declaratory” order for the enforcement of
fundamental rights. A declaratory order, though legally binding on the parties as to
their rights and obligations, embodies only an opinion of the court and does not
necessitate any subsequent action. Not only that, an application invoking the
original jurisdiction of the apex court for enforcement of fundamental rights will be
heard by a bench comprising not less than five judges.

The proposed amendments to Article 184, if carried through, will have a two-fold
effect. One, the SC will in large measures be divested of its power to effectively
enforce fundamental rights. Two, the CJP on his own will not be able to take up
cases of alleged violation of fundamental rights. Articles 179 and 195 will be
amended to fix a term for the CJP and CJs of High Courts. One needs to be the
devil’s advocate to argue that fixing a term for holding the country’s top judicial
offices will promote the independence of the judiciary or strengthen democracy.
Article 209 will be amended to change the procedure for the removal of the
members of the superior judiciary. The Supreme Judicial Council, comprising senior
serving judges, will be abolished and a Judicial Commission consisting of five “non-
politicised” retired judges set up. The members of the Commission will be appointed
by the president on terms and conditions to be determined by the federal
government. Since the question as to the “non-politicised” credentials of the retired
judges as well as their tenure will be decided by the executive, whatever
independence the judiciary has, will be attenuated. The procedure for the
appointment of the members of the superior judiciary will also be changed by
amending Articles 177 and 192. Separate Commissions will be set up for the
appointment of SC and High Court judges. The Commission for appointment of SC
judges will comprise the CJP as Chairman, CJs of the five High Courts, and the
federal law minister. The Commission for the appointment of High Court judges will
consist of the CJP as chairman, CJ of the High Court concerned and federal and
provincial law ministers. The Commission will forward a panel of two names for each
vacancy of a judge to the chief minister concerned, who will forward one name to a
Joint Parliamentary Committee — comprising three members each from the treasury
and the opposition in the provincial assembly — for confirmation.

It is difficult to understand how the new proposed procedure for the appointment of
superior court judges is an improvement over the existing procedure — whereby
appointments in superior judiciary are made by the president on the
recommendation of the CJP — in terms of securing the independence of the
judiciary. Giving parliamentarians a role in the appointment of judges will make
neither parliament stronger nor the judiciary more independent. Article 175 will be
amended to provide that no court shall have the jurisdiction to validate any “extra
“extra
constitutional”
constitutional” measure. This needs to be read in conjunction with the proposed
amendment to Article 6 under which the judges validating suspension of the
constitution will also be guilty of high treason. The proposed amendment to Article
175 is meaningless, because the courts already have no jurisdiction to validate any
extra-constitutional measure. And if they decide to validate such measures, as
courts in Pakistan have done on several occasions in the past, constitutional
provisions cannot stop them from doing so, just as Article 6 has not prevented the
men in uniform from subverting the constitution.

Finally, we come to arguably the two most controversial of the proposed

constitutional amendments: One, indemnification of certain presidential ordinances
promulgated between the July 12 and December 15, 2007 “notwithstanding
anything contained in the constitution”. The ordinances to be indemnified include
the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO),
(NRO), which earlier made it possible for the
top PPP leadership to return home and subsequently led to their acquittal in
corruption cases. Two, reinstatement of the sacked judges (vide the insertion of a
new Article 270cc). What is controversial is not the reinstatement of judges itself
but the procedure by which that would be done. The reinstatement through a
constitutional amendment is an admission that not only the November 3 2007
proclamation of emergency by the (now retired) army chief was a constitutionally
valid act but the amendments made to the constitution under that proclamation
have become part of the constitution as well. This is because the constitution need
not be amended to remove a provision which is not part of the constitution. Making
the restoration of judges and indemnification of the ordinances part of the same
package means two things: One, either both events will happen or neither will. Two,
the deposed judges once reinstated will be bound to uphold the NRO and other
ordinances. In the bigger picture, any strength that the judiciary may draw from the
reinstatement of the judges will be offset by its emaciation courtesy other
provisions of the constitutional package. In case the package is not approved by
parliament, the judges will remain deposed or “dysfunctional.” To conclude, the
constitutional package only partly meets the constitutionality and necessity tests.
Author Location Dated
Fauzia Qureshi 09.08.08

– Triumph of Iran’s diplomacy

The long-awaited nuclear talks between the US+5 big powers and Iran have
concluded without any breakthrough in Geneva. However what is of interest is the
fact that the US has decided to completely revise its policy vis-à-vis the Iranian
nuclear programme. What has been the reason for this complete 180 degree turn
by the US? Is it because the US has realised that it has failed in Iraq and
Afghanistan and cannot afford to open another front with Iran? Or is it the fact that
Iran due to its perseverance has finally compelled the US to come to table? Should a
nuclear power like Pakistan learn a lesson from Iranian counterparts? The White
House had previously reiterated that it wouldn’t be involved in any negotiations
with Tehran unless it gave up uranium enrichment. So, why has the US made a shift
in its policy towards Iran now? Some within the Bush Administration are for
diplomacy but term reversal in the policy as ‘diplomatic malpractice’. By agreeing
to suspend its demand for cessation of uranium enrichment, Washington is
signalling to Tehran that it need not adhere to the current United Nations Security
Council resolutions. So, by not reinforcing diplomacy the US has shown that its
threats were empty.

Recently, Iran has announced that it now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant
increase in the number from earlier 3,000 centrifuges as previously said in its
uranium enrichment plant in Natanz. This announcement is yet another act of
defiance by Iran in the face of demands by the US and other big powers for Tehran
to halt its enrichment programme. However, Iran has stated that the US and the
other big powers have tempered their demands, asking it not to freeze enrichment
but rather not to expand its current programme beyond 6,000 centrifuges. So, the
US and the others have no problem as long as the programme is not expanded. It
must be remembered that uranium can be used as nuclear reactor fuel or as the
core for atomic warheads, depending on the degree of enrichment. The workhorse
of Iran’s enrichment programme was the P-1 centrifuge, which was run in cascades
of 164 machines. But this year in February the Iranian Officials confirmed that they
had started using the IR-2 centrifuge that can churn out enriched uranium at more
than double the rate. Tensions increased further when in July, this year, Iran test-
fired missiles in the Gulf, including one it says could reach the Jewish State and the
US bases in the Middle East. The US Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice has
summarised the four year arc of her Administration’s diplomatic efforts to restrain
Iran’s nuclear programme. The decision to reverse four years of US policy and meet
Iranian negotiators in Geneva is described as ‘a one time event’ by her designed
solely to hear Iran’s response to the latest European offer. But what was Iranians
response? Nothing, they didn’t respond at all. Instead Tehran describes
Washington’s decision to attend the talks in Geneva as a victory for the revolution.
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has gone further and called on his followers to
‘prepare for a new post-American world’.
world’. What has been Washington’s response? It
has given more time to Iran. However, Rice and the other big power representatives
have set a two-week deadline for a firm answer from Iran to their latest negotiating
offer which ended on July 31. Iran has been offered a rich technical and trade
package by the European Union. The Bush Administration has also promised to
support Iranian construction of a light-water reactor and provide it with nuclear fuel.
In addition, the US will help Iran overhaul its energy infrastructure and cooperate in
high-technology industries.

Apart from this, the US plans to open diplomatic outpost in Iran. Despite being
offered lucrative and generous incentives by the US and the big powers, Iranians
are holding on to their stance — not to suspend enrichment activities. Tehran
asserts that it had previously done so, from October 2003 to August 2005, in order
to allow negotiations with the Europeans to proceed, but those negotiations went
nowhere. This time it has no intention of doing so as its enrichment is only for its
nuclear power programme which is for producing fuel for civilian energy production.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has vowed that they wouldn’t accept
any threats in negotiations with major world powers over its nuclear drive. He
categorically added, “Iran’s
“Iran’s red lines are very clear”.
clear”. Though Israel and the US have
both refused to rule out military action against Iran, many see the recent ‘softening’
of the American attitude towards Iran as a realisation of weakness of the US
towards the latter. The US had imposed unilateral economic sanctions on Iran for
nearly three decades, but still failed to get Iranian compliance. Ms Rice says that if
the Iranians don’t come to terms in two weeks, the US will try to get a fourth round
of penalties adopted at the United Nations. Will this prove effective? I doubt, as the
first three rounds of the UN sanctions have proven ineffective so far, not to mention
the resolutions adopted in March this year, adding financial and travel sanctions on
Iranian individuals and companies. The Iranian steadfastness and the handling of
the nuclear energy programme is a lesson for a country like Pakistan. Pakistan is
the only nuclear Muslim state in the world and yet our leaders take dictation from
the US. Why? When a nonnuclear state like Iran can hold its ground and show the
world that its supreme national interest is superior and hold negotiations only on
the basis that no one makes any threat, then why can’t Pakistan. We should hold
our heads high in the comity of nations that we are at par with all and inferior to
none.

Author Location Dated

Steve Holland Washington, D.C. 09.08.08

– Clintons creating headaches for Obama

Two months after grudgingly admitting defeat, Democrat Hillary Clinton and her ex-
president husband are causing new headaches for Barack Obama as he tries to
focus on Republican rival John McCain. Former President Bill Clinton raised eyebrows
this week in a TV interview in which he refused to say Obama is qualified to be
president other than meeting the constitutional requirement of being a natural-born
citizen at least 35 years old. “You
“You could argue that nobody is ever ready to be
president,”
president,” Clinton said when pressed by ABC News on whether he thought Obama
was qualified. Then a video surfaced of Hillary Clinton saying at a California
reception last week that her supporters deserve to have their voices heard at the
Democratic convention beginning on Aug 25 in Denver where Obama will formally
be nominated as the party’s candidate. “Because
“Because I know from just what I’m hearing,
that there’s incredible pent-up desire,”
desire,” Clinton said in the video posted on YouTube.
“And I think that people want to feel like, ‘OK, it’s a catharsis, we’re here, we did it,
and then everybody get behind Senator Obama.’
Obama.’ That is what most people believe
is the best way to go.”
go.” Clinton said she wanted Obama to be nominated by a unified
convention, but her remarks left an impression she would not object if her
supporters made a symbolic show of support by nominating her as the candidate,
while knowing that the effort would fail. Taken together, the Clintons’ comments
were evidence that some bitterness lingers two months after Clinton battled Obama
to a near-draw, gave up her campaign and asked him to help her retire a
multimillion dollar campaign debt. Part of their frustration may well stem from signs
that she has not been seriously considered by Obama as his vice-presidential
running mate, a job she did not close the door to after ceding defeat.

NBC News said that Bill Clinton has accepted an Obama campaign offer to speak at
the Democratic convention on the evening of Aug 27, before Obama’s vice-
presidential running mate speaks. Democrats gather in Denver from Aug 25 to 28.
NBC said the campaign rushed late on Thursday to resolve the issue following news
reports of simmering tensions between Obama and the Clintons. The Obama
campaign declined comment. The Clinton video prompted the Obama campaign to
issue a joint Clinton-Obama statement on Wednesday stressing that “we “we are
working together”
together” to make the convention and campaign for the Nov 4 election a
success. “At“At the Democratic convention, we will ensure that the voices of everyone
who participated in this historic process are respected and our party will be fully
unified heading into the November election,”
election,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton.
Obama, speaking to reporters on his campaign plane on Thursday, said he had
spoken to both Clintons separately in recent days and that he believed former
president Clinton had shown “extraordinary
“extraordinary restraint in a fairly provocative
interview”.
interview ”. Obama said Hillary Clinton was campaigning for him in Nevada and
Florida before the convention. Asked if it would be cathartic to have Clinton’s name
come up for a floor vote at the convention, Obama suggested it was not a great
idea. “I’m
“I’m letting our respective teams work out the details. I don’t think we’re
looking for catharsis. I think what we’re looking for is energy and excitement about
the prospects of changing this country,”
country,” Obama said. Democratic strategist Doug
Schoen, who worked in the Clinton White House, said the Clintons should be given a
prominent role at the convention, but that she should not be symbolically
nominated as the candidate. “My “My point would be, we need unity,”
unity,” he said. Another
party strategist, Liz Chaddedon, had a tough message for the Clintons, saying it was
time for them to move off the political stage. “For“For them to be such incredible sore
losers is a shame,”
shame,” she said. Stephen Hess, a political science professor at George
Washington University, said if the Clintons are having trouble leaving the limelight,
it is because the news media will not let them. Having said that, however, Hess said
Clinton “should
“should be careful of how distracting she could be”.
be”. “She’s
“She’s done very well
up until this point. People have the sense that she’s done those things that are
appropriate to help the Democrats win the presidency,”
presidency,” said Hess.

Author Location Dated

Joby Warrick Washington, D.C. 09.08.08

– Attack would only slow down Iran’s nuclear capability: study

A military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would likely only delay the country’s
progress toward a nuclear-weapons capability, according to new study that
concludes that such an attack could backfire by strengthening Tehran’s resolve to
acquire the bomb. The analysis by the Washington-based Institute for Science and
International Security found that Iran’s uranium facilities are too widely dispersed
and protected — and, in some cases, too concealed — to be effectively destroyed
by warplanes. And any damage to the country’s nuclear programme could be
quickly repaired. ”Following
”Following an attack, Iran could quickly rebuild its centrifuge
programme in small, easily hidden facilities focused on making weapon-grade
uranium for nuclear weapons,”
weapons,” said principal author David Albright, ISIS president
and a former UN weapons inspector. The study, scheduled for release Friday, was
based in part on a comparison of Iran’s known nuclear facilities with Iraq’s Osirak
nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by Israeli jets in a 1981 strike intended to
curb Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. While Israel struck a devastating blow against Iraq’s
programme, a strike against Iran would be harder by several orders of magnitude,
according to Albright and co-authors Paul Brannan and Jacqueline Shire. The core of
Iran’s programme is its massive uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, where
thousands of machines called centrifuges create the uranium fuel used in making
nuclear energy. Although Iran says its efforts are intended for peaceful energy
purposes, its stocks of enriched uranium could be used in to build nuclear weapons.
Last year, US intelligence officials concluded that Iran halted nuclear weapons
research in 2003, but continued to expand its capabilities in ways that would allow
it to quickly develop such weapons in the future.

Despite heavy fortification, the subterranean Natanz plant could be heavily

damaged in an air strike using bunker-busting bombs or missiles. But the actual
centrifuges could be replaced rapidly, perhaps in hidden underground facilities, the
ISIS report said. Iran is known to have constructed bunkers inside mountain tunnels
near Natanz and other major nuclear sites. While Iran once relied on imported
technology and parts to build its centrifuges, it is now largely self-sufficient. The
manufacture of key components is dispersed among a number of government-
controlled factories, while imported parts such as high-strength aluminum have
been stockpiled over the last decade, the report notes. Moreover, since 2006, when
Iran began limiting access to its nuclear facilities by UN nuclear facilities, Western
governments can no longer say with certainty where some key facilities are located,
ISIS said. ”Current
”Current knowledge of the complex is lacking,”
lacking,” the report stated.
“Without that knowledge, an attack is unlikely to significantly delay Iran’s mastery
of enrichment with gas centrifuges.”
centrifuges.” According to Albright, an Israeli or US attack
would result in broader popular support for Iran’s ruling clerics and could lead
Tehran to sever ties with the UN nuclear watchdog. ”Iran
”Iran would likely launch a
‘crash’ programme to quickly obtain nuclear weapons,”
weapons,” Albright said in an
interview. “An
“An attack would likely leave Iran angry, more nationalistic, fed up with
international inspectors and non-proliferation treaties, and more determined than
ever to obtain nuclear weapons.”
weapons.”

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 09.08.08

– Govt allows rise in transport fares

The Sindh government on Friday
issued the notification of the
revised public transport fares,
providing relief to transport
operators who were anxiously
waiting for permission to charge
from Rs2 to 3 more for any
distance to make the rates
commensurate with the recent hike
in petroleum prices. The delay of
more than a week in the issuance
of the notification was attributed to
the absence of Sindh Chief Minister
Syed Qaim Ali Shah, who was
abroad. A summary of the revised
fares was forwarded to him on his
return, and was eventually signed
by him on Friday. The notification
read: “The
“The Sindh government, in
the pursuance of the powers
conferred by Sub-Section (II) of
Section 45 of the Provincial Motor
Vehicle Ordinance 1965 and in
supersession of all previous
notifications is sued, has re-fixed
public transport fares plying on
urban/intercity routes with
immediate effect.”
effect.” According to
the revised schedule, the minimum (i.e. up to five kilometers) bus fare has been
increased from Rs8 to Rs10. Students will continue to get a 50 per cent discount.
The minimum fare of minibuses has been raised from Rs9 to Rs11 and the minimum
coach fare from Rs13 to Rs16. The minimum fare of KPTS buses has been increased
to Rs12 from Rs10, the UTS buses with AC from Rs13 to Rs14 and the UTC buses
(without AC) from Rs10 to Rs12. The taxi, cab and rickshaw fares have been raised
by Re1 per kilometre. President of the Karachi Transport Ittehad (KTI) Syed Irshad
Hussain Shah Bukhari and general-secretary Syed Mehmood Afridi have expressed
their satisfaction over the issuance of the notification. Major associations of
transport operators had given a call for a wheeljam strike to be observed on
Saturday if the government delayed issuance of the notification anymore. They,
however, withdrew the call on Thursday following assurance by the government
that the revised fare schedule would be issued in a couple of days. A KTI statement
issued on Friday said that public transport vehicles across Sindh would be operated
as usual on Saturday and the fares would be charged as per the new schedule.
Chairman of the National Transport Ittehad (NTI) Saleem Khan Bangash also
welcomed the revised fares and noted that the new fares would be applicable with
effect from Aug 11. He said the fares would be reduced accordingly if the
government brought down the oil prices by Rs20 per litre.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 10.08.08
 – President’s impeachment Coalition move gathers momentum
The ruling coalition got a boost on Saturday after four senators from the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (Fata) declared support for the move to impeach
President Pervez Musharraf and some old allies of the president said they had not
yet decided whether they would defend him or not. A special committee of the
coalition partners met at the Parliament House chamber of the Leader of the House
in Senate, Raza Rabbani, to finalise drafts of the proposed resolutions to be tabled
in provincial assemblies. The resolutions will ask the president to seek a vote of
confidence from the assemblies or face impeachment. The committee is also
drafting a charge-sheet against Mr Musharraf for presentation at a joint session of
parliament. PML-N leader Ahsan Iqbal, who is a member of the drafting committee,
later claimed at a news conference that according to a “cautious estimate”, the
ruling coalition had the support of 325 members of the National Assembly and the
Senate, while Information Minister Sherry Rehman claimed to have the support of
about 350. Fata senators -- Abdul Raziq Afridi, Hafiz Abdul Malik Qadri, Hafiz
Rasheed Ahmed and Engineer Rashid Ahmed Khan - through a jointly signed
statement expressed support for the coalition and asked Mr Musharraf to “resign
“resign
and vacate the office of the president of Pakistan”
Pakistan” before the impeachment
proceedings. The senators held Pervez Musharraf responsible for instability and
poor law and order situation in Fata and the NWFP. “His“His (Musharraf’s) policies have
further polarised an already tense political situation in the region and have led to
political instability and heightening of tension among various segments of society. It
has also led to the killing of innocent people, including notables and Maliks of the
area,”
area,” the senators alleged.

Former interior minister Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao, who is considered to be a close
associate of President Musharraf, told BBC on Saturday he had not yet decided
whether his party would defend the president. He said he had not been contacted
by the president. However, PPP leader Syed Khurshid Shah and PML-N leader
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had met him and asked him to vote against the president,
Mr Sherpao disclosed . In reply to a question, Mr Sherpao, chief of his own faction of
the PPP, said his party would take a decision in a day or two. The PPP-Sherpao has
four members in the Senate and the National Assembly. An estranged PML-Q
senator, Nilofar Bakhtiar, told the media that the forward bloc, formed by her and
six other senators in April, was alive and the group would decide soon whether to
participate in the voting or not. “We
“We do not support a statement of PML-Q president
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that the party would defend President Musharraf,”
Musharraf,” she
said. Other senators in the bloc are: Tahira Latif, Wali Mohammad Badini, Amjad
Warraich, Zafar Chaudhry, Asif Jatoi of the Jatoi group and Sanaullah Zehri of the
Balochistan National Party (Awami). Sources said that the coalition’s committee had
prepared drafts of the resolutions for the provincial assemblies and it was now
working on the charge-sheet against the president. Senator Raza Rabbani,
Information Minister Sherry Rehman, Law Minister Farooq Naek, Farhatullah Babar,
Education Minister Ahsan Iqbal and Senator Ishaq Dar are members of the
committee. It will meet again on Sunday morning. Senator Dar did not attend the
Saturday meeting as he was away in Lahore.

Talking to Dawn after the meeting, Senator Rabbani said that being an electoral
college for the presidential election, it was an inherent right of parliament to move
for an impeachment of the president. Commenting on reports that the president
might move the Supreme Court, he said that if such a move was made, the
parliament would defend its constitutional right. “It“It is an internal matter of
parliament and the court cannot look into it.”it.” He said that according to the
Constitution, a member could make any speech in parliament and it was not
actionable at any forum. “Even
“Even if there is criticism of judiciary in the speech, it
cannot amount to the contempt of court.”
court.” Also on Saturday, Punjab Chief Minister
Shahbaz Sharif and Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called on PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari
and reviewed progress on the impeachment move. Mr Rabbani assisted Mr Zardari
in the meeting. Ahsan Iqbal, at a news conference, claimed to have the support of
325 parliamentarians and said more opposition members had got in touch with the
coalition. He denied charges of horse-trading. Mr Iqbal maintained that the Supreme
Court, “particularly PCO judges”, could not interfere in the impeachment procedure.
He said the president should have seen “the writing on the wall” when he was not
received by any chief minister whenever he visited a province. He said it was wrong
to criticise PML-N for accepting PPP’s proposal of impeaching the president before
reinstatement of judges. He said impeachment would be the first step towards
restoration of the judges. Sherry Rehman told reporters that the coalition enjoyed
the support of 350 legislators and the number was increasing “every hour”. She
said the floor-crossing clause would not apply to those who voted in favour of the
impeachment motion. She alleged that many MNAs and senators were being
pressurised to prevent them from the voting and “generous bribes” were being
offered. In reply to a question, Ms Rehman said that senior party leader Makhdoom
Amin Fahim would “definitely
“definitely vote in favour of the impeachment motion”.
motion”. Four PML-
N ministers — out of the nine who had resigned — rejoined the cabinet of Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Saturday. They are: Ahsan Iqbal (education), Rana
Tanveer Ahmed (defence production), Khawaja Saad Rafiq (culture and youth
affairs) and Sardar Mahtab Abbasi (railways).
(railways). The PML-N ministers had quit the
cabinet on May 12 after expiry of the second deadline for judges’ restoration.

Author Location Dated

Yousuf Nazar 10.08.08

– Setting the record straight

The PPP government made a faux pas in trying to bring the ISI under its control and
it is probable that the move may have come under great pressure to do so after the
recent bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul. But let it be clear that the notion the
ISI spends most of its time on external defence is false and that civilians should
therefore not bother about it is an equally flawed argument. History does not
support this view. It is also wrong to believe that the US administration’s
reservations about rogue elements in the ISI are a recent or post-9/11 phenomenon.
When intelligence agencies are not accountable to the elected government and are
not subject to checks and balances they can become a state within a state. The
Shah of Iran’s Savak was notorious for its repression. The FBI under J. Edgar Hoover
was even suspected of carrying out the assassination of John F. Kennedy and the
CIA was directly involved in the assassination of foreigners before it was forbidden
to do so by an executive order issued by President Ford in February 1976.
Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence was formed in 1948 by the then deputy army
chief of staff, Gen R. Cawthorne. Prior to the 1958 coup, the ISI reported directly to
the army chief. After the imposition of martial law, the ISI began to report to
President Ayub Khan. It was not Mr Bhutto who started the use of the ISI for
domestic intelligence. It was under Gen Ayub Khan that the ISI became responsible
for monitoring Pakistani politicians, especially those in what was then East Pakistan.
Ayub expanded the ISI’s role and it was to protect Pakistan’s interests, which
included the creation of a covert action division within the ISI to assist Islamic
militants in north-east India, as well as to support the Sikh Home Rule Movement in
the 1960s.

Altaf Gauhar, one of the most powerful bureaucrats to serve Ayub Khan, wrote a
revealing piece about the nature of ISI operations in the daily Nation on Aug 18,
1997: “The
“The president used to receive regular reports on the political situation in the
country from the ISI and the MI. These reports in sealed envelopes marked ‘Eyes
Only’ were usually handed over to the president by the C-in-C. On a few occasions
the president gave me these reports and it seemed to me that the agencies were
keeping the politicians, particularly the East Pakistanis, under close surveillance. I
rarely found anything insightful in these reports. The DIB had direct access to the
president and his weekly reports used to be fairly exhaustive. It was during the
presidential election in 1964 that the ISI and the MI became extremely active
[emphasis added].”
added].” According to Altaf Gauhar, the crisis of intelligence failure came
during the 1965 war. Brig Riaz (then ISI chief) told Altaf Gauhar that he had contacts
inside Occupied Kashmir and in other major Indian cities. “I “I will flood you with news.
Don’t worry”.
worry”. When the war started there was a complete blackout of news from all
the intelligence agencies. When Gauhar got nothing out of the ISI for two days he
went to Brig Riaz only to learn that all his contacts had gone underground. The ISI
played a key role in the Afghan war and worked closely with the CIA in what was its
biggest covert operation since the Vietnam war. While much is made of its role,
most Pakistani analysts have either ignored or not given due importance to the fact
that oil prices collapsed in the 1980s and the Soviet Union became bankrupt.

Notwithstanding this aspect, by 1985 the tide of the war had shifted in favour of
Moscow according to analysis produced that same year by Richard Clarke, who was
the US deputy assistant secretary of state for intelligence at the time. According to
his memoirs, his boss told him: “Don’t
“Don’t just tell me we’re losing, Clarke, tell me what
the [expletive deleted] to do about it.”
it.” Secretary of Defence Casper Weinberger’s
decision in 1986 to send Stinger missiles was crucial in turning the tide in favour of
the Afghan fighters trained and backed by the ISI. By this time US aid had also been
increased to $600m from $35m in 1982. At the conclusion of the war, the CIA and
the Americans abandoned the Afghans but the ISI continued to play a key role in
Pakistan’s Afghan policy, including the training of the Taliban in Afghanistan. What
complicated matters was the Taliban’s involvement with Osama bin Laden. The
Taliban regime had provided sanctuary to bin Laden who was wanted by the US
even before 9/11. President Clinton ordered cruise missile attacks on Afghanistan in
August 1998 to target what he described as one of the most active terrorist bases in
the world. In his television address on Aug 20, 1998, Mr Clinton named “exiled
“exiled
Saudi Arabian dissident”
dissident” Osama bin Laden as the mastermind behind the embassy
bombings in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.

On the same day, a spokesman for the ruling Taliban, Mullah Abdullah, told CNN
and Reuters that “bin
“bin Laden is safe and no damage has been done to any of his
companions.”
companions.” Top Clinton administration officials suspected, even in 1998, that if
“Pakistan’s ISI wanted to capture bin Laden or tell us where he was, they could
have done so with little effort”,
effort”, according to the Richard Clarke, Bill Clinton’s
counter-terrorism chief. The ISI’s name figured again in the aftermath of 9/11. Dawn
published the following story on Oct 10, 2001. “Director
“Director General of Pakistan’s Inter
Services Intelligence (ISI) Lt Gen Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after … FBI
investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the
three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines
plane in 1999. The FBI team, which had sought adequate inputs about various
terrorists including Sheikh from the intelligence agencies, was working on the
linkages between Sheikh and former ISI chief Gen Mahmud which are believed to
have been substantiated, reports [the] PTI website. Informed sources said there
were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen
Mahmud’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the
account of Mohammed Atta, one of the lead terrorists in strikes at the World Trade
Centre on Sept 11, it adds.”
adds.” While this news was disturbing to say the least, the
objective fact remains that Gen Mahmud Ahmed, the ISI chief, was replaced barely
a month after he had returned from Washington after spending about 10 days
meeting top officials of the Bush administration. The record speaks for itself. The ISI
has played a key role in elections beginning with the 1965 presidential polls and in
conducting Afghan policy and operations. We have hardly ever had free and fair
elections and the Afghan crisis now threatens the very survival of Pakistan as it
exists today.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 10.08.08

– The ISI debacle

On July 26, 2008 a Cabinet Division notification announced that the Inter Services
Intelligence Directorate had been taken out of the prime minister’s establishment
and placed under the interior ministry. This decision was rescinded the following
day. Ten days later it was brought back to life but only to be held in abeyance. The
initial move may have been made to cause the impression that the ISI would
henceforth be under stricter control, and this to allay the oft-repeated American
concern that elements within the agency were giving aid and comfort to certain
militant groups. It is not known why the interior ministry should have been thought
to be more capable of controlling the ISI than the prime minister’s office had been.
It is more likely that the move was made to appease a certain individual’s appetite
for power; that individual being Abdul Rehman Malik who is in effect the interior
minister. His rise to eminence, like that of several others in the present regime, is
puzzling. Once a middle-ranking police officer, he left Pakistan under a cloud in
1998, lived in London, then returned to Pakistan in 2007 with Benazir Bhutto as her
chief security officer. He failed her in that role both when a hostile mob surrounded
her upon her arrival in Karachi in October, and again in Rawalpindi where she was
assassinated on Dec 27. A few months after her death, Mr Zardari made Mr Malik
the guardian of law and order in Pakistan as head of the interior ministry. Needless
to say, he would have become immensely powerful had he been able to direct the
ISI. But his ambition in this regard was to be in vain partly because, as we will see
shortly, the ISI is not all that amenable to external control. The attempt to place it
under the interior ministry failed also because it met intense opposition from the
chiefs of the armed services, who had not been consulted before the notification of
July 26 was issued. The ISI is their agency, not a civilian organisation.

That in a democracy the military should be under ultimate civilian control is

indisputable. The same holds for the ISI. Since its inception in 1948 it has reported
to the prime minister or the president. It may then be said to have been under the
prime minister’s control, which is civilian enough. But control in this context does
not denote the supervising authority’s permission for every action that the agency
is taking. It is limited to a broadly defined charter of its missions. Intelligence
agencies — such as the ISI, the CIA in America, MI6 and MI5 in Britain, RAW in India
— will work within the requisites of the mission assigned to them, but they are not
receptive to external direction of their specific operations. The ISI was established
to collect and analyse information concerning foreign governments, corporations
and politically significant individuals, with special reference to India. President Ayub
Khan extended its mission to include the opponents of his regime. The agency
joined hands with those who engineered his victory and Fatima Jinnah’s defeat in
the presidential election of 1965. Since then it has routinely intervened in domestic
politics. It keeps an eye on opposition politicians and also those in power. It has
sponsored the formation and disruption of political parties and alliances. It has
funded individuals and parties of its choosing in elections. It has given money and
weapons to certain groups to fight other groups. ISI operatives are posted in
Pakistani embassies abroad as attachés, usually military or commercial. They watch
Pakistani officials serving out there, and their colleagues at home watch foreign
diplomats, businessmen and important individuals working in Pakistan. ISI agents
abroad are expected to gather intelligence and, when appropriate, undertake covert
operations.

Some observers believe the ISI is not performing these functions well. Even with
regard to India, which is its principal concern, its knowledge of that country’s
military capabilities, planning and dispositions, its political and social dynamics, and
its industry and technology is said to be inadequate. Its information concerning
Pakistan’s domestic politics, and its covert operations in that area, may be more
newsworthy than its accomplishments abroad. The ISI is a huge organisation. It
employs nearly 10,000 persons, including hundreds of serving and former military
and police officers, a number of researchers and analysts, administrators, and even
some scientists and technologists. Its financial resources and its expenditures
remain unpublished for the most part but one may be sure that they are far greater
than those shown in its official budget. What kind of control can the prime minister,
or even the army chief, exercise over an agency so large and powerful, so
abundantly resourceful? Let us take a quick look at its American counterpart the
CIA, established in July 1947, employing twice as many persons as the ISI does
(reportedly about 20,000), and doing the same kind of work: intelligence gathering,
espionage, aiding or destabilising foreign governments, and other covert operations
including ‘termination’ of an undesirable ruler or politician (albeit none of this within
the United States). The CIA, along with 15 other intelligence agencies, reports in the
first instance to the director of national intelligence, but as and when necessary its
director may report directly to the president. The president — aided by his national
security adviser, defence secretary and occasionally the secretary of state — gives
the CIA its mission set forth in broad terms for the world generally and, when
necessary, with reference to specific countries. Within this general framework the
CIA director, his deputies and officers in charge of various country sections make
their own determinations of the actions to be taken from day to day. They do not
seek the president’s permission for each operation they intend to undertake and
they do not report all of their doings to him. Nor does he want to know all of what
they do. The likelihood is that the ISI’s modus operandi in Pakistan is pretty much
the same as that of the CIA in the United States. The ISI, like the CIA, is a ‘state
within a state’, an ‘invisible government’ and a ‘law unto itself’. That elements in
the ISI are supportive of the militants means either that the government doesn’t
really object to their activities, or that the Zardari-Gilani combination is too fragile
to control them.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 10.08.08

– Nepal parties miss deadline to form new Government

Nepal’s former Maoist rebels and mainstream parties failed to meet a deadline to
form a new government, leaving the Himalayan nation in political limbo, an official
said on Saturday. The Maoists, who won the most seats in April assembly elections,
blamed Nepal’s “traditional style of dirty politics” for the failure to form a
government. “We’ve
“We’ve missed the deadline for presenting the president with a
consensus for government formation due to the petty interests of some party
leaders,”
leaders,” senior Maoist leader Chandra Prakash Gajurel said. On Tuesday, Ram
Baran Yadav, the first president of republican Nepal, extended by three days the
deadline he had given for the parties to reach agreement on a Maoist-led new
government. There was no immediate reaction from the president’s office to the
parties’ failure to constitute a government. The constituent assembly declared
Nepal a republic in late May, abolishing the 240-year-old Hindu monarchy, but the
parties have not been able to form an administration since. Minendra Rijal, a senior
leader of the Maoists’ biggest rival, the Nepali Congress, said more work needed to
be done to work out policies and assign ministerial portfolios before a government
could be formed. “The
“The situation is very fluid. I am hopeful but not assured that we
can find a way out of the current deadlock,”
deadlock,” said Rijal. In April, the former rebels
became Nepal’s biggest party after polls to elect a 601-member constitution-writing
body, but the ultra-leftists do not hold a majority and have struggled to reach an
agreement with their rivals. The ultra-leftists ended their bloody, decade-long
uprising after a peace accord with the government in 2006, but have faced hurdles
in the transition from feared guerilla outfit to mainstream political actors.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 11.08.08

– Musharraf may face corruption, murder charges

The government’s chargesheet against President Pervez Musharraf will comprise
hundreds of pages containing charges of misconduct, financial irregularities,
violations of the Constitution and ‘criminal acts’ that could lead to an open trial, but
the PPP expects the president to resign before the impeachment motion is
submitted to parliament. The coalition is still undecided if President Musharraf
should be given a ‘safe passage’ out of the country, discussions with leaders of the
ruling parties suggest. PPP spokesman Farhatullah Babar, who is a member of the
committee which is drafting the charge-sheet, told Dawn that it had made
“significant progress”. “It
“It will be an unimpeachable document supported by
documentary evidence of all the acts of omission and commission committed by
(President) Musharraf that make him liable to impeachment several times,”times,” Mr
Babar said. “We
“We are in the government now and have access to many previously
confidential documents. After going through these documents, we are surprised
over the horrendous nature of the crimes committed by President Musharraf during
his almost nine-year rule,”
rule,” he said. Mr Babar was of the opinion that President
Musharraf would quit before the coalition parties moved the impeachment motion
against him. “The
“The man will have to go. It is a political reality and impeachment is
just a legal and constitutional procedure to realise it,”
it,” he said.

The PPP leader claimed that dozens of PML-Q members were approaching the
coalition and the number of legislators supporting the impeachment had almost
reached 350 in the 442member joint house of the National Assembly and the
Senate. When asked if the coalition was ready to give a ‘safe passage’ to the
president in return for his voluntary resignation, he said it would be up to
parliament and the heads of the coalition parties to decide. Another member of the
committee, Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani, said: “If “If the charge-
sheet is put into River Ravi it will come into flood as far as gross irregularities and
constitutional violations are concerned.”
concerned.” Pakistan Muslim League-N’s information
secretary Ahsan Iqbal, who is also a member of the committee, told reporters that
the party had received hundreds of emails and text messages demanding an open
trial of President Musharraf. He said the charge-sheet would contain hundreds of
pages. He said the impeachment had become a national issue because 86 per cent
of the people wanted to see the president out of office. Another member of the
committee said the charge-sheet would cover misconduct, subversion of the
Constitution, imposition of emergency, attack on judiciary, missing persons, the Lal
Masjid operation, corruption in the funds received from the US for supporting the
war against terror, killing of Baloch leader Nawab Akbar Bugti and detention of
hundreds of youths in Balochistan without trial.

Information Minister Sherry Rehman told reporters after a meeting of the committee
held at her residence that the chargesheet would soon be made public. She
expressed the hope that the committee would complete its work in three to four
days. She said PML-Q members had also advised the president not to use Article 58-
2(b) which showed that they wanted President Musharraf to resign. Meanwhile,
spokesman Farhatullah Babar said in a statement that the PPP was concerned over
reports that Gen (retd) Musharraf had in a telephonic conversation warned its
chairperson Benazir Bhutto that her life in Pakistan would be in danger if she did not
extend him political cooperation. The revelation has been made in a recently
published book, The Ways of the World,
World, authored by Pulitzer Prize winner Ron
Suskind. “The
“The revelation, if true, lends enormous credence to what was generally
talked about in the streets of Pakistan about the likely killers of Ms Bhutto. It also
lends dramatic significance to the last email she had sent to her lobbyist in the US
pointing out dangers to her life and indicating also who she suspected could be
involved if something happened to her,”her,” Mr Babar said. The PPP has already
approached the UN for an investigation into her assassination and it hoped that the
inquiry, whenever constituted, would also look into this horrendous revelation, he
said, adding: “In
“In the final analysis nothing remains secret and it is a law of the
nature to expose the killers, the tyrants and the brigands in ways that one cannot
even comprehend.”
comprehend.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 11.08.08

– US wants ‘honourable’ stay for president in Pakistan

The United States does not want to interfere in the impeachment process but
should President Pervez Musharraf agree to step down, the Americans would like to
ensure a secure and honourable stay for him in Pakistan. Diplomatic and US official
sources, when contacted by Dawn, said that US Ambassador Anne Patterson had
left for Islamabad on Saturday after consulting senior White House and State
Department officials on this issue. She came to Washington in the last week of July
to be present here during Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to the US capital
but stayed back for further consultations on the ruling coalition’s decision to
impeach President Musharraf. Although the coalition announced the impeachment
move after the prime minister had returned to Islamabad, diplomatic sources in
Washington say that the Gilani government had consulted both the Americans and
the army before making the move. According to these sources, the Americans told
the Pakistanis that they want to stay neutral on this issue and would support any
move which was “consistent
“consistent with the rule of law and the Constitution,”
Constitution,” as the State
Department spokesman Gonzalo R. Gallegos said at a recent briefing. The cleverly
crafted statement maintains America’s neutrality because while the Constitution
allows impeachment, it also permits the president to undo the current political set-
up.

The Americans further emphasised their neutrality when approached by the

Pakistani government to use its influence to persuade President Musharraf to step
down. The Pakistani government wanted a senior US official or a lawmaker to call
President Musharraf and urge him to quit. They reminded the Americans that they
had used a similar approach against Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1986
when senior US officials and lawmakers publicly urged him to step down. But
diplomatic sources say that the Americans are refusing to make any public
statement for or against President Musharraf and instead want Pakistani politicians
to tackle this issue without outside support. They, however, appear willing to use
their influence to arrange for a secure and honourable stay for President Musharraf
in Pakistan should he agree to quit, the sources said. A British media report —
republished in American newspapers — claims that President Musharraf is seriously
considering a proposal to step down. US officials, when contacted by Dawn, refused
to confirm or deny this report but other sources said that “President
“President Musharraf has
made it clear that he has no plans to leave Pakistan, whether he stays in power or
not.”
not.” And, according to diplomatic sources, this is where the Americans are willing
to help. “They
“They have apparently agreed to help assure a secure and honourable stay
for him in Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said one such source. “They
“They also want to ensure that the
president should be given full indemnity should he agree to step down.”
down.” The source
added: “This
“This is more or less what the Pakistan army also wants.”
wants.”

Meanwhile, senior Pakistani diplomats are scheduled to hold further talks with US
officials on the issue on Monday when President George W. Bush returns to
Washington after a weeklong tour of several Asian countries. Diplomatic sources
say that the Pakistani government may directly appeal to President Bush to help
defuse the current political crisis. The Americans also fear that a power struggle
between pro-and anti-Musharraf forces could push nuclear-armed Pakistan into a
protracted turmoil; prevent its shaky civilian government from moving against
militants hiding in Fata; and even jeopardise vital US supply lines through Pakistan
to Afghanistan. “There
“There are elements within the US administration who would be
very nervous about Musharraf leaving the scene, as they think the civilians are not
in control of the army and ISI,”
ISI,” says Lisa Curtis, a senior research fellow at the
Heritage Foundation in Washington. But it is also apparent that the Americans are
not willing to take any public position on this issue. At least not yet.

Author Location Dated

Andleeb Abbas andleeb@franklincoveysoutha 11.08.08
sia.com

– Bankruptcy of leadership
Unprepared and unreceptive minds are more lethal than any economic or political
threat. In fact intellectually and morally bankrupt leaders initiate and instigate the
downfall of their country. In this era of deficits of all sorts, there is a surplus of
minds among our political decision-makers who cannot see the obvious, who cannot
focus on the important, and who cannot take the responsibility of finding solutions
to the many ills besieging the country. The prime minister’s visit to the US was a
typical example of unprepared and purposeless leadership where the only
achievement was a further deterioration of the image of our leadership. Unwittingly
made but truly reflecting ignorance was his statement, “The “The US knows more about
Pakistan than I do.”
do.” Confusion and chaos are the best ways to describe the state of
affairs in the country. With an overdose of statements and announcements coming
from every ministry it has become almost impossible for any ordinary person to
make sense of all this political noise. Let us take a look at the reasons for this
confusion.

Who’s the leader of them all? This is the big question mark hanging in the minds of
everybody. Who is responsible for providing a direction to this country? Who is
finally going to walk the talk? A team full of many captains always ends up with a
contest of egos rather than a contest of expertise and achievements. This is
precisely how our leadership is projecting itself. From Musharraf to Gilani, from
Zardari to the Sharifs, we have a surfeit of proclaimed leaders who issue statements
from time to time which are contradictory. From democracy to justice and from the
economy to energy, we have seen and heard claims so ludicrous that what is being
enacted has become a comedy of errors. Who is loyal to whom is the billion dollar
question? Is the president on good terms with the PPP? Is the PPP on good terms
with the PML-N? We have vague answers to these questions, but one thing is certain
that none of them is loyal to the people of Pakistan. They have taken the public for
a ride in the past and been forgiven for it and they are confident that they will get
away with their political hypocrisy yet again. Who is responsible for all this? Another
burning question. Our political leaders are world champions in the blame game. The
president leading the show conveniently blames Shaukat Aziz for the present
economic mess, as he earlier did for the judicial crisis. The suicide bombings are a
typical example of the irresponsible attitude of the government. The last bombing in
Islamabad was a result of the government’s failure to act against the Lal Masjid
culprits. Most opposition and religious parties blamed the president, and the
president blamed the extremists while the extremists blamed America. The PPP
blames the earlier government for the economic mess and the PML-N for impeding
economic recovery by exaggerating the importance of the judicial crisis. The PMLN
blames the president and the PPP for blocking the restoration of judges. With this
irresponsible attitude there is very little hope of any meaningful progress. So much
energy and planning goes into berating and bringing down the opposition that little
time and effort is left to plan strategic and far-reaching reforms to handle an
economy needing critical and fully focused and united attention. Who is saying
what? One does not know. Important and strategic decisions have been left to a
bunch of incompetent men and women. Whether it is making statements at the
highest international level or making sensitive announcements to the public, a
careless and irresponsible stance is evident. The prime minister started his US visit
by saying that “the
“the next 9/11 may originate from Pakistan”
Pakistan” and continued to make
strategic blunders throughout his visit which was more of a summer holiday for
family and friends rather than serious business.

Conclusion: The political and economic turmoil in the country is caused by a

leadership paralysis. None of the present leaders have the ability to take control of
the situation and lend some method to this economic madness. Weak leadership
always settles for compromises where everybody gives in to everything. What we
need are leaders who can take responsibility of the situation and instead of
placating, pacifying and downplaying their own incapacities, own up to their
weaknesses, be honest about what is possible, and take charge instead of having
these so-called diplomatic middle-of-the-road policies where eventually they will be
run over by their own indecisiveness or by more politically speedy opponents. As
James Madison outlined in his Federalist Papers, the two essential attributes for
good government are, “First
“First a government must be able to control the governed,
and then it must be able to be controlled itself.”
itself.” This is a critical balance which most
governments fail to maintain. Either their desire to control the governed far exceeds
their ability to control themselves, as we saw in the last eight years, or their
inability to win over the majority to their point of view makes those who are
governed directionless, as is being witnessed currently. May be it is time for the
public to demand fresh blood in our leadership by looking for people who are bold,
honest and driven by a mission to lead their countrymen to a clear destiny of
financial, mental and emotional security. To stop this tragic political satire perhaps
we need to give an ad: “Wanted:
“Wanted: leaders of the rare kind.”
kind.” ¦ The writer is a
consultant and CEO of FranklinCovey Pakistan.Pakistan .

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Faruqui faruqui@pacbell.net 11.08.08

– The futility of war

In The Republic, Plato described how civilised states should be governed but noted,
“Only the dead have seen the last of war.”war.” Centuries earlier, Homer had shown how
wars had transformed men into heroes. Shakespeare would show centuries later
how wars brought out the worst in man. In our era, martial courage would be
famously extolled in an Urdu couplet: Only the mounted warriors fall in battle How
will the toddlers fall that crawl on all fours?.This
fours?.This glossed over Gen Sherman’s
experience of the civil war which left him convinced that “All“All war is hell”,
hell”, something
that John Keegan brought out to good effect in The Face of Battle.
Battle. But even those
who glorified war were devastated by the horrific acts that took place on 9/11. The
US retaliation that came in Afghanistan was swift and decisive, widely welcomed by
the world. The war to depose Saddam Hussein was not. Of course, it appealed to
the troops who were sent there to fight it. Unlike their counterparts in the Vietnam
war, they were volunteers. Many had joined to extract revenge on the terrorists.
Evan Wright, an American reporter, was embedded in an elite reconnais sance
platoon of US Marines. In 2004, he penned a book about the invasion, Generation
Kill,
Kill, which is now being screened by a US TV channel to much acclaim. Wright
provides a view of the modern battlefield from the vantage point of these warriors.

As they roll off into Iraq in their lightly armed Humvees they have only a vague idea
of their enemy. They know he has no air cover and that his capability has been
eroded by sanctions. But his army is equipped with several thousand tanks, artillery
pieces and possibly nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Danger lurks in the
vastness of the desert. The marines are young men drawn from Camp Pendleton,
California, on a par with the Navy Seals or the army’s Special Operation Forces. But
their exposure to the outside world has been limited to jaunts south of the border.
They are overflowing with hormones, profanities, machismo and tattoos. One has a
broken smile because two front teeth are missing. Another has an ungainly
appearance for which he has been nicknamed ‘Manimal’. Yet another is believed to
have fled the scene of battle at Khafji during the 1991 Gulf war and is called The
Coward. Their leader, who does not command respect, is called Captain America. As
it marches into Iraq, this platoon, like the rest of the corps, is simply out to “Get
Some!” No one has bothered to educate its soldiers about the local culture. So when
they see their first Iraqi around 10 in the morning, they cuss him for wearing
pyjamas in daylight. All enemies are “Hajjis.” In the crossfire that ensues, innocent
shepherds, villagers and city dwellers are killed. The marines watch helplessly as a
shot-up boy dies in his mother’s arms and as a father carries his dead girl whose
brain has spilled out to a roadside grave. A sheikh begs the marines not to rape his
daughters while other Iraqis offer them boys as an alternative. As the invasion
progresses, large numbers of Iraqi soldiers surrender, many without a fight. The
marines encounter long lines of Iraqi troops walking past them in civilian clothes.
Many carry pink cards given by the American army units to whom they surrendered.
But the marines cannot afford to feed them. The soldiers have to be ‘un-
surrendered’ to bypass the Geneva Conventions. The Iraqi soldiers complain that
the fedayeen have formed hunter killer teams to take them out. However, the
marines are unable to offer them protection and send them in the other direction,
knowing that it means certain death for the deserters.

Evidence of Iraqi military incompetence abounds. Their armour waits until 10 in the
morning to begin rolling out, at which time US combat aircraft take them out with
consummate ease. In one night encounter, a T-72 tank is taken out by a single
marine with a missile shot from less than 200 yards away. After a major battle with
an Iraqi division, a US general says that his troops won not because he was brilliant
but because his counterpart was stupid. One marine officer acknowledges that if a
foreign force went to the US, the residents would do their best to catch an invader
and string him up. Yet, when a marine is killed, the others resort to taking their
revenge on the nearby village. The air force is called in and thousand-pound bombs
are dropped. The marines, from a distance, see Iraqi men evaporate before their
eyes. In another encounter, a marine sniper is sent in to dispatch potential Iraqi
spotters from a distance. As he sees them drop through his scope, he reminds
himself to not take pleasure in the act of killing, since that would be counter to his
Christian faith. On the road to Baghdad, the marines relieve themselves under the
open sky, day or night, and litter the roads with wrappers from their ready-to-eat
rations. At night, they are haunted by visions of those that they have killed. Some
marines fall victim to friendly fire, some are run over as they sleep by US vehicles
and some, who can’t take it any more, step into a ditch and shoot themselves in the
head. Even for the victors, war is one long ride through hell. And yet, somehow,
amidst all the chaos and destruction, the Iraqi farmer tends to his sheep and drives
his herds through the US formations. Five years after the war, many of the soldiers
who fought in the Iraq war are despondent. More than four thousand of their
buddies are dead. They won the war but lost the peace. Along the way some of
them burned villages in order to save them. The crazier ones just fired guns to blow
things up. Even the sensible ones were anxious to “get in the game”, as if war was
a game too good to miss out on. Wright does not moralise about the war. Nor does
he tell us how the Iraqis viewed it. But what he does say proves the futility of war. ¦
The writer is the author of Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America and the
Middle East (Vanguard Books).
Books).

Author Location Dated

Adrian A. Hussain 11.08.08

– The question of sovereignty

Crises are a part of the national diet. However, that does not mean that crucial
national issues suddenly go away. At most, they recede temporarily. Pakistan’s
sovereignty is one such issue. It was on account of this that Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani lately came in for a good deal of flak. His trip to the US clearly elicited
far more negativism than he had evidently bargained for. It was, rightly perhaps,
described as mismanaged, ill-coordinated — in short, something of a PR disaster.
Above all, though, the prime minister came under fire for undertaking the visit
without a specific mandate from parliament. Members of the PML-Q were, as usual,
at the forefront of the grandstanding at the expense of the PPP government. The
cardinal grouse was that during his stay in the US, Gilani did not put up enough of a
fight over the issues of the country’s sovereignty or its prime intelligence asset, the
ISI. Obviously, he had not been properly debriefed. Nor did he have the native guile
to hold his own. However, even a more agile mind may have been at a loss as to
how to handle some of the obfuscations and sensitivities inherent in the two issues
adequately. The question of Pakistan’s sovereignty is fairly complex. It has an
elaborate history and a bit of a chequered past. The era of Cento and Seato and of
course the infamous U-2, entailing some of the more notable compromises in this
regard, comes readily to mind. More recently, a kind of oxymoronic situation arose
when, in the aftermath of 9/11, we acquired ‘key ally’ status in relation to the
world’s sole superpower. To save ourselves from retribution at the hands of the US,
we effectively put the integrity of our state on the line. Our long-fostered, if idle,
dream of ‘strategic depth’ and considerations of sovereignty both went by the
board.

Force majeure was invoked largely because of a possible chance of an economic

bonanza such as had been reaped in the earlier antiSoviet Afghan jihad. The war on
terror was cynically allowed to come home to Pakistan. That it was further
permitted to come to stay is equally pertinent. With a touch of reversibility about
their respective roles, terrorism and counter-terrorism became an accepted way of
life. And if there are militant sanctuaries throughout our tribal belt today we have
only ourselves to blame. Consequently, almost all expressions of dismay on the
subject of sovereignty in the present context smack just very slightly of coy
posturing. The government-sponsored gambit of ‘appropriation’ with regard to the
war on terror has likewise proven counterproductive. The shibboleth — ‘Pakistan’s
own war’ — was far too independent and indeed wilful to have gone down
particularly well with Centcom, the Pentagon, the CIA or the White House itself. Its
glib exclusivity doubtless led to the US smelling a rat and intuiting its threatened
ouster from strategic control over the region. So, in a sense, such wild allegations as
the CIA levelled against the ISI would already seem to have been on the cards. The
charge as to ISI involvement in last month’s attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul
which was responsible for numerous casualties was, quite obviously, a convenient
frame-up. It would not make any sense for Pakistan’s intelligence network to have
been complicit in a suicide bombing that was bound to have had the opposite camp
leaping to implicate it. The act was gauche and ill-conceived and ultimately merely
a rather crude form of ‘scapegoatism’.

At the same time, it is clear that the government of the day cannot be made to
carry the can for the sins of an earlier dispensation. If militancy is alive and well
rather than being on the run, that is the sole fault of our previous rulers. If they did
not facilitate it, they certainly did little to stem the rot. Lal Masjid is a case in point.
Even today there seems to be a chilling irony about the fact that the remedy for
that could have been nothing other than terminal. The extremists secreted there
were wantonly allowed to be hoist on their own petard. So those governing at the
time must at the very least be made to face the charge of collusion by default.
Certainly, the people of Pakhtunkhwa and indeed the nation at large must not be
held to ransom on account of militancy indefinitely. The threat to the settled areas
of Pakhtunkhwa is all too real even though the ‘quasi takeovers’ by various militant
factions come across — hazards on the ground notwithstanding — as curiously
symbolic and just a trifle surreal. It is also intriguing that since the assassination of
Benazir Bhutto, the incidence of suicide bombings has perceptibly decreased
despite the low frequency detonations in Karachi and the bloodier drama of
Islamabad in early July. Given time, it is hoped that this enigma too will unravel.
Needless to say, vigilance is of the essence. The nation is alert. And while nobody
believes that there are rogue elements in our ace intelligence network, common
logic suggests that there are anonymous saboteurs and agents provocateurs at
work in our midst. Under the circumstances, what is the way forward? Security is
not the preserve of a ruling coalition but a matter of national importance, one
indeed that calls for time-bound guarantees on its part. If the current coalition is to
succeed in providing these, it must look beyond the show-window of the one-time
peace agreement or military operation at a possible long-term political solution. But
for this it must first — when the present clouds roll over — seek a convincing
national consensus. Such an initiative would entail taking all key players on board
including not just relevant tribal elders but also the country’s political parties and,
with them, prominent members of civil society and the media and, of course,
leaders of the lawyers’ movement. Then alone could our government hope to move
ahead credibly towards reversing the cycle of destruction set in motion by those
who both lacked in political wisdom and did not have the country’s good at heart.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 11.08.08

– PML-Q to go all out for Musharraf

The PML-Q on Sunday announced all-out support for President Pervez Musharraf
against his impeachment and warned the ruling coalition of `political instability’ if it
ignored laws in the process. “The
“The impeachment drive will open a pandora’s box and
anything can happen in the ensuing political chaos,”
chaos,” party’s secretary-general Syed
Mushahid Husain, flanked by president Chaudhry Shujaat Husain and opposition
leader in the National Assembly Pervaiz Elahi, told the media after a meeting of
party’s central executive committee. He said that president’s impeachment would,
in fact, become a trial of the ruling coalition that was following Musharraf’s policies
in each sector. He said Musharraf had a clean track record while the incumbent
government was the outcome of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO). (NRO). “If
“If
they (the government) have moral courage, they should denounce the NRO.” NRO.” He
said the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), whose leader Altaf Husain also spoke
to the CEC from London by phone for 20 minutes, had assured its support to the
PML-Q on the impeachment issue. Alleging horse-trading and arm-twisting
measures by the government to secure required votes for the impeachment
process, Mushahid claimed the morale of his party men was very high and that they
would not let the country become a one-party state or one-party dictatorship. The
PML-Q leader claimed that President Musharraf was thinking of relinquishing the
charge but “seeing
“seeing our courage he has decided to fight back”.
back”. Pervaiz Elahi
announced that they would not allow Musharraf to retreat and tender resignation.
He dared the coalition government to name the replacement for Musharraf for
whom the entire process had been initiated.

Author Location Dated

Michael Crowley Washington, D.C. 11.08.08

– The Democrats have to get rough

This week Barack Obama is enjoying a brief respite from the campaign madhouse
on the beaches of Hawaii. But the madness itself never pauses, of course. As
Obama departed for the state where he grew up, the Republican Party sent him off
with a ‘Travel Guide’ mocking the upscale prep school Obama attended. A McCain
campaign supporter marvelled that Obama would be ‘swimming’ while Americans
grappled with high gas prices. And McCain sent him off with a new round of attack
ads focusing on Obama’s allegedly Paris Hilton-esque celebrity glow. ‘Life‘Life in the
spotlight must be grand,’
grand,’ explains one. ‘But
‘But for the rest of us, times are tough.’
tough.’
Petty and churlish, perhaps, but a growing number of Democrats suspect that
relentless attacks by McCain and the Republican party may be taking a toll on
Obama. Indeed, despite the political tailwinds at Obama’s back, and the smooth
execution of his vaunted overseas tour last month, he maintains a conspicuously
modest lead over his Republican rival. And even as the Obama brand
underperforms, the McCain brand is overperforming: The Arizona senator is faring
much better than one would reasonably expect of a determined Iraq war supporter
and faithful ally of George Bush in the ugly sunset of the post-9/11 Republican era.
When Obama and McCain head to their parties’ conventions this month, Obama
must find a way to change that dynamic, or risk seeing his fragile lead slip away.

Ever since he dispatched Hillary Clinton, Obama has held that steady but slim
advantage over McCain. According to the running average of major presidential
polls, Obama now leads McCain by 3.6 points. That is nothing to sneer at.
Remember: George W Bush actually lost the popular vote in 2000 and still took the
presidency after winning more electoral votes than Al Gore (with some help from
the US Supreme Court). And by most counts Obama enjoys a substantial edge in the
state-by-state electoral count. He is, by any measure, winning. Yet as seen in
another context the overall mood of the electorate – Obama’s lead is decidedly
underwhelming. Asked to state their generic preference for Congressional
candidates, voters say they prefer Democrats to Republicans by a roughly 10 point
margin. In other words, Obama is lagging behind his party’s overall brand by about
seven points. McCain, by contrast, runs ahead of his fellow Republicans by about
five points. This most unusual situation gives Republicans an improbable glimmer of
hope at a time when their party name is almost synonymous with incompetence
and corruption. Most striking, perhaps, is the gulf between how voters see McCain
and the Republican party’s titular leader, Bush. The president’s approval ratings are
now hovering just below 30 per cent, yet polls show McCain drawing an average of
43 per cent. This is too close for comfort. Conditions in Iraq are steadily improving.
The US economy may have hit bottom, and with oil and gas prices dropping and
even the dollar inching back up, it’s possible voter bitterness towards Republicans
will subside enough to let McCain sneak into office.

How can this be? One reason involves the familiar forces dragging at Obama. He is
relatively young and inexperienced and, as you may have noticed, dark-skinned and
bears a name not likely to be found in many small-town America phone books. Less
discussed are the reasons why McCain is faring so much better than his party. The
answer lies in McCain’s public identity. It is premised on his reputation as a different
kind of Republican a ‘maverick’, an independent crusader willing to challenge his
own party on principled grounds. McCain deservedly earned this reputation in the
late ‘90s, when he battled Republican leaders on issues such as tobacco regulation
and campaign finance reform; and during his 2000 campaign, when he railed
against Wall Street and religious-right leaders. McCain once even cast himself as
Luke Skywalker battling through the Death Star his party’s corrupt establishment.
But to win the Republican nomination, McCain has had to recast his identity. He has
embraced Bush’s enormous tax cuts, which he once opposed. He has dropped his
critiques of religious leaders such as Jerry Falwell. He has largely abandoned his
anti-corporate rhetoric. On the Iraq war McCain has expressed only tactical
differences with the president. And during the 2004 campaign, McCain was a crucial
supporter of Bush. As McCain himself recently put it: ‘On
‘On the transcendent issues,
the most important issues of our day, I’ve been totally in agreement and support of
President Bush.’
Bush.’ And yet many an American voter knows little of this recent history.
An admiring press spent far more time building up McCain’s image as an
independent maverick than it has explaining his new Politburo persona.

Some Americans may simply admire McCain’s past as a Vietnam veteran and
prisoner of war who valiantly refused early release from captivity. But to date the
Obama Democrats have been far too delicate about spotlighting McCain’s political
mythology. To be fair, they have been preoccupied with the reasonable goal of
introducing their unconventional candidate to middle America. There was the
television ad noting Obama’s white maternal family; the recent recalibrations on
issues such as domestic wiretapping and gun control; and the big ‘patriotism’
speech assuring voters (who may have seen otherwise on the internet) that, yes,
Obama loves America. The Democratic national convention in Denver at the end of
August is the moment to change this tone once and for all. As Jonathan Chait
recently noted in the Los Angeles Times, John Kerry’s team erred in 2004 by
focusing his party’s convention almost exclusively around their candidate without
targeting Bush’s weaknesses. While they command America’s attention in Denver,
the Democrats should hammer McCain with a new degree of vigour. The Obama
campaign finally began that process last week, with a pair of negative ads tying
McCain to Bush. But the counterattack must be intensified. The goal must be to
convince voters that McCain really is just like any other Republican part of the 30
per cent ghetto with Bush. During one debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama
memorably cracked that McCain’s ‘Straight Talk Express’ campaign bus had lost its
wheels. This should be a Democratic mantra. They need to drive home that McCain
is in line with his party on tax rates for the wealthy, on the size of government, on
war in Iraq. That he has described the social security system as a ‘disgrace’, and
supports a highly unpopular Republican plan to privatise the system. And that,
although he has spoken out against the fraud and corruption of recent years, he is
part and parcel of the machine that enabled his party’s perversions.

Obama and company will have to walk a tricky line, however. Party conventions
should be generally upbeat and focused around the candidate’s best qualities. And
Obama himself looks best floating above the muddy scrum and extolling his politics
of hope. Much of the dirty work will have to be left to surrogates other prominent
Democrats who can twist the knife into McCain, preferably with a smile. Bill and
Hillary Clinton are fine candidates never mind that they may be secretly rooting for
Obama’s defeat this autumn. (Hillary 2012!) Or perhaps members of the Kennedy
family, who will command particular attention for the tragic reason of Senator Ted
Kennedy’s brain cancer, can implore America to see McCain for what he truly is.
This effort will have to continue past Denver, of course. Obama’s task will be
complicated by the absence of a strong attackdog infrastructure of the sort other
recent presidential candidates have enjoyed. He actively discouraged the work of
independent, largely unregulated groups which, in 2004, turned huge campaign
contributions into notoriously harsh national advertising. But without them providing
air support, Obama’s team has no choice but to fight a nastier ground war on their
own. Obama has been in this position before. Late in 2007, pundits and supporters
complained that he was not waging a tough enough campaign against Hillary
Clinton. He first counselled patience, then sharpened his tone, and the rest is
history. The difference is that Obama was trailing then and is leading now. He may
be tempted to cruise along at a high altitude particularly given his personal disdain
for negative politics. But the fact is that he can’t afford to. When Democrats arrive
in Denver two weeks from now, they should be ready to throw a party. But they
must also be ready to throw some heavy punches.

Author Location Dated

Khaleeq Kiani 11.08.08
 – Energy security and foreign reliance
When President Bush and President Musharraf launched the US-Pakistan Strategic
Dialogue in March 2006, they agreed to undertake strategic steps in many areas
including energy, economic growth and social sector development. While it was
clear from the very beginning that unlike India, access to nuclear energy would
remain out of bound for Pakistan no substantial progress could be achieved in other
energy fields so far to meet Pakistan’s growing energy needs and strengthen its
energy security. During the last month visit of Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani to
the United States, the two sides agreed to hold US-Pakistan Economic Dialogue in
Islamabad on August 11, 2008. These consultations have been postponed
immediately after Prime Minister Gilani’s return and are now likely to be
rescheduled sometime in September. The $30 million Pakistan Energy Development
Programme initiated by the United States focuses on improving power availability,
affordability and efficiency. So far, the US support has been limited to provision of
solar energy panels for small villages in troubled Federally Administered Tribal
Areas (FATA). Funded by the USAID, more than 300 villages in the tribal region are
expected to benefit from the solar energy. The Bush administration had encouraged
its companies to invest in Pakistan’s wind power but tangible progress could not be
achieved because of their inexperienced Pakistani partners, bureaucratic wrangling
and much higher than expected power production cost as the prices of wind
turbines went up globally.

Meanwhile, Pakistan’s power production cost has increased more than ever before.
The authorities have given the impression that continuing spate of load shedding is
because of capacity shortages. The ground situation, however, is much different.
While a seasonal fluctuation with hydropower generation is understandable, the
authorities have intentionally downplayed non-utilisation of over 2500MW of
Wapda’s thermal power generation capacity because of financial crunch. Insiders
suggest the power purchase cost from most of the thermal power plans has gone
beyond Rs22 per unit and it is the hydropower that rescues the economy. Wapda’s
generation companies have not been able to run their own thermal stations to their
optimum capacity because of their inability to finance expensive furnace oil and
diesel. Wapda’s cumulative cash shortfall have gone beyond Rs150 billion and it has
been struggling to make payments for fuel supplies, resulting a huge pile up of
inter-corporate circular debt that has engulfed fuel suppliers like Pakistan State Oil
and gas utilities. Non-payment or underpayment of dues to independent power
producers has also been resulting in less than contracted power supplies, leading to
much higher capacity payments to the IPPs even without its full utilisation. This
situation has given birth to a new debate in the official quarters. The recent
international competitive bidding for fast track development of 1500 MW of thermal
power projects attracted reasonable response from the private sector but there is a
strong feeling that Pakistan should not sign contracts for more than 1000MW
because of affordability issues. The tariffs offered by the bidders have ranged
between 11-15 cents per unit (kWh) but critical examination showed that these
tariffs practically translated into 15-20 cents per unit because of some hidden
allocations, which have to be sorted out.

Also, the authorities believe that about 1500-1800MW of additional electricity would
be come on line from October 2008 and December 2009. Since, most of these
projects would provide electricity at an average 18 cents per unit, it may not be
economically prudent to add further expensive thermal plants. The major problem
with thermal projects is that fuel and inflation are pass-through items, making it
unaffordable with rise in international oil market. Already, the hydro-thermal ratio
has declined from historic 30:70 to 25:75 in the recent years. That means the new
thermal projects which are in pipeline would tilt this ratio heavily in favour of
expensive thermal sector to the extent of 15:85. That would mean the consumer
tariff would not be less than Rs20 or so from the current rate of Rs5-6 per unit. On
the other hand, most of the initiatives planned by the previous government over the
last eight years have not materialised and seem to be nonstarters. For example, the
Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline that would have fuelled Pakistan’s power generation
over the next decade remains uncertain. US opposition aside, the three nations
have not been able to sign a formal agreement on the project and Tehran has
backed out of gas price it had agreed with Islamabad. Import of gas from
Turkmenistan and development of five dams in the country, too, seem out of sight
at least for the time being. Interestingly, the United States has been supportive of
importing electricity and natural gas from energy-rich central Asian states as an
alternative to import of gas from Iran as part of its strategy to economically isolate
Tehran. While there still remain a number of unresolved issues with import of gas
from Ashgabat, the future of electricity imports from Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan
would hangs in balance because of security situation in Afghanistan. The only
assurance that Afghan energy minister Alhaj Muhammad Ismail could offer last
week was that “your
“your brothers and sisters in Afghanistan would ensure security to
the (650 km) transmission line in Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan”.

The four nations – Pakistan, Afghanistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan – signed an

inter-governmental agreement last week for the import of 1300 MW from central
Asian states to Pakistan (1000MW) and Afghanistan (300MW), many crucial aspects
including commercial, legal, security, tariff and technical did not even come under
initial discussion and would be taken up later. This import could later be increased
to 4,000MW subsequently. That would require a lot of time, energy and
commitment. The World Bank has long been advising Pakistan to start working on
import of 4,000MW of cheap electricity from Central Asian states, besides working
on domestic sources to overcome electricity shortage owing to a 43 per cent
expected increase in demand to 20,000MW by 2010. The Bank estimates that
Pakistan’s peak demand now exceeds 14,000MW and the present installed capacity
of 19,500MW has become inadequate on account of the wide variations in the water
availability, which greatly reduces the firm capacity available. Electricity demand at
the generation level is forecast to grow at 7-8 per cent per year to about 20,000MW
by fiscal year 2010 and 44,700MW by 2020.These imports, the World Bank believes,
have two major advantages. First, the cost of supply from Sangtuda, Rogun,
Talimardjan and Kambarata power stations in the CARs would range between 4 -6
cents per unit compared thermal power plants being contracted at 18 cents per
unit. Second, the attractive feature of the imports form CARs is that Pakistan’s peak
demand occurs in summer, when the Central Asian power systems have large
surpluses from their hydroelectric generation stations.

Successive governments have already lost a lot of precious time.The crisis is too
serious and requires even serious approach. Apart from controversial big dams,
Pakistan has over 25,000MW of hydropower potential based on run-ofthe-river
model. Its tariff even at eight US cents per unit maintains declining trend as time
passes unlike thermal which keeps on rising. Then there is huge coal deposit in
Sindh. Pakistan’s coastal Sindh province alone can generate nearly 11,000MW of
electricity from wind. Solar energy, too, has excellent potential in Pakistan that
receives high levels of more than 19 mega joules per square meter of solar
radiation throughout the year. About 70 per cent of rural population lives in some
50,000 villages could be electrified with solar power, leading to load reduction on
national grid. Pakistan also has the potential of generating more than 20,000MW
from waste energy plants in big cities like Karachi, Lahore, Faisalabad, Multan and
Peshawar. There is nothing wrong if all domestic avenues are exhausted before
looking for help abroad. That needs national thinking.

Author Location Dated

11.08.08

– Exchange rate under pressure

Political instability in the country, soaring prices of essential items and growing
unrest among people has adversely affected domestic and foreign investment. The
trade deficit has reached historic highs. Mounting import bill, particularly for oil, is
causing dearth of dollar and dragging the rupee value down against the American
currency in the local currency market despite several measures taken by the State
Bank of Pakistan in the past three weeks. The rupee continued its downtrend versus
the dollar and euro in the interbank and open market throughout this week. In the
interbank market, the rupee suffered fresh losses of 10 paisa on the opening day of
the week and traded at Rs71.90 and Rs71.95 against the dollar amid uncertainties
on economic and political font on August 4. It had closed last week at Rs71.80 and
Rs71.85 after dropping 60 paisa in the entire week. The rupee further slid on August
5, when dollar traded at Rs72.25 and Rs72.30 down sharply by 35 paisa. The rupee
failed to resist further decline amid persistent strong demand for dollar for the third
consecutive day on August 6, when the dollar was seen changing hands at Rs72.50
and Rs72.55 after 25 paisa decline in rupee value. However, the rupee/dollar parity
remained unchanged on the fourth trading day despite heavy dollar demand. The
rupee retained its overnight value versus the greenback and traded at Rs72.50 and
Rs72.55 on August 7. Persistent strong demand for dollars by importers on August 8
pushed the rupee down further. However, the rupee suffered a modest decline of
five paisa against the dollar, as the dollar was seen changing hands at Rs72.55 and
Rs72.60. During the week in review, the rupee in the inter-bank market lost 75
paisa against the dollar.

In the open market, the rupee commenced the week on dismal note shedding 30
paisa against dollar on the buying counter and dropping by 40 paisa on the selling
counter to trade at Rs72.40 and Rs72.70 against previous week close of Rs72.10
and Rs72.30. On August 5, the rupee, however, traded unchanged on the buying
counter but shed 10 paisa on the selling counter, changing hands against the dollar
at Rs72.40 and Rs72.80. The rupee/dollar parity failed to hold ground with the rupee
sharply slipping by 35 paisa for buying and 20 paisa for selling to trade at Rs72.75
and Rs73.00 on the third trading day. The rupee further lost 30 paisa on buying and
25 paisa on selling to trade at Rs73.05 and Rs73.25 on the fourth trading day of the
week in review. Finally, the dollar closed the week at Rs73.05 and Rs73.25 as the
rupee traded unchanged at its overnight levels. However, the rupee in the open
market suffered 95 paisa decline against the dollar in the entire week.
Versus European single common currency, the rupee shed 60 paisa for buying and
another 50 paisa for selling over the previous weekend’s level of Rs111.80 and
Rs112.00, changing hands at Rs112.40 and Rs112.50 on the opening day of the
week. The rupee, however, gave up its overnight weakness in relation to the euro
on the second trading day, recovering 15 paisa on the buying counter and another
10 paisa on the selling counter to trade at Rs112.25 and Rs112.40. The rupee
further extended gains on the third trading day, rising by 25 paisa on the buying
counter and 20 paisa on the selling counter and traded at Rs112.00 and Rs112.20
against the euro. After remaining firm for two successive days, the rupee gave up
its overnight firmness against the euro on the fourth trading day. It lost 10 paisa
and traded at Rs112.10 and Rs112.30 against the European common currency. But
then it recovered from its overnight weakness against the euro on August 8, sharply
gaining 160 paisa to trade at Rs110.55 and Rs110.70. This week, the rupee
recovered up to 135 paisa against the European single common currency.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Ishrat Hussain 11.08.08

– Upgrading business education

As emerging economies expand their activities in production, distribution and
exchange and get more integrated with the international trading and financial
system the internal management structure and processes of business organisations
become more complex and demanding. Most of the emerging economies continue
to remain mixed economies in which the roles of private and public sector have
certainly evolved over time but both sectors still remain equally dominant. A third
sector non-profit organisations (NPOs) is fast expanding and occupying space
particularly in the delivery of public goods and services. Business education has
become a popular vocation for a large number of young men and women in
Pakistan and is therefore attracting increasing attention of the universities and
institutions of higher learning. In the parlance of the finance managers, business
education has become a profit centre for private institutions while a source of cross
subsidisation of arts, humanities and social sciences disciplines in the public sector
universities. The market demand for young BBAs and MBAs is exploding and the
graduates of top ranking business schools are earning a premium. How should
business education evolve in Pakistan? Although temporary setbacks and reversals,
economic business cycles and imperfect foresight about the future make it difficult
to produce accurate projections and patterns of the demand, there are some broad
trends that should influence the direction, spread, depth and content of business
education.

First, the target market for business graduates is no longer the domestic market but
the region (Middle East, Central Asia, South Asia, East Asia) and the world. The
product differentiation between top ranking and the middle ranking business
schools would be that the former will cater to the demand outside Pakistan while
the latter will mostly meet the domestic needs. The curriculum has to be modified
to include international business, finance, trade courses and soft skills of working
with multi-ethnic teams in diverse cultural settings. Second, the employers find that
most MBAs / BBAs do not have the specific skill sets that give them a head start in
their professions. Post-induction training while essential from an individual
company’s viewpoint has to be more intensive to equip them with these skills and
thus costs additional financial outlays. The downside risk to an individual company
is that this investment may not generate the required returns if the trained
employee jumps the ship and joins the competitor. Business schools will therefore
have to design curricula and pedagogical tools that take care of this perceptible
deficiency in employable and practical skills among their graduates. Third, the
public sector which invests almost 10 per cent of GDP in development projects and
other businesses such as PIA, Pakistan Steel, Wapda, OGDCL, etc., and also
performs regulatory functions badly needs the mindset, tools and techniques
offered by business schools. The country will save a lot of resources and get better
quality service if formal training in financial management, human resource
management, logistics management, purchase and inventory management,
contracting and tendering etc. is imparted to the executives of the public sector by
business schools. Courses in designing regulations, monitoring, and enforcing would
fill in a huge gap in the demand supply spectrum of the regulatory agencies.

Fourth, the low level of human development has almost become a mantra which is
repeated ad-infinitum but very little has been done to tackle the real issue. The
National Commission for Government Reform (NCGR) has come to the conclusion
that it is the weak governance in our educational, health, water supply and
sewerage institutions that is largely responsible for this poor performance of social
indicators. Business schools will therefore have to deliver courses in education
management, health management, urban management, infrastructure
management, environmental management, etc. to those involved in these fields
operationally but also offer these courses in their MBA programmes. Fifth, family-
owned businesses dominate the private sector. Both anecdotal and empirical
evidence point out to the half-line decay phenomenon of the businesses where the
struggle for control among the second generation successors of the pioneers lead to
wealth destruction, value subtraction, predatory practices and losses to the
economy. Many premier business schools in the world have begun to take interest
in the family businesses by undertaking field research, preparing case studies,
studying common characteristics and pondering over the solutions to this
phenomenon.There is no reason as to why some of business schools which are
much closer to the scene and can elicit better co-operation with the local players,
take the lead in research and training of family business owners. Sixth, non-profit
organisations are proliferating largely as a result of external donor agency driven
agenda. They are increasing their presence in the delivery of social services. But
the depth of their management and skill mix leave much to be desired. This is an
excellent opportunity for the business schools to offer customised courses and
degrees for the staff of these NPOs. Some of the courses will be common with those
offered to private and public sectors while others may have to be developed. But
the social cost-benefit ratio of such an investment is likely to be higher because of
the efficiency gains and organisational effectiveness that will be achieved through
this training.

The above road map can be achieved if business schools make a concerted effort to
overcome some of their weaknesses and constraints. The single most problem
facing these institutions today is the dearth of qualified and committed faculty of
high calibre. Most of the schools rely on ‘briefcase teachers’ who shuttle from one
place to other recycling their stale notes and having very little real time face to face
interaction with their students. The obsession with having PhDs on their faculty has
led to perverse incentives. People from geriatric wards possessing a PhD degree in
whatever subject it may be are pulled out to adorn the pages of the faculty lists.
These gentlemen have done a yeoman service in the past and should be given due
respect for their contributions but it is young men and women equipped with the
latest knowledge in their subjects blending with the senior and experienced faculty
and eminent practitioners in their fields that will make the difference. A multi-
pronged strategy for faculty development is needed.This will consist of sending
younger people overseas to leading universities of the world, recruiting practitioners
such as chief executive officers, chief financial officers, chief human resource
officers who have proven their ability in their fields as full-time faculty members,
bringing in foreign faculty members from India, Sri Lanka, Singapore, etc. and
inducing the existing faculty members to actively engage in research, case studies,
plant and factory visits, consultancy and advisory services to the industry. The
salaries and benefits to the faculty should be competitive and market driven if the
right type of people have to be attracted. Most business schools in the private
sector can afford but do not pay the compensation level required to attract some of
the qualified teachers to their ranks. For the new courses proposed there is now a
pool of senior and qualified public servants in their early 60s which can be drawn to
act as the trainers, facilitators and resource persons. The writer is the head of
the Institute of Business Administration, Karachi and a former governor of
the State Bank.
Bank.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 12.08.08

– Impeachment camp hopeful of getting Sherpao’s support Allies

have outflanked Musharraf, claims Asif
PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari said on Monday that “President
“President Musharraf is
standing alone today”
today” because of his party’s political strategy while other leaders of
the ruling coalition claimed that legislators belonging to the PPP (Sherpao) would
support the move to impeach President Pervez Musharraf. “We “We are constantly in
contact with Mr (Aftab) Sherpao. We are hopeful that his party’s members in the
NWFP Assembly and parliament will vote for the impeachment resolutions against
President Musharraf,”
Musharraf,” said a PPP leader. A Pakistan Muslim League-N
parliamentarian from the NWFP made a similar claim. When contacted, Mr Sherpao,
who served as interior minister in the previous set-up under President Musharraf,
said his party would decide on Tuesday whether to support the resolution to be
tabled in the NWFP assembly and the impeachment motion. However, he said his
party would vote for the success of democracy, indicating that its members might
vote against the president. Mr Sherpao confirmed that the coalition had been in
contact with him at the federal and provincial level. The PPP-S has four members in
the National Assembly and the Senate, including Mr Sherpao who is its chief.
According to a handout, Mr Zardari presided over a meeting of PPP’s MPAs in the
Sindh assembly and discussed the strategy for the success of the impeachment
plan.

He said the decision to impeach the president had been taken after reaching a
consensus and its timing was correct. “Gen
“Gen (retd) Musharraf is standing alone today
due to our political strategies because we have succeeded in conveying our
message to the international community that stability in Pakistan can only be
possible through genuine democracy and not through dictatorship,”
dictatorship,” he said. Mr
Zardari criticised those who were blaming the PPP for delaying the impeachment of
the president. “Those
“Those who are blaming us for a delay in taking such steps have no
idea about the current circumstances.”
circumstances.” The PPP leader said he had conveyed a
message to Gen (retd) Musharraf two months back urging him to quit but he did not
consider it and now he stood isolated. “I“I am well aware that the nation has been
facing other issues, including inflation and unemployment, for the past few years.
Poor masses have expect ations from us and we will succeed in coming up to their
expectations. We will bring about positive changes in the lives of the poor as
promised by Shaheed Benazir Bhutto,”
Bhutto,” he added. Meanwhile, a committee
preparing the draft of the chargesheet against the president to be tabled in
parliament for his impeachment continued its work on Monday. Leader of the House
in the Senate Raza Rabbani said the draft would be sent to the coalition leadership
for approval in three to four days. He said the committee would finalise the charge-
sheet in the light of the recommendations of the leadership.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 12.08.08

– Musharraf plans move to counter offensive

A beleaguered President Pervez Musharraf is reported to have told his loyalists that
he has ‘sufficient official records’ to expose failures of the four-month-old coalition
government. PML-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and former Punjab chief
minister Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi made on Monday a third call on the president in
four days to discuss the situation arising out of the impeachment move. Sources
said the two leaders briefed the president on their efforts for galvanising support for
him and urged him not to resign without fighting. PML-Q MNAs Marvi Memon, Amir
Muqam and Sheikh Waqas Akram also met the president and assured him of their
support. The president informed them he had a list of failures of the present
government. They told reporters that the president had criticised PML-N chief
Nawaz Sharif for what he termed his personal vendetta against him. He accused Mr
Sharif of pitting the PPP leadership against him to fulfil his designs. The president
dismissed as rubbish the allegations of misappropriation of hundreds of millions of
dollars of US military assistance, saying that pocketing foreign aid by an individual
was not possible because it was utilised under a system. The opposition legislators
said the president had accused the coalition government of trying to cut the size of
the army by half. He said he had opposed a move to replace the chief of the Inter
Services Intelligence. The PML-Q leaders said Mr Musharraf had sought information
about the corruption committed by various officials of the government over the past
four months. He assured his supporters that he would not disappoint them and
confront his detractors and expose them to the nation. Meanwhile, president’s
spokesman Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi said in a statement that Mr Musharraf did
not want to respond to the ‘wild allegations’ being levelled against him through the
media and would defend himself after receiving the charge-sheet. APP adds: The
spokesman denied reports of President Musharraf’s meeting with US Ambassador
Anne W. Patterson.“No
Patterson.“No such meeting took place.”
place.”

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 12.08.08
 – An errant satrap?
If there were any doubts in the minds of the new set of Islamabad policymakers,
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s recent visit to Washington should have dispelled
them. The Americans — not just the White House and those working in the
government but also those who operate in the various think tanks — are worried
about the direction in which Pakistan is headed. This is not a worry about an errant
satrap who needs to be disciplined. The worry is about the impact on the United
States of a Pakistan that has gone out of control. A consensus on important issues
seldom develops in the United States. The Americans are naturally argumentative
but when it concerns matters affecting their security they quickly fall in line. The
most recent example of this was the remarkable consensus that developed after the
9/11 terrorist attacks. In the initial phase of the American response to that event,
President George W. Bush’s approval ratings went into the stratosphere, unmatched
by any president in recent history. The Americans wanted their government to act
to achieve two ends: to punish the perpetrators of the attacks and to ensure that a
similar assault on America never occurred again.
again. Neither objective has been
achieved and the reason why that has not happened is not attributed to the failure
of public policy; the blame is being laid at Pakistan’s doorstep.

There are several parts of the case that is being built against Pakistan. The most
important of these is the perceived failure on the part of Islamabad to get the
extremists out of the tribal belt bordering on Afghanistan. These people are seen to
be operating without any checks by the Pakistani state. Islamabad seems to have
abandoned any serious attempt to enforce its writ in these areas. The US worry is
not that such a development will hurt the security, perhaps even integrity, of the
Pakistani state. What bothers those in policymaking and policy-influencing positions
in Washington is that leaving the tribal areas alone is creating a dangerous situation
for America’s operations in Afghanistan. For two months in a row, America has lost
more soldiers in Afghanistan than in Iraq. This is clearly unacceptable and
Islamabad is being blamed for the sharp increase in violence. There is also the
belief that if another terrorist attack is perpetrated against the United States, it will
be planned and executed by Al Qaeda now operating out of the tribal areas.
Obviously, this too troubles Washington. Where is all this leading? I have been to
several think tank meetings in the last few weeks. Some of these are engaged in
developing position papers for the two candidates for the American presidency. In
those position papers America’s Pakistan policy is a central issue. While there is
agreement on what is considered to be the ‘fact’ of Pakistan’s responsibility for the
worsening situation in Afghanistan, there is still some doubt as to why certain things
are happening. Are the Pakistani authorities playing on both sides of the road? Is
there so much incompetence in Islamabad that different actors are proceeding on
their own, following their own narrow agendas?

The direction of the evolving American approach will depend on how these two
questions are answered. If some of the acts unacceptable to the Americans and to
the rest of the world are being perpetrated with the knowledge of those who run the
Pakistani state, then there will be one kind of response. If it turns out that the
problem is a case of system failure then the response will be of a different kind. In
the first case, Pakistan will be punished in some way. In the latter, the Americans
will begin to develop some ideas about the management of the Pakistani state.
Since my own impression is that what is happening is the result of the confusion
that prevails among those who govern, it might be useful to reflect on what kind of
advice Islamabad will be given. In spite of the promise made by President George
W. Bush in his second inaugural address that his administration will work hard to
bring democracy and liberty to all parts of the world — particularly to the world’s
Muslim countries — he and his close associates have begun to have second
thoughts. The exercise of democracy, wherever that has happened, has not
produced encouraging results for the Bush government. Elections brought Hamas to
power in the Gaza Strip. It strengthened Hezbollah in Lebanon and in Pakistan it has
weakened the authority of the state. Since extremists can’t be controlled by a weak
state, it might not be in the American interest to direct the Muslim world towards
fair elections, a fair press, a vibrant civil society and democracy in general. In fact,
Washington may begin to support the rule of a strong man in countries in Pakistan’s
situation. Given this change of heart, what should be the Pakistani stance?

Like a number of other modern economists I have also wrestled with the question:
what is the most appropriate political system for bringing economic growth to
backward societies? Having worked on China for a number of years and having
watched the extraordinary economic progress made by the East Asian countries, I
came to believe that limiting democracy until sustained growth was achieved was
perhaps the right strategy to adopt. It is for this reason that for a few years after
General Pervez Musharraf assumed power in Pakistan, I thought that he would be
able to repeat in his country what a number of strong leaders in East Asia had
achieved in theirs. That did not happen. There had been a misreading of the history
of East Asia by me and others who also thought that strong leadership delivers
economic progress in the early phases of development. That happened in those
countries since their initial conditions were very different from those in Pakistan.
The East Asians had much higher levels of human development than Pakistan has
achieved even after 60 years of independence. Income and asset distribution in
those countries was much more equitable than in Pakistan. Limiting democracy in a
situation such as Pakistan’s does not promote the development of political
institutions that are needed not only for the evolution of democracy but also for
economic progress. The East Asian approach won’t work for Pakistan. Therefore,
even if the American pressure for going the democratic route eases for Pakistan,
the country should not reverse its course.

Author Location Dated

AFP Tehran, Iran 12.08.08

– Nuclear talks with EU to continue: Iran

Iran said on Monday it has agreed with the EU to continue talks aimed at resolving
the nuclear crisis but again insisted it will press on with contested work despite the
threat of more sanctions. Top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili spoke by phone with
EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana, the pointman for six major powers which have
offered Iran an incentives package in return for a freeze in uranium enrichment
activities. Their talks came just days after European Union nations last week
introduced fresh sanctions against Iran over its atomic drive, which western nations
fear could be a cover for a secret nuclear weapons programme. “The “The two sides
agreed to continue negotiations in a constructive atmosphere,”
atmosphere,” Iranian state
television reported. “Solana
“Solana and Jalili voiced satisfaction at the constructive trend of
negotiations in Geneva and the contacts afterwards.”
afterwards.” In Brussels, Solana’s office
confirmed the conversation but gave no details. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
however reiterated that Tehran will press on with its nuclear programme, despite
the risk of fresh UN Security Council sanctions. “They’ve
“They’ve deeply understood that
Iran’s peaceful nuclear programme will never be halted and of course they have no
choice but to keep on talking to Iran,”
Iran,” Ahmadinejad was quoted as telling visiting
Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika. “Despite
“Despite threats and sanctions by a
number of big powers, our nation is robust and is continuing living its own life as
they cannot put obstacles in the path of our progress,”
progress,” Ahmadinejad added,
according to the state run television website. Algeria is a member of the NonAligned
Movement, which supports Iran’s civilian nuclear activities. Jalili met on July 19 in
Geneva with Solana and other representatives of the six major powers, including a
US official, in a shift in Washington’s policy in dealing with Tehran on the nuclear
standoff. The two men also spoke by phone on August 4.

On Friday, the 27-member EU announced new sanctions against Iran, including

restrictions on public loans and tougher cargo inspections. The move came after
Tehran gave an ambiguous answer to the demands of the six nations — UN Security
Council permanent members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States
plus Germany. Iran is facing a possible fourth round of UN sanctions over its refusal
to halt enrichment, a process which makes nuclear fuel but also the core of an
atomic bomb. On Wednesday, Britain and the United States said the six powers now
had “no choice” but to seek new UN sanctions after Iran failed to give a “clear
positive response” to the incentives package. The European Union and the United
States have also imposed restrictions on the activities of Iran’s largest banks which
are running in parallel to the three sets of sanctions agreed by the Security Council.
Iran retaliated to the European move by ordering the state oil company to deposit
oil revenues only in selected banks. Oil exports are by far the biggest foreign
currency earner for Iran, which is Opec’s second largest exporter. Thanks to record
oil prices — which have soared in part due to tensions over the nuclear crisis — Iran
earned $29.5 billion in the first four months of the current calendar year which
began on March 20. Last week Iranian officials held talks with top UN atomic
watchdog official Olli Heinonen who was on a two-day mission to the country.
Heinonen has made a series of visits to Iran as part of the IAEA’s long-standing
efforts to ensure there is no military dimension to its nuclear programme.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Washington, D.C. 12.08.08

– Invisibility cloak one step closer, claim scientists

Scientists have created two new types of materials that can bend light the wrong
way, creating the first step toward an invisibility cloaking device. One approach
uses a type of fishnet of metal layers to reverse the direction of light, while another
uses tiny silver wires, both at the nanoscale level. Both are so-called metamaterials
-- artificially engineered structures that have properties not seen in nature, such as
negative refractive index. The two teams were working separately under the
direction of Xiang Zhang of the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center at the
University of California, Berkeley, with U.S. government funding. One team reported
its findings in the journal Science and the other in the journal Nature. Each new
material works to reverse light in limited wavelengths, so no one will be using them
to hide buildings from satellites, said Jason Valentine, who worked on one of the
projects. “We
“We are not actually cloaking anything,”
anything,” Valentine said in a telephone
interview. “I
“I don’t think we have to worry about invisible people walking around any
time soon. To be honest, we are just at the beginning of doing anything like that.” that.”
Valentine’s team made a material that affects light near the visible spectrum, in a
region used in fibre optics. “In
“In naturally occurring material, the index of refraction,
a measure of how light bends in a medium, is positive,”
positive,” he said. “When
“When you see a
fish in the water, the fish will appear to be in front of the position it really is. Or if
you put a stick in the water, the stick seems to bend away from you.”you.” These are
illusions caused by the light bending when it moves between water and air.

The negative refraction achieved by the teams at Berkeley would be different.

“Instead of the fish appearing to be slightly ahead of where it is in the water, it
would actually appear to be above the water’s surface,”
surface,” Valentine said. “It’s
“It’s kind of
weird.”
weird.” For a metamaterial to produce negative refraction, it must have a structural
array smaller than the wavelength of the electromagnetic radiation being used. This
was done using microwaves in 2006 by David Smith of Duke University, North
Carolina, and John Pendry of Imperial College, London. Visible light is harder. Some
groups managed it with very thin layers, virtually only one atom thick, but these
materials were not practical to work with and absorbed a great deal of the light
directed at it. “What
“What we have done is taken that material and made it much
thicker,”
thicker,” Valentine said. His team, whose work is reported in Nature, used stacked
silver and metal dielectric layers stacked on top of each other and then punched
through with holes. “We
“We call it a fishnet,”
fishnet,” Valentine said. The other team, reporting
in Science, used an oxide template and grew silver nanowires inside porous
aluminium oxide at tiny distances apart, smaller than the wavelength of visible
light. This material refracts visible light. Immediate applications might be superior
optical devices, Valentine said -- perhaps a microscope that could see a living virus.
“However, cloaking may be something that this material could be used for in the
future,”
future,” he said. “You’d
“You’d have to wrap whatever you wanted to cloak in the material.
It would just send light around. By sending light around the object that is to be
cloaked, you don’t see it.”
it.”

Author Location Dated

Peshawar 13.08.08

– Musharraf ditched
The PPP-S of Aftab Sherpao, the interior minister in the Shaukat Aziz government,
broke ranks with the alliance which had ruled the country since the 2002 elections
and voted for a resolution in the NWFP assembly calling upon President Pervez
Musharraf to either take a vote of confidence from the assembly or quit his office.
The resolution which was adopted with 107 votes in favour with four against said:
“If he (President Musharraf) fails to do so, we call upon and urge parliament to give
him a notice of impeachment under Article 47 of the Constitution.”
Constitution.” It accused Gen
(retd) Musharraf of subverting the Constitution twice by holding it in abeyance,
derailing the democratic process, fuelling inter-provincial tension, going back on his
promise on the issue of uniform and being a party to large-scale killings of innocent
people across the province and in Fata. Senior Minister Bashir Ahmed Bilour of the
Awami National Party tabled the resolution which said that the Pukhtoonkhwa
assembly was part of the electoral college which had elected the President of
Pakistan. Most members of this house, he said, had objected to the validity and
legality of the presidential election held in Oct 2007. “We
“We are of the view that Gen
(retd) Pervez Musharraf is unfit to hold the office of the president, being guilty of
violating the Constitution of Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”

The resolution cites five grounds for removal of the president from his office.
— That Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf has subverted the Constitution of the Islamic
Republic of Pakistan twice by holding it in abeyance.
— He has violated and undermined the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of
Pakistan and derailed the transition to democracy.
— That president represents the unity of the republic, but Gen Musharraf has
violated the same and caused to promote inter-provincial tension, a deepened
sense of deprivation, denied provincial autonomy, thus leading to the weakening of
the federation.
— That the policies pursued by Mr Musharraf during the last eight years have
brought Pakistan to the brink of a critical political and economic impasse. The
incompetence and failures of his policies have plunged the country into the worst
power shortage in its history and brought unprecedented misery upon the people.
His policies have paralysed the federation and eroded the trust of the nation in key
national institutions. Moreover, it is a matter of record that Mr Musharraf had made
a public pledge before the nation (widely covered by print and electronic media)
that he will doff his uniform by Dec 31, 2004. But he went back on the promise and
betrayed the nation.
— The blatant anti-Pakhtoon policies of President Pervez Musharraf have led to
serious economic deprivation and security crises in the province and Fata. The
flawed internal and external policies of his dictatorial regime have resulted in the
large-scale murder of innocent people of the province and Fata.

Senior minister and provincial president of Pakistan People’s Party Rahimdad Khan,
Leader of the Opposition Akram Khan Durrani and provincial president of PML-N Pir
Sabir Shah, co-movers of the resolution, also addressed the session. While reading
out the resolution, Mr Sabir Shah called the province NWFP, instead of
Pukhtoonkhwa. He said that after impeachment, Mr Musharraf should be tried in a
court of law for killing innocent children in Lal Masjid and tribesmen in parts of Fata
and selling more than 600 Pakistanis to US intelligence agencies. While four PML-Q
legislators voted against the resolution, two MPAs of the party, Sanaullah Khan
Miankhel of D.I. Khan and Fazallullah Khan of Shangla district, a relative of PML-Q
provincial chief Amir Muqam Khan, abstained. When the speaker sought their
opinion they left the house. Shazia Aurangzeb of the PMLN displayed a large portrait
of Mr Musharraf and then tore it into pieces and gave a piece to Nighat Orakzai of
the PML-Q, who was the only member raising slogans in favour of Mr Musharraf. Ms
Aurangzeb and other women members shouted in chorus “Go Musharraf Go”.
Besides Ms Orakzai, the PMLQ lawmakers who voted against the resolution are:
Qalandar Khan Lodhi, Ghulam Mohammad Khan and Zahir Shah.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 13.08.08

– Good guys finish last

When I was studying economics at university more years ago than I care to
remember, we were taught that consumers made rational choices in the market
place. Thus, everything else being equal (as it never is in the real world), they would
buy the cheapest item. Consequently, they would respond to increases and
decreases in price logically and automatically. Even then, I could observe that this
simply did not happen in real life: brand loyalty, habit and peer group pressure led
individuals to make irrational choices every day. Apparently, what is true for
economics is just as true for politics. Currently, I am reading The Political Brain by
Drew Westen, a professor of psychology in the US. In this fascinating analysis of
why people vote as they do, Westen deconstructs political ads in a number of
American presidential campaigns, and shows which psychological levers are being
pushed. One of the points the author makes is that in the last 60 years, only one
Democrat has been re-elected, while only one Republican has failed in the attempt.
Clearly, this cannot be due to the quality of Republican candidates. To explain this
huge imbalance, Westen suggests that the Republicans have mastered a simple
truth the Democrats have still not grasped: people vote according to how they
connect to the candidate, not according to the policies he or she might announce. In
other words, we generally listen to our heart, not our head, when we decide on our
choice.

One conclusion Westen arrives at is: “Today,

“Today, Democrats and Republicans seem like
two species, living in parallel universes, unable to speak the same language. We
hear the same evidence and come to diametrically opposed conclusions, even in
simple matters of fact…”
fact…” And two reasons the Democrats have been doing so
poorly in presidential campaigns are: “Democrats,
“Democrats, and particularly Democratic
strategists, tend to be intellectual. They like to read and think. They thrive on policy
debates, arguments, statistics, and getting the facts right… A second reason is a
mistaken belief that reason can provide both means and ends, when it can only
provide the former…”
former…” The notion that even in a highly literate society like the
United States, reason does not reign supreme in choosing the most powerful
elected individual on earth is a profoundly depressing one. Many elitists in Pakistan
have moaned for years about our largely illiterate electorate, and how their lack of
education resulted in poor electoral choices. But here is evidence that emotion, not
education, is the basis on which most people choose who to vote for. Ever since the
Age of Enlightenment in Europe in the 18th century, thinking people had expected
reason to replace religion in the public sphere. Indeed, this rational attitude
underpinned both the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the American
Declaration of Independence. But as events since then have proved, man remains
an irrational being, repeatedly going against his own self-interest to satisfy primitive
impulses of revenge, lust and greed. Numerous wars have been fought, and
innumerable people killed, in the name of nationalism, religion and honour.

But as Westen shows, it is the part of the brain that processes emotion, rather than
the cognitive (or rational) part, where most of our political decisions are made. So
although Bush comes from a wealthy, privileged background, he was successful in
portraying John Kerry as a rich elitist during the 2004 campaign. Four years earlier,
he had pushed Al Gore into a similar corner, while himself coming across as ‘Joe Six-
pack’, the archetypical Middle American. The same thing seems to be happening to
Barrack Obama, a candidate who has had a tougher childhood than most.
Meanwhile, his opponent, John McCain, the son and grandson of admirals, and
married to a multimillionairess, is being packaged as a man of the people. So in a
way, what’s true of economics is true about politics: at the end of the day, they are
both about marketing. Images, sound-bites and cleverly crafted ads influence us in
deciding what we buy, and who we vote for. Over 50 years ago, Vance Packard, the
famous American sociologist, wrote The Hidden Persuaders,
Persuaders, a book that laid bare
the techniques used by ad agencies to manipulate us. If they tapped into the hidden
recesses of the human psyche then, think how much more sophisticated they are
now. But if all this is common knowledge, why is it that the Democrats fail to do
what the Republicans have been doing for years with such success? Westen
ascribes the real reason to a discomfort with emotion which leaves many
Democrats “misattuned
“misattuned to some of the most important emotional signals in
electoral politics, such as whether a candidate has charisma, what nonverbal
signals is he or she sending, what emotions the candidate is or is not activating in
the electorate, and when it is time to capture the moment with a positive or
negative appeal…”
appeal…”

At the start of the 1988 campaign, the Democratic nominee, Michael Dukakis, was
leading George Bush Sr. by nearly 20 points in the opinion polls. The Republicans
responded with a string of negative campaign ads in which Dukakis was portrayed
as being soft on crime. In an early debate, he was asked by the moderator if he
would favour the death penalty for a man who might rape and murder his wife. The
reply sank Dukakis’s candidacy there and then: “No,
“No, I don’t… I’ve opposed the
death penalty all my life… I think there are better and more effective ways to deal
with violent crime.”
crime.” To the millions of Americans who were watching, the Democrat
came across as a cold, heartless man who was incapable of feeling rage against a
man who might have caused his own wife such agony. And if he couldn’t feel for his
wife, how could he empathise with strangers who voted for him? Yet in his own
mind, Dukakis was only re-stating his position on the death penalty, and morally, he
felt he could not make an exception for the possible murderer and rapist of his wife.
But while morality and intellect might win you a school prize, they don’t win you
elections.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 13.08.08

– No blank cheque for Musharraf: Obama

The United States cannot offer a blank cheque to Pakistan’s “undemocratic
“undemocratic
president,”
president,” says the US Democratic Party, signalling clearly that if Barack Obama is
elected in November, the beleaguered Pakistani leader will not have an ally in the
White House. The document, known as the party platform, will be adopted at the
Democratic National Convention on Aug 25 when delegates from across the United
States will formally endorse Mr Obama as the party’s candidate for president. “We “We
will ask more of the Pakistani government, rather than offer a blank check to an
undemocratic President,”
President,” says the document in a chapter titled, “Seek
“Seek a new
partnership with Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Emphasising the need for a long-term relationship with
Pakistan, the document says: “We“We must move beyond an alliance built on individual
leaders, or face mounting opposition in a nuclear-armed nation at the nexus of
terror, extremism, and the instability wrought by autocracy.”
autocracy.” The document also
supports a bipartisan move in the US Senate to offer a $15 billion aid package over
the next 10 years. “We
“We will significantly increase non-military aid to the Pakistani
people and sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military assistance we
provide is actually used to fight extremists,”
extremists,” the document says. The Democratic
Party platform expresses serious concerns over the situation in Fata, warning that
the United States cannot allow this area to become a sanctuary for terrorists. “The
“The
greatest threat to security in Afghanistan and America lies in the tribal regions of
Pakistan, where terrorists train and plot attacks and then strike and move back
across the border,”
border,” the document claims. “We
“We cannot tolerate a sanctuary for Al
Qaeda. We will ask more of the Pakistani government, rather than offer a blank
cheque to an undemocratic President.”
President.”

To deal with this situation, the party suggests “a “a stronger and sustained partnership
between Afghanistan, Pakistan and the Nato, including necessary assets like
satellites and predator drones, to secure the border by wiping out terrorist camps
and cracking down on cross-border insurgents.”
insurgents.” Asserting that the US should help
Pakistan develop its own counter-terrorism and counter-insurgency capacity, the
party says it will invest in the long-term development of the Pashtun border region
so that the “the
“the extremists’ programme of hate is met with an agenda of hope.” hope.” The
resolution states that the party would significantly increase non-military aid to the
Pakistani people and sustain it for a decade, while ensuring that the military
assistance provided is annually used to fight extremists. The document announces
that the Democratic administration will send at least two additional combat
brigades to Afghanistan, and will use this commitment to seek greater contributions
– with fewer restrictions – from America’s Nato allies. “The
“The central front in the war
on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. We will defeat Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and
Pakistan, where those who actually attacked us on 9-11 reside and are resurgent.”
resurgent.”
The party has also decided to formally call the decision to go to war with Iraq a
“strategic blunder” but warns that the US should “be “be as careful getting out of Iraq
as we were careless getting in.”
in .” Describing India as America’s “natural strategic
ally,” the Democratic Party suggests that under the Presidency of Barack Obama
the US will seek effective collaboration on pressing global issues with all major
powers including New Delhi.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 13.08.08

– Impeachment move may fail, say US experts

Pakistan’s ruling coalition may not succeed in impeaching President Pervez
Musharraf because the army will not like a former chief to be impeached, observes
the official US radio, Voice of America.
America. It quotes Christine Fair, a Pakistan expert
with a US think-tank called the RAND Corporation,
Corporation, as saying that the army is not too
fond of President Musharraf for his more controversial actions, but it also wants to
avoid any messy proceedings that could smear the army’s reputation. “The “The army is
in kind of a pickle. It does not want to defend Musharraf,”
Musharraf,” she says. “But
“But it also
does not want its institutional equity to be dragged through the mud, when it is
already down and out. So, I seriously doubt that they are [the government] going to
get the numbers for an impeachment.”
impeachment.” Ms Fair, who has authored several books on
Pakistan and speaks Urdu and Punjabi languages, believes the army will
communicate to the government its discomfort with the impeachment move “one “one
way or the other. And I think the army is going to be pretty active in subverting an
impeachment”.
impeachment”. Teresita Schaffer, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for
South Asia, tells VOA that “an
“an impeachment could force the army and the one-time
general (Musharraf) back into each other’s arms.”
arms.” She says that while the army
does not want to stick its neck out any more on Mr Musharraf’s behalf, it may not
allow him to be impeached either. “At
“At what point, and with what combination of
provocations, have things reached a point where the military leadership will say,
‘You know what, this is not working, we are going to have to go back to our old way
of doing things’.”
things’.”

VOA notes that the bid to impeach the president raises two seemingly contradictory
questions: What took the coalition government so long to make what would appear
to be a popular political decision? On the flip side, why move against a president
who is, for all intents and purposes, effectively devoid of power? Ms Fair of the
RAND Corporation says the Pakistan People’s Party, the senior partner in the ruling
coalition, has been more willing to cut deals with the president, particularly because
such bargaining won an effective legal immunity for party leader Asif Zardari. “The “The
very things that got it (the PPP) and also Nawaz Sharif so many votes are the very
things that it is disincentivised from moving on,”
on,” Ms Fair says. “It
“It does not want to
restore the judges. It really does not want to impeach Musharraf because it made
deals with Musharraf. And the National Reconciliation Ordinance, of course, is the
basis that absolves Zardari from so much from the alleged, and probably likely,
wrongdoing.”
wrongdoing.” Ms Schaffer believes it is very likely that Mr Sharif’s patience wore
out, and he threatened to pull out of the ruling coalition, unless his demand for
impeachment was met. But, she adds, another power-sharing deal might have been
worked out. “If
“If there were a deal in which Zardari got to be president and Nawaz
got to be prime minister again, how would that work? You know, on one level, it
sounds like the basis for a concordat,”
concordat,” she said. “At
“At another level, it sounds like a
nightmare.”
nightmare.” VOA defines two scenarios: President Musharraf could preemptively
resign. As president, he also retains the power to dismiss the parliament. But most
analysts believe that would be a huge misstep that would only accelerate his
impeachment. “The “The wild card remains the military,”
military,” says VOA, adding that it will
play a key role in determining whether the move to impeach the president succeeds
or fails.

Author Location Dated

Mohammed Faisal Ali Lahore, Pakistan 14.08.08

– Bomber draws blood on Independence Day eve

Eight people, including two policemen, were killed and over 20, including 12
policemen, were injured after an alleged suicide bomber blew himself up near a
police station on Wednesday. The incident took place at a time when ceremonies to
celebrate the 61st Independence Day were being held across the country. Fahim Ali
Khan, a witness, told Dawn that he saw a young motorcyclist breaking a traffic
signal at the Dubai Chowk and, when a traffic warden tried to stop him, he
abandoned his motorcycle and ran towards some policemen standing at the Dubai
Chowk near a mosque and hit them. “It “It was a huge blast, shaking passersby,
motorists, customers and shopkeepers of the busiest market of the city and littering
the place with human flesh,”
flesh,” a shopkeeper said. Senior Superintendent of Police,
Chaudhry Shafiq Ahmed, told Dawn the suicide bomber was a pedestrian who
apparently targeted policemen performing duty at the Chowk. “The“The bomber’s face
and legs are intact and he has a beard and appears to be in his 20s,”
20s,” the SSP said.
The dead policemen were identified as sub-inspector Jafar Baloch and constable Arif
Malik. Rescue 1122 spokesman Fahim Jehanzeb Khan told Dawn that they took 13
injured people and bodies of two people, a woman among them, to hospital. An Edhi
Foundation spokesman told Dawn that volunteers of the foundation shifted 35
people to different hospitals. The blast was so powerful that it shattered
windowpanes of several vehicles, an adjacent mosque, nearby buildings and
scattered human flesh hundreds of feet away. Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif
expressed sorrow over the loss of lives in the bombing. The chief minister
condemned the cowardly act of terrorism and directed health authorities to provide
best medical facilities to those injured in the bombing free of cost.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 14.08.08

– Musharraf calls for end to confrontation

President Pervez Musharraf has called for avoiding confrontation and adopting a
conciliatory approach to overcome economic crisis and defeat terrorism. He was
speaking at the Salam Pakistan cultural show organised by the PTV at the President
House in connection with Independence Day. This was his first public appearance
since the ruling coalition kicked off the impeachment process against him and he
used the occasion to express his views on national and regional issues. However, he
deliberately consciously avoided any reference to the performance of the
government or the coalition’s impeachment move. The camera zoomed in on the
president several times. He was in causal dress, smoking a cigar and chewing pan,
appearing to be in a relaxed mood. He was sharing a sofa with Sehba Musharraf and
his mother. The president called for reconciliation, rather than confrontation, in
order to cope with challenges. He condemned the atrocities in Kashmir, killing of
Shaikh Abdul Aziz, a leader of All Parties Hurriyat Conference, and innocent Kashmiri
protesters. No leader from the ruling coalition, nor any import personality from the
three services, except the Pakistan Air Force chief, attended the ceremony.

Chief of the Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvaiz Kayani could not attend because he had
to attend an Independence Day function at the Military Academy in Kakul. Pakistan
Muslim League-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, former Punjab chief minister
Chaudhry Pervez Elahi, NWFP Governor Awais Ghani, Sindh Governor Ishratul Ibad,
Chairman Senate Mohammadmian Soomro, former Punjab Governor Lt-Gen (retd)
Khalid Maqbool, president’s spokesman Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi, MQM leader
Khushbakht Shujaat, Hafeez Pirzada, PTV managing director Dr Shahid Masood,
Sheikh Rashid, Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri, S.M. Zafar, Amir Muqam, Lt-Gen (retd)
Javed Ashraf Qazi and Muammad Ali Durrani attended the function. The president
stressed the need for political stability in the country to overcome the crisis. “I
“I think
the reconciliation approach is imperative to bring political stability in the country,”
country,”
he said. “It
“It is my request to all to adopt reconciliation approach instead of
confrontation. Differences should be buried to take the country forward.”
forward.” The
president said he was confident that the nation would come out of the present
crisis. He condemned the killing of PAF officials in a bomb attack and said that
terrorists involved in the attack were trying to weaken the country. Earlier, national
and folk songs were presented by singers Saeen Zahoor, Asif Mehdi, Humaira
Channa and Shahida Minni.
Author Location Dated
Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 14.08.08

– Sindh PA seeks impeachment

The Sindh Assembly adopted unanimously on Wednesday a resolution calling upon
President Pervez Musharraf to take a vote of confidence from his electoral college or
resign immediately. “In
“In case he fails to get the vote of confidence the assembly
urges parliament to give notice of impeachment in accordance with Article 47 of the
Constitution,”
Constitution,” the resolution reads. The house reverberated with slogans of “Long
live democracy” as Speaker Nisar Ahmad Khuhro announced after hourlong
speeches that the resolution had been adopted unanimously. Members belonging to
the opposition — comprising Pakistan Muslim League-F, PML-Q and the National
People’s Party -- and ruling coalition partner Muttahida Qaumi Movement were
absent from the house. A total of 94 members, among them three from the PML-Q
(forward bloc) and two of the Awami National Party, were present. The party
position in the house of 168 is as follows: PPP, 92; MQM, 52; PML-Q, nine; PMLF,
eight, NPP, three; and ANP, 2. Election of two new members is yet to be notified.
Makhdoom Jamiluz Zaman, Shama Mithani and Mohsin Shah Bokhari of the Pakistan
People’s Party did not turn up. Mr Bokhari had sent an application for leave because
he was out of the country. The resolution, tabled by provincial Law Minister Ayaz
Soomro, was endorsed by 15 members, including Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah,
ANP’s Amir Nawab and PML-Q’s Mir Ghalib Hussain Domki. The members said: “In “In
the history of the Sindh Assembly, which has to its credit approval of the Pakistan
Resolution before all other assemblies, today is another historic day as the
resolution moved in the house will go a long way to save and consolidate the
country by stabilising democracy. “Today is a historic day when we have an
opportunity to get rid of a tyrant ruler and liberate ourselves from repressive rule.
“The day is also historic because an impeachment resolution is being passed for the
first time against a dictator and the people of Sindh should identify those who join
the democratic forces and those siding with the dictator. Today the people were
taking revenge of the blood of Shaheed Benazir Bhutto by pursuing her maxim
‘democracy is the best revenge’, which was reiterated by (PPP chairman) Bilawal
Bhutto. “The voice being raised today in this august House against Gen Musharraf is
the voice of the people of Sindh and Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”

Terming Gen (retd) Musharraf the root cause of all pressing problems being
confronted by the nation, the speakers described the impeachment move as a
farsighted decision of PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari and the leadership of
coalition parties. Earlier, Law Minister Soomro requested for suspending the
question hour and moved a motion to dispense with the requirements of Rules 32,
33 and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 103 and to allow him to table the resolution under Rule
211. The speaker allowed him to move the motion, which was carried unanimously.
The resolution recalled that under Article 41 of the Constitution, the Sindh Assembly
was a part of the electoral college for the election of the president.
“Notwithstanding the Sindh Assembly’s objection to the validity or legality of the
elections held in October 2007 for the office of the president, the assembly is of the
view that Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf is unfit to hold the office of the president by
virtue of being guilty of violating the Constitution and of gross misconduct on the
grounds that: i) He subverted the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan twice
by holding it in abeyance; ii) He has violated and undermined the Constitution and
derailed the transition to democracy; iii) In terms of Article 41(1) of the Constitution
the office of the president represents the unity of the republic but he has violated
the same and caused promotion of inter-provincial tension and a deepened sense of
deprivation and denied provincial autonomy, thus leading to weakening the
federation; iv) “The policies pursued by him during the past eight years have
brought Pakistan to the brink of a critical political and economic impasse...; ‘‘And
whereas his policies have paralysed the federation and eroded the trust of the
nation in key national institutions, this assembly hereby calls upon Gen (retd)
Pervez Musharraf to take a vote of confidence from his electoral college or resign in
terms of Article 44(3) of the Constitution. In case he fails to do so, this assembly
calls upon and urges parliament to give notice of impeachment in accordance with
Article 47 of the Constitution.”
Constitution.”

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman 14.08.08

– Back to 1947
From a day of pure joy for Pakistan’s citizens, Aug 14 has gradually become an
occasion for reflection. Over the past many years, reflection has assumed the form
of a somewhat worrisome reappraisal, and the room for celebration has been
shrinking. The principal reason for this is the common citizen’s perception that
today’s Pakistan is not what its founders had set out to establish. Apart from the
fact that the country’s map is not what it originally was and that it has not become
one of the greatest nations of the world the Quaid-i-Azam had said on Aug 11, 1947
it could become, the majority has still not received the promised fruits of freedom.
The main features of the Pakistan dream were that the country would be the
homeland of a Pakistani nation whose members were equal regardless of their caste
or creed; that it was to be a federation whose constituent units were autonomous
and sovereign; that its constitution would be what the people decided; that its form
of government would be a people’s democracy and in any case it was not going to
be a theocracy; that the people would be free to shape their lives in accordance
with their culture and traditions. The real isation that this dream has remained
largely, if not wholly, unrealised is of no consequence if the causes of this
predicament are not thoroughly analysed. Conventional wisdom identifies several
occasions when the state of Pakistan got derailed but it may be more appropriate to
admit that state-building efforts left much to be desired. What happened on Aug 14,
1947 was no more than the laying of the foundation stone of a new state. The task
of constructing the state was not begun for many years, and later on, the political
engineers proved insincere or lost their way.

The Pakistan dream was shattered during the nine years the country was governed
in accordance with the Government of India Act of 1935, wrongfully christened as
the new state’s provisional constitution. The damage done to the state-in-the-
making under the then scheme of things has yet to be fully assessed. The unitary
form of government envisaged by the Act was, over time, adopted by the ruling
elite as the only possible norm and the need to raise a federal structure was
ignored. This strained the fragile bonds of unity the struggle for Pakistan had
forged. The failure to appreciate the elementary rights of the provinces led to the
abandonment of democratic imperatives. By the middle of the 1950s, Pakistan had
become a vulgarised copy of the colonial state headed by an absolute ruler who
relied wholly on chicanery and was incompetent to boot. That this system could
easily be pushed over by another brand of absolute ruler, one who derived sanction
from armed might and could claim slightly better service delivery, was soon
confirmed. Perhaps the greatest disservices done to Pakistan in those years were,
firstly, the transformation of a fledgling democracy into a quasi-theocratic garrison
state. The Objectives Resolution and the belief-related provisions of the 1956
Constitution were thought of as essential props for a state locked in a colonial
mould. Further, state security was installed as the ruling deity in the national
pantheon. The state could become impregnably strong, it was asserted, if it had
guns in abundance even if its people went hungry, remained illiterate and became
sick in body and mind. Eventually the people’s plight came to be rationalised as an
unavoidable (even if unbearable) cost of freedom. Secondly, the period 1947-56
saw the consolidation of an authoritarian mindset. The governor-general repudiated
the basics of Pakistan by functioning like a viceroy of prePartition India. The system
of one-man rule became fairly well entrenched by 1956 and it was further
streamlined by military rulers, from Ayub Khan to Pervez Musharraf. So deep has
the system of one-man rule struck root in Pakistan that civilian rulers, who have
been inducted as watchmen or clerks appointed to fill leave vacancies, have also
tended to function as authoritarian despots who are subject neither to the
constitution nor the wishes of the people. They have been responsible for
convincing most people that an elected leader and a military ruler are one and the
same thing. Thus, after four constitutional initiatives and four spells of extra-
democratic rule Pakistan has barely survived. It has been reduced to an anaemic
polity.

A federation it never became and now its status as a state has become debatable
since it does not exercise a monopoly of power throughout the land — an essential
attribute of a state. Yet Pakistan has the basic ingredients of a natural state. A large
majority of the population apparently wishes to revive the state. The question is
where does one begin? The state cannot be constructed or reconstructed along the
models tested over the past 50 years. The assumptions underlying the state
created by the 1956 Constitution were knocked out by the emergence of
Bangladesh. The state envisaged by the Ayubian scheme of 1962 was an
illegitimate entity as it lacked the people’s sanction. The state established by the
1973 Constitution was no doubt based on a national consensus but it had a very
brief life and the 1973 document, even if can be revived in its original form, no
longer enjoys the nationwide support it did 35 years ago. Gen Ziaul Haq remodelled
the state during 1977-85 and in the process repudiated Pakistan’s foundational
principles — democracy, parliamentary government and federalism. Gen Musharraf
too has remodelled the state and shared Zia’s guilt. (One hopes there is no difficulty
in appreciating the fact that each time a new constitution is imposed, or an existing
basic law is radically changed, a state different from the previous one is created.)
Thus, the only viable option is to begin the exercise that should have been started
in 1947 — to establish a democratic, parliamentary federation. This is the meaning
of the demand for a new social contract that has lately gained considerable ground.
However, besides drawing upon the Pakistan dream of 1947 it will also be necessary
now to make a special effort to rule out two models — that of a garrison state and a
theocracy. For this reason Gen Musharraf’s exit and an end to the insurgency in the
north are essential prerequisites to the building of a state the people may be proud
to own, happy to nourish and willing to die for.
Author Location Dated
Mubarak Ali 14.08.08

– Changing concept of independence

For 61 years, Pakistan has been celebrating its independence. However, with the
passage of time the concept of independence has changed for us. It is no more the
same as it was before. For example, under the British Raj, when the people of the
Indian subcontinent were fighting against foreign rule, the colonial documents
referred to the resistance movements challenging the rulers as “rebellions
“rebellions against
the legitimate government”.
government”. The uprising of 1857 was termed by the British as a
mutiny and not a war of independence against their rule. By denying the legitimacy
of resistance movements, the colonial government sought to justify its harsh and
oppressive policies against them. However, after 1857, the emergence of
nationalism and the struggle of political parties to win their basic rights changed the
political perception of the people. These movements became a national struggle
against colonial hegemony. As democratic methods such as demonstrations, strikes,
agitations and picketing were adopted, the British stopped calling them rebellions or
insurgencies and accepted them as a political struggle. The national struggle, which
united the people of the subcontinent irrespective of their religion and caste, was an
expression of their sentiments to win freedom from colonial bondage. It was a
symbol of unity. A joint struggle for freedom. The national struggle, however, came
to be divided when the All India Muslim League drifted away from national politics
and raised the slogan of two nations and demanded a separate homeland for the
Muslims.

After Partition, in Pakistani historiography, the role of the national struggle against
colonialism has been downplayed and the ‘Pakistan Movement’ has received more
importance. The major achievement of this movement was not only its success in
ridding India of British rule but also liberating Muslims from the domination of the
Hindu majority. Therefore, the Pakistan Movement became more antiHindu than
anti-British. How did the concept of independence change after Partition? This can
be traced from the historical developments in Pakistan. The first case was that of
East Pakistan. Just after 1947, the Bengalis complained about the arrogant
behaviour of the West Pakistani bureaucrats who were posted there and treated the
locals as their subject. These grievances accumulated until 1971 when Bangladesh
split from Pakistan and declared its independence. In Bangladeshi historiography,
the concept of Pakistani independence of 1947 has no place. Instead it contains a
historical narration about ‘the war of liberation’ from Pakistan. On the other hand,
the independence of Pakistan soon disillusioned the small provinces which were
forced to forget their regional identity and absorb it in a national one. There was
strong reaction against this policy, which further strengthened the provinces’ strong
resistance to a powerful centre and its institutions. The establishment of One Unit in
1955 was viewed as a step to eliminate regional identity. The result was that they
lost faith in democracy and G.M. Syed even went to the extent of declaring that for
Sindh it was a useless system because the Sindhis could not come to power in the
presence of the Punjabi majority.

It was the same argument which was presented by the Muslim leadership in India —
namely, that the Muslims of India, as a minority, could not get their political rights,
therefore, democracy was not an appropriate political system. On the basis of this
argument, they demanded a separate homeland. So, in Sindh slogans were raised
for ‘Sindhudesh’, a separate homeland where the Sindhis could have freedom to
handle their own affairs. The nationalist elements of Sindh are not happy with the
present political situation and seek autonomy if not separation for their province.
The case of Balochistan is very critical because the Baloch leadership was betrayed
again and again by the Pakistani ruling classes. Their resistance movements were
crushed brutally and their leaders were imprisoned, tortured and assassinated.
Finding no solution within Pakistan, the Baloch have been raising the slogan,
‘Liberation of Balochistan’.
Balochistan’. To them the concept of independence is no more
relevant. The situation in the tribal areas of the NWFP is also changing rapidly and
they are drifting away from the national mainstream. When the question of
independence is raised in any society, we find institutions and groups of people
demanding freedom from the clutches of coercive institutional authorities. For
example, there is a strong movement for the independence of the judiciary because
judges have played a role in legitimising all military dictators. The ruling classes are
not in favour of an independent judiciary because it would be a check on their
misuse of power. However, the movement has become popular and gained the
support of the people. But it appears that there is little hope of the judiciary
becoming independent in view of the betrayal by the politicians.

There are other groups and parties that are struggling for their independence. For
example, haris or peasants who are languishing in the private jails of the landlords
who have set up these jails in blatant violation of the laws. It is their basic right to
be free. They are helpless and are at the mercy of their tormentors. The same is the
case with women, domestic workers and other subordinate classes. They all want
their independence and freedom. So, the question is: who benefited from
independence? The simple answer is that the elite and the privileged classes who
are free to exploit the people and squander the resources of the state. To them, the
concept of independence is the freedom to do what they like. In the absence of law
and order, industrialists, feudal lords, smugglers and the crime mafia are free to
fleece people, be involved in all sorts of illegal business and collect money and take
it away outside the country. For them, Pakistan is a paradise. They are happy to
celebrate Independence Day. But to the common man who is suffering in poverty
and misery, whose children have no access to education, who has no security
against lawlessness, or medical facilities in case of illness, or financial support when
he loses his job, the question remains: should he celebrate independence or mourn
it?

Author Location Dated

AFP Paris, France 14.08.08

– Robot with a biological brain

Meet Gordon, probably the world's first robot controlled exclusively by living brain
tissue. Stitched together from cultured rat neurons, Gordon's primitive grey matter
was designed at the University of Reading by scientists who unveiled the neuron-
powered machine on Wednesday. Their groundbreaking experiments explore the
vanishing boundary between natural and artificial intelligence, and could shed light
on the fundamental building blocks of memory and learning, one of the lead
researchers said. “The
“The purpose is to figure out how memories are actually stored in
a biological brain,”
brain,” said Kevin Warwick, a professor at the University of Reading and
one of the robot's principle architects. Observing how the nerve cells cohere into a
network as they fire off electrical impulses, he said, may also help scientists combat
neurodegenerative diseases that attack the brain such as Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's. “If
“If we can understand some of the basics of what is going on in our
little model brain, it could have enormous medical spinoffs,”
spinoffs,” he said. Looking a bit
like the garbage-compacting hero of the blockbuster animation “Wall-E”, Gordon
has a brain composed of 50,000 to 100,000 active neurons. Once removed from rat
foetuses and disentangled from each other with an enzyme bath, the specialised
nerve cells are laid out in a nutrient-rich medium across an eight-by-eight
centimetre (five-by five inch) array of 60 electrodes.

This “multi-electrode array” (MEA) serves as the interface between living tissue and
machine, with the brain sending electrical impulses to drive the wheels of the
robots, and receiving impulses delivered by sensors reacting to the environment.
Because the brain is living tissue, it must be housed in a special temperature-
controlled unit — it communicates with its “body” via a Bluetooth radio link. The
robot has no additional control from a human or computer. From the very start, the
neurons get busy. “Within
“Within about 24 hours, they start sending out feelers to each
other and making connections,”
connections,” said Warwick. “Within
“Within a week we get some
spontaneous firings and brain-like activity”
activity” similar to what happens in a normal rat
— or human -- brain, he added. But without external stimulation, the brain will
wither and die within a couple of months. “Now “Now we are looking at how best to teach
it to behave in certain ways,”explained
ways,”explained Warwick. To some extent, Gordon learns by
itself. When it hits a wall, for example, it gets an electrical stimulation from the
robot's sensors. As it confronts similar situations, it learns by habit. To help this
process along, the researchers also use different chemicals to reinforce or inhibit
the neural pathways that light up during particular actions. Gordon, in fact, has
multiple personalities -- several MEA “brains” that the scientists can dock into the
robot. “It's
“It's quite funny -- you get differences between the brains,”
brains,” said Warwick.
“This one is a bit boisterous and active, while we know another is not going to do
what we want it to.”to.” Mainly for ethical reasons, it is unlikely that researchers at
Reading or the handful of laboratories around the world exploring the same terrain
will be using human neurons any time soon in the same kind of experiments.

Author Location Dated

Qasim A. Moini Karachi, Pakistan 14.08.08

– Open season on president in Sindh Assembly

The day before the celebration of the nation’s 61st independence day, the hallowed
hall of the Sindh Assembly echoed with incessant criticism of retired General Pervez
Musharraf as – following the Punjab and NWFP provincial assemblies – a resolution
was passed during Wednesday’s session that demanded of the embattled president
to either secure a vote of confidence from the electoral college, resign from the
presidency or prepare to face the unceremonious music of impeachment. Legislator
after legislator fulminated against the sins – real and imagined – of President
Musharraf, accusing him, among other things, of violating the Constitution, acting
beyond his capacity, weakening Sindh and promoting inter-provincial discord, while
some went as far as to compare the retired general with Adolf Hitler and late
Chilean strongman Augusto Pinochet. But the Pakistan People’s Party’s legislators
were speaking to an almost half empty house as their provincial coalition partners
from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement chose to stay away from the proceedings,
ending days of speculation whether the MQM would support the antiMusharraf move
or not. The opposition – led by the Pakistan Muslim League-F’s Jam Madad Ali –
consisting of the PML-F, National People’s Party and what remains of the PML-Q,
also chose to abstain instead of defending Mr Musharraf in the house. The assembly
also passed three bills into law unanimously, while a fourth was indefinitely
deferred. The speeches began after Speaker Nisar Ahmed Khuhro suspended the
relevant rules and Law Minister Ayaz Soomro moved the resolution against
President Pervez Musharraf. Minister for Katchi Abadis and Spatial Development
Rafiq Engineer was the first to launch the anti-Musharraf assault. He said the
president had violated the Constitution and harmed the judiciary and the federation.
He said the situation prevailing in the country on November 3, 2007, did not
warrant the imposition of emergency rule and slammed the “mini-martial law”
imposed by Mr Musharraf in his then capacity as chief of the army staff. He also
termed the president’s election from the assemblies in October 2007 as illegal.

As the chant of ‘Go, Musharraf, go,’ began to gather momentum, Revenue Minister
Murad Ali Shah rose to speak. He said it was a great day in Sindh’s history as the
resolution had brought about a change desired by the people. He added that the
resolution proved that the assemblies did not want the president to stick around. He
said making Mr Musharraf take off his uniform and the current impeachment
process was part of the plan chalked out by Benazir Bhutto. “The “The whole nation is
saying ‘go, Musharraf, go.’ Please quit today,”
today,” he urged the president. Next up in
the anti-Musharraf extravaganza was provincial Minister for Culture and Tourism
Sassui Palejo. She said that as the nation had been ruled by dictators for the
majority of its years, the country’s social fabric had been destroyed. She added that
pro-establishment forces had fanned tensions between the provinces. “It “It will be
Musharraf’s misfortune if he is impeached. It is better if he leaves. He should be
tried for treason and face accountability. His human rights violations are worse than
Hitler’s,”
Hitler’s,” she said, while congratulating the PML-N and Awami National Party for
supporting the impeachment move. Information Minister Shazia Marri said that the
nation would celebrate a second independence this August 14 and thanked the
people of Sindh. She said Mr Musharraf had violated the army’s discipline and that
she had no respect for any of his positions apart from the fact that he was a human
being. “He
“He has said his training is offensive. He has said that he has an attacking
style … well … he’s attacked the people of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Ms Marri said. She added that
“it would have been good if our other friends would have been here,” here,” referring to
the MQM. “This
“This resolution will save Pakistan. It is not against an individual but
against authoritarianism and the spirit of tyranny.”
tyranny.” She also criticised Mr
Musharraf’s much touted theory of enlightened moderation, calling it an affront to
women’s honour, while deriding the PML-Q as the “chamcha“chamcha (toady) league.”
league.”

Irrigation and Power Minister Saifullah Dharejo said that during Mr Musharraf’s reign
the police had been turned into a personal mafia while devolution had helped
increase corruption. He said the president was guilty of “economic sabotage,” as
according to him the present financial crisis was pre-planned, as was the flight of
capital, so that the blame should fall on the “democratic
“democratic government.”
government.” He also
repeated the allegation first made by PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari that President
Musharraf had misappropriated $700 million of US military aid. “Things
“Things will improve
after Musharraf. He will end up like Pinochet.”
Pinochet.” MPA Jam Tamachi said that when
Pervez Musharraf first took power, he thought the general might do something for
Pakistan, but was soon let down as nothing happened. He claimed that Mr
Musharraf had given eight or nine billion rupees belonging to Sindh to Wapda as
settlement for a controversial dispute over arrears, adding that while Punjab was
given an experienced chief minister, first an inexperienced man was placed in
charge of Sindh (Ali Mohammad Mahar) while later Arbab Rahim was brought in to
“destroy the PPP.”
PPP.” He added that the president’s policies had fanned differences
between Sindhis and Mohajirs. Jam Tamachi advised Mr Musharraf to leave the
presidency and take the slot of the PMLQ president if he was interested in politics.
With a couplet, he made a poetic overture to the MQM. Labour Minister and ANP
member Amir Nawab termed the president a “small dictator” and criticised him for
creating a “rubber stamp parliament.” “Musharraf
“Musharraf has spilt Pakhtun blood in the
NWFP and Baloch blood in Balochistan. He is a sword hanging over democracy’s
head.”
head.” MPA from Thatta Humera Alwani suggested that a plaque be set up in the
assembly listing the names of the members who had passed Wednesday’s
resolution. “Sindh’s
“Sindh’s people can see who supports dictatorship and who supports
democracy. They should remember this when voting,”
voting,” she said in a barely disguised
critique of the Muttahida and the opposition.

Lotas and jiyalas Mir Ghalib Dhomki, who was elected on a PML-Q ticket but now sits
with the treasury, was greeted with desk-thumping as he rose to speak. He gave the
strange logic that while lotas (turncoats) should not be tolerated, whoever leaves
the Q-league for “democracy” should not be called a lota, as he heaped scorn on his
former party. “Ninety
“Ninety per cent of Pakistan’s people want Musharraf to leave,”
leave,” he
said, adding that he had “erased” the sign of the bicycle (the Q-league’s electoral
symbol) from his record. “I“I am a PPP at heart. jiyala Circumstances forced me to
take another path,”
path,” he said. Deputy Speaker Shahla Raza said Sindh’s people had
never bowed before oppression, while Ayaz Soomro labelled the president “Asia’s
model dictator.” Senior Minister Pir Mazhraul Haq said Mr Musharraf had given the
armed forces a bad name. At 12.50pm, Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah rose to speak.
Though critical of the president, his speech was anchored with the sobriety of a
seasoned politician, in contrast to some of the outbursts of his younger colleagues.
“It’ll be a shame if General Musharraf doesn’t listen. Yahya said the war would go
on after the loss of the eastern wing. Dictators don’t listen. Musharraf is the root of
all problems. Our resolution is justified,”
justified,” he said. At 1.05pm, the resolution was
passed with the thunderous thumping of desks and the deafening echoes of ‘go,
Musharraf, go.’

Three bills were also passed into law during Wednesday’s session. They are:
Government Bill no 5 of 2008, the Sindh Goth Abad (Housing Scheme)
(Amendment) Bill 2008,
2008, aimed at amending the Sindh Goth Abad (Housing Scheme)
Act, 1987;
1987; Government Bill no 6 of 2008, the Sindh Boards of Intermediate and
Secondary Education (Amendment) Bill, 2008,2008, aimed at further amending the Sindh
Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1972, 1972, which effectively
transfers control of the boards from the governor to the chief minister and
Government Bill no 7 of 2008, the Sindh Ministers (Salaries, Allowances and
Privileges) (Amendment) Bill, 2008,
2008, which calls for the use of government guest
houses and entitlement to other such facilities for former chief ministers and
ministers. Government Bill no 4 of 2008,
2008, the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Medical
University Larkana Bill,
Bill, was indefinitely deferred. Though the first two bills were
passed smoothly, there were some unsavoury moments witnessed between
members of the ruling party as the people’s representatives bickered over the fact
that government privileges should be extended to all MPAs and not just ministers.
The speaker adjourned the session — which started at 10.40am, more than an hour
behind schedule — at a little after 2pm to meet again on Friday at 9am.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 15.08.08

– PM urges united struggle against dictatorship

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has called upon all political forces to unite against
dictatorship and said his government will work with all democratic parties to make
the country a land of peace and justice. Addressing the Independence Day flag-
hoisting ceremony at the Convention Centre on Thursday, the prime minister said
the government believed in supremacy of law and the day was near when the sun
of an independent judiciary would rise in its full glory. “Political
“Political forces should join
hands to shut the door on dictatorship for ever to give complete autonomy to
provinces to make the people the real source of power,”
power,” he added. He stressed the
need for rebuilding democratic institutions for a stronger and prosperous Pakistan.
He said the government was aware of the problem of missing people. “We “We are
trying to trace them and the ministries of law and interior have been asked to take
necessary action.”
action.” He said Pakistan was fighting the war against extremism and
terrorism for its own survival. “We
“We will face this challenge with the help of people
and will enforce the supremacy of the state.”
state.” The prime minister said that during
his visit to the United States he had told the American leadership that the war
against terrorism could succeed only if other states also played their role
effectively. He categorically stated that Pakistan would never allow any unilateral
action on its soil. He said: “Our
“Our leader Benazir Bhutto had raised the voice for the
supremacy of judiciary and we will fulfil this commitment. The days of oppression
are over. Dictatorship has become a story of the past. We will have to move forward
where there is no dictatorship but democracy, no terrorism but peace and
tranquillity, no cruelty but justice and no extremism but moderation.”
moderation.” Mr Gilani said
the history of Pakistan was one of struggle for supremacy of the people through
political process and establishment of a democratic and welfare society.

The prime minister stressed the need for cleansing Pakistan of prejudices, hatred
and terrorism in accordance with the teaching of Quaid-i-Azam. “People’s
“People’s mandate
of Feb 18 has bestowed upon us the honour of serving the nation as a democratic
government.”
government.” He said that strengthening defence was a national responsibility and
the government was mindful of its duty and had full confidence in the country’s
military capabilities and enthusiasm of the people. He said that during his recent
meeting with Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in Colombo, both countries
had agreed to continue the process of improving relationships. He said Pakistan
would continue its efforts for a settlement of the Kashmir dispute in accordance
with the wishes of the people of Kashmiri. He said Pakistan and Afghanistan were
facing the challenge of terrorism and separate and collective efforts were required
to combat the menace. He said the Rs34 billion Benazir support programme would
be launched next month and about 3.8 million poor families would benefit from it
with each family getting Rs1,000 per month. He said that employees would be given
shares in the event of privatisation of a public sector unit. The prime minister
announced a three-month remission in prisoners’ sentence.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 15.08.08

– Nawaz rejects safe exit for Musharraf

PML-N chief Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif said on Thursday that Kashmir was not
an internal affair of India because it was a dispute between India and Pakistan.
Addressing his supporters after laying a floral wreath at the mausoleum of the Poet
of the East, Dr Allama Iqbal, on Thursday, he said India must end atrocities against
innocent Kashmiris and give them their right to franchise as enshrined in UN
resolutions. He claimed that President Pervez Musharraf’s impeachment was not to
avenge the ouster of his government and sending him and his family into exile. He
said it was a national issue to curb conspiracies against democracy and shut the
door on future military dictators. He said the impeachment motion should have
been tabled in parliament four months ago. He regretted that the country had
remained under dictatorships for 33 years of its independence. He said the Muslims
of the subcontinent, under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam, had won the freedom
from the British, but they were later enslaved by their own people. Referring to the
issue of judges, Mr Sharif said the best course was to reinstate the deposed judges
on the day Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani announced their release. AFP adds:
Rejecting President Musharraf’s call for reconciliation, Mr Sharif said the president
would have to go. “There
“There is no safe passage for him now,”
now,” the PML-N chief said,
referring to suggestions that Mr Musharraf could be allowed to go into exile to avoid
possible criminal charges. “He
“He wants safe passage after breaking the law. He wants
safe passage after violating the constitution. He wants safe passage after
bargaining our sovereignty,”
sovereignty,” Mr Sharif wondered.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 15.08.08

– Charge-sheet against Musharraf will be ready today: Babar

A special committee of the ruling coalition drafting a charge-sheet against President
Pervez Musharraf is expected to complete its task on Friday and an impeachment
notice will be submitted to the National Assembly secretariat next week. “We
“We
expect that the committee will complete its task by and large on Friday,”
Friday,” PPP
spokesman and member of the committee, Farhatullah Khan Babar, told Dawn on
Thursday. The committee has been meeting daily since the announcement of the
impeachment plan by the coalition parties last week. Two members of the
committee, belonging to the Pakistan Muslim League-N, did not attend Thursday’s
meeting, which, according to Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani, was
an “informal one”. Senator Ishaq Dar was in Lahore and Ahsan Iqbal was in Narowal
in connection with Independence Day programmes, he said, adding that they would
attend the committee’s last meeting on Friday. The meeting was held at the
residence of Information Minister Sherry Rehman. Federal ministers Qamaruz
Zaman Kaira, Syed Khursheed Shah and Nazar Gondal later joined the committee
members. Mr Babar said that Law Minister Farooq Naek would attend Friday’s
meeting to give his legal opinion about the draft. He said the committee would
prepare the draft on Friday and it would be sent to heads of the ruling coalition --
PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif, ANP president Asfandyar
Wali and JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman -- who will give their final opinion by
Sunday.

He said that after getting suggestions from the coalition leaders, the committee
would finalise the draft. It will be presented before parliament after submission of
the impeachment notice by half of the National Assembly members, likely by
Tuesday. The committee members had earlier claimed that the voluminous charge-
sheet against President Musharraf would comprise hundreds of pages containing
serious charges of misconduct, financial irregularities, constitutional violations and
criminal acts that could lead to his open trial. However, Mr Babar said the final
charge-sheet might only contain charges relating to constitutional violations and
misconduct on the part of the president. “It“It is up to the (coalition) leadership to
decide whether the charge-sheet should be short and crisp or a lengthy document,”
document,”
Mr Babar said, adding that changes could be made in the light of recommendations
of legal experts and coalition leaders. There were unconfirmed reports that the
president’s loyalists had informed the coalition leadership that the president was
ready to quit office if parliament indemnified his actions taken on or since Nov 3 of
last year. Commenting on the reports, Mr Rabbani said it was a hypothetical
scenario, but he personally believed that there was no time left for the president to
make such offers.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 15.08.08

– Instability to help terrorists: US

The uncertainty that grips the country was also obvious at the Pakistan Day function
at the embassy in Washington on Thursday, with both hosts and guests offering
various possible options for ending the current political crisis. Ambassador Husain
Haqqani set the tone for the discussion when he said at the flag-hoisting ceremony
that “a
“a strong army alone does not make a country strong, the country also needs a
strong political leadership”.
leadership”. While many said that President Pervez Musharraf might
not survive the impeachment move, nobody could say how and when he would go.
Senior US officials, while talking to Pakistani diplomats and journalists, insist that
Washington is not taking sides on this issue. It is not trying to either protect or to
push President Musharraf out of power and will accept whatever the Pakistanis
decide. Washington, however, worries that a long period of political instability will
benefit terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and will also vitiate an already tense
relationship between the political and military leadership. Earlier this week, Ted
Gistaro, the US national intelligence officer for trans-national threats, made a rare,
on-the-record speech at a Washington thinktank to warn that Al Qaeda is exploiting
recent political turmoil in Pakistan to strengthen its foothold along the country’s
border with Afghanistan. Senior Pakistani diplomats who have stayed engaged with
US officials on this issue point out that Washington believes a cordial relationship
between the army and politicians is necessary to win the war on terror.

They point out that initially Washington relied only on the military option to subdue
the militants hiding in Fata. But the US administration was forced to seek political
support for the war on terror when this approach failed. Senior US diplomats ap
proached former prime minister Benazir Bhutto and offered to help negotiate an
arrangement between her and President Musharraf. Ms Bhutto’s untimely death led
to the exit of a key partner from this arrangement but the Americans continued to
back the arrangement because they believed that only a combination of civil and
military forces could defeat terrorism. Now US officials, who do not want to be
identified, fear that a prolonged conflict between President Musharraf and the
country’s political leadership could weaken this civil-military alliance that they
worked so hard to forge. They point out that while politicians are needed to win over
hearts and minds, ultimately it is the army that has to go to the battlefield and fight
terrorists. “If
“If the army sees one of its former chiefs being dragged through the
mud, it is not going to be very happy,”
happy,” said one such official.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 15.08.08

– State of the state

These days there is a great sense of despondency regarding the state of affairs in
the country. Even ordinary people ask questions about the viability of the Pakistani
state and its ability to survive. Such questions annoy those who feel greater
ownership of the state and believe that the present environment is nothing but a
global conspiracy to shut down the project of the Pakistani nation-state. This
reaction does not take into account the fact that the question is being raised by
ordinary people who have high stakes in Pakistan. Apart from the core issue of
problematic relations between the centre and the federating units and the
institutional imbalance in the country, there is the question of how the state has
systematically ceded authority or shared it with sub-organisations or non-state
actors. The state, in fact, no longer enjoys a monopoly over maintaining control
which is one of its core functions. Besides, there are many other tasks that the state
has begun to subcontract to private entities. Charles Tilly, a prominent theoretician
on the state, gives a list of seven core functions that states perform: state-making,
war-making, protection, extraction, adjudication, distribution and production.
production. The
state is a supra entity whose capacity is gauged according to its ability to deliver.
The question is how does one treat a state that is unable to perform even some of
its core functions if not all? What if despite the ability for state-making, war-making
and production, its capacity to distribute is limited and to extract and protect is
questionable, and it has a problematic system of adjudication?

There are three perspectives on the issue. First, from a realist paradigm, a state
continues to exist and be effective as long as the international community and
organisations such as the UN recognise it. Second, according to the liberal
paradigm, a state continues to function as long as its bureaucracy has the capacity
to deliver, money is invested and the economy is functional, even if barely so.
Finally, there is the human security perspective according to which a state remains
meaningful as long as it meets the expectations of the people, makes them feel
secure and has the capacity to deliver certain services to the population for which
they initially opted to become part of the state. Here, the state’s ability to perform
its core functions becomes important. In Pakistan’s case, it is common knowledge
that the state faces a problem in evenly distributing its resources among the
people. While some parts of the country are satisfied with the performance, others
are less impressed. Despite the fact that the government has an extensive system
for extracting resources in the form of taxation, its ability to make citizens pay is
problematic. Similarly, the inability to provide justice to the people has resulted in
non-state actors resorting to other means of seeking justice. The Sharia courts in
the tribal areas are one example of the state’s inability to adjudicate.

However, the focus here is the state’s ability to protect, which means its monopoly
on maintaining control. A couple of developments in the past few years have raised
eyebrows such as the authority given to non-state actors or non-state organisations
to establish parallel systems of security which directly challenge the state’s
authority. The first case relates to militant organisations and groups being allowed
to operate in many parts of the country. The second pertains to the MQM’s decision
to install defence committees in all districts and neighbourhoods of Karachi to
impede the growth of Talibanisation in the metropolis. The MQM’s decision comes in
the wake of the resurfacing of various banned outfits in Karachi including the Sipah-
i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) which carried out a demonstration in the city after
remaining underground for about eight years. The party which runs the city has
projected itself as a secular and liberal force prepared to prevent militant forces
from disturbing peace and law and order in Karachi. The MQM, in fact, seems to
have assumed the same responsibility as the Turkish military performs of keeping
the socio-political culture liberal. Recently, the MQM leadership even summoned a
meeting of the ‘begums’ of Clifton and Defence assuring them protection for their
lifestyles. What is even more interesting is the fact that such announcements have
not been challenged by any segment of the state which is primarily responsible for
providing protection to its citizens. The fact of the matter is that Karachi on the
whole is a good example of the weakening of the state. The increase in private
security demonstrates that the state does not have the capacity to ensure law and
order which has forced private citizens to employ alternative means of security. This
means that an ordinary citizen, depending on his/her economic capacity, spends
additional resources for protection and hence is not getting the expected output
from the money he or she pays the state in the form of taxation.

Regarding the MQM’s move, there appears to be no entity to challenge the party’s
assumption regarding the increase of Talibanisation in the city, which many believe
is not happening but is merely an excuse to checkmate the movement of people,
especially those from the Frontier province to Karachi. Given the increased
insecurity in the Frontier, there is a demographic shift with people moving to other
cities, Karachi being one which offers greater opportunities. Also, there is a sizeable
community of Pathans already living in the city which attracts a similar kind to the
city. Surely, there is a difference in the style of living and social conditions of the
Pathan and the Mohajirs whom the MQM claims to represent. However, this does not
mean that the new migrants are Talibanising the metropolis. So, what does one
make of the MQM’s claim? The party probably wants to stop the flow of Pathans or
any other community into Karachi which would challenge the current demographics
of the city and have an impact on the MQM’s political authority. However, it is also a
fact that some banned militant outfits have resurfaced in the city resulting in the
setting up of defence committees by the MQM. Is it that those who control the
militant outfits and are part of the state are connected with the MQM? But a larger
question is: why should a party be given the freedom to carry out functions which
are the responsibility of the state? If indeed the state intends to subcontract one of
its most important core functions then what does one make of the state itself? ¦ The
writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.
Author Location Dated
Kaiser Bengali 15.08.08

– Impeaching Musharraf
Impeachment proceedings against Gen Musharraf are underway, with the provincial
assemblies asking that he seek a vote of confidence. A chargesheet is to be tabled
in the National Assembly during its current session, which in all likelihood will be
followed by a joint session of parliament. The chargesheet is likely to list allegations
that are specific violations of specific legal and constitutional provisions. That will be
the legal requirement. However, the damage that the general and his collaborators
have wreaked on the country goes far beyond legalities. The general’s departure is
now irreversible. However, his painful legacy will stay on. Of the many scars his
regime has inflicted on the country and the people, two are fundamental. One is the
damage to the institution of the rule of law and the other to the economy of the
country as well as to that of households. As regards the rule of law, the general
treated the constitution and the law frivolously and manipulated their provisions to
serve his expedient interests throughout his illegitimate reign. Given the intention
to manipulate the elections, it was decided to remove the two main political figures
— Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif — from the political scene. The former was tied
up in a web of court cases on trumped-up corruption charges and forced to remain
in exile. The latter was persuaded to accept a deal that enabled him to go into exile.
Benazir Bhutto was on bail and had left the country with the permission of the court.
Nawaz Sharif was under arrest and a defendant before more than one court in more
than one case. His surreptitious departure, arranged by the Musharraf regime
without reference to the courts, amounted to contempt of the judicial process.

Having ensured the absence of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, the general held
elections in 2002, employing other sundry manipulative tactics to obtain a majority
for his party of collaborators. The attempt failed and left his PML-Q without a
majority. The general was undaunted. He had more tricks up his sleeve. The
constitution was restored — but selectively. Provisions that dealt with floor-crossing
by National Assembly members were held in abeyance to enable the exercise of
horse-trading and the defection of members of the opposition parties to the ruling
side. The general also tried to preempt possible challenges to his rule from the
democratic duo by other means. His legal mandarins came up with the idea of
changing the law to restrict any one individual to hold a maximum of two terms as
prime minister or chief minister. The latter addition was made to provide the move
with a degree of objectivity, given that neither Benazir Bhutto nor Nawaz Sharif
were likely candidates for chief ministership. However, the law proved to be an
obstacle for Taj Mohammed Jamali, Gen Musharraf’s choice for prime minister, who
had twice served as Balochistan chief minister. The general was not to be deterred.
The said law was promptly amended to exempt chief ministers from its provision.
Perhaps, the most direct assault on the edifice of the law was one particular
provision of the legislation pertaining to the National Accountability Bureau. The
provision allows anyone arrested for embezzlement — a penal offence — to
negotiate the withdrawal of the case on payment of a part of the embezzled
amount. The implication is that one can commit the crime of embezzling funds, but
if caught, can escape punishment by paying back a part of the embezzled amount.
The provision constitutes an important stone in laying the foundation of a lawless
society.

The management of the economy was the second of the two damages caused to
the country and the people. The general’s economic managers, led by Shaukat Aziz,
appeared to be running the economy more for the benefit of foreign financial and oil
interests than for the country or its people. Their culpability stands on efficiency as
well as equity grounds. The regime blatantly manipulated national economic data,
severely impairing its integrity, and created a credit-financed, consumer-driven
services sector-led growth façade. Consumer credit allowed the banking sector to
reap massive profits. And, given that the bulk of the consumer credit was
channelled into leasing automobiles, automobile companies and dealers too
amassed profits. Both sectors recorded excessively high profit-centred growth of
30-45 per cent for two to three years. At the same time, the major crops sector
recorded negative growth in four out of eight years. A three per cent average
growth in agriculture and a 15 per cent average growth in banking did provide the
apparently impressive six per cent average GDP growth over the eight years;
however, the growth represented a hot air bubble rather than any strengthening of
the productive capacity of the economy. The result is stagnation in the commodity-
producing sectors of the economy, stagnation in food supply, stagnation in export-
GDP ratio, stagnation in tax-GDP ratio, decline in employment, increase in prices,
and so on. The growth strategy was exposed at the very outset as unsustainable,
with long-term damaging impacts. However, such opinion and advice was treated
with arrogant contempt.

The regime’s monetary policy — in which the then regime-appointed State Bank of
Pakistan leadership was complicit — explicitly enriched the largely foreign financial
sector out of the pockets of the poorer sections of the population. Bank credit —
loans, credit cards, etc. — is available only to those who can show evidence of
sufficient regular income: either tax return or employer certificate. Anyone not
earning more than Rs15,000 to Rs20,000 is not entitled to any bank facilities. In
other words, bank credit facilities are available to families above a certain income
line; those below the said line — contract workers, piece-rate workers, home-based
workers, unemployed, etc. — are kept out of the process. However, while bank
credit enabled the privileged class above the specified income line to enhance their
quality of life, it also increased aggregate money supply in the economy. And given
that credit was not being directed into investment in commodity-productive sectors,
the result was supply shortages, heating up of the economy and high inflation since
2005. With stagnancy in agricultural output, food inflation is even higher. And given
that food comprises 50-70 per cent of the household expenditure of low-income
families, the poor have been particularly hit hard. Ironically, the price for the
improvement of the quality of life of the rich and the middle class has been paid by
the poor. The sheer injustice of the Musharraf regime’s policies may not find legal
expression in the charges he will be presented with. However, the judgment on his
legacy is being delivered everyday by women and men who have despaired enough
and have chosen to end their lives. Will General Musharraf be charged for their
deaths?

Author Location Dated

Aijaz Zaka Syed aijaz.syed@hotmail.com 15.08.08
 – Prisoner No. 650 and a war on innocents
Just when you think that Uncle Sam’s war of terror has no more surprises to spring
on an unsuspecting world, it comes up with yet another gem. Take the case of Dr
Aafia Siddiqui, a Pakistani neuroscientist who grew up in the US and went to top
universities including the prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She
appeared in a New York court this past week as a ‘top Al Qaeda’ terrorist. She had
to leave the US when the authorities began harassing her and her husband for their
charity activities in the wake of the Sept 11 upheavals. The family lived in Karachi
and one day in March 2003, this talented young woman went missing with her three
children when she was on her way to Karachi airport to catch a flight to Islamabad.
This week, after five years, she resurfaced in a New York court. She was barely able
to walk and speak, which was not surprising given the fact she had been involved in
a “gunfight
“gunfight with FBI agents”
agents” in Afghanistan. The US authorities claim Dr Siddiqui
was captured near the governor’s offices in Ghazni only last month with a bag
carrying “suspicious
“suspicious liquids in tubes”.
tubes”. We are told Siddiqui assaulted a team of US
troops and FBI officials with a highly sophisticated weapon when they went to quiz
her in Afghanistan. There are some basic questions that an ordinary mind like mine
just can’t seem to figure out. First, where was Aafia Siddiqui hiding or hidden all
these years since she went missing in Karachi in March 2003? How did she turn up
in the remote Ghazni province in Afghanistan, of all the godforsaken places? And
what happened to her three children? Second, if the MIT-educated neuroscientist
was indeed an Al Qaeda mastermind, why wasn’t she presented in a court of law all
this while? Even today when she is facing the US law, she is not being tried on
terrorism charges but for allegedly assaulting US officials. So what’s her original
crime, if she has committed one? Third, why wasn’t the Pakistani government
informed about her detention in Afghanistan and her subsequent deportation to the
US? Or is Pakistan also involved in this international enterprise against a 31-year old
mom of three? There are so many gaping holes in this ‘case’ that Elaine Whitfield
Sharp, Siddiqui’s lawyer, believes she has been put on trial now because she has
“become a terrible embarrassment”
embarrassment” to the US and Afghan authorities.

The question is why has she been reinvented now? It is quite possible that Siddiqui
has been found now because of a relentless campaign by British journalist Yvonne
Ridley. Ridley herself had been a prisoner of the Taliban regime for 11 days just
before the US invasion in 2001 and converted to Islam after her strange experience
in Afghanistan. Ridley has been running a campaign called Cage Prisoner for the
release of a female prisoner who has been held at the Bagram Airbase in
Afghanistan in total isolation and regularly tortured for five years. The unknown
female prisoner, known as ‘Prisoner
‘Prisoner No. 650’
650’ and ‘The
‘The Grey Lady of Bagram’,
Bagram’, was
brought to the world’s attention after Ridley read about the woman in a book by
fellow Briton Moazzam Beg, a former Gitmo and Bagram prisoner. In his book,
Enemy Combatant,
Combatant, Beg talks of a woman’s endless screams for help as she was
tortured. Beg first thought he was imagining his wife’s screams. “However,
“However, we now
know the screams came from a woman who has been held in Bagram for some
years. And she is ‘Prisoner No. 650’,”
650’,” Ridley disclosed at a recent press conference
in Pakistan. And I strongly suspect that ‘Prisoner No. 650’ is none other than Dr
Aafia Siddiqui. It is quite possible that her captors decided to end her isolation after
the Pakistani press and activists like Yvonne Ridley began increasingly talking of the
mysterious ‘Prisoner
‘Prisoner No. 650’
650’ and how she was tortured and abused physically,
mentally and sexually for the past four years. The Aafia Siddiqui case may have
come to the world’s attention because of some conscientious activists. What about
all those innocent individuals, who have just vanished down the black hole called
the Guantanamo Bay, without a trial and without anyone looking for them? ¦ The
writer is a Dubai-based commentator.
commentator.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim/Syed Irfan Islamabad, Pakistan 16.08.08
Raza

– S. Arabia steps in to seek safe exit for Musharraf

Political activities surrounding the impeachment of President Pervez Musharraf
became feverish as a special committee of the ruling coalition announced on Friday
it had finalised the draft of a charge-sheet amid reports of intensified efforts for
mediation by foreign governments. Meanwhile, a presidential spokesman in his first
direct and emphatic response declared that the president was ‘innocent’ and in no
mood to resign. “The
“The committee has finished its job and the draft (of the charge-
sheet) has been handed over to Law Minister Farooq Naek to clothe it in appropriate
jargon,”
jargon,” PPP spokesman and member of the committee, Farhatullah Babar, told
Dawn. He said although impeachment was a constitutional process, and not a legal
one, the committee had made it a comprehensive document and it would be sent to
the coalition heads for their nod. He claimed that the chargesheet against the
president contained “solid evidences”. On the other hand, the president’s
spokesman, Maj-Gen (retd) Rashid Qureshi, alleged that the coalition parties were
wrongly implicating an ‘innocent man’. “They
“They have been charging an innocent man
wrongly and about these charges we have only heard through the media,”media,” Mr
Qureshi said, categorically ruling out the possibility that the president would resign
before initiation of the impeachment process. He said the president would reply to
the charges only after receiving the charge-sheet. He alleged: “The
“The media have
been behaving irresponsibly and we think all news about the president’s resignation
are being planted with certain intentions and motives. He is totally innocent.”
innocent.”

The response of Mr Qureshi during an exclusive chat with DawnNews indicates that
the president is in no mood to quit office over the next 24 to 48 hours, as being
reported by a section of the media. Asked to name the president’s supporters, Mr
Qureshi said: “Every
“Every sane individual who has seen him (the president) at work is
supporting this man who has dedicated his life for over eight years to the country
and its people.”
people.” In reply to question about the mood of the president, he said: “He
“He
is as confident as an innocent man would be because he has done nothing wrong.”
wrong.”
Sources in both ruling and opposition parties admitted that hectic diplomatic efforts
were being made by some foreign governments for mediation between the
president and the coalition. A former minister of state for information and PML-Q’s
Senator, Tariq Azeem, told BBC that ‘some friends’ were mediating between the
president and the government. When asked whether the US ambassador and
former UK high commissioner Mark Lyall Grant were also involved in the activities,
he said: “The
“The people who were involved in the reconciliation process be tween PPP
chairperson Benazir Bhutto and President Musharraf are making efforts. And Mark
Grant is involved in it from day one.”
one.”
There were reports in the electronic media that the chief of Saudi intelligence
agency, Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz, had secretly arrived in Pakistan and held talks
with coalition leaders and President Musharraf. He is reportedly seeking a ‘safe exit’
for the president. However, PML-N Senator Ishaq Dar denied that his party had
made any contact with the Saudi government on the issue. Mr Qureshi also refuted
such reports. “I
“I have no knowledge about it. Ask (the) government about such
meetings. It is absolutely wrong that any Saudi intelligence official has met the
president,”
president,” Mr Qureshi said. Foreign Office spokesman Mohammad Sadiq, asked to
comment on the reports, simply said: “I “I have no information.”
information.” Prince Muqrin has
been playing an active role in Pakistan’s politics for the past many years and he had
personally visited the country to take former prime minister Nawaz Sharif with him
when the PML-N chief made an attempt to return home in defiance of an agreement
signed by him with the Saudi government for living in Saudi Arabia. A source told
Dawn that a Saudi aircraft did land at Chaklala Airbase late on Thursday night, but it
was not clear who was on board. He said the plane left the base early on Friday
morning and there was no information whether it had taken its passengers back or
they were still in the country. He also claimed that a special plane carrying officials
from Dubai had landed at Islamabad Airport. He said the plane could not take off
due to some technical reasons and it was still at the airport.

Some members of the drafting committee hinted that the coalition leaders might
decide to cut the charge-sheet ‘short’ because they did not want to prolong the
impeachment process. They feared that if the chargesheet was lengthy, the
president might seek more time to prepare a reply. “I “I think when we have the
numbers in parliament, there is no need to level hundred charges against the
president as one major charge of subverting the Constitution is sufficient to
impeach him,”
him,” said a member of the committee before attending the meeting held
at the residence of Information Minister Sherry Rehman. Mr Babar said it was up to
the coalition leaders to decide if they wanted to drop some charges in the final
impeachment notice. He rejected a perception that the coalition government was
intentionally delaying the process in order to give more time to the president to
resign. “It
“It is not in the interest of the coalition to delay the process.”
process.” The committee
members had earlier claimed that the voluminous charge-sheet against President
Musharraf would comprise hundreds of pages containing serious charges of
misconduct, financial irregularities, constitutional violations and criminal acts that
could lead to an open trial. However, they hinted on Friday that the final
chargesheet might only contain charges relating to constitutional violations and
misconduct. Mr Babar said the coalition heads had 48 hours for consultations on the
draft because they were planning to submit the notice to the National Assembly
secretariat by Tuesday. PML-N information secretary Ahsan Iqbal, who is also a
member of the committee, said that Gen (retd) Musharraf alone was responsible for
the current political, economic, constitutional and judicial crises. He alleged that the
president, who had violated the Constitution several times, was also “involved
“involved in
extra-judicial killings”.
killings”. Mr Iqbal said the president had lost all moral, legal and
constitutional reasons to continue as president after the passage of resolutions
against him in the four provincial assemblies.

Author Location Dated

London, England 16.08.08
 – Musharraf finds unlikely supporter in Fatima Bhutto
General (retd) Pervez Musharraf has found a most unlikely supporter in this hour of
trial in Fatima Bhutto, niece of assassinated former prime minister Benazir Bhutto,
trashing the democratic and moral credentials of Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif
to impeach the president. In an article, ‘Charlatans
‘Charlatans of democracy’
democracy’ published in the
Guardian on Friday, an angry Fatima who is convinced that Asif was instrumental in
the assassination of her father Murtaza Bhutto, has tried to put Asif and Nawaz in
the dock in a case in which they are not the accused. “But“But Nawaz Sharif and Asif
Zardari are unelected. They’re not just unrepresentative in that they don’t hold
seats in the parliament - they have absolutely no mandate in Pakistan. They head
the two largest, and most corrupt, parties in the state but hold no public office.
“The rest of the coterie that wields power behind this administration, the attorney
general and the interior minister for instance, also happen to be unelected. “They
serve, and I use the term ever so lightly, by appointment only. Some 170 million
Pakistanis have lived under military rule of law for nine years. “Musharraf stepping
down from his army post has not changed that. Neither did the recent selections.
Sorry, I meant elections, obviously.”
obviously.” She said that the current administration, a
party coalition comprising two formerly mortal enemies, had enjoyed five months in
office. “And
“And what has this thriving democratic union accomplished? It passed the
National Reconciliation Ordinance, an odious piece of legislation that wipes out 15
years’ worth of corruption cases against politicians, suspiciously covering 11 years
of PPP and PML rule. Bankers and bureaucrats were also given the all-clear.”
all-clear.” Worse
still, the ordinance contains a clause that makes it virtually impossible for future
charges to be filed against sitting parliamentarians. “But
“But they must have done more
than that, surely? Well, all that really changed is that food inflation has accelerated,
oil subsidies have been cut, gas prices have doubled, and those pesky militants in
the Swat district the tribal regions have turned up the fighting.”
fighting.” Several days before
the decision to impeach Musharraf hurtled through the airwaves, a small story came
in from the tribal areas: the militants are close, the story said, they’ve vowed to
target the government, even to the point of attacking state schools. This is a civil
war, the story said. “So
“So what does the government do when its country appears to
be tearing apart at the seams? Go on the attack. Impeach the tyrant.”
tyrant.” After having
trashed the two on so many counts, Fatima announces her verdict: “Zardari“Zardari is not
an option. Sharif is not an option. The army is not our one and only option. The
mullahs have not become an option yet. There are close to 200 million of us: I’m
sure we can think of something better.”
better.” But what? She does not say.

Author Location Dated

Qazi Faez Isa 16.08.08

– Impeachment of the president

Article 47 of the constitution details the method by which a president may be
removed or impeached. The article, however, does not inform us about the
difference between ‘removal’ and ‘impeachment’. The word ‘removal’ is used when
dismissing somebody from office whilst ‘impeachment’ is to charge a public official
with misconduct or with a crime against the state. The process of
removal/impeachment starts after a resolution is submitted in either the National
Assembly or Senate setting out the charges against the president. If the resolution
has the support of half the members of the House in which it originates it is sent to
the president by the speaker. Thereafter a joint session of parliament (National
Assembly and Senate) is convened after seven days. The joint session may
investigate or cause to be investigated the charges or may proceed to directly vote
on the resolution. If it elects to investigate, the president has the right to appear
and to be represented. In either case two-thirds of the total members must declare
“that the president is unfit to hold the office due to (physical or mental) incapacity
or is guilty of violating the constitution or of gross misconduct”.
misconduct”. Upon passing such
a resolution “the
“the president shall cease to hold office immediately”.
immediately”. The charges are
not required to be adjudicated as in a criminal or civil case. The people announce
their verdict through their chosen representatives in parliament. Nor is the verdict
subject to any appeal or challenge before any court of law. No court, including the
Supreme Court, has any jurisdiction in the matter nor can it set aside or suspend
the resolution. The constitution clearly stipulates: “No
“No court shall have any
jurisdiction save as is or may be conferred on it by the constitution or by under any
law”
law” (Article 175(3)) and none has been so conferred. If then a court were to come
to the aid of the president it would be in violation of the constitution.

Musharraf’s term of office as president had expired. During such term he was also
the army chief. This was a constitutional aberration but it was condoned by the
Seventeenth Amendment to the constitution. Musharraf chose to run for the office
of president again. If he had kept his promise and doffed his army uniform in
December 2004, he would not have been “in “in the service of Pakistan”
Pakistan” and the
requirement that “a“a period of two years has elapsed since he ceased to be in such
service”
service” may not have come in his way in 2007. The Seventeenth Amendment
provided only a one-time exemption from this constitutional requirement. A petition
was filed assailing Musharraf’s eligibility. The Supreme Court was hearing the
matter when Musharraf detained the Supreme Court judges and in their stead
appointed such men who first took an oath to uphold all his actions. Musharraf’s
actions of Nov 3, 2007 violated the constitution and could only be sustained if
validated by parliament, by amending the constitution with the required two-third
majority (Article 238). Since this did not happen Musharraf is not the constitutional
president of Pakistan and his abrogation and sub version of the constitution on Nov
3 constitutes “high
“high treason”
treason” (Article 6). Musharraf escaped being tried with regard
to his Oct 12, 1999 coup for high treason because of the subsequent validation of
his actions by parliament by the Seventeenth Amendment. The High Treason
(Punishment) Act, 1973,
1973, stipulates that a person guilty of high treason “shall
“shall be
punishable with death or imprisonment for life”.life”. Section 3 of this Act, however,
enables only the federal government to lodge a complaint with a court. The ruling
coalition has, however, elected to pursue the matter peacefully through parliament.
If Musharraf is president of Pakistan, which is clearly not the constitutional position,
then one needs to examine what charges can be brought against him under Article
47.

Firstly, there is the “mental

“mental incapacity”
incapacity” provision. It may be contended that his
actions, such as those taken on Nov 3, confirm mental imbalance and a
disproportionate importance of self. Then there is the ground of “gross
“gross misconduct”.
misconduct”.
Electronic bugging of the residences and bedrooms of Supreme Court judges could
be categorised as gross misconduct. During the hearing of the case against the
chief justice one of the documents submitted in court by Musharraf’s counsel
showed that this was done. The case for the impeachment of President Nixon was
built on the fact that he had listening devices placed in the headquarters of the
Democratic Party. “Women
“Women get raped to go abroad”
abroad” Musharraf is seen stating in a
recording. Such an utterance would constitute gross misconduct in any society.
However, in Pakistan impugning the character of a woman is also a crime (qazf). To
incite or threaten violence also constitutes gross misconduct. Musharraf publicly
stated on May 12, 2007 that whosoever goes against the wishes of the people will
be crushed. Promoting enmity constitutes an offence under Section 153A of the
Penal Code and is punishable with five years’ imprisonment. Musharraf’s propensity
for encouraging and condoning violence against the media has been witnessed on
several occasions. If the president cannot meet the high standard of his office he at
least must not practise thuggery. The detention and confinement by Musharraf of
the Supreme Court and high court judges, their spouses and children on Nov 3
onwards is “violating
“violating the Constitution”.
Constitution”. This not only constituted serious criminal
offences under the Penal Code but also violated the guarantees extended to every
person by the constitution. The constitution was therefore not only violated but
butchered on Nov 3. Independent media was also snuffed out on Nov 3 which
violated the freedom of speech, expression and press guaranteed under Article 19.
Musharraf also repeatedly violated his oath of office. He had sworn to “preserve,
“preserve,
protect and defend the Constitution”.
Constitution ”. He failed to uphold his promise to “do
“do right to
all manner of people…without … favour”
favour” by not only openly favouring PML-Q in the
elections but telling people to vote for his party. Whilst one can understand the
desire of the government and their supporters to lay out extensive and detailed
charges it would suffice to mention just the aforesaid ones, all of which are self-
evident and undeniable. Any single one of these would be sufficient to remove or
impeach a president.

Author Location Dated

F.S. Aijazuddin www.fsaijazuddin.pk 16.08.08

– Prolonged indecision
Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru (the first prime minister of India) practised yoga by
standing on his head. Perhaps that was the only way he could make sense of our
subcontinental politics. Had he been alive today, blood would have rushed
uncontrollably down to his head as he witnessed his beloved Congress party
cohabiting in an unlikely Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) coalition,
first with the Communist Party of India to come into power, and then with the
Samajwadi Party to remain in power. After watching angry members of the
opposition Bharatiya Janata Party throw bundles of soiled notes on the floor of the
Lok Sabha as evidence of corruption by the UPA to win over their supporters, Nehru
might have found it as difficult, as his Congress will do in the future, to walk upright
again. For the first time since the mid-1970s, there is a direct parallel between the
political scenarios prevailing in his India and in our Pakistan. Then, two
democratically elected and (give or take a few slaps) popular leaders ruled — Mrs
Indira Gandhi in New Delhi and Mr Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in Islamabad. Both had a
sufficient majority not to be held hostage to the caprices of coalition politics. Today,
both in the Lok Sabha and in our National Assembly, coalitions of unlikely partners
prevail. Compared to us, a three-legged India would seem to be home and dry, at
least until the next general elections which have to be held before May 2009. We in
Pakistan, however, are rapidly sinking into a political quicksand of our own making.
The most recent cavity was the announcement on Aug 5 by the Pakistan People’s
Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N that, casting aside their differences on a
common approach to the economy, inflation, power and food shortages, our
shrinking foreign exchange reserves, flight of capital, population indiscipline and the
timing for the restoration of the judiciary, they stand united in a joint determination
to remove President Pervez Musharraf. Parliamentarians and lawyers from both
sides of the fray are searching in our constitution for those satanic verses, those
darker provisions that, if invoked, could remove an already disrobed and disarmed
president. Newspapers and TV channels have become cemeteries of short-lived
analyses on which is the best way of removing Musharraf. Should he be impeached,
and if so, on what constitutionally unassailable grounds? Should those grounds be
confined to alleged misdemeanors during his current term of office (i.e. since
November last), or can the chargesheet against him, like the Chinese scroll used as
a theme at the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics, be uncurled to reveal
misdemeanors stretching over the whole span of his period of self-authorised
governance? Had Musharraf ever been inclined to go, October 1999 would have
been the month, for that was when he had been dismissed as the chief of army staff
by the prime minister, Nawaz Sharif. Once Musharraf had survived that attempt to
dislodge him, the date of his final departure has always remained in his own hands.
It would appear that he is as determined today as he was in 1999 to fight back, to
contest an impeachment under the shield of the 1973 Constitution. His opponents
hope, however, that, frightened by the spectre of impeachment, he would ‘chicken
out’ and resign. That would have saved them the bother of having to amass
sufficient votes in the provincial assemblies for resolutions requesting the National
Assembly and the Senate to institute formal impeachment proceedings against him.
The race to oust him has begun, and with it the bidding. Who will vote against him,
and at what price? Who will vote for him, and what cost?

Meanwhile, the parliamentary proceedings have been moving at a pace that

parallels the tempo of the movement for the restoration of the judiciary. The more
ardent proponents of both causes are irked at the slowness in achieving either. It is
almost as if the hare and the tortoise seem now to be running at the same speed.
Centuries ago, citizens of Rome stood on a day in March 44 BC outside the Senate
and watched their elected senators assemble for a session that ended with the
assassination of Julius Caesar. Their modern equivalents — the citizens of Pakistan
— are being made to witness the slow execution of a former chief of army staff-
cum-president by a firing squad consisting of elected parliamentarians, using ballots
instead of bullets. At this juncture, it surely no longer matters whether one is for
Musharraf or against him, for any political party opposing him or against it. What
matters to every citizen of Pakistan today is the state of Pakistan and the office that
symbolises the unity of our republic — i.e. the presidency. We have allowed it to be
debased and reviled. It is time, all the more so after the recent Independence Day
celebrations on Aug 14, to heed Quaid-i-Azam’s tearless laments from the silence of
his grave. President Musharraf must be receiving a barrage of advice from those
close to him, and those who now wish they were never close to him. While he is a
man who prides himself on making his own mistakes, he might like to take
consolation from the words of another similarly besieged army general many years
ago. US General Douglas MacArthur was relieved by President Harry S. Truman in
1951 for insubordination. MacArthur had written almost as if addressing his fellow
Pakistani general: “The
“The world is in a constant conspiracy against the brave. It’s the
age-old struggle — the roar of the crowd on the one side — and the voice of your
conscience on the other.”
other.” And for Musharraf’s opponents who have declared war on
him, a separate phrase of advice: “War’s
“War’s very object is victory, not prolonged
indecision.”
indecision.” Can any country, especially one that is at war within itself, afford the
price of such prolonged indecision? ¦

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 16.08.08

– Politics as reality TV
Being a Pakistani and therefore paranoid, I am convinced that our endless political
convolutions are being secretly scripted by some media mogul. This master
manipulator is pulling the strings to increase TV ratings and advertising, while the
cast of politicians and generals, and the supporting cast of lawyers and activists, go
through the motions as the cameras roll, and the pundits keep us glued to our
screens. Meanwhile, the rest of the country acts as unimportant extras called upon
to demonstrate, go to jail, and occasionally vote. If we think of current Pakistani
politics as reality TV, things make more sense. Would any neutral observer really
believe that a nation of 165 million would deliberately chart such a suicidal course?
For the last 18 months, we have been on a rollercoaster ride, unable to get off. As
we flip through a series of hair-raising bends and dips, the only ones who seem to
benefit from our discomfort are the multiplying TV channels whose anchors
positively beam with glee, rubbing their hands at the prospect of yet another
political drama. The latest episode in our ongoing political saga is the impending
impeachment of Pervez Musharraf. Why is this happening? Why has the president
put himself and the rest of the country into this position? Does he not see this is one
battle he cannot win, not that he has won any in the past? Even if by some miracle,
he does survive the legal and parliamentary struggle ahead, he will be so mortally
wounded that he will be a spent force for the rest of his political life. So what’s the
point of subjecting himself and the rest of us to this debilitating diversion?

If, as he keeps repeating endlessly, he has only the good of the country in mind,
why does he not see that the biggest favour he could do for Pakistan is to quit,
resign, go? Please, Mr President, what part of ‘go’ don’t you understand? After he
triggered a judicial and political crisis by his hamhanded handling of the chief
justice in March last year, I asked an old friend who is a close advisor to Musharraf
why he didn’t advise his boss to retire gracefully before he was kicked out. “Don’t
“Don’t
you think I have?”
have?” was his reply. Over the course of the year, I repeated the
question several times, and got basically the same reply. A problem with dictators is
that they surround themselves with sycophants who benefit greatly through their
proximity to the supreme leader. As it is to their advantage to have the dictator
continue in the office he has usurped, they shield him from the true picture, and
keep reinforcing his delusions of being a saviour, and therefore indispensable. As
the years go by, and the chorus of praise from the inner circle becomes louder, the
dictator convinces himself not only that he is doing a great job, but that the country
would go to the dogs without him. And even when one person in the inner circle
gives him sane advice, it is drowned out by the others in the group.
Understandably, when major foreign leaders begin singing the same song, it goes to
the dictator’s head. To be fair to him, Musharraf would have had to be blessed with
superhuman objectivity and strength of character not to have succumbed to this
unending praise from his cheerleaders. Since the elections, Musharraf’s presence
has been a distraction from the main task of establishing a functioning government.
A relic from the past, he sought to preside over a government composed of
elements he has publicly and repeatedly badmouthed ever since he seized power
nine years ago. To now pretend that he has become neutral after his supporters had
been wiped out in the recent elections was a shabby fiction that fooled nobody.

After his grotesque re-election in the face of public opinion and parliamentary
norms last year, he has pretended that he was the bulwark against the country’s
enemies. Somehow, he convinced the Americans that the coalition was too unstable
to combat the Taliban, and that he was still needed as an ally in the ‘war
‘war against
terror’.
terror’. But his secret (and only) hope was that the two major coalition partners
would fall out over the issue of the restoration of the judiciary, and the PPP would
have to enter into a coalition with the PML-Q. In his daydreams, the re-entry of his
band of faithful toadies into the corridors of power would ensure his continued
residence at the presidency. Dream on. Whatever their personal likes and dislikes,
both Asif Zardari and Nawaz Sharif realise that if their coalition breaks up, the major
winners would be the likes of the Chaudhries of Gujrat, Altaf Hussain of London, and
Musharraf of Kargil. Thus, they have decided to test the uncharted waters of
impeachment. While the way forward seems clear, the master scriptwriter has some
twists left for the endgame. For instance, while there are provisions regarding
impeachment in the constitution, it is unclear what the precise mechanism is. If
formally impeached, does the president have the right to appeal to the Supreme
Court? Will he be given a fair hearing in parliament? What are the rules of evidence?
Can he be impeached on the grounds of economic mismanagement? But there are
many people involved in the framing and implementation of economic policy. And
so on. If Musharraf does not, even now, take the graceful way out, he will open a
Pandora’s Box. But perhaps this is his intention. By dragging out the whole process,
he might bring the whole country to a grinding halt, not that it is leaping forward
anyway. As judges are dragged out of their retirement to solemnly hold forth on TV,
and anchors hand us their uninformed and second-hand opinions, we will sit slack-
jawed before our screens as we get a blow-by-blow account of the proceedings. But
clearly, this is something that has to be done and put behind us. Exorcism often
involves painful rituals, but the body becomes whole again when the evil spirit
occupying it has departed.

Author Locatio Dated

n
Karamat 16.08.08
ullah K.
Ghori

– Is Obama a catalyst
for change?
The votaries of John McCain, the
presumptive presidential
candidate of the Republican
Party, are already crying foul.
They, in sheer desperation at
the media’s drying out of their
candidate, are bitterly complaining and remonstrating that the US is being
swamped by the Obamamania. Mania or not, there is hardly any denying the fact
that no politician, of either party or persuasion since John F. Kennedy, has excited
popular imagination and ignited passion that goes far beyond the sedate and often
prosaic parameters of politics in the US as much as the iconic Barack Obama in our
times. McCain’s increasingly frustrated supporters in the Republican camp are quite
entitled to stew in their own juice, because they have this sinking feeling that their
candidate, as lackluster as George W. Bush, is up against a rival whose charisma
and gravitas is spawning a formidable challenge for their man — one that he may
ultimately find too much to surmount or even handle. For any hands-on observer of
America’s current political landscape, it’s not a brain teaser to decipher the ‘secret’
of Obama’s massive popularity with the American people. Nay, it is not the
Americans alone going gaga over the Obama phenomenon. The Europeans, too, as
categorically demonstrated in the past few weeks, seem completely bowled over by
the Obama syndrome. The presumptive Democratic candidate’s popular reception
in many a European capital in July clearly established his mass appeal on both sides
of the Atlantic, a feat not achieved by any American politician since the glory days
of JFK. Standing at the very same spot — in the shadow of Berlin’s historic
Brandenburg Gate — where JFK, in 1961, had declared himself as one of the
Berliners, Obama won the hearts of 200,000 of this generation of Germans by
declaring himself to be a “fellow
“fellow citizen of the world.”
world.”

But parallels between JFK and Obama could, in a sense, be quite misleading. The
charismatic Kennedy was the scion of America’s eastern ‘royalty.’ He had a number
of advantages going for him by the time he was ready to step into the political
arena at its most formidable and daunting level of competence. He was a veteran
congressman and senator, and a decorated hero of the war. Obama, by stark
contrast, has none of these advantages. Quite the opposite of it, he has multiple
handicaps that could have easily doomed the chances of success of a lesser person
than him. He’s from the visibly disadvantaged minority of Americans; has no glory
associated with his family name or career; and, above all the pulling-down effect of
belonging to an unwelcome racial stock, has the damning stigma of belonging to a
religious minority that has been haunted, if not exactly persecuted, in America since
the apocalyptic 9/11. Obama’s detractors, hailing from traditionally influential
vested interest, still take pot-shots at his Muslim roots and beat their chests against
his ‘hidden Islamic agenda’ that he, himself, denies vehemently. The reason why he
has thus far successfully parried all the sniping against him and overcome his
plethora of handicaps, could be explained away by just one buzz word: or dinary
Americans’ urge for ‘change.’ To Barack Obama goes the credit that he sensed at
the right time the American people’s ennui with all that George W. Bush personified
in a wretched policy and petrifying presidency. He took the swelling tide of ordinary
American’s extreme unhappiness with Bush’s inane leadership at its crest —
honouring what William Shakespeare had intoned in reference to time and tide —
and turned it to his advantage.

Ever since he minted the slogan of ‘change’ he hasn’t felt the need to look back.
Obama’s track-record in the Senate, especially in the context of the Congressional
carte blanche to Bush on Iraq War, indeed lent a fillip to his cause. Unlike John
McCain who voted for Bush’s aggression and boasted of staying on in Iraq for a
hundred years, Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. He doesn’t have
any skeletons in his cupboard on the Iraqi imbroglio, where McCain has not only a
blemished past but has still been hedging his bets on the sensitive question of
withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. Obama launched his bid for the presidency
on a categorical and vocal platform of principled opposition to the war against Iraq.
He has, likewise, been articulating popular American sentiment on the other burning
issue of the day, the energy crisis and its damning effect on the American
consumer. By the same token, the senator has been relentless in his critique of the
grubby oil lobby, which has, among others, John McCain as one of the major
beneficiaries of its largesse in campaign contributions and thus a votary. But the
question that should be asked at this watershed when the US presidential race is
entering its home stretch is if this ‘change’ is mere posturing or real? Is it really a
catalyst for change across the broad spectrum of American policies or simply
cosmetics to appeal to a frustrated electorate. This second question is, and should
be, the yardstick to measure Obama’s mantra of change, for the fact remains that
this election is not something whose effect and impact is confined to America. The
global status of the US makes its presidency a universal phenomenon and thus
entitles the world to raise questions about the merits, or otherwise, of its campaign
rhetoric and trajectory. There’s a lot of merit in the saying that this country has
become a neighbour to every country on the planet. Obama’s reception across Asia
and Europe only resonated the validity of this claim. Given the litmus test of the
fallout of US policies on the world, Obama’s battle-cry for being a real harbinger of
change doesn’t seem to cut the muster, even after conceding to him the benefit of
the doubt that a campaign’s initial rhetoric gets diluted as it gets down to the nitty-
gritty of a real confrontation on a level playing field. The main locus of his amazing
campaign has been his relentless opposition to war in Iraq, which doesn’t mean
opposition to war as an instrument of US global policies. Obama, initially, stood
apart from others in the pack by insisting that he was going to “end
“end the mindset
that got us into war in the first place.”
place.” That was a laudable sentiment. But since the
early glow of victory, Obama has been less than forthright on attacking the source
of war-mongering. In fact, his grouse against Bush is that he hasn’t kept as sharp a
focus on it as he should have, and blames him for not devoting enough resources
and manpower to it.

His mindset on the war on terror may only be better tuned than Bush’s but is
certainly not of a peacenik. On Pakistan, integral to the war on terror, his initial
rhetoric was dangerously that of a war-monger, which he has since tampered.
However, he hasn’t ruled out going in alone in the tribal area if Pakistan was seen
not doing enough. On Iran, too, he hasn’t taken war as an option off the table. He’s
thus playing to the traditionally powerful Jewish and Zionist lobby that has been
itching to have a go at Iran on any pretext. That’s hardly a road map to change.
Ditto his prevarications on the explosive Palestinian issue, where he tried to excel
over Bush by loudly echoing the Zionist shibboleth of Jerusalem being Israel’s
‘eternal capital.’ He has, since, made amends to it by visiting the Occupied Land
and meeting the Palestinians. But his no-truck with Hamas makes his equivocation
on the Palestinian rights as tilted and blinkered as that of Bush. Obama has also
studiously avoided any public appearances at Muslim gatherings in U.S., to the utter
chagrin of the Muslim voters and the delight of the powerful Jewish groups. It was
his bold and forthright stand against the war on Iraq that endeared him to the
hearts of millions of Americans and the anti-war liberals throughout the world. But
he has since been trying to get closer to the advocates of American military
domination of the world. While Obama has made it his public stance to declare that
under his presidency US military withdrawal from Iraq would be accomplished by
2010, it isn’t the total US military absence from Iraq that he’s talking about. He has
modulated that stand with a proviso to cheer up the hearts of the militarists: he
would retain a residual force in Iraq “to
“to protect our bases.”
bases.” In simple words, Obama
is now trying to please both the peace advocates as well as the war-mongers. His
prescription of ‘change’ insists, in fact, that troops pulled out of Iraq would be
redeployed in Afghanistan to fight the war against terror. So the world is being
made to witness a supposed harbinger of ‘change’ making an extra effort to
ingratiate himself with the panderers to a nihilistic status quo. ¦ The writer is a
former ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 16.08.08

– US may be distancing itself from Musharraf

The White House has said that President George W. Bush believes only Pakistanis
should decide who they want to lead their country, sending a clear signal that he
will not rescue President Pervez Musharraf from an impeachment move. Further
elaborating its position on the dispute between President Musharraf and the PPP-led
government, the White House ruled out the possibility of yet another military
takeover in Pakistan. Press Secretary Dana Perino made both the points at a regular
briefing during which she also expressed America’s desire to “continue
“continue to work with
the new government”
government” in Islamabad. Ms Perino said that President Bush was
“regularly briefed” on the situation in Pakistan and “he
“he is going to let Pakistanis
make the decisions on who will be in the leadership of their country”.
country”. The White
House spokesperson also made it clear that a coup was no longer a serious option.
“I haven’t heard of a military coup in the cards,”
cards,” said Ms Perino when asked if the
United States would accept yet another military coup in Pakistan. “I “I think if they are
moving forward on impeachment proceedings, it seems to be within their
constitution and that they’re following their own laws,”
laws,” she said, effectively ending
speculations that America will accept a peaceful military takeover in Pakistan. Ms
Perino’s comments follow reports in the US media that President Musharraf has
agreed to step down and is waiting for a US-led effort to arrange an honourable exit
from power and a safe stay in Pakistan before announcing his decision. On Friday,
however, the media added a new angle to such reports saying that the Americans
were also negotiating another deal which would reduce Mr Musharraf’s role to that
of a figurehead while allowing him to continue as president. Interestingly, reports
about the impeachment move have not only occupied front pages of mainstream
newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, but
have also figured prominently in local radio and television talk shows.

Quoting sources in the White House, some of these reports claim that the Bush
administration has accepted the fact that it’s no longer possible to save President
Musharraf and is quietly urging him to step down voluntarily rather than prolong the
crisis and face impeachment. According to these reports, the US was keen to see an
orderly transition of power, presenting Washington with the opportunity to build
close ties with Mr Musharraf’s successor. The Bush administration’s interest in
maintaining close relations with Pakistan is built around the desire to carry forward
cooperation in the war against extremism, the reports said. Meanwhile, senior US
officials are telling reporters that there had been no high-level contact with Mr
Musharraf for some time. They said that President Bush’s top national security
advisers had counselled him “not to take the call” if Mr Musharraf telephoned but
that Mr Bush had not yet communicated a decision on the matter. The Washington
Post reported that the White House was split on how strongly to back Mr Musharraf,
especially since the call for his impeachment. Even Vice-President Dick Cheney, one
of Mr Musharraf’s principal backers in Washington, is now advising the
administration to distance itself from him. The White House, however, is reluctant to
take a public stance on the dispute. “We“We continue to monitor the situation,”
situation,” said Ms
Perino. “We’ve
“We’ve always said that the issue of who would be in the leadership of
Pakistan is going to be up to the Pakistanis.”
Pakistanis.” She said the White House also had
seen reports of President Musharraf’s voluntarily exit from the scene but noted that
such reports “go back and forth”. Asked if the White House could confirm some of
the reports about President Musharraf’s resignation, she said: “I’ll
“I’ll see if there’s
anything I can do, but right now I think it’s just pretty much a rumour mill that goes
back and forth.”
forth.”

Author Location Dated

Reuters Kathmandu, Nepal 16.08.08

– Maoist chief elected Nepal’s new premier

Lawmakers elected a Maoist who led a decade-long insurgency against the Hindu
monarchy as Nepal’s new prime minister on Friday, marking the Himalayan nation’s
radical change into a democratic republic. Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the chief of once-
feared Maoist guerrillas who still uses his nom de guerre Prachanda, won 464 votes
out of 577 ballots cast in a special Constituent Assembly vote after weeks of
political battles. Lawmakers hugged a beaming Prachanda, who said: “I “I am very
excited at this moment.”
moment.” Outside the assembly, hundreds of Maoist supporters
danced, many waving hammer-and-sickle flags. “Long “Long live the Maoists, long live
Prachanda,”
Prachanda,” they shouted as their bespectacled leader, wearing a black suit and
blue shirt, emerged from the assembly. They put garlands around his neck and
daubed his forehead with vermilion as he smiled and waved to the crowd. The
election opens the way for the formation of a new government, capping a peace
process that ended a civil war in which more than 13,000 people died since 1996.
Prachanda defeated Sher Bahadur Deuba, a three-time former prime minister from
a centrist party. His colleague, Baburam Bhattarai, seen as number two in the
Maoist hierarchy, said Maoist politicians including Prachanda will no longer hold any
posts in the Maoist rebel army and will return property seized by them during the
war. “Today
“Today is a day of pride and it will be written with golden letters in the history
of the nation,”
nation,” Bhattarai said. The Maoists scored a surprise win in a special
assembly election in April but did not get a parliamentary majority, prompting a
battle for power that left Nepal struggling to form a new government four months
after the polls. The assembly abolished the 239-year-old monarchy and declared the
mountainous nation a republic in May.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim/Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 17.08.08

– Musharraf ignores advice to bow out

The heads of the ruling coalition are expected to meet early next week to give a go-
ahead to their plan to impeach President Pervez Musharraf amid indications that
efforts to persuade the president to resign have slackened due to his insistence to
do so only after going through the charge-sheet against him. Sources in the ruling
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) told Dawn that party co-chairman Asif Zardari would
meet PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif and heads of other coalition partners over the next
three days to finalise the charge-sheet and to give final touches to the
impeachment plan. Top legal aides to President Musharraf said on Saturday that he
had so far ignored all advices of his friends and legal aides to resign. “During
“During the
meeting with me the president spoke his mind that he is not considering (the
option) to resign,”
resign,” said one of the legal aides advising him on a regular basis. He
said the president had been told in clear terms that he had no option but to resign
or face impeachment charges. In addition to some political bigwigs, Mr Musharraf
has been conferring with constitutional experts like Syed Sharifuddin Pirzada, Abdul
Hafeez Pirzada and Attorney General Malik Mohammad Qayyum to explore legal
possibilities like invoking Article 58-2(b) to dismiss the National Assembly or
approach the Supreme Court to challenge the charge-sheet. “The “The president has
been told that being constitutional bodies both the Supreme Court as well as the
parliament cannot interfere in each other’s affairs and the apex court cannot
impede the latter from impeaching him,”him,” the lawyer who met the president on
Friday evening told Dawn. A number of PPP leaders on Saturday urged the president
to “see
“see the writing on the wall”
wall” and quit the office immediately after passage of the
resolutions against him in all the four provincial assemblies.

Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, while talking to reporters, asked President
Musharraf to resign within two days, before submission of a final impeachment
notice. Information Minister Sherry Rehman said that the government would follow
the constitution and law of the land during the impeachment process and the
president would be given a right to defend himself. The Leader of the House in the
Senate, Raza Rabbani, said the ruling coalition did not want to bulldoze the process
and the president would be given an ample time to respond to the charge-sheet
against him. He, however, declined to say explicitly as to how many days the
president would be given for a reply. Sources in the PPP told Dawn that the party
wanted that the president should leave the country after submitting his resignation
or impeachment as his presence in the country could create problems for the
government. They said there could be any unforeseen development in case the
president was allowed to stay in the country. A key PPP leader, who has a key role
in the impeachment process, went on to say that perhaps the government would
have to keep him (President Musharraf) under protective custody or house arrest to
provide him foolproof security if he decided to stay in the country. He claimed that
the coalition parties had readied a plan to meet any possible action from president.
“We have already finalised the place where the members of parliament would hold
the session if the president took an extreme step of using his powers to dissolve the
assembly under Article 582(b).”
582(b).”

Meanwhile, PPP co-chairperson Asif Ali Zardari has started consultations on the
chargesheet against President Musharraf with the coalition partners. JUI leader
Maulana Fazlur Rehman met Mr Zardari on Saturday and discussed the charge-
sheet. AFP adds: Saudi Arabia’s intelligence chief dashed to Pakistan on Friday for
talks with the government over its plans to impeach President Pervez Musharraf, a
senior official in Islamabad said. “Yes,
“Yes, Saudi intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin
Abdul Aziz did visit Pakistan and met senior government officials,”
officials,” a senior coalition
official said on Saturday. “The
“The main purpose of the visit was to find an amicable
solution to the (impeachment) issue and that no one should become a laughing
stock,”
stock,” the official said. Asked what solution the coalition regarded as acceptable,
the official said that “Musharraf
“Musharraf should step down”,
down”, but that it was “really
“really up to
Musharraf”
Musharraf” if his plans included exile to Saudi Arabia.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 17.08.08

– US maintains neutrality despite pressure to ditch Musharraf

The White House has once again refused to take a public stance on President
Pervez Musharraf’s impeachment, resisting pressure from US lawmakers to take a
clear stance on this issue. “These
“These are all matters for the Pakistani political system
and for the Pakistanis to deal with,”
with,” said White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe.
“We certainly hope that any actions that they take are consistent with the rule of
law and constitutional principles, but I want to be clear these are matters for the
Pakistanis to determine.”
determine.” As the White House maintained its apparent neutrality,
Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Joseph R. Biden warned the
Bush administration not to protect Mr Musharraf. “I“I urge the Bush Administration to
refrain from any actions which might appear to thwart the will of the Pakistani
people,”
people,” said Senator Biden. His comments follow reports in the US media that
President George W. Bush still has a soft corner for the besieged Pakistani leader,
although rest of his administration believes that Mr Musharraf can no longer be
saved. According to these reports, Mr Bush’s close advisers had advised him not to
accept the call if President Musharraf telephones him because it would send a
wrong signal to Pakistan. Mr Bush’s reluctance is also preventing his administration
from taking a clear stance on the impeachment issue. At recent briefings, Mr
Johndroe, a national security spokesman, and White House Press Secretary Dana
Perino both avoided making comments that could be interpreted as favouring or
opposing the Pakistani president. “I
“I don’t have anything for you on that,”
that,” said Mr
Johndroe when asked if the White House believed Mr Musharraf was about to quit.

Mr Biden, a presumptive running mate for Barack Obama in this year’s presidential
election, however, welcomed efforts within Pakistan to end the political deadlock
that has paralysed the country since the ruling coalition announced its decision to
impeach President Musharraf. “I “I am heartened by the reconciliation of the leading
political parties in Pakistan and their decision to break the deadlock, which has
virtually immobilised the Pakistani government in recent months,”
months,” he said. “The
“The
political future of President Musharraf is a matter to be decided by the Pakistani
people, through normal constitutional channels,”
channels,” said Senator Biden while urging
the Bush administration not to interfere. “I“I urge the parties, the Pakistani military
and President Musharraf to resolve this crisis within the bounds of Pakistani law,”
law,” he
said, hinting that the US Congress would not accept any unconstitutional move. Mr
Biden is a strong supporter of democracy in Pakistan and had also proposed $1
billion special assistance to help establish democracy in the country. If Mr Biden is
elected vice-president in November, Mr Musharraf will not have any supporter in the
new US administration. Mr Obama, the Democratic presidential candidate, also has
made it clear that he would back democratic forces in Pakistan. Meanwhile, another
US lawmaker, Congressman Steve J. Israel, backed the call for President Musharraf
to step down. “The
“The people of Pakistan have spoken clearly and decisively for a
transition from a decade of dictatorship to democracy in the February 18th
election,”
election,” he said. “It
“It is time for Gen (retd) Musharraf to accept the mandate of the
people for democratic change, and step down for the sake of his nation.”
nation.” The
congressman also demanded immediate restoration of all judges deposed by
President Musharraf. “The
“The immediate step after Mr Musharraf’s departure should be
the restoration of the old independent judiciary,”
judiciary,” he said. “Without
“Without getting the
judges back on the Supreme Court and high court benches, Pakistan cannot move
forward and make the progress it needs.”
needs.”

Author Location Dated

Tariq Rehman 17.08.08

– If we had acted differently

We know how Pakistan’s foreign policy developed and what a mess we are in today.
Parts of our country are ungovernable and we have more foes in the neighbourhood
than friends. Let us imagine what would have happened if our decision-makers had
taken a different decision, all other things being equal. I will narrate events in such
a way as if these hypothetical decisions — ones which were never taken — are facts
of history. This is the reality of hypothetics. Some people think it futile to enter into
it at all. Please read and decide. As soon as the Pakistani flag went up in 1947, the
decision-makers of the country spelled out the principles of the new country’s
foreign policy. First, Pakistan would not initiate a war of aggression or use force
unless enemy troops actually attacked its international borders. Secondly, the new
country would be completely neutral and non-aligned and not a party to any
international strife or quarrel. Thirdly, Pakistan would not help or abet any kind of
insurgency or resistance in any other country by military, economic or covert
means. However, it would always side with the oppressed diplomatically and by
vote in the United Nations. Soon after this announcement the new country was
sorely tested as conditions in Kashmir started deteriorating. The princely states
were the first to test the new government. The Nawab of Junagadh wanted to opt
for Pakistan but Pakistan said that, as most of the population of the state was
Hindu, it was only fair for the ruler to opt for India. Later, when Maharaja Hari Singh
of Kashmir finally acceded to India, the Pakistani decision-makers again reiterated
the same principle. They were prepared to accept a partition of Kashmir along
religious lines with the Muslim-majority areas acceding to Pakistan. They even went
so far as to suggest that, since the well being of the people of that state came first,
they would accept it as an independent state.

However, they refused to allow tribesmen from Pakistan or irregulars to enter

Kashmir and also condemned the Indian army for its entry into the former state.
However, despite their principled stand that the will of the people be ascertained
and followed in Kashmir and elsewhere, the rulers of Pakistan never followed an
aggressive policy in Kashmir. In 1965, some people thought that this was the time
for wresting Kashmir away from India by sending trained fighters across the Line of
Control to stir up a rebellion against Indian rule there. It seemed easy and some
people still clamoured for winning Kashmir despite textbooks and media
programmes promoting peace. Thus, a section of the army high command and
civilian decision-makers wanted covert action in Kashmir. However, the decision-
makers had been made so used to policies of peace that better sense prevailed and
this adventure was never undertaken. Instead, the grounds for possible friction in
the Rann of Kutch were resolved. The 1970 elections brought Sheikh Mujib to power
in East Pakistan. The two wings of the country were so polarised that the ruling elite
of Pakistan held a referendum to decide whether Pakistan could exist as one
country or not. The decision in East Pakistan was for separation. This time again
some people suggested that the military should be used in East Pakistan beginning
with military action in Dhaka University. However, good sense prevailed again and a
British-style partition was arranged. Trade, cultural and educational bonds
flourished as they did between the British and Pakistan. Although Pakistan had
never been part of the western alliance or of any pact of the United States, in 1980
the US wanted to use Pakistan to help fight their proxy war against the Soviet Union
in Afghanistan. Enormous amounts of money were offered and Pakistan was told
that the Soviets would invade in order to get to the Arabian Sea. The decision-
makers of Pakistan politely refused the money and said they would repel any armed
aggression if and when the Soviet forces actually entered the country.

The Soviet Union, however, was no enemy of Pakistan. After all, the Pakistanis had
never opposed the Soviet Union except when it had attacked a country but then
they had also been critical of America when it had gone to war against Third World
countries especially Vietnam. This policy of neutrality and justice had won Pakistan
many admirers and no bitter enemies. The US could not use Pakistan against the
Soviet Union though it did fight its proxy war through some Arab states. Pakistan
emerged from this war without a drug problem, without Arab militants on its
borders and the few refugees who did come to Pakistan were given peaceful
occupations and repatriated as soon as circumstances allowed. There was no
interference from Pakistan in Afghanistan. In 1999, some military adventurers
wanted to occupy the heights in the Kargil sector but the decision-makers, who had
just ended the Siachen adventure started by India, prevented this rash venture.
True to its reputation, Pakistan remained committed to peace. The trend to suggest
rash actions in the military high command was condemned by the civilian decision-
makers and the people were taken into confidence. The common people, once they
were convinced that peace had brought them prosperity, supported the decision for
peace. After this the military was wary about such adventurism. After 9/11 the
Americans again approached Pakistan to help them fight Afghanistan. The
Pakistanis refused while sealing their borders as much as was possible under the
circumstances. They had never allowed their land to be used for covert attacks
against any country and now the same policy was followed with great vigour.
Despite pressure the Pakistanis did not allow any foreign fighters to seek sanctuary
in Pakistan. At the same time they scrupulously refused to hand over any of their
citizens to America. The Americans threatened Pakistan but such was the reputation
of the country that they did not attack this haven of peace in the midst of turmoil.
The result of such policies was that on Aug 14, 2008 Pakistan was called the
Switzerland of the East. Its defence was in the hands of not only a small though
highly efficient army but also the scientists and scholars it had produced. Like
Switzerland, its citizens were trained for defensive warfare but the country firmly
rejected aggression. The above piece can be called hypothetics, that branch of
historical fiction which begins by supposing that if such and such decision had been
taken then what might have happened.
Author Location Dated
Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 17.08.08

– Sixty-one years down the line

The 61st anniversary of the coming into existence of Pakistan has come and gone,
and once again the leaders of the day evoked the memory of the founder-maker of
their country, Mohammad Ali Jinnah, falsely pontificating on how they honour his
legacy and follow the path that he set for them. Were he to know how his country
has evolved, how it stands today, he would revolve in his grave, struck with grief
and anger — though, as has been said before, he had a fair idea that things would
not turn out as planned when he made his remark about each successive
government being worse than its predecessor, a prescient saying that has tragically
held too true. Unity, Faith and Discipline were his catchwords, not one of which has
been honoured in either spirit or deed. This country, barring its politicians, is
disunited as never before. Faith is split between the various vitriolic schools of
thought and has but provoked intolerance, bigotry and violence, and as for
discipline it is nowhere to be found. Jinnah’s creed which he set out concisely on
August 11, 1947 to the members of the country’s first constituent assembly is
remembered now by many, and many, apart from what passes for leadership which
has solidly and purposefully ignored it, reiterate it as a constant reminder of what
should be. The first lot of legislators was firmly and firstly told that the first duty of
any government is to maintain law and order so that the life, property and religious
beliefs of its citizens are fully protected by the state. And, then he set forth his
ideology of Pakistan: “You
“You are free, you are free to go to your temples, you are free
to go to your mosques or to any other place of worship in this state of Pakistan. You
may belong to any religion or caste or creed — that has nothing to do with the
business of the state.”
state.” On two subsequent occasions when addressing the world he
assured his listeners that Pakistan would not be a theocracy, that it would not be
ruled by “priests
“priests with a divine mission”.
mission”.

Ziaul Haq (Pakistan’s Cromwell?) did his best on the theocracy and divine mission
score, and Nawaz Sharif came very close to imposing his divine rule when he
brought in his 15th constitutional amendment during his second stint in power,
which thankfully for the country he could not push through both Houses. But Nawaz
Sharif is now back with us and his concentrated vengeance has prevailed upon his
partner in coalition, Asif Zardari, and we now have this lethal combination running
(or should it be ruining?) the country. Zardari held out for as long as he could but
finding himself on a losing wicket, with Sharif’s popularity soaring, he succumbed.
So we are now where we are, not knowing from day to day what fate lies in store for
the nation, with the leadership embroiled in its revenge game, baying for blood,
with governance at a standstill and the Taliban and the warriors of God steadily
imposing their writ in the Fata and NWFP areas. Mohammad Ali Jinnah founded this
newspaper, the foremost newspaper of record in Pakistan. In a free country, he
supported a free press, which is what we now have. We also have what in his days
was unknown, the electronic media, which has been given complete freedom and is
using that freedom to gleefully join the politicians in their virulent and vindictive
attack upon a cornered president — who remains, as I have consistently
maintained, the best of the worst lot. Largely, no holds are barred when it comes to
the anchor people and to the various commentators who are rounded up and
circulated amongst the numerous ‘news’ channels. This is not freedom, it is a form
of wrongful prosecution bordering on persecution. And sadly there are certain
elements of the press which are no better and which have joined the blood-lust.

Thankfully, Jinnah never knew he had spawned a nation which would, as the years
pass, become increasingly intolerant and bigoted, with individuals having scant
respect for the opinions of others. There is now little give and take, there is little
discussion and debate. There is but the hurling of abuse, intense rumour-
mongering, and disinformation. When one individual disagrees with another rather
than thrashing out the matter in civilised manner, agreeing to disagree amicably,
accusations are flung that the other is a traitor, or antiPakistan, or an agent of the
CIA, RAW or Mossad. Negativism has become the order of the day. Impeachment is
no light matter. It is an extremely delicate operation which should be handled with
dignity and intelligence, constitutionally and legally. It does not, in any manner,
involve vengeance. We see daily photographs in the press, and shots on our
television screens, of the smug powers that be and who are now in charge of
drawing up the ‘chargesheet’ against the sinning president, lolling around on plush
sofas in gilded drawing rooms preparing endless drafts. They should be in the
precincts of the parliament, in committee rooms, sitting around tables, projecting
some sort of dignified comportment and intent of constitutional purpose. The cards
are stacked, the rats are running, as was to be expected. They must protect their
rear-ends so that when it is all over they are there in position to join in the rush to
grab whatever spoils remain. They are acting in character. When I recently met my
friend, President General Pervez Musharraf, at the Governor’s House, in Karachi, he
was in good spirits. I told him he should not feel isolated, that there was another
leader who had acted in similar manner. Who, he enquired? The little king of Id, I
told him. Though Musharraf still retains his sense of humour he does not read page
eight of Jinnah’s newspaper. I handed him a photocopy of a cartoon printed on July
6. The sequence showed three prisoners, all trussed up, waiting to be presented by
the wizard to his king. The first was caught cursing you, he was told. “Off
“Off with his
head,”
head,” came the order. The second was caught stealing bread. “Feed “Feed him to the
lions,”
lions,” was the response. And worst of all, the third man was caught falsifying
documents, money laundering and pilfering 700m in corporate loans. “Hire “Hire him,”
him,”
roared the king. Some of us must hope that the vultures do not devour their prey or
his family — especially his mother and wife. His intent may often have been good
but his political allies were the lowest of the low. They came and went, each time to
be replaced by worse scum.

Author Location Dated

London, England 17.08.08

– ‘London has no role in Musharraf’s impeachment’

The threeday visit to Pakistan early last week by Sir Mark Lyall Grant, a senior
British diplomat who had played a key role in the Musharraf-Benazir deal
negotiations is being seen here in diplomatic circles as marking a turning point in
the relationship between the two countries with Britain now willing to focus more on
promoting democracy, social uplift and alleviation of poverty and less on using
Pakistan for fighting the West’s wars as its so-called frontline state. Insisting that
Britain has no role one way or the other in the ongoing Musharraf’s impeachment
moves and that it was not trying to save Musharraf from impeachment, a diplomatic
source on condition of anonymity told Dawn that the UK did not wish to see the
fledgling democracy derailed and the sound and fury of impeachment process to
cause further economic destabilisation in the country. Giving an on-record response
to Dawn’s query, Natasha Khan, Foreign Office’s spokesperson on Pakistani affairs
confirmed that Sir Mark met Musharraf, Asif Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and COAS Gen
Kayani but categorically stated that Britain was neither meddling in nor trying to
dictate the political process in Pakistan. She said: “Our
“Our aim is to see Pakistan as a
stable, strong and prosperous country for its citizens, the region, and the world as a
whole. “Britain fully supports the democratic process in Pakistan and believes in
supporting the democratic institutions, not individuals.”
individuals.” She said Sir Lyall Grant had
met “leaders
“leaders from across the political spectrum”
spectrum” during his three-day visit, which
was a long planned visit, as a routine matter without having anything to do with
affecting the “reconciliation
“reconciliation process which is in Pakistan’s national interest”.
interest”.

Meanwhile, the influential British newspaper Financial Times in an editorial (Bye bye
Musharraf) on Saturday said the departure of Pervez Musharraf as president of
Pakistan now looked only a matter of time. The editorial, however, warned the
ruling coalition not to overplay its hands as the army will not standby “and“and watch
Gen Musharraf, its former chief of staff, humiliated by parliamentary
impeachment…Pakistan cannot afford another layer of crisis.”crisis.” The editorial accused
Musharraf of shutting out the mainstream parties instead of mobilising them to
build a democratic bloc against militants and extremism and to reinvigorate
Pakistan’s institutions. “That
“That boosted Islamist factions, at the same time as he
allowed some of his officers to abet jihadi forces in Afghanistan and Kashmir,”
Kashmir,” the
editorial claimed. The FT editorial advised the US to learn the lesson of the
Musharraf years and direct more aid to democratic recovery and make the lavish
aid it gives the military conditional on performance. The weekly Economist in its
editorial (Beyond Musharraf Aug.16) said Musharraf’s “chances
“chances of hanging on are,
anyway, small”.
small ”. After listing the options available to him to avert impeachment, the
editorial said that it was in the interest of both the country and the armed forces
that the soldiers should stay away.

Author Location Dated

Hyderabad, Pakistan 17.08.08

– Edhi all praise for Musharraf

Renowned social worker Abdul Sattar Edhi said on Saturday that he could not forget
the favours done to him by President Pervez Musharraf in his social work and said
he often came to his rescue whenever he needed help. Speaking to journalists at
the Centre of Welfare Trust, Edhi said that Musharraf had had done him personal
favours whenever he approached him. “I “I can’t show thanklessness to the president.
I remember when he put his foot down when he asked him to get the custom duty
of Rs150 million on import of roofs for earthquake affected people waived,”
waived,” he said.
Apart from this, he said, the president always supported him. He said that Asif Ali
Zardari, Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf should sit together to extricate the
country out of the present crisis. He was critical of people of Pakistan in general and
said that majority of them evaded paying zakat. Unless everyone played a role
Pakistan could not become a welfare state. “Price
“Price hike is artificial and it benefits a
handful of capitalists,”
capitalists,” he said. He said that he had asked his welfare centres and
volunteers to launch ‘begging mission’ for providing lungar (food) to the destitute.
Rs250 million had been initially earmarked for this plan, he said. Later, widows
would be employed to prepare bread for the lungar as it would also serve to give
them jobs. Edhi has embarked upon a countrywide journey with 53 missing children
to ensure their reunion with their families ahead of Eidul Fitr. He arrived here in a
bus with the children, two of whom belong to Hyderabad, one each to Mirpurkhas,
Sanghar, Jacobabad and the rest to the districts of NWFP and Punjab. Faisal was
discharged after his parents approached Edhi in Karachi. The second child, Asif son
of Yaqoob is said to be resident of Circular Building area off Risala Raod. Local Edhi
volunteers would take missing children to the localities pointed out by them to find
their parents.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 18.08.08

– Coalition giving time to president

The ruling coalition appears to be dallying with the impeachment process to provide
time to President Pervez Musharraf to make up his mind about resigning, instead of
facing a humiliating exit. Sources in the Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan
Muslim League-N admitted on Sunday that the impeachment process was being
delayed so that mediators could get more time to persuade Gen (retd) President
Musharraf to resign and decide about his life after leaving the presidency. The
sources said that some issues related to the postMusharraf scenario still needed to
be discussed by the coalition partners. Another important factor, according to the
sources, is that although the army has decided to stay neutral, it does not want the
president’s ouster through impeachment. Announcing the impeachment plan on
Aug 7, the heads of the coalition parties had said that an impeachment notice would
be submitted to the National Assembly secretariat soon after the four provincial
assemblies passed resolutions against the president. Although the coalition leaders
had not publicly announced any date for moving the impeachment resolution in the
National Assembly, in private conversations they had indicated that the notice
would be submitted on Monday or Tuesday. However, the sources now say that it is
unlikely that the notice will be submitted by Tuesday. However, PPP spokesman
Farhatullah Babar denied a perception that the process was being deliberately
delayed. He said it was not in the interest of the coalition to do so.

Meanwhile, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari started the final round of consultations
with coalition partners. He met Awami National Party (ANP) chief Asfandyar Wali
Khan on Sunday to finalise a strategy to be adopted during the tabling of the
impeachment resolution in a joint sitting of parliament. Mr Zardari had met Jamiat
Ulema-i-Islam (F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman on Saturday night and he is
expected to meet PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif on Monday. A source in the presidency
told Dawn that Mr Musharraf had spent the day meeting his family members and
friends and he did not hold any official meeting with his legal aides or any political
leader. He attended a wedding ceremony at Marriott Hotel on Saturday night. On
the other hand, many leaders of the ruling coalition and federal ministers continued
to press the president to resign before he was formally charged with violating the
Constitution and gross misconduct. “He
“He has lost all moral authority to rule”
rule” and
after the adoption of the resolutions against him in all the four provinces “he
“he no
longer represents the federation”,
federation”, said Leader of the House in the Senate Raza
Rabbani at a news conference after attending a meeting of the coalition committee
which finalised the draft of the charge-sheet. The news conference had been
arranged to announce that independent Senator Amin Dadabhoy, who had
previously voted for President Musharraf, had joined the PPP. A source in the
coalition told that President Musharraf’s desperate desire to have the army, or at
least its chief, acquire the role of a mediator or messenger in the crisis were dashed
when both sides were politely informed by the quarters concerned that the armed
forces were, and would like to remain, out of the political tussle.

Commenting on media reports that Chief of the Army Staff (COAS) Gen Ashfaq
Parvez Kayani was being asked to act as a go-between or guarantor in case of the
president’s resignation or any other eventuality, the coalition leader said they were
not anticipating any such role for the army chief. He was not clear if the reports
were emanating from the president’s camp, but said the government was pleased
with what he described as the “neutrality” being maintained by the army
commanders. He said the top political leadership had been informed that the policy
adopted by the COAS of limiting the armed forces’ role to purely security-related
issues was still being pursued, and this was exactly the theme of discussions and
debate in the recent conferences of the senior commanders. Replying to a question
during his news conference, Senator Rabbani said it would be “unfair
“unfair to say that the
army chief is with the government or with Musharraf”.
Musharraf”. He said the armed forces
were playing their constitutional role of defending the country’s frontiers and
showing “neutrality”. He said the draft of the charge-sheet was ready and it would
be handed over to the leadership on Monday. He said that besides the coalition
partners other allies who were supporting the impeachment move would also be
taken into confidence on the chargesheet. He said there was no “moral justification”
for Mr Musharraf to continue as the president. He praised the Muttahida Qaumi
Movement (MQM) for adopting a “positive way” by abstaining from the Sindh
assembly when the resolution against the president was tabled. Senator Rabbani
avoided saying when would the impeachment notice be submitted to the National
Assembly secretariat. Senator Dadabhoy, while justifying his decision to join the PPP
six months before fresh Senate elections, said he and his family had remained
associated with the party for many years.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 18.08.08

– Asylum for Musharraf not on the table: Rice

The United States made it known on Sunday that it was not considering any
proposal to grant political asylum to President Pervez Musharraf. The
announcement came from a person no less than the secretary of state who has the
final say in such matters. “That’s
“That’s not an issue on the table,”
table,” said Condoleezza Rice
when asked if the Bush administration was considering any proposal to grant
political asylum to the embattled Pakistani leader. “And
“And I just want to keep our
focus on what we must do with the democratic government of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” she told
Fox News on Sunday. Asked if it would be in the best interest of Pakistan to have
Gen (retd) Musharraf resign, Ms Rice said: “This
“This is a matter for the Pakistanis to
resolve.”
resolve.” Her statement makes it obvious that the United States is no longer
interested in a person who only recently was called an “indispensable
“indispensable ally”
ally” in the
war on terror. The question of seeking a ‘safe haven’ for Mr Musharraf was raised by
the US media after they concluded, almost unanimously, that his days were
numbered and that his departure was only a matter of days, not weeks. While
discussing Mr Musharraf’s future, a leading American scholar of South Asian affairs
noted that the Pakistani leader had “one
“one redeeming feature.”
feature.” Unlike previous US-
backed strongmen, such as Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines or the Shah of Iran,
he was not a rich man, said Michael Krepon, a founding president of Washington’s
Stimson Institute. “Musharraf
“Musharraf doesn’t have an estate in Hawaii or a mansion in Los
Angeles. This complicates any potential exile,”
exile,” he added. But even this “redeeming
feature” does not endear Mr Musharraf to Washington where he is no longer seen as
an “indispensable ally”, as Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte called him on
Nov 7. He is now seen as a “serious
“serious liability,”
liability,” as a Western think-tank —-
International Crisis Group — pointed out recently.

The United States has been quietly distancing itself from President Musharraf since
Aug 7, when the ruling coalition in Islamabad announced its decision to impeach
him. But the United States had decided to ally itself with democratic forces in
Pakistan long before the impeachment move was launched. On Nov 7, four days
after Mr Musharraf imposed a state of emergency, President George Bush
telephoned him and told him to hold parliamentary elections and relinquish his post
as head army. “You
“You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same
time,”
time,” Mr Bush said, describing his conversation with Mr Musharraf to the reporters.
“I had a very frank discussion with him.”
him.” Ms Rice later told reporters that the US
remained “constantly
“constantly engaged”
engaged” with President Musharraf to ensure that the
elections were held on time and they were fair and free. She referred to this again
on Sunday, saying: “We
“We have been supportive of democratic elections that took
place in Pakistan. In fact, advocated for them.”
them.” She said the United States had
showed its support for the new government, citing President Bush’s recent meeting
with Pakistani Premier Yousuf Raza Gilani. Ms Rice said “President
“President Musharraf has
been a good ally”
ally” but that Washington had disagreed with his decision to declare a
state of emergency. Reports published in the US media on Sunday noted that the
US had played a key role in arranging a power-sharing deal between Mr Musharraf
and former prime minister Benazir Bhutto. After her assassination, the Americans
ensured that her successor, Asif Zardari, carried forward the deal. President Bush,
however, continued to support Mr Musharraf until June when he telephoned him and
urged him to stay in the presidency. But the US attitude changed after the
impeachment move. A report published by several US media outlets on Sunday
claimed that this week Mr Musharraf tried to call Mr Bush at least twice but Mr Bush
did not take the calls.

The Washington Post reported on Friday that Mr Bush’s advisers had urged him not
take any call from Mr Musharraf as it would send a wrong signal to Pakistan.
Editorial comments in various US newspapers noted that Mr Bush had no option but
to “cut
“cut lose his old ally, given Mr Musharraf’s increasing unpopularity”.
unpopularity”. The US
media claimed that Mr Bush did so reluctantly because he liked the Pakistani leader.
The reports said that even after the new government took charge in Islamabad, Mr
Bush tried to organise a power-sharing arrangement leaving Mr Musharraf in the
presidency, albeit with reduced powers. Mr Zardari, according to these reports, was
willing to accept such an arrangement but Nawaz Sharif was adamant to force Mr
Musharraf to resign or face impeachment. The reports claimed that last week Mr
Musharraf asked army chief Gen Ashfaq Pervez Kiyani to back him but the general
said that the army would stay out of politics. Such developments convinced the
Bush administration that it is no longer possible to save Mr Musharraf, so it’s now
focussing on securing guarantees from the ruling coalition that Mr Musharraf would
not be criminally prosecuted after he leaves office. Mr Zardari, according to these
reports, has been willing to make such a deal. Mr Sharif, however, has been
demanding that Mr Musharraf should be impeached and sent to prison. Some
reports, however, said that Mr Sharif had withdrawn his earlier position and “now
“now
appears willing to consider”
consider” the US proposal.

Author Location Dated

Anees Jillani 18.08.08

– Political U-turns
I once told a former close colleague of Nawaz Sharif, soon after Chaudhry Shujaat
Hussain formed the official Muslim League in 2001, that he should remain loyal to
Sharif and not leave his party. He remarked without even looking at me that there
has always been one Muslim League and that is the one which is in power. I was
thus hardly surprised when recently I came across the same leader asking President
Musharraf to resign. This is what politics is all about in this country; and people who
cannot do this should either switch off or leave for greener pastures abroad.
President Musharraf is going and he should go if for no other reason than the fact
that he has ruled this country for nine long years and it is time for a change, unless
he desires to become Pakistan’s Hosni Mubarak, Maumoon Abdul Gayoom or Robert
Mugabe. The manner of his ouster, however, leaves a bad taste in the mouth and
the nation even if unhappy with him is depressed at the way he is being pushed out.
This is borne out by the plunge in our stocks and the constant slide in the rupee
rate. Nawaz Sharif’s and his party’s stance is understandable and justifiable as they
were ousted in an unconstitutional and undemocratic manner by Musharraf; and
Nawaz Sharif’s subsequent treatment left a lot to be desired. However, it is unclear
as to how the PPP can justify its actions considering that its leadership was given
blanket amnesty through the National Reconciliation Ordinance. Much more tragic is
the way many of the PML leaders are deserting the ship which goes to show their
character and the level of their integrity. Only they can answer the question as to
how they face themselves each morning in front of the mirror and their families and
friends.

A couple of years ago, an American attorney commented that Pakistanis can even
sell their mothers for a few dollars. This generalised statement angered the whole
nation and led to our favourite pastime, namely the burning of the American flag.
The question is what should one make of the so-called forward bloc leaders of the
Muslim League who have spent their lives switching political loyalties. This is
something that I feel strongly about. I was disappointed when a prominent Nawaz
Sharif party leader told me in 2006 that his party would be willing to take back
some of the official PML leaders as they had winnable seats. He named a few
leaders, like Sheikh Rashid, who were totally unacceptable to Sharif, while the rest
could be accepted. I later met Javed Hashmi in Kot Lakhpat prison and broached
this subject. He told me that any leader from the official League would enter his
party over his dead body: he was the president of the party at that time. It was thus
surprising when his party awarded a few tickets for the National Assembly to some
prominent leaders of the Shujaat League in the Feb 2008 elections. Such actions
hardly provide incentives to party workers and leaders who stick with a leader, a
party and a cause. These people make sacrifices and are then asked to canvass for
a leader whom they had opposed and who had ridiculed them. This is obviously not
just and is enough to demoralise the public in general and the party cadre in
particular. One should then not be surprised if people refuse to come out on the
streets over any issue. What is the point of making sacrifices when they are not
acknowledged and leaders they are agitating against end up being imposed on their
heads.

President Musharraf will go but the PML-N and the PPP leadership should be wary of
accepting the lot that had sided with the previous regime during the past nine years
and is now willing to switch loyalties. There is little doubt that Pakistan can never
thrive with such folks at the helm of affairs. Anybody who desires that Pakistan
should prosper must shun all such lotas regardless of their importance. A morally
upright leadership needs to evolve in this country if it has to progress. India is not a
shining example of democracy but it is the largest democracy in the world.
Democracy has survived there during the past 61 years. The parties take swift
action against the lotas there. During the recent imbroglio involving a vote of
confidence for Premier Manmohan Singh, some Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)
members of the Lok Sabha abstained from the session and the BJP took no time in
suspending their basic membership. This episode should be compared with the
formation of the Patriotic wing of the PPP during the previous assembly. The PPP till
the end of the assembly tenure could not make up its mind about their status and
they perhaps theoretically remain basic members of the PPP even now despite
joining the official Muslim League. Way back in the seventh century, Hazrat Ali had
said that beware of the wrath of the person whom you have favoured. One only
wishes that President Musharraf had remembered this; one also wishes that our
present rulers and the PML-N and PPP leaders keep this in mind. It is really sad that
the history of Pakistan is full of cases of so-called leaders deserting their
benefactors whom they have stabbed in the back. They, of course, always have a
ready excuse and explanation for their changed stance but they can never explain
their allegiance to a socalled military and unconstitutional dictator in the beginning.
Have you ever wondered what would happen if the tables are turned and it
becomes clear that Musharraf is, after all, going to be our Hosni Mubarak and is not
going anywhere for the next 10 years? All the forward blocs will have to make a
quick u-turn. Jesus said that no man can serve two masters but our lotas have
proven even Jesus wrong. These gentlemen have the fidelity of cats. One only
wishes that they could learn something from dogs.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 19.08.08

– Beyond Musharraf
President Pervez Musharraf, who often vowed never to run away from a fight,
surrendered to his political foes on Monday by tendering his resignation from office
to escape the humiliation of impeachment, making way for Pakistan’s transition to a
full parliamentary democracy after a lengthy military dictatorship. The end of nearly
nine years of his rule, which the 65 year-old former army chief announced in a
televised address, marked a historic success for the country’s political forces that
sought his ouster, although a thoroughly isolated president claimed he chose to bow
out “for
“for the sake of the country and the nation”
nation” rather than pack up parliament that
had prepared to impeach him within this month. The acceptance of defeat by
Pakistan’s fourth military ruler without a promised fight in a bitter power struggle
with a fledgling coalition government triggered nationwide celebrations as coalition
partners began to ponder about the choice of the next president who they have
pledged will only be a figurehead rather than with sweeping powers Mr Musharraf
had assumed by decree such as dissolving the National Assembly and sacking a
prime minister. Partners of the four-and-a-half months old coalition government, led
by the Pakistan People’s Party (PPP), had finalised a charge-sheet accusing the
president of violating the constitution and misconduct and planned to notify
National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza possibly by Tuesday to begin
proceedings within three days for impeachment by a joint session of the two houses
of parliament after a minimum of seven and a maximum of 14 days. But the
president pre-empted the move by announcing to tender his resignation although
his spokesmen had repeatedly said he would not resign and would prefer to contest
the charges in a parliament where the coalition appeared to have mustered more
than two-thirds majority of the total 442-strong total membership of the 342-seat
National Assembly and the 100-seat Senate required to pass an impeachment
resolution.

It was no longer the fist-waving ex-commando Musharraf who often said he was a
fighter who would never run away and “lead
“lead from the front”.
front”. Amid growing pressure
from his political opponents and isolation at home and abroad, a humbled president
admitted it was time for “no
“no individual bravado”
bravado” but for “serious
“serious thought”.
thought”. And he
said that although he believed none of the still undisclosed charges against him
could be proved, different thoughts had been crossing his mind and recourse to
them could possibly lead to a confrontation between national institutions like
parliament and judiciary or even drag the armed forces. “Therefore,
“Therefore, after
considering this whole situation and consultation with my legal advisers and
political supporters and with their advice, it is for the sake of the country and the
nation that I have decided today to resign from office,”
office,” he said, adding that he
would send his resignation to the National Assembly speaker. The resignation came
amid media reports, none of which was confirmed by the opposing camps, that
some foreign friends of Pakistan, possibly including the Saudi royal family, were
trying to broker a ‘safe exit’ or immunity for the president for his alleged
constitutional and other violations, including the charge of treason for subverting
the constitution that is punishable with death. But the president, in an apparent
reference to such a possibility, sounded confident about his future and said: “I “I don’t
need anything from anybody, I have no concern. I leave my future in the hands of
the people. Let them be the judges and let them do justice.”
justice.” Even hours after
Senate Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro took over as acting president until a
successor is chosen within 30 days by an electoral college of both houses of
parliament and the four provincial assemblies, there was no indication whether Mr
Musharraf would stay in the country or seek exile abroad as had been done by his
two main political opponents during his rule – former prime ministers Benazir Bhutto
and Nawaz Sharif.

With the obstacle of Mr Musharraf’s extraordinary powers out of the way, the
immediate political tasks before the coalition partners, including the Pakistan
Muslim League-N of Mr Sharif and two smaller allies, will be the promised
restoration of about 60 superior court judges the former president sacked under his
controversial emergency proclamation of Nov 3, 2007, and clipping the powers of
president to arbitrarily dissolve the National Assembly, sack a prime minister and
appoint armed forces chiefs and provincial governors. No wonder, Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani told the National Assembly later on Monday that parliament had
gained real sovereignty and that the coalition would do away with the controversial
17th Amendment to the constitution that had legitimised president Musharraf’s
decress that gave him the extraordinary powers that would now go to parliament
and the prime minister as committed in the Charter of Democracy, signed by Ms
Bhutto and Mr Sharif in London two years ago. The coalition partners also face the
daunting tasks of tackling other pressing problems they largely blame on
Musharraf’s policies such as an unprecedented inflation, food and energy shortages,
a wave of militant violence in the tribal and settled areas of the NWFP and a low-
level insurgency in Balochistan. Mr Musharraf’s resignation, whose ‘second
‘second five-year
term as president’
president ’ started on Oct 15, 2007, after a controversial election, shattered
his ambition to become the country’s longest serving military-cum-civilian ruler. A
normal expiration of his present five-year term in 2012, would have given him 13
years in power compared to over 10 years of Pakistan’s first military ruler ‘Field
Marshal’ Mohammad Ayub Khan (1958-1969) and 11 years of Gen Mohammad Ziaul
Haq (1977-1988) and two-and-a half years of Gen Yahya Khan (1969-1971). And Mr
Musharraf became the second military ruler to announce his resignation in an
address to the nation in the face of public pressure, though he, having become a
civilian after giving up as chief of the army staff eight months ago, let the
constitution take its course with the Senate chairman becoming the acting
president while Ayub Khan handed over to Gen Yahya Khan who declared the
country’s second martial law instead of allowing the National Assembly speaker to
hold elections. Gen Yahya had hurriedly, without making any speech, handed over
power to PPP founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the winner of the 1970 elections in what
was then called West Pakistan after the 1971 East Pakistan debacle.

General Zia’s rule ended with his death in a still unexplained 1988 C-130 plane
crash whose anniversary was marked only a day before the end of the Musharraf
era, which put the total of military rule in Pakistan at 33 years in 61 years of the
country’s life. President Musharraf went to great lengths in his hour-long Urdu-
language speech only four days after the Independence Day, to defend his rule
since Oct 12, 1999 when he seized power after toppling the elected government of
Nawaz Sharif government. Enumerating high points of his rule, he said his tenure
was an ‘era
‘era of an economic progress, during which he had prevented the country
from being branded a terrorist or failed state, introduced an ‘essence of democracy’
in the shape of local governments, and successfully overcome serious challenges
like the drought of 2000, a 10-month military confrontation with India in 2001,
withstanding the fallout of the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on the United States and the
October 2005 earthquake’.
earthquake’. But he regretted that the present government, which
had emerged victorious after defeating his loyalists in the Feb 18 elections, had
failed to respond to his appeals for a political reconciliation and rejected his offers of
support with his experience of the past and regarded him as a “problem
“problem and not a
solution”.
solution”. And he wondered if their impeachment move was motivated by their
fears about “my
“my constitutional power about a lot of things”
things” or by their “desire
“desire to
hide their present and future mistakes”.
mistakes”. He said he recognised parliament’s right to
impeach him and his own right to contest it, but he asserted he had faith in God
that “no
“no charge-sheet can stand against me. No charge, not one charge can be
proved against me because I have confidence in me that I did nothing for my own
self. Whatever I did was in following in his idea of (taking) ‘Pakistan first’ (over
everything else).”
else).” He said that in taking every complicated and critical decision he
“took on board all stake-holders”,
stake-holders”, including the military, politicians, civilian
bureaucracy as well as the civil society when needed and the ulema where they
were concerned. Mr Musarraf’s impeachment, also demanded by all the four
provincial assemblies, had appeared a certainty after most independents and many
of his loyalists were about to switch sides. But he said that although he had no fear
of the charges he was sure could not be proved, he avoided facing them because he
believed his success or defeat both would have meant “a “a defeat of the nation”
nation”
because of potential harm to the dignity of the country and the office of president
and his desire to avoid prolonging a state of uncertainty, “horsetrading” in
parliament, putting “my
“my (political) associates to a difficult test”
test” and the prospect of
unending tension between the government and the presidency.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 19.08.08

– Race on for successor

Leaders of the parties in the ruling coalition went into a marathon meeting after
President Pervez Musharraf announced his decision to resign on Monday. The
meeting focussed on post-Musharraf challenges. The biggest challenge that came
under discussion was the fate of deposed judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry. The two major parties in the coalition have divergent views
on the matter with Pakistan Muslim League-N chief Nawaz Sharif insisting on
immediate reinstatement of the judges and Pakistan People ‘s Party’s co-chairman
Asif Ali Zardari asking for some time to think over the modalities. Sources said all
the leaders were in an upbeat mood but there was realisation that if not handled
properly the judges’ issue could once again put the major coalition partners at odds
with each other and trigger another crisis. According to a press release issued by
the PPP, the coalition partners will meet again on Tuesday. They welcomed the
resignation of President Musharraf and termed it “the
“the fall of dictatorship and a
triumph of democracy”.
democracy”. The meeting that lasted for five hours was attended by Mr
Zardari, Nawaz Sharif, Awami National Party’s president Asfandyar Wali Khan,
Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (F) chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman, Punjab Chief Minister
Shahbaz Sharif, Education Minister Ahsan Iqbal, Senator Ishaq Dar, Information
Minister Sherry Rehman, Minister for Water and Power Raja Pervez Ashraf,
Information Technology Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira, Foreign Affairs Minister Shah
Mehmood Qureshi and Maulana Ghafoor Hyderi of the JUI-F. JUI-F.

The coalition partners said the exit of Gen (retd) Musharraf would result in political
stability. They were of the view that the surge in stock market and jubilation on the
streets proved that the people regarded his dictatorship as a stumbling block. The
sources said there was a consensus on which party would get the post of president.
PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari said the next president would be from his
party. Labour Minister Syed Khursheed Shah told journalists that the decision about
the next president would be taken within 72 hours. “The
“The name of the candidate for
the president’s office will be announced after a consensus would be reached in the
party on the issue,”
issue,” he said. When asked if Mr Zardari could be the candidate, he
said: “The
“The name will be finalised by the party.”
party.” According to the sources, the PPP is
considering the names of National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza, former
federal minister Aftab Shaaban Mirani and Mr Zardari’s sister Faryal Talpur. The
PML-N is likely to propose the names of Baloch nationalist leader Attaullah Mengal,
former chief justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui and Pukhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party
chief Mehmood Achakzai. The issue of changing the governors of Sindh and Punjab
also came under discussion, the sources said. They said the ANP leader asked the
coalition partners to appoint a new governor of the NWFP from his party. The party
put forward the name of Afrasyab Khattak for the post. The JUI-F demanded the post
of Balochistan’s governor. Jubilant supporters of the PPP danced and distributed
sweets outside the Zardari House. Demonstrations were also held in different parts
of the federal capital, Rawalpindi and other cities to celebrate the resignation of
President Musharraf.

PML-N information secretary Ahsan Iqbal said his party had demanded that
amendments should be made to the Constitution, including scrapping of Article
58(2)b, before the election of the president. He said the criteria for nominating a
candidate for the post would depend on whether or not the clause empowering the
president to dissolve the National Assembly was revoked. He said the controversial
amendments made to the Constitution by Gen (retd) Musharraf, including the 17th
Amendment, would be scrapped and the 1973 Constitution would be restored in its
original shape. He said Gen (retd) Musharraf was responsible for all the crises and
the people had rejected his policies in the elections. PML-N’s parliamentary leader in
the National Assembly Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan said the credit for Gen (retd)
Musharraf’s resignation went to all the political parties, members of the civil society
and the lawyers. He said reinstatement of the judges was the top priority of the
coalition government. “First
“First we will reinstate the deposed judges and then decide
about who is going to be the next head of the state,”
state,” he said. Replying to a
question, the PML-N leader said it was a demand of the people that Gen (retd)
Musharraf must be brought to justice because he had violated the Constitution and
sacked judges. The Leader of the House in the Senate, Raza Rabbani of the PPP,
described the resignation as a triumph of democratic forces and said it had become
possible because of the sacrifices of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto and dozens of
political workers. Information Minister Sherry Rehman said Gen (retd) Musharraf
“had become a liability for the nation because of his anti-democratic credentials”.
credentials”.

Author Location Dated

Zaffar Abbas 19.08.08

– Musharraf’s mixed legacy

At a time when almost everyone in the country, including many of General
Musharraf’s one-time trusted friends and beneficiaries, is busy condemning his nine-
year rule, to mention some of his achievements may be like committing blasphemy.
Still, it’s only fair to talk of some of the big, controversial and even bold decisions he
took in an attempt to change the destiny of the country. Whether he succeeded in
doing so, or became a victim of sycophancy or self-serving propaganda, may
remain part of a never-ending debate. But this in itself shows that General
Musharraf’s may well be a mixed legacy. Gen Musharraf’s opponents and enemies
are many, and understandably so. In the last decade or so some of the most
divergent social and political groups turned against him, but often for different
reasons. In fact, in most cases they had diametrically opposite views on issues
ranging from the Kargil conflict to the seizing of power in Oct 1999, from Nawaz
Sharif’s trial to allowing him to go into exile, from keeping Asif Zardari in jail to
allowing Benazir Bhutto to return, or from taking the country to the brink of war with
India to initiating a peace process with it. There were political parties like the PPP or
many women’s, rights and liberal groups that saw in the October 1999 military coup
a positive move to block the then prime minister Nawaz Sharif’s use of his brute
parliamentary strength to introduce his own brand of Islamic shariah in the country.

In the early years of his military rule, Gen Musharraf was praised by the country’s
liberal political and social circles for reversing the obscurantist policies of General
Zia-ul-Haq. There was a time that many women’s rights groups thought he was the
best thing that had happened to the country in decades. But then the same people
turned against him when he struck a deal with the religious right to legitimise his
rule after the 2002 election. The religious and many other politicians like Imran
Khan ignored his move to overthrow an elected government, and even backed him
in a fraudulent referendum that allowed him to rule for the initial five years.
However, when in the aftermath of the events of September 11, 2001, he turned his
guns towards the Muslim militants, whom he had been backing in the past as the
army chief the religious and political right became the vanguard of the anti-
Musharraf campaign. The contradiction among his opponents was also seen in the
last year of his rule. He was being criticised by the liberals and women’s groups for
allowing Lal Masjid and Jamia Hafsa Madressah clerics to spread extremism in
Islamabad, and by religious groups for killing ‘innocent’ people of the seminary.
Similarly, some condemned him for launching a military operation against militants,
while a few others thought he was not being sincere in eliminating the pro-Taliban
fighters. And if the militants were opposed to him for using the military against the
Taliban, the secular Baloch nationalists hated him for using the military might
against them, and for killing the veteran Baloch tribal leader Nawab Akbar Bugti.

But what brought all the disparate political groups opposed to him on to one
platform and triggered a chain reaction that ultimately culminated in his ouster was
the imposition of emergency, the sacking of dozens of judges and the muzzling of
the broadcast media. On the other hand many businessmen and industrialists
remained his supporters till the very last, and thought it was largely because of his
policies that the economy remained in an upswing during the last many years. It’s
largely because of such contradictions in the character and policies of the man that
for most people Gen Musharraf remains an enigma. In fact, no one seems to know
who the real Gen Musharraf is? Was he a hawk disguised in a liberal cloak, or a
moderate and progressive man whose military training had in the past turned him
into a trigger-happy leader? Was he really sincere about the progress of this
country, or were his policies only targeted at perpetuating his rule? These and many
other questions about the man may remain unanswered for a very long time, more
so because over the past year or so the propaganda campaign from rival camps has
made the line between fact and fiction somewhat blurred. However, speaking from
personal experience as a journalist I have absolutely no hesitation in stating that he
was probably the best interviewee I ever came across. And I have met and
interviewed quite a few top politicians, including many presidents and prime
ministers. At times his answers were not at all convincing, but unlike many
popularly elected politicians, he was never shy of taking some of the toughest
questions about his person and politics. Even during a number of private
conversations, and much to the annoyance of his aides and advisers, he listened to
criticism and tried to argue his case.

He was also a unique military ruler who, instead of imposing censorship at the time
of seizing power, liberalised the media, and at a later stage allowed dozens of
private television channels, many of whom spent most of their airtime in attacking
him and his policies. It was only for a brief period during the emergency period that
there was a media blackout, and a number of TV anchors were banned from
broadcasting. But once private televisions were back on air, they returned with
more venomous broadcasts against the beleaguered president. Many others who
saw and worked with him say that although he was no visionary, he always tried to
work hard with a view to understanding an issue, and rarely shied away from taking
on a challenge. Even some of those who left him after political expediency
compelled him to take Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and others as his major allies, still
regard him as a sincere leader. His biggest mistake, they say, was not being able to
work out an exit strategy. In fact, after being encircled by sycophants and vested
interest groups, Mr Musharraf had started to regard himself as indispensable for the
country. And the way he sacked more than half of country’s superior judiciary
simply showed he had no love or respect for the rule of law. But then in the end, he
was a military man who should have never intervened in the country’s political
affairs. For some General Pervez Musharraf may well have been a well-meaning
person, but all his positive work becomes meaningless when compared with the
way he overthrew an elected government and subverted the Constitution, and
towards the end of his tenure tried to destroy the judiciary, only to keep himself in
power.

Author Location Dated

Ismail Khan 19.08.08

– War on terror — quest for a new punching bag

Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s departure from the Presidency may have brought
smiles to many faces but his exit has also kicked off a debate whether Pakistan
would continue its policy of fighting militancy or change course. For nearly nine
years, as the sole architect of Pakistan’s anti terror policy following his now famous
volte-face on the policy of supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan after 9/11,
Musharraf continued to call the shots and at times, say some who have worked with
him, singlemindedly. And quite understandably so. As president of Pakistan and
chief of the army staff, he didn’t need approval from anyone else. In the process he
won laurels from his friends in the West, but at home he created hordes of deadly
enemies always looking for an opportunity to get even with him. Gen (retd)
Musharraf may have umpteen arguments to defend his policy of backing the US-led
global war on terrorism, there is no dearth of critics who believe that his seemingly
ambivalent approach of using strongarm tactics and striking peace deals with
militants brought nothing but suicide bombings and growing insecurity. For him, the
U-turn on Taliban, a regime he wanted the West to recognise as a ground reality
until 9/11, may have been dictated by a sense of pragmatism and in Pakistan’s
interests, but there are those who saw him as someone buckling under US pressure
and following George W. Bush’s war policy hook, line and sinker.
But as political players jostle for the new position, the bigger question that is being
asked and is boggling many a mind is that what would happen to the war on terror
now that Musharraf – the punching bag of all and sundry – has made an exit.

Indications are that it will continue with some fine-tuning here and there. If the past
five and a half months are anything to go by, nothing much has changed, political
rhetoric notwithstanding. Those who have worked with him until his last day in
office acknowledge that Musharraf had all but lost interest in Fata – an area
Americans believe is infested with and is a safe haven of Al Qaeda – and the war on
terror. The last such meeting he had held on the issue was before the February 18
election and there too, according to his erstwhile associates, the issue was
discussed only in generalities. “He
“He had withdrawn himself”,
himself”, recalled a former
associate. “Why?
“Why? I really have no idea”,
idea”, he said. The appointment of a full-time
chief of the army staff, albeit after some vacillation, may also have dampened
Musharraf’s spirits to direct the war on terror policy. It took Gen Kayani some time
to find his moorings but the changed political environment after the February
elections, changed the power equation and shifted the power centre from the
Presidency to the Prime Minister’s House. Briefings were arranged and meetings
held with the new political leadership to discuss the security situation in the
country, attended by the army chief and heads of the intelligence agencies,
ostensibly to take the coalition partners on board and create a sense of political
ownership. There are some who believe that the exit of the ‘punching bag’ may
have some sobering effect on the Musharraf-haters who are fighting the state and
state agencies. Little wonder then that the Taliban spokesman immediately
welcomed his departure. But some security analysts warn that this ‘sobering’ phase
may not last long, particularly when the military is going full throttle against
militants in Bajaur and Swat. “Sooner
“Sooner than later, Musharraf would be replaced by
another punching bag that would be perceived as another American stooge,”stooge,”
remarked a senior security analyst.

Military and security analysts agree that while there may be some tactical changes,
the overall policy of fighting militancy in the tribal borderlands and other areas will
continue. “There
“There may be a debate in parliament and a committee may be formed to
examine and evolve a consensus on the war on terror, but I don’t think there will be
any major change. The optics may change but the policy will continue,”
continue,” said a
senior security analyst. But there are worries. Now that the issue of whether or not
Musharraf would leave has been resolved, the question is what happens next. There
are problems that continue to haunt the policy on the war on terror. There is still no
institutional mechanism to ensure consultation and decision at the highest level
that would include the political and military leadership not just at the federal level
but also at the provincial level. That apparently was one reason why the June 23
meeting in Islamabad presided over by Prime Minister Gilani and attended by,
besides the heads of the coalition parties, the army chief, decided to leave the
option of military operations to the military. And this explains the launch of military
operations in Bajaur and Swat although the political leader ship was taken on board.
“The president didn’t figure at all,”
all,” said one of Musharraf’s former associates. But
this decision alone may not solve the problem. The whole issue of political
ownership persists, given ambivalent and at times divergent views by the two major
coalition partners – the PPP and the PML-N on how to handle militancy in the
country.
The operation in Bara is a case in point. It was opposed by the PML-N despite the
fact that the ANP-led NWFP government and the PPP supported it. The problem of
lack of coordination both at the top and at the tactical level, between various state
agencies, also persists, primarily due to the absence of an institutional mechanism
that often leads to confusion and at times embarrassment. The 72-hour ultimatum
given by Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior Rehman Malik to warring factions
in Kurram is a classic case, wherein the military appears to have not been
consulted. Analysts agree that while it is imperative to have an institutional
platform incorporating political and military leadership, including those at the helm
in the NWFP with a mandate to discuss and decide matters relating to fighting
militancy and terrorism with some parliamentary oversight, there is also a dire need
for a comprehensive counter-insurgency plan. “There
“There was a consensus at the June
23 meeting that what Pakistan was facing was an insurgency,”
insurgency,” recalled one
participant. “But
“But the problem is that we continue to fight it with conventional
means. There has to be a change in tactic if we want to succeed and I just hope the
political leadership would now find time to sit down and start taking the internal
security situation more seriously now that their nemesis, Gen Musharraf is gone,”
gone,”
he said. “We
“We have a situation and the sooner we realise the better it would be.”
be.”

Author Location Dated

M. Asghar/Amin Ahmed Rawalpindi, Pakistan 19.08.08

– Extra security for down and out president

Authorities deployed extra security for Gen (retired) Pervez Musharraf when he
returned to his residence in this garrison town after resigning as president on
Monday. Troops lined the route and army helicopters kept a watch from the above
as he drove from the Aiwan-i-Sadr in Islamabad to what used to be the Army House
in Rawalpindi before it was renamed as the Presidential Lodge earlier this month.
Meanwhile some 150 extra police guards were posted outside the Lodge where
army was responsible for the security inside the building and the police outside. A
senior police officer told Dawn that the extra security was mounted as a precaution
against public anger bursting out against the down and out president. Gen
Musharraf had moved into the formerly Army House in 1998 after he was appointed
Chief of the Army Staff. Even after seizing power in a military coup in October 1999,
and assuming the office of president he did not move to the Aiwan-i-Sadr. Like all
the previous military rulers of Pakistan he preferred the safety of the Army House.
Gen Musharraf even moved his presidential office from Islamabad to his residence
after surviving several attempts on his life. When, or if, the plain Mr Musharraf
would move into the farm house he had bought in the Chak Shahzad suburbs of
Islamabad some years back is not known. But it would certainly depend on security
the government is willing to provide him. As President Gen Musharraf's security was
a headache for the Punjab police and the public which had to suffer blocked traffic
whenever he moved out of his residence. Roads leading to his residence were
barred to public and certain parts of the vast Ayub National Park in the vicinity were
sealed off after several rockets were discovered there.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 19.08.08
 – Day of restoration of parliament’s sovereignty: Gilani
While Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani termed Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf’s
resignation on Monday a historic event marking parliament’s sovereignty, most
members of the National Assembly strongly opposed allowing the ‘dictator’ to leave
the country and demanded his trial under Article 6 of the Constitution. It was a day
of embarrassment for pro-Musharraf lawmakers who appeared helpless to respond
to the onslaught of treasury members and anyone of them trying to speak in his
support was ridiculed and shouted down. A number of PML-Q members tried to be
siding with the treasury at times, but Sardar Bahadur Sihar was at his best, holding
Gen (retd) Musharraf responsible for all the ills the country had been facing for nine
years. There was jubilation in the house over the sudden exit of Gen (retd)
Musharraf and PMLN’s Sardar Mehtab Ahmed Khan appealed to the chair to ‘leave
alone’ the agenda of the day and allow the members to express their sentiments.
He said that days of the dictator were over and people were offering ‘thanksgiving
prayers’ and distributing sweets. The President House, which had turned into a
‘conspiracy den’, had been cleansed. The prime minister said: “The“The sun of
democracy has risen today and the era of dictatorship is over forever.”
forever.” He said the
country needed an independent and neutral Election Commission which could even
stop a sitting prime minister from contesting elections. Mr Gilani said: “I
“I am not
bitter about those who incarcerated me and I forgive them today.”
today.” However, he
pointed out that the departure of a dictator had put politicians to the biggest test to
prove that political governments were better than dictatorship. “We“We never accepted
the 17th Amendment nor 58(2)b as genuine changes in the Constitution and we will
go for striking a balance between the offices of the prime minister and the
president.”
president.” Mr Gilani said the present government wanted to work with all political
forces and appealed to the opposition to join hands at this critical time.

Earlier, PML-N leader Makhdoom Javed Hashmi paid tribute to Benazir Bhutto and
said she had persuaded “us“us not to boycott the elections and as result of which we
have been able to bury dictatorship today”.
today”. He said the nation had rejected the rule
of generals and urged the government to reinstate all the deposed judges without
any further delay. “We
“We also need to set free and restore the prestige of
incarcerated nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan who has done a lot for the
nation.”
nation.” ANP leader Haji Ghulam Ahmed Bilour greeted the coalition leadership for
showing the ‘dictator’ the door and putting the country on road to democracy. Sher
Mohammad Baloch of the PPP called for Gen (retd) Musharraf’s trial and making him
an example for others. PML-Q’s Amir Muqam welcomed Gen (retd) Musharraf’s
decision to step down and said the step was in the interest of the country. However,
he said the exit of the general had put the new dispensation in a tough test to solve
people’s problems and restore the deposed judges. Tehmina Daultana of the PMLN
said that Gen (retd) Musharraf should be tried so that no adventurer could derail
democracy in future. “Musharraf
“Musharraf should not be allowed to leave the country and if
he escapes the wrath of law, every prisoner has the right to be free without trial.”
trial.”
Marvi Memon of the PML-Q said her party stood by the outgoing president. She said
that whatever Mr Musharraf had done over the past nine years was in the best
interest of the nation. Captain Safdar of the PML-N opposed ‘safe exit’ for the former
president and said: “He
“He should be hanged along with all those who supported him.”him.”

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 19.08.08
 – Next president from PPP: Bilawal
Pakistan People’s Party’s chairman Bilawal Bhutto Zardari has hailed the resignation
of President Pervez Musharraf and said that the next president will be from his
party. “After
“After the martyrdom of my mother I said that democracy was the best
revenge -- and today it was proved true,”
true,” the PPP chairman told media personnel at
Karachi airport after flying in from Dubai on Monday. “Someone
“Someone from the Pakistan
People’s Party will be the next president of Pakistan but I don’t know who that will
be.”
be.” He said he was not directly involved in the process of selection of the next
president because he was away for his studies in the United Kingdom. He said the
biggest hurdle in the way of democracy had been removed. “I “I am sure that we can
resolve all the issues of the country. The People’s Party wants an independent
judiciary and I am sure that we will move forward on this issue,”
issue,” he said. “Indeed,
“Indeed,
democracy is the greatest revenge and we are very proud of our country,”
country,” he said.
Bilawal Bhutto was received at the airport by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali
Shah and Home Minister Zulfikar Mirza. Later, he left for Larkana.— Agencies Our
correspondent in Larkana adds: Talking to journalists at the Bhutto House in
Naudero, Bilawal Bhutto said it appeared that his mother’s mission had been
accomplished and now the country would move on the path of prosperity and
strength. He said he was happy to see Pakistan as a democratic country. The PPP
chairman went from the Moen-jo-Daro airport to Garhi Khuda Bux Bhutto amid tight
security arrangements. He visited graves of Benazir Bhutto, Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, Mir
Murtaza Bhutto and Mir Shahnawaz Bhutto.

Author Location Dated

Yousuf Nazar 19.08.08

– Musharraf must face an open trial

The nation is heaving a sigh of relief as one of the most painful phases in Pakistan’s
history has ended with Musharraf’s resignation. Should the matter end here? Gen
Musharraf dismissed judges and violated the constitution but all dictators are guilty
of that. His greatest crime was that he compromised Pakistan’s national interests to
consolidate his power when he was an international pariah and brought Pakistan to
the brink of Balkanisation by his dual track policy of covertly supporting the Afghan
Taliban while allowing the Americans to conduct air strikes on Pakistan. But it is
impossible to forgive him for insulting the people of Pakistan by telling them in the
full glare of TV cameras that they should eat chicken if pulses are expensive (‘daal
mahngi hey to murgi khain’). Marie Antoinette of France said, “Let
“Let them eat cake”
cake”
when confronted by the poverty of the people and shortage of bread. She was
executed by guillotine at the height of the French Revolution in 1793 for the crime
of treason. A section of our English-speaking elite believe Musharraf was trying to
save them from the Taliban. This makes you wonder how ignorant one can be. He
secured the evacuation of more than 3,000 Taliban and militants between Nov 15
and 23, 2001 from Kunduz in Afghanistan, where they had been trapped, to
Pakistan’s tribal areas from where they were to later organise and conduct terrorist
attacks. Musharraf used the intelligence agencies to rig the 2002 elections to
enable the supporters of religious militants and Lal Masjid extremists, such as
Chaudhry Shujaat and Ijazul Haq, to gain power in the centre and the religious
elements to gain ground in the NWFP and Balochistan. The politics of fear and
blackmail was practised, fully exploiting the apprehensions of Pakistanis and the
West of religious extremists.

This double game was played to a degree where it forced a former general and
corps commander Faiz Ali Chisti to make a shocking statement to an international
news agency on Jan 27, 2008. Chishti said he would “not “not be surprised”
surprised” if Musharraf
had engineered terror attacks to manipulate his image in the West. “Musharraf
“Musharraf is an
intellectually dishonest person. He is a clever ruler, who makes the US and the West
believe that they can only effectively deal with Al Qaeda as long as he is in power,”
power,”
Chishti said. Some so-called pragmatists advocate a cautious approach to
Musharraf’s accountability lest the khakis get upset. But Pakistan’s history tells us
that letting dictators go unpunished for their crimes against the state and the
people has not deterred the Bonapartists and adventurers from striking again in the
darkness. Bhutto did not try the generals as was recommended by the Hamoodur
Rahman Commission. Bhutto was to later regret his policy of appeasing the army.
He wrote these prophetic words from his death cell in his book If I am Assassinated:
Assassinated:
“If a coup d’etat becomes a permanent part of the political infrastructure, it means
the falling of the last petal of the last withered rose. It means the end.”
end.” He added,
“If India had suffered from martial laws and military dictatorships on the pattern of
Pakistan, India would have been in three or four separate pieces by this day. India is
more heterogeneous than Pakistan but India has been kept in one piece by the
noise and chaos of its democracy.”
democracy.” Bhutto faced two coup attempts within the first
couple of years of his five-and-half-year rule and then the third fatal one on July 5,
1977. Why? The Bonapartist generals were sure nobody could touch them.
Democracy and democratic institutions cannot exist and grow without
accountability. It cannot be built on the basis of reconciliation with those who have
showed a callous and contemptuous disregard for the people of this country. What
right does anyone have to provide safe passage to someone who committed
heinous crimes against the people and handing over hundreds of Pakistanis,
including a young woman Aafia Siddiqui, to the US without the due process of law;
who allowed the murder of Benazir Bhutto by withdrawing security and then
presided over the cover-up; to one who should be held responsible for the deaths of
several hundred Pakistanis including those who died on May 12, 2007 in Karachi as
he stood in Islamabad showing his fists declaring, “I “I will have the last punch”?
punch”?

But it would be wrong to single him out for Pakistan’s descent to the brink of a
failed state. Musharraf represents the mindset of those arrogant and megalomaniac
generals who consider themselves a special breed that is above any law and
accountable to no one. This breed was responsible for the ignominious surrender on
Dec 16, 1971 and the break-up of Pakistan. Its ugliest face, Ziaul Haq, was
responsible for the murder of Pakistan’s first elected prime minister and turning
Pakistan into a CIA base and one of the biggest hubs of narcotics and arms
trafficking in the world. It was another general — Aslam Beg — who sabotaged
democracy by forming and supporting the IJI and encouraging the MQM to turn
Karachi and Hyderabad into war zones. His ISI chief Hameed Gul had little idea —
and still does not — that by supporting the so-called jihadis, many of whom have
been tools in the hands of suicidal raw power games conducted in the name of
‘national security’ and ‘strategic depth’, he and his ilk were creating Frankensteins,
who instead of undermining the neighbouring ‘enemies’, threatened the very future
of Pakistan itself. Musharraf was part of that reckless, irresponsible and dangerous
bunch. Pakistan cannot repair these deep wounds by pretending that there is
nothing wrong or that Musharraf received bad advice or made some mistakes. No
individual or army can be a substitute for the collective wisdom that the politicians
are forced to choose as the modus operandi because democracy, no matter how
imperfect, cannot function otherwise. Collective wisdom and decision-making
processes may not appear to be particularly efficient but serve as a safety value to
prevent disasters like the 1971 defeat. The malaise of military rule is cancerous and
deep, and may prove fatal. It needs a surgical operation and the operation must
start at the top. It must start with an open trial by a judicial commission that should
consist of only non-PCO judges. It will need to be followed by a healing process but
healing does not and cannot start before an operation.

Author Location Dated

Murtaza Razvi 19.08.08

– Reign of error
What for days looked inevitable has happened. The general had clearly overstayed
his welcome, like his predecessors. That he left with some, even if threadbare,
dignity must now be thanked as the saving grace in the whole sordid episode. It
could have been messier. Mr Pervez Musharraf’s has been a reign of error from the
word go, as it were. It started with high drama in the skies and ended with a very
reluctant, dragging drop scene under the media’s glare. When he was put in office,
in absentia, by his faithful lieutenants in khaki, he was received surprisingly well by
the people. He could have banished Mr Sharif, as he did, held elections and led his
forces back to the barracks in a very honourable way. Then, over eight years later
and despite the political circus he presided over, he had another chance to step
down with much more dignity on Feb 18 after the people had spoken once again,
this time against him. But that was not to be. There was an uncanny contrast
between the speech he made in Oct 1999 and the last one yesterday. The only
constant all these years that Mr Musharraf stuck to was his penchant to hog the
limelight. He was the least camera-shy of leaders, and predictable only in his
unpredictability.

The long list of achievements he enumerated as his last hurrah, not exactly in order
of importance, sounded like it was a shower of all that was good and prosperous
that came and went. The khuda hafiz he bade betrayed the adieu of a defeated
man. It’s a shame that despite his achievements as a once popular leader and the
face the world had come to know Pakistan by he should have been his own undoing.
The man was never the evil he had come to be portrayed as by his opponents,
especially in his last year in office. Mr Musharraf’s unravelling lay in his own actions
which did not always match the words he pledged. A fair accountability regime that
he promised in 1999 was never put in place. The transition to democracy overseen
by him was a manipulated affair. The promising devolution plan was made
unworkable by subjecting it to the cronies he installed in the provincial
administrations. While the ‘enlightened moderation’ policy saw some of the laws
repugnant to women being amended to the latter’s benefit, it was also blemished
by the scandalous handling of rape cases by the president himself. The last
government and parliament under Mr Musharraf had little credibility and even less
power to think and legislate without a nod from the presidency. While action was
pledged against growing extremism in parts of Fata, the Lal Masjid monster was
allowed to spread its tentacles in the capital itself. It was finally taken on with brute
force, which needn’t have been the case if not only the declared intent but also the
will to arrest extremism was put to practice. The same can be said about menaces
like the Masood Azhars, the Sufi Mohammads, the Baitullah Mehsuds, and many
banned but alive and kicking sectarian outfits.

Where the freedom the media came to enjoy under Mr Musharraf’s presidency was
praised, it was also the subsequent gagging of the somewhat infantile electronic
media organs that came in for public censure. The way the judicial crisis was
created out of the blue and then clumsily handled by the presidency also left the
nation shocked. The key people and the parties the president patronised brought
more than a fair share of the damage he ended up doing to his reputation. The ill-
advised chase unto death of Nawab Akbar Bugti in Balochistan, the Chaudhries’
crackdown against dissenting civil society members in Punjab and the May 12
mayhem in Karachi, all of which Mr Musharraf publicly praised, were steps that led
to his growing isolation. The so-called reconciliation process the president started
with the late Benazir Bhutto also backfired when the lady, after staging her
mammoth but bloody welcome home from self-imposed exile, complained that all
was not above board with the general. To the public as spectator, her contention
that she was made to feel insecure was borne out by her tragic fate. What followed
the presidential action of Nov 3 last year was sheer madness. Mr Musharraf’s
belated doffing of his military uniform on Nov 28 was seen as a concession that
came as too little, too late. By the time it happened, only Ms Bhutto was able to
claim the credit for forcing Gen Musharraf to do what he had actually pledged and
fulfilled. The subsequent posturing of the presidency in the aftermath of Bhutto’s
killing, the destruction of evidence at the venue and allegations by her party
coloured the public mood until Feb 18. By fixing blame on the president for
everything, from bad law and order to insurgencies in Balochistan and the
northwest, from inflation to the power crisis and staple food shortages, Mr Nawaz
Sharif got quite a windfall in terms of the public mandate. The judicial crisis was not
the only wave he now rode. Mr Musharraf had come to symbolise all that had gone
wrong with the country by the time he was prevailed upon to bow out.

His legacy is one of many an ambivalent trend in the short but over-active history of
the country. The record economic growth in recent years, which averaged over five
per cent in the aftermath of 9/11 in particular, will be a challenge to match and
improve upon by those who follow him. It would help immensely to build upon the
good the general did to society even as he reigned and committed the many errors
he did. There is no doubt that the opening up of society, building of industrial, urban
and fiscal infrastructure, industrial and information technology developments and
attracting foreign investment, for example, saw a boost under President Musharraf.
The key would lie in doing what a leader pledges, and then leave himself to be
judged by the people. Mr Musharraf’s departure from the rowdy political scene
should now leave the ruling coalition with little excuse to drag its feet on the many
issues confronting Pakistan and its people. If ever democracy was allowed to run its
course, it is now. The hope is that the elected leaders Mr Musharraf has bequeathed
his much wronged Pakistan live up to the challenges before them.

Author Location Dated

Murad M. Khan muradmk@gmail.com 19.08.08
 – Can’t take the army out of a man
As we emerge from eight years of dictatorship, two pictures stand out. In October
1999, soon after the Nawaz Sharif government was overthrown, Brig Rashid
Qureshi, spokesman for the military government, came on television and declared,
“We don’t want sham democracy, we want real democracy. “We want a
government that is of the people, by the people, for the people.”
people.” I found it surreal
for a man in military uniform using Abraham Lincoln’s hallowed words and having
no qualms about doing so. The second picture is of an interview a few months ago.
Mushahid Hussain, secretary general of the PML-Q, was asked whether Gen
Musharraf would give up his uniform. “Yes,
“Yes, he would,”
would,” he said, adding, “General
“General
Musharraf looks dashing in military uniform and Mr Musharraf would look dashing in
a designer suit.”
suit.” Although eight years apart the two statements give us a rare
glimpse of how the minds of dictators and those around them work. Understanding
this is important if we are to prevent future misadventures by would-be
Bonapartists. Today, millions of Pakistanis live in abject poverty eking a living for
mere existence. Millions are unemployed and underemployed. Millions remain
without healthcare and education. Millions are subjected to the indignity of being
treated in government hospitals. They have no security. They have no laws to
protect them. Where there are laws it is only to protect the rich and powerful. What
are we to make of rulers who tell us that only they know what is good for the
country? That the rest of us — academicians, economists, scholars, lawyers, judges,
doctors, engineers, teachers, students, retired senior military officers and diplomats
and other members of civil society — are ignorant mortals who know nothing about
the dangers facing this country or how to tackle them? That democracy is not good
for us? That they know how much the people love them? And that they will know
when the time is right for them to step down? More importantly, what goes through
the mind of dictators and those who hold real power in Pakistan, as they see the
abysmal state of affairs of the country?

Quite clearly they see the situation very differently from the way that the man in
the street does. While both may agree that the existence of the country is seriously
threatened, dictators feel they are the only ones who can save it. They see
politicians as tried and failed, corrupt and greedy with lust for wealth and power.
Clearly, there is something seriously wrong with their thought processes. A
dictator’s thinking is severely restricted and he suffers from selective listening. He
has a very narrow vision. He cannot live with dissent. Dictators tend to be liberal as
long as you agree with them. Any serious opposition and they crush it, never mind
the democratic intent. The media is treated like an animal in a zoo — tolerated in
confined spaces. The moment it tries to get out, it is firmly put back in the cage.
They do not trust anyone beyond a small and close group of people who feed them
only with information they want to hear. Their whole perspective is based on this
narrow line of information. When asked when he would step down, our retired
general famously replied, “I “I will go when I realise the people don’t want me”.
me”. When
asked how he would know, he replied, “I “I have my sources of information”.
information”. These
sources of information are close aides who feed them the information they want to
hear. Dictators have no idea how unpopular they are or that the vast majority of
people do not want them. But it is important to understand they actually mean what
they say.
This type of thinking is verging on delusion. Many dictators also suffer from
paranoia, a feeling that others are against them and must be eliminated. Hitler
showed many traits of paranoia, as did Stalin and Saddam Hussein. It makes them
more and more isolated and insular and as they near their political demise they
become more and more bizarre — both in their thinking and behaviour. We have
countless examples of dictators and their strange behaviour — Idi Amin of Uganda,
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, Duvalier of Haiti and Marcos of the Philippines are a few
examples. Some of the responses we have heard from our own retired general
reflects this line of thinking. The hosing down of Benazir’s assassination site was
‘inefficiency’, Benazir was ‘unpopular with the army’, the West is ‘obsessed with
democracy’, while the response to a senior London-based journalist who asked a
few uncomfortable questions was that it was a good idea to have a couple of people
fix him. A dictator’s military background, particularly if he has had special training
(special forces, survival course, commando training, etc.) makes it difficult for him
to think otherwise. It makes him rigid in his approach with a ‘never
‘never surrender’
surrender’
attitude. To him every encounter is a battle and the enemy must be vanquished.
Using terms such as ‘tactical’, ‘strategic’, ‘mission’, ‘operational’ and ‘campaign’
even when discussing issues that have nothing to do with the military are indicative
of this. You can take a man out of the army; you can never take the army out of the
man! Even a dictator’s physical appearance is important. Dictators frequently try to
look younger than their years. This also contributes to their self-image and ego.
Imagine if dictators stopped dyeing their hair. White haired, they would look very
different and their whole appearance would undergo a drastic change. Mushahid
Hussain’s statement was a rare glimpse into how ‘yes men’ praise their masters,
making them even more egoistic and in the process, more reckless. Unfortunately,
it is almost impossible to change this line of flawed thinking, as dictators do not
think there is anything wrong with their way of thinking. Hence most dictators are
removed — either violently or forced out. This is what history teaches us. Let there
be no doubt about it. Those who doubt this need only remember Aug 18, 2008. ¦
The author is a consultant psychiatrist.
psychiatrist.

Author Location Dated

Jason Burke 19.08.08

– Life in Pakistan without the general

The political demise of the president of Pakistan will have repercussions well
beyond the humid corridors of Islamabad. Last week, violence flared up throughout
Pakistan: suicide bombers struck in the east, hundreds died as the army launched
new offensives against radical Muslim militants, 100 or so miles to the west, there
were riots across the border in Indian Kashmir and bombs, and the customary
rockets and battles in Afghanistan. “It
“It is clear that we are on the brink of a major
change that goes well beyond the end of another cycle of civilian-military rule in
Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said one Islamabad-based western diplomat. The changes in Pakistan
over the past decade are manifest. This weekend tens of millions followed events on
the country’s scores of new local language television channels — predominantly
Urdu, the national tongue, but in minority Sindhi, Punjabi and Pashto, too. None
existed a decade ago. The vociferous and hugely popular talk shows have politicised
swaths of the population. For those without televisions, the now ubiquitous ‘one‘one
rupee a minute’
minute’ mobile phones will act as a secondary conduit of information. In the
growing cities — a recent study revealed that more than 50 per cent of Pakistanis
now live in towns of more than 5,000 people — the effects of the long economic
boom of the Musharraf years has broadened the middle classes. The irony is that
Musharraf instigated the changes, such as the liberalisation of the media and the
economy, that have led to his downfall.

The 65-year-old general took power nine years ago in a bloodless coup, ousting
Prime Minister Sharif. The summer of 1999 had seen a series of corruption scandals
breaking around Sharif and his family, a short, vicious and disastrous war with India
in Kashmir, and an economy in freefall. One by one Sharif and his cronies corrupted,
co-opted, imprisoned, exiled or intimidated almost all who could act as constraints
on their power. But when Sharif attempted to replace Musharraf, the head of
Pakistan’s immensely powerful military, he went too far. As the general circled in a
passenger jet above Karachi, forbidden to land and running out of fuel, loyal army
commanders moved swiftly to secure the country. “The “The Pakistani Army always has
updated plans for a war in Kashmir, for an Indian invasion, and for taking control of
government,”
government,” one retired senior officer said recently. “We“We just dusted off the right
file and it was over in hours.”
hours.” Sharif was arrested, tried for treason and exiled to
Saudi Arabia. He made no secret of his desire for vengeance. Eight years later it
looks he has got it. The coup had broad domestic support and Musharraf found
himself back in international favour after the 9/11 attacks when, after some
deliberation, he pledged his support in the ‘war on terror’. A flood of diplomatic,
military and financial aid followed. And until spring last year, Musharraf seemed
unassailable. The threat to Musharraf came from two directions. The first was from
the Islamic militants. The surge of militant violence was partly a result of the fallout
from the war on terror globally although incompetence also played a large part.
Demoralised soldiers or policemen were sent repeatedly against enemies they were
ill-equipped to fight, in campaigns with little strategic direction or consistency.
Overseas, the president appeared incapable of fighting even Pakistani militants, let
alone the Taliban or Al Qaeda, which had based itself in the country he supposedly
governed. American officials asked themselves if he really was the right man to be
receiving billions of dollars of aid.

Here a second shift in Pakistan in recent years was important: the reassertion of a
more confident and aggressive national and religious identity, which translates into
a much less deferential attitude to the West. The other threat to the former
president came in the unlikely shape of Pakistan’s lawyers. Their protest was
sparked when Musharraf moved to suspend the chief justice last year — a big
mistake. Protests spread as for the first time, Pakistan’s middle classes turned
against the man they had once supported. A manipulated election, a state of
emergency and a continuing crackdown on the media brought reinforcements from
journalists and intellectuals. A new ‘civil society’ movement appeared. The two
major parties, the PPP and the PML-N, recognised the need for uniting against the
common enemy. But, given the changes in Pakistan, it seems likely that Sharif will
be the longterm winner. And in a democracy the government reflects the culture,
the attitude and the beliefs of the people. They may not be those the West hoped to
see.

Author Location Dated

Syed Faisal Shakeel Lahore, Pakistan 19.08.08
 – Lawyers against safe passage
Lawyers who launched a tireless campaign against former president Pervez
Musharraf are opposed to giving him a safe passage. They seek his trial under the
charges of treason for disrupting democracy, abrogating the constitution and
removing and incarcerating over 60 judges. Pakistan Bar Council member Hamid
Khan says it was an anti-establishment sentiment which bloomed into a full-scale
movement against Gen (retired) Pervez Musharraf after he overthrew the
government of Nawaz Sharif. When the bloodless coup grinded political activities to
a halt, the bars served as the sole platforms for several politicians to air their views.
The late Nawabzada Nasrullah Khan, who played a pivotal role in binding together
several political parties in the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, had graced
on several occasions the Lahore High Court Bar Association meetings (soon after
the coup). The PBC member said though lawyers had stepped up their opposition to
Gen Musharraf in 2000, their movement started coming together in 2002, when the
community rejected amendments to the constitution, especially the one aimed at
extending the tenure of then judges by three years. Mr Khan said the MMA betrayed
the lawyers when it helped the dictator in passing the 17th Amendment in
December 2003. “Many
“Many feel that lawyers remained dormant from December 2003
to September 2007, when the chief justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry was removed illegally,”
illegally,” he added. He said the March 9 incident had
proved a catalyst, which provided a broad base for the movement that culminated
in the restoration of the deposed chief justice. In their campaign for the restoration
of the deposed chief justice, the lawyers’ had not only mobilized political workers
but also ordinary people and students.

Different political parties and NGOs, students and even ordinary citizens, though
from a particular class, came forward and became part and parcel of the campaign.
“We feel we have been let down by the successive military as well as the
democratic governments, which ruled Pakistan as their personal estate,”
estate,” said
Hamid Zaman of the Concerned Citizens of Pakistan (CCP). (CCP). “After
“After the chief justice
said no to a dictator and lawyers stepped out in protest, we saw a silver lining and
decided to do something about the state of affairs,”
affairs,” he said. After the restoration of
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry on July 20 last year, a bench of the Supreme
Court turned down several petitions against the eligibility of Musharraf to run for the
president’s office. A scathing criticism of the then six judges of the Supreme Court
from Punjab was witnessed in a rally the lawyers took out from the Lahore High
Court a few days after the verdict was announced. The restoration of the chief
justice had provided the lawyers with a moral ground to intensify their campaign
against Musharraf and raise their expectations from the judiciary. Again, the
Supreme Court was moved to stop the general from running for the top office of the
state. Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, who had driven the vehicle of the deposed chief
justice during the campaign for his restoration, had urged the bench to declare
ineligible the general without any fear. “Prepare
“Prepare a bus to carry all the judges now,”
now,”
Justice Khalilur Rehman Ramday had remarked after hearing his arguments. While
the case was to be concluded, Musharraf imposed emergency in the country and
removed over 60 judges, besides confining them to the limits of their residences.
Ever since, the lawyers demand restoration of the deposed judges. “We “We have made
a dictator resign and we will get the judges restored as well,”
well,” said PBC member
Hafiz Abdur Rehman Ansari.
Author Location Dated
AFP Kathmandu, Nepal 19.08.08

– Nepal Maoist leader sworn in as PM

The leader of Nepal’s Maoists, Prachanda, was
sworn in as prime minister of the new republic on
Monday, finalising his transformation from warlord
to the country’s most powerful politician. The
former rebel chief was overwhelmingly voted in as
Nepal’s new premier on Friday by lawmakers in the
constitutional assembly, which in May abolished the
unpopular 240-year-old Hindu monarchy. “I “I will
remain faithful to the nation and my countrymen,
and promise in the name of the people that I will
remain faithful to the sovereign nation of Nepal,”
Nepal,” he
said in his oath of office. Prachanda’s real name is
Pushpa Kamal Dahal, but he chooses to go by a
nom-de-guerre meaning “fierce“fierce one.”
one.” Dressed in a
grey suit and tie and wearing a traditional Nepali
cap, the ex-rebel leader — once Nepal’s most-
wanted man — looked at ease as he was feted by a
guard of honour and watched by an large audience
of dignitaries, among them scores of foreign
diplomats. A Nepal Army band played the new republic’s national anthem at the
function, which was held in the lush gardens of the president’s office and residence
in central Kathmandu. After the oath had been read and he had signed the
document, Prachanda visibly relaxed and smiled as he received congratulations
from Nepal’s new president, politicians and foreign ambassadors. “The “The priority is to
take this peace process to a logical end,”
end,” Prachanda told reporters in his new office
shortly after the swearing-in ceremony. “I “I will also create an environment
conducive to constitution-drafting which will be our first priority,”
priority,” he said. The ultra-
leftists are still in negotiations with their political allies over the make-up of the
incoming government. “We “We are in talks with members of the alliance and will form a
government as soon as possible,”
possible,” Maoist spokesman Krishna Bahadur Mahara said.

The Maoists and their allies are still haggling over the distribution of ministerial
portfolios, local media has reported. Prachanda, a former school teacher, led a
decade-long insurgency against the monarchy that claimed at least 13,000 lives
before signing up for peace in 2006, when he vowed to renounce violence and
embrace multi-party democracy. The Maoists won the elections to the new
constitutional assembly in April, positioning themselves to push through what they
vow will be a radical programme of reform in one of the world’s poorest countries.
Nepal is desperate for financial assistance to help it recover from the civil war that
devastated the economy. “We “We have huge responsibilities ahead,”
ahead,” said the Maoist
spokesman. “We“We have to restructure the state. People have high hopes for us, and
we will not let the people down.”
down.” High on the new government’s agenda will be
swiftly tackling crippling fuel and food shortages as well as bringing about “socio-
“socio-
economic transformation through land reform.”
reform.” The Maoist-led government will be
in charge of drafting a new constitution and establishing a ministerial body to
address the fate of 19,000 Maoist guerrillas confined to camps as part of the 2006
peace deal. A major challenge will be how to implement plans to integrate them into
the former Royal Nepal army. Law and order has also deteriorated across the
country, particularly in the southern Terai region, where violent unrest has been
simmering for two years.

Author Location Dated

Asha’ar Rehman 19.08.08

– One man’s ouster is another’s gain

Lahore had plenty of reasons to distribute sweets on Monday — to celebrate one
man’s ouster and the advancement of another. Like always the provincial capital
played a crucial part in toppling a ruler who had once seemed so invincible. Two of
its men, Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif and Chaudhry Aitzaz Ahsan, not to speak of
scores of others who worked backstage, had by all definitions provided the
vanguard to the movement for the removal of President Pervez Musharraf. They had
lent the movement its menacing no-compromise look, helped by groups of lawyers,
the leaders from Mansoora, by Imran Khan and his Tehrik-i-Insaaf and by the civil
society organisations that chanted for a return of Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry in rallies
at campuses and on the stretch of the Mall that links the Punjab assembly with the
Lahore High Court. And after the return of the Sharifs last November and their
party’s success at the polls in February 2008, the Punjab metropolis provided the
pivot to the ‘go Musharraf’ drive. It is no surprise then that there are celebrations all
around, except maybe a small room where intellectuals sit and assess the impact
the departure may have on the country’s battle against extremism and on Gen
Musharraf’s friends such as Governor Salmaan Taseer. After all there was in not too
distant a past no dearth of people who saw the general as the last man standing
against the tide of fundamentalism. They were willing to forget his non-democratic
credentials so long as he took on the real problem: Taliban and Co.Co.

Even the merrymakers sense that their job is far from over. The gentleman who
reports that the ordinary man in Lahore wants Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif as the
new president sums up the mood without necessarily looking at the constitutional
and political implications of such a coronation. The desire is to see all glory and
honour of the past restored to Mian Saheb. Keeping in mind that the president’s
office may lose its powers vested in it by Article 58(2)b, his supporters will probably
accept him in the role of the prime minister. They have reason to be upbeat since
everything over the last few months has gone in Mian Nawaz Sharif’s favour. He has
not only managed to stage a comeback to the country from an impossible situation,
each and every act on his part since his return has added to his and his party’s
public ratings. Even their silence on an affair as complicated as the militancy and
efforts to counter it has been met with approval. At least Mian Saheb’s clout around
his traditional base has grown and while his coalition partner has hogged the blame
for all the setbacks on the way so far. The Pakistan Muslim League-N has stuck fast
to the demand for the restoration of judges and just when it seemed that the issue
may be close to a resolution, the party distinguished itself from its coalition partners
by pressing for a trial of the ousted president.

Now that Gen Pervez Musharraf is gone, the PML-N may need to be more innovative
to keep the Pakistan People’s Party occupied with this propeople threat from within
the coalition. But the manner adopted by the Sharifs and their aides until now is
consistent with the scenario at the moment the Sharifs were making their reentry
into the country’s political arena. The basis of that analysis was that the
establishment was not in favour of allowing a free reign to the PPP, even if the PPP
manoeuvred its way to the top. The establishment had to at least keep the PPP in
check if the circumstances didn’t allow it to altogether shut the door of power on
the PPP - circumstances following the death of Ms Benazir Bhutto. The Sharifs
offered an alternative but there was a slight problem: their conflict with the
president. Gen Musharraf’s exit on Monday has removed that obstacle and the
Sharifs can now discuss the possibilities with their backers without worrying about a
powerful presidency. This line of thinking may not go down well with all those who
are shouting revolution and victory on the streets of Lahore right now. They should
pause for a moment and realise that the change has come about not on the
strength of their push alone, but by the convergence of various factors that had to
lead to a compromise. Even if the many months’ old scenario that cast Mian Saheb
as having been restored to his old blue-eyed position was to be discarded as far-
fetched, there can be no dispute that the ouster of the president has considerably
brightened the PML-N quaid’s chances to re-enter the prime minister’s office. There
is no doubt of course that such a development will come at PPP’s expense. From the
start it was in one party’s interest to keep the government afloat for as long as
possible. There is no change on that count.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 19.08.08

– Resignation surprises PML-Q

Leaders of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q are mystified by Gen (retd) Pervez
Musharraf’s decision to resign without sharing his plans in several meetings he had
held with them in recent days. Party sources said on Monday that whenever the
president met them, he only sought their advice about how to deal with the crisis
triggered by the coalition’s impeachment move. But he never shared with them how
he planned to frustrate the plans to oust him. The sources said the party leaders
had inferred from the former president’s silence that he did not plan to defend
himself. A central leader said that the party had advised Gen (retd) Musharraf to
participate in the Olympics’ inaugural ceremony in Beijing. “We“We advised him to
arrive at the Islamabad airport in a half-sleeve shirt, with a cigar in his hand. We
also advised him to look relaxed and tell the media before leaving for Beijing that
he would deal with the impeachment plan after he returned”.
returned”. The president was
told that when he would be seen shaking hands with the chiefs of the armed forces,
who would be at the airport to see him off, a very strong message would go to his
opponents about his self-confidence, the PML-Q leader said. However, he said that
when the president cancelled the trip to China, and provided an opportunity to the
prime minister to represent the country, his vulnerability was exposed.

The sources said that the party’s top leaders had consistently told the beleaguered
leader that he should challenge the charges against him in the Supreme Court to
block the impeachment process. But why did the president not choose this course
was still a mystery to the PML-Q leadership, he said. The former president also did
not accept the PML-Q’s advice to reinstate the judges and repeal the National
Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) if he was thinking about stepping down. “Such
“Such a
step would have created a political upheaval,”
upheaval,” the party leaders said. Now that the
president has quit, the party has started thinking about ways of preventing
defections. But most of the party leaders believe that while some people would
switch loyalty, the PML-Q may still play the role of an effective opposition. Asked if
the new situation would pave the way to unify the PML-Q and PML-N, the sources
said: “It
“It may bring us closer”.
closer”.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 19.08.08

– US vows to work with new leaders, praises Musharraf

The US administration did not do much to save Pervez Musharraf but in their
reactions on Monday US leaders showed more sympathy for him than they had
shown to previous strongmen after they were dethroned. “President
“President Bush
appreciates President Musharraf’s efforts in the democratic transition of Pakistan as
well as his commitment to fighting Al Qaeda and extremist groups,”
groups,” said a White
House spokesman while responding to Mr Musharraf’s resignation. US Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice was more generous, telling the media that Mr Musharraf
“has our deep gratitude”
gratitude” for taking on the terrorists. “President
“President Musharraf has been
a friend to the United States and one of the world’s most committed partners in the
war against terrorism and extremism,”
extremism,” she said. Ms Rice recalled that after Sept 11,
2001 terrorist attacks on the US soil, President Musharraf made the critical choice to
join the fight against Al Qaida, the Taliban, and other extremist groups. But she said
that such groups also threaten the peace and security of Pakistan, its neighbours,
and partners throughout the world. “For
“For this, he has our deep gratitude,”
gratitude,” she said.
This was much more than the then US leaders had said about US-backed strongmen
like Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines or the Shah of Iran when they were ousted.

But both Ms Rice and US National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe also
emphasised in their statements the US desire to work with the new democratic
government in Pakistan. “President
“President Bush is committed to a strong Pakistan that
continues its efforts to strengthen democracy and fight terror,”
terror,” said Mr Johndroe.
“President Bush looks forward to working with the government of Pakistan on the
economic, political and security challenges they face.”
face.” Ms Rice not only stressed the
US desire to work with the new Pakistani government but also reminded them that
Washington had played a key role in making it possible for them to win the Feb 18
elections. “We
“We strongly support the democratically elected civilian government in
its desire to modernise Pakistan and build democratic institutions,”
institutions,” she said. “The
“The
United States supported the transition to democratic government in Pakistan and
respects the results of the election. We believe that respect for the democratic and
constitutional processes in that country is fundamental to Pakistan’s future and its
fight against terrorism.”
terrorism.” Ms Rice urged Pakistan’s new leaders to redouble their
focus on the country’s future and its most urgent needs, including stemming the
growth of extremism, addressing food and energy shortages, and improving
economic stability. “The
“The United States will help with these efforts to see Pakistan
reach its goal of becoming a stable, prosperous, democratic, modern, Muslim
nation,”
nation,” she said.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 19.08.08
 – How Bush was persuaded to let Musharraf go
The coalition government used Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit to
Washington last month for convincing US President George W. Bush to stop
supporting his old ally, Pervez Musharraf. Diplomatic sources in Washington
described President Bush as Mr Musharraf’s “last holdout” in the US capital. Others
in the Bush administration — including Vice-President Dick Cheney and Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice — had long given up on Mr Musharraf. But Mr Bush
remained faithful to the person he considered a close ally and a personal friend. The
person who played a key role in persuading Mr Musharraf’s supporters in the Bush
administration to stop backing the Pakistani leader is the US ambassador in
Islamabad, Anne W. Patterson. Ambassador Patterson argued that if Washington
continued supporting Mr Musharraf it would end up stoking massive anti-American
feelings in Pakistan. She also held a series of meetings with coalition leaders,
particularly PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari, and received assurances from them that
Mr Musharraf’s departure would not undermine primary US interests in Pakistan and
that Islamabad would continue to fight Al Qaeda and Taliban militants in Fata, as it
did before. Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen also stayed
engaged with the Pakistanis, making three trips to Pakistan after the Feb 18
elections, including a secret visit in July. In his meetings with Chief of Army Staff
General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Admiral Mullen sought, and received, direct
assurance from him that Mr Musharraf’s departure would not reduce Pakistan’s role
in the war on terror.

In Washington, Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani used his contacts on Capitol

Hill and in the US administration to win over influential lawmakers and key officials.
Mr Haqqani received considerable support from his friends on the Hill and in
Washington’s think-tanks “in“in convincing Americans that no hell will break loose if
Mr Musharraf goes”,
goes”, as a think-tank expert who worked with him told Dawn. “The“The
Pakistanis argued that the US should not be seen as interfering in Pakistan’s
domestic political disputes as it would hurt America,”
America,” the expert said. “And
“And they
succeeded in mustering enough support on the Hill and in the administration to
counter Musharraf sympathisers.”
sympathisers.” By the time Prime Minister Gilani met Mr Bush on
July 28, Pakistani lobbyists were satisfied that they had neutralised the pro-
Musharraf lobby in Washington. “President
“President Bush was the last holdout,”
holdout,” said the
expert. “But
“But after a good luncheon at the White House with people who had their
hearts in the right place, Mr Bush also realised that he can no longer save Mr
Musharraf”.
Musharraf”. The prime minister took a team of “Musharraf
“Musharraf experts”
experts” with him to the
luncheon and they played a key role in persuading Mr Bush to stop supporting the
Pakistani leader. “Once
“Once this was done, the Pakistanis knew that the Americans will
no longer try to save Mr Musharraf, so they made their move,”
move,” the expert said.

While Mr Bush had accepted the argument that Mr Musharraf could no longer be
saved, he still wanted to make sure that the Pakistani leader was not penalised.
Besides sending his own ambassador to the coalition leaders to negotiate a safe
exit, indemnity from penalisation and a secure stay in Pakistan or abroad for Mr
Musharraf, Mr Bush also asked two key allies — Britain and Saudi Arabia — to help.
The British sent their former ambassador in Islamabad, Mark Lyall Grant, to Pakistan
and the Saudis sent their intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz to negotiate
the terms for Mr Musharraf’s departure. The Saudis played a particularly important
role in convincing Nawaz Sharif to tone down his rhetoric because of their close
links with the PML-N chief. Once the negotiations had been completed and the
Americans were assured that Mr Musharraf would not be arrested, prosecuted or
punished in any other way, they endorsed the deal for his departure.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 19.08.08

– Former president to search for a safe haven after Umra

Former President Pervez Musharraf may soon go to Saudi Arabia for Umra and by
then he would have decided whether he wants to live in Pakistan or abroad, senior
diplomatic sources told Dawn. According to these sources, Mr Musharraf does not
want to give the impression that he is fleeing the country and that’s why he did not
accept an offer from the government to whisk him out of Pakistan after the
resignation. Instead, he opted for a phased approach, staying under the army’s
protection for a while before going abroad. Mr Musharraf initially wanted to stay in
Pakistan and demanded protection from the government but changed his mind after
his close aides convinced him that he may never be safe in his country. He has four
possible destinations if he chooses to go abroad – Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Britain and
the United States. Diplomatic sources say that Mr Musharraf is not very keen on
living in Saudi Arabia where he may have a safe stay but will not have the freedom
to speak his mind should he choose to do so. Turkey is a more attractive destination
but because of its proximity to Iraq, it is not considered safe for him. Al Qaeda has a
strong presence in Iraq and it may not be difficult for the group to send its men to
Turkey to target him, as it has pledged to do.

Diplomatic sources in Washington, however, say that Mr Musharraf may live in

Saudi Arabia briefly before moving to another location, probably somewhere in the
United States. Although, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told US news
channels on Sunday that the United States was not considering any request for
granting political asylum to Mr Musharraf, the American administration is
sympathetic to the former strongman. Both President George Bush and Ms Rice
expressed their admiration and gratitude for Mr Musharraf after he announced his
resignation. Diplomatic observers in Washington noted that Ms Rice had only said
that the proposal to grant political asylum to Mr Musharraf was “not
“not on the table”.
table”.
She did not say that the US administration would turn him down if he made such a
request. Mr Musharraf also has several close relatives – including a son and a
brother – in the United States and he may come here for a visit and then decide
whether he wants to live here, return home or go somewhere else. London could be
another attractive place for Mr Musharraf because it is closer to Pakistan than the
US, has a large Pakistani community and he will have all the freedoms he needs to
express his views.

Author Location Dated

Qasim A. Moini Karachi, Pakistan 19.08.08

– Blazing guns greet president’s departure at Bilawal House

The end of the Musharraf era was marked outside Bilawal House – the Karachi
residence of Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari – with incessant
gunfire as jubilant party supporters took to firing into the air as the best way to
celebrate what they termed was the end of dictatorship. As the coalition heads
mugged for the cameras – beaming from ear to ear – and the retired general
vacated the President’s House in Islamabad, the air in Karachi’s upscale Clifton
neighbourhood that plays host to Bilawal House was thick with the smell of gun-
smoke. Cops were seen diverting traffic at the Bilawal Chowrangi as PPP supporters,
media-persons and curious onlookers started converging on Bilawal House for the
expected address by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah. However, outside the
PPP bastion there was little sign of order as the crackle of gunfire greeted all
comers. Gunmen were seen brazenly brandishing everything from pistols to
sophisticated automatic weapons, some carelessly playing around with the big guns
as if they were toys. All this was going on as families drove by and police personnel
watched on, as if they were spectators at a sporting event. When this reporter
asked a policeman posted at the Bilawal House security barrier why they were
doing nothing about this ‘celebration,’ he simply smiled and threw his arms up in
the air. The crowd seemed to love every minute of it, applauding whenever a
gunman would unleash a thunderous burst of ammunition skywards. It was a
miracle no one was killed or injured as anything could have happened, considering
the large size of the gathered crowd. The gunmen seemed to be competing with
each other, as bigger guns were flaunted, while the seemingly endless supply of
ammunition insured that the guns kept ablazin’.

According to a journalist who reached the location before this reporter,

announcements were made from inside Bilawal House, pleading with the gunmen to
stop in the name of Benazir Bhutto. However, the pleas fell on deaf ears as the
‘celebration’ continued. Several journalists were also threatened and roughed up by
unknown armed persons. DawnNews reporter Khurram Anis and cameraman Abid
Ali as well as Express News cameraman Imran Jatoi were accosted by several armed
individuals while they were capturing footage of gunmen fir ing into the air. Mr Anis
told Dawn that the armed men approached him and told him to stop filming and
instead take footage of women activists who were dancing in jubilation. When he
explained that they were doing their duty, the gunmen pushed Mr Anis, Mr Ali and
Mr Jatoi, after which the media-men stopped filming. While the gunplay continued
under the gaze of other television cameras and a police mobile parked in front of
Bilawal House’s main gate, Chief Minister Qaim Ali Shah arrived to address the
crowd. Interestingly, the public address system mysteriously went dead as soon as
the chief minister started his speech, as the gunfire continued. As he was speaking
– barely audible as he was – a group of men started chanting slogans against
dictatorship and the Sindh Governor’s House, as well as in favour of the Sindh
People’s Youth, smack in front of the chief minister, totally drowning him out.
Nobody seemed willing or able to control the bedlam. After barely speaking for 10
minutes, Qaim Ali Shah was whisked away in his black Mercedes, leaving behind the
sloganeering and gunfire.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 20.08.08

– Coalition talks on judges hit snags

Leaders of Pakistan People’s Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N, the major
partners in the ruling coalition, failed on Tuesday to resolve their differences over
the lingering issue of reinstatement of the deposed judges and on providing
indemnity to former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Sources told Dawn that
Awami National Party president Asfandyar Wali Khan saved the day for the coalition
by offering to play the role of a mediator between the two parties after PPP co-
chairman Asif Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif refused to relax their stand on
the judges’ issue. Mr Sharif insisted that all deposed judges, including Justice
Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, should be reinstated immediately through an
executive order in accordance with the Murree Declaration signed by the two
parties in March, whereas Mr Zardari sought more time. The sources said it was due
to the intervention of the ANP president and Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F chief Maulana
Fazlur Rehman that the PML-N had agreed to wait for another 72 hours for the
judges’ reinstatement. The coalition leaders will meet again on Friday and Mr
Asfandyar and Maulana Fazl are expected to come up with a solution. Tuesday’s
meeting was also attended by PPP chairman Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari and MNA from
Fata Munir Orakzai. Maulana Fazl indicated that the two major coalition partners
were at loggerheads over the issue of judges. “The
“The two parties (PPP and PML-N) are
facing difficulties and we have asked them to let us to play a role,”
role,” he told reporters
outside the Zardari House where the coalition leaders had been meting since
Monday following the resignation of President Pervez Musharraf. Asfandyar Wali told
reporters that since his party was not a signatory to the Murree Declaration and not
privy to the negotiations held between the PPP and the PML-N in the past on the
judges’ issue, he had sought three days’ time to discuss the matter with other
leaders of his party. He, however, denied that there was a deadlock.

It is interesting to note that Federal Law Minister Farooq Naek before going to the
Zardari House for the meeting told reporters outside the Parliament House that a
solution to the judges’ issue would come out by Tuesday evening. PML-N leader
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had announced on Monday that the issue would be
resolved in 24 hours. According to the sources, the coalition leaders also discussed
the issue of providing indemnity to the actions of former president Pervez Musharraf
and giving him a safe passage. Mr Sharif categorically told Mr Zardari that his party
would not become a part to any move at any forum to provide indemnity to the
former president’s actions. He said his party also did not support the idea of
providing ‘safe passage’ to Gen (retd) Musharraf. However, the sources said, the
leaders of three other coalition parties had adopted a soft stance on the issue of
providing a safe passage to Gen (retd) Musharraf. Mr Sharif said he had no personal
vendetta against Mr Musharraf, but if he was given a safe passage it would keep the
door open for future adventurers. Mr Zardari, the sources said, had agreed to Mr
Sharif’s assertion but told him that there was tremendous pressure on the PPP to
provide a safe passage to the ex-president. On the judges’ issue, Mr Sharif said his
party had always showed generosity and several times agreed to extend deadlines.
He assured Mr Zardari that if his party fulfilled the promise of restoring the judges,
the PML-N was ready to consider the PPP’s proposal for curtailing powers of the
chief justice. According to the sources, Mr Zardari told Mr Sharif that a large number
of lawyers who had association with the PPP believed that the judges could not be
restored simply through an executive order. Moreover, Mr Zardari also feared that
deposed chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry could cause problems for the government if
he tried to use his suo motu powers.

A press release issued by the PPP’s media centre after the meeting downplayed the
differences and said the coalition leaders had met to discuss issues pertaining to
the strengthening of democracy and political stability after the departure of Gen
(retd) Pervez Musharraf. It said that leaders of the ANP, JUI-F and Fata sought three
days’ time to consider the agreements reached between the PPP and PML-N on
restoration of the judges. “The
“The meeting acceded to their request to discuss the
issue of restoration of judges in their respective parties’ meetings,”
meetings,” it added. PPP
spokesman Farhatullah Babar said he was confidant that the issue of restoration of
the deposed judges would be resolved. Amjad Mahmood in Lahore adds: PML-N
chairman Raja Zafarul Haq claimed that talks between the coalition partners broke
down after the PPP insisted on indemnifying all actions of former president Pervez
Musharraf before reinstatement of the deposed judges. “The “The PPP wants us to
support it first in legalising the actions of Gen (retd) Musharraf while it is not ready
to give any timeframe for restoration of the deposed judges,”
judges,” Mr Haq told Dawn
from Islamabad. “It “It (PPP) sought more time for reinstatement of the judges arguing
it was a very complicated issue.”
issue.” He said Mr Sharif had shown a written statement
of Mr Zardari to Mr Asfandyar Wali and Maulana Fazlur Rehman in which the PPP co-
chairman had promised to restore the judges within 24 hours of the removal of
Musharraf from office. He said Mr Zardari had suggested that both the incumbent
Chief Justice, Abdul Hameed Dogar, and deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry should go. Mr Haq claimed the PPP leader had said he would persuade
Justice Dogar to resign and asked the PML-N to get the same assurance from Justice
Iftikhar. But Mr Sharif refused and told Mr Zardari that he was free to get the
assurance from Justice Dogar.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 20.08.08

– US wants Musharraf treated with respect

Now that the political leadership is firmly in control, the United States does not want
any ambiguities about ISI’s role in the war on terror, says a State Department
official. In an exclusive briefing to Dawn, the official also said the United States
wanted President Pervez Musharraf to be treated with respect even after his ouster.
Since officials conducting such briefings are not named, Dawn cannot identify the
official who explained in detail how the United States stayed engaged with Pakistani
leaders throughout the process that led to a peaceful resolution of the
impeachment dispute. “I “I think it is going to be very important that every
organisation, every institution, is completely lined up to protect the nation,”
nation,” said
the official while explaining how Washington expected Pakistan’s political leadership
to fight terrorism.“That
terrorism.“That means there can’t be any ambiguities about ISI anymore,”
anymore,”
said the official. Asked if there were ambiguities about ISI’s role in the war on terror,
the official said: “Sure,
“Sure, there have been for years.”
years.” Asked if the United States made
sure that Mr Musharraf was not arrested or tried for alleged violations of the
Pakistani Constitution, the official said: “I“I would not say we had made sure. We
have always said he is a friend of ours and he needs to be treated with respect.”
respect.”
Asked if the US would continue to use its influence to ensure that Mr Musharraf was
not arrested or tried after his ouster, the official said: “Our
“Our desire to see him treated
with respect will always be the case. How it plays out, what exact deals they make,
is up to them.”
them.” The official said the United States also encouraged Britain and Saudi
Arabia to get involved in the process that led to Mr Musharraf’s resignation. The
Saudis sent their intelligence chief Prince Muqrin bin Abdul Aziz and the British sent
their former ambassador in Islamabad, Mark Lyall Grant, to negotiate the terms for
Mr Musharraf’s departure. “He “He is a free man, he can go where he wants,”
wants,” said the
official when asked if the US administration would allow Mr Musharraf to live in the
United States, particularly because it might no longer be safe for him to live in
Pakistan. “Will
“Will you let him come to the US?”
US?” the official was asked again. “He
“He is free
to go where he wants,”
wants,” he said. “Will
“Will the US give him a visa?”
visa?” “I
“I don’t see any
reason why he would not qualify for a visa. I don’t know where he wants to go,” go,” the
official said.

Asked if the US regretted that one of its closest allies in the war in terror was
hounded out of power, the official said: “I “I don’t even know I would put it that way.
Pakistan has faced a lot of trouble over the last year, whether it is the end of them,
I don’t know. We have to see what the government is able to do now.” now.” “But
“But you did
try to prevent him from going to this slippery slope that ultimately led to his
departure?” “We have always encouraged people to respect democracy. We
advised him not to impose a state of emergency on Nov 3. He made a lot of
decisions … and he is living with the consequences of making those decisions.”decisions.” The
official explained that instead of getting directly involved in the impeachment
dispute, the US administration “let
“let events play out”.
out”. The United States, however,
“encouraged” everyone to respect the democratic process, “and “and let it take its
course,”
course,” the official said. He claimed that while the US did not give any advice to
the conflicting parties, it kept in touch with the players. According to the official, the
US Embassy in Islamabad played a key role in these negotiations because
Washington avoided direct contacts with the players. “There “There were no conversations
between Washington and Islamabad since Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s visit” visit”
to the US capital last month. The official also rejected media reports that President
Musharraf telephoned President Bush twice during the impeachment crisis but Mr
Bush refused to take his calls. “I“I don’t think it is true that he called twice,”
twice,” he said.
The US official noted that the Feb 18 elections in Pakistan brought a moderate
government which now had to deal with the problems of terrorism, a weak economy
and had to build democratic institutions. “They
“They have to make sure that they will not
allow themselves to be distracted by their politics,”
politics,” the official said. “We
“We are
concerned about what Pakistan is able to accomplish in the war on terror,” terror,” he said.
“It is important to Pakistan. It is important to Pakistan’s neighbours. It is important
to us.”
us.” He said that no senior US official was planning to visit Pakistan in the near
future but the US ambassador in Islamabad would stay in touch with all political
players.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 20.08.08

– Musharraf denies reports about leaving country

Former President Pervez Musharraf on Tuesday denied reports that he was going
abroad and was planning to settle in another country and insisted that he had
resigned “in
“in the best national interest”.
interest”. According to a private TV channel and some
sources in the capital, Gen (retd) Musharraf described as baseless media reports
that after performing Umra he would move to the United States where his son ran a
well-established business. He was talking to a delegation which called on him at the
President’s Lodge in Rawalpindi. However, the TV channel did not say which
delegation had called on the former president. Meanwhile, analysts said that Mr
Musharraf’s resignation resulted from a ‘deal’ with the ruling coalition that ensured
a ‘safe passage’ in return for a promise not to restore the deposed judge or to
repeal the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) before announcing his
resignation. “We
“We had advised the president to reinstate deposed judges and revoke
NRO before tendering his resignation but he avoided the steps because he thought
that these could destabilise the country,”
country,” a PML-Q leader said. However, Minister for
Law, Justice and Human Rights Farooq H. Naek rejected reports that Gen (retd)
Musharraf had resigned under a deal with the government. “No,“No, there is no deal.
The former president resigned of his own will. Today,”
Today,” said the minister. When
asked whether the government would make public the charge-sheet against the
former president, Mr Naek said the charge-sheet had been drawn to impeach the
former president. But since he had resigned, “it
“it is meaningless”.
meaningless”.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 20.08.08

– Assessing a legacy
Now that he’s gone, his legacy will be debated. As the hysteria subsides and the
political pantomime of heroes and villains takes a brief hiatus, the question many
will have is: what did Musharraf mean for Pakistan? The answer: it depends and it’s
relative. It depends on what is good for Pakistan. Democracy? Then the general was
bad for this country on Oct 12, 1999, and nothing he did subsequently could ever
rectify that. The moral outrage of his latter-day opponents is a conceit. If Musharraf
is at fault he is at fault for being a dictator, not for being a failed dictator — which is
the crux of his critics’ complaint. A dictator is a dictator is a dictator. And no amount
of subsequent goodness can ever overcome that. But the people cheered on the
dictator when he first arrived, so we need to descend from lofty ideals to more
pedestrian measures: was he good for politics? No. Forget his seven-point agenda,
his four-point strategy and his eight-year regime for a moment. The most
devastating, straightforward assessment of his effect on politics is a statement of
fact: his last rites as a politician were read by the very political leaders he sought to
bury eight years ago. Coming full circle cannot be a success, especially when it is
the opposite of the plan. The three-stage transition to democracy that Musharraf
laid out eventually became a threestep ouster of himself. So shall we conclude that
he was bad for Pakistan then? Not on that basis alone. The people of Pakistan have
alternated between rejecting and accepting their politicians. Yesterday’s heroes are
today’s villains and vice versa. Musharraf’s problem is that dictators do not get a
second chance. To assess his eight years on the basis of his ignominious end would
be to fall into the trap of the politicians’ good/bad binary. The people do not see the
world in those terms; they appreciate shades of grey. And the people clearly want
something more than goodness from their politicians. But what is that something
more against which the Musharraf era can be judged?

At first blush economic growth is a good measure. Polls and anecdotal evidence
suggests the state of the economy is a key indicator of the public’s level of
satisfaction. Not coincidentally, the economy was one of the pillars of the Musharraf
era. But it is a very tricky exercise. Should the Musharraf era be assessed in
comparison to what was achieved in the 1990s or on the basis of the resources that
were available to the general in the 2000s? And how does one account for
heightened expectations? In the 1990s governments aspired to a five per cent
growth rate; today it would be received with great dismay. Then again, the
governments of the 1990s would probably have killed to have the monetary inflows
that a confluence of politics, war and a liquid global economy gave Pakistan this
decade. Besides what good is growth if the people are not invited to the party?
Poverty rates matter. Until recently, before inflation engulfed the country, there was
a fierce debate on the number of poor. Economists are worse than politicians, so the
debate quickly became arcane. Yet, for those who followed the debate, what was in
dispute was the rate at which poverty was decreasing, not whether it was
decreasing at all. So what is a good rate of decrease in poverty? The answer: it
depends. It depends on how much you hate the general and love the poor and how
you judge Musharraf for what he could have done against what he did do. Numbers
are quickly engulfed by politics. It’s all moot anyway now that inflation has
shattered lives and dragged more people into poverty, some may argue. True — to
an extent. Follow the new debate and it quickly becomes apparent that there is
actually a consensus on what needs to be done to guide the country out of the
economic crisis. If the present government fails to implement sound economic
policies, can Musharraf be made to shoulder the entire blame? And will it undo his
record over eight years? Yes, if you hate him; no, if you are more circumspect.

Whether Musharraf was good for Pakistan is also a relative assessment. And about
overcoming stereotypes and simplifications. Take Messrs Sharif and Sharif. Nawaz is
one of Pakistan’s most popular politicians but he has his fair share of detractors.
He’s the military’s creation. There are charges of corruption against him. He is
accused of breaking the law. Shahbaz, on the other hand, has no significant
detractors. Even his worst critics acknowledge that he is a fearsome administrator
and a tireless worker. Yet, by virtue of being Nawaz’s brother and Abbaji’s son,
Shahbaz benefited from the same money and power that Nawaz is accused of
having amassed illegitimately. But Shahbaz gets a free pass because he gets things
done rather than make promises. And take a look at ZAB, the country’s greatest
populist. Was he not catapulted to stardom by being an obsequious young man who
served in the cabinet of a dictator? Yet he is celebrated for using that springboard
to do something else: awaken the countryside politically. The PPP is considered the
country’s most liberal, secular party. It was and is. But ZAB’s law minister piloted a
bill through parliament that amended the constitution to declare Ahmadis non-
Muslims, shattering any notions of secularism. BB, derided as the ‘daughter of the
West’ by critics, signed off on the Taliban policy in her second term in office. The
people know these shades of grey; it’s the politicians’ narratives that are devoid of
grey. Dislodging Musharraf was a political act that of necessity was portrayed as a
battle between good and bad. But the public knows that good people can make bad
decisions and bad people can make good decisions. Which does the country need
more: good decisions or good people? Both are a luxury the people know they
cannot have. That complex matrix of decisions good and bad, right and wrong is the
only space in which Musharraf can properly — and honestly — be assessed. And
honesty demands we acknowledge that any assessment can never be objective
because the issues are too important, the stakes are too high and we are too close
to it all. What is good is that Musharraf is gone. To a genuine democrat he was
never welcome in the first place. But to assess him on the basis of that ideal is
meaningless because the people themselves have rejected that touchstone. There
is a more prosaic reason to welcome his departure though: Musharraf was the
product of our system; his mistake was to believe that its constraints were not
applicable to him.
Author Location Dated
Tasneem Siddiqui 20.08.08

– Impeach the system

Now that he has made his exit, Pervez Musharraf will surely fade into history. In
Pakistan’s chequered 61 years, the ouster of all-powerful rulers from the top seat is
nothing new. These are games that the hardcore establishment has often played
and will continue to play unless civil society asserts itself, and mainstream political
parties transform themselves into wellorganised, truly democratic and participatory
organisations. Remember what happened to powerful and ‘indispensable’ rulers like
Ghulam Muhammad, Iskander Mirza, Ayub Khan and Ziaul Haq? They were thrown
out ignominiously by the very establishment which had created them once they had
served its purpose. With their departure nothing changed, and the mantra of the
powerful vested interest remained ‘the‘the king is dead. Long live the king!’
king!’ Currently,
media hype has been created that with Musharraf’s departure everything will
change in Pakistan. Of course his ouster from Army House will bring an end to the
shenanigans he was indulging in, and will provide an opportunity to politicians to
strengthen the process of change, presuming they want it. But should that be
enough? Starting from March 9, 2007 we have had indications that there is a strong
desire at all levels that there should be basic changes in the country’s governance.
But with Pervez Musharraf’s departure from the scene, we should not be lulled into
believing that everything will be fine in the state of Denmark. Now our focus should
be on impeaching the system. The system is like the proverbial dog in the village
well. It will not be cleansed if we take out a few pots of water. We have to throw out
the dog itself.

In order to elaborate this point, let us take three basic areas of our national life i.e.
the structure and functioning of political parties, the administration of justice, and
our economy,
economy, and see what needs to be done. First, let’s take our electoral system.
Most of our political parties are at best personalised institutions. Quite a few of
them have been converted into family dynasties, where the mantle is passed from
one generation to the next. Even if internal elections are held, they are nothing but
a farce as the top leadership remains the same. A common ailment afflicts them all.
No party member dares to challenge the word of the leader, no internal debates are
encouraged, and there is no merit-based system of promotion from the junior rungs
of the ladder to the top echelons. The parties do not have any active think tanks to
try and find solutions to problems like sustainable growth, social development,
housing, health and education. The MNAs and MPAs, once elected, are conspicuous
by their absence from their constituencies. Instead of maintaining an active
presence in their area, they are found mostly in Islamabad (when not travelling
abroad). Most constituencies are family fiefdoms with members of the same family
elected at the tehsil, district, provincial and federal levels, year after year. They
resist any fundamental change that may threaten their power base. It is not
surprising that they are supporters of the status quo, because it ensures their
constant hold on power, and provides them with pelf and privilege.

Next, take the judiciary and the administration of criminal justice. The lawyers’
movement is commendable and we have hardly witnessed anything like this
previously in Pakistan. Their cause — the independence of the judiciary and the rule
of law — is lofty and noble. However, hardly anyone is striving for the reform of the
entire judicial system. No one is addressing the ailments that are hampering the
process of the delivery of justice. No one is talking about how judges are appointed,
how cases are fixed, how much money is to be paid to the staff at every step, why
abnormal delays take place and whether the poor can afford to seek justice under
the present system. The current state of lower courts (the incapability of the civil
judges to decide cases, the conditions in which they are forced to work, the paucity
of staff and furniture) paints a dismal picture, but no one is paying attention. This is
not due to the shortage of money: $350m were spent on the Access to Justice
programme but with what result? What is lacking is political will and priorities. Look
at anything. It is in a shambles. After the much-touted devolution plan, billions were
spent on police reforms. But has anything changed? Police stations, jails, the
condition of the under-trial prisoners, all remain the same.

Last but not least, take a look at the economy. It is an admitted fact that we are in
dire circumstances and millions of people are facing the scourge of runaway
inflation and rising unemployment. This is not because Pakistan is a resource-poor
country.The basic problem is that our conventional planning, development and
distribution mould is deeply flawed. It has not worked in the past and will not work
in the future. We have to impeach the current paradigm and look for alternative
models which have worked in many countries and changed the lives of the people in
one generation. In Pakistan, governments come and governments go, but the
economic managers keep on prescribing the same old policies which help the rich.
During the last seven years as well, the beneficiaries of ‘growth’ have been banks,
automobiles manufacturers, multinational companies (mainly in the IT and oil
sector) and stock brokers while the poor have perished. Now they can’t afford even
two square meals a day. We must fix responsibility for this fiasco and Pervez
Musharraf’s economic team must be put in the dock and asked to explain why
policies advocated by them have consistently failed. Simultaneously there is need
to change our fiscal policies, resource allocation and budgetmaking process if we
want to bring about any improvement in the lives of the people. Owing to
continuous political instability caused by intermittent military interventions, the
state of Pakistan has reached a stage where it cannot perform even its core
functions as very aptly pointed out by columnist Ayesha Siddiqa in this paper
recently. It is high time we realise that merely a change of face is not going to work.
Our ruling class must redefine the role of the state and the first priority must be to
make its writ effective. At the same time, civil society must exert pressure on those
who are in a position of power and make them accountable on a continuing basis.

Author Location Dated

20.08.08

– Musharraf’s future
It is time to put the Pervez Musharraf phenomenon behind us. This needs to be
reiterated because there are demands from some powerful personalities for trying
the former president. In principle, one cannot oppose the retired general’s trial. His
enemies say the list of charges against him could run up to 200 pages. But there is
need to keep an eye on reality. What the hour demands is that we grasp the
broader, national picture rather than focus on the fate of one individual. As we have
often pointed out in these columns, there is no place for selectivity in the principle
of accountability. If people are to be tried for their acts of omission and commission,
everyone accused of corruption must stand in the dock. We know that the
accountability system put in place by Musharraf nabbed many highprofile
personalities, but it also favoured those who chose to switch loyalty. Many of those
against whom the National Accountability Bureau had framed charges were not only
pardoned, they were also rewarded with key cabinet posts. At present, too,
Musharraf is not the only person accused of crimes; many sleazy characters in the
thick of politics today deserve to be brought to justice and stripped of the cloak of
innocence they have managed to don because of an opportune turn of events.
Deals were actually struck to withdraw cases in the name of national reconciliation.

There are more reasons for our stand. The more forceful argument against a
Musharraf trial is its repercussions. In the first place it is doubtful that in the kind of
atmosphere that exists in the country Musharraf will get a fair trial, since there are
hardly any institutions left in whose impartiality and honesty the people could have
faith. Besides a court trial will be a media hoopla that will merely serve to provide
entertainment to the millions and be a source of delight for his foes without giving
any tangible benefits to the nation. The trial could drag on and undo the benefits of
the breather provided by Musharraf’s decision to quit instead of facing
impeachment. The net effect will be a continuation of the state of uncertainty, with
its concomitant, adverse effects on the war on terror and the economy. Musharraf’s
resignation obviated the need for impeachment proceedings and has given the
political leadership an opportunity to focus its energy and attention on the
gargantuan problems facing the nation. What the grand coalition should realise is
that, having won a decisive political and moral victory, it now has the golden
opportunity to launch a blitz for Pakistan’s all-round development. The democratic
government stands in good stead with the world, and there is no doubt it will get
necessary aid and trade concessions if it succeeds in mobilising the people’s
energies for developing Pakistan instead of frittering away this opportunity in
making a show of what Asif Zardari called “a relic of the past”.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 20.08.08

– Musharraf’s foes oppose ‘safe exit’, call for trial

On Pakistan’s first day without Pervez Musharraf’s presidency, his foes in the
National Assembly on Tuesday called for denying him a “safe exit” and putting him
on trial as the ruling coalition pondered over reinstating judges he had deposed and
finding a democratic successor of a disgraced former dictator. In the face of severe
criticism for his alleged violations of the Constitution and victimisation of political
opponents, some of his loyalists from the formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q
(PML-Q) had words of praise for the last of the country’s four military rulers and
urged his critics to forget and forgive and better concentrate on tackling grave
problems such as law and order, inflation and food and energy shortages. But the
Karachi-based Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM), (MQM), an erstwhile key Musharraf ally,
maintained a meaningful silence for the second day of an inconclusive debate and
some of its members opposed any further talk on the issue at the cost of other
business of the house after Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani had spoken on it on
Monday night. Several members lambasted a farewell military guard of honour
presented to the ex-president after he announced resigning from his office to
escape the humiliation of impeachment planned by the ruling coalition led by the
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) and saw it as a sign of possible moves to save him
from paying for usurpation of power in violation of the Constitution since his Oct 12,
1999 coup and other alleged misdeeds, including his role in the alleged murder and
disap pearance of thousands of people. Even before the debate was adjourned until
5pm on Wednesday, there was talk in parliament lobbies that it might be within
hours that the top coalition leaders’ meeting in Islamabad would announce the time
for the promised reinstatement of about 60 judges of the Supreme Court and the
four provincial high courts who were sacked under a controversial Nov 3, 2007
emergency proclamation by then-president Musharraf in his capacity as army chief.

Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister Farooq H. Naek, often accused in the past of
playing delaying tactics on the issue, told the media outside the house the decision
would come “today”. But Information and Broadcasting Minister Sherry Rehman was
more cautious, saying the issue needed consultation among the coalition partners,
who later put it off until Friday as their jubilant mood was interrupted by the
shocking report of a suspected suicide bomb attack at a hospital in Dera Ismail
Khan that killed more than 30 people. During the debate, most of the harsh anti-
Musharraf criticism came from the PPP’s main coalition ally, the Pakistan Muslim
League-N (PML-N), though some from the PPP too did not mince words despite an
apparent party advice for restraint. PPP chief whip and Labour and Manpower
Minister Khurshid Ahmed Shah was seen engaged in a finger-pointing argument in a
house aisle with a party back-bencher who called the ex-president a “rebel“rebel of Allah”
Allah”
deserving the capital punishment and asked all party member to raise their hands
in support of his view and even called an apparently hesitant Interior Adviser
Rehman Malik by name to do the same. Culture and Youth Affairs Minister Saad
Rafiq said his PML-N would not become a party to “any “any attempt to give indemnity to
Musharraf’s black deeds”
deeds” because “unless
“unless one military adventurer was punished
another adventurer could topple democracy again tomorrow”.
tomorrow”. PML-N’s Sahibzada
Fazal Karim said a dictator “who
“who was not ready to give way to anyone until
yesterday … should be punished under article 6 (of the Constitution providing the
death penalty for treason) instead of giving him a safe passage”.
passage”. Another PML-N
member, Khurram Dastagir, said though Musharraf’s alleged crimes like selling out
Pakistan’s sovereignty, “blood
“blood of the Pakistani people and the Kashmiri people’s
struggle as well as making Pakistan’s economy hostage to international institutions,
there was need for a mechanism to make him admit his crimes before a South
Africa type truth and reconciliation commission.”
commission.” But PML-Q activist Ms Donya Aziz
said her party’s patron had “left
“left with a lot of dignity and grace”
grace” and “in
“in the interest
of the country”.
country ”. Pleading for a policy of let bygones be bygones, she asked the
coalition government to move forward to tackle the enormous problems it was
faced with. Her senior party colleague Atiya Inayatullah described Musharraf’s
departure as “a
“a military ruler becoming a political martyr for the first time”
time”
although she invited cries of “shame,
“shame, shame”
shame” from the treasury benches.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 21.08.08

– Govt talks tough as inaction against hate-mongers is assailed

in NA
The government talked tough in the National Assembly on Wednesday after a day
of an apparently sectarian carnage in Dera Ismail Khan, saying it would not brook
“any nonsense”,
nonsense”, as some members from both sides of the house protested at what
they called inaction of authorities against hatemongers. But Interior Adviser
Rehman Malik announced plans to promote sectarian peace in the troubled region,
including the Parachinar tribal area, along with the use of force against the
perpetrators of violence. “The
“The government of Pakistan will not tolerate any
nonsense,”
nonsense,” Mr Malik said after a ruling coalition member said tension had in the
Punjab province after gripped his native district of Bhakkar Tuesday’s suspected
suicide bombing at a hospital in the neighbouring Dera Ismail Khan town of the
North West Frontier Province in which 32 people were killed. “Wherever
“Wherever the
government’s writ is challenged we will take action.”
action.” The adviser informed the
house that a “95
“95 per cent ceasefire”
ceasefire” had been achieved in Parachinar after months
of violence, following a 72-hour deadline given by him, and said a joint jirga, or
council, of 30 ulema each from the Sunni and Shia sects would try for peace in the
region. Pakistan Muslim League-N (PML-N) member Rashid Akbar Khan told the
house that people had started coming to Bhakkar to seek shelter from violence in
Dera Ismail Khan that he said was targeted against the Shia community. “All “All
agencies know who is doing target-killing,”
target-killing,” he said but complained that there was
little protection for Shias from the law-enforcement authorities or any compensation
for the dead or wounded. The highly agitated member said the Shia could arrange
their own defence if the government could not do it.

A member of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Q (PML-Q), Sheikh Waqas

Akram from Jhang district of the Punjab, said chiefs of some banned religious groups
were roaming unchecked there for the past one month enjoying a sort of protocol
with revolving lights on their cars in what he saw a move to corner “all
“all minority
sects”.
sects”. Adviser Malik, however, said Sunnis and Shias had very little to do with the
prevailing wave of violence which, he added, was mainly the work of a third
element of “enemies
“enemies of Pakistan sitting on the border”
border” aiming to destabilise the
country against whom the government would take “the “the strongest action”.
action”. He
referred to the ongoing military operation against militants in the Bajaur tribal area
and said “it
“it will not be stopped until we eliminate them”.
them”. The adviser said all main
intelligence agencies — the Intelligence Bureau, the Inter-Services Intelligence and
Military Intelligence — were working against militancy and that two suspected
suicide bombers, four “handlers” and some material had been seized in some latest
raids in the Punjab.

After two days of silence about the resignation of former president Pervez
Musharraf, the Muttahida Qaumi Movement used the day’s sitting to praise him for
what its senior member Haider Abbas Rizvi called wisdom in standing down rather
than contesting an impeachment to end a situation of tension and confrontation. He
also congratulated PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari for his unexplained role in
saving the country from a crisis. But Mr Rizvi, who is also a deputy leader of
opposition in the lower house although his party is a partner in the PPP-led Sindh
provincial ruling coalition, asked the government to beware of potential turncoats
he called “leeches” who he said had abandoned former prime minister Nawaz Sharif
after his ouster from power and would now flock around the new rulers after end of
the Musharraf presidency. He seemed to be referring to possible side-switching by
PML-Q members of the National Assembly and the Senate some of whom met Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday.
Author Location Dated
Islamabad/Karachi, 21.08.08
Pakistan

– Move afoot to install Zardari as president

There now appears to be a concerted move to install PPP cochairman Asif Ali Zardari
as the next president of the country with a number of senior members of the party
and the Muttahida Qaumi Movement coming out strongly in support of his
candidature. MNA Farzana Raja told reporters after a dinner hosted by Mr Zardari
for the party’s legislators that almost all PPP leaders had asked Mr Zardari to
become president. She claimed that there was unanimity that Mr Zardari was the
most suitable person for the post. However, a party insider told Dawn that there
were a few members who opposed the idea of Mr Zardari holding the post of
president which had no real power. According to him, Mr Zardari told the MNAs that
the decision to nominate a candidate for the post would be taken at a meeting of
the PPP’s CEC on Friday. Earlier in the day, Minister for Water and Power Raja
Pervaiz Ashraf welcomed a statement of MQM chief Altaf Hussain that Mr Zardari
should be the next president. “This
“This is a welcome statement as the PPP has the right
to get its candidate elected to the top post. The PPP has its governments at the
center and in three provinces and also a part of the coalition government in
Punjab.”
Punjab.” He said the PPP would uphold the Constitution and reinstate the deposed
judges.

In a statement issued in London, the MQM chief said: “Keeping

“Keeping in view the sacrifice
of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto for democracy and after consulting my
colleagues, I have come to the conclusion that the office of the president is the
right of Asif Ali Zardari and, therefore, as party chief I propose Mr Zardari as the
next presidential candidate on behalf of my party.”
party.” He appealed to leaders of the
PPP and other parties to accept his proposal and nominate Mr Zardari for the post.
Mr Hussain praised former president Pervez Musharraf for saving the country from a
major crisis and resigning in the larger interest of the country and the nation. He
also praised Mr Zardari’s efforts for resolving the matter (impeachment) amicably.
APP adds: Mr Zardari has thanked the MQM chief for his ‘positive role’ which,
according to him, led to the resignation of Gen (retd) Musharraf. “Altaf
“Altaf Hussain and
his party played a crucial role in the mediation efforts towards obtaining the
resignation and ensuring a peaceful exit of the former president,”
president,” Mr Zardari said in
a statement.

Author Location Dated

London, England 21.08.08

– Britain admits having played a role in resignation

The British government has for the first time admitted to have played a role in the
resignation episode of former president Pervez Musharraf. This is how a BBC Urdu
dotcom report (Resignation: Admission of British role) opened on its webpage on
Wednesday. The report said Britain had strongly felt that no situation leading to a
collision between the elected government and former president should arise but
that the UK gave no specific formula for resolving the political impasse. In a related
story the BBC said one of Pakistan’s most prominent pro-democracy leaders, Aitzaz
Ahsan, who heads the Supreme Court Bar Association, had accused a senior British
diplomat of undermining his country’s rule of law. “Sir
“Sir Mark Lyall Grant was in
Pakistan recently and reportedly urged the government to give President Musharraf
immunity if he resigned,”
resigned,” the report said. Mr Ahsan said: “It’s
“It’s the Brits who have
stitched the deal. Mark Lyall Grant... won’t put a single man, a Britisher or non-
Britisher in England or in the United Kingdom above the law and yet he comes here
and puts the president above the law. “Today giving safe passage out to Musharraf
is allowing safe passage to the next man three years down the line.” line.” The BBC report
further said that the British Foreign Office had responded to Mr Ahsan’s statement
by issuing a statement saying it had not prescribed a specific solution to Pakistan’s
political crisis. It said that London was however keen that Pakistan found a way out
of confrontation. According to the report, the British Foreign Office told the BBC it
was working to avoid confrontation in Pakistan When Dawn asked about the
‘admission’ aspect of the BBC report, Natasha Khan, spokesperson of the Foreign
and Commonwealth Office, denied that Sir Mark had a mandate to prescribe any
specific formula, but said Britain wanted to see full and stable democracy in
Pakistan and no political upheavals.

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 21.08.08

– Asfandyar, Fazl hopeful of breaking deadlock

Leaders of the smaller groups in the ruling coalition are reported to be of the view
that the judiciary may be restored to the pre-Nov 3 position by an executive order
supported by a resolution of the National Assembly. Awami National Party’s
president Asfandyar Wali Khan, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rahman
and Fata parliamentarian Munir Khan Orakzai held their first meeting here on
Wednesday in their bid to resolve differences between the Pakistan People’s Party
and Pakistan Muslim League-N. According to sources, they discussed various
aspects of the issue and went through the Murree accord and a written agreement
reached among the coalition partners on Aug 7 which accorded first priority to
impeachment of Gen (retd) Musharraf and stated that the sacked judges would be
reinstated through an executive order supported by a resolution. The sources said
the JUI-F held its own meeting on the issue on Tuesday evening and came to the
conclusion that both the major parties had agreed twice to reinstate the judges to
the pre Nov 3 position by adopting a resolution in the National Assembly. The
meeting was attended by, among others, the party’s secretary-general Maulana
Abdul Ghafoor Haideri, former chief minister Akram Durrani and Senator Azam
Swati. The party leadership conveyed its stand to the participants of Wednesday’s
meeting. Maulana Fazl and Asfandyar Wali told journalists: “We
“We have reached a
preliminary conclusion after going through the documents but we will not disclose
our findings at this stage.”
stage.” Both the leaders denied that PPP co-chairman Asif Ali
Zardari had at any stage refused to reinstate (deposed) Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry.

When asked whether the nation should expect ‘good news’ within the three days
they had got to resolve the issue, the ANP chief said: “We
“We will deliver on what we
have committed.”
committed.” He said the three-member committee had to thrash out a number
of issues topped by restoration of the judiciary. The issues of giving indemnity to
Gen (retd) Musharraf and the law and order situation in the Federally Administered
Tribal Areas, the NWFP and Balochistan will also be addressed. “We“We were not
consulted by the two major coalition partners on major policy issues and we need to
ponder over them now for a consensus among all the member parties,”parties,” he said. He
said the committee would share its findings with Mr Zardari and PML-N chief Mina
Nawaz Sharif’s nominees Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Ishaq Dar. Replying to a
question, the ANP chief said: “It
“It will be wrong to assume that I will ever oppose
reinstatement of the deposed judges because I am the one who had picked up the
bodies of 22 of my followers in the Karachi carnage on May 12 last year in the midst
of the lawyers’ movement.”
movement.” JUI-F leader Maulana Haideri said that the committee
could not recommend any course of action except reinstating the judges through a
parliamentary resolution because, otherwise, the PML-N could make the two
accords public and make it difficult for the coalition leaders to save face. A source in
the JUI-F said that Mr Zardari was stressing on giving indemnity to Gen (retd)
Musharraf for all his actions so that the issue of the National Reconciliation
Ordinance might not be reopened in future.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 21.08.08

– ‘Musharraf not planning to take part in active politics’

Former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf is reported to have said he does not
plan to take part in ‘active politics’ and that he will not join the PML-Q. Talking to a
40-member delegation of the PML-Q which had called on him on Wednesday, Mr
Musharraf said he was neither leaving the country nor selling his farmhouse. “I “I will
stay with my family in Islamabad.”
Islamabad.” There have been reports in the media that the
former president is going to perform Umra and from Saudi Arabia he will move to
the United States where his son and brothers settled. Some private TV channels
claimed that he had already obtained the visa and would leave for Jeddah soon. The
delegation, led by PML-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, included Leader of
the Opposition in National Assembly Chaudhry Parvaiz Elahi, Chaudhry Wajahat
Hussain, Mushahid Hussain Sayed, Tariq Azeem Khan, Nisar A. Memon, Marvi
Memon, Dr Atia Inayatullah, Sheikh Waqas Akram, Ghaus Bakhsh Maher, Amir
Muqam, Sardar Jamal Leghari and Awais Leghari.
Leghari. Marvi Memon told Dawn after the
meeting that Mr Musharraf was in a ‘relaxed mood’ and wanted to live a peaceful
life with his family. “He
“He is not prepared to join the PML-Q at least for the time being
nor is he interested in taking part in active politics.”
politics.” However, she said he had not
been invited to join the PML-Q. Ms Memon said Mr Musharraf told the delegation he
thought that resignation was the right thing to do in the situation. She said the
former president had avoided saying anything against the ruling coalition, although
the delegation members criticised the government for its failure on various fronts.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 21.08.08

– Washington urges Islamabad to focus on terrorism

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has advised Pakistan’s democratic
government to focus on fighting militants “hiding
“hiding in the country’s tribal belt”.
belt”. Her
focalperson for South Asia, Assistant Secretary Richard Boucher, gave a similar
advice to the Pakistani government in an interview to Voice of America radio,
reminding Islamabad that “it
“it is in your interest to fight the militants”.
militants”. The US
emphasis on the need for Pakistan to fight terrorists follows President Pervez
Musharraf’s exit from power in which Americans played a key mediatory role. The
US administration believes that with Mr Musharraf out of their way, the Pakistani
government should turn its attention to terrorism, rein in the socalled rogue
elements within the ISI and drive out terrorists from Fata. “The
“The government does
need to focus on what it is going to do to stop these militants,”
militants,” said Secretary Rice.
“And we’ve had that conversation very recently when the Pakistani Prime Minister
was in Washington to meet with President Bush.”
Bush.” In an interview to BBC, Ms Rice
indicated that the US did not want Pakistan’s internal politics to have a negative
impact on the war on terror. “We
“We all have an interest in fighting terrorism and the
militants, because the militants are not just after the United States or Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,”
she said. “These
“These are the people who, after all, assassinated Benazir Bhutto. These
are the people who have launched attacks throughout Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”

Explaining the US policy towards a post-Musharraf Pakistan, Ms Rice said the United
States supported the democratically elected government and was a strong
advocate for free and fair elections which brought politicians to power. The US, she
noted, also encouraged President Musharraf to take off his uniform and return
Pakistan to civilian rule. “We
“We didn’t always agree (with Mr Musharraf). For instance,
we didn’t agree with the state of emergency several months ago. But President
Musharraf served well as an ally in the war on terror.”
terror.” The US, she said, wanted to
help the elected government and was supporting a package within the G-7 finance
ministers to help the Pakistani economy. “We
“We want to help them in terms of social
development, educational reform, all of the things that they want to do,”
do,” she added.
Her deputy, Richard Boucher, also responded to the criticism that Mr Musharraf
became unpopular in Pakistan because he followed US policies in the war on terror.
Mr Boucher said Mr Musharraf did not follow US policies in the war on terror. He
made his own policies and implemented them. Mr Boucher said the former Pakistani
president fought terrorists because he believed it was in Pakistan’s interest to do
so. The present government was also fighting this war because it believed it was
Pakistan’s war, the US official said. Asked if Mr Musharraf’s ouster was also a lesson
for Washington to stop supporting individuals, Mr Boucher said the United States
was working with institutions in Pakistan and not with individuals.

Author Location Dated

S. M. Naseem syed.naseem@aya.yale.ed 21.08.08
u

– Looking beyond the general

Hopefully, the excruciating suspense surrounding Pakistan’s current political
predicament is finally over. The president’s ‘voluntary’ resignation, advertised as a
gesture towards his ‘Pakistan first’ motto, was like the long-awaited dropping of the
other shoe. Ever since the coalition agreed to impeach him if he failed to obtain a
vote of confidence from the electoral college for electing the president — for which
he had made a solemn undertaking in the Supreme Court while pleading for his
eligibility for election as president in uniform for a new five-year term — there has
been a raging war of nerves between the presidency and the (nominally) governing
coalition. The latter claimed it was in a position to muster enough support to carry
out the impeachment threat. This became increasingly credible as, one after
another, the provincial assemblies passed a resolution endorsing the impeachment
threat with overwhelming majority. Yet the president believed it was an empty
threat to force him to tender his resignation and to bully him with the prospect of
suffering the ultimate humiliation, which he presumed the army would not
countenance. The president had played and won these poker games before by
pretending he had a much stronger hand than his opponents. Unfortunately, this
time he was caught short as most of his former colleagues deserted him. The
coalition also finally called his bluff that the US and the army chief were behind him.
The two parties had by then realised that continued divisions between them and
delay would only reinforce Musharraf’s hand and turn the tables on them.

Once that happened nothing could save him from the ignominy of impeachment.
While strongly denying the rumours about his resignation, he cleverly arranged his
own ‘deal’— whose details, like those of other such ‘deals’, may remain shrouded in
secrecy for some time. Thus he hopes to escape his inevitable fate. Ironically, those
who let him get away with a modicum of decorum – including a hurriedly arranged
guard of honour — were the same foreign actors through whom he had conducted
the infamous ‘deal’ to get Benazir Bhutto back in Pakistan a year ago. Of course, he
reneged midway on this agreement with the connivance of Dick Cheney as revealed
by Ron Suskind. In his broadcast announcing his decision to resign, the retired
general was not only unrepentant about his nine year record of political and
economic mistakes and misdemeanors which have been chronicled and discussed
in great detail by investigative journalists and analysts during the past few years.
He also attempted to justify them as being in the best interest of the people. Only
towards the end of his broadcast did he admit to being a human being capable of
making mistakes and causing hurt to others, without specifying any in particular,
including such egregious ones as the unwarranted dismissal and imprisonment of
the judiciary or accusing women of “getting
“getting themselves raped”,
raped”, a pejorative
oxymoron, which outraged women. Now that the main stumbling block standing in
the way of democratic governance — not merely as a person, but as the system he
represented — has finally been removed, one must not gloat with the protagonists
of democracy. Passions are running high among people who seek some kind of
revenge on Musharraf and his collaborators.

He is seen as having caused untold misery to the people for the sake of forging an
opportunistic and self-serving alliance with the United States after 9/11. This was
designed to prolong his tenure and enhance the reach of the military to civilian
sectors, including politics, administration, public corporations, real estate and
education. Its economic strategy was built around squeezing the poor and fattening
the rich and his economic mandarins dutifully obliged by painting a dubious picture
of economic growth and decline in poverty, despite minimal investment in physical
and social infrastructure. However, it would be wrong to get carried away by empty
slogans of accountability and the prosecution of Musharraf and his cabal for
treason, the violation of the constitution and for human rights abuses. What must,
however, be done, at the very minimum, is to set up a high powered commission of
eminent persons (rather than retired bureaucrats) to enquire into the causes and
consequences of military takeovers and the means of fire-walling the democratic
framework to protect it from the intrusion of military and foreign powers. There is
growing unrest among the people about the inadequacy and lack of attention paid
by the new government to the pressing problems of life and work that the majority
of the population is facing. These issues can’t be deferred or distracted by
unnecessarily complicating the issue of restoration of the judiciary and the election
of the new president, which should be settled as expeditiously and in as
businesslike a manner as possible. The old guard establishment will also continue to
emphasise the need for appeasing our foreign benefactors and to continue our
dependence on their aid, which has always been used by them as a pretext to
interfere in our domestic politics.

Although it may not be possible for us to wean ourselves away from old habits, an
earnest effort must begin to reduce the need for such aid through higher
productivity, increased domestic savings, greater diversification of the economy
and the adoption of less ostentatious lifestyles, especially by those who have
benefited from the unequal growth of recent years. Much more important for
gaining the confidence of the people in the coalition’s earnestness to solve its
problems is the agreement to work as a cohesive team with well-defined ministerial
responsibilities. The challenging tasks of rebuilding the presently dysfunctional
institutions of economic development and reducing elitist biases in public policy on
poverty alleviation, health and social welfare, including education, labour and
women’s advancement and empowerment need to be met. At present these issues
have become jaded and devoid of any operational significance in official circles,
except as rhetoric or as periodic reports submitted to donors. There needs to be
both new thinking and integrated planning to reframe the agenda of development
from a defence-oriented national security perspective to a people-oriented welfare
perspective with a regional dimension. For these fundamental changes to be
brought about, the major coalition partners must evolve a common agenda with
periodic oversight at the highest level and with the collaboration of the best
available technical expertise in the country and among concerned expatriates
abroad with commitment to national welfare. Now is the time for all good men and
women to come to the aid of our country.

Author Location Dated

Zafar Masud 21.08.08

– Thoughts of a US-hater
At 67, André de la Roche stands ramrod straight and a full head taller than one’s
idea of an averagely tall person. Hard labour here at his ancestral vineyards by the
Loire river in central France has imparted this mild-mannered Parisian intellectual a
lean, muscled physique. The descendant of an old aristocratic family, André now
refuses to return to the capital which he says is being taken over by the Americans,
as is the rest of the world for that matter. A surprising conclusion, given today’s
weak dollar, you’d say! Can he be described as an America-hater? Caressing a plant
on which shiny, translucent grains are forming already, André turns back to look at
the sky, deeply browned fingers shading his eyes and the winegrower’s worry
written large across his bronzed forehead. Will the blazing midsummer sun turn his
fine white Sauvignon grapes too sweet by harvest time end September? Then he
shakes his head and smiles. “You
“You know, it makes me sad to think I admired America
once. But that was the Gary Cooper America, the ‘yep ‘and ‘nope’ America where
action took precedence over glibness of the tongue and solitary adventure and
creativity, whether intellectual, artistic or scientific, held sway; as do today vulgar
video clips, inarticulate Internet blogs and clowning on TV. “That America is gone
forever. Its putrefaction began with an organised campaign of guilt and self-
flagellation in the sixties and the process was complete by the end of the decade.
Nietzsche held great civilisations did not go down the drain because of foreign
invasions; it was inner rot that made them fall apart, like an over-ripened fruit. That
is exactly what happened to America, the Big Country, Aaron Copland America!
“Promoting peace through free trade was President Woodrow Wilson’s proud
dream, the essence of his triad. That was globalisation without self-righteousness
thrown in. But the core of today’s Yankee onslaught is hypo critical pseudo-
moralising that is very, very dangerous for world cultures. For, what are human
societies without the gift of atavistic memory, without traditional values?”
values?”

“Look at what is happening in France, once the most refined place on earth. Our
kids spit out four-letter words inspired by hoodlums of American suburbs, a culture
propagated in rap songs on MTV. Children today dress in baggy jeans with seats
dragging on the floor and in T-shirts with profanities proudly emblazoned on them
— bought at thousands of American franchise shops that litter every neighbourhood
of every European city. “The earliest McDonald’s joints in Europe opened two
decades ago with Bach and Mozart playing in the background. Once confident of
selling their trash to our young, they hastily abandoned classical music. Today
remote European cities have American-style supermarkets with Snoopy Doggy-dog
blaring on the loudspeakers. “Added to the cultural terrorism, there is also the
semantic terrorism. As college students, I remember, we used to discuss our social,
political issues entire days, often entire nights. If someone disagreed with the
others he had to explain why and everyone tried to grasp his line of thinking.
“Today the greatest American gift, not just to Europe but to the world, is political
correctness. A single PC edict can grind an entire philosophical argument in its
tracks, a steel shutter falling over an enlightened dialogue! Once you are branded a
‘reactionary’, a ‘sexist’, a ‘homophobe’ you better shut up or risk exclusion. “When
the Americans say they are trying to bring democracy to the people of Iraq or
Afghanistan, don’t fall for that. There is no such thing as ‘people’ in the American
mindset. We are all consumers. Youthful consumers of videogames, iPods and
hamburgers. Female consumers of single-mom literature and television garbage
such as ‘Desperate Housewives’ and ‘Sex & the City’. Baby-boomer consumers of
Viagra. You name it.”

“I have lived in Morocco and Egypt and have travelled to countries like Algeria,
Afghanistan and Pakistan. I know in what high regard a woman is held in a Muslim
household, what means respect for the elders and how hospitable and generous to
a total stranger can be a Bedouin or a Pathan. My heart bleeds every time I learn of
a bombing in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan. People are paying a heavy price to keep
the Madonna-Microsoft-McIntosh-McDonald’s monster at bay! “You perhaps wonder
why I include Microsoft and McIntosh in the list. After all, they are only technologies.
Yes, technologies pushing people around the world into consuming more and more
American poison.”
poison.” By this time we are heading towards André’s house, our bicycles
rolling effortlessly downhill. On our right the tiny figure of a Scottish collie describes
lightening circles around a herd of brown goats, expertly urging them to continue
their climb up the steep green pasture. In the valley below to our left, shimmer in
the sun the Sancerrois vineyards in inexhaustible patterns like an arrangement of
carpets, their green harmony broken here and there by dark clusters of oaks and
poplars and red-tiled roofs of ancient farmhouses. Our destination, a sturdy 15th
century brownstone mansion, suddenly comes into view at the turn of a winding
path under a row of lilac bushes. At the sight of a woman in a straw hat, wrestling
with a huge white canopy that she is trying to set over a lunch table in the cobbled,
sunwashed frontyard, André smiles: “That
“That doesn’t mean I hate all Americans.”
Americans.”
Noticing us, Jenny gives up her struggle and says in her American-accented French
we better wash up if we want some refreshment and lunch. She asks her husband if
he would prefer to eat in the sun. De la Roche has nothing of a Rhett Butler about
him. Should a cinematic reference be indispensable, with his jutting chin and close-
cropped, steel-grey hair he looks a bit like Georges Marchal, the French actor
famous for his performances as Roman emperors, gladiators and generals in the
Italian extravaganzas of the 1960s. As he heads toward the handpump, André stops
and looks back, offering his wife a chiselled, three-quarter profile. “Frankly
“Frankly speaking
my dear,”
dear,” he rumbles in heavily-accented English, “I
“I don’t give a damn!”
damn!” ¦ The
writer is a journalist based in Paris.
Paris.

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman 21.08.08

– End of the line?

Few should have been surprised by Gen Musharraf’s resignation last Monday. The
writing on the wall had become clear many days earlier. The significance of the
coalition government’s coup de grâce is quite evident but time alone will tell
whether this marks only the end of a single career or whether it can be taken as the
end of the line for extra-constitutional regimes. The wave of exultation that swept
the country following Gen Pervez Musharraf’s resignation can easily be appreciated.
For the first time in the country’s history a usurper of state power had been obliged
to quit through a constitutional process, an indirect expression of the people’s will.
Previously public pressure in the streets had forced the all powerful Field Marshal
Ayub Khan to withdraw from the presidential contest and to demolish the system he
had flaunted in the face of unarmed democrats. But the people were cheated out of
their final victory by his confidant of long years — Gen Yayha Khan. The latter was
in turn toppled by his comrades-in-arms after a political and military debacle for
which all of them were collectively responsible. Gen Zia defied public indictment till
the heavens issued summons he could not evade. What happened on Monday was
unprecedented.

Mr Pervez Musharraf’s exit has given the people the feeling that it was they who
decided the matter in the polling booths on Feb 18, numerous complaints of unfair
means to thwart their will notwithstanding. They wished the change in the
presidency to have occurred soon after the new government was installed.
However, it is no use blaming the coalition leaders for delaying the proceedings
against Mr Musharraf by four months. One may give them the benefit of the doubt
— that perhaps what became possible in the middle of Aug 2008 could not have
been accomplished earlier. If wearing down the powerful Musharraf lobby was their
strategy, it clicked and they are entitled to claim credit for that. There is no need to
rebut Mr Pervez Musharraf’s long apologia but it may be necessary to save the
gullible from being misled by the train of his arguments. The address was like an
accused’s statement in his own defence. He did not say a word about the 1999
takeover, the sack of the judiciary, the missing persons, the so-called emergency, or
the manipulation to secure his own re-election. By building his defence wholly on
claims of economic development he betrayed his inability to comprehend the
dynamics of democracy. England owed Churchill far more than Musharraf could ever
claim to have done for Pakistan but the people declined to allow him another term
in power soon after the war had been won. Mrs Indira Gandhi’s ‘feats’, such as the
conquest of East Bengal and the Pokhran nuclear test could not save her from a
humiliating defeat at the polls. Even if Mr Musharraf’s claims of development can be
entertained, for the sake of argument alone, no trade-off between development and
self-government is permissible in any civilised code. To argue to the contrary is to
put a cross on humankind’s struggles against colonialism. The colonial power built
more roads and educational institutions than all the self-appointed rulers of Pakistan
put together. Does that mean we were wrong in asking for independence? The harm
done to the people’s minds and souls by dictatorial regimes is comparable to
colonial depredation. Both cause infinitely greater havoc than the good claimed by
their advocates. Authoritarianism is singularly virtueless.

The problem with Mr Musharraf was his failure to see why his continuance in office
could not be countenanced. The simple fact is he had become a symbol of the
people’s bondage in their own land. He himself wrote the script of his downfall with
the misadventures of March 9 and Nov 3 last year. No ruler can afford to ignore the
limits of arrogance. It is quite obvious that Mr Musharraf’s devoted friends at home
and abroad, excluding the hatchet men reared by him and the so called
constitutional experts who were out to prove they were not worth their salt, stood
by him and saved him from a worse denouement. Who did what over the last few
weeks is now a part of history. The country needs a complete break from the past.
All eyes must now be on future. The ruling coalition partners cannot afford to lose
any time on barren name-calling or futile posturing. No scapegoat is there now on
whom they can fasten their sins of commission and omission. The exit of a common
adversary should not make the coalition partners neglectful of the need to
strengthen their mutual understanding. Nobody should have any illusions that the
crises Pakistan faces today are beyond the capacity of any single party or any
narrow-based alliance to solve. They will not be overcome until all political groups
pool their wisdom and resources and launch a concerted and coordinated campaign
to salvage the state. From now on the ruling parties will be subjected to stricter
tests not only by the standards of efficiency but also with regard to the norms of
integrity, austerity and concern for the have-nots. The immediate challenges before
the coalition government, even while it sorts out the most urgent issue of the
judges’ restoration, are mostly related to the people’s basic interests. The militants
who are abusing the religious sentiments of certain groups for their political ends
pose a threat to the people’s fundamental rights and no effort must be spared to
beat off this threat. The state must guarantee all its citizens and other persons
present in the country security of life, liberty, privacy and basic freedoms. The
entire population is clamouring for relief from poverty and the rising cost of living
and merely telling them the causes of their misery is like rubbing salt into their
sores. They must be offered relief beyond populist gestures that are fast losing
effect. Above all, a continuous, frank and purposeful dialogue with the citizens must
be maintained at all possible levels because, if nothing else, the government won’t
survive without the people’s active support, nor will it be able to ensure that it has
seen off the last of the praetorian adventurers.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 21.08.08
 – Obama’s lead cut by half
The latest polls show that Senator Barack Obama’s lead over his Republican rival
John McCain has been cut by half in recent days. Mr Obama’s lead is now a slim
three points over Senator McCain. This is down from an eight point lead that
Senator Obama recorded in mid-July. The polls, released early on Wednesday by
CNN and two leading US newspapers, show that Mr McCain’s new approach to win
over religious voters and his negative campaigning against his rival have been quite
effective. Mr Obama now leads Mr McCain 46-43 percent — half of his advantage in
a CNN poll of polls one week ago, and down from a high of 8 points in mid-July. A
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll indicates puts Mr Obama only 2 points ahead of
Mr McCain, well within the poll’s margin of error. The CNN poll of polls also includes
new surveys from Quinnipiac and Gallup. According to CNN, Russia’s invasion of
Georgia also gave Mr McCain an anvil to hammer away at Mr Obama’s inexperience.
The network noted that Senator Hillary Clinton nearly overtook Mr Obama during
the primary campaign after she started airing ads that highlighted Mr Obama’s
inexperience. The McCain has publicly acknowledged that it has learned quite a few
tactics from Mrs Clinton’s campaign. When Russian troops invaded Georgia two
weeks ago, Mr McCain vigorously denounced the action and warned of
consequences. Mr Obama’s reaction was more measured. Polls results have
alarmed the Obama campaign and they have arranged a series of meetings for the
candidate in key swing states to win back his supporters. Several opinion surveys
noted that Mr McCain already has overtaken Mr Obama in at least one respect. The
Republican’s current lead in key states would give him enough electoral votes to
win the election. But experts interviewed by CNN noted that the recent downturn in
the polls for Mr Obama may not last. He is headed for a week of what is likely to be
overwhelmingly positive coverage as he names his running mate and officially
accepts his party’s presidential nomination.

Author Location Dated

Jayanthi Natarajan 21.08.08

– Abortion issue reflects ironies of modern living in India

The Niketa Mehta case, and the subsequent judgment pronounced by the Bombay
high court, have suddenly brought into national focus the important issue of
abortion, and the social, moral, ethical and political issues surrounding it. Although
the facts of the Niketa case were relatively straightforward, as was the judgment of
the court, the issues that arise out of it are far reaching and important. As the
extensive press coverage has reported, Niketa Mehta and her husband filed a
petition before the Bombay high court seeking to abort their unborn foetus due to
the finding of a pre-natal test which suggested that their baby might be born with a
congenital heart abnormality, which might entail their baby to be on a pacemaker,
almost from birth, and require intensive care and treatment for almost the whole of
its life. The court rejected their plea on the basis of the 37-year-old law, which
prohibits abortion after 20 weeks, unless under exceptional circumstances such as a
threat to the mother’s life. The court also declared that nothing in the medical
report confirmed the fear of Niketa and her husband that their baby would be born
with a congenital abnormality. The emotional trauma that the Mehtas must have
gone through can only be imagined. As any parent can testify, the joy of parenting
is equal only to the agony of worry about the health and well-being of the offspring.
If a mother knows beforehand that her child will suffer a permanent disability, the
complex emotional conflict and the sorrow which engulf her are so raw and painful
that it is impossible to describe. After all, it is the parents who will have to care for
the child, and turn their lives upside down in the process. It is the parents who will
have to watch as their disabled child tries to first understand and then integrate
with a hostile environment which is so poorly suited to coping with disabled peers,
both at a physical as well as emotional level. Having had some experience with
disabled children and their parents, I have watched the daily stress and adjustment
and the massive patience that is required to lead a near normal life.

To make such an issue the subject of law or a national debate is one of the ironies
of modern living. It is an intensely personal matter, the dilemma of parents who
have to make a crucial and painful decision: whether or not to abort their unborn
baby, or if they should face the prospect of caring lifelong for the physical and
mental health of a disabled child. The decision, by its very nature, is traumatic, but
to have it debated in the media, the courts and by legislators is so invasive that it is
difficult for anyone who believes strongly in individual liberty and freedom to
accept. This is a classic case of an intensely personal issue becoming a socio-legal
problem with medical dimensions. Thus the human dimension of the problem, and
the fact that the individual decision on such an issue resonates on an entirely
different plane from the public debate, is something that has become part of the
complex anomaly of the abortion debate. Abortion, or medical termination of
pregnancy, as we call it in India, is one of the oldest methods of fertility control in
the world. It brings to the fore primordial sentiments. The debate has diverse
historical and cultural meanings, which are specific to countries, to stages of
demographic transition, struggles over gender roles, reliance on abortion for fertility
regulation in a particular area, struggle between religion and the state in some
countries, on the abortion issue, cross-national similarities, the prevalent social
construct, and the management of the surrounding conflict. The resultant debate is
often poorly in formed, particularly in the context of the gender, social and political
cleavage in these matters, and the fact that society finds it awkward and difficult to
openly talk about these issues.

In our country, the debate has never really focused upon abortion as a religious or
moral issue with the same intensity that is found in several other countries. This is
perhaps the reason that the Mehtas found the courage to take their problem to
court, and also the fact that the public debate that followed has been somewhat
calm and reasoned, and devoid of the hysteria that usually accompanies most of
our national debates. Although this is an impression not based on any particular
data or substance, I am inclined to believe that this important debate has been
conducted in a calm atmosphere because it is not the political dynamite that some
vested interests like to exploit in a bid to divide society and gain electoral
advantage. The issue is, nevertheless, extremely important. The law says that
abortion cannot be carried out after 20 weeks of pregnancy, whereas, oftentimes,
abnormalities, if any, can only be found after 20 weeks. Surely the parents have the
right to determine if they should go forward and bring into the world a disabled
child or not. On the other hand, those who oppose this talk about the advanced
growth of the foetus, at this point, and about the right to life of the baby, also argue
passionately about the harmful effects on the mother’s health if abortion is
conducted at such a late stage. Over 40 to 50 million abortions are carried out
worldwide, out of which it is estimated that between 20 to 28 million abortions are
illegal. The reasons for these are varied, and range between saving the life of the
mother, for the sake of the mother’s physical or mental health, if the mother had
been the victim of rape or incest, foetal impairment (as in the Mehta’s case),
economic and social reasons, and simply on request in a small percentage of cases.
In Asia alone there are over 9.2 million clandestine abortions a year.

It is ironical that the moral, social and emotional complexity surrounding a decision
to abort is not apparent in the public debate. Yet it is the public debate which will
determine the right of citizens to opt for abortion. In India, although the debate is
not so contentious as it has been in other countries, we too have to think very
seriously about the perils of too much freedom in this regard, because if the law is
amended to give parents the right to decide, it is all too possible that it will be used
to get rid of the female foetus and further violate the already skewed male/female
ratio in our country. The moral dilemma of those who believe in the right to life of
the unborn child has also to be considered very seriously, for no right-thinking
person can concede that couples may arbitrarily decide, perhaps even on a whim,
that a foetus should be aborted. The more conservative elements in our society
believe that easy access to abortion may encourage promiscuity among the young.
While some of these may be reactionary and incorrect arguments, they cannot
really be wished away. Respect for individual human existence is, and has to be,
basic to any civilised society. However, in the ultimate analysis, abortion, provided
it causes no involuntary harm and produces some benefits for individuals and
society, can and should be permitted legally. Above all, the emotional and personal
dilemma of the persons involved should take precedence in the public debate, and
inform the law.—The
law.—The Asian Age Jayanthi Natarajan is a Congress MP in the
Rajya Sabha.
Sabha.

Author Location Dated

Latif Baloch Karachi, Pakistan 21.08.08

– Debate in city council Bouquets and brickbats for Musharraf

A debate in the city council on Monday over the policies of former president Pervez
Musharraf divided the members into two groups, one criticising the former general
and the other praising him to the skies. Eyebrows were raised when treasury
members praised the policies of the former president and termed them in the best
interest of the country. Opposition members, however, lashed out at him and called
him as a dictator. The opposition also demanded that he should be tried and
punished for “his misdeeds”. When the house, presided over by the city council
convener and city naib nazim, Nasreen Jalil, resumed its session on Monday, Abdul
Razzak of Al Khidmat group drew the attention of the convener towards fast-
changing developments in the country following the resignation of Gen (retd)
Musharraf as president of the country. He said the people of the country had
welcomed the change and were jubilant over the departure of the dictator from the
political scene of the country. Mr Razak further said that since all the four provincial
assemblies of the country had given their verdict against the general, the city
council being a representative body of this mega-city should also pass a unanimous
resolution against him. He also pointed out to the chair what he called the
mysterious activities of a group, allegedly harassing small tea-stall owners and
fanning ethnic feeling in the city. Describing this situation as dangerous, the Al-
Khidmat leader called for taking the situation seriously before it was too late.
Taking the floor, leader of the house Asif Siddiqui categorically stated that they
owned the policies of the former president as being his allies and considered them
in the interest of the country. Mr Siddiqui said recently the country had passed
through a serious crisis and it ended because of the sagacity of the former
president. He lauded the role of the former president, saying that it was due to the
sagacious policies of the former president that the country had been saved from a
grave crisis. Mr Siddiqui’s speech was welcomed by the treasury members by
frequent thumping of desks. He said the policy adopted by the Haq Parast
leadership had proved correct and it was acknowledged by PPP leader Asif Ali
Zardari. Haq Parast panel leader Arshad Qureshi also supported the contention of
Mr Siddiqui. However, opposition leader Saeed Ghani lashed out at the regime of
the former president, described his rule as the worst type of dictatorship, saying
that the constitution had been trampled, the judiciary decimated while his economic
policies proved the worst for the country. Mr Ghani said suicide bombings were a
gift of the Musharraf regime. He also slammed the policies of the former president
regarding Balochistan and the tribal areas. The opposition leader said that the
country had been ruined politically and economically during the rule of Musharraf.
He said they were not in favour of confrontational politics, but they must at least
accept their past mistakes so that these could not be repeated. Mr Ghani further
submitted that the four provincial assemblies of the country had already given their
verdict against the former president, adding that this house should also reciprocate
the sentiments of the people. The opposition leader suggested that the former
president should be tried and punished for his anti-people measures. The opposition
benches also welcomed the speech of Mr Ghani with desk thumping.

Convener Nasreen Jalil agreed with the contention of Mr Ghani that they must forget
the past and think of the future. She ruled that there would be no further debate on
the issue. Earlier, when the house resumed its session, Haq Parast panel member
Salman Baloch complained that union councils were not paid the monthly payment
for July-August which was hindering their administrative works. Upon this,
opposition leader Juman Darwan unfurled a letter released by the Sindh government
regarding the release of funds to union councils on account of the abolition of OZT
funds for July. On a point of order, Shahjehan Baloch surprised the house when he
predicted that this would be the last session of the council. Haq Parast member
Javaid Jadoon from Baldia stressed the need for reactivating the price committees to
control prices in view of Ramazan. Opposition member Anwar Baloch complained
that the storm-water drain in his union council had not been cleaned. However, a
treasury member did not agree with him. Later, the house passed a resolution
which condemned blasphemous pictures published in an Indian newspaper. The
resolution urged the government of Pakistan to immediately summon the Indian
ambassador and demand action against the newspaper. After the approval of the
resolution, the convener adjourned the house to meet again on Aug 28 at 4.30pm.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 22.08.08

– PPP plans NA debate on judges’ issue

The Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has made up its mind to resolve the lingering
issue of reinstatement of the deposed judges through a parliamentary debate and a
resolution in this regard is expected to be moved in the National Assembly in a few
days. Initially some PPP leaders indicated that the resolution might be introduced in
the National Assembly on Friday morning even before a scheduled meeting of heads
of the ruling coalition parties, but later federal Minister for Information Sherry
Rehman told Dawn that it might be tabled “in “in a couple of days”.
days”. When first media
reports came about the PPP’s plan on Thursday, the PML-N leaders expressed their
surprise over the move and suspected that it could be another tactic of the PPP to
delay the process. Apparently, the PPP dropped the idea of bringing the resolution
on Friday after PML-N leaders lodged a strong protest that the plan had been
announced without taking their party into confidence. Federal Minister for Labour
and a key PPP leader told a private television that his party had finally decided to
table the resolution in the National Assembly for a debate on the issue that had
gripped the nation for 17 months. He, however, declined to divulge details of the
plan and did not say how long the debate would go on and whether the judges
would be restored after the debate. The PPP leader said the parliament was
sovereign and it should decide the issue of judges.

When contacted, PML-N information secretary Ahsan Iqbal said that so far the party
had not received any formal proposal from the PPP on the plan to move the
resolution. “I
“I will comment only after knowing as to what is the exact proposal,”
proposal,” he
added. He, however, explained that the PPP and the PML-N had agreed to reinstate
the deposed judges and the parliamentary resolution was just a formality. He was of
the view that the modalities for reinstating the judges had already been defined. He
also expressed surprise as to how could the PPP table a resolution in the National
Assembly in the morning when ANP president Asfandyar Wali Khan and JUI-F chief
Maulana Fazlur Rehman would be meeting PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif at noon. The
PPP has convened a meeting of its Central Executive Committee (CEC) at Zardari
House on Friday afternoon whereas a meeting of the coalition heads was expected
to take place later in the evening. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has already declared
that if the judges were not restored by Friday then the party would have no choice
but to sit in the opposition benches.

On Tuesday, PPP and PML-N leaders had failed to resolve their differences over the
issue of the judges’ reinstatement and on the question of providing indemnity to the
acts of former president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. According to the sources,
Asfandyar Wali Khan had saved the day for the coalition by offering to play the role
of a mediator after Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif refused to show flexibility on
their stand on the issue of the deposed judges. Later, the ANP president and JUI-F
chief sought 72 hours to resolve the issue and promised to come up with a proposal
on Friday. The PML-N wants restoration of the deposed judges immediately through
an executive order in accordance with the Murree Declaration signed by the two
parties in March, whereas the PPP seeks more time. Meanwhile, in a statement
issued by the PML-N Secretariat, Nawaz Sharif said: “Reinstatement
“Reinstatement of the deposed
judges is not merely an issue of the PML-N, rather it was the basis on which the
ruling coalition was formed and the whole coalition affirmed many times its
uncompromised will to restore all of the deposed judges to their pre-November 2,
2007 position.”
position.”

While joining the coalition, he said, the PML-N had set forth no conditions but only
sought guarantees on the same issue. Therefore, he said, the only way to avoid
disintegration of the coalition and to ensure its further integrity and unity was
immediate fulfilment of the commitments made with the civil society, general public
and the legal fraternity by restoring the ousted judges without any “minus
“minus one or
minus two formula”.
formula”. Mr Sharif said the ruling coalition had become the epicentre of
the hopes of the Pakistani nation after it had given a clear and vigorous mandate
against dictatorship. Mr Sharif said the people of Pakistan would not forgive the
ruling coalition, if the judges were not restored in compliance with the Murree
Declaration. “The
“The coalition parties promised several times to restore the deposed
judges, but every time it was delayed without any tangible reason and solid ground
which was absolutely an unjust act on the part of the parties who made these
commitments,”
commitments,” he added. The deadlines of April 30 and May 12 had passed without
resolution of the issue but the main hurdle in the way of such execution has already
been removed after resignation of President Musharraf.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 22.08.08

– Bush calls Musharraf, praises his role in war on terror

US President George W. Bush reached out to his former ally Pervez Musharraf on
Thursday, thanking him for his role in the war on terror. He then called Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to tell him that he had telephoned Mr Musharraf.
“President Bush had wished him (Mr Musharraf) well and thanked him for his efforts
in the democratic transition of Pakistan, as well as the fight against Al Qaeda and
extremist groups,”
groups,” White House spokesman Gordon Johndroe told reporters. In his
conversation with the prime minister, Mr Bush also offered sympathies over recent
terrorist attacks in Pakistan. In both the calls, Mr Bush expressed solidarity with
Pakistan which, he noted, had been wracked by political turmoil and suicide
bombings that killed dozens of people. However, as the information released by the
White House showed, Mr Bush’s call to the prime minister aimed primarily at
avoiding any misunderstanding that his telephone to Mr Musharraf could have
created. His call to Mr Musharraf, however, reflected his desire to stay in touch with
a man he worked with for seven years and regarded as a good ally and a personal
friend. Diplomatic observers in Washington noted that Mr Bush’s call to Mr
Musharraf also aimed to indicate that the United States was not going to abandon
the former Pakistani president in his hour of need.

Both the White House and the State Department indicated earlier this week that
should Mr Musharraf seek to live in the US at any point, he would be welcomed.
Political observers in Washington say that Mr Musharraf will be treated differently
than President Ferdinand Marcos of the Philippines or the Shah of Iran because he
has a better image in the United States. He is not seen here as corrupt as Mr Marcos
or as ruthless as the Shah. Baqir Sajjad Syed in Islamabad adds: Mr Bush told the
prime minister the US would continue to cooperate with Pakistan in the war on
terror and assistance to deal with the current economic crisis. “The
“The US will continue
to remain involved in the battle against extremists and will assist Pakistan in
overcoming its economic crisis,”
crisis,” an official of the Foreign Office quoted Mr Bush as
saying. He congratulated Mr Gilani on ‘transition
‘transition to democracy’.
democracy’. The US president
had developed good rapport with the Pakistani premier during the latter’s visit to
Washington last month and had called him his ‘brother’. Both the leaders reaffirmed
their resolve to jointly deal with the menace of terrorism and extremism which, they
said, was a threat not only to the US and Pakistan, but to the entire world.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider New York 22.08.08

– Nawaz not to stop Musharraf from going abroad

Former prime minister Nawaz Sharif has threatened to pull his party out of the
governing coalition if all the judges dismissed by former president Pervez Musharraf
are not reinstated after a Friday deadline, but he ruled out bringing down the
government. In an interview with the Wall Street Journal, Mr Sharif said he was
prepared to withdraw his party from the coalition, led by the Pakistan People’s
Party, if about 60 judges, sacked during a six-week state of emergency declared in
November, aren’t given their jobs back immediately. “We “We will not try to bring the
government down,”
down,” Mr Sharif told the newspaper. “But“But of course, we then have no
choice but to sit in the opposition.”
opposition.” Mr Sharif also indicated that he would not stop
former President leaving the country, although his political supporters were eager to
press charges against Mr Musharraf. Mr Sharif acknowledged that some of his
supporters wanted to see Mr Musharraf in jail, but said he personally bore no
grudges and would not mind him slipping out of the country. “If “If he wants to go, I
won’t stand in his way,”
way,” Mr Sharif told the newspaper. “He“He might want to take a
break.”
break.” Writing about the impending political showdown, the WSJ said if Mr Sharif
carried out his threat of walking out of coalition it would force the Pakistan People’s
Party to find other partners so it could maintain a governing coalition in parliament.
The paper said that since returning to Pakistan late last year, Mr Sharif had tapped
deep reservoirs of support and presented himself as an uncompromising democrat.
In that role, he denounced Mr Musharraf and the military’s long history of
involvement in politics.“Mr
politics.“Mr Musharraf threw the judges out of office. He ridiculed
the institution,”
institution,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 22.08.08

– Musharraf’s camp office vacated

Following resignation of Pervez Musharraf from the office of president, his camp
office established in a grand building in Rawalpindi has been vacated, a source told
Dawn on Thursday. Goods including furniture, rugs, security equipments, statues,
paintings and portraits which were sent to the office from the President House in
Islamabad have also been retrieved. “As “As the retrieved goods were in big quantity,
they were taken back to the President House in three trucks,”
trucks,” the source said. The
grand pre-partition building of the camp office is one of the historical buildings in
the country. It was first declared as president house by former president Ayub Khan
and then it remained under the use of Yahya Khan. Former prime minister Zulfiqar
Ali Bhutto after taking charge of the office of PM declared the building as prime
minister house. The building also remained under the use of former Benazir Bhutto
during her first tenure. The camp office of Pervez Musharraf was part of the Army
House which had recently been declared as President’s Lodge with a view to
prolong his stay in it, while the existing residence of Chief of Army Staff (COAS)
Ashfaq Pervaiz Kayani was declared as Army House.
It is expected that the previous status of the original Army House will be restored
soon and former president will leave the spacious building in near future. And
because of this, it is strong possibility that Musharraf will prefer to leave the country
instead of staying in the country due to security concerns. The source said the price
tags on the furniture and other goods removed from the camp office were evident
of luxurious life the rulers of the country live. “The
“The price tags found on the backside
of the rugs have shown their costs ranging from Rs250,000 to Rs300,000,”
Rs300,000,” the
source said. A senior security official told this reporter that if the president left the
country, the only reason could be his security concerns. “If “If he leaves the
President’s Lodge, there will be no other secure place for him in the country,”
country,” the
official said. The official ruled out the possibility that the former president would opt
to live in his farm house being constructed at Chak Shahzad, Islamabad, as, he
added, he would not have required security there.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 22.08.08

– PML-N, PPP take judges’ case to Washington

PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif has sent an emissary to Washington to explain his
position on the war on terror and on the judges’ issue, reminding many of the 1990s
when both Mr Sharif and Benazir Bhutto had hired lobbyists in the US capital to win
American support. As Rana Mashhood Ahmed Khan, deputy speaker of the Punjab
Assembly, was hobnobbing with officials at the State Department, Pakistan’s
ambassador Husain Haqqani was explaining PPP’s position to a group of US scholars
and policy makers on the same issues. “Some“Some people think that being stubborn is
the same thing as being principled,”
principled,” said Mr Haqqani in an apparent reference to
PML-N’s stance on the judges’ issue. “We“We are not stubborn,”
stubborn,” said Rana Mashhood.
“We believe that an independent judiciary can go a long way in fostering national
unity.”
unity.” But neither side showed much flexibility in their approach to the judges’
dispute. “No
“No minus one. Any solution should include Chaudhry Iftikhar’s
reinstatement as the chief justice,”
justice,” Rana Mashhood said. “The
“The judiciary will be
restored … but, will the restoration be exactly what certain lawyers and certain
political leaders want? I don’t think that that is even necessary for Pakistan to move
forward,”
forward,” said Mr Haqqani.

In his address to a major Washington think-tank, Centre for Strategic and

International Studies,
Studies, he made it clear that the decision taken by the majority party
in the Pakistani parliament would prevail because that was how democracy
functioned. “So,
“So, if certain lawyers and certain politicians refuse to accept the
decision of the majority of members of parliament, that doesn’t mean that that is
not what will prevail,”
prevail,” he said. Rana Mashhood disagreed. “This“This is Mr Haqqani’s
position. This is not what PPP’s central leadership tells us,”
us,” he told a PML-N meeting
in Washington. Both Mr Haqqani and Rana Mashhood, however, insisted that despite
differences, the ruling coalition would continue to work together. Yet, PML-N’s
decision to reach out directly to the US administration and lawmakers, instead of
working through the embassy, reflected a lack of trust between the two major
partners of the ruling alliance. It reminded political observers in Washington of the
1990s when, like today, PML-N ruled over Punjab while PPP controlled the centre.
And both wanted Washington to support their efforts to bring the other down. To
achieve this target, both hired influential lobbyists in Washington. While PPP still has
a lobbyist and is also helped by the official lobbyists for Pakistan, PML-N so far has
not done so. But it already has taken the first step towards explaining his position to
the Americans by sending an emissary to the US capital. Rana Mashhood, however,
told journalists that “no
“no matter what, we will never support any move to bring down
the central government. Not even if our government in Punjab is toppled.”
toppled.” He
added: “Although
“Although I was sent by my party, I am here to explain the problems
Pakistan faces as a nation. We are telling the Americans if you do not help resolve
these problems, they will haunt you too.”
too.”

Author Location Dated

22.08.08

– Arresting sectarianism
The upsurge seen in recent weeks in extremist activities by those calling
themselves Pakistani Taliban and striking targets in the northwest of the country
has now also taken on a more dangerous, sectarian dimension. This was evident in
the attack in Dera Ismail Khan the other day on a group comprising largely Shia
Muslims, as reported. The ongoing pitched battles being fought in Kurram Agency
between rival sects, and the acts of terror such as burning down entire villages in
that remote part of the country are also disturbing cases in point. Wednesday’s
reaction of the Shia Ulema Council, which met in Karachi, to the events in the
northwest is equally worrying. Pakistan is a pluralistic society, with the Constitution
guaranteeing the safety and freedom of worship to all its citizens regardless of
whether they practice the majority or a minority faith. Not too long ago in
neighbouring Afghanistan, the Taliban’s crusades against anyone not subscribing to
their interpretation of religion, as their suppression of women and the Shia creed in
particular, are well documented. That the same madness should be allowed, by the
state’s muted response to the challenge so far, to now engulf Pakistan leaves one
with cold feet. The government needs to act with full force, where persuasion fails,
to curb such anti-human activities before the notion and the norm of sectarian
coexistence becomes a relic of the past.

The country has suffered many a bloody bout of sectarianism in action in what
appeared like serial, tit-for-tat killings throughout the 1980s and 1990s, as vestiges
of the Zia dictatorship. Now with formidable socio-economic, political, national and
international challenges facing the democratically elected government, it would be
a shame to allow this monster of the past to rear its ugly head again. Regardless of
how long the ruling coalition partners take to iron out their differences on
contentious issues such as that of the judiciary, there can be no plausible excuse for
not effectively dealing with lawlessness and terrorism. The provincial governments
are in place whose responsibility it is to maintain law and order in their respective
territories in spite of the ongoing political haranguing in Islamabad. The Frontier
government must come down hard on criminal elements indulging in sectarian
violence; alternatively, it should press the federal government to activate the
additional law enforcement mechanism it has under its control to arrest the spread
of lawlessness in parts of Fata and even settled areas of the province. This must be
done immediately to avoid stoking sectarian sentiment elsewhere in the country.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 22.08.08
 – Enticing the people
Pervez Musharraf is now gone and many believe he is history. Perhaps the former
military dictator thinks otherwise. Some people argue that the reason he is not
leaving the country is because he intends to wait a few months when people begin
to miss him and want him back. He is probably calculating that people will soon get
frustrated by the indecision of the civilian regime and remember the list of deeds he
mentioned in his last speech. Clearly, the former general made an effort to draw a
wedge between the newly elected rulers and the people by projecting himself as
part of the middle class. In doing so he deliberately juxtaposed himself with the
political class that has traditionally been depicted as consisting of feudal
landowners and big business. The former president foresees a time in the near
future when people might get frustrated on several counts such as the fate of the
judiciary, selection of the new president and the fate of the coalition. The political
parties will possibly have to blame themselves for some of the frustration. The
coalition wasted a lot of time getting rid of the general, and that worked to his
advantage rather than to theirs. It is true that the regime is being noble in not
trying him but asking questions is another issue altogether. It would be only fair to
out-manoeuvre him by at least talking about issues that are critical to Pakistan. For
example, what happened to the US aid the contract for which was signed in 2003
and according to which Pakistan was to get $600m? The American government and
think tanks claim that the US has given Pakistan $1.7bn annually. According to the
information provided to parliament, US largesse comprises $300m in economic aid
and $300m for the military. Subsequently, after the earthquake an additional $50m
was given but it still does not amount to over a billion dollars. The Pakistani
government has never denied it and it would be interesting if the former president
is questioned about the money in greater detail.

Asking such questions is important before the former president tries to assert
himself. His speech indicated that he has already tried to connect himself with the
people. Incidentally, many people subscribed to the theory of Musharraf
representing the middle class while he ruled the country. I remember a discussion
with the famous Pakistani poetess Fahmida Riaz a couple of years ago in which she
explained her reasons for supporting the military dictator. Her point of view was
that he was not part of the feudal class but came from an educated, working
middle-class family. Ms Riaz had even forgotten about her own experience under a
previous military dictator. For her Zia was bad because he had brought the mullahs
on board, a trend which was reversed by Musharraf. Incidentally, even the bulk of
the Indian population sympathises with Musharraf on the basis of his middle-class
legacy. The underlying assumption is that educated and liberal middle-class families
can bring progress to the country which other groups cannot. But is that really the
case? And did Musharraf represent the middle class? It is a fallacy to treat the
former general as part of the middle class, just as it is to classify the military elite as
part of the middle class. The aforementioned assumption is based on the lower
middle-class and middle-class linkages of the bulk of the military personnel. A result
of the indigenisation of the officer cadre during the mid-1950s was the increased
induction of men from the lower middle and middle classes.

The point to remember, however, is that class orientation changes after officers
become part of the organisational elite. A similar thing happens in the civil
bureaucracy. It is not hard to come across civil and military bureaucratic households
where officers, their wives and children are either embarrassed of grandparents
who appear less sophisticated or consciously pretend to have no link to their
origins. Such behaviour is part of an effort at upward social mobility. The military
generals and senior bureaucrats are no different from the rest of the ruling classes
who keep a careful distance from those below them. The organisational machinery
is used in different ways to especially enrich those at the top. Gen Musharraf with
his declared assets worth approximately Rs500m emerges as more than a member
of the middle class. His 50 acres of land in Bahawalpur have the facility of a farm-to-
market road; a good supply of water and about a dozen paramilitary personnel to
guard the land round the clock. These men were supposed to guard the land and
look after the date palms planted on the farmland. However, the family responsible
for tilling his land did not even get access to medical facilities. Other senior officers
enjoy similar comforts that are not available to ordinary soldiers who are granted
land in areas they do not belong to. Such facilities are not provided to landless
peasants who are often given land by different governments as part of political
patronage.

The ruling elite may develop differences over the distribution of resources or the
question of who will have greater power. But the fact of the matter is that they have
common interests. The state bureaucracies are organisations where entry is not
denied on the basis of one’s class. But the organisational promotion system is then
used for social climbing for the comparatively more capable. Once the officers reach
the top they integrate with the rest of the ruling elite. There is then no difference
between the feudal landowner, a general, a federal secretary, a big industrialist and
a big businessman. The liberal values that Musharraf and his supporters boast
about are part of the tradition of the ruling elite or the post-colonial administrative
and military structures. General Ziaul Haq was an anomaly that happened to
Pakistan also because Islamabad’s external partners during the 1980s such as the
US allowed him to breed greater ideological conservatism that could help fight the
war in Afghanistan. Once the need was over, the Pakistani state and its military
machine were encouraged to revert to older traditions, and the gap created in the
period when Ziaul Haq was at the helm was bridged. So, socially, Ayub Khan, Yahya
Khan and Pervez Musharraf represent the same tradition that many refer to as a
sign of middle-class values. There is also no evidence that the middle class itself is
the key to solving the problems of Pakistan’s elite politics. It would be sadder still to
let Musharraf launch himself at any point in time as the answer to the needs of the
common man. We will have to keep searching for the answer to the ills of our
system. The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. analyst.

Author Location Dated

Kuldip Nayar 22.08.08

– The triumph of democracy

President General Pervez Musharraf is not a popular figure in India. He is associated
with the war in Kargil where New Delhi’s loss in terms of men was heavy. His abrupt
withdrawal from the Agra summit on being accused of encouraging militants across
the LoC still rankles in the mind of the people. Even otherwise, a military dictator in
India which has inured people to democracy is considered anachronistic. A remark
here or there to recall the ‘services’ of Musharraf to Pakistan should not be taken as
an expression of Indian opinion. National Security Advisor M.K. Narayanan’s
statement, made one week before Musharraf’s resignation, does not represent the
government’s position. He had said that Musharraf’s exit would create a vacuum
where the radical extremist outfits would be free to do what they liked. Minister for
External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee has clarified that Musharraf’s resignation is
Pakistan’s internal affair and that it would not affect bilateral ties. The BJP, which is
hawkish on Pakistan, has said that it is not concerned about Musharraf’s exit which
is an item for Pakistan’s domestic politics. The Manmohan Singh government has
very little political input. At times, it looks as if it is influenced by bureaucrats like
Narayanan. But when firm policies are framed, the government’s attitude is that of
understanding and conciliation towards Islamabad. Pakistani Prime Minister Syed
Yousuf Raza Gilani must have got this message when he met India Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh at Colombo on the sidelines of the Saarc summit. More assuring is
the word from official sources in Delhi that Musharraf’s departure will have no effect
on the peace process between the two countries.

What is, however, disconcerting is that New Delhi tends to copy Washington.
America likes dictators because it finds them more convenient to deal with. A
democratic structure is found to be cumbersome because it requires the
participation of elected representatives who are many in number. India’s officialdom
is inclined to prefer one person to the government of the people. Yet support to the
authoritarian set-up does not have popular acceptance. People defeated at the polls
even Mrs Indira Gandhi when she turned authoritarian during the emergency (1975-
77). A few Indian newspapers have expressed their apprehension of uncertainty
after Musharraf’s exit. But this is because they have come to equate Pakistan with
military juntas. Long years of military rule have changed perceptions about Pakistan
in India. It is generally believed that the army in Pakistan will never quit and the
people there have more or less reconciled themselves to the eventuality. This
makes it all the more necessary that the army’s role in Pakistan is lessened. The
real test in the minds of the Indians is the control of the Inter Services Intelligence
(ISI).
(ISI). If the original decision to put the agency under the interior ministry is restored,
the space of the army would shrink and that of the democratic forces expand.

I recall my meeting with Musharraf in Islamabad two years ago. During our
discussion on Kashmir, he was arguing how the territorial regrouping of Jammu and
Kashmir could make borders irrelevant. He had an interesting point of view. I told
him that the Indian parliament might not agree to his proposal. He asked me why
the parliament should come into the picture when he, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh and the respective cabinets would have approved the proposal. He honestly
believed in what he said. It is good that Musharraf has gone on the mere threat of
impeachment. A democratic polity has no place for persons like him. I hope he
comes to realise this wherever he lives. As far as the post-Musharraf era is
concerned, many in India believe that Asif Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party
(PPP) and Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League will be at each other’s throat
after the departure of their common enemy. Some reports of their wrangling are a
cause for worry. Yet the two must realise that they have the best of opportunity to
get Pakistan out of the authoritarianism, helplessness and economic backwardness
in which the country has been stuck for some time. It is only fair that the judges
dismissed by Musharraf are restored to their position immediately. In fact, the
lawyers’ agitation for their reinstatement prepared the ground for the return of
popular rule. They are the ones who have put derailed democracy back on the
track. In any case, different agitations have toughened Pakistan. It has come of age.
Whatever the differences, people have awakened enough to fight for the
democratic polity if it is threatened again.

Some of us, who lit candles on the Wagah border on the night of Aug 14 and 15
could not say firmly whether Musharraf would quit. But it was apparent that
democracy had returned to Pakistan. Nearly 50 people, men and women from the
other side, came right up to zero point and held aloft the lighted candles to greet
us. The spectacle was charged with emotion because never before, since
Independence, had anybody come to the border at midnight to join us for the
candlelight vigil. In the past, every time we lit candles on the border, the question
asked in India was how many came from Pakistan. Since none would show up, we
replied “none”. Our explanation that the military and the fundamentalists had
stalled the effort to reciprocate did not convince many, particularly the media. This
time when the Pakistanis came, the media was too squeamish to report. The Border
Security Force on our side was so considerate that it even opened the iron gate at
zero point. Although the gate on the other side remained shut, we stepped further
to exchange candles. I must admit that the candles from their side were fatter and
sturdier. No pun is intended to convey that the feelings of friendship on their side
should be sturdier than the ones on our side. Now that democracy has dawned in
Pakistan the candles at the Wagah border should burn brighter in the years to come
to underline the desire for peace and amity between the people of the two
countries. The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Author Location Dated

Shahab Usto shahabusto@hotmail.com 22.08.08

– Masquerades of dictatorship
From the inception of Pakistan to the exit of its latest strongman, Gen Musharraf,
people have watched the kaleidoscopic masquerades of dictatorship, with each
dictator changing the mask but retaining the soul. Pakistan’s first decade passed
under the extended shadows of colonial dictatorship which had four prominent
features. First, the colonial legal framework, the India Act of 1935, was maintained.
The act sowed the seeds of conflict within the executive by introducing a ‘dyarchy’
at the centre. The purpose was to make the appointed governor-general exert
dominance over the elected prime minister. Second, true to the colonial obsession
with security, a security rather than a welfare state was erected on the twin pillars
of ‘ideological threats’: communism and Hinduism. The Rawalpindi Conspiracy Case
and the Kashmir dispute were adroitly used as conclusive evidence of these threats.
Third, the colonial method of ‘divide and rule’ was continued. Disillusioned, the
Bengalis abandoned the Muslim League soon after Independence. The rifts between
Daultana and Mamdot in Punjab, Ghaffar Khan and Khan Qayoom in the NWFP and
Khuhro and Hidayatullah in Sindh were exploited by a half-sly and fully senseless
governor-general to dismiss elected prime ministers, and that too with judicial
approval. Fourth, stifling the spirit of the compact of the resolution of 1940 which
promised, inter alia, cultural freedom to the nationalities, a Stalinist ‘cultural’ policy
was pursued to instill ideological rather than cultural consciousness among the
nationalities. Urdu was made a vehicle of this cultural onslaught, which soon
boomeranged into alienation and led to national resistance in the east, culminating
in the birth of Bangladesh.

The second decade began with the first constitution in 1956. The constitution was
an oxymoron. It laid the foundation of a federal and democratic country but denied
the fundamental principles of democracy and federalism: majority rule and
provincial autonomy. The so-called ‘parity’ was nothing but a stratagem to forestall
the Bengalis from forming the central government, and to keep civilian rule
eternally servile to a dictatorship duo: the bureaucrats led by Iskander Mirza and
the closeted Bonapartists led by Gen Ayub. Employing Goebbelsian sophistry, a
well-entrenched myth was created to malign politicians as being inherently inept,
corrupt and unsuitable for governance, notwithstanding the fact that some of these
politicians were Jinnah’s comrades and anti-colonial stalwarts. In just two years, five
governments were removed by this bureaucratic dictatorship. In 1958, Gen Ayub
climbed the pulpit wearing a Bonapartist mask. Napoleon Bonaparte,
notwithstanding his eternal quest for military glory, had also aimed for social and
political engineering. Modern continental Europe and its civil law owe much to his
political genius. Ayub also wanted to reinvent his image as a great general and
social builder. But alas, the self-appointed field marshal failed to leave any
Bonapartist imprints in the annals of the military or in the development of social and
political institutions. All he created was a totalitarian state with its attendant ills:
central planning, crony capitalism, a fearsome security apparatus, draconian press
policies, political repression and a pro-US military alliance. As a result, when he was
removed from power by his fellow generals, the country was internationally isolated
and internally left facing a gruesome civil war between the two wings.

The third decade began with the third dictatorship. Yayha’s dictatorship was closer
to the garrison state of Frederick the Great — rule of the army, for the army and by
the army. Initially, Yahya wore no ideological mask. But when the majority voters
gave a clear and loud mandate to the Awami League in 1970, he put on the mask of
a national saviour, refusing to hand over power to the ‘renegade’ Bengali
leadership. Hubris made him blind to the political reality that dictatorship,
howsoever masked, had failed to resolve the national crises. It was time for him to
transfer power to the elected leadership to resolve the crises. True, such a move
was fraught with the possibility of Bengalis seceding from the federation, but at
least that would have saved the country the subsequent bloodbath and ignominy of
defeat. Alas, it was not to be. The dictator was unable to understand the nexus
between democracy and national integration. Then came a brief democratic
interregnum during which the country received its third constitution in 26 years, but
one that was abrogated by the fourth dictatorship. General Zia’s dictatorship was
forged in the mould of Cromwell. Both rose to power through regicide. Both relied
on the army to sustain themselves, and both used religion to legitimise their
tyranny. Not surprisingly, both left a common legacy: religious violence, political
conflict, cultural regression and international isolation. Indeed, Zia’s dictatorship
turned out to be the most destructive because he targeted the soft underbelly of
the polity: the socio-cultural ethos and schismatic diversity. Like Mussolini, he
wanted to change through force and fiat not only the economics, politics and
foreign policy of the country, but also the personal morality, political precepts and
religious beliefs of the people, a task left only to prophets or revolutionaries, not
unpopular despots like him.
In the fourth decade, four elected governments were toppled by the same kind of
dictatorial powers that operated in the first decade, and on similar charges:
corruption, inefficiency, security risk. In the fifth decade, the country saw its fifth
masquerade of dictatorship. Gen Musharraf came as a Kemalist, which he was not
by analogy or actions. Ataturk was the hero of Gallipoli, where he defeated the
Allied forces. Musharraf was smudged in the debacle of Kargil. Kemal abolished the
decadent caliphate and created a modern secular Turkey. Musharraf banished
secular leadership and ruled with the help of social and religious conservatives.
Kemal earned peace and respect for his nation. Musharraf pushed the country into a
self-destructive war, making it subservient to US dictates. Kemal was universally
venerated as Ataturk (father of the Turks), but alas, Musharraf could not secure
enough votes to legitimise his military rule. Finally, Kemal strengthened political
institutions, whereas Musharraf botched them for his personal gain. In fact,
Musharraf’s dictatorship was a rehash of the Ayubian model. Hence, his legacy is
not different from that of Ayub: civil war, economic disparities, political crisis and
institutional breakdown. Its time that the masquerades stopped. Not because all the
masks of dictatorship have been ripped open by the people, but because now the
people can rip out its soul.

Author Location Dated

Leonard Doyle 22.08.08

– Obama on the offensive

Barack Obama has launched a sustained and sharply negative advertising
campaign against his Republican opponent John McCain, who has vaulted into the
lead, according to an opinion poll. The first ever black presidential nominee has
repeatedly promised that he would transcend the bickering of traditional politics.
Trying to keep that pledge, but also the competitive edge, Mr Obama is now running
an uplifting national advertising campaign while delivering fierce attacks on his
opponent at the local level in key swing states. The aggressive fightback comes
after Republican underdog McCain opened up a five-point lead, according to a
Zogby/Reuters poll published on Tuesday, completely overturning the seven point
lead Mr Obama had in July. Mr McCain now leads Mr Obama among likely voters by
46 per cent to 41 per cent. The poll found that voters believe Mr McCain would be a
stronger manager of America’s declining economy, even though he admits to
knowing little about economic issues. That is a worrying reversal for the Obama
campaign and follows unrelenting attacks by Republicans on his lack of wartime
experience, his opposition to oil drilling offshore, and accusations that he is a
“talker”
talker” rather than a “doer
“doer”.
”. The Illinois Senator built his campaign on a promise to
transcend the bitter divisions of American politics and is maintaining this high-
minded approach in prime-time adverts across the country. But in cities such as
Philadelphia, Des Moines and Tampa, where undecided voters remain sceptical
about Mr Obama after a tough primary season, he has gone on the offensive.

Without any media fanfare, his campaign has rolled out a series of attack ads in the
states that will be pivotal in the 4 November election, seeking to paint Mr McCain as
an elitist who is disconnected from the country’s suffering working class voters. Mr
Obama’s tone reflects growing anxieties within the Democratic Party that their
candidate has been damaged by a fusillade of attacks by Mr McCain in recent weeks
while he has been holidaying in Hawaii. The political spotlight abruptly turned to Mr
McCain, who used Russia’s invasion of Georgia to bolster his foreign policy
credentials. The latest poll was taken last week, while Mr Obama was on holiday.
“There is no doubt the campaign to discredit Obama is paying off for McCain right
now,”
now,” the pollster John Zogby said. Mr Obama’s negative campaigning has yet to
turn personal, although his activists have urged him to do just that. They want his
campaign to draw voters’ attention to Mr McCain’s “flip-flopping
“flip-flopping”
” on issues such as
immigration, tax cuts for the wealthy, and torture. As the columnist Eric Alterman
put it in The Nation: “He
“He conducted an adulterous affair before leaving his disabled
wife, enjoys eight residences across the country, as well as corporate jets.”
jets.”

Instead, Mr Obama’s aggressive ads have contrasted a statement Mr McCain made

about the economy: “We“We have had a pretty good, prosperous time with low
unemployment”,
unemployment ”, with ordinary people talking about their financial woes: “The
“The
prices of gas are up; the prices of milk are up,”
up,” says one. Mr McCain made his
remarks last January before the US economy went into a nosedive and has since run
ads saying: “We’re
“We’re worse off than we were four years ago.”
ago.” Some media
watchdogs, such as FactCheck.org, part of the Annenberg Public Policy Centre at
the University of Pennsylvania, have branded the adverts misleading. “We “We certainly
for a while were finding a lot more in McCain’s ads to complain about,”
about,” said centre
director Brooks Jackson. “That
“That pattern certainly has shifted a bit.”
bit.” Mr Obama has
three polling organisations working for him, all of which are picking up voters’
concerns about the economy. In response, he has blanketed at least five cities and
large urban areas with attacks on Mr McCain. “If“If you can go quietly negative, that’s
what he’s done; I think the perception is that he’s still running the positive
campaign,”
campaign,” Evan Tracey, of TNS Media Intelligence, told The New York Times. “It’s “It’s a
pretty smart, high-low, good cop/bad cop strategy.”
strategy.”

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 23.08.08

– PPP wants Asif as president

The Pakistan People’s Party appears all set to get its cochairman Asif Ali Zardari
elected as president of the country, unless he himself decides against taking that
post which will eventually be without any power or authority. “All
“All party members
have unanimously nominated Mr Zardari for the presidency,”
presidency,” Information Minister
Sherry Rehman told reporters after a meeting of the PPP Central Executive
Committee (CEC) held at the Prime Minister’s House on Friday. Senior leader
Makhdoom Amin Fahim, who has been criticising PPP’s policies for some time and
was against the impeachment of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, attended the
meeting at the invitation of Mr Zardari. Earlier in the day, the Sindh assembly
adopted a resolution nominating Mr Zardari for the top post. Ms Rehman said Mr
Zardari had told the party members that he would take a decision on the matter in
24 hours. Although the PPP has nominated Mr Zardari as its candidate, the matter
will be taken up by the heads of parties in the ruling coalition, including the Pakistan
Muslim League-N of former prime minister Mian Nawaz Sharif. Sources told Dawn
that the PML-N was not happy over the nomination of Mr Zardari because it wanted
a non-political person at the top post and reportedly suggested the names of former
chief justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, eminent lawyer Fakharuddin G. Ibrahim,
PkMAP chief Mehmood Khan Achakzai and Ataullah Mengal of the BNP. PML-N leader
Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had stated on record that the president should be from one
of the smaller provinces.

Mr Zardari himself had said in an interview to a private TV channel that he was not
an aspirant to the office of the president. In the same interview, he hinted that the
next president could be a woman. Political analysts believe that if Mr Zardari
becomes the president, questions may be raised about the impartiality of the office.
They say Mr Zardari and the PPP will face severe criticism from various circles if he
continues to run the party affairs while sitting in the Presidency. They said that
Farooq Khan Leghari on becoming the president had resigned from the PPP. And
former president Pervez Musharraf faced criticism for presiding over and attending
meetings of the PML-Q. Habib Khan Ghori in Karachi adds: In the Sindh assembly,
the resolution nominating Mr Zardari was tabled by Law Minister Ayaz Soomro and
seconded by Shoaib Bokhari of the MQM. It said Mr Zardari was the most suitable
candidate for the office of president. After brief speeches by members of all parties,
including leader of the joint opposition in the assembly Jam Madad Ali, the
resolution was put to vote by Speaker Nisar Ahmad Khuhro. The nomination of Mr
Zardari was greeted by boisterous thumping of the desk. Chief Minister Syed Qaim
Ali Shah termed the resolution historic. The resolution reads: “This
“This assembly
resolves that following the tragic Shahadat of Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, Mr Asif Ali
Zardari showed political wisdom and through his efforts and reconciliation, got
coalition governments formed at the centre and in provinces. He, in consultation
with and cooperation of coalition partners, through his political sagacity and
acumen, restored true democracy in the country. “Under the circumstances, Mr Asif
Ali Zardari is the most suitable candidate for the office of President of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan. This assembly supports him.”
him.”

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 23.08.08

– PPP forces Nawaz to set new deadline

Pakistan Muslim League N has agreed to extend the deadline for the reinstatement
of deposed judges till Wednesday. However, Jamiat Ulema-iIslam chief Maulana
Fazlur Rehman said Pakistan People’s Party’s co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari had told
him that he wanted more time to resolve the issue on the demand of “those“those people
who played an important role”
role” in the resignation of former president Pervez
Musharraf. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif announced on Friday that the pre Nov 3, 2007,
judiciary should be restored on Aug 27 through a parliamentary resolution. Mr Sharif
had earlier threatened to quit the ruling coalition if the judges were not reinstated
by Friday. He said at a news conference after meeting Awami National Party’s
president Asfandyar Wali Khan and Jamiat Ulema-iIslam (Fazl) chief Maulana Fazlur
Rehman that “Wednesday
“Wednesday should be the day of reinstatement of the judges”.
judges”.
Maulana Fazl said there could be a difference of a day or two either way, but the
resolution would be adopted next week. Federal Law Minister Farooq H. Naek told a
television channel that he was not aware of any new deadline. He said Asif Zardari
had told him that a committee had been constituted to draft the resolution and its
first meeting would be held on Sunday evening. The committee comprises Mr Naek,
Raza Rabbani and Sherry Rehman, representing the PPP, and Ishaq Dar and Ahsan
Iqbal of the PML-N. PML-N leader Khawaja Asif expressed apprehension that there
would be no outcome of the debate on the resolution. The leaders of the ANP and
the JUI-F had been given three days by the two major parties in the coalition to
come up with a proposal to resolve differences between them on the issue. They
had suggested that a resolution seeking reinstatement of the deposed judges,
including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, should be moved in the
National Assembly in accordance with the Murree Declaration, but it should be
debated thoroughly before the reinstatement. The PPP had earlier agreed to bring a
resolution in the assembly for a debate.

Mr Sharif announced that the resolution would be drafted by a committee of the

representatives of the PPP and the PML-N over the next two days and it would be
introduced in the assembly on Monday. He said there would be a debate on Monday
and Tuesday and the resolution would be adopted on Wednesday. Mr Sharif was of
the view that the two parties had already worked on the draft and time should not
be wasted on it. He said the restoration of the judiciary without Justice Iftikhar would
be ‘a joke’. The PML-N chief said he had agreed to extend the deadline again
because he did not want the coalition to collapse. He had earlier declared that his
party would have no choice but to sit in the opposition if the judges were not
reinstated in line with the commitment made by PPP in the Murree Declaration.
Under the declaration signed in March, the deposed judges had to be reinstated
within 30 days after the formation of the federal government. Later, the two parties
agreed to extend the deadline till May 12 after which nine ministers belonging to
the PML-N quit the cabinet of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani. Later, during three
days of hectic talks earlier this month, the coalition allies agreed that they would
reinstate the judges within 24 hours after the ouster of Gen (retd) Musharraf. On
Tuesday, a day after the former president’s resignation, Mr Sharif left a meeting of
the heads of the parties in the coalition when Mr Zardari sought more time for
reinstating the judges. At that point, Asfandyar Wali and Maulana Fazl sought time
till Friday to resolve the issue.

Author Location Dated

Tariq Hassan thassan@ijurist.org 23.08.08

– Exchanging indemnities
Benazir Bhutto was ready to exchange indemnity with Gen Pervez Musharraf five
years ago. She succeeded in obtaining indemnity for herself and her husband last
year from Musharraf who promulgated the controversial National Reconciliation
Ordinance on the pretext of promoting national reconciliation. It is not surprising,
therefore, to observe the PPP considering granting indemnity to Musharraf, “if”, in
the words of its law minister, “it
“it is in the national interest”
interest” — even though the PPP’s
Senate leader, Raza Rabbani, has categorically stated that the coalition partners
had agreed not to indemnify Musharraf. The PPP’s intention with regard to granting
indemnity to Musharraf is best gauged from its proposed constitution amendment
package. The package includes the text of Article 270AAA, which was first
introduced by Musharraf himself as part of his Constitution (Amendment) Order in
Nov 2007.
2007. Article 270AAA is similar to the existing Articles 270A and 270AA of the
constitution, which are in the nature of indemnity provisions that validate
enactments and actions of past military regimes. The validity of inserting an
amendment in the constitution by executive fiat remains moot, despite its judicial
endorsement by the PCO Supreme Court in the Tika Iqbal Khan case (PLD 2008 SC
178).
178). Unlike Musharraf’s 1999 proclamation of emergency, which was validated in
2003 by a compliant parliament through the Seventeenth Amendment (Article
270AA),
270AA), his 2007 proclamation of emergency and subsequent constitutional
amendment have not been affirmed by parliament.

Hence the move to introduce Article 270AAA through parliament, which is now
unlikely to succeed, given the fact that the sword of Damocles is no longer hanging
over the parliament after Musharraf’s departure. Under the changed circumstances,
the PPP may not be able to muster the two-thirds majority required for a
constitutional amendment. It may consequently resort to the promulgation of an
ordinary law for granting indemnity to Musharraf as a quid pro quo for the NRO. The
question, however, arises whether it can legally do so. Parliament’s power to
legislate is delimited by the constitution. Article 237 thereof empowers it to make
indemnity laws: “Nothing
“Nothing in the constitution shall prevent [Majlis-e-Shoora
(parliament)] from making any law indemnifying any person in the service of the
federal government … or any other person, in respect of any act done in connection
with the maintenance or restoration of order in any area in Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” It is evident
from the opening phrase that the parliament is generally precluded from making
indemnity laws and that it is only empowered, by way of exception made possible
by Article 237, to make such laws and that too in respect of specified acts only. A
nine-member bench of the Supreme Court has in Liaquat Hussain vs. Federation of
Pakistan (PLD 1999 SC 504) given an unequivocal judgment on the issue of
indemnity. It has held that Article 237 does not cover indemnification for acts done
during the period of martial law. The court observed that the constitution does not
admit the imposition of martial law in any form and consequently held that the
parliament cannot make any law indemnifying any person in the government in
respect of any act done by him during the martial law period even for the
maintenance and restoration of order. The court noted that indemnity clauses in the
nature of Article 237 were also present in previous constitutions: Article 196 in the
1956 Constitution, Article 233A in the 1962 Constitution and Article 278 in the 1972
Interim Constitution.
Constitution. Each of these articles contained similar provisions for
indemnifying acts done during periods of martial law. The reference to martial law,
however, was deliberately omitted from Article 237. Not only the omission of this
term but also the introduction of Article 6 (high treason), which did not exist in any
of the previous constitutions, in the 1973 Constitution led the court to conclude that
martial law cannot be treated as part of the constitutional scheme of the current
constitution.

The 2007 proclamation of emergency was a form of martial law since it was made
by Musharraf in his capacity as chief of army staff and not in the exercise of his
powers as the president under the ‘Emergency
‘Emergency Provisions’
Provisions’ of the constitution.
Parliament does not, therefore, have the power to grant him indemnity. He would
not be entitled to any indemnity despite the PCO court’s feeble attempt to justify
such action on the basis of necessity in the above-noted case. Its reference to the
following observation by the Lahore High Court in Muhammad Umer Khan’s case
(PLD 1953 Lahore 528) represents archaic legal thinking: “If “If martial law is a law and
its limits are prescribed by necessity, then … all acts done by the military which are
either justified by the civil law or were dictated by necessity and done in flood [sic]
faith will be protected, even if there be no bill of indemnity….”
indemnity….” Reliance on this
observation is misplaced in light of the express words of the constitution and the
judgment in the Liaquat Hussain case. Besides the specific limitation imposed by
Article 237, the parliament would also be faced with general constraints while
enacting any indemnity law under the present circumstances. The parliament is
bound to exercise its legislative authority in accordance with the constitutional
principles of law-making.

Accordingly, it is incumbent upon the parliament to ensure that any law it makes
does not disregard, violate or otherwise contravene the fundamental rights of the
citizens of Pakistan. In the present case, it cannot be in the national interest to
provide constitutional or legislative indemnity to Musharraf. On the contrary, such a
move would not be in accordance with the fundamental right of the equality of
citizens as guaranteed by the constitution. It would be discriminatory since it would
provide unequal protection of law to a single individual. Given that indemnity is not
possible, what then are Musharraf’s choices? He could consider self-exile and seek
political asylum. His omnipotent self-image may not, however, permit him to
exercise this option. He may alternatively consider admitting his repeated
constitutional and legal infractions — perhaps in part due to the advice of his legal
team — and seek reconciliation on the basis of the truth (which principle is
incidentally lacking in the NRO). Judging from his self-righteous attitude and defiant
resignation speech, it is unlikely that he will resort to this option. The only
remaining option for him is to contest legal proceedings in a manner befitting an
honourable soldier. As such, he must be ready to bravely face trial and, if found
guilty, either suffer punishment or seek presidential pardon under Article 45 of the
constitution. ¦ The writer, a former chairman of the Securities and Exchange
Commission of Pakistan, is a lawyer based in Islamabad.Islamabad.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 23.08.08

– Balance sheet of a dictatorship

In a sense, I have been writing this article in my head for well over a year. At the
height of the lawyers’ movement to restore the suspended chief justice last
summer, I was asked on BBC World how long Musharraf could stay on. I replied that
he would be gone by the end of the year. While I was out by eight months, I think
it’s fair to say that after the elections in February, he had been politically wounded
to the point of irrelevance. Over the last couple of weeks leading up to his
resignation, the media has been full of charges against him. Some are undoubtedly
true, while others have little evidence to support them. Being an illegitimate ruler,
his trampling over the constitution can hardly be denied or defended. But over his
nine years in power, he did some good, and as the euphoria surrounding his
departure evaporates, it would be useful to make a few credit entries in the balance
sheet of the Musharraf era. To be absolutely honest, I initially welcomed his coup in
Oct 1999. While I had few illusions about military rule, I feared what was looming on
the horizon even more. Readers might recall that at the time, Nawaz Sharif was
poised to ram the Fifteenth Amendment through. He was sure to get the Senate
majority necessary for this amendment in March 2000. Had he succeeded, the
existing civil code would have been replaced by the Sharia, and Nawaz Sharif would
have been declared the Amir-ul-Momineen, or Commander of the Faithful, an
archaic caliphate-era title that would have given him absolute power. And as we
know to our cost, once such retrogressive laws are enacted, they can never be
repealed.
So, yes, I remain unashamed of welcoming the coup, as the army was the only
power that could have blocked the Fifteenth Amendment. And frankly, the image of
Musharraf standing with a pet dog in his arms, photographed with his wife and sari-
clad mother was a reassuring one. The admiration he expressed for the founder of
modern Turkey, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, further reinforced our perception of a secular
soldier who might live up to his early promise to roll back the medieval forces that
threatened to drag us back to the dark ages. Alas, this ill-placed optimism proved to
be a triumph of hope over experience. As he began enjoying the limelight and
consolidated his hold on power, Musharraf started leaning on the same reactionary
forces his military predecessors had. The mullahs were delighted to continue their
old symbiotic relationship with the army. They supported his bid for legitimacy, and
in exchange, he made sure they formed the governments in NWFP and Balochistan
after the rigged elections of 2002. However, he did raise the number of reserved
seats for women in parliament, and partly undid some of the evil of Zia’s Hudood
Ordinances. Although many of us complained that his reforms did not go nearly far
enough, the fact remains that even such small steps upset his conservative political
allies, and were difficult for him to push through. And although he had brought
Pakistan to the brink of war at Kargil in 1999, he did ultimately improve relations
with our neighbour with a succession of moves designed to break the deadlock.

A fact many do not realise is that even dictators do not enjoy absolute power.
Musharraf had to take his corps commanders with him on major issues. And once he
had cobbled together his King’s Party, he had to deal with fundamentalist fellow-
travellers like Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and Ijazul Haq. Having sidelined and
consistently badmouthed mainstream leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Benazir Bhutto,
and determined to hang on, he depended more and more on a narrow, reactionary
constituency. The extent of his isolation became evident when he held his famous
referendum. Although less than five per cent of the electorate actually voted, the
government claimed a massive turnout. When I asked a close advisor why he had
not tried to put a stop to the farce, he replied: “You
“You have no idea how thick the
group of generals close to Musharraf are. And he listens to them on all important
matters, even though they have no clue what they are talking about.”
about.” Musharraf,
like so many autocrats, listened only to the advice he wanted to hear. Musharraf
really came into his own after 9/11. Suddenly, he was transformed from yet another
tin pot dictator of yet another benighted banana republic into a crucial ally in the
freshly-minted ‘war on terror’. From being an international pariah Bill Clinton
refused to shake hands with publicly, he was being courted and toasted by major
world leaders. Although he has been widely criticised in Pakistan for having
executed his famous u-turn, the fact is that most leaders would have done the same
in his place. True, others might have held out for a better deal, but it is unlikely that
they would have tried to resist the demands of a wounded and angry United States
in the wake of the attacks on New York and Washington.

It is also a fact that under him, the stock market performed very well, and there was
an improvement in the country’s economy. If this did not translate into a rise in the
standard of living for the average Pakistani, we should remember that unelected
dictators are not answerable to the electorate. However, as soon as they were
allowed to, the people of Pakistan voted against him and everything he stood for.
But again, he should be given some credit for overseeing reasonably fair elections.
Of course, he did so largely because he had been assured by the Chaudhries of
Gujrat that their PML-Q was comfortably placed, and would be able to form a
coalition to support him in his second term. The fact that he chose to accept their
projections rather than the more realistic ones prepared by his intelligence agencies
will probably haunt him for years to come. Looking back over the last nine years, I
think if I were to pick his biggest crime against the people of Pakistan, it would be
his failure to protect Benazir Bhutto. Whatever her many shortcomings, she was the
one Pakistani leader who was even remotely capable of leading the country out of
the mess it is in today. His sinister words to her, quoted in a recent American book,
will do as his political epitaph: “Your
“Your security depends on the kind of working
relationship we have.”
have.”

Author Location Dated

Murtaza Razvi 23.08.08

– A step forward or back to square one?

There’s got to be a bigger reason than the venue for the absence yesterday of Mr
Zardari from the rather uneventful ruling coalition heads’ press conference held at
the Punjab House in Islamabad by Messrs Nawaz Sharif, Asfandyar Wali Khan and
Maulana Fazlur Rahman. The three leaders said they had the erstwhile king-maker
or soon-to-be-king’s concurrence by telephone on the contents of what they told the
media. His detractors may ask what’s to stop Mr Zardari from going back on a
telephone conversation when he has not honoured the agreed deadlines in writing
to restore the judges. As details of the latest agreement between the PPP and the
PML-N become clear, there is a lot of room for interpretation either way, for the
restoration of the judges; all judges, some judge, minus one, two, etc. in the week
ahead as the National Assembly debates the issue. Five days went by between
President Musharraf’s resignation and the ensuing debate on the restoration of the
judges among coalition partners. Now another five are sought to draft, move and
possibly get the resolution approved in the National Assembly before any, some or
all the judges can be hoped to be restored. Mr Sharif said his understanding was
that by Wednesday next the whole process would be completed, while Mr Khan
interjected to say that once the resolution was tabled the debate could stretch into
Friday.

It is clear that while the tabling of a resolution in the NA and a debate on it are
pledged, the restoration of the judges sacked on Nov 3, 2007 by President
Musharraf is not. That is why perhaps Mr Sharif was quick to add that his party
would wait until Wednesday; if all the judges are restored the coalition holds, if not
his party would walk out of government. In saying so Mr Sharif could not have been
simply his naïve self once again, as is believed of him by some, for the vendetta he
displayed while pushing the PPP for Mr Musharraf’s impeachment tells another tale.
So does his party’s cajoling and shoving of the PPP with threats to quit the coalition
on the judges issue time and again, even as coalition partners sought time to re-
examine the modalities. Now Mr Sharif gives another unilateral deadline of
Wednesday. What’s it with the man and his obsession with deadlines which
apparently none of his coalition partners take seriously? While Mr Zardari’s smooth
operator politics since the Feb election has come in for a lot of debate, Mr Sharif’s
strategy of tagging along while threatening to quit the coalition has attracted little
attention. Indeed the posturing on both sides has invited much scrutiny but
substantially little has been surmised from it. This is perhaps because Mr Zardari
plays the more interesting, guessing game, while Mr Sharif seems to say it as it is.
But is it really as it is?

The politics of brinkmanship is painting neither side pretty. Five months into
government, and the coalition has yet to make its presence felt. Given his posturing
on the issue all this time, has Mr Zardari finally had what will appear to be a change
of heart on the judges’ reinstatement? Or has he used it to extract maximum
concessions out of the PML-N — securing the presidency for his party, letting Mr
Musharraf off without accountability under foreign pressure and undertakings? So
be it. It is time the government got on with the business of effec tively running the
country. But given the PPP co-chairman’s persona, these sound too logical,
optimistic and, to many, charitable conclusions to be drawn from the events as they
have unfolded since he has taken charge of the party’s affairs. Two of the PPP’s
most devout and intelligent leaders, Makhdoom Amin Fahim and Barrister Aitzaz
Ahsan, respectively, have been giving odd vibes. While the Makhdoom admittedly
has shaky legs to stand on within or outside his party in the aftermath of his
disagreements with Mr Zardari since after the Feb election, the barrister has been
very cautious not to sever his links with the party even as he vociferously lobbies
for the restoration of Justice Chaudhry. That Mr Ahsan is a man of logic and proven
integrity is the only hope that something good and reassuring may come out of the
debate in the NA over the judges’ issue. If not, the country will see more chaos in
the weeks ahead. If the ruling coalition unravels, the threat of destabilisation posed
by the Taliban and an economy on a downward spiral will not be good news for
democracy.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 23.08.08

– After Musharraf: picking up the pieces

He went the way he’d come: in the midst of massive controversy, confusion and
chaos. The former commando-president’s departure from Pakistan’s turbulent
political stage couldn’t be more dramatic, leaving behind a trail littered with myriad
pieces. But while the civilian government was entitled to self-congratulate itself on
having rid the country of the most prominent symbol of a discredited ancien regime
the gift sent to it by GHQ that August 18 afternoon had a message written all over
the gift packaging . Wrapped in the colourful guard-of-honour, with which his
military colleagues sent him off to retirement, was a missive meant for Pakistan’s
putative ruling elite: don’t forget where the buck stops in the country. Well, the
buck in Pakistan has been stopping at the gates of GHQ since that first military
takeover by General Ayub Khan on October 7, 1958. In a few weeks’ time the
nation, since held in thrall to the country’s military brass, will be observing the 50th
anniversary of that black day when its nascent democratic process was snuffed out
by Pakistan’s first Bonaparte. Musharraf was the 4th Bonaparte in the dubious line
of succession. The writing had been there on the wall for Musharraf to see since the
general elections of last February 18 but was not being read by him. There’s nary a
doubt that Musharraf would have stood his guns and not budged from the hole he’d
dug himself into had his two crutches — Washington and GHQ — not given up and
told him to stop leaning on them. It became an open secret in Washington that,
after last month’s visit of Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani, Bush had given him the
green light to ease Musharraf out. But the nod came with a caveat: do it with dignity
and grace.

Another constant of GHQ’s clout in Pakistan is that what Washington thinks the
military brass ensconced in Rawalpindi doesn’t much differ with on the essentials,
unless it may have angularities likely to erode the charm it has thus far exercised
with success over the people of Pakistan. So the strategy to put paid to the
Musharraf era in Pakistan was worked out in tandem: Musharraf had to go but there
would be no accountability or impeachment, because that would’ve opened up too
many Pandora boxes to the distaste of Bush and his war-on-terror minions. The
Sunday Times of London encapsulated Washington’s umbrage at any kind of trial of
Musharraf — in parliament or courts of law — succinctly: Bush didn’t relish his dirty
linen being washed in the open. In the end, all that loud thunder and bombastic
coming out of the ruling coalition’s two stalwarts, Zardari and Nawaz Sharif, ran out
of steam. It fizzled out because of enormous pressure brought upon them from
within Pakistan, i.e. the GHQ, and from the likes of Bush and the Custodian of the
Two Holy Places in Saudi Arabia. Zardari wasn’t a problem for his handlers. He was,
so to speak, in the bag from the beginning because he’d, and still has, a personal
interest in Musharraf being not humiliated or hounded out too brazenly. Zardari
feared, and still does, the spilling of beans robbing him of the pre-eminent position
of the kingmaker that he has become in modern Pakistan.

Nawaz, more pointedly garrulous and insistent in his demand to bring Musharraf to
book — for settling various scores with him, no doubt — was taken care of by the
emissary from the Kingdom. Its intelligence chief, Prince Muqrin, was rushed to
Pakistan to make sure Nawaz got the message and fell in line behind the curtain-
drop scenario so meticulously choreographed to the last detail. George W. Bush, to
give him credit, did all he could to see to it that his most reliable and faithful ally in
the war against terror wasn’t humiliated or dragged through the mud. Ideally, Bush
would have preferred that Musharraf could have lasted as long as his mentor was in
the White House. However, in the maelstrom enveloping Pakistan, this is about the
best denouement, from Washington’s point of interest, of a frontline soldier who
didn’t hesitate to take his country to the pits in order to earn the accolades from his
mentors and minders. But the icing on the cake for Musharraf was, without an iota
of doubt, the impressive last salute mounted for him by detachments of all the
defence services of Pakistan. He may have boasted, while in power, that he enjoyed
the trust and following of the Pakistani people but that was baloney. His only
constituency was the army, which stood by him till the very last and didn’t let him
be embarrassed. Why the GHQ military brass elect to honour and dignify a
disgraced president is no riddle. In half a century of unstinted mastery of the
country, including its political fortunes, the army has become addicted to having its
way, whenever it so desired. Bonapartism is alive and kicking, and there should be
no mistake of ignoring it, especially by those at the helm of the nation’s affairs. So
there we are at a new cross-roads in Pakistan; not for the first time, for sure, and
not for the last.

Musharraf will not stay on in Pakistan where even the GHQ may not be able to
ensure his security of life, and the commando has a well-honed perception of
personal safety above all. One can’t imagine Musharraf spending his days, a la Idi
Amin, in Saudi Arabia; the hermit kingdom is too austere for his taste and not
worthy of becoming his cup of tea. Turkey, he may prefer, above all, because of
long familiarity. In all likelihood, he would end up in the US, where he has family and
may feel more secure than anywhere else in the world, because of it being far from
where his blood-thirsty nemeses thrive. But, again, it’s immaterial where he finds
shelter and refuge as long as he gets away from the reach of the law in Pakistan.
It’s ironic that Pakistan’s ruling culture that has made horrible, and repeated,
examples of its civilian leaders — hanging one prime minister, killing two, forcing
two into exile, besides dismissing with contempt half a dozen more — is so helpless
when it comes to holding a general accountable. And that, too, in the case of a
Bonaparte who made minced-meat of the law of the land, trod over its constitution
with disdain and trampled over the sanctity of the high judiciary of the country. That
he’s being allowed to go scotfree is the abject ground reality. Zardari and Nawaz
Sharif have been left with the task of picking up the pieces of Pakistan’s political
mirror trashed by Musharraf, in addition to licking their wounds. In fact, it’s only
Nawaz that’s saddled with the double jeopardy of licking his wounds and trying to
keep his mercurial and maverick coalition ‘big-brother’ Zardari in check. Zardari’s
interest is well-guarded with the turn of events where there’s going to be no
impeachment or accountability of Musharraf, because his wagon had been hitched
with Musharraf for sometime. He has also been playing ‘catch-me-if-you-can’ with
Nawaz for months, and flip-flopping with impunity. Zardari has been brazenly
opportunistic and unprincipled as far as the sanctity of his numerous pacts and
pledges with Nawaz Sharif is concerned.

The latest victim of Zardari’s habitual disregard of accords reached in faith with
Nawaz is the two-page written agreement of August 7 that pledged the PPP
government to restore the 60-odd superior court judges, including Chief Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhry, within 24 hours of Musharraf’s exit from the presidency. That has
already fallen by the wayside. Zardari’s dismal track record on promises and
pledges gives little hope of this latest somersault bearing fruit. He has a congenital
fear of a rehabilitated Justice Chaudhry puncturing his balloon and bringing it down
to earth. That explains his latest tack to seek a blanket indemnity for all of
Musharraf’s ultra-constitutional excesses so that the NRO that gave a new lease to
Zardari remains beyond the reach of a conscientious judiciary. How would the
jigsaw puzzle of Pakistan look now that Musharraf is gone? There’s hardly any hope
of an early revival of fortunes, despite the villain being no longer in contention. The
Zardari-Nawaz entente is a marriage of convenience that will unravel, sooner than
later, because of the constant strain on its resilience. Barring the unlikely miracle of
Zardari mending his devious ways, a parting of ways could come as early as next
week or fortnight over who should be anointed to inherit Musharraf’s dubious
bequest at the presidency. Sensing that eventuality, the Q-League and MQM are
seeking ways to ingratiate themselves with the kingmaker. MQM has unabashedly
endorsed Zardari for President. But all is not downhill for Nawaz and his setup.
Because of its consistently occupying the high moral ground on the restoration of
judges, Nawaz League has gained significantly in public esteem, just as the graph of
the Zardari-controlled PPP has slid downward. Fresh elections would become
unavoidable in the event of a likely impasse in governance as a consequence of
Zardari-Nawaz split. Nawaz would be a sure bet to reap a rich bonanza at any fresh
polls to dislodge Zardari from his current pedestal. So more confusion and quandary
galore at the national stage is what the pundit sees in his crystal ball for the days
and weeks ahead. The US, our quintessential ‘neighbour’ would be queasy to the
hilt and breathing down our neck to ‘do more’ as was the unrelenting demand off
Musharraf. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Suzanne Goldenberg Washington, D.C. 23.08.08

– White House hopefuls face image problem

Barack Obama, who is generally regarded as a gifted orator, would do well to find
time to unwind before he delivers the speech of his lifetime to the Democratic
party’s convention next week. A new analysis of Obama’s voice patterns and the
delivery of his speeches made available to and reported in the London based
Guardian, found the Democratic candidate somewhat restricted in his range of
facial expression. Specifically, Obama’s face is locked in an almost permanent
attitude of anxiety, with his forehead muscles contracted. “In
“In all topics Mr Obama
displays a similar worried, serious looking facial pattern. Even when talking about
more positive subjects, his facial expressions do not signal positive affective
states,”
states,” said a report on the analysis, undertaken by the Vox Institute in Geneva for
the Clearwater consulting group. The institute reviewed footage of Obama’s
speeches and those of the Republican candidate, John McCain. It relied on footage
from four speeches conveying a range of emotions, as well as digitised voice
samples, to rate the effectiveness of the two candidates in connecting with voters
on the campaign trail. The habitual worried look is a potential liability for Obama,
undermining the image he is trying to project of a confident leader. The image could
be disturbing for audiences, said James McBrien, the founder of Clearwater. It also
undercuts Obama’s outward appearance of extreme confidence.
“There is an element of the fact that he is on the edges of his comfort zone here,”
here,”
McBrien said. “Going
“Going into a presidential campaign is not something he has done
before, and you could say it is written all over his face.”
face.” Despite that failing, Obama
was the clear winner against McCain in the oratorical contest. The result is
unsurprising, given that McCain’s own campaign team has gone to some effort to
conceal his limitations as a speaker.

McCain has had problems adapting to the Autocue, that staple of public speaking.
On the campaign trail he has favoured smaller venues, where he can take questions
from audiences, rather than the grand venues and stirring speeches that have
become Obama’s signature. Obama had high scores on six of the eight voice
values, including diction, fluency, speed and modulation. His voice could have been
a little louder at times, although the study praised his ability to reflect anger,
positive emotions and sadness. The verdict on McCain was harsh. The acoustic
analysis noted that the Republican’s voice was pitched slightly high, and that it
remained flat, or emotionless, even while he was talking about sad subjects.
McCain’s range of facial expression was just as unvaried. “McCain’s
“McCain’s facial repertory
is very poor,”
poor,” the analysis said. “His
“His smile is often not fully developed, i.e. his
cheek-raising muscles do not participate enough in the expression of positive affect
[to be perceived as genuine].”
genuine].” McBrien put it in terms that were even more stark.
“He has a poker face,”
face,” he said. The problem with the lack of expression, according
to McBrien, is that it makes it difficult for an audience to trust the speaker. The
Republican is restricted in his range of motion because of injuries received during
the Vietnam war. He tends to keep his hands by his side when he speaks. The Vox
researchers also picked up on one of McCain’s tics. The candidate, who made a
campaign slogan of his plainspeaking in the Straight Talk Express, has a habit of
completely shutting his eyes and slightly smiling immediately before coming out
with one of his signature sarcastic comments.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 24.08.08

– PRESIDENT ZARDARI?
Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday emerged as the
People’s Party’s candidate for the
presidential election next month amid
ominous signs of a break-up of the four-
party ruling coalition after the Pakistan
Muslim League-N declined to offer
unconditional support for the PPP move. “Mr “Mr
Asif Zardari has accepted to contest the
election for the office of president of
Pakistan on the formal request of the
Pakistan People’s Party. He is now the
party’s (official) candidate for the Sept 6
election,”
election,” the party’s deputy secretary-
general and Leader of the House in the
Senate, Raza Rabbani, announced at a
press conference here. He was flanked by
federal Information Minister Sherry Rehman,
Labour Minister Syed Khurshid Shah and Dr
Israr Shah, a member of the party’s central
executive committee. The PPP decision
apparently follows a series of intra-party
meetings and deliberations with other
political blocs, after which the party has
concluded that even if the PML-N did not
support Mr Zardari’s candidature, and
despite PML-Q’s decision to nominate
Mushahid Hussain as its candidate, he can
secure enough votes to become the
country’s next president. Although the numbers are stacked in favour of PPP,
pundits consider the contest as wide open. Mr Zardari gained fame only after
marrying the PPP chairperson, Benazir Bhutto, who was slain in December 2007, but
was embroiled in controversies after corruption charges were levelled at him during
two successive PPP tenures in government. After spending eight years in jail without
being convicted, Mr Zardari has emerged as the man holding the party’s leash in
the Feb 2008 elections.

Mr Rabbani, who had earlier flown to Raiwind with a party delegation to inform PML-
N chief Nawaz Sharif about the PPP decision, admitted that so far Mr Sharif had not
made up his mind to offer unqualified support. “They
“They (PML-N leaders) will discuss
the matter within their party and inform us (about their decision) by Monday or
Tuesday,”
Tuesday,” Mr Rabbani said when he was asked if Mr Sharif had agreed to support Mr
Zardari’s candidature. According to Siddiqul Farooque, the PML-N’s spokesman, the
party would hold a meeting of its central working committee at the Punjab House,
Islamabad, on Monday evening to make a final decision and devise its strategy.
Earlier, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif linked the party’s support for Mr Zardari’s
candidature to the restoration of the judiciary by Monday and also called upon the
government to repeal the 17th Amendment before the presidential elections. The
conditions are unlikely to fulfilled, putting the future of the coalition at stake within
a week after the ouster of president Pervez Musharraf. Both the parties have signed
the Charter of Democracy (CoD), in which they had committed themselves to doing
away with Article 58-2(b) — which empowers the president to dissolve the National
Assembly. In reply to a question, Mr Rabbani hinted that Mr Zardari would assume
powers under Article 58-2(b). He just said the PPP was committed to the charter,
signed by Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif two years ago. Mr Rabbani also evaded
answering a question about who would run the party affairs if Mr Zardari became
the president, saying that the PPP was a democratic party.

Although Mr Sharif had announced that his party was not interested in nominating
its own candidate for the presidential election, sources said the party might covertly
back an independent candidate, if the judges were not restored by the Monday
deadline. Without giving any timeframe for the restoration of the judiciary, Mr
Rabbani insisted that “the“the judges will be reinstated at all cost”
cost” but the issue was not
a simple one. “It
“It is a complicated legal and constitutional issue”.
issue”. Sources in the
party told Dawn correspondent that the party had clearly conveyed to the PML-N
that the judges were not going to be reinstated any time soon. Dismissing reports
that the ruling coalition was falling apart, he said: “In
“In the past too, the media ran
many reports about the possible collapse of the ruling coalition, but these reports
proved wrong. I hope that the ruling coalition will remain intact.”
intact.” Mr Rabbani also
refused to comment on the statement of JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman
according to which he said that Mr Zardari had told the JUI-F chief that the forces
people who played a part in the ouster of President Musharraf did not want to
reinstate the judges, including deposed chief
justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. The Muttahida
Qaumi Movement has already declared its
support for Mr Zardari’s candidature.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal Lahore, 24.08.08
Pakistan

– Nawaz puts his foot down

Differences between two major parties in
the ruling coalition — Pakistan People’s
Party and Pakistan Muslim League-N —
appeared to be widening on Saturday as
Nawaz Sharif moved his deadline for
reinstatement of the deposed judges
forward by two days, to Monday. He warned
that his party would be “free
“free to take its own
decision if the new deadline is not
respected”.
respected”. “We
“We have asked the PPP
leadership to let us know if it is prepared to
restore the judges by Monday,”
Monday,” Mr Sharif told reporters after a three-hour meeting
with a PPP delegation, which comprised Raza Rabbani, Khursheed Shah and Sherry
Rehman. The PPP leaders had called on Nawaz Sharif to seek his support for Asif Ali
Zardari’s candidature. Mr Sharif said he was bringing the deadline forward because
“we were unaware about the announcement of the schedule for the presidential
election and nomination of Mr Zardari for the office by his party when we agreed on
Wednesday as the deadline for restoration of the judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position,”
position,”
he told a questioner. Although he did not say it in so many words, he made it amply
clear that his party would neither stay in the coalition nor support Mr Zardari’s
candidature if the judges were not reinstated. Mr Sharif has called a meeting of the
PML-N’s central working and executive committees in Islamabad on Monday
afternoon to discuss the party’s future course of action. “It
“It is not too difficult to
move a motion for reinstatement of the judges in parliament, debate it and carry it
the same day. If you don’t want to do it in 10 minutes, take a few hours and issue
executive orders after the passage of the resolution in parliament, restoring the
judges in the evening. We have given the PPP a roadmap and are waiting for their
response,”
response,” he said.

“According to the Islamabad accord between us and the PPP, the judges should
have been reinstated in 24 hours after the resignation or impeachment of Gen
(retd) Pervez Musharraf. But it is unfortunate that this did not happen.”
happen.” In reply to a
question, he said it were the people who had forced Gen (retd) Musharraf to quit.
“I’m not a wheeler-dealer and I’m not aware of any other force that has played a
role in the resignation of Musharraf. If we hadn’t stood steadfast to our principles
and if we had stopped putting pressure on him, the general wouldn’t have agreed
to resign.”
resign.” In a veiled response to a question, Mr Sharif also expressed his
unwillingness to support Mr Zardari for the presidency. “We
“We have told the PPP
leaders to abide by the agreements, especially the Islamabad accord that clearly
states that the PPP will get its man elected as next president if the 17th
Amendment is scrapped. “If the controversial amendment stays, a non-partisan
person enjoying respect and confidence of all the four coalition partners will be
elected to the office of the president,”
president,” Mr Sharif said. Mr Sharif said neither he nor
his party feared the PPP or Mr Zardari in the presidency. “I“I have a great deal of
respect for Mr Zardari. But here we are talking of a principle. The powers to dissolve
the assemblies should rest with the prime minister, and not with the president.”
president.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 24.08.08

– Diplomats in US hopeful of judges’ reinstatement

The first official work that Asif Ali Zardari plans to do as president will be to
reinstate the judges, according to diplomatic sources in Washington. If the
presidential election went as planned, Mr Zardari would take oath as president on
Sept 8 and “within
“within a day or two”
two” he would restore the judges, the sources said. The
restoration of judiciary would be done under a plan already agreed upon by the
ruling coalition, the sources said. Details of the plan were yet to be disclosed, the
sources said, but the move for President Musharraf’s impeachment, which forced
him to resign, was part of this plan. It is still not clear if chief justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry will also be reinstated. Similarly, it is unclear if the powers of
the courts will be reviewed before they are restored. “Once“Once the court is restored,
the coalition government will move to grant immunity to Mr Musharraf,”
Musharraf,” said one
source familiar with the government’s plan. Diplomatic sources in Washington
believe that once the immunity is granted, Mr Musharraf may visit the US to meet
his son and brother but so far he insists that he wants to live in Pakistan. The
sources admit that there are differences within the ruling coalition on some of these
moves. They explain that some within the alliance may opt to stay out or vote
against a particular move when it is put before the parliament. Explaining this point,
the sources say that the PML-N may vote against the proposal to grant indemnity to
Mr Musharraf while the MQM may vote against the reinstatement of judges. “Yet “Yet
this will not break up the coalition,”
coalition,” said one source. “The
“The coalition partners
understand that they may not agree hundred per cent on all issues but they want to
keep the alliance intact.”
intact.”

According to these sources, Pakistan’s future political map was discussed with the
Americans when Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani visited Washington late last
month. “The
“The prime minister told the Americans that if you want our politics to
mature, let us handle our domestic issues through normal political processes and
without external interference,”
interference,” said a source. “And
“And the Americans understood,”
understood,” the
source added. “If
“If this (Mr Zardari’s nomination) had happened six months ago,
Assistant Secretary of State Richard would have been in Islamabad by now. But now
Americans see this as an internal Pakistani issue.”
issue.” In recent public meetings in
Washington, Ambassador Husain Haqqani has also stressed this point. “Some “Some
people in Pakistan say that all important decisions in Pakistan are taken by Allah,
America, and the Army, in that order,”
order,” he said. “We
“We want to change that paradigm
and we are working seriously on it.”
it.” He said that he also emphasises this point in
his conversations with US officials. “We
“We tell them that we want to work with you on
things of importance to your country, it will be a policy-relationship in which our
domestic political factors will have their own dynamics,”
dynamics,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 24.08.08

– Time to move on
The present government prefers to blame its predecessor for the ills afflicting the
country instead of working to cure them. It may be that it has neither the requisite
will nor the skills. The PPP–PML-N entered into a coalition to form the government
nearly five months ago. Since then it has been professing two overriding concerns,
namely: (1) making democracy ‘real’ by eradicating dictatorship and (2) ensuring
the judiciary’s independence by reinstating the deposed judges.
judges. Gen Musharraf did
indeed rule Pakistan openly as a dictator until October 2002, and then covertly
during the PML-Q’s quasi civilian regime. But he cannot be deemed to have
operated a dictatorship after the PPP–PML-N coalition had taken power. Under the
circumstances while the president retained the authority to dissolve the National
Assembly in the event of a constitutional breakdown and the authority to make
certain appointments (neither of which he had the occasion to exercise), he could
not do anything else except on the prime minister’s advice. Where then was the
dictatorship? If the president acted arbitrarily during these five months, it had to
have happened because Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani asked him to do it, in
which case the dictatorial acts were his, not those of the president. Gen Musharraf
has now left the presidency. Several prominent persons in the country want to put
him on trial for his alleged crimes. This advocacy is both unwise and dysfunctional.
Crime takes place when a law is violated. The law and the constitution are what, in
the final analysis, the Supreme Court says they are. Gen Musharraf cannot be
prosecuted for his coup in October 1999 or for his imposition of emergency rule,
dismissal of numerous judges, and amendment of the constitution on Nov 3, 2007
because all of these acts of his were validated by the Supreme Court of Pakistan.
They cannot be termed as crimes.

The general adopted policies and took actions which turned out to have been
unwise and possibly detrimental to the national interest. Choice of bad policies is
political folly but it is not a crime. From time to time governments in most countries
do things which are later shown to have been unconstitutional or even unlawful. The
courts strike them down. In ousting the chief justice on March 9, 2007 the general
may have thought he was within the bounds of his authority to make that move.
The Supreme Court held: no, he was not. He accepted the court’s verdict and the
chief justice went back to work. Musharraf doubtless committed an indiscretion, but
it would be hard to establish that he had committed a crime for which he should
now go to jail. The proposal to put Musharraf on trial will accomplish nothing good
for the people. It will merely keep them occupied with another drama and give
Prime Minister Gilani and his guide, Asif Ali Zardari, still another excuse for ignoring
the country’s actual troubles. Mr Nawaz Sharif wants the deposed judges to be
reinstated within the next few days by a National Assembly resolution followed by
an executive order requiring their reinstatement. Mr Zardari says he needs more
time to think over the ‘modalities’ involved. He may not have thought about politics
and governance while Benazir Bhutto was still living. But surely it became his
obligation to think about them after her assassination and his own appointment as
the PPP’s co-chairman. Ms Bhutto had firmly declared that the judges must be
restored. Thus, Mr Zardari has had almost eight months to think the matter over
and figure out its modalities.

In fact there may not be any modalities to consider. Mr Sharif wants an assembly
resolution and an executive order. Let these instruments be sent out, and if they
prove to be insufficient, we can think of what else might be done. In my reckoning
Mr Zardari simply does not want the judges to be reinstated, and he will yield only if
exigencies of the time leave him no other option. Gen Musharraf is gone. Let the
judges now be reinstated so that we are done and over with a tormenting crisis. It is
time for the nation and its government to come out of the past, look ahead and
move on. There are hard choices to be made and campaigns to be mounted. There
is the task of putting together and applying adequate (not minimal) force to deal
with the militants. Then there is the lingering insurgency in Balochistan. It has been
surfacing periodically since this country’s inception and it is no minor matter. It
poses an extremely grave threat to this nation’s solidarity and territorial integrity.
Mr Gilani’s government, like the ones before it, keeps telling us that it is going to
alleviate the Baloch people’s sense of deprivation, particularly their sense of
exclusion from the management of their resources and their affairs in general. But
to date it has taken no steps to meet their concerns. The Baloch leaders and the
political elite in the other smaller provinces have been demanding provincial
autonomy, invoking the assurance in this regard given in the Lahore Resolution of
1940. Successive governments in this country, including the present one, have
reaffirmed the commitment to allow the provinces maximum autonomy, but none
has done anything to implement it.

Provincial autonomy is an imperative of this country’s survival as a federation. And,

it is wholly feasible. It should be conceded forthwith if unnecessary turmoil is to be
avoided. In this connection it is to be noted that the highly centralised state has
failed everywhere to preserve political unity among culturally diverse groups of
people. Decentralisation is now the preferred mode. Some of the problems
confronting the country are not quite as intractable as others. They can be
mitigated even if they cannot be eliminated. Life for many of our people can be
made a bit easier if the production and purchasing of food and fuel are subsidised
and their prices lowered. Money for this should come not from more borrowing but
from savings in other areas. Considering that we have an inventory of nuclear
weapons, and that a full-scale war with India is therefore most unlikely, defence
spending can be reduced substantially. One cannot say if Mr Gilani and his
associates have the wisdom and will to provide what the people so desperately
need. I hope they will overcome the inclination to let things slide, as they might,
and let nature take its course. ¦ The author is professor emeritus of political
science at the University of Massachusetts

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 24.08.08

– An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth

Yusuf Abdullah Haroon, a dexterous man, an elusive friend I have known ever since
I can remember, and his charming supportive wife Pasha, came for lunch. We have
both seen the ‘leadership’ lot enter and exit, from Mohammad Ali Jinnah all the way
down to Gen Pervez Musharraf. We could hear Musharraf, who we both consider to
be the best of the worst lot, blaring away on the television upstairs. We heard him
resign — we understood immediately that it was, of course, in the larger national
interest of the Republic of Pakistan. We recalled a meeting back in 1946 when
Jinnah visited Karachi, and stayed at Seafield, the old colonial house which Yusuf’s
father Abdullah had resurrected in the early 1930s and where the Haroon clan was
living and still lives. Present, sitting on the veranda, were Jinnah, Yusuf, my father
Rustom and I (who had tagged along). An assistant broke our talks to announce the
arrival of four mullahs led by Maulvi Ehtesham. Why, growled Jinnah who was told
that they were calling at ‘the
‘the appointed hour’.
hour’. Then, I must hear them (meaning, I
will tell them what I have to). They had come to request Jinnah to lead the Friday
prayers the next day. There was consternation when he politely refused as they had
already announced his presence. They pleaded — were he to refuse their honour
would be at stake. Jinnah looked around at us, seeking help. None was forthcoming.
All right, he eventually said, I will come. I will not lead the prayers but I will stand in
line and pray with you. Satisfied, they left. He turned to Yusuf. You better stand next
to me in the sixth row from the front to ensure that I make no wrong move. It was
agreed. As we left, my father told Yusuf to be sure not to let the side down. An
apprehensive Yusuf promised to rehearse.

Neither Yusuf nor I ‘rejoiced’ at the news that day, nor did we stuff each other’s
mouths with ludoos. We have seen too many come and then leave, biting the bullet,
victims of power-seekers, in disgrace, sent to the gallows, blown to smithereens,
dismissed ignominiously. And we have seen what came after each exit — a steady,
dangerous decline in moral probity and in the aptitude to govern and provide the
law and order necessary for progress of any kind. We know the reaction within the
country, we know how the nation stands, we know why and how Musharraf has left
us — merely because he did not know, like all good generals must know, when it is
time to retreat. But how has the world reacted to the political passing of a man who
strode the international scene since 2001? A cursory glance at just some of the
headlines over editorials and columns gives us a good idea, and provides a fair
commentary on how things are likely to pan out. ‘Zardari
‘Zardari on the hot seat —
corruption allegations still haunt Pakistan’s new power’, ‘Musharraf not the problem,
or solution’, ‘India frustrated by a rudderless Pakistan’, ‘Another Bushman down’,
‘Exit the president — the troubled era of Pervez Musharraf comes to an end. New
troubles begin’, ‘Musharraf’s mess’, ‘Pakistan is still not safe’, ‘A vacuum in
Islamabad’, ‘Celebrations premature’, ‘Pak-style democracy’, ‘Musharraf’s departure
creates pivotal moment in terror war’, ‘Zardari-Sharif-Kayani troika pivotal’,
‘Departure will not bring peace’, ‘High cost of vainglory’, ‘Fledgling government
needs help now’, ‘Hopes and fears after Musharraf’, ‘Pakistan’s deadly vendetta’,
‘We may yet miss Pervez Musharraf’, ‘Musharraf leaves a fractured Pakistan’,
‘Dream of a secular Pakistan is dead’.
dead’. There is a cartoon from the American press
floating around in cyber space. It is entitled ‘Disasters
‘Disasters around the world’.
world’. The first
box is labelled Sudan and shows the skeleton of a cow in a desert; then Indonesia
and a destructive storm, followed by Chile and an exploding volcano. Myanmar has
a tsunami, China its latest terrible earthquake, and lastly, Pakistan. What is our
image — a grinning Asif Zardari showing us the two-fingered sign.

Is he the most deadly legacy left to us by default by Musharraf and George W.

Bush? But for the tragic event of Dec 27 he would not be with us. His gain and profit
from that day’s loss is immense in every way. But perhaps, discounting fate,
chance, purpose or design, it is the grossly illegal and unconstitutional National
Reconciliation Ordinance that will be the worst thing bequeathed by the Musharraf
regime. In yesterday’s issue of this newspaper, on the opposite page was printed a
letter from I. Ahmed under the heading ‘Safe exit’. It deserves the reproduction of
certain passages. “Mr
“Mr Sharif and his party [are] forgetting that the PML-N, which
used to be the PML in those days, supported the most conniving dictator Pakistan
has ever seen, i.e. General Ziaul Haq. In fact, if it were not for Zia, nobody in
Pakistan would have known the Sharif family as a force today.”
today.” Indeed, such is the
fact. He goes on to remind us “that
“that the key coalition partners are the ones who
benefited from the ‘safe exit’ strategy and indemnity from prosecution through
NROs and conditional exile.”
exile.” But the crux and thrust of his letter comes at the end:
“Looking at the status of the Zardari-Sharif nexus, it seems that before his
retirement [General Ashfaq Pervez] Kayani will have to become Musharraf, whether
he wants it or not. Hopefully, this time Kayani will not make the same mistake (at
the behest of the US and Saudis), one big mistake that Musharraf made, of
providing them a safe passage out of the country and not prosecuting them....”
them....”
These views are shared by a fair number of the non-rejoicing citizenry who worry
about the future of their country and what they are leaving for the generations to
come. It has to be said that Musharraf failed miserably to learn from history. We are
luckily well out of the old days of the 1970s when a dictator was a true dictator and
an army general was able to finish him off. When the pious praying Mardi-Momeen
Mard-i-Haq Ziaul Haq overthrew the confident brash dictator Zulfikar Ali Bhutto he
initially incarcerated him in Murree. Still bending and bowing, Zia called on him. We
saw front-page photographs of a gloating Zia sitting subserviently before the fallen
man, the man having just told him that he intended to hang Zia and his generals
from the nearest lamp-post. Zia’s eyes depicted his thinking: I will hang you before
you hang me.

Author Location Dated

Chicago, Illinois 24.08.08

– Obama picks Biden as running mate

Barack Obama on Saturday named veteran Senate
colleague Joseph Biden as his vice presidential running
mate, adding foreign policy heft – but also a loose
tongue – to his ticket in the battle against Republican
John McCain. After hours of media leaks, the 47-year-old
Democratic White House hopeful confirmed that he was
picking the 65-year-old Delaware senator in an early-
hours email and text message sent out to millions of
signed-up supporters. “I’ve
“I’ve chosen Joe Biden to be my
running mate,”
mate,” Obama said in the email. “I’m
“I’m excited
about hitting the campaign trail with Joe, but the two of
us can’t do this alone. We need your help to keep
building this movement for change.”
change.” Biden was likely to
join Obama on a tour of four states to the west before
ending up in Denver for the coming week’s Democratic
convention. He will speak on Wednesday, followed by
Obama on Thursday. The official website already read “Obama-Biden
“Obama-Biden”” and it invited
supporters to send a welcome note to Biden, an experienced Washington insider
first elected to Congress at the age of 29. The chairman of the Senate’s Foreign
Relations Committee has twice run for the presidency himself, including a shot at
the Democratic nomination when he had some unflattering things to say about
Obama’s inexperience.—AFP Masood Haider adds from New York: Sen. Biden is an
outspoken critic of the Bush administration’s policy of extending support to military
regime in Pakistan under former president Pervez Musharraf. Recently, he had
cautioned the Bush administration against taking any steps that could be
interpreted as propping up the former army chief.

Biden is spearheading a piece of legislation for tripling Pakistan’s economic

assistance to $15 billion payable in 10 years. He is known as one of the foremost
supporters of democratic forces in Pakistan. “The
“The political future of (former)
president Musharraf is a matter to be decided by the Pakistani people, through
normal constitutional channels. Washington should not do anything that appears as
thwarting their will,”
will,” Biden has said. In recent years, Biden has twice travelled to
Afghanistan and Pakistan and to Iraq eight times. Sen Biden has endured tragedy
and neared death: five weeks after he won his Senate seat in 1972, his wife and
infant daughter were killed in a car accident. And in 1988, he suffered a brain
aneurysm and nearly died. A political expert noted on NBC television that Sen.
Biden’s long-windedness occasionally leads him to make remarks that prove to be
embarrassing. In 2007, he seemed to be talking down to Obama by calling him
“clean” and “articulate.” In 2006, he said: “In
“In Delaware, the largest growth in
population is Indian-Americans moving from India. You cannot go to a 7 Eleven or a
Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent. I’m not joking.”
joking.” During his
bid for the nomination last year, Biden criticised Obama and Sen. Hillary Clinton.
“Both Hillary and Barack didn’t get it right,”
right,” Biden said, when they had their “little
“little
spat”
spat” on whether a president could order a unilateral attack on terrorists in Pakistan
or Afghanistan. And he criticised Obama and former Sen. John Edwards for “playing“playing
the populism card, the idea that rich are bad, poor are good, the nobility of America
lies in the poor. I think that’s a losing general election argument; I think it’s a losing
argument, period.”
period.” He argued: “The
“The rich are as patriotic as the poor, if you ask of
them.”
them.”

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 25.08.08

– Showdown looms as PPP declines to set timeframe

A resolution for reinstating the deposed judges is unlikely to be moved in the
National Assembly on Monday because its draft could not be finalised on Sunday
amid deepening differences between the PPP and the PML-N on the issues of
judiciary and presidential election. The drafting committee comprising Leader of the
House in Senate Raza Rabbani, Information Minister Sherry Rehman and Law
Minister Farooq H. Naek of the Pakistan People’s Party and Ahsan Iqbal and Ishaq
Dar of the Pakistan Muslim League-N did not meet on Sunday after the PML-N
boycotted the meeting over PPP’s refusal to give a timeframe for the re storation of
the judiciary. “The
“The meeting of the drafting committee was scheduled to be held
today but members from the PML-N have regretted to attend it as they have to take
part in their CEC meeting being held in Lahore,”
Lahore,” the information minister said. The
draft of the resolution could not be finalised and, therefore, it would not be tabled in
the National Assembly on Monday, she said. When asked if there was any possibility
to reinstate the judges before the presidential election scheduled for Sept 6, she
said: “We
“We do not want to give any timeframe in this regard.”
regard.” Ms Rehman ruled out
extending the date for presidential election as demanded by the PML-N. “I “I don’t
think that the schedule will be changed now.”
now.” PML-N information secretary Ahsan
Iqbal said: “We
“We think if there is no timeframe it will be counter-productive to attend
the meeting.”
meeting.” He said: “If
“If the PPP gives an assurance that all deposed judges,
including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry, will be reinstated by Tuesday
we will attend the committee’s meeting on Monday; otherwise the PML-N will not be
a part of the committee anymore,”
anymore,” he said. Earlier, the PML-N had demanded that
the judges should be reinstated by Wednesday but Mr Iqbal said they should be
reinstated by Tuesday, before the last date for filing nomination papers for the
presidential election. “If
“If the PPP cannot do so it should extend the last date of filing
nomination papers by at least two days,”
days,” he demanded. The information minister
said that no meeting of the drafting committee was scheduled for Monday. She said
a meeting of the PPP parliamentary committee would be held to decide about
several key issues. The PML-N leadership is also meeting on Monday to take a
decision about the future of the ruling coalition. The PML-N has also expressed
reservations over the nomination by the PPP of Mr Zardari as its presidential
candidate without the repeal of the 17th Amendment.

Author Location Dated

Zafar Abbas 25.08.08
 – Coalition under pressure again
It is difficult to say whether the last rites of the PPP-PML-N were first read out at
Mian Nawaz Sharif’s Raiwind farm or at the Zardari House in Islamabad. One thing,
however, is abundantly clear: the seven month alliance between the country’s most
powerful political parties ended on Saturday. The announcement of the premature
death may well be a mere formality. Although the PML-N’s inflexibility is also to
blame, most observers believe that the PPP’s failure to honour verbal and written
commitments regarding the judges’ issue was what was largely responsible for the
break-up. The air in Islamabad was already tense. That has escalated since
Saturday, mainly after Nawaz Sharif brought his deadline for the restoration of the
judges forward to Monday and, ignoring his demand, the PPP leadership formally
announced Asif Zardari’s candidature for the presidential elections. And, if the
statements of some of the senior PML-N leaders are any indication, the two sides
are headed for a gloves-off showdown soon after they part ways. But does this
mean that it was an unnatural alliance to begin with, and that there was never
anything in common between the two parties and their leaders? And, more
importantly, have the two sides learnt nothing from the country’s recent history?
The relationship was certainly never expected to be ideal, given the past enmity
between the two leaderships. Nevertheless, many thought that they had learned
their lessons and would perhaps not allow the alliance to fall apart -- at least, so
soon -- given the way it all started out, with Mr Sharif and Mr Zardari initially going
out of their way to accommodate each other’s views and desires. Perhaps, it was
thought, Benazir Bhutto’s assassination also provided the much-needed healing
touch that compelled the two leaders to create an accommodative atmosphere.

Within weeks of the formation of the new government, however, it started to

become obvious that all was not hunky-dory in terms of this alliance. On paper, it
continued to appear a formidable combination. But it soon dawned on most people
that beneath the smiles remained buried the same deep suspicions about each
other’s intentions that the two leaders had always had. If the issue of the judges’
restoration was to be the litmus test for the alliance’s success, the two leaders
failed badly. Where Mr Sharif proved that his politics had no room for flexibility, Mr
Zardari showed to the world that his definition of ethics in politics was somewhat
different to that held by most others. Hopes of better understanding were revived
when they successfully got rid of the president earlier this month, but it proved to
be a pipe dream. It was back to square one within 24 hours of Gen (retd)
Musharraf’s exit. The last nail in the alliance’s coffin was, perhaps, the PPP Central
Executive’s move to nominate Mr Zardari as the presidential candidate, and the
election commission’s announcement of the election schedule. This combined with
Maulana Fazlur Rehman’s disclosure that Mr Zardari was finding it difficult to restore
Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry to the post of chief justice because of obligations to
unnamed forces that helped secure Mr Musharraf’s resignation. The PML-N
interpreted these developments as a clear message that Mr Zardari was not
prepared to restore the judges — and certainly not the chief justice. And while PPP
politicians continued to argue that all they were asking for was more time, the claim
appeared unconvincing in light of the series of broken promises over the issue. Then
came to Mr Zardari’s remarks during a BBC Urdu service interview that the
promises and pledges he had made were not Holy Scripture, and should not be
considered sacrosanct. These comments removed whatever doubts remained about
his real intentions. From the PML-N standpoint, it was a great betrayal.

Saturday’s events showed that Mr Zardari’s priorities are quite clear: He is a

focused person and at the moment he is trying to consolidate his grip on power.
After having installed some of his most trusted people in key posts in Sindh and
Islamabad, he has ‘agreed’ to go for the presidency. And if the idea is to have
complete control with no interference from other pillars of the state — particularly
the judiciary — then Iftikhar Chaudhry really does not fit into the scheme of things.
Meanwhile, take a look at all Mr Zardari has achieved in the years past. From being
a playboy in the 70s to the country’s prospective president in 2008 is no mean feat.
It is true that during this period he went through several ups and downs. His claim
to fame in politics was that he married the country’s top politician, Benazir Bhutto,
which twice took him to the Prime Minister’s House as the PM’s spouse. From there,
he ended up in jail for years, under charges of financial corruption — and that too
with a smile on his face. Given all this, Asif Zardari has clearly passed the test of
time. While he was never convicted for any of the charges against him, his deal with
former president Musharraf — in the form of the NRO — helped whitewash all his
crimes. From the Mr Ten Per Cent of the 90s he became Mr Clean, with his worst
accusers of the past making deals with him. A success story, indeed. But does this
qualify him to become the head of the state? While a lot of people have strong
reservations about his candidature, perhaps time alone will tell whether he proves
any better than some of his predecessors. The argument goes, you see, that if Gen
Zia or Gen Musharraf can install themselves as the country’s presidents, or if the
likes of Rafiq Tarar can get elected to the position, why not Mr Zardari?

However, this is certainly not a good omen for Nawaz Sharif. The future may well be
his but for the moment he has been left high and dry. From his supporters or those
managing the lawyers’ movement, he may be getting some kudos for his stance on
the judges’ issue. But will that be enough to fulfil his aspirations to be centrestage
in the country’s politics? Once the alliance falls apart, there will be no prospects of
undoing the 17th Amendment. This, in turn, would mean that even if Mr Sharif
becomes a member of the National Assembly, his twoterm rule earlier may not
allow him to become prime minister. And, meanwhile, with the 17th Amendment in
place, Mr Zardari will be as powerful a president as Gen (retd) Musharraf was. For
the moment, perhaps, the PML-N’s real effort will lie in protecting its bastion of
power, the Punjab. As the chief minister, Shahbaz Sharif certainly has the talent to
deliver — provided he is given the opportunity. Yet this may well prove a tough task
given the recent manoeuvrings of the province’s politically charged governor,
Salman Taseer. Some refer to clear signs of a return to the acrimonious relationship
of the 90s, which brought everything to a standstill. A clearer picture may start to
emerge within a few days. This will indicate whether, even after the parting of ways,
the leaders of the two parties are capable of demonstrating enough political
maturity not only to save the democratic system from collapse, but also allow the
central and provincial governments to meet the larger challenges posed by the
economy and terrorism. Because, observers say, if they fail the nation, there is a
strong possibility that Gen Musharraf may have the last laugh!

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 25.08.08
 – President should not have power to dissolve parliament:
Zardari
In an interview given before he was nominated PPP’s presidential candidate, Asif Ali
Zardari said that the president should be a figurehead without the power to dissolve
assemblies. In the same interview, with the Newsweek magazine, Mr Zardari said
that the new president could grant a presidential pardon to Gen (retd) Pervez
Musharraf. The PPP leader rejected the charge that he was against Chief Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhry. “I
“I personally am in favour of the chief justice, but there is a
position in the party, which says that he has become too politicised in the last many
months and he has been leading rallies.”
rallies.” In a separate interview to America’s
largest radio network, National Public Radio, Mr Zardari emphasized the need to
work “hand
“hand in hand with the United States”
States” to fight terrorists hiding in tribal areas.
In the NPR interview, recorded after his nomination, Mr Zardari talks of the ruling
coalition as “a
“a learning process”
process” and claims that the people of Pakistan never
believed he was corrupt or they would not have voted for his party. “So “So the new
president would play a more ceremonial role?”
role?” Newsweek asked. “Yes,
“Yes, more
ceremonial. Parliament is sovereign, and one has to look at the future of Pakistan’s
democracy as more important than individuals as such,”such,” Mr Zardari replied. “Should
“Should
the new president give up the powers that Musharraf seized -- being able to dissolve
the parliament, for instance?” “I think the president should not have the power to
dissolve the assembly,”
assembly,” Mr Zardari said. “We
“We fought this war for democracy, and all
the powers that Musharraf enjoyed were obviously non-democratic,”
non-democratic,” he added. “We “We
need to have a debate in the parliament and see how strong we want the future
president (to be) and how strong we want to make our prime minister.”
minister.” Although Mr
Zardari said the day President Musharraf resigned was “a “a momentous day”day” for
those who believed democracy was the best revenge, he showed no intention to
arrest or prosecute the former head of state. “Let’s
“Let’s see what the parliament
decides,”
decides,” said Mr Zardari when asked if Mr Musharraf could stay in Pakistan.

He denied that the PPP-led government made a pact with Mr Musharraf not to
prosecute him before he resigned but acknowledged that “there “there is a general
understanding that we are not looking to (get) into any messy fights” fights” and “we
“we are
not interested in doing anything against him.”him.” Asked if Mr Musharraf could stay in
Pakistan, if he decided to do so, Mr Zardari said: “He “He is welcome to stay. Why
shouldn’t he stay?”
stay?” Mr Zardari said that so far the government had not granted
indemnity to the former president as only the parliament could decide whether to
do so or not. But “everybody
“everybody knows the Pakistan People’s Party’s position is that we
are not into revenge,”
revenge,” he adds. In the Newsweek interview, conducted before his
nomination, Mr Zardari said he hoped that he and Nawaz Sharif would stay united
despite their differences. In the interview, he sounded less certain and said that the
coalition government “will“will be a learning process”
process” for him whether it succeeded or
not. “And
“And the journey is important. It is in the journey that we find a lesson to full
democracy,”
democracy,” he adds. “I “I think democracy will succeed one way or the other. Fragile
democracy is the trend in our part of the world. India has 40 parties together
working in a democracy. We have four to eight parties working together. Hopefully,
we will find a solution. Democracy has to grow. It is still a very young plant.”
plant.” “Is
“Is US
more eager to root out the Taliban than the government of Pakistan is?, is?, NPR asked.
“No, I think it is Pakistan’s problem first and then the US is there to help us,” us,” he
said. “The
“The idea is to get to normalisation. It is not a question of moving them out. It
is a question of getting things back to normal and having democracy in every
region.”
region.” Mr Zardari disagreed with a suggestion that the charges of corruption were
like a political baggage for him. “There
“There is no baggage. If there was a baggage, PPP
would not have won a sweeping victory in the country,”
country,” he said. “The
“The people have
spoken. They do not believe the charges. They never did, and never will.”
will.” He added:
“They were politically motivated cases, the world has said so. The judiciary has said
so. And people of Pakistan have said so.”
so.”

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Faruqui faruqui@pacbell.net 25.08.08

– Gilani’s tough agenda

The dénouement was swift and sudden. A man who had won his reelection less than
a year ago resigned when faced with impeachment. Was it the absence of the
‘second skin’ that did him in? Was it the studied neutrality of his handpicked
successor as army chief? Was it the lack of US support? Historians will debate these
issues for years to come and it is too early to say what their verdict will be. What we
do know is that a major sore point in the polity has been cleared up. It is time to
move on. In the immediate future, a new president has to be selected. He or she
should hold the titular position of head of state, not the executive position that
Musharraf wielded. Even then, the choice is rich with symbolism and should be
made with care. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani is the man of the hour. He needs
to announce his policy agenda. What should be on it? First and foremost is the
unfinished business of restoring the judges. If this is not done, the political cauldron
will stir again and Pakistan cannot afford more instability. Beyond this, several other
issues loom large on the horizon. Some demand attention in the near-term, some in
the mid-term and some in the long-term. All are ‘front burner’ issues. Depending on
who you ask, you will get a different agenda. Mine comprises five points which, in
order of priority, are security, economy, energy, polity and society.
society.

Security: This subdivides into local, provincial, national and international

dimensions. Local security means that individuals in a community or neighbourhood
are free to go about their daily lives without fear of assault, robbery, kidnapping or
murder and that businessman can operate without fear of being held hostage for
ransom or being forced to bribe government officials. Without local security, life
comes to a standstill. But one cannot just have local security and function
productively. The next level involves the ability to live and to do business at the
provincial and national levels. Without this, the movement of people across different
parts of the country is stymied and inter-regional commerce cannot be optimised.
Finally, there is the international dimension of security. Pakistan has to coexist with
its neighbours, most notably Afghanistan and India. It also has to coexist with the
Arab world, China and, most importantly, the United States. The most immediate
manifestation of this concern is the need to resolve the problems in Fata and rein in
the terrorists who are unleashing the biggest wave of suicide bombings in the
country’s history.

Economy: This subdivides into managing the budget and trade deficits, attracting
foreign investment and raising the domestic savings rates. The budget deficit is
spinning out of control and currently clocks in at over seven per cent of GDP. This,
along with a global shortage of food and fuels, has pushed the rate of inflation
above 25 per cent. Putting bread on the table has become a Herculean task for the
typical family man. Government spending has to be lowered but how does one do
that when subsidies for food and fuel compromise a large portion of the budget?
Eliminating subsidies immediately will trigger a political backlash. The transition has
to be managed by negotiating foreign aid on favourable terms from friendly
countries and international banks. In the long run, unproductive government
expenditures have to be curtailed, including those on defence. The military needs to
be reconfigured for its new mission, counter-insurgency operations. The war with
India is over. There is no need to maintain a force in excess of 600,000 supported
by a similar number of reservists. Loopholes in the tax collection mechanism have
to be closed off by bringing the black money into the mainstream economy, by
extending the reach of the tax system to encompass agricultural incomes and by
stringent enforcement of the existing tax code. Policies have to be formulated to
raise the domestic savings rate. This is a long-term challenge. On the trade front,
imports are running far ahead of exports, and the imbalance on the current account
is at nine per cent of GDP. This is causing serious pressure on the rupee. The dollar,
which has taken a beating against the euro, looks like a hero when compared to the
rupee, being worth around 75 now compared to 60 just last year. As budget and
trade balances are restored, and security is restored on the streets, the flight of
capital that is in full swing right now will be arrested. The country will not only be
able to keep its capital but attract new capital, both public and private. This would
put ballast back in the stock market which has fallen by more than 40 per cent in
dollar terms since the start of the year. The US Congress is set to vote on a
bipartisan resolution that would triple the amount of non-military aid flowing to
Pakistan to $1.5bn a year. If this materialises, this should be of tremendous help.

Energy: A power shortage of some 20 per cent afflicts the electrical grid, causing
loadshedding, brownouts and blackouts. These are very costly to businesses and
demean the quality of life at home. What is required is a two-pronged approach
which builds power plants to expand supply and rationalises prices to conserve
demand.

Polity: All the deposed judges have to be restored and along with them the rule of
law has to be brought back into the polity. There are three branches of government
and each has to respect the rights of the other two. The checks and balances that
are intrinsic to democratic government have to be institutionalised so that division
of power and not unity of command becomes the operative paradigm. And under no
conditions should the military be considered a fourth branch of government.

Society: A culture of tolerance and respect for diversity that cuts across ethnic,
sectarian and gender lines has to be incubated. Emphasis has to be placed on
educating the population, especially the children. And the tiger of population growth
has to be tamed.

Even under the best of conditions, the fivepoint agenda constitutes a tall order,
especially for a coalition government. However, it is difficult to see how Pakistan
can survive its myriad challenges, let alone survive, unless the agenda is attended
to. ¦ The writer is the author of Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America and
the Middle East (Vanguard Books, 2008). 2008).
Author Location Dated
Azfar-ul-Ashfaque Karachi, Pakistan 25.08.08

– Sectarian organisations regrouping in city

The re-emergence of two banned militant outfits in the city has posed a serious
threat to the security situation amid growing fears of sectarian violence, Dawn has
learnt. Background interviews with various police and intelligence officials revealed
that militants of two banned outfits — Lashkar-i-Jhangvi (LJ) and Sipah-i-Muhammad
Pakistan (SMP) — have returned to the city and are now busy in regrouping and
expanding their network. Former president Pervez Musharraf had slapped a ban on
the two sectarian outfits, along with several others, in 2001 and launched a
countrywide crackdown. Scores of militants of the two banned parties were arrested
but there were many who had managed to evade the crackdown and fled to the
country’s tribal areas. Police and intelligence agencies have credible reports about
the presence of militants of the two sectarian outfits in the city. Also, the graffiti
that appeared in many city localities regarding the two banned parties has sent
alarm bells ringing with the quarters concerned. An intelligence official told Dawn
that the gravity of the situation could be gauged from the fact that the two
outlawed organisations were planning attacks on important personalities of their
rival sects, including certain politicians. “Basically,
“Basically, both the SMP and LJ are set to
launch a proxy war against each other in Karachi to avenge whatever has been
going on in Parachinar, Dera Ismail Khan or the tribal areas,”
areas,” he observed. He said
that while the LJ militants have links with some religious parties, some local leaders
of a major political party were allegedly patronising the SMP militants. Quoting
information that had been gleaned from some suspects, sources said that a wanted
militant, Ali Mustehsan, is reportedly operating the network of the SMP in the city
and is acting on the directives of Zulqarnain Haider, who had recently returned to
Karachi and succeeded in reuniting the two factions of the SMP, Baqiatullah and
Pasban-i-Islam. They said that other SMP militants including Muhib alias Yawar
Abbas, Mohsin Mehdi, Hashim Raza, Asim Zaidi, Rashid alias Hasan, Sarfaraz and
Azhar,
Azhar, are also in the city and planning a major strike. The sources said that various
groups of LJ militants are operating in the city and one of them was allegedly behind
last month’s killings of three persons, including a prosecution witness of the 2001
Imambargah Ali Murtaza firing case against Akram Lahori and other LJ militants.

On July 7, Dr Mohsin Raza Rizvi, the secretary-general of the Shia Ulema Council,
was shot dead by unknown motorcyclists outside his clinic in the Mehmoodabad
police limits. The sources said that he was targeted owing to the fact that he had
testified against four LJ militants — Akram Lahori, Tasadduq Hussain, Mohammad
Azam and Attaullah — during the trial of the Imambargah Ali Murtaza firing case, in
which six worshippers were shot dead. All the four were convicted in 2003 but in
2006, the Sindh High Court had set aside their conviction. A senior police official
told Dawn that during the last three weeks, the CID police and an intelligence outfit
had jointly conducted raids on several places to nab a wanted LJ militant, Qari Jamil
Burmi, but failed. They said that Burmi recently re-organised his group in the city
and was in touch with his other comrades through one Qari Rizwan. The sources
said that the law enforcing agencies have specific information about five other LJ
militants — Basit, Irfan, Saleem, Mohammad Ali and Amjad Bhatti — and they were
trying hard to arrest them before they carry out any subversive activity. Compared
to the SMP, the sources termed the LJ militants more dangerous because of their
links with al-Qaeda and the Taliban. They said that even though a neighbouring
country and militants fighting in the Kurram Agency are supporting the SMP
activists, the LJ has safe havens in the rest of the tribal areas, particularly in
Waziristan. There are reports that some LJ militants were busy in enticing youths to
strengthen their cadre. There are also reports that sectarian terrorists may strike in
the city before Ramazan in order to destabilise the new government, which is
already busy in fighting militants in the troubled tribal areas. “In
“In order to divert the
government’s attention, the terrorists may turn Karachi into a battlefield. We are
alert to face such challenges,”
challenges,” said an intelligence official.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal 25.08.08

– Economy: outlook after Musharraf

For the last several months people were given to understand that Gen Pervez
Musharraf’s departure from the presidency would end political instability needed to
solve most of Pakistan’s pressing economic problems. Initial market response was
positive. The stock markets rallied and the rupee regained some of the ground lost
against the dollar on Gen Musharraf’s resignation on last Monday. But the upsurge
in the stock market and the value of the rupee proved a temporary phenomenon
and both fell heavily on the back of reports of differences obtaining between the
two major coalition partners — the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim
LeagueNawaz — on the question of reinstatement of sacked judges of superior
courts. Most economic experts and businessmen, talking to this scribe, in the last
few days expressed disappointment with the coalition’s one-dimensional focus on
the political issues. “It
“It is unfortunate that the coalition leaders are totally pre-
occupied with the political problems — removal of Musharraf and restoration of the
judges — and have showed little concern for the pressing economic issues that are
becoming more difficult by the day,” day,” a leading industrialist from Sialkot, Mr Ijaz
Khokhar, lamented. “I’m “I’m not saying that political uncertainty is not a problem.
Political instability is a major risk to the economy and has played a crucial role in
the deterioration of economic conditions of the country in more than one way in the
last one year or so. But it also doesn’t mean that the entire government loses its
focus on the economy. If you visit the ministries related to trade and industry these
days you wouldn’t find anyone there to listen to your concerns and answer your
queries. Our politicians must understand that both the political and economic
problems need to be handled simultaneously to avoid headlong economic plunge,” plunge,”
Mr Khokhar insisted.

Gen Musharraf’s resignation hasn’t settled all the political issues that divide
politicians and ordinary people. “Musharraf
“Musharraf was only a small part of the problem.
The most pressing question remains: whether the coalition will last long enough to
bring back political normalcy in this country?,”
country?,” wondered a Lahore-based
businessman, who refused to be identified. “It“It would be unfortunate for the country,
its people and business if the major coalition partners — the PPP and the PMLN, fail
to settle their differences and get along for five years,”
years,” he said. “True,
“True, Musharraf’s
departure has reduced political instability to some extent. But it doesn’t mean all
the political problems are solved,”
solved,” asserted Mr Shahid Kardar, a former Punjab
finance minister and noted economic expert. Although later reports say the coalition
has been able to narrow down its differences over the judges’ issue, raising hopes
that political tensions would cool down in the weeks to come, experts say the
coalition government needed to come out with a package of credible economic
policies before the economic problems facing the country could be taken care of.
“People don’t yet know where the ruling coalition wants to take the economy to;
they are yet to give their package of economic policies on the basis of which
investors and business community would take its decisions,”
decisions,” noted Mr Kardar.
“Musharraf’s further stay in the presidency or his departure from there matters little
to the economy. The stocks jumped and the rupee gained strength against the
dollar on Musharraf’s departure. But that was a temporary phenomenon. The
economic outlook will remain negative as long as the incumbent rulers do not
formulate their economic strategy for the future. It’s a new government, new
system; how would people know what do they want to do unless the coalition gives
its real political and economic agenda?,”
agenda?,” asked Dr Salman Shah, a former finance
minister in the caretaker government. Mr Khokhar said the economy was facing
numerous fundamental problems including escalating fiscal and current account
deficits, which were depleting foreign exchange reserves, weakening the rupee and
spiking inflation. “The
“The increasing financial imbalances and rising inflation is driving
capital out of the country, weakening the investor confidence and affecting
exports,”
exports,” he said.

The external trade numbers released recently showed that trade deficit — which
stood over $20 billion last year — has spiked to just below 50 per cent to $1.64
billion during this July from $1.10 the same month last year. July inflation numbers
too are deteriorating and CPI inflation stood at 24.3 per cent, with food inflation
rising to just below 34 per cent, during the first month of the current fiscal. The
annual average CPI inflation was recorded at 12 per cent and food inflation 17.6 per
cent during the last financial year. “Economy
“Economy is what affects the people most; and it
is the last thing on the agenda of the government at present,”
present,” said Mr Almas
Haider, a prominent auto vendor from Lahore. “Government
“Government spending is decreasing
and the rupee remains volatile.The current economic indicators show that the next
three to six months are very risky for the economy. But let me add here: if the
government refocuses its attention on the economy and takes measures to put it
back on the track these can be the best of times,”
times,” he insisted. “Political
“Political uncertainty
is not going to go in the near future,”
future,” asserted Mr Akber Sheikh, a leading yarn
exporter and builder in Lahore. “It
“It is there to stay even without Musharraf. You
cannot hope to first tackle political uncertainty and then to take on the economic
challenges. Both need to be handled together. The rulers need to build a consensus
how do they want to tackle the economic issues and when. Unless they begin to
handle the economic issues, how can you expect them to solve them?,” them?,” he
wondered. “With
“With financial imbalances growing wider and inflation rising to record
levels, we need investment and growth in the export-oriented sectors. That is
where the government must intervene and help the export-oriented industry by
reducing the interest rates. Unless interest rates are lowered, you cannot make
people invest in the industry and grow the economy,”
economy,” Mr Sheikh said.

Mr Abdul Kareem Dheedhi, a leading stock broker, too advised the State Bank of
Pakistan to reduce the interest rates. “The
“The tight monetary policy is playing havoc
with the industry and the rest of the economic sectors. Now that the government
has removed subsidy on oil, there is no point in keeping the interest rates at the
current high levels. If the monetary policy is not loosened, it is going to damage the
economy beyond repair. Some 10,000 people working at the capital markets in the
country have already lost their jobs,”
jobs,” he said. Dr Ali Cheema, who teaches at the
Lahore University of Management Sciences, said there was no painless solution to
the inherent structural issues facing the economy. “In“In the short run, the economy
needs stability in exchange rate and interest rates. Sooner or later the government
will have to clearly formulate its economic objectives and take crucial decisions to
bring about stability to exchange and interest rate in order to move forward. But
that doesn’t mean that anyone can revive the economy without undertaking critical
structural reforms. Unless these reforms are carried out, you cannot expect to put
the economy on the road of sustainable growth.”
growth.”

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 26.08.08

– Nawaz pulls out of coalition Justice Saeeduz Zaman is PML-N

candidate for president’s post
The Pakistan
Muslim League-N
on Monday finally
quit the five-month
old ruling coalition
because of
differences with the
Pakistan People’s
Party on the issues
of reinstatement of
the deposed judges
and unilateral
nomination of PPP
cochairman Asif
Zardari as a
presidential
candidate. The
alliance has fallen
apart only a week
after the
resignation of
former president
Pervez Musharraf. “We“We have decided to quit the coalition and sit on the opposition
benches in parliament,”
parliament,” PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif told a news conference after
presiding over a joint meeting of the party’s Central Working Committee (CWC) and
parliamentary group. The PML-N also announced that it would field former chief
justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui as its candidate for the Sept 6 presidential election.
Mr Siddiqui was present at the news conference. The PML-N chief accused Mr
Zardari of repeatedly reneging on promises to reinstate the judges. He said the PPP
had nominated Mr Zardari as its presidential candidate in violation an agreement
signed by the two leaders on Aug 7 when they announced the plan to impeach Mr
Musharraf. He read out excerpts from the agreement carrying signatures of Mr
Sharif and Mr Zardari, saying the two parties had agreed to evolve a consensus
among the coalition partners on the new president. Copies of the agreement were
distributed among reporters.

In the last clause of the agreement, the two parties had agreed that “in “in case the
office of the president still retains the powers acquired under the 17th Amendment,
a nationally respected, nonpartisan and pro-democracy figure acceptable to the
coalition partners will be put forward as the presidential candidate. “In case the
17th Amendment is repealed and the powers of the president are restricted to the
original powers as envisaged in 1973 Constitution, the PPP will have the right to put
forward its own candidate.”
candidate.” Mr Sharif alleged that the PPP had violated a clause of
the agreement stating that the deposed judges would be reinstated within 24 hours
after the impeachment or resignation of Gen (retd) Musharraf. Mr Sharif said he did
not want to withdraw his party’s support to the coalition and he had agreed to
extend the deadline several times for reinstating the judges, but his party had been
“forced to take this bitter decision”.
decision”. “We
“We have taken this decision after we did not
see any ray of hope and none of the commitments made to us was fulfilled,”
fulfilled,” he
said, adding that there was tremendous pressure on his party to take a decisive
position. However, he said his party would play a “constructive
“constructive and positive role”
role”
while sitting in the opposition and would not “try
“try to destabilise the PPP
government”.
government”. Referring to the rivalry between the two parties in the past, Mr Sharif
said the PML-N would not do the politics of the 80s and the 90s. He said his party
would support PPP’s efforts to implement the Charter of Democracy. Mr Sharif
disclosed that he and Mr Zardari had also signed a hand-written seven-page
agreement on Aug 7 providing a complete roadmap for the period after the ouster
of Gen (retd) Musharraf. He praised Mr Siddiqui for refusing to take oath as the chief
justice under a Provisional Constitution Order when Gen (retd) Musharraf wielded all
the powers.The PML-N chief did not reply to a question about seeking support from
the PML-Q but expressed the hope that a large number of parliamentarians would
vote for Mr Siddiqui. Mr Siddiqui said he would like to become a figurehead
president as envisaged in a true federal parliamentary system. Federal Information
Minister Sherry Rehman admitted that the PPP had signed agreements with the
PML-N but claimed that “our
“our other internal and external allies wanted us to take our
own route after the resignation of President Musharraf”.
Musharraf”.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 26.08.08

– PML-Q names Mushahid as its candidate

The Pakistan Muslim League-Q decided on Monday to nominate its secretary-
general Mushahid Hussain Sayed as a presidential candidate and expressed its
willingness to join hands with the PML-N. The decision was taken at a meeting of the
PML-Q parliamentary party presided over by its president Chaudhry Shujaat
Hussain. All the party members endorsed the decision, with no one supporting a
political alliance with the PPP. Soon after the nomination, Mr Hussain challenged his
rival candidate Asif Ali Zardari of the PPP for a debate on television to prove who
was fit to hold the office of the president. He said his political career was clear of
any blemish while Mr Zardari was linked to many corruption scandals and was able
to return home only after the promulgation the ‘infamous’ National Reconciliation
Ordinance.
Ordinance. Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi
told reporters after the meeting that both the PML-N and the government had
approached his party for talks on the presidential election. He said Mushahid
Hussain would meet PML-N leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan while Punjab governor
Salman Taseer had met him and Chaudhry Shujaat on Sunday. He said his party
wanted to retain its separate identity and had fielded its own candidate for the
office of the president. During the meeting, Senator S.M. Zafar favoured talks with
the PML-N because it had left the coalition and decided to sit in the opposition.
Former president Farooq Ahmed Khan Leghari said the party should function as a
strong opposition, instead of aimlessly supporting the government.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 26.08.08

– Asif offers apology

PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, in a surprise move on Monday, admitted to have
made mistakes, extended an apology and appealed to Pakistan Muslim League-N
chief Nawaz Sharif to rejoin the coalition government for the sake of the country
and democracy. “I “I seek apology from Mian Nawaz Sharif Sahab. I admit his (Mr
Sharif’s) feelings have been hurt,”
hurt,” Mr Zardari said in a brief address on the state-
run television hours after the announcement of PML-N chief to quit the ruling
coalition. Mr Zardari, however, made it clear that he was not willing to immediately
reinstate deposed chief justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. “As “As far as judges’
issue is concerned, Mian Sahab has himself said in his news conference that 10
judges were ready to be reinstated. Let them be reinstated and reinstatement of
the chief justice will also come (eventually),”
(eventually),” Mr Zardari said, adding that he could
only say that all deposed judges would be restored “very “very soon”.
soon”. He asked Mr Sharif
to rethink his decision and said: “We
“We are still hopeful that he (Mr Sharif) will
accompany us in the democratic journey.”
journey.” Mr Zardari admitted that he had signed
“political understandings”
understandings” with Mr Sharif, but asked the PML-N chief to realise the
difficult situation they had come across after the resignation of President Gen (retd)
Pervez Musharraf. Without explaining, he said they had taken the help of “some “some
friends within and outside the country in the ouster of President Musharraf”.
Musharraf”. On
Saturday, JUI-F chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman had disclosed that Asif Zardari had
told him that some forces, who had played an important role in the resignation of
President Musharraf, did not want immediate restoration of all the deposed judges,
including chief justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. Mr Zardari said the PPP wanted support of
Mr Sharif in its bid to strengthen democratic institutions. “I “I want to take along
Nawaz Sharif as there are immense difficulties ahead. Perhaps I cannot tell the
whole truth to the nation,”
nation,” he said, inviting Mr Sharif to join hands to “build
“build a new
Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. He said the PPP would not create any difficulties for the PML-N in Punjab
and expressed the hope that they would also return with the same gesture.

Author Location Dated

M. Ziauddin 26.08.08

– The man who delivered the MQM

Dr. Aasim Hussain, the man who played a crucial behind-the-scene role in getting
the MQM to agree to abstain from voting one way or the other on the resolution
passed unanimously by the Sindh assembly to impeach former president Musharraf,
does not seem to believe in drowning his intelligence in verbiage. Ask him a
question, he answers with a question or lets his face or eyes do the job. If at all he
wants to articulate his opinion he camouflages it in a brainteaser. I spent a couple of
hours with him on two occasions while he was here last week on another one of his
ostensibly MQM-related assignments. And it was a rare experience for me. At times I
felt as if he was trying to be clever by half or playing the game of one-upmanship.
Too confident for his boots. But the next minute he would be talking the sanest of
sense, taking you hand-in-hand down his lane of logic. An orthopaedic surgeon by
profession, Dr Hussain manages a hospital chain in Karachi named after his
maternal grandfather Dr Ziauddin Ahmed of Aligarh fame. His MQM connections
seem shrouded in obscurity. But to me he appeared more a friend of Altaf Hussain
than an MQM sympathiser. Same age-group. It could be a patient-doctor
relationship as well. There is, however, no ambiguity about his relationship with Asif
Zardari. College connection. One of Asif’s cronies? A hanger on? Could be. But
Doctor Bonesetter gives the impression of being his own man while at the same
time enjoying the fullest trust of both Asif and Altaf.

At one point during the mental sparing that the two of us had got engaged into on
the two occasions that I met the new NRB chief, my mind went racing back to one of
the resolutions that the All Parties’ Conference (APC) held in London in July 2007
had passed. It was not completely clear if Dr Hussain had anything to do with the
dissenting note that the former prime minister Benazir Bhutto had added to this
particular resolution which had said that none of the participating parties would
ever be part of any government in which the MQM would be a coalition partner. But
what is clear is that the MQM has entered into a package deal with the PPP under
which it is also obliged to deliver its Senate votes for the proposed constitutional
amendments and support Zardari’s candidature for presidency as well. When asked
for confirmation, Dr Hussain responded with meaningful silence. When asked if
there was any tradeoff in the package deal that he has cut with the MQM, he tested
my gullibility by denying that there was any deal or any trade-off but gave me to
understand that the Muttahida was not very happy with Musharraf because, as he
said, the former president had blocked the MQM’s efforts to become a mainstream
national party. I interpreted this to mean that the Muttahida, wishing to expand
further the significant political space it had already gained in the last five years, had
switched over to the right side of the new ruling party at the right time.
Nevertheless, Muttahida certainly seems to have extracted a promise of ‘safe
passage’ for its former backer in return.

From Dr Hussain’s innuendos I gathered that he was in London to get the MQM to
propose Zardari’s candidature for the presidency (which Muttahida did readily) in
return for invitation to join the coalition at the centre (and this was also duly
announced in principle the day Dr Hussain returned to Pakistan). Here is where the
London APC resolution pertaining to the MQM comes in the way for the PML-N to
continue in the coalition in case the Muttahida joined it. And that partly explains
why the PML-N has found it difficult to continue with the coalition at the centre.
From the way Dr Hussain argued the case in favour of Asif becoming the president it
appeared that after having had the harrowing experience of electing to the 58(2)b-
armed presidency the so-called non-political Ghulam Ishaq Khan and then the
seemingly safest party man, Farooq Leghari, who was also a very close confidant of
the late chairperson, the PPP is too scared to trust any person other than the party
chief himself with the office of the president which now has the 17th amendment
powers as well to boot. Dr Hussain would not say it in so many words but appeared
to be at pains to make me believe that the army also was not in favour at the
moment to see in the presidency any person other than the man who ostensibly has
the most to lose if the country does not revert back to genuine parliamentary
democracy. He also hinted in his characteristic roundabout way that the army
believed that with so much power and so many important appointments including
that of the army chief in his hand, any person without vested interests in returning
to the original 1973 constitution could play havoc with the transition phase.

Under the Charter of Democracy signed by the top leadership of the PPP and PML-N
all the amendments introduced by General Zia and General Musharraf are to be
removed to restore the 1973 Constitution in its original form and this, Dr Hussain
insisted, could not be achieved without the MQM’s Senate votes. And he appeared
convinced that without the MQM on its side the ruling coalition could neither get a
resolution passed in the National Assembly without a single dissenting voice (a
necessary condition to prevent the restored judiciary becoming politically
controversial) calling for the restoration of the judiciary through an executive order.
“Would not the party suffer if the co-chairman were to take up the additional
responsibility of the all-powerful presidency?”,
presidency?”, I asked. “No
“No,”
,” was too short an
answer for me to be convinced. Are all these seemingly devious political
manoeuvrings for restoring a balance in the powers of parliament and the president
or for getting Zardari into a position to rule like Musharraf did? I asked. He
responded with a riddle: You can find an answer to that question in the reality of
Pakistan’s current political power play.

Author Location Dated

Shahd Javed Burki 26.08.08

– Regime changes in Pakistan

For some strange reason Pakistanis don’t like history. They don’t write it; they don’t
read it; and they don’t learn lessons from it. If they did, they would have allowed
their leaders to make fewer mistakes; they themselves would have been more alert
whenever the country was sent in the wrong direction by those holding the reins of
power. For this reason alone it may be a good idea to reflect a little on the number
of regime changes the country has seen in the last 50 years, from 1958 to 2008.
There were changes even before 1958 when prime ministers came and went. After
1958 when the military intervened for the first time, each change brought about a
structural transformation. Economists tell us that institutions don’t develop when
societies are in a state of flux. Pakistan has been in such a state for its entire life as
a nation state. It is not surprising that it has failed to create institutions without
which the country cannot be governed for long in a steady way. The latest change
occurred on Aug 18, four days after the country celebrated its 61st birthday. There
were a number of differences between this kink in our history compared to the
previous discontinuities. This time a military leader was forced to leave office by an
organised civilian movement. The process that brought about the change was semi-
constitutional in that the leaders of the two parties who saw Pervez Musharraf out of
the presidency used the power they had acquired in the provincial and national
assemblies following the elections of Feb 18.

It was not fully constitutional since neither of the two men who devised the process
to move Musharraf out of the presidency was an elected representative of the
people. Before I speculate on what may lie in the future, let me go back to the
country’s history of regime change. It is perhaps a coincidence that major political
periods in Pakistan have lasted 11 years. The country gained independence in 1947
but the chaotic rule of democracy ended with the military coup in 1958, 11 years
later. Gen (later Field Marshal) Muhammad Ayub Khan governed for 11 years until
he was forced out of office by Gen Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan in 1969. Ayub
Khan both built and destroyed. He built a strong economy but weakened the
political system by throwing out a constitution that gave the country a
parliamentary system of government. Yahya lasted for less than three years during
which he saw the Pakistani state split in two with the emergence of the country’s
eastern wing as Bangladesh. The military does not appreciate its leaders who
surrender in the battlefield; Yahya Khan fell to the wrath of senior and junior military
officers who shouted him down in an army auditorium where he had gone to explain
the defeat of the forces he commanded at the hands of the Indians. Yahya thought
that his explanation before a highly agitated audience would help him keep his job.
He did not survive and the reins of power were placed by the army in the hands of a
civilian, the mercurial Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. There was to be no peace under Bhutto.
He opened many fronts while he governed. While he gave the country a constitution
in 1973 — it was very similar in structure to the one that had been promulgated in
1956 only to be abrogated by Ayub Khan in 1958 — he did not always govern by it.
The 1973 Constitution promised much but delivered little. It promised provincial
autonomy but Bhutto created a highly centralised system of governance. Islamabad
sucked in power from the provincial governments to strengthen the central
administration. If the provincial governments were in the hands of the opposition
they were dismissed and replaced by semi-authoritarian governors who ruled on the
basis of directions received from the prime minister and his powerful secretariat.

Bhutto did not understand economics and tended to apply simple solutions to
complex problems. One of these was to expand the size of the government and the
economic reach of the state in order to deliver more to the less advantaged
segments of the population. He didn’t understand that the state can’t efficiently
manage economic assets — that only leads to waste and corruption. That is
precisely what happened. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was made to surrender his job — and
later his life — to the head of the military, and one whom he had appointed. Looking
deep into the eyes of General Ziaul Haq, Bhutto did not think he read any political
ambition. He turned out to be terribly wrong. The new military leader also governed
for 11 years, from 1977 to 1988. He may have lasted longer had he not been killed
in an air crash. Zia’s 11 years saw a major structural change not in the country’s
economy, nor in its political system. The change happened in the way the people
looked at themselves and their country. Pakistanis became more conservative and
more religious while Zia governed. This made it possible for religious groups and
organisations to throw deep roots into Pakistani soil. Before Zia, Pakistan was a
tolerant society which allowed without fear or contempt expression of different
points of view. Under Zia conformity became a requirement for advancing in
society. The government brought in a new form of Islam — Wahabism, that was
foreign to the lands of which Pakistan was a part. Zia’s death in Aug 1988 ushered
in another political period that also lasted for 11 years. While the military watched
the political stage from the wings, two political parties locked themselves in a
deadly embrace. Regimes changed four times and four elections were held and two
individuals twice became prime minister but not with very happy results. If the
Pakistani people distributed sweets in the streets to celebrate Musharraf’s
departure, sweets were also distributed in 1990 and 1996 when Benazir Bhutto was
dismissed and in 1993 and 1999 when Nawaz Sharif was forced out of office.
Pakistanis, it would appear, are always ready to celebrate regime change. Pervez
Musharraf broke the 11-year rule of Pakistani history. I once mentioned that to him
to his great amusement. That was in March 2006 when I went to discuss with him
the book I was writing on his period in office. “By
“By your rule I should be in office until
2010,”
2010 ,” he said. “That
“That will be okay with me.”
me .”

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 26.08.08

– PML-N seeks Q’s help to save its govt

The PML-N is reported to have decided to formally establish contacts with the PML-Q
to save its government in Punjab and give a tough time to the PPP in the National
Assembly. “Yes,
“Yes, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan has been given a green signal to approach
the PLM-Q leadership for reconciliation and to formulate a joint strategy against the
PPP,”
PPP,” a PML-N leader privy to the development told Dawn from Islamabad.
Uncertain about their future after the resignation of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, a
number of PML-Q legislators have been pressing their leadership for some time to
join hands with the Sharifs because they are not interested in working with the PPP
in Punjab or at the centre. Sources said that PML-Q leadership’s assault on the
Sharifs during the Musharraf days had made it difficult for the latter to initiate
reconciliation efforts. But the change of heart came after Punjab Chief Minister
Shahbaz Sharif told party members at a recent meeting in Raiwind that relying only
on the PML-Q forward bloc to save his government would be a folly. The PML-N has
171 members in the Punjab assembly. The PPP has 107 members, PML Functional
three and the JUP two. For a simple majority, the PML-N requires the support of at
least 186 in the 371-member house. He said that although ‘back channel’ contacts
with the PML-Q had been launched some time ago, some PML-N leaders had been
opposing the inclusion of Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and his cousin Chaudhry
Pervaiz Elahi in the reconciliation process. “Digesting
“Digesting harsh statements of Chaudhry
Pervaiz is very difficult for the Sharifs, but in the larger interest of the party they
have agreed to find a face-saving formula to accept him back in the fold.” fold.” As a
result of the contacts (made through Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Makhdoom Javed
Hashmi), Chaudhry Pervaiz, who is Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly
and has been wary of the PML-N’s efforts to make dents in the PML-Q, has agreed to
avoid going all-out against the Sharifs. Some PML-Q legislators requesting
anonymity said that most of the party legislators from Punjab were in favour of
unifying with the PML-N and that they had made the Chaudhrys realise that any
further indecision would result in half of the PML-Q members joining the PPP and the
rest the PML-N.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 27.08.08

– 32 file papers for presidential poll

Thirty two candidates have entered the race for the country’s top constitutional
office and submitted a total of 67 nomination papers. The presidential election is
scheduled for Sept 6. Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammad Farooq received
nomination papers in Islamabad and the chief justices of high courts in the
provincial capitals on Tuesday. Nomination papers of the main candidates — Asif Ali
Zardari of the Pakistan People’s Party, Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui of the Pakistan
Muslim League N and Mushahid Hussain Sayed of the PML-Q — were submitted in
Islamabad. In all, 35 nomination papers of 10 candidates were filed in the federal
capital — 14 for Mr Zardari and two for his covering candidate Faryal Talpur. The
PML-N has fielded Roedad Khan as the covering candidate. Fourteen nomination
papers of 13 candidates were filed in Lahore, 17 of eight candidates in Karachi and
one in Peshawar. No papers were submitted in Quetta. Election Commission’s
secretary Kanwar Mohammad Dilshad told Dawn that nomination papers of nuclear
scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan had not been submitted. He rejected a perception
that the election schedule had been announced under pressure because PML-N
chief Nawaz Sharif had set a deadline for reinstatement of the deposed judges.
Sources in the commission said a number of nomination papers did not bear the
names of ‘proposers’ and ‘seconders’ and they would be rejected during scrutiny on
Thursday.

Parliamentarians belonging to the PPP, Muttahida Qaumi Movement, Awami

National Party, Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Fazl) and other coalition partners proposed
and seconded the name of Mr Zardari. Ministers and leaders of the PPP and its allies
who were present at the time of the filing of the papers included Asfandyar Wali
Khan, Raza Rabbani, Sherry Rehman, Raja Pervez Ashraf, Qamaruzzaman Kaira,
Najamuddin, Rehmatullah Kakar, Chaudhry Ahmed Mukhtar, Farooq H. Naek, Syed
Khursheed Ahmed Shah, Aftab Shabaan Mirani, Mufti Ajmal Khan, Shagufta Jamani,
Naseem Chaudhry, Rukhsana Bangash, Dr Farooq Sattar and Haider Abbas Rizvi. Rizvi.
The PML-N leaders who filed nomination papers of Justice Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui
included Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan and Makhdoom Javed Hashmi. The PML-Q leaders
who accompanied Mr Mushahid Hussain included Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and
Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi. Talking to journalists, Minister for Information and
Broadcasting Sherry Rehman expressed the confidence that the PPP would safely
sail through the election. “We
“We enjoy the support of the required number of voters.
We will steer the country out of all crises and the PPP will follow the Charter of
Democracy in its true spirit,”
spirit,” she said. Law Minister Farooq Naek said the PPP would
fulfil its commitment of reinstating the judges. However, the matter had to be
discussed in parliament so no timeframe could be given. He claimed that the PPP
had never reneged on any agreement with coalition partners. He rejected reports
about a ‘minus-one formula’ as baseless and said that the government would not
make any discrimination among the deposed judges.

Habib Khan Ghori adds from Karachi: Of the 17 papers filed in Karachi, nine were of
the PPP co-chairman submitted by members of the Sindh assembly belonging to the
PPP, MQM and ANP. Of the remaining eight aspirants, only two had been proposed
and seconded by common citizens, who are not part of the electoral college. The
MPAs who proposed and seconded Mr Zardari’s name are: Mir Nadir Ali Magsi and
Saleem Khurshid Khokhar, Syed Qaim Ali Shah and Manzoor Hussain Wasan,
Sirajuddin Khan Durrani and Mohammad Ayaz Soomro, Murad Ali Shah and Dr
Sageer Ahmad, Shazia Maree and Nargis N. D. Khan, Shoaib Ahmad Bokhari and
Syed Faisal Ali Sabzwari, Amir Nawab and Munawwar Ali Abbasi, Makhdoom Jamiluz
Zaman and Dr Zulfiqar Ali Mirza, and Pir Mazharul Haq and Syed Ali Nawaz Shah.
Shah.
The other candidates who filed the papers are: Ameer Ali Pattiwala, Faquir Hussain
Ansari, Dr Mian Ihsan Bari, Mirza Asif Baig, Shakil Ahmad Khan, Mohammad Ejaz
Alam, Syed Sakhawat Ali and Shamim Ahmad.
Ahmad. Our Reporter in Lahore adds: The 13
aspirants who filed their nomination papers with the registrar of the Lahore High
Court are: Mirza Tahir Baig, M.P. Khan, Mian Arif Iqbal, Prof Latif, Mouazzam Iqbal
Gill, Chaudhry Gulzar, Mohammad Shahbaz Khan, Amin Hafeez, Abdur Rahman
Chisti, Dr Amber Shahzada, Mohammad Iqbal, Mohammad Hanif and Rana
Mohammad Aleem Khan.Khan.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 27.08.08

– JUI-F sends ‘wish list’ to Zardari House

Jamiati-Ulema Islam chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman has demanded of the PPP-led
coalition government to revive Friday as weekly holiday, sources told Dawn on
Tuesday. The Friday was declared as weekly holiday as part of compromise by the
founder of PPP Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to appease the religious dominated PNA
movement of 1977 which was reversed to Sunday by the Nawaz Sharif government.
The sources said that the JUI F, which had already indicated its support to Mr
Zardari’s candidature for the presidency, had sent a wish list to the Zardari house
for acceptance preferably before the presidential elections on September 6. The
wish list also demanded an immediate stoppage of the ongoing military operation in
the tribal areas and most importantly to redeem the promises Mr Zardari has made
with the JUI-F leaders on various occasions. The party leadership has expressed
serious doubts about the promises that Mr Zardari has so far made after he went
back from two written accords with PML-N, the sources said. The JUI-F, the sources
said, had been assured by the PPP two more ministries as per the power sharing
formula already set. The sources said that the party had already decided to allot
one ministry to Maulana Attaur Rehman, the younger brother of Maulana Fazlur
Rehman, while there was a tie between Maulana Abdul Ghafoor Haidri and Maulana
Naseeb Gul on the other. Meanwhile, the party has convened its central working
committee meeting here on Wednesday to discuss and finalize its strategy to
support Mr Zardari for the office of president.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 27.08.08

– Numbers smiling on
Zardari
Numbers are smiling on PPP
co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari
and he looks set for an easy
sail through the presidential
contest when voting takes
place on Sept 6 unless the
apple-cart gets upset at the
last minute. Given the party
position and affiliations in the
four provincial assemblies, the
National Assembly and the Senate, if all members vote in accordance with the party
lines, no candidate has the potential to create a hurdle in the way of Mr Zardari’s
becoming the next president. A projected outcome shows that Mr Zardari should
secure 424 votes, against 150 by Saeeduz Zaman Siddiqui, who is backed by the
PML-N, and 126 by PMLQ’s Senator Mushahid Hussain. Although dozens of
aspirants, including covering candidates, have submitted nomination papers, it is
expected that the main contest will be between candidates of the three major
parties. The PPP and the PML-N have started campaign for their candidates and,
according to sources, both have contacted the PML-Q. However, statistics show that
even if the two PML factions join hands, they cannot stop the PPP co-chairman from
entering the presidency because their combined votes will not cross the 300mark.
The votes will be calculated according to a formula that gives equal representation
to the provincial assemblies. The Presidential Election Rules of 1988, devised in the
light of Article 41 of the Constitution, provide for a 1,170-member electoral college
of both houses of parliament and the four provincial assemblies. But the total
number of votes, according to the formula, is 702. As two seats are vacant in the
National Assembly, the number of votes will be 700. The winner must get a majority
of the votes polled. The electoral college comprises 342 members of the National
Assembly, 100 of the Senate, 371 of the Punjab Assembly, 168 of the Sindh
Assembly, 124 of the NWFP Assembly and 65 of the Balochistan Assembly. As the
Balochistan Assembly is the smallest house with 65 members, votes in the three
other provincial assemblies are to be divided by 65: so 5.7 MPAs of Punjab, 2.58 of
Sindh and 1.9 of the NWFP will be equivalent to one vote. The PPP-led ruling
coalition dominates all the houses, except the Senate and the Punjab Assembly. In
the National Assembly, the coalition comprising the PPP, ANP, JUI-F and other
smaller groups enjoys the sup port of 193 MNAs, compared to 147 opposition
members. In the Senate, the coalition has 44 members and the opposition 56 — 40
belonging to the PML-Q and the rest from the PML-N, JI and some independents. The
PPP and its allies have 112 MPAs in Punjab Assembly, 146 in Sindh Assembly, 99 in
NWFP Assembly and 58 in Balochistan Assembly. Mr Zardari is ahead of all other
candidates in all the houses of the electoral college, except the Punjab Assembly
where Mr Siddiqui is expected to get more votes.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 27.08.08
om

– Curtains for another dictator

When Pervez Musharraf ensconced himself as Pakistan’s chief executive nearly nine
years ago, one of his redeeming features was more or less immediately evident: he
seemingly did not fit the military dictatorship template established by Gen Ziaul
Haq. The Zia years could be considered an extended demonstration of the banality
of evil: for 11 years, precious few rays of light penetrated the oppressive pall that
hung over the nation. And throughout that period there were no grounds for
supposing that any good could conceivably flow from any of the regime’s
predilections or policies. Small wonder, then, that when the monthly Newsline, in a
survey last year, asked people from various walks of life to pick a particularly
treasured moment in Pakistan’s history, a substantial proportion of them chose Aug
17, 1988. However, notwithstanding the bleakness of the Zia experience, the
advent of Musharraf 11 years later was broadly greeted with equanimity, even a
sense of relief. Feelings of this nature even pervaded liberal circles that could
normally have been expected to champion democratic forms of governance: a
testimony, in large part, to the depths plumbed by the second Nawaz Sharif
administration. Buoyed by an unprecedented parliamentary majority based on a
pathetically low electoral turnout, the government, among various other follies, was
toying with the idea of elevating Sharia to a position of legal primacy. The fact that
Musharraf’s coup put an end to that helped to reinforce his image as a possible
antidote to Zia, and too many people accepted at face value his pledge to introduce
“true democracy”. That vow ought to have set off alarm bells, given that it’s hardly
an innovative justification for military takeovers, and that it is invariably honoured
in the breach. Furthermore, it stands to reason that chances of democracy flowing
smoothly from dictatorship are minuscule, given that the two forms of governance
are intrinsically antithetical to one another.

It could certainly be argued, particularly in Pakistan’s context, that regular electoral

contests are in themselves no guarantee of democracy: civilian leaderships based
ostensibly on popular mandates have regularly exhibited authoritarian tendencies,
and that trend seems set to continue. But periodic negations of the democratic
process hardly stand out as a practical or responsible — let alone an ideal — means
of remedying this distasteful phenomenon. This is a realisation that ought to have
weighed more heavily on those who were all too eager, back in 1999, to lend
credence to Gen Musharraf’s self-image as a saviour in camouflage. In the years
since then, the impression of him as a sort of anti-Zia has been superseded by
intriguing parallels and a host of ironies. Zia successfully sought legitimacy in the
international arena after the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan turned that benighted
country into a Cold War battleground and jihad became a US foreign policy
objective. Musharraf’s task — and he had little choice but to accept it — was to take
up arms against the more or less inevitable consequences of that jihad. And to do
so at the behest of the same superpower that had contributed so generously
towards creating the unholy mess in the first place, with American largesse
matched dollar for dollar by aid for the Mujahideen from Washington’s second best
friend in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Its best friend, Israel, also contributed
covertly to the war effort during the 1980s, and was all too happy to chip in again at
the turn of the century, after it became painfully obvious that US sponsorship of
Islamist terrorism had proved all too successful.

Pakistan was once more the conduit for effecting a transformation in Afghanistan.
For Musharraf, this entailed convincing the armed forces, and particularly the
military intelligence agency ISI, to assist in rolling back their only notable success
outside Pakistan’s borders: the triumph of the Taliban. The extent to which he
succeeded in this endeavour remains disputable. What’s clearer is that he was
never quite able to convince the nation that combating the forces of violent
obscurantism was a legitimate national priority, rather than something that had to
be feigned in order to keep the Bush administration in good humour. It is not
particularly surprising that the American military and intelligence role in Pakistan
since 9/11 has remained surreptitious, or that Pakistan’s connivance in the rendition
and torture of terrorism suspects (which isn’t necessarily the same thing as
suspected terrorists) has occasioned more comment in London than in Islamabad.
As borne out by the ruthless suicide bombings in the wake of Musharraf’s departure,
jihadi terrorism needs to be eliminated because of the threat it poses to Pakistan
rather than to Manhattan. But it seems obvious that the manner in which it has
been tackled over the past seven years has all too often proved counterproductive,
and it is far from clear whether the appropriate lessons have been learned. Last
year’s Lal Masjid fiasco, meanwhile, demonstrated that apparent dissonances
between the Zia and Musharraf regimes were complemented by a degree of
continuity, personified in particular by the latter’s religious affairs minister, Ejazul
Haq. Musharraf’s enlightened moderation is said to have been on display in the
sphere of women’s rights. His mentality on this front isn’t medieval, but its
limitations were demonstrated when he bizarrely accused some women of
volunteering for rape as a means of obtaining foreign visas.

And it’s amazing how the myth of his regime’s purported economic achievements —
based chiefly on growth rates that never translated into relief for those who needed
it most — continues to be regurgitated in political obituaries even as the nation
teeters on the brink of insolvency. Perhaps it’s worth recalling how celebrations of
Field Marshal Ayub Khan’s much ballyhooed ‘decade of development’ coincided with
a popular revolt that precipitated his downfall. February’s reasonably fair and free
elections — a creditable achievement on a par with Gen Yahya Khan’s effort in 1970
— sounded the death knell for Musharraf’s avowed political agenda. His relevance
rapidly diminished thereafter, and his predictably self-serving abdication speech last
week suggested that the detachment from reality which accounted in part for last
year’s turmoil remains intact: the figures he cited in terms of popular support
appear to have been plucked out of nowhere. It would have benefited Musharraf to
pay greater heed to the fruits of his one genuine accomplishment: an
unprecedented degree of media freedom that survived his own misguided attempt
to undercut it last year. The dictator’s belated exit under a US-UK-Saudi-brokered
deal has prompted calls for a trial. That may be a principled demand, but it is hard
to see how it would serve a constructive — or deterrent — purpose in the given
circumstances, with a dysfunctional successor regime desperate for distractions. ¦
The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 27.08.08

– The accidental presidency

Coming soon to a television near you: President Zardari. You could almost hear the
gasps and cries and shrieks across the country when Raza Rabbani made the
announcement. From playboy to first husband to public enemy to regent to
president — Asif’s journey confounds even those who thought they had seen it all.
The friends of the friend of friends were certainly whooping in delight. And why not?
This was the moment they dared not dream of: Zardari as king of Pakistan. The
friends of Pakistan, meanwhile, were shaking their heads in disbelief. Eight months
ago, Asif was in political purgatory and the marital doghouse and the only largesse
he had to dole out were expensive meals in Manhattan. Fast forward to Defence
Day and Asif will be crowned king. Many will be wondering who will defend Pakistan
from Asif and co. For Asif-haters, President Zardari will be the final flourish in the
case against the man they believe has orchestrated every bitter, bloody step to the
top. Over in whatever they are calling the Army House these days, Musharraf must
have enjoyed a quiet chuckle. And the chuckle would have only grown louder as Asif
and Nawaz went their separate ways. Told them they’d be begging me to come
back, he must be thinking. But what does it all mean, President Zardari presiding
over a coalition sans Nawaz? For one, it’s goodbye to the judges’ restoration — via a
constitutional amendment or any other device. If the judges want their robes and
gavels back, they will have to obediently get in line and take a fresh oath. Asif has
refused to budge from his constitutional amendment route to restoration. But
Naek’s weighty package also cuts the presidency down to size. Asif may be many
things, but he isn’t a masochist — he will never preside over his own political
emasculation. So amending the constitution is off, destined to die a death by
committee.

That does leave Asif the option of the Nawaz formula of bringing back CJ Iftikhar &
co via a parliamentary resolution. But why should he? It will only give Nawaz a
famous victory, which is hardly the parting present Asif will have in mind. And it will
bring back CJ Iftikhar, who is straining at the leash, desperate to resume his crusade
to fix Pakistan and become the people’s hero. Forget the NRO and Musharraf’s
indemnity, Asif would be mad to have CJ Iftikhar stomping around his fragile
kingdom. So there will be no more CJ Iftikhar — who will become a cautionary tale of
the perils of the self-appointed messiah. Politics, meanwhile, will return to the
tumult and trauma of bazaar bargaining. It will become more and more difficult to
separate the villains from the heroes. Was this Asif’s plan all along? No. He really
did want the N-league back in the cabinet, if only to cop some of the abuse that will
be hurled at his government. Steering a transition to democracy requires dealing
with dark forces, which will force unpopular choices. If the electoral battles for the
forseeable future will be between the N-league and the PPP, what better way for Asif
to ensure his rivals don’t get an undue advantage than by tarring them with the
brush of collective responsibility? But Nawaz has proved that his is an oppositional
mindset. Politics of principles suits those in opposition; principled is nothing more
than a proxy for inflexible, which isn’t conducive to getting anything done in a
fractious polity. And first Musharraf, then the judges — if Nawaz got his way, he
would see no reason to stop making demands. So a recalcitrant — principled —
Nawaz made it inevitable for Asif to move on.

In fact, if a divorce was inevitable, then this is the most amicable way to go about it.
A principled, wounded Nawaz will return to his Punjab fort; a pragmatic, powerful
Asif will be the puppet master in Islamabad. Which is another reason for Asif to
preside over an unamended constitution — the jiyala governor in Punjab will keep a
watchful eye on the N-league government, Article 112(2)(b), the provincial
equivalent of 58(2)(b), at his disposal. And those wringing their hands, worrying
about nurturing a democratic system? This is the system. A durable democratic
system will only emerge from the tumult of politics. And when politicians back
down. The era of post-politics — reconciliation and working together — was a
stopgap, a break from politics to engineer a transition to democracy. If it worked,
well and good. But it was always unnatural politics — emphasising responsible
governance at the expense of responsible opposition. At one level, the failure of
democracy in Pakistan is simple to understand: it isn’t a failure to get the politicians
to agree, but a failure to prevent them from fighting bitterly when they don’t agree.
The system — democracy — will benefit if Asif and Nawaz figure out how to fight but
not cripple each other. Throwing rocks at each other from their respective camps is
fine, as long as neither storms the other’s ramparts. There is a possibility of this
working. As the principled figure in opposition, Nawaz will wrest some compromises
from Asif. He has to, for the fewer levers of power Asif has his hands on the more
comfortable it will be in opposition.
And it is certaintly a more natural arrangement: the largest national party leading a
coalition of like-minded liberal parties; the second largest national party sitting in
opposition. Nawaz and Asif as adversaries should not automatically fill us with dread
for they occupy very different parts of the political spectrum. What should fill us
with dread is the possibility that they will refuse to draw certain red lines. For now
Nawaz is less of a worry. His politics of no compromise is clear but he’s on the
wrong side of the powers that be and needs to consolidate Fortress Punjab. The real
X factor is Asif. Can anyone honestly claim they know what the man stands for?
Away from party positions and the rhetoric he peddles, who is Asif the politician? Is
he a tactician or strategician? When he surveys the Pakistani political landscape
does he see opportunities or threats? Is consolidation of power the means or the
end? And perhaps most importantly, and intangibly, does Asif accept the main
caveat of democracy — that democracy will necessarily leave everyone in the
system, including himself, a little unhappy? On the answers to these questions
hinges the future. Stay tuned to that television near you.

Author Location Dated

Shafqat Ali Shah Jamote 27.08.08

– Ten-year cycles of political change

President Musharraf’s resignation marks the end of his rule and the end of an era.
His departure on Aug 18, 2008 confirms a puzzling theory that I have been
contemplating for some years now as a political scientist: every 10 years there is a
major change in the direction of Pakistani politics. The years 1938, 1948, 1958,
1968, 1978, 1988, 1998 and now 2008 are significant starting and ending periods of
this change. The number eight seems to occupy a critical position, as do the months
of August and October in this matrix. The starting point of this 10 year cycle of
political change theory really begins with the All India Muslim League Conference
held in Karachi in Oct 1938. The participants at this conference gave serious
thought to a separate homeland for the Indian Muslims. The subject was a major
issue on the table and certain decisions were taken to work on the viability of such
a goal. The subsequent 1940 Pakistan Resolution at Lahore was a natural outcome
of that historic meeting in Karachi. Within 10 years Pakistan became a reality, but
Mr Jinnah’s personality and his stature as a statesman had overshadowed the entire
leadership of the Pakistan movement. His death in Sept 1948 marked the end of the
first cycle and the beginning of the next. The mantle of leadership was left to his
protégé, Liaquat Ali Khan and the nascent group of pre-Partition leaders. Following
the assassination of Pakistan’s first prime minister in Oct 1951, political infighting,
intrigues and frequent government changes manifested themselves in the demise
of this group’s meaningful role in Pakistani politics. This was a decade of
disappointments, of marred visions and dreams of the founding fathers and the
people of Pakistan.

Gen Ayub Khan’s military takeover in Oct 1958 is regarded by many as the start of
Pakistan’s best period. Major reforms and massive industrialisation gave Pakistanis
new hope and recognition on the world stage. By the end of the ‘decade of reforms’
in 1968, Ayub Khan’s power began to unravel and for all practical purposes this 10-
year era drew to a close. President Ayub’s fate was sealed and the March 1969
resignation was a mere formality to confirm the end of this cycle. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto
was a rising star of Pakistan’s politics from the very beginning when he joined Ayub
Khan’s martial law cabinet in 1958. In the dying days of his mentor’s political
career, he had become an indispensable player on the country’s political scene. The
young, charismatic and brilliant Bhutto had already caught the imagination of the
Pakistani people in the western part of the country. By 1968, his new party (founded
a year earlier in Lahore) with its slogan of roti, kapra aur makaan became a
household word. With the soft revolution for the ordinary people’s emancipation
that his party launched, Pakistan’s politics changed forever. Bhutto’s handpicked
army chief became his mortal enemy. Gen Ziaul Haq, after a shaky start in the
aftermath of the July 1977 coup, began to entrench himself in power by 1978. That
year, ironically, the fortunes of the two men took diametrically opposite directions.
The man of the masses, a popular elected national leader with undisputed
credentials and recognition on world stage, was sentenced to death; while his
protégé was propelled to power for the next 10 years.

The Zia era also saw the be ginning of a trend of greater emphasis on religion in
Pakistan’s politics. Although Gen Ziaul Haq had a record 11-year rule, his era
effectively began in 1978 when Bhutto’s fate was finally sealed. The mysterious air
crash on Aug 17, 1988 killed Zia and his era ended. The era of Pakistan’s second
experiment with democracy lasted from 1988 to 1998. The late Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif’s two terms as prime ministers failed to establish their power or a
truly functioning democracy in Pakistan. Numerous reasons can be attributed to
their failures. The most notable ones include the fact that their personal agendas
overrode national aspirations; inexperience on Benazir Bhutto’s part, and Nawaz
Sharif, notwithstanding his decision to explode Pakistan’s nuclear device,
overplayed his hand. Both the public and the establishment resented the way the
Supreme Court was stormed and Justice Sajjad Ali Shah removed — as well as
President Farooq Leghari and Gen Jahangir Karamat. The military too was not
pleased with the Nawaz government’s peace overtures to India. This was clearly
demonstrated when the top brass did not show up at the welcoming ceremony for
Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee during his visit to Lahore in early 1999.
Technically, the military coup against Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif happened in Oct
1999, but the process of his downfall had begun a year earlier. The Musharraf 10-
year cycle began in 1998 from the time he was appointed as army chief. His
adventure in Kargil had a negative fallout and the Nawaz Sharif government was
finding it difficult to cope with the new chief; the course for change in Pakistani
politics was set in motion. In retrospect, the manner and drama of Musharraf’s
takeover suggests that he was destined to be in power and play a major role for
Pakistan at home and on the world stage.

There is another noteworthy pattern repeated during these eras. On at least four
occasions ‘trusted’ army chiefs have taken over power from their mentors. It
happened in the cases of President Iskandar Mirza and Gen Ayub; President Ayub
and Gen Yahya Khan; Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Gen Ziaul Haq; and
Nawaz Sharif and Gen Pervez Musharraf. If this 10-year cycle of change theory
endures, we can assume the present democratic and coalition dispensation will last
till 2018. However, cycles of change do not happen in a cut and dry manner and on
the dot of 10 years; there are periods of transition before the start and end of these
main periods. Also, personalities have dominated most cycles: Jinnah was the
dominating figure during the 1938-48 period; Ayub Khan (1958-68); ZA. Bhutto
(1968-78); Ziaul Haq (1978-88) and Pervez Musharraf (1998-2008). But during the
periods of 1948-58 and 1988-1998, though Liaquat Ali Khan, Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif were all well-known leaders of their times, no one leader had a
meaningful impact on Pakistan’s political scene. The political process played out
until the end of the 10 year cycle. We will have to wait another 10 years to see if
history repeats itself once again.

Author Location Dated

Shamim-ur-Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 28.08.08

– No let-up in power outages across country

Widespread and prolonged power outages in Karachi and most other parts of the
country continued on Wednesday while the government allowed the utilities to
increase their tariff despite their failure to provide uninterrupted supply. Karachi
suffered long hours without power because of the failure of the privatised KESC to
reduce loadshedding hours. KESC’s generation remained almost at the low level of
Tuesday but no one from the utility offered any regrets or explanation to consumers
nor did it take any corrective measures. While the total demand in the city was
around 2,200MW, the KESC faced a shortfall of about 700MW, causing prolonged
disruptions which left many areas without supply for four to five hours. Lahore,
Faisalabad, the federal capital and other cities and towns were also hit by massive
loadshedding and there were reports of protests in many areas. The Pakistan
Electric Power Company had said on Tuesday that the duration of loadshedding had
been increased because of reduction in gas supply to power generation units
caused by terrorist attacks on pipelines supplying gas from the Zamzama field to
the Sui Northern Gas. Gas supply to Muzaffargarh Power House, Kot Addu Power
Company and Faisalabad Gas Turbine Power Station was disconnected, which
resulted in a 1000MW reduction in power generation. The situation has now
improved a little. Reports of massive loadshedding were also received from
Hyderabad and Mirpurkhas. The unscheduled loadshedding is also affecting
industrial productivity and commitments related to export orders.

Leaders of the Anjuman-iTajran Hyderabad, Electronics Association and Tajran-

iLatifabad told this correspondent that the loadshedding had caused huge losses to
manufacturers and made timely completion of export orders difficult. They pointed
out that many factories in Hyderabad Site were facing 6 to 8 hours of loadshedding
and their business had been affected severely. Power supply to parts of Balochistan
was disconnected when a 132kv Sibi-Harnai-Loralai double-circuit tower was blown
up. The affected areas included Loralai, Zhob, Killa Saifullah, Muslim Bagh and
Pishin. Now, Zhob, Loralai, Killa Saifullah and Muslim Bagh grid stations will be
connected to the Sakhi Sarwar-Kingri-Loralai circuit and Pishin, Gulistan, Killa
Abdullah and Chaman will be linked with the Shaikhmanda thermal power station.
Qesco sources said the closure of the line had caused an 80MW shortfall which
would be met by a further reduction in supplies from Pishin, Gulistan, Killa Abdullah
and Chaman grid stations till the installation of a new tower on the Sibi-Harnai line.
Ahmad Fraz Khan adds from Lahore: The power crisis worsened on Wednesday
before easing a little in the afternoon, with the Pakistan Electric Power Company
(Pepco) promising further improvement by midnight when the Zamzama gas field
returned online.
According to the company’s officials, the reduction in gas supply caused a shortage
of almost 1,300MW throughout the day before the ministry moved in to arrange fuel
for combined cycle plants and they resumed generation using diesel. “It “It was a
national emergency as people throughout the country took to the streets after
suffering hours of additional loadshedding,”
loadshedding,” says an official. Nerves were frayed as
the company resorted to “unannounced” loadshedding to manage almost 15 per
cent additional deficit, taking the total tally to around 35 per cent, he said. By the
evening, the power deficit had been reduced to 4,000MW and it would come further
down to 3,500MW by Thursday morning, he said. In the afternoon, the Kot Addu
Power Company and Muzaffargarh Power Station resumed generation on alternative
fuel and the rest should follow by midnight when Zamzama gas field would come
online, the SNGPL claimed. With all units (Kapco, Muzaffargarh and rental power
plants) returning to generation, the deficit should drop to a more manageable
3,000MW, Pepco director-general Tahir Basharat Cheema said. With the situation
returning to pre-gas crisis stage, the company would be able to stick to a six to
seven-hour loadshedding schedule without causing much social unrest. “It “It was also
the nature and location of units going offline that caused the three-day disaster,”
disaster,” he
said. Had Guddu Power Station been hit, the situation could not have been as
worse. With independent power producers in the middle of the generation system
going out, Pepco had to transfer power from one end of the country to another. It
only accentuated problems of power managers, he said. “Some “Some 20 to 25 per cent of
the industry, which had been hit by the crisis over the past three days, has also
started coming back online,”
online,” he added.

Author Location Dated

New York 28.08.08

– US paper criticises Nawaz for pulling out of coalition

By pulling out of the ruling coalition over the issue of reinstatement of judges,
Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif was setting himself up as a “political
“political
martyr for democracy”,
democracy”, said the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday and observed
that it was a “misleading
“misleading”
” move. “This
“This is misleading at best. The PPP is likely to
restore most of the judges to their former seats. The PPP is worried most about the
restoration of one judge: Mr (Iftikhar Muhammad) Chaudhry. The former activist
chief justice is a highly politicised figure, given his leading role in last year’s
protests, which eventually brought down the Musharraf government,”
government,” the Journal
said in an editorial. The paper noted that Mr Sharif’s alliance with the PPP was based
on expediency, not a meeting of minds. “There“There are personal interests at work here,
too. Mr Chaudhry harbours no love for Mr (Pervez) Musharraf, and might take action
to roll back the former president’s executive order that pardoned crimes of
politicians -- including Mr (Asif Ali) Zardari. Mr Sharif might also expect Mr Chaudhry
to clear away legal barriers for a third run at prime minister. The best solution here
is to appoint a non-partisan chief justice,”
justice,” the newspaper added. The newspaper
said that Mr Sharif’s party quit the governing coalition on Monday, the same day
that Mr Zardari’s party outlawed the Taliban and vowed to fight terror harder.
“That’s all you need to know about the priorities of the two parties.”
parties.” Mr Sharif, the
paper said, always favoured dialogue over military action against militants. His
alliance with the PPP was based on expediency, not a meeting of minds. After
February elections, he agreed to support the PPP’s prime minister pick in exchange
for control over his home state of Punjab. Both parties wanted to oust thenpresident
Pervez Musharraf. Last week, they did so.

Author Location Dated

Rubina Saigol 28.08.08

– Ghosts of the past

Contemporary Pakistan finds itself at the nexus of a number of intersecting conflicts
that have generated unbridled violence across the length and breadth of the
country. The suicide bombing at the Pakistan Ordnance Factory was the
continuation of a series of attacks on state institutions including the ISI, the SSG
unit, the air force as well as civilian law-enforcement agencies such as the FIA
building in Lahore. News of bloodshed is splashed across the front pages of dailies
from attacks on utility installations such as Sui gas pipelines in Balochistan to the
regular bombing and torching of girls’ schools in Mingora, Swat, and other areas of
Pakhtunkhwa. Added to these horrific news items are the almost daily attacks by
Nato forces on the innocent people of Bajaur and other Fata areas from where
populations are forced to flee and become displaced. There is a virtual civil war
going on between the security forces and militants, and among militants
themselves, in Waziristan. A number of outfits such as Lashkar-i-Islam of Mangal
Bagh and Amr Bil Maroof Wal Nahi Al-Munkar of the slain Haji Namdar have sprung
up. Among all religio-militant contraptions, the biggest and most deadly by far are
the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan led by Baitullah Mehsud and Maulvi Omar and the
revitalised Tehrik Nifaz-i-Shariat-i-Mohammadi. Nobody knows which ones have
been spawned by the spymasters themselves and which ones sprung up in
resistance to US and Pakistani siege of the areas. Similarly, one hears whispers of
the Balochistan National Army being active in the province with the backing of some
powerful actors.

We need to understand our plight in a historical perspective. What we see all

around us today is not a sudden or recent uprising but goes way back into the very
process of the formation of our state in a communal split and the subsequent
festering of wounds inflicted over years of insensitivity exhibited by a highly
centralised state. As Pakistan emerged in the context of the divisive two-nation
paradigm, the state came to be defined in religious terms early on in our history.
There were two major consequences of the birth of the country within a primarily
religious idiom: 1) The state acquired a communal, religious and sectarian character
which generated sectarian and religious violence; and 2) the overemphasis on
religious identity excluded and denied the existence of older and more entrenched
ethnic, linguistic and regional identities which were suppressed in the name of
religious homogenisation. Let us take the communalisation of the state first. As
early as 1949 the Objectives Resolution was adopted which declared that
sovereignty belongs to Allah and the religious and social system of Islam would be
fully observed. In spite of serious objections raised by the minority members of the
constituent assembly, the resolution was passed on the insistence of the Muslim
members who took their cue from the two-nation concept. In 1985, during Gen Zia’s
Islamisation drive, Article 2-A was inserted into the constitution and the Objectives
Resolution was made a substantive part of the constitution thereby making its
provisions justiciable. At that time the minorities were deprived of the right to
practise their religions freely as the word ‘freely’ was deleted.
The Afghan jihad, coupled with the Islamisation measures designed to legitimise
Zia’s illegal rule, provided enormous impetus for the growth of madressahs
supported by Saudi, US and Iranian funds. The greatest increase in religious parties
was recorded between 1979 and 1990, and this is accounted for by the staggering
rise in the number of sectarian outfits. While jihad-related organisations doubled,
there was a 90 per cent increase in sectarian parties. In the same period, religious
seminaries began to proliferate in Pakistan. Prior to 1980, there were 700 religious
schools in Pakistan and the annual rate of increase was three per cent. By the end
of 1986, the rate of increase of deeni madaris reached a phenomenal 136 per cent.
By 2002, Pakistan had 7,000 institutions awarding higher degrees in religious
teaching. The new schools were mostly set up in the Frontier province, southern
Punjab and Karachi. Religious leaders were provided with economic incentives to
create militants for the Afghan war. The situation was now rife for sectarian conflict
as arguments and interpretations of the ‘true’ meaning of an Islamic state became
ubiquitous. In Punjab, 1994 was one of the worst years in terms of sectarian killing
when 73 people were killed and many more wounded. In the latter half of 1996,
sectarian violence in Parachinar and part of the Kurrram Agency claimed hundreds
of lives. In March 2004, unidentified gunmen opened fire on an Ashura procession in
Quetta killing over 40 people and injuring scores of others. Sectarian violence
escalated in Oct 2004 when on Oct 1 29 people were killed in an imambargah in
Sialkot. On Oct 7, a bomb explosion in Multan killed 40 people in a mosque while
three days later a blast ripped through a Shia mosque in Lahore killing four people.
The latest was in Dera Ismail Khan where a hospital full of Shia mourners was
attacked.

Another major consequence of a state emerging within a religious theory was that
Pakistan failed to evolve a viable federal structure. Religious nationalism became a
centralising force and the unique identities of ethnic minorities came to be denied
or erased because of the promotion of an overriding religious identity. As early as
1963 Ayub Khan declared that “I “I do hope that in a few decades, which is not a long
time in the history and progress of nations, our people will forget to think in terms
of Punjabi, Pathan, Sindhi, Balochi and Bengali and think of themselves as
Pakistanis only … our religion, our ideology, our common background, our aims and
ambitions unite us more firmly than any geographical boundaries could have.” have.” The
denial of the rights of smaller provinces in recognition of language, NFC award,
royalties or water share led to various conflicts one after another which culminated
in East Pakistan’s secession and ensuing resistance movements in Balochistan, Fata
and Sindh. In 1970-71 the state was locked in a power struggle against the
Bengalis, in the mid-1970s against the Baloch, in the 1980s against the Sindhis
during the MRD movement and in the early 1990s against Urduspeaking migrants
from India. An over-centralised state, dominated by one ethnic group along with a
powerful army and bureaucracy drawn primarily from one or two ethnic groups,
drew its ideological inspiration from religious nationalism to create a false sense of
unity. The foundational paradigm of the state’s emergence ironically created
existential crises for it, as the founding theory blew up in its face and its repressive
response simply added fuel to the fire of ethnic disaffection. Today its own policies
have come back to haunt the state.

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman 28.08.08

– Revive political parties

One of the issues frequently raised by political parties is that the crises of the state
and the plight of the people have been aggravated by the failure of political
institutions. New institutions have not been developed, it is said, and the institutions
created in the olden days have been destroyed. Political leaders usually do not
include political parties in the list of institutions that have decayed. This, perhaps,
because of their feeling of guilt. Whenever the matter is broached they attribute the
decline of political parties to state repression, especially during authoritarian rule.
But no honest political activist will deny that party leaders also have made a large
contribution to the process. As regards political parties Pakistan has been
unfortunate since its very inception. The largest party at independence, the Muslim
League, was more an organisation in form than in substance. After the Quaid’s
death even respect for form was given up. After a brief experiment separating the
party from the government the Muslim League became a permanent maid at the
prime minister’s house. Until Iskander Mirza added the making and breaking of
political parties to his functions as head of state, whoever became prime minister
also became the League chief. The party had little say in the wars of succession
that began with the Quaid’s demise or in the management of public affairs.

The other parties in existence during Independence were paralysed after losing out
to the Muslim League. When they tried to resurrect themselves, largely in defence
of provincial rights, they were easily suppressed. A challenge to authority could be
mounted during elections only by loose gatherings of estranged members of the
elite and the establishment replied by rigging elections in the western wing. When it
failed to do so in the eastern wing it abandoned the formality of elections altogether
and eventually preferred praetorian rule to representative government. For 50
years now political elements have been fighting authoritarian regimes, and more
than that among themselves, on the strength of intra-elite alliances and their ability
to gather the people in one movement or another. They have done wonders but
fostering strong democratic parties does not figure in their accomplishments. The
field has been dominated by political outfits that prefer to call themselves
movements and spurn democratic elections and regular party structures. Some
parties have relied exclusively on periodic elections. The stark reality is that political
parties have been competing with autocratic despots in inventing ever new excuses
for denying the people their right to democratic choice. They have been functioning
as little more than contractors for seats in elected bodies and waiting for moneyed
candidates who can buy tickets for offices that offer the highest possible return on
their investment. Since the state started moving away from its democratic moorings
soon after Independence it had no interest in helping political parties consolidate
themselves as fully operational democratic machines. Indeed, it drew comfort from
the disintegration of political parties. Instead of removing the obstacles to the
flowering of democratic organisations, by avoiding restraints on the right to
assembly and to dissent and by reducing the cost of electoral contest, among other
things, the state has tried to exceed its authority by arbitrarily regulating political
parties and their activities.

The first attempt in this direction was made in 1962 when Ayub Khan’s all-out
campaign to destroy party-based politics was halted by the assembly elected
through his own devices and he reluctantly reconciled himself to the existence of
political parties. As a result, the Political Parties Act of 1962 was designed largely to
check the founding and functioning of parties that could be assailed, however
wrongly, for being foreign-aided or inspired by a foreign ideology. The first PPP
government imposed in the 1973 Constitution only two conditions on political
parties — they could not work against the state’s integrity and were required to
account for their funds. It kept the Political Parties Act of 1962 in place and
amended it only to facilitate action against the parties it considered undesirable.
Gen Zia added some conditions for parties desirous of contesting elections including
their compulsory registration but this condition was struck down by the judiciary.
The quasi-civilian governments that followed Gen Zia showed little interest in
strengthening political parties.The Political Parties Order authored by the Musharraf
regime does acknowledge that “the “the practice of democracy within the political
parties will promote democratic governance in the country for sustaining
democracy”
democracy” (the excessive use of the word ‘democracy’ in this short sentence could
well have been meant to hide aversion to it), but the measure merely prescribes
easy standards for parties for participation in elections. It can be argued that this
order of 2002 has inhibited political parties from democratising themselves. All that
is expected of them is a party constitution, a list of members, a certificate about
election of office-bearers, and a statement of audited accounts. This is easy work
for professionals. After meeting these legal obligations political parties tend to
believe they have become democratic entities and nothing more needs to be done
in this area.

That the political parties were in disarray on the eve of the last general election
cannot be disputed. The enforced absence of the heads of the two major parties did
matter but that alone could not have rendered these organisations dysfunctional to
the extent actually noticed. Their preparation for elections was no more than
haphazard improvisation. The change wrought by the people on Feb 18 was without
much help from the main political parties. And these political parties, with rare
exceptions here and there, have not been heard of since then. The conventional
argument is that when a party comes to power priority has to be given to the
fundamental task of managing the state, to meeting the threats of disturbance and
turbulence, and party affairs have to be put on the backburner. In practice,
governance has essentially meant efforts to undermine all other parties (including
allies), or score points over them, and providing for selfaggrandisement by a few.
The point that is consistently missed is that the availability of organised party
cadres will make governance both easier and better. Such cadres are vitally needed
to maintain a living link between the rulers and the ruled. Throughout the past
many weeks party mobilisation has been sorely missed. If the coalition partners had
cadres to mobilise a few hundred thousand people the task of restoring the judges
and getting rid of Musharraf could have been completed in a shorter period and
quite cleanly. So long as political parties are not revived and raised to due strength
the democratic experiment will remain vulnerable to disruption by praetorian
guards.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 28.08.08

– Americans think McCain better for terror war

A CNN poll released on Wednesday showed that the American public considers
presumed Republican presidential nominee John McCain better than his Democrat
rival Barack Obama on terrorism and Iraq. The poll, conducted by the US-based
Opinion Research Corporation for CNN, found that voters consider Mr McCain a
stronger leader who would have better judgment in an international crisis. Fifty-
eight per cent of those questioned think Mr Obama can handle the responsibilities
of commander-in-chief, but that pales in comparison to the 78 per cent who feel
that way about Mr McCain. By a 51 per cent to 41 per cent margin, voters regard
the senator from Arizona as the stronger leader, and they think he would have
better judgment than Mr Obama in an international crisis by a 52 per cent to 43 per
cent spread. While reporting the poll results, US media outlets pointed out that Mr
McCain favours sending unspecified numbers of US soldiers to Afghanistan. Mr
Obama, however, would add about 7,000 troops to the US force of 36,000, bringing
the reinforcements from Iraq. He also favours as unilateral attack on high-value
terrorist targets in Pakistan as they become exposed, “if
“if Pakistan cannot or will not
act”
act” against them.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 29.08.08

– Asif-Nawaz chat widens split

Contacts between the Pakistan People’s Party and the Pakistan Muslim League-N
established at different levels on Thursday resulted in further widening of the split
rather than reviving the coalition, which fell apart on Aug 25 because of differences
over the reinstatement of judges and the unilateral nomination of Asif Zardari as
presidential candidate. PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari and PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif
talked on phone for the first time since the latter quit the ruling coalition. PML-N
leader Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan called on Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani and a
PPP delegation met the PML-N leader at the Punjab House. Sources said Mr Zardari
requested Mr Sharif to withdraw Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui from the race
for the presidency and also urged him to return to the coalition. But Mr Sharif told
Mr Zardari “we
“we have come too far and it would not be possible for me to back out of
my party’s commitment on the judges’ issue”.
issue”. The PML-N chief also turned down Mr
Zardari’s request to withdraw Mr Siddiqui from the presidential race. Both PML-N
information secretary Ahsan Iqbal and Information Minister Sherry Rehman
confirmed that the two leaders had talked on phone, but claimed that the issue of
presidential election was not discussed. They said Mr Sharif thanked the PPP co-
chairman for tendering an apology to him in his televised address soon after the
announcement that Mr Sharif had quit the ruling coalition.

According to Mr Iqbal, the PML-N chief told Mr Zardari that his party had taken the
decision after a detailed deliberation and waited long for the implementation of
pledges made by the PPP. Mr Sharif, however, assured Mr Zardari that the PML-N
would adhere to the Charter of Democracy, signed by him and former prime
minister Benazir Bhutto two years ago. Mr Iqbal said that the PPP cochairman was
told it was no possible for the PML-N to return to the coalition. The sources said Mr
Zardari sent Federal Labour Minister Syed Khurshid Shah and the prime minister’s
adviser, Manzoor Wattoo, to the Punjab House with a request to Nawaz Sharif for
withdrawal of Mr Siddiqui. However, Chaudhry Nisar and Senator Ishaq Dar politely
refused to do so. Later, Mr Nisar called on the prime minister and asked him to
notify resignations of the PML-N ministers submitted on May 12 after the expiry of
the second deadline for reinstatement of judges. He also requested the prime
minister to allocate seats on opposition benches in the National Assembly to PML-
N’s legislators.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Amin A. Gadit amin.muhammad@med.m 29.08.08
un.ca

– Political personality disorder

Citing court documents, London’s Financial Times has reported that as recently as
last year presidential contender Asif Ali Zardari was “diagnosed
“diagnosed with a range of
serious illnesses including dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic
stress disorder.”
disorder.” This has been attributed in part to the alleged torture he suffered
while in prison in Pakistan. In fact, people possess a number of traits that are
components of their personality. Collectively these characteristics present
themselves in the form of certain behaviour patterns that are either desirable or
undesirable. Some of these traits are paranoia, jealousy, obsession, attention-
seeking, dependence, sensitiveness or an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
self-importance.
These traits can create problems for the person possessing them during social
interaction. However, these traits become threatening when they assume the form
of a fully fledged personality disorder. This has been defined by the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual IV as “enduring
“enduring pattern(s) of inner experience and behaviour”
behaviour”
that are sufficiently rigid and deep-seated to bring a person into repeated conflict
with his or her social and occupational environment. Pakistan has been unfortunate
in that many of its leaders have played havoc with the country and caused it
immense harm. This can be attributed to the fact that a number of them have
suffered from personality disorders. Yet this has not been widely recognised
because little emphasis is placed on the mental health aspect of people in a position
of responsibility in public life.

One wonders why this is so when professional institutions subject candidates

desirous of entering them to rigorous psychological tests before appointing them.
Why are political leaders not subjected to similar screening before getting
unrestricted licence to enter politics? A suitable personality test would be
worthwhile for highlighting undesirable traits or personality disorders falling under
the psychiatric diagnostic category. Is such screening and suitable counselling that
focuses on ethics and morality too impractical a proposal? Those elected and
aspiring to take oath of public office must be subjected to similar physical and
psychological tests as many institutions, such as the armed forces, prescribe.
Revalidation and annual appraisal would be ideal but may prove to be too ambitious
a suggestion at this stage. In some of our leaders, we have observed strong traits of
narcisism that is reflected in feelings of self-importance, a craving for admiration
and exploitative attitudes towards others. They have unrealistic and inflated views
of their talents and accomplishments and may become extremely angry if
criticised.The anti-social traits of some leaders have been widely discussed in the
print media. They have been described as having a propensity to lie, being
manipulative and selfishly disregarding the rights of others. A majority of political
leaders have no doubt displayed histrionic behaviour at times that have caused
great embarrassment internationally.
A number of reasons are given for these personality disorders. Besides being
inherited through genes, they may be triggered by faulty or dysfunctional
upbringing and malfunctioning environmental influences. An example of this can be
seen in the president who has just stepped down. He identified some of his own
problems in his autobiography. He writes about his bullying tendencies; an
extension of this behaviour was manifested in his authoritarian attitude, love of
power, low frustration tolerance, anger and sensitivity to criticism. Such
personalities generally tend to be rigid. They may take some very good decisions
but later commit mistakes as a result of over-vigilance and anxiety. Some leaders
have displayed behaviour reflecting a high sense of insecurity and personal
inadequacies. Our political leaders are also in the habit of constantly blaming others
and holding each other responsible for faulty outcomes of policymaking or
decisions. Bullying is also a trait which prompts politicians to level allegations
against their opponents and subjects them to torture, defamation etc. It seems that
there is a problem with the country’s politics which has attracted a large number of
politicians with faulty personality traits. By forming a mafia they strengthen their
hold on power. Those few who tried to do something better for the nation were
assassinated or wiped out. A number of leaders remained in exile, had luxurious
lives and plenty of money but were always craving to return with the intention of
acquiring power. This can be explained in terms of power addiction, a condition
which drives personalities with moderate to severe degrees of craving to gain
power. It is sometimes argued that those addicted to power may have specific brain
receptors for such addiction or there may be a specific gene that is coupled with a
particular type of personality. However, there is no conclusive evidence. It is
interesting to note that if gratification is not acquired such individuals may develop
complications like anxiety, depression and paranoid disorders. The existing faulty
personality trait if combined with power addiction may result in faulty
administration if such individuals are given the reins of power. One wonders
whether diagnostic manuals will consider a new category by the name of ‘political
personality disorder’. Besides, the idea of personality testing is not too ambitious if
we wish to improve the socio-political scenario of the country.

Author Location Dated

Javed Hasan Aly 29.08.08

– Now, or perhaps never

For the last three decades the establishment has flirted with brinkmanship in
exploiting religious passions to fuel a controlled delivery of exported political
trouble. First it was in the form of mercenary support for one superpower. Then,
using the residual, but battle-hardened firepower it perpetuated a simmering
bilateral dispute heating it up to destructive temperatures. It is another matter that
we then witnessed a complete somersault by surrendering the initiative and
acquiescing to diplomatic browbeating. Historically, controlled delivery agents have
always grown larger and more powerful than their handlers in the cobwebweaving
agencies. As a result, Pakistan is being taken for a ride by some so-called Islamists,
thriving on a conviction founded in ignorance and funded by domestic and foreign
agents who fear the establishment of democracy in the country. Ziaul Haq and his
legacy of generals — autonomously wise, exclusively patriotic and entirely
independent of the state — allowed a perverted perception of Islam to be owned
and proliferated by a sizeable part of the gullibly unintelligent and economically
vulnerable population. The perception grew out of dogma, ingrained in a past
irrelevant to the present-day world. It was an attempted recall of days of yore, but
without the accompanying political and material strength. This worldview was the
creation of self-styled ideologues in the military and could be superimposed upon a
corrupt political outfit. The intention is now to inflict a perverted perception of Islam
at gunpoint. We can be cajoled, blackmailed and coerced into a kind of social
behaviour that may be a declaration of defiance, but that has nothing to do with
real Islam.

For decades, since Islamists, with poor intellectual content, acquired political clout,
the agencies’ intelligentsia and their brilliant ideologues reposed their trust in these
controlled agents of destruction within or outside Pakistan. Islamic knowledge was
being measured according to the cut, size and extent of the dishevelled growth of
facial hair. It is an insult to intelligent and educated people that the interpretation of
Muslim philosophy and Islamic behaviour is squarely the domain of the least
intellectually equipped, and whose Islamic interpretation of political responses is
entirely out of sync with the Quran and Sunnah. It is a shame that we are
condemned to be led into social and religious behaviour which is condemnable in
true Islam; merely because the brute force of the gun trained on Muslims prevents
us from exercising the courage to defy the untruth. The brilliant strategists and
thinkers of the agencies consider it a right to impose their wish on the will of the
people. What are the recent-day neoTaliban of the NWFP doing now? Coercing
fellow Muslims, abducting fellow Muslims, killing fellow Muslims — all in the name of
an authority, discretion and privilege that do not vest in them! And the clergy that
derives political in fluence from such pockets of indefensible insurgencies, does not
have the courage to disown these irreligious, immoral activities. Recently, scholars
of the calibre of Muftis Munib-ur-Rahman and Rafi Usmani (only conditionally) and
the rationalist scholar Javed Ahmed Ghamidi have distanced themselves from such
untenable interpretations of Muslim behaviour. But the saddest part is that leaders
of the religious political parties have not had the courage to demonstrate the
knowledge and conviction to denounce such utterly un-Islamic acts and are
unwilling to state the truth for the sake of political convenience. Because the so-
called religious political parties, averse to the cause of Pakistan before 1947, derive
their strength from these bigots, these parties refuse to condemn what is obviously
and outright un-Islamic. Every time there is a discussion on terrorism their favourite
refrain is the cause of such terrorism. Its consequences are either lost on them, or
are irrelevant to their politics.

We all know where the roots of Muslim defiance and mistrust of western capitalist
hegemony lie. But can we forget the partners of the West in the destruction and
denial of the Palestinian cause — Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, et al? And why should
ordinary Islam-loving, practising Muslims pay a price under the hammer of illiterate
Pakistani bigots with illbegotten military hardware? We know that even Maulana
Maudoodi refused to sanctify the Kashmir jihad of 1948. Now his political progenies
are unconcerned with the tenets of religion and are more mindful of political gains;
and, therefore, refuse to make proactive pronouncements on the legitimacy of what
insurgents in the NWFP are doing in the name of religion. At best, they offer
reactive responses. Religion is unfortunately becoming the proprietary domain of
those who espouse a particular physical appearance. Without regard to any
intellectual content they are willing to impose a particular social conduct upon the
people, at the point of pain, in a perverted display of irreligious thuggery in the
name of religion. Whatever the causes of this terrible conduct damaging the noble
concept of jihad, we must be mindful of the outcome of such pervasively destructive
socio-political movements. The fair name of Islam cannot be allowed to be soiled by
these negatively motivated and poorly educated exponents of Islamic militancy.
More than others, it is the duty of the true scholars of Islam to proactively condemn
such pursuits and help purge these victims of the indoctrination of untrue Islam.
Importantly, the leaders of religious political parties should rise above short-term
political advantages and denounce these un-Islamic acts in a forthright manner. The
time to do so is now. Later perhaps sanity may become unredeemable and the
delirium now being demonstrated may become uncontrollable. Religious political
leaders owe it to Islam and to posterity to act before it is too late.

Author Location Dated

Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 29.08.08

– If PML-N doesn’t rejoin alliance PPP may form coalition with

PML-Q: Riaz
Punjab Senior Minister Raja Riaz said on Thursday that the PPP would wait till Sept 6
for its erstwhile ally PML-N to rejoin the alliance or will exercise other options,
including forming a government in cooperation with the PML-Q, forgetting the
bitterness of the past. Talking to Dawn at his residence, he said the PPP would
monitor the PML-N attitude till the day of the presidential election, after which it
would devise its new policy in accordance with the ground realities. Asked if the PPP
could consider forming a coalition with the PML-Q, the leader from Faisalabad said:
“In politics, all options are open. If the PML-N doesn’t return to the fold of the ruling
alliance, we can take any decision.”
decision.” When it was pointed out that the PPP had
branded the PML-Q “Qatil
“Qatil League”
League” after the assassination of Ms Benazir Bhutto on
Dec 27, Raja Riaz said: “We“We want to move ahead, forgetting the bitterness of the
past.”
past.” Pushed to the wall, he said, the PPP would fight for its survival. The minister
alleged that the PML-N did not want a stable PPP government in the country as it
would dim its prospects of returning to power for several years. The PML-N vested
interest lay in a weak and unstable PPP government, he said, but hastened to add
that such dreams would never come true. Raja Riaz said the PML-N wanted to have
its own majority in Punjab, “but
“but there is a little chance for them to succeed in this
mission.”
mission.” He said the PPP wanted to keep its coalition with the PML N in Punjab
intact because both the parties would be in a better position to solve people’s
problems. The experiment of archrivals’ forming a coalition was new in Pakistan,
Raja Riaz said, adding that its failure would not be good for democracy, country or
the people. The minister said the PPP had not got a chance to form its own
government in Punjab during the past three decades. Although expediency
demanded that it should be a pure PPP government in the country's biggest
province, it was interested in maintaining its alliance with the PML-N. “For“For the time
being, we are not trying to form our government in Punjab.”
Punjab.” He confirmed reports
that the PPP had directed its legislators not to visit the Chief Minister’s Secretariat
till the presidential elections.

Explaining the rationale, he said, visits by the PPP lawmakers in the prevailing
situation could create misunderstandings. “Maybe,
“Maybe, the PML-N seeks their support
for their presidential candidate.”
candidate.” He claimed that of the 86 PML-Q MPAs in the
Punjab Assembly, a majority would vote for Zardari in the presidential election. Raja
Riaz alleged that the PML-N leadership was not serious in the reinstatement of the
deposed judges. In fact, he said, the PML-N leaders were devoting all their energies
to destabilize the system, bring down the PPP popularity graph and get a chance to
form its government at the earliest. He said having twice been prime minister of the
country, Nawaz Sharif must know the kind of external pressures the governments
had to face in situations the country was facing at present because of the judges
issue. Even the PML-N would not have been in a position to take the steps its
leadership was pressing the PPP to take, he emphasised. The senior minister said
historian would not forgive Nawaz Sharif for breaking alliance with the PPP. He said
by splitting up with the PPP, the PML-N had done no service to the country. “It
“It was
Nawaz Sharif, not us, who is responsible for enhancing the value of a party (the
PML-Q) that has been sitting in Gen Musharraf’s lap for several years.”
years.” He said for
unknown reasons Mr Sharif had changed his stand on Mr Zardari’s candidacy for the
presidential office. He recalled that he was present at a meeting when Mr Zardari
said that Mian Sahib could be the next president, but the PML-N chief said it was Mr
Zardari’s right to occupy the presidency. “I
“I don’t know why he has changed his
mind now. No candidate is better than Mr Zardari as the presidential candidate.”
candidate.”
When it was pointed out that Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf Chairman Imran Khan
regarded Mr Zardari as a security risk and as president would be no different from
Gen Musharraf, the PPP leader advised the cricketer-turned-politician to focus on
sports rather than politics. Imran Khan, he said, should better set up an academy to
train cricketers. Raja Riaz said a ban on anybody becoming prime minister or chief
minister for a third time was alien to democratic system and the PPP would strike
down the legislation that imposed it.

Author Location Dated

Jonathan Freedland Denver 29.08.08

– Obama must not let himself be defined by others

The funny hat – usually stars and stripes, often involving glitter – is one tradition of
the American political convention that has not faded. Plenty are on display here at
the Democrats’ gathering, but one in particular caught my eye. It was studded with
badges from previous campaigns: there, frozen in time, were the smiling, hopeful
faces of a succession of Democratic nominees for president, all the way back to
1968. Trouble is, with only two exceptions, every one of those men failed to reach
the White House: Kerry, Gore, Dukakis, Mondale, McGovern, Humphrey – the
woman’s hat was a roll-call of losers. She might as well have worn a giant L on her
head. The current worry of many Democrats, who once thought Denver would be a
celebration en route to a coronation, is that Barack Obama could be about to join
that uncelebrated company. Polls show the race with John McCain locked in a dead
heat, Obama’s lead eroded to zero. The question delegates and bigwigs are asking
each other in the hotel lobbies and on the shuttle buses is: “Why
“Why aren’t we ahead?”
ahead?”
They all know the landscape has rarely looked more favourable to their party. A
Republican president is the most consistently unpopular since records began.
Nearly 80 per cent of Americans say their country is heading in the wrong direction.
The economy is tanking and US soldiers are still dying in an unpopular war. As the
California strategist Bob Mulholland told me, straining to be heard over the
convention house band: “If“If George W. Bush was seeking re-election, we’d be 20
points ahead.”
ahead.” But he’s not. Nor is McCain an incumbent vice-president tarred by
the record of the outgoing administration. Instead, he can pose as a maverick who
more than once has challenged Bush. That’s one possible explanation for Obama’s
failure to pull ahead, but Democrats have no shortage of others. Some blame
Obama’s recent vacation in Hawaii, leaving the playing field to McCain: while
Obama was on the beach, the Georgia crisis erupted, allowing the Republican to
pose as the seasoned foreign policy sage. Others say the Democrat is still hobbled
by the Clinton psychodrama, which has been dominating yet again in Denver.

Disunity stories have been treading on the Obama message, as the Clintons keep
grumbling that, like a mafia clan, they are not being shown enough respect. What
should be Barack’s week is still filled with Bill and Hillary. (It was surely an error to
give them two evenings rather than bundling them together and out of the way in a
single session.) One poll this week found less than half of Hillary’s former supporters
in the primaries are ready to vote for Obama; one in four plan to vote for McCain.
And most Democrats suggest, once safely off the record, that a key factor is,
depressingly, race. If Obama were white, they say, this contest would be over.
“When will South Africa elect a white president?”
president?” whispered one party official,
fretting that America might not be ready to put a black man in the White House. But
the simplest explanation, one that touches on all of the above, is that McCain has
fought an aggressively negative campaign these past few weeks – and it’s working.
Its twin themes are clear and simple: Obama is inexperienced and not ready to be
president; and he is a “celebrity”, out of touch with the lives of ordinary Americans.
The attack on inexperience is wholly predictable: it’s the flipside of Obama’s
presentation of himself as an untainted outsider and agent of change. It’s legitimate
too, since Obama would indeed have the shortest resume of any president in a
century. But the “celebrity” attack is another matter entirely. For this is just a new
word for an old message: that Obama is an elitist,
elitist, remote from real America. And it
truly is an old message. The Republicans have been aiming this missile at
Democrats for more than 50 years. So John Kerry was vaguely French and liked
windsurfing: not a real American.
American. Al Gore was the son of a senator and “grew “grew up in
a hotel room in Washington”:
Washington”: not a real American.
American. Michael Dukakis had a funny
name and looked weird in a tank: not a real American.
American.

Again and again they do it and with breathtaking chutzpah. Who was it calling Gore
and Kerry sons of privilege? Why it was George Walker Bush, the son of a president.
Who now tries to pretend that the Obamas are rarefied snobs with no feel for the
way most Americans live? That would be John McCain, who, when asked last week
how many houses he owned, hesitated, before telling the reporter his staff would
get back to him. (The answer was seven.) McCain’s wife, Cindy, meanwhile, once
said of her home state: “In“In Arizona, the only way to get around is by small private
plane.”
plane.” Democrats can choose one of two ways to fight this problem. The first is to
do their best to fit the right’s definition of a real American, either by nominating
southern, down-home males (like the Bill Clinton of 1992) or by somehow trying to
squeeze into that box: picking a working-class bruiser like Biden, having Michelle
Obama declare her childhood passion for the Brady Bunch. Or Democrats can
simply refuse to fight on these Republican terms. That is what Obama did when he
burst into the national consciousness at the 2004 convention, declaring that the
culture war of red states and blue states had gone on too long. “We “We coach little
league in the blue states and have gay friends in the red states,”
states,” he declared, so
insisting on the legitimacy of all Americans. Restating that message is surely part of
his task when he accepts his nomination before a stadium crowd of 70,000
tomorrow. He needs to change the terms of trade in this election, to reframe it so
that he’s no longer answering, “Is
“Is he one of us?”
us?” – but persuading his fellow
Americans that it’s time, at long last, to put that question behind them.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 29.08.08

– Obama creates history by

winning presidential
nomination
Senator Barack Obama made history on
Wednesday night, becoming the first
black American to win presidential
nomination of a major US party. “The“The
journey will be difficult. The road will be
long,”
long,” conceded Mr Obama while urging
his supporters to continue to back him
all the way to the White House on Nov
4. Mr Obama made a surprise
appearance before a roaring crowd at
the Democratic Party convention in
Denver, Colorado, to introduce his vice-
presidential candidate Senator Joe
Biden. He received a strong
endorsement from his one-time rival,
Hillary Clinton, who came close to
winning the Democratic nomination
earlier this summer. “With
“With eyes firmly
fixed on the future, and in the spirit of
unity with the goal of victory,”
victory,” Ms
Clinton said, “with
“with faith in our party and our country, let’s declare together with one
voice right here, right now that Barack Obama is our candidate and he will be our
president.”
president.” Several hours later her husband, former president Bill Clinton, also
vigorously supported Mr Obama’s candidacy. “Barack “Barack Obama is ready to lead
America and restore American leadership in the world,”
world,” he said. “Barack
“Barack Obama is
ready to be president of the United States.”
States.” Other senior leaders of the Democratic
Party were equally enthusiastic in backing Mr Obama. “Barack
“Barack Obama will end this
politics of distortion and division,”
division,” said Senator John Kerry, the party’s 2004
nominee. “The
“The choice is clear; our cause is just; and now is our time to make Barack
Obama the next president of the United States.”
States.” Mr Obama “can
“can relate to the kind
of struggles that people in America … are feeling right now”,
now”, said Senator Ken
Salazar, a Colorado Democrat, while formally nominating Mr Obama as the party’s
candidate. Chants of “Obama,
“Obama, Obama”
Obama” and “Yes,
“Yes, we can”
can” surged up from the
convention floor as speaker after speaker pledged support to the Illinois senator.
Thousands of Democrats broke into spontaneous celebrations. Hillary and Bill
Clinton’s endorsement “seemed
“seemed to melt away the tension and divisions of the past
… and prepare the way for Mr Obama to take firm control of his own convention,”
convention,”
commented the Washington Post. But not all agreed with this observation. Earlier in
the day, Mrs Clinton formally released her delegates, freeing them to vote for Mr
Obama. But some of her delegates shouted “no, no” to her declaration. “She “She
doesn’t have the right to release us,”
us,” Massachusetts delegate Nancy Saboori told
Associated Press. “We’re
“We’re not little kids to be told what to do in a halfhour.”
halfhour.” And
hundreds of delegates voted for Mrs Clinton in the roll call — 341 to Mr Obama’s
1,549 — before she called for him to be approved by acclamation. But none of this
could diminish Mr Obama’s achievements.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 30.08.08

– President, PM should be from same party, says Gilani

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said on Friday that in order to ensure stability of
the new democratic government it was necessary that president and prime minister
should be from the same party, at least for one term. Speaking at a dinner hosted
by Sindh Chief Minister Syed Qaim Ali Shah, the prime minister said that since the
presidency was a symbol of national unity and cohesion, the president should be
from the party which had roots in the four provinces. He urged all political forces to
support Mr Zardari in the presidential election. He said that Mr Zardari had
demonstrated the capability to keep the country united in difficult times. The dinner
was part of an election campaign for Mr Zardari. Earlier talking to reporters on his
arrival in the city, the prime minister said the government was facing financial
problems in enhancing power generation capacity after the World Bank and other
financial institutions refused to provide money for subsidies. He said the
international donors wanted the government to pass on the burden to consumers.
“Had this been done in the past five years the people would not have faced the
inconvenience they are facing today.”
today.” Mr Gilani said the position at present was
that all subsidies were being given by the government. “The“The withdrawal of subsidies
really upset us and we have no choice but to pass on the subsidies to people.”
people.” He
said he had talked to the World Bank, Asian Development Bank and the State Bank
governor and the required money had been arranged for generation to the existing
capacity by clearing outstanding bills. In reply to a question about the affairs of the
KESC, the prime minister said that a meeting of the special cabinet committee had
been held to discuss the issue and it was resolved. He said he would send the water
and power minister to Karachi to inform the media.

The prime minister denied having given a deadline of seven days for reinstatement
of the deposed judges. However, he said the judges’ issue would be resolved. He
said he was not part of the team which had decided to reinstate the judges 24 hours
after the resignation or impeachment of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Mr Gilani said
that a handful of militants, funded and supported by the drug mafia and foreign
elements, were trying to destabilise the country and its economy. He admitted that
there was a flight of capital from the country because of the deteriorating law and
order. “We
“We will not allow anyone to create a state within the state. We will talk to
only those tribesmen who agree to lay down their arms.”
arms.” He said the US
government had agreed to provide Rs1,000 billion for development of Fata under a
10-year plan. The prime minister said there would be no compromise on dignity and
sovereignty of the country. About MQM’s claim about the presence of the Taliban in
Karachi, the prime minister said: “As
“As I have said I do not talk about the Taliban only,
but militants. I condemn violence anywhere in the world and I condemn the Taliban
for doing this here in their homeland.”
homeland.” Talking to reporters at the Karachi airport, he
denied that Mr Zardari would withdraw from the presidential race. “This “This is wrong.
Mr Zardari will contest the election.”
election .” He confirmed reports that Mr Zardari was living
in the Prime Minister’s House as a security precaution. “He “He is using the PM’s official
residence for his day-to-day activities.”
activities.” Mr Gilani played down about threat the PML-
N in opposition might pose and said that talks with its leadership would continue to
resolve all issues.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 30.08.08

– Obama vows to finish fight against Taliban, Al Qaeda

Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has pledged to finish the fight
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and end the war in Iraq
‘responsibly’. His acceptance speech on Thursday focused mainly on domestic
issues like health care but Senator Obama did mention the two international issues
that worry the Americans most: the war in Iraq and the situation along the Afghan
border. “I
“I will end this war in Iraq responsibly and finish the fight against Al Qaeda
and the Taliban in Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” he declared. The situation in Fata, along with the
war in Iraq, has become an election issue in the 2008 race for the White House with
both Republican and Democratic candidates taking strong positions on how to root
out terrorists from the area. The Democrats, however, have given the portfolio of
foreign affairs to their vice-presidential candidate John Biden. As chairman of the
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Mr Biden not only has first-hand
experience of dealing with such issues but also has travelled across the world and
personally knows key world leaders. In his acceptance speech on Wednesday,
Senator Biden warned that “the “the resurgence of fundamentalism in Afghanistan and
Pakistan (is) the real central front against terrorism.”
terrorism.” Senator Biden’s speech
focused almost entirely on international disputes, freeing Senator Obama to
concentrate on domestic issues. Although Mr Obama arranged for Mr Biden to
devote his speech to international issues, he did not hesitate to challenge his
Republican rival Senator John McCain to debate him on these issues.

“These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to
debating them with John McCain,”
McCain,” said Mr Obama while briefly outlining his policies
on major world issues. “When
“When John McCain said we could just muddle through in
Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against
the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11,”
9/11,” he said. “And
“And I made clear that we
must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights.”
sights.”
Senator Obama also blamed Mr McCain for not being clear on how to pursue those
responsible for the 9/11 attacks. “John
“John McCain likes to say that he’ll follow bin
Laden to the gates of hell, but he won’t even follow him to the cave where he lives,”
lives,”
said Senator Obama, reaffirming his earlier statements that he would not hesitate
to launch direct military strikes at suspected terrorist targets inside Afghanistan and
Pakistan. Mr Obama also criticised Mr McCain for refusing to give a timetable for
withdrawing troops from Iraq. “And
“And today, as my call for a timeframe to remove our
troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush
administration, even after we learned that Iraq has $79 billion in surplus while we
are wallowing in deficit, John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a
misguided war,”
war,” he said.
Author Location Dated
Islamabad, Pakistan 30.08.08

– ‘Plan to dismember’ Pakistan cited in Senate

Senator Nisar A. Memon of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q alleged in the upper
house on Friday that the Americans harboured the designs of breaking up Pakistan.
He urged the government to take cognisance of a research report by Prof Michel
Chossudovsky of the Global Research Canada which said that the recent regime
change would be followed by a ‘deliberate’ political impasse. The report said that
the political impasse was part of an evolving US foreign policy agenda which
favoured disruption and disarray in the structure of the state. “Indirect
“Indirect rule by the
Pakistani military and intelligence apparatus is to be replaced by more direct forms
of US interference, including an expanded US military presence inside Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” it
says. An earlier report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had predicted a
“Yugoslavia-like fate for Pakistan in a decade with civil war, bloodshed and inter-
provincial rivalries as seen in Balochsitan”.
Balochsitan”. “Nascent
“Nascent democratic reforms will
produce little change in the face of op position from entrenched political elite and
radical Islamic parties. In a climate of continuing domestic turmoil, the central
government’s control probably will be reduced to the Punjabi heartland,”
heartland,” the report
said. Senator Memon quoted the report as saying that chaos and anarchy would be
created through economic disruption, as result of which the International Monetary
Fund would take Pakistan in its grip.

The report alleged that British intelligence agencies were providing covert support
to Balochistan’s separatists. It said that the ongoing turmoil in Balochistan was part
of a strategy to finally separate the province as ‘Greater Balochistan’. The senator
urged the government to take measures to counter such conspiracies and said the
defence or foreign minister should state how would the regime face the challenges.
He claimed that the breaking up of sound institutions like Inter-Services Intelligence
would be followed by other similar steps. Leader of the House Mian Raza Rabbani
said a minister would rebut the report and lay down a national strategy to protect
the country’s integrity. Deputy Chairman Jan Mohammad Jamali said Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani should respond to the queries in the house. Earlier, the law
minister introduced two bills in the house. One bill would bar chaining or shifting to
death cells of condemned prisoners till the confirmation of their sentences by the
Supreme Court and the other pertained to registration of immovable property.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 30.08.08

– Chatter from cyberspace

As I watch the glitz and the glamour of the Democratic convention, and listen to the
inspirational speeches made in Denver over the last few days, I compare them with
our desperate attempts to make a newly-won democratic system work in Pakistan.
Alas, the comparison is not exactly flattering. For days now, my inbox has been
flooded with emails complaining loudly and bitterly about what readers see as the
appalling choices before Pakistan. The break-up of the coalition, the failure to
reinstate the sacked chief justice, and the strong possibility of Asif Zardari
becoming the next president are all pointers, to the chattering classes at least, to a
looming political crisis. Many readers — as well as some distinguished columnists
writing on this page — have expressed the view that Musharraf was far better than
the politicians who dominate the stage today. At the risk of attracting yet more flak,
let me try and put a few of these apprehensions and reservations into proper
context. And in passing, let me also check off some of our recent political gains:
despite serious (and justified) doubts, reasonably free and fair elections were held;
the extremists were routed at the polls; and Musharraf has been forced to resign. In
a perfect world, the Zardari-Sharif alliance would have worked smoothly and
without friction; Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry would have been reinstated months ago; and
a neutral, uncontroversial figure would have been elected president. But as we
know, the world is far from perfect, and Pakistan is even less so. And nobody ever
said the path to democracy was without its pitfalls.

One problem we Pakistanis have in framing the political discourse is that we have
grown up in the shadow of military dictatorship. By and large, we have seen
generals acting decisively and without bothering with niceties like forging a
consensus, or working within constitutional confines. Most importantly, they don’t
have to worry about keeping voters happy. When we contrast their crisp leadership
style with the wheeling-dealing and constant compromises politicians have to make
to survive, we find elected leaders to be amoral and indecisive. But we forget that
despite all the seeming efficiency of the military style, every dictator has left the
country in a worse mess than his predecessor. The truth is that the military is a
force for preserving the status quo. Generals do not want to change the system,
they only want to make it more efficient. Thus, they represent stability and
continuity. In itself, this would be no bad thing as they provide an umbrella for
capitalists and encourage investment. But in a country like Pakistan, there is a
desperate need to change the status quo. We must improve the educational and
public health systems, empower women, and roll back extremism. None of this can
be done by army generals. Their primary objective, irrespective of their claim to
serve the nation, is to stay in power. Period. As we saw last year, Musharraf was
willing to sack 60 judges, and beat up and jail hundreds of lawyers and political
activists just to cling to power. When we complain of the fragility of the PPP–PML-N
alliance, we forget that the seeds of conflict were sown over 20 years ago. The
reality is that the two parties have been rivals for power ever since Nawaz Sharif
emerged on the political stage under Ziaul Haq’s tutelage in the mid-1980s. To
expect the two parties to suddenly put their rivalry aside is to want a wolf to coexist
peacefully with a deer.

To grasp this fundamental reality is to understand why Mr Iftikhar Chaudhry has not
been reinstated despite the agreements and the hours of discussions. In a sense, he
has become a political football between the two leaders. Nawaz Sharif saw in him
somebody who would ensure Musharraf’s exit one way or another. And he would
make the PPP’s task of running the government virtually impossible through a series
of suo motu hearings, continuing his approach to jurisprudence that we saw under
Musharraf. In addition, he was widely expected to throw out the NRO that granted
amnesty to Asif Zardari, as well as hundreds of other politicians and bureaucrats.
This would subject the PPP co-chairman to yet another series of legal battles that
would further discredit him. Those beating the accountability drum today ignore the
fact that Asif Zardari has spent over eight years in jail on charges that have
remained unproven after 11 years of investigation and judicial process. No other
major political figure in Pakistan has spent so much time behind bars. I have little
doubt that there is some truth in some of the accusations, but I also believe in the
sound legal principle of considering a person innocent until proven guilty. However,
many people are so full of venom against the Bhuttos, and anybody related to
them, that they would happily hang them without a fair trial. In this poisonous
atmosphere, it is difficult to conduct a reasonable discussion about justice and fair
play.

These rabid critics are loudly questioning Zardari’s credentials for becoming
president. According to them, he cannot be ‘neutral’ as he is the de facto leader of
the PPP. While this is certainly true, I would like to know how ‘neutral’ Musharraf
was: we all know that his King’s Party of quislings and turncoats met regularly at the
presidency, and that he gave instructions to Altaf Hussain of the MQM over the
presidential telephone. Or, for that matter, how ‘neutral’ was Zia, or Ghulam Ishaq
Khan? Many of those who have been emailing me know what they are against; their
problem is that they don’t know what they are for. Whether they fulminate against
Zardari, or insist that Musharraf was better than all the leaders in the political
arena, they cannot tell me what they would like to see. If we believe in democracy,
we must accept the will of the people. The reality is that voters rejected Musharraf
and his PML-Q in February, and we have to live with the results of that choice.
Another problem with so many of the online critics I encounter in cyberspace is that
they constantly talk about individuals, not institutions. Thus, they freely express
their dislike for Zardari, while voicing their admiration for Musharraf. But ultimately,
we can only ensure accountability and good governance by strengthening
democratic institutions, and not by having them smashed again and again by
adventurers in uniform.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 30.08.08

– The coming Nawaz-Zardari confrontation

A cynic could be pardoned for saying there’s never a dull moment in the ‘land
‘land of the
pure.’
pure.’ But the pace of political flux in Pakistan is, simply, much too mind-boggling
even for the most jaded of pundits and crystal ball-gazers.Give the credit where it’s
due. Asif Zardari has kept to his arcane game of breaking promises like chattels.
This 21st century incarnation of Chanakya’s mantra of rajnit (statecraft) — deceit,
deception and duplicity — and Machiavelli’s guiding light of how the prince must
take his subjects on a merry-go-round as long as he could, is a new phenomenon,
even to the deeply duplicitous feudal culture of Pakistan. So Zardari has kept the
whole nation of 165 million people spell-bound and literally on a wild goose chase.
The parting of the ways between Nawaz and Zardari had been on the cards from the
moment they sat down together in Murree, or Bhurban, last March to ink the first of
nearly half a dozen ‘agreements’ and pledges for the restoration of judges. The
house of cards they had assembled had to collapse because the bigger partner
never had the intent of following through on its commitment. Zardari’s reservations
on account of some of the judges doomed the agreement even before the ink could
dry on it. The PPP supremo, elevated to the pedestal of his party’s kingmaker, didn’t
want Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, in particular, to return to the bench of the apex
court for a variety of reasons, mostly those focused on his past, present and future.
The burden of steering the coalition to a safe landing from the shoals had all along
been on Nawaz, the minor of the two partners. He had taken a moral high ground
on the issue of the judiciary’s sanctity from the moment he returned home from
years of forced exile. His party won the election in Punjab largely on what it hawked
as the moral imperative of restoring the top judiciary to its pre-November 3
position. Even if he wanted to resile from that moral plateau he couldn’t, because
that would have doomed his future prospects for good. The alliance with the PPP
was also crucial to the fulfilment of Nawaz Sharif’s other high priority of getting rid
of his arch nemesis, Musharraf. He knew that he couldn’t topple Musharraf from his
perch without Zardari getting on board the juggernaut to breach his (Musharraf’s)
ramparts. The uneasy relationship, in that sense, was symbiotic, which kept it going
for a while. Zardari may not have been as keen as Nawaz, initially, to kick Musharraf
out of the presidency. There was a nexus of interests, no doubt, between Musharraf
and him on several key issues, the most prominent of which riveted on Justice
Iftikhar Chaudhry. The vocal and prying judge was a pariah in both their books; for
sheer survival, the two of them were on the same page on this key demand of not
only Nawaz but of the Pakistani people, en masse, to bring Chaudhry back to where
he was on November 3. But Zardari, in the meantime, had moved ahead of both
Nawaz and Musharraf. His Machiavellian horse sense had guided him to make his
own incursions into Musharraf’s erstwhile sanctum in Washington, the ultimate
equaliser in Pakistan’s political dispensations. His team of court confidants at home,
and one tribune positioned in the embassy in Washington, got him the audience
that he had been seeking. The power brokers in ‘the capital of the world’ were
finally convinced that Musharraf had become a liability and that there was a new
asset available to run Pakistan according to their blueprint of priorities. Musharraf’s
fate was sealed and delivered. Musharraf’s glue, which had kept the two unnatural
allies orbiting meaninglessly in the same sphere, becoming unstuck ordained the
unravelling of the alliance. It didn’t take long to fall apart. There couldn’t be a
different denouement than that for the two principal contenders to political power in
Pakistan.

Putting the two in the balance, in terms of who gained how much and who lost
what, Nawaz may still end up with a better deal, though not in the immediate sense
of time. Taking a morally superior position and abiding by principles is not what
Machiavelli would approve of. But Nawaz has secured Punjab on his side and the
way the chemistry of the federation works — with Punjab being the prime element
— it doesn’t need a political scientist’s brilliance and acumen to foresee the future.
Zardari, no doubt, is the prime beneficiary in the immediate sense. He has, in one
stroke hit Musharraf’s ball out of the ballpark and got the presidency all but stitched
for himself. Could anyone, in their wildest dream, have foreseen this cataclysmic
change of fortunes, even a year ago? Could any of the jaded political soothsayers
have perceived a man as universally reviled in Pakistan as Zardari in the hot seat of
Musharraf? However, Zardari’s victory carries the risk of proving pyrrhic in the long
term, perhaps less for him than to the beguiled nation of mostly mute spectators.
The first damage, incalculable at this stage, is almost certain to be caused to the
federation’s moorings. The strange spectacle of the provincial leaderships of the
three smaller provinces of the federation — Sindh, the NWFP and Balochistan —
handing down ringing endorsements to Zardari as president smacks of three vs.
one: Punjab against the rest of the federation. Where would this drawing of the
battle lines take Pakistan to? It doesn’t bode well for the health of the federation, if
not, exactly, threatening its unity. The second quantum of damage, which can be
sniffed even at this early stage of the fray, is the spirit of the constitution of
Pakistan, if not its letter, being mauled in the on going shenanigans to have Zardari
elected as president. It defies common sense that the kingmaker should also double
up as the king. The office of the president, rightly being touted by Zardari’s
partisans and apologists as the symbol of federation’s cohesiveness, demands, in
spirit again, that whoever succeeds to it must stay away from politics and be non-
partisan. Musharraf failed this litmus test, miserably, and so will Zardari. He will not
be — none can imagine him as such — another Chaudhry Fazle Ilahi, who dwarfed
against Bhutto. He would assert himself in everything, ride roughshod with impunity
and flaunt his authority with gusto, especially with a meek and obliging PM like
Gilani ready to do all his bidding and kowtowing to his commands without so much
as a squeak of demur. And all those hankering to balance the current power
inequality between the president and the parliament could kiss goodbye to 58-2(B)
being removed from the constitution.

In fact, the way the Nawaz-Zardari entente cordiale is fraying, the spark for a real
flare up between the two parties they respectively lead would, in all probability,
come much sooner than expected over this very issue: PML (N) seeking to undo the
blighted provision that arms the president with doomsday powers, and the PPP
minions resisting this demand in order to keep their man overly empowered. This
could be more than a catalyst for confrontation between them. But while Zardari as
president may be fractious and divisive for the nation, the power brokers
engineering this deal are happy at their stroke of genius, in their convoluted sense.
In Zardari they have found another prince of darkness, a la Musharraf, eager and
anxious to be their frontline soldier — albeit in civvies — in the war against terror.
That’s what they expect of any and all Pakistani leaders, damn the rest of the
nation’s priorities, pressures and concerns. Washington has good reason to feel
comfortable with Pakistan under Zardari doing more of the same that Musharraf had
been doing, in fact do it with more exuberance and élan. The single minded
devotion and commitment of the civilian government, led by the PPP, to the
strategy of force in Bajaur, Swat and other flashpoints in Pakistan is ample evidence
of the new recruits to the war on terror doing their master’s bidding with flawless
commitment. Any body doubting the shape and contours of the new game of power
politics in Pakistan need only read the lead editorials in the Wall Street Journal and
the Financial Times, both leading exponents of the establishment elite on both sides
of the AngloAmerican camaraderie of interest, appearing on the same day, August
26. Both the editorials have lambasted Nawaz Sharif for not giving top billing to the
terrorist threat and being lackluster about it. Both have expressed satisfaction that
he’s not in power and heaved a sigh of relief at his being out of reckoning at the
power centre. Need any more clues as to where Zardari is steering his newly won
fiefdom in Pakistan? ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 30.08.08

– Time to abolish capital punishment

The government is considering abolition of capital punishment. This is a contentious
issue, which needs to be discussed thoroughly before a decision is made. Before we
delve into the issue, two misconceptions need to be dispelled. One, award of capital
punishment cannot be linked to a particular creed, political system or the level of
economic or technological advancement. This is corroborated by the fact that
capital punishment is in vogue in both Muslim and non Muslim societies, both
democratic and authoritarian political systems and both advanced and
underdeveloped economies. Thus we see that while the countries of Western
Europe and Canada have abolished capital punishment, the USA and Japan (both
democracies and advanced economies) retain it. Similarly countries like China and
Singapore, which by no definition are religious or retrogressive societies, practise
death penalty. Two, there is no causal link between the abolition or retention of
capital punishment and violence and crime. The fact that in several countries where
capital punishment has been scrapped, violence and crime rate have come down
and respect for human rights increased does not mean that the abolition of death
penalty is the cause of the improved situation. All that is established is a correlation
between the two variables and correlation is no causation. By the same token,
increase in violence and lack of respect for human rights in countries like Pakistan
cannot be attributed to the retention of capital punishment. The causes are to be
found elsewhere but this is no place to look into the same. The principal argument
in favour of abolition of capital punishment is that it deprives the convict of the
opportunity to reform himself. And since, the argument goes, the only justification
for punishment is reformation or redemption of the convict, capital punishment
cannot be justified. If we accept the premise of the argument — called the
reformative view of punishment — the conclusion that follows logically from it has
to be accepted. But is the premise correct? Is reformation of the convict the only
justification for punishment?

Before we deal with this question, let us look at two other views of punishment —
deterrence and retribution.
retribution. The proponents of the deterrence theory maintain that
the purpose of punishment is to deter others from doing a wrong act. Hence, the
judicial authorities should make an example of the offender. This view of
punishment leads to two conclusions both of which are difficult to accept. One, if
the only purpose of punishment is deterrence, it does not really matter whether the
convict is guilty or innocent and thus there is no need for a fair trial. Two, since the
degree of deterrence depends on severity of punishment, it does not matter
whether punishment for an offence is too severe. Thus, if the proponents of the
deterrence view have to choose between amputation of hand and imprisonment for
stealing, they will prefer the former for being more severe and thus potentially
having greater deterrence effect. The retribution view maintains that the purpose of
punishment is to make the offender suffer what his victim has suffered—“eye
suffered—“eye for an
eye.”
eye.” It is an instinct, the argument goes, to requite injury with injury and hence
“natural” sense of justice demands retribution. Thus the only befitting punishment
for killing someone is death. The retribution view may sound natural since it is
based on instincts. However, if social order is to be preserved, expression of
instincts has to be controlled. My instincts tell me to unscrupulously seek pleasure
or pursue my self-interests without regard for those of others. But if everyone starts
doing this, society will degenerate into a state of chaos and only few, if any, will be
able to pursue their interests. Therefore, it is wiser to pursue rational or enlightened
self-interest by giving due regard to the interests and rights of others. Moreover,
the retribution leads to certain conclusions which are hard to accept. Examples will
make it clear: A has killed B’s son. According to retribution view, the befitting
punishment is for B to kill A’s son. Or A molests B’s sister, then B should be allowed
to rape B’s sister. In either case, one who is innocent will be punished.
punished. Retribution is
essentially a primitive view of punishment or justice and can hardly be accepted in
the present times.

Coming back to the view that reformation of the convict is the only justification for
punishment, there are two objections to it. One, we can never be certain whether
punishment will reform a person. It may and it may not. A murderer having
undergone life imprisonment may become a better person; alternatively he may
return to the prison after committing another murder. Two, if the purpose of
punishment is only to give the offender an opportunity to reform himself, the same
purpose may better be realised by means other than punishment, such as
education and forgiveness. Why keep a convict behind the bars, allow him to go
back to society, where opportunities for character building are far better than in
prison. Thus, in themselves none of the reformation, deterrence and retribution
theories offers a valid justification for punishment. But then what is the sanction for
punishment? Punishment is a necessary implication for living in society. In an ideal
society, every one will be responsible and law-abiding and there will be no need for
punishment. However, in reality, no society is completely law-abiding. There are
people who kill and rob and show little regard for the rights of others. Punishment of
such persons is necessary for ensuring sanctity of law and respect for the rights of
others and preserving the social order. And this very purpose is defeated if
punishment is awarded for its own sake, an innocent person is punished, if
punishment is awarded without fair trial, or if punishment is severe than the
offence.

The opponents of capital punishment advance two other arguments. One is that the
judicial system may be flawed, as it actually is in most of the cases, and hence the
innocent may be forced to go to the gallows. The other argument is that capital
punishment dehumanises and brutalises society and therefore needs to be done
away with in the interest of a healthy and humane society. The first argument is
really an argument for improving the judicial system rather than for abolishing
capital punishment. That any punishment should be awarded only after the guilt has
been proved beyond a shadow of doubt following a fair trial is indisputable. But if
these conditions are fulfilled, then according to this view, capital punishment may
be justified. The second argument begs the question in that it assumes a causal link
between dehumanisation of society and capital punishment, which does not exist.
At best there can only be a correlation between them. The fact that in some
societies, such as those of Western Europe, the abolition of capital punishment has
been accompanied by increased respect for human rights and fall in violence does
not establish a causal connection between the two variables. In fact, in case of
Western Europe, it is economic prosperity, democracy, education and strengthening
of institutions that have contributed to this healthy development. The need to
ensure the rule of law and enforce rights being the only legitimate basis of
punishment, the question of retention or abolition of capital punishment needs to be
settled in the light of its potential social effects. And this necessitates a thorough
and dispassionate debate on the issue — which does not equate capital punishment
with retrogression in a priori fashion. A hasty decision may make things worse
rather than improve them. The debate needs to be accompanied by reforms in the
judicial system, so that the innocent are not penalised nor do the guilty go scot-free.
Author Location Dated
Reuters Dayton, Ohio 30.08.08

– Alaska’s woman
governor is McCain’s
running mate
Republican John McCain made a
surprise choice of Alaska Governor
Sarah Palin as his running mate on
Friday, adding a political unknown
to the presidential ticket who could
help him appeal to women voters.
Palin, 44, a self-described “hockey
“hockey
mom,”
mom,” is a conservative first-term
governor of Alaska with strong
anti-abortion views, a record of
reform and fiscal conservatism and
an outsider’s perspective on
Washington. “She’s
“She’s exactly who I
need. She’s exactly who this
country needs to help me fight the
same old Washington politics of
me first and country second,”
second,”
McCain told a roaring crowd of
15,000 supporters in Dayton, Ohio.
Palin was chosen over a list of
more experienced and better
known contenders as the Arizona
senator grabbed the political
spotlight away from Democratic
rival Barack Obama one day after
Obama accepted his party’s
presidential nomination. “Senator,
“Senator,
I am honoured to be chosen as your running mate. I will be honoured to serve next
to the next president of the United States,”
States,” Palin said, joined on stage by her
husband and five children ranging in age from 18 years to five months. “As “As
governor, I’ve stood up to the old politics as usual,”
usual,” she said. “This
“This is a moment
when principle and political independence matter.”
matter.” McCain and Palin will face
Obama and his No 2, Joe Biden, in the Nov 4 presidential election.The pick followed
days of speculation about McCain’s choice, with most of the better known
contenders like former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota
Governor Tim Pawlenty slowly eliminated over the last 24 hours. Palin, former
mayor of the town of Wasilla, is almost unknown nationally. That could hurt
McCain’s argument that Obama, a first-term senator from Illinois, is too
inexperienced to handle the White House. But she could help him appeal to
disaffected supporters of Democrat Hillary Clinton, who lost a bruising primary to
Obama. Palin is an avid sportswoman who would bring youth and vitality to the
ticket. McCain turns 72 on Friday and would be the oldest person to take office for a
first term in the White House if elected. “Today,
“Today, John McCain put the former mayor
of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the
presidency,”
presidency,” said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton. “Governor
“Governor Palin shares
John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and
continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we
need, it’s just more of the same,”
same,” he said. Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973
Supreme Court ruling that overturned many state and federal laws against abortion.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 31.08.08

– PML-N asks PPP to quit Punjab govt

The Pakistan Muslim League-N which has parted ways with the ruling coalition at
the Centre formally asked the Pakistan People’s Party on Saturday to quit the
government in Punjab. “The“The PPP should show dignity and play a role while sitting on
opposition benches in Punjab as we have done at the Centre,”
Centre,” PML-N information
secretary Ahsan Iqbal said at a news conference. Mr Iqbal expressed concern over
the character assassination campaign of Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, the
party’s candidate for the presidential election. The PML-N and the PPP had entered
into an agreement on March 9 which is known as “Murree
“Murree Declaration”
Declaration” under which
the two parties had agreed to form coalition governments at the Centre and Punjab
after PPP co-chairman Asif Zardari promised to reinstate the deposed judges within
30 days of the formation of the federal government. However, the relationship
between the two parties got strained after Mr Zardari failed to meet three different
deadlines for the reinstatement of the deposed judges and as a result of it the PML-
N finally quit the coalition on August 25. PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif had accused the
PPP of violating another agreement signed by the two parties on August 7 when it
nominated Mr Zardari as its candidate for the office of the president. Mr Iqbal said if
the PPP continued to be a part of the Punjab government, then it would be a
contradiction of the understanding and people would criticise it saying that “the“the
party wants to remain in power in any case.”
case.” He declared that if the PPP still wanted
to stay in the Punjab government, then it would be the PML-N to decide about it. Mr
Iqbal warned Punjab Governor Salman Taseer against making any attempt to
destabilise the PML-N government in the province. He asked the governor to show
dignity and avoid creating a situation of confrontation. He even asked Mr Taseer not
to act like “hero
“hero of a Punjabi movie.”
movie.” The PML-N leader criticised the decision of Mr
Zardari to contest the presidential election and said it would make the office of the
president “partisan.” He reminded the PPP that former president Gen (retd) Pervez
Musharraf had always been criticised to lead the PML-Q while sitting in the
presidency. He said Aiwan-i-Sadr would become the centre of activities of one
political party after Mr Zardari’s election to the office.

Mr Iqbal said that in the past democratically-elected presidents had resigned from
the basic membership of their parties. He gave examples of former presidents
Farooq Leghari and Rafiq Tarar in this regard. “Will
“Will Asif Zardari resign from the
basic membership of the PPP after becoming the president,”
president,” he asked. Mr Iqbal
refuted the allegations being levelled by different PPP leaders that Justice
Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui had played an active role in the 1997 judicial coup resulting
in the ouster of the then chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah. He explained that it was the
full bench of the Supreme Court which gave a unanimous verdict that the chief
justice should be appointed on the seniority basis. As a result of this decision, he
said, Justice Sajjad Shah had to go. Mr Iqbal said his party did not consider Justice
Abdul Hameed Dogar as rightful chief justice. Meanwhile, a delegation of senior PPP
leaders called on Prime Minister Syed Yousaf Raza Gilani to discuss the strategy for
the forthcoming presidential election and the possible future scenario in Punjab
after the PML-N’s decision to quit the coalition. Those who met the prime minister
are: Leader of the House in the Senate Raza Rabbani, Information Minister Sherry
Rehman, Labour Minister Syed Khurshid Shah and AttorneyGeneral Senator Latif
Khosa. Sources in the PPP told Dawn that during the meeting, the prime minister
directed the attorney-general not to issue “divisive statements” on political
developments that could damage the party’s image. Similarly, the sources said, the
PPP leaders had finalised a plan to keep the party’s parliamentarians in Islamabad
till the presidential election held on Sept 6. The sources said the party had decided
to organise different programmes to keep the members busy in the capital till the
presidential election.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 31.08.08

– Office of the president

Pervez Musharraf resigned as president on Aug 18. The two Houses of parliament
and the four provincial assemblies, acting as an electoral college, will elect a new
president on Sept 6. One should like to think that the person they choose will have
the qualifications that answer his job description spelled out in the constitution. The
president is head of the state and represents the unity of the republic. He is to be
kept posted on the cabinet’s decisions and proposed legislation. He may suggest
reconsideration of such decisions but must accept them if they remain the same
even after they have been reconsidered. In performing his functions he is to act on
the prime minister’s advice. The president summons and prorogues the National
Assembly and may call for a joint sitting of the two Houses of parliament; may
dissolve the National Assembly in the event of a constitutional breakdown, order
new elections, and appoint a caretaker government for the interim. He assents to
bills passed by parliament before they can become law, may return a bill for
reconsideration with his recommendations for revision, but must assent to it after it
has been passed again with or without amendment. He may cause a referendum to
be held on a question of national importance that will admit of a ‘yes’ or ‘no’
answer. He appoints persons to the posts of chief election commissioner and
chairman of the Federal Public Service Commission in his discretion; provincial
governors in his discretion but after consulting the prime minister; chairman of the
joint chiefs committee and chiefs of the army, navy and air force in consultation
with the prime minister. He appoints the chief justice of Pakistan and appoints the
other judges of the Supreme Court after consultation with the chief justice. The
Supreme Court has interpreted this requirement to mean that the president has no
discretion with regard to these appointments.

The president has real operational authority in relation to the Federally

Administered Tribal Areas (Fata). Acts of parliament do not apply here except in so
far as he may require. He is to make such regulations as he deems appropriate for
the peace and good governance of these areas. The governor of the province where
a tribal area is located acts as his agent and carries out his directions.
Commentators who assert that the president has enormous power are simply
wrong. Apart from Fata, the constitutional stipulations noted above actually add up
to a bill of constraints on his authority. His discretionary authority to appoint is
limited to two posts (mentioned above) neither of which is a carrier of much power.
He may disregard the prime minister’s advice in appointing provincial governors,
but they too, are largely ceremonial heads of provinces as the president is of the
federation. The president appoints the service chiefs in (not after) consultation with
the prime minister, meaning that the latter’s concurrence with the president’s
choice is necessary. And he has no discretionary authority at all when it comes to
the appointment of judges. His power to dissolve the National Assembly (Article 58-
2b) can be exercised only if it can be shown that a constitutional breakdown has
indeed occurred. The courts can annul his action if it is found to have been
arbitrary. It should then be clear that there isn’t a whole lot the president can do of
his own accord. Unless the prime minister turns out to be excessively submissive
and willing to take external direction, the president of Pakistan cannot be much
more than a figurehead.

As stated above, the president represents the country’s unity, dignity and honour. It
follows that a candidate for the president’s office must also be a man of honour, one
who inspires trust and confidence. He must also have the qualifications required of
a member of the National Assembly. Article 62 of the constitution lists these
qualifications including the following. A person seeking election to the National
Assembly must bear a good moral character and have an adequate knowledge of
Islamic teachings. He should not be known as one who violates Islamic injunctions.
He must also be sagacious, righteous, honest, ameen, and a keeper of his
covenants. Nomination papers for the presidential election have been filed for a
large number of persons, including Mr Asif Ali Zardari, who is being billed as the
candidate most likely to win. It is not clear why he wants a post which, as we have
seen above, is for the most part ceremonial and devoid of operational authority. I
saw a report in this newspaper (Aug 21) saying that Nawab Zulfiqar Ali Magsi,
governor of Balochistan, had sent in his resignation, but Mr Zardari had asked him
to continue working. Another report had it that Nawab Raisani, the chief minister,
had gone to Islamabad and requested Zardari not to accept Magsi’s resignation.
Normally Mr Zardari, who holds no elective or appointive office, would have nothing
to do with the acceptance of a governor’s resignation. But it so happens that he
does: he has been directing the present government since his party took power five
months ago. One may then expect that he will do more of the same, and
unabashedly, when he comes to hold an office, and in this case that of the president
of Pakistan.

Moving on to another aspect of the matter, it may be argued that Mr Zardari, who
has recently advised us that covenants made with others need not be kept, does
not meet the constitutionally mandated conditions of eligibility for election to the
National Assembly (noted above), which a candidate for the presidency must also
have. He may be intelligent, even clever. But one’s imagination would have to be
stretched to preposterous limits for him/her to believe that Mr Zardari is a preserver
of Islamic virtues, righteous, trust worthy, sagacious and capable of personifying
this country’s honour. Yet, the PPP has named him as its candidate for the
presidency, and the ANP, MQM, JUI-F and some of the provincial assemblies have
endorsed his candidacy. I cannot claim to understand this show of support for Mr
Zardari’s ambition to occupy greater heights of power and glory. I have been
studying this country’s politics for some 40 years. I thought I understood it all. But
evidently there is an abominable streak in the culture of Pakistani politicians that I
had failed to see. ¦ The writer is professor emeritus of political science at the
University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 31.08.08

– What a bloody mess!

How ironic. Having reiterated time and time again over the past years that the then
president of Pakistan, Gen Pervez Musharraf, was (and remains) the best of the
worst lot, it was highly amusing to read in a column headed “Musharraf’s
“Musharraf’s Pakistan
had true potential”
potential” printed in the Boston Globe of Aug 26: “The“The sad thing is that
Musharraf was the best of the current lot.”
lot.” And how factual was an editorial in The
Independent (London) of the same day which opened up: “Even “Even by the notoriously
low standards of South Asian politics, Asif Ali Zardari, leader of the PPP, is a
compromised figure, dogged by corruption charges. So it is hard to be enthused by
the PPP’s decision to nominate its leader as the country’s next president.”
president.” This was
one day after the Financial Times had broken the news of the medical reports
compiled by two New Yorkbased psychiatrists, which had been filed in a London
court to support an application to delay corruption cases brought against him by the
Pakistan government. The diagnoses were delivered in March 2007 and successfully
served their purpose. The FT report opens “Asif“Asif Ali Zardari, the leading contender
for the presidency of nuclear-armed Pakistan, was suffering from severe psychiatric
problems as recently as last year, according to court documents filed by his
doctors.”
doctors.” The FT report has also been picked up and commented upon
internationally. Pakistan is in the news again to its detriment. “Presidential
“Presidential
candidate Zardari has been diagnosed instability”,
instability”, as suffering from “emotional
“emotional
memory loss and concentration problems, and major depressive disorder.” disorder.” These
court papers have caused alarm amongst the citizens of his country who question
his ability, and his fitness, to occupy the presidential chair.

In these past few days, I have been inundated with e-mails calling upon me to come
to the aid of the country and save it from Zardari. Little do they know what a
columnist can achieve — all he can do is save a few blind donkeys and some old
trees. Even were I to approach the courts, under the present circumstances, my
petition would be thrown out quicker than a wink of an eye. And the same goes for
the Election Commission. Citizens of Pakistan are, these days, wary of
‘consequences’. Now, constitutionally where does Zardari stand in view of the court-
backed doubts about his mental state? The president, under Article 41(2) is required
to be “qualified
“qualified to be elected as a member of the National Assembly”.
Assembly”. According to
Article 63(a) a person is disqualified to be a member of the National Assembly if “he“he
is of unsound mind and has been so declared by a competent court”.court”. The court in
London accepted the psychiatrists’ certificates and acted upon them. Zardari, if he
wishes to deny the diagnoses, must plead that the London court is incompetent and
that the psychiatrists were falsifying. We must go with an editorial of Aug 28 which
counselled that “It
“It would be unwise to dismiss the recent revelations about the
fragile state of Mr Asif Zardari’s mental health as irrelevant,”
irrelevant,” and asked “Does
“Does the
country really need another potentially deluded individual to lead it through these
troubled times?”
times?” Dementia, as any psychiatrist will confirm, is a progressive
disorder which usually does not remit with any known treatment. A combination of
major depressive disorder and post traumatic stress disorder can hamper memory
and judgment. This goes a long way towards explaining the recent Zardari string of
dishonoured signed agreements and broken promises.

As if the Zardari mental health state was not sufficient unto the day, news broke in
Europe and the US two days later about the release by Switzerland of assets
amounting to some $60m which were frozen in 1997 by a Geneva court
investigating allegations of kickbacks received by Zardari and Benazir Bhutto
between 1994 and 1997 (her second term as prime minister). In June, our attorney
general penned a letter to the Swiss prosecutor general informing him that neither
husband nor wife had done anything illegal and that the charges were politically
motivated (thank you, USA and Musharraf, for the NRO). The money laundering case
was dropped and Zardari is now richer than ever having pocketed a dubious $60m,
though the PPP leader vehemently denies receiving this amount. The investigating
judge in Geneva, Daniel Devaud, was flabbergasted. “It “It would be very difficult to
say that there is nothing in the files that shows there was possible corruption going
on after what I have seen in there. After I heard what the general prosecutor said, I
have a feeling we are talking about two different cases.”
cases.” Now, let us revert to our
mutilated almost incomprehensible constitution which as far as Article 62 goes is
clear. To qualify as a member of the National Assembly, and thus to be able to
contest the presidential election, a man must be “of“of good character and is not
commonly known as one who violates Islamic injunctions”,
injunctions”, and he must be
“sagacious, righteous and non-profligate and honest and ameen”.
ameen”. No further
comment is necessary. We must wonder how our armed forces feel about all this.
After all, the president is not only their supreme commander but he has his finger
on the nuclear button. Zardari and his sycophantic supine political party must ask
themselves if he truly qualifies to be a head of state. He has five days in which to
prove himself a patriot and a democrat. Democracy, no matter what the party
slogan may proclaim, is not a form of revenge and for him to carry through his
ambition (which he has nursed ever since he made up his mind to rid himself of
Musharraf) would be an act of vengeance upon his country and its people. Of the
three presidential candidates, Mushahid Hussain is by far the cleanest (the ‘best of
the worst’). I have suggested to him that, as a directly affected party, he go to the
courts immediately and at least attempt to obtain a stay order. The frightened
people of the world and the people of Pakistan will undoubtedly support his move.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal Lahore, Pakistan 31.08.08

– PPP stays put despite PML-N pleas

In spite of repeated calls from the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N), the
Pakistan People’s Party (PPP) has no plans to quit the coalition government in
Punjab. The PPP is also not going to move in Punjab against its former ally in the
central government, at least not before the presidential election on Sept 6. “Why
“Why
would we leave the government in Punjab? If they (the PMLN) don’t want us in the
coalition government they are free to throw us out,”
out,” a PPP minister in Punjab, who
refused to be identified because co-chairman Asif Zardari has stopped party leaders
from issuing statements against the PMLN, told Dawn on Saturday. “We “We will not stay
put if and when the PML-N tries to remove us from the government. We are not
living in the 1980s,”
1980s,” he said. The PPP has instructed its ministers in Punjab to stop
attending their offices. “That
“That does not mean we are quitting the government. We
have been told not to attend the office so that we can give more time to co-
chairman Asif Zardari’s campaign for presidential poll,”
poll,” the minister said. He said
the decision regarding the future of the coalition in Punjab will be taken after the
presidential election. Federal Information Minister Sherry Rehman was reported by a
TV channel to have stated that the decision on the fate of the PPP-PML-N coalition in
Punjab would be taken by the leaders of the two parties, Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mr
Zardari. Another provincial PPP leader, who also refused to be identified, said the
PML-N was able to form its government in Punjab only because “we “we decided to
support it. The PML-N did not have the numbers to form its government then; it
doesn’t have the numbers now to save it if we quit the coalition,”
coalition,” he said. “Just
“Just
remember one thing: we are not going to leave Punjab this time. Also, we don’t
intend to remove the Shahbaz government unless we are forced by the PMLN to do
so,”
so,” he said.

Since its separation from the multiparty coalition in the centre last Monday on the
issue of reinstatement of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary, the PML-N has been urging the
PPP to quit the Punjab government and sit on the opposition benches in the
provincial assembly. “We
“We are giving them (the PPP) an opportunity to quit the
Punjab government gracefully. After we left the coalition in the centre it looks very
embarrassing for both of us that we should have a coalition government in Punjab.
We are asking them to quit the Punjab government on their own in order to avoid
bitterness and the repeat of politics of confrontation as witnessed in the 1980s and
1990s,”
1990s,” PMLN information secretary Ahsan Iqbal told Dawn. In answer to a question,
Mr Iqbal said the PML-N had the option to “throw
“throw the PPP out of the government if it
did not act on its own and quit the provincial coalition. They should show moral
courage, quit ministries and play the role of a constructive opposition in line with
the letter and spirit of the Charter of Democracy. The charter spells out rules
regarding conduct and behaviour of each party in the opposition and not in the
government.”
government.” The PML-N Leader claimed that his party had sufficient numbers in
the assembly to defend its “right of government” in the province. “If“If the PPP tries to
remove our government in Punjab, we will resist the move,”
move ,” he said in reply to a
question. But he ruled out the possibility of the PPP taking any unconstitutional or
undemocratic step to dislodge the PML-N government and re-launch the bitterness
of the 1980s and 1990s in the presence of a strong civil society and free and
outspoken media.

Author Location Dated

Lahore, Pakistan 31.08.08

– Mushahid feels he is ‘better placed’ than Zardari

Syed Mushahid Hussain, the PML-Q candidate for the president’s office, on Saturday
pleaded for a “healing touch” for the country instead of dragging it back to “the
“the
dirty politics of the 90s”,
90s”, claiming he along with his party could do that. Addressing
a press conference after the parliamentary party meeting here at the residence of
Pervaiz Elahi, Mushahid made all kinds of right noises; providing healing touch for
the nation, avoiding petty politics, dealing with economic and energy crises and
importance of personal character of presidential candidates. Flanked by Pervaiz
Elahi, Shujaat Hussain, Ijazul Haq and Hamid Nasir Chattha, Mr Mushahid, ignoring
numerical weakness of his party, claimed it would be a straight fight between him
and Mr Asif Ali Zardari. Reiterating the challenge of a live TV debate he had earlier
thrown to Mr Zardari, he said let people know who stands where on different issues
confronting the nation. Mushahid also condescendingly ruled out chances of Mr
Saeeduzzaman Siddqui, a rival in the race for presidency, in spite of numerical
strength of PML-N both at the centre and Punjab, provoking a volley of hard
questions from journalists about his pattern of thinking. Explaining his stance, Mr
Mushahid said once his campaign took off, people would know his style of politics
and views on the issues confronting the nation.

In a bid to pitch himself on an equal footing with Mr Zardari in their race for
presidency, Mushahid referred to some recent surveys and opinion polls which he
said put him and PPP hopeful in ‘one-on-one fight’. He claimed these surveys gave
him (Mushahid) an edge over Mr Zardari because of “character,
“character, ability to
understand and delve on the issues of national importance and credible political
approach.” “Since it would be a secret ballot and colleagues forming the electoral
college would be voting according to their conscience rather than strict party
affiliations, it would give the better candidate an edge,”
edge,” he insisted. Without directly
criticising Mr Zardari and his politics, Mr Mushahid, exuding extreme confidence,
thought he would carry the day if “voters
“voters take it as a sacred trust and vote for
better person.”
person.” Nemesis has caught a few in politics too early, said Pervaiz Elahi,
and added: “Those
“Those terming the PML-Q Qatil (murderer) League or finished league
are now begging for its votes both at the centre and provinces. The politics of ego
has come crashing down in the last few days. They have now realised their
mistakes and are trying to correct the same. The party was in touch with both the
PPP and the PML-N, and the next few days would be decisive.” “The (PML-Q)
parliamentary party has discussed presidential election and post-election scenario.
The party stands united and would also welcome those colleagues back in its fold
who left it to join some blocks and are now repenting,”
repenting,” he said. About withdrawing
the candidature of Mr Mushahid Hussain, as rumors in the media suggest, Shujaat
said the party fielded its candidates despite a clear numerical disadvantage. It did
so to fight it out, not to withdraw it at the last moment, he added.

Author Location Dated

Martin Kettle London, England 31.08.08

– Why it could end in disaster for Democrats

Maybe it hardly bears thinking about the morning of November 5 if Barack Obama
has lost to John McCain the previous day. And it may seem perverse to think about
it at all on a day like today, when Obama yet again commands the stage. But let’s
try to do it, right now, partly because the closeness of the polls suggests a narrow
McCain win is a real possibility – partly because there has been so much underlying
nervousness, as well as renewed exhilaration, among Democrats in Denver this
week; and partly just out of common political prudence. So, why might McCain win
on November 4? I think there are five main reasons to consider. The first is that
these remain insecure times. The economic downturn has been very real in the US,
in spite of recent good growth figures. America’s fear of rising fuel prices remains a
potent electoral issue, laced as it now is with the fear that high oil prices are lining
the coffers of America’s enemies in places such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela.
American soldiers are fighting difficult wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. McCain has a
big poll lead on national security, foreign policy and ability to deal with a crisis.
Every Russian tank rumbling around the Caucasus is harvesting votes for McCain –
and the electorate may prefer to entrust the country to a leader with warrior
credentials than take a chance on a visionary neophyte.

The second reason why McCain might win is that this election is no longer about
George Bush. America in late 2008 has a president who is a member of the political
living dead. His name was barely mentioned at the Democratic convention this
week. Along with Dick Cheney he will make an early appearance at St Paul at the
Republican convention; after that, he’s out of it. And with him may go many of his
negatives. That leaves McCain some elbow room to fight the campaign his own way.
McCain is a tough campaigner. He is also a smart one. He could do well in the
televised debates. Compared with the midterms in 2006, the Democrats may find it
hard to make this an election about Bush. Which brings us to reason No 3. American
presidential elections are always close these days. Bush beat John Kerry with just 51
per cent of the popular vote in 2004 and was neck-and-neck with Al Gore in 2000. In
the electoral college Bush won by 286251 against Kerry and by 271-266 against
Gore. In the past four presidential elections – even the two that Bill Clinton won – no
Democratic candidate has ever polled more than 49 per cent. Democratic landslides
have not been in fashion since 1964. This year’s polls – in which Obama’s average
lead is now just 1.8 per cent – are beginning to point to yet another 50:50 election.
In these close races discipline, negative campaigning, and get-out the vote
organisation in the battleground states all matter. Over the years these have been
Republican strengths, not Democratic ones.

Recent polls also point to the fourth piece of good news for McCain: voters may be
suffering from Obama fatigue. Obama is still fighting a campaign that is centred on
self. His own story, his own vision and his own uniqueness are at the heart of his
message. He consciously takes the whole weight of the campaign on his own slim
shoulders, as he did again last night by taking his acceptance speech out of the
convention hall and into the local football stadium, where he spoke against a
backdrop of Greek pillars. Hubris? What if the nation that fell in love with Obama in
the first phase of his great campaign decides he is yesterday’s rock star as the real
election nears. I think Obama is well aware of this – but voters don’t just want big
vision and soaring oratory. The final reason is simply Obama’s race. The nomination
of a black man to be president is not something marginal but something massive. It
goes to the heart of whether America’s selfidentity is genuinely multiracial, or
whether, in spite of everything, it is still white. This election isn’t just about the
possibility of a black president, but the possibility of a black first family. It asks
white voters to see themselves embodied and represented by African-Americans,
and to vote to be led by black people. This is something bigger than electing a
woman leader would be, were that on offer. Race and slavery are America’s original
sin. The election of Obama would be, beyond question, one of the noblest gestures
of historical redemption that Americans have ever been called upon to make. But
that is precisely why it may not happen.

So if, on January 20 2009, it is McCain, not Obama, who stands in the winter’s air on
Capitol Hill to be sworn in as Bush’s successor, what would that mean for America
and the world? The first thing to say is not to exaggerate the domestic or even the
international impact; McCain would be the president of an already humbled, not
newly triumphalist, conservatism. The economy would dominate his agenda. The
next, umbilically linked point is to remember that McCain would have to work with a
Congress in which, on the same election day, the Democrats are likely to strengthen
their majority in the House of Representatives and secure firm control of the
Senate. He could very easily find himself a weak president. Yet there could be no
disguising the lessons for the Democrats, who would have lost three winnable
presidential contests in a row. If Obama loses, there will not be another African-
American nominee for at least a generation. Hillary Clinton might have the
consolation that she would become, overnight, the overwhelming favourite to finally
win the Democratic nomination in 2012. But who would bet against such a divisive
figure not extending the losing streak from three to four? It would begin to look as if
the only way of getting a Democrat into the White House would be as the result of
an armed uprising. All that would be as nothing to the global dismay that would
greet the election of President McCain. Much of the world would simply despair of
the American people – and so would many Americans. AntiAmericanism would have
a new recruiting sergeant, and global confidence in the democratic progressive
project would suffer a historic blow. November 5 would be a bonfire night of the
liberal vanities. I tend to think it won’t happen that way – but it certainly could. And
it may all be just 10 short weeks away.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
SEPTEMBER
2008
Lalany - HayaHbK ©
Kamaal K. Lalany
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
September 2008 of the DAWN
Compilation Series, put together by
Kamaal Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Michael Crowley Washington, D.C. 01.09.08

– McCain’s campaign is in danger of fracturing

Before their Denver extravaganza last week, Democrats feared their nominating
convention might dissolve into a gruesome riot of intramural conflict. The primary
season wounds between the Clinton and Obama camps had not fully healed and
some feared open fighting between the factions would overshadow Barack Obama’s
coronation. But after a somewhat unsure start, they averted disaster. Bill and Hillary
Clinton both rallied their supporters to Obama’s side with fullthroated
endorsements. And then came Obama’s stirring acceptance speech, with which
virtually no dazzled Democrats could find fault. For the Democrats, it was mission
accomplished. In truth, the talk of division was overblown. As the Time magazine
recently noted, today’s Democratic party is as unified as it has been in a
generation. The long-running feud between the party’s moderate and liberal wings
is dormant, with the liberals holding sway. Consensus reigns on nearly every key
policy question, from leaving Iraq to ending George W. Bush’s high-income tax cuts
to putting brakes on unfettered free trade. But look who’s divided now: the
Republicans. As John McCain heads for St Paul this weekend – with his photogenic
but almost comically inexperienced running mate, Sarah Palin, in tow – it is the GOP
that struggles to find real unity. John McCain now leads a party saddled with fierce
internecine disputes about everything from civil liberties to budget policy to
America’s role in the world. While these Republicans may lack a soap opera akin to
the Clinton-Obama psychodrama, their ideological stitching has come dangerously
loose. It is McCain’s challenge to ensure that the seams don’t burst open before the
election day.

How times have changed. During the first half of the Bush era, the Republican party
brooked about as much dissent as the North Korean Communist party. But nothing
breeds division like failure and the collapse of Bush Republicanism has a long list of
party factions pointing the finger at one another. Take social policy. The apex of
Republican power earlier in this decade was made possible by the enthusiasm of
Christian conservative voters reacting, in part, to the alleged moral decay of the
Clinton presidency. But once-reliable white evangelical voters are growing more
disaffected with the Republicans. They have not been rewarded, after all, with a
federal ban on gay marriage or real progress towards outlawing abortion. Nor do
they have much trust in McCain, who has never prioritised social issues in his career
and has clashed with the religious right. Earlier this year, in fluential Christian
leader Dr James Dobson vowed that: ‘I ‘I cannot and I will not vote for John McCain.’
McCain.’
McCain’s stunning choice of Alaska governor Sarah Palin, merely two years into her
first term and reportedly a visitor to just one foreign country (Ireland) before 2007,
was a step towards calming evangelicals: Palin might be unqualified for the job, but
she has a solid record of social conservatism, particularly on abortion. (Senior party
leaders, including Karl Rove, had to plead with McCain not to choose a pro-abortion
rights running mate, such as Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman or former
Pennsylvania senator Tom Ridge, lest open warfare result). But a dangerous breach
remains. Socially moderate Republicans are seeking to assert themselves. The
GOP’s Wall Street financial base has little interest in banning abortion or gay
marriage and, indeed, sees those crusades as a path to electoral exile. Hence,
evangelicals in St Paul will be subjected to a Tuesday night keynote speech by the
former New York mayor and presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, who urges his
party to be more accepting of abortion. Listen for the boos – their volume will hint at
whether religious conservatives understand that to prevail in November McCain
needs to appeal beyond the Republican party’s shrinking base, or whether they will
insist on self-destructive displays of radicalism.
Foreign policy? The realist wing of the GOP wants to beat back the influence of the
neoconservatives such as William Kristol who led the 2002-03 charge into Iraq. This
battle has played out in editorial pages, at Washington think-tanks and reportedly
among factions within McCain’s advisory circle. So far, the neocons seem to be
winning out, as McCain rattles his sabre at Iran and Russia and puts a heavy
emphasis on democracy promotion. But McCain’s tough talk does not come without
a cost, as evidenced by the warm words for Obama from leading foreign policy
moderates such as Nebraska senator Chuck Hagel. Some GOP leaders even fear
that former secretary of state Colin Powell, aghast at neocon foreign policy
influence, might not endorse McCain – and could possibly even proclaim his support
for Obama in a public relations disaster for the Republican nominee. Meanwhile,
those on the party’s growing neo-isolationist fringe can rally around the libertarian
hero Ron Paul, whose failed presidential primary campaign was largely premised on
his opposition to the Iraq War and which drew support from many traditional
conservatives. Unwelcome inside the Xcel Centre, Paul will stage a rally across the
river in next-door Minneapolis.

Author Location Dated

01.09.08

– Rupee still under pressure

In the local currency market, the rupee continued to remain under pressure versus
the American and European currencies due to political instability and weak
economic fundamentals. As presidential election drawing near, political uncertainty
is seen increasing. Shrinking foreign exchange reserves position and rising political
uncertainty have weakened the rupee in the past six months. Strong demand by the
importers in the absence of easy supply of dollars did not allow the rupee to hold its
weekend levels of Rs75.90 and Rs76 on the opening day of the week. The rupee lost
70 paisa against the US currency in the interbank market, changing hands at
Rs76.60 and Rs76.70. However, modest recovery in rupee value in relation to dollar
was observed on August 26, when the rupee gained 10 paisa on buying counter and
five paisa on selling counter to trade at Rs76.50 and Rs76.55. On August 27, the
rupee managed to hold its overnight firmness, extending further gains on easy
dollar supplies. It sharply recovered 35 paisa and traded at Rs76.15 and Rs76.20
against the dollar. The rupee firmness persisted on August 28, when it posted fresh
gains of 25 paisa, trading against the dollar at Rs75.90 and Rs75.95. However, after
displaying firm trend against the dollar for two successive days, the rupee again
assumed a declining trend on August 29, when it shed 30 paisa as a result of
importers’ demand for dollars and traded at Rs76.20 and Rs76.25. During the week
in review, the rupee in the interbank market lost 30 paisa on the buying counter
and 25 paisa on the selling counter on cumulative basis against the dollar.

In the open market, the week commenced on negative sentiments as the rupee
suffered a decline against the dollar, losing 70 paisa for buying and 20 paisa for
selling to trade at Rs76.20 and Rs76.70 on the first day of trading after having
closed previous week at Rs75.50 and Rs76.50. The downtrend in the rupee/dollar
parity persisted on the second trading day. The rupee posted another 30 paisa
decline versus the dollar on August 26, when the dollar was seen trading at Rs76.50
and Rs77.00. On August 27, the rupee, however, managed to recover some of its
overnight losses versus dollar and gained 45 paisa on buying and 70 paisa on
selling there by changing hands at Rs76.05 and Rs76.30. The rupee, after falling for
two successive days, managed to retain its strength over US dollar on August 28 by
gaining 55 paisa and changing hands at Rs75.50 and Rs75.80. But the recovery
proved short lived as the dollar rebound on August 29, gaining 20 paisa on buying
and 25 paisa on selling to close the day at Rs75.70 and Rs76.05, bringing
cumulative loss in the week to 20 paisa on the buying counter, while recovering 45
paisa on the selling counter.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee weakness persisted in the
local market on the first trading day, shedding further 110 paisa on buying and
another 145 paisa on selling to trade at Rs111.60 and Rs111.75 on August 25 after
having closed last week at Rs110.15 and Rs110.30. The down slide continued in
rupee value against the euro on August 26, with the rupee posting fresh losses to
the tune of 25 paisa to trade at Rs111.85 and Rs112.00. On August 27, the rupee
was unable to come out of its shrinking spell. It further lost 60 paisa in relation to
euro, changing hands at Rs111.25 and Rs111.40. However, it managed to rebound
on August 28, recovering 30 paisa on its overnight levels to trade at Rs110.95 and
Rs111.10 before posting five paisa decline on August 29, when euro traded at
Rs111 and Rs111.15.This week, the rupee lost 85 paisa against the European single
common currency, amid fluctuations.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 02.09.08

– Will Democrats rescue Pakistan?

The US Democratic Party now has its ticket for the elections of Nov 2008. If the
ticket succeeds and Barack Obama and Joe Biden are elected to become the next
pair of leaders of the United States, what will it mean for Pakistan? Pakistan still
remains dependent on American largesse. In spite of the significant structural
change that has occurred in global finance, Pakistan will remain tied to Washington
in order to receive the resources it needs desperately to prevent its economy from
collapsing. Will the ObamaBiden administration rescue Pakistan? Will the
Democratic administration be better for Pakistan than one headed by Senator John
McCain? Let me get the McCain-Pakistan question out of the way before discussing
the likely Pakistan policy of the Obama-Biden administration. The McCain
administration will remain obsessed with the issue of terrorism and its impact on
the security of the United States. In this respect, John McCain will basically follow
the approach of the Bush-Cheney era, putting aside all other concerns. For McCain
the ‘war on terror’ remains the central concern in relations between America and its
allies in both the developed and developing parts of the world. He will also follow a
muscular foreign policy as indicated by his response to the Russian involvement in
Georgia. If pronouncements by the leaders are to be treated as providing some
guidance to their conduct in office, it can be said with some certainty that the
Obama-Biden administration will follow a different approach. This will have
enormous consequences for Pakistan. What will be the approach, what will be its
consequences, and how should Pakistani policymakers position themselves are
some of the questions that deserve serious reflection in Islamabad.

Senators Obama and Biden have approached Pakistan from two different angles.
The former has looked at it from the perspective of the American war in
Afghanistan. Obama believes, and for good reason, that Washington should not
have gotten involved in Iraq. When it did it diverted its attention away from
Afghanistan and allowed the situation there to deteriorate. He wants to pull the
Americans out of Iraq as soon as such a withdrawal is practical and get more fully
engaged in Afghanistan. He does not seem to be happy with the way Islamabad has
conducted military operations against Al Qaeda and the resurgent Taliban on its
side of the border. At one point he declared that he would not hesitate to send
American troops into Pakistani territory if such a move was warranted by
developments on the ground. His approach, in other words, focused on the military
aspects of the solution to the Al Qaeda-Taliban problem. It was after this
declaration, which was understandably not well received in Pakistan, that he
travelled to Afghanistan and met President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. He has not
spoken in any kind of detail on that subject since his visit but it can be assumed
that the Afghan president must have encouraged him to pursue that line of
thinking. For Karzai blaming Pakistan for his troubles has been a convenient way of
camouflaging his failure to stabilise his country. Senator Joe Biden has approached
the Pakistan problem from an entirely different angle. He has focused on the need
to economically stabilise the second largest Muslim country in the world. Working
with Senator Richard Lugar, the senior-most Republican member of the Foreign
Relations Committee that Biden heads, he has tabled a resolution that aims to
provide Pakistan with $1.5bn a year of economic assistance for at least five years,
perhaps even 10 years. This amount will be spent on Pakistan’s social and economic
development in a way that the rewards of economic growth reach the poorer
segments of the population and poorer regions of the country. The Biden-Lugar
approach is premised on three assumptions: that economic deprivation is a major
reason for growing extremism in the Muslim world, that Pakistan is central to the
problem of Islamic extremism, and that Pakistan does not have resources of its own
to get the country’s economy moving in the right direction.

I have no doubt that once the Obama-Biden administration is in place there will be
much greater emphasis on economic and social development as a way of fighting
Islamic extremism than on the use of force. The Biden approach will prevail. This
should be welcome to Islamabad. However, in the discussions I have had with
various people involved in developing positions for the Democratic administration,
there is some scepticism about Pakistan’s ability to proceed on that course. The
neglect of the economy by the new set of leaders in Islamabad has not increased
the confidence of the policy and opinion-makers in Washington. They are not
convinced that Pakistan fully understands the real nature of the problem it faces on
the economic and social fronts. With some Pakistani leaders scurrying around the
globe trying to raise funds for bailing out the country from its current predicament,
it can be suggested that the emphasis is on applying the band-aid once again rather
than on finding a lasting solution to the country’s economic problems. What is it
that Islamabad must do to restore confidence among the people in the world of
finance and in the political arena in Washington that it has the ability and the
expertise to strategise for developing its economy and its society in a way that
would bring its young people into the economic mainstream rather than let them
drift into extremism? This is not a hard question to answer. The answer has three
components. First, there must be a demonstrated ability to plan for the future.
Second, there is the need to focus the state’s attention on building institutions in
the areas of both economics and politics that would help to secure a better future
for all citizens. Third, there also the need to give a clear signal to the world that
Pakistan wishes to join the community of nations as a partner rather than continue
to operate from the margin as a force for disruption. With the change in its own
leadership and with change about to occur in Washington in the next few months,
Pakistan may have the opportunity to correct the course on which it has been
moving for many months. This opportunity must not be lost. This has been a
constant refrain in many contributions I have made to this space. Sometimes the
message needs to be repeated.

Author Location Dated

AFP St. Paul, Minnesota 02.09.08

– Unmarried daughter’s pregnancy Palin’s revelation stuns

Republicans
Republican vice presidential pick Sarah Palin revealed on Monday that her 17-year-
old unmarried daughter is pregnant, in the latest bombshell to rock the Hurricane
Gustav-curtailed Republican convention. The surprise choice of Palin as White
House hopeful John McCain’s running mate last week electrified the Republican
Party’s social conservative base, in particular evangelical Christians who had been
reluctant to back McCain. On Monday Palin, a 44-year old mother of five and an
outspoken abortion foe, shook up the election campaign again by revealing that her
teenage daughter was pregnant and planning to marry the baby’s father. “Our “Our
beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would
make her grow up faster than we had ever planned,”
planned,” she said in a statement with
her husband Todd. “We’re
“We’re proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby and even
prouder to become grandparents. As Bristol faces the responsibilities of adulthood,
she knows she has our unconditional love and support,”
support,” they said. “Bristol
“Bristol and the
young man she will marry are going to realize very quickly the difficulties of raising
a child, which is why they will have the love and support of our entire family. “We
ask the media to respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has always been the
tradition of children of candidates.”
candidates.” Pailin, the governor of Alaska, was holed up in
the convention city St Paul on Monday with no public engagements scheduled.
McCain earlier flew into Philadelphia, as he monitored the fallout from Hurricane
Gustav, which was hammering the Louisiana coast and prompted the Republican
candidate to severely curtail the convention’s opening day.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 03.09.08

– Gilani vows to do away with 17th Amendment

Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani reiterated on Tuesday the People’s Party
commitment to do away with the 17th Amendment, saying that national institutions
would be made supreme. In his first appearance in the Senate, the prime minister
assured the house that the new president would abide by constitutional
requirements and would not hesitate to address the joint session of parliament. Mr
Gilani urged the Taliban and other militant groups to shun militancy and return to
the mainstream. He promised ‘complete amnesty’ for those who laid down their
arms. He said he considered the Taliban as ‘brothers’ and urged them to lay down
their arms and work for development of the country. The prime minister said he
would arrange an in-camera briefing for lawmakers by the army chief so that they
could understand the gravity of the situation. He said the PPP government was
sincere in its commitment to restoring the pre-Nov 3 judiciary, but it would be done
in keeping with the Constitution. Mr Gilani said that reinstatement of the judges was
a part of the PPP manifesto and Benazir Bhutto also wanted to see the judges back
in their positions. He said the country was facing two major challenges -- law and
order and economic downslide. He regretted the kidnapping of Chinese engineers,
saying that such an act had been committed despite Pakistan having most cordial
relations with China. Mr Gilani said the unutilised quota of 6,700 jobs for Balochistan
would be filled under a special arrangement. He said he would convene a
conference of Ulema to end Shia-Sunni violence in Parachinar. He accused foreign
elements of fuelling the sectarian strife.

Earlier, senators in their speeches called for steps for a peaceful settlement of tribal
feuds, political stability and change in foreign policy. Calling the NRO a ‘shameful
‘shameful
document’,
document’, Prof Khurshid Ahmed of Jamaat-i-Islami said that those exonerated
under the ordinance needed to clear themselves from courts of law. Ishaq Dar of
the PMLNawaz said the 17th Amendment should be repealed as early as possible.
He urged the prime minister to announce reinstatement of all deposed judges on
the floor of the house as he had done in March by ordering their release. “If“If eight
judges of the Sindh High Court could be restored by a notification why can’t it be
done with all the deposed judges?”
judges?” Mr Dar wondered. Maulana Gul Naseeb of the
JUI-F urged the government to convene a multi-party conference to discuss the
unrest in the NWFP and suggest measures to overcome it. Earlier, two separate
adjournment motions moved by Senators Maulana Gul Naseeb, Professor Khurshid,
Professor Ibrahim, Dr Kausar Firdaus and others were clubbed by the chair to
discuss the situation in Bajaur, Swat and other areas of the NWFP. The movers said
that due to the military operation in tribal areas, hundreds of thousands of people
had been displaced and a large number of them were forced to live in relief camps.
“The government must concentrate on these areas and ensure its writ prevails,”
prevails,” Mr
Naseeb said. He said the foreign policy should be discussed in parliament.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza/Amin Islamabad/Rawalpindi, 03.09.08
Ahmed Pakistan

– Profit comes first, piety second

Prices of consumer items increased sharply
in the markets of Islamabad and Rawalpindi
on the first day of Ramazan, reflecting the
helplessness of the price regulators and the
lust for profit of the business community.
Items particularly in demand during
Ramazan were available at government-
fixed prices only at the Sasta bazaars (fair
price markets) set up by the local
administrations in the two cities but at the
cost of quality, according to buyers. In the
retail markets, however, prices of
vegetables, fruits, poultry and other kitchen
items were determined by the wholesalers
who saw an opportunity in the greater demand for these items during Ramazan to
maximize their profits. Local administrations’ assurances to control such
profiteering turned out to be tall claims. Prices of vegetables and fruits jumped by
as much as 50 per cent in the open markets in Rawalpindi and Atta was in short
supply all over the city. Dawn tried to get a comment on the situation from
Rawalpindi Market Committee’s secretary Ms Kiran Joseph but every time was told
by her office that she was “out
“out on a market survey”.
survey”. Islamabad’s Deputy
Commissioner Amir Ali Ahmad, however, acknowledged the problems faced by
shoppers in the Sasta bazaars in the federal capital on the first day of Ramazan. “It
“It
was the first day. We know the problems now and will overcome them in a day or
two,”
two,” he said when told about the poor quality of items sold in G-7 Sasta bazaar.
“Some 50 traders had applied for stalls in the bazaar but only 20 set up their stalls
on the first day. Others seemed to have preferred to watch how the business went
on the first day. Now they are eager to set their stalls,”
stalls,” the deputy commissioner
told Dawn.

Though the rates of fruits, vegetables and meat were considerably lower in Sasta
Bazaar as compared to the open market, it has been observed that there are some
problems which need to be addressed urgently. Consumers complained that the
quality of food stuff was not as good as available at retail shops in different
markets. The local administration claimed that it would ensure sale of good quality
food on Wednesday. “It’s
“It’s not a profitable business from traders’ point of view to run
a stall in Sasta Bazaar, but we are encouraging them so that more vendors come
and have a positive competition, triggering a further decrease in prices,”
prices,” the deputy
commissioner said. It was observed that despite mentioning the rates of meat –
mutton and beef – in the official price list displayed in the bazaar, no meat stall was
operating on the first day. A limited stock of chicken was brought to the bazaar that
was sold out within a few hours. Like many other consumer items, the rate of
chicken was also quite low as it was selling in Sasta Bazaar at Rs100 per kg against
its open market rate of Rs120 per kg. The local administration assured that both
beef and mutton would be available in the bazaar from Wednesday. The rate of
mutton and beef mentioned in the price list was also quite less than that prevailing
in the open markets, as the price of mutton in Sasta Bazaar would be Rs250 per kg
against its retail market price ranging between Rs300 and Rs350. Similarly, beef will
be sold at Rs110 in the bazaar whereas its retail price is Rs170 per kg. Wheat flour
was also selling at reduced rate (Rs300 per 20kg) in Sasta Bazaar but there was
short supply of the commodity. “Actually
“Actually we didn’t know how much bags will be
required, therefore, we brought limited quantity,”
quantity,” the owner of a flour stall holder
said. Some of the visitors, who had come to the bazaar from far-off areas, asked the
local administration to set up such markets in other parts of the federal capital so
that more and more people could benefit from the relief. The local administration
also launched a campaign against profiteers and during surprise raids magistrates
imposed fines amounting to Rs23,600 on 50 shopkeepers. Three traders were
arrested from F-10 Markaz. They were identified as Adnan Abbasi, Jehangir and
Yasir.

A comparison between prices of kitchen items in Sasta Bazaar and open market
showed a marked difference as potatoes were selling in the bazaar at Rs130 per
5kg against their market rate of Rs160 per 5kg. Similarly, onion was available at
Rs165 per 5kg in the bazaar and it was being sold at Rs180 per 5kg at retail level.
The price of tomatoes in Sasta Bazaar was Rs34 per kg against the open market
rate of Rs40 pr kg. Ginger was sold at Rs75 per kg in the bazaar against its retail
price of Rs120 per kg. A decrease of Rs22 was observed in the price of garlic in
Sasta Bazaar as it was selling there at Rs38 per kg and its market price was Rs60
per kg. The rate of lemons was Rs65 per kg against the retail price of Rs80 per kg.
Chillies were available at Rs26 per kg against the market price of Rs36 per kg.
Fruits were also selling at cheaper rates in the Sasta Bazaar as the rate of bananas
there was Rs23-48 per dozen against their market price of Rs60 per dozen. Apples
were being sold in Sasta Bazaar at Rs45 per kg and at retail level they were
available at Rs60-70 per kg. Grapes were available at the all-time high price of
Rs200 per kg at retail shops, while their rate in Sasta Bazaar was Rs88 per kg.
Peaches were sold at Rs38 per kg in the Sasta Bazaar against their market rate of
Rs60 per kg.

All arrangements made by the City District Government Rawalpindi (CDGR) to keep
the prices of eatables items stable turned out to be a futile exercise on the very first
day of Ramazan. It seemed that the administration left the people at the mercy of
wholesalers who left no stone unturned to aggravate the miseries of the people
already hit hard by the ever-increasing inflation. The market committee, which
keeps its finger on the pulse of wholesale market rates for vegetables, fruits, poultry
and other kitchen items, appeared ineffective as the rates jumped overnight by at
least 50 per cent. Shortage of wheat flour was felt in many parts of the city, though
the commodity was available at outlets like Sasta Bazaars and fair-price shops set
up by the Punjab government. Among the fruits whose prices have gone up were
grapes, banana, guava, apples, water melons, peaches and mangoes.Grapes now
cost between Rs130-Rs150 per kg and banana Rs50-60 per dozen. Likewise, the
rate of apples, guava, watermelon and peaches shot up by at least 30 per cent.
Prices of vegetables also rose in the same fashion. In Rawalpindi, brisk shopping by
people was witnessed at outlets of the Utility Stores Corporation and the Canteen
Stores Department and other markets in the city.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 03.09.08
om

– No more Mr Sonia Gandhi

“Meet Mr Sonia Gandhi.”
Gandhi.” That, reportedly, was how Sherry Rehman introduced
visitors to Asif Ali Zardari back in February, suggesting that he would remain in the
political shadows. Many of us feared the illusion was temporary. Our suspicions
were confirmed once it became clear that Zardari was the string-puller-in chief.
When he showed little interest in joining the parliamentary wing of the Pakistan
People’s Party — but ensured that his sister Faryal Talpur, hitherto a political non
entity, won the by-election from Benazir Bhutto’s ancestral Larkana seat — it
became fairly obvious that he was aiming higher than the prime ministerial slot. By
then the fatuousness of the Sonia Gandhi analogy was all too obvious. Sonia Gandhi
was offered the leadership of the Congress party after her husband, Rajiv, was
blown up by a terrorist in 1991. She had the good sense to refuse, and
notwithstanding Narasimha Rao’s defects, it was never reasonable to perceive him
as primarily a Gandhi family puppet. The Italian-born Sonia was, many years later,
prevailed upon to grasp the party reins, but when the Congress was returned to
power she was evidently not tempted to head the government. Her wise move did
not spell the end of dynastic politics in India, but whatever Manmohan Singh’s flaws
may be — and there are many — he does not come across as a proxy prime
minister. Unlike Yousuf Raza Gilani. Wielding power behind the scenes was,
however, not good enough for Zardari. Barring a last-minute withdrawal from the
race, he will be voted in next Saturday as Pakistan’s next head of state. His
endeavour has enthusiastically been endorsed not just by the PPP — the party’s
tradition of obsequiousness goes back to the days of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was
notoriously intolerant of dissent — but by allies ranging from the ethnically
exclusive to the fundamentally flawed. The two exceptions are variations on the
Muslim League: Nawaz Sharif’s PML N, which accuses Zardari of ignoring his
commitments, and the proMusharraf PML-Q, which appears to have resisted the
importunations of Punjab governor Salman Taseer, an outstanding PPP opportunist
who served as a Musharraf acolyte before launching his unsuccessful effort to
ensure that Zardari faces no rivals on Sept 6.

It is impossible not to entertain serious qualms about the prospect of President

Zardari. The PPP co-chairman’s incredibly erratic behaviour over the past six
months was, arguably, put in perspective by last week’s Financial Times report that
suggested “the
“the leading contender for the presidency of nucleararmed Pakistan was
suffering from severe psychiatric problems as recently as last year”.
year”. The British
newspaper cited documents filed by Zardari’s doctors to keep him out of a British
court on corruption charges, which said he had been diagnosed, inter alia, with
“dementia, major depressive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder”
disorder” following
his final release from a Pakistani prison. Zardari had, by then, spent a total of 11
years behind bars. During that period he is said to have faced death threats and
torture. The multiplicity of charges against him weren’t conclusively proven. Clearly,
no human being ought to be subjected to such an ordeal. At the same time,
someone who has suffered the consequences ought not to aspire for a position of
supreme power. If he is unable to determine his competence in this respect, it is
incumbent upon his colleagues to come to the aid of the party. That would appear
to be an unreasonable prospect in view of the report in The Sunday Times this week
to the effect that Zardari “has
“has purged almost all of his wife’s top advisors from the
party”.
party”. In so far as the Times named only Benazir’s long-time secretary Naheed
Khan and her husband, Safdar Abbasi, this hardly qualified as news: it was obvious
soon after Benazir Bhutto’s assassination last December that Naheed Khan — who
knows a great deal that has not become public knowledge, and therefore ought to
be guarded, not in her comments but in terms of her personal safety — had been
sidelined.

The suggestion from Sindh home minister Zulfikar Mirza that negligence on the part
of Khan and Abbasi accounted for the success of Benazir’s assassins is patently
absurd, but it is noticeable that it was Amin Fahim (a potential Narasimha Rao)
rather than Zardari who pointed this out. Khan, meanwhile, noted: “Mr
“Mr Rehman
Malik was the security advisor. Second in charge was Zulfikar Mirza. I don’t know
why these people have been rewarded.”
rewarded.” We don’t know either, but there’s plenty of
room for conjecture. Zardari, meanwhile, also featured in an interesting report in
The New York Times,
Times, which said that he was being advised by Zalmay Khalilzad, the
Afghan-born US ambassador to the United Nations, who has served as the empire’s
proconsul in Kabul and Baghdad. Khalilzad apparently was planning to meet him in
Dubai when the State Department put a kibosh on the plans, because it did not wish
to be seen as supporting any particular candidate in Pakistan’s presidential election.
To the State Department’s consternation, Khalilzad has maintained contacts in
Kabul and wishes eventually to replace Karzai. He was apparently close to Benazir
and evidently wouldn’t object to her widower taking over as the chief honcho in
Islamabad. The State Department’s objections do not necessarily mean that his
freelance diplomacy does not enjoy George W. Bush’s imprimatur.

Zardari, meanwhile, has been quoted as saying that he bears no ill will towards the
Supreme Court judges who remain to be restored. However, in an interview to the
BBC some months ago, he had no qualms about registering his antipathy towards
deposed Supreme Court justice Iftikhar Chaudhry, the prospect of whose return to
the bench has scuttled the coalition between the PPP and the PML-N. Lately the
suggestion has been put out that the foreign power which facilitated Pervez
Musharraf’s ouster remains adamantly opposed to Chaudhry’s reinstatement. Does
that mean the restoration of an independent judiciary has been held back by the
US? And, if so, what does it tell us about the level of Pakistan’s sovereignty? The
operation in the northern areas has been put on hold for the duration of Ramazan,
perhaps chiefly to facilitate Islamist support for Zardari next Saturday — given that
Taseer failed in his endeavour to arrange an unopposed election. There appears to
be no recognition of the factor that indiscriminate bombardment is bound to swell
the ranks of the Taliban, apart from creating thousands of refugees. The potential
redeeming features of a Zardari presidency are difficult to enumerate, apart from
the fact that his status will thenceforth match his power, if the post retains the
privileges that have accrued under military dictatorship. As a consequence,
Pakistan’s future seems even more fraught than before. ¦ The writer is a
journalist based in Sydney

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 03.09.08

– The president’s roadmap

It’s Asif’s transition now. While the compact with Nawaz lasted it was hard to sort
out which ideas belonged to whom and who wanted what in the transition to
democracy. But with Nawaz gone there’s no doubt about who is conducting the
choir now — and he will own whatever it produces, discordant or otherwise. The
separation from Nawaz is itself the first clue of Asif’s roadmap. Nawaz has
enunciated a very clear strategy to effect the transition to democracy: reform first;
consolidation later. Musharraf out, CJ Iftikhar in, the Seventeenth Amendment
repealed and a non-politician president elected is Nawaz’s answer to the riddle of
democracy. Asif has chosen the reverse: consolidation first; reform later. So far
Asif’s transition strategy has been to negotiate with the establishment and
incrementally consolidate his power. The ascension to the presidency, planned or
not, is one of the final steps in the programme to plant democracy’s — in Asif’s
case, the PPP’s — flag in the key constitutional offices of the state. When Kayani’s
term expires in two years, an unamended constitution will give Asif the right to put
his man in the COAS seat. What will be left is the progressive installation of Asif’s
handpicked judges to the superior judiciary — with the nod of his governor buddies
and chief justices. Cynics will argue — with some merit — that the difference
between Asif’s and Nawaz’s strategy is about 30 seats in parliament. If the majority
shoe was on Nawaz’s foot he would have acted differently. At least three facts
support this argument: Nawaz ditched the APDM to fight the elections; Shahbaz is
coexisting in Punjab with the Lahore High Court and the Punjab governor, remnants
of the ancien régime that Nawaz loathes; and the N-League ministers took an oath
from Musharraf.

But while political expediency may have pushed Asif and Nawaz into opposing
camps, it doesn’t mean what is expedient for the majority party is what is best for
the transition. The Nawaz route has some merit. There is only a small window of
opportunity for deep, structural change to be effected and that window may have
already passed. Seventeen amendments in a 35-year old constitution can be
misleading; amendments are notoriously difficult to pull off without a decisive
single-party majority in parliament. The decade of democracy is proof enough of
how mightily a minority government struggles to achieve constitutional change,
even if it’s in the collective interest of all politicians. Besides, the constitution is not
so easily shoved aside, four dictators and five sacked prime ministers
notwithstanding. When Musharraf took over, despite the abject state of politics he
did not have a carte blanche. The canny Sharifuddin Pirzada knew this, so he put up
Musharraf as chief executive rather than chief martial law administrator. Now, with
an unrestrained media always on the lookout for a new villain, the next self-
appointed saviour will have an even smaller space in which to operate. The next
time around it will not be only the gate of the PTV headquarters that will have to be
scaled but of dozens of media outlets. So if the constitution had been cleaned up
first, the spruced up, more democratic version would have had many fierce
defenders were it to come under attack again.

Meanwhile, Asif’s strategy of consolidating power, while certainly easier than

ramming through structural reform at the outset, is not without its pitfalls. Trying to
draw anti-democratic forces into a tight embrace before slipping a knife quietly in
their backs is difficult when they know the knife is coming. The establishment is
genuinely paranoid about the PPP — Musharraf made an extraordinarily frank
admission about the army high command’s dislike of it — so it puts in doubt how
real the consolidation of power through the accumulation of offices can be. Then
there is the fact that Asif is uniquely unqualified for the job. Forget the dementia
and corruption — that’s red meat for the media. Foreign policy is Asif’s Achilles
heel. The obituary of BB’s first term is littered with references to no-confidence
votes, Changa Manga, unrest in Sindh and non-legislation. Two other notable events
coincided with BB’s ouster though: the first Gulf war and sabre-rattling with an India
angered by the militancy in Kashmir. In those fraught times a babe in a scarf was
judged the wrong symbol of Pakistani power, especially with the Beg-GIK combine
at hand. Today, a grinning Asif may suffer the same fate as his wife once did.
Kashmir is on a knife-edge again; genuine grassroots dissatisfaction with New Delhi
has even led the nationalistic Indian media to debate azaadi for Kashmir. The
militants will be straining at the leash and some myopic handler may think it’s a
good idea to distract them from the pursuit of the Americans in Afghanistan. India
has been snapping about cross-LoC violations for months and every scraped knee it
suffers in Afghanistan is blamed on the ISI. One Mayankote Kelath Narayanan has
called for the agency’s destruction. Typical Indian hyperbole you may think — but
Mr Narayanan happens to be the national security advisor to the prime minister of
India.
Then there is the obvious mess in the tribal areas and the fury of the Americans,
Brits, Australians, French, Canadians — the list is endless. That’s a pretty important
group of people for Pakistan to be on the wrong side of. And, if that wasn’t enough,
the Bushies appear determined to go after Iran — and it’s not clear that Obama or
McCain won’t if the Bushies don’t. What qualifies Asif to steer the country through
these crises? Unless you count being married to BB — nothing, zilch, nada. So Asif’s
consolidation may be all for naught if these forces keep closing in. There is an
additional problem with the consolidation strategy: where does it stop? Already talk
is centred on Punjab and a putsch led by the Taseer-Wattoo combine there against
Shahbaz. The vicious, eat-or-beeaten-first logic of consolidation is actually its own
undoing. The Musharraf-ouster proved mercifully short because Musharraf blinked
first. Going to the mattresses over Punjab — that is, an all-out war — will plunge the
centre in crisis again and half of Asif’s successor’s speech on PTV will have written
itself. No doubt Nawaz must behave himself in Punjab. But Asif must accept that the
bigger you are the bigger will be the target on your back. When — if — the time
comes, Asif must turn the other cheek, not as an act of selflessness but as a
calculated act of selfishness. If Asif wants to build a PPP empire, he can’t be
consumed by fire fighting. An escalating game of political whack-a-mole — always
reacting, always behind, never leading — eventually consumes the player.
player.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 03.09.08

– Of lobsters, whales and the Taliban

One of the joys of being on the eastern coast of Canada is the availability of
lobsters. Some time back we were invited to a lobster boil on the beach to celebrate
our friend Giles Walker’s daughter Kaisa’s engagement, and each guest had one of
the delicious crustaceans with lemon-butter sauce, apart from an array of salads
and pies. The meal was followed by fireworks, and a long tramp along a forest trail
to return to our cars parked half a mile away. Earlier in the day, we had gone on a
whale-watching expedition on a fast Zodiac speedboat called the Fundy Tide
Runner. Although there was some fog, we did spot a few finback and humpback
whales. With the engines switched off, we listened for the gentle giants in the mist,
and the eerie “whoosh!” of their distinctive exhalation pointed the way to the spot
they had surfaced. Although some of these creatures attain lengths of over 50 feet,
they accept the proximity of humans without any sign of aggression. In order to
ensure that they are not harassed or disturbed while they feed, the government has
enacted a law to prevent whale-watchers from approaching closer than 100 metres.
Recently, a fisherman was fined $100,000 for piloting his speedboat through a pod
of whales. Several species of these magnificent creatures migrate over great
distances to spend the summer in nearby Fundy Bay which teems with food. The
tides here rise faster than anywhere else in the world, and this vast, rapid
movement of water sucks up nutrients from the bottom, attracting smaller fish and
krill. These in turn serve to pull in large number of predators, including the giants of
the deep. Apart from whales, we regularly see porpoises, seals and seabirds of
various kinds.

In this calm solitude of Passamaquoddy Bay, I was as far as it was possible to get
from the messy politics of Pakistan. Or so I thought. When Dave, our captain,
discovered I was a Pakistani, he asked: “So
“So what do you think about Musharraf’s
resignation?”
resignation?” When I first went abroad to Paris where my father was working at
UNESCO in 1956, I was 12, and was constantly being asked where Pakistan was.
This was a source of great annoyance, and it irked me to have to reply that it was a
new country carved out of India. Now, the whole world knows exactly where it is,
and not necessarily for the right reasons. Hardly a day goes by without some news
of fresh disaster in or around Pakistan making the provincial dailies where I have
been these last six weeks. Several well-informed friends who are spending the
summer here – one of them a Canadian senator; another a Harvard professor – have
been asking me how the meltdown in Afghanistan and Pakistan can be stopped.
Frankly, I have been hard-pressed to give them any assurance that the looming
disaster can be averted. The tools that are needed seem to be beyond our grasp. A
national consensus, strong leadership, international cooperation and political will
are even more essential than weapons and helicopters in our existential fight
against extremism. To foreigners, there is no difference between Afghan Taliban
and Pakistani Taliban, and in fact, there is none. Both are fighting to overturn the
governments in Islamabad and Kabul, and impose their bleak, medieval systems
over the two countries. So why, ask my friends, can’t the leaders of Pakistan and
Afghanistan coordinate efforts and resources to fight the common foe? While the
question is both legitimate and logical, the reply is convoluted, touching as it does
on geopol itics, history and regional rivalries.

As I have argued in this newspaper before, a problem with Pakistani military

planning is that it has traditionally been oriented towards India. This is reflected in
our army’s deployment, its training and its indoctrination. Generations of officers
and jawans have been brainwashed into considering India as the arch-enemy out to
destroy Pakistan. To transform this mindset takes time, and thus far, there is little
evidence to indicate that the military high command has undertaken a thorough
review of its threat assessment. Bartle Bull is an American writer who has spent a
lot of time in Iraq since the war began, and has written extensively on the subject.
Recently, he wrote an oped piece for the New York Times,
Times, arguing that as the war in
Afghanistan could not be won, all the US should be doing is to make sure that it isn’t
lost either. For this purpose, he suggested a military programme to train the Afghan
army, combined with economic assistance, but not a major fighting force. In his
strategy, the Americans would support the Afghans with their air force, but not with
boots on the ground. I have disagreed earlier with Bartle over his pro-Bush views.
When I met him the other evening, I suggested that while his proposals for
Afghanistan might fit in with narrow, short-term American goals, they went against
regional and global interests. While victory might be difficult, the world cannot
afford a return of the Taliban to Kabul as Afghanistan would become a centre for
global jihad once more. A combination of a dysfunctional Pakistan and a radicalised
Afghanistan would be a disaster for the whole world, and not just for the region. US
interests would be particularly at risk. With a new government about to emerge in
Washington, and another to hopefully become established in Islamabad, there is an
opportunity to review the situation. Clearly, the strategy and tactics being followed
by both have failed. And as we in Pakistan have seen time and again, we cannot
have a separate peace. The Taliban and their ilk do not feel obliged to keep their
word when dealing with what they view as anti-Islamic forces. They want nothing
less than total power. Unfortunately, even thinking Pakistanis do not realise that we
are in a battle for survival. The notion that we are fighting ‘America’s war’ is being
driven by the reactionary media and religious parties in Pakistan, and threatens to
erode the will to fight. Perhaps we will realise what we have let themselves in for
when the priceless artefacts in our museums are destroyed, just as the magnificent
statues of Buddha were in Bamiyan by the Taliban. Above all, this is our war, and it
is a conflict we must win if we are to avoid sliding backwards into the stone age.

Author Location Dated

AP Philadelphia 03.09.08

– McCain rules out review of Palin’s candidature

Republican presidential candidate John McCain says he is satisfied that Sarah Palin’s
background was properly checked before the Alaska governor became his vice
presidential running-mate. “The
“The vetting process was completely thorough and I’m
grateful for the results,”
results,” McCain told reporters as he toured a Philadelphia fire
house. Questions about the review came up after news surfaced that Palin’s
unmarried teenage daughter, Bristol, is pregnant, and that the Alaska governor has
retained a private attorney to represent her in an investigation into the firing of the
state public safety commissioner. The lawyer who conducted the background review
said Palin voluntarily told McCain’s campaign about Bristol’s’ pregnancy, and about
her husband’s two-decade old DUI arrest during questioning as part of the vice
presidential search process. The Alaska governor also greatly detailed the dismissal
of the state’s public safety commissioner that has touched off a legislative
investigation, Arthur B. Culvahouse Jr. told The Associated Press in an interview on
Monday. Palin underwent a “full“full and complete”
complete” background examination before
McCain chose her as his running mate, Culvahouse said. Asked whether everything
that came up as a possible red flag during the review already has been made
public, he said: “I
“I think so. Yeah, I think so. Correct.”
Correct.” McCain’s campaign has been
trying to tamp down questions about whether the Arizona senator’s team
adequately researched his surprise vice presidential selection.

Since McCain publicly disclosed his running mate on Friday, the notion of a shoddy,
rushed review has been stoked repeatedly. First, a campaign-issued timeline said
McCain initially met Palin in February, then held one phone conversation with her
last week before inviting her to Arizona, where he met her a second time and
offered her the job on Thursday. Then came the campaign’s disclosure that 17-year-
old Bristol Palin is pregnant. The father is Levi Johnston, who has been a hockey
player at Bristol’s high school, The New York Post and The New York Daily News
reported in their Tuesday’s editions. In addition, the campaign also disclosed that
Palin’s husband, Todd, then age 22, was arrested in 1986 in Alaska for driving under
the influence of alcohol. Shortly after Palin was named to the ticket, McCain’s
campaign dispatched a team of a dozen communications operatives and lawyers to
Alaska. That fuelled speculation that a comprehensive examination of Palin’s record
and past was incomplete and being done only after she was placed on the ticket.
Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser, said no matter who the nominee was, the
campaign was ready to send a “jump team” to the No. 2’s home state to work with
the nominee’s staff, work with the local media and help handle requests from the
national media for information, and answer questions about documents that were
part of the review.

Author Location Dated

Aamir Shafaat Khan Karachi, Pakistan 03.09.08

– City govt fails to keep prices in check

Traders had a field day on the first of Ramazan on Tuesday as they overcharged
customers and ignored the price-list notified by the government. A random market
survey revealed that the fruit-sellers were demanding Rs50-60 per kg for golden
apple (No 1 quality) as against its official rate of Rs36. Gaja (apple), whose official
rate is Rs30, was being sold at Rs40-50. Guava, which is short in market and is also
of poor quality, was being sold at Rs100-
Rs100-120 per kg as compared to its official rate
of Rs86. Melon was being sold at Rs40 as against Rs26 per kg. Grapes (Sundar
Khani) were being sold at Rs150-200 per kg as against its official rate of Rs110 per
kg while round grape price is tagged at Rs80-100 per kg as against its official rate of
Rs66. Iranian grapes were being sold at Rs120 as against their official price of
Rs100 per kg. The official rate of the best quality banana is Rs45 per dozen, but
retailers were demanding Rs50 to 60 from consumers. Peach is selling between
Rs50 and 60 per kg as compared to its control rate of Rs45 per kg, and cheeko was
being sold at Rs70-80 per kg as against Rs66. Fruit-seller Mohammad Siddiq on
Tariq Road said that there was a wide gap in prices of fruits in the wholesale and
the official rates. The city government officials, he said, had fixed rates without
considering the wholesale market rates. “The“The government officials are checking our
wrongdoings, but they themselves have fixed unjustified rates,”
rates,” he said. Another
vendor said that grapes are selling at Rs130 per kg in wholesale market and Sundar
Khani grapes are available at Rs160, so how can one sell them below the wholesale
rate. As people are not well-informed about the quality of fruit, vendors are fully
exploiting the situation of their surging demand, and they are selling substandard
quality at higher rates.

A majority of the retailers were not in the possession of official price lists and they
complained that the government had released those lists in a limited number.
Besides, the vendors were not allowed use a photocopy of the original list. The
original list is available at Rs5. In vegetables, the government has fixed the rate of
onion (best quality) at Rs30 and No 2 quality at Rs22 per kg but vendors are
charging Rs35-40 per kg for best quality and Rs25-30 per kg for No 2 quality.
Similarly, vendors are charging Rs5-10 per kg more than the actual list on other
vegetables. In other items, a majority of the shopkeepers do not have the official
price lists as the city government issued the price list in a few newspapers. The city
government had printed only 2,000 lists which are insufficient for a large number of
retailers in the city. As most of the buyers remained ignorant about the price lists in
newspapers, retailers fully cashed in on the situation. Moreover, there is no mention
of rates of some major items in the official list, like ghee, cooking oil, sugar, flour
varieties, branded tea, etc. This year rate of baisin (No 1 quality) has been fixed at
Rs67 per kg while it was available at Rs42 per kg last year. The gram pulse (VIP
quality, No 1 and No 2) is available at Rs65, 63 and 59 per kg as compared to Rs44,
42 and 38 per kg, respectively, last year. Kabuli chana (No 1 and No 2 quality)
prices have been fixed at Rs71 and Rs58 per kg as compared to Rs56 and Rs42 per
kg. Black gram price has been fixed at Rs57 and Rs51 per kg as against last year’s
price of Rs37 and Rs34 per kg. The price of masoor pulse (No 1 and No 2) has been
fixed at Rs103 and Rs93 per kg, respectively, as compared to Rs54 and Rs50 per
kg. Masur whole (quality No 1 and 2) rate has been fixed at Rs113 and Rs93 per kg,
respectively, as compared to Rs45 and Rs44 per kg. Dal mash washed (No 1 and No
2) is priced at Rs65 and Rs59 per kg as compared to Rs62 and Rs58 per kg. Dal
mash (split and whole) is being sold at Rs59 as compared to Rs52 per kg last year.
Arhar (No 1 and 2) prices have been fixed at Rs79 and Rs73 per kg, respectively, as
against their last year’s price of Rs58 and Rs56 per kg. The rate of rice kernel
basmati (special) (No 1 and No 2) has been fixed at Rs113 and Rs83 per kg as
against Rs60 and Rs58 per kg. Basmati (No 1) price has been raised to Rs73 per kg
as compared to Rs48 per kg while Basmati (saila) rate has surged to Rs83 per kg as
compared to Rs58 per kg. The rate of Samosa (made of desi ghee) is Rs120 per
dozen this year while it was available at Rs78 last year. The price of Pheni (desi
ghee) has been fixed at Rs280 as compared to Rs200 last year. The same item
made of banaspati ghee was available at Rs120 last year as compared to Rs160 this
year.

Milk continues to sell at Rs40-

Rs40-44 per litre despite the fact that the government
recently fixed its rate at Rs37 per litre for Ramazan. Sugar is selling at Rs33 per kg.
As tea, ghee and cooking oil producers have already pushed up rates, even then if
they come out with some package, it would be mere an eye-wash, said a citizen.
Traders said that the devaluation of the rupee against the dollar in the last few
months and rising transportation costs owing to frequent increases in fuel prices
should be blamed for an inflationary trend in food items prices, besides a demand
and supply gap in local crops. The price of beef has been fixed at Rs170 per kg, and
there is at present no change in its price. The city government’s official in charge of
the price checking campaign, Matanat Ali Khan, said that the CDGK staff caught
over 50 persons on Tuesday for overcharging, and most of them are fruit and
vegetable vendors and milk sellers. He said that the fruit vendors are making about
200 per cent profit on various items when compared with actual government price.
Mr Khan said when he, along with the DCO, EDO enterprise and investment
promotion and police, visited the Old Sabzimandi, Gulshan-i-Iqbal, Federal B Area,
Gulistan-iJauhar, a majority of the pushcarts carrying fruit disappeared. However,
the city government team visited the same venue thrice to ensure a price cut. He
said that the fruit vendors had deliberately kept the price lists in their pockets, and
blamed the city government that it had not issued the lists on Tuesday. After
various raids in these areas, these vendors showed the price lists. “If“If they can sell
fruit at the control rate in the presence of police and the city government officials,
how can they claim that the rate of fruit procurement does not match with the
wholesale rate in the Sabzimandi?”
Sabzimandi?” he wondered, adding that they have a bad habit
of making huge profits instead of justified Rs4 to 5 per kg profit. He said that now
36 first class magistrates and 14 second class magistrates are involved in price
checking campaign in 18 towns of the city.

Author Location Dated

Munawar Azeem Islamabad, Pakistan 04.09.08

– Shots fired at PM motorcade in Islamabad

Shots fired by snipers hiding on a hill by the Islamabad Highway hit one of the cars
used by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani on Wednesday when his motorcade was
going to the airport to pick him up. Sources said two bullets hit the driver’s window
of one of the three bullet-proof cars used by the prime minister. Apparently, the
prime minister was the target, but there was a possibility that the act was aimed
merely at sounding a warning, the sources said. They termed it a highly-skilled
sniping attempt because the vehicles were moving at high speed. They said it
appeared that three gunmen had attacked the motorcade from both sides of the
highway, but only the snipers hiding on a hill known as “Numberon
“Numberon wali pahari”
pahari”
succeeded in hitting the car. A portrait of the Father of the Nation dominates the
hill, with his saying: “Unity,
“Unity, Faith and Discipline”
Discipline” emblazoned on it. The incident
took place about a kilometre away from the spot where a procession of the Pakistan
Muslim League-N had come under attack on Dec 27, hours before Benazir Bhutto’s
assassination. Although the prime minister was not in the motorcade at the time of
the attack, officials described it as an assassination attempt.

The sources quoted Pervez, the driver of the vehicle which was hit, as saying: “I “I
observed cracks and two gunshots on the window when I reached the airport at
around 1.30pm to receive the PM and his delegation.”
delegation.” The VVIP motorcade drove
back to the Prime Minister’s House and the driver narrated the incident to the
authorities concerned. The PM’s House informed Islamabad police about the
incident, but it tried to pass the buck to Rawalpindi police, claiming that the incident
had taken place in an area falling under the jurisdiction of the Pindi administration.
However, its officers visited the spot more than an hour later and interrogated
people living in the vicinity. Later, a joint investigation team, led by National Police
Bureau’s Director General Tariq Khosa, also arrived at the spot and started
investigations. Three people were taken into custody near the hill, sources said.
Senior Superintendent of Police Ahmad Latif said it was too early to comment on the
incident. Forensic experts would inspect the vehicle to find out whether the window
had been damaged by bullets or stones.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s House said unknown assailants attacked
the motorcade of Mr Gilani on the Islamabad Highway in the afternoon. Of the
multiple sniper shots fired on the vehicle, two hit the window on the driver’s side.
However, “because
“because of the robust and comprehensive security measures”,
measures”, the prime
minister and all the members of his motorcade remained unharmed, the statement
said. A high-level inquiry had been initiated into the matter and all law-enforcement
agencies had begun working on the case, it said. “Experts
“Experts are reviewing the
security arrangements and looking into lapses.”
lapses .” Late in the evening, the
investigators stopped search for evidence in the area from where the attack was
purported to have been carried out because of darkness. They failed to find any
shells of bullets, but the search would resume on Thursday morning, an official said.

Author Location Dated

Ashfaq Yusufzai Peshawar, Pakistan 04.09.08

– Mushahid asks Asif to declare assets

PML-Q’s presidential candidate Mushahid Hussain Syed has asked PPP’s
cochairperson Asif Ali Zardari to declare his assets prior to the presidential election.
“Mr Zardari has been using the state machinery in election campaign. He has
resorted to horsetrading to win the elections and ministries were being offered to
lawmakers belonging to rival political parties,”
parties,” he said at a news conference at the
residence of former federal minister Amir Muqam here on Wednesday. He also
alleged that Mr Zardari was using the Prime Minister’s House for his election
campaign and called it a gross violation of the code of conduct set forth by the
Election Commission. He said that the people should put pressure on their elected
representatives to vote for the most appropriate person. Mr Hussain said he had
already declared his assets and the other two contestants should do the same. He
accused Mr Zardari of siphoning off million of dollars into foreign banks and said
that the National Reconciliation Ordinance had paved way for corrupt people to rule
the country. He challenged his rivals to a debate on crucial national issues and said
he would quit the presidential race if he lost the debate. Mr Mushahid Hussain
condemned the alleged US attack on Angoor Adda in South Waziristan and said it
was the first ground attack in Pakistan that directly targeted civilian population. He
held the present government responsible for the crisis in the country and said that
the rulers had forgotten the promises they had made with the masses during their
election campaign regarding restoration of peace in Fata. Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain
who accompanied Mr Hussain said that his party was intact despite the resignation
of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf. Four of the six MPAs of PML-Q and an independent
MPA in the provincial assembly were present on the occasion.

Author Location Dated

Yousuf Nazar 04.09.08

– Zardari his own nemesis?

Will Asif Zardari’s presidency be better or worse than Musharraf’s? Will it lead to the
fall of the PML-N government in Punjab and a full-scale confrontation with Nawaz
Sharif? Will it be a replay of the ineptitude and corruption that characterised the
civilian governments of the 1990s? Will Zardari be able to provide the kind of
leadership that is required to face the violent insurgency in the NWFP and
Balochistan and a precarious economic situation? Will he be able to work with the
establishment? The list of questions is long. He would probably restore the judges,
and that may turn out to be a non-issue in the much larger scheme of things, if he
gets elected as the president of Pakistan on Sept 6. Is it a big ‘if’? Yes if you read
reports that discuss the growing murmurs among the army officers and the
comments of ‘senior’ members of the establishment. But it seems highly
improbable that an establishment that is so heavily dependent on the United States
for both its military and financial needs would support Nawaz Sharif whose past is
tainted by a record of collaboration with rightwing extremists and accusations that
he received $10m from Osama bin Laden in exchange for the pledge that he would
turn Pakistan into a Sharia state and become its amir-ul-momineen. Assuming that
Zardari wins the presidential elections, his biggest challenge may not be the ‘war on
terror’, or the economic crisis, or for that matter Nawaz Sharif. It could be himself
unless he can overcome his shortcomings. There is little doubt that there were
many accusations of corruption against him. The argument that the charges were
never proved does not carry any weight in Pakistan’s context. How many past rulers
have been tried and convicted on corruption charges? None. But does it prove that
they did nothing wrong and there was no corruption?

Sons of former generals openly boasted about having hundreds of millions of dollars
but were never touched by the establishment. The truth is Zardari’s court cases
were kept alive by the establishment because it wanted to use Asif as a tool to
pressure and blackmail Benazir Bhutto because she deeply cared about his life and
because he was the father of her three young children. But that was the past.
Today, like it or not, he is the leader of the largest and the only truly national party
of Pakistan but he has not done any favour to his reputation and credibility by
repeatedly reneging on his public commitments and pledges to restore the judges.
He shrewdly used Nawaz Sharif because he needed him to get rid of Musharraf but
he may ultimately have to pay a heavy price for his apparently wily tactics and
overconfidence. Even Maulana Fazlur Rehman, that master of doublespeak and
Byzantine politics, could not digest Zardari’s somersaults. However, concerns about
Zardari should be kept in perspective. For those who believe that Musharraf and
members of his establishment protected the security interests of Pakistan and acted
responsibly should do their homework and learn from history. The following quote
from the US State Department report of April 30, 2001, titled Patterns of Global
Terrorism, highlights Pakistan’s number one problem — the use of militancy as a
policy tool: “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s military government, headed by Gen Pervez Musharraf,
continued the previous Pakistani government support of the Kashmir insurgency,
and Kashmiri militant groups continued to operate in Pakistan, raising funds and
recruiting new cadre. Several of these groups were responsible for attacks against
civilians in Indian-held Kashmir, and the largest of the groups, the Lashkar-iTaiba,
claimed responsibility for a suicide car-bomb attack against an Indian garrison in
Srinagar in April.”
April.” It also noted: “The
“The United States remains concerned about
reports of continued Pakistani support for the Taliban’s military operations in
Afghanistan. Credible reporting indicates that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with
materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance, and military advisors. Pakistan has not
prevented large numbers of Pakistani nationals from moving into Afghanistan to
fight for the Taliban. Islamabad also failed to take effective steps to curb the
activities of certain madressahs, or religious schools, that serve as recruiting
grounds for terrorism.”
terrorism.”

The bitter and most unpleasant truth is that the Pakistani establishment has been
its biggest security risk due to its faulty judgment and adventurous policies. There
are two reasons why Pakistan today is considered the epicentre of global terrorism
and security threats; the Taliban and nuclear proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear
programme, even its cold test in 1983, was tolerated by Washington but what really
set the alarm bells ringing was the reckless idea of selling nuclear weapons and
equipment to the countries that the US considered unfriendly. The establishment
conceived, formulated and pursued policies that have brought Pakistan to a stage
where both issues threaten the security of Pakistan. Gen Aslam Beg reportedly told
Benazir Bhutto that Pakistan could make hundreds of millions by selling nuclear
technology to Iraq, Iran and Libya. Chaudhry Nisar told Sunday Times’ journalist
Adrian Levy that Gen Beg suggested that Pakistan could earn billions of dollars by
selling atom bombs to Iran. The issue, therefore, is not whether Mr Zardari’s rule
would be any more of a threat to the national security than a military ruler’s was
but whether he would demonstrate enough maturity to build the consensus that is
vital to rein in the “reckless
“reckless and irresponsible”
irresponsible” establishment which has played
havoc with grave national security issues for decades. His initial success in
consolidating his grip on the party and more recently his victory against Musharraf
has given him a misplaced sense of over-confidence. He would be well advised to
understand that the power was bequeathed to him by that larger than life figure,
Benazir Bhutto, and Musharraf’s exit had more to do with the policy of the US that
never really trusted Musharraf in the first place and had become increasingly
frustrated with his double-dealing particularly since Feb 2007. Zardari started out
with the right ideas and spirit but his performance has fallen short of his often lofty
and grandiose pronouncements about changing the system and strong institutions.
His government has been paralysed for months due to a highly personalised style of
government that is full of rhetoric and short on delivery. It seems to have woefully
inadequate intellectual and administrative capacity due primarily to Zardari’s
biggest weakness — his tendency to rely on old friends and place loyalty above
competence. This together with his over-confidence could mean Zardari may turn
out to be his own nemesis. For Pakistan’s sake, I hope not.

Author Location Dated

Syed Hasan Khan/Kurt 04.09.08
Jacobsen

– What, no utopia after Musharraf?

Getting what you want, Oscar Wilde remarked, can be as much a tragedy as not
getting what you want. Nawaz Sharif some day may come to appreciate this exotic
western wisdom. Anyone who imagined that Musharraf’s departure would improve
daily life in Pakistan one iota was sadly mistaken. An utterly Alice-in-Wonderland
political scenario since February has pitted two billionaires, whose fortunes were
obtained, each other suspects, by rather questionable means, against a solid career
soldier who, whatever his faults and glaring missteps, seems to have failed to
feather his own nest in the traditional manner. From the start the world press, out of
routine laziness or pure ignorance, equated the ejection of Musharraf with the epic
ousting of a Ceausescu or an Idi Amin or, one hopes one day, Robert Mugabe.
Therefore, the major parties — mostly Sharif’s, really — were celebrated abroad for
dumping the former dictator because, so the storyline goes, all dictators are alike in
their vices, and all democrats are alike in their virtues. What then has this single-
issue zealotry accomplished? Now that Musharraf has gotten the heaveho, which
was fun while it lasted, the squabbling parties face the distressing fact that the
public now will have no one to blame for the escalating internal mess but them.
Musharraf, a useful distraction, soon will be missed even by his very worst enemies.
If the parties revert to the same inside dealer style in play before Musharraf, they
hardly will find themselves hailed in the streets. One of Sharif’s few
accomplishments during his last inglorious stint as prime minister was to laboriously
build a case against Zardari, then arrest and imprison him. Zardari has shown
admirable forbearance. Since democracy formally returned, food and energy prices
have been punishing all but the super rich while Taliban activity has crept up to the
edges of Islamabad. The western powers — with the known quantity of Musharraf
gone — are clearly nervous.

Musharraf declined to exploit Islam for political gain. He remained a sincere secular
leader — Ataturk was his hero — although he was tentative when it actually came to
implementing those secular principles. Sharif, by contrast, openly courts religious
fundamentalists. Less commendable on Musharraf’s part was his installation of
clueless army personnel in too many civilian posts, to no good effect for anyone.
But his handling of the judges was indeed woeful and, finally, politically fatal. Wily
Sharif clearly was a financial backer for the former chief justice’s restoration both as
a hammer blow against Musharraf and ultimately against Zardari too. Sharif must
be extremely proud that he whipped up the public atmosphere into a hostile one
that made Zardari buckle and go along with the pretty pointless impeachment. You
didn’t need a political genius, however, to tell you that Zardari would drag his heels
so as not to reappoint an unpredictable foe like Chaudhry to the Supreme Court.
The stock market is down, so that makes the news. Public finances too are in their
usual parlous state. Less newsworthy is that Pakistan remains a country with a per
capita income slightly over $500 annually. A third of the population is classified as
absolutely-no-doubt-about-it poor, with the next third not doing enviably well either.
Almost 50m people scratch by on two dollars a day or less. Half the population is
illiterate. As much as half the population has no access to safe drinking water, let
alone healthcare of any kind. These people need attention. So far there is little sign
that they will get any.

The race for the presidency is the next distraction. Zardari is a shoe-in and soon we
will see if as president he will relinquish to parliament all the powers that Musharraf
wielded as president. Power, when in one’s own hands, no longer seems so
obscene. Sharif certainly will not be thrilled if an elected Zardari retains Musharraf’s
presidential powers. Indeed, the People’s Party may have missed an opportunity at
this dangerous time when, in the interest of soothing the western regions, it could
have backed a smaller party’s candidate from the Frontier or Balochistan for
president. The NWFP government, for example, is allied with Zardari and could
patch up the broken down peace treaty there. Neither an NWFP or Balochistan
candidate — lacking a nationwide constituency — would be tempted to abuse his
presidential powers. One can find pragmatic secularists among the leaderships in
the Frontier and Balochistan like Mengal or the Awami National Party leader
Asfandyar Wali. These savvy people can deal with local problems that neither the
army nor political figures outside the provinces can manage. The war against
terrorism can be won only through strategic reconciliations. Fazlur Rehman’s party
ruled the Frontier province before the elections but lost to secular forces. Yet he is
still in parliament and has much sway over the madressahs. The agitation of the
Taliban has taken the complicated form of Pakhtun nationalism. Baloch nationalists
plus a section of pragmatic ulema is the best combination to sort out the problems.
Zardari was refreshingly frank when he told the BBC that the Taliban had the “upper
hand” at the moment and that the war against terror was being lost. The whole
point of Bush’s war on terror is to fight it in such a way as to go on losing it for as
long as possible, thereby creating many more highly motivated enemies than ever
before, which justifies a growing repressive American domestic apparatus and the
breakneck shovelling of public money into defence contractor pockets. Indeed, Bush
and Cheney seem to view Pakistan as a civic model to which to aspire. What will the
American strategy be in the near future? America doesn’t know quite how to get out
of the Afghan quagmire. The Americans trained the Mujahideen to drive out the
Russians in the 1980s. Now they need Russia’s help to enable them to exit
Afghanistan even as they cynically condemn Russia as the aggressor in Georgia.
Will the PPP strive to bring about an economic structure in Pakistan which enables it
to escape dependence on America or the IMF? Otherwise, you have to make
concessions to whoever is in office there. US policy towards a comparatively minor
player like Pakistan hardly changes no matter who occupies the White Office.

Author Location Dated

AFP St. Paul, Minnesota 04.09.08

– US women voters turned off by Palin’s pick: poll

Women voters remain un-swayed by the Republican choice of antiabortion, devout
Christian Sarah Palin for vice president, according to a new poll released on
Wednesday.White House hopeful John McCain electrified his party’s conservative
base by naming Palin, a 44-year-old mother of five and Alaska governor, as his
running mate on Friday. But 52 per cent of voters polled in a survey for the
women’s activist group Emily’s List said they would vote for the Democrat ticket of
Barack Obama and his VP choice Joseph Biden, against 41 for the Republicans. “If “If
John McCain thought putting Sarah Palin on the ticket would be a game changer, he
may have been right but not in the way he intended,”
intended,” said the group’s president
Ellen Malcolm. “Senator
“Senator McCain has seriously misjudged women voters if he thinks
he can win them over simply by putting a woman on the ticket,”
ticket,” she said. “Women
“Women
voters take their votes seriously and the more they learn about Governor Palin, the
less likely they are to support the McCain-Palin ticket.”
ticket.” The poll, carried out by
random dialing of 800 women on Sunday and Monday, shows that 50 per cent of
women voters felt McCain picked Palin out of political expediency and not because
he believes she has the experience to do the job.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider New York 04.09.08

– Aafia indicted for attempted murder of US officers

Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui was indicted on Tuesday afternoon by
Michael J. Garcia, the US Attorney for the southern district of New York, on charges
related to her attempted murder and assault of US nationals and officers and
employees. Ms Siddiqui is scheduled to be formally charged on Thursday by District
Judge Richard M. Berman. She is being held without bail in a New York prison. The
36-year-old Pakistani resided in the United States from 1991 till June 2002, and
obtained degrees from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Brandeis
University.
University. She returned to the United States on December 25, 2002, and departed
on January 2, 2003, the indictment said. Ms Siddiqui is charged in the Indictment
with (1) one count of attempting to kill US nationals outside the United States; (2)
one count of attempting to kill US officers and employees; (3) one count of armed
assault of US officers and employees; (4) one count of using and carrying a firearm
during and in relation to a crime of violence; and (5) three counts of assault of US
officers and employees.
employees. If convicted Ms Siddiqui faces a maximum sentence of 20
years in prison on each of the attempted murder and armed assault charges, life in
prison on the firearm charge and eight years in prison on each of the remaining
assault charges. Ms Siddiqui’s attorney Dan Oliver told Dawn that her defence team
would plead not guilty to the charges. Ms Elizabeth Fink, the lead attorney, told
reporters on Monday that Ms Siddiqui remained in need of medical attention. “She“She
needs further tests. She needs treatment. She needs care. She needs human rights.
She needs to be treated in a humane fashion based on what everybody concedes
happened to her. And they’re not doing it.”
it.” But the prosecutors have said that Ms
Siddiqui received medical treatment, and a federal magistrate judge ordered her to
be seen by a doctor last month.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 05.09.08

– Outraged parliament wants border raids repulsed

Outraged by the deadly first known ground assault into Pakistan’s tribal belt by US-
led coalition forces in Afghanistan, both houses of parliament on Thursday
unanimously asked the government to take measures to “repel “repel such attacks in the
future with full force”.
force”. After fiery debates over Wednesday’s pre-dawn helicopter
borne raid that reportedly killed at least 20 people in a village in South Waziristan
agency, the demand was made in a resolution passed unanimously by the National
Assembly and the Senate separately that also wanted the government to tell the
International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) in Afghanistan that such violations
were “bound
“bound to force fundamental changes of foreign policy”policy” by a key ally in the so-
called war on terrorism. This was the strongest-worded joint stance to date by both
treasury and opposition benches in Pakistan’s parliament over any of the numerous
alleged violations of the Pakistani territory by the coalition forces hunting Al Qaeda
and Taliban militants and came at a sensitive time two days before the presidential
election. “The
“The house calls upon the government of Pakistan to take all necessary
measures to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country and
repel such attacks in the future with full force,”
force,” the resolution said about what
Pakistan says was the coalition forces’ first ground assault into the area after three
helicopters brought troops to a village near the well-known militant stronghold of
Angoor Adda to target some houses. Both Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi
in the National Assembly and leader of house Raza Rabbani in the Senate said in
their prepared remarks before tabling the resolution in their respective chambers
that the attacks “constitutes
“constitutes a serious escalation in the series of actions by the
Isaf/coalition forces on Pakistani territory”.
territory”. Most of the previous attacks had
involved rocketing by jets or pilotless predators or artillery shelling from across the
border.

The foreign minister told the National Assembly that Wednesday’s raid, which drew
renewed opposition calls for a review of Pakistan’s role in the anti-terror war, was in
violation of what he called “established
“established rules of engagement”
engagement” as well as of
“international human norms”
norms ” and the UN charter. But he did not explain “the
“the rules
of engagement”
engagement” that Pakistan might have agreed with the coalition forces in
Afghanistan despite a demand from the main PML-N speaker in the National
Assembly Ahsan Iqbal who, like several other members, called for a detailed debate
in parliament on the situation. A report by the US-based Associated Press news
agency said the circumstances surrounding Wednesday’s raid were not clear, “but “but
US rules of engagement allow American troops to chase militants across the border
into Pakistan’s lawless tribal region when they are attacked”
attacked” and that “they
“they may
only go about six miles on the ground under normal circumstances”
circumstances” and 10 miles
into Pakistani airspace through aircraft. Both the house, which took up the issue
almost simultaneously, resounded with rhetoric and anti American sentiment,
mostly from opposition parties such as the Jamaat-i-Islami and the PML-N, while
some in a mainly lawyers’ crowd who protested outside the parliament house
against non-restoration of the deposed superior court judges also chanted “whoever
“whoever
is friend of America is a traitor.
traitor.”

PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, who seems assured of being elected as the
country’s president by a parliamentary electoral college on Saturday, joined the
chorus with a strong statement condemning what he called an “outrageous
“outrageous and
unacceptable violation of the territorial integrity of the country”
country” and calling for a
thorough investigation and adoption of “foolproof
“foolproof measures so that such incidents
do not occur in the future”.
future”. He said that for the fight against militancy to succeed, it
was imperative that any action on the Pakistani side of the border was taken “only“only
by Pakistani forces and not by the coalition forces in violation of Pakistan’s
territorial integrity”.
integrity”. But in the midst of the general rhetorical fervour in the two
houses of parliament, some took courage to differ, like Senator Abdul Rahim
Mandokhel of the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party who said it were foreign militants,
including Arabs, Uzbeks and Chechen, who had captured Pakistani territory and
compromised the country’s sovereignty which “the “the government cannot defend”
defend” and
accused unspecified politicians of conniving with them by not speaking against
them. Balochistan National Party Senator Abdul Malik doubted the seriousness of
anti-American talk while the country was “in “in the grip of American imperialism for
the past 60 years”
years” and said it must be acknowledged that Pakistan’s “investment
“investment in
Afghanistan to make it our fifth province”
province” and also in Kashmir had gone in loss.
Senator Khurshid Ahmed of the Jamaat-i-Islami said that mere verbal
condemnations of border violations were not enough and that violators, whether
troops or helicopters, must be shot. PML-N’s Senator Ishaq Dar accused former
president Pervez Musharraf of making a slave of an atomic power and said “we “we
have to change the slavish mentality”
mentality” so there be no foreign stake-holder in
Pakistani affairs. “We
“We will not tolerate incidents like this,”
this,” said ANP leader Asfandyar
Wali Khan, who also called for an in-camera debate.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 05.09.08

– US media warns of more attacks

The US administration is officially refusing to comment on a cross-border raid into
Pakistan that killed at least 15 people, but unnamed US officials are confirming that
American troops entered Pakistan to target extremists and may continue to do so.
“In regards to the reports about that incident, we have not commented, and I won’t
today,”
today,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino told reporters on Thursday. “I’m “I’m
just not going to comment on the incident in any way.” way.” At the State Department,
Secretary Condoleezza Rice made almost identical comments, saying: “I “I don’t have
anything for you on Pakistan except to say that, obviously, we are working very
closely with the civilian government there, the newly democratically elected,
civilian government.”
government.” Asked why was she reluctant to comment on the reported US
strike, Ms Perino replied: “All
“All I can tell you is that I am going to decline to comment
on reports about that incident.”
incident.” But the US media, from newspapers to television
and radio stations, are all quoting senior US officials as saying that American
commandos entered Pakistan on Wednesday to attack an Al Qaeda target near
Angoor Adda. They also warned that the United States might conduct similar raids
in future as well if it had “actionable
“actionable intelligence”
intelligence” about the presence of Al Qaeda or
Taliban commanders in a certain area. Unnamed Pentagon officials told the US
media that US Special Forces had conducted the raid, focusing on a specific target
in South Waziristan. The officials also emphasised Washington’s desire to destroy
militant safe havens in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The officials said that the decision to
send US ground troops inside Pakistan marked a return to tactics used by the
American military soon after the Afghanistan invasion.

In recent years, the United States has tended to limit its cross-border actions to
artillery and air strikes against militants. Pentagon spokesman Lt-Col Patrick Ryder
told reporters there was “nothing
“nothing to provide”
provide” regarding the incident. US Central
Command officials also declined to comment. Islamabad has denounced the raid as
‘shameful’ and ‘unjustified’ but said it would remain a US ally in the war on terror. In
Washington, Pakistan Embassy conveyed Islamabad’s concern to “the “the highest
levels of the State Department,”
Department ,” embassy sources said. “Unilateral
“Unilateral actions that
enraged the Pakistani people will not help the US and Nato in the war against
terror,”
terror,” Ambassador Husain Haqqani told Dawn. “For “For the war effort to succeed,
cooperative arrangements between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nato need to be
strengthened, instead of actions violating the sovereignty of an American ally and
partner.”
partner.” At the White House, spokeswoman Perino stressed the need to “increase “increase
coordination and cooperation”
cooperation” between Pakistan and the US-led forces. US officials
have often used this phrase to convey their dissatisfaction with Pakistan’s failure to
stop cross-border incursions into Afghanistan. But Ms Perino kept a conciliatory tone
while talking about Pakistan’s efforts in the war on terror, saying that will continue
to support Islamabad in this war as “we “we work to fight against the Taliban in a
coordinated way”.
way”. She also underlined the close ties between Washington and the
new government in Islamabad. “I “I will reiterate is that we’ve been working closely
with the new civilian government of Pakistan that is feeling its way and working to
establish itself,”
itself,” Ms Perino said.

Several major US newspapers and television channels reported on Thursday that

the raid was intended to warn the militants not to take advantage of political
uncertainty in Pakistan. ABC News reported that US officials “privately
“privately called (the
Angoor Adda raid) a successful operation.”
operation.” Bruce Riedel, a former senior official at
the White House National Security Council and former CIA officer, told The
Washington Times that the situation “is
“is going to complicate an already complicated
and unhappy relationship between Washington and Islamabad.”
Islamabad.” “Both
“Both sides feel the
other side is misleading them and not doing all they can on their end but blaming
the other for what happens,”
happens,” said Mr Riedel, who is author of an upcoming book,
“The Search for Al Qaeda: Its Leadership, Ideology and Future.
Future. “It
“It should be
remembered in all this at the end of day Pakistan has enormous amount of leverage
to make life unpleasant for the US and coalition.”
coalition.” Mr Riedel said that “80 per cent or
more” of US and coalition support and logistics for troops came into Afghanistan via
Pakistan and that without that support the international forces capabilities in
Afghanistan would be hampered.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 05.09.08

– Asif’s poll victory a foregone conclusion

With the presidential election due on Saturday, PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari has
emerged as the front-runner, although unlike his two rivals he has not travelled
outside Islamabad for campaigning and has remained confined to the Prime
Minister’s House for two weeks because of “security
“security concerns”.
concerns”. The other two
candidates — PML-N’s Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and PML-Q’s Senator Mushahid
Hussain Sayed — are running hectic campaigns despite being fully aware that they
stand no chance of winning. Justice (retd) Siddiqui has so far showed restraint and
not issued any statement against his rival candidates. But Mushahid Hussain is
engaged in what has been described as a vitriolic campaign, mostly targeting Mr
Zardari, while PPP leaders and ministers are rebutting his allegations and remarks
through press conferences and statements. The PPP leaders are also targeting the
PML-N candidate by highlighting his role in the 1997 judicial crisis which led to the
ouster of former chief justice Sajjad Ali Shah. Banners and posters — mostly
carrying pictures of Mr Zardari and late Benazir Bhutto – are seen at different places
in the federal capital and other parts of the country. Although the public have no
role and no vote in the presidential election, heated debates have been taking place
all over the country in social gatherings and meetings. The PPP is planning to hold
rallies on Friday although it has officially announced that these are being arranged
to “express
“express solidarity”
solidarity” with Prime Minister Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani whose vehicle
was attacked in Islamabad on Wednesday. According to a PPP announcement, Mr
Zardari has directed various chapters of the party to organise rallies throughout the
country. An important aspect of the presidential election campaign is revival of
contacts between the PML-Q and PML-N whose members were united under the
leadership of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif until his ouster in a military coup
in October 1999. Both the PPP and the PML-N are trying to woo legislators of PML-Q
they earlier described as the king’s party to boost the position of their candidates.
Soon after his nomination as the PML-N candidate, Justice Siddiqui met PML-Q chief
Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and urged him to withdraw his candidate so that a tough
fight could be given to Mr Zardari. Mr Zardari himself preferred to meet members of
parliament and the provincial assemblies at the PM’s House and sent Prime Minister
Gilani to the provincial capitals to seek votes for him. Chaudhry Shujaat and his
party’s candidate have visited the four provincial capitals in connection with the
campaign.

Author Location Dated

Asghar Ali Engineer 05.09.08

– Gender justice in Islam

If someone asks me which is the most gender-just religion in the world, I would
unhesitatingly say ‘Islam’. However, Muslims are seen today as most unjust towards
their women, particularly their wives and daughters. Recently I was shocked to read
in the press that in Balochistan parents buried their daughters alive after shooting
them and Senator Israrullah Zehri from that province justified it. Nothing could be
more unfortunate. The Qur’an which all Muslims believe to be the divine word
strongly condemns the pre-Islamic practice of burying the girl child alive. On the
Day of Judgement the Qur’an says the perpetrator would be asked: “For “For what sin
was she killed?”
killed?” (81:9). And this is still going on in the 21st century in a country
which calls itself an Islamic republic. What could be more shocking? The Qur’an is
the first divinely revealed Book which accords not only equal dignity but also equal
rights to women in the most unambiguous way. It declares in the second chapter
(Surah Baqarah), verse 228: “And“And women have rights similar to those against them
in a just manner.”
manner.” All commentators agree that this is declaration of equality of
rights for men and women. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad in his commentary on this
verse in his Tarjauman al-Qur’an says that (this verse) is a clear declaration of
equality of sexes more than 1,300 years ago. Apparently the reason for killing those
girls in Balochistan was that they intended to marry men of their choice. It is well
known that in Islam marriage is a contract and no nikah can be valid without
specific consent of the woman. The Qur’an itself describes marriage as mithaqan
ghalizan i.e. strong covenant. A contract cannot be unilateral. Both parties have to
agree to it. Thus in Islam for a nikah to be valid two adults have to bear witness that
such and such woman has agreed to marry so and so.
Not only that, the woman has every right to stipulate conditions under which she
wants to marry and if the man does not agree to these conditions, marriage cannot
be valid. Also, according to the Hanafi school to which a large number of Muslims
adhere, a woman can also insist on what is called tafwid-i-talaq i.e. delegation of the
right to her to divorce her husband on his behalf. Has this any parallel in any
religious law in the world? Also, since marriage is a contract, if a woman is married
off in childhood by her wali she has the right to reject the marriage on achieving
puberty. It is called in Shari’ah terms khyar al-bulugh i.e. option at puberty. Thus for
a girl child if she is married off during her childhood she has the option to accept it
or reject the match on achieving adulthood. Thus in Islam the right of a woman to
marry a man of her own choice is quite absolute, given by God, and not even her
father can take it away from her. There is no way she can be married off without her
specific consent in most unambiguous words. No school of Shari’ah law allows a
man to marry a woman without her consent. This rule is firm like a rock. Also, if man
has hidden certain facts from his bride at the time of nikah (i.e. that he is impotent
or HIV-positive, for instance), she is entitled to dissolution of her marriage as a
matter of right. However, if a man discloses such facts before contracting nikah and
she marries him knowing fully well, she will not be entitled to dissolution of
marriage on those particular grounds.

Islam has also given the woman the right to liberate herself from a marital bond
(khula’) and this right of hers is also absolute. I had read a few years ago that a
woman from the Frontier province was murdered by her parents because she
wanted divorce from her husband. Samia Sarwar was murdered in her lawyer’s
office. There was little public uproar among Muslims, which was equally shocking.
The Holy Prophet (PBUH) allowed a woman called Jamila to obtain khula’ from her
husband though he loved her and gave her a maintenance allowance as per her
wishes. But because she did not like him, she said to the Prophet (PBUH), ‘I ‘I am
afraid if I remain with him I may not be able to observe Allah’s hudood’.
hudood’. What an
empowerment of women by Islam! In this day and age, our patriarchal society,
fiercely dominated by men of tribal/feudal values and customs, has deprived
woman of all her Islamic rights. Horror of horrors, the flawed value system should
even allow men to kill women in the name of family honour. Killing is the most un-
Islamic practice, requiring that the killer be stringently punished. We must follow
Islam, not tribal practices. ¦ The writer is the head of the Institute of Islamic
Studies and the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai. Mumbai.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 05.09.08

– The social farce

Although Pakistan’s attention seems completely diverted towards the upcoming
presidential elections, there are other equally important things happening in the
country such as the burying alive of two women. The words of Baloch Senator
Israrullah Zehri has angered a lot of people. The politician believes that such acts
cannot be condemned as they are part of the local tradition of not allowing women
the freedom of selecting their partners without the consent of their parents or
guardians. Those trying to challenge authority, hence, must be punished according
to tribal norms. The feminists, in particular, view it as an issue of women’s rights.
However, this problem is a subset of the larger issue of the lack of social and
political development and the gradual militarisation of society. It should be viewed
in this context. While analysing the issue, let us differentiate between reality and
the response to it. The social reality is what was expressed by the Baloch senator,
according to whom honour killing is part of the local culture and traditions. His
statement angered many but I would prefer Zehri over others of his kind — like one
particularly prominent, foreign-educated and seemingly liberal female politician who
many years ago made a similar claim during a private conversation. I was perturbed
how she hid her feudal character under the garb of western sophistication. Such
elements are difficult to catch and protest against.

Over the years, especially during the past couple of decades, society has become
more militarised which means that what is defended as local culture is actually a
greater distortion of religion and local traditions to enhance the power of
individuals. The power play that we see in the country amongst politicians on a
larger scale is actually an extension of a similar game that is played at the micro
level in society. Women get punished as well as men because they don’t have a
similar power status. This is the norm of a feudal, tribal and militarised society.
Surely, Mr Zehri did not know any better. He, like many others of his kind, has only
seen the exercise of naked power. The senator was only trying to defend what he
sees as a symbol of power that is his ultimate goal and that of others strutting
about in the corridors of power. Balochistan is not alone in this. Such savage acts
are presented as custom in other parts of the country as well. Recently, when I
expressed my concern to a Sindhi journalist regarding the opening up of new
madressahs in interior Sindh as a means to influence the Sufi traditions of the
region, his response was that what was a matter of greater concern were incidents
of honour killing — all defended in the name of tradition. Can honour killing stop
without debating the structure of society and without wanting to change it? The
answer is in the negative. Protests against individual acts of violence will certainly
provide relief to a few but will not root out the problem. The religious clerics led by
the feudal/tribal leaders (or the other way around) will keep arguing that women
have fewer rights than men. But their claims and counter-claims are all a farce until
people begin to address the issue of restructuring the culture which is the basis of
such crimes. And one has to be realistic in understanding two critical points.

First, feudalism and tribalism do exist in the country. For those, who believe that
feudalism is no more in this country, the answer is that the institution has morphed
into newer shapes. It might have ended from the perspective of the mode of
production, but its socio-cultural forms exist. In fact, the institution has deepened its
roots. Second, the militarisation of society has influenced the process of morphing
so that individuals, groups or institutions who represent the non-feudal class behave
like them as well. For instance, there is no real difference between Senator Zehri
and Pervez Musharraf who not too long ago had claimed that women get raped to
get Canadian visas. The underlying sentiment is similar — gender rights or human
rights are not possible because it challenges the power of those at the top who will
then choose to treat issues of rights as cursory and one to be ignored and brushed
aside as minor problems, even non-existent matters. Let’s be very clear that such
acts of brutality have nothing to do with religion or morality, otherwise such brutal
rules would be applied elsewhere too. I am reminded of a tragic incident in a village
in south Punjab where a young girl, who had sought shelter at a shrine after running
away from her stepmother, was gang-raped. Ultimately, she was imprisoned on
charges of adultery because the culprits had greater access to the local pir who was
a member of parliament as well. The victim did not represent his constituency while
the culprits did. The power structure was clearly tilted against her and so was the
local standard of morality.

Interestingly, similar norms were not applied to some of the female members of the
pir’s family known for morally dubious practices. Even the orthodox mullahs of that
area have never ventured to punish the immorality mentioned above or issue
fatwas. In fact, moral turpitude is a reality in all closed spaces. Peep inside any
closed household, especially those that claim to be the spiritual saviours of the
people, and there will be a number of stories, the protagonists of which go
unpunished due to their higher social background. The social system says that
money and power determine whether or not one is punished for an act of
immorality. These two aforementioned attributes make it convenient for many to
hide their sins and escape honour killing or jail sentences. More important, the
menfolk of such families are not even expected to hide their immoral acts. In many
cases, being a mullah or a pir is sufficient licence for anything otherwise
condemnable. So, while we agree that Mr Zehri has correctly projected honour
killing as a local tradition, could we also ask him to see the circumstances in which
such practices are born? Burying men or women alive or killing them for honour is
not about religion or tribal morality but about the ability of some individuals to
exercise naked power. The question is that is it social imbalance that Zehri and
others like him were elected to defend or will he see the real purpose of his and
others political existence? Furthermore, closed spaces and unequal power will
always breed moral corruption. The current power structures have to be broken if
morality is to be restored to our socio-political space. ¦ The writer is an
independent strategic and political analyst.analyst.

Auth Loca Date

or tion d
Ted St. 05.09
Anth Paul, .08
ony Minn
esota

– Republicans
contradict
themselves
on Palin
family
People: Make up your
minds. For two days,
the chorus from
Republicans on TV
news and in the halls
of their national
convention has been
resounding: back off
and let the family of
Alaska governor
Sarah Palin, the party’s vice-presidential pick, be. “That’s
“That’s out of bounds,”
bounds,” said
Minnesota’s Republican governor, Tim Pawlenty. “There’s
“There’s no need to be intrusive
and pry into that.”
that.” Yet Wednesday found the following scenes unfolding: Sarah
Palin’s pregnant, unmarried 17-year old daughter and probable future son-in-law
stood in a nationally televised, politically packaged airport receiving line to meet
and greet John McCain, the Republican candidate for president. The extremely cute
and bubbly Piper Palin, 17, made her debut on her mother’s behalf, appearing in a
video on McCain’s daughter’s blog. “Vote
“Vote for my mommy and John McCain,”
McCain,” she
said, giggling as Meghan McCain grinned. Bristol Palin and her 18-year-old
boyfriend, Levi Johnston, joined the narrative together at the convention on
Wednesday night. They sat and held hands as they watched the Alaska governor
deliver an acceptance speech that, in its opening minutes, focused heavily on her
family and children. Huh? The Republican message about the Palin offspring comes
across as contradictory: Hey, media, leave those kids alone – so we can use them as
we see fit. If you doubt this scenario, consider this: on Wednesday morning, a
teenage boy from Alaska stood in a receiving line on an airport tarmac, being glad-
handed by the potential next president of the United States – because he got his
girlfriend in the family way. TV cameras were lined up in advance. The mind
boggles. “Either
“Either the children are out of bounds, and you don’t put them in the photo
ops, or you don’t complain when somebody wants to talk about them. You can’t
have it both ways,”
ways,” said John Matviko, a professor at West Liberty State College in
West Virginia and editor of The American President in Popular Culture. “Right
“Right now,
it looks like they’re being used by the campaign more than the media are using
them,”
them,” he said.

Though candidates for national office, and those close to them, are under more
intense scrutiny than ever before in the American information culture, there is more
to this situation than simple celebrity chasing. These are two young people figuring
out how to get through a difficult personal situation. Under normal circumstances,
they would be allowed to do so unbothered by global scrutiny. Talk about a
teenager’s worst nightmare. But one big obstacle stands in their way: Sarah Palin.
Yes, she has asked the media to “respect
“respect our daughter and Levi’s privacy as has
always been the tradition.”
tradition.” Yet Palin has packaged herself as a member of her local
school’s parent-teacher association and “hockey mom” whose children play ice
hockey – culturally loaded terms calibrated to evoke appealing images of middle
America, the middle class, suburbia and strong 21st-century family values. “Our “Our
family has the same ups and downs as any other, the same challenges and the
same joys,”
joys,” she said, one of many general and specific references to her family in
her speech. Using one’s relatives as accessories in the political arena, however, can
have its pitfalls, despite John McCain’s remark to ABC News on Wednesday that
Palin has “got
“got an incredible resume, including a beautiful family.”
family.” Candidates open
themselves to charges of hypocrisy if they demand the ability to boast but reject
the attention that can ensue when the road gets rougher. McCain spokesman
Tucker Bounds, however, takes issue with that conclusion. He says both positions
are possible. “There’s
“There’s a long-standing precedent of children of the candidates being
in the public eye as members of families involved in public service,”
service,” Bounds said
Wednesday night. “There
“There is also a long-standing precedent of candidates’ children
being left out of the hard ball politics of campaigning for higher office.”
office.” Democratic
presidential candidate Barack Obama said flatly that the Palin kids should be “off“off
limits,”
limits,” but he has engaged in the same thing – though to a much lesser extent.
In July, he and wife Michelle appeared on a four-part interview for the tabloid TV
show Access Hollywood with daughters Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7. Obama later
expressed regret about his decision to put them forward, saying, “I “I don’t think it’s
healthy, and it’s something that we’ll be avoiding in the future.”
future.” Nevertheless, the
Obama girls appeared on stage twice at the Democratic National Convention last
week – once to talk to their father via video hook-up after their mother’s speech,
and again after Obama accepted the nomination during the convention’s climactic
moment. Let’s remember one thing, though: behind all the political machines and
manoeuvrings, these contenders for the country’s highest office are human beings
and parents. And a parent is no more infallible than a candidate. On her blog on
Monday, Meghan McCain expressed solidarity with the Palin kids, saying she
understood the things they were grappling with. “It’s “It’s a rough go being the son or
daughter of a politician,”
politician,” she wrote. “You
“You can’t fully understand it unless you have
lived it.”
it.” The road is bumpy for sure, and the media probably are not helping. Sadly,
though, the candidates themselves are not doing much to make things better,
either.

Author Location Dated

Reuters St. Paul, Minnesota 05.09.08

– Palin’s plain talk about Obama electrifies

Sarah Palin touted her small-town roots and lashed out at Democrat Barack Obama
during a fiery speech to the Republican convention on Wednesday, ridiculing her
critics as out-of-touch elitists who do not understand everyday life in America. In her
public debut in the spotlight, John McCain’s choice for vice president electrified
supporters with a brutal assault on Obama and members of the news media who
have questioned her qualifications. “If“If you’re not a member in good standing of the
Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that
reason alone,”
alone,” the Alaska governor told the crowd, which chanted “Sarah, Sarah”
and held signs reading “Palin Power” and “Hockey Moms 4 Palin.” Since McCain
named the virtually unknown Palin, 44, his running mate five days ago, she has
been the centre of a media storm fuelled by disclosures about her unmarried
teenage daughter’s pregnancy, a probe into her role in an Alaskan official’s firing
and questions about her political record. McCain joined Palin and her family on
stage at the end of her 36-minute speech as Republican delegates to the
convention roared in excitement. “Don’t
“Don’t you think we’ve made the right choice for
the next vice president of the United States?”
States?” he asked. Afterward, Republicans
formally nominated McCain, 72, and Palin as their candidates in the Nov 4 election
against Obama and his No. 2, Joe Biden,
Biden, igniting a lengthy celebration on the
convention floor. Republican McCain shocked the US political world by making the
first-term governor his running mate. Palin’s anti-abortion and pro-gun history has
fired up conservatives, but her convention speech was the first chance for most
Americans to judge her for themselves. Palin levelled a series of sharp jabs at
Obama, reminding the Republican crowd of his comments at a San Francisco
fundraiser in April about bitter smalltown residents. “We“We don’t quite know what to
make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people when they are listening
and then talks about how bitterly they cling to their religion and guns when those
people aren’t listening,”
listening,” Palin said. “We
“We tend to prefer candidates who don’t talk
about us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco,”
Francisco,” she said.
The Obama campaign said Palin’s speech was well delivered but familiar after eight
years of President George W. Bush. “It “It was written by George Bush’s speechwriter
and sounds exactly like the same divisive, partisan attacks we’ve heard from
George Bush for the last eight years,”
years,” Obama spokesman Bill Burton said. Palin told
the convention her service as mayor and town council member in Wasilla, Alaska,
had given her a realistic perspective. “When
“When I ran for city council, I didn’t need
focus groups and voter profiles because I knew those voters, and knew their
families, too,”
too,” she said. She contrasted that with Obama’s background as a
community organizer in Chicago and first-term senator from Illinois. “Before “Before I
became governor of the great state of Alaska, I was mayor of my hometown. And
since our opponents in this presidential election seem to look down on that
experience, let me explain to them what the job involves,”
involves,” she said. “I“I guess a
small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have
actual responsibilities.”
responsibilities.” Palin said her small-town roots made her familiar with the
dignity of work and the economic struggles of families, and said she had spent her
first two years as governor fighting for working people and reducing the size of
government. She questioned Obama’s sincerity and mocked his penchant for big
speeches and a “cloud
“cloud of rhetoric,”
rhetoric,” making fun of his claim to have “fought
“fought for
you.” “There is only one man in this election who has ever really fought for you,” you,”
she said of McCain, a prisoner of war in Vietnam. “In “In politics, there are some
candidates who use change to promote their careers,”
careers,” she said. “And
“And then there
are those, like John McCain, who use their careers to promote change.”change.”

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 05.09.08

– Zardari vows to trim president’s powers

Asif Ali Zardari, the front-runner in the race for presidency, vowed on Thursday that
if elected, he would trim the president’s sweeping powers, which included the
authority to dissolve the National Assembly and dismiss the prime minister. “If “If I am
elected president, one of my highest priorities will be to support the prime minister,
the National Assembly and the Senate to amend the Constitution to bring back into
balance the powers of the presidency and thereby reduce its ability to bring down
democratic governance,”
governance,” Mr Zardari said. In an article in The Washington Post,Post, Mr
Zardari noted that under the Constitution, the president was to be the head of state
but not responsible for day-to-day governance. Two military dictators, Mohammed
Ziaul Haq and Pervez Musharraf, reconfigured the Constitution to consolidate their
power; they broadened the president’s responsibilities to include the authority to
sack democratically elected governments, he added. His comments came ahead of
the September 6 presidential election --- a triangular contest among Mr Zardari,
PML-N’s nominee Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and PML-Q’s Mushahid Hussain Sayed. Mr
Zardari claimed that the “gravity
“gravity of the situation”
situation” had led him, at the insistence of
his party, to run for president. Otherwise, “my“my children and I are still mourning our
beloved leader, wife and mother, Benazir Bhutto.”
Bhutto.” Mr Zardari also vowed to build an
independent judiciary in Pakistan, rejecting allegations that he only supported
‘selective’ reinstatement of judges sacked by President Musharraf during
emergency rule last year. “It“It is essential that our nation’s independent judiciary be
reconstituted. Judges who were dismissed arbitrarily by Musharraf in November are
being restored to the bench by the government my party leads, and I believe
Parliament must enact a system of judicial reform to ensure that future judges are
selected based on merit,”
merit,” he wrote.

Mr Zardari also claimed that the majority of Pakistani people had been “ignored “ignored and
even subjugated”
subjugated” by the country’s ‘establishment
‘establishment’. ’. “This
“This concentration of
unchecked power has strained our government to the point of fracture. “The PPP is
the only party with support in all four provinces as well as in Kashmir and the
Federally Administered Tribal Areas. The PPP’s success in democratising the
presidency will strengthen Pakistan’s viability as a nation,”
nation,” he said. In the article, Mr
Zardari focussed his criticism on central and northern Punjab, saying that this
region was ruling over the rest of Pakistan. Interestingly, this is also the region
where his allied party PML-N received majority of votes in the last election. Mr
Zardari said Pakistani politics had always been a struggle between democratic
forces around the country and “an “an elite oligarchy, located exclusively in a region
stretching between Lahore and Rawalpindi-Islamabad”.
Rawalpindi-Islamabad”. “The “The provinces of Sindh,
North-West Frontier and Balochistan, as well as all of rural Punjab, have often been
excluded from governance,”
governance,” Mr Zardari said in the article titled “Democracy
“Democracy within
our reach”.
reach ”. Mr Zardari said the dictatorial forces that had dominated Pakistan for so
long were now seeking partners to destabilise the new democratic government.
“The establishment and its allies have unleashed a barrage of attacks against me,
my wife and even our children,”
children,” he wrote. “This
“This is consistent with the politics of
personal destruction and character assassination that have defined the elites for
more than 30 years.”
years.” Mr Zardari also vowed that Pakistan would continue to work
with the United States to defeat terrorism. “Chief
“Chief among the challenges that all
Pakistanis face is the threat of global terrorism, demonstrated again in this week’s
assassination attempt against Prime Minister Gilani. “I will work to defeat the
domestic Taliban insurgency and to ensure that Pakistani territory is not used to
launch terrorist attacks on our neighbours or on Nato forces in Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” he
added. “We
“We stand with the United States, Britain, Spain and others who have been
attacked,”
attacked,” he said in the article. “It
“It is important to remember that Pakistan, too, is a
victim of terrorism ... Our soldiers are dying on the front lines; our children are
being blown up by suicide bombers.”
bombers.”

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 05.09.08

– Govt considers setting up courts for women

The Sindh assembly was informed on Thursday that the government was
considering setting up separate courts for women, but the house rejected a
resolution asking the government to reserve 33 per cent job opportunities for
women in government departments. Speaker Nisar Ahmad Khuhro, who presided
over the session that began at 11.25am, adjourned the house at 2.05pm to meet at
9am on Friday. It was a private members’ day, declared by the chair in lieu of
Tuesday that was taken up by the budget session. Besides the two resolutions of
the five on the order of the day, the other business covered during the session was
the question hour and over a dozen points of order. During the question hour, Law
Minister Ayaz Soomro informed the house that the government was considering
setting up separate women’s courts, for which women judges would be appointed in
grade 18. These would be in addition to the speedy trial and proposed evening
courts. He also said that hardship cases of women -- orphans, widows or destitute --
would be pursued free by the people’s lawyers’ forum on the recommendation of
the women’s development department. Reacting to this, Speaker Khuhro remarked:
“This would be a revolutionary step towards the dispensation of justice and it will
benefit the people.”
people.” On a suggestion of Marvi Rashdi of the PML-F, Minister Tauqir
Fatima Bhutto said that a women MPAs committee was being formed to take care of
women-specific issues. Earlier, the assembly rejected a resolution recommending to
the government to reserve 33 per cent job opportunities for women in each federal
and provincial government department. The house, however, allowed the mover to
withdraw the resolution which demanded that the next NFC award be on the basis
of revenue collection.

Speaking in support of her resolution for reserving 33 per cent seats for women in
the government departments, Nusrat Bano Sehar Abbasi of the PML-F said the west
had made progress after giving more than 50 per cent representation to women in
their institutions. She said Islam had given equal rights to women, but women were
being compelled to make sacrifices on one account or another. She said Fatima
Jinnah, Raana Liaquat Ali Khan, Lady Nusrat Haroon and in recent history Benazir
Bhutto had proved that women were equally capable of delivering in each and
every department as one could find very good women pilots, engineers, doctors,
etc. The PPP, a major party in the country and till recently headed by Benazir
Bhutto, was in power and if it reserved a 33 per cent quota for women, it would add
a golden chapter to the history of the country. The treasury benches opposed the
resolution on the plea that the principle of equality of genders called for making
merit the sole criterion for jobs. They recalled the PPP’s contribution to promoting
women in every walk of life. They said Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was the first ruler to
reserve 10 per cent parliament seats for women in the 1973 constitution. Shazia
Marri said women in Pakistan were more conscious politically than in the United
States. “Don’t
“Don’t limit your skills and potential to reserved seats. Rather, let merit be
given recognition in every field of life,”
life,” she said. Sassui Palejo said that in an ideal
situation, she would have demanded 52 per cent share in jobs for women. But in our
society, in a third world country, the literacy rate was too low to warrant such a
distinction. Shehla Raza said it was a dream of the late Benazir Bhutto to allocate a
20 per cent quota for women and Prime Minister Gilani in his Aug 14 address had
also pledged to raise the women’s job quota to 20 per cent, and that she also
backed it.

Rafique Engineer referred to Articles 25, 27 and 34 of the constitution, which, he

said, were against discrimination in any form. Instead of adopting the resolution, an
amendment was required in the constitution for a preferential treatment to women.
Arif Mustafa Jatoi of the NPP and Rafique Bhanbhan of the PML-F supported the
resolution, pointing out that there was representation of women in the local
government institutions, provincial and national assemblies and the senate and if
the jobs were reserved in the government institutions, it would be a good idea as
women in villages could not compete with men for jobs. Rashida Panhwar of the PPP
suggested that the job quota for women be made 50 per cent. Syed Bachal Shah
and Sardar Ahmad Ali Pitafi said a decision be taken after due consideration in view
of the role of women in our society. Shoaib Bokhari and Alim-ur Rehman said
women on their merit were heading many departments. In the Civil Hospital
Karachi, they said, five important departments were being headed by women
doctors. By demanding a 33 per cent quota, women underestimated their potential.
If they were capable, no one could deny them their deserved place in jobs. Winding
up the discussion, Law Minister Ayaz Soomro recalled the PPP services in promoting
the cause of women. He said the first woman deputy speaker of the national
assembly, Dr Ashraf Abbasi, and the first woman prime minister of the Muslim
world, Benazir Bhutto, were elected from the PPP platform. But they were all on
merit and even now the PPP was prepared to offer 100 per cent jobs on merit basis.
He also recalled that the present PPP government had announced that it would allot
agricultural land to women growers, appoint women DSPs, grade 18 civil judges and
grade 20 additional sessions judges, and also planned to appoint women with BE
degrees as engineers on a priority basis.
When the resolution was put to the vote by the speaker, it was rejected by voice
votes.

NFC award Humera Alwani of the PPP, speaking in support of her resolution
regarding the criteria for resource distribution in the 6th NFC award, said that under
Article 116 of the constitution, the NFC award should come every five years. The
last award was given in 1997 in which the sole criterion was population. Sindh,
which generates 62 per cent of the revenue, was given only 13 per cent, which was
only Rs117 billion of the total revenue of Rs1,485 billion. And after deduction of
payment for electricity and Rangers services, only Rs85 billion was transferred to
Sindh. She pointed out that even if population was the criterion for the NFC award,
Sindh was deprived of its due share as the census was carried out in 1988 when the
province had a population of 22 million, but now only Karachi’s population was more
than 15 million and that of Sindh had crossed 50 million. As such now Sindh was not
given its share even on a population basis. She called for declaring the general
sales tax as a provincial tax and also demanded due share in the royalty of coal and
petrol. Syed Sardar Ahmad of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, who had pleaded
multiple criteria in the last government in the NFC commission, suggested that as it
was a very important issue it should not be taken casually and as such the
resolution should be withdrawn and instead a comprehensive resolution be drafted
after a day-long discussion on the subject. He said the basic requirement for a
judicious award was the constitution of an independent commission headed by a
retired judge. Syed Murad Ali Shah also backed Mr Ahmad’s suggestion. Law
Minister Ayaz Soomro said the NFC commission had already been constituted by the
prime minister. Assuring the house that Sindh would get its due share, he asked the
mover to withdraw the resolution as in the next session a comprehensive resolution
would be drafted after a thorough discussion. After the mover agreed, the resolution
was withdrawn with the permission of the chair.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 06.09.08

– Asif’s gatecrashing into presidency

An assorted majority of a parliamentary electoral college will on Saturday deliver a
divisive presidency to Asif Ali Zardari, whose double march to succeed former
president Pervez Musharraf in what is now Pakistan’s most powerful office is marked
by political skill and broken promises. The vote by the two houses of parliament and
four provincial assemblies — forming the 1,170-member, but 702-vote, electoral
college — only 19 days after former army chief Pervez Musharraf opted to resign
rather than face impeachment will mark full transition to elected civilian democracy
after about nine years of a military-led regime. Members of the 342-seat National
Assembly and the 100-seat Senate will cast their votes in Islamabad from 10am to
3pm in a joint sitting at the Parliament House while those of the four provincial
assemblies will vote at the same time at the seats of their respective legislatures in
Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta. Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman Zardari
appears to have gained a big lead over his two rivals — Pakistan Muslim League-N
candidate former Supreme Court chief justice Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and Senator
Mushahid Hussain Syed of the formerly ruling Pakistan Muslim League-Q — and,
according to most estimates, is likely to win by more than 400 votes. This will be
Pakistan’s second presidential election in 11 months, following a controversial Oct 6
election of then General Musharraf for a so-called second term that became the
cause of a still-continuing judicial crisis after he sacked many superior court judges
under his extra-constitutional Nov 3 emergency mainly aimed to avoid a legal
challenge to his candidacy in uniform.

Mr Zardari’s unexpected candidature became one of the two reasons for the break-
up of a fledgling PPP-led ruling coalition with the withdrawal of PML-N after the PPP
leader failed to keep a third deadline for restoration of the deposed judges and also
went back on a signed agreement with PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif to elect a non-
partisan pro-democracy figure as president if the office still had its present powers
but let the PPP put up its own candidate in case it was reduced to original powers
envisaged by the 1973 Constitution. Mr Zardari demonstrated some extraordinary
political skills in managing enough support — even if it meant embracing some of
staunch Musharraf loyalists like the MQM and some from the PML-Q that he once
called “Qatil League” — to keep his party’s government intact and to get elected
even after losing the PML-N, which had emerged as the second largest party in the
Feb 18 election with 92 members in the National Assembly, compared to PPP’s 124,
but the largest in the Punjab Assembly. But political sources said his presidency
would remain a divisive factor in Pakistani politics until its controversial powers such
as to dissolve the National Assembly, sack a prime minister and appoint armed
forces’ chief, provincial governors and the chief election commissioner, are clipped
and he is able to restore his shattered credibility, which is hardly helped by a
piecemeal reinstatement of judges generally seen as insulting and aimed to
undermine the lawyers’ movement. Both the PPP and PML-N are committed in a
joint Charter of Democracy signed in 2006 to restore the constitution to its pre-Oct
12, 1999 position — before it was suspended by General Musharraf on seizing
power in a coup that toppled then prime minister Nawaz Sharif, by repealing a
controversial Seventeenth Amendment that legitimised his decrees. None of the two
military presidents who assumed these powers or the two civilian presidents who
only used them had an honourable exit from office.

General Mohammad Ziaul Haq, who first assumed these powers after toppling then
prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977, used them to remove his own hand-
picked prime minister Mohammad Khan Junejo and dissolve the National Assembly a
few months before being killed in a mysterious plane crash, to be remembered as
the country’s most cruel dictator. His civilian successor Ghulam Ishaq Khan sacked
then prime minister Benazir Bhutto in 1990 and then Nawaz Sharif in 1993, though
his second action caused his humiliation when it was overturned by the Supreme
Court before both of them resigned in an army-mediated deal to pave the way for
fresh election that was won by the PPP. But Ms Bhutto’s second government was
removed by her own hand-picked president Farooq Leghari in 1996 when Mr Zardari
was straightaway arrested to remain in jail for nine years to face, along with his
wife, corruption charges that remained unproven until they were quashed by a
controversial National Reconciliation Ordinance decreed by president Musharraf last
year. President Musharraf, who revived the Zia-invented powers years after they
were scrapped through a PPP-assisted constitutional amendment during the second
Sharif government, did not dissolve the National Assembly by using the
constitution’s article 58(2)b but picked up three prime ministers in one five-year
term before the Feb 18 election that led to a humiliating defeat of his loyalists and
his own disgraceful exit. On the eve of Saturday’s vote, Mr Zardari said in a press
statement that if elected his priority would be to support the prime minister, the
National Assembly and the Senate “to “to amend the Constitution to bring back into
balance the powers of the presidency”
presidency” and that he “strongly
“strongly stands for a system
where all decisions for the country are taken by the elected representatives”.
representatives”. But
he did not elaborate on the issue.

Mr Sharif also was quoted by a party press release as telling a meeting of PML-N
parliamentary group that his party stood committed to the Charter of Democracy
and expected the PPP leadership to honour the signatures their assassinated leader
Benazir Bhutto had put with him on the document in London while both were in
exile. All the three parties which have put up their candidates held last-minute
campaign meetings in Islamabad with their supporters, including a dinner at the
Prime Minister’s House which Information Minister Sherry Rehman said was also
attended by 22 MNAs and eight senators of the PML-Q. Another PPP source said the
party’s target was 450 votes. Sources in the PML-N also said several PML-Q
members would vote for their candidate. All the 340 present members of the
National Assembly, whose two seats are still vacant, 100 senators and 65 members
of the Balochistan provincial assembly will have one vote each while the votes of
the each of the remaining three provincial assemblies, despite their varying
strengths — 371 of the Punjab, 168 of Sindh and 124 of the NWFP — will be
calculated as equivalent to that of the Balochistan assembly, being the smallest of
the four.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 06.09.08

– US looking for ways to improve arrangement with Pakistan

The United States is looking for ways to improve the current arrangement with
Pakistan for fighting terrorists along the Afghan border, said a State Department
official while responding to questions on a US commando raid earlier this week that
seems to have strained Washington’s relations with Islamabad. The department’s
deputy spokesman Robert Wood, who has worked at the US Embassy in Islamabad,
also conceded that the situation on both sides of the Afghan border was neither
“perfect” nor “easy”. Mr Wood spoke of the need for improving cooperation with
Pakistan when asked if the United States would seek a new arrangement with
Islamabad to formalise cross-border raids on suspected terrorist targets in Fata.
“Well, I’m not going to talk about what we may or may not do in terms of our
cooperation with the government of Pakistan. But we will look for ways that we can
both work very closely and work better in terms of fighting these extremist
elements,”
elements,” he said. “Things
“Things are not perfect in terms of our efforts to defeat the
Taliban and Al Qaeda,”
Qaeda,” he said, but both the US and Pakistan “continue
“continue to work
hard and look for ways to improve our efforts, and that’s ongoing”.
ongoing”. Replying to
another question, he said: “It’s
“It’s not an easy situation. The government of Pakistan
takes the threat from the Taliban and Al Qaeda very seriously, as we do.”
do.” Mr Wood
also emphasised that the militants were not operating in Pakistan alone but were
active inside Afghanistan as well. “We’re
“We’re looking for ways that we can improve
(and) enhance our cooperation (with Pakistan) in defeating these extremist
elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in
Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” he said. A US commando raid into South Waziristan on Wednesday
killed dozens of people and caused a strong reaction from Islamabad.

Identical resolutions in the upper and lower houses of parliament on Thursday said
the attack was a gross violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. “I “I
just wondered whether the condemnation by parliament raised this to a different
level from your vantage point?”
point?” asked a journalist. “I
“I don’t have anything else to
add to that,”
that,” said Mr Wood who had said earlier that he did not wish to comment on
issues related to the raid. Mr Wood, however, did not agree with the suggestion that
the raid had strained US relations with Pakistan, which is a key ally in the US-led
war against terrorism. “Our
“Our relationship … it’s a very good one,”
one,” he said. “It’s
“It’s
complex, like a lot of our relationships with governments around the world. But it’s
a good one and we both have, obviously, important interests, interests that coincide
with regard to fighting the Taliban and Al Qaeda.”
Qaeda.” The State Department official
also refused to disclose what message Ambassador Anne Patterson received when
she was called to the Pakistan Foreign Office on Wednesday, hours after the Angoor
Adda raid. “We
“We refer you to the Pakistani government. And we have continuing
contacts with the government of Pakistan through our embassy in Islamabad,”
Islamabad,” he
said. Asked if the ambassador had apologised for the loss of lives in the raid, Mr
Wood said: “I “I don’t have anything more”
more” on that. Another journalist asked Mr Wood
if the US was worried about a blowback against the Pakistani government for US
military operations inside Pakistan. “I“I have nothing for you on that (either),”
(either),” he
said. “But
“But let me just say, as our overall policy toward Pakistan in terms of the war
on terror, we cooperate very closely with Pakistan in fighting the Taliban and Al
Qaeda elements that are operating not only in Pakistan, but across the border in
Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan.” Another journalist reminded the State Department official that the
Angoor Adda raid was not a solitary incident. There has been a series of such
attacks. “Is
“Is this not causing great embarrassment to the State Department and
your relationship with the Pakistani government?”
government?” he asked. “I “I would just reiterate
that our relationship with the government of Pakistan is a strong one,”one,” he said.
“Pakistan is an important ally of the United States in the war on terror. We will
continue to work with Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”

Author Location Dated

Dr. Mubashir Hasan 06.09.08

– Our supreme interest

Opinion-makers
pinion-makers and political leaders in government and outside have yet to define
the supreme interest of Pakistan in the present economic and security environment.
Issues of the coalition government, restoration of the judges, electing a president
and the details of the insurgency in the northwest consume almost all written space
and TV time. Little notice, if any, is taken of the impact on the political struggles
inside the country of the hot war that is waging throughout the world. Pakistan
being the principal battleground, we have yet to recognise its full dimensions. On
one side are the US, Europe and Japan with Russia, China and India giving a helping
hand and on the other are the Al Qaeda and an assortment of militant
organisations. It is a hot war. No quarter is given to the other side. How our
domestic politics is a direct victim of this war we have given little thought to.
Consider a few of the momentous happen ings in our recent past with implications
for the hot world war. Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry proved to be a real
obstacle in our blind participation in the war on the side of the US and allies which
demanded that we secretly catch and hand over our citizens to the US. So our
sovereign, the combine of civil and military services, the breaker and giver of
constitutions in the last six decades, removed the chief justice of the Supreme
Court. Only a de facto sovereign could do it. All attempts to challenge it in the
courts failed. The lawyers and civil society rose in protest as never before. President
Musharraf became dangerously weak as an ally in the hot war. To shore up his grip,
the US and its allies cobbled an ill-conceived and sullied deal between Benazir
Bhutto and Pervez Musharraf in the form of the National Reconciliation Ordinance.
Ordinance.
To balance Benazir’s potential power Nawaz Sharif was imported with the help of
the Saudi government, not a hidden partner of the US in the war. Benazir Bhutto’s
reception and demeanour on arrival from exile shattered the hope of putting in
order a US-guided ‘democratic’ Pakistan to give the required support in the war in
our northwest. She had emerged too big for her boots as Liaquat Ali, Zulfikar
Bhutto, Ziaul Haq and Murtaza Bhutto had emerged and had to be eliminated.

The February elections threw up Asif Ali Zardari and Nawaz Sharif as leaders of the
parties winning a large number of seats. The hugely unpopular Pervez Musharraf
lost his utility for waging the world war and was dropped as Asif Ali Zardari signed
on the dotted line to perform as Pervez Musharraf had agreed to do. Nawaz Sharif
suspected of having sympathies with the fellow-travellers of the Islamic militants
had to be eased out of the coalition with Zardari. Pakistan, it appears, had entered
an entirely new phase of decision-making from the moment Chief Justice Iftikhar
Mohammad Chaudhry started hearing the cases of kidnapped Pakistani citizens. The
dharna of the lawyers, the induction of a new Supreme Court, the election of
President Musharraf, the snatching of the leadership of Benazir’s party as a result of
her assassination, the emergence of Asif Ali Zardari, the cancellation of the policy of
negotiations in the tribal areas and other events have gone the way of the US and
its allies. No major domestic issue, confrontation or skirmish has concluded in a
manner that may be construed as a setback for the interests of the US and its allies
or as a victory for the militants in the ongoing world war. All battles had to end only
one way. In fighting their domestic battles the political leaders in government have
ignored the shadows of the world war. They are conducting their battles with their
eyes closed. They have not paused to consider that in the high interests of the
country the battles lines of domestic struggles should not be drawn in a manner
that the results may be construed as a victory for the US and its allies or for the
militants.

We have failed to articulate among ourselves and to the outside world our real
interests. Pakistan’s interests do not lie in the victory of the US or of Al Qaeda and
the Taliban on the soil of Pakistan. As for our western neighbour we want a strong
Afghanistan. We want the negotiated withdrawal of the US and Nato forces from
Afghanistan. We have no designs on Afghan territory. The only way for us to
succeed is to make Pakistan strong. A weak Pakistan will remain a victim of foreign
interference and manipulation. Today, Pakistan is weak mainly because the people
are not in power. Legislatures, the Supreme Court, the president and the prime
minister sit in Islamabad only in a titular capacity. While we consume all our energy
year in and year out to get into those supposedly high offices of power, we still
remain at the mercy of the combine of the civil and military services. Every decade
or so we are thrown out on the streets when we are suspected of not doing their
bidding. Pakistan needs to see the transfer of political, social and economic power
from the British-built apparatus of state to the people. It can be done through
legislative measures only if we realise what needs to be done. There lies the
supreme interest of Pakistan. The goal is eminently achievable. ¦ The writer was
federal finance minister from 1971 to 1974. 1974.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfanhusain@gmail.com 06.09.08

– Those without voices

The day this article appears in this newspaper, the country’s legislators will be
voting for the next president of Pakistan. This is our highest constitutional position,
and the incumbent represents the federation. With this election, the democratic
edifice will be in place: the provincial and national assemblies and the Senate will,
hopefully, provide the framework for an effective, popular government. However,
while we have the appearance and the paraphernalia of democracy, we are very far
from its essence. If you want to know how far, just look at the recent discussion in
the Senate about the brutal murders of three young women in Balochistan. These
unfortunate girls were driven away to a remote spot, shot and buried while still alive
— (the police have a different version). While the details are still fuzzy, not even the
police now deny that the crime was committed, although it took them six weeks and
a public outcry to launch an investigation. Such crimes are not unique to Pakistan,
but only here could a senator actually be shameless enough to get up on the floor
of the Senate and defend this barbaric act. The Balochistan National Party claims to
be a secular, progressive party and Israrullah Zehri is one of its leading lights. And
yet, he resolutely justified the murders as part of his ‘tribal traditions’ when the
matter was first brought up in the Senate. Unfortunately, this is not the first time a
gruesome murder has featured in the Senate, as Beena Sarwar reminded us in her
column for an English-language daily. In April 1999, Samia Sarwar decided she
could not live with her husband any longer, and wanted a divorce. Although
religious custom and the law of the land gave her this right, she had to flee from
Peshawar to escape her parents’ wrath. She sought shelter in a women’s home run
by Asma Jehangir and Hina Jilani, and reluctantly agreed to meet her mother at their
law offices. The mother walked in with a male servant who shot Samia dead and
was then killed by a policeman.

No legal action was taken against the victim’s parents as her father was a
businessman and president of the Peshawar chamber of commerce, and her mother
a well-known doctor. When Iqbal Haider, the lawyer and human rights activist,
moved a resolution in the Senate to prosecute the parents, he was assaulted by
senators from the NWFP, and assailed by Ajmal Khattak, a senior member of the
Awami National Party, another party with secular credentials. Only four senators,
including Aitzaz Ahsan, supported him; over 20, including presidential candidate
Mushahid Hussain, voted against the resolution. These two incidents are just the tip
of the iceberg: everyday, women across the country are subjected to revolting
crimes that are accepted by society as ‘part of our tradition’. Although several
politicians have denounced Senator Zehri’s claim, the sad fact is that crimes against
women ranging from vani to karo-kari are rooted in the local culture, and are
condoned by society. Those indulging in ‘honour killing’ are seldom prosecuted, and
more often than not, tribal jirgas and village elders give these criminals a moral
justifica tion for their acts. It is said that only education will rid us of these archaic
and barbaric attitudes. However, as we have seen, highly educated people are often
the ones justifying these violent customs that target women. I suppose Senator
Zehri is literate; and I know for a fact that Senator Mushahid Hussain is. So if people
like them are not willing to condemn such misogynistic behaviour, we can not really
expect uneducated tribesmen to respect women. In this recent incident in
Balochistan, the silence of the loc local
al administration and the provincial government is
all the more shocking as it happened at a time when the PPP is in at least nominal
charge. For the party led for all these years by Benazir Bhutto not to take a clear
position is deeply saddening. Had she been alive, I am sure there would have been
a swifter and sharper response to the atrocity.

Today, we are rightly concerned about the threat the Taliban and their extremist
partners in crime pose to Pakistan. However, women had been subjected to
violence long before the emergence of the Taliban. It is the notion that somehow,
women are the property of men, and therefore beyond the protection of the state,
that is deeply in grained in our patriarchal society. All too often, this attitude is
taken abroad by migrants where it clashes with liberal notions of equality for
women. Cases of ‘honour killing’ trigger revulsion and occasional legal action in the
West, but Muslims go on defending these crimes on the basis of religious and social
sanction. Clearly, to talk of democracy when half the population is locked up and
marginalised is to delude ourselves. When we survey the world, we find that most
Muslim countries continue to be largely backward, irrespective of the petro-dollars
some of them are raking in. In terms of our contribution to global progress, we are
at the very bottom. Could it be that a major factor in our backwardness is our
attitude towards women? Muslim countries that have done relatively well (Turkey,
Indonesia, Malaysia) have a better record on gender equality than many Arab
states, as well as tribal and feudal societies like Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Unfortunately, we have been unable to translate our democratic aspirations into a
social transformation. In fact, instead of moving forward, we have seen archaic
tribal practices being justified by educated people. In spite of all the lofty talk of
social progress from our leaders, we have seen a steady regression. Other countries
have had to cope with savage medieval customs as well. But most of them enacted
progressive legislation, and enforced it vigorously. While Pakistan has laws in place,
they are seldom used to prosecute criminals. Unless there is a public outcry, the
administration remains a silent spectator, and even progressive politicians prefer to
sit on the fence. Clearly, nothing will change until the government acquires the
spine to enforce the law. But it takes more than an election to gather the resolve
and the political will to fight social injustice and brutality. In much of Pakistan,
women are not even allowed to vote, and until they do, their voices will not be
heard by the powerful. But until they are, we cannot claim to be a democracy.
Author Location Dated
Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 06.09.08

– How illegitimacy kept haunting Pervez Musharraf

“No one can eat with impunity from the tree of immortality,”
immortality,” wrote a friend on the
resignation of the 19th century German statesman Bismarck. One may apply these
words to the exit of Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, who remained virtually an
absolute ruler of Pakistan for nearly nine years — although there is no comparison
between the two in terms of their achievements. Bismarck made Germany the
strongest nation in Europe, while Musharraf left behind him a Pakistan which is
more insecure than ever before. A question fundamental to the relationship
between individual and political institutions is that of political legitimacy. A
government or regime is legitimate if it is based upon the law. It is obedience to
law, not to an individual that gives the people self-respect and freedom. The law
has a binding character, because it embodies an ideal of right and reason. That
explains why it is universally agreed that tyranny is the worst form of government.
For tyranny subjugates one man to another instead of subjugating both to the law.
A political regime is rooted either in force and fear or in will and consent. These two
bases underlie two different political systems. Fear and force lie at the bottom of
despotism; will and consent lie at the basis of democracy. Though force is essential
to creating and preserving a state, consent, not coercion, is the secure basis of
obedience. As renowned British philosopher T. H. Green puts it, might without right
can at best be temporary; might with right is the permanent basis of the state.
Today it is universally believed that the people must have the right to choose their
government, hold it accountable for its acts of omission and commission and
change it if it exercises power in a way repugnant to public interest.

Criticism of and opposition to government polices is a fundamental political right

because consent invariably implies dissent. What should reign supreme in a polity is
not the will of the ruler but the law safeguarding and promoting public rights and
liberties. The governors are as much subject to law as the governed. Despots are
well aware of the importance of political legitimacy and try to gain it by all available
means. Usually they do so by making an appeal to customs or religion. Even an
imperialist government seeks some measure of legitimacy on the pretext of
civilising the vanquished people or introducing a better system of government.
Seen in this context, Pervez Musharraf was an illegitimate ruler for he had captured
power by subverting the constitution. At the time of Musharraf’s coup, there was no
threat to national security, nor was the country in the throes of a political crisis —
even if there was any such threat or crisis, it would not justify the unconstitutional
step — and a popularly elected government was in office. The coup was a reaction
to the dismissal of the army chief by the prime minister, which the latter was
perfectly authorised to do. Though Musharraf’s coup was validated by the Supreme
Court, as the court had done in the past, invoking the doctrine of necessity and
subsequently indemnified by parliament vide the seventeenth amendment to the
constitution, that did not remove the stigma of illegitimacy from his regime. Being
the basic law of the land, the constitution is supreme and inviolable. All persons and
institutions derive their powers from the constitution and the only test of the
constitutionality of their actions is their conformity to the constitution.
The former general-president himself remained conscious of his illegitimacy and
therefore, as in case of his predecessor Zialul Haq, search for legitimacy remained a
most important component of his regime’s policies. It was the search for legitimacy
that made him assume the office of the president and create a king’s party — the
PML-Q — comprising mostly the partymen of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif,
whose government he had toppled. Again, it was search for political legitimacy that
was behind the 2002 presidential referendum that elected him president for five
years and enactment of the seventeenth amendment to the constitution that made
parliament put its stamp on all orders and amendments to the constitution made by
Mr Musharraf in capacity of either the chief executive or the president. Musharraf’s
rapprochement with the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP) that culminated in the
proclamation of the National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO) in 2007 was also in the
main actuated by the desire to earn legitimacy for his regime. The establishment
has remained the most powerful player in Pakistan politics. However,
notwithstanding all its powers and clout, the establishment needs to have a political
constituency. That explains why every military government in Pakistan cultivates
relations with some political forces and tries to cobble together a political
arrangement to further its interest. General Ayub fathered the Convention Muslim
League, while General Zia resurrected the Pakistan Muslim League. This also
explains why military governments do not live up to their promises of an across-the
board accountability: The very people who have to be made accountable for their
acts of omission and commission are needed to provide political support to the
regime. In the PML-Q government, for instance, there was more than one person
who in case of fair accountability should have been in prison rather than in the
Minister’s Enclave.

After coming into power, Musharraf looked to the Muslim League, the party known
for serving military rulers, for political support. It was in exchange for that support
that the regime ensured the party’s return to power in 2002 elections. The Leaguers
served their master loyally, even accepting an outsider as the head of their
government. But loyalty, though an admirable quality, is not enough. Political
influence also matters. The problem with the former ruling party was that in spite of
all state support, it did not command much political influence and was certainly no
match for the Pakistan People’s Party’s popular credentials. In any test of political
power, the League could hardly get the better of the PPP. The February 2008
elections later proved that. Such attempts not withstanding, illegitimacy continued
to haunt the Musharraf regime. And surprisingly the challenge came not from any
political party but from the judiciary. Musharraf’s five-year term as president was
due to expire in November 2007. Apprehensive that the Supreme Court, whose
head Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, was showing some independence,
may declare him ineligible for reelection, the president suspended the chief justice
and filed a reference against him in the Supreme Judicial Council, the only body
which is competent to remove members of the superior judiciary. However, the
action against the CJP prompted unprecedented reaction from the bar and civil
society and culminated in the reinstatement of the CJP by the apex court. The
reinstatement of the CJP however did not settle the question of Musharraf’s
eligibility. When Musharraf declared his intention of getting re-elected from the
existing assemblies, his candidature was challenged in the Supreme Court.
Apprehensive that the apex court may reject his candidature, on November 3, 2007
Musharraf acting as chief of army staff (COAS) clamped a state of emergency on the
country. The text of emergency proclamation described “increasing
“increasing interference by
some members of the judiciary in government policy, adversely affecting economic
growth, in particular,”
particular,” as the main reason for that unconstitutional step.

The most important consequence of the proclamation of emergency and suspension

of the constitution was that judges of the Supreme Court and high courts who were
not invited to take oath, or who chose not to do so, under the new Provisional
Constitutional Order (PCO) ceased to hold office. Those deposed members of the
judiciary included the chief justice of Pakistan and some 60 other members of the
superior judiciary. The post-November 3 Supreme Court validated the proclamation
of emergency and also declared Musharraf eligible for re-election.
re-election. Meanwhile,
Musharraf stepped down as army chief and took oath as a civilian president for
another five-year term. The decision to take off his uniform was one of the most
crucial decisions made by him. During the hearing of the petition challenging his
presidential candidature, Musharraf had given the undertaking that he would take
oath as a civilian president. However, it will be naïve to assume that he doffed his
uniform to honour his commitment to the apex court. Had he been so respectful to
the judiciary, he would not have suspended the constitution only to get rid of a few
judges. What made him step down as COAS was external and domestic pressure.
However, even becoming a civilian president did not confer legitimacy on
Musharraf, because he had the dubious distinction of subverting the constitution
twice. That is why when the elected government decided to impeach him, one of
the charges against him was subversion of the constitution. That Musharraf is guilty
of high treason under Article 6 of the constitution, there is little doubt about it.
However, whether he should be tried for high treason is essentially a political
question.

Author Location Dated

Ilhan Niaz niazone80@gmail.com 06.09.08

– What Biden’s choice can mean to Pakistan

By choosing Senator Joe Biden as his running mate, Barack Obama has
acknowledged the reality of his lack of grip on foreign policy and national security
matters. If Obama wins the US presidential elections in November 2008, it is
reasonable to expect Biden to play an important role in dealing with foreign powers.
One of the most critical relationships that the United States of America has to
manage in its conduct of foreign policy is its increasingly strained alliance with
Pakistan. For both sides the stakes cannot possibly be higher. Without Pakistan’s
active assistance the Nato intervention in Afghanistan is doomed to fail sooner
rather than later. This means the Taliban will return to power in Afghanistan and
gradually marginalise the Northern Alliance warlords and the likes of Karzai. The
inability of the Karzai government to establish order within Afghanistan, its sinister
and ultimately suicidal collusion with the narcotics trade, and the sheer
incompetence and sycophancy of its policy advisers and administrators, billions of
dollars of assistance notwithstanding, have made life much harder for Nato.
Afghanistan is a country without a state and since 1973 its leaders and their
partisans have been killing each other, with or without superpower assistance,
almost uninterrupted.
For Pakistan the absence of a state across the Durand Line has considerably
increased the complexity of its own governance. The delicate social balance and the
institutions crafted by the British to maintain order along the Afghan frontier have
for all practical purposes collapsed. Millions of refugees from Afghanistan along with
drugs, arms and human trafficking have sorely tested and in many cases
overwhelmed the Pakistani state. Adding to the problems are Pakistan’s own rulers
and their inability to exercise power in a beneficent and effective manner.

Compared to Obama, who advocated going into Pakistan under certain

circumstances in hot pursuit of high value targets, and the Bush administration,
with its limited military aid-centred approach, Biden’s appreciation of the problems
faced, as articulated in an article in the Huffington Post in November 2007, is
remarkably balanced in several respects. To begin with Biden is aware of
demographic and geographic realities. Pakistan, he notes, with a population greater
than Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea combined, nuclear weapons and a
powerful military, is not to be trifled with or pushed into a corner. Going into
Pakistan the same way the United States went into Iraq or Afghanistan, or has
thought about going into Iran, is not a realistic option. The US-Pakistan relationship,
as Biden understands it, is a complex one that has yielded great successes and
continues to be plagued by significant problems. While the tough guy routine might
secure some domestic political mileage it obscures the reality on the ground and
obstructs the practice of realpolitik. Biden regrets that the relationship between the
United States and Pakistan has historically been primarily an exchange of services
produced by temporary confluences in strategic priorities. Consequently, it is no
surprise that from the Pakistani viewpoint American assistance is seen as a bonanza
that will dissipate with indecent haste once the United States feels it can declare
victory in its latest crusade or needs to disengage due to other pressing priorities.
The fact that the periods of disengagement have coincided with democratic rule in
Pakistan means that Pakistanis are highly cynical towards American rhetoric about
democracy and the rule of law. Biden’s advice on how to proceed incorporates four
principal elements. First, the United States ought to increase non-military aid to
about $1.5 billion annually and make this aid unconditional. Second, military aid to
Pakistan ought to be made conditional on its counter-terrorism achievements. Third,
Pakistan should receive an extra “democracy dividend” and assistance in building
democratic institutions. And fourth, increase public interaction and access between
the United States and Pakistan. In other words, Biden understands that the United
States must make a permanent constructive commitment to Pakistan. This
commitment would reflect Pakistan centrality to American success in the US global
campaign against Islamic militancy in general and the Afghan war in particular.
Biden also appreciates the Indo-centricity of Pakistan’s calculations and thus
recommends that the military equipment Pakistan wants in order to maintain the
balance of power vis-àvis India ought to be provided in exchange for effective
counter-terrorism and cooperation with Nato along the Pak-Afghan frontier. Biden’s
assessment and prescriptions are surprisingly sound. They do, however, suffer from
limitations that are perhaps inherent in the world-view of those who matter in the
United States.

The fundamental confusion that the architects of American imperial order suffer
from involves the difference between an effective state and a democratically
elected government. The two are neither mutually inclusive nor mutually exclusive.
In most parts of the world, however, the effectiveness of the state is determined not
by elections or an independent judiciary but by the existence and perpetuation of
executive/administrative institutions. It is the quality of the administrative
institutions that determine the quality of governance and the effectiveness of the
“state”. Musharraf’s failure to deal with extremism has little or nothing to do with
his democratic credentials and everything to do with his arbitrary, ill-advised and
transparently self-serving “reform” and management of the administrative
institutions in Pakistan. There is little reason to believe that a democratically
elected government will do any better than Musharraf unless the quality of the state
apparatus is substantially improved. Pakistan does not need a “democracy
dividend.” It needs an administrative dividend targeted squarely at improving the
quality of the civil service, police and financial administration, restoring the merit
principle upon which they once operated, reducing the levels of politicisation and
arbitrariness, and adjusting their practices to the changes in society, economy and
technology. Biden’s aid proposal of $1.5 billion for non-military assistance to
Pakistan translates to less than $10 per capita. In local currency that is in the range
of Rs700-800 per capita. Given that much of the aid will be funnelled back to the
United States in the guise of consultancy fees and awards to American contractors
or siphoned off by local NGO middlemen the real spending in Pakistan is likely to be
much lower than $10 per capita. Given the severity of Pakistan’s problems and the
absence of effective administrative institutions to utilise the aid money, its impact
would be marginal at best. ¦ The writer is a faculty member at the Quaid-i-
Azam University, Department of History, Islamabad and author of An
Inquiry into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent.
Subcontinent.

Author Location Dated

Steve Conner 06.09.08

– Is our understanding of universe about to be transformed?

Next Wednesday the biggest machine and international scientific experiment ever
built will be switched on. Called the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), it is a giant $10bn
“atom smasher”
smasher” that has been constructed at the European centre for nuclear
research (Cern) in Geneva. It consists of an underground circular tunnel 27
kilometres in circumference, which is about the size of the Circle Line on the London
Underground. At various points along the tunnel, four massive instruments have
been positioned to act as sub-atomic microscopes for analysing the extremely high-
energy collisions that will occur between two opposing beams of protons, the
atomic nuclei of hydrogen atoms. The aim of the experiment is to understand the
fundamental forces of nature and the sub-atomic particles that compose all matter
in the Universe. Why is it causing such excitement? Although we have built “atom
smashers” before, this one is different in terms of how much energy will be
involved. Two beams of protons will be spun in opposite directions within the
underground tunnel and will attain speeds just a fraction shy of the speed of light,
meaning that they will make about 11,000 laps of the circuit every second. When
they are accelerated in this way to collide head-on with each other, the resulting
impact between the two proton beams will generate about seven times the energy
of the LHC’s nearest rival machine, the Tevatron atom smasher in Batavia, Illinois.
The LHC scientists hope to get up to energy levels of 14 teraelectron volts (TeV) and
so in the process create conditions that last occurred less than a billionth of a
second after the Big Bang, when the Universe was created some 13.7 billion years
ago. What’s the point of all this?

In order to understand what things are made of, and the forces that hold them
together, it is necessary to break apart the sub-atomic constituents of matter. It is
only by breaking apart a proton that scientists are able to see what is going on
within this infinitesimally small unit of matter. The answer comes down to even
smaller particles, some of which are so small or elusive that they have so far
escaped detection. So far we know of 12 subatomic particles and four forces, but
this is just the start. More importantly, scientists hope to resolve some of the
biggest problems in physics. They hope for instance to one day unify all the
disparate forces of nature, from the small-scale nuclear forces within an atomic
nucleus to the force of gravity, which acts between planets and galaxies. They call
this the “theory
“theory of everything”
everything” and there is hope that the LHC will make important
contributions to our wider understanding of the biggest questions concerning
creation, time and the nature of matter. Isn’t it risky to mess around with high-
energy collisions? There are some theorists who believe that the collisions may
create “mini” black holes. But even if they do result from the experiment, they will
be sub-microscopic in size and disappear within a fraction of second of coming into
existence. Few if any sensible scientists believe that these minuscule black holes
pose any threat, for instance by merging into a bigger black hole that could swallow
up Geneva. Some Russian scientists have also suggested that it may be possible for
the LHC to create the conditions that could in theory allow time travel. They have
rather fancifully painted a scenario where future time travellers come back to visit
us through the LHC, but, as other theorists have pointed out, such time travellers
would have to be atom-sized to pass through the tiny “worm holes” through time
and space that the LHC may or may not create. What next?

For the first time, scientists will attempt to put a beam of protons into the tunnel
and to accelerate it around the entire circuit. Then, possibly later that day, or
certainly in the days to follow, a second beam will be put into the tunnel and
accelerated around the same tunnel but in the opposite direction. It is just possible,
although unlikely, that the two beams might collide, which will cause the
instruments to start registering readings. However, it is only when all the finer
adjustments have been made that the two beams will reach the highest energy
levels that could result in some very interesting discoveries. The most interesting
things are almost certainly going to be those that are least expected – or even
totally unpredicted. However, there is one sub-atomic particle that theorists have
already predicted to exist. Formally called the Higgs boson, but nicknamed the “God
Particle”, it could explain why matter has mass and hence lead to a greater
understanding of the force of gravity. At the energy levels of the LHC, it is very
likely that the first Higgs boson will be registered. Indeed, Prof Peter Higgs of
Edinburgh University is 90 per cent confident that the particle named after him will
be discovered by the LHC. How quickly the Higgs is found – assuming it exists –
depends on how heavy it is, with a lighter Higgs being harder to detect than a
heavier one. But this is just one of many possible discoveries that the LHC could
make. Physicists hope that the machine will also find the mysterious
supersymmetry particles that are thought to have been created at the beginning of
the Universe. The theory of supersymmetry says that all known particle have a
heavier partner, but none has ever been detected. If the LHC finds evidence of
supersymmetrical particles, it may have also found the reason why 90 per cent of
the mass of the Universe exists as invisible “dark
“dark matter”.
matter”. How difficult was it to
build the LHC and its machines? Very. The 27-km tunnel is aligned to better than a
tenth of a millimetre and underground rivers had to be temporarily frozen to permit
its construction. The giant magnets used to accelerate the proton beams have to be
held together with a force that can resist 500 tons per square metre – equivalent to
one jumbo jet per square metre. They are supercooled to 1.8 degrees above
absolute zero (273C), making the LHC the coldest place in the known universe, with
enough freezing capacity to keep 140,000 domestic fridges at a temperature of
-271.2C. The civil and mechanical engineering involved was almost as momentous
as the science, which could account for why next week’s switch on was originally
scheduled for three years ago. —The
—The Independent

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 06.09.08

– US aid being used for war preparations against India: Obama

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused Pakistan on Friday of
using US aid to prepare for war against India. In an interview with Bill O’Reilly of the
Fox News, Mr Obama also indicated that if elected he might allow US ground troops
to conduct more raids into Pakistan but would not authorise a “full blown” military
attack. “We
“We are providing them military aid without having enough strings
attached. So they’re using the military aid … they’re preparing for a war against
India,”
India,” he said. The Democratic candidate caused uproar in Pakistan when he
suggested last year that he would authorise US military incursion into Pakistan if he
had credible information about Osama bin Laden’s presence in Fata. Pakistan,
however, was not alone in raising alarm over Mr Obama’s statement. Senator
Joseph Biden, now Mr Obama’s running mate, Republican presidential candidate
John McCain and senior Bush officials also criticised him for advocating a belligerent
policy against an ally. But on Wednesday, the Bush administration authorised a
military raid into South Waziristan that killed dozens of people and stirred strong
anti-US sentiments in Pakistan. Mr Obama’s remarks coincide with a bill in the US
Senate, piloted by his running mate, to give Pakistan $15 billion in developmental
aid over a decade. In his interview to Fox News, Mr Obama did not discuss the bill
but suggested that he would make sure US military aid to Pakistan was targeted
against terrorists, rather than India. “So
“So you’re going to pull it out and let the
Islamic fundamentalists take them over?”
over?” he was asked. “No,
“No, no, no, no. What we
say is, look, we’re going to provide them with additional military support, targeted
at terrorists, and we’re going to help build their democracy,”
democracy,” said Mr Obama. The
Bush administration, he said, had “wasted” $10 billion with the Musharraf
government without holding them accountable for knocking out “terrorist
“terrorist safe
havens in Fata”.
Fata”. Mr Obama reiterated his previous stance that if he had credible
information about Osama bin Laden, “we “we will target him, and we knock him out”.
out”. “If
you send ground troops in, all hell breaks loose,”
loose,” said Mr O’Reilly. “Nobody
“Nobody talked
about some full-blown invasion of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Mr Obama replied. “But
“But the simple
point that I made was we’ve got to put more pressure on Pakistan to do what they
need to do.” “You and I agree completely,”
completely,” said Mr Obama when told that the war
against the militants could not be won unless Pakistan cracked down on the
militants hiding in Fata. “What
“What we can do is stay focussed on Afghanistan and put
more pressure on the Pakistanis,”
Pakistanis,” he added.

Author Location Dated

St. Paul, Minnesota 06.09.08

– Soldier McCain pledges to fight for US

John McCain vowed to fight for America as long as he draws breath, in a patriotic
pledge to bring political change as he accepted the Republican presidential
nomination. The 72-year-old war hero and free spirit senator offered himself as a
warrior to fight one final battle for his country, arguing a character forged in war
gave him the judgment and vision to lead from the White House. “I “I don’t mind a
good fight,”
fight,” said McCain, who appeared on stage late on Thursday in a white
spotlight following a video extolling his heroic story as a Vietnam war prisoner, “a “a
man who found his strength in a tiny dank cell miles from home.”home.” McCain’s speech
ushered in the critical phase of the US election, a frenetic crosscountry marathon,
including three face-toface debates, which will decide whether he, or Democrat
Barack Obama, moves into the White House. “In “In the end, it matters less that you
can fight. What you fight for is the real test,”
test,” said McCain, exactly two months from
the election day. McCain, who has a reputation of bucking party’s orthodoxy,
promised he and vice-presidential running mate Sarah Palin would shatter the
political gridlock in Washington. “Let
“Let me offer an advance warning to the old, big-
spending, do-nothing, me-first, country-second Washington crowd: change is
coming,”
coming,” McCain said, adding he was honoured to accept the party’s nomination.
Democrats dismissed McCain as no agent of change and tied him to fellow
Republican President George W. Bush, who was rarely mentioned during the party’s
convention. “After
“After days of negative attacks – and no mention of real proposals to fix
our economy, get more people healthcare, or make America safer – the party that
brought you eight years of disastrous policies is asking for four more,”
more,” Obama’s
vice-presidential pick Joe Biden said in a statement.

In stark contrast to Obama’s spectacular convention finale in an open-air football

stadium in Denver last week, McCain stood on a simple stage stretching out into
seated Republican delegates. McCain is attempting to co-opt Obama’s mantle of
change in a year in which polls show Americans overwhelmingly think their country
is heading in the wrong direction. “I’m
“I’m not running for president because I think I’m
blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save our
country in its hour of need,”
need,” McCain said in a clear swipe against Obama. “My “My
country saved me. My country saved me, and I cannot forget it. And I will fight for
her for as long as I draw breath, so help me God.”
God.” His speech was punctuated by
standing ovations but there was none of the euphoria which greeted Palin, the new
conservative heroine, on Wednesday. As the traditional red, white and blue balloons
tumbled from the rafters, McCain and Palin stood together in a cloud of confetti as
the new face of the Republican Party. McCain mentioned Bush only once, and not by
name, as he thanked the unpopular president for preventing another September 11-
style attack. The primetime convention speech watched on television by millions of
Americans was briefly interrupted by several anti-war protesters who had sneaked
into the crowd. One held up a black sign reading “You
“You can’t win an occupation,”
occupation,” and
started chanting, but was quickly drowned out by the crowd cheering “USA, USA,”
and then hustled away by security staff. In his speech, McCain said he had worked
for decades across the political aisle, contrasting his record with that of Obama, a
first term senator. “That’s
“That’s how I will govern as president. I will reach out my hand to
anyone to help me get this country moving again.
again.”

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 06.09.08

– Sindh PA all for Zardari

In Sindh, where polling for the presidential elections will begin at 10am and
continue till 3pm on Saturday, of Asif Ali Zardari is expected to romp to victory. The
polling, which will be presided over by Sindh High Court Chief Justice Anwar Zaheer
Jamali, will be held in Committee Room No-1 of the Sindh Assembly building. The
PPP co-chairman is likely to bag between 60 and 64 votes out of the total 65 of the
electoral college from Sindh. One missing vote from the electoral college is due to
want of notification of two seats of the assembly which comprises over 168 MPAs.
The two members, whose result notifications have not been issued so far, are from
Thatta district PS-87 and a minority reserved seat. Mr Zardari’s election will set a
new record of mustering sweeping victory from all three provinces – Sindh, the
NWFP, and Balochistan. Punjab will be the only exception where he will not have
easy sailing as PML-N after parting ways from the PPP has fielded its own candidate,
Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddqiui, for the presidential elections. In the triangular
fight for the highest office in the country, the third running candidate is Mushahid
Hussain Syed from the PML-Q. Perhaps he would be the hard luck candidate who
despite having eight votes of his party would fail to get a single vote like that of
PML-N candidate which has no representation in the Sindh Assembly. The party
position in the Sindh Assembly is as follows: PPP — 93 (electoral votes 36), MQM —
51 (electoral votes 20), ANP — two (electoral vote one), PML-F — eight (electoral
votes three), PML-Q — five (electoral votes two), PML-Q (forward) — four (electoral
vote one) and NPP — three (electoral vote one).
one).

Besides the PPP and MQM which had proposed Mr Zardari’s name for the office of
presidency, the ANP and PML-Q (forward) have so far announced that they will back
Mr Zardari, while the NPP has decided to support him after their successful talks
with the PPP top leadership. The PML-F is the only party in Sindh whose chief Pir
Pagara has made it clear that his party legislators would neither cast their vote in
favour of Mr Zardari nor would they oppose his candidature. One out of total five
MPAs of the PMLQ has slipped into the camp of the forward bloc. Shaheryar Mehar
has reportedly decided to cast his vote for Mr Zardari. Dr Arbab Ghulam Rahim is
out of the country while his three colleagues Razzaq Rahimoo, Nuzhat Pathan and
Arbab Zulfiqar till filing of this report had decided not to cast their vote. Sources
said when PML-F parliamentary party chief Jam Madad Ali on Friday called on his
party chief Pir Pagara to seek guidance, he was conveyed the reply as was given to
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani who last week called on him (Pir Pagara) at the
Kingri House to muster his support for Mr Zardari. If a last-minute change of heart
does not take place that — looks impossible in the given situation — Mr Zardari’s
votes would come down from 64 to 60, according to political analysts. According to
the formula as mentioned in the constitution for presidential election, members of
the senate, national assembly would each have one vote while in case of the
assemblies the strength of presidential voters in each assembly would be equal to
the single smallest assembly. At present in the country the smallest assembly is
Balochistan with a total of 65 seats. If this number is calculated with total strength
of the Sindh assembly 168, each electoral vote for the presidential polling would be
equal to 2.58 votes.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 06.09.08

– Assembly condemns cross-border attacks

The Sindh Assembly on Friday unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the
indiscriminate killing of 20 people in an attack by the US-led coalition forces in
South Waziristan. The assembly described Wednesday’s pre-dawn helicopter-borne
raid as an unacceptable attack on the country’s sovereignty and asked the Sindh
government to approach the federal government in order to ensure that all out
measures are taken to prevent any such attack in the future. The resolution, which
was moved by Law Minister Ayaz Soomro, reads: “This “This assembly expresses its deep
outrage and condemnation over the indiscriminate killing of 20 people, including
four minors, in an attack by the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in
South Waziristan agency, recognises the incident as an unacceptable attack on
Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and strongly recommends that the
government approach the federal government to take measures in order to ensure
that all out measures are taken so that any and all such attacks are prevented in
the future.”
future.” Another resolution, which was moved verbally by Senior Minister Pir
Mazharul Haq under Rule 211 after relaxation of relevant rules, condemned the
“cowardly attack”
attack” on the motorcade of Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani by
unknown terrorists. The resolution demanded arrest of culprits. Both the
resolutions, moved out of turn under Rule 211, were adopted without any
discussion. After adoption of two resolutions unanimously, the session, which was
called to order two hours behind the schedule at 11am by Speaker Nisar Ahmad
Khuhro, was prorogued sine die by Sindh Governor Ishratul Ibad. The speaker read
out the governor’s order at 1.35pm and announced his order for summoning a
special session of the assembly on Saturday at 10am for casting of votes in the
presidential election, which will stand prorogued after closing time of polling at
3pm. The speaker also announced that the governor had given his assent to The
Sindh Land Revenue (Amendment) Bill, 2008.2008.

Another motion moved by Law Minister Ayaz Soomro under Rule 211 was about the
increase in number of standing committees from 14 to 30. Chief Minister Qaim Ali
Shah, who was present in the House, listened to the discussion on standing
committees and suggestions to empower the committees. At the close of the
discussion when the chief minister rose to speak he was welcomed by thumping of
the desk. Mr Shah briefly highlighted the importance of assemblies in a democratic
setup and the role of standing committees. Saying that power corrupts and absolute
power corrupts absolutely, he said that since the country’s inception for over 30
years power had been grabbed through the barrel of the gun. Instead of talking
about empowerment of committees he suggested that functions be given to the
committees and prosperity be brought to the people of Sindh. Earlier speaking in
support of the motion, Syed Sardar Ahmad of the Muttahida Quami Movement said
that since 1975 the number of committees remained constant though the number
of departments had been increased over the years. Dispelling an impression that
the committees would be autonomous, he said the committees entrusted with the
issues would make their recommendations to the House for approval. The law
minister, who moved the motion, said that the population increased over the years
and likewise the strength of MPAs and their workload also increased for which the
number of committees was being increased. In the next session, he said,
committees would be formed and elections would be held. Those who participated
in the discussion on the motion were Haji Munawwar Abbasi, Shazia Marri, Shoaib
Bokhari, Pir Mazharul Haq, Rafique Engineer, Syed Murad Ali Shah, Abid Jatoi, Marvi
Rashdi, Rana Abdul Sattar, Shahryar Maher and Razzaq Rahimoo.
Rahimoo. Points of order
Raza Haroon of the Muttahida Quami Movement said that because of load-shedding
in Karachi water supply was badly affected. Rauf Siddiqui suggested that speaker
should pay another visit to the KESC as after his previous visit there was some
improvement in the power supply situation. Speaker Nisar Khuhro said that KESC
had given the assurance that the situation would improve by Sept 5. He expressed
hope that the assurance given by the power utility was for Sept 5, 2008 and not
2009.

Rana Abdul Sattar said that in the world market oil prices had come down from 147
dollars a barrel to 105 dollars a barrel but here in Pakistan petroleum products
prices had not been reduced. He suggested that if the government did not like to
pass on the benefit to the people it should at least give a subsidy on food items.
Home Minister Dr Zulfiqar Mirza, in response to the point of order raised by Humaira
Alwani about a karo kari case, assured the House that the government would take
prompt steps for recovery of girls and take action against those found involved in
handing over Shanila, Anila and Taslima as compensation in a Karo Kari case in
district Naushero Feroze. Marvi Rashdi alleged that in Taluka Kunri some members
of the minorities were involved in blasphemy. The home minister said that a
minority leader had contacted him some time back and had informed him that such
a scheme was planned against them to bring bad name to them. He said a similar
issue was reported in Badin and the government was taking necessary measures to
curb the menace. Sassui Palejo said the Pakistan People’s Party, which was working
to introduce bills in the national assembly to give right to women to contract
marriage with the person of her choice and quota for women, was not against quota
for women in government jobs. Shazia Marri said that the government was working
for women’s empowerment to bring them in the mainstream. She made it clear that
she was not opposed to fixing quota in government jobs but it should not be made
mandatory as it would go against their interest. Jam Tamachi Unnar suggested that
amenity plots in rural areas, which were being misused, should be converted into
playgrounds and graveyards. Saleem Khurshid Khokhar said that some agencies
were harassing fishermen. Fisheries Minister Zahid Bhurgari said a meeting was
held in Karachi with the officials of agencies concerned and representatives of
fishermen and the issue was resolved and to redress such complaints a one window
facility had started working at Karachi harbour. Agha Siraj Durrani, on a point of
order, said that PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari would be elected as President of
Pakistan tomorrow. To celebrate this victory, he said a fireworks show was being
arranged in front of the Bilawal House.

Auth Locat Date

or ion d
Raja Islam 07.09
Asgha abad, .08
r Pakist
an

– All eyes on
President
Zardari
With a big
parliamentary vote
that can consolidate
the fledgling coalition
government led by his Pakistan People’s Party, Asif Ali Zardari on Saturday won the
presidency which imprisoned him for years, but appeared faced with hard
challenges ranging from personal credibility to terrorism and economic troubles
afflicting the country. The PPP co-chairman got a little more than two-thirds majority
of a 1,170-member, but 702-vote, electoral college of the two houses of parliament
and four provincial assemblies in the election for Pakistan’s president whose
expected induction early next week will mark the country’s transition to full civilian
democracy after nine years of a military-led regime. Mr Zardari overcame a storm of
criticism at home and abroad over unproven charges of corruption and dishonoured
pledges for restoration of the judges sacked by former president Pervez Musharraf
to earn the office, one of whose occupants, his own party’s Farooq Leghari, got him
arrested while sacking his wife Benazir Bhutto’s second shortlived government in
1996. Gen (retd) Musharraf too let the prisoner to complete about nine years in jail
while being tried for never-proven corruption charges before allowing him out on
bail in 2005. Mr Zardari, who took over as party leader after the Dec 27
assassination of Ms Bhutto, earned the easy victory with 481 votes, compared with
153 of Pakistan Muslim League-N candidate and former Supreme Court chief justice
Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and 44 of Senator Mushahid Hussain Syed of the Pakistan
Muslim League-Q of Musharraf loyalists, many of whom broke party discipline to
vote for the other two candidates. Political sources said the presidency, which is
now the most powerful political office in the country, would hardly be a comfortable
crown for Mr Zardari whose credibility plummeted in recent months after he failed
to honour three deadlines he agreed with PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif for restoration
of the judges. He will have to rectify this situation, for which he now has the needed
presidential powers and the parliamentary majority for any constitutional
amendment to which the PML-N too will an eager party.

Then there will be the question of the PPP-PML-N commitment to a Charter of

Democracy that both Ms Bhutto and Mr Sharif had signed in London in 2006 whose
implementation will mean clipping the presidency of its controversial powers such
as to dissolve the National Assembly, sack a prime minister and appoint armed
forces’ chiefs and the chief election commissioner and to give them back to the
prime minister as originally envisioned by the 1973 Constitution. Many political
observers doubt Mr Zardari will like to part with all of these powers, which were first
introduced by decree by longest serving military ruler General Mohammad Ziaul
Haq (1977-88), but were given back to the prime minister through a constitutional
amendment under Mr Sharif’s second government, and assumed again by former
president Musharraf. Until the presidency retains its present ascendancy over
parliament, it will be Mr Zardari, rather than his hand-picked Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani, who will play the main role in directing Pakistan’s role in the fight
against terrorism on its own or as an ally of the United States and in formulating
government policies to tackle the acute hardships caused by the prevailing inflation
and food and power shortages and other pressing economic problems. Mr Zardari
said in a post-election press statement that he would give ‘high priority’ to support
the government and parliament to amend the Constitution and ‘correct the
imbalance of powers’ between the presidency and parliament to fulfil Ms Bhutto’s
‘dreams’. But he did not elaborate how far he could go. Chants of “Jeay (long live)
Bhutto” and “Zinda hai Bibi zinda hai” (Bibi is alive) to remember the executed PPP
founder and former prime minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Ms Bhutto repeatedly
rang through the National Assembly chamber during the last stages of the
votecount and after Chief Election Commissioner Qazi Mohammad Farooq
announced the result of the voting by members of the 342-seat lower house and
100 seat Senate. Members of the four provincial assemblies voted at the chambers
of their respective legislatures in Lahore, Karachi, Peshawar and Quetta.

The two houses of parliament gave Mr Zardari 281, or only 11 less than two-thirds
of 436 polled votes, of which 11 were declared invalid, showing the PPP and its
allies could run the government comfortably even after last month’s withdrawal by
the PMM-N from the coalition because of differences over restoration of judges and
Mr Zardari’s candidature. Despite their varying strengths, the electoral votes of the
provincial assemblies will be calculated as equivalent to the lowest number of 65 in
the Balochistan assembly. The majority vote for the PML-N candidate in the Punjab
assembly — 201 actual and 35 electoral — must also put to rest speculations about
the fate of the PML-N-led provincial coalition government there if the PPP withdraws
from it. Mr Zardari was a loser to the PML-N candidate in the Punjab assembly
where he got 123 actual and 22 electoral votes, while Mr Mushahid polled 36 actual
and only six electoral votes. However, in the Sindh assembly, Mr Zardari secured all
the polled 162 actual and 63 electoral votes. In the NWFP assembly, he got the
actual 107 and electoral 56 votes, compared to 10 actual and five electoral votes of
Mr Siddiqui and three actual and two electoral of Mr Mushahid. In the Balochistan
assembly, Mr Zardari polled 59 with his two rivals getting only two votes each. PPP
sources said the vote outcome was more than the expectations of the party which
was sure of a victory even with the strength of itself and its declared allies but had
set a target of 450 after several PML-Q members assured their support. Four MNAs
and one senator of Pir Pagara’s PML-F, which had previously declared to remain
neutral in the contest, arrived a few minutes before the close of the polling amid
cheers from PPP benches, indicating the Sindhbased party had agreed to back Mr
Zardari.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 07.09.08

– Saeed and Mushahid concede defeat

PML-N’s presidential candidate Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui and PML-Q’s
Senator Mushahid Hussain conceded on Saturday their defeat in the presidential
election, saying that polling was conducted in a smooth and democratic manner.
Talking to reporters outside the Parliament House after the announcement of
election results, Jus
Justice Siddiqui said: “Results
“Results should be acknowledged with an
open heart to maintain a cordial atmosphere so that the country could be pulled out
of a difficult situation.”
situation.” In reply to a question if he had found any evidence of
‘horsetrading’ during the election campaign, he said: “Frankly,
“Frankly, not much. But
during my visit to Quetta, I heard that the government had distributed Rs25 million
among legislators, obviously to influence the poll.”
poll.” PML-Q’s presidential candidate
Mushahid Hussain, who got only 44 votes, out of the 685 polled, congratulated Mr
Zardari on his own behalf and that of his party’s president, Chaudhry Shujaat
Hussain. Flanked by Chaudhry Shujaat and Chaudhry Pervaiz Elahi, Mr Hussain
hailed the “courage
“courage and fortitude”
fortitude” shown by legislators who voted for him despite
“enticements, government pressures and hardships”.
hardships”. Without appearing to be
perturbed by the defeat, the PML-Q leaders looked composed, and said they would
“take care of people who had stood by us instead of getting tough on those who
dissented against the party policy”.
policy”. Chaudhry Shujaat said that the president-elect
should rise above petty considerations like narrow nationalistic tendencies, adding
that he was no more a Sindhi now despite having polled 100 per cent vote from the
province. “Now
“Now he should think about the welfare of whole Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Chaudhry
Pervaiz Elahi said: “We
“We have to find out those who violated the party discipline after
getting elected on the party’s ticket.”
ticket.”

Senator Mushahid said the new president should must now tackle daunting issues
like the “war on terror”, price hike and convene a joint session of parliament to
discuss the issues. Earlier, talking about the possible impact on the country of the
outcome of the presidential poll, PML- leader Khwaja Asif said: “We “We hope Mr Zardari
will not adopt the traditional dictatorial attitude after getting elected.”
elected.” When
questioned about the future of Centre-Punjab ties, he said: “If “If anyone challenges
us, everyone knows we will fight back.”
back.” Senior PML-N leader Javed Hashmi said:
“None of us, including myself, Mr Asif Ali Zardari or Mian Nawaz Sharif, suffered
hardships in jail to reach the seat of power. And if anyone of us has ascended to
that position, he has put himself to the greatest test of his life.”
life.” He said that after
the hardships suffered by Mr Zardari, “certainly
“certainly he will not like the same era to
return”,
return”, adding that he was now expected to do something good for the nation.
Adviser on industries Manzoor Wattoo, who has been reportedly tasked with
destabilising the PML-N government in Punjab and paving the way for the induction
of a PPP-led government there, said: “We“We are part of the provincial government and
we will remain as such for, if we leave it the CM will be asked to take fresh vote of
confidence.”
confidence.” He said the forward bloc in Punjab would have no constitutional
standing to support any party’s government.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 07.09.08

– Presidential poll PML-Q’s Waterloo

The Saturday’s presidential election proved to be a Waterloo for the Pakistan
Muslim League Q (PML-Q), whose numerical strength in the parliament as well as
provincial assemblies was reduced to almost one-thirds, posing a serious challenge
to it in terms of maintaining its existence. According to the unofficial results of the
elections, PML-Q’s candidate Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed got only 44 electoral
votes even though, keeping in view the party’s strength in all the assemblies and
parliament, he was projected to secure 126 votes. The result clearly shows that
most of the PML-Q members, who were earlier staunch supporters of former
president Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, have changed their loyalties in less than one
month of his resignation and are now trying to prove their allegiance to their new
found friends and arch rivals of the past — Pakistan People’s Party and the PML-N.
However, as per the tradition of Pakistan’s politics, a majority of the defectors have
decided to join the ruling party which is evident from the fact that Mr Zardari has
obtained votes much more than the target of 450 set by the party leadership before
the elections. The position of the PML-N’s candidate Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman
Siddiqui remained unaffected as he secured 153 electoral votes against the
expected 150 votes. The PML-N managed to show its strength in the Punjab
Assembly where its candidate obtained 201 actual votes in the 371-member house
– thus making it the only assembly where Mr Zardari suffered a defeat.
Political experts were focussing on the outcome of the Punjab Assembly results
believing that it would determine the future of the Shahbaz Sharif-led government
in the province. The relationship between the PPP and the PML-N got strained after
the last month’s decision of the PML-N to part ways with the PPP at the centre over
the differences on the issues of the reinstatement of the deposed judges and the
PPP’s decision to unilaterally nominate Mr Zardari as the presidential candidate. The
outcome of the result was important because both the PPP and the PML-N have
fielded separate candidates despite the fact they are still part of the ruling coalition
in the province. Punjab Governor Salmaan Taseer and Prime Minister’s Adviser Mian
Manzoor Ahmed Wattoo had been assigned the task to manoeuvre between the
political groups in the province, but it seemed that they failed to get the support of
the majority of the members of the PML-Q forward bloc, who polled votes in favour
of the PML-N’s candidate. The PML-Q had suffered a major blow when a strong
group of about 30 parliamentarians attended the dinner hosted by Prime Minister
Yousuf Raza Gilani at the PM House on Friday evening which had been arranged to
show their strength ahead of the presidential elections. Soon after the
announcement of the unofficial results, a dejected Senator Mushahid Hussain —
who was the only candidate who ran an extensive campaign — alleged some foul-
play in the polling held for the presidential election. On the other hand, another
PML-Q MNA Sheikh Waqas Akram declared that those who had not voted for the
party’s candidate were “turncoats”. Talking to the media, he termed the
presidential election a good omen for the party, saying that now the real PML-Q
would play the role of a true opposition in the parliament. However, political experts
believe that in the near future more PML-Q members will ditch the Chaudhrys of
Gujrat and will either join the PPP or the PML-N, thus proving that the PML-Q was
really a “King’s Party” which is facing extinction within a month of the ouster of Gen
(retd) Musharraf.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 07.09.08

– Struggling for democracy

Politicians in Pakistan tend to flatter their audiences with the observation that they,
the people, have waged a long struggle for democracy. Following the election held
on Feb 18, 2008, it was generally expected that democracy would soon be
operational in this country. Now, six months after that event, one is not sure what
exactly is going on. The PPP leaders and workers have been asserting that Benazir
Bhutto had valiantly fought for democracy throughout her career, and that she got
killed because of it. Her successors and associates claim to be carrying forward her
legacy. Their rivals in other parties contend that in their dedication to democracy
they are second to none. Many observers say they have not yet seen real
democracy at work in Pakistan. Even those who won a mandate in the last election
and formed governments seem to be unsure as to whether democracy is here.
Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani said a few weeks ago that dictatorship was
creating problems for the people’s representatives, implying that a dictator was still
present and presumably pulling the strings from behind the scene. Addressing his
party notables in Islamabad, Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif (PML-N), said his
party wanted “genuine” democracy, which would come when the supremacy of
parliament had materialised and the deposed judges had been reinstated. Still
others argue that democracy can be said to have been achieved only if and when
the hardships afflicting the masses are removed. It may be that politicians express
these reservations to sound good to their constituents. But since many others also
feel that way, it may be useful to consider the aforementioned reservations a bit
further.

Mr Gilani and Mr Sharif are heads of governments that resulted from the last
elections. They have claimed repeatedly that theirs are democratic governments.
But if at the same time they feel that these fall short of genuine democracy in some
measure, it is for them to do the needed mending. If ‘dictatorship’ is obstructing the
full functioning of democracy at the centre, most of us have not seen it happening.
Mr Gilani would be understood to have implied that the dictatorship he spoke of
resided in the presidency. If that indeed were the case, one would want to know
why he did not tell the then president to mind his own business (which for the most
part should be to read and improve his mind, eat and drink in moderation, and play
golf to stay physically fit). If he and Mr Zardari were not restraining the president, it
was their choice and fault, and they cannot pass the blame on to others. Mr Sharif’s
argument that democracy in Pakistan will not become genuine until the supremacy
of parliament is established and the deposed judges are reinstated is not sound.
Reinstatement of the judges is doubtless a worthy objective in itself but it has little
to do with the genuineness of democracy: we may not have genuine democracy
even after the judges have been restored. In political systems where powers are
divided, checked and balanced, no organ of the state is supreme. In a parliamentary
system while the legislature prevails over the executive its supremacy goes only as
far as the constitution allows. Talk of the want of parliamentary supremacy in our
political discourse must be understood to refer to the president’s authority to
dissolve the National Assembly under certain circumstances specified in the
constitution. Since his authority in this regard comes from the constitution, it cannot
be wished away.

It is open to Mr Gilani and his partners in government to divest the president of this
authority by moving to amend the constitution. But as far as I can see they have no
real intention of making such a move. One cannot be sure that Mr Asif Ali Zardari
will want to let go of this leverage that the president has had to date with the
National Assembly and, thereby, with the prime minister. The argument that the
present governments are not democratic enough because they have not solved the
people’s problems is also poor. Democracy is a way of organising governance, not
particularly a problem-solving device. Actually an authoritarian ruler, dedicated to
his people’s wellbeing (e.g. Mustafa Kemal of Turkey), may be better situated to
solve problems than a full-blown democracy. We want democracy mainly because
we like the idea of being governed by our chosen representatives who will be
accountable to us. Nevertheless, it is a democratic government’s duty to do all it
can to solve the problems of the people. If it does not succeed or succeeds only
partially that may be because the problems are intractable, not because the
government’s democratic character is deficient. But if it does not even try, its
credentials will be open to question. Given to discussion, debate, and compromise
in the process of making decisions, a democratic government is more likely to be
sensible than an authoritarian regime. But it is not immune to passions and
prejudices of which the masses may be seized at times.
There is no assurance that a democratic government will be ‘good’ in absolute
terms, but it will be better than any of the other available options. Governments
resulting from a fair election are in place. Why then the feeling that democracy has
eluded us? It derives from a widespread impression that the ruling party (PPP) does
not really care much for democratic norms, and secondly from the equally
widespread feeling that it is not trying hard enough to alleviate the common man’s
misery. It has not done much even to restore law and order. It makes declarations
of intent to do the right thing but does not match them with action. Lastly, a word
about the struggle for democracy that the people are said to have waged. It is true
that the struggle in each instance was labelled as one for the restoration of
democracy, but it was actually a struggle for the removal of dictatorship. The
people had not yet quite internalised the culture of democracy which includes,
among other things, their and civil society’s ongoing oversight of the elected
representatives’ performance and the disposition to punish them if they have
ignored the people’s needs and aspirations. A few more elections like the one we
had on Feb 18 may help this culture take root in our soil and flourish. ¦ The writer
is professor emeritus of political science at the University of
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 07.09.08

– Who is chief executive?

Having installed a loyalist prime minister and filed his own papers for the
presidency (barring a political tsunami he should be the president when these lines
appear in print), Asif Zardari still wants to “take
“take all political forces along — to save
Pakistan from disintegration”.
disintegration”. What is left to be given to the ‘political forces’ for
them to go along, more particularly to Nawaz Sharif’s Muslim League, Mr Zardari
doesn’t say. The speaker is handpicked by Mr Zardari; the chairman of the Senate
belongs to Nawaz’s rival league; Nawaz loathes the sitting chief justice; and, most
important, in Governor Taseer he sees a sword of Damocles hanging not just over
the Punjab government but his own political dynasty too. Taseer, too, leaves no
doubt about it. Now all that is left for Nawaz Sharif to take is a few ministerial jobs.
For him it is Hobson’s choice — to take what is available or nothing at all. For his
electoral strength, the fight he put up for the judiciary and his personal popularity,
by all accounts on the rise, he deserved better than that. Leaving aside the
individual principles that were lyrically touted in the argument over the
reinstatement of judges, a fair and workable basis for the PPP–PML-N cooperation
would have been to divide the two top jobs between them. Now that Mr Zardari has
chosen to be the president, Nawaz Sharif, or his nominee till he becomes eligible,
should justifiably be the prime minister. In the February elections, no party won an
absolute majority either at the centre or in three of the four provinces. Only the PPP
in the Sindh Assembly has got more seats than all the other parties put together i.e.
69 out of 130 contested. In this situation, the president should have called upon the
leader of the party with the largest number of members to form the government.
This is the practice in most parliamentary democracies and Pakistan’s constitutional
scheme is also similar. Deviating from that course our leaders embarked on a long
search for ‘consensus’ which has only ended in making divisions sharper and
reviving old feuds.
The aborted consensus and Mr Zardari’s unexpected bid for the presidency
combined to create a political ferment which is tending to defeat the will of the
people as it was expressed at the polls. The PPP indeed emerged as the largest
single political force across the country but its share of 30.6 per cent of the votes
polled is certainly not large enough to lay claim to both the office of the president
and the prime minister. That would be tantamount to giving monopoly of power to a
party which did not command support of even one-third of the electorate. By
contrast, the 42.6 per cent voters who voted for the two factions of the Muslim
League would be deprived of any say at all in national policies and, what matters
more, share in political patronage as well. The power structure, no doubt, is
determined by the number of seats won. But the number of votes polled nationally
also reflects a sentiment which must not be ignored. It should be of interest to note
that the party of Maulana Fazlur Rahman, who today is an important powerbroker,
had polled just two per cent of the popular vote. And the PML-Q though it polled 3.4
per cent more votes than the PML-N got only 54 seats against PML-N’s 92. It may be
easy to occupy all the positions of power by outwitting rivals and voters. But under
the current circumstances before enjoying the fruits of power the government has
to see that the country stays together and moves forward. Truly speaking, Pakistan
has all but lost the war on terror. Despite the deployment of the armed forces large
swathes of our territory, even highways, one after the other have passed under the
control of the militants and secessionists while the politicians jostled for power.
Sensibly, Mr Zardari now talks of a national government and not a consensus of his
own making. But no government can be called a national one if both the Leagues —
N and Q — and Nawaz Sharif are kept out of it. The big hurdle one foresees in the
formation of an all-embracing national government is Nawaz Sharif’s unwillingness
to join it until the Seventeenth Amendment is repealed. For that the voluble
information minister, Sherry Rehman, speaking obviously both for the PPP and the
government, is prepared to give no timeframe.

A protracted argument over the powers of the president, as in the case of the
reinstatement of the judges, is likely to drive the PPP and PML-N further apart rather
than unite them under one national government. One cannot imagine Mr Zardari
being just a constitutional president. Nevertheless, caught in a warlike situation an
effort has to be made to evolve a compromise formula in which the president and
prime minister equitably share executive authority. The power of the president to
dissolve the National Assembly without so being advised by the prime minister,
however, must go. This or any other solution may be explored to pave the way for a
national government but the present situation in which all the control over the party
apparatus and state institutions vests in one individual is not conducive to national
unity nor will the country be able to regain the control of its lost territory. Who will
have his finger on the nuclear trigger after the all-powerful Musharraf is another
worrying question raised by many and stressed by Gen Ali Quli Khan on behalf of a
score of retired generals. In a parliamentary government it should be the prime
minister, and Mr Gilani too thinks he is the chief executive but everybody else
thinks he is not. The argument being advanced that the president and the prime
minister belonging to the same party would ensure stability may hold true if, as in
India, we had a ceremonial president like Pratibha Patil and Asif Zardari were to be
just a party boss as Sonia Gandhi is. A general party agreement on the distribution
of powers between the president and the prime minister, thus, is a prerequisite to
the formation of a national government.
Author Location Dated
Ashraf Mumtaz Lahore, Pakistan 07.09.08

– Reliance on PML-Q dissidents may be dangerous for PML-N

The pattern of voting for the presidential election in the Punjab Assembly on
Saturday has lessons for all the three major parties — the PML-N, the PPP and the
PML-Q. The PML-N, which bagged more votes for its presidential candidate than the
actual strength of the party, showed a better performance because a number of
PML-Q dissidents supported it. Similarly, the tally of the PPP candidate was higher
than the number of party seats in the province. The extra votes, of course, came
from the disgruntled PML-Q elements. The PML-Q, it seems, is about to complete its
"natural life", and in case its leadership did not take urgent steps to remove the
grievances of the dissidents, the party might vanish sooner than later. (A PML-Q
leader said on Saturday it was a matter of great satisfaction for them that they
succeeded in keeping 36 out of total 80 plus members with them in the presidential
election). Despite the fact that the PML-N has been able to show its majority in
Punjab the plan for the change of the government may have been delayed for some
time, not abandoned. This means that to retain itself in power, the PML-N will
continue to need the support of the PML-Q dissidents. The day the party lost their
support, the Punjab government would collapse. Some PPP leaders worked very
hard recently to improve the party position in the province. And although they have
succeeded in bringing some more people to their side, it is not still possible for the
party to set up its own government in Punjab, notwithstanding their claims to the
contrary. Observers say it would be a far better option for the two parties to
continue to cooperate with each other and let the coalition work smoothly. The PML-
N should allow its ministers to rejoin the federal cabinet and stop demanding that
the PPP ministers should quit the Punjab cabinet.

Together, the two parties would be able to serve the country better and be in a
position to surmount all obstacles which individually they are unable to do. If the
PML-N doesn't stand with it, the PPP government will not be in a position to make
any constitutional change for which a two-third majority in both houses of
parliament is mandatory. As a result, the commitments made by the PPP leadership
would remain unfulfilled. But in case the PML-N feels that it cannot join hands with
the PPP, it should consider other options. Cooperation with the PMLQ as a party - not
the forward bloc members - should be given a serious thought. Reliance on the
dissident PML-Q lawmakers would be a very bad decision. Turncoats should not be
encouraged by any party. In fact, all parties should hate the loyalty changers. The
PML-N must bear in mind that the legislators who deserted their party - and joined
hands with it or the PPP only six months after being elected on the PML-Q tickets -
were not trustworthy. If they could cheat their own party, it would not be difficult for
them to cheat any other party. As a result, the government formed with their
support would always remain shaky, vulnerable. The PML-N leaders know better
than anybody else that the Muslim Leaguers always prefer to remain with those in
power. (In 1993, the PML-N legislators revolted against the leadership when the
then president sacked the Nawaz Sharif government. However, the very same
people thronged the Model Town residence of Mian Nawaz Sharif when the Supreme
Court restored his government after some 40 days). The PPP should maintain its
coalition with the PML-N. But if it has any problem working with this party, it should
also explore the possibility of forming a coalition with the PML-Q.

Author Location Dated

Habib Khan Ghori Karachi, Pakistan 07.09.08

– Opposition votes hand Asif total victory

The Sindh Assembly on Saturday witnessed a big surprise when all votes were cast
in favour of Pakistan People’s Party co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari, one of the three
candidates in the triangular race for the president of Pakistan. Out of a total 64
electoral college votes for the presidential election in the house of 166 members, Mr
Zardari swept all but one vote, which was dismissed on a technicality. Three
members were not present, namely former Sindh chief minister Dr Arbab Ghulam
Rahim of the Pakistan Muslim League-Q, who was in Dubai, Dr Mohammad Ali Shah
of the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, who was in London, and Sardar Nadir Ali Magsi,
who could not make it because of bad weather in Balochistan, where he had gone to
muster up support for Mr Zardari. The other two contenders in the presidential race
– retired Justice Saeed-uz-Zaman Siddiqui of the PML-N and Mushahid Hussain
Saiyed of the PML-Q – failed to get even a single vote out of the 163 which were
cast. The polling agents were Law Minister Ayaz Soomro for Mr Zardari, Saleem Zia
for Justice Siddiqui and Yusuf Alvi for Mr Mushahid Hussain. The polling, which
started at 10am, was closed at exactly 3pm after the last call from the podium for
the three missing voters – Arbab Rahim, Dr Mohammad Ali Shah and Nadir Magsi.
As no one turned up, the ballot box was opened and the ballots were counted.
Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court who served as
presiding officer, before announcing the result paid compliments to the members
for the manner in which voting was conducted in and the congenial atmosphere
during polling. His announcement of the results was greeted with thumping of desks
and a boisterous atmosphere gripped the house. Members stood up and were seen
greeting each other. Leader of the Opposition in the Sindh Assembly Jam Madad Ali
and Leader of the House Syed Qaim Ali Shah embraced each other. As the presiding
officer left, the house echoed with pro Bhutto slogans. The first vote was cast by
Abdul Haq Bhurt of the PPP while the last vote was cast by Marvi Rashdi of the PML-
F at 2.55pm. Two MPAs, who were abroad, returned last night to cast their vote.
They were Shama Mithani, who was in the US, and Mohsin Shah Bokhari, who was in
London for treatment. In what was probably the most dramatic moment of the day,
the PPP’s Ms Ruqqaya Soomro was brought from the hospital in an ambulance. She
was brought into the assembly hall on a stretcher assisted by her relatives. When
she entered, all members stood up out of respect and remained standing until she
was taken back after marking her ballot with the assistance of the presiding officer,
who also dropped it in the ballot box.

When the chief minister’s name was called to cast his vote, he was greeted by the
thumping of desks. He cast his vote at 11.37am. When a few members from the
opposition entered the house, they were greeted and cheered on by the treasury
members by desk thumping. Before casting their votes, each member shook hands
with Qaim Ali Shah and other PPP leaders. All three National People’s Party
members – Arif Mustafa Jatoi, Masroor Jatoi and Abid Jatoi – came at 11.30am and
after casting their votes left the house as by that time the opposition benches were
still vacant as no one had turn up from the PML-F and members of the Press Gallery
doubted they would come at all. However come they did, led by Jam Madad Ali, at a
quarter to three. Their arrival was also greeted with desk thumping. There had been
quite a lot of confusion about what route the PML-F would take as even by Friday
night Jam Madad Ali and his group of eight MPAs, along with three MPAs of the PML-
Q, were undecided. It was apparently a last minute call from Asif Ali Zardari and
Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani to PML-F chief Pir Pagara which ensured the change
of heart. Earlier, out of the tiny 17 member opposition, three NPP members and two
other PML-Q legislators – Shehryar Mahar and Shah Hussain Shirazi – had
announced their support for Mr Zardari. The Sindh Assembly comprises 168 MPAs,
but due to litigation two seats have remained vacant. If the house had been
complete the total strength of the electoral votes would have been 65, equal to the
number of the Balochistan Assembly, as per the formula in the Constitution. Chief
Justice Jamali ensured transparency by keeping an eye on the process from the
chair of the speaker. He was assisted as polling officer by Sindh Provincial Election
Commissioner Qamar-uz-Zaman Chaudhry, Secretary Sindh Assembly Hadi Bux
Buriro and Registrar of the Sindh High Court Rasool Bux Memon. The transparent
ballot box was kept on the table in front of the presiding officer, which was visible
from all sides in the house. In the Governor’s Galley Chief Secretary Fazlur Rehman,
Home Secretary Arif Ahmad Khan, Chief Minister’s Advisers Waqar Mehdi, Rashid
Rabbani and others were prominent while in the Speaker’s Gallery PPP leaders Taj
Haider, Prof N.D. Khan and Nafees Siddiqui, along with Shahi Syed of the ANP, were
seen.

Author Location Dated

Khaleeq Kiani Islamabad, Pakistan 08.09.08

– Two weekly off days, petrol pumps to close on Fridays, New

steps to reduce oil consumption
Faced with the highest ever current account and fiscal deficits, the government is
expected to announce two weekly off days and closure of petrol pumps for one day
in a week to reduce oil consumption. “An“An announcement about five-day week and
closure of petrol pumps for one day is expected this week,”
week,” a senior government
official told Dawn on Sunday. The federal cabinet in a recent meeting decided to
take steps to curtail consumption in transport and power sectors, but deferred the
announcement till after the presidential election. According to the decision,
Saturday and Sunday will be off days while petroleum products will not be sold on
Fridays. The oil import bill, which surged to $11.38 billion or almost 30 per cent of
total imports of about $40 billion in 2007-08, was more than 55 per cent higher than
$7.33 billion a year ago, mainly because of higher international prices and
increased consumption. The Economy Monitoring Committee,
Committee, headed by Finance
Minister Syed Naveed Qamar, had directed the petroleum ministry to suggest ways
of curtailing oil consumption. Among other things, the ministry proposed two steps
-- five weekdays and closing petrol pumps for a day, which could reduce oil
consumption by almost 20 per cent, the ministry said. The last PPP government had
also introduced two weekly holidays but the move was soon reversed because it
resulted in higher than usual fuel consumption and government employees started
taking three off days. It was witnessed that people moved out of the cities and
towns where they worked to enjoy longer weekends. Therefore, the concept of
stopping petroleum sales on Fridays is being introduced to discourage the trend.
As a result of record international prices and higher consumption, the government
had to pay $4 billion (Rs270 billion) more on oil imports in 2007-08 than in the
previous year. The import of petroleum products showed a 65 per cent increase to
$6.158 billion from $3.73 billion, while crude imports surged by 45 per cent to $5.22
billion from $3.6 billion in 2006-07. The consumption of petroleum products went up
by about 19 per cent to 10 million tons from 8.6 million tons, while crude imports
surged by 5.2 per cent to 8.6 million tons from 8.2 million tons in 2006-07. The
fiscal deficit reached 7.7 per cent of GDP or Rs777 billion against the budgeted
target of 4.2 per cent of Rs398 billion. The current account deficit, too, set a new
record at almost $16 billion last year with no respite in the initial two months of the
current fiscal year. The government had estimated the oil import bill to stay at $8.8
billion in 2007-08, but it had to pay about $2.6 billion (Rs170 billion) more because
the estimates had been based on an expected international crude price of $70 per
barrel. Petroleum emerged as the largest contributor to the total import of $39.97
billion in 200708, followed by machinery imports at $7.4 billion, which was 10.32
per cent higher than $6.7 billion of 2006-07. The government increased duties on
more than 250 items last month to discourage import of non-essential products. The
opening of letters of credit is also subject to 100 per cent cash margin to discourage
importers from unjustified flight of capital. The two measures are estimated to save
about $1 billion.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Faruqui 08.09.08

– A parallel universe
Most people around the world greeted the Aug 18 resignation of Pervez Musharraf
with a sigh of relief. But there were some who did not, including several good
friends of mine. More than one is wishing that Musharraf would return. One wrote to
me, “Musharraf
“Musharraf will be back and this time he will come with the help of the people.”
people.”
I was dumbfounded. My friends must live in a parallel universe. They greeted his
coup of 1999, ignored the one-sided nature of his presidential referendum,
accepted the rigged general elections of 2002, were not bothered that he reneged
on his promise to remove his uniform in 2004 and, most importantly, they did not
hold him responsible for leaving behind the worst political mess in the nation’s
history. Now that he has departed from centrestage, they are down with a serious
case of ‘post-Musharraf
‘post-Musharraf blues’.
blues’. Their shock and anger has gotten the better of them.
How else could they be hoping for the messianic return of a person who, despite
being an absolute ruler for nine long years, failed to transform the political
fundamentals of the nation? The day he quit office, the political clock reverted back
in time to Oct 12, 1999. If the nation has limited political choices today, it is
because Musharraf aligned himself with the religious parties and stifled the growth
of new secular leadership. Musharraf’s supporters are upset that his replacement is
likely to be Asif Zardari. When Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in December,
Zardari effectively accused Musharraf of being responsible for her death. In their
eyes, Zardari’s threat to impeach Musharraf was the ultimate betrayal. After all, it
was Musharraf who had allowed him back into the country and given him a new
political life through the National Reconciliation Ordinance which pardoned him for
all his known and unknown transgressions. These hardcore Musharraf loyalists are
now taking their anger out on the lawyers, the judges and the politicians who
inspired the civil revolt that brought the dictator down. In their eyes, it is not just
the chief justice of the Supreme Court who was corrupt. It was the entire political
and judicial apparatus of the country.

By default, they seem to be arguing that the only institution that deserves to rule is
the military. Such a longing is doomed to be a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the military
continues to seize power every time there is a political crisis, how will effective
civilian institutions develop? They conveniently gloss over the harm done to the
country by generals from Ayub onwards. General Jehangir Karamat is quoted in
Shuja Nawaz’s book, Crossed Swords,
Swords, as saying that the army has not ruled the
country any better than the civilians. So what is the point of dredging up the same
old anti-democratic arguments? For the umpteenth time, we are being told that
democracy does not deliver good news in Pakistan, that it is a weak reed on which
to set the edifice of the state. But there is a good reason why democracy has not
worked in Pakistan. The military controls the civilians and not the other way around.
The classic example of what happens when this principle is violated is Central
America. Between 1948 and 1982, two-thirds of the 47 governments in Guatemala,
El Salvador, Honduras and Nicaragua came to power through a coup. Those
supporting a return to military rule are wrong on five counts:

— Just because past politicians have failed to deliver political stability and economic
progress does not mean that all future politicians will fail. Democratic processes,
when they are allowed to function without military interference, do ultimately
produce strong civilian institutions and competent rulers.
— Feudalism is not a barrier to democracy. If that was true, no country would be a
democracy today since all were feudal at one point. The empowerment of the
people brings an end to feudalism.
— Being Muslim does not equate to being anti-democratic. Indonesia, Malaysia, Mali
and Turkey are democratic countries.
— The Indian example shows clearly that ‘strong men’ are not a precondition for
democracy and slays the myth that law and order, education, and economic
development have to precede democracy.
— Military rule is not necessary to hold a multi-ethnic state together. Indeed, half of
Pakistan was lost due to the excesses of its military rulers.

It is important to note that elections are a necessary but insufficient condition for a
successful democracy. They have often been used by dictatorial regimes (both
civilian and military) to create the illusion of democracy. Authoritarian rulers often
impose restrictions on who can stand for election, limit the laws that can be brought
before parliament, encourage unfair voting practices and engage in the falsification
of results. Now that Pakistan has begun its third transition from dictatorial to
democratic rule, it is time to build a political culture in which a ‘loyal opposition’ can
exist. And right now, this responsibility falls most notably on the shoulders of Asif Ali
Zardari. All sides in a democracy need to share a common commitment to civil
discourse. If an incumbent loses power, he or she must accept the judgment of the
voters and transfer power peacefully to the winners. The losers should be assured
that their defeat does not equate to loss of life or liberty and that they can continue
to participate in public life. Their loyalty to the state should not be questioned if
they criticise the government of the day. In the new set-up, the parliament must be
sovereign since it is the voice of the people. It should have the power to approve
the government’s budget including the defence budget. The judiciary should be
independent and have the power to declare military coups as unconstitutional. It
should equally have the power to strike down laws passed by parliament that
contradict the constitution and to rein in any executive that exceeds its authority.
None of this is meant to say that democracy is a panacea. There is no dearth of bad
civilian leaders in Pakistan. Nor is there any dearth of bad military leaders. But they
can be voted out of office in a democracy and that is reason enough to stick with
democracy. ¦ The writer is author of Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America
and the Middle East (Vanguard, 2008). 2008).

Author Location Dated

Faiza Ilyas Karachi, Pakistan 08.09.08

– ‘Shisha as harmful as cigarette smoking’

Unaware of the fact that shisha, or waterpipe smoking, is just as harmful as
cigarette smoking, the city’s youth, particularly university level students, are
getting hooked to these hookahs and that too with parental approval, reveals a
study. The study, titled ‘Knowledge,
‘Knowledge, attitudes and practice of university students
regarding waterpipe smoking in Pakistan,’
Pakistan,’ was jointly carried out by the Aga Khan
University Hospital’s department of pulmonary and critical care medicine and the
Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS). The findings of the study have also been
printed in this month’s issue of The International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung
Disease.
Disease. As many as 450 students – 268 male and 182 female – from the AKU,
DUHS, Institute of Business Management and the National University of Computer
and Emerging Sciences took part in the research. The study says that for decades,
water-pipe smoking was restricted only to rural areas. But the last few years have
seen a rapid growth in the number of shisha smoking venues in major cities of
Pakistan increasingly attracting the youth. A country that already has a high
prevalence of tobacco use is now witnessing a surge in water-pipe smoking in both
urban young men and women with greater parental approval for the addiction as
compared with cigarette smoking. The study found that of the total 450 students,
64.2 per cent of the male and 37.9 per cent of the female participants had smoked
shisha at least once in their lifetime, with 77.3 per cent of the males who had
smoked shisha continuing with the habit. The same is the case with 33.3 per cent of
the women participants. Regarding the characteristics of water-pipe smoking, it was
observed that 56.4 per cent of the participants smoked shisha less than once per
month, 30.2 per cent did so at least once a month, 10 per cent at least once per
week and only 3.4 per cent were found to be regular smokers of shisha. The
majority smoked for more than 30 minutes at each sitting and also shared their
water-pipes with others.

According to the research findings, the flavour is the most likeable attribute of
water-pipes and about a third of the current water-pipe smokers consider
themselves addicted to shisha, but only about a fifth are willing to quit it. When
asked about parental attitudes towards shisha smoking, 78.5 per cent of the
participants claimed that their parents had no problem with this practice. By
contrast only 21.1 per cent of the parents approved of cigarette smoking. Another
aim of the study was to ascertain how well aware the youth are about the health
hazards posed by smoking. It was noticed that around 17.6 per cent of the
participants were unable to identify even a single harmful effect of water-pipe
smoking. The study also revealed that most of the participants considered cigarette
smoking more hazardous than shisha smoking. The study identified curiosity,
pleasure-seeking, peer pressure, boredom and stress and a lack of entertainment as
the key factors behind the initiation of water-pipe smoking. A widespread myth
about water-pipe smoking, the study points out, is that the passage of smoke
through the steaming water in water-pipes ‘purifies’ the smoke of all harmful
elements. It has now been established, however, that exposure to carbon monoxide
and nicotine after water-pipe smoking is at almost the same levels as those
associated with cigarette smoking. “It
“It has also been proven that long-term habitual
use of waterpipes, as with regular cigarette smoking, is associated with lung,
gastrointestinal and bladder problems as well as pulmonary, cardiovascular and
haematological disease. Other dangers include infections such as tuberculosis,
hepatitis C, pulmonary aspergillosis and Helicobacter pylori infection, which have
been assumed to spread from pipe sharing,”
sharing,” the study says. The study recommends
that water-pipe tobacco should be subjected to the same regulations as cigarette
and other tobacco products. Besides creating awareness about the health hazards
of pipe smoking, Pakistan needs to broaden the scope of the Tobacco Control
Programme to encompass water-pipe smoking as well.

Author Location Dated

Khaleeq Kiani 08.09.08

– Economy under severe stress

Pakistan’s economy is fast approaching an insolvency-like situation. Liquidity is
drying up. The cost to protect $2.7 billion sovereign bonds in the international
capital market from preventing default, is increasing. The external debt and
liabilities have increased in rupee value by more than Rs705 billon in less than six
months just because of over 25 per cent or Rs15 per dollar decline in currency
value. The country’s overall external debt stock has increased by almost $7 billion
to $47 billion since June 2007. At the same time, the stock market has fallen to a
28-month low by registering over 42 per cent decline since April 2008. In the
process, the stock market capitalisation has almost halved to $39 billion from a
peak in April because investors generally avoid markets where there is political
instability. The government plans to introduce two weekly holidays (Saturday-
Sunday) soon after presidential elections and close down petrol pumps for the third
day (perhaps on Friday) to reduce consumption of petroleum products.The federal
cabinet has already approved the plan and announcement would be made
sometime this week. These measures are estimated to save about $3 billion per
annum in oil consumption. In another step, the government has already imposed
higher regulatory duties on import of non-essential items while letters of credit
(LCs) for imports are opened on 100 per cent cash margin to discourage misuse of
foreign exchange. These two measures are anticipated to save about $1 billion per
year. But the most worrying thing for the finance managers is the interest
repayments on the back of dried up pipeline of financial inflows.

The country’s total debt stock now hovers around Rs7 trillion, up by about Rs1.4
trillion from Rs5.6 trillion in March 2008.This includes about Rs3.4 trillion domestic
loan and Rs3.6 trillion in foreign loan and liabilities. For many years in decades,
Pakistan’s external debt in rupee value has surpassed the domestic debt. The cost
to protect sovereign bonds from default that stood at 788.8 basis points on August
22 has increased to 975 basis points, overtaking Argentina’s number one position of
being the riskiest investment paper. Foreign-exchange reserves have declined from
their peak at $16.5 billion in October to just $8.89 billion, less than three months of
imports, while trade and current account deficits are widening.. This is happening at
a time, when foreign investors in the capital market are loosing confidence and
flight of capital by Pakistanis mostly to the Middle East is gaining momentum.
Despite remittances and exports on a mild growth path, the inflows are not catching
up with the rising foreign currency requirements on the back of limited financial
flows from multilaterals and bilateral sources. On top of that, the environment does
not seem favourable enough to float major sovereign bonds or sell government
entities because of political instability and overall security situation.

Meanwhile, the last year’s consolidated federal accounts showed that the budget
deficit had increased to a record Rs777.2 billion or 7.4 per cent of GDP during 2007-
08 that was met through the highest ever bank borrowing of Rs625 billion and over
Rs75 billion cut in development expenditure. The most depressing feature was a
massive reduction in revenue receipts that declined to 14.3 per cent of GDP
compared with 14.9 per cent in 2006-07 despite higher revenues in absolute terms.
In contrast, the total expenditure in 2007-08 increased substantially to 21.7 per
cent compared with 19.2 per cent a year before. The government is taking up with
International Monetary Fund (IMF) at the top level to secure a letter of comfort that
should help Pakistan persuade the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to
provide at least $1 billion in quick disbursement loans to overcome some of the
immediate liquidity problems. The senior level separate visits by the two bank
officials last week have asked Pakistan to introduce tough decisions for
macroeconomic stabilisation by allowing full pass-through in utility costs, removal of
subsidies in petroleum products, reduced domestic borrowing and flexible exchange
rate, so direly needed to reign in whopping fiscal deficit. In this background, the IMF
was expected to send its mission to Islamabad next week to take stock of economic
situation on ground before issuing the required letter of comfort. Interestingly, both
the ministry of finance and IMF’s office in Islamabad were unaware of the scheduled
visit. Knowledgeable quarters suggest the government was trying to convince the
Fund through some powerful capitals to help secure financing from the WB and ADB
without going through procedural requirements given its severe financial problems
as a goodwill gesture to support democratic forces.

Simultaneously, the PPP-government sent a delegation last week to Saudi Arabia

with a wish-list of about $17 billion multi-year bail-out package for oil imports and
balance of payment support. Led by foreign affairs minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi
and comprising secretaries of finance and petroleum, the delegation met the Saudi
leadership and sought oil supplies on deferred payments and other facilitations for
budgetary support to boost foreign exchange reserves. The delegation wanted to
have a soft term credit facility of about $2.5 billion from Saudi Arabia for essential
commodities like fertiliser, another $7.3 billion oil imports on deferred payments or
reduced rates and rescheduling or write off of about $5.8 billion amount it was
required to pay to the brotherly state on account of oil it had imported on deferred
payments during 1999-2004. Likewise, Islamabad also wanted to have an
arrangement with Kuwait on special terms for diesel imports of over $4 billion over
a period of two years. Pakistan imports about one million tons of diesel from Kuwait
for Pakistan State Oil under a long-term agreement. Relevant government agencies
believed the United States’ reduced crude imports from Arab countries offered good
chances for Saudi support to divert its surplus production. The members of the
delegation were hopeful of a positive response expected to come soon after the
presidential elections on September 6. Although the arrangements for imports of
crude from Saudi Arabia are yet to be worked out, any relief from the brotherly
nation are seen as the best solution to economic problems. This could provide
reasonable breathing space to the government till such time it comes out of the
political crisis surrounding presidential elections and concentrate on economic
revival. Sooner the country returns to political stability, overcomes judicial crisis and
puts in place an economic revival plan, better it will be for the restoration of
investor confidence needed to attract direct investment and revive capital market.
That requires seriousness of the political leadership in economic revival, poverty
reduction and macroeconomic stability.

Author Location Dated

08.09.08

– Rupee dips vs dollar

The rupee has lost more than 20 per cent against the dollar so far this year. The
main problem is balance of payment crisis. Foreign currency reserves have fallen
sharply due to a deteriorating balance of payments position. The weekly SBP foreign
exchange currency reserve data that currently reserves stand equivalent to less
than three months of imports as uncertain political situation has undermined
investor confidence. However, some experts believe that the situation could
improve after presidential election scheduled for September 6. Slight recovery in
the value of rupee versus dollar is expected this month due to increased inflows of
overseas remittances in the holy month of Ramazan, which would help the rupee
recover ground versus dollar and euro. However, many economists are of the view
that this recovery in the rupee would be short lived in the absence of positive
economic indicators. Meanwhile, the rupee opened the week on a negative note
against the dollar in the inter bank market as it lost 45 paisa on September 1 due to
increased dollar demand, amid short supplies and traded at Rs76.95 and Rs77.00,
against previous week close of Rs76.50 and Rs76.55. Trading in interbank market
remained suspended on September 2 as banks were closed for zakat deduction
being first day of holy month of Ramazan. The downtrend in rupee/dollar parity
persisted on the third trading day of the week in review. Heavy payments for oil
imports pushed the demand for dollar further in the local currency market as a
result the rupee came under renewed pressure on September 3, surpassing Rs77
mark at one stage during the day. Later in the day, the rupee managed to trimmed
losses and retained its overnight levels against the dollar, suggesting no change
over the previous day’s rate. The rupee firmness against the dollar persisted on the
fourth trading day as the parity traded unchanged. However, improved inflows of
foreign remittances from overseas workers ahead of Eid-ul-Fitr helped the rupee to
strengthen further on September 5, when the rupee posted fresh gains of 35 paisa,
changing hands versus the dollar at Rs76.55 and Rs76.60 at the close of the day.
Thus at the end of the week in review, the rupee in the interbank market was lower
by five paisa against the dollar over the previous weekend’s level of Rs76.50 and
Rs76.55.

In the open market, the rupee remained under pressure versus dollar on the first
trading day of the week in review. It suffered 40 paisa loss on the buying counter
and another 30 paisa decline on the selling counter to trade at Rs76.30 and Rs76.80
on September 1, after closing last week at Rs75.90 and 76.50. However, the rupee
managed to recover its overnight losses versus the dollar on September 2, after
dollar inflows improved. The rupee recovered 30 paisa and traded at Rs76.00 and
Rs76.50. On September 3, the rupee failed to retain its overnight firmness against
the dollar and came under demand pressure due to the closure of interbank market
for zakat deduction being first of Ramazan It lost 70 paisa for buying and 60 paisa
for selling to trade at Rs76.70 and Rs77.10. However, the rupee managed to
recover some of its overnight losses on September 4 and gained 10 paisa against
the dollar, which were seen changing hands at Rs76.60 and Rs76.90 at the close of
the day. On September 5, the rupee gained 10 paisa on the buying counter but at
the same time it shed 10 paisa on the selling counter to change hands versus the
dollar at Rs76.50 and Rs77. In the open market, the rupee this week continued to
remain under demand pressure against the dollar. It did not show any change on
the buying counter but it posted 50 paisa loss on selling counter over the previous
week close. Versus European single common currency, the rupee commenced the
week on a happy note as it managed to hold firm ground gaining 30 paisa and
traded at Rs111 and Rs111.20 on September 1, after closing last week at Rs110.70
and Rs110.90. The rupee further gained 25 paisa on the second trading day to trade
at Rs110.45 and Rs110.65 on September 2. On September 3, the rupee extended it
firmness against euro and further gained 30 paisa on the buying counter and 35
paisa on the selling counter, changing hands at Rs110.15 and Rs110.30. On
September 4, however, it failed to retain its overnight firmness versus the European
single common currency and lost 5 paisa for buying and 10 paisa for selling to trade
at Rs110.20 and Rs110.40. However, the rupee managed to rebound versus euro on
September 5, making a strong recovery against the European single common
currency by gaining more than Rs2 in a single day trading, as euro fell to its lowest
level in a year against dollar in Asian trading. After posting fresh gains of over Rs2,
the euro was trading at Rs 108.25 and Rs 108.95, some Rs 1.40 above the previous
weekend’s Rs110.70 and Rs110.90.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 09.09.08

– Asif in presidency, takes oath today

President-elect Asif Ali Zardari moved to the Presidency on Monday and will take
oath of his office on Tuesday. Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar
will administer the oath at the Aiwan-i-Sadr. Afghan President Hamid Karzai is likely
to attend the ceremony. Mr Zardari was greeted by staff of the Presidency and his
close aides when he arrived there with daughters Bakhtawar and Asifa. Insiders said
that portraits of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir Bhutto had been placed at the main
porch of the building, while pictures of the two deceased leaders, PPP Chairman
Bilawal Zardari-Bhutto and Mr Zardari adorned the Pink Room (where the president
holds one-
one-to-one meeting with guests) and Rotunda Hall. Since renovation work on
the main residential building is in progress, Mr Zardari’s daughters will stay in the
guest rooms on the seventh floor. A Quran Khawani was also held on Monday. After
the oath, Mr Zardari will be presented a guard of honour by a contingent of the
armed forces. He will address a press conference later in the evening. Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, members of the federal cabinet, Senate chairman, Chief
Justice of Pakistan, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee and chiefs of the
three services will also call on Mr Zardari.

Meanwhile, Mr Zardari has ordered government departments not to issue

advertisements congratulating him on his election, adds APP. In a statement issued
on Monday, Mr Zardari said: “We
“We are a poor country and cannot afford such
extravagance at the expense of taxpayers’ money. “The world is watching us and
the government is facing many internal and external challenges. The government
and the people of Pakistan have to prove that they have the will to bring about
positive changes in the country’s social and economic structures.”
structures.” Criticising
dictatorship, he said it had hurt Pakistan’s image abroad. Regaining the lost
respect, he said, was “a
“a gruelling task … together we will achieve this goal.”
goal.”
President Zardari stressed the need for austerity to put the nation on the path to
progress. Asif phones Altaf: The president-elect on Monday telephoned MQM chief
Altaf Hussain in London and thanked him for proposing his name for the presidential
election. Mr Zardari lauded the MQM leader for his role in Pakistan’s solidarity and
security as well as for the promotion of democracy in the country. Mr Hussain
felicitated the president-elect on his thumping victory in the presidential election
and prayed for his success.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 09.09.08

– PML-N declines to rejoin coalition

The PML-N on Monday politely declined president-elect Asif Ali Zardari’s request to
rejoin the ruling coalition, but assured him that it would play a positive role in the
opposition. Mr Zardari had sought reconciliation when he met a delegation of the
Pakistan Muslim League-N, headed by its chief Nawaz Sharif at the Prime Minister’s
House. This was the first meeting between the two leaders since the PML-N pulled
out of the ruling coalition on Aug 25. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani also
attended the meeting. According to sources, Mr Zardari asked Mr Sharif to rejoin the
cabinet and the ruling coalition, saying that reconciliation was in the best national
interest. Mr Sharif, however, told Mr Zardari that it was not possible for PML-N to
rejoin the government, but assured him that his party would not destabilise the PPP-
led coalition government at the Centre. PML-N leader Ahsan Iqbal, one of the
delegates who met Mr Zardari, told Dawn that Mr Sharif had made it clear to Mr
Zardari that PML-N would support the government every step of the way towards
implementing the Charter of Democracy. According to Mr Iqbal, the president-elect
sought his party’s cooperation in formulating policies. Mr Zardari, he said,
particularly wanted cooperation in government efforts to ensure peace with India
and resolution of the Kashmir issue. He quoted Asif Zardari as saying that he
wanted to set up a committee comprising representatives of all political parties to
develop a consensus on national issues.

Mr Iqbal said that during the meeting, the future of the Punjab government was not
discussed. However, sources said, the two sides discussed the status of relationship
between the two parties at the provincial level. They said both sides agreed to
refrain from criticising each other. Mr Iqbal said since Nawaz Sharif was going to
London to look after his ailing wife, his brother Shahbaz Sharif would represent the
party at the oathtaking ceremony of Asif Zardari. The PML-N delegation comprised
Punjab Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, Makhdoom Javed
Hashmi, Raja Zafarul Haq, Iqbal Zafar Jhagra, Ahsan Iqbal, Ishaq Dar, Khawaja
Mohammad Asif and Pervez Rashid.
Rashid. Mr Zardari and Mr Gilani were assisted by Raza
Rabbani, federal Minister for Labour Syed Khurshid Shah, Minster for Information
Technology Qamaruz Zaman Kaira and Minister for Narcotics Control Nazar Gondal.
Mr Iqbal said PML-N had formally submitted an application to National Assembly
Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza asking her to appoint Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan as the
opposition leader. The PML-N became the largest opposition group in the National
Assembly after its decision to quit the ruling coalition. Moreover, Saturday’s
presidential election results also proved the present Opposition Leader, Chaudhry
Pervez Ilahi, had lost the confidence of a majority of members of his own party.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 09.09.08

– Senators call for scrapping 17th Amendment

Senators from both sides of the divide on Monday greeted Asif Ali Zardari on
winning the presidential election and urged him to restore the judiciary to its pre-
Nov 3 position, repeal the 17th Amendment and change foreign policy. Abolition of
58(2)b, provincial autonomy, end of terrorism and extremism and control of inflation
and power crises were some of the other demands. Interestingly, the house which
was expected to dispose of the private members’ day agenda, allowed lawmakers
to congratulate Mr Zardari without even suspending the rules of business. Leader of
the House, Mian Raza Rabbani, said that one of the top priorities of Mr Zardari was
recovery of missing people in Balochistan. “Hundreds
“Hundreds of mothers in Balochistan are
yearning to see their dear ones back to their homes and Mr Zardari will take up the
matter as expeditiously as possible.”
possible.” He said that establishment of rule of law,
improvement of economy and striking a balance between powers of the prime
minister and the president were other priorities of the president elect. The acting
chairman of Senate, Jan Mohammad Jamali, stressed the need for collective efforts
to meet the challenges faced by the country. Dr Mohammad Saaed of Jamaat-i-
Islami said that it was a good sign that Mr Zardari had made his way to the
presidency on the strength of popular support. He said Mr Zardari was assuming the
presidency at a time when the country was facing numerous problems. Iqbal Zafar
Jhagra of the PMLN said the parliament was now complete after the election of Mr
Zardari. He said the biggest challenge before the president-elect was law and order.
He urged Mr Zardari to replace the policy of former president Pervez Musharraf with
a process of “sustained
“sustained dialogue”.
dialogue”.

Wasim Sajjad of the PML-Q said: “It “It is a very difficult time and Mr Zardari will have
to utilise all his abilities to cope with the challenges in accordance with the spirit of
the Constitution.”
Constitution.” He urged Mr Zardari to quit the party post. Abdur Rahim
Mandokhail and Raza Mohammad Raza of the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party urged
Mr Zardari to avoid “imposing his decisions” on parliament and work within the
parameters of the Constitution. They attributed the success of democratic forces to
the struggle of lawyers, spearheaded by deposed chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry. Saadia Abbasi of the PML-N said it was a historic opportunity for the PPP
to work for the strengthening of democracy and resolution of burning issues. Tahir
Mashhadi of the MQM said Mr Zardari’s election augured well for democracy
because he was from a smaller province. Javed Ashraf Qazi of the PMLQ said Mr
Zardari was now no more a president of the PPP or a particular province; he was the
president of the entire country, adding that a major challenge before him was
insurgency in the tribal region. Senator Khurshid Ahmed condemned Nato strikes in
the tribal areas and said that people had been left with no choice but to prepare
themselves for retaliation. “Otherwise,
“Otherwise, such attempts would continue in future as
well.”
well.” Mr Rabbani said the govern ment had categorically informed the international
community that “we “we do not recognise hot pursuit and no one will be allowed to
violate territorial, political and economic sovereignty of Pakistan”.
Pakistan”.

Author Location Dated

Andleeb Abbas andleeb@franklincoveysoutha 09.09.08
sia.com

– The global discontent

Which country in the world exemplifies peace, prosperity and progress? The answer
to this question is easy: none. Even western economic giants like the US and Europe
or eastern miracles like China and India do not qualify. These are strange and
testing times where the world is going through an identity crisis; where concepts
like globalisation which were supposed to make the world a better place have
themselves become disputable; where more learning and research have failed to
overcome human failings; where the survival of the fittest has led to ruthless power
and politics overriding the movement for a mature, civilised global society. War and
recession are a recipe for disaster. Having witnessed these and seen the horrific
impact on humankind, one would have thought the world would be much wiser and
avoid getting into such devastating conflicts again. But human nature gives way to
the addiction to control and subjugate, and no amount of historical evidence of the
negative fallout of this seems to have diminished the appetite to exercise power. As
the superpowers struggle in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, smaller nations like
Pakistan and Zimbabwe struggle to shrug off dictatorships and corrupt politicians
which have made them vulnerable to every form of socio-economic attack on their
sovereignty and identity. Stronger nations, in pursuit of their philosophy of ‘we
‘we can
only become stronger if the others become weaker’
weaker’ have forgotten how to become
stronger themselves. Let us see how these conflicts have actually eroded their
economic might and made them more vulnerable and insecure.

The political cost:

cost: Politics in the West is limited to being either pro- or anti-war.
Americans and the British are choosing their leaders on this basis alone. The exit of
Tony Blair and the expected departure of George Bush are attributed to their
obstinate stand on war. Politics in lesser countries like Pakistan is also decided on
the basis of whether the leadership is supporting the war in Afghanistan. The last
few years of Gen Musharraf were simply a reward from the White House for services
rendered to facilitate the American-led war on Pakistani and Afghan soil. The
preoccupation with perpetuating war and then propagating it as one on terror have
diluted politics to its weakest level. Increasingly, politics and politicians are being
gauged on the basis of the exercise of coercive power in a world which is
theoretically obsessed with democracy but practically possessed by the desire to
control all sources of power. This huge divide in political leadership has actually
made progress on a global scale impossible.
The economic cost:
cost: Recession is the inevitable result of bad politics and indifferent
economic management. America has paid a price for its wars with a downturn in its
economy which has dragged most parts of the world into a downward economic
spiral. All over the US and Europe the news is dismal. Stock prices are tumbling, the
credit crunch is expanding and consumer spending is at its lowest. Companies have
only one survival strategy i.e. tightening their belt. This of course means downsizing
and cost-cutting which have worsened unemployment. Inflation is at an all-time
high and food prices are unaffordable. Economies like Pakistan have gone into a
freefall. Exports are down, the rupee is the most worthless currency possible raising
the import bill to a level which cannot be paid thereby leading to further debts and
deficits of all kinds.

The social cost:

cost: The pressure to live, and live up to, is so huge in today’s society
that the ability to live for real values and principles has given way to adherence to
social norms which result in artificial lives with no substance or character. American
society has gone into its worst period of racism and materialism; family units in the
UK are almost an alien concept as the country has the highest number of teenage
pregnancies where the mother being a child herself is incapable of rearing children.
In Pakistan we have a society where extremism in both modernism and fascism has
undermined its balance as a place with a reasonable ideology and identity. The
youth of this country vacillate between two ends: some are partly copies of their
western counterparts, the others of the Taliban, thus causing social confusion and
emotional devastation. How are we going to get out of this misery spiral? The
solution is not remote.

Politicians in the West and East have already realised that more conflict is not the
solution to supremacy and is eventually self-defeating. The change in government
in the US will see more focus on looking after the public interest rather than
indulging in megalomaniac self-pursuits. The failure of Gordon Brown is inevitably
going to lead to a more balanced government in Britain. In Pakistan the pains of
transition to democracy are hopefully going to make people choose their leaders
much more judiciously. Countries and citizens of this global society must realise
that to rediscover social and personal satisfaction they need to develop their lives
on the basis of principles of integrity, tolerance, equity, justice, starting with
themselves, their families and their communities. The attitude of each one of us
should be that we should not have to wait for the world to change but initiate the
change at our own level, no matter how small it is, because as they say “what “what lies
behind us, and ahead of us, is insignificant compared to what lies within us”. us”. ¦ The
writer is a consultant and CEO of FranklinCovey.
FranklinCovey.

Author Location Dated

AFP Kansas City, Missouri 09.09.08

– McCain’s lead in poll sharpens campaign

The US presidential campaign moved into high gear on Monday as two opinion polls
showed Republican John McCain taking the lead over Democratic rival Barack
Obama just eight weeks from election day. McCain, a decorated war hero who
based much of his early campaign on the strength of his experience, wrestled last
week for Obama’s mantle of change, with the help of his surprise vice presidential
pick Sarah Palin. A USA Today/Gallup survey showed McCain ahead by 50 to 46 per
cent among registered voters, a turnaround from a previous poll by the newspaper
just before last week’s Republican National Convention. That poll had McCain
trailing Obama by seven percentage points. Twenty-nine per cent of respondents
said the surprise choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as the Republican vice
presidential nominee had made them more likely to vote for McCain on Nov 4, but
21 per cent said their vote in support of the Republican ticket was now less likely.
Vice President Dick Cheney hailed the nomination of Palin - a Christian conservative
with no national political experience - and called her convention speech “superb.”
“We have had all kinds of vice presidents over the years and everybody brings a
different set of experiences to the office and also a different kind of understanding
with whoever the president is,”
is,” Cheney said, speaking in Rome where he is meeting
Italian leaders. “There
“There is no reason why Sarah Palin can’t be a successful vice
president in a McCain administration.”
administration.” A separate Gallup daily tracking poll found
McCain had moved into a 48 to 45 per cent lead ahead of the Nov 4 election -- his
best performance since May. Experts attributed the McCain bounce to his party’s
convention and the surprise naming of Alaska Governor Palin. “He’s“He’s in a far better
position than his people imagined he would be in at this point,”
point,” political scientist
Larry Sabato of the University of Virginia told USA Today. McCain and Palin vowed to
use their history of fighting corruption to shake up Washington at a series of
campaign stops after the Republican National Convention. “We’re
“We’re going to win this
election, and let me offer a little advance warning to the old big spending, do-
nothing, me-first country-second Washington crowd: change is coming. Change is
coming,”
coming,” McCain told cheering crowds in Colorado.

Obama ridiculed McCain’s promise of change and hammered the Arizona senator on
the limping US economy, saying the Republican represented no change from Bush.
“John McCain, who is a good man and has a compelling biography, has embraced
and adopted the George Bush economic platform,”
platform,” Obama said Sunday on ABC
television. The Illinois senator argued that voters would realise that the election was
a choice between a new direction and discredited Republican policies. “If “If they like
what they’ve had over the last eight years, then they’ll go with McCain. And if they
don’t like it, hopefully they’ll go with me,”
me,” he said. The Democrats have had a hard
time targeting Palin, who is popular among conservatives and has garnered public
sympathy in the wake of news that her 17year-old daughter was pregnant and
planned to keep the baby. Senator Hillary Clinton, extremely popular among white
women during the hard-fought Democratic primary, has refused to criticise Palin
thus far even though the McCain campaign has actively targeted her disgruntled
supporters. Clinton hit the campaign trail in Florida on Monday, stomping for Obama
at three events in the battleground state and making good on her convention
pledge to fight to put her former foe in the White House. “No “No way, no how, no
McCain-Palin,” the New York senator said after McCain’s Republican convention
address last week, after initially saluting Palin’s “historic nomination” as the first
Republican female vice presidential pick. Aides announced meanwhile that Obama
was to meet former president Bill Clinton at a fencemending lunch later this week in
New York, after months of rancour on the campaign trail.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 10.09.08

– President will be subservient to parliament: Asif

The president would be subservient to parliament and all major decisions, including
indemnity for General (retd) Pervez Musharraf would be taken by the directly
elected assemblies, Asif Ali Zardari declared here on Tuesday. Addressing his first
news conference at the Aiwan-i-Sadr after taking oath as the new head of state, he
said: “It’s
“It’s up to parliament to curtail my powers as president.”
president.” He categorically
stated that he did not believe in exacting retribution and had no intention of going
after people who had persecuted him. President Zardari’s move to address his
maiden press conference along with a foreign dignitary surprised many in the
federal capital. Some analysts considered it a result of bad advice being given by
people around him. No major policy decision was announced at the crowded press
conference, which looked like a public meeting with PPP activists chanting slogans
of ‘Jeay Bhutto’ and ‘Zinda hai BB, Zinda hai’. President Zardari said he had no
personal points to score against deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad
Chaudhry, but did not say if the latter would be reinstated as the chief justice. He
said he had accepted the post of the president to accomplish Benazir Bhutto’s
mission of serving the nation. About investigations into Benazir’s assassination, he
said he would raise the matter during his visit to New York to attend the UN General
Assembly session. About price hike, President Zardari said he had advised the
government to improve the supply situation to overcome the shortage of food
items. He said the government had already in creased the support price of wheat
which had resulted in better Rabi crop yields, benefiting both growers and
consumers. He said the government would announce further increases in wheat
price in a manner to eliminate cartels and ensure smooth supply. Stressing the
need for strict austerity measures, he said he would start by cutting down the
expenditure of the presidency.

President Zardari and his Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai expressed their resolve
to jointly fight terrorism, but voiced concern over the killing of civilians in both
countries. Stressing the need for collective efforts for peace and stability in the
region, they urged the international community to help free the region and the
entire world from terrorism. President Zardari said Pakistan and Afghanistan had
been “friends for a long time” and would support each other’s efforts to improve the
lot of the peoples of the two countries. He said the message was not meant just for
Afghanistan but for all neighbouring countries. He said there had been problems in
the past but they had the ability to solve them. Mr Zardari said Pakistan was
working to eradicate terrorism and both the countries needed to work together to
remove weaknesses in the border security. Insisting that the government was
negotiating only with ‘law-abiding people’ in tribal areas, he said the militants had
been asked to lay down their arms. He asserted that the government would ensure
law and order in the country and in Fata. Urging the international community to set
up a special fund to rehabilitate victims of terrorism and the displaced people, he
said Pakistan’s territorial integrity would be defended at all costs and miscreants
would not be given even an inch. Mr Zardari said that although Pakistan did not
want to distance itself from any country, including the US, he intended to invite
investors from all over the world for “our
“our prosperity and progress”.
progress”. Elaborating
People’s Party’s stand on Kashmir, the president said it was a clear policy and all
political forces inside and outside parliament were being taken into confidence for
evolving a joint strategy. A parliamentary committee on Kashmir would soon be set
up to highlight the issue in a better way, he said. Mr Zardari said that in addition to
the composite dialogue process with India, backchannel dialogue was under way to
resolve the issue and expressed the hope that there would be some good news
soon. He sad PMLN leader Nawaz Sharif was on board on the Kashmir policy and
would also be taken into confidence on other national issues.

President Zardari referred to strong relations with China and said he would visit
Beijing on his first foreign trip as president. He said the two countries had strategic
relations and were working together for regional stability. About the Iran-Pakistan-
India gas pipeline project, he said Pakistan needed cheap energy resources and the
government was trying to resolve issues hindering the project. Reiterating PPP’s
policy towards the media, he said the party had always been media-friendly and
assured working journalists that their problems would be resolved. President Karzai
said that his government would cooperate with Pakistan in eliminating terrorism.
Expressing concern over the killings of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, without
specifically mentioning Nato air strikes, he said the war on terror could be won only
in cooperation with the people. Stressing the need for fighting terrorism “in “in the
right manner”,
manner”, he said: “The
“The target should be sanctuaries of terrorists, be these in
Afghanistan or in Pakistan, and not the civilian population. We cannot tolerate
civilian casualties and a fool-proof mechanism has to be established.”
established.” Referring to
allegations levelled by Kabul against Islamabad, he said his country had never
indulged in a blame game. “We “We have always pointed finger to a fact”.
fact”. When asked if
the occupation forces would leave Afghanistan, Mr Hamid Karzai said: “Asking“Asking the
international community to leave Afghanistan is a luxury we cannot afford.”
afford.”

Author Location Dated

Zaffar Abbas 10.09.08

– And now for the difficult part

Standing on the dais in Aiwan-i-Sadr’s main hall and taking the oath of the office of
the President, Asif Ali Zardari was visibly nervous. At times he even fumbled in his
delivery while repeating the oath after Chief Justice Dogar, and perhaps heaved a
sigh of relief once the brief ceremony was over. But then all this was quite
understandable. For Mr Zardari it was more than a mere ceremony to get installed
as the country’s new president. It was the culmination of a long and arduous
journey, interspersed with periods of political oblivion, controversies, scandals,
incarceration, personal loss of a leader and wife, and much more. Anyone who until
a few months ago had not even imagined being at the centrestage in politics, not to
mention being the president, would have got jitters while standing before an
audience of over a thousand dignitaries, family and friends, to take oath as the new
head of the state. Being a veteran back-bencher at numerous such oath-taking
ceremonies, both of presidents and prime ministers, in the 5th floor hall of the
President’s House, one can say with certain amount of confidence that this time
round the atmosphere was quite different. As the PPP ‘jiyalas’, including many MPs
and ministers, raised slogans of ‘jeay Bhutto’ and shouted in praise of the slain
party leader, Benazir Bhutto, one couldn’t take his eyes away from young Bilawal
and his two sisters. And, of course, from Sanam Bhutto, as for her it was impossible
to control her emotions. And if during all this political hullabaloo there was a breach
of decorum, like continuous sloganeering when the national anthem was being
played, it didn’t appear to be intentional.
Having known Asif Zardari for well over two decades, and having seen the
tremendous ups and downs in his personal and political life, it’s hard to imagine him
as the President of Pakistan. In the best of times in his previous incarnation, his
political identity was that of being Benazir Bhutto’s husband. In fact, Mr Zardari
always said in his conversation with his friends and party loyalists that his identity,
popularity, and sufferings were all because he was Benazir Bhutto’s husband.
During all this period few people ever bothered to notice that Mr Zardari too was a
politician and had his own ideas and a vision of sorts. Perhaps such ideas were
mostly dwarfed by the wisdom and political sagacity of Ms Bhutto, but they were
nevertheless there and were often presented by him before those who used to meet
him during his days of incarceration. Though I knew of Asif Zardari and his
shenanigans from as far back as the early 1970s, it was only after his marriage to
BB and after their coming into power a year later that I had my initial interactions.
Still, some of my most detailed and memorable meetings with him were at the time
when he was in prison on charges ranging from financial corruption to misuse of
authority, and even murder. In those days the best place to meet and chat with Mr
Zardari was Rawalpindi’s accountability court. By that time he had become a
veteran jailbird and having learnt the trick of creating a medical situation, he had
gotten himself shifted to a hospital. So, on most occasions he used to be brought to
the court house in an ambulance and to the courtroom in a wheelchair. The court
proceedings rarely moved beyond the discussion on deciding the next date of
hearing, and for the rest of the duration the place used to turn into what can best
be described as Zardari’s court-house, ‘darbar’. All kinds of courtiers used to
frequent the place. Some used to come with valuable information about political
developments, some with business or political problems and a few political activists
like Qazi Sultan just for the love of BB, considering it their duty to attend to her
incarcerated husband.

Having seen people breaking down after having spent less than a year in jail, it used
to be an amazing site to see Asif Zardari meeting and greeting people with the
same kind of enthusiasm. He always had a smile on his face, and often cracked
jokes, and rarely discussed what he had been going through. However, he was
always aware of the political developments taking place in the country, movements
of various political forces, and the games that military regime had been playing. It
was during this period that he had used the election results of 2002 to his
advantage to re-establish his contact with the security establishment, which
ultimately paid a dividend a few years later. Even in jail, Asif Zardari was never able
to develop a love for book reading, and he openly admitted it. One was never sure if
he even had the time, or appetite, to read newspapers. However, jail made him a
regular listener of news on radio, and in those days my acquaintance with him was
largely due to news and analysis on BBC Urdu service. In the few discussions that
took place in the court-house meetings, it was not difficult to make out that Mr
Zardari certainly had views on politics, economy and global affairs. Still, it was
difficult to say if they were anywhere close to the happenings of the real world.
However, what one was able to gather was that he certainly had his pulse on the
rapidly changing politics, and he remained in contact with those who in future could
become PPP’s political allies. Indeed, his days in prison had somehow convinced him
that in future there was a major role for him in the country’s political affairs.
Whether that was a wise thought, or a misplaced ambition of an incarcerated
member of a major political family, remained a matter of debate till the time he
made an appearance, albeit accidentally, on the country’s political stage. Since then
there has been no stopping in his rise from one major position to another,
culminating in the office of the head of state.

So, if it was his dream to be the country’s president, it has certainly come true. But
if the dream was that as the head of state he would be able to use his position and
influence to change the fate of this nation, he would have to do much more than
indulging in mere rhetoric, or by giving half-baked solutions to some of the most
complex problems the country is faced with. Perhaps, as a starter, he may need to
counter the prevailing perception in the country that he is not a man of his word.
The way he has walked away from some of the promises he made with his political
allies like Nawaz Sharif, has certainly dented his credibility. He needs to do
something about it. Then, if he plans to govern the country from the President’s
House even in the presence of an elected parliament — something that seems to be
on his mind — President Zardari will then have to come out with his vision about
Pakistan and the challenges it is currently faced with. Again, rhetoric alone won’t
do. In the eyes of most observers, his maiden news conference has been a huge
disappointment. For most people it was a nonevent and it shouldn’t have taken
place if he didn’t have anything concrete to present before the country. On almost
all the major issues from countering terrorism to economy, and from sovereignty of
the parliament to the matters of governance, his response, at best, was vague. Most
observers believe circumstances have thrown up for Mr Zardari a huge opportunity
to make people forget the perception about him, which mainly has its roots in the
past, and to rise to the occasion to provide the kind of leadership that may restore
the public confidence in the elected civilian forums. It is being said that the people
of Pakistan have given him a golden opportunity to prove the world wrong. Perhaps,
time alone will tell if he has the capability and the political will to deliver.

Author Location Dated

10.09.08

– Police protect preferred people, leave others on their own

The graph of crime in Islamabad has been climbing up for months. Worried citizens
accuse the capital police of being lax to their duty to protect the life and property of
all citizens, not just that of the elite class. This impression that the energies of
police are focused on protecting the rich and powerful is strengthened when police
are found to be quick in tracking down the criminals who have hurt high-profile
victims but in the case of ordinary citizens their efforts appear to be an eyewash. In
fact in one case a citizen who helped police to hunt down robbers had to pay with
his life last week when a gang of robbers raided his house, shot him dead and took
away his car. However, the capital police chief, instead of admitting their failure in
curbing crime and providing security to the citizens, shifted responsibility of
increasing crime rate on other departments. “There “There are many other authorities who
are responsible for the protection of the life and property of the citizens,”
citizens,” the
Inspector-General of Police said in press conference held on September 2, adding,
that people and journalists always hold responsible the police for increasing crime
rate in the city. The arrest of six robbers who had committed a daring robbery in
broad daylight in the F-8 house of the owner of a construction company on July 29
last is indeed a big feather in the cap of the city police and proves they have the
means to check crime and nab criminals if they had the will and were serious about
their duty. The news of the arrest was broken by the angry InspectorGeneral of
Police, Islamabad, Syed Asghar Raza Gardezi at a press conference whose good
mood was spoiled when he was told police only cared for the life and property of the
rich and were least bothered when the victims were ordinary people. He retorted
journalists were in the habit of blaming police for rise in crimes in the city though
police alone were not responsible for the situation.

The IGP said that the incident of F-8 sector robbery was a big challenge for the city
police as the victim was a foreign investor and the robbery could scare foreign
investors. He said it was a matter of pride for the police to have caught the
criminals and recover cash and ornaments worth millions in as short a time as one
month. He did not mention 200 other robberies in the last eight months which await
arrest of robbers and recovery of looted cash and goods. In the incident on July 29
last six armed men entered the F-8/4 house of Malik Sardar Tanveer Ilyas Khan,
owner of Pak-Gulf Construction Company and Sardar Builders looted cash, gold and
diamond jewellry worth Rs20 million, Rs500,000 in cash, 10 mobile phones, two
licensed pistols and other household articles. But police so far have recovered
Rs400,000 cash and jewelry worth not more than Rs10 million. However, the
recovery was being described as a big achievement, as in the history of the capital
only a few times the police had been able to recover looted wealth of this value. The
robbery was a great embarrassment for the police and there was an uproar in VIP
circles. Soon two investigation teams were constituted – one under the supervision
of Assistant Superintendent of Police, Sarfarz Khan Virk and the other led by Deputy
Superintendent of Police Crime Investigation Agency, Bashir Noon. On a tip two
different police teams raided a wooded area of sector G-8 where the culprits were
hiding and planning another robbery. Police arrested them on the night between
September 1 and 2. However according to insider story the criminals were arrested
from Peshawar, Lahore, Karachi and Rawalpindi during raids by the investigations
teams. The teams recovered the looted gold from them as well as from goldsmiths
and other buyers of the stolen ornaments.

The IGP said that the teams visited Karachi, Lahore and Peshawar after getting
information from Adiala Jail about the release of convicts involved in robbery
incidents. Later the teams got the information that a gang was active in the capital
which led to their arrest. However, insiders said the criminals were traced when one
of them used a stolen mobile which was under observation. Later the teams under
ASP Virk and DSP Noon traced other numbers to the remaining robbers. The robbed
builder had announced a cash reward of Rs1 million for the investigation teams. In
addition the promotion of Bashir Noon to the rank of DSP from inspector was also
under consideration. The police insiders said the case was solved in the short period
of one month because the government, including the foreign minister, was keen on
solving the crime. They asked the police to solve the case as soon as possible and
recover the looted amount and valuables. But such efficiency is seldom shown in
other cases even where a robbery results in loss of life of the victim. Common
people who are deprived of their properties later face extortion by police as soon as
the case is registered. This is part of the investigation process. In the rare case
where police succeeds in recovering the goods, these are held in police custody till
they turn into antiques. This is done under the rule of superdari. But the slightest
mention of these practices angers the guardians of our life and property.
Author Location Dated
Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 10.09.08
om

– American dream or nightmare?

The presidential race in the United States kicked off such a long time ago that for
months on end it seemed interminable. Now, at long last, the Hollywoodised
spectacle of the party conventions is over. There are still eight weeks or so to go
before the final reckoning on Nov 4, and it’s far from clear who will carry the day.
The extent to which it will matter isn’t obvious either. Tomorrow, on the seventh
anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Barack Obama and John McCain are
scheduled to make a joint appearance at commemorative gatherings in New York. It
is extremely unlikely that either of them will refer in his speeches to the US policies
that propelled the catastrophe of Sept 11, 2001. Primary responsibility for that day’s
murderous assaults undoubtedly rests with the planners and the perpetrators. At
the same time, it seems almost criminally negligent to ignore the background to
those attacks. To do otherwise, however, would complicate the narrative, and the
received wisdom is that complex narratives are anathema to most Americans.
Which makes it more or less inevitable for monumental historical mistakes to be
repeated. A clearer vision of the recent past would make it easier to appreciate why
Washington’s pursuits in the seven years since 9/11 have sullied the US brand and
made the world an even more dangerous place. Yet even those who recognise the
stupendous folly of marching into Iraq in 2003 tend to look upon the war in
Afghanistan as justifiable aggression, and to see its increasingly bitter
consequences as something that can be tackled simply by increasing the level of
firepower. That’s a bit like regretfully claiming that the Vietnam War would have
ended differently had the US decided to rain even more bombs on a tiny Asian
country. The aggressors in Vietnam used considerably more tonnage than the sum
total deployed during the Second World War and were equally generous in the use
of chemical weapons. They claimed at least two million civilian lives — three million
if you count Cambodia and Laos. Yet the grotesque argument continues to be made
that still more firepower would have denied the people of Vietnam the victory they
so richly deserved. It continues to be made by the likes of John McCain, whose
acceptance speech at the Republican convention was studded with references to
the five years he spent as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam.

He was able to get away with this because in the overarching narrative the Vietnam
War tends to be seen in the US chiefly as an American tragedy. This twisted
perception proceeds quite naturally from a mindset that places the US at the centre
of the universe. There should, then, be little cause for surprise that the 4,000 or so
American troops who have perished in Iraq are, in the usual discourse, elevated far
above the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have been killed. Critics of the Bush
administration are generally not reluctant to blame it for the American lives lost in
Iraq. It’s relatively rarer — but hardly unheard of — for the 55,000 American
fatalities in Vietnam to be blamed on the policies of the Johnson and Nixon
administrations. Yet McCain is hailed as a war hero even by most of his supposedly
progressive opponents. Unlike John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee in
2004, who served in Vietnam but subsequently became a vocal critic of the war
(even though, tellingly, he overplayed his combat experience in the campaign four
years ago), McCain has never expressed any regrets. While campaigning for the
Republican nomination in 2000, he was quoted as saying: “I “I hated the gooks (a
derogatory reference to the Vietnamese; the equivalent in Iraq is hajis) and will
continue to hate them as long as I live.”
live.” It was ‘gooks’ who saved his life after he
bailed out of a bomber that had been hit by anti-aircraft fire. He claims to have
been tortured during his incarceration, but, like so many other American PoWs, he
survived. American soldiers, in contrast, were disinclined to take prisoners. A large
number of Americans who fought in Vietnam did so involuntarily, and it was
arguably the military draft rather than the sheer immorality of American aggression
that spurred large-scale opposition to the war in the US. McCain, by all accounts,
was an eager participant in the mass murder. That makes him a war criminal, not a
war hero. If elected president in November, he will hardly be the first war criminal to
have taken up residence in the White House.

Meanwhile, his undeserved reputation as a Republican ‘maverick’ has also steadily

been receding in recent months. It rested in part on his unease over the alarming
influence of Christian extremists over the Republican Party. McCain has lately been
assiduously wooing the evangelicals, and his campaign team is supposed to have
come up with a masterstroke by recruiting Alaska governor Sarah Palin, a gun-
toting Pentecostalist, as a running mate. Palin’s Taliban-like allergy to abortion
covers even victims of rape or incest, and her blockheaded opposition to sex
education that extends beyond decreeing abstinence has evidently resulted in an
unwed daughter who is pregnant at 17. It requires little imagination to conclude
that circumstances such as these would have rendered Obama’s candidacy a non-
starter. But Palin is white, and she thinks everything — including the Iraq war — is a
gift from God, so it’s all right for the far right. Choosing her was clearly an attempt
to woo Democrats disaffected by Hillary Clinton’s failure to win the nomination, but
that strategy will work only if they were attracted exclusively by her gender rather
than what she stood for. In the case of the Republicans, the mantra of ‘change’
translates into more of the same, even though George Bush was persona non grata
at the GOP convention. Does it mean something different when the message is
intoned by Obama? Who knows. One of the most perceptive reporters on the
campaign trail, Matt Taibbi, writes in the current issue of Rolling Stone that he can’t
help “being
“being seduced by Obama, despite everything I know about the party he
represents, its record and where it gets its money. There’s just something about the
guy; he has that effect ... Maybe it sounds different coming from Obama because
he actually means what he says.”
says.” Yes, maybe he does. And it’ll be a tragedy if we
don’t find out. Even though it makes sense to keep in mind the wise words of stand-
up comic George Carlin, who died last June: “It’s “It’s called the American Dream,”
Dream,” he
said, “because
“because you have to be asleep to believe it.” it.”

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 10.09.08

– The anti-column
I apologise.
apologise. I lied. I don’t believe it’s a question of if but when and who will stick the
knife in whom first. Asif and Nawaz will not be able to make this arrangement last
five years. I don’t know when and I don’t know how but I do know it won’t work. If it
does, I’ll buy Nawaz and Asif the finest meal I can afford. I say this even though I
probably cannot afford anything to satisfy either’s tastes. That’s how sure I am that
this will not work. What will happen when this latest exercise in democracy comes
crashing down? Your guess is as good as mine. For all I know a Paul Bremer-type
proconsul will soon be stamping through the ruins of a bombed-out presidency. We
could see a new King’s party — a PML-US or PML-A — with the Mushahid Hussains of
the country swearing to stick by their democratic party to the bitter end, or at least
until a better offer comes along. At least an American invasion would sort out that
business about ownership of the war on terror: the US owns Pakistan; the US owns
war on terror; Pakistan owns war on terror. QED. What has brought on this doom
and gloom? I blame TV. I was doing fine, chewing over the various permutations and
combinations and the potential pitfalls of the transition to democracy. If Asif does A
and Nawaz does B, X will happen. But if Asif does B and Nawaz A, Y will happen. So
on and so forth, all charted out, factoring in the unfactorable. Then, the mistake. I
tuned in to the TV coverage of the presidential election. There they were, the
otherwise sneering, cynical talking heads of Pakistan bloviating about the
momentousness of the day that was unfolding. They intoned gravely about the
multiple crises that afflict the state. You know them by rote by now: tanking
economy; rampaging militants; unrestored judges; mangled constitution;
omnipotent president. The talking heads asked and answered rhetorical questions.
Was Asif up to the challenges? He had handled the transition well so far but then he
had also hung the judges out to dry. Was Asif experienced enough? He is BB’s
widower and was a political prisoner for many a year; then again, he has no
experience leading anything other than an army of lawyers defending him in courts
the world over.

What those talking heads — every last pundit, every last anchor, every last false
prophet of hope — really wanted to do was grab the camera and shake it and
scream: the whole thing is about to go to pieces. Can’t you think, you country of
bleating sheep? That and wanting to smack silly all the jiyalas crowing about
democracy and revenge. But the swaggering conquerors of Musharraf remained
cautious — and hopeful. That’s when I knew I had to tear up my script and call it as
my gut tells me. Read no further if you expect erudition. Pakistani politics has much
in common with one of the stranger thought exercises I have come across. As a
student of law grappling with the seemingly innocuous question ‘what is law?’ I was
asked to imagine that an alien descends from the heavens above and exits his
space capsule next to a traffic signal. By observation alone the alien will be able to
deduce the rules of traffic: stop when red; slow down or get ready to go when
amber; go when green. But what the alien will never be able to figure out is the
reason that people stop stop, day or night, traffic or no traffic. The alien observer is
an outsider to the system of rules, so while he can discern a pattern he isn’t able to
understand the reason people follow it. This being Oxford the state of Pakistan’s
roads was never really considered. If that poor alien landed besides a traffic signal
in Pakistan, he would scarcely be able to avoid being run over — let alone figure out
the rules of traffic. That’s Pakistani politics: no rules and plenty dangerous for
anyone trying to discern any. At one level, everything from March 9 last year to
date is part of a recurring tumultuous process of transition from authoritarian rule to
a more democratically elected form of government. We’ve seen it at least twice
before. On every other level, the events of the last year and a half are, to put it
mildly, unprecedented. President Zardari is simply the latest confounding, mind-
scrambling event in a period of intense turmoil. Driving the motorcar of transition
now is Asif, with Nawaz a potentially dangerous backseat driver. Will they stop at
the red light or run through it? Or will they careen out of control and crash into that
silly little alien wondering what’s going on?

History suggests that the presidency is a poisoned chalice — at the very least you
leave without dignity. There is only one president who emerged from the presidency
more powerful than he went in: Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. He of course became prime
minister under the freshly minted 1973 Constitution, the same one Asif has vowed
to bring back. Could Asif, who was living in the annexe of the prime minister’s house
until this week, be planning an eventual move into the main residence? Nothing is
impossible anymore — but Asif emulating ZAB? That’s the problem for me — and
Asif, I suppose. For Asif to come good, he will need to do something so stupendous,
so unbelievable, so staggering as to put every other leader of this country in the
shade. And Nawaz the Pious? So wounded and principled is he that I’m almost
inclined to believe him. Until you realise that if true he’s a rubbish politician. If you
don’t want power there’s always someone else who does, usually someone inside
your party. When you take a greyhound to the races, expect it to tear after the
rabbit. Whatever thoroughbreds there are in the League, their instincts are to
relentlessly pursue power. Stand in their way long enough and they will devour you.
2013 will mark the fourteenth year of the N-League being out of power in
Islamabad. Nawaz would be mad to try and keep the Leaguers on a leash until then.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody has accused Nawaz of being mad. Five years
is a lifetime in politics anywhere. In Pakistan, it’s an eternity. There’s no way Asif
and Nawaz will make this last.

Author Location Dated

S. M. Naseem syed.naseem@aya.yale.ed 10.09.08
u

– The new tenant in President House

Mr Asif Zardari’s sudden ascension to the presidential office is now being hailed by
unexpected quarters, including those who had imagined it to be the precursor to
the country’s demise. It would have undoubtedly been better if Mr Zardari and his
supporters, notwithstanding that his election was likely to be a foregone conclusion,
had waited for a consensus to emerge around his candidacy by allaying the various
doubts and fears that had gained currency. His continued resistance to restoring the
chief justice not only put in jeopardy the coalition he had so painfully put together,
but also increased suspicions about his willingness to live with an impartial
judiciary, just like Gen Musharraf who twice illegally dismissed the chief justice. An
acid test of his claim that he had accepted the proposal to contest the office in
order to save the country from political instability would be to bring to a closure the
long-simmering issue of the restoration of the judges. The piecemeal restoration of
the Supreme Court and high court judges — save the chief justice — is a tragic saga
and does not remove suspicions about his intentions. Moreover, it demoralises all
men and women of conscience who were inspired by the courage displayed by the
chief justice on March 9, 2007 when he stood up against Gen Musharraf. It would be
a pity if the judicial revolt were to be remembered in history as a mere blip on
Pakistan’s political screen. The prolonged process to deal with the judges issue
seems to be an attempt to wear out the judiciary and the legal profession and to
teach them a lesson that they should never take the road shown by the deposed
chief justice.
It is still a mystery as to what led Mr Zardari to change course and jettison Mr
Nawaz Sharif and his colleagues who had helped him and his party achieve such
political pre-eminence and also facilitated the opening of the doors to the
presidency by forcing Musharraf’s resignation. What is even more intriguing is why
he made his peace with the MQM, the PPP’s traditional rival, at the expense of the
PML-N, which had joined in framing the Charter of Democracy, while the MQM had
been excluded from the exercise because of its collaboration with Musharraf.The
accommodation he will have to make with the MQM at the expense of his Sindhi
constituency will prove much more costly than what he would have had to do to
placate Nawaz Sharif. The PPP was far more likely to increase its political base in
Punjab by sharing power with the PML-N, than it was likely to gain at the expense of
the MQM in Sindh with its impregnable urban base. The MQM’s decision to vote in
favour of Zardari, who though not himself a feudal is hardly middle-class, instead of
voting for Justice Siddiqui (who also happens to be a Mohajir) or Mr Mushahid
Hussain (whose spouse is also a Mohajir) and who belonged to its former electoral
partner, the Q-League, shows that it was based on opportunism. Political ambition
and temptations of office apart, there seem to be other compelling explanations.
The judges issue was, however, a red herring. There was no serious danger that Mr
Zardari would have been dragged to the courts, since in any event the Sharif
brothers were just as vulnerable, with or without the NRO. An amicable and
equitable solution of the judges issue would, however, have earned the goodwill and
respect of civil society and would have reassured the people that the prevailing
lawlessness in society would be reined in to some extent. Another factor that
probably led Mr Zardari to opt for his chosen path was the fact that even though
Musharraf no longer rules the roost, the military is not yet reconciled to the
supremacy of civilian authority and still insists on a degree of autonomy in its affairs
which is incompatible with democratic governance and the exorcising of its latent
political ambitions. In order to re-establish the civilian writ firmly, the presidency
had to be empowered at least for the present. In the longer run, however, Mr
Zardari will have to work himself out of his present job and reduce the presidency to
its titular role. This will also be his last chance to redeem his besmirched reputation
in politics by proving himself equal to the task of saving the country from the severe
economic and political crises it is faced with. But a more likely explanation is
pressure from the US, which although having reluctantly agreed to let him resign
wanted Musharraf to be spared an inquisition and to remain in Pakistan to ensure
that the war on terror strategy to which he committed himself for the long-term
remained undisturbed.

Musharraf’s large network in the army and intelligence agencies remains beholden
to him for bringing in American military and economic largesse which they have a
stake in seeing uninterrupted. Zardari, who is a savvy intermediary, wants to see
this largesse funnelled through him as president, who after all is also the supreme
commander of the armed forces and chairman of the not-yet-defunct Security
Council. He will now be in a better position to oversee the intelligence apparatus
which he failed to capture in his earlier attempt to get the ISI under the interior
ministry’s control. Whether the Americans will trust him with delivering on the war
on terror as much as they did Musharraf remains to be seen. If he fails to deliver,
the Americans will be inclined to adopt the policy of shock and awe through land
and air attacks in pursuit of Al Qaeda operatives and which have been in evidence
lately in the tribal areas. It is not unlikely that as the US election heats up, the
Republican administration may try to intensify these attacks to give an advantage
to the McCain-
McCain-Palin ticket. With the rapidly deteriorating economic situation, the
new Zardari administration will be hardly in a position to withstand US pressures
and incursions into Pakistani territory while it seeks more money from Washington.
Both his friends and foes must give him the benefit of doubt that he is sincere in
taking Pakistan forward on the path of peace, progress and prosperity which his
party symbolises. Most of all, it is to be hoped that, as promised, he will not pursue
a policy of vendetta against his enemies and will help realise the Bhutto dream of
roti, kapra aur makaan which has become ever more distant in the last decade.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 10.09.08

– The children of 9/11

Another terrorist group tried and sentenced in Britain; another link with Pakistan as
the training centre for terrorists established. This time, the group of eight accused
of trying to blow up seven airliners over the Atlantic two years ago was in the
spotlight following a lengthy trial. Three were found guilty of assorted terrorism
charges, while the jury found insufficient evidence against the other five. The
prosecution is now considering whether to request a retrial. All the members of the
cell were young men of Pakistani origin, and several of them had travelled to
Pakistan shortly before being arrested. In the newspapers and TV discussions that
followed the trial, their trips to the country of origin were highlighted. On BBC’s
flagship news programme, Newsnight,
Newsnight, a security expert was asked to comment on
the fact that so many terror plots seemed to originate in Pakistan. And when
residents of the East London neighbourhood where most of the group came from
were interviewed, they spoke of the suspicion they were viewed with after details
about the plot became public. While the defendants insisted that all they wanted to
do was to set off an explosion in a public place to draw attention to the “wrongs
“wrongs
Muslims were being subjected to”, to”, the fact that several of them had recorded
videos threatening death and destruction undercut their defence. Ahmed Ali, the
leader of the gang, was shown on the screen fulminating: “Sheikh “Sheikh Osama warned
you many times to leave our lands or you will be destroyed, and now the time has
come for you to be destroyed… We will take our revenge and anger [sic], ripping
amongst your people and scattering the people and your body parts, and your
people’s body parts responsible for these wars and oppression, and decorating the
streets.”
streets.” Fortunately, their skills as terrorists did not match their intentions. When
one of the suspects returned from Pakistan, his baggage was secretly searched at
Heathrow, and was found to contain a large number of batteries and plastic liquid
containers. This aroused the suspicion of intelligence officials from MI5, and the
suspect was followed, and his flat bugged. The expanding surveillance became
Britain’s biggest covert operation, as members of the group were followed to an
apartment that turned out to be a bomb factory.

Every couple of months, some fresh terrorist plot is uncovered in the UK, and
invariably, those involved turn out to be Muslims with links to Pakistan.
Understandably, this leads to a high degree of profiling by the security services that
antagonises ordinary Muslims who feel they are being unfairly singled out. But
under the circumstances, what can the state do to protect its citizens? It must be
said that the British government is doing its best under very trying circumstances.
Clearly, Pakistan needs to do much more to crack down on the training camps that
are giving the country such a bad name. But instead of halting these activities, it
seems our security services are hindering investigations. Rashid Rauf, the Pakistani
suspected of being involved in the Atlantic airliner plot, was arrested in Pakistan on
a tip from British intelligence. But while being tried in Rawalpindi, and pending an
extradition request from Britain, he mysteriously gave his police guards the slip last
December, and remains at large. According to one theory, he is under the
protection of one of our intelligence agencies. The widespread impression in the
West is that Pakistan is not doing enough to stamp out extremism on its soil, and
has become a magnet for terrorists from around the world. These people, after
acquiring the skills necessary to carry out operations, then travel abroad to kill and
maim. This view is mirrored in the perception that the Taliban are allowed free rein
in the tribal areas, and use this safe haven to stage attacks against Western forces
in Afghanistan. As American and NATO casualties multiply, pressure builds up on
Western governments to halt these attacks. The recent American ground attack on
Pakistani soil might have been the first of its kind, but I doubt if it will be the last.

Unfortunately, most Pakistanis are unwilling to understand the seriousness of the

situation. In their strident defence of our sovereignty, they forget that lives are
being lost in Afghanistan and in other countries just because we cannot or will not
control our own tribal areas and seal the border. Foreigners will only buy the
argument about the difficult terrain up to a point. But how can we claim sovereignty
without exercising any control over this territory? Meanwhile, Muslims generally and
Pakistanis especially are getting a bad name abroad. In Britain, the actions of a
handful of hotheads are making life difficult for hundreds of thousands of peaceful,
hard-working citizens with links to Pakistan. Immature and alienated, these
terrorists seek the glory of newspaper headlines as they pursue their bumbling
efforts to slaughter innocent people in the West. Had they succeeded in bringing
down even one airliner as they had planned to, the repercussions for the Pakistani
community in Britain would have been severe. But that is the last thought in the
minds of these terrorists, as they seek ‘martyrdom’ for a brutal cause. According to
the previous head of MI5, the agency is currently tracking the activities of hundreds
of suspects in Britain. Each time it finds evidence of a terrorist conspiracy, Muslims
are dragged into the spotlight as the source of indiscriminate violence against their
neighbours. The children of 9/11 are not doing their community any favours, and
they are certainly not helping the cause of Muslims around the world. Tomorrow will
be the seventh anniversary of that fateful day in September when Al-Qaeda
launched its attacks against the United States. Since then, other atrocities have
been carried out from Madrid to London to Bali. Each attack has resulted in
heightened security concerns, and more anger against the faith that is supposed to
inspire the killers. Those directly involved in the various extremist groups are clearly
beyond reason and argument. But surely those who silently support them should
understand that such tactics ultimately do more damage to peaceful Muslims than
they do to the intended victims.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 10.09.08

– World wants Obama to be next US president: survey

Most people around the world would prefer Democrat Barack Obama to win the US
presidential election over his Republican rival John McCain, a new poll spanning 22
countries showed on Tuesday. The BBC World Service survey found the most
common view in all nations polled was that Obama — who staged a euphoric
European and Middle Eastern tour in July that included a speech to 200,000 fans in
Berlin — should win in November. An average of 46 per cent of those questioned
thought US relations with the rest of the world would improve if Obama took office,
compared to just 20 per cent for McCain, the survey of 22,500 people found. Global
approval ratings for the United States are currently low — a BBC World Service poll
earlier this year found 49 per cent of people surveyed had a negative view of US
influence, compared to 32 who viewed it positively. Those most optimistic about an
Obama presidency’s impact on US external relations were people in America’s Nato
allies -- Canada, France, Germany, Britain and Italy - as well as Australia, Nigeria
and Kenya. Forty-six per cent said having a black US president would
“fundamentally change”
change” their perception of the United States, and 27 per cent said
it would not. “Large numbers of people around the world clearly like what Barack
Obama represents,”
represents,” said Doug Miller, chairman of GlobeScan which conducted the
poll. “Given
“Given how negative America’s international image is at present, it is quite
striking that only one in five think a McCain presidency would improve on the Bush
administration’s relations with the world.”
world.”

However, there is nothing to suggest Obama’s popularity abroad will bring success
at home -- he is neck and neck with McCain in US opinion polls. In Tuesday’s poll,
the margin in favour of Obama ranged from just nine per cent in India to 82 per cent
in Kenya, where the Democrat has family. On average, 49 per cent preferred
Obama to 12 per cent in favour of McCain. Nearly four in 10 people did not take a
position, with this attitude most common in Russia, Singapore, Turkey, India and
Egypt. An average of 46 per cent thought US relations with the rest of the world
would improve under Obama, 22 per cent thought they would stay the same and
seven per cent thought they would get worse. Only 20 per cent thought relations
would improve under McCain, although this figure was around 30 per cent in China,
India and Nigeria. An average 37 per cent expected no change and 16 per cent
thought relations would get worse. A separate poll in the United States mirrored
these conclusions, with 46 per cent expecting better relations under Obama and 30
per cent under McCain. There was less optimism, however, in three Muslim
countries involved in the poll. The most common view in Turkey — held by 28 per
cent of people — was that relations under Obama would get worse, while in Egypt
and Lebanon the largest groups (34 and 42 per cent respectively) believed relations
would not change. The survey was carried out in July and August in Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Kenya, Lebanon,
Mexico, Nigeria, Panama, the Philippines, Poland, Russia, Singapore, Turkey, the
United Arab Emirates, Britain and the United States.
States.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 11.09.08
11.09.08

– Kayani warns US to keep its troops out

Chief of the Army Staff General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani has rejected US claims that
the rules of engagement gave the coalition forces in Afghanistan the right to enter
Pakistan and declared that the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity will be
defended at all costs. In a statement issued here on Wednesday, the COAS said:
“The rules of engagement with the coalition forces are well defined and within that
the right to conduct operations against the militants inside own territory is solely
the responsibility of the respective armed forces. “There is no question of any
agreement or understanding with the coalition forces whereby they are allowed to
conduct operations on our side of the border,”
border,” he said. Gen Kayani’s statement
dispelled a perception that some of the air strikes carried out inside Pakistan by
drones and warplanes of the US-led coalition had been authorised by Islamabad.
The statement has come on the heels of President George Bush’s description of the
Afghan-
Afghan-Pakistan border area as a frontline in the war on terror and against the
backdrop of a series of incursions by Nato forces in which missiles were fired from
unmanned drones in the tribal areas and at least one incident ground troops
attacked the Angoor Adda area of South Waziristan. Observers here saw in the
COAS statement a strong rebuttal of the oft-repeated assertions by the western
media and political and military figures that US and Nato forces in Afghanistan had
a ‘right’ to take their war on terror into Pakistan. Pakistan has been asserting that
any credible information about terrorists in Pakistan should be provided to it and
that its forces were fully capable of acting on it.

Although it was not the first attack by Nato forces inside Pakistan, the increase in
the frequency of attacks days before the presidential election in Pakistan was seen
by many as a major shift in the US policy towards Pakistan. The army chief referred
to his meeting with US senior officers on the USS Abraham Lincoln on August 27 and
said that they had been informed about the complexity of the issue that required an
in-depth understanding and more patience for evolving a comprehensive solution.
He said that Pakistan’s viewpoint was elaborated in detail and it was stressed that
in such situations, the military action alone could not solve the problem. Political
reconciliatory efforts were required along with military action to win hearts and
minds of the people. During the discussion, the imperative of public support at large
for military operations also came under discussion. Later, United States Joint Chiefs
of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen acknowledged a better understanding of ground
realities by the COAS and remarked: “He“He (the COAS) is committed to doing what is
best for Pakistan and he is going to stay the same.”
same.” He reiterated that ultimately it
was “our
“our national interest which will always guide our policy”.
policy”. General Kayani also
regretted the killing of innocent civilians in the Angoor Adda incident on Sept 4. He
said that such ‘reckless actions’ only helped the militants and further fuelled the
militancy in the area. He said the Pakistan Army had conducted successful
operations against the militants in the past and at present was committed to
eliminating them from the affected areas of Fata and Swat. “Our“Our security forces
have given huge sacrifices in this war and it is the presence of the army which has
denied the freedom of movement and operation to Al Qaeda and the affiliates.”
affiliates.” He
said that the support of the people of Pakistan would play a decisive role.

The COAS stressed the need for a collaborative approach for better understanding
of a highly complex issue. He said that trust deficit and misunderstandings could
lead to more complications and increase the difficulties for all. The constraints of
operating in these areas must never be lost sight of. “There
“There are no quick fixes in
this war. Falling for short-term gains while ignoring our longterm interest is not the
right way forward. To succeed, the coalition forces will be required to display
strategic patience and help the other side the way they want it rather than adopting
a unilateral approach which may be counter productive.”
productive.” General Kayani said it was
a multi-pronged approach fully supported by the people of Pakistan which would
help “us
“us defeat the threat of internal terrorism”.
terrorism”. The increased incursions by Nato
forces into Pakistan were discussed recently in parliament with Foreign Minister
Shah Mehmood Qureshi describing the raids as “regrettable
“regrettable and counter-
productive”.
productive ”. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, who addressed a press conference
with President Asif Ali Zardari hours after the latter was sworn in as the new head of
state, also voiced concern over the killing of civilians in the two countries and said
that civilian killings could not be tolerated. He said that sanctuaries of the terrorists,
and not the civilians, should be the target. The attacks also forced Pakistan to
discontinue logistic support to the Nato forces in Afghanistan. Besides air strikes,
helicopterborne American Special Operations forces recently attacked Al Qaeda
militants in a Pakistani village near the Afghan border -- the first publicly
acknowledged case of US forces having conducted a ground raid on Pakistani soil.
Previously, allied forces in Afghanistan occasionally carried out air strikes and
artillery attacks in the border region of Pakistan. But the commando raid by the
American forces signalled what top American officials said could be the opening
salvo in a much broader campaign by Special Operations forces against the Taliban
and Al Qaeda inside Pakistan, a secret plan that Defence Secretary Robert Gates
has been advocating for months within President Bush’s war council, a US paper
recently commented. The Bush administration has criticised Pakistan in recent
months for not doing enough to curb attacks by the Taliban and Al Qaeda which
keep bases inside the Pakistani tribal region and cross the border to attack
American and Nato forces in Afghanistan.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 11.09.08
11.09.08

– Asif advised to accept PML-N ministers’ resignation

Prime Minister Syed Yusuf Raza Gilani advised President Asif Ali Zardari on
Wednesday to accept the resignation of PML-N ministers submitted four months
ago. Sources told Dawn that the request was made after PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif
had ‘politely rejected’ an offer by President Asif Zardari to rejoin the ruling coalition.
According to the sources, the prime minister had also discussed the issue of cabinet
expansion with President Zardari, who is also co-chairman of the PPP, and it is
expected that some two dozen ministers would soon be included in the cabinet.
They said the names of ministers and ministers of state from the PPP had been
finalised and the party would make a formal request to its allies in the coalition to
finalise the names of their ministers to be included in the cabinet under the agreed
formula. The sources said there was a strong possibility that some members of the
MQM, which is an ally of the PPP in the Sindh government, would also be inducted in
the federal cabinet. The coalition government formed after the Feb 18 general
election suffered a blow when within 42 days of it formation, nine PML-N ministers
tendered their resignations after the expiry of the second deadline of May 12 for
reinstatement of the deposed judges. Later,
Later, when the PPP and PMLN reached an
agreement on August 7 to impeach former president Pervez Musharraf and
reinstate the deposed judges within 24 hours after the impeachment, Mr Sharif
announced that as a goodwill gesture, three PML-N ministers would rejoin the Gilani
cabinet. However, the PML-N ministers did not attend cabinet meetings and waited
for the implementation of the agreement. When Mr Zardari declined to restore the
judges within 24 hours of Gen (retd) Musharraf’s resignation and the PPP nominated
him as party’s candidate for the presidential election, Mr Sharif finally decided on
Aug 25 to quit the coalition. When a PML-N delegation, headed by Nawaz Sharif,
met Mr Zardari soon after his election as the country’s new president, the PPP again
requested PML-N to join the coalition, but the request was politely turned down.

Author Location Dated

Shamshad Ahmad 11.09.08
11.09.08

– Democracy’s best revenge

After the Oct 6 burlesque enacted in Pakistan last year in which a military dictator
unconstitutionally proclaimed himself re-elected we finally had on Sept 6 this year a
real presidential election in which the PPP’s cochairman, Asif Ali Zardari, was
constitutionally elected as the first democratically-chosen president of Pakistan in a
decade. This was the best revenge that democracy could have taken on
dictatorship. Gen Musharraf was ‘re-elected’ for five years by his handmade ‘Queue-
lined’ assemblies despite serious questions over his eligibility in the circumvention
of Articles 41 and 63 of the constitution. Asif Zardari has been elected president in a
constitutionally legal election for five years, but in his case too, there were
questions over his eligibility raised both within and outside the country. The only
difference was that in the case of Musharraf, the latter’s illegality under Article 41
was real, whereas in Zardari’s case, questions related only to alleged perceptions of
his past. Democracy is not about perceptions or reputation. Democracy is about
people who are the final arbiters, no matter how poor a reputation a politician might
have. They choose their leaders. History then gives its verdict on whether or not
they made the right choice. In Gen Musharraf’s case, the new democratically
elected assemblies have spoken loudly and clearly against him. History didn’t let
him complete his five years. It was quick in giving its verdict. He was forced to quit.
He stands discredited and doomed to ignominy. Zardari has a chance to prove that
perceptions regarding his reputation are ill-founded. History is already registering
its accounts and will soon start judging him. It is between history and Zardari now.
What about the people? They would like to believe that real democracy has finally
returned to their country. And in politics, as in every other aspect of life, what
people know and understand or what they believe largely depends on what they
see, hear and feel and how they think and act. But in looking at the unfolding
events in our country and the acts of our newly elected rulers, we see what is not,
and see not what is because we have chosen to be prisoners of an exploitative
system based on elitist, feudal and tribal structures. There are no angels in politics.
Even in the world’s major democracies, heads of state and government and
eminent politicians have been implicated in assorted scandals. Big names come to
mind in no time. Hypocrisy and vacillation are the hallmarks of success in politics.

If Plato was sometimes cynical about politics, he had reason to be. As he wrote in
his Apology, “a “a man who really fights for what is right must lead a private, not a
public life, if he hopes to survive, even for a short time.”
time.” Politics knows no morality,
no ethics. Plato was raised by a distinguished Athenian family for a political career
but was disillusioned with politicians. He saw his city-state being torn apart by a
power conflict among the politicians themselves. Disheartened by the oligarchs’
attempt to discredit Socrates, his teacher and friend, Plato refused their offer of a
political niche although some of the oligarchs were his close relatives and friends.
He was even more profoundly disillusioned by the democrats who, when restored to
power, condemned and executed Socrates. So he fled both country and politics for a
self-imposed exile with Euclid in Megura. For Plato, the prisoners are we who are
“dwelling in the cave of concrete experience until the philosopher-king brings
enlightenment to our shadowy reality”.
reality”. He acknowledged that the philosopher
would be reluctant to descend to the shadowy world of reality once he glimpsed the
sun but he still remained uniquely qualified for leadership because in his view, his
eyes would be on the principle of good, not on political ambition and personal
power. Plato devoted almost all his thinking to reuniting the public and the private,
the political and personal realms of existence, so that the “virtues
“virtues of the individual
soul”
soul ” would lead to the virtues of the national soul. Soul-tending, he called it, and it
is what we in Pakistan today need more than ever before. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto had
inherited a physically truncated country. Asif Ali Zardari’s challenge is much bigger
and perhaps more tortuous. He inherits a Bhuttoless truncated party and an
emotionally disintegrated country. Both need soul-tending.

We as a nation have suffered the politics of power and blood for too long. It has
been a constant struggle and a long tragedy of errors since the very beginning. The
script is the same. Only the faces have been changing. We have seen prime
ministers assassinated, removed in military take-overs, executed through judicial
murder and in some cases even exiled. Benazir Bhutto gave her life for democracy
and fell tragically at the altar of our politics of power and blood. Pakistan has been
the scene of pitiable tragedy for too long now. We have had coups, both military
and civilian, and in every instance, there has been someone from the judiciary to
provide ‘legal’ cover to the illegality. The present set-up is no different. It is rooted
in the Nov 3 illegality. Benazir Bhutto must be turning restlessly in her grave over
what her party is doing to the pledges she had made to the nation during the last
days of her life. She had pledged a genuine democracy rooted in the will of the
people and had promised to reinstate the real judges. She had told the chief justice
that he would soon be back in his chamber. She must be witnessing with horror and
anguish that her own commitment to the chief justice and the one to the people’s
Feb 18 verdict remain unfulfilled. We may not have a philosopher-king but we now
do have a democratically elected president who has the authority to do justice that
his party’s immortal leader and his own better half had pledged. The nation awaits
soul-tending from him. Plato’s central question in his Republic was ‘what
‘what is justice?’.
justice?’.
Mr President, let us hear from you: ‘Iftikhar
‘Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry is justice’.
justice This
’.
would complete democracy’s revenge. Let history judge you differently from the
baseless perceptions of your past. Prove your detractors wrong. You have a chance
to be a different ruler in Pakistan and make history. ¦ The writer is a former
foreign secretary.
secretary.

Author Location Dated

Shail Kumar Singh/Min Lee Mumbai/Hong Kong 11.09.08
11.09.08

– Corporate India muscles in on Bollywood

Bollywood is increasingly becoming a target for corporate takeover, as more of
India’s multi-nationals diversify into movies to tap the market’s huge investment
potential. Tata Group first tested the water several years ago. Now others, such as
cars to financial services group Mahindra and Mahindra, the CD and DVD maker
Moser Baer and even pharmaceutical giant Ranbaxy, are getting in on the act.
Mahindra and Mahindra’s media ventures company is putting the finishing touches
to its first film, “Mumbai
“Mumbai Chaka Chak”
Chak” (Sparkling Mumbai), about a Mumbai road
sweeper. The company’s chief executive, Indranil Chakraborty, said the time was
right to enter the film industry, as it was being driven by a new generation of young
Indians and like television was expected to grow in the coming years. “No “No one knew
that television and entertainment business would have become so big 15 years ago.
So, we want to be here and do good content films,”
films,” he said. “We
“We are entering into
films with this medium-budget film. ‘Mumbai Chaka Chak’ is a comedy caper and is
a very good subject that we feel will appeal to the masses.”
masses.” Some 1,146 films were
made in India in 2007, according to the Federation of Indian Chambers of
Commerce and Industries (FICCI), which produces an annual report on the country’s
entertainment sector. But although that beats Hollywood, its estimated worth was
considerably lower at 2.1 billion dollars. FICCI has suggested, though, that new
technology, production techniques and marketing, plus more global audiences could
see it grow to 3.9 billion dollars by 2011.

The rules of Bollywood have been changing ever since Anil Dhirubhai Ambani’s
Reliance group bought the film processing unit Adlabs in 2005. Adlabs now
processes 70 per cent of all Hindi films made in India. Another Ambani offshoot,
Reliance Big Entertainment,
Entertainment, announced in May it was to invest one billion dollars to
make scores of Indian films and expand its film distribution business in India. It also
unveiled deals with production houses of top Hollywood stars. Moser Baer has
dominated the home entertainment market for the last three years. It is planning to
produce half a dozen films by next year, including some in Tamil and Telugu.
Elsewhere, newer production houses are raising capital from stock markets. Film is
big business as multiplex cinemas pop up in Indian cities, increasing ticket sales.
But for the time being the corporates are starting small. “Mumbai
“Mumbai Chaka Chak”,
Chak”, for
example, cost just under 2.3 million dollars to make. Moser Baer’s small budget film
about life in the military, “Shaurya
“Shaurya”
” (Bravado), hit screens earlier this year, making
modest profits. Moser’s chief executive Harish Dayani said: “One
“One of the reasons we
are doing this smaller films because we get a first hand experience in the film
making business and even if we make mistakes we learn from it. “These mistakes
will help us to understand the business better and help us while we make bigger
films.”
films.” For film director Kunal Kohli, big business backing has benefits for both sides.
“The corporates are bringing in structured finance and it is only helping the
industry,”
industry,” he said. “They
“They are bringing their expertise and corporate ways that is
only benefiting the industry. “No one puts money in business if they are not sure
about recovery. They are putting their money because they know they will make
money.”
money.” Kohli’s colleague Vikram Bhatt, who was the first to direct a film backed by
the Tata Group in 2004, agreed. “The
“The best thing the corporates introduced in
Bollywood was the cheque payment system,”
system,” he said. “They
“They paid your money on
time and it was always credited. This system was not heard of in our industry
earlier.”
earlier.”

Murdoch’s leap into India Twentieth Century Fox said on Wednesday it has
established an Asian unit specializing in local productions, starting with India,
becoming the latest Hollywood studio to venture into the region. The new studio will
be a joint venture with the Asian satellite broadcaster STAR, called Fox STAR
Studios, the two companies said in a joint statement. Both companies are units of
media mogul Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. Fox STAR Studios will start out making
Bollywood films in Hindi as well in other regional Indian dialects. STAR India
president for strategy and corporate development Vijay Singh will lead the Indian
operation. “We
“We are in discussion for producing not only traditional Bollywood films
but also innovating and targeting emerging genres,”
genres,” Singh said in the statement.
Fox STAR Studios will also branch into the Chinese-language and southeast Asian
markets soon, the statement said. The Walt Disney Co has teamed up with Indian
studio Yash Raj Films to make computer-animated movies. It wasn’t immediately
clear where Fox STAR Studios will be based.

Author Location Dated

Norfolk, Virginia 11.09.08
11.09.08

– US presidential race erupts into spat over gender politics

The US presidential campaign erupted on Wednesday in a spat over gender politics,
with John McCain accusing the Democrat of a sexist attack on his running mate and
Barack Obama denouncing Republican “lies “lies and phoney outrage”.
outrage”. With the race
tightening in a struggle for women voters, McCain put out a Web advertisement
saying his Democratic rival was talking about Sarah Palin on Tuesday when he
likened Republican plans for government reform to putting “lipstick
“lipstick on a pig”.
pig”. Palin,
a little-known Alaska governor before she became McCain’s running mate, had told
the Republican nominating convention this month that she was a “hockey mom”
and joked that the only difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull was
lipstick. McCain’s new advertisement juxtaposes the lipstick remarks by Obama and
Palin, then cuts to a TV news presenter observing that one lesson of the campaign
was the “continued
“continued and accepted role of sexism in American life”.life”. “Ready
“Ready to lead?
No,”
No,” McCain’s ad says in print across the TV screen. “Ready
“Ready to smear? Yes.”
Yes.” Obama
tackled the controversy head-on during an appearance in Norfolk. “What “What their
campaign has done this morning is the same game that has made people sick and
tired of politics in this country,”
country,” he said. “They
“They seize on an innocent remark, try to
take it out of context, throw up an outrageous ad because they know that it’s catnip
for the news media.”
media.” “I“I don’t care what they say about me, but I love this country
too much to let them to take over another election with lies and phoney outrage
and Swift-boat politics. Enough is enough,”
enough,” Obama added to cheers from
supporters. He was referring to attack ads that help sink the 2004 presidential
campaign of Democrat John Kerry, a former Swift-boat captain. Obama campaign
spokeswoman Linda Douglass said it was clear from the context of his remarks that
the Democratic presidential candidate was not referring to Palin in his comments
and was not calling her a pig. McCain is “running
“running a relentlessly dishonest, disruptive
and cynical campaign in hopes of distracting voters”
voters” from the issues, she said.

Author Location Dated

Agencies Geneva, Switzerland 11.09.08
11.09.08

– ‘Big Bang’ experiment starts well

International scientists celebrated the successful start of a huge particle-smashing
machine on Wednesday which aims to simulate the conditions of the “Big Bang”
that created the universe. Experiments using the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), the
biggest and most complex machine ever made, could revamp modern physics and
unlock secrets about the universe and its origins. The project has had to work hard
to deny suggestions by some critics that the experiment could create tiny black
holes of intense gravity that could suck in the whole planet. Such fears spurred
huge public interest in advanced physics ahead of the start up of the $9 billion
machine, which proceeded smoothly on Wednesday morning. Scientists in the
control room at CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research,
Research, broke into
applause as they sent particle beams in both directions around the LHC’s 27km
underground chamber, drawing global praise. “The “The worries that scientists had were
nothing to do with being swallowed up by black holes and everything to do with
technical hitches or electronic failure,”
failure,” said professor Jim al-Khalili, a physicist at the
University of Surrey, England. “Now,
“Now, after a collective sigh of relief, the real fun
starts,”
starts,” al Khalili said. “No
“No matter what we find, we will be unlocking the secrets of
the universe.”
universe.” Eventually, the scientists want to trigger tiny collisions at nearly the
speed of light,
light, an attempt to recreate on a miniature scale the heat and energy of
the Big Bang, a concept of the origin of the universe that dominates scientific
thinking. The Big Bang is thought to have occurred 13.7 billion years ago when an
unimaginably dense and hot object the size of a small coin exploded in a void,
spewing out matter that expanded rapidly to create stars, planets and eventually
life on Earth. Lyn Evans, project leader for what experts are calling the biggest
scientific experiment in human history, declined to say when CERN would start to
smash particle beams together in the accelerator straddling the Swiss-French
border. “The
“The LHC is its own prototype so it is difficult to judge how long it will take,”
take,”
he said. “I
“I think what has happened this morning bodes very well that it will go
quickly.”
quickly.”

Once the LHC starts up at full speed, it will be able to engineer 600 million collisions
every second, with protons travelling at 99.99 percent of the speed of light.
Physicists hope such high-energy clashes will fill in the blanks of modern physics
whose theories cannot yet fully explain gravity or mass. The data recorded by the
LHC -- measuring the location of particles to a few millionths of a metre, and the
passage of time to a few billionths of a second -- will be transmitted to computers
around the world for scientists to review. They will be looking for how the particles
come together, fly apart, or dissolve. The conditions in the LHC could also confirm
or disprove the existence of the Higgs Boson,
Boson, a theoretical particle named after
Scottish scientist Peter Higgs who first proposed it in 1964. Also referred to as the
“God particle”,
particle”, the Higgs Boson is thought to give matter its mass. It has never
been observed. Wednesday’s start-up marked the start of a long and cautious
commissioning process to check equipment and operational procedures before
these collisions can get underway. In a 27-kilometre circular tunnel on the Swiss-
French border, parallel beams of protons will be accelerated to nearly the speed of
light. Superconducting magnets will then steer the counter-rotating beams so that
strings of protons smash together in four huge laboratories, fleetingly replicating
the conditions that prevailed at the “Big Bang” that created the universe 13.7 billion
years ago. Arrays of detectors will trace the sub-atomic rubble spewed out from the
collision, looking for signatures of novel particles. The first batch of protons was
halted, sector by sector, to verify that monitoring systems and the steering magnets
were working properly. Their speed was purposely slowed for the inspection
process. The clockwise beam completed this first test lap in under an hour, causing
an eruption of joy and an outbreak of bubbly in the control room. A test of the
anticlockwise beam took place later and again the operation was problem-free.
“Technically, everything works the way it should work and the path ahead is very,
very clear,”
clear,” said Jos Engelen, the LHC’s chief scientific officer. LHC Project Leader
Lyn Evans, who has been working on the collider for 14 years, said he felt a wave of
relief after the protons had completed their first lap so smoothly. “It’s
“It’s a machine of
enormous complexity and things can go wrong at any time,” time,” he said. Messages of
congratulations flooded in from CERN’s partners and rivals, including the legendary
Fermilab particle physics lab near Chicago.

Author Location Dated

Hyderabad, Pakistan 12.09.08
12.09.08

– Attempts afoot to sow seeds of extremism in Sindh: Altaf

The Muttahida Qaumi Movement chief Altaf Hussain said on Thursday that
deliberate attempts were being made to spread extremism in peace-loving Sindh as
miscreants were sending messages to places of worships of Ahmadi Jamaat,
churches and Imambargahs to incite hatred and create a sense of insecurity.
Addressing the party’s general workers meeting simultaneously in Karachi,
Hyderabad and other districts of the province over telephone from London, Altaf
called for tolerance for all. He referred to recent killings of Ahmadis in Nawabshah
and Mirpurkhas and simmering sectarian strife in Parachinar, Dera Ismail Khan and
Bajaur and claimed the campaign for Talbanisation in Sindh, particularly in Karachi
was continuing. Without naming any particular party, he blamed religious outfits for
spreading hatred and urged his followers not to fall prey to their negative
propaganda. “If“If you are following their line then you must say good bye to me
because I can’t support sectarian strife,”
strife,” he said. Making a reference to Lower Dir
incident in which several people were killed when militants threw explosives in
mosques while people were saying taraveeh prayers. “Is “Is it in accordance with
teachings of Mr Jinnah!”
Jinnah!” he asked. He said that the concept of nation state was
flourishing in the world. People belonging to different religions lived in the UK, USA
and France in complete harmony and brotherhood and nobody tried to encroach
upon the other’s religious beliefs, he said. If the UK, which was a predominantly
Christian country, decided today to expel Muslims, Hindus and other religious
communities then what would happen to the people of developing countries who
were earning their livelihood there, he said. “Likewise, would it be prudent that
since Pakistan was an Islamic state other religious communities could not live there.
“If we attack places of worships of non-Muslims then we won’t need any external
enemy,”
enemy,” he said.

He said at the outset of his address quoting excerpts from the speech of Quaid-i-
Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah to Constituent Assembly on Aug 11, 1947 and said that
people of Pakistan were free to go to their places of worships because the state had
nothing to do with anybody’s personal beliefs. Mr Jinnah had desired to see people
living in peace and harmony, he said and raised the question whether today people
were following Jinnah’s teachings. He said that people should create a watchdog
system in their areas to keep a close eye on the intriguers, who were busy hatching
conspiracies against the society and criticised the forces, which were blaming MQM
for working against Pukhtuns. It was the MQM, which had donated Rs1 million to
Prime Minister’s Fund for the internally displaced people of Bajaur and other areas
of the NWFP and a made similar donation of Rs500,000 to National Assembly
Speaker’s fund. He directed party workers to keep an eye on the people who were
sending messages to members of religious minorities and asked them to collect
zakat and fitra fund to help the destitute and the deserving people. He urged media
persons not to promote programmes, which might reflect religious bigotry or
intolerance and reiterated that Sindh’s assets were being disposed of. Media,
intellectuals and writers of the province should raise their voice against the disposal
of assets, which belonged to Sindh, he stressed. He exhorted Ulema and scholars to
promote religious cohesion to help the country pull out of present morass.

Author Location Dated

Khalid Chaudhary (Public) Karachi, Pakistan 12.09.08
12.09.08

– Barack Obama’s charges

This is apropos of US Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama’s interview
to a TV channel (Dawn, Sept 6) and your editorial, ‘Deteriorating
‘Deteriorating ties’
ties’ ( Sept 8). Mr
Obama has said: “So“So they’re using the (American) military aid … they’re preparing
for a war against India.”
India.” In addition, he has alleged that the $10 billion that Pakistan
received from the Bush administration since 9/11 has been ‘wasted,’ instead of
being used to knock out the terrorists from their safe havens in Fata. Also, as
president he would authorise limited US military incursions into this country if
important militant leaders are traced here. While his running mate Senator Joseph
Biden, as well as the Republican candidate, and some senior Bush officials have
already criticised Senator Obama for his remarks, one would like to offer some
comments. After his recent visit to Afghanistan, Mr Obama had greatly softened his
tough stance towards Islamabad and there was the sense that he was rather
disappointed by his meeting with Hamid Karzai. A few days before that there had
appeared some letters in Dawn, containing support and advice for the Illinois
senator and exposing Mr Karzai’s unjustified lambasting of Pakistan. Perhaps these
had been conveyed to Barack Obama by his foreign policy advisers and had a
positive effect. In that backdrop, it appears that his harsh new comments may be
the result of some setbacks in the race for the White House and the majority’s
perception that his rival John McCain, because of his tougher approach and military
past, is more suited to fight the war against terror. Be that as it may, a few things
need to be pointed out to the Democratic nominee.
First, Senator Joseph Biden and some of his colleagues had visited Pakistan and
Afghanistan around Feb 18, when elections were held over here. Following that, he
had not only proposed the tripling of US civilian aid to Pakistan but also observed
that the war against terror will have to be fought not in Iraq – as wrongly claimed by
Bush – but in the area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Even more tellingly, that
it will be won less by bullets and more by dollars and determination. Second, as far
as India is concerned, Mr Obama should know that it has had a hostile attitude
towards this country, which is only one-seventh its size, right from day one. So
much so that Pakistan’s founder, Mr Jinnah, whose honesty nobody ever challenged,
had to complain in a matter of months to the British prime minister that Indian
leaders were trying to sabotage the country. Apart from that, India had used the
rebellion in East Pakistan in 1971 to train the insurgents and also launch a military
attack that dismembered its neighbour. To empathise, he should consider this
hypothetical scenario. If the USSR had somehow become so powerful as to help a
sizable American group consisting of, say, the AfroAmericans, Latinos and the
AmericanIndians to secede and form a separate country, wouldn’t the Americans
have been extremely wary of Moscow to this day and ensured a powerful defence?

Despite our extremely painful experiences with India, it is a calumny to insinuate

that Pakistan is preparing to go to war with India. Given the enormous problems
being faced by us, nobody could be mad enough to even think of that. Mr Obama
would surely be aware of how the present Army chief, Gen Ashfaq Kayani, has been
acting most sensibly by keeping the Army out of politics. However, he may not be
knowing that when Gen Kayani got promoted as COAS, even some senior Indian
army officers had praised him by saying that they had been dealing with him in the
past (probably when he was the DG, military operations) and had the opportunity of
talking to him on the hot line. They had found him to be a very sensible person and
a man of peace. Given that, there is absolutely no danger that Pakistan would be
thinking of embarking on such a suicidal venture. Therefore, the leaders and
officials in the US should be more sensitive to Pakistan’s difficulties, it’s military
leaderships’ inclination to promote peace and the Pakistani people’s desire to see
an end to the strife in this region, get on with life and ensure a better future for
themselves and their children.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Mahnaz Fatima 12.09.08
12.09.08

– No room for fanaticism

Fanaticism has grown in the country to the extent that settled areas in the NWFP
and even in Sindh are facing a threat of take-over by obscurantist forces. When we
call these forces “religious extremists” or “religious fundamentalists” we tend to
confer a kind of legitimacy on them by associating these trends with some form of
religion when the reality is to the contrary. Islam does not allow indiscriminate
killing of innocent people no matter what the reason. Means are important and ends
do not justify the means. God allows us to fight against only those who fight us and
does not expect us to commit excesses as Allah loves not the ones who commit
excesses. Killing one innocent person is like killing entire humanity. God also says
that there is no compulsion in religion. And, God allows a great deal of freedom of
expression and individual action. He could have decreed and all would have fallen in
line. But, this is not the route He adopted. God Himself appealed to human reason,
and sent His message through thousands of messengers for the people to
understand, own, believe, and then follow His creed. The fact that a whole lot of
sinners thrive on earth shows that God gives people ample time, space and
opportunity to rectify their behaviour before they are judged by Him. And, no one is
allowed to take one’s own life no matter what. Life is a gift from God to whom the
soul is destined to return only at a time of His choosing. No freedom of choice is
allowed to human beings in this respect by the Creator. These are some of the
religious guidelines regarding human life and respect for it. Religious teachings
must be followed, and we must be tolerant and wise instead of attempting to
enforce our own worldview through brute force at the expense of innocent lives.
According to the fundamentals of the faith, no physical offence should be done, no
one should be harmed indiscriminately, and certainly no suicides. An Islamic society
is based on honesty, integrity, justice, equity, fair play and equal opportunity for all.
Thus applied, Islam calls for an earnest effort made in the way of God to establish a
benevolent society for His people to benefit from. Emphasis is required on good,
polite behaviour, codes of public conduct and community, and national decision
making that would steer society in the desirable direction instead of expanding
one’s own zone of influence through sheer terror.

Islam places great emphasis on knowledge acquisition and its valuable

dissemination for a favourable impact on society. The first word of the first
revelation sent to Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) was Iqra, that is, ‘read’. Nowhere did
God ever enjoin only the men to read and not the women. Prophet Mohammad
(PBUH) in his famous saying, “Acquire
“Acquire knowledge even if you have to travel to
China,”
China,” does not discriminate between men and women. An unquenchable thirst for
knowledge would then be the pursuit of the religious. Burning down girls’ schools
and depriving half the population of the opportunity to gain knowledge is not only
extremism but irreligious conduct. It is fanaticism of the kind of shab-khoon, called
terror in modern parlance. In olden days, shab-khoon was a way to get people
unawares while they slept at night, and shed their blood. The practice was
considered highly reprehensible even in times when the world had not developed
much scientifically and technologically, because it was unjust terror unleashed on a
people who could not defend themselves. Like all monopolies, any effort to establish
a monopoly of a certain shade of religion over the people is equally bad. It
generates negative spillovers. There is a need to dissociate oneself from practices
based on brute force so that there is a clearer understanding of the tenets of Islam.
This is necessary to deny any implicit sympathy that some, who call themselves
religious-minded, may have for terror. The erroneous worldview must lose support
amongst pockets of the population, poorest of the poor, as we see today. Due
emphasis should be laid on the economic prosperity of the community and on
poverty alleviation that Islam so stresses. This can be done through better
understanding of the principles of economic justice and equity enshrined in the faith
which aim at ensuring a life of dignity for all. The uplifting principles of Islam need
wider dissemination through the education system so that we attain the twin goals
of ridding society of violence as well as poverty. Income poverty stems from a
poverty of knowledge, poverty of a mistaken belief system, poverty of values and
poverty of intellect. All this requires a holistic knowledge-based view of what life is,
what its purpose is, and how it should be lived.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 12.09.08
12.09.08

– What will happen next?

Certain analysts are now happily predicting the onset of a successful transition in
the country’s politics. It is argued that Pakistan has now safely started its journey
towards democracy, peace and development and so the counter-argument that a
sustainable change in the country requires transformation does not stand anymore.
Such views make it imperative to evaluate what has changed in Pakistan and what
one should expect in the future. In order to do so, let’s see the changes that have
taken place. It is clear from the recently held presidential elections that the Pakistan
People’s Party is back in power the way it was during the 1970s. In 1970-71, the
PPP, which was then a new party, had emerged as a political force to reckon with
under the leadership of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. It had a clear majority in the two
provinces of Sindh and Punjab and managed to form coalition governments with the
National Awami Party in the Frontier and Balochistan provinces. A similar situation
seems to prevail now, especially in light of the presidential elections in which it
obtained a two-third majority. Currently, it has a coalition government in all the four
provinces. The only difference is that it does not have a majority in Punjab. Another
similarity pertains to civil-military relations. The armed forces conceded power to
the civilian government of the 1970s after it was cornered as a result of an external
crisis. This time the military has conceded space to the PPP after it suffered from a
crisis of credibility internally and the external threat of the global war on terror.

When the PPP took power during the 1970s after 11 years of military and hybrid
military rule, people were hopeful about the return of democracy. However, the
popularly elected government then ruined its political credibility by taking
authoritarian actions such as sacking the NAP chief minister in Balochistan,
strengthening patronage politics and beefing up the military’s power. Resultantly,
the army pushed its way into politics and took control of the state at the first
available opportunity. It is hoped that the present political dispensation has learnt
its lessons and will not try to play the same tricks such as destabilising the
opposition in Punjab. As long as the PPP and PML-N allow each other to rule
peacefully, the government is likely to continue in power. What they ought to under
stand is that with the prime minister and the president hailing from the same
political party, the option of sacking the government through the controversial
Article 58-2 (b) is not possible which, in turn, means that the next time the military
intervenes it would be through activating its intelligence agencies and direct action.
The use of the above-mentioned constitutional article was possible only during the
1990s when the three presidents were considered neutral by the establishment —
or could be neutralised as they were not the main stakeholders. Asif Ali Zardari, on
the other hand, is both the ‘owner’ and the CEO of the PPP. He is the president as
well. This means that the army would have to force him and his party out through
direct intervention.

Lest we get too depressed by such a doomsday scenario, let’s note that Pakistan’s
current politics represents a process of continuity in which the interests of both
external and various domestic forces seem to have converged at least for the time
being. This is what those highlighting a successful transition are arguing. Despite
the removal of the former military dictator, Pervez Musharraf, most of his policies
have continued — such as the war on terror, the privatisation of state assets (this is
what the new government claimed it would do in the coming days), increase in the
price of utilities at the behest of multilateral aid donors, non-restoration of the
judiciary to its pre-Nov 3 position, and improving relations with external powers and
regional actors. In fact, this government will be in a better position to pursue
policies because it has greater public support and political legitimacy than the
previous regime. Therefore, the government can pursue the war against terror more
efficiently and vigorously which would mean that the cooperation and friendly links
with Pakistan’s prime patron, the US, will also continue and we might have a chance
to see Washington supporting a civilian regime rather than a military dispensation.
Many believe that this is bound to bring greater stability to the country. However,
continuity itself is not a guarantee of structural change in the political system that
those arguing for a transition appear to ignore completely. The power structure and
the shape, interests and behaviour of the ruling elite will remain the same. At least
three features of the political system will remain unchanged.

First, the system of patronage politics will be the same. In fact, patronage politics
will both strengthen and deepen as the cost of living increases and opportunities
remain static due to structural problems such as less socio-economic and human
resource development. Although Islamabad claims to have increased the literacy
rate, the fact is that functional literacy, which allows citizens to become skilled
workers, remains low. The job market depends on the public sector and an
individual’s alignment with those in power. Under the circumstances, every party
will provide advantages to its own supporters and not to others. Second, a part of
patronage politics is the shape of the ruling elite which will remain the same. It will
continue to include the landed-feudal, big business, industrialists, the military, the
clergy and the militants via the intelligence agencies. The common interest of these
stakeholders is to remain in power for which they pursue different means. Another
common denominator is the exploitation of ordinary people, a pattern that will
remain unchanged. Although Islamabad proposes to fight the terrorists, there are
many who will continue to survive as they might be put to use at some later stage.
Third, civil-military relations are not likely to change. Currently, the military is not
eager to create problems for the civilian dispensation and vice versa. But this also
means that the political government will not take the opportunity to build and
strengthen institutional mechanisms to improve the balance in its favour (the new
president has talked about reducing the budget of the presidency with no mention
of the defence budget). There is no plan to harness and check the economic and
political power of the armed forces. Recently, the army announced its plan to sell
what it considers its own land to build the new GHQ. One wonders if the PPP regime
will challenge the army’s decision to unilaterally sell state land. Given the
aforementioned pattern one is reminded of a joke about a boy whose passion for
slingshots became a nuisance for his family and neighbours. The father put him
through extensive therapy only to find that the boy could not get rid of his
obsession. One wonders if history is even remotely therapeutic for our ruling elite. ¦
The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. analyst.

Author Location Dated

Agencies London, England 12.09.08
12.09.08

– Fatimid era jug expected to fetch millions

A rare crystal jug belonging to Egypt’s Fatimid dynasty and mistaken earlier this
year for a cheap French claret pitcher, is expected to sell for millions of pounds at
auction. The 1,000-year-old rock crystal ewer - one of only seven of its kind known
to exist - is the highlight of Christie’s Oct 7 sale of Islamic and Indian art, with an
estimated price of at least three million pounds. But in January Lawrences auction
house in southwest England identified it as a 19th-century French claret jug and
offered it for sale for 100 to 200 pounds ($175 to $350). Some collectors sensed it
was more special than that. After a bidding war, the jug sold for 220,000 pounds
($385,000), more than 1,000 times the list price. Christie’s said it has now been
identified as “one
“one of the rarest and most desirable works of art from the Islamic
world”.
world”. The auction house said on Thursday that the original sale had been fueulled
by agreement between the purchaser and the original owners, who wish to remain
anonymous. The slimnecked vessel, carved from a single piece of rock crystal and
decorated with elaborate engravings of cheetahs, was made for the court of the
Cairo-based Fatimid dynasty, which ruled a swath of the Middle East and North
Africa between 908 and 1187 A.D. “If “If it’s genuine as they say it is, then it’s a
tremendous discovery,”
discovery,” said Anna Contadini, an Islamic art expert at London’s
School of Oriental and African Studies.
Studies. “There
“There are lots of carved rock crystal items
that are not genuine either fakes or copies made at a certain point in the 19th and
early 20th centuries. “If it is genuine, it is priceless.” Many artifacts from the era
were lost when the Fatimid treasury was broken up by the Ayyubid rulers who
succeeded them in 1187.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 13.09.08
13.09.08

– White House refuses to comment on rules of engagement

The United States continues to refuse to talk about US military actions inside Fata
with the White House saying that it does not want to comment on rules of
engagement with the enemy. But unnamed Pentagon officials, in interviews to CNN,
BBC, Fox News and other channels, confirmed that President Bush had authorised
crossborder operations, involving both drones and ground troops, inside Pakistan.
And a former Pentagon expert on Afghanistan, Col David Hunt, told Fox News that a
particular unit of the US Marine Corps Special Operations called ‘Detachment One’
conducted last Wednesday’s ground attack in South Waziristan that killed 20
people, including militants and civilians. Also on Friday, yet another US missile
attack was carried out, this time in North Waziristan. Friday’s attack was particularly
embarrassing for Pakistan’s Ambassador Husain Haqqani who told reporters on
Thursday that he had been assured “at “at the highest levels”
levels” at the White House and
the State Department that the US had no intention to carry out unilateral strikes
inside Fata. The issue was raised at the White House on Friday as well when
reporters asked deputy spokesman Tony Fratto under what authority did President
Bush order cross-border operations in Pakistan. “I’m
“I’m aware of the reports that
you’re talking about. It’s not a story that I’m going to comment on,”
on,” he said. “And
“And
I’m not going to comment on rules of engagement with the enemy.” His comments,
particularly those about “rules
“rules of engagement with the enemy”
enemy” can be interpreted
as an indirect confirmation of media reports that recent US attacks were not “knee-
jerk” reactions, as the Pakistan Embassy in Washington says, but are part of a new
strategy for combating terrorists.
In a related development, a senior State Department official told reporters that
there were no differences among various sections of the US administration on how
to deal with the militants in Fata. “We
“We are all on this together,”
together,” said Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Boucher when asked if the US military’s decision to go
public with the new strategy of increasing attacks inside Pakistan made his task
tougher. “The
“The administration speaks on it in one voice,”
voice,” said Mr Boucher who looks
after South Asian affairs at the State Department. Mr Boucher, however, dispelled
the impression that the US had tried to bypass Pakistan while making a decision to
launch military strikes inside its border. “We
“We are working closely with the
Pakistanis,”
Pakistanis,” said Mr Boucher while talking to reporters after giving a talk on the US-
India nuclear deal on Capitol Hill. As officials at the White House and the State
Department refused to confirm or deny whether President Bush had authorised
cross-border operations into Pakistan, a senior Pentagon official told BBC that he
had. An unnamed senior Pentagon official told the BBC the classified order had been
made within the past two months. The official said that President Bush’s order
included authorisation to conduct military raids against militants inside Pakistan
without prior approval from Islamabad. Another official told AFP news agency that
the US-led coalition ground troops in Afghanistan had been “given“given the green light to
undertake unilateral cross-border operations against militants in Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. Yet
another senior US official told the Reuters news agency that the US military had the
right to go after sponsors of cross-border attacks. “What
“What you’re seeing is an
increased activity (by) our troops taking our rules of engagement to them,”
them,” the
official said.

Reports like these that are attributed to unnamed officials come from background
briefings held by senior Pentagon, State Department or White House officials. In
such background briefings, a reporter is authorised to report what the officials say
without identifying them. Lisa Curtis, a former senior adviser on South Asian issues
in the State Department, told reporters that Pakistan’s inability to dismantle
“terrorist safe havens”
havens” in Fata had caused the US administration to decide “that
“that
‘enough is enough’ and they needed to take these steps in order to try to take care
of the problem on their own”.
own”. The move, she said, could be attributed to Pakistan’s
attempt to forge peace deals with militants in the tribal areas recently that followed
heavy casualties suffered by US-led coalition forces in Afghanistan. Col. David Hunt,
a former Pentagon expert on Afghanistan, in an interview to Fox News, claimed that
US intelligence sources, particularly CIA, had warned Pakistan before last
Wednesday’s attack by US ground forces. “We “We didn’t ask permission. We told them
we were coming,”
coming ,” he said. Col Hunt said US authorities decided to send troops into
Fata after they concluded that they “cannot
“cannot solve what’s going on in Afghanistan
without solving the border region along the Pakistan-Afghan border”.
border”. Meanwhile,
The Washington Post noted that the number of missile attacks by pilotless Predator
drones in Pakistan had more than tripled in the past year. The Post reported officials
involved in the operations called the attacks part of a renewed effort to cripple Al-
Qaeda’s central command. The drones were targeting top Al Qaeda members in the
hope that they could lead authorities to Osama bin Laden, the report said.

Author Location Dated

F. S. Aijazuddin www.fsaijazuddin.pk 13.09.08
13.09.08

– The presidential Olympics

Is the US ready to take its morning coffee Obama black, or does it still need the
WASP whitener of a Joe Biden? Did McCain have to select a female — Sarah Palin —
as a running mate simply because Hillary Clinton had dropped out of the
presidential race? The US presidential elections, it seems, continue to be as much
about ethnic and gender balance as about strategy and tactics. These races are
designed to be both exhaustive and exhausting, stretching over 12 gruelling
months, from the first primaries in January to the swearing-in of the president
designate the following January. They are no less than an Olympic marathon.
Compared to them, our presidential election was a quick 100-yard sprint. In the US
marathon, candidates carry their logos differently. Democrat hopeful Barack
Hussein Obama wears on his vest the logo of his origins — Kenyan father, white
mother, and a Muslim middle name. His running mate Joe Biden carries his on his
back. He has been faulted twice for plagiarism, once at college where he borrowed
from a law review article, and again in 1987 when he pilfered recognisable phrases
from a speech by British Labour leader Neil Kinnock. Republican contender John
McCain was born on a US base in the Panama Canal Zone. According to his
detractors, that makes him ineligible because he is not a ‘natural-born citizen’. His
citizenship was conferred on him by a law passed after his birth. A septuagenarian
already, McCain if elected will become the second oldest US president after Ronald
Reagan. McCain’s VP-designate Sarah Palin is an all-American hockey mom, who
has a husband with Yup’ik Eskimo ancestry, and a 17-year old unmarried daughter
expecting a child.

Here in Pakistan, the three candidates in the recent race for the presidency were
similarly compromised. Mr Asif Ali Zardari of the PPP came with the baggage of a
sullied reputation. Justice (retd) Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui fielded by the PML-N had
been part of the unseemly intra-Supreme Court squabble with Chief Justice Sajjad
Ali Shah in 1997. Mushahid Hussain Syed nominated by the PML-Q found it
impossible to erase incriminating TV footage showing him, Nero-like, watching while
the Supreme Court still in session was being stormed by a mob. The results of our
election are already in. Mr Asif Ali Zardari has been sworn in as our 12th president,
to hold office until resignation, removal or the year 2013, whichever occurs earlier.
The US public meanwhile must wait another two months to know who will be its
44th president. Should we care at all whether it is McCain or Obama, any more than
we did during the Putin/Medvedev crossover in Russia? Certainly, because even
though the US elections take place over 16,000 miles away, the defensible borders
of America now touch the Durand Line in Afghanistan. Pakistan’s reliance on the US
continues to be clear and consistent, if unstated. The PPP manifesto issued in 2008
for example makes no mention of the US or of foreign policy. Perhaps it did not feel
the need to state the obvious. We are still the apple of America’s eye, the rotten
apple. Read what the US presidential hopefuls say about Pakistan. McCain’s policy
of a “longterm
“longterm commitment to the country”
country” aimed at enhancing “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s ability
to act against insurgent safe havens”
havens ” would in effect be a continuation of his fellow
Republican George W. Bush’s policies. The evil that Bush has wrought will live after
him, in McSame. Obama and his running mate Joe Biden are both over-familiar with
Pakistan. Unlike George W. Bush before his inauguration in 2000, they do not need
prompting to locate Pakistan on the map. They are both personally acquainted with
it. A homeless Obama was once given shelter by a Pakistani friend in New York;
Biden came to Pakistan to witness our elections on Feb 18.
For advice on foreign affairs, Obama’s camp draws upon 300 specialists in US think
tanks and from Bill Clinton’s former staff. Because of them, perhaps, he is
convinced that Iraq is not the problem: Afghanistan and Pakistan’s Fata are. He
believes that US aid is enriching the Pakistan army, not the Pakistani public. Obama
complains (as do many Pakistanis who reach upwards to grasp the poverty line) that
not enough US aid has gone to building schools or to create an infrastructure that
will “help
“help develop and give opportunity to the Pakistani people”.
people”. His opinion is
based in part on the testimony given to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs in
January this year, where it was disclosed that out of the $10bn remitted to
Islamabad since 2001, almost $6bn was applied towards Coalition Support, another
$1.8bn towards security assistance, $1.62bn to buttress Pakistan’s economy, and
only nine per cent ($0.9bn) for development and humanitarian assistance. “Since“Since
counterterrorism operations will continue to be important to American security for
the foreseeable future,”
future,” one critic of unbridled US aid to Pakistan has commented,
“…reforming the disbursal system — by amending the authorising legislation if
necessary — is critical. The current system of simply cutting checks for whatever
bills are presented monthly by Islamabad as the costs borne for counterterrorism
support engenders institutional corruption in the Pakistani military, destroys the
integrity of the US assistance programme, and is unfair to the US taxpayer.”
taxpayer.”
Perhaps this might explain to the Pakistan public why our top brass was invited to
meet US Admiral Mike Mullen (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and his team on
board the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln in the Indian Ocean on Aug 26, to sort
out the wrinkles in a common strategy and uncommon book-keeping. The war on
terror continues with the relentlessness of a mini-Armageddon, with the US and the
UK supporting an intensification of cross-border attacks, and Nato unwilling to flout
international laws that twice failed to protect member countries, pre-1914 and pre-
1939. Presidential laurels, to those voted in to wear them, must now seem more like
thorns.

Author Location Dated

Shafqat Ali Shah Jamote 13.09.08
13.09.08

– Living on divine intervention

With inherent qualities of self-destruction, we Pakistanis are a people whose
hallmark is living on the razor’s edge. Yet we continue to believe that we are Allah’s
chosen people and have a role to play until the end of time. In a bizarre fashion,
through ‘divine intervention’ we have muddled our way through many crises. On
the international scene Pakistan has oscillated between being loved and hated.
Currently, it is more of the latter. With more than half our national life under military
rule, the outside world sees us less inclined towards democracy; we are seen as
violators of human rights and exporters of drugs, nuclear technology and
international terrorism. Our economic condition is in a perpetual state of
uncertainty, while politically we remain unstable. The current happenings in
Pakistan’s tribal belt accentuate this sense of insecurity. Pakistan’s detractors
consider it a prime candidate ‘for failed state’ status and regard it as the ‘world’s
most dangerous place’. Many Pakistanis esoterically believe that Allah, America and
the army determine their destiny. But do the three A’s work in tandem? Pakistan’s
birth was a miracle; the human endeavour dovetailed with the work of the divine. As
a new nation in 1947, Pakistan sought US help to overcome its inherited problems.
America was the obvious choice as its ideals of freedom and democracies were
attractive to all nations wanting to break free from their colonial past. But this
‘leader of the free world’ was reluctant to come to Pakistan’s aid. To Washington,
India was the better option.

The unfolding Cold War and the 1950 Korean conflict came to Pakistan’s rescue as
‘divine intervention’. To contain the Soviet threat and spread of communism, the US
embarked upon a global policy of building military alliances. Pakistan’s geo-
strategic location made it an obvious choice; and we were willing to join in. Thus
began the United States’ very special relationship with our armed forces.
Washington armed us and provided economic and political support primarily
because of our military manpower. As members of Cento, Seato and through
bilateral arrangements, we became beneficiaries of American largesse. The
Pakistani military acquired a special position within the Pakistani state structure and
became the basis of US-Pakistan relations. Contrary to the wishes of its benefactor,
Pakistan cosied up to China in 1963 and fought a major war with India in 1965.
Those indiscretions cost Ayub Khan, the most allied of the allies, his power, and
Pakistan its eastern half. However, on the eve of the 1971 tragedy, Pakistan played
a pivotal role in one of the biggest diplomatic coups of the 20th century when it
acted as a bridge for American overtures to China. The US forgave Pakistan its
mistakes and cultivated a friendly relationship as Z.A. Bhutto picked up the pieces
to build a new Pakistan. But Bhutto fell out with the Americans over his policy to
build Pakistan’s nuclear weapons. In 1976 Henry Kissinger proclaimed that the
United States would make a “horrible example” of Bhutto. That threat was carried
out during the Carter presidency and the consequences were not just confined to
the man but to the country as well. At the time of Bhutto’s hanging in 1979, the
Carter administration imposed severe sanctions against Pakistan for pursuing a
nuclear programme. Pakistan became an international pariah. Divine intervention
number two happened when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan in December 1979.
Almost overnight, Pakistan became the darling of the West. Allah smiled, America
wooed and the army ruled Pakistan. Gen Ziaul Haq became America’s blue-eyed
boy. Pakistan played a critical role in the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan. Then, Ziaul
Haq’s importance waned and in 1988 he was sent to his heavenly abode. Eleven
years later, another western-trained general took power in Pakistan while the
country was placed in the international doghouse. Pakistan had defied the world’s
sole superpower by exploding its nuclear device and derailed the US supported
peace process with India through an armed conflict in Kargil. Pakistan once again
was a sanctioned state, while India was propelled to world power status and wooed
by America as a global strategic partner.

The 9/11 attacks in America came to Pakistan’s rescue as the third ‘divine
intervention’. The famous American declaration “you “you are with us or against us”
us” put
Pakistan firmly in the forefront of the American-led global war on terrorism. The
pattern is ostensibly the same as before: America used the Pakistan military for its
global designs and we were willing participants. But the current crisis in Afghanistan
is far more complex and, unlike the past, has a direct bearing on Pakistan’s security
and integrity. As America demands more from Pakistan in this war on terror, and it
postures for possible military action against Iran, the two allies’ goals are on a
collision course. The Taliban resurgence is making Isaf’s task in Afghanistan
precarious. And Pakistan is accused not only of not doing enough to contain these
forces in its tribal belt, but also of its military having sympathies with these
elements. Yet Pakistan itself has become a victim of these very forces. Over the last
two years, scores of suicide bombings have killed thousands of Pakistanis. The
Taliban and their supporters have declared war on the state of Pakistan by
attacking the settled areas of the Frontier and Balochistan. Karachi, which is
considered the largest Pahktun city in the world, is seen as the next prime target.
Other heavily armed and organised ethnic groups living in Karachi have vowed to
face that threat. Pakistan’s sense of insecurity has further heightened with a
declining law and order situation across the country. Ongoing food and fuel
shortages, rapidly depleting reserves, limited exports and increasing imports and
inflation suggest that the fragile economy is headed for a meltdown. Western media
and think tanks, which usually reflect the minds of their governments, are
projecting all kinds of bizarre scenarios for Pakistan; from Balkanisation to a
truncated state to the complete disintegration of the country. All this is a painful
reminder of East Pakistan: our own horrible déjà vu. At this juncture of our history
we are not even confident of our leadership. Its past shenanigans and self-
aggrandisement only exacerbate our fears about the future of this beautiful land. If
there was ever a need for divine intervention, it is now. Will we Pakistanis be lucky a
fourth time, or has our credit with the divine finally run out?

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 13.09.08
13.09.08

– The politics of vengeance

Pakistan may or may not be the world’s most dangerous country, but it is certainly
the most difficult one to govern. Considering its many problems, it is a source of
constant wonder that so many people aspire to the top job. Soon after the coalition
government was formed in Islamabad following the February elections, I received
many emails from readers complaining that Asif Zardari was calling the shots from
behind the scene, although he did not hold an elected office. These same people
are now whinging over the fact that he has been elected as president. There’s just
no pleasing some folks. I, for one, would rather have the person in charge to be in a
visible, elected and accountable position. In the western media, op-ed and leader
writers have made much of Asif Zardari’s past, with his long stint in prison on
unproven charges featuring prominently. As I have said in this space before, 11
years is a long time to be on trial. If the legal system has been unable to convict a
suspect due to lack of evidence in over a decade, surely it’s time to move on. And
Bhutto-haters should please note that for the entire duration of this process, the
governments of the day were hostile to Zardari, and did their worst to find him
guilty. I have no way of knowing whether he committed any of the crimes he was
accused of, but I do believe that we should abide by the dictum ‘innocent
‘innocent until
proven guilty’.
guilty’. When I have made these points before, I have been accused of
supporting the PPP. This is not a charge I have ever denied. In Pakistan today, there
are four broad power groupings: the army, the religious parties, the various
manifestations of the Muslim League, and the PPP. PPP. Out of all these, I find the PPP’s
goals closest to mine, even though the party has not usually lived up to them.

Another reason I have stood by the PPP is that whenever the army has overthrown a
civilian government, it has consistently opposed martial law. But when it has been
in power, I have often been very critical of its leadership and its policies. In politics,
you have to choose, and I have supported the PPP since it came into being four
decades ago. The other option is to sit on the sidelines and snipe at everybody, but
this is the easy option, and one that requires no hard choices and no responsibility.
My leftwing friends have often complained of the PPP’s deviation from its ideological
moorings. However, a party’s philosophy has to evolve to keep pace with changing
realities. Nevertheless, it needs to be anchored in certain core beliefs. In a country
like Pakistan, with so much injustice and inequality, I firmly believe that decent,
thinking people must be concerned with changing the status quo. Unfortunately, the
only group that is motivated by revolutionary fervour today is made up of militants
who have rallied to the banner of an extremist, hate-filled vision of Islam that
excludes all notions of reason and humanism. It also relegates women and the
minorities to a second-class status. Above all, it allows no dissent and no opposition.
With these barbarians knocking at the gate, it would seem to me that we should put
our political differences aside and face the common foe. But if one were to follow
the Pakistani media closely, it would seem that Pakistan’s biggest problem was the
election of Asif Zardari as president. Judging from comments appearing in Pakistan
and abroad, professional PPP-haters are unwilling to give him a chance. Some
commentators are already predicting — and hoping for — yet another military coup.
Others are busy inventing justifications for an army intervention. My old friend
Ardeshir Cowasjee, writing in this space last Sunday, has taken issue with Benazir
Bhutto’s advice to her son, Bilawal. He quotes the young man as recalling his
assassinated mother as saying: “… “… taking into account the sufferings and
‘sacrifices’ made by the party of the people, ‘democracy is the best revenge’.”
revenge’.”
Cowasjee then continues: “If “If we are to have a majority bent upon revenge of any
sort, may the Good Lord come quickly to our aid… If his [Zulfikar Ali Bhutto’s] heirs,
including Zardari, have revenge in mind, then the game is lost before it is begun.”
begun.”

This is the kind of thinking Benazir Bhutto had to contend with during her political
career. Her words have no relationship to her meaning. What she urged her son to
do was not to seek revenge from those who had wronged her and her father, “as “as
democracy was the best revenge”.
revenge”. Thus, usurpers would be marginalised by voting
them out of power. Indeed, in her lifetime, I often disagreed with Benazir Bhutto
because she overlooked so many wrongs done to her, and forgave her sworn foes
so readily. In this, she was probably unique in our hate-filled, no-holds-barred,
vengeance-driven politics. To give a different meaning to her words because of
one’s own grievances against the Bhuttos is to be guilty of what the PPP is being
accused of. Other countries have strong disagreement over which individual and
which party should lead them. The ongoing electoral battle in the US is a case in
point. But once the dust has settled, and the people have spoken, the victors are
allowed to get on with it. Of course, policies and even personalities are attacked by
the media. But nobody invites the army to step in and throw out the democratic
order. Silvio Berlusconi has been elected as prime minister of Italy for the third time
despite a number of allegations against him. In Israel, four recent prime ministers
have faced corruption charges. But the media in neither country is asking their
armies to take over. It is high time we began behaving with a little more maturity. It
is entirely possible that Asif Zardari and the PPP will be unable to rise to the
challenge. Should this happen, the electorate will vote them out of office five years
from now. But until then, it is both irresponsible and self-destructive to work to
destabilise the system just because one doesn’t like Asif Zardari or the Bhuttos.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori k_k_ghori@hotmail.com 13.09.08
13.09.08

– Now the ‘prince’ must also rule with wisdom

Nothing is so admirable in politics as a short memory. —John Kenneth Galbraith.
Galbraith. So
So
the short memory of the people of Pakistan, correction its politicians and elected
representatives of the people, has served Mr Asif Ali Zardari so admirably well. He is
now the duly elected President of Pakistan, the first of this kind in more than a
decade. Pakistan and its people are in order to be congratulated: they have finally
capped the long run of a military dictator who’d lorded over them for so long and
cared two hoots for them and their sensitivities. But it’s also time for introspection
and stock-taking — a sort of self-criticism and assessment of right and wrong that
the great Chinese leader and nation-builder Deng Xiao Ping was so fond of
preaching to his people. More than a short memory it’s the damning proclivity of the
Pakistani politicos for shortterm advantage that has been the catalyst in propelling
Mr Zardari to the pinnacle of power. Self-interest and self-promotion are the two
wheels that make the bandwagon roll, and rolled it has for Zardari with a mind-
boggling force and intensity in the past few months, ever since he favoured himself
with donning the mantle of the ‘mentor of the heir’ to the legacy of Benazir Bhutto
— a king-maker in the truest sense of the word. It was only a few weeks ago that a
Washington-based think-tank, the New American Foundation, conducted an opinion
poll in Pakistan and discovered that Mr Zardari was the least popular politician in
Pakistan with an approval rating of just 14 per cent. However, he was still the king
maker and the rising sun in Pakistan; and that was all that mattered to the ‘people’s
representatives,’ sitting in the assemblies with the sole interest of making hay
under this rising sun. The die was cast in favour of Mr Zardari and his ascent to the
top was sealed and guaranteed.

All said and done, Mr Zardari is now comfortably ensconced in the presidency in
Islamabad at the end of a fully democratic, free, fair and transparent election. Too
transparent, some might rightly say, given that blatantly puerile and whimsical
show of shady balloting in the NWFP Assembly: the prying eye of television cameras
caught several of its members, including the chief minister of the province himself,
displaying their ‘secret’ ballot to their colleagues before putting it in the box. So
much for the sanctity of the constitution and election laws in the hearts of our
elected representatives. Why should they be blaming Musharraf alone for making a
mockery of the constitution and the law of the land? However, greasing his way to
the stately presidency in Islamabad was the easier part of the equation, as
President Zardari should soon discover once euphoria gives way to sobriety. The
first challenge to his presidential office is personal. His elevation to the highest
office of the land doesn’t mean — and shouldn’t mean to him in particular—that the
memory slate of the people has really been wiped clean. He was the least popular
politician stalking the terrain and winning the presidential contest doesn’t make him
any less controversial. In fact, the elevation also adds to his visibility. Wittingly or
unwittingly, Mr Zardari has ushered himself into a glass tower, a crystal-clear fish
bowl, where each and every one of his moves would be watched intently and
scrutinised minutely. That should make him acutely conscious of the burden of
proof that stays on his shoulders for as long as he may occupy the presidency.
Zardari’s track record as the king-maker of Pakistan was anything but inspiring. His
frequent somersaults and flip-flops on the restoration of judges did nothing to
enhance his credibility or water down the popular perception that he wasn’t the
kind of man one should feel comfortable buying a second-hand car from.

Add to this the current national malaise and an ambience of depression and gloom
that pervades Pakistan at this juncture from Karachi to Khyber. The government
that has served Zardari, and not the people of Pakistan, at his beckand-call in the
past six months has done precious little to instil even an iota of confidence in the
people that it has any potential to deliver on their basic needs and requirements.
The economy is in the pits, the energy graph has touched the rock bottom and the
cost of living is sky-rocketing. Not even the most die-hard optimist would be inclined
to believe that President Zardari brings a magic wand with him that he would wave
and whatever he touches would turn gold, instantly. There’s no Midas’ touch
associated with Mr Zardari, much as the spin doctors serving him may claim for him
the title of the Pakistani Mandela. No Mandela-like healing touch could be
associated with Mr Zardari. But perhaps the most daunting task craving for his
immediate attention is the alarming situation in the tribal areas. That, incidentally,
is also the sphere where Mr Zardari suffers from a huge trust-deficit, as far as the
common man is concerned. President Zardari and his spin-doctors will have a very
hard time disproving the general perception that his passage to the presidency has
been smoothened by the same mentors that finally scripted Musharraf’s
unceremonious exit from there. A lead story in the New York Times of August 26
chronicled in detail the shenanigans that went on in New York and Washington
before the rug was pulled from under the feet of Musharraf. The chief promoter for
Zardari replacing Musharraf was the notorious American Ambassador to the UN,
Zalmay Khalilzad, a rabid neocon, who went over the heads in the State
Department to write the curtain-drop scene for Musharraf and curtain-raiser for
Zardari. No surprise that the only foreign dignitary attending President Zardari’s
‘coronation’ was none other than Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan, an erstwhile protégé
of Khalilzad. The two have a lot more in common than the same mentor.

But the Americans aren’t rolling out the red carpet for their new prince-charming in
Pakistan. One brazen ground assault, on September 3, and at least three aerial,
unmanned attacks by drones, in four days since then, is how the Americans are
heralding their new front-line soldier in the war against terror. They may have
reposed their confidence in his ability to deliver on the dotted lines, but they are
also thumbing their nose at him, and Pakistan, and making a mockery of Pakistan’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Mystifying is the silence in Islamabad on these
blatant violations by an ‘ally.’ So President Zardari’s task is already cut out for him,
should he be ready to act according to his constitutional oath to honour the laws of
Pakistan, defend its sovereignty and secure its frontiers against incursions from any
quarters, foes or friends. Now that he has inherited the legacy and mantle of
Musharraf, Zardari will have to plead with Washington on his own to desist from
making his life in the presidency untenable by its reckless jingoism in the tribal
area. Washington will not only be putting its war on terror in this part of the world in
grave jeopardy but also shortening the political life of Zardari, if it didn’t change
course in its flawed, gung-ho, diplomacy and rules of engagement on the battle
front. A course-correction is also overdue in Mr Zardari’s own fractious house of PPP
and its style of governance. Nawaz Sharif, displaying maturity and acumen not
expected of him, is making sterling contribution to the avowed evolution of a
genuinely democratic culture in Pakistan by rejecting partisanship in politics. He did
well visiting Zardari, on the day after his election as president, to assure him that
his party would still cooperate with him despite being in the opposition at the
centre. That was an impressive departure from Pakistan’s endemic culture of one-
upmanship.

But the boot is now on Zardari’s foot. He must respond in kind to PML-N’s gesture of
goodwill and rein in the brash brat occupying the Governor’s House in Lahore whose
bull behaviour can only add to Zardari’s worries in Punjab, in particular. To most of
his detractors— and even some admirers — Zardari is an epitome of Machiavelli’s
prince. However, much against the common perception, Machiavelli didn’t want his
prince to be an evil incarnate. On the contrary, his prince was expected to rule with
a razor-sharp intelligence and wisdom, and a hands-on sense of the sensibilities of
his people. Machiavelli did intone his prince to be in a state of war, perpetually, but
his concept of war wasn’t one of arms and battle-fields only. It spanned diplomacy
and politics of sagacity and the cunning of a fox. The following passage from The
Prince could well have been written for Zardari by that master-political thinker-
philosopher of the 16th century, who has unjustly been ridiculed for the crimes he
didn’t commit and for the teachings he didn’t espouse: Freedom suppressed and
again regained bites with keener fangs than freedom never endangered. Let us,
then, embrace this policy, which appeals to every heart and is the strongest support
not only for security but also of influence and power namely, to banish fear and
cleave to love. And thus we shall most easily secure success both in private and in
public life.
life. One couldn’t wish President Zardari a more apt prescription to put paid
to his shaded past, and start with a fresh commitment to justice over revenge. He
owes it to the political will of Benazir Bhutto, to whom democracy was the best
revenge. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 13.09.08
13.09.08

– How powerful is president under the constitution

Now that Asif Ali Zardari has been sworn in as 12th president under the 1973
constitution, the man in the street would be overly eager to know as to what are his
powers and his role in Pakistan’s political system. Does the law ask him to be a
strong president or a mere ceremonial head of the state? Pakistan is a
parliamentary democracy. Normally in this form of government, the office of the
head of the state — called president — is of a figurehead. Though he is the
constitutional head of the country, the real executive is the cabinet headed by the
prime minister. The cabinet is the creation of parliament, to which it is responsible
for all its actions. Hence, the name parliamentary form of government. Either by
statutes or by conventions, the president has to act on the advice of the cabinet.
Two classic cases of parliamentary system are the United Kingdom and India. In the
UK, the queen has a lot of discretionary powers. For instance, she is empowered to
dismiss the popularly elected House of Commons, appoint and sack the prime
minister, veto legislation passed by parliament and make all high level government
appointments. However, the queen does not exercise her discretionary powers as
conventions require her to act on the advice of ministers responsible to parliament.
That is why it is said that the British monarch reigns but does not rule. In India, as
well, both laws and conventions make it obligatory on the president to act on the
advice of the council of ministers (cabinet). Though he has some discretionary
powers, he normally does not exercise them and when he exercises them, it is done
according to well-established conventions. For instance, though the Indian president
has the power to appoint the prime minister, he appoints only the leader of the
majority party in the Lok Sabha to that office.

But what has been the position of the president in Pakistan? Until our first
constitution was framed in 1956, the Government of India Act, 1935 as amended by
the Indian Independence Act, 1947 served as the interim constitution. Though
parliamentary in form, that constitution had conferred substantial discretionary
powers on the governor-general. Those powers were fully used by an ambitious
Ghulam Muhammad to the detriment of parliamentary democracy. He first
dismissed the prime minister, who commanded the support of the majority in the
house, and later sacked the assembly after it had adopted a bill to clip the wings of
the governor-general. An ailing Ghulam Muhammad was replaced by Iskandar Mirza
in 1956 and the same year the country’s first constitution was framed. The 1956
constitution also provided for parliamentary democracy. But by then the tradition of
a powerful president had been strongly established. Besides, the constitution had
itself empowered the president to hire and fire the prime minister. Consequently,
the office of the president became enormously powerful while parliament was
reduced to a rubber-stamp and the dignity of the prime minister’s office ebbed
away. Governments were installed and dismissed at the will of the president. But
even that did not satisfy his ambition and in 1958 he abrogated the constitution.
The next constitution of 1962 set up presidential system. However, it was
presidential only in the sense that the president was not responsible to the
legislature, otherwise it had made departure from the basic norm of that system —
the separation of powers. The 1973 constitution again established parliamentary
form of government. In its original form, the constitution vested all powers in the
prime minister and made the president almost a figurehead.

However, the eighth amendment to the constitution changed the very character of
the constitution by making both parliament and prime minister subservient to the
president, especially by incorporation of Article 58-2b into the constitution, which
empowered the president to dissolve the National Assembly in his discretion in case
of a perceived constitutional crisis. These discretionary powers were fully used by
the incumbents, as between 1988 and 1996 four popularly elected assemblies were
dismissed. Since no government had the numerical strength to repeal the eighth
amendment, the president’s position continued to get stronger at the expense of
parliament. In 1997, the Nawaz Sharif government by virtue of its strong
parliamentary position succeeded in getting through parliament the thirteenth
constitutional amendment, which divested the president of the powers to sack the
National Assembly and appoint in his discretion the top brass of the armed forces.
However, the seventeenth amendment, following the eighth amendment, restored
these discretionary powers of the president. At present, the president has enormous
discretionary powers: He can dismiss the National Assembly and with it the federal
government, proclaim a state of emergency, hold referendum, appoint provincial
governors, the services chiefs, chief election commissioner, and chairman Federal
Public Service Commission, withhold assent to a bill passed by parliament for thirty
days and send a bill back to parliament. The president’s position is further
strengthened by two other constitutional provisions, both of which were imported
into the constitution vide the eighth amendment.
One, under Article 90 (1), “The
“The executive authority of the Federation shall vest in
the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers
subordinate to him, in accordance with the Constitution.”
Constitution.” In its original form, Article
90 (1) read: “Subject
“Subject to the Constitution, the executive authority of the Federation
shall be exercised in the name of the President by the Federal Government,
consisting of the Prime Minister and Federal Ministers which shall act through the
Prime Minister who shall be the Chief Executive of the Federation.”
Federation.” Thus the original
construction of Article 90 (1) clearly vested the executive authority of the federation
in the cabinet, whereas the amended form vests that in the president. Two, as per
Article 48 (1), “In
“In the exercise of his functions, the President shall act in accordance
with the advice of the Cabinet or the Prime Minister.”
Minister.” In its original form, Article 48
(1) read: “In
“In the performance of his functions, the President shall act on or in
accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister and such advice shall be binding
on him.”
him.” Thus whereas the original construction of Article 48 (1) made it obligatory
on the president to act on the advice of the prime minister, the amended form does
not create such obligation. In a country with well-established constitutional
conventions such provisions should not cause any problem as the president (or the
queen as in England) being a figurehead acts on the advice of the cabinet. However
this does not apply to Pakistan where in the absence of constitutional conventions
the president is not likely to confine himself to the role of a figurehead. This
underscores the need for amending the constitution to scrap the discretionary
powers of the president, make it binding on him to act on the advice of the cabinet
or the prime minister and vest the executive authority of the federation in the
federal government. But why should the office of the president be a mere
ceremonial one? Would not a strong president be a check on despotic ambitions of
the prime minister? Was not during both Z.A. Bhutto (1973-77) and Nawaz Sharif
(1997-99) periods, when there was an enormously strong prime minister and a
mere figurehead president, the army had to intervene to get the country out of a
political “impasse”?

The answer is that only strong democratic institutions can con stitute an effective
check against a despotic prime minister or an ambitious general. As for a political
impasse, it is not uncommon in a democracy and at any rate political institutions
must be strong enough to grap ple with them without leading to the overthrow of
the democratic order. However, democratic institutions take time to mature, which
requires that the political process should go on. As the political history of Pakistan
bears out, a powerful president and strong democratic institutions are mutually
incompatible. We had very powerful presidents in Iskandar Mirza, Ayub Khan, Ziaul
Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Pervez Musharraf. But none of them allowed
democratic in stitutions to develop. Rather they made those institutions subservient
to their whims. Our short history is replete with such instances, which almost always
precipitate a political crisis. Though in the present scenario such an argument may
not look much relevant, in the long-run it will do. Another argument is that whereas
the prime minister is responsible to parliament, the president is responsible to
none. Hence, the presence of a strong but irresponsible president will run counter to
democratic norms. At present, there is a broad agreement among political parties of
note including the ruling Pakistan Peoples Party to restore the 1973 constitution in
its original form, which means making the president a mere nominal head and
making parliament and the office of the prime minister strong. The newly elected
president had, in the recent past, also expressed similar views. Let us hope, a
constitutional amendment to that effect will see the light of day soon.

Author Location Dated

Jonathan Baghdad, Iraq 13.09.08
13.09.08

– Female suicide bombers: victims or villains?

A 15-year-old girl walks up to an Iraqi police checkpoint on her way to the crowded
central market in Baquba, a town some 40 miles north of Baghdad. A constable
senses something odd and demands she be searched. The girl promptly announces
she is wearing a suicide belt, strapped like a lethal corset round her waist. In police
footage that has gone around the world on YouTube, Rania Ibrahim is handcuffed to
metal railings while male officers get her to remove her outer garments, then
carefully defuse the device. Never mind the fact that the area is not cordoned off,
and other policemen wander close to the girl to gawp. It took not only exceptional
bravery but a degree of professionalism that many in Baghdad had not credited the
Iraqi police with. The officer who disabled the device was given a $5,000 bonus.
Horror, relief, amazement – but beyond the emotions aroused, a crucial question
remains unresolved a fortnight after Ibrahim and many others escaped death. Was
she a victim or a villain? And whatever her motives, why has the number of female
suicide bombers soared during the past year in a nation that, with Egypt, Syria and
Lebanon, has long been seen as one of the most developed and secular societies in
the Middle East? Lt Col D.A. Sims, deputy commanding officer of the Baqubabased
US 2nd Stryker Cavalry Regiment, whose staff also interrogated the girl, has an
open mind about Ibrahim’s intentions – whether someone strapped the bomb to her
against her will and she deliberately behaved oddly at the checkpoint so as to be
discovered, or whether she did intend to blow herself up but was pre-empted by
police and then tried to lie herself out of trouble.“The
trouble.“The Iraqi police identified her as
suspicious and she immediately said, ‘Hey, I want to turn myself in.’ She realised
she was making a mistake,”
mistake,” Sims says. He is not sure whether the mistake was to
start out on a road leading to a violent early death, or to get caught before fulfilling
her mission.

Saja Qaduri, a member of the Diyala provincial council (Baquba is Diyala’s capital)
and the only woman on its security committee, sat in on some of the police
interrogation of Ibrahim. She believes the girl was a committed would-be suicide
bomber. Qaduri says that the girl spoke in a slow, drowsy way during the first
moments after the suicide belt had been defused and taken off her, and appeared
to have been drugged. But this did not mean she was being made to do something
against her will. It could have been done to dull her emotions and reduce the
chance of her backing off when the moment came to trigger the belt. “I “I was at the
police station when they first brought her in for questioning. As the pills wore off,
she spoke in a very confident way. She strongly believed her death would have
taken her to heaven. She was detected because some wires were visible. A
policeman spotted it,”it,” Qaduri adds. In spite of her faith that suicide and murder
would take her to paradise, Ibrahim showed flashes of teenage confusion. “At “At the
end of every sentence, she kept saying ‘I want my mum’”, mum’”, Qaduri says. If Ibrahim
was a genuinely willing suicide bomber, wider and more complex issues of
motivation need to be probed. It doesn’t remove the victim-or-villain issue.
Diyala, named after one of the rivers that flow through it (the other is the Tigris), is
one of the most conservative rural provinces in Iraq. In its most fertile south-eastern
region date palms, orange groves and pomegranate trees stretch for mile after mile
along a network of irrigation canals. Few roads are paved, donkey carts are
common, and villages are isolated. Tribal structures are strong, male dominance is
all-pervasive, and women have suffered repression for centuries. By the age of 15
many girls are married – as Ibrahim was. Few can read.

In this restrictive context, “these

“these women are also victims of the situation”,
situation”, says
Qaduri. “Even
“Even this 15-year-old, you feel sorry for her, very young and uneducated.
She has no awareness. She comes from a very poor family. Her husband is on the
run as a suspected Al Qaeda terrorist. He told her he would meet her in paradise.”
paradise.”
(He was arrested by Iraqi police in the town of Hit about a week later).
later). The view of
Iraq as a member of the club of the Middle East’s more developed and secular
countries is not wrong — as far as it goes. Essentially this applies to the Baghdad
area, with its large, welltravelled middle class, many of whose women and men are
fluent English speakers from the days when English was the language of instruction
in almost every medical and engineering college. But among the substantial
population in the countryside, as well as a swelling generation of rural migrants who
are pulled or pushed into urban slums by the prospect of better pay, country
traditions still hold sway in the lives of women: tribal values and patriarchal culture
remain extremely strong. In villages and small towns, women are considered little
more than chattels who may not go out of the home unless accompanied by their
husbands or a male relative. Three wars in a quarter of a century have left Iraq with
more than a million young or middleaged widows. They are not permitted to live
alone, nor do most want to. The death of a husband is not just a cause of grief,
bereavement and loneliness. It collapses a woman’s sense of worth, within her
extended family as well as in the wider community. Her protection is gone, plus her
source of financial support. Unless the woman remarries – a rarity, given the
shortage of men – a nephew or a male cousin will be required to move into the
house to provide protection, unless one or more of her sons is already in his late
teens. The result can be corrosive levels of depression that haunt women who have
seen fathers, brothers, and husbands killed – so, while Ibrahim is the first female
suicide bomber to be thwarted in Diyala, many others have gone out into the street
wearing a deadly hidden belt. Throughout Iraq some 43 women have carried out
suicide bombings since 2003, mostly in the past two years. In 2007 eight women
blew themselves up. This year the number is already 30, of whom 15 were in Diyala.

Iraq is not the first Arab country to produce a woman suicide bomber. The first
recorded case took place in Lebanon in 1985, where a young pro-Syrian militant
targeted an Israeli army unit. In the Israeli-occupied Palestinian territories,
bombings by women have also become more frequent, with 10 attacks since 2002.
Women suicide bombers in Iraq are still far outnumbered by their male counterparts
but simple logistics offer one explanation for the upward trend: it is a fair bet that
men are pushing women into doing this “man’s job” because they usually have a
better chance of passing checkpoints wearing their long black cloaks, and male
police feel inhibited about touching them. The Diyala police force has recruited 200
women to work at checkpoints and 20 women will graduate from the local police
college next month. Part of the answer to why the chaos launched by the US
occupation has impinged so sharply on Diyala, turning a rural backwater into a
destructive and selfdestructive cauldron of violence, lies in the province’s
combination of rural conservatism and unusual ethnic makeup. This combination
has made it (including its women) vulnerable to political exploitation, not least by Al
Qaeda, a group that wasn’t active in Iraq until the US invasion in 2003. Dealing with
young women who are vulnerable to Al Qaeda recruiting in remote parts of Diyala is
a harder task. Qaduri says the priority has to be to restore peace and security to
Iraq. Ideally, she would have women’s shelters and rehabilitation programmes for
young women. But this is not realistic now. In the meantime, the 20 or so young
women whom police identified as potential bombers remain at home in the
enclosed and sad environment that has led others like them to blow themselves up.
Qaduri sums up the dilemma: “We“We don’t have proof, so they are still living there.”
there.”

Author Location Dated

Shamim ur Rehman Karachi, Pakistan 13.09.08
13.09.08

– Heat cripples ill-maintained KESC system

As the mercury rose to 42.1 degrees Celsius with 20 per cent humidity on Friday,
there were reports of widespread power outages in the city caused by a fire in some
power sub-stations and gas turbines due to excessive load on the fragile
transmission system of the power utility. There were at least two outbreaks of fire
at the installations of the KESC – one at its sub-station in Khori Garden and another
at its gas turbines at Bilal Chowrangi in Korangi. Fire engines rushed to both the
places to extinguish the fire and save the system from further damage. Indifferent
to the consumers’ plight and the promises made by the Karachi Electric Supply
Company, the privatised management preferred to cut generation to save on its
fuel cost. Enraged consumers blamed the utility’s foreign management for
deliberately dealing a debilitating blow to the country’s economic hub. Little
improvement in the generation and transmission system resulted in the prolonged
outages in the city, sources say, adding that the situation would worsen after the
mid of Ramazan when at least 60 megawatts would be required for shopping
centres and mosques. Miseries of electricity consumers continued overnight and the
situation deteriorated further in the morning when power supply to various localities
was suspended for about two hours with an interval of 45 minutes or so. In effect
consumers in some localities got electricity for only five hours during the day. To
meet the city’s power demand that surged to 2,400 megawatts during the last 24
hours, the KESC resorted to load-shedding to the tune of more than 500MWs. All the
six units of Bin Qasim Thermal Power Station of the KESC could only produce
800MWs against the required output of 1160MWs since the privatised management
opted to reduce generation to save on its fuel cost. With one of its generation units
out of order for many days, the Korangi Thermal Power Plant of the KESC could not
produce more than 70MWs. The desalination plant in Defence has also suspended
generation of around 80MWs. Wapda provided around 450MWs electricity to the
KESC through the national grid, while the Karachi Nuclear Power Plant generated
80MWs electricity.

In almost every residential locality in the city, there has been power load-shedding
up to five times a day with power supply getting disrupted each time for over two
hours. Among other affected quarters, residents of Block-1 in Gulshan-i-Iqbal
suffered a major power failure from 4am till 11am on Friday, while power supply
was again suspended at 1.30pm for several hours in the locality. There were also
problems of frequent tripping in different parts of the city reportedly due to
mismanagement of load distribution. The KESC management had earlier told the
government that it was operating its generation units below average capacity
because the utility was not getting adequate gas supply from the SSGC. The
shortage of gas had brought the utility under heavy financial losses for keeping the
power generation units operating on high-priced furnace oil. Though the KESC failed
to clear its dues the gas supply was fully restored, yet the situation of power
generation did not improve. Insiders say that power shortfall is unavoidable as the
gas pressure is not capable of keeping the burners at full blast. Each day there is a
regular shortfall of 250 MWs, they say, adding that there are at least 36 burners in a
unit of which hardly six to eight burners could be kept on gas while the rest are run
with furnace oil. The Korangi Thermal Power Plant’s old and other new units are
totally gas-operated while the units at the Bin Qasim Thermal Power Station are
dual cycle though they could not be operated at a required speed with gas, says an
official. There is a between 250MWs and 300MWs natural shortfall of power while
the gas pressure has caused further 200MWs to 300MWs less power generation.

Author Location Dated

Bina Shah 14.09.08
14.09.08

– Who owns Karachi?

I like our city nazim Mr Mustafa Kamal’s ‘can do’ spirit with regard to his belief that
it’s up to the citizens of Karachi to take responsibility for the upkeep and civic
health of this city. Forward-thinking and progressive, the nazim has created a
website for the project which boasts the tagline ‘My ‘My City — My Responsibility’.
Responsibility’. The
programme was started on Aug 14 this year, and the idea is simple: anyone can
come forward and register himself or herself as a ‘city owner’. All you have to do is
volunteer two hours of your time per week doing something “in “in the interest of the
city”.
city”. According to the website, on Independence Day, labourers, students, artists,
members of the business community, government officers, elected representatives,
taxi drivers, and even the pesh imams of mosques came and put their names down
to become city owners. Although it’s still far too early to judge the success of the
programme, the nazim has big dreams for Karachi, and envisions a whole cadre of
city owners who will do things like plant trees, clear rubbish, inspect schools and
hospitals, help with traffic (students of Karachi University and Sir Syed University
did this in Clifton and Defence in the second week of September) and other civic
duties of this nature. All this got me thinking about the question: who owns Karachi?
Is it the people? Is it the mafia? Is it the army? Is it the members of one ethnic
group or another? The original inhabitants of the province? Immigrants of the old
guard from India, or the new wave from the NWFP or Afghanistan? Is it the much-
maligned ‘foreign hand’? Do I own Karachi? Do you?

Recently, I got a beautiful letter from a Mr Yusuf Dadabhoy, and many of the things
he describes in it make this question even more complex. He defined old Karachi of
the forties, fifties and sixties (the golden years, according to most people of my
parents’ generation) as “the
“the prestigious locality of Karachi: Garden East, bordering
between Chowk Gurumandir on the south, Lasbella intersection on the north, [and]
Soldier Bazaar on the west side”.
side”. He went on to reminisce with great fondness how
this area was considered the “gem “gem of Karachi”,
Karachi”, in which newly designed bungalows
competed for grandeur with old mahals and havelis built by Hindu Sindhis in the
thirties and forties, bringing to life with his vivid words a Karachi that most people in
my generation and younger can’t even imagine in today’s Karachi of guns, drugs,
crime and filth. Mr Dadabhoy talked about the old Muslim Sindhi settlements around
Lasbella Chowk, known as goths, and described a cheerful scene on Eid day as
“little Sindhi children dressed in shining red, orange and yellow shalwar kameez
with matching glittering gold and silver dupattas, golden and silver sandals with
little heels and bands packed our houses in good cheer”.
cheer”. In true Gujarati style, the
grand houses of this neighbourhood would open their doors to the Sindhis and treat
them to morning Eid feasts of Indian-spiced whole chickens, tomato-flavoured red
mutton ‘champ’ qorma, Gujarati kofta with fresh baked naan, meethi roti, meetha
paratha, coconut-filled samosas, and Gujarati mithai. I learned more about Karachi
from Mr Dadabhoy’s letter than I have from all my years living in this city, to be
honest. He told me about the newly built universities in the Garden East area, the
engineering schools, science colleges, the hospitals, the primary and secondary
schools. I could close my eyes and envision wide boulevards lined with cherry trees
that bloomed with hibiscus and gulhmohar in springtime. I could smell the chicken
tikka as it was being grilled on the hot coals at Bundu Khan’s; I could hear the
shouts of excited children as they stood in line at the Bambino, Lyric, Naz and
Nishaat cinemas. And if I concentrated hard, I could hear the lions roaring from
Karachi Zoo in the early mornings….

And that’s not all. Karachi at one point was considered to be one of the most
exciting centres of industrial activity: crossing the Lasbella Bridge, you’d get to the
Site Industrial Area, where large cotton mills, factories that produced ceramics,
aluminum, plastics, cast iron foundries, cement plants, pipe-making plants, soap
and detergent plants, all bore testament to the remarkable ‘can-do’ spirit that
Karachi has always been known for. At five o’clock, the bells and whistles would
pierce the air, and Mr Dadabhoy told me that you’d see lines of disciplined workers
changing shifts from their homes in Pak Colony, Nazimabad, Golimar and Lasbella.
“We invested in businesses, industries, primary schools, hospitals, charities,
banking and insurance … the urban Sindhi contributed greatly to making Pakistan a
sustainable country.”
country.” But as Mr Dadabhoy rightly points out in his letter, things are
different today. “The
“The plight of the urban Sindhi living in scattered goths around the
old areas of Karachi is now [moving] towards despondency, helplessness, and
misery…. What went wrong with the Sindh provincial urban planning commission?...
why were they not given land to build new settlements closer to their goths,
competitive primary schools, institutes to learn basic trade or the healthcare
profession, Sindh government scholarships for the bright and able, community
centres or government-funded programmes to uplift their goths?”
goths?” Some provincial
planners, well aware of the plight of the urban Sindhi population, have decided to
focus on Thatta as an option for a growing young population, and with development
of both Thatta and the Keti Bandar area, the women legislators of Sindh are working
on creating modern settlements with sound infrastructure to house the
disenfranchised populations of the old goths of Karachi, as well as a restive interior
youth who want to move from the rural to the urban areas of Sindh, but find it hard
to succeed in Karachi. Yes, I can’t help but wonder, does the urban Sindhi today feel
that he or she owns Karachi? And if the new generations do find Thatta a viable
alternative to the economic opportunities that once attracted people from all over
Pakistan to Karachi, the gem of Pakistan, will they feel cheated of their inheritance?
Author Location Dated
Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 14.09.08
14.09.08

– Task before new president

The chosen representatives of the people, supposedly embodying their collective
wisdom and virtue, have elected Asif Ali Zardari to live in the majestic and
luxuriously appointed presidential mansion in Islamabad for the next five years, and
possibly longer. If in sending Mr Zardari to the presidency the PPP elders thought
they were ‘kicking
‘kicking him upstairs’,
upstairs’, where he would be rend
rendered
ered harmless, they made
an error of judgment. Nor of any avail will be his own post election statements
affirming the supremacy of parliament and the president’s subservience to it, and
saying that he will not oppose moves to trim the president’s powers. He may have
made these statements because they sound good, not because he intends to
implement them. He may, for appearances’ sake, allow constitutional amendments
that reduce the president’s role to that of a titular head of state. The likelihood is
that even after such amendments have been made he will continue to have a
directing role in this country’s governance. What can be done to mitigate this
perversity? If he cares for appearances, we recommend that he quit the co-
chairman’s office in the PPP. He represents the unity of this republic; he is president
of the people of all its regions and persuasions. It is therefore in the fitness of things
that he should belong to no political party. Second, as we all know, his influence
with the PPP notables derives not from the party office he holds but from the fact
that he was married to the late Benazir Bhutto, daughter of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the
party’s founder. The party notables show him deference not because he has done
anything to earn it but because he is related to the Bhutto family. Given Pakistan’s
political culture, it would not be improper for President Zardari to share his thoughts
on issues of public policy with the prime minister. In doing so he should recognise
his own limitations. He has had no experience of statecraft. He may in time become
statesmanlike but that remains to be seen. The best course of action for him would
then be to limit himself to participation in the making of high policy, leaving its
implementation to the officials concerned.

There are several issues on which a coherent policy has to be made. Mr Zardari
says he wants parliament to be supreme. In that case, after he and the prime
minister and any others whom they may have wanted to consult have come up with
the analysis of a problem, including the means of meeting it, they might take their
thinking to parliament for its input. The foremost among these issues is the
challenge posed by the militants. There are members in both Houses of parliament
who maintain that dialogue with the militants, and not resort to force, is the way to
go. Mr Zardari can join the prime minister and his cabinet in identifying the terms of
reference for this dialogue, which is another name for negotiation. If it is to go
anywhere, the parties must be willing to make compromises. A political issue
involving, let us say, access to material resources, may be resolved through mutual
concessions made as the dialogue proceeds. But mutual concessions are not likely
to be made, and dialogue will then have no function, when the contention is
ideological, involving issues of right and wrong. In our present situation the
government may usefully negotiate with non-ideological militants concerning local
autonomy, management of local resources and local customary law. However, there
can be no dialogue with the Taliban who want to enforce their version of the Sharia,
which most of the rest of us do not accept. They themselves want to be the
enforcers. They want to abolish the state of Pakistan as it is presently constituted
and establish their own dictatorship in our land. Mr Zardari’s government should
bring out these facts in parliament. If Qazi Hussain Ahmad and Maulana Fazlur
Rahman still want a dialogue, let them be sent as a delegation to talk to Baitullah
Mehsud and then let us see what they bring back. The present government, like its
predecessors, spends hundreds of billions of rupees more than the amount it raises
in revenues. It borrows at home and abroad from governments, banks and
international lending institutions. It gets the State Bank of Pakistan to print money
which it spends, driving inflation to unprecedented levels. It runs huge budget and
trade deficits. If Mr Zardari wants to do something about this crisis, he should get
the prime minister and his deputies to devise ways of reducing expenditures. They
should also reconsider globalisation, free trade and wholesale privatisation which do
not suit us.

Crime control and restoration of law and order are equally urgent problems. The
task here is to identify the means needed, set up and streamline the relevant
organisations, and find the money to pay for them. There are other problems that
need to be sorted out — insurgency in Balochistan, status of local governments,
management of water resources, revenue-sharing, and delivery of essential
services, relations with America and India, among other things. We can be sure that
Mr Zardari will have a directing role in this country’s governance to some degree.
We do not know if he has the will and wisdom required of a good director. We have
to date seen him handle only one major issue of governance (that relating to the
deposed judges), and his performance in that case has not been reassuring. He did
not want them to be reinstated but did not want to say so. Some of them have been
‘reappointed’ upon swearing to uphold the constitution mutilated by Pervez
Musharraf, thus indicating they have been made to affirm that Musharraf’s
imposition of emergency rule and the actions he took in its pursuance, were valid
and that their own refusal to honour it was wrong. Delay as a way of tiring out the
other side was Mr Zardari’s favourite tactic in dealing with problems. It worked with
the judges who were deposed more than 10 months ago. But it will not work with
the Taliban, restoration of law and order or rectification of the budget and trade
deficits. Let us then hope (and pray) that he will learn and adopt other ways of
resolving the nation’s problems. ¦ The writer is professor emeritus of political
science at the University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 14.09.08
14.09.08

– For an impartial administration

For Pakistan, Sept 9 can prove to be a turning point or a catastrophe. Whatever it is,
it will not be for historians to record at some distant date but for us all to see in the
weeks and months ahead. For Asif Zardari it has been a turbulent journey from a
playboy to a prisoner to a president. There are instances of widows riding to power
on the sympathy wave for their assassinated husbands. Close to home, and not far
back in time, Sirimavo Bandaranaike of Sri Lanka and Khaleda Zia of Bangladesh
rode this wave but, perhaps, no widower of an assassinated wife had done so before
Mr Zardari. It is a measure of the grief felt on the assassination of Benazir Bhutto
and compassion for the tragedies suffered by the Bhutto family that her husband,
who remained under the shadow of corruption in her lifetime, became the president
of the country so soon after her death — and through a process that has been
generally acknowledged to be free of corruption. The wave of emotion that has
carried Mr Zardari to power will surely subside as fast as it had arisen. His wife’s
memory will not be able to sustain him long in the high office he now occupies. His
own past, however, will return to haunt him sooner than he expects. Asif Zardari
says, and tiresomely repeats it, that he will change the system. That was attempted
by men abler than him and in conditions more conducive to change. They
succeeded in only wrecking whatever system there was. Even if he has a clear idea
of what his new system will be, and is able to muster the courage and resources to
enforce it, the problems of the people are far too pressing to wait. All that Mr
Zardari can and must do is to give the country a clean and impartial administration.
Sadly, all actions of the government led by his party over the past six months point
in the opposite direction. Anyway, irrespective of the president’s position in the
constitution (as it is or after the Seventeenth Amendment is repealed), for the
people at home, and the Americans too, it is now Zardari’s government. And the
first decision to make a new start lies with Mr Zardari himself.

The administration cannot be impartial so long as the head of state who is virtually
also the head of the government is not himself impartial. And that he cannot be, or
at least will not appear to be, so long as he is head of the party as well. Mr Zardari,
therefore, must vacate the party chair and resign his membership of the party. Over
a long period of time and at a pace accelerating with every successive government
the career public servants, the judges no less, have tended to become an extension
of the political arm of the government. In other words, they are expected to go by
the direction set by the ruling party and look after the interest of its activists rather
than go by the rule of law. That hazard is now greater than ever before. A distinct
advantage that the presidential system has over the parliamentary one is that
neither the president nor his ministers are dependent on parliament to stay in
power. Thus they feel no compulsion to coerce public servants to go against the law
or equity to favour one or the other group or individual in parliament. In the system
as it is now evolving, the apprehension is that the president and the prime minister
will both try to keep the parliamentarians in good humour at the cost of good
administration. Just as the judiciary, in order to be independent, must not be under
the control of the executive, or beholden to it, the executive in turn should also be
independent of the legislature if it is to remain neutral. Any civil servant of any
vocation would be forthcoming to testify that he was much more free and fair in
doing his duty, i.e. if he wanted to, in the regimes of Iskander Mirza, Ayub Khan,
Yahya and Ziaul Haq than during the tenures of political governments. (It is difficult
to say the same for Musharraf’s government as he leaned on the defecting
parliamentarians right from the beginning). The problems facing the people today —
insurgency, sectarian violence, inflation, unemployment — will take a long time to
resolve. Mr Zardari’s arrival on the scene will not bring their solution any nearer.
The excitement generated by fireworks and jazzy adverts paid for by the state, on
the other hand, will give way to despair as the problems persist, even aggravate.
The only way for Mr Zardari to keep the people content and their hopes alive is to
give them an administration which, uninfluenced by his ministers, legislators and
cronies, does whatever little it can to mitigate their hardships. An impartial
administration has many dimensions. Instead of indulging in a harangue on how it
can be assured, it is easier explained how it is subverted by giving some examples
drawn from the party-based governments from 1988 to 1999 now back in the arena.
— Through a painstaking process a number of ASIs were selected for a provincial
police force. A tussle then started for giving some posts to political nominees which
ended up in all posts going to them. Those nominees now occupy key positions in
the law and order set-up.
— A senior official posted to a municipal office to supervise the octroi collection was
beaten black and blue by the goons of the mayor’s party and driven back.
— Enormous pressures were exerted (i) to promote an engineer as chief engineer
over the heads of a score of better-reputed engineers, and (ii) to depute a Grade 18
official to hold a Grade 21 post in a corporation.
— The private guard of a minister took his gun out in front of the chief secretary of
a province when he refused to do his master’s bidding.

The list is endless. Politicians now returning to power will be only reliving their rout
of the nineties if they were to try to hold (as they did then) good administration
hostage to political expediency. All indications, sadly, are they will and thus once
again bear out what Hegel, the 19th century German philosopher of dialectical
reasoning, had to say: governments have never learned anything from history or
acted on principles deduced from it.

Author Location Dated

AFP London, England 14.09.08
14.09.08

– ‘Hackers find black hole in Big Bang computers’

Hackers claim they have broken into the computer system of the Large Hadron
Collider (LHC), the mega-machine designed to expose secrets of the cosmos,
according to British newspapers. A group calling itself the Greek Security Team left
a rogue webpage mocking the technicians responsible for computer security at the
giant atom smasher as “schoolkids”, the Times and Daily Telegraph reported on
Saturday. The hackers said they had no intention of disrupting the experiment at
the European Organisation for Nuclear Research (Cern) on the Swiss French border.
They just wanted to highlight the flaws in the computer system’s securit
security. “We’re
“We’re
pulling your pants down because we don’t want to see you running around naked
looking to hide yourselves when the panic comes,”
comes,” they wrote, according to the
Daily Telegraph. The hackers claimed to have gained access to a website open to
other scientists on Wednesday as the LHC passed its first test with flying colours,
the reports said. They appear to have tried to gain access to the computer system
of the Compact Muon Solenoid Experiment, one of the four detectors that will be
analysing the progress of the experiment. James Gillies, a spokesman for Cern, told
the Times: “We
“We don’t know who they were but there seems to be no harm done. It
appears to be people who want to make a point that Cern was hackable.”
hackable.” Scientists
hailed the success of the start of the experiment on Wednesday in the Large Hadron
Collider, the 27km circular tunnel in which parallel beams of protons will be
accelerated to nearly the speed of light. Super-
uper-conducting magnets will then steer
the counter-rotating beams so that strings of protons smash together in four huge
laboratories, fleetingly replicating the conditions that prevailed at the “Big Bang”
that created the universe 13.7 billion years ago.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Shahid Siddiqui shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.co 15.09.08
15.09.08
 m

– Gender bias in language

In recent times the focus of questions in language and gender research has been
shifted from language spoken by women to language spoken about women. This
shift raises questions about the politics of representation constructed largely with
the help of language. Dale Spender’s book Man Made Language (1985) offers an
intriguing thesis that, like other forms of culture, men have controlled language and
as a result one can see more positive words for males with a lot more opportunities
to use them. Since language is a powerful tool to construct social reality with,
women, by the use of sexist language, are being dubbed as inferior and deviant.
The perpetuation of this negative representation of women takes place in diverse
situations through multiple modes. The process of validation in social institutions
‘confirms’ the inferior female status to the extent that a large number of women
start viewing themselves in negative colours. If language is a vital force in
constructing, validating and perpetuating the differences, can language reform play
a role in reducing the gender gap? One group of linguists, researchers and
practitioners endorses this idea. They believe that it is important to get rid of
gendered expressions and create new words, terms, and expressions which are not
biased against any gender. There are two simple reasons for avoiding the use of
gendered language. First, as we use gendered language we, in fact, own it and
validate its gendered messages. Second, the more we use these gendered
expressions, the more we engage ourselves in strengthening these messages.

According to Austin, we do things by using language. This suggests that language

itself is involved in performing things, in this case gender. This concept is further
clarified by Judith Butler (Gender Trouble) when she suggests that repetitive
expressions construct gendered bodies. The more we use gendered language, the
more we realise that sexist impressions turn into ‘natural’ and ‘common sense’ and
become part of the psyche of a society. There have been some efforts to reform
language. For instance, the title ‘Mr’ is used for men whether they are married or
unmarried, the suggested title for women is ‘Ms’, irrespective of their marital status.
This, to some extent, addresses the problem of the mandatory revelation of marital
status through the use of ‘Miss’ or ‘Mrs’. In case of the use of the generic masculine
pronoun for both men and women, it is suggested one writes s/he. This problem can
also be tackled by using the plural expression. Discriminatory job titles were revised
by the US Department of Labour. These alternatives, given in parenthesis, were an
attempt to combat ageism and sexism: airline steward, stewardess (flight
attendant); foreman (supervisor), salesman (salesperson), signalman (signaller),
watchman (guard), fireman (firefighter), chairman (chairperson, chair). But this
language reform agenda should not confine itself to surface level changes, it should
also tap the intentions of expression. For instance, we need to revisit the sayings
and proverbs which are so commonly used in daily life situations as ‘logical
evidence’ from the repertoire of folk wisdom. A number of these sayings and
proverbs are biased against women. Similarly, jokes about women are also based
on gendered stereotypes. Likewise in a number of Hindi/Urdu songs women are
defined only in terms of their physical beauty and are presented as an object of
display. There is a need to challenge these gendered stereotypes through our social
institutions, e.g. families, educational institutions, judiciary and the media. Such
sayings, jokes and songs need to be discouraged at all levels.
The conservative school of thought, however, takes a contemptuous view of
language reform and dismisses any such initiative. Some selfconcocted examples of
language reform are presented for the purpose of ridicule. For instance Manchester
where ‘Man’ needs to be replaced as it is ‘sexist’. The radical approach of feminists
also shows reservations about language reform for different reasons. The feminists
believe that language reform at the vocabulary level is of not much use as the
problem is much deeper. According to the radical school of thought, the whole
language system is andocentric and bringing about change in just some expressions
is of little use. One school of thought believes that gender differences in real society
should be reduced. Once gender equality is achieved, linguistic gender biases would
be automatically taken care of. This viewpoint seems convincing but the underlying
assumption is that language is a passive phenomenon which is not involved in
action but subjected to action. Language, on the contrary, is a highly political
phenomenon and, far from being a passive and neutral tool of communication, is
actively involved in the construction of social reality. Dale Spender rightly suggests
that, “As
“As more meanings change and the sexist semantic rule is weakened; as the
society and the sexist semantic rule change so will more meanings change without
deliberate intervention. To concentrate on either word meanings or social
organisations, to the exclusion of the other, is to invite failure.”
failure.” A more holistic
approach is to avoid the either/or distinction and work at both fronts, i.e. social
equality in real society and linguistic equality through language reform at the same
time. ¦ The writer is director of the Centre for Humanities and Social
Sciences at the Lahore School of Economics and author of Rethinking
Education in Pakistan.
Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Tasneem Noorani tasneem.m.noorani@gmai 15.09.08
15.09.08
l.com

– The judicial martyrs

Congratulations,
ongratulations, President Asif Ali Zardari, for becoming the 12th president of
Pakistan and perhaps the first one through a democratically contested election. A
lot of people are surprised at his swift ascendancy and some are critical, but you
can’t fault him on achieving this position, because he has done it through the due
process of democracy, which everyone has been clamouring for, since the last nine
years. This is the stage where he needs everyone’s support and Nawaz Sharif has
very gracefully offered his besides categorically stating that he wants President
Zardari’s government to complete its tenure. All the more creditable, since he is
obviously piqued at the broken promises, which have also made him look a little
simple and naïve — naivety being a no-no for a politician, which is all about being
shrewd and cunning. But there is an ache in the heart, a vague depression in this
moment of joy, at the way the lawyers’ movement has been dealt a fatal blow; the
very movement that weakened Gen Musharraf and paved the path for both the PPP
and PML-N to make a comeback and confront Musharraf. As matters stood before
March 9, 2007, Musharraf governing for another five years, through another sham
election, appeared no problem. Why should one raise this issue when the previous
chief justice and the few principled judges, who have not taken oath, will fade away
in a few months because we as a nation are allergic to the display of sustainable
emotions for principled people? We find them odd and naïve. The issue needs
raising not for the sake of the judges but because if we let this movement slip away,
we will lose a great opportunity to set up a sustainable democratic system in the
country. If the judiciary, which for the first time in Pakistan’s history, dared to
confront a general in absolute power, is not restored, President Zardari will himself
miss them when a general, two to three years down the road, decides to find faults
(and there will be plenty to find) in the government and appears on TV for his
‘Meray humwatano’, speech. There will be no one to provide leadership to resist the
general, like the judiciary provided this time.

If President Zardari cannot resist the temptation of a pliant judiciary, then he better
retain enough popularity at the end of three years, to bring two hundred thousand
people out on the roads for at least a month to resist the extrajudicial powers that
would have gotten enough rest by then. That many people on the roads for that
long is something no political party has been able to achieve so far. In the face of
such an obvious advantage, what could be the reason for President Zardari’s
determination to block the restoration of the judges, even at the pain of losing the
support of his coalition partners? Fear of the NRO being reopened? But that does
not make sense since a president in this country is given immunity by the
constitution. Perhaps Zardari is afraid that Nawaz Sharif will steel the thunder,
because he made the judges issue a cornerstone of his political campaign. It would
have been better to let Nawaz Sharif have his moment of glory now, when elections
are not due. He will now be able to doubly encash the respect people will have for
him, for not compromising on principles after a few years when the next elections
are held. Perhaps Zardari feels that the previous chief justice would be biased
against him and in favour of his opponents. Since most lawyers have supported
Iftikhar Chaudhry, not because he is related to them, or they personally like him,
but because of a principle, it is unlikely they would spare him if he at any stage
became vindictive and biased. Perhaps Zardari cannot forget the treatment he got
from the judiciary in his bad days. But he can be sure of getting the same
treatment, if God forbid, there is a next time for him, from the kind of judiciary that
is being organised now. The only insurance to get a fair deal when one is on the
other side of the desk, is to have judges, who will have the courage to say no to the
ruler.

Contrary to the possible perception that the previous judiciary would be harmful to
the interest of Zardari, they could actually be a source of strength for him. With a
bit of judicial activism, the judiciary (as it was doing) would keep the government
functionaries on their toes, which would improve governance — a feather in the cap
of the government. If the missing persons issue were raised, it would be good for
the image of Pakistan and also bring a certain organisation under the control of
President Zardari, one that he unsuccessfully tried to make subservient some time
ago. In any case, judges, even the principled ones, would not be unrealistic if a
certain action was actually in the country’s interest, and they were taken into
confidence. An effective and strong judiciary can even be useful against extremism.
If they are respected, their adverse orders, which the administration is averse to
issuing, will have to be obeyed by the extremists or they will lose public support
without which no movement can succeed. One feels for the judges who have chosen
to sacrifice their careers and livelihood for the sake of their principles and in the
larger interest of the country. This time we need to make a conscious effort to make
heroes of them, so that their successors can look forward to getting something in
return for their sacrifice. If the war heroes we eulogise and pray for every Sept 6
saved this country with their blood, every March 9 we should eulogise and print
photos of those judicial casualties who preferred to sacrifice their careers for the
sake of democracy, rather than compromise on their principles. All sensible people
want President Zardari to succeed for his sake and the sake of Pakistan. We are at a
stage where in the words of an erstwhile popular TV host there is no room for any
mistakes. A bit of sagacity and bit of magnanimity on the judicial issue, rather than
tactics and strategy, will not only remove that vague depression a lot of us are
going through, but will also bring back the coalition partners of the ruling party into
the fold of the government. That way they will be partners of the government in the
tough task of pulling the country out of the morass it is in, rather than snigger from
the sidelines. Let the government sacrifice its short-term interest for its own long-
term interest and for that of the country.

Author Location Dated

Paul Harris New York 15.09.08
15.09.08

– Democrats hit out at Palin the ‘phoney’

Firing a fresh salvo in a presidential election battle that has turned into a war of the
sexes, Sarah Palin has taunted Barack Obama for not picking Hillary Clinton as his
running mate. As John McCain’s surprise vice-presidential candidate, Palin has been
giving her first major media interview. In the latest instalment released by TV
network ABC on Friday, Palin took aim at Obama’s decision to pass Clinton over. “I “I
think he’s regretting not picking her now. I do,”
do,” the Alaska governor told ABC
anchor Charlie Gibson. She went on to praise Clinton’s performance in her epic but
doomed nomination battle with Obama. “What “What determination and grit and even
grace, through some tough shots that were fired her way. She handled those well,” well,”
Palin said. Since being launched on the national scene, Palin has rejuvenated
McCain’s fortunes, spearheaded by a flow of women voters. Palin has publicly
praised Clinton as a means of wooing that key female demographic. However, she
has also brought a notably more negative tone to the election, marked by a series
of ugly rows between the two camps. Her latest comments about Clinton proved no
exception. In a sharp-edged response, Obama-supporting Congresswoman Debbie
Wasserman Schultz said: “Sarah
“Sarah Palin should spare us the phoney sentiment and
respect.”
respect.” That sort of prompt push back is likely to define the Obama camp as it
copes with the way Palin has shaken up the race. Painfully aware of the floundering
John Kerry campaign of 2004, Obama has in effect relaunched for the final seven
weeks of the battle. “Today
“Today is the first day of the rest of the campaign,”
campaign,” said Obama
campaign manager David Plouffe, in an email on Friday. “We “We will respond with
speed and ferocity to John McCain’s attacks, and we will take the fight to him.”
him.”
“Democrats have to be more aggressive. They have to be proactive,”
proactive,” said Professor
Joanne Green, a political scientist at Texas Christian University. Obama now seems
to have taken such advice to heart, using hard-hitting new adverts that are trying to
put the focus back on McCain and on the bread-and-butter issues facing America. A
new ad unveiled at the end of last week was about the economy but did not
hesitate to attack McCain personally, pointing to remarks he once made about not
knowing how to use a computer or send an email.

Yet it will be difficult to get the spotlight off Palin. Huge speculation surrounded her
first TV interview and she appears to have mostly cleared the hurdle of her first
bout of media exposure. Palin spent long hours holed up in Alaska with senior
Republican aides, going over talking points, briefing her with policy memos and
firing mock questions. In the end she did hesitate and stumble over some key
questions, especially foreign policy and the intricacies of welfare policy. However,
she also came off as confident and able to handle herself in the face of determined
questioning. “She’s
“She’s a former beauty queen and an ex-sports anchor. She’s a
communicator. She has shown that. Many Americans think: I would be comfortable
having her sitting in my kitchen,”
kitchen,” said Steve Mitchell, a pollster and chairman of
Mitchell Research. “Democrats
“Democrats ought to be concerned.”
concerned.” They are. Palin has had a
huge impact. After months of Obama sitting ahead of McCain, suddenly the
positions are reversed. The latest average of polls has McCain ahead of Obama by
2.3 points. He also improved his performance in key battleground states, such as
Ohio and Florida, that will decide the election. Palin seems to have tapped into a
large section of women voters the Obama camp overlooked or assumed would flock
to its candidate. But there is also some truth in Palin’s claims that Obama might
regret not picking Clinton or another woman. His choice of Senator Joe Biden
created the chance for McCain to pick Palin. Choosing Clinton would have dulled, or
even prevented, the “Palin effect” now defining the race. “In“In a way Obama’s
decisions created Palin,”
Palin,” said Mitchell. “He
“He only has himself to blame.”
blame.”

Author Location Dated

15.09.08
15.09.08

– Rupee still under pressure

Rising import bill and lack of funds inflow continues to exert downward pressure on
the rupee. Strong measures are needed on the political and economic front to
restore confidence of the investors and business community. Economic managers
and officials at the highest level should immediately address to the problems
currently being faced by the country before it is too late. Short term and long term
polices should be devised and implemented to put the economy back on track.
Prevailing situation has adversely affected the rupee/dollar parity in the local
currency market. The rupee has depreciated against the dollar by nearly 21 per
cent over the past 12 months and by almost 18 per cent over the past eight month
since February 18 this year. The rupee weakening trend persisted this week. The
week commenced on bearish sentiment with heavy demand for dollar exerting
pressure on the rupee/dollar parity in the inter-bank market on September 8.
Importers presence in the local currency market to buy dollars to meet their
payment needs posted fresh losses of 10 paisa on the buying counter and another
15 paisa on the selling counter. At the close of the day, the dollar was trading at
Rs76.45 and Rs76.55 against last week close of Rs76.35 and Rs76.40. On
September 9, the rupee resisted any sharp decline against the dollar. It lost five
paisa on the buying counter but remained unchanged on the selling counter,
changing hands at Rs76.50 and Rs76.55. The downtrend in the rupee/dollar parity
persisted on September 10, when the rupee suffered a further decline of five paisa
and traded at Rs76.55 and Rs76.60 against the dollar. Another five paisa fall was
recorded in the rupee value on September 11, as rupee continued to slide against
the dollar, which was seen changing hand at Rs76.60 and Rs76.65 at the close of
the day. On September 12, the rupee managed to reverse its downward trend
against the dollar despite rising demand for the US currency. It recovered 10 paisa
over its overnight level and traded against the dollar at Rs76.50 and Rs76.55.
However, despite increased demand for US currency during the week in review, the
rupee in the interbank market was able to maintain a stable trend against the dollar
amid mild fluctuations.

In the open market, the rupee continued its weakening trend versus the dollar,
entering the week in review with 30 paisa decline on the buying counter. However,
it managed to remain stable on the selling counter, changing hands at Rs76.10 and
Rs76.40 on September 8. The rupee had closed last week of Rs75.80 and Rs76.40.
The rupee weakness over the dollar persisted on the following day, as it further slid,
losing 10 paisa to trade at Rs 76.20 and Rs 76.50 against the dollar on September
9. On September 10, the rupee continued to slide against the dollar on the buying
and selling counters. It posted fresh decline of 10 paisa for buying and another 20
paisa for selling to trade at Rs76.30 and Rs76.70. The rupee further extended its
weakness versus the dollar on September 11, suffering fresh losses of 20 paisa on
the buying counter and 10 paisa on the selling counter and traded at Rs76.50 and
Rs76.80. Another 20 paisa decline in the rupee value was witnessed on September
12, when the dollar traded at Rs76.70 and Rs77 However, cumulative loss in rupee
value against the dollar was 90 paisa in the open market this week.

Versus the European single common currency, the rupee weakness persisted on the
first trading day of the week in review. It dropped sharply against euro, shedding
Rs1.15 to trade at Rs109.10 and Rs109.30 on September 8, after closing at
Rs107.95 and Rs108.15 in the previous week. The rupee extended its falling trend
against the euro on the second trading day further losing Rs2.30 and changing
hands at Rs106.85 and 107 on September 9. Downtrend continued for the third
consecutive day on September 10, with the rupee posting fresh losses of 55 paisa
against the euro on buying counter and another 50 paisa on the selling counter to
trade at Rs107.40 and Rs107.50. The rupee, however, managed rebound versus
euro for the first time in four days, gaining 105 paisa and trading at Rs106.35 and
Rs106.50 on September 11. But the overnight recovery proved short lived as the
rupee further shed 55 paisa on the buying counter and 70 paisa on the selling
counter on September 12, when euro traded at Rs106.90 and Rs107.05, after the
dollar stayed near a one-year high against euro on fears the global economy,
especially outside the United States, would slow down. However, the rupee
managed to recover 105 paisa versus the European single common currency on
cumulative basis this week.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 16.09.08
16.09.08

– Diesel prices go up, petrol down

Despite a 35 per cent drop in the international
market, the government on Monday raised with
immediate effect the prices of high speed diesel,
light diesel oil and kerosene by Rs3.5 per litre.
However, the petrol price was cut by 5.8 per cent,
or Rs5 per litre. The HOBC rates were kept
unchanged at Rs96.08 per litre. With the price
revision, the amount of subsidy being provided to
consumers has come down to Rs2.5 billion a month
from Rs4 billion a fortnight ago, Petroleum Secretary G.A. Sabri told Dawn. Sources
said the government was collecting about Rs20 a litre as development surcharge on
petrol and was politically under pressure to reduce revenue collection from a
product used mostly in the private sector. The total impact of reduction in petrol
price is less than Rs75 million a month, they said. However, the total impact of
increase in the prices of other petroleum products has been estimated to be Rs4
billion to Rs4.5 billion. These products constitute more 95 per cent of the country’s
total oil consumption. The revision has increased high-speed diesel price to Rs68.14
per litre from Rs64.64 — a hike of 5.4 per cent. Kerosene rates have gone up to
Rs61.87 per litre from Rs 58.37 — up by six per cent. Light diesel oil rates have
gone up to Rs60 from Rs56.50 per litre — a rise of 6.2 per cent. On the other hand,
petrol price has been reduced to Rs81.66 per litre from Rs86.66. An Ogra
announcement said even after the revision, the government would shoulder a
burden of Rs9.42, Rs10.93 and Rs9.49 per litre on HSD, kerosene and LDO
respectively. This was the eighth increase in petroleum prices since Feb 17 this
year, and the seventh allowed by the PPP-led government in six months. The prices
of diesel and kerosene have surged by 77 per cent and 84 per cent respectively.
The petrol and HOBC prices have shot up by 65 per cent and 61.4 per cent
respectively. Petrol cost Rs53.70 at the end of February. It was raised to Rs58.70 on
March 1 and to Rs62.81 on March 16. On April 18, the price was raised to Rs65.81,
to Rs68.81 on May 1, Rs75.69 on June 29, and to Rs86.66 on July 21.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 16.09.08
16.09.08

– Aafia’s son freed by Kabul, flown to Islamabad

A 12 year-old son of neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui was handed over to his aunt
Fauzia Siddiqui here on Monday after years of detention in a US military base in
Afghanistan. Touching scenes were witnessed when Mohammad Ahmed, wearing
white Shalwar Qameez, was brought to Dr Fauzia Siddiqui’s house in Sector F-7/1
amid tight security. He was warmly hugged by his aunt. According to published
reports, Ahmed was only six when he and his mother, a brother and a sister were
abducted from Karachi in 2003. Later they were reportedly handed over to US
authorities. “He
“He is traumatised and quite afraid but seems to be in good health,”
health,” Dr
Fauzia told journalists after the boy had been handed over to her by officials of the
interior ministry and intelligence agencies. She gave a written statement to the
officials expressing her gratitude to the nation, President Asif Ali Zardari, Prime
Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, PM’s Adviser on Interior Rehman Malik, Interior
Secretary Syed Kamal Shah and the National Assembly and Senate for getting the
boy freed. Dr Fauzia said: “Ahmed
“Ahmed is mentally disturbed and so far he has said
nothing about what had happened to him in custody.”
custody.” She suggested that he should
undergo a thorough check-up to determine his health condition.
The boy was handed over by the Afghan government to Pakistani officials in Kabul
earlier on Monday. Pakistan’s Press Counsellor in Afghanistan Naeem Khan told the
PTV that Mohammad was in good physical and mental health and “he is OK and
fine”. Answering a question about the other two children (son and daughter) of Dr
Aafia, he said only Mohammad Ahmed was in the custody of Afghanistan and he
had no information about the other children. The boy arrived at the Benazir
International Airport in Islamabad from Kabul in a PIA flight and was taken to his
aunt’s residence. Security officials did not allowed journalists to talk to him at the
airport. Human Rights Commission of Pakistan co-chairman Iqbal Haider said that
the daughter of Dr Aafia was also in Afghanistan. He regretted that despite having
US nationality, the US government did nothing for the release of its four citizens.
“This is severe violation of the US laws and constitution.”
constitution.”

He said that earlier the US and Afghan governments had denied the presence of
Mohammad Ahmed in Afghanistan but some Afghan citizens had informed Dr Fauzia
that he was in custody of US troops at the Bagram base. HRCP Director I.A. Rehman
urged the government to get the other two children of Dr Aafia released. Agencies
add: “Under
“Under the presidential order of Hamid Karzai, we hand over Ali Hassan to
Pakistan authorities,”
authorities,” Afghan Foreign Ministry spokesman Sultan Ahmad Baheen
told reporters in Kabul, naming the boy as Ali Hassan and not as Mohammad
Ahmed. “We“We hope this step should symbolise friendly ties with our neighbouring
nation Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” he said. Mr Baheen said: “The
“The boy was kept in a guest-house like
a guest. He was not a prisoner.”
prisoner.” He said Dr Aafia had adopted the child in 2005
after he lost his parents, a doctor and an engineer, in the 2005 earthquake in
Kashmir. Afghan police said they had arrested Dr Aafia and her son Ali Hassan
outside the governor’s office in Ghazni province in July after becoming suspicious of
her behaviour. US soldiers in Afghanistan later took Dr Aafia under their custody
after she allegedly grabbed a US warrant officer’s rifle during an interrogation
session and fired at them, US officials said. While Dr Aafia was flown to New York to
face federal charges of assault and attempted murder, the boy remained in Afghan
custody prompting calls by Pakistan and rights group for his release. Until her arrest
in July, Dr Aafia had been declared as missing by rights groups since she left her
parents’ house in Karachi in March 2003. In 2004, Dr Aafia was identified by the FBI
as an “Al
“Al Qaeda operative and facilitator who posed a clear and present danger to
America.”
America.” She was married to a nephew of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the accused
mastermind of the Sept 11 attacks. Her husband was captured in 2003 and is now
held at the Guantanamo Bay.

Author Location Dated

Shahab Usto shahabusto@hotmail.com 16.09.08
16.09.08

– How not to fight the US

Deviating somewhat from his usual mantra — that fighting terrorism is in Pakistan’s
own interest — President Bush recently laid the ‘responsibility’ of fighting terrorism
at Pakistan’s doorstep. This raises questions about the terms on which Pakistan
joined the war. In democracies, such questions are decided in parliament. But
unfortunately, in Pakistan, most wars have been fought under one or the other
military ruler. The decision to join the current war was also taken by Gen Musharraf
on the spur of moment. Since then a pall of secrecy has surrounded the terms of
engagement. The official line is that Pakistan joined the war in its own interest. In
reality, the war was godsend for Gen Musharraf especially when Pakistan was
dubbed as America’s ‘non-Nato ally’ in the war. But the country paid a heavy price
for Gen Musharraf’s political indebtedness to the West. The Americans, it seems,
were given a free hand in running the war, using our facilities, intruding our
territory, killing our civilians, destroying the tribal and administrative structure of
Fata, and thus fanning fury against the state. Yes, in return Pakistan did receive
millions of dollars a month, but to what end? Apparently, the war on terror was the
outcome of the events of 9/11, but analysts hold that such a war exemplifies one
long conceived by the neo-con votaries of the Bush doctrine. Its purpose was to
achieve political objectives using awesome US military power and violating human
rights and international laws including the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, instead
of using ground forces to mop up Al Qaeda – Taliban strongholds in Afghanistan, the
tactics used were to inspire awe and terror through massive aerial bombing, killing
thousands of innocent civilians and destroying their homes and hamlets. It is no
surprise that the hostility towards the Americans arising from such attacks allowed
the Taliban to continue their sway over large swathes of territory running from
southeastern Afghanistan to Pakistan’s tribal regions in the northwest.

On the civilian front, President Karzai has utterly failed to develop the civil and
political institutions of his own country in order to build a viable state. He has ruled
with the support of warlords. Therefore, instead of political parties, it is powerful
groups based on tribal, sectarian or ethnic lines that dominate. The so-called
provincial reconstruction teams installed by the International Security Assistance
Force in Afghanistan to run developmental projects have also proved ineffectual.
Finally, the eradication of poppy production in Afghanistan that fetches billions of
dollars per annum and thus feeds much of the Al Qaeda–Taliban insurgency is far
from being accomplished. No wonder that after having fought a seven-year futile
war, killing thousands of innocent people and squandering billions of dollars, the
chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen has admitted that
America is “not winning” the war in Afghanistan. But he has not owned US military
and political failures in Afghanistan, and has instead concentrated on terrorist
attacks on Nato, launched from safe havens in Fata. Therefore, pursuing a new
military strategy the US has initiated ground and aerial attacks in Fata, ignoring the
reservations of its Nato allies. Although Gen Kayani and Prime Minister Gilani have
stood up against this violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, a difficult question has
arisen for the fledgling government: how does one resist US aggression?
Predictably, some leaders are expounding a quid pro quo approach, and have
suggested a blockade on US transit cargo to Afghanistan and retaliating militarily.
Such bravado may earn them public support, but will prove detrimental if not
suicidal for the country. Even if Pakistan succeeded in resisting US military attacks,
it could not withstand the economic and political fallout of such a confrontation,
especially in view of its floundering economy and worsening law and order situation.
Moreover, we may all share anti-US sentiments, but we do not share a national
outlook on the war, as did the Vietnamese in their fight against the US. The conduct
of our politics has divided us into disparate political, sectarian and ethnic groups.
We cannot confront a superpower on the issue of terrorism that has all but ruined
our polity.

Therefore, prudence is needed to steer the country out of its predicament. We

should use our being a front-line state in this war to our own advantage and engage
the US-led West in a long-term constructive partnership on the lines of what once
front-line states like Germany and Japan did after the Second World War. Luckily,
the Americans also seem to think along these lines. Already, the administration has
come up with a large aid package over the next decade. The Saudis have also
pledged funds to ease Pakistan’s oil burden. Given that the war on terror is a global
menace, the Europeans and powers like Russia should also be convinced of the
need to share the financial burden in this region. A national consensus must also be
forged through parliament on renegotiating the terms of engagement with the US.
The consensus would enable the government to negotiate from a position of
strength. The new terms should clearly define operational areas and objectives.
Each party should restrict its operations to the Durand Line; sharing resources and
intelligence, the objective should be not only to destroy terrorist infrastructure, but
also to reconstruct the social and political infrastructure of Fata — a place where
most are out of a job, illiteracy prevails and where there are no modern political
institutions. There is little doubt that development in Fata and the defeat of
terrorism there holds the key to at least temporary success. If Pakistan’s
sovereignty and territorial integrity are at stake in Fata, then the future of the war
on terror and the credibility of the Bush doctrine are also at stake. A point to
remember is that even if the war is won along the Afghan and Pakistan frontier,
terrorism will still not be defeated as long as injustices continue in Kashmir,
Palestine and the Arab countries — just as it will not as long as the US continues
with its hostilities towards Iran and supports dictators the world over.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Javed Burki 16.09.08
16.09.08

– The idea of Pakistan

There cannot be any doubt that Pakistan is experiencing a difficult period. The crisis
through which the country is passing in its sixth decade as an independent state is
perhaps the most difficult it has seen in its exceptionally turbulent history. The
economy is in a state of freefall. It is hard to tell when and where it will stabilise.
The political situation is defined by problems that show personal ambition prevailing
over national interests. It is hard to tell where this conflict will take the country.
There is a war raging in the country’s northwest between the government’s forces
and those who have an entirely different way of looking at the way Pakistani society
and state should evolve. The state’s response is understandably restrained. It does
not wish to harm those who are caught for reasons of geography in the middle of
this conflict. The other side, motivated by an ideology in which it places total faith,
is not inhibited. On the international front, ‘contempt’ and ‘extreme unease’ are
perhaps the best way to describe how the world sees Pakistan. How it would react
to the development taking place in Pakistan is hard to predict especially when the
reins of power will be transferred soon in Washington from one group of leaders to
another. As a student of Pakistan’s history — the evolution of its economy, its
politics and its society — I have written extensively on this subject. I don’t recall a
period that equals the present. Not even 1971 when the country was split into two.
In its original form, Pakistan was perhaps a non-sustainable political creation. It was
an artifact that responded to a particular situation that developed under the long
British rule. There is no reason why the two ‘wings’ of the country should have
stayed together. The very fact that they were called ‘wings’ suggested that the
country’s body existed somewhere else. They had more differences than
commonalities. It was economics that made the two wings go their separate ways.
The body to which these two wings were attached was Islam but that did not prove
to be a strong cohesive force. But what about what is left of Pakistan after 1971, a
union of fairly disparate people who are still searching for some common ground?

I was invited to participate in a workshop on Pakistan’s future in Washington a few

weeks ago. An anthropologist of Indian origin raised the question about the ‘idea of
Pakistan’, which was the theme of a recent book by Stephen Cohen of the Brookings
Institution in Washington. According to him, the idea centred on the belief that a
separate political entity was needed to protect the separateness of the Muslim
community in British India. This was the basis of Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s two-nation
theory according to which British India was inhabited not by one Indian nation but
two, one Hindu, the other Muslim. This notion was countered by what Anil Khilnani
of Johns Hopkins’ School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) calls the ‘idea of
India’. According to this, the concept of nationhood in an extremely diverse South
Asian populace should be based on shared history rather than shared culture or
religion. Given these differences, the participant in the workshop posed a legitimate
question: had the idea of Pakistan failed? She implied that the idea of India had
succeeded. Since the question was directed at me — one of the three Pakistani
participants at the workshop — I responded by asking another question. I asked if
states need an idea — whether we could find an ‘idea of Nigeria’, an ‘idea of South
Africa’, an idea of ‘Malaysia’. My counter question as an answer drew a sceptical
response. It was suggested that it was fair to raise that question for the states that
were founded on the basis of ‘ideas’ rather than on that of colonial heritage.
Nigeria, South Africa, Malaysia — the three examples I had used — were all
products of colonial history. The same is true for a number of countries in the Middle
East. Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia are all the products of colonial
history. They are not the consequence of ‘ideas’. Saudi Arabia may be an exception
since its statehood does promote an ideology.

Given the current state of affairs in Pakistan, given some of the observations made
in the opening paragraphs of this article, it is legitimate to ask the question: what is
now the idea of Pakistan. Institutional economics — a relatively new discipline
pioneered by Douglass North, the Nobel Prizewinning economist — postulates that a
great deal of human activity is governed by what it calls belief systems. These
systems are the product of historical accumulation. They are not static but, instead,
are exceptionally dynamic. How would I apply this reasoning to the case of
Pakistan? The creation of Pakistan was indeed based on an idea — Jinnah’s two-
nation theory — but many years have elapsed since that postulate was first put
forward. The concept that Pakistan was needed to preserve the separate identity of
the Muslim community of British India, may not have worked to keep together the
two wings of the country that were attached to the body of Hindu India. But history
produces its own imperatives. Jinnah’s two-nation theory is now 70 years old. It
resulted in the partition of British India and the creation of two separate political
entities. One of those split into two and what was once British India is now three
separate states with their own histories and their own imperatives. Two of them —
Bangladesh and Pakistan — are still searching for answers that would help them
forge the meaning of nationhood. How should Pakistan define itself at this critical
juncture in its history? Notwithstanding the bloody campaign launched by some
stateless groups, religion can’t be the basis of Pakistan’s nationhood. There are too
many different interpretations of what can be called an Islamic state for Pakistan to
risk its future on that concept. For the same reason, ethnicity can’t be the defining
concept. We have to be pragmatic: we need to define the Pakistani identity and the
Pakistani idea on the basis of geography rather than on the basis of culture and
religion. What is Pakistan today is a piece of real estate occupied by more than 2.5
per cent of world’s population that must find a way of pursuing economic, political
and social objectives that serve the entire citizenry. This is the only way forward.
Author Location Dated
Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 17.09.08
17.09.08
om

– Same border, different foe

Nearly three decades ago, when Gen Ziaul Haq sought to dramatise the situation on
the border with Afghanistan, he dragged Zbigniew Brzezinski to the vicinity of the
Khyber Pass and made quite a song and dance, using as his theme that favourite
Cold War catchcry, ‘the
‘the Russians are coming’.
coming’. A few months earlier, the Soviet
Union had made its last big mistake in the international arena by sending military
contingents into Afghanistan in order to prop up an untenable pro-Moscow regime in
Kabul. Another hoary chestnut was dug up to support the thesis that an invasion of
Pakistan was imminent: the dubious theory that Soviet geostrategy was based on
the ultimate aim of acquiring a warm-water port. As Afghanistan is landlocked, by
this logic it stood to reason that the Soviets were eyeing the facilities at Karachi.
The allegation didn’t exactly die with the Zia era: it resurfaced a couple of years
ago, for instance, in Pervez Musharraf’s apologia, In the Line of Fire. Whether or not
Zia believed that nonsense, his aim was clear. The Soviet invasion offered him an
opportunity to acquire the international legitimacy he craved, which was proving
elusive not so much on account of his khaki attire or inane expression, but because
he had sanctioned the execution of Pakistan’s first elected prime minister. As a
consequence, even governments that shed no tears over Zulfikar Ali Bhutto deemed
it prudent to distance themselves from Islamabad. When Zia offered to put his
government and his country at the service of the United States, Brzezinski — Jimmy
Carter’s hawkish national security advisor — played it cool. As he eventually
confessed a couple of decades later, the Soviet military action was actually a
strategic success for the US: in other words, the Brezhnev regime was dumb
enough to fall into a trap laid by American strategists. (Interestingly, despite the
intrinsically undemocratic nature of Communist Party rule, the decision to invade
was apparently preceded by a great deal more debate in the top echelons of
government than the US aggression against Iraq.)

In putting the squeeze on Soviet forces in Afghanistan, there cannot be much doubt
that the US had Pakistan in mind as a conduit: it had little choice. And chances are
that Zia’s eagerness to be complaisant was anticipated. Once the Reagan
administration assumed charge in January 1981, it didn’t take too long for Zia to
acquire the coveted status of most favoured dictator. And Pakistan by then was well
on its way towards a predicament that continues, in one way or another, to cast a
grim shadow. It is unlikely the Russians ever had any intention of rolling across the
Durand Line. However, more than a quarter century hence, the Americans have
indicated that it is they who may well be coming. The New York Times reported last
week — on Sept 11, as it happens — that President George W. Bush signed a
classified executive order in July that allows “American
“American Special Operations forces to
carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without the prior approval of the Pakistani
government”.
government”. Islamabad will be informed, but its permission will not be obtained in
advance. Such violations of a close ally’s sovereignty are more or less
unprecedented. The CIA has for many years now been using unmanned Predator
drones to attack presumed targets inside Pakistan. This practice occasionally
provoked protests from the Musharraf regime, particularly when the loss of innocent
lives proved hard to disguise, but more often than not Islamabad proved to be an
unquestioning collaborator, on occasion even accepting responsibility for operations
it had little to do with. At the same time, Musharraf had few qualms about using
tactics evidently borrowed from an Israeli counterinsurgency manual, such as house
demolitions. He casually dismissed complaints about ‘collateral damage’ by
suggesting that any non-combatants — including children — who perished in
attacks were guilty by virtue of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Inevitably, tactics of this nature served to consolidate rather than diminish the
appeal of the jihadists in generally neglected tribal regions. Musharraf’s American
allies combined praise for his steadfastness with innuendo about how Pakistan
wasn’t being sufficiently helpful in the “war on terror”. They were particularly keen
to undermine local peace deals.

This attitude was in part based on the suspicion that the local Taliban were being let
off the hook as long as they restricted their operations to Afghanistan. It has also
long been suspected that the ISI never quite relinquished all of its jihadist links,
which date back, of course, to the days when the military intelligence agency
served as a proxy for the CIA. It is likely that Bush was persuaded to sign the
executive order following the attack on the Indian embassy in Kabul, which
apparently had the ISI’s fingerprints all over it. What’s more, reports in the
American media suggest that little effort was made to disguise these fingerprints. If
that is indeed the case, it points towards a planned provocation — and the possible
motivation raises uncomfortable questions. Given that American ground operations
and increased air attacks can almost be guaranteed to exacerbate the trend
towards Talibanisation, one can only wonder whether that was part of anyone’s
plan. It is also being said that the US is keen to nail Osama bin Laden and/or Ayman
al-Zawahiri before Bush’s term expires. Success on that score probably won’t do
any harm, but it’s unlikely to do much good either as far as the situation in Pakistan
and Afghanistan is concerned. What’s disconcerting, meanwhile, is the level of
disarray in Islamabad, with the army chief, the prime minister and any number of
ministers decrying the American incursions and vowing to defend Pakistan’s
sovereignty. On the face of it, this comes across as implausible deniability: with
American officials, civilian and military, popping up in Islamabad without so much as
a decent interval, it’s hard to believe that Pakistani authorities have been kept out
of the loop. But then, you never know. The NYT report quoted a senior American
official as saying “the
“the Pakistani government had privately assented to the general
concept of limited ground assaults”.
assaults”. Pakistan’s newly inaugurated president, whose
physical resemblance to Ziaul Haq at times seems uncanny, reiterated his resolve
to combat terrorism in a joint news conference with Hamid Karzai, and then pushed
off to his favourite destinations without offering a comment on the latest diminution
in the nation’s sovereignty. It suddenly seems even more crucial than before to find
out exactly what Asif Ali Zardari and Zalmay Khalilzad have been discussing in
recent months.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 17.09.08
17.09.08

– Three strikes & he’s out?

Asif is batting on two strikes. Another swing and a miss, and he’s going home. The
first strike was the bizarre, abortive handover of the ISI to Rehman Malik. The
second was Kayani’s rebuke the day after Asif was sworn in as president. Ostensibly
Kayani’s condemnation was of the Americans, but between the lines was the real
target: Asif. Get your act together, the army chief was telling his supreme
commander. Asif has stumbled badly on Afghanistan. The macho men who wanted
to defy the American juggernaut on the warpath the day after 9/11 are still amongst
us, still advising defiance. The day after 9/11 this was sheer foolishness. But it is no
longer the day after 9/11. Seven years of the Americans in Afghanistan and reality
has changed. Pick up any report on the West’s adventure in Afghanistan and you
will find two things: one, US policy in Afghanistan has been a failure; two, US policy
in Afghanistan will not succeed without Pakistan being on board. In the world of
realpolitik, this is known as an opportunity. So why must Asif so cravenly accept the
Americans letting loose their Special Ops troops and raining down missiles in
Waziristan when he can happily unleash? He had every chance at his debut press
conference; instead, he bizarrely chose to speak alongside Karzai. The Afghan
president is about as popular in the Pakistani Army as George W. Bush in an Al
Qaeda training camp. What is the problem in Afghanistan? In a word: Karzai. Don’t
take my word for it, here’s what The New York Times had to say in an Aug 20
editorial: “Afghanistan’s
“Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, must rein in his government’s
rampant corruption that has all but driven his people into the hands of the Taliban
and criminal warlords.”
warlords.” What then was Asif doing at the side of a man not only
discredited in the West but hated by the Pakistan Army?

Another thing: the western — read American — strategy in Afghanistan has failed.
Again, don’t take my word for it. Francesc Vendrell, the EU envoy in Kabul for six
years, had this to say over the weekend: “We “We are not destined to fail, but we are far
from succeeding.”
succeeding.” Earlier, Vendrell told Stephen Sackur of BBC’s ‘HARDtalk’: “I “I do
leave with a sense of regret that we’ve made so many mistakes. ... we’ve got to do
a hell of a lot to make things right.”
right.” In the euphemistic world of diplomacy, this is
the equivalent of saying “we’re
“we’re a disaster.”
disaster.” Given this record of western failure why
does Asif have to be so apologetic for Pakistan’s failure to help out the Americans in
Afghanistan? There are 26 Nato and 14 non-Nato countries contributing troops to
Isaf. Each country’s rules of engagement are so complex and dense that were the
Taliban to walk right up to some Isaf troops and dance a little jig, certain countries
would still not allow their soldiers to shoot. Why then must Pakistan always ‘do
more’? Perhaps if Pakistan wasn’t actually doing something about its Taliban
problem — somewhere, anywhere — the supine cravenness of Asif before the
Americans would be understandable. Except that we are. Bajaur and Swat are being
pounded mercilessly, militants are being flushed out, leaders are being knocked off.
But the Americans aren’t satisfied because Bajaur is at the northern tip of the tribal
belt while they are more concerned with the southern bit. Waziristan, north and
south, and the Haqqani, Hekmatyar and Nazir networks exercise the Americans.
Meanwhile, 300,000 Bajauris flee the bombing and Ambassador Patterson, de facto
American leader in Pakistan, announces that $50,000 has been set aside for “gas
stoves, pots, utensils and plastic sheeting”. Well, fantastic. That’s less than the cost
of a Hellfire missile fired from a predator. So for Asif to denounce the American
forays into Pakistan wouldn’t be jingoistic nationalism — it’s common sense. For
one, Asif need only imagine how much less common sense than nationalism there is
in the army. For another, he has an unbelievable luxury — he can.

Everyone knows the Americans can’t really afford to be on the wrong side of
Pakistan. Jack Straw and the French have already distanced themselves from the
strikes inside Pakistan. Here’s more from that NYT editorial, with the alarmist
headline ‘Afghanistan
‘Afghanistan on Fire’:
Fire’: “Sending
“Sending American troops or warplanes into
Pakistani territory will only feed anti-American furies. That should be the job of
Pakistan’s army, with intelligence help and carefully monitored financial support
from the United States.”
States.” If all these important — western — folk think American
Special Ops running around Pakistan and blowing up the place is such a bad idea,
why must Asif be so tepid in his criticism? There’s another reason for Asif to unleash
against the Americans. The same NYT story on Bush’s secret authorisation of strikes
inside Pakistan, also had a staggering allegation against Kayani: that he knew of the
plot to bomb the Indian embassy in Kabul. In living memory, a Pakistan army chief
has not been directly implicated by the Americans in a criminal plot. This then is the
scenario that Asif is confronted with: angry Americans who can only rattle the
Pakistani cage so much; an army chief who is under American fire; and a failed
American policy in Afghanistan. Why can’t Asif connect the dots? Figure out who’s
your enemy, who’s your friend and when to take a hit for the team, friendly or
otherwise. Asif should make the Americans squirm a little. The next time Patterson,
Boucher, Negroponte — or even Bush — is on the phone, ask your secretary to tell
them you’re on the phone with your daughter at college. And get a better team. We
were made to believe that Chaudhry Mukhtar was passed over for prime minister
because he was too much of his own man. None of that is on display as defence
minister. Mukhtar must still be sulking over being passed over because every time
he opens his mouth someone somewhere in a uniform gets angry. Then there’s the
oily Husain Haqqani. Listen to the man long enough and you’ll be confused: is he
the Pakistani ambassador to the US or the US ambassador to Pakistan? So
incompetent is Asif’s defence team that the intellectual nobody with the
connections to die for, Rehman Malik, has come out the brightest of the lot. At least
you have to hand it to the indefatigable Malik: he does try, even if he’s out of his
depth. The survival lesson for Asif is clear: push back against the Americans, or else
be pushed out by the army.

Author Location Dated

Sayeed Hasan Khan/Kurt 17.09.08
17.09.08
Jacobsen

– A new political party needed

Over the last year and a half the feisty ‘lawyers movement’ captured the
imagination of the world press by challenging Musharraf’s ‘emergency’ rule and
demanding the restoration of the former chief justice whom the rash president had
dumped. Now Musharraf is discarded but the former chief justice is still stuck
waiting in the wings. So disgruntled protesters see their mission as half
accomplished. They are probably not being hard enough on themselves. Are we the
only ones who recall that Chaudhry is the same chief justice who quietly approved
Musharraf’s takeover in 1999? Not a peep at the time. Only much later did they fall
out when Musharraf overstepped himself. The nature of their dispute appeared as
much a personal spat as a constitutional issue. Though there is a history of top
lawyers selling themselves to dictators, many onlookers were heartened that the
lawyers were suddenly performing a vital role as staunch supporters and defenders
of civil society — if there is much of a civil society left in Pakistan anymore. Once
the lawyers launched their vanguard movement, all sorts of interests with varying
motives and shades of opinion attached themselves to it. Together they all
managed to discredit and eject Musharraf, but they were not able, or even inclined,
to put up any alternative programme for the uplift of the ordinary people and of the
country. If not, what was all the fuss about? When widely hailed elections occurred
earlier this year, as promised, despite Benazir’s terrible assassination, the brave
lawyers’ movement simply withdrew from the fray and left it to the customary
bands of much less virtuous politicians to sort out the nation’s shaky future. Our
valiant legal eagles instead kept playing the single screechy note of impeachment,
which happened to accord nicely with the deep-pocketed Nawaz Sharif’s personal
agenda. Indeed it was an utterly obsessive vendetta. The lawyers enjoyed universal
approval and acclaim for being plainly on the side of the angels for so long as they
confronted nothing other than the increasingly isolated and bewildered Musharraf.

Next thing you know Asif Zardari, stalling doggedly on restoration of the chief
justice because he hardly saw an advantage in it, was elected president. The
People’s Lawyers Forum cheered Zardari’s election. But some disappointed lawyers
have been sorely tempted to launch yet another political agitation, this time against
the election of a president who many believe boasts a different array of
imperfections than those displayed by Musharraf. Such an effort, though, would
entail a massive waste of energy for these commendably concerned professionals
and for the masses who go along. The trouble is that only one spellbinding but
meaningless item comprises the lawyers’ agenda — change the government, no
matter what little difference it makes. The situation evokes an admirably indiscreet
comment that a philosophical Brazilian general made in the 1980s as his country
veered from dictatorship back to democracy: “The “The good thing to be said for
democracy is that the people will be more obedient because they will feel they have
more power.”
power.” (Brazil, fortunately, has done slightly better than he foretold)
foretold). So here
is the tough plight faced by all would-be reformers each time democracy returns to
Pakistan with the usual fanfare. Democracy gets reduced to a manipulative device
in the hands of the reigning party or coalition leadership, who use it to line their
pockets while the citizens who vote them into power get a few crumbs, if that. The
history of democracy here is that ordinary people, who are not allowed near the
inner circles, have never tasted the genuine political liberty needed to make a
government at least somewhat responsive to their needs. No matter who rules, the
people always wind up on their own. Hence, why shouldn’t the lawyers seize the
chance and form a political party along audacious reformist lines, rather than
merely await the next party change in government? If the intelligentsia among the
lawyers forget about lionising particular people, produce a new manifesto and start
educating the public on policies needed to improve their daily lives, that project
would be worth all the trouble. The western powers, especially the US, will keep
turning up obliging local leaders to look after security and economic concerns in this
region. No one realistically can ignore those concerns. However, as the US awards
itself permission to attack anyone it deems a terrorist anywhere on the planet, and
inevitably commits horrible blunders with ‘technical precision’ only presumably
ignorant citizens back home can believe, one has to wonder how any government
can comply with the arrogant intentions of the Bush administration and hope to last
in power.

In fact, no matter who is in power in Washington next year there will remain a
danger that more civilians will be killed. Bush now plans to channel more twitchy
trigger-gingered forces to Afghanistan from Iraq, forces that have proved they are
no good at anything except destroying the social fabric wherever they go. Despite
the self-deceiving conceit of the counter-insurgency doctrine, they always wind up
murdering a lot of innocent people in the name of security. Pakistan needs a new
political party that is unwaveringly committed to social democratic goals, prodding
other parties in the same direction so that their populist promises become more
than words. Is it too much to ask the lawyers to start thinking along those daring
lines now that the short-term objectives are nearly met? Or are the lawyers only
looking after lawyers’ needs? They should form a progressive party that attends to
housing, sanitation, health and education first, which is the best possible way of
tamping down any attraction that terrorist activities otherwise might exert. Such a
vigorous new party won’t be tied into old boys’ networks. It will be free from the old
agenda. And it can be an unhampered critical voice. Lawyers and doctors tend to
come into close contact with the masses, and can articulate and work to serve some
of their needs (as well as their own), and really make a difference. How long must
one continue this sad merry-go-round of venal politicians followed by arbitrary
generals followed by more clueless politicians — and always with the same results?
In this lawyers’ movement are quite a few selfless leaders who disregarded any
personal gain to start a risky movement. What were they ultimately angry about? Is
a high-handed misuse of the law unconnected to the mistreatment of the
population? If the same old democratic elitism is what one settles for, then Zardari
is the rightful successor. Do nothing — but there will be nothing to complain about.

Author Location Dated

Bilal Qureshi 18.09.08
18.09.08

– Obama no friend of Pakistan

During my recent trip to Pakistan, I noticed tremendous excitement about the
possibility of Senator Barack Obama winning the presidency. People seem to
believe that he would be a friend of Pakistan. There is also a perception that since
his middle name is Hussein, he is Muslim. Both views are incorrect. Barack Obama
is no more Pakistan’s friend than George Bush or any other president in the past,
and perhaps in the future as well. American friendship is based on American
national interest, not personal preference of the man occupying the White House.
Additionally, despite his Muslim middle name, Obama is a proud Christian and he
has emphasised his Christian upbringing and his Christian faith on every occasion
he was either asked, or he felt the need to explain it. Even his presidential website
clearly elaborates that Obama is not Muslim. Senator John McCain on the other hand
doesn’t have the religious problem. Senator McCain, who is 71 years old and will be
72 in January 2009 when the new president takes over, has a different set of
challenges. He is perceived as a warmonger, and as someone who is too eager and
too quick to resort to the use of America’s military might, should there be a conflict
involving American interest. There is a genuine reason behind this concern about
Senator McCain. John McCain’s father and grandfather were admirals in the United
States Navy. McCain himself is a graduate of the United States Naval Academy and
he went on to become a naval aviator. McCain’s one son is in the navy and another
son is in the Marine Corps. Some of his critics believe that because Senator McCain
is too involved with the military due to close family and professional ties, and
because he has not opposed any military action by the United States ever since
McCain was elected to the Congress in 1982, he is more likely to militarily strike
Iran, and even inside Pakistan if the situation continues to deteriorate according to
American perspective, which runs contrary to Pakistan’s point of view.

A closer look at America’s foreign policy tells us that Americans don’t change
overnight. Despite what any presidential candidate said during the campaign,
American’s foreign policy is moulded slowly and cautiously. More importantly, the
process of formulating a policy goes through a laborious process of discussions,
meetings, dialogues and review amongst both elected officials and career
professionals at the State Department, Pentagon, National Security Council and
numerous other institutions. Input is solicited from retired experts, civilians and
academics. The secretary of state is generally responsible for making suggestions
to the president; the decision is only made after the president has exhausted every
option available to him by discussing the matter with a broad range of experts
across the board. The United State Senate and House of Representatives also plays
a role in advising the president. After all that is done, the president normally asks
the secretary of state for additional information or answers and consults his national
security advisor before settling on a new direction for the United States. Any
change, especially if it has to be approved by the Congress is not easy because it is
very unlikely that the Congress would accept everything that comes from the White
House. Since Congress controls the money, it can exert tremendous pressure on the
president to accept its recommendations. Therefore, it is quite safe to suggest that
there won’t be any major change in terms of foreign policy, regardless of who
becomes the president in January 2009, especially about Pakistan. The only change
we can see is the shifting attitude towards Pakistan.

Senator Obama is on record about his intentions to hit inside Pakistan, unilaterally,
if he has to deal with the threat. Delivering a speech in Washington in 2007, Obama
said, “If
“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and
President Musharraf won’t act, we will.”
will.” Speaking on another occasion on July 15,
2008 in Washington, Barack Obama said, “I “I will pursue a tough, smart and
principled national security strategy — one that recognises that we have interests
not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing
and Berlin.”
Berlin.” This language is neither ambiguous nor wrapped in diplomatic code. It
is simple, direct and clearly lays out Obama’s plan to act unilaterally if he sees it fit
to move against the terrorists. The attacks on Pakistani territory in recent weeks are
a clear example of the policy that is already in place. However, in light of all this, it
is very surprising to hear Pakistan’s foreign minister insist that Pakistan won’t allow
allied forces to operate inside Pakistan. American forces don’t need Pakistan’s
permission to launch an air attack, and just like they have done in the past, they
would strike anywhere they feel they have a highvalue target, either hiding or
operating. This has been clear to anyone who was paying attention to America’s
message. It is time for Pakistan’s Foreign Office to recognise the reality. It is also
time for the country to evaluate Pakistan’s options and Pakistan’s future role in the
conflict against terrorism. John McCain has been equally tough about terrorising the
terrorists and he too won’t hold back fire if he has information about a valuable
target inside Pakistan. American presidents make decisions based on the advice
they receive from the experts and there is virtually no difference between Senator
Obama and Senator McCain, especially in dealing with terrorists that these two
candidates believe are hiding inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. If we still believe that
there is going to be any change, and by change if we expect to be left alone by
Washington, we are being naïve. Nothing is going to change and if anything,
Washington is going to demand more and more from Islamabad in the coming days.
You can count on it.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Washington, D.C. 18.09.08
18.09.08

– Obama ahead of McCain in new poll

Democrat Barack Obama has a 2 point lead in the US presidential race on
Republican John McCain, whose choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate helped
shore up support for both candidates, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released on
Wednesday. Obama leads McCain among likely voters by 47 per cent to 45 per
cent, within the poll’s 3.1 per cent margin of error. He gained ground in the last
month among independent and women voters and on the question of who could
best manage the faltering US economy. Obama wiped out McCain’s 5 point edge in
a Reuters/Zogby poll taken in August before the nominating conventions. “We’re
“We’re
back to where we always thought we would be – in a very competitive race,”
race,”
pollster John Zogby said. The poll, taken Thursday through Saturday, follows a
hectic month in the race to the Nov 4 election as both parties held their nominating
conventions and both candidates selected their vice-presidential running mates.
McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin, an anti-abortion first-term governor from Alaska, as
his No 2 set off a political firestorm that helped stoke conservative enthusiasm for
the Republican ticket. But Zogby said Palin also helped solidify Democratic support
for Obama. “For
“For the last few weeks it’s been all about Palin and she has been a
divisive force,”
force,” he said. “She
“She has shored up the base for both candidates.”
candidates.” Obama,
who struggled to solidify Democrats in August when just 74 per cent backed him,
now has the support of 89 per cent of Democrats. McCain’s support among
Republicans grew from 81 per cent last month to 89 per cent. Nearly one-third of
likely voters said the choice of Palin made them more likely to support McCain and
nearly one-quarter said it made them less likely. About 43 per cent said it would
have no effect.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 19.09.08
19.09.08

– PML-N urges Asif to quit PPP’s co-chairmanship

The Pakistan Muslim League-N has called upon President Asif Ali Zardari to quit his
party office before addressing the joint session of the parliament on Saturday. The
demand was made by the newly appointed Opposition Leader in the National
Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, at a news conference at Punjab House on
Thursday. “This
“This is our first demand that he (Mr Zardari) should announce quitting
the party office before or during his address to the joint session of the parliament
(on Saturday),”
Saturday),” Chaudhry Nisar said, adding that it would be better if Mr Zardari
represented the federation and the country instead of representing a political party.
Mr Zardari is presently holding the office of the co-chairman of the Pakistan People’s
Party and virtually running the affairs of the party as well as the government. There
have been demands from various sections of society, including major political
parties, that Mr Zardari should follow the democratic tradition and resign from the
party office. However, it is not mandatory under the Constitution. Former president
Pervez Musharraf faced severe criticism from all political parties, including the PPP,
for patronising the formerly ruling PML-Q while sitting in the presidency. Chaudhry
Nisar also urged Mr Zardari to give a timeframe for the repeal of the 17th
Amendment during his address. “The “The nation expects that he (Mr Zardari) will
announce a certain timeframe to repeal the 17th Amendment,”
Amendment,” the PML-N leader
said, clarifying that the repeal of the 17th Amendment did not mean simply
abolishment of Article 58-2(b). He explained that there was a need to remove the
amendments made during the Musharraf era so that the parliamentary system
could function in totality. The PPP, in its manifesto, promised to repeal the 17th
Amendment and before his election as president on Sept 6, Mr Zardari had several
times stated that the civilian president would not have powers to dissolve the
National Assembly under Article 58-2(b). However, several political parties,
including PML-N, are now expressing apprehensions that after Mr Zardari’s election,
PPP may go back on its commitment.

Chaudhry Nisar said his party was ready to cooperate with PPP if it took any step
towards implementation of the Charter of Democracy, signed by Benazir Bhutto and
Nawaz Sharif in May 2006. Commenting on a statement of attorney general Sardar
Latif Khosa that constitutional amendment could be made only after the Senate
elections in March next year, the PML-N leader said that there was no need to delay
the process as his party was ready to cooperate with PPP in this regard. The
opposition leader reminded Mr Zardari of his commitment to restore the deposed
judges, including Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry. Chaudhry Nisar
rejected the formula given by Law Minister Farooq Naek for the reinstatement of
judges and termed it a “joke” with the nation and the judiciary. He assured the
lawyers’ community that his party would continue to support their struggle inside
and outside parliament. He asked Mr Zardari to form a “truth
“truth and reconciliation
commission”
commission” on the pattern of South Africa to probe the massacre in Balochistan,
killing of Baloch sardar Nawab Akbar Bugti, missing persons’ case and Lal Masjid
operation. He said the commission should be asked to present its report within
three months. He also called for formation of a parliamentary committee to prepare
recommendations for providing relief to the poor. Chaudhry Nisar expressed
concern over US attacks in tribal areas and asked President Zardari to come out
with a “clear stand”. He regretted that so far the president had not issued any
statement on frequent violations of Pakistan’s territorial integrity. Chaudhry Nisar
asked the government to make it clear whether the agreements between the US
and Gen (retd) Musharraf were still valid.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 19.09.08
19.09.08

– The future divide

Someone once asked his friend what he would do if a tiger entered his room. The
friend replied that whatever had to be done would be done by the tiger, so why ask
him. This joke fits in well with the current state of US-Pakistan relations. The media
was first excited by Gen Kayani’s statement about the army not tolerating American
intrusions into Pakistan’s territory and then by President Zardari’s visit to the UK
and his forthcoming one to the US. There are many who believe that Islamabad’s
forthright reaction to the US attacks on the tribal areas will stop the incursions. The
question is that will these statements and visits have any effect? And will it end the
war? The answer is a simple no. Washington will not be impressed by Islamabad’s
reaction for the following reasons. First, US policymakers know that given
Islamabad’s dependence on Washington there is nothing much it can do other than
issue statements. The few demonstrations in Peshawar or other parts of the country
constitute minimal cost which is not to be borne by the US but by the new
government in Pakistan. Other than this, there is no evidence of any intense
reaction. The Pakistani government is begging for more weapon systems such as
the upgraded F-16s, and there is not even any boycott of symbols of the American
economy including well-known eateries. The queues for American visas have not
diminished either. Second, the American government knows that Pakistan’s so-
called liberal elite and many among the Pakistani expatriate community would be
happy with the removal of the Taliban or other militants. If the Pakistan Army can’t
do it then let the US forces achieve the objective. Moreover, eliminating this threat
would fundamentally readjust the military’s power vis-à-v
vis-à-vis the civilian
establishment because it would essentially mean roping in the intelligence agencies
as well. This means that Pakistani society is divided and will not be able to pose an
extensive threat to American attacks. Third, Pakistan’s poor are so depressed by
their poverty that despite their unhappiness with the attacks there is nothing much
they would be able to do that would cost the US heavily.

Finally, considering that Washington has played a significant role in restoring

democracy in Pakistan, the new government will not do anything excessive to
counter the American position. The NRO is owed to American assistance. Therefore,
it took Mr Zardari quite a while to issue a statement condemning the attacks. From
Washington’s perspective, it is simply protecting American security interests. Even
if the Americans are told that they were responsible for creating the threat of
militancy, this harping on the origins of the threat would not solve matters from
their standpoint. The American-cum-Pakistani liberal point of view is that since
negotiations will strengthen the militants, who use peace as an opportunity to
demand the implementation of the Sharia, war is the only way to contain matters.
The American war, however, will further weaken Pakistan because it will clearly
divide state forces and society. There is a division within the establishment
regarding the threat and how it must be handled. Resultantly, we are now caught in
a quandary regarding the future of the threat. Should we handle it ourselves or let
the American forces do so for us? Washington had been threatening Islamabad with
direct intervention but was being pushed back up until now with the argument that
such an action would destabilise Pakistan. Having helped remove Pervez Musharraf,
who had lost credibility internally, Washington now believes it can conduct a
military operation directly, leaving the political government to bear the cost. After
all, there is hardly any evidence of a direct cost to American security in launching a
military operation. Having returned to democracy after nine years, society will
remain divided on the issue of pushing the elected government to take serious
measures to stop Washington. The calculation is that patronage politics will work
quite well to minimise the reaction. People will be too concerned about putting food
on their tables than doing anything serious to stop American action. So, Gordon
Brown can happily put the responsibility in the lap of both Afghanistan and Pakistan
whose leaders are still too weak to sort out the problem.

Recently, a senior Pakistani bureaucrat told me the good news that Pakistan was
now moving towards a stable future. His assessment was that a decision had been
made by the country’s ruling elite that Pakistan has to be stabilised through the
partial restoration of democracy and the judiciary and the elimination of militants
and extremists. Such a calculation is linked to another assessment that the more
capable upper middle and middle classes of the country want a liberal social system
that would be a complete departure from the one introduced by Gen Ziaul Haq.
Such an assessment perceives the middle class as being liberal and progressive.
However, this in itself is an erroneous calculation that does not consider the fact
that we all tend to forget about a large proportion of the middle class that is highly
conservative in its world view. The middle class in Pakistan is not confined to
graduates who have qualified from abroad or those working in the NGO sector or
making their millions working as consultants for multilateral aid donors. It also
comprises the trader-merchant class and similar groups that show a very
conservative mindset. What does one make of the numerous affluent shopkeepers
in Islamabad and other cities and towns who fund jihad in the quest for spiritual
forgiveness or those who fund militants and madressahs because, according to
them, orthodox Islam is the only way to negotiate power in a politically stagnant
society? These people might not jeopardise their interests in the short term as they
continue to put faith in militancy and religious extremism. But it does mean that the
threat of militancy is not likely to dissipate in the medium to long term and that
what we will get is a more divided society. There are those who support American
action or keep silent and others turn more adamant in their dislike of the US and the
West in general. In short, Washington’s direct intervention is likely to prolong the
conflict and deepen its roots in Pakistani state and society. There is enough poverty
and underdevelopment in this country to provide fresh recruits for future jihad.
Tolerance, of course, would be one of the primary casualties of military action. This
is a conflict that might not end with dialogue or war. It is difficult to turn back the
clock. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst. analyst.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 20.09.08
20.09.08

– High hopes pinned on Zardari’s address

President Asif Ali Zardari will restore a constitutional norm ignored for years by
addressing a joint session of parliament on Saturday, when he is likely to unveil the
path his yet-powerful presidency will tread in a parliamentary democracy. His
maiden speech to parliament at 3pm 11 days after taking office comes amid an
acute suspense over what basically will be a choice between a full transition to the
parliamentary system of government and the present autocratic powers of
country’s most abused top political office. President Zardari, who was elected by
more than a twothirds majority of a parliamentary electoral college on Sept 6 and
took office three days later, is also expected to speak about the plans of the
coalition government led by his Pakistan People’s Party to tackle other problems
ranging from the prevailing economic hardships and food and energy shortages to
the so-called war on terror. But while so much has already been said about these
issues since Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani took office at the end of March, most
public attention will be focussed on Mr Zardari’s post-election ideas on clipping the
presidency of its autocratic powers and making up for his broken promises to
restore superior court judges sacked by his disgraced predecessor Pervez
Musharraf. President Zardari had sidestepped questions about the presidential
powers at his first press conference after taking office on Sept 9 that he addressed
with his visiting Afghan counterpart Hamid Karzai and simply said he would leave
the matter to be decided by parliament. But there is hardly any doubt that the
present parliament will move on the issue without his consent because of his full
grip on his party after the Dec 27 assassination of Benazir Bhutto and on the PPP-
led coalition. While there was no official word about the possible content of his
speech, party sources said the president would speak on all the important political,
economic and foreign policy issues. Political sources said that any attempt to
sidestep issues such as the presidential powers and the judiciary could further
erode the president’s credibility and provoke protests from a parliamentary
opposition rejuvenated with the leadership of the Pakistan Muslim League-N after
the party left the coalition over his previous failure to keep his pledges for
restoration of the deposed judges.

The PML-N’s new opposition leader in the National Assembly, Chaudhry Nisar Ali
Khan, fired the first shot on Thursday by demanding that President Zardari
announce in his speech plans to repeal the controversial 17th Amendment that
gives the president powers to dissolve the National Assembly, sack a prime minister
and appoint armed forces’ chiefs, provincial governors and the chief election
commissioner, and also to step down as PPP leader to really look as a symbol of the
federation. Both the PPP and PML-N are committed to restoring the Constitution to
its preOct 12, 1999, Musharraf coup position in the Charter of Democracy signed by
late Benazir Bhutto and PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif during their exile in 2006 and in
their election manifestos which, in turn, makes it a people’s mandate to the elected
members of parliament. But political sources said these commitments had been
clouded by Mr Zardari’s about-faces on the judges’ issue before his election, his
embrace of some of the ardent former Musharraf loyalists and the government’s
apparent moves to divide the judiciary by a selective reinstatement of the deposed
judges and undermine a lawyers’ movement that actually shook the Musharraf
regime last year before politicians stepped in. Saturday’s will be the first joint
session of the National Assembly and the Senate called for a presidential address in
more than four years, after then military president Pervez Musharraf gave up the
idea of speaking to parliament after the opposition downed his first such speech in
“go Musharraf go” slogans on Jan 17, 2004. Before him, hostile shouting in
parliament was faced once each in the 1990s by then presidents Ghulam Ishaq
Khan (from the PPP) and Farooq Leghari (from the PML-N), but the two men did not
turn their back on Article 56 of the Constitution that requires the president to
address a joint session “at
“at the commencement of the first session after each
general election to the National Assembly and at the commencement of the first
session of each year”.
year”. By a strange coincidence, while the government and
parliament will celebrate the revival of a constitutional obligation by Mr Zardari,
some estranged members of the Bhutto family will observe the 12th anniversary of
the mysterious murder of the president’s brother-in-law Murtaza Bhutto, which
happened in Karachi less than two months before Ms Bhutto was sacked as prime
minister by her own handpicked president Leghari.

Author Location Dated

Nazish Brohi/Afiya 20.09.08
20.09.08
Sheherbano

– Cultural and body politics

The past few weeks have seen an outpouring of ‘moral outrage’ against the alleged
burying alive of two women in Nasirabad, Balochistan, in what is considered another
case of ‘honour killing’. We examine here the sub-text of such crimes which
challenges the false premises on which most of the outrage is based. The main
reaction has been less about understanding the structural and material motivation
behind such systemic acts, and more about the nature and location of the crime. In
other words, despite the routine honour crimes committed in Pakistan, the
Nasirabad killings in particular drew an outraged response because of the
apparently torturous method used to murder the women. The reaction, as
expressed in newspaper articles and by protesters, presumes these crimes take
place in an apolitical vacuum or are the work of ‘lunatics’ or tribals and feudals.
From the first day, our concern was over how soon the public outrage would have
died down if it wasn’t a case that involved being buried alive. Would there have
been as much rage? Sadly not, as seen in the lack of rage over other honour killing
cases. Of course, the positive side of such a strong protest in the wake of quick
media reporting is that there is pressure to investigate and bring such cases to
justice. The questionable involvement of politicians and tribal leaders in such cases
always raises the probability of cover-ups and protection of the perpetrators.
However, in particularly graphic cases, the focus on the nature of the crime allows
the accused to say, as is now being reported, that the women were not buried alive
but were shot first and then buried. The rationale is that as long as the mode of
killing is not too barbaric, it is accepted as normative by those who benefit from this
system and those who identify it as a given evil in the tribal/feudal tradition of
misogyny. Where should concern be located instead? Women activists have
researched and raised awareness on how a woman’s body is used as a tool of
governance in all forms of male mediation and negotiations. In Pakistan, this holds
true across classes and societies.

In conflict/competing situations, this form of body politics can be used to escalate

the level of conflict and as a tool of vengeance, often in the form of rape — as in the
case of Mukhtaran Mai. Public stripping and making women parade naked in public
are also demonstrations of how women’s bodies are used as ‘community signposts’
beyond which collective community punishments can be meted out. But the root of
such actions has less to do with ‘mindsets’ that can be transformed simply through
‘education’. It is much more to do with systems of governance that define social
relationships. Marriage is very much a tool of governance. Through it, groups are
brought together, competing interests aligned or sidelined. It is used to ensure the
welfare of family members; through dowry, bride price and exchange marriages.
This understanding is not restricted to simply rural or tribal communities but is very
much part of urban Pakistani marital arrangements too. So if women’s bodies are a
governance tool, then women eloping, marrying of their own choice or entering into
sexual relations sans marriage is not simply one that provokes male egos. It is more
about women claiming political space. By claiming authority over their own bodies,
women often challenge a wider spectrum of collective male decisionmaking. This,
essentially, is the male prerogative and ‘honour’ that is violated. The killings
prompted by ‘loss of honour’ are not only about the loss of women’s chastity per se,
but also the loss of control and authority, far wider than control over a female body.
The second wave of outrage was in response to the defensive reaction of Baloch
political leaders and Senator Zehri, who suggested that the crime was part of a
traditional system of maintaining social order. His was merely a crude version of the
same basic principle that many of our urban elite men endorse — the need to
regulate a woman’s sexuality in all its manifestations. The indignation distracts us
from the broader issue of how this expression of violence against women is linked to
patriarchy, property and the state. It is also a mistake to read it as a culture-specific
crime against women — as if only the Taliban and the Baloch are guilty of
perpetuating such control over women.

The Pakistani state, through the Zina Ordinance which made adultery a crime
against the state; the Qisas and Diyat laws which allow male survivors to pardon
murders of women by other male relatives; the requirement of a wali for marriage
and consent for marriage and so on, has institutionalised the idea of a male
mediator and recognised his authority to regulate a women’s physical and sexual
agency. This is morally legitimised by invoking religion as the source. Why then is
there not as much outrage directed against the state as against jirgas? These too
are merely collective or hierarchical decision-making bodies and they invoke
custom or tradition when passing discriminatory and misogynistic judgments. The
most important point raised by the women’s movement has been the collaborative
relationship between the state and its regulatory powers that are subcontracted to
male figureheads. These do not simply in clude tribal and feudal leaders. These are
also extended to the male head of urban households. It is this power nexus that
needs to be challenged and the state has to both restructure its own laws and role
independently and break this cycle of vesting judicial power in communities thus
allowing murders to take place in the name of honour. This also highlights the
importance of the need for a gender-sensitive and politically independent judiciary.
However, and be cautious about identifying the root of power inequalities. To hold a
placard that reads ‘Taliban in the Senate’ makes a good photo for newspapers but
reveals a dangerous misreading of national and cultural politics as well as of the
systemic nature of violence against women. Fortunately, we have a new liberal
government that includes erudite members who hold doctorates on honour crimes
and who have moved legislation on the issue when in opposition. This combination
of theoretical and practical expertise in parliament should be powerful in reversing
state sanctions and protection that is extended to community leaders and jirgas
that order such criminal acts. If not, then this is where our outrage should be
focussed.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 20.09.08
20.09.08

– Time for a reality check

According to a press release, Gen Ashfaq Kayani has declared the army’s intention
to fight any intrusion across our borders at “any cost”, and “against all odds”. This
should reassure all Pakistanis who have been paying enormous amounts for the
army to do just that. But I would like to ask Gen Kayani why the army has not
demonstrated the same degree of vigilance and sense of duty where the Taliban
and Al Qaeda are concerned. After all, militants, extremists, terrorists, drug
smugglers and gunrunners have been crossing the Durand Line that notionally
divides Pakistan from Afghanistan for years without being challenged or hindered.
Had the army been doing its job these last few years, Pakistan’s survival might not
have been under threat as it is today. However, when a squad of American Navy
Seal commandos entered Pakistan to engage suspected militants recently, hawks in
Pakistan went into paroxysms of patriotism. Don’t get me wrong: I am not arguing
that the Americans are justified in attacking targets on Pakistani soil. But I am
questioning the selective defence of our sovereignty. If we denounce the American
cross-border attacks, should we not ask why the Taliban are allowed free access to
our territory to target us and conduct raids into Afghanistan? This month has also
seen a number of missile attacks in the tribal areas that have killed a number of
militants and innocent people. While we all deplore this indiscriminate use of force,
should we not equally criticise those who sought shelter amongst innocent families?
Knowing they are being hunted by the Americans, to use women and children as
human shields is hardly a mark of courage. The American raid has been followed by
a lot of chest-thumping bravado in our media, but little cool analysis. The fact is
that this recent escalation should not have come as a surprise: for the last couple of
years, there has been a rising crescendo of charges in Washington that we weren’t
‘doing enough’ to combat a resurgent Taliban on our side of the border. The truth of
this mantra was reflected in the rising tide of extremist terrorism within our borders.

As casualties among western forces in Afghanistan rise, there is increasing pressure

on field commanders to find more effective ways to fight the Taliban. One obvious
way is to deprive them of the sanctuary they have enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal areas
these last seven years. But our forces have been unable or unwilling to deny the
insurgents easy access to their local allies. To expect Nato and the Americans to
endlessly turn the other cheek is to misunderstand the nature of power. From the
American perspective, they have shelled out good money to secure our army’s
cooperation in their fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Apart from a massive
debt write-off as well as economic assistance, they are also paying around $80m a
month to underwrite the cost of deploying our troops in Fata. Since 9/11, the US has
paid us around $12bn, and they probably figure this entitles them to a degree of
cooperation. With our economy in freefall, these are sums of money not to be
sneered at. However, the Pentagon needs to realise the very real problems our
army faces in this war. Firstly, Pakhtun tribes on both sides of the ill-defined border
have been going back and forth for centuries, and they regard this as a right.
Secondly, the Taliban are indistinguishable from other tribesmen as just about
every Pakhtun male is bearded, armed and wears shalwar-kameez. Thirdly, these
people are very much part of the fabric of Pakistani society, and so it is difficult to
motivate militias and regular army units to fight them. Finally, the army does not
want to completely alienate the Taliban whom it regards as future assets once
western forces leave Afghanistan. Even when the army has tried to crack down in
the tribal areas, its record has been less than brilliant. It has lost hundreds of
troops, apart from the soldiers who embarrassingly laid down their arms. So if our
army can’t take on an irregular force like the tribal militants, what makes our
generals so confident they can fight the Americans?

The sad fact is that years of interfering in politics have taken their toll on a
professional army. Where the high command should have been watching the
geopolitical environment for the rising threat from our northwest, it was dabbling in
domestic politics. And when our troops should have been training to fight an
asymmetrical war in Fata, they were being drilled in fighting yesterday’s battles
against our traditional foe, India. The only people enjoying the rising tension
between Pakistan and the US are Osama Bin Laden and his supporters and
admirers. Should our army actually kill a number of American troops, the resulting
escalation could easily spin out of control very quickly. The Americans currently
have two aircraft carrier groups in the Gulf, with a third on its way. Their combined
firepower could wipe out Pakistan many times over. So while it’s great fun to
fulminate against the Americans before the cameras in TV studios, we do need to
get real here. However, the US needs Pakistan to be on its side if it is to have any
chance of winning in Afghanistan. Apart from providing logistical support in the
shape of fuel and munitions that are transported from Karachi to the Khyber Pass,
Pakistan has cooperated in capturing or killing Al Qaeda operatives in significant
numbers. We have also allowed US intelligence agencies to operate quite freely on
our soil. Should there be any serious hostilities between the two countries, the
democratic government would probably be toppled, thousands of young Pakistanis
would join the battle, and many more would be further radicalised. Clearly, then,
both countries need each other, and neither can really afford to alienate the other.
This mutual need raises the real possibility of working out an agreement that would
satisfy Islamabad and Washington. But the hawks on Pakistan’s TV talk shows who
are stridently urging armed action to counter future intrusions should remember
when, just days before the war began in 1971, thousands of Pakistanis drove their
cars with ‘Crush India’ stickers. Once the bombs began to fall, their cars were seen
hightailing it for distant parts. They also need to consider that whoever wins the
American presidential election in November is likely to get much tougher with
Pakistan than George Bush has been.

Author Location Dated

Izzud Din Pal izzud- 20.09.08
20.09.08
din.pal@videotron.ca

– Democracy or one-party state?

A commentary published in The Washington Post by Mr Asif Ali Zardari titled
‘Democracy within our reach’,
reach’, September 4, a few days before his election as
president of Pakistan gives us a very clear idea about his future agenda. He has
made several points in this piece concerning the pattern of democracy as he seems
to envisage, and I will focus on three of them as follows. First, he laments how the
people of Pakistan have been ignored and even subjugated by Pakistan’s
establishment. This follows from his earlier remark in which he underlines that
politics of the country has been a struggle between democratic forces and an elite
oligarchy, located exclusively in a region stretching between ‘Lahore
‘Lahore and
Rawalpindi-Islamabad’.
Rawalpindi-Islamabad’. His second point relates to the constitution and his promise
to amend it to bring it back with a ‘balance’ of power among parliament, the senate
and the presidency. Lastly, referring to the judiciary, he declares that this institution
should be ‘reconstituted’, so that future judges are selected on merit. Concerning
his first point, the struggle of democratic forces is a preposterous claim because
there have not been any democratic forces flourishing in the country. The
statement is false and contradicts the historical facts. As the Muslim League
evolved, it became associated with the elite, but claiming to represent the people.
And by 1974 the PPP had become a party of the waderas and aristocrats, albeit
maintaining its claim of socialism in its programme.To promote democracy, there is
a need to develop and respect constitutionalism, and to establish political
organisations, not to rely on cronies and sycophants. These conditions simply do not
exist, and they were flouted by the frequent military adventurists, imposing their
rule to ‘save’ the country. Truly democratic leaders cannot emerge where there are
only political parties, no political organisations, no conventions, no debates, no
contests. To claim leadership on the basis of a ‘unanimous’ endorsement by the
appointed executive committee, or by virtue of a ‘will’, is to promote monarchism,
not democracy. It is obvious that Mr Zardari was only making a political statement,
because the ‘region
‘region stretching between Lahore and Rawalpindi-Islamabad’
Rawalpindi-Islamabad’ is
currently the centre of support for Pakistan PML-N. Whatever motivated him to write
this piece, the sentiments behind it may have facilitated stronger support for him
from smaller provinces, but it eludes the democratic principle and appeals to the
primitive ethnic and regional sentiments. Appeal to such negative factors cannot be
conducive to the integrity of the federation.

Coming to his second and the third points, there seems to be a complete volteface
in the position of the PPP about these issues. The election manifesto of the party
stated its unequivocal position in support of the 1973 Constitution (except for joint
electorate, etc.). The February 18, 2008 elections were held on the assumption
widely shared by the people of the country that rule of law would be restored
without delay and that Orders and Ordinances would be dispensed with
immediately. The obvious implication of this action was to annul the Legal
Framework Order and the PCO and, by consequence, to reinstate all the judges
made ‘dysfunctional’ by the general. When the PPP was on the threshold of
establishing the new government, however, they started to demur on this question.
As it sometimes happens with political parties, when the PPP came close to
assuming power, they seemed to like many aspects of the ‘tools of governance’
introduced by the general. Power after all is a very strong aphrodisiac. Mr Zardari in
his Washington Post commentary has reconfirmed the PPP position by using the
term ‘balance’ to underline recognition of the PCO, and the word ‘reconstituted’
judiciary to confirm selective appointment of the ‘deposed’ judges, thus confirming
the general’s decisions. Given this scenario, the call for ‘national’ government by
him is an invitation for other parties to join PPP in promoting its agenda – a highway
to a one-party state. In any case coalition governments are not usually sustainable
in democracies. In Britain, with the Second World War coming to an end, Mr
Clement Attlee informed Mr Churchill that his party would seek a separate mandate
at the next elections which he did and Mr Churchill was defeated in spite of
extraordinary service he had performed as the war-time prime minster. In India,
the ruling party manages to carry on with junior partners, with shifting fortunes, but
only as long as there is some convergence in their positions. The opposition party,
nevertheless, is well and alive. There are some good examples of convergence.
They require a genuine reciprocity. Canada and some other parliamentary
democracies confirm that the arrangement is workable on the basis of a clear
understanding. The essence of my arguments is that coalition is possible when
there is sincerity in the goals to be pursued, not invoking the Quran and Hadith in
making and breaking written promises, and when the parliamentary tradition of
treating opposition as an integral part of the system is honoured. The conditions for
a coalition partnership in the true sense of the term simply do not exist in Pakistan.
The PPP seems to feel comfortable about this phenomenon, and have decided to
maintain its association with the MQM, and (if possible) with PML-Q, from the old
regime. (The emperor this time will preside in spirit with new civilian clothes). If
there is scope to have a semblance of democracy in the parliamentary decision-
making in this structure, responsibility for promoting it will fall mainly on the PML-N.
The PML-N will, however face several hurdles in the way, such as:
1) With the manipulative PPP-appointed governor of Punjab, the PML-N government
in the province may be replaced by a ‘friendly’ PPP-PML-Q government, if the
provincial governor can have his way; it is important to mention here that the
governor who claims to represent the PPP interests in the Punjab was a member of
interim government under General Musharraf; 2) Both Mr Shahbaz Sharif and Mr
Nawaz Sharif may be disqualified from holding political office, with compliments of
the PCO judiciary, leaving the other 598 names on the official list of corrupt
individuals out, along with still others now living under cover of the NRO; 3) The
members of the PML-N might be come restive in the no-man’s land with no victory
in sight until the next elections. But the PML-N may survive if it can democratise the
party with a renewed mandate. This phenomenon, however, is unknown in the
political dictionary of Pakistan. After all, Ms Bhutto kept her position in her party as
its life-time chairperson while living abroad. Given the current proclivity of the PPP
for one-party government, the situation may not come to the above third
alternative. What will fill the vacuum in case the PML-N is pushed into the sidelines
is an important question. From the WP piece by Mr Zardari one can conclude that
turning the page from the Musharraf regime will not have been accomplished,
especially if the PPP gets away with its plans. It will still be an unfinished business.
The fundamental issue will remain: the place of PCO in relation to the 1973
Constitution. If on the other hand, the PPP is unable to get all or most of the PML-Q
members on its side, then they may face obstacles, even after the next Senate
elections in March 2009. The lawyers’ movement was the first grass roots
organisation of its kind in Pakistan. It has been deliberately humiliated by Mr
Zardari’s government, because it does not fit in with its goal to establish a oneparty
state. The lawyers persuaded by their rectitude had focused exclusively on one
cause, the question of injustice to the ‘dysfunctional’ judges. They should have
perhaps given attention to the broader subject, the question of the constitution, as
it is after all the omnibus issue concerning the future of Pakistan. History tells us
that popular movements based on just causes do not fade away. They assert
themselves in some uncanny ways. Underlying the question of reinstatement of
Chief Justice Chaudhry is a matter of fundamental principle. Pakistan has to go back
to the 1973 Constitution in order to move forward to the twenty-first century.
Zardari government’s position is vulnerable on two counts. First is the question of
‘balance’ which is a code word to renege on restoring the 1973 Constitution. The
second concerns his reputation. It is a heavy baggage and would affect his ability to
freely manoeuvre in international affairs. One-party rule by the PPP, with striking
continuity of the Musharraf regime, including the old elite alliances, will underline
the fact that a truly civilian government still remains an unfulfilled objective. More
work has to be done to accomplish this goal. The next general elections, if they are
free and fair, may turn out to be a serious test for the PPP. ¦ The writer taught
economics at Pakistani and Canadian universities before his retirement. retirement.

Author Location Dated

Abul Fazl 20.09.08
20.09.08

– The ruling elite’s colonised mindset

The Western Allies were building a worldwide system of military alliances after the
Second World War to protect the neo-colonial order that they were constructing in
place of the crumbling European colonial order and which needed to be defended
from the Soviets and the Asian and African anti-colonial movements. We joined
these alliances for a limited objective of getting some power to protect ourselves
from the Indian threat and, if possible, to get Kashmir. There was nothing common
between the two objectives. As a result, our role within the alliances was always
characterised by friction. Here, the fault was not with the Americans who had from
the beginning made it clear that they did not propose to help us against India. It
was our civil-military bureaucracy which had cooked-up the hare-brained scheme to
trap the US into helping us. The Muslim League had seen the partition as a solution
to India’s communal problem, as a starting point for fraternal relations between the
two countries. The Quaid, on the eve of his departure for Pakistan, had said: “The
“The
past must be buried and let us start afresh as two independent Sovereign States of
Hindustan and Pakistan. I wish Hindustan prosperity and peace.”
peace.” Later, he went to
the extent of saying that Pakistan subscribed to a sort of “Monroe
“Monroe Doctrine”
Doctrine” for
South Asia and would regard any attack on India as an attack on itself. The
Congress leadership, however, viewed things differently. It had accepted the
partition because the disagreement between the two major Indian political parties
was delaying independence. But having once accepted partition on a communal
basis, it had embraced the two-nation theory completely, insisting on the partition
of Assam, Bengal and Punjab too. It were these later divisions; those of the
provinces, that had set off the mass killings, whose wounds have gone deep into the
psyche of the masses. Yet, the Congress leaders and the Hindu leadership
professed to continue to adhere to the idea of one India, embracing the whole of
South Asia, or more precisely
precisely the land mass which had comprised British India.

Their idea of “India” was neither geographical nor exactly historical. It was mythical.
It included lands, which may have, at one time or the other, been under the sway of
Delhi. But they somehow separated the land from its inhabitants, or at least from
some of its inhabitants. All of these lands, which they referred to as “the
“the sacred soil
of India”,
India”, were assumed to belong entirely to the Hindus, excluding the Muslims,
who constituted a quarter of the population and were a majority over a third of the
area of the “sacred
“sacred soil.”
soil.” If that was the idea that the Congress leadership had of
“India”, it naturally found the separation of the western and eastern regions of
British India unacceptable, even though it had formally accepted the 1947
settlement. It wanted to re-annex Pakistan in the early days after independence,
without any regard to the wishes of the people of Pakistan. The land belonged to
India, according to them. Its inhabitants were irrelevant. The Indian leaders had two
options to achieve their objective: the iron fist or the velvet glove. They chose the
first, although they should have known that the Muslims, like all peoples, responded
more readily to friendliness than to bullying. For example, they could not have
forgotten that, during the non-cooperation movement of 1921, the Ali brothers had
not only taken Gandhi into the Jamia Masjid of Delhi but made him sit on the pulpit,
an act inconceivable for a believing Muslim. The Indian leaders chose the iron fist
for probably two reasons. First they felt humiliated personally at having been out-
manoeuvered by the Quaid, who had a much smaller and weaker political base than
them. But, more important was their historical memory of the Muslims having ruled
northern India continuously for over five hundred years. The Indian leaders wanted
not only to absorb Pakistan but to do so on as humiliating terms as possible for the
Muslims, so as to “take
“take revenge”
revenge” for history. It was not by chance that Indira Gandhi
said in a public speech after the defeat of Pakistan in 1971 that she had avenged
the “humiliation
“humiliation of a thousand years”.
years”.
Their project looked not very difficult to them because Pakistan appeared unviable
on all “rational criteria” – absence of organisation, weight of millions of refugees
pouring in, lack of money, India’s unrelenting hostility, etc. However, what the
Congress left out of its calculation was the role of the will. This is a frequent failing
of subjectivity, a common cause of the under-estimation of one’s opponent. The
Congress leaders had themselves taken on the British, who had appeared invincible
by all “rational criteria”, because of their confidence in the will of the Indian people
to freedom. But now they denied the same will to the Pakistani masses. So they
expected Pakistan to collapse, with perhaps a little helping shove from them. Since
they had chosen the method of the iron fist for the purpose, their armed forces
played an important part in this policy. India occupied Junagadh, which had acceded
legally to Pakistan, invaded Hyderabad, and occupied Kashmir, which had an
overwhelming Muslim majority. Moreover, when Pakistan was delaying the
acceptance of a cease-fire in Kashmir, India threatened to attack Pakistan itself. The
sole armoured division of the British Indian army had been inherited by India and
their leaders used it like a child coming into the possession of a shiny toy, which it
had long coveted. It was brought to the Pakistani borders at the slightest excuse, as
if a few hundred tanks could break the will of a people to survive. Pakistan’s
response to the unrelenting Indian menace can be divided into two parts. In the
early years, under the first three leaders, it depended primarily upon the unity of
the people for national security. It bought such arms as the country’s resources
permitted but did not think of becoming any great power’s satellite. Thus, the Quaid
supported the national liberation struggles of Vietnam and Indonesia and Liaquat Ali
readily accepted the Soviet Union’s invitation to pay a state visit to that country. As
to the Indian menace, when Liaquat Ali brandished his fist publicly at India,
Pakistan’s armed forces were quite weak in formal terms. He counted on the people
to stand up to India. Similar was the case when Nazimuddin government considered
reducing the army’s strength by 40 per cent due to financial difficulties. The seizure
of power by the civil-military bureaucracy in April 1953, when Ghulam Mohammad
dismissed Khwaja Nazimuddin, with the support of General Ayub Khan, opened the
second phase of our foreign policy. These bureaucrats — Ghulam Mohammad and
Ayub Khan, Iskandar Mirza, Mohammad Ali, etc. — were a competent lot. They had
risen to the top through ability and hard work and were known to be financially
honest. The problem was not with them but with their background and outlook.

They had served the colonial administration for all their lives and had been trying
their best to perpetuate the foreign rule in their own country, when their
countrymen were in favour of independence. This must have placed them in a
difficult position mentally. Oufkir, a Moroccan general, had been a mercenary in the
French Army and was sent to suppress the struggle of the Vietnamese for
independence. He was asked after Morocco’s independence how he could fight for
France when it was occupying his country. He replied “I “I never asked myself that
question. My bravery was my patriotism.”
patriotism.” Many of our bureaucrats probably did not
ask themselves either about serving an occupying power. However, their
experience made them what they were. They had, of course, never been elected
either before or after independence. So there was no question of their reposing
trust in the masses or of even suspecting that the masses could have a valid
viewpoint on government policy, specially one as mysterious as the foreign policy
appeared to be to this group. Being a colonial bureaucracy, they had no experience
of it. Secondly, this bureaucracy never had the opportunity of even participating in
the formulation of higher policy, what to say of deciding on it. That had been done
by the political leadership in London and by the higher British bureaucracy in India.
The native bureaucracy had only implemented those decisions. They had been
mercenaries par excellence. Many of them had been, so to say, scared of
independence. Wali Khan quotes Campbell Johnson to the effect that, right on the
eve of independence, the Deputy Commissioner of Peshawar, one S. B. Shah, who
sat next to him at a dinner, “kept
“kept expressing the view that the British should not
leave India”.
India”. After independence, every senior Pakistani bureaucrat, Ghulam
Mohammad et al, opposed Liaquat Ali’s proposed visit to Moscow, for fear of
annoying the British and Americans, though ultimately, the visit did not materialise
because the Soviets backed out. This class or functional group succeeded in its
coup against the political leadership of Pakistan because the Muslim League had
already, more or less, disintegrated. The bureaucracy moved to fill the vacuum.

But the question which precipitated the bureaucracy’s coup was its feeling that the
political leadership was unable to see that, given the natural imbalance of strength
between Pakistan and India and the latter’s unrelenting hostility to Pakistan, we
needed an “equaliser.” Ayub Khan and Ghulam Mohammad forged the military link
with the US even before the dismissal of Nazimuddin government. Whether they
had fully calculated the costbenefit aspect of the deal, we do no know. No one could
have since we did not have the experience of such an alliance. These bureaucrats
were used to taking orders from the British, who, in turn, protected them. Now
America appeared to them as Britain’s successor as a global power. They
apparently thought it would protect them and, may be, press India into giving up
Kashmir. They would, in return, obey the Americans faithfully, as they used to obey
the British. And they did, though the US neither saved Pakistan nor got Kashmir for
us. The contradiction has now matured. The US tells us plainly that either we sort
out the Taliban in Fata or they would do it for us. If we use indiscriminate force in
what is our own country, specially with the methods and the weapons the US
favours, it would unleash a civil war whose end one may not be able to predict. If
we let the US do it, it is likely to use such a high level of violence as to cause
intense strain on our political structure. The situation is complicated by a number of
other serious problems too. We are fortunate in having an elected democratic
government instead of a bureaucratic one in the time of such a crisis. However it
will have to mobilise the masses behind any policy it formulates if the policy is to be
effective.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar/
Asghar/Irfan Raza/
Raza/Muhammad Islamabad, Pakistan 21.09.08
21.09.08
Asghar/
Asghar/Munawer Azeem

– Terror tears through capital

An explosive laden truck rammed into the front gate of a premier hotel in a high-
security zone of Islamabad on Saturday, setting off what police called the most
devastating suicide attack in the capital that killed at least 40 people and wounded
more than 250. The attack outside the five-star Marriott Hotel — not far from key
government buildings such as the parliament house, the presidency, the prime
minister’s house and Pakistan Television headquarters — happened early in the
evening shortly after Iftar and hours after President Asif Ali Zardari addressed a joint
session of the two houses of parliament where he said Pakistan would not allow the
use of its territory for terrorist activities. In an address to the nation after Saturday
midnight, President Asif Ali Zardari vowed to “continue
“continue to fight terrorism and
extremism”.
extremism”. “The
“The government will continue to fight terrorism and extremism in all
its forms and manifestations and such dastardly acts cannot dent the government’s
commitment to fight this menace,”
menace,” Mr Zardari said. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza
Gilani joined the president in condemning the massive attack. The president and
the prime minister have ordered authorities to conduct an inquiry into the blast and
to submit a report within 12 hours. Information Minister Sherry Rehman told
reporters that “such
“such cowardly acts cannot deter the government’s commitment to
fight terrorism and extremism”.
extremism”. There was no immediate report of any foreigner
killed in the blast that set off fires, apparently due to gas leakages, in most of the
five-floor hotel in Islamabad’s F-5 sector. But police and doctors said some
foreigners were among the wounded taken to hospitals. An Iftar dinner, also
attended by President Zardari, was being held at the prime minister’s house at the
time of the blast, which shook the whole of Islamabad, causing panic in markets and
residential districts.

While rescue workers were busy tracing blast victims inside the burning hotel, some
streets near the building looked like graveyards of destroyed cars. Places as far
away as 30kms from the hotel reverberated with the thunder of the explosion.
Almost all the 290 rooms of the hotel, which was occupied by both local and foreign
guests, were gutted. Four foreigners — one American, two Saudis and one Filipino
— were killed and seven — two Saudis, three Germans and two British nationals —
were wounded. According to earlier unofficial reports, over 40 people were killed
mostly from those attending an Iftar party at the hotel’s Marquee Hall located on
front side of the building. The blast caused a huge crater, 20 feet deep and 40 feet
wide, at the main entrance of the hotel where, according to some witnesses, a white
mini-truck rammed into the steel barrier at 8.05pm. Interior Secretary Syed Kamal
Shah told reporters outside the hotel that it was a “unique blast”. Rehman Malik,
the adviser to the prime minister on interior, said preliminary investigations
revealed that some 1000kgs of explosive material had been used in the blast. He
put the death toll at 28 and the number of the injured at 50. Mr Malik revealed the
interior ministry had received intelligence that terrorists could strike the Parliament
Building on the occasion of presidential address to the joint session of parliament.
“As a result of the report, security was already tightened in the federal capital and
additional police and rangers were called into the city to foil designs of the
terrorists.”
terrorists.” Outside the hotel, the blast destroyed over 150 cars parked within a
radius of 500 feet, uprooted a number of trees and electricity poles, and damaged
nearby buildings, including the Frontier House, the Evacuee Trust Building, and
those housing the Federal Public Service Commission, Pakistan Television, and
government residential buildings. The timing of the blast was significant as it
coincided with an Iftar dinner at the Prime Minister’s House only half a kilometre
away.

Some witnesses said the driver of the mini-truck first fired three shots at security
guards manning the checkpost of the hotel and then hit the steel barrier. The truck
soon turned into a heap of twisted metal, splinters flying in all directions and
landing at a good distance from the scene. A mangled door was found deep inside
the crater. The authorities concerned have been ordered to conduct an inquiry into
the bombing and submit a report within 12 hours. A team comprising police and
intelligence officials has been set up to carry out the inquiry. Owner speaks
Sadruddin Hashwani, the owner of the Marriott, told reporters outside the burning
building that some 300 people were in the Marquee Hall attending an Iftar function,
and about 1,000 guests were staying at the hotel. Six hundred members of the staff
were present in the building when tragedy struck. Mr Hashwani said almost all the
guests had been evacuated. But the Marquee Hall bore the brunt of the strike Saudi
Ambassador Alfawad Al Aseeri rushed to the scene after hearing reports that five
employees of the Saudi Arabian Airlines were missing. Four other employees were
admitted to hospital after receiving injuries. “I
“I hope that the missing crew members
are safe or they would have been shifted to some private hospitals for treatment,”
treatment,”
he said. According to some sources, a number of US marines who had put up at the
Marriott sustained injuries. They were due to leave for Kabul on Sunday. A law
enforcement official said in all likelihood “personnel
“personnel of a US security agency”
agency” were
the attackers’ target. Some police sources said two explosive-laden vehicles were
used in the attack. They said at first the attackers, riding in a car, opened fire on the
security staff at the hotel gate to clear the way and later they blew up their vehicle.
Seconds later, the explosive-laden truck hit the security cordon. A senior police
official said 1000kgs of explosive material had been used by the terrorists. He said
the two vehicles carrying explosive travelled through Khyaban-i-Margalla road and
then hit the Marriot Hotel avoiding a red zone.

Well-equipped security officers from the US embassy were seen on the spot soon
after the explosions. However, they left the scene shortly afterwards. Those killed
included two Frontier Constabulary (FC) officials, six private security guards
standing at the hotel gate and a woman passer-by. The injured included two British
nationals, three Germans and two Saudis. A Pims spokesman said 25 bodies,
including two of FC personnel, six security guards, and two other persons were
brought to the hospital. Seven bodies were shifted to the Poly Clinic Hospital and
two to the CDA hospital. The hotel building was engulfed in flames, leaving its
rooms, café and restaurant in ruins, while several people remained trapped inside
their rooms for several hours as the fire blocked emergency exits. Police said the
blast occurred when a vehicle — believed to be a dumper approached the hotel
gate and the suicide bomber exploded it when was stopped by the security
personnel. The blast destroyed the entire front of the hotel. Electricity poles and
trees were uprooted and dozens of vehicles parked outside the hotel were
damaged. More than 1500 guests, including foreigners were dining in the hotel
when the terrorist attack occurred. Ambulances, fire engines and rescue teams
rushed to the scene of the blast. The entire area was cordoned off by the security
personnel. Later, the troops were called to help the local administration in pulling
out the people trapped inside the hotels that was engulfed. Marriot Hotel has been
popular among foreigners visiting Islamabad and had been previously targeted by
terrorists. It is located near government buildings, including President House,
Parliament building, Prime Minister House, and right opposite to the Sindh House
and judicial colony. Strict security checks are carried out at the hotel gate. The
scene of the blast was closed to the security check point. Abdul Hameed, a police
constable who was on duty close to the hotel, had spoken over wireless minutes
before the attack: “I “I tried to stop a dumper but it exploded at the gate.”
gate.” Some
women and children staying in the 290 room-hotel went on rooftop of the hotel as
the fire erupted. They were shouting for help. Ikhlaq Ahmed, one of the hotel
employees said he was inside the hotel when a small blast occurred, seconds later
another explosive laden dumper appeared at the gate and exploded. No militant
group has claimed responsibility of the today’s terrorist attack on the hotel so far. A
red-alert was declared in Rawalpindi and night police patrol was also started. The
government has named the director general of FIA, Tariq Pervez, as head of the
committee constituted to investigate the explosion.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 21.09.08
21.09.08

– ‘Revisit’ presidential powers — Zardari’s offer to parliament

President Asif Ali Zardari asked parliament on Saturday to review the autocratic
powers of his newly won office but preferred ambiguity about the extent of a
possible curtailment and side stepped the issue of reinstating deposed judges in a
move that did not seem to help his damaged credibility. In his maiden address to a
joint session of the two houses of parliament 11 days after taking office, he
proposed that a committee of all parties “revisit” the Constitution’s controversial
17th Amendment and Article 58(2)b through which former president Musharraf
assumed sweeping powers to undermine the parliamentary system of government.
“As the democratically elected president of Pakistan I call upon the parliament to
form an all parties committee to revisit the Seventeenth Amendment and article
58(2)b,”
58(2)b,” Mr Zardari said and added: “Never
“Never before in history of the country has a
president stood here and given his powers.”
powers.” But the president’s use of the
equivocal word “revisit” rather than calling for a categorical repeal of the
objectionable articles as repeatedly promised by his Pakistan People’s Party and the
main opposition Pakistan Muslim League-N of former prime minister Nawaz Sharif
created doubts about how far the committee would be able to go in recommending
changes. While the PML-N, some other opposition groups and legal and rights
activists seemed outraged by lack of a clear-cut stand in the president’s address on
the constitutional amendments and the judiciary, PPP ally Awami National Party was
overjoyed by his disclosure that he had recommended to the government to
“change” the name of the North West Frontier Province to “Pukhtunkhwa” — that
can be done also through a constitutional amendment — in response to what he
called “the
“the long-standing demand of the people of the province”.
province”. He said the people
of the federally-ruled Northern Areas — which form part of the disputed Jammu and
Kashmir state but have no representation either in the Azad Kashmir Legislative
Assembly or Pakistan’s parliament — “must
“must also get their basic rights,
representative rule and an independent judiciary”.
judiciary”.

The remainder of the president’s 22-minute English language speech was mainly a
reiteration of the domestic and foreign policies of the PPP-led coalition government
whose advent five and a half months ago following the February 18 elections, he
said, had finally restored democracy in Pakistan. But, speaking hours before a
deadly truck-bomb attack at the nearby Marriott Hotel, he said it was “still
“still a tender
sapling which needs nurturing before it become a great sheltering tree”
tree” while there
were elements who wanted to derail the process once again. He urged the people to
remain vigilant against such elements and asked parliamentarians to “join“join hands
and work together in harmony, not in discord,”
discord,” to realise the people’s “great
“great hopes
and expectations”.
expectations”. “We
“We need to banish forever the politics of destruction and
confrontation,”
confrontation,” he told the members of the 342-seat National Assembly and 100-
seat Senate in their first such joint session after more than four-and-a-half years.
President Musharraf then made his first and last address to such a session in
January 2004 amid the opposition’s ‘Go Musharraf, Go’ chants, whose scare did not
allow him to appear before parliament again to fulfill
fulfill a constitutional obligation.
Among those who watched the proceedings from the galleries were former prime
minister Nawaz Sharif, provincial governors and chief ministers, armed forces
chiefs, and foreign diplomats. President Zardari, who said he had been given his
present honour in the name of his assassinated wife and former prime minister
Benazir Bhutto, told parliament that he had “a “a dream for Pakistan”
Pakistan” to free the
country from “the
“the shackles of poverty, hunger, terrorism and disunity”.
disunity”. Talking
about national security, he asked the government to hold “a “a national security
briefing”,
briefing”, or an in-camera briefing to a joint session of parliament and said: “We “We will
not tolerate the violation of our sovereignty and territorial integrity by any power in
the name of combating terrorism.”
terrorism.” Stressing the need for peace inside Pakistan as
well as in its neighbourhood, the president said he had invited his Afghan
counterpart Hamid Karzai to his oath-taking on Sept 9 as “a “a mark of Pakistan’s
sincere desire and consistent efforts to promote close relations and strengthen
cooperation with the brotherly county of Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan”.

He said the government also believed that relations between Pakistan and India
“can and should be creatively reinvented”,
reinvented”, for which Islamabad had decided to
resume the “composite
“composite dialogue process”
process” with New Delhi. The president also
reaffirmed “our
“our complete commitment to the Kashmiri people in their just struggle
for the restoration of their fundamental rights”
rights” and said: “We
“We will continue to seek
the settlement of all outstanding disputes, including the dispute over Jammu and
Kashmir, so that the main hurdle in the way towards peace and full normalisation of
relations between Pakistan and India is removed.”
removed.” He urged parliament to form a
bipartisan caucus for the purpose of resolving outstanding disputes with India
relating to Kashmir and the Indus water headworks. But he made no mention of
Pakistan’s traditional stand about the Kashmiri people’s right to self-determination
or the UN resolutions on the matter. Talking of relations with other counties, the
president said the present government would endeavour to “promote
“promote regional and
international peace and security as well as economic and social development of our
people”.
people”. “Our
“Our foreign policy would be geared to not only defence of territorial
integrity and sovereignty (of Pakistan) but also promotion of (its) commercial and
economic interests,”
interests,” he said. The president said Pakistan could position itself as
“the trade and energy hub”
hub” for South and Central Asia. “We
“We will strengthen our
brotherly relations with Iran and take our time-tested and all-weather friendship and
strategic partnership with China to greater heights,”
heights,” he said. “With
“With the United
States and European partners, we will endeavour to build a long-term partnership
that is broad-based and mutually beneficial.”
beneficial.” The president reiterated Pakistan’s
support for the “Palestinian
“Palestinian cause of self-determination”
self-determination” and said: “We
“We value our
ties with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Libya. We will rejuvenate our relations with the
Arab League, the OIC, and Asean to promote bilateral trade and investment. “With
the Islamic and Arab countries we enjoy excellent relations. We will further develop
our friendship with the countries of Asia, Latin America and Africa.”
Africa.”

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 21.09.08
21.09.08
 – Is the war over?
Information technology has made it possible for people to know that Pakistan has
waged war against a formidable enemy, the world’s sole superpower, and that both
warring sides are winners. To boot, from the latest reports and statements made by
the high and mighty of Washington and Islamabad it is proclaimed that
‘sovereignty’ and honour on both sides have been upheld and that we should infer
that peace now reigns and all the gunfire heard is but ‘noises off’. If such be the
case, had information technology ruled the air waves in 1914 or in 1939, many lives
may have been saved by the spread of instant information, no matter how biased,
vague or misinformative. We in 2008 embroiled in our war must thank our former
president, Gen Pervez Musharraf, for having opened up the air waves and the
printed press. Our television screens beam out over 80 channels, 61 of them locally
conceived which regale us with a relentless string of analysts, retired army
generals, renowned intellectuals, informed commentators, who move effortlessly
from channel to channel spouting too often dangerous and inflammatory words —
‘take ‘em on’, ‘attack’, ‘teach them a lesson’, and so on, much in the vein of the
Hizbut Tahrir Wilayah Pakistan. Its message to its Pakistani brethren during the holy
month has been: “It“It is you that America fears the most. America is aware of your
fighting spirit and it is well acquainted with your abilities to overcome India and the
Soviet Union … the only practical way to protect ourselves from the American
aggression is by responding to a stone with a rock.”
rock.” To relieve the monotony,
thankfully television has also given us Animal Planet and BBC Food, and our press
‘The Wizard of Id’ and ‘The Gambols’. Apart from the professional pontificators we
have the frightened who write and remain nameless. For instance, we had a letter
from a ‘concerned citizen’ — in this newspaper yesterday under the heading
‘Sickening example’ — who wrote that “There
“There are many people today who think of
Muslims as intolerant barbarians...”
barbarians...” What is he afraid of? Being lynched? Sadly, the
man is in his right senses.

On the matter of war and peace, I have been pipped at the post by two rare but
sane writers whose columns appeared in this publication on Friday and on Saturday.
Ayesha Siddiqa is unconvinced about the reign of peace: “... “... [T]he American
government knows that Pakistan’s socalled liberal elite and many among the
Pakistani expatriate community would be happy with the removal of the Taliban or
other militants. If the Pakistan Army can’t do it, then let the US forces achieve the
objective. Moreover, eliminating this threat would fundamentally readjust the
military’s power vis-à-vis the civilian establishment because it would essentially
mean roping in the intelligence agencies as well. This means that Pakistani society
is divided and will not be able to pose an extensive threat to American attacks.”
attacks.”
And Irfan Husain yesterday very rightly reminds us that “Should
“Should our army actually
kill a number of American troops, the resulting escalation could easily spin out of
control very quickly. The Americans currently have two aircraft carrier groups in the
Gulf, with a third on its way. Their combined firepower could wipe out Pakistan
many times over. So, while it’s great fun to fulminate against the Americans before
the cameras in TV studios, we need to get real here.”
here.” As for letting the Americans
do what has manifestly become obvious — taking on and reining in or eliminating
the militant Taliban who cover the frontier area, press reports yesterday have it that
within a matter of weeks dozens of US military advisors will descend upon Pakistan
with their training teams. Hopefully this is correct, though we are informed that
Pakistan has been resisting such a move. If it happens, this will alter the entire
scenario as far as any cross-border incursions are concerned.

As to the aircraft carrier groups, they form part of the US Seventh Fleet, the largest
of the forward-deployed US fleets, covering 52 million square miles, with
approximately 60-70 ships, 200-300 aircraft and 40,000 sailors and marines
assigned to it at any given time. It conducts operations to ensure control of the sea
to defend the United States against attack through the western Pacific and Indian
Oceans. Friends of the Hizbut Tahrir would seem to be totally out of their depth. The
problem remains that no matter how many placatory statements may emanate
from the spokespersons of the two antagonists, Pakistan is largely viewed by the
American public as untrustworthy and ramshackle. They fear that the murderous
violence that overwhelms Pakistan may spread to their own land once again. They
feel that the war on terror started in this region, in the training camps and
madressahs that swarm the Frontier and Balochistan regions, and that therefore it
must be ended over here — however and by whatever means. Unless there is a
swift turnaround within the next few months, and then should Barack Obama, the
more militant of the two American presidential candidates, have any say in the
matter, we need to watch our backsides. He may have no compunctions about
‘acting’ against the ‘so-called’ Islamabad ally. He has committed himself in advance
to the projection of American power into what is considered by too many of his
compatriots and others around the world as one of the major enemies in the war on
terror. If we do not amend our national mindset we may be in for a lot more war and
a lot less peace. As it is, despite the official placatory statements, some local expert
polls have it that 53 per cent of the 173 millions of Pakistan would be happy were
President Asif Zardari to declare war on America (though many are worried about
how helpless we would be were we to win). If this is what has been achieved by
COAS Gen Ashfaq Kayani’s tactics of shooting not to kill, coupled with Zardari’s
prosthodontic wall-towall perpetual grin, are they to be congratulated? The
rightwing Washington Times last week carried a column by Arnaud de Borchgrave
which ended with an ominous warning: “in “in authorising this month’s raid into South
Waziristan ... President Bush was testing the boundaries of the new government —
and the authority of Mr Zardari over the army. In Afghanistan, the future of the
Atlantic alliance is at stake. In Pakistan, the state itself is at stake.”
stake.”

Author Location Dated

Michael Tomasky 21.09.08
21.09.08

– Obama on the offensive

The basic identities of America’s two political parties have been in place for at least
40 years and, on core economic questions, for 70, since Franklin Roosevelt’s time.
Whatever socalled “low-information voters” do or don’t know about politics, they
know that the Democrats are the party of working people, and the Republicans are
the party of the rich. It doesn’t end up being as positive for the Democrats as that
formulation makes it sound. Since the 1980s, Republicans have been successful in
shifting public opinion among America’s middleclass more towards the view that
their economic fate is tied up with rich people’s. In addition, a weak union
movement means that class consciousness exists only on the margins. But these
basic identities do still mean that, when a scandal breaks out involving oblivious
gluttony on the part of elements within the financial over-class, Americans will place
more blame on the GOP, and the Democrats will benefit. Especially when it
happened on the watch of a Republican administration that is deeply unpopular. So,
it made sense that the initial phase of public reaction to the past week’s Wall Street
scandal would have worked to the political benefit of Barack Obama. The
Democratic nominee would have benefited no matter who it was. A week ago today,
John McCain had a small lead in the polls. Now, Obama does. The numbers are back
to being essentially where they were before the conventions, with Obama sitting on
a wobbly margin of three or so points. McCain helped Obama’s position with an
initial response to last week’s economic crisis that seemed to be delivered from a
different planet. On Monday, with headlines blaring and the markets reeling, he
insisted yet again — as he has several times in recent months — that the
“fundamentals” of the economy were still “strong”. No doubt that wasn’t very
reassuring to the average Ohioan or Michigander. McCain continued to flounder for
most of the week. He employed ferociously populist antiWall Street rhetoric,
attacking the “greed” and “recklessness” of the executives who netted, in many
cases, eight-figure incomes while gambling away the mortgages of $40,000-a-year
earners. But — those age-old identities again — it just wasn’t persuasive coming
from a multimillionaire Republican. His legislative record tilts strongly toward
supporting deregulation and, over the past year, as he has kissed up to his party’s
rightwing, he has sought to downplay the portions of his record that did endorse
regulation.

In the face of this, Obama could have spent the week windsurfing with John Kerry
and still come out fairly well. What he did instead, along with his running mate Joe
Biden, is turn his campaign sharply negative against McCain — important to note:
not against Sarah Palin, but against John McCain — for being out of touch and
merely the newest representative of a failed governing philosophy. “I “I certainly
don’t fault Senator McCain for these problems,”
problems ,” Obama said in his initial statement
on Monday, “but
“but I do fault the economic philosophy he subscribes to.”to.” He pressed
the point much harder as the week went on. Biden emerged from the relative
shadows and gave incendiary speeches throughout the week, denouncing the
Republican philosophy and McCain personally. The Democrats were responding to a
rising chorus of discontent within their own ranks — which probably reached a
climax midweek sometime — that they were just standing around taking punches
and letting McCain and Palin set the agenda completely. The fetid aroma of
passivity that began to emanate from Obama-Biden, particularly after the Palin
coronation, had partisan Democrats screaming for their candidates to do
something. And speaking of McCain’s running mate, another effect of the crisis is
that it seems to have ended, finally, the Palin-mania phase of the race. So, that was
phase one of the political fallout of the Wall Street scandal. But Friday marked the
beginning of phase two. In this phase, the shouts and histrionics will abate
somewhat. Each day gives McCain — and the Bush administration — opportunities
to regain some purchase on events and appear in control. The administration and
the Federal Reserve Bank were preparing a massive bailout (one in which the
taxpayers would, in essence, buy billions of dollars in banks’ bad loans). What was
important politically in the first phase was demonstrating credible outrage at the
fat-cats and empathy with the regular folks. In phase two, actual, clear-cut and
persuasively packaged proposals will be more important. Simply because he’s a
member of George Bush’s political party, McCain clearly has the bigger challenge
over the next few days. With 81 per cent of Americans believing the country is
“seriously” headed on the wrong track, McCain has to explain why he’ll be so
different even though he’s voted with Bush 90% of the time. However, Obama has
always had more trouble with packaging. He has, if anything, too many policy
proposals. He finds it hard to pare them down to three or four compelling points and
present them in crisp, short sentences. In US presidential politics, the packaging is
more important than the thinking.

Author Location Dated

Sher Baz Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 21.09.08
21.09.08

– Proposal for five-day week shelved

Faced with strong opposition from Punjab and a downward slide in oil prices in the
international market, the government has decided in principle to shelve the much-
discussed proposal for a five-day work week. The proposal also envisaged closure of
petrol pumps for one day in a week. Sources told Dawn on Friday that the
government was likely to withdraw the proposal during the next meeting of the
federal cabinet, likely to be held on Wednesday. At a meeting held about a fortnight
ago the federal cabinet had floated the idea of a five-day work week — with
Saturdays and Sundays off — in order to reduce the country’s spending on import of
oil, thereby reducing the fiscal and trade deficits. However, a decision in this regard
was postponed until differences on the issue were resolved with Punjab for which a
committee, chaired by Information and Broadcasting Minister Sherry Rehman, was
formed. Sources told Dawn that the PML-N-led government in Punjab had opposed
the idea on various grounds, including possible adverse reactions from businessmen
and industrialists in case it was adopted for implementation. A PML-N lawmaker told
Dawn that Ms Sherry tried her best to convince the Punjab government on the issue
but failed to do so. The government feared that it might face the same kind of
resistance from other provinces as well, as petrol pump owners were not ready to
close their businesses four times a month. He said the chamber of commerce and
industries and some top traders from Punjab had advised the government against
implementing the proposal. The idea to keep petrol pumps closed for one day every
week was particularly worrisome, he added. When contacted, Petroleum Secretary
G.A. Sabri said a decision on the issue had been put off by the cabinet on political
grounds. He said the government wanted to take the Punjab government on board
before deciding one way or the other. He said an announcement about the proposal
would be made during the next meeting of the cabinet.

The Economy Monitoring Committee (EMC) headed by Finance Minister Syed

Naveed Qamar had directed the petroleum ministry to give various suggestions
about curtailing oil consumption. The ministry had proposed at least two — a five-
day working week and closure of petrol pumps for one day every week. According to
the ministry, the two steps could reduce oil consumption by almost 20 per cent. The
last PPP government had also introduced the five-day work week, but the move had
to be reversed because it resulted in higher consumptions. Many government
employees had also started taking three off days a week. A petroleum ministry
official said that fuel consumption could also be reduced by increasing the price of
electricity in the summers and that of gas in winters. But such proposals had their
negative aspects as well. The oil import bill, which surged to $11.38 billion or almost
30 per cent of total imports of about $40 billion in 2007-08, was more than 55 per
cent higher than $7.33 billion a year ago, mainly because of higher international
prices and increased consumption. As a result of record international prices and
higher consumption, the government had to pay $4 billion (Rs270 billion) more on
oil imports in 2007-08 than in the previous year. The import of petroleum products
showed a 65 per cent increase to $6.158 billion from $3.73 billion, while crude
imports surged by 45 per cent to $5.22 billion from $3.6 billion in 2006-07. The
consumption of petroleum products went up by about 19 per cent to 10 million tons
from 8.6 million tons, while crude imports surged by 5.2 per cent to 8.6 million tons
from 8.2 million tons in 2006-07. The fiscal deficit reached 7.7 per cent of GDP or
Rs777 billion against the budgeted target of 4.2 per cent of Rs398 billion.The
current account deficit, too, set a new record at almost $16 billion last year with no
respite in the initial two months of the current fiscal year.

Author Location Dated

AFP Geneva, Switzerland 21.09.08
21.09.08

– Atom-smasher shut for two months

The world’s largest atom-smasher has been shut down for two months following a
helium leak, just 10 days after it was switched on amid great fanfare to probe the
secrets of the universe. “There
“There has been an incident in a test. One section of the
machine will have to be repaired,”
repaired,” James Gillies, a spokesman for the European
Organisation for Nuclear Research (CERN), told AFP. CERN said in a statement that a
fault occurred on Friday afternoon, resulting in a “large
“large helium leak into the tunnel.
tunnel.”
“Preliminary investigations suggest that the most likely cause of the problem was a
faulty electrical connection between two magnets, which probably melted at high
current leading to mechanical failure,”
failure,” it said. There was no risk to people, added
the centre, saying that a full probe was under way. “There
“There are people in the tunnel
right now, we’ll be giving updates as soon as we can,”can,” said Gillies. The Large
Hadron Collider (LHC) was started on September 10, with physicists cheering the
successful testing of a clockwise beam, comprising strings of protons, and then an
anticlockwise beam in preparatory testing ahead of first collisions. But the LHC had
to be shut down a week later due to an electrical hitch that affected a cooling
system for high-powered magnets designed to steer beams of particles around the
LHC’s 27km circular tunnel. The cooling system is important as the steering
magnets in the LHC tunnel are chilled to as low as -271 degrees Celsius, which is
close to absolute zero and colder than deep outer space. At this extreme
temperature, electrical currents overcome resistance, thus making it easier and
cheaper to power electromagnets. The LHC was only turned back on again on
Friday, but the latest setback has once again forced operations to halt. As the sector
where the fault occurred would have to be warmed up from its extreme
temperature for repairs to take place, the LHC would now be halted for “a minimum
of two months,” resulting in further delays to the first collisions. The LHC took
nearly 20 years to complete and at $5.46 billion is one of the costliest and most
complex scientific experiments ever attempted. It aims to resolve some of the
greatest questions surrounding fundamental matter, such as how particles acquire
mass and how they were forged in the Big Bang that created the universe some
13.7 billion years ago.

Author Location Dated

Ishaq Tanoli Karachi, Pakistan 21.09.08
21.09.08
 – Two indicted in Gulgee’s murder case
A district and sessions court on Saturday indicted two men in the murder case of
the renowned artist Mohammad Ismail Gulgee, his wife and their maid in December
2007. Gulgee, his wife Zareen Gulgee, and their maid Asiya were found strangled in
their house in the jurisdiction of the Boat Basin police station on December 19,
2007. The bodies found were at least three to four days old while the driver of the
artist, Akram Ali, and another servant, Anwar, had gone missing along with a car
belonging to the deceased. A case (FIR No 490/07) was registered under Section
302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code on the complaint of Amin Gulgee at the Boat
Basin police station. The district and sessions judge, South, Arjun Ram K. Talreja,
has summoned all the prosecution witnesses on the next date of hearing to testify
in the case. Both the accused pleaded not guilty and opted to contest the case.
According to the prosecution, the only son of the deceased, Amin Gulgee, who lived
in an adjoining portion of the house, had informed the police about the triple
murder. He had informed the police that the gate of his parent’s house had been
locked for past five days and their car was not parked in the parking area. The
deceased artist’s son got alarmed over this situation and broke the lock open and
got inside only to find his parents and their maidservant brutally murdered. The
prosecution said that the accused, Akram Ali, who hailed from Punjab, was hired by
the deceased in the first week of December and upon observing the amount of
wealth the late artist had in his possession, the accused made a robbery plan. Later,
Akram invited his friend, Anwar, from Lahore and got him employed as a cook to
help him execute his plan.

On December 15, 2007, the prosecution added, the accused forcefully covered
Gulgee’s face with a piece of cloth and axed him to death. His wife, Zareen, was
also killed in a similar manner, he added, saying that since the accused found the
cash short of their expectations, they waited the whole night long in the house and
the next morning when the maidservant came they inquired about more cash or
valuables. When she expressed her ignorance about the whereabouts of cash etc,
they also killed her and drove off in the deceased’s vehicle and later abandoned it
in Darakhshan and fled to Lahore. A team of the Anti-Violent Crime Cell (AVCC),
acting on a tip-off, had raided a hotel near the Cantonment railway station and
arrested the suspects, Akram Ali, and, Anwar, on February 16, 2008 for their alleged
involvement in the triple murder case and also recovered the looted cash and
precious paintings of the deceased from their possession. Later, both the suspects
were sent to jail. Earlier, a lawyer was arranged on behalf of the state for one of the
suspects, Akram Ali, as he had filed an application seeking a counsel from the state,
maintaining that he could not hire a lawyer. While on the pervious hearing on Sept
12, the provincial government had also notified the court that Mohammad Ashraf
Qazi had been appointed as the special public prosecutor to represent the
complainant, Amin Gulgee, in the case. The court has fixed Oct 11 as the next date
of hearing.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 22.09.08
22.09.08

– Blast caused by RDX and TNT: Malik Waziristan link seen in

attack on Marriott
Prime Minister’s Adviser on Interior Affairs Rehman Malik has said that Saturday’s
blast in Islamabad that claimed 53 lives had links with Waziristan. A video tape,
recorded by a security TV camera of the Marriott Hotel, which was shown at a press
conference on Sunday, raised questions about security arrangements made to avert
a terrorist attack in the capital’s high security areas. “It
“It is premature to blame any
particular group or individual for the blast but all roads lead to Waziristan,”
Waziristan,” the
adviser said. The video clip showed a sixwheeler dumper truck hitting a steel barrier
at the hotel’s main entrance. The attacker, who could not be seen in the film,
opened fire on security guards, forcing them to retreat, and then blew himself up
causing a small blast which set the truck on fire. A number of courageous security
guards reappear, one of them with a fire extinguisher who tries to extinguish the
blaze but fails. He tries repeatedly to douse flames as traffic is seen on the road.
There is no sign of movement in the truck and the footage does not show the
massive blast which wreaked the havoc. Questions have been raised as to how such
a huge quantity of highly explosive material (RDX and TNT) could be brought into
the capital and then taken to the high security area. And there were only five or six
private guards at the hotel gate and no arrangement to put out fire. “It “It was the first
incident in the capital in which terrorists used RDX and TNT explosives. In all
previous blasts the terrorists had used potassium. Aluminium powder used in the
explosion caused the fire inside the hotel,”
hotel,” Mr Malik said. Analysts said the attack
could have been averted had the fire on the truck been extinguished before it
reached the explosives. The fire in the hotel, a favourite spot for foreigners and the
local elite -- and a previous target of militants -- smouldered till about noon on
Sunday. Mr Malik said the local administration allowed trucks carrying construction
material to enter the city after sunset. Rescue teams searched the charred building
room by room in high temperature with some parts of the hotel still smouldering.
Officials said the main building could collapse.

The adviser said two Americans and one Vietnamese national were among the
dead. Officials said at least 21 foreigners, including Britons, Germans, Americans
and Arabs, were among the injured. Mr Malik said the bomb contained an estimated
600kgs of military-grade explosives as well as artillery and mortar shells. It left a
crater 60 feet wide and 24 feet deep. The adviser called upon the national media
not to glorify militants. “They
“They are ferocious people who are killing innocent people,
but the anchors, hosts and other media personnel do not condemn them.” them.” He said a
team headed by the director general of the Federal Investigation Agency was
carrying out an inquiry. Replying to a question, Mr Malik vowed that one day the
assassin of former prime minister Benazir Bhutto would be presented before the
public. He praised the army and lawenforcement agencies for foiling the designs of
over 3,000 militants who had attacked Bajaur. “We “We launched operations in Hangu
and Khyber to restore peace,”
peace,” he said. The government announced a reward of
Rs10 million for information about Saturday’s suicide bomber. Anyone with
information may contact the FIA DG on telephone numbers 111-345-786 or 0302-
5115122 or the Islamabad police chief on 0519261428 or 0300-8507520. The
adviser said the name of the informer would be kept secret and he would be
provided full security. Mr Malik said the government had decided to implement a
new security plan in Islamabad to prevent such attacks. He said closed-circuit
cameras would be installed along all main roads and at important points in the
capital. They will be linked to a central control room. The task has been given to the
National Database and Registration Authority (Nadra). The adviser said the plan
approved by President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani would
be implemented in a few days. “All
“All trucks, buses and taxis coming into the federal
capital will be monitored thoroughly and police patrolling will be increased.”
increased.”
Meanwhile, interior ministry sources said the government had decided to intensify
operations against militants in tribal areas. The joint investigation team submitted a
report after bomb disposal squads of army and police had examined the site.
According to sources, officials of the US Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central
Intelligence Agency and Marines who were staying in the hotel could have been the
target of the attack. Shortly after the blast, well-equipped personnel of US Marines
took positions at the place to remove their colleagues, the sources added.

Author Location Dated

Zeeshan Ahmed (Public) Islamabad, Pakistan 22.09.08
22.09.08

– Pakistan and Big Bang experiment

This is with the reference to the letters published on Sept 14 and 19, regarding the
Big Bang (LHC) experiment at CERN, Switzerland. There are fears among civil
society organisations and some scientists that the LHC experiment could produce
black holes that could suck up anything around them including the whole earth.
Such fears prompted legal actions in the US and Europe to halt the operation of the
LHC, but skeptics who were raising concerns have failed in their legal battle against
this unprecedented experiment. The experiment could reveal more about ‘dark
matter,’ anti-matter and possibly hidden dimensions of space and time and it could
also find evidence of the hypothetical particle -- the Higgs boson -- believed to give
mass to all other particles, and thus to matter that makes up the universe.
universe. The
project organised by 20 European member-nations of CERN has attracted
researchers from 80 nations while some 1,200 were from the United States, an
observer country, which contributed 531 million dollars for this purpose. In fact,
CERN is a fine example in which high technology and science reinforce each other
and that of international collaboration. In one aspect, CERN has a very special
relationship with Pakistan that has provided the first and crucial evidence of
unification through experiments done at CERN in 1973. One of the predictions of
electroweak unification theory proposed by Dr Abdus Salam, Weinberg and Glashow
resulted in a Nobel Prize in physics in 1979 to these physicists. Further the
mediators, W and Z bosons, of electroweak force predicted by the electroweak
theory (called the standard model) were also discovered at CERN in the 1980s.

The LHC is designed to create temperatures and energy densities prevalent at

trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. It will produce a host of particles known,
expected and unexpected. A step towards a single unified theory embracing all
forces and all matter requires a new type of symmetry called super-symmetry which
has physical implications of crucial relevance to the LHC. Super-symmetry implies
the existence of partner species (called sparticles) to known species of particles
(electrons, quarks, neutrinos, etc.). But the question arises: do super symmetric
particles exist and are source of the dark matter? Today physicists believe that
visible matter – the stars and galaxies -- make up only the four per cent of the
energy density of the universe. The rest is believed to be some mysterious dark
matter and dark energy. What lies beyond the standard model? Is it super-
symmetry to explain the dark matter? Are there higher dimensions that string
theory requires? These are the expected questions to be answered. However,
finding something that we don’t expect would open new vistas on the nature of
reality and that is what would be even more exciting. Pakistan has already
established a linkage with CERN. The realisation of decision-makers that LHC, if it
comes about would necessarily incorporate technologies at the most advanced
level, that resulted in signing a cooperation agreement in 1994. In addition,
Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission (PAEC) signed an agreement for an ‘in kind’
contribution worth half a million dollars for the construction of eight magnet
supports for the Compact Muon Soleniod (CMS) detector.

The Pakistani scientists prepared CMS detector consisting of assembling and testing
of 288 Resistive Plate Chambers, helped in fabrication of mechanical pieces at a
cost much less than the European cost and designed tracker alignment and other
opto-electronic related work. This was followed by another agreement in 2000
increasing Pakistan’s contribution to $1.8 million. In the same year the National
Centre for Physics (NCP) became a full member of CMS. In 2003 a protocol was
signed enhancing Pakistan’s total contribution to the LHC programme to $10
million. In 2004 NCP became LHC Computing Grid (LCG) Node. In 2006, during the
visit of the president of Pakistan, the government of Pakistan announced a
generous contribution of five million Swiss francs further expanding the scope of
cooperation. Fifty-four years ago, in September 1954, CERN, the European
Organisation for Nuclear Research, officially came into existence. Its founders hoped
that “it
“it would play a fundamental role in rebuilding European Physics to its former
grandeur, reverse the brain drain of the brightest and best to the US, and
consolidate postwar European integration.”
integration.” Today, CERN, one of the outstanding
high energy physics laboratories in the world, has not only more than fulfilled the
goals of its founder, but is home of thousands of physicists and engineers from all
over the world.

Author Location Dated

S. Akbar Zaidi 22.09.08
22.09.08

– Six months are enough

Six months is long enough for any government to settle down and start the process
of governing. After this period, every new government must stop blaming its
predecessor for all the ills that afflict the country and show that it is in control and
has a plan and a purpose to put its mark on different sectors in the country. The
responsibility placed on a new government inheriting numerous structural problems
and weaknesses in key sectors is greater as are the expectations. This is further
accentuated when a government is brought in after yet another round of prolonged
military rule, and hence, has far more to prove. Under such transitions, it is not just
that one particular government’s future is at stake, but also that it carries the
burden of having to prove that a democracy offers far better possibilities and
solutions than does a military dictatorship. Clearly, the responsibility on the
shoulders of the Zardari Gilani government is far heavier than on many democratic
governments of the recent past. Yet, sadly, the one consistent factor which defines
the performance of the People’s Party government since March this year has been
the absence of any clear thinking or vision in key areas, many of which are
deteriorating as the months go by. It is important to emphasise the point, however,
that no one expects any government, especially one which has had to bargain hard
in order to establish its writ and control over the institutions of the state, to start
fixing all the ills that affect governance and state structures within a few weeks. Far
from it. However, there is certainly the need and expectation that after six months
the government will have a clear plan and purpose about what it wants to do and
how it intends to go about it. Whether these plans succeed and how they are
implemented is of secondary concern. The most important need is to give clear
signals to establish the fact that the government is concerned about things, that it
has a strategy, and that it is beginning to put it into place. While there are many
areas and sectors where it is quite clear that this government has no plan, vision or
strategy whatsoever, the one critical sector where this is most apparent, is with
regard to the economy.

Most economists were aware that from some time early in 2007, Pakistan’s
economy had taken a downturn, with key indicators showing signs of weakening.
Not that the economy was anywhere near collapse or meltdown 18 months ago, but
there were clear signs that the party was coming to an end and that critical
measures would have to be taken to deflate, or even manage, potential crises. The
fact that the Musharraf-Aziz government did not take any corrective measures, or
that the caretaker government also procrastinated and made matters far worse,
was not surprising. Living largely in denial about what was happening, and quite
sure that many members of the predecessor government would be back in power
after the elections, these two governments avoided confronting emerging concerns,
such as fuel and food price rises. What is equally surprising, however, is that it
seems that neither the PML-N nor the PPP expected to form the government, for if
they did, they surely had no game plan once in power. One also wonders why any
political party bothers to produce and launch election manifestos. If a manifesto is
meant to be a document of any consequence which lays out the party’s strategy
and vision once the party is elected to power, experience from numerous previous
elections proves that promises made prior to the elections are quickly forgotten.
Nevertheless, once in power, governments are expected to have a policy, a strategy
and a vision and are held responsible for how the country functions. However, even
after six months in office, this government has neither a vision nor a strategy of
dealing with deteriorating economic conditions.

This absence of any vision regarding how to address key economic issues even six
months after being in office, has only made the economic crisis worse. One had not
been expecting solutions or reversals to the numerous economic problems faced by
the country, for six months is too short a period to reverse the meltdown. However,
the government must be criticised for not producing a plan soon after coming into
power. It seems that not only is the government not really concerned about how
bad the economy is — hoping, it seems, to be bailed out by the Americans, the
Saudis or the IMF — it really has no understanding of the scale and urgency of the
problems confronting it either. For investors, consumers and for democracy, these
are dangerous and worrisome signals. There is a concern that the Zardari-Gilani
government may not break clearly with the past and may continue many policies
from the Musharraf-Aziz government and not address key structural issues related
to the constitution, the army, politics or the economy. Six months is long enough for
a new government to state where and how it differs from the previous government
and what it stands for. It needs to state clearly, what its vision is about key issues
affecting Pakistanis, and to start putting a strategy into place. The continuing delay
in a clear vision regarding a strategy for the economy, and other sectors, will only
make matters substantially worse.

Author Location Dated

Adrian A. Hussain 22.09.08
22.09.08

– Before the deluge

The PPP has traditionally enjoyed the singular distinction of coming to power at
times of crisis. The present stint will have proven no exception. Domestic
maelstroms aside, the country is faced today with nothing short of a crisis of
confidence emanating from the White House. This relates to Pakistan’s controversial
role in the war on terror. Not so long ago, questions were reportedly raised at the
highest level in the US about the nature of Pakistan’s performance and, inevitably,
its ability to deliver to date in this regard. The result was a subtle paradigm shift in
US policy towards Pakistan, entailing the apparently official sanctioning of ground
attacks by US forces on Pakistani territory. There was, rightly, a furor over this in
Pakistan. Indignation was heard among opposition parties and civil society alike.
The COAS took up the gauntlet, responding, as he should have, to the challenge to
the country’s sovereignty when the first ground incursion by US commandos into
Pakistan took place near Angoor Adda in South Waziristan on Sept 3. This was
followed by reports of our troops firing at intruding US choppers on Sept 15 in the
same area. Pakistan’s government reacted with greater circumspectness,
committing itself to a ‘soft’ response to the issue. Asif Ali Zardari engaged in his
first spell of shuttle diplomacy after assuming the presidential mantle by accepting
an invitation for informal talks with Britain’s prime minister, Gordon Brown and
disingenuously giving away little of substance to the media in their wake.

The exercise was impeccably orchestrated. What did it matter if there had been
numerous casualties in a single month in the tribal belt at the hands of both our
own and US forces? Or if a few more Dr Aafias were to be sacrificed? While the
military was doing the correct ‘nationalist’ thing, our government was being politic
and aggressively pursuing peace. This was evidence of realpolitik in full flower. And
the nation was expected to go with the flow. However, the nation is mystified and
explanations are surely called for. One of the obfuscations that we are beset by is
the fact that, shortly after the recent assurance to our civil and military top brass
that Pakistan’s sovereignty would be respected by the US, missile attacks on South
Waziristan continued. One is tempted to ask in the most basic of terms: who is
kidding whom? But, in any case, the one step farther from unmanned missile attack
to embodied incursion was, from the start, integral to the compact between the two
countries. Our former president would seem — inadvertently, if he is to be given the
benefit of the doubt — to have compromised if not actually written off our
sovereignty when he literally put his hands up and unconditionally agreed to make
Pakistan a frontline state in the war on terror. The war was always about give and-
take. And, in US eyes, there is, clearly, some problem involving factual reciprocity in
the context of this equation. In other words, to the world’s sole superpower,
Pakistan has been a more than willing recipient of its largesse under the head of
‘counterterrorism’ though without coming up with anything like proportionate
results. Of course, there is a catch here. Producing such results means accepting
the crux of the US policy on the war on terror in the region as spelt out by Admiral
Mullen. According to the view, as cited by newspapers, Afghanistan and Pakistan
are “inextricably
“inextricably linked in a common insurgency that crosses the border between
them”.
them”. Abhorrent — and indeed frightening — as it may be to us as Pakistanis, the
logic underlying this is all but irrefutable. It posits what we may be mentally
resisting or not have completely grasped: the community of terrorism on both sides
of the ‘porous’ border necessarily overrides the sanctity and relevance of
sovereignty. US pressure on Pakistan to ‘restructure’ the ISI is in effect about
restructuring our national political will and abandoning our historical obsession with
‘strategic depth’. It has to do with dismantling the strategic alibi — or what some US
analysts call ‘hedge’ — made available to us after the ouster of the Taliban from
Afghanistan in the shape of an uncontrollable and rampant militancy. Despite all the
mixed signals coming out of the US, the threat of ground assaults on Pakistan’s
tribal belt should consequently be taken as a sort of tactical benchmark against
which to shape our own future policies. There should be no doubt in our minds as to
the options at our disposal. These are already very limited and merely threaten to
grow more so.

Much depends on what transpires at the meeting expected to take place between
the US and Pakistani presidents in the wings during the forthcoming General
Assembly session at the UN. The wisdom of our leadership will be put to the test at
the time. It is being said by those in the know that we will not be disappointed since
it was ‘providence’ that brought about the current democratic dispensation. The
bewilderment and dismay of the common man notwithstanding, our civil-military
combine has so far proven a credible match to the US for sheer savvy. Its
equivalent double-speak would, at least for the time being, seem to have worked. At
the same time, our leaders must guard against being over-optimistic and, with it,
indulging in tactical overkill. Our sovereignty is indeed at stake. And we cannot
afford to forget that. For all that his sympathisers may say, Musharraf’s precarious
nine-year balancing act apropos of the war on terror had brought us dangerously
close to the brink. As a result of his policies and near the end of his tenure, Pakistan
had been reduced, for the US, to being an ally with almost sub-zero credibility. That
is no longer quite the case. Even so, we cannot afford to be smug or fall for fanciful
talk. There is, for instance, an affable insidiousness about some clever diplomatic
teasers currently in circulation. The ‘wink-wink nudge-nudge’ coinage purporting to
sum up the US-Pakistan relationship courtesy the Washingtonbased South Asian
expert, Sadanad Dhume is among these. It is precisely this sort of thing that can
easily blind us to the gravity of the configuration of our existing relations with the
US, lulling us into a sense of false security and imperceptibly facilitating something
like a duly sweetened, phased invasion of our motherland.

Author Location Dated

Sanaullah Baloch balochbnp@gmail.com 22.09.08
22.09.08

– The case against Musharraf

In the last six decades a significant number of socalled state leaders have been
prosecuted and brought before various domestic and international courts and
tribunals for their official and unofficial crimes against humanity and genocide.
Unfortunately, the most unpopular state leaders have enjoyed lifetime immunity in
domestic and foreign courts for their sanctioned and unsanctioned crimes. Many of
them enjoyed personal immunity that lasts during their tenure for all unofficial acts
such as looting state coffers or murdering political rivals. After creating political and
economic disarray and committing atrocities, the majority of detested world leaders
moved to different countries that offered them protection and pleasure. But,
including Pakistan’s former military dictator Gen (retd) Pervez Musharraf, a great
number of the world’s reviled state heads have remained in their countries,
benefiting from their institutional connections, an incapable judicial system and the
state’s lack of will to try former and sitting rulers for unlawful and inhuman acts.
The lack of legal and institutional capacity and willingness to try dictators and
corrupt civilmilitary bureaucrats has resulted in an endless crisis of governance and
trust in Pakistan. Deliberate ignorance by the legal and state institutions have
benefited human rights violators, corrupt and criminal prime ministers, presidents,
and miscreant dictators to escape justice, to live in cosy retirement, often with
wealth dishonestly accumulated. But internationally a positive change of approach
has been experienced, to try rogue leaders for their crimes. Consensus also has
been developed among the legal community around the world that all those
involved in crimes against humanity must be prosecuted domestically and
internationally, because some of these crimes are so disgraceful they can never be
considered a part of any leader’s official duties. The statutes of the International
Criminal Court and other international tribunals specifically declare that an official
capacity or rank by itself is no defence against prosecution.

This month in Poland the country’s former communist leader and head of state, Gen
Wojciech Jaruzelski, who is now 85 and in poor health, has gone on trial accused of
committing a crime by imposing martial law in 1981. Reading the charges, the
prosecutor said the men had violated their own communist constitution when they
created what he called a “criminal
“criminal military organisation”
organisation” to implement martial law
in Dec 1981. Eight other former officials will also be tried for the clampdown against
the opposition Solidarity movement, during which dozens of people were killed.
However, there is little hope among the marginalised people and victims of
Musharraf’s rule that the former military dictator will be persecuted for looting,
treason and grave human rights violations. No doubt, there is a general perception
among the marginalised people of Pakistan that ethnically dominant and superior
leaders in Pakistan are above any law and protected for all their crimes. This time
round there is a need that an ex-army man must be held accountable for his
evident and committed crimes. There is little disagreement among Pakistani
citizens that the Musharraf era is marked with state highhandedness against
citizens. Undermining the constitution, bombing Balochistan, killing and persecuting
Baloch veteran leaders, kidnapping political activists, sacking judges, killing
lawyers, promoting centre-province confrontation and corruption are enough to
prosecute Mr Musharraf in domestic and international courts. In the recent past, a
number of the world’s errant leaders have been brought before the domestic and
international courts for human rights abuses. Some have been convicted, others are
on trial. Internationally there is a growing trend to make all leaders accountable and
prosecute rogue rulers. Radovan Karadzic has been recently arrested and shifted to
ICC at Hague to face criminal charges. Sudan’s president Omar Al-Bashir has also
been summoned by the International Court of Justice for his human rights crimes
and genocide in Darfur. We have an entire history of cases where war criminals and
human rights abusers have been brought before tribunals and convicted for their
sins. During 1945-
1945-49, the Nuremberg trials, the largest in history, that lasted four
years, brought the Nazi regime and the engineers of the Holocaust to justice. Major
war criminals were sentenced to death. In the 12 other cases that followed, 65
defendants were convicted and more than 20 executed.

In 1948 under the watch of US Supreme Commander Douglas MacArthur, an

international military tribunal prosecuted and executed Japan’s former Prime
Minister Hideki Tojo and 28 high-ranking Japanese leaders for war crimes. In 1989
after almost 25 years of communist reign in Romania, President Nicolae Ceausescu
and his wife, Elena, were found guilty of crimes against humanity by a secret
military tribunal. The two were executed on Christmas Day 1989. Rwanda’s former
prime minister, Jean Kambanda, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life
imprisonment by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Argentina’s
military dictator Captain Adolfo Scilingo (1976-1983) was convicted in April 2005 by
the Spanish court (1995-2005) almost 10 years after his alleged human rights
crimes. The late Chilean leader Pinochet was prosecuted by the country’s supreme
court in 2004. The UN-Sierra Leone joint tribunal was set up in 2002 to try Liberia’s
former President Charles Taylor and those most responsible for crimes against
humanity, for war crimes and attacks against UN peacekeepers. Musharraf including
his team must be put on trial before domestic and international courts for official
and unofficial crimes. All victims must be provided an opportunity to come forth
with evidence before the judicial institutions. This process will not only assist the
overall failed state system to improve its stained image, it will also strengthen the
people’s trust in institutions. The Supreme Court Bar Council of Pakistan, the HRCP,
vibrant civil society and other concerned organisations need to go for a fresh
strategy, to discourage human rights violators and take their cases to world bodies.
The legal community must activate its professional capacity to surround the high-
profile culprits taking them before domestic and international courts of law for their
unforgettable crimes. ¦ The writer is a former member of senate. senate.

Author Location Dated

Yaqoob Khan Bhangash aqoob.bangash@keble.ox. 22.09.08
22.09.08
ac.uk

– The politics of names

Names of people, places and areas carry great evocative power and meaning. When
people give names to their children they take great care that an appropriate name
is chosen. Names also create a personality for themselves. For example, I once
heard someone explain to a stranger in Lahore that the name ‘Lahore’ was Punjabi
for ‘bring more,’ and as such it explained the relative prosperity of the city as
compared to the rest of the country. Lahore might be named after Loh, the son of
Rama, but for this person it was the land of plenty and its name exhibited the same.
In the last century as countries gained independence from colonial rule, names
gained currency as emblems of nationalistic pride. Hence, Rhodesia became
Zimbabwe, Bombay became Mumbai, and Burma became Myanmar. Pakistan too
went through a phase where names, especially street names, were changed
overnight to show the change of hands and nationalist sentiments. The politics of
renaming engulfed Pakistan in different phases. Some place and street names,
which were established by the British, were changed in the first decade after
independence. After that nothing much happened for a long time, till the
government of Zulifkar Ali Bhutto when there was a lot of urban reordering. Gone
was the statue of Empress Victoria which adorned Charing Cross in the centre of
Lahore, and even the jewel of the canal colonies, Lyallpur, was renamed Faisalabad
in a bid to please the Saudis. Bhutto also pulled Pakistan out of the Commonwealth
— a mistake which his daughter rectified 16 years later. Dictator Gen Ziaul Haq also
embarked upon name changing and in his free moments was quite glad to see that
street names in Lahore and Karachi now sounded a lot more Arab (and at times
unintelligible to the common man).

The case for these name changes was simple: the old rulers had left and so the new
ones had to change the names of places and streets to flaunt the new rulers. As
most decolonised countries were in the Third World, they had little to show in terms
of economic and social development in their first few decades of self-government to
demonstrate that their independence was worthwhile. Hence, the change of names
exhibited, in some ways, a ‘development’ of sorts — at least in nomenclature. The
more sinister reason for the change of names was (and is) the goal of rewriting
history. By changing names, some governments deliberately try to obliterate
chapters from their past. Therefore, in a generation or so, residents of Lahore might
hardly know that the vast green expanse in the middle of the city resembling Kew
Gardens was established in the memory of John Lawrence, the architect of modern
Punjab, and Jinnah, whose name it now bears, had nothing much to do with its
establishment or upkeep. Similarly, if in the future Frere Hall is renamed in Karachi,
few will remember in 50 years’ time who Frere was, and why a hall was erected in
his name. Hence through the renaming process, the work and person of many
illustrious people who spent their whole lives toiling in the subcontinent is edged
out. For some unexplainable reason, though, Lahore seems to have bucked the
trend of the largescale acceptance of name changes. As compared to other cities in
Pakistan, and even in India, where after about a decade or so the new name firmly
settled in, in Lahore hardly any new name has stuck. So if one comes to Lahore and
asks for ‘Faisal Chowk’ nearly every resident will give a blank look. However,
‘Charing Cross’ will get an immediate response. Similarly, ‘Sharah bin Badees’
might sound alien to most of Lahoris, but ‘Empress Road’ will immediately get one
directions. I am sure sociologists will have a better explanation for this
phenomenon, but for a historian like me, this exemplifies that in some embryonic
way the people of Lahore still want to retain some sense of history, and are rather
proud of their mixed heritage.

This sense of accepting and even being proud of one’s chequered history is what is
required in Pakistan. The people of Lahore, perhaps through their forgetfulness or
through their sense of history, are correct in their rejection of new and unrelated
name impositions. After all, there are enough new roads, parks, buildings and other
public constructions which can be named after national figures. And if there are not
enough, then we should create them! I am sure that the national heroes will be
more proud if their name is associated with a new project than as a rechristened
name of an old one. I am certain that Sir Mohammad Iqbal would be happy to see a
new medical college bearing his name, rather than King Edward Medical College
being renamed Allama Iqbal Medical College (as was the proposal some 30 years
ago, when a grant in reaction to the renaming project led to the founding of Allama
Iqbal Medical College). I began writing this article when Nawabshah was still
Nawabshah and as such kept alive the memory of the person in whose name it was
established. I was also going to applaud the current government for not renaming
random things in memory of Benazir. But I was wrong. Nawabshah has now become
Shaheed Benazir Bhutto district for no apparent reason. This is just a stunt for
public consumption and even in that it has brought about the expected mixed
results. Pakistan is an overpopulated country, and every day new housing projects,
colonies and even small towns are being established. So why not create a new
colony in the memory of Benazir Bhutto, say on the outskirts of Karachi, to alleviate
its overpopulation problems? The establishment of this new colony would not only
be beneficial for people, it would also allow for better town planning and thus better
facilities for its residents in the long term — something which Benzair Bhutto would
have very much liked to do. Benazir Bhutto was a very vibrant, modern and
forward-looking person and the petty political act of renaming a district with such a
distinct history in her memory actually does disservice to her legacy. Benazir Bhutto
should have a lot more things named after her, but let us create and develop new
and dynamic projects in her memory and not try to wash away the work of the past.
¦ The writer is a historian at Keble College, University of Oxford.
Oxford.

Author Location Dated

Zulqernain Tahir Lahore, Pakistan 22.09.08
22.09.08

– SBP asked to review decision to print Rs5 note

The State Bank of Pakistan has been asked to review its decision to print Rs5
currency notes as already a stock of 300 million coins of same denomination is
enough to meet the requirement of at least next nine years. The suggestion has
been part of a National Accountability Bureau’s preventive study of the Pakistan
Mint regarding the latter’s operational/production losses. NAB Chairman Naveed
Ahsen had formed a seven-member committee headed by its bureau’s Punjab chief
Major Shahnawaz Badar (retired). The committee, set up under section 33 (C) of
National Accountability Ordinance 1999, also had representation from the finance
ministry and the SBP. It has finalised its recommendations and submitted them to
the NAB chairman last week. According to the report, the SPB had a stock of over
300 million coins of Rs5 which was sufficient to meet its requirement for next nine
years. Besides this, a surplus stock of 212 tons of nickel worth over Rs300 million,
was lying in the Pakistan Mint since 2005 should be utilised for further
manufacturing of Rs5 and Rs10 coins. In case of no further utilisation, a board of
officers may be constituted under the supervision of finance ministry to sell out by
open-bidding the surplus 212 tons of nickel. “The
“The prolonged retention of this
extremely expensive metal may result in attempts of theft/pilferage,”
theft/pilferage,” the
committee observed. One Rs5 currency note costs the government Rs1.12 and a
coin of same denomination Rs3.71. The life of (Rs5) currency note is three to four
months while of the coin 30 years. The committee also suggests that the finance
ministry may order a high-level inquiry in coordination with the SBP into the
circumstances over procurement of raw material (nickel) resulting in accumulation
of Rs5 coins sufficient for next nine years and stockpile of 212 tons of nickel. “There
“There
is also a dire need to restructure and reorganise the Pakistan Mint by establishing
new sections like human resource, purchase, marketing, inspection, quality control,
and planning and control with qualified staff and its management may be
reorganised on corporate principles like Pakistan Security Printing Corporation,”
Corporation,” the
committee proposes.

It also suggests that a case may be initiated for up-gradation of existing grades of
employees and promotion policies be in line with Pakistan Ordnance Factory, Wah,
so that they are motivated and have incentive to rise in service. This will help
reduce the chances of corruption and corrupt practices amongst them. The NAB
committee says that regular training should be imparted to workers, staff and
officers and workforce be reduced by gradually phasing out surplus and inefficient
workers. It also proposes that old machinery should be scrapped and disposed of
and latest technology be introduced to upgrade the existing system. “Modern
“Modern
automatic plant with coin counting facility may be installed.”
installed.” It says that double
entry accounting system should be introduced and procurement be dealt with by
account officer (E) while account officer (F) be responsible for audit and payments.
Internal audit should be made effective and competent staff be inducted. The
Pakistan Mint must acquire its own weighing scale for inbound consignment of
metal. For procurement of metal and machinery, the rules and regulations specified
by PPRA should be followed in letter and spirit. The committee further proposes that
a member from the finance ministry should be part of the purchase committee
especially metal procurement in bulk to ensure adequate check. Besides, the
members of purchase/procurement committee should be rotated after regular
interval of time. The demand form metal should be proportionate to SBP’s indent for
coins. It proposes that SBP may evolve a policy of forecasting the projected
requirement of coins of different denominations for next 10 to 20 years. When
contacted, NAB’s Punjab investigations director Brig Farooq Hamid (retired), who
was also part of the committee, said: “These
“These recommendations, if implemented, will
go a long way in reviving the glory of this national asset which has been badly
neglected in the past.”
past.”

Author Location Dated

22.09.08
22.09.08

– Rupee down to record low against dollar

The country’s current account deficit widened by 64 per cent to $2.5 billion during
July-August of current fiscal year mainly due to slowdown in exports and rising trade
deficit, besides slow foreign inflows. Official statistics revealed that during July-
August of FY09 the country faced a current account deficit of $2.572 billion against
$1.571 billion during the corresponding period of last fiscal year. Increasing trade
deficit followed by slow growth in exports and high imports coupled with rising oil
and food import bill are the chief reasons for this raise in the current account deficit.
Trade deficit has surged by 67 per cent. At the same time, the country’s domestic
debt has shot up by Rs662.7 billion in FY08 against an increase of Rs279 billion in
FY07, depicting a rise of 137 per cent in 2008. With current upsurge, domestic debt
hit a new peak of Rs3.26 trillion in FY08 as compared to Rs2.60 trillion in FY07. The
country’s foreign exchange reserves have also fallen to $8.91 billion in the week
that ended on September 13.The State bank of Pakistan weekly report reveals that
the reserves held by the central bank declined to $5.5248 billion during the week.
Meanwhile, Pakistan GDP growth is expected to decrease to 4.5 per cent in the
current financial year against 5.8 per cent achieved in the last fiscal year, as the
country would continue to face the deteriorated state of economic fundamentals
and inflationary pressures. Economists have expressed deep concern over the
current state of the economy. The unprecedented increase in global oil and food
prices and domestic policy uncertainties in a turbulent political year have stressed
the economy. A slowdown in growth, buildup in inflation, wide fiscal and current
account deficits and a large drop in foreign reserves will continue to negatively
impact weaker rupee. The rupee has already weakened by 20 per cent against the
dollar in the local currency market over the past nine months. Steep decline in the
rupee value has taken place in the past two weeks. The rupee has depreciated by
7.5 per cent against the dollar in the past 15 days.

In the local currency market, the downtrend in the rupee/dollar parity persisted this
week. The rupee commenced the week on dismal note as it continued its falling
trend against the dollar in the inter bank market, where it suffered fresh losses over
previous week close of Rs76.45 and Rs76.55. It sharply shed 17 paisa on buying
counter and 15 paisa on selling counter importers demand for dollar continued to
exert downward pressure forcing the rupee to trade at Rs76.62 and Rs76.65 against
the dollar on September 15. On September 16, the rupee touched Rs 77 mark
against the dollar in the inter bank market on sharp increase in dollar demand. At
day close, the dollar was at Rs76.95 and Rs77 after losing 33 paisa on buying and
35 paisa on selling. On September 17, the rupee crossed Rs 77 mark against the
dollar and was seen heading to touch Rs 78 mark before closing the day at Rs77.30
and Rs77.55 after shedding 35 paisa on the buying counter and 40 paisa on the
selling counter. Tight dollar supplies on September 18 exerted further pressure on
the rupee. The rupee fell by another 40 paisa on the buying counter and 35 paisa on
the selling counter and traded against the dollar at Rs77.70 and Rs77.75. On
September 19, short dollars supplies dragged the rupee down to record lows
against the US currency. The rupee during the day posted fresh losses of 20 paisa
on the buying counter and 25 paisa on the selling counter and traded at Rs77.90
and Rs78. Continued down slid in the rupee value in relation to dollar in the
interbank market this week has resulted in cumulative loss of 145 paisa.

In the open market, the rupee commenced the week with mixed sentiments versus
the American currency. While it remained unchanged at its weekend’s level on the
buying counter it continued its slide on the selling counter, shedding 10 paisa to
trade at Rs76.50 and R 76.90 on September 15. Last week, the parity had closed at
Rs76.50 and Rs76.80. The downward trend in the rupee/dollar parity persisted on
the second trading day, as the rupee extended its overnight losses versus the dollar
and shed 20 paisa for buying and 10 paisa for selling to change hands at Rs 76.70
and Rs77 on September 16. On September 17, the rupee continued to weaken
against dollar. It posted fresh losses of 30 paisa and traded at Rs77.00 and Rs77.30.
The falling trend persisted on September 18, when the rupee further lost 20 paisa,
changing hands versus the dollar at Rs77.20 and Rs77.50. Finally the rupee ended
the week on September 19, trading against the dollar at Rs77.70 and Rs78 after
shedding 50 paisa more over its overnight levels. During the week in review, the
rupee in the open market lost 120 paisa against the dollar. Versus European single
common currency, the rupee continued its slide on the opening day of the week,
posting fresh losses of Rs1.40 on September 15, changing hands at Rs109.90 and
Rs110.05 compared to its previous week close of Rs108.50 and Rs108.70. However,
the rupee managed to recover Rs1.30 in a sharp turnaround on the second trading
day. The euro traded at 108.60 and Rs108.75 on September 16. On September 17,
the rupee traded both ways against the euro, further gaining 10 paisa on the buying
counter but shedding 25 paisa on the selling counter. As a result, euro traded at
Rs108.50 and Rs109.30 on the day. On September 18, the rupee suffered sharp
losses against the euro as it shed Rs1.90 on the buying counter and Rs1.20 on the
selling counter to trade at Rs110.40 and Rs110.55. At the close of the week,
however, the rupee posted a sharp turnaround against the European single
common currency as it managed to gain 95 paisa on buying counter and 75 paisa
on selling counter, changing hands at Rs109.45 and Rs109.65 on September 19. As
a result of last day’s reversal, cumulative loss in rupee value against the euro
restricted to 95 paisa this week.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood Washington/New York 23.09.08
23.09.08
Haider

– Bush-Asif meeting ‘very important’, says White House

The White House said on Monday that President George W. Bush’s meeting with his
Pakistani counterpart was very important. “Obviously,
“Obviously, this meeting with President
Asif Ali Zardari is very important. It’s his first meeting with the new president. We
have extensive coordination and cooperation that is ongoing with Pakistan, and for
good reason,”
reason,” White House Press Secretary Dana Perino told a briefing in
Washington. “And
“And the terrorists showed again this weekend why we need to make
sure that we are helping train up their forces, that we are sharing information, and
that we can work together to try to protect innocent people.”
people.” Ms Perino said the
terrorists were trying to kill innocent people to advance their political objectives.
The United States, she said, will remain committed to working with Pakistan, while
President Asif Ali Zardari too wants to work with the US. “So “So I think we’ll have a
good meeting,”
meeting,” she added. When reminded that President Zardari said in an
interview to an American TV channel earlier on Monday that if US troops cross
Pakistan’s borders, they’re going to be escorted out, Ms Perino offered no
comments. She, however, said that an earlier report that Pakistani troops had fired
at US helicopters on Monday were incorrect. “I “I question that report, and I would
refer you to the Department of Defence for the veracity of that report, because that
has been debunked by the department,”
department,” she said. “I “I would caution you to be
sceptical of some of these claims.”
claims.” She recalled that when President Zardari was
elected, he said he understood the serious situation Pakistan was in. He also
acknowledged that innocent people in America, in the West, and in Pakistan itself
were at risk because of the terrorists. “They
“They know that they need to do more and do
a better job, and that we’re going to be there to support them,”them,” said the White
House official. “But
“But we also recognise their sovereignty. And that is why the
coordination and cooperation”
cooperation” between the two countries. Ms Perino said the
cooperation extended beyond the border region and between the two militaries. It’s
also between “our
“our services like our intelligence services, our military, and also our
law enforcement services — (who) are working closely with them to try to prevent
attacks (and) also to investigate attacks after they occur.”
occur.”

Mr Zardari meets President Bush on Tuesday. The 30-minute meeting is expected to

focus on terrorism. Mr Zardari holds his first meeting on Monday with a deputy
secretary of the US Treasury and will later attend a reception President Bush is
holding for the heads of governments and states attending the UN General
Assembly. On Tuesday, Mr Zardari also meets French President Nicolas Sarkozy. He
meets Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Afghan President Hamid Karzai
on Wednesday. At the State Department, however, the war on terror and Saturday’s
blast dominated the briefing. Hot pursuit ruled out President Zardari declared on
Monday that Pakistan would stand shoulder to shoulder with the world and “fight
the terrorists”. At the same time, he reiterated that Pakistan would not allow “hot
pursuit” inside Pakistan by the US forces. “I“I want the world to understand that this
is a signal from the terrorists. They are challenging this democracy of Pakistan.
They are challenging the people of Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Mr Zardari said in an interview with
NBC news “Today” morning show. This was President Zardari’s first interview with
an American TV network since the Sept 20 bombing of Marriott Hotel in Islamabad.
“We will catch the terrorists, give us the information we will do the job,”
job,” he said
when asked whether Pakistan would allow American forces to enter Pakistan in hot
pursuit of suspected terrorists. “They
“They are challenging the world. And we are there to
stand shoulder-to-shoulder with the world, looking the terrorists in the eye. And we
will fight them. “We will not allow anyone inside our own border, it’s violation of the
UN Charter”
Charter” he said when the interviewer pointed out that American soldiers who
were in hot pursuit of terrorists were crossing into Pakistan. President Zardari
arrived in New York in the afternoon heading a delegation to the 63 session of the
United Nations General Assembly. Mr Zardari is also expected to hold meetings with
many world leaders on the sidelines of the UN session, including Prime Minister Wen
Jiabao of China, President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad of Iran, Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh of India, President of France Nicolas Sarkozy, President of Turkey Abdullah
Gul, President of Brazil Luiz Ino Lula da Silva and President of Afghanistan Hamid
Karzai.

Author Location Dated

Mohammed Waseem 23.09.08
23.09.08

– Settling down to rule

The Zardari-Gilani government is settling down for what is a five-year term of rule
by public representatives. The detractors are many and scepticism is legion.
Doomsday scenarios regularly appear in the press, especially concerning civil-
military relations. But, all indicators are that the original constitutional nature of the
state is destined to bounce back after the adventurism and dictatorial and arbitrary
rule of Musharraf for nearly a decade. More than anything else, the transition from
Musharraf to Zardari is symptomatic of the transition from military to civilian rule.
Does it mean that the dark shadows of Bonapartism have disappeared from the
horizon? One can hope that what often turns out to be an unpalatable reality for the
state elite becomes a permanent feature in Pakistan, in the form of democracy. It is
fashionable among the articulate sections of the population to project that the
failures of governance are failures of democracy. The deficit of performance, which
the present ruling set-up inherited from its predecessor, is a big challenge.
Musharraf simply waited too long to resign and allowed public life to sink beyond
reasonable limits. For long, international diplomacy was hooked on to a profile of
Pakistan which was unenviable. The world is accustomed to looking at this country
in dichotomous terms vis-à-vis its eastern neighbour — a military state in Pakistan
versus democracy in India. What happened in 2008 in Pakistan in the context of
parliamentary elections soon followed by presidential elections represents a shift in
the political initiative from non-representative to representative institutions, and
hopefully leading to a change of profile.

The middle class, which traditionally served as the support base for non-
representative rule both military and civilian, is gradually moving away from
political conservatism to democratic goals and means. Civil society, in line with the
media, has contributed to the cause of democracy in a qualitative sense. The
classical mould of the state of mind in the middle class is changing thanks to the
media explosion and emergence of a network society. There was all the likelihood
that the new set-up would have remained vulnerable to the vicissitudes of an
adventurist presidency. However, potential for conflict between the two highest
positions in the politico-administrative hierarchy represented by the president and
the prime minister has been removed after the presidential election. Political
stability, which shunned Pakistan from March 2007 onwards for more than a year, is
expected to return. Is Bonapartism down and out? Musharraf put or kept in jail
President Asif Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani among others for years
on end in the tradition of medieval kings. He turned the law into a petty instrument
of personal rule. All this led to a playing field that was not level for electoral and
constitutional purposes. And yet one hears the call for indemnity for his misrule
spread over nine years. How can the nation safeguard democracy in the face of the
challenges emanating from powerful elements in society? What is needed is to
cultivate the constitutional source of legitimacy in the form of mass mandate over
and above all other forms of legitimacy. The message needs to be internalised by all
those who operate from outside parliamentary politics. A move backwards to the
age of nonrepresentative rule cannot and should not be allowed ever again. The
progressive character of the present dispensation will come out fully only when the
erstwhile concentration of power in the hands of the state elite moves away from it
in favour of the smaller provinces. President Zardari’s elections was indeed a
projection of the project of setting the disproportionate distribution of power right
by Balochistan, the NWFP and Sindh reflecting their position as equal federating
units of Pakistan. One hopes that their representation in the corridors of power will
increase incrementally and reasonably, if not radically and massively. Can Pakistan
move away from state-centred policy frameworks and ideological trends in the
direction of society-oriented means and goals under the present ruling set-up? Can
the government address the issues close to the heart of the public in various parts
of the country? These issues range from gas and electricity revenues for
Balochistan and the NWFP respectively and the allocation of resources to various
provinces taking into account factors other than mere demography.

The PPP-led government at the centre has now consolidated itself and thus
established ‘entrance legitimacy’. It faces the next challenge in the form of
‘performance legitimacy’. Never before has the public been so aware of political,
economic and security issues as now, thanks to the activism of the print and
electronic media for half a decade. The PPP government faces an uphill task in
terms of addressing issues relating to the inflationary spiral and the much-feared
economic meltdown. What is required is the qualitative input of the best available
talent in the country in the formulation of policy and the allocation of resources. The
ruling set-up very much needs to cultivate its profile as a government by policy not
patronage. It needs to develop the potential to swim through contradictory currents
of agenda in the war against terror on the one hand and the political and religious
sensitivities of the public on the other. While the formal transition from military to
civilian rule is complete, the government needs to address substantive issues
relating to the bar and the bench and the Seventeenth Amendment. The election of
the leader of opposition in the National Assembly as chairman of the public
accounts committee is a strong indicator that the mainstream players on the
political stage are laying out the ground rules of the game in a spirit of commitment
to make democracy work. One can hope that given a solid parliamentary support
base, the backing of smaller provinces and non-hostile relations with its erstwhile
ally the PML-N, the PPP government will be able to fulfill its mandate.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Karachi, Pakistan 23.09.08
23.09.08

– Rupee hits new low vs dollar

The rupee traded at record lows on Monday following a suicide attack that killed 53
people in the capital on Saturday and dealers said the outlook was bleak due to
economic and security worries. Dealers said tension between Pakistan and the
United States over military action against militants on Pakistani territory added to
concerns. Dealers said the rupee was traded at Rs78.55 to the dollar and closed at
Rs78.21/28. It closed at Rs78.15/25 on Saturday. “Saturday’s
“Saturday’s incident has
reinforced people’s views which have been negative for a while,”
while,” said a currency
dealer referring to the Islamabad bombing. Dealers also said the market was short
of dollars because of the central bank’s buy/swap operations. The central bank has
been buying dollars in the ready market with a simultaneous commitment to sell
them back in future, they said. “Dollar
“Dollar outflows are giving us a huge bleeding,”
bleeding,” said
the currency dealer. The outlook for the currency was bleak with inflation at more
than 25 per cent, a widening current account deficit and depleting foreign reserves,
dealers said. The rupee has lost 21.2 per cent against the dollar this year. Dealers
said the current account and trade deficit numbers for August were alarming and
should lead to calls for action from regulators and policy-makers for emergency
funding, curtailing imports and restoring confidence.

Author Location Dated

Jason Szep Manchester, New 23.09.08
23.09.08
Hampshire

– Obama, McCain vie for New Hampshire votes

The “DinahMite
“DinahMite Bursting Breakfast”
Breakfast” is popular at the Red Arrow Diner in New
Hampshire’s largest city, but politics is also on the menu in the state that could help
decide who wins the US presidency. “People
“People are always talking about politics and
who is supporting who – I would say it’s now a nearly even 50-50 split between
Republicans and Democrats,”
Democrats,” said Roy Donohue, general manager at the all-night
eatery tucked away on a side street in Manchester, a city of 107,200 people.
Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama are fiercely courting New
Hampshire’s famously independent voters as shifting political allegiances in the
state make it one of several toss-ups in the tight Nov 4 election. President George
W. Bush won the Granite State in 2000 by a narrow 7,000 votes. In 2004, Democrat
John Kerry carried the state by just 9,000 votes but lost the general election. While
only four electoral votes are at stake, the close fight for the 270 electoral votes
needed to win the White House makes New Hampshire and other “swing” states
such as Virginia, Nevada and Colorado critical to both Obama and McCain. “Unless
“Unless
something changes very radically, it will probably be very close again in New
Hampshire,”
Hampshire,” said Ray Buckley, chairman of the state’s Democratic Party.

McCain, who attended a NASCAR race in Manchester a week ago, enjoys several
advantages in New Hampshire. The mountainous state often defies liberal New
England stereotypes. It has prohibitions on income and sales taxes and a proud
libertarian streak expressed in the motto “Live Free or Die.” The Arizona senator’s
“maverick” persona goes down well in the state of 1.3 million people, which
supported Republicans in every presidential election from the mid-1960s until 1992
and helped to launch McCain’s White House aspirations. McCain came from behind
twice to win New Hampshire’s Republican presidential nominating primary in 2000
and 2008. Obama lost his New Hampshire primary bid. Andrew Smith, director of
the University of New Hampshire’s Survey Center, said McCain appeals to the
distinctly north-eastern brand of Rockefeller Republicanism, named after former
Vice President Nelson Rockefeller and espoused by fiscal conservatives with
moderate views on social issues like abortion. “There’s
“There’s no question that it is a toss
up,”
up,” said Fergus Cullen, chairman of the state’s Republican Party. “But
“But McCain has
a special relationship with New Hampshire voters, especially with the independents
here who drove both of his primary wins in 2000 and 2008,”
2008,” he said. An average of
polls by the website RealClearPolitics showed Obama leading McCain in the state by
48.0 to 44.7 per cent. Buckley of the state’s Democratic Party said he expects
Bush’s unpopularity and the state’s shifting demographics to help Obama, who
campaigned in New Hampshire a week ago.

In 2000, Republicans and Democrats each made up about 38 per cent of the
electorate. Six years later, Democrats expanded to 43 per cent and Republicans
shrank to 31 per cent with both parties chasing independent votes that can swing
an election. Democrats say New Hampshire is moving politically and socially closer
to its New England neighbours, citing its support of same-sex civil unions in 2007, a
popular Democratic governor and the Democrats’ first sweep of the state legislature
in 132 years in 2006. “We’re
“We’re very optimistic,”
optimistic,” said Buckley, adding the pick of
firstterm Alaska Gov Sarah Palin as McCain’s No 2 could hurt his standing with New
Hampshire’s many moderate Republicans because of her conservative views,
including opposition to abortion even in cases of rape and incest. Obama’s New
Hampshire campaign spokeswoman Sandra Abrevaya sees McCain’s opposition to
abortion rights and Obama’s support for them as a crucial issue in the state along
with the economy and pocketbook issues such as rising heating oil costs. McCain’s
New Hampshire campaign manager, Jim Barnett, said he expects McCain’s maverick
image as a tax-cutter and crusader against wasteful spending to resonate with
voters. “New
“New Hampshire is largely going to be a replay of what happened in 2000
and 2004 with somebody winning by a percentage point,”
point,” said Smith at the
University of New Hampshire.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal New York 24.09.08
24.09.08

– Bush skirts around issue of sovereignty

Presidents George W. Bush and Asif Ali Zardari on Tuesday showed a keen
awareness of the sensitivities of the Pakistani people and avoided using words and
terms that could have had a negative impact on the people. The US president while
talking about the issue of militancy avoided using the terms “war on terror”
although his meeting with Mr Zardari focussed on joint efforts to fight insurgency in
Fata. Mr Bush also noted Mr Zardari’s concerns at the violation of Pakistan’s
sovereignty by US forces but made no commitment. “Your“Your words have been very
strong about Pakistan’s sovereign right and sovereign duty to protect your country,
and the United States wants to help,”
help,” said Mr Bush while addressing the Pakistani
president sitting next to him. Instead of the war on terror, Mr Bush chose to stress
US economic assistance to Pakistan, offering to “help spread prosperity” in that
country. “We
“We want our friends around the world to be making a good living. We
want there to be economic prosperity and we can work together,”
together,” he said. And then
he quietly reminded the media that Mr Zardari and he would also be talking about
“security” issues. Both leaders appeared comfortable in each other’s presence. Mr
Bush smiled broadly as he spoke about his country’s relations with Pakistan. “After“After
all, Pakistan is a close and important friend,”
friend,” said the US leader while expressing his
“deepest condolences” for the victims of Saturday’s deadly blast in Islamabad. “I “I
know that your heart went out to the families of those who suffer and so does the
collective heart of the American people,”
people,” said Mr Bush while turning towards Mr
Zardari. “We
“We stand with you.”
you.” He then spoke of his meeting with Mr Zardari’s
children at the Beijing Olympics, saying: “I “I got to know you a little bit in an
interesting way when I met your children at the Olympics.”
Olympics.” The meeting with the
children, he said, reminded him of the great suffering that the Pakistani president
had been through with the loss of his wife. “And“And I thank you very much for staying
involved in public service to honour her legacy,”
legacy,” said Mr Bush. “Pakistan
“Pakistan is an ally,
and I look forward to deepening our relationship.”
relationship.” The US president then turned to a
subject not directly related to Pakistan but is a major issue in the US: a package to
deal with the current economic crisis.

President Zardari’s response to Mr Bush’s remarks was brief and formal but he was
generous in praising the US leader’s continued support for Pakistan. “As“As always,
you prove to the world that your heart is in there for us Pakistanis,”
Pakistanis,” he said. “We
“We
respect your feelings, we respect the American ideals. And we bring to this the
whole concept of your promise to the world of bringing democracy to Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”
Democracy, he said, had “come full circle” in Pakistan with the help of all the
friends around the world and the Pakistani nation was thankful to the world for this
help. “Democracy
“Democracy is the answer. We will solve all the problems. We have a
situation. We have issues. We’ve got problems. But we will solve them and we will
rise to the occasion,”
occasion,” said President Zardari. “That’s
“That’s what my wife’s legacy is all
about. That’s what democracy is all about.”
about .” Democracy, he said, was about taking
difficult decisions and doing the right thing for the people of Pakistan and to ‘our
two great nations’. “We
“We should come together in this hard time and we will share
the burden and the responsibility with the world.”
world.”

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 24.09.08
24.09.08

– A tale of three speeches

The day Asif Zardari was supposed to make one speech, he ended up making three.
Well, he only meant to make two, but he made three. This isn’t statecraft; it’s the
blind leading the lame leading the deaf. The ‘second speech’ fiasco is being blamed
on that political appointee at PTV, Shahid Masood. Here’s some advice for Zardari:
fire him. And the others too. I’m sure all the people working at PTV, the information
ministry and in the president’s media team are nice people. I have no doubt they
have families to support and unemployment in these tough economic times is
nothing to sneeze at. But good, decent people can also be rubbish at their jobs. The
media team surrounding Zardari has a simple task: make the president look
presidential. Think Jinnah, not a Disney cartoon. The only reason Zardari got in front
of a camera in the middle of the night was to reassure a frightened public that he
has a steady hand at a time of crisis. His unsteady gaze and fumbling for words
probably frightened the people a little more — this is the man in charge of our fate
and security? The main show — the speech before the constellation of Pakistani and
foreign elite — was botched too. I sat, pen in hand, ready to learn about Zardari’s
plan for saving us. By the end of it, I wasn’t the only one wondering who will save us
from Zardari. Forget his halting, fumbling delivery and his poor English — that’s just
red meat for the snickering patricians amongst us. It matters little in which
language he speaks and how he chooses to phrase himself, if — if — he is saying
the right things. But he didn’t.

Give him a break, the jiyalas cry. He’s learning on the job. Well, I’m sorry. Since
when did supporting Team Democracy mean you have to support Team PPP?
Especially if Team PPP is running the place into the ground? If Zardari isn’t ready for
statesmanship, why must an orphaned country wait for him to grow into his job? He
is only president because he wanted to be. And the same goes for the PPP co-
chairmanship. It may rankle that the PPP is, in the memorable phrase of Tariq Ali, a
“family heirloom”. But that’s our politics, so we can’t get stuck up over it. Now that
Zardari has exercised his right to become leader though, it is our right to expect
leadership from him. Bizarrely, some in the news media have argued that Zardari’s
speech in parliament was presidential and that if he had given detailed policies he
would have been criticised for eviscerating parliament. Rubbish. The circularity of
power at the top of the civilian government is lost on nobody. Zardari is the PPP co-
chairman. Forget the de facto configuration of power, it is factually his government.
Were he to give up the co-chairmanship and strip himself of the powers inimical to
parliamentary democracy, it would make sense to make a show of separating the
presidency from parliament. But he hasn’t. The country needed policy. Asif Zardari
could have made everyone happy by simply prefacing every policy statement with,
“My government has instructed me to say....”
say....” But we got nothing.

Zardari thundered that he wouldn’t let anyone violate our sovereignty. When Kayani
said the same, the realists exchanged knowing glances. The general was pandering
to the gallery — playing to a nationalist audience. It was red meat for the people,
and the people loved it. The general was playing politics. It’s what Zardari should
have done weeks ago. But in politics what’s fresh yesterday is stale today. A week is
a long time in politics. Parroting Kayani’s line 10 days after the general surprised
the world was pitiful. It’s a bit silly to talk about inviolable sovereignty when missiles
have been raining down on Waziristan for weeks, isn’t it? Tell us instead what you’re
going to do about missiles — and terrorism. Especially when you’re about to fly off
to the UN to hobnob with the world’s elite. The Marriott carnage underlined the
deadly seriousness of the terrorists. Some still don’t get it. A hack was on TV saying
Pakistanis would rather eat onions than lose their self-respect, which American
missiles are presumably devouring. This would no doubt be news to all those
Pakistanis crying out about inflation. All this talk of our war or America’s war is
beside the point. Zahid Hussain has said it best: it is an internal war. Like it or not,
we have to fight it — because those fighting the Americans are killing us. And if we
don’t kill the terrorists first, the Americans will kill the lot of us. You want to win the
war against the terrorists, defeat those who killed Benazir Bhutto and hundreds of
Pakistanis, and rein in our shadowy agencies? Win over the people. All this talk of
not violating our sovereignty and being our war is only violating our eardrums. Tell
Pakistanis who we are fighting in Bajaur and why. Explain who the terrorists in
Waziristan are. Unmask the sectarian hatemongers in Khyber and Kurram. Use
graphs and videos and numbers and pictures to expose the ugliness and hate that
is spreading amongst us. The shadowy elements in the state apparatus will strike
back. But they are no longer the real terror — the terrorists they have long since
lost control of are. And squeeze the Americans for more aid. The Americans have
given us a few hundred million to upgrade our F-16s. With great fanfare, they have
also given us 11,000 tons of wheat. Some perspective: our annual wheat
requirement is 23 million tons; we are importing two and a half million tons. This is
a joke. Get something meaningful from the US. Bring the country money. Bring it
fuel. Bring it a plan. Help the poor. Do something. Anything. Husain Haqqani and
Mahmud Durrani owe their jobs to the fact that the Americans trust them — but
what use is that trust if it earns us nothing? ‘Us’ being regular Pakistanis, not the
PPP elite or the establishment. By now Zardari’s plan has revealed itself and it is
wretchedly familiar: the consolidation of power. The trenches are being dug in
Punjab rather than Waziristan. If someone dares, he should whisper into his ear:
what’s the point of consolidating power if you’ll end up presiding over the burned-
out shell of a country?

Author Location Dated

Gary Younge Richmond 24.09.08
24.09.08

– Battle for the White House rages in the south

From his office in the former capital of the confederacy, the mayor of Richmond,
Doug Wilder, is relishing Virginia’s moment in the presidential sun. On that very
morning Barack Obama was campaigning in the military town of Norfolk in the
south-east of the state while the Republican hopeful, John McCain, appeared with
Sarah Palin in front of the biggest crowd he had yet seen in Fairfax, to the north.
Two candidates on the same day in a state not seriously contested for the
presidency in 44 years; Wilder, the state’s former Democratic governor, does the
maths and smiles. “John
“John McCain is here now,”
now,” he says. “You
“You know why? Because he
has to campaign in Virginia. He can’t take it for granted.”
granted.” With its 13 electoral
college votes Virginia is a weighty addition to the battleground states – roughly the
equivalent of winning New Hampshire, Nevada and New Mexico together. It could
not be closer. Of the last six polls both Obama and McCain have led in three each.
To the south North Carolina is also shaping up to be a tight race. No Democrat has
won there for 32 years and Bush took the state four years ago by 12 points. Obama
has 31 offices in the state and the latest poll shows a tie. “I
“I see a crack in the solid
South,”
South,” says Wilder, the first African American to be elected as a state governor. “I “I
see a crack. And the fissure is taking place right here in Virginia ... to be considered
a toss-up state this close to the election is amazing. We might influence North
Carolina or Georgia. If we get either one of the states it’s big.”
big.” So far this fissure has
failed to turn into a full-blown chasm. Polls in the summer showed Obama to be
competitive in Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and Tennessee while holding narrow
leads in South Carolina and Arkansas. Democrats recorded stunning by-election
wins in Mississippi and Louisiana, prompting Time to run a cover proclaiming “The “The
End of the South”.
South”. But predictions of a full-scale remoulding of the region’s electoral
map have not been borne out. Obama pulled most of his staff and almost all of his
advertising from Georgia a few weeks ago. Now he is focusing on North Carolina
and Virginia.

The McCain campaign has belittled these efforts as arrogance subsidised by deep
pockets. They refused to counter Democrat efforts in Georgia, figuring that if they
struggled there then the jig would be up everywhere. They dismiss Obama’s
campaigning in North Carolina as wishful thinking. “It’s “It’s just one more state where
the Obama campaign has allowed its hubris to dictate spending decisions,” decisions,” Steve
Schmidt, McCain’s chief strategist, told the Associated Press. “Soon “Soon you will see the
Obama camp withdraw from North Carolina like you have seen them withdraw from
other states.”
states.” For all their affected nonchalance Republicans are spending almost as
much money in North Carolina as the Democrats. “North “North Carolina is teetering on
the edge of being a swing state,”
state ,” said Ferrel Guillory, a political scientist at the
University of North Carolina. “If“If the Democrats continue to emphasise it and
continue to advertise there they could keep it in play. But keeping it in play just
means it’s competitive. It doesn’t mean they’re going to win.” win.” Even this is no mean
feat. Obama has poured in considerable resources here, flooding the area with ads,
registering young and black voters at unprecedented rates and galvanising
volunteers. Within 50km of Raleigh on September 22, there were seven Obama
events, involving canvassing, voter registration and phone banking. Obama was in
Charlotte on Sunday; his wife, Michelle, was in the state on Thursday. McCain has
not visited the state in months, his campaign has just 13 offices and nothing
planned for Monday. “You“You just don’t see the McCain people anywhere,”
anywhere,” says Betsy
Muse, a frontpage blogger for the liberal site BlueNC and an Obama volunteer.

Back in Richmond volunteers turn up at Broad Rock Library on many a weeknight, to

collect campaign materials to go canvassing and registering. Obama has been
hoping that this ground game of person-to-person contact will counter the
Republican machine. The voter registration drives seem to be paying off. Virginia
has seen more than 250,000 more voters registered since January. Most of this rise
has taken place in Democratic counties. In North Carolina Democratic registration
has leaped seven per cent while Republicans have risen one per cent. The young
and the black are over-represented in the increases. Registering young and black
voters is one thing. Getting them to the polls is another. This is one reason why the
polls have been particularly unreliable. Another reason is that it is difficult to know
whether all voters are telling the truth. “The
“The Bubba vote is there,”
there,” former
Republican House majority leader Dick Armey told USA Today recently. “And “And it’s
very real ... there’s an awful lot of people in America, bless their heart, who simply
are not emotionally prepared to vote for a black man.”man.” Armey says those voters are
“invisible” in the polls because they would not admit they opposed Obama because
of his race. “I
“I really want to say it’s not going to play a big role,”
role,” said Muse. “But
“But it
is.”
is.” Given how central race has been to the political realignment in the region it’s
hard to see how it could not. Until the 60s the South was the most reliable
Democratic area in the country – but Southern Democrats were the most forceful
supporters of racial segregation. As the civil rights movement emerged the
Republicans sensed an opportunity. In 1961 Barry Goldwater launched the
Republican “Southern strategy” in Atlanta. “We’re
“We’re not going to get the Negro vote
as a bloc in 1964,”
1964 ,” he declared, “so
“ so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
are.”
The party made an explicit appeal to white racism. When the then Democratic
president Lyndon Johnson signed the 1964 civil rights act he said: “We
“We have lost the
South for a generation.”
generation.”

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 24.09.08
24.09.08

– The power of ‘please’

Most middle-class Brits adopt a peculiar, roundabout way of asking hired help to do
something for them. This circumlocution does little to aid clear communication. The
other day, as we were driving off for a walk in the hills near Devizes, the lady wife
said to the guy who comes once a week to sort out the garden: “Graham,“Graham, if you are
in the mood to do a little cutting, I’m tired of driving off with bits of this bush.”
bush.” She
was referring to branches of an overgrown shrub that were intruding in the parking
space, and kept getting caught in the car door.When we returned, Graham had
gone, and the offending plant was exactly as we had left it. I pointed out to the lady
wife that even by her standard, she had made her meaning completely obscure. I
have heard this sort of thing repeated time and again: in a restaurant, a
straightforward request is prefaced by a string of barely comprehensible
expressions, such as “I “I wonder if I could possibly ask you to please get me a glass
of water when you have a minute…”
minute…” When we are in Sri Lanka, this creates even
more problems, and I am asked to re-phrase the request. Actually, when we are
there, I encounter another kind of problem. Naturally, locals assume I’m one of
them and start addressing me in Sinhalese, forcing me to explain where I am from,
and why I cannot follow them in their language. However, after a couple of days
there, the lady wife starts making the same assumption, and asks me to translate
for her. I have to remind her patiently that I have not yet mastered Sinhalese.
Actually, this little exchange takes place each time we are in Sri Lanka as the
waiters and shop assistants simply do not under stand her meandering requests,
and I am called in to cut through the clouds of oblique waffle. As she goes through
her practised routine, I can see the hired help’s eyes glaze over until I say: “My“My wife
would like a glass of water, please.”
please.” But I would rather have this wellmeaning, if
confusing, form of politeness than the rudeness so often on display in Pakistan.

My blood boils when I hear an eight-year-old yelling to grown-up servants to fetch

him something instead of getting it himself. In restaurants, the over-bearing manner
in which waiters are often addressed makes me cringe. Friends insist that they get
better service and food when they eat out with me in Karachi than when they are on
their own. They put this down to the fact that I occasionally review restaurants, and
managers and waiters therefore try to curry favour with me. The truth is far more
prosaic: I take the trouble to remember the names of people who serve me at my
regular haunts, and I am pleasant to them. Indeed, I make it a point to consult
them, and generally involve them in ordering the meal, asking them what dish they
would recommend that day. It costs me nothing, and a little respect ensures my
friends and me attentive service, and hopefully, good food. In our part of the world,
so many of us take servants for granted that we often forget they have feelings,
too. Unfortunately, far too many employers treat them like slaves. I hear very few
people say ‘please’ or ‘thank you’ to staff. And all too often, they carry these bad
habits when they travel abroad. I have been asked obliquely by English friends who
spend time with visitors from our part of the world why they don’t make requests
more politely. This kind of muted complaint is even more embarrassing when made
by somebody close to me. A couple of years ago, my step-daughter Tabitha and her
sixteen-year-old friends were making some extra pocket money by waiting on
tables during the Henley Boat Race week. This is one of the premier sporting and
social events of the summer, and caterers set up large marquees by the river and
serve elaborate meals. Kids pick up large tips to finance their summer vacations,
and often, well-heeled diners are waited on by their children’s friends. On returning
from her waitressing stint, Tabitha complained bitterly about a large group of desis
who had been very stingy about the tip after making many demands during the
meal. “Must
“Must have been Indians or Bangladeshis,”
Bangladeshis,” I said defensively. But I knew it
could easily have been a group of Pakistanis.

The sad fact is that we are so accustomed to armies of servants that we just do not
value them enough. Indeed, people in our part of the world take out their
insecurities and frustrations on those lower than them in the pecking order. And
because they have so few options, servants take this kind of rude behaviour. Not so
in the West. I remember when we were in Paris as kids, my mother spanked my
younger brother for something or the other. Our Hungarian cleaning lady said she
would report my mother to the police if she ever saw her hitting one of us again!
Although I have no empirical evidence to back this up, I do think we in South Asia
tend to be less sensitive to our staff’s feelings than other people. Years ago, my
father was based in Somalia when it was still a liveable place, and when he returned
from work, his driver would come in, sit in the living room for a few minutes, have a
glass of water, exchange pleasantries with us before leaving. Mr Mahadashti was
my father’s driver in Tehran a few years later. Always immaculately dressed in a
suit, his smiling, avuncular figure was in and out of the house, as though he were a
family member. So what is it about the subcontinent that makes us so foul to our
help? In the old days, servants were part of the family, and I am glad that my
parents have taught us to be courteous and respectful to them in our home. But all
too often, contemporaries forget the most common courtesies when dealing with
hired help, whether at work or at home. I’d just like to remind them that it costs
nothing to say ‘please’ and ‘thank you’.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood New York 25.09.08
25.09.08
Haider

– We’re in a state of war: Asif

President Asif Ali Zardari urged the nation on Wednesday to realise that it was in a
state of war and underscored the need to prepare a new plan to deal with it. “We“We
have to increase the appetite for the acceptance of (the fact) that we are in a state
of war,”
war,” he said. “We
“We cannot wish it away.”
away.” At his first news conference in New
York, Mr Zardari outlined the policies his government intends to pursue on major
foreign policy issues. On Kashmir, he indicated, it would be a continuation of the
Musharraf regime’s policy of holding direct talks with India. The United Nations will
be involved only if needed to do so. On Pakistan’s role in the US-led on war on
terror, Mr Zardari expressed a desire that US military incursions into Fata should be
stopped, but apparently he received no assurance from the Americans in that
regard. Mr Zardari also spoke of his plan to discuss the water crisis with India. He
was open to discussing with the Afghans a proposal for forming a joint force for
patrolling the Afghan border. He felt that the Marriott blast in Islamabad on
Saturday was directed against him. Mr Zardari also discussed the water crisis when
he met Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh later on Wednesday. He said he had
also discussed the issue with other world leaders as it was a major concern for
Pakistan. In his meeting with President Hamid Karzai, Mr Zardari discussed his
government’s desire for building a new relationship with the neighbouring country.
“We intend to open a new chapter”
chapter” based on mutual respect and cooperation, he
said. “We
“We have not been able to convey the impact to our people and the nation,”
nation,”
said Mr Zardari wile talking about the need to prepare the people for the war. “Can“Can
we sustain the engagement without involving the people?”
people?” The government, he
said, needed to make a new plan and develop new concepts for winning this war.
“We have had physical effects. We have had economic effects and we have had
psychological effect of this war. The entire nation is fearful, especially after the
Marriott blast.”
blast.” Like the US president on Tuesday, Mr Zardari also handled the
question of ending US military incursions into Pakistan tactfully. He did not say if
President George W. Bush had agreed to stop the incursions when they met in New
York on Tuesday. But he pointed out that Mr Bush had noted his concerns on this
issue which, according to Mr Zardari, was a “manifestation
“manifestation of his mindset”.
mindset”.
“Pakistan and the United States are on the same page on this,”
this ,” he added. The US
incursions, said Mr Zardari, were counter-productive and did not help “win over
hearts and minds” of the people. “We
“We all make mistakes in this war and we are also
always ready to correct them.”
them.”

Mr Zardari described the Kashmir dispute as a core issue for Pakistan and noted
that the current uprising in the valley was ‘an
‘an indigenous uprising’.
uprising’. “The
“The initiative
has moved from the hands of the government to the hands of the people of India
and Pakistan, a move I welcome.”
welcome.” Mr Zardari said he wished to resolve the Kashmir
dispute with India and through people-to-people contact but would raise it in the UN
only if needed to do so. The president said that in his meetings with the world
leaders, he noticed realisation for the problems Pakistan faced, particularly the
economic crisis, and they were wiling to help Islamabad deal with this situation. He
said that major economic powers were setting up a group called the Friends of
Pakistan to help develop an economic package. The president said that Pakistan
needed to engage with these nations but “at “at the end of the day, we will have to
take charge of the situation”.
situation”. Mr Zardari said that he held encouraging talks with
the Iranian president on Tuesday on the Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline and the two
countries agreed to launch a private-public initiative for raising funds for the
project. The two countries, he said, needed to raise about $7 billion and could not
do so without support from the private sector. Without naming India, a major
beneficiary of the pipeline project, Mr Zardari said it was unfortunate that “other
“other
nations involved in the project had now become a little more conservative about it”. it”.
Mr Zardari said that Pakistan planned to hold an international conference for
considering various proposals for fighting terrorism. Mr Zardari said the government
was providing legal and moral support to Dr Aafia Siddiqui, who faces terrorism
charges in a US court. “Because
“Because of the nature of this case, we cannot do more,”
more,” he
added. The president said that despite political differences, PPP’s alliance with PML-
N will continue. “I
“I consider Nawaz Sharif my elder brother and we will continue to
work with him.”
him.” Mr Zardari said the government was bringing a bill in parliament for
resolving the judges’ issue.

Author Location Dated

Faryal Ali Gauhar 25.09.08
25.09.08

– A harvest stained with blood

It is early. A light drizzle dampens the still smouldering ashes from which dark
clouds arose the night before, obliterating the evening sky, obscuring the horizon of
Islamabad the Beautiful. Some 12 hours after the inferno which took more than 50
lives, rescue workers sift through tons of mangled steel and charred wood. The
hopelessly disfigured bodies of those who could not get away were removed the
night before. But a search is still on for those who may have survived the terrifying
flames which engulfed the Marriott Hotel, just a stone’s throw away from the
Parliament House, the Prime Minister’s House, the Presidency, the Federal Sharia
Court, the Secretariat, the Foreign Office, Pakistan Broadcasting Corporation,
Pakistan Television, the National Library, The National Art Gallery, the Prime
Minister’s Secretariat, the Supreme Court, the Federal Bureau of Revenue,
Revenue, and
numerous foreign missions. Except for the recently appointed Czech ambassador,
no ‘dignitaries’ died in this terrorist attack. The bodies of the injured and the dead
were the bodies of ordinary citizens, some wealthy enough to afford a five-star end
to the day long fast marking the month of Ramazan. Many of the dead were there to
earn a living, to support large families living in small, unknown settlements and
hamlets dotting the map of this, my beloved, beleaguered country. These are the
bodies of the unsung, the guards at the entrance gate of the Marriott Hotel who
tried their best to extinguish the fire which the suicide bomber had set off by
detonating a grenade or perhaps the explosives strapped to his chest. These are the
bodies of the handsome, liveried men, tall and dignified, who stood at attention
besides the main door of the hotel, welcoming all guests, holding the door open to
visitors, standing on their feet for 12 hours a shift in order to feed families living on
the edge in some neglected neighbourhood. These were the bodies of the women
who cleaned the rooms occupied by those who could afford to spend more than a
worker’s monthly salary on one night’s comfort. These were the waiters and the
chambermaids and the drivers who sat outside in the luxury vehicles of those who
had come to feast at iftar, a time when Muslim men and women are to recognise
hunger, to acknowledge the gnawing of the gut, to express gratitude for the meal
before them, however humble it may be.

But the meal that was served in the lawns of the Prime Minister House the same
evening was not humble in the least. For many who partook of it, the message may
have been lost entirely, reducing the ritual of fasting to just that. For many who lost
their lives at the Marriott, the evening meal was yet to come; in a corner of the
kitchen, they were more concerned about the appetites of the guests. And that
seems to have been the primary concern at the Prime Minister House dinner as well.
Apparently, it was only after guests were fed and seen off that the political
leadership made itself present at the site of devastation. It is distressing that a
national security official actually admitted this at a press conference the next day.
The entire cabinet, the military’s top brass, the prime minister himself, the newly
elected president, almost all members of parliament, the chief ministers of the four
provinces, the president and prime minister of Azad Kashmir and other guests who
were present at the dinner heard the blast at 7:49 pm and continued to enjoy their
meal, and only after ushering out the last guest did the said official leave for the
hospital where the injured and the dead had been transferred. It appears that for
these VIPs finishing dinner was of paramount importance in an emergency.
Declaring that no VIP died in the inferno due to the “president’s
“president’s prescient vision”
vision”
was as tasteless as it was heartless, as if the deaths of those who expect to be led
by competent and sincere leaders is inconsequential. The greatest irony of all is
that the young men who are willing to be recruited into the ranks of countless
suicide bombers blow themselves up for the mere fact that perhaps that is a death
preferable to the one brought on by hunger. In a country where hunger has
mounted, where the granary of the land of five rivers does not yield enough to feed
its citizens, where the water in its rivers has been replaced by effluents, where able-
bodied men and women seek meaningful work in vain, trudging the streets on
empty stomachs, there cannot be a deadlier harvest than the one we are now
reaping. Decades after we were allied to the United States in its hegemonic struggle
against the Soviet “infidel”, we are still harvesting the fruit of that war. The
difference this time is that the graves being dug are for our own people, caught
between the greatest contradictions of an unjust world, that of hunger stalking a
land of plenty. Certainly the harvest this autumn is one stained with blood, surely
those we bury next to the gnarled roots which clutch this earth shall remind us that
we are the enemy of those we do not know, and those we do not know are amongst
us, ploughing our land, ripping up the soil which barely conceals the scars of our
lost kingdom. ¦ The writer is the author of No Space for Further Burials. Burials.

Author Location Dated

Azfar-ul-Ashfaque Karachi, Pakistan 25.09.08
25.09.08

– Mass transit body likely to create PPP-MQM rift

In a move that may create another rift between the Pakistan People’s Party and the
Muttahida Qaumi Movement, the government of Sindh has established a Sindh Mass
Transit Authority (SMTA) under the provincial finance department. A notification in
this regard was issued some 10 days ago, and Dawn has learnt from well-placed
sources neither the Karachi city government nor the provincial transport
department was consulted beforehand. Additionally, the Sindh government has
appointed senior official Mukhtar Ahmed Soomro as the managing director of the
new provincial body. The sources said that the SMTA has been put under the
administrative control of the Sindh finance department instead of the transport
department, since the finance department is already handling the Karachi Mega
City Development Project (KMCDP), funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB),
under which the bank will provide a $600 million loan for the implementation of a
Bus Rapid Transit System.
System. “The
“The transport department and the Karachi city
government do not have the capacity to manage the mass transit authority,”
authority,” said
the source. “However,
“However, it will eventually be put under control of the provincial
transport department.”
department.” The MQM and the city government which it dominates were
opposed to the setting up of a provincial mass transit body. The issue came up for
discussion during a London meeting between MQM chief Altaf Hussain and President
Asif Ali Zardari, during which the president gave an assurance that a decision would
be taken only after consultation with all stakeholders. The sources also referred to a
meeting in Islamabad attended by the Sindh chief minister, ministers belonging to
the PPP and the MQM, and the nazims of Karachi and Hyderabad, during which
President Zardari stated categorically that mass transit should remain within the
domain of the city government, since it was not part of the provincial government’s
job. The notification regarding the establishment of the SMTA was reportedly issued
before President Zardari’s meeting with ministers of the Sindh cabinet, and it has
not yet been withdrawn. Except for the chief minister of Sindh and his daughter,
who heads the Sindh finance department, no one knows exactly what the terms of
reference of the new body are, or who its members are, maintained the sources.
Reportedly, the terms of reference for the SMTA are to be determined through an
ordinance or act passed by the provincial assembly. “It “It remains unclear whether or
not the new body will deal with the revival of the Karachi Circular Railway given the
existence of the Karachi Urban Transport Corporation, which was formed for the
sole purpose of the circular railway’s revival,”
revival,” said a source. “The
“The SMTA was set up
primarily to utilise the proposed $600 million ADB loan under the Karachi Mega City
Development Project, for implementing the bus rapid transit system and conducting
a study on light rapid transit,”
transit,” the sources informed Dawn.

It is widely believed that the provincial government’s move is aimed at minimising

the city government’s role in the Karachi Mega City Development Project and
transport projects for the city, for the government of Sindh has already decided not
to avail itself of ADB loan facilities for water, sewerage and other projects. It was
initially decided that the ADB’s main investment loan would cover priority projects
that included water, sewerage and drainage, solid waste management, the
upgradation of informal settlements, roads and transport. After the Feb 18 general
elections and the establishment of a PPP-led government in Sindh, however, it was
decided that the full ADB loan would be diverted towards the transport sector.
During his budget speech, in fact, the Sindh chief minister – who also holds the
finance portfolio – stated that the ADB-funded Karachi Mega City Development
Project was being upgraded and would specifically attend to mass transit needs,
including light rail. The negotiations to secure financial assistance from the ADB
were initiated during the tenure of the earlier government. According to Dawn’s
sources, the ADB expressed willingness to extend a $800 million loan for the launch
of the mega city development project, which would increase Karachi’s economic
potential, strengthen its functioning and improve living conditions. The ADB
believed that the project would provide resources for the city government, the town
municipal administrations and utilities that would enable improvements in their
planning, management and financing, and in applying commercial principles in the
provision of infrastructure and services. ADB funding for mass transit alone In the
first phase, the bank extended a $13 million loan for technical assistance in carrying
out studies in various sectors including water, sewerage and transport. The ADB
loan covers 75 per cent of the Karachi Mega City Development Project’s total
estimated cost of $13.330 million, and carries a 32-year term, including a grace
period of eight years. Interest is to be charged at 1 per cent per annum during the
grace period, and at 1.5 per cent thereafter. The government contributes the
balance of the equivalent of $3.33 million.

The mega city development project was being supervised through two offices, the
Project Support Unit (PSU) administered by the Sindh Finance Department, and the
Local Support Unit (LSU) administered by the Karachi city government. The PSU is
the executing agency while the LSU is the project’s implementing agency. Sources
said that the LSU has already conducted various studies with the technical
assistance loan, almost all of which have been completed. These studies included
the development of IT platforms for tracking and maintaining the systems of the
Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, a study on the construction of a Malir Bund
Road, and another on forestation and aesthetic plantation in the city. In the
meantime, however, the provincial government decided that it did not need the
ADB’s assistance in the sectors of water, sewerage and the up-gradation of informal
settlements, and that it wanted the bank to extend a main investment loan for the
transport sector alone. The sources maintained that the government of Sindh also
decided to seek $600 million from the ADB instead of the $800 million sought
earlier for the launch of the Bus Rapid Transit System and the Light Rapid Transit.
Transit.
“The ADB will also extend financial assistance for the implementation of the Light
Rapid Transit,”
Transit,” a senior official told Dawn. The sources said that the final talks to
obtain the $600 million main investment ADB loan begin next month. After the
agreement is signed, the first tranche of around $250 million is expected to be
released within two to three months. “The“The government is in the process of winding
up the Project Support Unit and the Local Support Unit, and of forming a
Programme Reform Monitoring Unit and a Project Implementation Unit,” Unit,” said a
source. “Winding
“Winding up the Local Support Unit means ending the Karachi city
government’s role in the project.”
project.”

Author Location Dated

Baqir Sajjad Syed/Mohammed Islamabad/Rawalpindi 26.09.08
26.09.08
Asghar

– Airports on red alert after bomb threat

Airports across the country were put on full alert on Thursday morning after threats
that they could face terrorist attacks. All 36 airports were placed on a state of ‘red
alert’ following an anonymous call that a suicide bomber might target the capital’s
Benazir Bhutto Shaheed International Airport.
Airport. Officials said security at airports
would remain heightened, although the deadline of 12.40pm given in the call had
passed. Most of the airports were already on high alert because of the security
situation. The new measures mean that there will be extra vigilance. Enhanced
security measures taken by the Airport Security Force included tighter access rules,
search of all hand luggage and ‘100 per cent’ checking of all baggage. Heavily
armed security personnel were stationed at strategic points around the terminals.
Intensified baggage checks and ‘passenger profiling’ of the huge number of people
passing through the airports caused chaos at most airports. However, the level of
security varied from one airport to the other. At Islamabad airport, no chances were
being taken. Officials said only passengers were being let in and no visitors could
accompany them. Parking of vehicles was also barred. “Security
“Security personnel have
been asked to step up surveillance and only allow passengers with valid tickets to
enter the premises,”
premises,” airport manager Ayaz Jadoon said. In Lahore, the security
measures were less strict. Kamran Malik, public relations officer at Allama Iqbal
International Airport,
Airport, said visitors had not been affected and car parking was being
allowed after thorough search. Karachi Quaid-i-Azam International Airport also
raised its security level, but the measures were less stringent than those in
Islamabad.

Flight operations at all airports remained unaffected and there were no delays
because of the new security measures, Civil Aviation Authority spokesman Pervez
George said. An air force plane started scanning the airfield and security officials
were deployed on the rooftop of the building after a caller said a suicide bomber
would hit the Islamabad and Karachi airports after 12.20pm. The airport authorities
placed all emergency services on alert and called bomb disposal experts. A search
for explosives followed. A part of the airport complex was closed for some time and
public and VIP parking areas were evacuated. A red alert level means that a
terrorist attack is expected, an official said. Airport Security Force (ASF) personnel
were deployed along the runway, all gates were closed and patrolling around the
building was stepped up. Temporary entry passes were cancelled and heavy iron
blocks were placed at entry and exit points. Mr Jadoon said the call was received at
around 9.30am. “We“We will not remove all the security measures immediately.
However, the level will be downgraded after security clearance,”
clearance,” Mr Jadoon said.
AFP adds: Officials said passengers were briefly evacuated from the capital’s airport
while security officials searched the area. “The
“The security level was already on high
alert but after the bomb threat in Islamabad we stepped it up,” up,” ASF official
Mohammad Irfan said. Traffic to the airport was also suspended for a short time.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 26.09.08
26.09.08

– Threat to the state

Many in Pakistan are shocked at the bomb blast outside the Marriott hotel in
Islamabad which killed more than 50 people and wounded scores. It has made
people nervous about further acts of violence, making life unsafe in the capital. The
question for many is that if law and order agencies are unable to protect important
people in high-security areas, then what can be the fate of ordinary people? This,
indeed, is an imperfect question considering that both society and state remain
silent for the most part on other occasions when innocent people are murdered. The
reference here is to the brutal murder of two Ahmadis in Sindh by those presumably
incited by the views of a self-professed religious scholar who instructed his
television viewers twice this month to kill Ahmadis for being non-Muslims and
flouting the fundamentals of Islam. This is what one would call incitement to
murder. Pakistan’s Ahmadi community was declared non-Muslim by Zulfikar Ali
Bhutto, which, technically speaking, settled the matter of dealing with this group of
people by the state itself. Without getting into whether the decision was right or
wrong, the fact is that the existing laws can challenge any member of the Ahmadi
community who claims to be a Muslim. So, the alim did not have to take the law into
his own hands. The two people who died were not challenging the state’s decision,
but were threatened because of their faith. In any case, the two individuals were
Pakistani citizens, who, like other minorities, have a right to be protected by the
state. The problem didn’t end here but spread to other parts of the country. For
instance, when the principal of the Quaid-i-Azam Medical College issued a notice to
students to refrain from engaging in sectarian or religious conflicts, there was a
protest in Bahawalpur asking for the lynching of the gent.

Unfortunately, civil society on the whole including our media has been silent on
these murders. The Ahmadis have been declared non-Muslim by the state but they
are still citizens of Pakistan and the murder of innocent people cannot be allowed.
Luckily, the MQM had the sense to throw out the alim in question from the party but
where are the voices that had cried in the past for defence of media freedom? Does
freedom not include the security of ordinary people? It is sad to see that the
television channel in question did not have the moral gumption to sack the ‘scholar’
or the producer of the programme. It is most unfortunate that the media, which
considers itself the harbinger of freedom and democracy, has remained silent on
this heinous crime. While the MQM, which is considered problematic due to its
policies and attitude, had the sense to sack the former minister, media gurus have
remained silent. What is worse is that the US government, which otherwise raises
all kinds of issues, has remained silent and kept its partnership with the channel in
question. This is not just about the murder of two people following a different set of
religious beliefs, it also depicts the level of intolerance in society, its attitude
towards whoever is considered as the ‘other’, and the perception of national
security. Anyone who is not considered as part of the larger group or majority is
considered a threat to the state. The same attitude is reflected in the perception of
the larger issue of terrorism as well.

It is rather sad that the newly elected government is unable to convince the
population that the war on terror is Pakistan’s issue rather than America’s agenda.
Unfortunately, the government’s inability to convince the general public is because
of the growing credibility gap. The fact that the president did not think about
cancelling his foreign visit and making himself available for his people after the
blast has created the impression that he is more concerned about his American
patron than ordinary Pakistanis. People understand that the main source of power
of the new government is not the prime minister but the president who should have
spent some extra time at home before flying away. Just imagine if George Bush had
left the country within hours of 9/11. Moreover, the lack of credibility increases due
to statements issued by interior advisor, Rehman Malik who tried to convince the
world that the attack was aimed at the leadership when it is now known that the
Marriott was not the intended venue for the VIP dinner party. The guests were
invited to the Prime Minister’s House where the party was eventually held at the
time of the blast. The credibility factor is important otherwise people will continue to
think that the Taliban will save the country from an external threat posed by the US.
Opinion right now is divided on how to interpret the internal terrorist attacks. Most
of the people who died in the Marriott attack, those who were killed earlier and
those that will fall prey to the Taliban onslaught in the future constitute ordinary
Pakistanis. The regime should be able to convince the people that the Taliban or
other militants are as bad for the country as is US intervention. Since two wrongs
don’t make a right; Pakistan must select its own options to overcome the crisis
rather than aligning itself with either party.

The option is to engage other states like Russia, Iran, China, India and numerous
European Union states, who do not sympathise with the American intervention, in a
dialogue. At the same time, a consensus must be built within the country to
examine our past linkages with the militants and to review our policy. We need to
eliminate terrorism for our own advantage rather than anyone else’s. The recent
terror attack has challenged the writ of the newly elected government more than
any other force. Today, the Pakistani government is divided into two: the political
government and an invisible one. The latter is bound to build its credibility on the
ashes of the political government, especially if it appears incapable to defend the
nation. In addition, the PPP must change its individual-dominated decision-making
practices. While this has been the party’s tradition, it could work in the past
because of the greater credibility of leaders such as Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and Benazir
Bhutto. The same formula might not work now. Under the circumstances, people
will feel greater unease in accepting the party’s policies. The world is intently
watching and judging the new government’s ability to fight the threat. The
president must not appear as someone who cannot deliver on his promises. We
need a strong leadership at this time to direct the state and society. It is only a
capable leadership that can talk society out of the intolerance that eventually
breeds greater violence. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and political
analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

Q. Isa Doudpota 26.09.08
26.09.08

– Jihad revised
Imagine you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the
badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We“We
are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”
that.”
You are Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second highest leader of Al Qaeda, and this
thunderbolt comes from your comrade, a long time spiritual and intellectual leader
of your group and a former fellow medical student in Cairo University. Around 1977,
the author of the statement, Sayyid Imam alSharif, joined Egypt’s Al Jihad terrorist
group formed by Zawahiri. Sharif (Dr Fadl being his underground identity) and
Zawahiri were two of the original members of Al Qaeda, the formation of which
dates back to August 1988 when they met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar. Earlier, Dr
Fadl escaped arrest when thousands of Islamists were rounded up after the 1981
assassination of President Anwar Sadat by soldiers affiliated with Al Jihad. Zawahiri
suffered torture in prison and was released after three years, thirsting for revenge.
His reputation also came under serious doubt in prison as he divulged the names of
his comrades under torture. Dr Fadl, during this time, moved to Peshawar to join the
Afghan war and worked as a surgeon for injured combatants. Jihadis needed
guidance through a text on the real objective of fighting battles which was not just
victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. Fadl’s The Essential
Guide for Preparation appeared late for the Afghan war but became one of the most
important texts for jihadis’ training. Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning
journalist, notes that the Guide begins with the premise that jihad is a natural state
of Islam: Muslims must always be in conflict with nonbelievers. Fadl asks that peace
is recommended only in moments of severe weakness. Otherwise every Muslim
must seek divine reward through sacrificing his life for Islam and thereby bring
about an Islamic state.

After 1989 Zawahiri and most of Al Jihad moved to Sudan. From there they watched
the Islamic Group wage a vicious war against the Egyptian state. The Group
launched a social revolution, ransacking video stores and cinemas, demanding
hijabs for women and bombed churches of the Coptic minority. One of the founders
was Karam Zuhdy, who ended up living in prison for two decades with about 20,000
Islamists. During the ’90s, the Group killed more than 1,200 in terror attacks. In
1994, Fadl wrote the 1,000page Compendium of Pursuit of Divine Knowledge.
Knowledge. In it
he declared war on the rulers of Arab states and considered them infidels who
should be killed. The same punishment was to be meted out to those who served
them and to others working for peaceful change. The Compendium gave Al Qaeda
the mandate to murder all who opposed it. This is just the book that Zawahiri
wanted, but it went a bit too far. Fadl was livid when he learnt that parts of the book
had been removed and the title changed and published under Zawahiri’s name.
With so many years wasted in prison since 1981, the leaders of the Islamic Group
began reading books and analysing their past, and realised that they had been
manipulated into pursuing a violent path. Zuhdy, the Group’s founder, found that
any such discussion led to strong opposition within and outside the prison.
Meanwhile, secret talks continued with the Egyptian government until they became
known in 1997. Zawahiri was disappointed by the move away from violent jihad,
which to him was the main galvanising force for his movement. Along with Islamic
Group leaders outside Egypt, he arranged for the murder of 62 tourists near Luxor,
hoping the move would derail rapprochement between the Group and the state.

The Group’s leaders countered by issuing a statement condemning the act, and
followed up with writing a series of books and pamphlets collectively known as The
Revision in which they explained their new thinking. Zuhdy publicly apologised to
the Egyptian people for the Group’s violent deeds. The government responded by
releasing over 20,000 Group members. Meanwhile Fadl who had landed in a Yemen
prison was smuggled onto a plane and taken to Cairo in 2005. It is from his cell that
he wrote his latest book, Rationalising Jihad.
Jihad. To avoid the charge that he had been
tortured or coaxed into writing it, a majority of the Al Jihad members in prison
signed the manuscript. To exclude the possibility of coercion, an editor interviewed
Fadl extensively. Here’s a summary of some of the controversial points raised which
clearly will not go down well with radical Islamists such as Zawahiri:

(a) There is nothing more that invokes divine wrath than the unwarranted spilling of
blood and wrecking of property;
(b) the limitation placed on jihad restrict it to extremely rare circumstances;
(c) it is forbidden to kill civilians — including Christians and Jews — unless they are
actively attacking Muslims,
(d) indiscriminate bombing such as blowing up hotels, buildings and public
transportation is not permitted,
(e) there is no legal reason for harming people in any way,
(f) one cannot decide who is a Muslim or a non-believer, and
(g) the end does not justify violent means.

Zawahiri warned that Fadl’s revision of the jihad concept placed restrictions on
action which, if implemented, would destroy the jihad completely. Zuhdy
commented that this exchange between the Al Qaeda ideologues showed that the
movement is disintegrating due to internal dissent. Pakistan, which is being torn
apart by jihadis from within and across its border, needs to make Fadl’s latest work
widely available in translation, to be studied in madressahs and discussed in the
media. Who knows what reformation this could bring about? ¦ The writer is an
Islamabad-based physicist and environmentalist.
environmentalist.

Author Location Dated

Robert Fisk 26.09.08
26.09.08

– Journalist recalls six-year nightmare

in Guantanamo
Sami al-Haj walks with pain on his steel crutch;
almost six years in the nightmare of Guantanamo
have taken their toll on the Al Jazeera journalist and,
now in the safety of a hotel in the small Norwegian
town of Lillehammer, he is a figure of both dignity and shame. The Americans told
him they were sorry when they eventually freed him this year – after the beatings
he says he suffered, and the force-feeding, the humiliations and interrogations by
British, American and Canadian intelligence officers – and now he hopes one day
he’ll be able to walk without his stick. The TV cameraman, 38, was never charged
with any crime, nor was he put on trial; his testimony makes it clear that he was
held in three prisons for six-and-a-half years – repeatedly beaten and force-fed – not
because he was a suspected “terrorist” but because he refused to become an
American spy. From the moment Sami al-Haj arrived at Guantanamo, flown there
from the brutal US prison camp at Qandahar, his captors demanded that he work for
them. The cruelty visited upon him – constantly interrupted by American admissions
of his innocence – seemed designed to turn al-Haj into a US intelligence “asset.”
“We know you are innocent, you are here by mistake,”
mistake,” he says he was told in more
than 200 interrogations. “All
“All they wanted was for me to be a spy for them. They
said they would give me US citizenship, that my wife and child could live in
America, that they would protect me. But I said: ‘I will not do this – first of all
because I’m a journalist and this is not my job and because I fear for myself and my
family. In war, I can be wounded and I can die or survive. But if I work with you, Al
Qaeda will eliminate me. And if I don’t work with you, you will kill me.”
me.”

The grotesque saga began for alHaj on 15 December, 2001, when he was on his
way from the Pakistani capital Islamabad to Qandahar in Afghanistan with Sadah al-
Haq, a fellow correspondent from the Arab satellite TV channel, to cover the new
regional government. At least 70 other journalists were on their way through the
Pakistani border post at Chaman, but an officer stopped al-Haj. “He “He told me there
was a paper from the Pakistani intelligence service for my arrest. My name was
misspelled, my passport number was incorrect, it said I was born in 1964 – the right
date is 1969. I said I had renewed my visa in Islamabad and asked why, if I was
wanted, they had not arrested me there?”
there?” Sami al-Haj speaks slowly and with care,
each detail of his suffering and of others’ suffering of equal importance to him. He
still cannot believe that he is free, able to attend a conference in Norway, to return
to his new job as news producer at Al Jazeera, to live once more with his Azeri wife
Asma and their eight-year old son Mohamed; when Sami al-Haj disappeared down
the black hole of America’s secret prisons the boy was only 14 months old. Al-Haj’s
story has a familiar ring to anyone who has investigated the rendition of prisoners
from Pakistan to US bases in Afghanistan and Guantanamo. His aircraft flew for an
hour and a half and then landed to collect more captives – this may have been in
Islamabad – before flying on to the big American base at Bagram. “We “We arrived in
the early hours of the morning and they took the shackles off our feet and pushed
us out of the plane. They hit me and pushed me down on the asphalt. We heard
screams and dogs barking. I collapsed with my right leg under me, and I felt the
ligaments tearing. When I fell, the soldiers started treading on me. First, they
walked on my back, then – when they saw me looking at my leg – they started
kicking my leg. One soldier shouted at me: ‘Why did you come to fight Americans?’
‘You filmed bin Laden’ “I had a number – I was No 35 and this is how they
addressed me, as a number – and the first American shouted at me: ‘You filmed bin
Laden.’ I said I did not film bin Laden but that I was a journalist. I again gave my
name, my age, my nationality.”
nationality.”
After 16 days at Bagram, another aircraft took him to the US base at Qandahar
where on arrival the prisoners were again made to lie on the ground. “We “We were
cursed and again the Americans walked on our backs. Why? Why did they do this? I
was taken to a tent and stripped and they pulled hairs out of my beard. They
photographed the pupils of my eyes. A doctor found blood on my back and asked
me why it was there. I asked him how he thought it was there?”
there?” The same dreary
round of interrogations recommenced – he was now “Prisoner
“Prisoner No 448”
448” – and yet
again, al-Haj says he was told he was being held by mistake. “Then“Then another man –
he was in civilian clothes and I think he was from Egyptian intelligence – wanted to
know who was the “leader” of the detainees who was with me. The Americans
asked: ‘Who is the most respected of the prisoners? Who killed [Ahmed Shah]
Massoud (the leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance Afghan militia?’ “I said
this was not my business and an American soldier said: ‘Cooperate with us, and you
will be released.’ They meant I had to work for them. There was another man who
spoke perfect English. I thought he was British. He was young, good-looking, about
35-years-old, no moustache, blond hair, very polite in a white shirt, no tie. He
brought me chocolate – it was Kit Kat—and I was so hungry I could have eaten the
wrapping.”
wrapping.” On 13 June, al-Haj was put on board a jet aircraft. He was given yet
another prison number – No 345 – and once more his head was covered with a black
bag. He was forced to take two tablets before he was gagged and his bag replaced
by goggles with the eyepieces painted black. The flight to Guantanamo took 12 to
14 hours. “They
“They took us on a boat from the Guantanamo runways to the prison, a
journey that took an hour.”
hour.” Al-Haj was escorted to a medical clinic and then at once
to another interrogation. “They
“They said they’d compared my answers with my original
statement and one of them said: ‘You are here by mistake. You will be released.
You will be the first to be released.’ “They gave me a picture of my son, which had
been taken from my wallet. They asked me if I needed anything. I asked for books.
One said he had a copy of One Thousand and One Nights in Arabic. He copied it for
me. During this interview, they asked me: ‘Why did you talk to the British
intelligence man so much in Qandahar?’ I said I didn’t know if he was from British
intelligence. They said he was.
was.” “Then
“Then after two months, two more British men
came to see me. They said they were from UK intelligence. They wanted to know
who I knew, who I’d met. I said I couldn’t help them.”
them.” The Americans later referred
to one of them as “Martin” and they did not impress al-Haj’s senior interrogator at
Guantanamo, Stephen Rodriguez, who wanted again to seek al-Haj’s help. ‘You ‘You can
have US citizenship’ “He said to me: ‘Our job is to prevent “things” happening. I’ll
give you a chance to think about this. You can have US citizenship, your family will
be looked after, you’ll have a villa in the US, we’ll look after your son’s education,
you’ll have a bank account.’ He had brought with him some Arabic magazines and
told me I could read them. In those 10 minutes, I felt I had gone back to being a
human being again. Then soldiers came to take me back to my cell – and the
magazines were taken away.”
away.”

By the summer of 2003, al-Haj was receiving other strange visitors. “Two
“Two Canadian
intelligence officers came and they showed me lots of photos of people and wanted
to know if I recognised them. I knew none of them.”
them.” In more than 200
interrogations, alHaj was asked about his employers the Al Jazeera television
channel in Qatar. In one session, he says another American said to him: “After
“After you
get out of here, Al Qaeda will recruit you and we want to know who you meet. You
could become an analyst, we can train you to store information, to sketch people.
There is a link between Al Jazeera and Al Qaeda. How much does Al Qaeda pay Al
Jazeera?” “I said: ‘I will not do this – first of all because I’m a journalist and this is
not my job. Also because I fear for my life and my family.”
family.” Many beatings followed –
not from the interrogators but from other US guards. “They “They would slam my head
into the ground, cut off all my hair. They put me into the isolation block – we called
it the ‘November Block’ – for two years. They made my life torture. I wanted to
bring it to an end. There were continual punishments without reason. In
interrogations, they would tighten the shackles so it hurt. They hadn’t allowed me
to receive letters for 10 months – even then, they erased words in them, even from
my son. Again, Rodriguez demanded I work for the Americans.”
Americans.” Hunger strike In
January of last year, Sami al-Haj started a hunger strike – and began the worst
months of his imprisonment. “I “I wanted my rights in the civil courts. The US
Supreme Court said I should have my rights. I wanted the right to worship properly.
They let me go 30 days without food – then I was tied to a chair with metal shackles
and they force-fed me. They would insert a tube through my nose into my stomach.
They chose large tubes so that it hurt and sometimes it went into the lung. They
used the same tube they had used on other prisoners with muck still on it and then
they pumped more food into me than it was possible to absorb. They told us the
people administering this were doctors – but they were torturers, not doctors. They
forced 24 cans of food into us so we threw up and then gave us laxatives to
defecate. My pancreas was affected and I had stomach problems. Then they would
forbid us from drinking water.”
water.” Al-Haj says he completed 480 days of hunger strike
by which time his medical condition had deteriorated and he was bleeding from his
anus. That was the moment his interrogators decided to release him. “There “There were
new interrogators now, but they tried once more with me. ‘Will you work with us?’
they asked me again. I said ‘no’ again – but I thanked them for their years of
hospitality and for giving me the chance to live among them as a journalist. I said
this way I could get the truth to the outside world, that I was not in a hurry to get
out because there were a lot more reporters’ stories in there. They said: ‘You think
we did you a favour?’ I said: ‘You turned me from zero into a hero.’ They said: ‘We
are 100 per cent sure that Bin Laden will be in touch with you ...’ That night, I was
taken to the plane. The interrogators were watching me, hiding behind a tennis net.
I waved at them, those four pairs of eyes.”
eyes.” The British authorities have never
admitted talking to Sami al-Haj. Nor have the Canadians. Al Jazeera, whose
headquarters George Bush wanted to bomb after the invasion of Iraq, kept a job
open for Sami al-Haj. But Prisoner No 345 never received an official apology from
the Americans. He says he does not expect one.

Author Location Dated

United Nations 26.09.08
26.09.08

– Asif’s plea for help to defeat terrorism

President Asif Ali Zardari expressed Pakistan’s firm resolve to combat the scourge of
extremism in the world and asked the developed world to help Pakistan fight
terrorists. “We
“We have picked up the torch and will fight against terrorists who attack
us, and fight against terrorists who use our territory to plan attacks against our
neighbours or anywhere in the world,”
world,” Mr Zardari said in his maiden speech to the
United Nations General Assembly. “If“If Al Qaeda and the Taliban believed that by
silencing Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto, they were silencing her message they
were very wrong,”
wrong,” he said. He pointed out that “the
“the fight against extremism is a
fight for the hearts and minds of people. It can’t be won only by guns and bombs.
The fight must be multifaceted.”
multifaceted.” “The
“The battleground must be economic and social as
well as military. We will win when people are mobilised against the fanatics. To
mobilise them we have to give them hope and opportunity for their future. They
need jobs. Their children need education. They must be fed.They must have
energy.”
energy.” He said: “We“We must give people a stake in their own government, and we
must demonstrate to them that democracy does perform, that democratic
governance can improve their everyday life.” life.” Appealing to the international
community to help Pakistan become an economically viable state, Mr Zardari said:
“A stable Pakistan will suck the oxygen from the terrorists’ agenda. Economic
justice and political democracy are the worst nightmares of the terrorists. “We must
all fight this epic battle together as allies and partners. But just as we will not let
Pakistan’s territory to be used by terrorists for attacks against our people and our
neighbours, we cannot allow our territory and our sovereignty to be violated by our
friends.”
friends.” Mr Zardari invoked his assassinated wife’s name time and again in his
address and said: “The
“The Bhutto doctrine is the new century’s equivalent of the
Marshall Plan that saved Europe after World War II. And just as the Marshall Plan
was centred on the principle that an economically sound Europe could and would
resist communism, the Bhutto doctrine’s pillar is that an economically viable
Pakistan will be the centrepiece of the victory of pluralism over terrorism. “The
Bhutto doctrine will ultimately prove to be as critical to the victory of freedom in
this century as the Marshall Plan was critical to the triumph of liberty in the last.
“Ours is the Doctrine of Reconciliation. Theirs is the Doctrine of Death.”
Death.”

He said that Ms Bhutto’s killers “thought

“thought her elimination would end her dream of a
democratic Pakistan and the balkanisation of our region would enable the forces of
darkness to prevail but our nation rallied in the aftermath of her brutal and tragic
assassination.
assassination.” He said that terrorism could not be fought by military means alone.
Fighting it requires political will, popular mobilisation, and a socio-economic
strategy that wins the hearts and minds of nations afflicted by it. In a reference to
US and Nato attacks inside Pakistan in hot pursuit of terrorists, Mr Zardari said:
“Violating our nation’s sovereignty is not helpful in eliminating the terrorist menace.
Indeed, this could have the opposite effect.”
effect.” He told the delegates: “We
“We will work
patiently to persuade leaders in Fata and our Pakhtunkhwa province to accept the
writ of government and turn their back on terrorists. The terrorists can blow up our
girls’ schools but we will rebuild them, brick by brick, inch by inch. We are in this
battle to win. And we know how we have to do it. “We may be the targets of
international terrorism, but we will never succumb to it. Towards that end, we reach
out to you and to the entire civilised world,”
world,” he declared. President Zardari
expressed Pakistan’s determination to “peacefully
“peacefully resolve problems with India”,
India”, and
said the composite dialogue with India would continue “so “so that our outstanding
disputes are resolved.
resolved.” “Whether
“Whether it is the core issue of Jammu and Kashmir, or
cooperation on water resources, India and Pakistan must accommodate each
other’s concerns and interests; we must respect and work with each other to
peacefully resolve our problems and build South Asia into a common market of
trade and technology,”
technology,” Mr Zardari told the international community. He also
reaffirmed Pakistan’s resolve to “work
“work together with our neighbour Afghanistan and
the Nato forces stationed there to ensure security of our common border.
border.” “Better
“Better
relations between Pakistan, Afghanistan and India would help create the regional
environment that is more conducive to reducing militancy in our region,”
region,” he
observed.

Author Location Dated

New York 26.09.08
26.09.08

– Gushing compliments make Palin blush

President Asif Ali Zardari’s enthusiastic and lavish praise for US vice-presidential
candidate (Republican) Sarah Palin’s looks in front of television cameras has raised
eyebrows here. According to one report, on entering a room filled with several
Pakistani officials on Wednesday afternoon, Ms Palin was immediately greeted by
Information Minister Sherry Rehman. “And how does one keep looking that good
when one is that busy?,”
busy?,” Ms Rehman asked, drawing friendly laughter from the
room when she complimented her. “Oh, “Oh, thank you,”
you,” Ms Palin said. When President
Zardari entered the room seconds later, Ms Palin rose to shake hands, saying she
was “honoured” to meet him. Mr Zardari then called her “gorgeous
“gorgeous” ” and said: “Now
“Now
I know why the whole of America is crazy about you.”
you.” “You are so nice,”
nice,” Ms Palin
said, smiling. “Thank
“Thank you.”
you.” A handler from Mr Zardari’s entourage then told the two
politicians to keep shaking hands for the cameras. “If“If he’s insisting, I might hug,”
hug,”
said the president. Palin smiled politely. Ms Palin, who is credited with igniting the
lacklustre Republican presidential campaign after being picked by Senator John
McCain as his running mate, did not answer questions from reporters at her first two
appearances on Wednesday. She joined Mr McCain in meetings with Georgian
President Mikheil Saakashvili and Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko, and then
travelled downtown to meet Iraqi President Jalal Talabani. When a reporter at the
Zardari meeting asked her about her day, she said: “It’s
“It’s going great. These
meetings are very informative and helpful, and a lot of good people sharing
appreciation for America.”
America.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/
Iqbal/Masood New York 27.09.08
27.09.08
Haider

– Over $15bn
needed: media
‘Friends’ unveil
initiative to avert
collapse
A permanent forum was
launched in New York on
Friday to help raise billions of
dollars to avert a possible
economic collapse in Pakistan.
The forum, which will be
called the Friends of Pakistan,
will hold its first meeting in
Abu Dhabi next month. The
decision to form such a body
was made at a meeting of
some of the world’s richest nations that also have close ties to Pakistan and want to
help. “I
“I don’t want them to give us the fish. I want to learn how to fish and do it
myself,”
myself,” said President Asif Ali Zardari while explaining what Pakistan expected
from the new forum. “We “We are engaged with Pakistan through international financial
institutions,”
institutions,” said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “We“We will support the
steps Pakistan must take”
take” for economic reforms. British Foreign Secretary David
Miliband described the meeting as “a “a very strong signal of political and economic
support to the democratically elected government in Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. UAE Foreign
Minister Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed said his country fully backed the initiative to
“show our commitment to Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. The three officials were among half a dozen
world leaders who attended Friday’s meeting formally inaugurated by President
Zardari. The United States, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Japan, China, Australia,
Turkey, Canada, Saudi Arabia and the UAE attended the inaugural meeting.
European Union and the United Nations sent their representatives. Other countries
are also likely to join. Recent reports in the western media indicate that Pakistan
needs as much as $10 billion to avoid an economic meltdown. The United States
and Britain jointly launched the initiative to form a group to help Pakistan after
realising the seriousness of the economic crisis confronting the country.

Diplomatic sources told Dawn that at a meeting with President Zardari on

Wednesday US President George W. Bush had told him that “Pakistan“Pakistan needs help
today, rather than tomorrow”.
tomorrow”. Pakistan’s foreign currency reserves are falling fast
and if forward liabilities are included, the real reserves may go down to $3 billion.
This cannot meet the import bill of one whole month. Out of total reserves of $8.467
billion, the reserves held by the commercial banks stood at $3.461 billion on
September 23. From September 22, the reserves fell by around $180 million, as
there were no receipts while the government made heavy payments for oil and
other imports. This week, Moody’s Investors Service lowered Pakistan’s credit
outlook to negative due to the risk of “missed repayments” on the nation’s debt.
Pakistan’s gradual economic decline, which started last year, alarmed the United
States and Britain as they feared that financial chaos could allow terrorists to
deepen their roots in the country. To avoid such an eventuality, they decided to
launch a new group of donors. After Friday’s meeting, President Zardari told
journalists outside a UN conference room that the participants had decided to make
the Friends of Pakistan group a permanent body. “All “All of them want to help. They
want to make democracy work,”work,” said Mr Zardari. He said countries in Pakistan’s
region realise that they had to support its efforts to fight terrorism, which was a
regional issue as well and therefore needed “a “a regional ownership”.
ownership”. “There
“There is a very
strong support for Pakistan’s democratic government”
government” and the world wanted to help
it deal with the economic challenges the country faces, he said. “They“They want to help
bring stability to the young democracy”
democracy” and to help it “take
“take difficult decisions”
decisions” for
economic recovery, Mr Zardari added. Ms Rice, who accompanied Mr Zardari and Mr
Miliband to the media briefing, said that those joining the Friends of Pakistan group
had stayed “very
“very closely engaged”
engaged” with international financial institutions that
provided economic assistance to Pakistan. “We “We look at the US and the world
support to (our economy) as a blessing,”
blessing,” said Mr Zardari while responding to Ms
Rice’s expression of support. The British foreign secretary said that every single
country that joined the Friends of Pakistan group “stands
“stands shoulder to shoulder with
Pakistan”.
Pakistan”.
Author Location Dated
F.S. Aijazuddin www.fsaijazuddin.pk 27.09.08
27.09.08

– Insecurity at all levels

If there is safety in numbers, then why should 160 million Pakistanis not feel
secure? And yet never before has there been such a heightened awareness of our
national and personal vulnerability. Minorities such as the Ahmadiyya and Christian
communities feel threatened by an intolerant majority; the majority feels insecure
from one and another. Our assassins today are not foreigners with unpronounceable
names; they emanate from among us. One can understand therefore why, following
the suicide bomb blast outside the Marriott hotel in Islamabad on Sept 20, our
government should have constituted a highpowered committee to formulate a
national strategy to curb terrorism. The committee was required to submit its report
within three days, which is roughly the same time that will elapse between the
writing of this article and its publication in Dawn. Government committees usually
take longer to deliberate on issues such as national strategy. The very complexity of
the topic invariably consumes months if not years, rather than days. Following the
9/11 attack in 2001, for example, the US government issued its National Security
Strategy on Sept 17, 2002. Its revision came almost four years later on March 16,
2006. Both documents were unequivocal in the expressed determination to
“actively fight terror”.
terror”. The 2002 strategy acknowledged that the US could not build
“a safer, better world alone”.
alone”. Its plan therefore was to rely upon “alliances
“alliances and
multilateral institutions”
institutions” to augment its strength, hence the US-
US-Nato coalition in the
war on terror. The 2006 strategy declared that the US intended to be primus inter
pares, to be primus even when there were no pares. “We “We must maintain a military
without peer,”
peer,” President George W. Bush warned the terrorists, aware no doubt that
the Kremlin and Beijing were also eavesdropping. Bush’s resolve to “fight“fight our
enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country”
country” needs not only
a strong military but also a powerful, omnipresent navy. For the first time in
America’s history, the US Navy, Marine Corps and Coast Guard have produced
jointly a Strategy for 21st Century Sea Power, released in October 2007. Belatedly
recognising that the oceans cover three quarters of our planet and therefore make
neighbours of us all, the US intends to use its formidable sea power to “help“help friends
in need and to confront and defeat aggression far from our shores”.
shores”.

To those who wonder what the US aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln was doing in our
neighbourhood, the maritime strategy provides the answers. The US aim is to
“employ global reach, persistent presence, and operational flexibility inherent in US
sea power”.
power”. This will be characterised by “regionally
“regionally concentrated, forward-
deployed task forces with the combat power to limit regional conflict.”
conflict.” Our own
security strategists might like to factor in the defence of our vulnerable 1,064 km
long southern coastline. The UK National Security Strategy,
Strategy, issued in March 2008, is
an update on a policy first developed in 2002. It looks at global cooperation in more
benign terms. It talks of “an
“an interdependent world”,
world”, and even though it concedes
that no state threatens the United Kingdom directly, it does apprehend threats
which could affect the UK directly and/or undermine international stability. The new
UK view of security has broadened from the “traditional
“traditional focus of foreign, defence
and security policies”
policies” to include “threats
“threats to individual citizens and to our way of
life”.
life”. The French government white paper on national security, issued in August
2008, focuses on five strategic functions: knowledge and anticipation, prevention,
deterrence, protection and intervention.
intervention. Germany despite being “one
“one of the safest
countries in the world”
world” feels threatened by “terrorism,
“terrorism, organised crime, energy by
resource dependency, the proliferation of WMD, regional conflicts, failed states,
migration, pandemics and epidemics”.
epidemics”. Everything, except latent neo-fascism.
Russia’s security concerns are from weak state structures on its periphery,
economic vulnerability and socio-economic degeneration within. China’s post-Cold
War apprehensions are macroeconomic instability, domestic social and political
instability and regional instability.

With such a formidable array of international preparedness, it might be useful to

examine whether such military bludgeons are in fact the right weapons with which
to defeat an amorphous enemy such as international terrorism. Are we using swords
to duel with wraiths? Who are these spectral terrorist groups? Unlike freedom
movements such as the IRA or the Kenyan Mau Mau or the South African ANC,
modern insurrectionists wear no labels. The Australian security apparatus posts a
list of 19 terrorist organisations. Most of them appear, disappear and then reappear.
Take the Ansar al-Sunna (formerly the Ansar Al-Islam). Listed by the Australians on
March 27, 2003, it was re-listed on March 27, 2005, and again two years later on
March 27, 2007. These organisations follow “the balloon principle”. Squeezed at one
end, they emerge elsewhere. No one knows under what pseudonym it operates
today or where. Whatever the formal identity of such terrorists, one thing is certain.
Terrorism is not a pensionable job. Despite the statistics, though, not all of them
meet a violent end. A study was conducted recently by Martin Libicki and Seth R.
Jones of the Rand Corporation. After examining 649 terrorist groups between 1968
and 2006, it finds that they cease for two major reasons: “members
“members decide to adopt
non-violent tactics and join the political process (43 per cent), or local police and
intelligence agencies arrested or killed key members of the group (40 per cent)”.
cent)”. It
concludes that “military
“military force has rarely been the primary reason how terrorist
groups have ended (10 per cent)”.
cent)”. Those charged with preparing our own national
security strategy will no doubt take into account the experience of other countries,
especially since we are their co-partners in the war on terror. What we need to
reassure them is that we are on the same side, that we are victims more than
protagonists, and that we recognise that national security is a national risk that
affects 160 million. A strategy, even if it can be produced within three days, has no
hope of succeeding if it postulates only national security and ignores private
insecurities.

Author Location Dated

Sadia Mumtaz sadiamumtaz@gmail.com 27.09.08
27.09.08

– Our invisible citizens

Attitudes
ttitudes can be disturbing. Adil is a 16 year-old boy with a mental disability. He
used to attend a school for special children. He is mostly non-verbal, has an IQ of a
six-year-old and is not yet toilet-trained. Adil’s parents do not have a diagnosis to
explain his disability. “Knowing
“Knowing the cause makes no difference because he will still
not be normal,”
normal,” explains his father. Ineffective medical, therapeutic and behavioural
intervention which saw a worsening of Adil’s behaviour over time erased his social
life almost entirely. Even his mention in public is avoided by his family. And so Adil
remains an ‘invisible’ citizen of this country. But he is not alone. According to UN
estimates, Adil numbers amongst the 10 per cent of our population with mental or
physical disabilities — and among those who are rarely seen or heard of in
mainstream schools, the workplace or society. The 1998 census which put the
figure of persons with disabilities at 2.49 per cent stands revised in the light of the
government’s more recent estimates of four to six per cent. However, given that
data collection has been limited by the narrowly defined scope of disability for
purposes of the census besides the fact that many births are unregistered and
many disabilities, including those resulting from accidents, conflict and natural
disasters, are unreported, the UN estimation is likely to be a more accurate one.
While the typical Pakistani family hails the birth of a child, particularly a son’s, as a
divine blessing and look upon him as one who will be their pillar of support in old
age, the birth of a child with a mental or physical disability is perceived by the
family as spelling doom for more reasons than one: there is the moral and financial
burden of having to provide lifetime support to the child, the social stigmatisation of
the family and the feeling that a disabled child is an expression of divine wrath.
These are only some of the challenges that must be confronted. Such negative
perceptions about individuality, religion and society explain the deeprooted bias
towards disability in our communities.

Mainstream schools cite an individual’s inability to cope with academic work as

grounds for refusing admission to a child with a disability, forgetting that education
is not just about academics but also about instilling values and discipline and
teaching social interaction. Untoward attention from onlookers nudging one another
or staring rudely turns a family outing with a disabled child into an emotional
ordeal. Relatives and friends feel no embarrassment when their typically developing
children mock and mistreat a disabled child whose hapless parents look on without
a voice in defence of their child. The social verdict is thus pronounced almost
unanimously on Pakistan’s disabled community — unequal persons worthy of
isolation, pity, victimisation or exploitation with little or no entitlement to education,
employment or participation in society. More often than not and as mentioned
above, the financial resources, educational background and exposure of the family
are crucial in shaping the life of a child with a disability. Disability and not
individuality defines the child in the minds of many uneducated and poverty-
poverty-
stricken parents who either mistreat their child or force him to run away from home.
Or they abandon him and let him grow up in a shrine or shelter where he remains
vulnerable to abuse. Parents such as Adil’s, who possess limited financial means to
access the required treatment and therapy, prefer not to waste money on a child
who will never be ‘normal’ and find it easier to ‘imprison’ him at home.

It is an insignificant number of families that are blessed with wealth, education and
broad-minded thinking and are unlikely to be influenced by social prejudices and
religious misconceptions in their attitude towards and upbringing of their child.
These few families perceive their child as equal to any other who must be loved,
nurtured and respected. To help surmount his challenges, they invest time, money
and energy in their child by providing the relevant treatment and assistance. The
child is often integrated in a mainstream school that promotes inclusive education.
With an individualised educational plan (IEP) modified on the basis of his individual
abilities and implemented by a resource teacher paired with that child within the
classroom setting, the child has a better chance to learn and socialise like his
typically developing peers. It is generally believed that children with disabilities who
are included and encouraged from an early age to play, work and interact with
other children are likely to maximise their potential and abilities and significantly
catch up with their peers. This is the essence of an inclusive society as found in
North America and many European countries and as advocated by the Convention
on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol, an international
treaty passed by the United Nations in December 2006 not yet signed by Pakistan.
The convention is the first comprehensive legal instrument that promotes the rights
of persons with disabilities worldwide. It provides for their acceptance as part of
human diversity and preserves their right to dignity, autonomy and non-
discrimination. The convention makes a “paradigm shift” by redefining disability in
terms of physical and social barriers erected by society which prevent the disabled
community from having equal opportunities in society, and advocates their removal.
It also prescribes physical adaptations such as the building of ramps and lifts in
public places and envisions an inclusive society where disabled persons have an
equal opportunity to access education in mainstream schools and employment in
the workplace. Moreover, it recognises their right to make decisions on the basis of
free and informed consent and participate in political decision-making. Finally, the
convention holds the promise of becoming the voice of advocacy that can draw Adil
and others like him from the fringes of society into the mainstream but only if
Pakistan joins the ranks of the 130 nations that have signed the Convention. The
time for parents, families and support groups to lobby for Pakistan’s invisible
citizens is now. ¦ The writer is a lecturer for the University of London
External LL.B Programme

Author Location Dated

Irfan Husain 27.09.08
27.09.08

– In the name of faith

In a moving article on this page (‘Not in the name of faith’, Sept 21), Kunwar Idris
reminded us of the treatment being accorded to the Ahmadis in Pakistan. He
mentioned the three murders that took place this month in the aftermath of a
television talk-show in which one of the participants said Ahmadis were ‘wajib-ul-
qatal’, or deserving of death. A few days later, the Marriott hotel in Islamabad was
targeted by a suicide bomber, killing around 60 people, most of them Muslims.
Before and since, many other innocent victims have been murdered in the name of
faith. So what do all these deaths have in common? Two things: firstly, these people
are killed because one group believes it has a monopoly on faith, and anybody who
does not subscribe to their version of it should be killed; and secondly, those who
murder in the name of their faith are rarely caught and punished, unless they are
suicide bombers. According to Kunwar Idris, 105 Ahmadis have been killed since the
community was declared non-Muslims in 1974. In the recent murders, the
motivation seems to have come from the popular religious talk show, Alim Online, in
which the participants vilified Ahmadis without anybody present explaining or
defending their viewpoint. This kangaroo court was presided over by the smarmy
presence of Dr Amir Liaquat Hussain, who was seen constantly rubbing his hands in
delight during the proceedings, without once interrupting his guests who were
virtually inciting viewers to murder.

When private TV channels began to sprout across the airwaves, I had high hopes
that they would alter the political and social landscape. Given the power of the
medium, it can act as a major agent of change. However, while many of these
channels have challenged the political establishment, they have seldom questioned
the intolerance that holds sway in our society. Indeed, more often than not, they
have reinforced existing prejudices. Most analysts and commentators seem to feel
that the freedom of the press is to be used only to criticise the government of the
day. But that’s the easy bit. Although useful, the true test of independence lies in
the ability and willingness to take on rigid beliefs that have resulted in most of the
country remaining backward and ignorant. And this, I am sorry to say, is a test the
Pakistani media have failed. When I am in Pakistan, I frequently flip across the
spectrum, hoping to see an intelligent, iconoclastic talk-show. Time after time, I am
disappointed. Mostly, guests agree with each other, and the hosts seldom provoke
them by asking tough, probing questions. Even here in England, the wonders of
satellite technology allow me to watch several Pakistani TV networks, and I am
struck by the lack of controversial topics raised in these programmes. Over the
years, I have received literally hundreds of emails from readers accusing me of
towing the western line over the war against extremism. I suppose this is the result
of arguing consistently that this is not America’s war, but ours; and irrespective of
what Washington does, we need to fight this battle for our own survival. By and
large, this kind of anti-western sentiment is echoed across our television channels
and our print media. Our talk-show stars and our newspaper pundits sing from the
same hymn-book as they repeat their jingoistic mantra of sovereignty and
nationalism.

I can understand the thought process of the Taliban in their different manifestations
as they wreak mayhem across Pakistan. They believe in a cause, and are willing to
kill and die for it. I happen to abhor everything they stand for, but at least I know
where they are coming from and what they want. However, what I cannot grasp is
the position so many of our urban elites have adopted. They appear to want
Pakistan to be a modern, prosperous country that is part of the rest of the world.
They also seem to want to live in the 21st century with the rest of us. So why is it
that they think we should not be fighting the Taliban? Basically, their hatred for
America has blinded them to the real threat these extremists pose. Perhaps they
imagine that if western troops were to leave Afghanistan tomorrow, peace would
return to the region overnight. Wake up and smell the danger out there. The Taliban
want nothing less than the imposition of the Sharia. And obviously, they are not
going to tolerate any dissent, such as the kind of anti-government commentary so
common in the media today. In a very real sense, our commentariat are making the
task of the Taliban easier. By equating opposition to the Taliban with prowestern
opinion, they are, consciously or unconsciously, preparing the way for an extremist
victory. Oddly, many of my online critics are women who accuse me of taking a
belligerent line when it comes to fighting the Taliban menace. When I ask them if
they would like to live under a benighted version of Islamic law such as the one the
Taliban imposed in Afghanistan, they immediately say they don’t. Basically, all
these people would like their cake and eat it too. They want to vent against the
Americans, and they want the extremists to stay a long distance away, too. Sorry,
friends, but you have to choose: no neutrals allowed in this war. Over the years,
intolerance has hardened and become a murderous element that is now threatening
to break up Pakistan. Whether this is expressed in the form of a truck of explosives
detonated outside the Marriott; an Ahmadi killed because his beliefs do not conform
to mainstream orthodoxy; a Christian attacked on the grounds of his faith; or a
Hindu girl kidnapped because she has no protection in a Muslim state, it all leads
back to the same strain of intolerance that says: ‘I
‘I am right, and you are wrong. And
because you are wrong, I have the right to kill you.’
you.’ We need to be very clear that
all these everyday examples from contemporary Pakistani society reveal a nation at
war with itself. More than ever before, this violent zeal needs to be fought by
moderates. We need to hear more voices of reason and sanity that oppose the
simplistic, black-and-white worldview of the fundamentalists. And the media has a
duty to promote this peaceful vision.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 27.09.08
27.09.08

– Illegal transfers of dollars continue

Many currency dealers, it is believed, indulge in illegal currency business and are
sending millions of dollars daily out of the country. Transferring dollars without
informing the State Bank of Pakistan is illegal, but the money changers help anyone
who wants to send dollars abroad. The illegal currency trading has been in practice
for years however it was restricted to some an extent after the 9/11 when the US
authorities made it difficult to transfer money without documentation. It is difficult
to give exact amount which is being transferred through this illegal channel, but
some currency experts guess that it could be ranged $2 to $5 million a day. It is not
difficult to find people who help to send the dollars abroad. They charge at a certain
rate and even bargaining is possible. The State Bank has tough laws but is not
vigilant enough to stop this illegal transfer of money. “At“At this stage if $1 to $1.5
billion is sent abroad in a year, it is enough to bring the country under immense
pressure of borrowing and weakening of the rupee,”
rupee,” said Atif Ahmed, a currency
expert. The currency dealers in the open market said capital flight was going on
from across the country. They said the highest amount of money was being
transferred illegally from the NWFP due to serious law and order situation which had
not only stopped investment in the province but caused flight of foreign investment.
“The NWFP in terms of individual riches is the richest province as undocumented
wealth is much larger than the disclosed wealth. This is the reason that highest
capital flight is taking place from the province,”
province,” said a currency dealer. “Most of the
money is sent to Dubai,”
Dubai,” said a currency dealer. However he did not know whether
this money was being invested or being deposited in banks. The remittances by
overseas Pakistanis have increased by 24 per cent in the last two months, but still
the open market is receiving dollars from individuals in much bigger number. The
open market dealers said Ramazan-related dollar inflows through Hundi system
were on the higher side this year because the open market was offering better
exchange rates. Meanwhile, during the first two months (July-August) of the current
fiscal, the demand of UAE dirham was suddenly increased mainly because of the
real estate slump in Pakistan and ever increasing attraction for investing in Dubai.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 27.09.08
27.09.08

– Pakistan in the cross hairs of terrorism

The temptation to liken the deadly blast at Islamabad’s Marriott on September 20
with the apocalyptic 9/11 in New York, seven years ago, is just too great for some to
resist. However, the comparison ends just there. It doesn’t pass muster when the
ground realities of the two tragedies are taken into consideration. The most jarring
disconnect between 9/11 in New York and 20/11 in Islamabad is that President Bush
didn’t take off from Washington within hours of the epic cataclysm. President
Zardari didn’t even wait for the smoldering cinders to be snuffed out before taking
off from Islamabad in what could only be described, nay decried, as obscene haste.
It’s simply bizarre how tentative and lackadaisical a leader presenting himself as
Pakistan’s man-of-the-moment and man-of destiny could be. Earlier that fateful day,
while addressing a joint-sitting of the two houses of the Parliament in Islamabad —
in what was most certainly a welcome break with his precursor, General Musharraf’s
damning legacy of callous disdain of that august body — Mr Zardari was waxing
eloquent about his determination to wipe out terrorism from Pakistan. But how
would anyone, in Pakistan or elsewhere, take him seriously if he doesn’t have the
common sense to know that his commitment to the cause of Pakistan — for which
he has taken the oath — is far more important than keeping an inconsequential
date in New York for his address at the UN General Assembly. Who cares what a
leader, least of all one from the so-called ‘third world,’ says from its ornate podium,
reading from a text prepared by jaded professional hacks. The world stopped taking
the UN seriously long time ago, perhaps from that moment in 1960 when Nikita
Khruschev deployed his shoe-banging antics to turn it into a theatre of the absurd.

Mr Zardari’s pretensions in presenting himself as the latest messiah of Pakistan

have always been suspect in the eyes of those who simply can’t shrug off his sordid
past from their memory bank. His escapism — that’s exactly how his flight from the
carnage in Islamabad could be described — only adds grist to the lingering doubts
of hacks, mandarins and pundits all over Pakistan and the world that the man is
simply not up to the task. President Zardari, now comfortably ensconced in the
niche where he always aspired to be since the tragic murder of his better half, still
seems to suffer from the classic syndrome that he could take all of the people of
Pakistan on a fairy-tale ride all of the time. The formal excuse from Mr Zardari’s
apologists and partisans for his flight out of Islamabad when the capital city was,
literally, in flames, is that he had not only a date at the UN to keep but also to meet
with President Bush on the sidelines of the UN GA. The logic of a date at the UN is
deeply flawed, as explained above. But the excuse of making acquaintance of a
lame-duck President Bush, whose days in the White House are numbered, is not
only illogical but also insulting to the nation traumatised by the harrowing episode
at Islamabad’s Marriott. Of course nobody in his right mind should go on insisting
that battling terrorism is still not Pakistan’s call. It is, or rather it has become
Pakistan’s war while it may be true to insist that it wasn’t until that self-serving
‘frontline soldier’ Musharraf brought it on Pakistan. We have since been paying the
wages of that monumental blunder of a power- hungry Bonaparte. There’s
absolutely no sense, or justification, for the Pakistanis to be still in denial that they
are not mired in the bog precipitated by the autocrat only recently dislodged.

However, one feels hurt to see Zardari moving quickly into the shoes of Musharraf.
He has not only fully embraced Musharraf’s policy of total submission to US diktat
but is also not even shying away from furnishing proof of his slavish surrender to
the discredited philosophy of Musharraf that has brought so much pain and
suffering to the Pakistani people. There’s some urgent damage control due from Mr
Zardari if he wishes to put the Pakistani people’s snowballing scepticism, which
hasn’t been addressed by him or any of his acolytes. Instead of levelling with Bush,
Zardari needs to level with the Pakistani people and share with them the deal that
Musharraf had cut with his American mentors to pawn away Pakistan to American
interests, and what deal was rammed through PM Gilani’s throat when he went to
Washington two months ago to seek blessings for his tenure. Getting a pat on his
back from a discredited Bush should be secondary to getting the approbation of the
people of Pakistan for Mr Zardari. The Pakistani people need to be assured that they
haven’t bargained for a putative dictator in mufti to replace his uniformed
predecessor. The confidence of the people in their leadership, which had been
totally eroded under Musharraf, must be restored and the only way of doing that is
to pursue a policy on combating terrorism that is seen to be different from
Musharraf’s and more open to public scrutiny. A policy with people behind it will
have far greater relevance and credibility than the ongoing arcane practice of
keeping everything under one man’s hat. This should be clearly understood that
there’s no military solution to the problem. From Alexander the Great down to Bush
the Blunderer, no outside military force, no matter how superior in hi-tech weapons,
has defeated the Afghans. Negotiations, backed by limited fire-power when
unavoidable, are the only way beckoning. But the people of Pakistan must be on
board such a strategy, for no policy succeeds without the people’s power behind it.
Mr Zardari can begin to lift the miasma of scepticism and cynicism about his role at
the pinnacle of Pakistan by delivering on pledges made to the people, although, by
his own admission, man-made agreements don’t have much sanctity in his book. He
can make a beginning by abdicating the powers garnered by Musharraf under the
maligned article 58-2(B) of the constitution in favour of the parliament. The
parliament needs to be returned to the role expected of it under a democratic
system. This current parliament has so far been even duller and more subservient
to autocratic whims than its much-ridiculed precursor. That’s no way of doing
business in a democratic polity. Parliament is the repository of the people’s trust
and not living up to their expectations is the grossest abuse of power.

Along with ceding the powers that Zardari’s Bonaprtist predecessor had usurped
from the parliament, Mr Zardari must also do some house cleaning in his kitchen
cabinet and keep distance from unelected cronies surrounding him, especially those
with their hands on the main levers of authority in the country and abroad. The first
to be shown the door must be none other than the Interior czar, Rehman Malik. He
is pathetic and his performance at the head of the internal security establishment is
one of successive and dismal failure. He failed to protect BB when heading her
security team and has been repeating that failure many times over in his present
capacity. What a shame that even in the wake of an appalling failure of intelligence
and policing in Islamabad, Rehman Malik is still adamantly insisting that there was
no such failure. What an inane argument to proffer that dump trucks weren’t
allowed into Islamabad during the daylight hours. Damn it. What he was implying
was that terrorists were free to bring their lethal stuff into Islamabad after sunset.
That’s exactly what they did. Security, especially in a country in thrall to terrorists of
all stripes and colours, isn’t a 9 to 5 job; it must be round-the-clock, and foolproof.
Even more deserving than Malik to be shown the nearest exit is the man thrust on
the embassy in Washington, the most sensitive and important diplomatic mission
for us in the present circumstances. That man is in hock to the Americans and you
can’t entrust a mission of such delicacy and sensitivity to one suspected of being a
factotum of the neocons ruling the roost in Washington. We need an ambassador
guarding the interests of Pakistan in that demanding position rather than a sentinel
and watch-dog of American interests. President Zardari can postpone the herculean
task of cleaning the Augean stables in his own government only at the cost of
further testing the frayed nerves of the Pakistani people. They are already at the
short end of their tether and anyone taking them for granted, any longer, would be
doing so at his own peril, and at the cost of national tranquility and harmony. The
people of Pakistan want a clean break with the past and will no longer tolerate
anyone holding on to the status quo ante. Zardari’s mettle hasn’t been tested yet
but is coming into focus with anarchy knocking at the gates of Pakistan. The long
honeymoon the people of Pakistan granted a bereaved Zardari, in the wake of BB’s
ghastly murder, is over. Now is the time to deliver on the faith reposed by the
people in Zardari. It will not be long before their verdict tells us if he’s up to it or
not. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 27.09.08
27.09.08

– Reaping wages of sins committed in the name of jihad

Terrorism has become the bane of the Pakistan society. As the Marriott Hotel,
located in the most heavily guarded region of Islamabad, incident shows, no one
nowhere is safe. Many argue that the surge in terrorism in Pakistan is the result of
the country’s role of a frontline ally of the United States in the campaign against
terrorism. Therefore, the argument goes, the only way to rid the country of this
menace is to shun the alliance with the US. Is it really so? No doubt, suicide
terrorism has struck Pakistan only in the wake of the country’s post-9/11 alliance
with the US, the roots of the malady lie much deeper. The terrorism that we are
facing is largely an embodiment of religious extremism, which earlier expressed
itself in sectarian killings. The bottles may be new but the wine is old. To trace the
roots of terrorism, one need to go to Pakistan’s involvement in the US led war
against its prime antagonist, the USSR in Afghanistan. In 1979, when the Soviets
invaded Afghanistan, the US deemed it to be a move in the USSR global strategy —
expansion of communism. The invasion of Afghanistan coincided with the advent of
the revolution in Iran whereby the pro-American monarchy was abolished and an
anti-US Islamic regime set up. The change in Iran struck at US influence in the
region. Hence, when the USSR dispatched its troops to Afghanistan, the US reaction
was prompt and tough. Washington wanted to secure the support of neighbouring
countries of Afghanistan, so that it could launch an effective anti-
anti-Moscow campaign.
The US could not get the support of India and Iran for different reasons: India was
an ally of the USSR, while Washington-Tehran relations were on the ebb. However,
in Pakistan the US found an ally and it was through the former that the latter found
its war against the USSR in Afghanistan.

How the government of Pakistan could justify its involvement in the Afghan war?
The answer is: by giving the war a religious meaning. Hence, the Afghan war
became a jihad and the Afghanis on the US side mujahideen. The illegitimate Ziaul
Haq regime, which itself was desperately looking for legitimacy as well as political
and economic support, welcomed the Islamisation of the Afghan war. The people
were made to believe that the communist USSR invasion of Afghanistan had
endangered Islam and therefore it was the religious duty of the government and
people of Pakistan to fight in the war on the side of America, which was fighting for
Islam. However, with the decline in the USSR’s superpower stature, before its
eventual disintegration, and realisation on the part of the Soviet leadership that
their Afghan adventure had been a failure, Moscow decided to pull out from
Afghanistan. With that the US involvement in Afghanistan fizzled out. Hence, in
1989 when the Soviets left Afghanistan, the Americans also said good-bye to the
Afghans. The US closed its embassy in Kabul because of “security concerns” leaving
the warring Afghans to sort themselves out their problems. The US departure
showed that its interest in Afghanistan was purely strategic dictated by its national
interest and not born of its concern for Islam or the Afghans. However, for Pakistan
the impact of the Afghan campaign was disastrous. The Afghan war resulted in
massive supply of arms and money to Pakistan. But this money was spent not on
the welfare of the people but on recruiting militants and rewarding generals. Since
the Afghan crisis was portrayed as a conflict between Islam and kufr, activists of
many religious outfits fought in the war, who were provided money and arms in a
generous way. These militants knew only one way of living — living by the sword.
They also needed an enemy. If the enemy was not a Russian, it could be a Muslim of
the rival sect. Hence, the training and arms which the militants had received were
later used against rival creeds resulting in enormous sectarian violence.

Pakistan’s involvement in the Afghan war also strengthened the notion that
Pakistan should be made the citadel of Islam and that it is the duty of Pakistanis to
actively support Muslim resistance movements all over the world. The Soviet
humiliation in Afghanistan also made the jihadis believe that they can defeat an
adversary however strong. Hence, the jihadis made their way into India, China,
Chechnya and elsewhere. In turn, Pakistan received militants from different parts of
the world. The jihadis’ infiltration into China was the main reason why Beijing
stopped supporting Pakistan on the Kashmir issue. The jihadis would also have us
believe that Islam provides only for a monolithic society in which different cultures
or sub-cultures cannot co-exist; rather they have to be merged with the “Islamic”
culture. If preaching cannot effect that merger, force can, and it must be used. If
such an interpretation of Islam were to be accepted, then the use of force to
remove cultural diversity would become legitimate and freedom of conscience,
which underlies all moral freedom, becomes meaningless. There would be only one
creed and one moral code, not by choice but by force. Such an interpretation of
Islam would not only divest society of all ethical freedom but also breed mayhem
and chaos as jihadis would wade through blood if need be to purge society of what
they consider to be un-Islamic beliefs and practices. In breeding and nurturing
religious militancy, the madressahs have played a lethal role. The pen is bloodier
than the sword and this is perfectly applicable to our madressahs. The madressahs
teach negation, and hence repudiation of doctrines, rituals and moral standards
different from theirs. Hence, those who profess a different creed or have a different
moral standard are looked upon as an evil. Women who do not put on veil or men
who do not have a beard are considered impious. Men and women who mix with
one another are regarded as essentially wicked. Those who listen to music commit a
grave sin. All such wicked or impious people have to be reformed — by the use of
force if need be. The education imparted in the madressahs instead of inculcating in
students a dispassionate quest for truth or at least enabling them to take to some
socially useful profession, indoctrinates in them hatred for other creeds. The
students are taught that only their creed is based on truth, whereas the rest are an
incarnation of evil whose elimination is the most sacred duty of theirs. The reward
of performing that duty, they are taught, is an everlasting life of pleasure in the
paradise.
Most of the students owing to their impressionable age come to believe this stuff.
Hence, when they leave their institutions, their hearts are filled with the strong
desire to carry out their “sacred” duty. The madressahs also churn out sectarian
propaganda in the form of inflammatory literature, which denounces followers of
rival creeds as kafirs, who must either be coerced into conversion or exterminated.
It is such an erroneous view of Islam that lies behind religious extremism in
Pakistan, which has expressed itself in sectarian violence, suicide blasts, burning of
schools and video shops, and incidents like the Lal Masjid episode in Islamabad last
year. No doubt, growing injustices in society, poverty and illiteracy have also
contributed to terrorism. But one needs to be mindful of the fact that terrorism also
has an ideological basis and in case of Pakistan the ideological basis is provided by
the monolithic-cum-militant view of Islam. Blaming America for the instability and
violence in Pakistan would not solve the problem. Nor should we expect Washington
to change its strategy for the sake of Pakistan. No country will do that. The US
Afghan policy is dictated by what it perceives to be its national interest. At best, we
can try and convince the Americans that their tactics, such as raids in the Pakistani
territory, will weaken efforts to defeat militancy. But the basic responsibility for
defeating militants remains our own. In order to achieve these objectives, the
government will have to fight on many fronts. Strong action needs to be taken
against the militants who do not surrender. There has to be a real fight against
poverty and injustices, so that people do not become a tool in the hands of terrorist
outfits out of desperation and frustration. The government should also fight
religious extremism on ideological front. The view propagated by successive
governments and even today by religious parties that Pakistan was meant to be a
theocratic, monolithic state and a citadel of Islam and that it is our duty to
practically support Muslim resistance movements all over the world needs to be
corrected. It is largely because of such misleading views that Pakistan has become
a fortress of terrorism, upon which religious extremists from all-over the world look
as their refuge.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider/
Haider/Anwar 28.09.08
28.09.08
Iqbal

– Obama breathes fire, McCain shows restraint over Pakistan

Pakistan will remain the main theatre of the US-led war on terror whether it is a
Democratic or a Republican who occupies the White House next year. But if the
Democrats win, President Barack Obama will send troops into Pakistan to catch
senior Al Qaeda leaders, but if the Republicans win, President John McCain will not.
He will rely on political and economic engagement with Pakistan to defeat terrorists.
The two candidates expressed these views at their first debate on Friday night. “If
“If
the United States has Al Qaeda, (Osama) bin Laden, top-level lieutenants in our
sights, and Pakistan is unwilling or unable to act, then we should take them out,”
out,”
said Senator Obama. Mr McCain disagreed. “We’re
“We’re going to have to help the
Pakistanis go into these areas and obtain the allegiance of the people. It’s going to
be tough,”
tough,” said the Arizona senator. “We’ve
“We’ve got to deal with Pakistan, because Al
Qaeda and the Taliban have safe havens in Pakistan, across the border in the
northwest regions,”
regions,” Mr Obama insisted. “Although,
“Although, you know, under George Bush,
with the support of Senator McCain, we’ve been giving them $10 billion over the
last seven years, they have not done what needs to be done to get rid of those safe
havens.”
havens.” This did not convince Senator McCain. “On “On this issue of aiding Pakistan, if
you’re going to aim a gun at somebody, George Shultz, our great secretary of state,
told me once, you’d better be prepared to pull the trigger,”
trigger,” said the Republican
candidate. “I’m
“I’m not prepared at this time to cut off aid to Pakistan. So I’m not
prepared to threaten it, as Senator Obama apparently wants to do, as he has said
that he would announce military strikes into Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Instead, Mr McCain
advocated winning over the people of Pakistan. “We’ve
“We’ve got to get the support of the
people of Pakistan. He said that he would launch military strikes into Pakistan. Now,
you don’t do that. You don’t say that out loud. If you have to do things, you have to
do things, and you work with the Pakistani government.”
government.” Mr McCain noted that the
new Pakistani president, ‘Kardari’ (Zardari), has got his hands full and the Afghan
border region has not been governed since the days of Alexander. Both candidates
want to send more troops to Afghanistan and Mr Obama wants to do that “as “as
quickly as possible because it’s been acknowl edged by the commanders on the
ground the situation is getting worse, not better.”
better.” He noted that the highest
fatalities among US troops in Afghanistan were last year than at any time since
2002 and the Al Qaeda and Taliban militants were crossing the border and attacking
US troops in ‘a brazen fashion.’ Mr Obama said he would send two to three
additional brigades to Afghanistan because “the“the place where we have to deal with
these folks is going to be in Afghanistan and in Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Mr Obama also favoured a
strong US strategy for dealing with a growing poppy trade in Afghanistan that has
exploded over the last several years. Mr McCain also favoured greater engagement
with Pakistan and Afghanistan. “I “I won’t repeat the mistake that I regret
enormously, and that is, after we were able to help the Afghan freedom fighters and
drive the Russians out of Afghanistan, we basically washed our hands of the
region,”
region,” he said. “And
“And the result over time was the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and a lot of
the difficulties we are facing today. So we can’t ignore those lessons of history.”
history.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 28.09.08
28.09.08

– Accountability of rulers
Actions
ctions have consequences that catch up with us sooner or later. But this law of
nature does not seem to apply equally to rulers. Presidents and prime ministers
often get away with the improprieties they may have committed. The procedure for
punishing their wrongdoing is very tedious. An American president may be removed
for his violations of the law through impeachment by the House of Representatives
and trial in the Senate. Actually, no president has ever been forced out of office.
President Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1866 but the move to convict him
failed by one vote in the Senate. Richard Nixon, facing the danger of impeachment
over the Watergate break-in scandal in 1974, resigned. The House of
Representatives impeached Bill Clinton for perjury in connection with his affair with
a White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, but the Senate acquitted him. In
parliamentary democracies a prime minister may be removed by his own party or
by the voters at the next election. Another way is for a majority in the lower House
of parliament to pass a vote of no-confidence against him. Governments have fallen
in this manner in some European countries, notably France, but I can’t recall the
same having happened in recent British history. Nor has the central government in
India or Pakistan fallen as a result of a no-confidence vote. The constitution of
Pakistan allows the president to dissolve the National Assembly where the prime
minister is the leader of the majority party. If the assembly is gone, so is the prime
minister. This is a weird method for the president to get rid of an unwanted prime
minister in that the institution being penalised — the National Assembly — has done
no wrong. Presidents Ziaul Haq, Ghulam Ishaq Khan and Farooq Leghari resorted to
this method. They did so because they did not get along with the prime minister,
but the reason they gave in each case was that her/his government had been
corrupt.

Condemnation of corruption from the public platform is loud even though it appears
to be deeply entrenched in the Pakistani political culture. All decent men will vote
for the ways and means that can be effective in eradicating corruption. I am,
however, very sceptical of the efficacy of two of them. If my recollection is correct,
it was during Mr Nawaz Sharif’s second term as prime minister that an agency
called the Ehtesab Bureau was set up. It went after Mr Sharif’s predecessors in
power — Benazir Bhutto, her husband and associates — and filed numerous cases
of corruption and misuse of authority against them to be heard in courts located in
different places so that the accused had to run from one city to another to present
their defence. These cases went on for long as did cases filed under the National
Accountability Bureau installed by Gen Musharraf in 1999. One reason for these
cases to drag on was that the charges in most of them were said to be bogus, the
supporting evidence was inadequate and the prosecution incompetent. Another
reason was that the sponsoring government was more interested in harassing and
tiring out its rivals than in delivering justice. Charges were also brought against
other public officials such as former ministers, legislators, and civil servants, but on
a partisan basis. Those among the corrupt who had made deals with the current
regime were left alone. Friends of the bureau’s own staff were also spared. Plea-
bargaining and out-of-court settlements were allowed in which the accused
surrendered a part of his loot and was let go. NAB became notorious as the regime’s
instrument to persecute its political opponents. There has been some talk of
disbanding NAB, which is a good idea but has not been implemented so far. Its
funding has been reduced substantially and as a result it has had to lay off many
employees. Perhaps it will have a slow death by attrition.

Let us now look at another way to detect and deter political corruption being used in
Pakistan. The Representation of the People Act of 1976 requires legislators to
submit annual statements of their assets and liabilities to the chief election
commissioner (CEC). These statements are to cover, in addition to the legislator
himself, his spouse and dependents. According to a recent news report, the CEC has
called upon members of parliament and the provincial assemblies to submit their
statements by Sept 30, 2008. Failure to do so will result in the suspension of the
defaulter’s membership of the relevant assembly. This requirement is open to
several objections. First, the CEC is being asked to deal with some 1,200
statements. He is most unlikely to have the skilled manpower to examine that many
statements and compare them with those filed during the preceding years to see if
any extraordinary increase has been taking place. Second, those filing the
statements will probably understate their assets and overstate their liabilities. The
election commission is in no position to verify their accuracy. Third, unlike officials
in the executive branch, legislators do not have the power to offer or deny citizens
substantial gains. They may obtain small favours for their constituents by
interceding on their behalf with ministers and civil servants whom they happen to
know well, but their ability to do so is limited. They cannot make a whole lot of
money through corrupt practices even if they want to. The CEC’s annual scrutiny of
their assets would then seem to be a dysfunctional exercise. Fourth, assets include
not only money in the bank, which can be counted, but also immovable property
such as homes and their contents (furniture, appliances, paintings and other works
of art), which the election commission has no way of evaluating. Fifth, while an
income tax officer is admittedly entitled to look into a taxpayer’s income, the
furnishings in his house should be none of his or any other public agency’s business.
The government’s entitlement to know must be weighed and balanced against the
individual’s right to privacy. This right applies with even greater force to the rubies
and diamonds that the legislator’s good wife may happen to own. Her affairs should
be entirely beyond any public official’s reach. The apparatus of accountability has
not worked well in Pakistan. It needs to be reconsidered and redesigned. ¦ The
writer is professor emeritus of political science at the University of
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 28.09.08
28.09.08

– In deep trouble
This
his was written on Saturday, Sept 27. The nation, the father-motherland, is in deep
trouble and we are now approaching virtually one week of Eid holidays. The country
will shut itself down, the moneyed classes and the keeping-up-with-the-Khans clans
will consume more than they can digest and our cities and towns will illuminate
themselves to capacity whilst the generator-deprived classes sit and ponder over
life’s inequalities as their various electric companies switch off their lights and fans.
Saturday’s first front-page lead story in this newspaper is entitled ‘Over
‘Over $15bn
needed — ‘Friends’ unveil initiative to avert collapse’.
collapse’. To use Ziaul Haq’s immortal
phrase, taking stock of our present economic situation, we can only mutter
“peanuts”. (Friday’s front-page told us that ‘Pakistan assured of $1.3bn World Bank
assistance’ which will not get us very far.) Those writing from New York told us
yesterday that “A “A permanent forum was launched in New York on Friday to help
raise billions of dollars to avert a possible economic collapse in Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Our
‘Friends’, those who help us, feed us and succour us will be holding their first
meeting some time next month (do we survive till then?) in the ‘capital’ of the
world, Abu Dhabi. Our brand new president of the Republic, who has made his mark
in the land of the sole superpower, when commenting on the forthcoming initiative
of the ‘Friends’ remarked, “I “I don’t want them to give us the fish. I want to learn how
to fish and do it myself.”
myself.” Well, bully for him. If he can fish for Pakistan as he has
fished for himself we can look forward to better days ahead.

What has he left back home after flying off, very correctly in a commercial flight and
with a reasonable entourage? Let us see how long all this lasts — if he can keep it
up and persuade his party people to act likewise he will be deserving of praise. But
in our country, such gestures have never been long-lived. Let us see. Friday’s
headlines, which the president and his ever-alert information minister may have
missed, told us that all our ‘Airports
‘Airports on red alert after bomb threat’,
threat’, ‘Extremists
‘Extremists
threaten Pakistan’s existence: US general’,
general’, ‘US
‘US suspends visa and consular services
for security reasons’,
reasons’, ‘Asif’s
‘Asif’s plea to help defeat terrorism’;
terrorism’; an editorial commented
on our ‘Intelligence
‘Intelligence deficit’,
deficit’, a columnist wrote on the ‘Threat
‘Threat to the state’,
state’, the
business section let us know that our ‘Forex
‘Forex reserves fall to $8.82bn’
$8.82bn’ and that
‘Rupee weaker’.
weaker’. Sufficient unto the day! Moving on to yesterday, we learnt that
three terror suspects and a kidnap victim were killed in Karachi, 14 militants were
killed in Bajaur (civilian deaths were not mentioned), that four were killed in a bomb
blast that derailed a train, that our blooming tourist industry “falls
“falls victim to
militancy”,
militancy”, that the diplomats posted to our country are asking for effective
security, that ‘Pakistan
‘Pakistan needs over $10bn to avert meltdown’.
meltdown’. An editorial
commenting on the previous day’s reported remark made by the US Gen David
Petraeus reminded us starkly that “There“There is no doubt that the war on terror is
Pakistan’s own war”,war”, and hopefully but somewhat erroneously has it that “The “The more
civilians the Taliban kill, the more girls’ schools they bomb, and the more they
intensify their war on the state of Pakistan the more they unite the people of
Pakistan in their common resolve to crush terrorism”.
terrorism”. Sadly, signs emanating from
our irresponsible independent television channels who give time and space to
militants and their organisations, and from the plethora of ‘expert’ commentators
who urge us to support the militants in their battles against the evil empire of the
US of A have it otherwise. We can only hope they are in some sort of a minority.

The last editorial commented on ‘An ‘An insensitive gesture’,

gesture’, which has caused much
sniggering over in the States and much cringing in embarrassment at home. The
presidential remarks extended to US vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin were
strictly uncalled for, as was the introductory remark made by his aide and minister
of information who is supposed to guide his steps in his new role as head of state.
Dushka Saiyid’s column on ‘The‘The threat from within’
within’ was a timely warning not only
for our government to come to terms with reality, but for the nation to awaken and
realise what it is facing. Yes, the government must do something to radically alter
the prevailing public opinion and drum it into our heads that there is no quick fix to
the present situation, and unless the national mindset is given a boot in its backside
and told to overturn its thinking we may well one day find ourselves bombed back
into the Stone Age (from which we still have to fully emerge). Lastly, friend Irfan
Husain, again writing eminent sense, reminded us of the damage that a free and
independent media can do if it is allowed to do so by those who operate channels
and by a government that sits idly by and observes without comment or action. An
unstable participant, a doctor of sorts, in one of the endless talk shows incited the
public to murder those of the Ahmadi faith, all in the name of the religion which
guides this country. And subsequent murders there were. Such is the national
mindset. Now, if the much needed turnaround in the national mindset is to be
brought about this can only happen through education, education and more
education. Reportedly, the Senate Standing Committee on Education on Friday
asked the government to appoint an education minister, a portfolio which is
considered by all our governments to be the least important (is it perhaps the least
lucrative?). We must have a functioning education ministry with a substantial
budget with which to operate. As we all know, the state of education in this country
is lamentable, to say the least. We have a provincial education minister in Sindh.
His help is needed by Shehzad Roy’s Zindagi Trust which has recently adopted the
government Khatoon-iPakistan School and College, a non-functional institution, and
its adjacent Home Economics College, the principal and a few ‘kaam-chor’ teachers
of which are ‘protesting,’ stopping the functioning of the college, inciting the
students to join their protest. Adoption permission has been obtained from the
Sindh education minister, but support stops there. Though the ministry is keen that
this school function as do the other Trust-adopted government schools, it is doing
nothing to calm the situation and to allow it to educate our future citizens.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 29.09.08
29.09.08

– Karzai softens stance Zardari pledges action on information

about Osama
President Asif Ali Zardari has assured the United States that if Pakistan catches
Osama bin Laden, it would consider Washington’s request to hand him over to US
authorities. “I
“I will go around with my friends and see what they wanted. If they
want them tried in Pakistan we will try them in Pakistan. If they want them tried in
New York, sure so be it,” it,” Mr Zardari said. Also for the first time since 9/11, US-
installed Afghan President Hamid Karzai withdrew his claim that the Al Qaeda leader
was hiding in Pakistan. The two leaders, in two separate interviews to CNN,
expressed their desire to work with each other to defeat terrorism. “Osama “Osama bin
Laden is not in Pakistan,”
Pakistan ,” said Mr Zardari, adding that nobody knew where the Al
Qaeda chief was. “If “If I knew, he wouldn’t be there.”
there.” Mr Zardari said that those who
believed the Al Qaeda leader was hiding in Pakistan should share their intelligence
with the Pakistani government and assured them that Islamabad would take
immediate action. Mr Karzai, who in the past had claimed that Bin Laden was hiding
in Pakistan, told CNN that he was no longer sure if he was in Pakistan.“We
Pakistan.“We used to
say he was in Pakistan after we received intelligence reports that he was. Now we
cannot say where he is because we don’t know. We have become very careful,” careful,” said
Mr Karzai. “He
“He is not in Afghanistan. He never lived in Afghanistan after 9/11,” 9/11,” Mr
Karzai added. The Afghan president was also lenient to the ISI, an agency he
previously blamed for all the troubles he was facing in Afghanistan. Mr Karzai hoped
that the Pakistani spy agency would play a “more effective role” for the betterment
of its country. Mr Karzai also had an uncharacteristically positive attitude towards
the new Pakistani government, saying that he believed the Zardari government
would be more effective against terrorism because he had suffered personal loss.

Others in the government were also attacked, Mr Karzai noted, and the people of
Pakistan also had suffered. Because of these developments, he said, he now
believed that Pakistan would play a better role in fighting terrorism. He said that the
Afghan government had given former president Pervez Musharraf a list of Al Qaeda
and Taliban leaders hiding in Pakistan but he did not take that list seriously. “If
“If he
had listened to us, Pakistan could have avoided the loss it suffered,”
suffered,” Mr Karzai said.
In his interview to CNN’s Late Show, President Zardari assured the allied nations
that his government was with them in fighting terrorism. Mr Zardari did not directly
blame Al Qaeda for former prime minister Benazir Bhutto’s murder but said those
who ‘martyred’ his wife could also target him. Mr Zardari ruled out the possibility of
a war between Pakistan and the US. “Friendly
“Friendly fire is a normal thing even among the
US soldiers,”
soldiers,” said Mr Zardari while talking about an exchange of fire between
Pakistani and US troops last week. The president said there were no rogue elements
in his government and urged Washington to step up intelligence cooperation with
Islamabad to pursue terrorists who might be hiding on the Pakistani side of the
Afghan border. Mr Zardari, however, warned the US not to conduct unilateral action
inside Pakistani territory as such actions would only help terrorists. “If
“If there is
actionable intelligence of that high priority, share with us, we will do the job,”
job,” he
said. The president said he had control over all security and intelligence
organisations. “Definitely,
“Definitely, absolutely,”
absolutely,” he said of all government institutions being
on the same page in the war against terror. Commenting on US presidential
candidate Barack Obama’s strategy to take out any top Al Qaeda operatives hiding
in Fata, Mr Zardari argued that Pakistani forces would do the job better. He noted
that Mr Obama talked about taking unilateral action only if Pakistan was unwilling to
do so. “But
“But in this case, the Pakistani authorities and the president of Pakistan are
more than willing,”
willing,” he added.

Author Location Dated

Tasneem Siddiqui 29.09.08
29.09.08

– On the verge of implosion?

Pakis
akistan is perhaps the only country in the world where citizens are in a perpetual
state of worry and fear about their country’s very existence. Since 1947, various
books and research papers have been predicting the demise of Pakistan, including
Tariq Ali’s Can Pakistan survive? in 1971. In 1971, questions about the viability of
what remained of Pakistan were seriously raised and there were valid reasons for
that. Pakistan’s arch enemy had succeeded in reducing Pakistan to half, and in
Indira Gandhi’s words “threw
“threw the two-nation theory into the Arabian Sea”.
Sea”. The world
witnessed the abject surrender of Pakistan’s 93,000 armed personnel, the biggest in
Muslim history. A part of West Pakistan’s land mass was under Indian occupation.
The economy was in tatters. There was an atmosphere of despair, and
demoralisation was writ large on people’s faces. But it was amazing that with
spectacular resilience, forbearance and patience, the Pakistani nation overcame this
multifaceted trauma, and after putting its act together, started moving forward
once again. In 1973, we succeeded in framing a constitution which, in spite of many
mutilations, still holds the nation together. In 2008, we are once again facing a
similar situation. But the reasons are different. Currently, what depresses ordinary
Pakistanis is rising religious militancy and a grim situation on the northwestern
borders putting Pakistan’s integrity in danger as never before. Besides there is an
economic meltdown resulting in runaway food inflation, and the weakening of the
state’s writ leading to a deteriorating law and order situation, making everyone
unsafe. All these problems put together have created a sense of insecurity and a
general feeling of helplessness. Even the usual gaiety and exuberance which was
expected on the induction of a democratically elected government is missing.

As if this were not enough, in recent months a number of articles and maps have
appeared in the print media, predicting the balkanisation or an early demise of
Pakistan. Discussions on private TV channels also set off alarm bells. This has added
to fears and apprehensions. As a result, economic activity has slowed down, so
much so that in real estate and the stock exchanges there are no buyers. Even
those people who had great faith in the country’s future seem to be puzzled by
these developments. I was surprised when I received an invitation from a school of
architecture to be a panelist in a debate which was discussing the topic ‘Is
‘Is Pakistan
on the verge of implosion?’
implosion?’ Whether Pakistan is going to implode or not is a
separate issue, but the very fact that this is being discussed amongst students
raises serious questions. Is it not time to sit up and analyse what is happening in
and around Pakistan, and what the future holds for us? When Pakistan came into
being there was great euphoria: it was not just the birth of a new state but also the
birth of Pakistanis as a nation. But soon we found that it was a state in search of a
nation. It was ironic that instead of starting the process of nation-building, our ruling
elite thought that mere religion or slogans like the ‘ideology of Pakistan’ could bind
the people together. All promises of social justice, people’s welfare and
egalitarianism made during the Pakistan movement were ignored, and almost all
resources were used to make Pakistan a militaristic state. Consequently, the
concept of nationhood was further eroded. At a political level, instead of a
decentralised democratic dispensation, we opted for a viceregal system,
concentrating all powers at the centre. Local needs were ignored which resulted in
huge imbalances and regional disparities. Pakistan could have emerged as a more
cohesive country if provinces were made autonomous with minimum central
control. But this was anathema to the oligarchy of powerful vested interests which
hijacked the state of Pakistan.

Nationhood in newly independent countries is a fragile plant and is nurtured and

strengthened by the political process which results in the empowerment of the
people. Trade unions, peasant organisations, workers’ guilds, even students’ unions
play a key role in bringing the people together. In Pakistan, neither was mainstream
political activity allowed to blossom, nor did the equitable distribution of economic
largesse take place. For 34 years, the country remained under direct military rule,
which by its very nature is anti-people. Consequently, people gradually felt
alienated from the system, and started looking for alternative identities. Pakistan
would have been a prosperous country by now if our rulers were not suffering from
megalomania and delusions of grandeur. Take the 1965 war. Pakistan was well on
its way to ‘take off’ when Ayub Khan started dreaming of being a second Salahuddin
Ayubi and started a totally unnecessary war which pushed us back by 20 years.
Next, take 1971, when Yahya Khan held free and fair elections, and Pakistan could
have emerged a politically stable country, if the Awami League’s mandate was
accepted. But in his arrogance, naivety or both, he preferred to surrender before
India rather than transferring power to our Bengali brethren. Last, take the Kargil
episode. In 1999, the political leadership of both India and Pakistan were showing
signs of maturity and were willing to settle the Kashmir issue, but Gen Pervez
Musharraf intentionally sabotaged the process. 1965, 1971, 1999 were all self-
inflicted wounds, so is the Afghan policy which army generals are obsessed with and
are not ready to discard even if it puts Pakistan’s integrity and security in danger.
Who took all the crucial decisions in Pakistan history? A cabal of generals without
even consulting their own colleagues. Who suffered? The people of Pakistan. What
is the net result? Today Pakistan is the most dangerous place in the world.

Matters are appalling at the level of governance, but at a societal level things have
drastically changed during the recent years. Although illiteracy is still pervasive, the
communication revolution has changed the lives of people. They are more aware of
what is happening around them, and are becoming more demanding and assertive.
They want space for participation, and a share in the decision-making process. The
younger generation is raising new questions. They want justice, fair play, an
accountable and transparent government, and a system based on merit. In last
year’s movement for the restoration of judges, Pakistan’s civil society spoke up for
the first time. Pakistan will neither implode nor explode if the people have a stake in
its existence. We can overcome the threat of economic meltdown if the elected
government is bold enough to undertake fundamental structural reforms. For
combating rising religious militancy, what is needed is a consensus among all
stakeholders (political leadership, the army and the people) on the basic issue: is it
our war, or an American war, and what are the ways to deal with it? There are
people who are waiting for divine intervention, but they should know that the days
of miracles are over. Countries do not survive on rhetoric or slogans alone. They
survive on people’s strength and their determination, which is not lacking in
Pakistan’s case.

Author Location Dated

Bilal Qureshi bilalqureshi32@gmail.com 29.09.08
29.09.08

– Not ready to give up yet

Choices
hoices have consequences and the choices that Pakistan is going to make today
will have either positive or catastrophic consequences for the coming generations.
Let us hope and pray that despite incredible pressure from those who are
determined to destroy Pakistan for working with the West to root out terrorism, and
paradoxically, from the West for ‘not doing enough’, Pakistan is able to get through
this tremendously challenging time without any damage to the country. However, if
we as a nation are determined to succeed in the future, it is critical that we as a
country must not forget our mistakes. Regretfully, when unelected officials opted to
involve Pakistan in the fight between the Soviet Union and the United States,
Pakistan became the central hub of training for activists and militants who were
driven by religious fervour to fight the communists. These activists and militants
were recruited and trained in the name of religion from around the globe. In this
process, nobody even considered the possibility of a religious fight against
communism becoming a global threat, once the short-term goal of defeating the
Soviet Union was achieved. More importantly, and rather ironically, the decision
makers in Pakistan utterly failed to understand that by fighting for one particular
ideology, sooner or later Pakistan itself could become what Afghanistan was in the
seventies and eighties: an international battleground where proponents of two very
different ideologies would wage an intense war and subsequently, one or perhaps
both sides would rely on increasingly brutal tactics to achieve victory. Hence the
nuisance of terrorism for Pakistan.

According to a report by one agency in Pakistan, the country has suffered about 30
suicide attacks between January through September 2008, killing over 500 innocent
civilians and critically wounding about 800. This terribly saddening report becomes
even more depressing when we learn that Pakistan has been the target of more
terrorist attacks than Iraq and Afghanistan, two countries where an all-out war is
being waged. And yet, as cruel as it sounds, to the dismay of those who are
suffering these daily bombings, astonishingly, Pakistan is blamed for not being a
serious partner in the fight against terrorism. Please, at least give Pakistan a break,
if it can’t get credit for all it has done so far. Before the devastating attack in
Islamabad that destroyed the Marriott hotel and killed over 60 people, pundits in
Washington, New York and London routinely and unnecessarily criticised Islamabad
for not ‘taking
‘taking on the terrorists’.
terrorists’. While sitting in comfortable and safe studios, these
so-called experts regularly pointed fingers at Pakistan for not doing enough, even
though Pakistan was taking casualties day after day. To support their
unsubstantiated theories, these studio experts exclusively relied on statistics and
computer-generated charts, but they failed to take into account the ground
realities. Their analysis, with few exceptions, was superficial at best. Worst, this
instant analysis was driven by the necessity of compressing complex issues into 30
or 40-second sound bites, and this practice perpetuated the myth of Islamabad
being complicit in terrorism, an outrageous fabrication completely debunked by the
number of deaths that Pakistan has endured, both on the battlefield against the
terrorists and by civilians across Pakistan. No country, government and society is
perfect, and Pakistan is no exception, but historians looking objectively at the
evidence relating to the contribution made by Pakistan since the late seventies
would have to conclude that Pakistan has done more than most countries when it
came to defeating the Soviet Union in Afghanistan, and now in the global fight
against religious militarism.

Given Pakistan’s record, it is absolutely safe to assume that Pakistan will continue
to do whatever it has to do to save itself and the rest of the world from the nihilists.
There shouldn’t be any doubts about Pakistan’s resolve to defend its culture, its
heritage and its future. Therefore, it is both important, and wise that allied forces
don’t make this fight more complicated by invading Pakistan’s territory.
Collaboration, not unilateralism, is the key to success, if we look at the recent war
history, either in Afghanistan or in Iraq. It is also worth noting that bombs and
missiles alone won’t be enough to win this fight. We also need schools, roads,
hospitals, electricity, clean running water, a vibrant and growing economy that
creates jobs, and for this to happen, the international community has to come
forward with generous non-military aid. If the rest of the world is interested in
seeing Pakistan emerge victorious and triumphant in the long and difficult war
against terror, they should ask Pakistan what they can do to help, not lecture
Islamabad about how to run its affairs. Instead of pressuring Islamabad to fight day
and night, the rest of the world should assist the government in developing and
implementing a comprehensive strategy to combat social and economic challenges
as well. Leaving aside those who insist that dark and gloomy days are ahead for
Pakistan, it is obvious that despite all that is going on in Pakistan, remarkably, the
political leadership, or at least those who were elected in the last election, are
demonstrating incredible maturity. Instead of denigrating each other now that they
are no longer allies, Nawaz Sharif and Asif Zardari treat each other with respect and
deference. After losing the presidential election, Nawaz Sharif personally went to
congratulate Asif Zardari, a supremely democratic gesture that made every
Pakistani proud. These developments and more importantly, these gestures of
cooperation and mutual respect, are crucial because the country cannot afford
another political crisis. Fortunately, the nation is coming together to save itself from
the negative forces bent on destroying national confidence by carrying out vicious
attacks. Despite the threat of terrorism, Pakistan is on the recovery path because of
the thriving democracy in the country. For decades, the people of Pakistan have
survived without any help from their government. The wheel of commerce has been
in motion even when the business environment was not hospitable. The people of
Pakistan are tough, and they have proved their resilience over the years despite
coups, military rule and other challenges that tested Pakistan as a nation, and it is
safe to assume that the country is not ready to give up on itself or its future.

Author Location Dated

Muhammad Ali Siddiqi 29.09.08
29.09.08
 – Defining the Taliban
While President Asif Ali Zardari says we are in a state of war, it is amazing that the
government and the media have not yet clearly spelled out how the enemy is to be
defined. Normally, an enemy is an enemy. But every war has, and must have, a
well-developed jargon that conveys to the world and to the people the idea of the
enemy as perceived by the belligerent power. We know that in the First World War,
Germany was the principal enemy. But the western allies told their people that they
were fighting a “war to end all wars”. In the Second World War, Germany and Japan
were the main foes, but to prove that they were not waging a war for territorial
gains, the western Allies said their aim was to rid the world of fascism. As for the
Cold War that waged with full fury for more than four decades, it spawned a lingo
that would remain surpassed for long for its venomous contents, astonishing variety
and mind-boggling abundance. The media on both sides played a major part in
denouncing the other bloc’s way of life. Much of it has been forgotten — iron
curtain, bamboo curtain, free world, brainwashing, rectification camps, gulags,
communist subversion, double-speak, antipeople forces, exploiting classes,
comprador capitalism, imperialism, classless society, class struggle, the Party,
Party, and
much more. In 2001, following 9/11, America coined a term which the Bush
administration saw to it the world accepted — a ‘war on terror’. The shibboleth has
caught on. Today, Pakistan is at war, but who are we fighting and who is the
enemy? The answer is the Taliban. But does the word Taliban convey to our people
the contempt and revulsion attached to an enemy? For many, the Taliban represent
a religious movement, not necessarily hostile to Pakistan and not necessarily an
enemy of the people. For some, the Taliban are merely misguided zealots, who can
be tamed and won over through dialogue and reason. Many people in this category
— and they are a powerful segment of society, state and media — are not prepared
to accept the Taliban as the enemy of the state of Pakistan.

The reason behind the government’s inability to evoke the cooperation of the vast
majority of the people against the Taliban is its failure on the propaganda front. In
fact, the government can hardly be said to be aware of the need for developing an
intelligent and well-coordinated strategy for a media blitz on the enemy; on the
contrary, it is the Taliban who are waging a very successful propaganda war against
the government, advancing their cause insidiously and winning supporters through
sections of the media with deep sympathy for them. One popular channel calls the
Taliban mazahmat kaar. This is a newly developed translation for resistance
fighters. Mazahmat kaars is a term that can be applied to the Kashmiri guerillas in
the Indian-occupied Valley and to the Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied territory.
By no stretch of the imagination can Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Lahore, Peshawar, D.I.
Khan, Charsadda, Mingora and large tracts of Swat be called occupied territory. In
these cities and elsewhere the Taliban have murdered Pakistani soldiers, including a
general belonging to the medical corps, have attacked military and civilian
installations, mosques, Eid congregations, a peace jirga, at least one funeral
procession and crowded markets, and blown up army, navy and air force buses
carrying students. Chinese nationals are their favourite targets, because China is
Pakistan’s “allweather friend”. They have also slaughtered captured Pakistani
soldiers. To call these criminals and rebels mazahmat kaars is to honour them and
betrays a very clever attempt to whitewash their criminality. The government has
not bothered to evolve an appropriate term for the enemy. The statecontrolled PTV
refers to the Taliban as askaryet pasand — a very awkward translation for
‘militants’, as if we are talking not about a rebellion at home but about the distant
Tupamaros in Uruguay.

There is only one and obvious term for the Taliban enemy — rebels in English and
baaghi in Urdu. The Taliban have gone beyond terrorism; they are no more, like the
Basque separatists in Spain, part-time terrorists. They have an army — a highly
motivated one — and their sources of funding are unlimited; procuring arms is not a
problem for them, some of their arms come from powers known to be hostile to
Pakistan, and the sophistication of their weaponry has surprised our military. Their
intelligence system has been working efficiently, and often they hoodwink the Isaf
and Americans on the other side of the Durand Line by disinformation. This has led
quite often to wrong targets being bombed, with civilians being the casualties. This
earns them sympathy points and the American-Isaf leadership loses. They believe
they are a state within a state, they have set up a parallel judicial system and are
bold enough to show their judicial system in action to the media. Pakistan, thus, has
to accept the challenge and crush the rebellion. For that it is essential that the
Taliban and their supporters are stripped of the halo of respectability and presented
to the people of Pakistan in their ugly reality for what they are — rebels. Helping
crush these rebels is the duty of all Pakistanis because the Taliban are waging war
on the Islamic world’s only nuclear power.

Author Location Dated

Jason Burke Kabul, Afghanis
Afghanistan 29.09.08
29.09.08

– Why West thinks it is time to talk to Taliban

For the past few months an incongruous figure has passed through the airports of
the Middle East and Europe: a senior Afghan cleric who defected from the Taliban.
Bearded and in traditional dress, he has unsurprisingly needed the help of the Saudi
Arabian and British intelligence services among others to pass unhindered between
capitals. He has always travelled in great secrecy, his movements known only to a
few individuals at the highest levels of the Afghan government, in Riyadh and
among certain western allies. His mission: to talk to the Taliban leadership about a
possible peace deal. The backing given by the West to these talks is a measure of
how badly things have gone wrong in Afghanistan, and how far western
governments are prepared to go to stabilise a deteriorating situation which is
costing more in men, money and political capital than they ever imagined. The
equally worrying situation in Pakistan, where the Taliban are largely based and
where a separate but related insurgency has broken out, has given the initiative a
new urgency. That the Saudi Arabians accepted the invitation of the Afghan
government to sponsor the initiative this summer is a measure of how concerned
those who govern the traditionally leading nation of the Sunni world are about
Afghanistan and Al Qaeda and the consequences they might have for the rest of the
Islamic world and beyond. It is also a measure of the esteem in which the Saudis
are still held. This is not the first time the Saudi Arabians have brokered talks with
the Taliban, and western powers have been keen to get Riyadh more involved in
Afghanistan for some time. The Saudis, along with Pakistan and the United Arab
Emirates, were the only states to recognise the hardline Islamic militia as rulers of
Afghanistan in the Nineties. In 1998, they also nearly concluded a deal with Mullah
Mohammed Omar, the reclusive leader of the Taliban, to hand over Osama bin
Laden.

For the West, the sponsorship of Riyadh is essential. Western efforts to negotiate
with the Taliban have rarely brought any durable positive results. The reconciliation
process launched by the Afghan government has brought in about 5,000 low-level
fighters and a handful of midlevel commanders, but has never had the political
backing or resources that was needed for it to become a genuine means of sapping
the strength of the Taliban. But these most recent talks also show that, at the very
least, some of the Taliban senior command are getting tired. “They’ve
“They’ve been fighting
for nearly seven years, living undercover, moving regularly, unable to go back to
Afghanistan without risking a violent death. Despite the bellicose rhetoric and the
successes of recent months, they have lost a lot of people and there is a certain
degree of fatigue,”
fatigue,” said one experienced Pakistan-based observer. The Saudi
initiative has resulted in the submission of a list of demands by the Taliban to Kabul.
One problem was that those demands keep changing, said one Afghan source. A
second is the question of whether any potential agreement could be made to
stick.“We
stick.“We could agree something with the high command that won’t be put into
action at a grass-roots level,”
level,” said an adviser to Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The
Taliban demands are also unlikely to be acceptable to the western powers,
especially the US, which have bankrolled the effort to stabilise and reconstruct
Afghanistan. Hekmat Karzai, director of a think-tank in Kabul, said that although
discussions with the Taliban “might
“might not be too difficult... getting the international
community on board would be extremely hard”. hard”.

Another problem would be convincing other ethnic groups in Afghanistan who

suffered heavily under the Taliban regime to accept any deal. However, there is
increasing acceptance among western officials and strategists that some kind of
political accommodation to at least divide the Taliban may be inevitable. There are
also question marks over to what extent Taliban factions may be manipulated by
elements within the Pakistani security establishment. However, Islamabad is
unlikely to oppose moves to integrate senior Taliban figures into the political
process in Kabul. Previous attempts to negotiate with the Taliban have been
problematic. A controversial truce in Helmand province, where British troops are
deployed, was widely criticised for handing the key town of Musa Qala back to the
militants and necessitating a major operation to recapture it. In May, the former
Afghan President Burnahuddin Rabbani said he had contacted the Taliban and
received “encouraging
“encouraging responses”.
responses”. The Taliban published a statement on their
website saying they would “fight
“fight until the withdrawal of the last crusading invader”,
invader”,
but added that “the
“the door for talks, understanding and negotiations will always be
open”
open” to “mujahideen
“mujahideen” ” such as Rabbani, who fought the Russians in the Eighties.
One problem with the Saudisponsored talks so far is that the go-between has been
unable to speak directly to Mullah Omar. However, an Afghan source described the
initiative as “a
“a step in the right direction”,
direction”, whatever the result. “Anything
“Anything that
might be an ice-breaker and might take us forward is welcome,”
welcome,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Iftikhar. A. Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 30.09.08
30.09.08

– Kayani shakes up army command

In a major reshuffle in the army’s top command, Chief of the Army Staff General
Ashfaq Parvez Kayani on Monday brought in a new head of the all-powerful Inter-
Services Intelligence (ISI), changed four of the nine corps commanders and
appointed a new chief of general staff, besides giving key postings to a few others.
The shake-up is the most wide-ranging since Gen Kayani took over as the COAS and
perhaps even more significant since the former military ruler General Pervez
Musharraf stepped down as the country’s controversial president. The move came
within hours of the promotion of seven major generals to the rank of three-star
lieutenant generals, with a number of them becoming the direct beneficiary of the
reshuffle. Perhaps the most surprising of all such changes is the appointment of Lt-
Gen Ahmed Shuja Pasha as the new Director-General of ISI. He has replaced Lt-Gen
Nadeem Taj, who has been appointed Commander of 30 Corps in Gujranwala. A
highly professional soldier in his own right, Lt-Gen Pasha has, for the past over two
years, been overseeing the ongoing security operation in the tribal areas and parts
of the NWFP. In his capacity as the director-general military operations (DGMO) he
was directly responsible for the launching and execution of all major security strikes
in Fata and Swat, the latest being the major onslaught against religious extremists
in the Bajaur tribal agency. But he is not the only beneficiary of Monday’s
promotions and reshuffle carried out by General Kayani who, many believe, has put
in place a new team to implement his vision for reviving the prestige of the armed
forces and for enhancing the security of the state. Some of the other significant
appointees are former SSG Commander Lt-Gen Tahir Mahmood, who has been given
the most crucial 10 Corps in Rawalpindi; Lt-Gen Shahid Iqbal, who has been made
commander of the 5 Corps in Karachi; and Lt. Gen Muhammad Yusuf, who has been
given 31 Corps in Bahawalpur. Lt-Gen Mustafa has been appointed the Chief of
General Staff. He will replace Lt-Gen Salahuddin Satti.

According to an announcement by the ISPR, the Corps Commanders of Rawalpindi,

Karachi, Bahawalpur and Gujranwala have been changed. Lt General Tahir
Mehmood has been appointed the Corps Commander of Rawalpindi. He replaces Lt-
Gen Mohsin Kamal who has been appointed MS (military secretary) at General
Headquarters (GHQ). Lt-Gen Ahsan Azhar Hyat, Corps Commander Karachi, has
been appointed Inspector General Training and Evaluation (IGT&E) at GHQ. Lt-Gen
Raza Mohammad, Corps Commander Bahawalpur, has been appointed Director-
General Joint Staff at JSHQ. Lt-Gen Muhammad Yousaf has been appointed Corps
Commander Bahawalpur. Lt-Gen Mohammad Zaki, Director-General Infantry, has
been appointed IG Arms at GHQ. Lt-Gen Javed Zia, Deputy Chief of General Staff,
has been appointed QMG at GHQ. Lt-Gen Zahid Hussain has been appointed
Adjutant General at GHQ. Lt-Gen Muhammad Mustafa has been appointed CGS at
GHQ. LtGen Tanvir Tahir has been appointed at IG Communication and IT at GHQ.
Lt-Gen Ayyaz Salim Rana has been appointed Chairman Heavy Industries Taxila
(HIT). The reshuffle is being seen by observers as highly significant as it comes
against the backdrop of stepped-up US incursions inside Pakistan’s territory and the
unusual statement by the Army Chief declaring that violation of the country’s
sovereignty would not be allowed at any cost. Some observers have pointed out
that the ISI chief had been changed after the abortive attempt through a
controversial notification to place the intelligence agency under the administrative,
financial and operational control of the Interior Ministry. Earlier in the day, seven
Major Generals were promoted to the rank of Lieutenant General. Those promoted
are three Major Generals of Infantry, two of Armoured Corps and one each of
Artillery and Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (EME). They are: Major General
Ahmad Shuja Pasha, Major General Mohammad Mustafa Khan, Major General Ayyaz
Saleem Rana, Major General Tahir Mahmood, Major General Shahid Iqbal, Major
General Tanvir Tahir and Major General Zahid Hussain.
Hussain. Official sources told Dawn
that Maj-Gen Ahmad Shuja Pasha would be replaced by General Officer
Commanding Jhelum Major General Javed Iqbal as Director General Military
Operations.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakis
Pakistan 30.09.08
30.09.08

– SBP issues currency worth Rs54bn

The State Bank of Pakistan has so far supplied Rs54.6 billion fresh currency notes
during the current month, but the demand is still high and the rate in black market
is rising. The central bank data released here on Monday showed that the printing of
fresh currency notes totalled Rs54.631 billion during September 2008. SBP
Governor Dr Shamshad in a statement said the SBP was making all-out efforts to
provide fresh currency notes to general public on the occasion of Eid festival. Fresh
notes are being issued from more than 8,000 branches of banks in addition to 16
Field Offices of the SBP. She said that under a well defined policy as per
arrangements, one packet each of Rs5 and Rs10 denomination notes (100 pieces)
were being provided to every person against presentation of original CNIC. From
September 3 to September 27, the State Bank has provided 356 million pieces
worth Rs41.756 billion of fresh currency notes of various denominations to the
banks for distribution amongst the general public from their branches in addition to
Rs13 billion fresh notes issued from SBP Field Offices. “Judging
“Judging from the demand of
the fresh currency notes, it is expected that the total number of pieces of fresh
notes to be provided to the general public will be much more than that of the last
year,”
year,” said the SBP. In order to ensure equity and fair play in the matter of provision
of currency notes to the general public by banks, various measures have been put
in place by the SBP which include on the spot investigation of various branches of
banks, mystery shopping of fresh notes from the market. Banks found violating the
SBP instructions were levied heavy fines, said the SBP statement. Regarding the
sale of fresh currency notes in the black market she stressed upon the need on the
part of law enforcement agencies to take effective measures to curb this practice.

Author Location Dated

PPI Karachi, Pakis
Pakistan 30.09.08
30.09.08

– Public transport situation worsening in Karachi

The urban public transport problem in Karachi is aggravating with each passing day.
The provincial and city governments seem to be lacking a vision and strategy to
deal with the situation where the growing population looks for an increasing number
of public transport means but the number of vehicles is on the decline due to a
number of reasons. Ironically, no new bus routes have been introduced for years
while no buses are being operated on at least 36 existing routes. The public
transport problem in the city has aggravated dramatically over the years and has
now become the most serious one being faced by Karachiites at the moment. New
bus routes are badly needed in the extending populated area, especially the city’s
suburbs. Due to neglect on the part of the authorities concerned, a large number of
people have to change several buses to reach their destination. According to the
figures posted on the City District Government Karachi (CDGK) website, the city’s
population, which stood at 9,269,265 in 1998, has now touched the 18 million mark.
The number of commuters has also increased over the past decade at a rate in
propotion with that of the population growth but the number of buses, minibuses,
coaches and other public transport vehicles has registered a considerable decrease.
The authorities concerned have miserably failed to provide any relief to commuters
despite having spent millions of rupees on improving the public transport system
over the past five years. Sources in the city government said that one of the major
reasons behind the failure to improve the city’s public transport system was that
transporters were not ready to make investment and bring in buses. “Instead,
“Instead, they
are systematically reducing the number of the buses and minibuses presently
plying on various routes,”
routes,” the sources claimed. It is believed that the transporters
want to maintain their present level of earnings through a reduced number of
operative buses to make the business viable and more profitable. Their strategy
works as passengers do not mind travelling in crowded buses and minibuses and
people travelling atop buses and minibuses, standing on footboards and clinging to
bumpers is a common sight on many routes.

The CNG buses imported from China and some other countries on the grounds of
maintaining healthy environment and containing commuters’ woes, have since
been withdrawn. The sources said that 40 new bus routes were allocated to the
Urban Transport System (UTS) and for the CNG buses fleet in 2003 and some buses
were operated on these routes for quite some time. However, the buses
disappeared gradually from most of these routes and no reasons for the withdrawal
has been made public yet. The sources said that buses were being operated on just
four of the 40 routes with the numbers being UTS1, UTS-11, UTS-12 and UTS-13.

– The UTS-1 shuttles between Surjani Town and Dockyard/Keamari via Nagan
Chowrangi, North Nazimabad, Lasbella, Guru Mandir and Tower.
Tower.
– The UTS-11 runs on Khokarapar Orangi Town (Gulshan-i-Bihar) route via
Saudabad, Sharea Faisal, Karsaz, Civic Centre, Liaquatabad No.10,
Nazimabad, Habib Bank, Valika, Banaras, Orangi-5, ZMC and Orangi 13.
– The route of UTS-12 operate between Khokarapar and Baldia (Yousuf Goth)
via Saudabad, Sharea Faisal, FTC, Lucky Star, RTA Office, Shaheen Complex,
I.I. Chundrigar Road, Tower, Wazir Mansion, Gulbai, Shehshah, Hub River
Road, Moachh Goth and Naval Colony.
Colony.
– The UTS-13 plies between Khokrapar and Ittehad Town via Saudabad, Sharae
Faisal, NIPA, Sohrab Goth, Nagan Chowrangi, Hyderi, Board Office, Abdullah
College, Banaras and Orangi.
Orangi.

“Commercial transporters have not introduced new wide-bodie buses on any new
route in Karachi during the last 10 years,”
years,” said Irshad Bukhari, President of the
Karachi Transport Ittehad (KTI). “Actually
“Actually we don’t need new routes as we don’t
have enough number of buses left in our fleets to ply even on the existing routes,”
routes,”
he added. “During
“During the last five years we have not applied for any new route permit
for minibuses, and instead the number of minibuses and coaches has decreased,
considerably. We have stopped plying buses and minibuses on many routes due to
a shortage of vehicles.”
vehicles.” In the past, the private public transporters possessed about
3,300 large-sized buses but due to increasing diesel prices, they could not afford
their maintenance and around 500 of these large-sized buses had to be sent to
scrap dealers, he added. “We
“We are already running short of buses and in this
condition we cannot operate buses on new routes. We know the disappearance of
buses is causing problems to the masses but we can’t help it. We had a total of
15,000 minibuses and coaches with us but now we are left with only 10,000
minibuses and coaches as 5,000 of them have been converted into loading trucks,”
trucks,”
he said. “There
“There is no charm in the public transport business now in Karachi. That is
why transporters are not ready to bring in more buses,”
buses,” he added. He agreed that
there was a need for more buses in all parts of the city as the population had
increased. New routes were also required, he said, adding that it would be difficult
to cater to the needs of Karachi commuters even if 10,000 new buses were
introduced on an emergency basis.

The 36 routes where UTS and CNG buses have stopped plying are:
are:
– UTS-2 route: Surjani/North Karachi to Keamari;
– UTS-3 from Surjani to Korangi,
– UTS-4 from Surjani to Shireen Jinnah Colony;
– UTS-5 route from Taiser Town to Dockyard,
– UTS-6 from Malir Cantt to Tower and
– UTS-7 route from Malir Cantt to Karachi Cantt,
– UTS-8 from Gulshan-i-
Gulshan-i-Hadeed to Dockyard and
– UTS-8-A route from Gulshan-i-Hadeed to Tower,
– UTS-9 from Labour Square (Landhi) to Tower/West Wharf,
– UTS-10 from Korangi to Baldia,
– UTS-14 from Orangi to Tower/Dockyard and
– UTS-15 route from Orangi to Clifton/Shirin Jinnah Colony,
– UTS-16 from Baldia to Keamari,
– UTS-17 from Al-Asif Square to Baldia,
– UTS-18 from Quaidabad to West Wharf,
– UTS-
UTS-19 from Gulishtan-i-Jauhar to Tower,
– UTS-20 from Gulshan-i-
Gulshan-i-Maymar to Yousuf Goth, Baldia,
– UTS-21 from Surjani Sector 5-D to Seaview,
– UTS-
UTS-22 from Surjani Sector 5-D to Tower,
– UTS-23 from Gulistan-i-Jauhar to Seaview (Clifton),
– UTS-24 from Scheme 33 (White House) to Tower,
– UTS-25 from Korangi 100-Quarters to Qasba,
– UTS-26 route from Landhi to Saddar,
– UTS-27 from Surjani Sector-5 to Defence Phase-VII (Extension),
– UTS-28 from Surjani Town (Sector 7) to Tower and
– UTS-29 from Gulistan-i-Jauhar to Fisheries/Dockyard,
– UTS-30 from Baldia to Shah Latif Town,
– UTS-31 from Baldia to Landhi (Sherpao Colony),
– UTS-32 from Baldia to Landhi (Labour Square),
– UTS-33 route from Baldia to Landhi (Labor Square),
– UTS-34 from Surjani Town (Sector 7) to Korangi Industrial Area (Sharifabad),
– UTS-35 from Khokhrapar to Orangi Town (Gulshan-i-Bihar),
– UTS-36 route from Khokhrapar to Clifton,
– UTS-37 from Landhi (Labour Square) to Ittehad Town,
– UTS-38 route from Memon Goth (Gadap Town) to West Wharf and
– UTS-39 route from Razzaqabad (Bin Qasim Town) to Quaidabad.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
OCTOBER
2008
Kamaal K. Lalany - HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
October 2008 of the DAWN
Compilation Series, put together by
Kamaal Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Bahzad Alam Khan Karachi, Pakis
Pakistan 01.10.08

– Eid moon ‘drama’ ends at 10.45pm

A suspenseful controversy hit Shawwal-moon sighting and kept the entire nation on
tenterhooks for hours before the central Ruet-i-Hilal committee announced on
Tuesday that Eid would be celebrated across the country on Wednesday. Political
considerations seemed to have forced the committee’s hand when the NWFP
government declared with uncalled-for haste that the elusive crescent had been
sighted in the province and the festival would be celebrated on Wednesday. As
unconfirmed reports about Eid swirled around the central Ruet-i-Hilal committee,
which remained in session hours after the sunset, chairman Mufti Munibur Rehman
appeared for a third time on television at around 10.45pm and announced that
incontrovertible evidence about the Shawwal moon had been received – not from
the Frontier but from Badin in lower Sindh – and accordingly Eid would be
celebrated on Wednesday. He explained that the delay in the announcement of the
“Eid moon” had been caused by the painstaking analysis of evidence received from
the length and breadth of the country. However, sources told Dawn that the
committee had spent “quite
“quite some time weighing the option of ignoring NWFP
moonsighting reports”.
reports But the option was ultimately rejected as divisive and
”.
politically injudicious. Religious scholars insist that an Islamic month begins with the
actual sighting of the moon. Those who sight the Shawwal moon first, celebrate Eid
ahead of those who do not. If the central Ruet-i-Hilal committee had not made the
announcement it eventually did, three Eids would have been celebrated in Pakistan:
one on Tuesday by those who follow Saudi Arabia in the celebration of the festival,
second on Wednesday by those in the NWFP who sighted the moon on Tuesday and
third on Thursday by those who act upon guidelines of the central Ruet-i-Hilal
committee.

The final announcement of the Ruet-i-Hilal committee was preceded by a flurry of

activity in the NWFP which saw senior minister Bashir Ahmed Bilour, of the Awami
National Party, first making an unscheduled visit to the provincial office of the
committee and then making a public statement that reports had been received from
district coordination officers about the sighting of the Shawwal moon. No sooner
had the NWFP Ruet-i-Hilal body announced that it had dispatched its reports to the
central committee in Karachi than Mr Bilour declared that the crescent had indeed
been sighted and Eid would be celebrated on Wednesday. He seemed to have
ignored the earlier advice of Mufti Rehman, who cautioned television channels and
unauthorised individuals against spreading unconfirmed reports about Eid. Agencies
add: In India, Eid will be celebrated in India on Thursday, according to an
announcement made by Syed Ahmed Bukhari, the Imam of Delhi Jama Masjid.
Meanwhile, Eid was celebrated on Tuesday in Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates,
Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, Turkey, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Jordan, Libya,
Sudan, Yemen, Djibouti, Kenya, Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania and the Gaza Strip and
other Palestinian areas. Sunni’s in Iraq also celebrated the Eid on Tuesday, while the
Shias will celebrate the festival on Wednesday. Egypt and Tunisia will celebrate Eid
on Wednesday. Eid was also celebrated on Tuesday by Muslims in most countries of
Eastern Europe. Muslims in several parts of Philippines also celebrated the Eid, but
President Gloria Arroyo announced that the festival would begin on Wednesday.
Indonesia and Singapore have also announced that Wednesday would the first day
of Eid.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 01.10.08

– Democracy’s foibles
Befitting a nation suffering from many ills, there are many soothsayers and would-
be healers here. They have grand ideas for saving us that are rooted in familiar
ideologies and idylls. The benevolent dictator, the malevolent avenger, the
puritanical priest, the altruistic populist, the self-interested capitalist. I’m a wary
incrementalist. The surest way to arouse my suspicion is to suggest you have a cure
for all that ails Pakistan. We’ve tried democracy and dictatorship and everything in
between. We’ve had secular dictators become bedfellows with pious mullahs and
pious dictators who have sidled up to the Americans; we’ve had constitutionalists
who weren’t democrats and democrats who weren’t constitutionalists; we’ve had
populists who were elitists and elitists who were revolutionaries; we’ve had
technocrats who were wannabe politicians and politicians who were wannabe
economic maestros. When nothing has worked, we’ve been left with two extremist
camps: undiluted democracy and overweening dictatorship. On principle, I am
opposed to dictatorship; in practice, I find democracy hard to stomach. That’s why
I’m a wary incrementalist. My fear is that like a cancer patient if you pump too
much medicine, good or bad, into the system, the patient — Pakistan — will expire.
The transition to democracy was a good idea because it set modest goals. Little did
I know what a white-knuckle ride it would be. A columnist for this paper would often
ask me why I didn’t pile into Musharraf in his last days. For me, the problem was
always apparent: he wasn’t the solution in 1999, and he certainly wasn’t in 2007.
Prodded and nudged by the rabble he helped unleash, Musharraf was on his way
out — and the country could finally get on with the business of finding a sustainable
model for running the state. For several reasons, in Pakistan that model has to be
rooted in some form of democracy.

Clearly, democracy was the winningest theory of the twentieth century. Peer into
any corner of the globe and you’ll find people yearning for it. Surely democracy has
some intrinsic merit. On a more practical level, dictatorships are destined to fail in
Pakistan because of a well-kept secret: rather than being weak, our political class is
strong and very capable of defending its interests — the eventual capture of state
power. So we move on to implementation. Everyone is in agreement that the only
way politicians as a group can eventually wrest control of their own destiny lies in
two measures: one, they must strip away the anti-parliamentary, undemocratic
powers in the constitution; two, they must provide an example of good governance
even as they navigate treacherous waters to defang the establishment that will
forever seek their failure. Which brings us to the Zardari model, circa 2008. Frankly,
I am aware that the two of us are cut from the same cloth: Zardari has been as
much a wary incrementalist as anyone in Pakistan’s history. Where we part ways is
that I’m not sure what he is incrementally reaching towards, the consolidation of
power for power’s sake or wielding it for the good of the people? There is no
schadenfreude in exposing his foibles; for me to be elated over his missteps would
be the ultimate act of masochism — given that the choices he makes so directly
impact the future of all of us. And — as the aforementioned columnist was willing to
bet — there is no doubt that Zardari’s missteps do not rise to the level of
Musharraf’s, or will for the foreseeable future. But every time I remember that it is
Zardari who holds the keys to the transition, an indescribable terror seizes me. It’s
not that I loathe the president — frankly, an untested quantity has just as much a
chance of success as the swaggering patriarchs of our system; it’s just that the
terrifying threats that confront this nation confound me. Does the president have
the nous to navigate Pakistan through its moment of ultimate peril? I don’t know. I
do know that we don’t have the luxury of waiting to find out. Yet, wait me must —
which is both the beauty and vexation of democracy. Stuck in this fine pickle that
I’m exquisitely aware of, I pick up a newspaper each day with a mixture of dread
and anticipation. ‘What
‘What would Zardari do?’
do?’ has become the bumper sticker of my
life. A friend has accused me of being “manic-obsessive
“manic-obsessive”;
”; I prefer the term
‘concerned’.
concerned’.

Before Palin-gate lit up screens in Pakistan and India, an email from the US found its
way to my inbox. The sender said nothing, just forwarded the story as it was
covered in the US. I didn’t know what to make of it. I felt no disgust at the grieving
widower flirting with Palin. Perhaps if I woke up to the story on another day, I would
have. It was awfully sexist but at least he only threatened to hug her, I reasoned
that day. Besides, Palin-gate was only a distraction from the real business at the
UN. How did Zardari do? I’m still scratching my head trying to make sense of it. On
the bright side, Zardari adroitly deflected the questions about Pakistan firing on
American helicopters with the red herring of flares. This was exactly what many
have been demanding: doing the right thing (raising the threat of retaliation)
without physical damage or a public falling-out. He also avoided a spat over
terrorism with Manmohan Singh and pushed the envelope on trade with India,
notwithstanding the jingoistic, nationalist line that he ceded too much to the Indian
prime minister. On the dim side, Zardari showed an unnerving tendency to
ingratiate himself with American politicians. Surely not even Bush believes he has
made the world a safer place. And Zardari told Palin that he is trying to emulate the
Alaskan model for exploitation of oil reserves. I’m not even sure Palin — Alaska’s
governor for two years — knew that she had set up an economic model, least of all
one being followed by Pakistan. A presidential aide had to interject and remind
reporters that Zardari had spoken to the other vice-presidential candidate, Joseph
Biden, he of that piffling $1.5bn democracy dividend. And, demonstrating an
astonishing lack of understanding of our economic crisis, Zardari was coy about
directly asking the Americans for money — deferring that for a state visit, whenever
that may come. Overall, it wasn’t a week for rage at Zardari’s performance. But I
have been struck by an anxious thought: has the president lowered the bar so much
that anything less than disaster is a success? No doubt my friend will send another
email about being manic-obsessive. I maintain, I am only concerned.

Author Location Dated

Adrian A. Husain 01.10.08

– Terror’s paradigm
President Zardari’s visit to the UN was a nebulous affair, eliciting promises though
without producing tangible results. However, two fairly important things came to
light during this period. The US was not going to budge on its policy on the war on
terror in this region, Pakistan’s precious sovereignty notwithstanding. Yet, at the
same time, it was more than ready with a show of paternalistic indulgence towards
our fledgling democracy. But that was all. If our president had gone to the US with
high hopes, these were destined to be dashed. What he encountered there was a
display of strangely hollow tokenism rather than anything else. Given that the time
was out of joint and the US administration was itself reeling from the effects of an
ongoing recession, even the launch of the Friends of Pakistan Group by the G-8 and
oil-rich countries in New York with its attendant prospects would seem to have come
across as something of a rainbow. Zardari had doubtless planned to bring the house
down by drawing an analogy between the ‘Bhutto doctrine’ and the Marshall Plan in
his maiden address to the General Assembly but, partly because of the comparison
being just slightly far-fetched and the Bhutto magic being — ironically —
conspicuous by its absence, that did not happen. The president should be content
with the fact that the World Bank is considering giving Pakistan an economic
package of $1.3777bn. Raw as he is, besides being a trifle unconvincing in what still
look like ‘borrowed’ clothes, he could hardly have expected better. In any case, it
must be understood that the West will be looking to prop up democracy in Pakistan
primarily to enable it to combat militancy. So there will necessarily be strings
attached to any economic support it might think fit to give which, it is reasonable to
surmise, will also be of the ‘breadline’ variety. It would additionally help to keep an
ear cocked to what the presidential hopefuls of the US are saying. In the recent
televised debate with McCain, Obama, for one, did not hesitate to trot out the
figures per year in terms of aid extended to Pakistan over the last seven years on
account of ‘counter-terrorism’. By his reckoning, we have so far received a total of
$10bn. And it certainly seems that, at least on the ground, there is little to show for
it.

Clearly, despite the somewhat overzealous operation currently being carried out in
the tribal belt, there is no denying the fact that we have so far failed to contain
terror in the country. The apocalyptic bomb blast at the Islamabad Marriott alone
affords ample testimony to this. Other things aside, on the basis of volume alone, it
would seem — not unlike the blast at Karachi on May 12 of last year or the Liaquat
Bagh episode that took away Benazir Bhutto — to have had a istinctive signature.
Not at all routine, all of these seemed, in their own macabre way, to have both an
especially defiant and curiously orgiastic dimension. However, the public at large
can at last claim to be wise to what is happening in this context. It does not need
historiographers to explain that the war on terror is, at some level, merely a cynical
racket. At the same time, it is unfortunate that certain political parties tend to add
fuel to the fire by blackmailing governments of the day into going into pacifist mode
where they might be inclined to act otherwise. Tired debates on the subject of the
‘ownership’ of the war do not help either. The truth is that war has a dynamic of its
own. It cannot, properly, be ‘owned’ by anybody. On the contrary, it assumes
‘ownership’ of those who engage in it. The destructive process peremptorily brushes
human volition aside and simply takes over. So we in Pakistan are really ‘owned’ by
the war on terror. This applies equally to the US, Britain and other countries
involved in it. Sinister though the fact is, this is something we all have to live with.
When he signed on the dotted line in response to the call on the hotline from the US
in 2001, Musharraf had already acquiesced in this logic. He had been duly co-opted
and there was no turning back. If he squandered various opportunities to set things
right, it was partly because he was a hostage of the establishment and Pakistan’s
bizarre, obscurantist history.

There can be no further compromises over this issue. The ‘friendly fire’ recently
exchanged between Pakistani and Nato forces, followed by Gen Petraeus’s ominous
forecast about the ‘existential threat’ to Pakistan, suggest that drastic measures
need to be taken to remedy a fast deteriorating situation. The US general’s
observation, which was neither coded nor guarded, indicates that much more than
Pakistan’s sovereignty is presently in jeopardy. It is all very well for the president to
be true to his word and consult with parliament on the war on terror but, in point of
fact, time is running out in this regard for Pakistan. We had been labouring under
the delusion that Iran was being singled out by the West for punitive action but it
has since come to light that, at least for the time being, our neighbour has proven
just a convenient decoy. Critical decisions have to be taken and, as supreme
commander of the armed forces, it is the president’s responsibility to see to it that
they are. Popular sentiment or, for that matter, blackmail should not be allowed to
come in the way. The US is not asking for the moon in demanding that we make
common cause with Isaf and the Afghanistan government to overcome the menace
in the region. It does not befit the president of the country either to seem to be
dithering or be raising the alarm about the threat to his life at the hands of
terrorists. Benazir Bhutto had returned to the country as the nemesis of the enemy
within and consequently met the fate she did. She had both courage and charisma
and her own incomparable standing among the world’s leaders. Zardari doubtless
has his own merits. But he must not be bemoaning the hazards of a job that was
never actually forced on him.

Author Location Dated

Washington/New York 04.10.08

– Biden, Palin
at one on
Pakistan
‘danger’
For Democratic vice
presidential candidate
Joseph Biden, Pakistan
is the most dangerous
country in the world,
with nuclear weapons
that can hit Israel and
the Mediterranean. His
Republican rival Sarah
Palin also considers
Pakistan dangerous,
but sees Iran as the
greatest threat to the
world peace. Senator
Biden also believes
that the current
economic crisis may
force Democrats to reconsider their plans for increasing US foreign assistance which
can also affect his proposal for a $15 billion, 10-year package for Pakistan. The two
vice presidential candidates clashed on Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the
IsraeliPalestinian conflict in their debate telecast live on Thursday night. Issues
related to the US financial crisis also figured prominently in the only debate
between two presidential candidates. “They’re
“They’re both extremely dangerous,”
dangerous,” said
Senator Biden when asked to compare Iran with Pakistan. “I “I have been focussing on
for a long time, along with Barack, on Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” “Pakistan
“Pakistan already has nuclear
weapons. Pakistan already has deployed nuclear weapons. Pakistan’s weapons can
already hit Israel and the Mediterranean.”
Mediterranean.” The Democratic candidate, however,
explained that while Iran’s intentions may be more dangerous than Pakistan’s, it did
not have the capability to implement them. “Iran
“Iran getting a nuclear weapon would
be very, very destabilising. (But) they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon
that’s able to be deployed,”
deployed,” he said. “So
“So they’re both very dangerous. They both
would be game changers.”
changers.”

Mr Biden criticised Republican presidential candidate John McCain for insisting that
Iraq continued to be the central point in the war against terror. “I “I promise you, if an
attack comes in the homeland, it’s going to come as our security services have
said, it is going to come from Al Qaeda planning in the hills of Afghanistan and
Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” he said. Mr Biden then warned that Pakistan was even more dangerous
than Afghanistan because that’s where Al Qaeda’s senior leaders were hiding.
“That’s where they live. That’s where they are. “That’s where it will come from. And
right now that (the threat) resides in Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” The senator, however, said the US
should help Pakistan establish a stable government. “We “We need to support that
democracy by helping them not only with their military but with their governance
and their economic well-being,”
well-being,” he remarked. Mr Biden claimed that 7,000
madressahs had been built along the Afghan-Pakistan border. “We “We should be
helping them build schools to compete for those hearts and minds of the people in
the region so that we’re actually able to take on terrorism and by the way, that’s
where Bin Laden lives and we will go at him if we have actually intelligence,”
intelligence,” he
said. Governor Palin also saw a nuclear and unstable Pakistan as a threat to US
interests but said Iran was worse. “Both
“Both are extremely dangerous, of course,”
course,” she
said. “An
“An armed, nuclear armed especially Iran is so extremely dangerous to
consider. They cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. Period.”Period.” She saw Iran
posing a direct threat to Israel, America’s greatest ally in the Middle East. “Israel
“Israel is
in jeopardy of course when we’re dealing with Ahmadinejad as a leader of Iran.
“Iran claiming that Israel as he termed it, a stinking corpse, a country that should
be wiped off the face of the earth.”
earth.” Ms Palin chastised President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad for criticising Israel. “Now
“Now a leader like Ahmadinejad who is not sane
or stable when he says things like that is not one whom we can allow to acquire
nuclear energy, nuclear weapons,”
weapons,” she said. She criticised Senator Barack Obama
for saying last year that if elected, he would hold talks with the Iranian leader.
“Leaders like Ahmadinejad who would seek to acquire nuclear weapons and wipe
off the face of the earth an ally like we have in Israel should not be met with without
preconditions and diplomatic efforts being undertaken first,”
first,” she said. Senator
Biden, while talking about the impact of the current economic crisis on US foreign
policies, said: “Well,
“Well, the one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we
made to double foreign assistance. We’ll probably have to slow that down.” down.”

Author Location Dated

I.A. Rehman 04.10.08

– Much sorrow, some joy too

Pakistanis seem to have forgotten the joys of unadulterated celebration. Quite often
one joins obligatory festivities full of doubts about their justification or under advice
to reflect on the sobering aspects of the individual’s or the state’s condition. This
happens on all national days and religious festivals. This year’s Eid was observed by
Muslim Pakistanis with a heavy heart, heavier than on many past Eids. A last-minute
fit of sanity made agreement on having Eid on the first of October possible but this
annoyed many who were caught unprepared. A roaring inflation had spoiled the
prospects of pleasure limited-income families used to derive from buying happiness
for their little ones. The rush in markets did not conceal the fact that business had
declined. A large number of producers of small pieces of decoration, indigenous
playthings for children and hundreds of colourful trivia to add to the festivities did
not receive as many customers as needed to cover costs. Almost all those going to
Eidgahs, parks and mohalla mosques for Eid prayers were praying for their safe
return home and for the effectiveness of the security personnel under whose guns
they offered prayers. At the same time it was impossible to banish from one’s mind
either the feeling of grief at the loss of life in the conflict-torn north-western part of
the country or the plight of the survivors who had lost all reason to smile. Above all
every conscious citizen was weighed down by the seriousness of the threat to the
state’s integrity. The attack on Asfandyar Wali’s home on Thursday again showed
how serious this matter is. There is no doubt that the multi-dimensional threat to
the state is more serious than anything it has faced in the past, including the 1971
crisis that led to the state’s dismemberment. The militants have resolved to assume
control of not only the tribal area but also the whole of the Frontier province.

Despair is writ large on the actions of the Frontier government, e.g. the proposal to
again enforce Sharia in Malakand division and the governor’s reported advice to the
US to start negotiations with Mullah Omar. What makes the present threat to
integrity especially grave is the push to knock down the basic features of the
Pakistan state and the apparent acceptability of the challengers’ thesis among fairly
large sections of the people. Quite a few other things are adding to public anxieties
over Pakistan’s drift towards stormy seas. The US-Nato forces are not going to stop
their air/missile attacks on Pakistan’s territory despite all the noise about our
sovereign rights that were mortgaged long ago. The hopes of a political and
economic turnaround aroused by the popular verdict of February last have largely
dissipated. Even the feeling of relief at the change in the presidency has been
replaced by the painful realisation that the more things seem to change the more
they remain the same. For a large number of Pakistanis the lawyers’ movement for
the restoration of judges unjustifiably sidelined by the outgoing president was at the
top of prestige issues, for which they had struggled as best they could for more
than a year. Most of these new fighters for justice and rule of law feel frustrated to
the extent of withdrawal from social activism. At the same time, hardly a day
passes when one does not hear of utterly horrible acts of bestiality against the weak
and the underprivileged. Some of the most heartrending reports in recent days
included the disclosure of a cellar-prison in the city of Lahore where a man, literate
enough to be a government employee, had imprisoned his father and sisters for
over a decade, a treatment they did not deserve especially because of being infirm
in mind, and the plight of an old man in Arifwala who had been chained in the street
like a dog for several decades. Stories of little girls being given away as vani and
women bludgeoned to death under jirga orders appear every other day. A wretched
man sold his newborn child for Rs100 and the nation was not outraged, so used it
has become to wanton killing, sale of children and human beings’ brutality to fellow
beings.

All this is grist to the mills of a dirge-loving people. But this is not all that is
happening in Pakistan. The cup of sorrow may have filled up to the brim but nothing
should make us forget that humankind, Pakistanis included, is moving forward
despite the efforts of warmongers and agents of death and doom to push it back
into a dark age. There is no need to lose heart if all expectations of change after
Feb 18 do not appear to have materialised. For one thing some change has taken
place. For another the people never give up. They have survived many electoral
disappointments and they will show their ballot power again. Likewise, post-
Musharraf disappointments cannot obscure the people’s role in the battle for the
presidency, for it was they who paved the way to change. They had done this more
than once earlier and they will do so again whenever required. The lawyers and
their supporters should be celebrating their triumph instead of lamenting their
imaginary failures. They have succeeded to a greater extent than many other civil
society movements operating on a comparable (and quite small) base. They have
deprived their opponents of all decent excuses. They have carried the day even if
losses on their side are unwelcome. And the struggle goes on. The loss of a battle or
two does not matter so long as the war is not finally lost. The stories of brutality
against and oppression of the marginalised are surely having some effect, though
not as quick and dramatic as some expect. The pressure on the government to treat
violence against women and children as social problems and not merely as law and
order matters is growing. Even in the conflict-torn northern territory public
resistance to terrorists is taking shape. This offers better hope of salvation than
gunfire and appeasement of the pseudoreligious clerics. Then quite a few positive
things are happening. For the first time the Sindh government is offering land to
hari women. One hopes the scheme will be carried out as promised. The Punjab
government’s decision to open a library at each union council is the medicine
needed to save the nation from falling victim to Alzheimer’s disease. This will surely
provoke all those who recognise change only when it occurs at the macro level. But
there is no harm in doing one’s bit at the micro level without giving up the tools that
will be needed when the time for revolution comes.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 04.10.08

– Brooding on Eid
On Tuesday I got a call from this newspaper, informing me that as Eid would be
celebrated on Thursday, there would be no issue of Dawn on Saturday and I did not
therefore need to send a column this week. So I slept late the next morning in the
belief that I had a day off. However, my cellphone soon informed me that the
mullahs had changed their minds, and Eid was now on Wednesday, so a column was
required after all. Another Eid, another round of confusion. Ever since I can
remember, we have not been able to resolve this relatively simple problem. Year in
and year out, the members of the Ruet-i-Hilal Committee (or ‘moon-men’, according
to the long-defunct Sun) have one straightforward task to perform, and each year
they goof up. You’d think that with just one useful thing to do in 365 days, they
would occasionally get it right. And yet, even Saudi Arabia announces ahead of time
when Eid will be celebrated, so it can’t be rocket science. Across the Muslim world,
Eid is being celebrated on three different days. This is fine, but at least these other
Islamic countries have one Eid internally. In Pakistan, on the other hand, we have
often marked the festival on different days in different places. So when people talk
of the unity of the Ummah, I can only roll my eyes in disbelief. While scrolling
through Dawn’s Internet edition, I learned that our sports minister was very upset
over the Australian decision to cancel its cricket tour of Pakistan because of security
concerns. The minister complained that although bombs were going off in India too,
the Australians were going ahead with their visit to our neighbour. Well, the truth is
that there are bombs, and there are bombs: the devices that have taken such a
tragic toll in Indian cities were locally made, and did not involve suicide bombers.
Above all, they did not target foreigners. In Pakistan, given half a chance, our home-
grown heroes would happily kill as many foreigners as they could. The suicide
attack at the Islamabad Marriott appeared intended to slaughter as many
westerners as possible. The other difference is that the terrorist attacks in India
were universally condemned. In Pakistan, there is much more ambivalence in
people’s attitudes towards these killers, with many in the media coming up with the
“Yes, but …” argument to somehow equate terrorism with western policies.

We in Pakistan have lost touch with reality to the extent that we do not realise how
out of step we are with the rest of the world. Even before Pakistan became a no-go
land for foreigners, it was not a particularly attractive destination. When Ian Botham
famously declared that Pakistan was a country he would like to send his mother-in-
law to, there was an explosion of indignation in our media. But look at it from a
touring cricketer’s point of view: after a day of competitive sport, he would like to
get to explore and shop, like any other tourist. In Pakistan, however, security
considerations keep him a virtual prisoner in his hotel. In other countries, visiting
sportsmen go off to pubs, clubs and parties; they shop for presents; and when they
are at the seaside, they go to the beach. None of these normal activities are
possible in Pakistan. So unsurprisingly, many tours are now routinely cancelled on
security grounds, and the players probably heave a sigh of relief. One result of this
sporting isolation is that our standards are falling sharply. And rather than playing
tough matches against visiting teams, our players are embroiled in endless inquiries
into their conduct. In fact, I doubt if there’s another cricket team in the world with
greater disciplinary issues than ours. In a way, this is a reflection on the general
environment of decline and lawlessness that has come to characterise us. We
constantly complain that Muslims are discriminated against by the rest of the world,
but we refuse to see what a laughing stock we have reduced ourselves to by our
own actions. Recently, a publisher’s house was firebombed in London because he
was about to print a novel called Jewel of Medina. This book has still not seen the
light of day, so the attackers could not have possibly read it. And yet they were
willing to kill or wound a person for daring to agree to print it. I have little doubt that
when the book does appear, it will offend many Muslims.

By rioting, raving and ranting against material deemed to be offensive, Muslims do

not do themselves any favours. The entire Rushdie episode, for instance, was far
more damaging to Muslims than it was to the author or his publishers. The manner
of protest over the Danish cartoons did not harm either the offending newspaper or
the cartoonist. Any day of the week, it is easy to watch a TV show or a stand-up
comedy act in England that people belonging to, say, the Christian faith may find
offensive but nobody gets worked up and threatens the artists involved.
Occasionally, Ofcom, the watchdog for the media, gets a complaint from a Christian
group, and it investigates to see if its guidelines have been breached. But the
Vatican or the Church of England do not issue fatwas demanding that somebody
should be murdered for a work of literature. More and more, Muslim societies are
being seen as intolerant, violent and irrational. And more and more, Muslims around
the world seem determined to prove their detractors right. Instead of introspection
and self-analysis, we are forever condemning the rest of the world for our plight, our
isolation and our image. This paranoia feeds our perpetual state of self-righteous
indignation. Re-reading this column, I can see that it is not entirely appropriate for
Eid. But that’s what the mullahs get for depriving me of my day off. And Happy Eid,
no matter when or where you celebrated it.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 04.10.08

– US cuts 159,000 jobs in September

A struggling US economy lost 159,000 jobs in September as the weight of the
housing collapse and credit crunch hit a broad swath of industries, government data
showed on Friday. “There
“There is little doubt that the nation is in a recession, which will
only deepen in coming months as the financial crisis casts a pall on economic
activity,”
activity,” said Sophia Koropeckyj at Economy.com. “This“This was much worse than was
expected, as the full weight of the banking crisis, the cost of imported oil and job
losses to China bore down on manufacturing and the broader economy with
unrelenting pressure,”
pressure,” said Peter Morici, economist at the University of Maryland.
The unemployment rate held at 6.1 per cent, a five-year high, the Labour
Department said. The report on nonfarm payrolls, seen as one of the best indicators
of economic momentum, showed a sharp rise in the number of cuts after 73,000 job
losses in August. It was the ninth consecutive month of declining payrolls, according
to the report, which was weaker than the average analyst forecast of a loss of
105,000 jobs. Payrolls have fallen by 760,000 so far this year as the world’s biggest
economy has been roiled by a massive collapse in housing that spread to the
financial sector and led to global credit crunch. The latest data showed the economy
expanded at a healthy 2.8 per cent pace in the second quarter, but most analysts
say the figure was misleading because of a surge in exports and the impact of a
one-time government stimulus. Over the month of September, employment
continued to decline in manufacturing, construction, and retail trade, while some
gains were seen in health care and mining. The manufacturing sector lost 51,000
jobs over the month, bringing the decline in factory jobs to 442,000 over the past
12 months, the report said. About 18,000 jobs were lost last month in the auto
sector, which has been reeling from weak consumer spending and confidence.
Some 35,000 jobs were lost in construction along with 40,000 in retail trade.

The following is a summary of some of the biggest job losses at major banks since
the start of the credit crisis:
– Bank of America: The US bank said in June it expected to eliminate about
7,500 jobs over the next two years.
– Citigroup Inc: As in July, Citigroup had 363,000 employees after eliminating
14,000 jobs in 2008.
– Commerzbank: On Sept 1, the German bank announced its plan to cut 9,000
jobs.
– Credit Agricole: France’s retail bank said last month it would cut 500 jobs at
Calyon.
– Credit Suisse Group: The bank has axed 1,320 jobs since 2007.
– Deutsche Bank: The German bank has laid off about 450 people in 2008.
 – Goldman Sachs: The securities firm laid off hundreds of investment bankers
last June.
– HBOS Plc: Before it was taken over last month by Lloyds TSB Group, HBOS
said in August it would cut up to 425 jobs.
– HSBC Holdings Plc: Global bank HSBC Holdings said late last month it was
cutting 1,100 jobs in its investment banking operation.
– JPMorgan: JPMorgan said in July it planned to cut as much as 10 per cent of its
European investment banking jobs.
– Lehman Brothers: Lehman, which filed for bankruptcy last month, had 26,000
employees. About 10,000 have been given jobs until at least the end of the
year, after Barclays Capital bought Lehman’s North American capital markets
business and other assets.
– Merrill Lynch: Merrill Lynch which agreed last month to be taken over by Bank
of America Corp had already planned to reduce staffing by about 4,200.
– Morgan Stanley: The US investment bank said on July 31 it slashed 4,800 jobs
in the past year.
– National City Corp: One of the 10 largest US banks, National City said in
January 2008 it would eliminate 900 jobs as it stopped offering mortgages
through brokers.
– Synovus Financial Corp: The Georgia-based bank said it will cut about 650
positions, or nine per cent of its workforce over the next two years, reduce
costs and shore up capital.
– UBS AG: The bank said on Friday it is cutting another 2,000 jobs at its
troubled investment bank.
– Unicredit Spa: Europe’s fourth-largest bank said in June it would shed 9,000
posts out of 100,000 in Germany, Austria and Italy.

Author Location Dated

Izzud-din Pal izzud- 04.10.08
din.pal@videotron.ca

– The challenge of rising terrorism

The recent resurgence of terrorism has received considerable attention in the
media. Discussion has been quite informative, focusing on several issues such as
the lapses in security system and confusion among the government representatives
about the factors around the blast of the Marriott Hotel. Also departure of Mr
Zardari for New York within hours of the incident (along with a retinue of about sixty
free-loaders) was not received favourably by the public. On the whole it was a first
major test of the government and it seems to have failed miserably. There is scope
to underline a few more facts that I believe are relevant to this rising tide of
terrorism, and which has its roots in the growing religious militancy in Pakistan. It is
important to emphasise, for example, that the objective of the proponents of
religious radicalism is to re-establish Islamic system on the basis of the Wahabi
doctrine in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Not many leaders of Wahabi-oriented
religious parties have condemned these attacks, for obvious reasons. In pointing out
the main cause of terrorism, some observers are of the view that Pakistan is
fighting a war on behalf of the US. Others take the position that it is clearly a
homegrown phenomenon with dangerous ramifications for unity of the federation.
To ascribe this situation to one or the other factor would be too simplistic, because
there is a complex interaction which has brought the country to this stage. It is not
difficult to identify the immediate background to this development. After 9/11,
General Musharraf was co-opted by the US as part of its war against Osama bin
Laden with his hideout somewhere in the north-west frontier of Pakistan and with
his armed supporters concentrated in Afghanistan. During 2001-2002 war, the US
with assistance of its allies, had successfully routed the Taliban. Then its focus
shifted to Iraq. But in the meantime, the Taliban who had retreated to Pakistan’s
frontier region, regrouped themselves, ready for their resistance to the US
occupation, and to the façade of the Karzai government established in Kabul.

In this context it is important to note that when the question of sovereignty of

Pakistan is invoked, it underlines the fact that the movement of people and goods is
under effective control of its immigration regulations. Such has not been the case
with the Durand Line. Given this well-known fact, it was possible for example for
General Musharraf, as he did, to play the game of ‘running
‘running with the hare and
hunting with the hound’,
hound’, and allowing the ‘good’ Taliban to move freely across the
border. The US claims that it wants to stop this infiltration. One needs to recall,
however, that Musharraf’s policy was a continuation of the legacy of General Ziaul
Haq. The opportunity to play a role in the US-led war in Afghanistan was a God-send
for him. He had already been focusing on ‘plans’ to promote a pan-Islamic
commonwealth consisting of Pakistan and Afghanistan. He had thought that the
reconstruction after the Afghan war would give him an opportunity to push his
agenda, but this opportunity never arose for him. The roots of the proposed pan-
Islamic commonwealth were nourished in the Security State Syndrome — an India-
centric policy of defence, with Kashmir as the main source of dispute, and with
Afghanistan serving as a ‘strategic depth’ for the Pakistani forces. The Kashmir
dispute has been a bonanza for military regimes, however. They have been able to
use it for decades to expand and to update military hardware and to increase the
defence expenditure as a sacrosanct duty of the tax-payers, with impunity. This is
not how it should have been. Any foreign policy issue should be the responsibility of
the civilian government, as it is in India. The strategies about some major disputes
belong to the military but policy to approve strategies is the responsibility of the
cabinet. In democracies this is scrupulously followed in war and peace, as memoirs
of Churchill clearly point out. There is no mystery about Kargil, or about the Agra
Summit (about which very little is known from reliable sources) in this framework.

Zulfikar Ali Bhutto made an effort to resolve the issue, and then later Mr Nawaz
Sharif met with his counter-part from India. Neither of them had the opportunity to
follow up on their negotiations. The military saviours, in the meantime, had hijacked
the Kashmir issue as their own, in order to develop their India-centric security state
network. To consolidate the network, they had been able to lean on two institutions
which had developed in Pakistan by default: the madressah, and the ‘no-man’s-
land’ otherwise known under the pseudonyms of Fata and Pata. The madressahs
have been growing in Pakistan to a fill a vacuum created by the lack of universal
availability of public school system in the country. With the US response to the
Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the religious schools received an extra boost from
Saudi funds to promote teaching of puritan doctrine and training of Taliban. During
the decade of the nineties, the role for Taliban received attention from the point of
view of security considerations for Pakistan. There was an opportunity to examine
the place of seminaries in the country in the Musharraf period in light of his
‘enlightened moderation’, but the minister responsible for madressahs seemed to
have been only looking after his father’s legacy. In Fata and Pata areas, the policy
of radical militants has been to pursue a familiar course of action: to disable the
local civil administration in order to create disorder and then try to impose their rule
to the relief of the people who appreciate availability of some civic facilities, albeit
strictly in the puritanical framework. Many observers have noticed that often the
spokesmen for introduction of Shariat are the outsiders, not the traditional
residents. It is the same groups who make themselves at home in these regions, as
leaders, displacing the local institutions. They also manage to cross the Durand Line
at their discretion.

How will the current balance be affected by acceptance by the ANP government of
the revised nizam-e-adl in sections of Malakand Division and in Swat? It cannot be a
step towards integrating the region with the rest of Pakistan. This is an important
question, because the decision seems to be based on an adhoc policy, not on
national considerations. The challenge facing Pakistan will require a policy which
can focus on multiple levels, interlinked with each other. To meet the question of
terrorism, the security framework will have to be established on a more effective
basis than was the case in regard to Marriott Hotel. But there are other issues
demanding serious considerations. What, for example, should be the criteria to
distinguish religious education from that of preaching militancy in the name of
Islam? The PPP government does not seem to be clear about this objective. For
example, the two well-known radical madressahs in Islamabad were allowed to
resume their activities by the government just a few days prior to the presidential
election. Was it based on some publicly announced policy, or a matter of
expediency? The reform of the madressahs must be intimately linked with renewed
effort to establish universal public schools in the country, in order to provide an
easily accessible alternative for young students. It is a wellknown fact that was
underlined at the time of the stand-off that most students had been sent to these
madressahs by their parents because there were no facilities for education available
in their own localities. Fata and Concerning Pata, the only sustainable solution to
improve the conditions of the residents is to organise a massive programme for
economic development of the region, to make this area an integral part of the
country, for them to be protected under the well-established objectives and criteria
for promoting national interests for all citizens, wherever they live, and also to
extend the regulations for movement of people across this frontier.

It would be a step in the right direction for the US to assist Pakistan in this
endeavour. Bringing the US military to the ‘door of Osama bin Laden’, as Mr Barack
Obama has been suggesting in his presidential campaign, will be an exercise in
futility. The solution to create a stable atmosphere in the region lies in finding a
viable solution by the US and its allies about problems in Afghanistan, and in
examining the political structure of that country at present led by the Karzai
government. The issue of the security of Pakistan, however, will have to be carefully
examined, in the context of the geo-political forces that define its identity. The
place of the country in the region should be emphasised, especially with reference
to India, China and Iran. Training and using jihadis to wage informal war in disputed
territories has not produced any results but has served as a corroding influence in
the body-politic of the country. Can the PPP rise to the occasion to meet this
challenge? It is a difficult question. The party had the time to establish itself during
the last six months. It seems to have been busy more in consolidating its power
than on formulating programmes, and on pushing important matters to committees
to dodge the issues. ¦ The writer taught economics at Pakistani and Canadian
universities before his retirement.
retirement.

Author Location Dated

Ilhan Niaz niazone80@gmail.com 04.10.08

– Understanding the enemy within

The attack on the Marriott hotel in Islamabad on September 20 left over fifty dead
and injured five times that number. Judging from the CCTV footage the hotel
security did what it could by holding the truck at the gate. If the truck had gotten
through the gate it is likely that building would have collapsed. The same footage
also indicates that the guards were not expecting anything unusual that night and
did not react with lethal force to the arrival of the truck laden with explosives.
99The
99The media was subsequently informed that the government was expecting such
an attack, and later the prime minister admitted that it was the consequence of an
intelligence failure and that there was an inadequate response to the threat. One
does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that the Marriott was in many
respects the ideal target. The hotel is surrounded by important government
buildings. At meal times the hotel is full of visitors. Foreign embassies and
international concerns host functions and lodge their personnel at the hotel. Logic
aside, the Marriott had already been attacked in the past and the terrorists had
every reason to try their luck again. Islamabad had already been hit by three
terrorist attacks since March. The appalling and inexcusable failure of the
government to deal with the terrorist threat in the heart of the capital was
complemented by a sensationalist response by the media. The analysis that soon
started pouring in from what passes for expertise in this intellectual wasteland
almost entirely missed the point. With a few exceptions, the media frenzy focused
on demonstrating on how the terrorists do not represent Islam. Another line taken
was that the attacks were a conspiracy against democracy. And yet another stroke
of media brilliance fixated on the presence of a few United States military personnel
in the Marriott at the time of the bombing. The question of who does or does not
represent Islam is one of the most misleading, hyper-subjective and meaningless
ones ever asked. The objective of the futile discussion that emerges from
pontificating on this question is to declare the “terrorists” to be beyond the pale of
“true” Islam which, we are assured, is “moderate”, “enlightened” and “peaceful.”
The problem with this brand of instant punditry is that it is a manifestation of denial.

The violent extremists in our midst are not aberrations. They are the products of a
generation of softening-up the state and Islamising society. They are the most
virulent and aggressive strain of obscurantism and benefit daily from the role that
their ostensibly non-militant counterparts, such as Al Huda, the Tableeghi Jamaat
and the thousands of unregulated and illegal mosques and madressahs, have
played in propagating a neoconservative Bedouin worldview in Pakistan’s
traditionally heterodox society. Indeed, while such movements and institutions that
ultimately seek an overthrow of the state have been free to proliferate, the state’s
ire has repeatedly fallen on leftists, liberals and centrists who, for all their failings,
represent the Muslim modernism that spearheaded the struggle for Pakistan and do
not seek to overthrow the state. Atrocities such as the Marriott bombing of
September 20 are perpetrated by those sufficiently convinced of the truth of their
interpretation of Islam that they are prepared to sacrifice their own lives to impose
it on others. That for decades such elements enjoyed state patronage and were
used by the state as “strategic” instruments greatly augmented their strength and
appeal. Now those instruments have spun out of control and the state itself has
become their target. This brings us to the proposition that the attacks are directed
against democracy. Democracy is not the target. The state of Pakistan and the
modern world, however, are on the hit list. Regardless of the form of government,
the terrorists view all modernist Muslims as guilty of heretical innovation. These
modernist Muslims have failed to govern Pakistan effectively. They have also used
the extremists as cannon fodder in cynical and futile adventures directed against
internal and external enemies only to betray them after 9/11 and join hands with
the United States in its latest crusade. The modernist Muslims are weak,
disorganised, on the defensive and after decades of piecemeal concessions to
orthodox sentiment, vulnerable to overthrow by an armed minority that enjoys the
support of millions of non-militant but equally obscurantist Pakistanis. The selection
of targets in Islamabad demonstrates considerable intelligence on the part of the
terrorists. Their effort is to either attack security forces (police, paramilitary and
military) and government installations or places where there is a good likelihood of
killing at least a few White Caucasians from the West. The first line of attack is
calculated to demoralise the security forces and isolate them from the population.
The second line of attack is designed to sow terror amongst the general population
while taking advantage of the widely felt resentment against the United States.
Combined, the terrorists seek to make their struggle appear to be against the
foreign infidel and their local nominally Muslim collaborators.

The attacks on Luna Caprese, the Danish Embassy and the Marriott are highly
instructive in this regard. In each case the presumed or actual presence of
foreigners diverted the media’s attention from the much greater losses inflicted on
Pakistanis. Thus, while more than fifty died in the September 20 Marriott bombing,
the media focused on, and fretted over, the presence of a few American marines.
The attack on the Danish Embassy was implicitly condoned as just retribution for
the sacrilegious conduct of some of that country’s attention-starved media hacks.
The attack on Luna Caprese was completely overshadowed by the presence of a
handful of American FBI agents. Before Pakistan can deal with the terrorists, its
political, military and bureaucratic leadership must understand the enemy they are
confronted with. The terrorists are part of a sustained and increasingly violent
challenge aimed at fundamentally altering the nature of the Pakistani state, wiping
out the existing ruling elite, and imposing their interpretation of Islam on the rest of
the population. The terrorists are widely believed to have the support of renegade
elements within the security apparatus. This perception must be effectively
countered if the government’s anti-terrorism efforts are to enjoy a reasonable
measure of public confidence. The terrorists are not nearly as isolated as Pakistan’s
leaders or mainstream media would have people believe. The terrorists represent
the armed component of a very broad spectrum of obscurantism that has had
decades to grow and strike roots. President Zardari was right to refer to the
terrorists as a cancer. One can only hope that he realises that the cancer has
metastasised and is on the move throughout the body politic. The terrorists are not
mindless miscreants though the individual suicide bombers may well be
brainwashed instruments of a larger strategy. The attacks carried out thus far are
calibrated to shatter the confidence of those entrusted with Pakistan’s security
while isolating the government from the people. The fact that a fairly narrow zone in
Islamabad, home to much of the central government machinery and personnel, has
become a major target is highly suggestive. It is as if the terrorists wish to convey
the message that if they can repeatedly penetrate the centre of the centre when
there are plenty of easier targets around, then, no one is safe.

Finally, the terrorists seem to have an accurate measure of the administrative

capabilities of the Pakistani state. The professional competence and integrity of
Pakistan’s security apparatus is so low, and its internal indiscipline so high, that the
state is incapable of anything more than a few weeks of extra vigilance after each
major attack. There are few sights more pathetic than policemen deputed to man
the extra check posts set up around Islamabad begging passing vehicles for rides
after their shifts are over. A month or so after the attack the check posts and extra
police vanish as quickly as they were deployed. No permanent improvements are
carried out and within weeks another major attack sends everyone scrambling, for
the most part, to absolve themselves. Dealing with this menace will take a lot more
than speeches and op-ed pieces. It will take a long-term commitment to reversing
the administrative decline of Pakistan and working to make the state machinery
more effective. It will necessitate an acceptance by the population that for many
years the terrorists will continue to wreak havoc and impose substantial human and
financial costs on Pakistan. The state must work to comprehensively roll back the
structures that sustain obscurantism in Pakistan, ensure discipline within the
security apparatus, and by extension lend whatever help it can to beleaguered
cause of modernism in society at large. ¦ The writer is a faculty member at the
Quaid i-Azam University, Department of History, and author of An Inquiry
into the Culture of Power of the Subcontinent.
Subcontinent.

Author Location Dated

Hasan Pervez 04.10.08

– Whose war is it anyway?

Everyday the threat gets closer, becoming increasingly more menacing, yet the
nation remains divided on whether it’s our war or America’s war in which Pakistan is
caught up. Educated elite and ordinary people alike are terrified at the prospect of
more suicide attacks that leave in their wake a trail of death and destruction, and
shake the very foundation of the state. Yet there is no national consensus on whose
war is it anyway. The attack on the Marriott Hotel in Islamabad has been described
as Pakistan’s 9/11, most recently by the country’s president. But a striking
difference between the two events perhaps eluded him. The attack on the World
Trade Centre had the effect of bringing the entire American nation together,
whereas the attack on the Marriott Hotel left the nation as divided as before. In a
chilling assessment of the current situation, General David Petraeus, who will take
charge of US forces in south-west Asia and the Middle East in October, said that
‘Pakistan faces a threat that certainly seems to be an existential threat.’
threat.’ Reports
such as these naturally create a sense of insecurity in the entire South Asian region.
It is therefore no surprise that a nervous India is prepared to accept ownership of
this war, while Pakistan remains a divided house. Consider this from Kuldip Nayar:
“What is not probably appreciated amply is that Pakistan’s war against the Taliban
is India’s war too. If ever Pakistan goes under, India’s first line of defence would
collapse.”
collapse.” (Dawn, 26 September) If more evidence was needed, then the raging
battles in Bajaur should suffice to bring home to every Doubting Thomas that the
threat is very real. The sheer intensity of the fighting testifies to the strength,
resilience and resources which characterise the Al QaedaTaliban combine. In spite
of employing armour, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and even fighter aircraft,
the militants have not been completely dislodged. Clearly, this is no ordinary
skirmish with a rag-tag band of renegades; this is a full-scale operation against a
well-trained, well-equipped and well-entrenched force which has generous external
support. Whether one acknowledges this or not, the stark reality is that Pakistan is
at war.

Every time a US Predator strikes a militant target in Fata, there are people who are
outraged because they say Pakistan’s sovereignty has been violated. There are calls
to confront US and Nato forces in order to protect the country’s honour and
integrity. Yet, what we overlook in a surge of patriotic zeal and a blind hatred of all
things American is that the real threat to the country’s sovereignty is not so much
the Predator strikes, as illegal and distasteful as they might be, but those shadowy
and faceless forces that seek to strike at the root of the Pakistani state and society.
Militants deliberately take sanctuary in houses populated by women and children
with the intent of drawing a Predator strike and cause collateral damage. It’s just
another example of their ruthlessness; it’s also a clever tactic of war because loss of
innocent women and children stokes the fire of hatred, dramatically reinforces the
impression that the US is waging war on Pakistan and helps to divert attention from
their own ideological motives. And let there be no mistake about what these
motives are: to seize control of the Pakistani state, dismantle its democratic polity,
destroy its social fabric, and impose Taliban-style governance. Those who call for
talks with the militants fail to make a distinction between the vast majority of
ordinary tribesmen who wish to live peacefully and the tiny minority, led and trained
by elements from Central Asian and Arab countries, who want to impose their own
rule through terror and coercion. In the same vein, there is the argument that once
the US and Nato forces are defeated and compelled to leave Afghanistan, there
would be peace. One would have to assume this to mean that the likes of Baitullah
Mehsud and Maluana Fazlullah would retire to live in peace for the rest of their lives.
When the president says that ‘the‘the Taliban have an upper hand’,
hand’, what exactly does
he mean? We really don’t know, but for the moment Pakistan is on the verge of an
‘economic meltdown’.
meltdown’. The situation may not be entirely the consequence of this
war, but its devastating effects have made an undeniable contribution. Leave aside
foreign investors and corporate executives who are leaving Pakistan as quickly as
they can, even foreign diplomats including UN personnel — people who are duty
bound to stay in Islamabad — now express concern about their security. With most
western countries suspending their consular and visa services in Pakistan, foreign
airlines suspending their flights to Islamabad, and sports teams refusing to play in
this country, are we not already a pariah state?

The financial chaos that would follow an economic collapse is precisely what the Al
Qaeda-Taliban syndicate seek because a failed state would be at the mercy of the
forces of obscurantism. The gravity of the situation must be well known to the
Friends of Pakistan, a consortium of countries that include the US, China, Japan, a
few European countries and the Gulf States, who recognise that the stability of the
Pakistani state is essential for world order and peace. To avert the impending
financial disaster these nations should pledge massive injection of funds in their
next meting in October. An amount of $10 billion is said to be Pakistan’s immediate
need. Yet, at home, the crisis continues to be largely underestimated or worst,
fingers pointed at the wrong enemy. This is so because instead of raising awareness
of the real and present danger that threatens survival of the Pakistani state, many
politicians, opinion leaders and so-called analysts vehemently criticise the war as
action against our own people at the behest of the Americans. They continue to
harp on the ills of the previous government or lament the non-restoration of ex-CJ
Iftikhar Choudhry; in the context of the present danger, these issues are neither
relevant nor do they strike a chord amongst a vast majority of the people. Can we
expect them to rise above their petty agendas and personal preferences to help in
uniting the nation? The strident coverage given to the war against the Taliban by
our media has only exacerbated the situation. In fact, it has much to answer for.
Private TV channels provide the platform from which military action against the
Taliban is projected as a proxy war fought on behalf of the Americans, besides
which they muddy the issue by not identifying the real enemy and create angst by
holding forth on the ‘immorality’ of training our guns against our own people. In
effect, they glorify terrorists, and at the same time confuse and demotivate the
valiant jawans battling the militants. It is time to accept harsh realities, identify the
real threat and zero-in on the real enemy. It’s time for all democratic forces to join
ranks with civil society, build an across-theboard national consensus and take
ownership of the war. The nation must speak with one voice. It’s our war, a war for
our survival, for in defeat it is we who stand to lose the most: our country.

Author Location Dated

AFP Denver 04.10.08

– Palin power fails to shore up McCain campaign

Despite a gutsy debate performance by Republican VP pick Sarah Palin, she failed
to turn the tide in the race for the White House, leaving John McCain struggling to
revitalise his slipping bid, according to analysts. Just over four weeks until the Nov 4
elections, McCain has yet to seize the upper hand from his Democratic rival Barack
Obama and has been left trailing in the polls. On Thursday his campaign admitted
that it was pulling out of Michigan, effectively surrendering the midwestern state to
the Democrats, to focus instead on six swing states. And with more bad news on the
economic front, McCain planned to hold a rally in Colorado before retreating to his
Arizona ranch for the weekend, in a highly unusual disappearing act at the height of
the campaign. Missouri, where Thursday’s debate was held, is one of the key states
in play -- along with Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Indiana and Ohio -- and
Republicans there acknowledged there was work to be done. “Senator “Senator McCain has
to win Missouri to win the White House. So there is a strong commitment from the
McCain-Palin campaign to make sure that we deliver Missouri for that ticket,” ticket,” said
Jared Craighead, executive director of the state’s Republican Party. He said he
hoped to share in any resources now being made available following the decision to
leave Michigan. “I “I have got the call that in the build-up to the final days, we’re
going to have more resources than we thought we would initially,”
initially,” he said. Jack
Cardetti, communications director of the Missouri Democratic Party, agreed McCain
needed to win in Missouri, and said: “I “I fully expect some of those resources to come
right here into Missouri.”
Missouri.” The Obama campaign has opened 40 field offices across
the state, with more than 100 paid staffers, Cardetti said, describing it as an
“unprecedented commitment to Missouri”.
Missouri”. Palin had stood her ground against
Democratic rival Joseph Biden late on Thursday in the only vice presidential debate
of the White House race, firing off rapid, well-rehearsed talking points. The
performance by Sarah Palin, the first time Alaska governor plucked from obscurity
by McCain in late August to be his running mate, will have thrilled the party’s
conservative case, following days of concern over her ability. President George Bush
tuned out the vice presidential debate after the first half, but came away impressed
with his fellow Republican. “He
“He saw probably about the first half of it. He thought it
was a good debate. He thought Governor Palin did very well,”
well,” Tony Fratto told
reporters.

Author Location Dated

APP Karachi, Pakistan 04.10.08

– ATMs let shoppers down on eve of Eid

Most of the automated teller machines (ATMs) in the city ran out of cash on Tuesday
night leaving thousands of customers disappointed. Long queues at the ATMs of
almost all banks were witnessed during the day and late into the night but quite a
large number of people at every ATM had to return empty-handed. The State Bank
had issued clear instructions to all banks to ensure availability of cash on the eve of
Eid. People were seen standing in long queues at various ATMs installed in the main
shopping areas of Saddar, Tariq Road, Haideri, Boulton Market, etc in the evening
and their number continued to go up till late into the night. Most of them intended
to shop for themselves and their family members on the Eid night. An executive of a
leading bank, when contacted, maintained that ATMs ran out of money because of
heavy withdrawals. The cash stocks in the machines exhausted within a few hours
and it was not possible for the banks concerned to refill them during the night
hours, he added. Sabir Ali, a bank customer, said he made several attempts at
different ATMs in Saddar area to draw Rs5,000. I tried to draw money from the ATMs
of three banks but in vain. One of the ATMs had no money and another one was out
of order, he added. Tasleem Rana, a customer accompanied by his family, said he
badly needed money while shopping on Tariq Road but failed to draw cash from any
ATM around. “A “A lot of banks had installed ATMs on Tariq Road but none of them was
able to oblige me,”
me,” he said. He, however, stated that this was not for the first time
that ATMs had disappointed him when he needed money urgently. “Mostly, “Mostly, ATMs
run out of cash or go out of order after 9pm even on normal days,”
days,” he claimed. A
perturbed woman said she had finished her cash while shopping with her husband
and children. It was the time when the Ruet Hilal Committee announced sighting of
the moon. “It
“It was not possible for us to go home to bring more cash because of
traffic congestion and unexpected crowds emerging on the streets… the only option
was to draw cash through an ATM but, to our sheer disappointment, the machines
had already run out of cash,”
cash,” she said. While the State Bank had issued special
instructions to all banks to ensure availability of adequate cash and keep the ATMs
in perfect working condition during Ramazan and on the eve of Eid, the largest ATM
network operator in Pakistan, the “One
“One Link”
Link” had also urged all its member banks to
ensure cash delivery to customers through ATMs before and during the Eid holidays.
Meanwhile, chairman of the Traders Action Committee Siddique Memon has
criticised banks’ failure to come up to the expectations of their customers in need.
“Most of the shoppers had to return empty-handed after being denied cash delivery
through ATMs on the Eid night,”
night,” he regretted. He said the ATMs failure had also
caused losses to traders, who suffered a decline in their sales.
Author Location Dated
New Delhi, India 05.10.08

– Rice exhorts Pakistan, India to be friends

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice nudged India on Saturday to become good
friends and said Washington had a stake in Islamabad’s civilian government to
succeed in the war against terrorism. “We
“We have stakes in a successful civilian
government in Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Ms Rice told a joint news conference here with Indian
Foreign Minister Pranab Mukherjee. “We “We all have an interest in controlling terrorism
in the region.”
region.” She said the United States had encouraged cooperation between
India and Pakistan. “A
“A good relationship between India and Pakistan is going to
help”
help” in combating cross border terrorism. In New Delhi to celebrate the
endorsement of the US-India nuclear deal by the US Congress, Ms Rice took the
opportunity to discuss other raging issues. She said the two sides also discussed the
situation in Afghanistan. “We
“We have a joint desire to see Afghanistan peaceful and
prosperous,”
prosperous,” said Ms Rice, who was to fly to Kazakhstan from New Delhi. Mr
Mukherjee too underscored the importance of tackling terrorism in the region. He
referred to Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s meeting with President Asif Ali
Zardari on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York a week ago and
said the Pakistan president had given an assurance that his country’s territory will
not be allowed to be used for terrorist activities against India. “We
“We have a joint anti-
terror mechanism to deal with the issue. We hope the joint mechanism will be
effective in dealing with the issue,”
issue,” Mr Mukherjee said. India and Pakistan are to
hold a special meeting of the anti-terror mechanism later this month. It seeks to
address New Delhi’s concerns about Pakistan spy agency ISI’s alleged complicity in
the July 7 bombing of the Indian mission in Kabul. AP adds: Ms Rice had arrived here
to commemorate — but not sign — a historic deal that opens up US nuclear trade
with India. A signing ceremony that had been scheduled was dropped because,
according to US officials, a series of administrative steps have yet to be taken in
Washington following Senate approval of authorising legislation on Wednesday.

Speaking to journalists aboard her plane en route from Washington, Ms Rice said
she expects the civil nuclear cooperation agreement will trigger an across-the-board
expansion of American-Indian relations. She said only administrative — not
substantive — matters were delaying the signing of the agreement. US President
George W. Bush has yet to sign the authorising legislation, and once he does he is
required to certify that the agreement with India is consistent with US obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, designed to limit the spread of nuclear
weapons. He must also certify that it is US policy to cooperate with international
efforts to further restrict transfers of technology related to uranium enrichment and
the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. The agreement on civil nuclear cooperation
allows American businesses to begin selling nuclear fuel, technology and reactors to
India in exchange for safeguards and UN inspections at India’s civilian — but not
military — nuclear plants. Critics in India argue the constraints compromise their
country’s right to conduct nuclear bomb tests. Even without a signing ceremony
during her visit, Ms Rice said, “I’m
“I’m going to draw a line under this” deal “one way or
another because it’s time to put the historic agreement — to say that that’s done
and move on to what else we can do” do” to strengthen and broaden the relationship.
The Bush administration considers the deal only crowning achievement of the
president’s second term in office. In the onboard interview, Ms Rice stressed that
she saw the importance of her visit to New Delhi as focusing on the future, rather
than celebrating the completion of the civil nuclear agreement. “This
“This is a
relationship that has now a firm foundation to reach its full potential,”
potential,” she said. “It
“It
removes for India a barrier to full integration on a whole range of technologies”
technologies” and
opens the way for closer US-India cooperation in other areas such as defence,
agriculture and education, she said.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 05.10.08

– US proposes joint patrols Pakistan urged to join ‘winter

offensive’
The United States is urging Pakistan to participate in a major winter offensive
against the Taliban and Al Qaeda militants and also to undertake joint military
patrols of its border with Afghanistan along with US, Nato and Afghan troops. At a
recent video news conference at the Pentagon, a top Nato commander, Gen David
McKiernan, told journalists in Washington, that a joint patrol could end cross-border
raids and deny the Taliban militants their safe havens inside Pakistan. “It
“It is a very
open, porous border, but the idea of a combined security effort there with Pakistani
military, Frontier Corpsmen, Afghan border police with Isaf coordinated along the
border I think is a very powerful idea and certainly I would like to pursue that in the
future,”
future,” he said. Gen McKiernan, a US general, leads Nato’s International Security
Assistance Force. The majority of foreign troops in Afghanistan, including those from
the US, come under his command. The largest contributing nations are the US and
Britain. They provide around 14,000 and 7,800 troops, respectively. The US also has
about 19,000 troops under Operation Enduring Freedom -- mostly in the east of
Afghanistan on the border with Pakistan — that are not under Isaf’s command.
Meanwhile, the US media, quoting unnamed Pentagon sources, reported that US
commanders in Afghanistan are pushing for a winter offensive against the Taliban in
a bid to change the pace and direction of the war. The reports said that the United
States also expects Pakistan to support this offensive. While Pakistani troops will not
participate in any action inside Afghanistan, they will be required to seal their
border with Afghanistan to prevent Taliban militants from seeking refuge in
Pakistan’s tribal areas. Pakistan will also be required to prevent militants hiding in
Fata from crossing over to Afghanistan to help the Taliban.

The proposed joint patrol will also help achieve this target but it is not linked to the
offensive, which has not yet been finalised. Gen McKiernan says he needs at least
10,000 more troops to fight the militants, in addition to another US combat brigade
that is scheduled to arrive in January. While Washington has agreed in principal to
send more troops to Afghanistan, their redeployment is linked to the situation in
Iraq where the United States appears to have restored some peace. Further
improvement in Iraq, could allow the US to withdraw troops from there and redeploy
them in Afghanistan. Diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that the United
States will continue to push for joint patrols even if the proposed winter offensive
does not take place. Afghanistan’s Defence Minister Abdul Rahim Wardak, who was
recently in Washington told journalists that he had formally proposed the creation of
a joint military force in his talks with senior officials in the US capital. He said that
such a force, if created, would fight militants on both sides of the border with
Pakistan. According to diplomatic sources, US officials discussed this idea with
President Asif Ali Zardari as well during his recent visit to New York. Mr Zardari held
several meetings with senior US leaders, including President George W. Bush and
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly.
President Zardari, when asked at a press conference if US officials had discussed
the proposal for joint patrols with him, said: “This
“This is not a new idea. It has been
discussed with us. We are willing to consider it but no decision yet.”
yet.”

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 05.10.08

– Mr Zardari’s US visit
Asif Ali Zardari was in America a week or so ago. I happened to watch a television
talk show in which the host asked several prominent Pakistani observers how they
assessed the significance of his visit. They wanted to emphasise that this was not
an official visit to the United States, and that he had come to address the United
Nations General Assembly. I have no idea what he would have done during an
‘official’ visit that he did not do this time. The participants in this TV show thought
his address to the General Assembly, one of 32 delivered by visiting heads of
government that day, did not go well. He mentioned Pakistan’s major problems only
in passing. He wanted to talk mainly of himself and his family. He placed a large
picture of Benazir Bhutto on the rostrum where all could see it, spoke of his abiding
love for her and his dedication to her legacy. He announced, to the puzzlement of
his listeners, that only the ‘Benazir doctrine’ (of which they had never heard) could
solve the world’s problems in the 21st century. He said he had come to the United
Nations looking for justice which must be done by the appointment of a commission
to investigate Ms Bhutto’s assassination. This was a bad speech, unbecoming of a
president, and one that did nothing for his country. During this visit to the UN and
other places, Mr Zardari took on the mission of introducing himself to world leaders
who happened to be present. Second, he wanted them to know that democracy had
arrived in Pakistan, that the country now had a democratic government, that the
transition to democracy had been completed with his own election as president, and
that all of this should be good news to the world. The interviewees on the talk show
thought he should also tell his audiences about Pakistan’s central role in the war
against terror, and the fact that its economy was close to collapse, and that the
world must come to its assistance. There is no convincing explanation of why Mr
Zardari came to address the General Assembly. As far as I can tell, presidents who
are heads of the executive back home came but those who are heads of state did
not. Manmohan Singh came as prime minister, not president, of India. Many other
prime ministers were present, and in some cases lesser officials represented their
countries.

That Mr Zardari got to shake hands with a certain number of foreign dignitaries may
have made him feel good but it cannot be said to have brought any gains to
Pakistan. Government officials as well as the people of important western and Asian
countries may have some interest in Pakistan, but it is unlikely that they want to
know Mr Zardari (unless his lavish praise of Gov Sarah Palin’s beauty and his offer
to embrace her tickled their fancy). Note also that several of our heads of state
(Nazimuddin, Ghulam Mohammad, Iskander Mirza, Chaudhry Fazal Ilahi, Farooq
Leghari and Rafiq Tarar) were little known outside Pakistan and no harm resulted to
the country from that fact. Democracy has come to Pakistan primarily because the
generality of its people, print and electronic media, lawyers and judges, and other
organs of civil society wanted it. Mr Zardari has had nothing to do with its arrival.
Pakistan has done itself good by readmitting democracy, but in doing so it has not
done the world a favour over which it should rejoice. Mr Zardari does not have the
credentials to present himself as a champion of democracy. He makes all of the
important decisions for the PPP, and the party notables do his bidding. He
advocates the supremacy of the constitution and sovereignty of parliament. In a
parliamentary system the prime minister and his cabinet propose policies to
parliament and manage the government’s day-today business. But Mr Zardari
directs this country’s governance in violation of its constitution. If he is a democrat,
he is one in some weird sense of the term unknown to most of us. Mr Zardari asks
the world to help Pakistan in its fight against terrorism. The world knows that
terrorism poses horrendous threats to this country’s peace and security. The
government has a very tough time combating it. American incursions into Pakistan’s
tribal territory to hit the Taliban’s hiding places are condemned as violations of its
sovereignty. The government and people of Pakistan want these American moves to
stop. America should leave it to the Pakistani security forces to eradicate the
militants operating in its territory. This sounds reasonable.

If American intelligence agencies have information about the militants’ location on

Pakistani territory, they could share it with their Pakistani counterparts, who would
then go and hit these hideouts. American officials are reluctant to go this way
because, as some of them have said publicly more than once, they suspect that
there are proTaliban elements in the Pakistani intelligence agencies that will pass
on this information to the militants. The latter will then move away to other places.
The presence of pro-Taliban elements in the ‘agencies’ is something to which
Pakistani newspaper commentaries have also periodically referred. Mr Zardari
should determine the truth of this matter. If proTaliban elements do exist but
cannot be thrown out, the position being taken with the Americans should perhaps
be reconsidered. Alternatively, Mr Zardari’s government may want to re-evaluate its
modes of participation in the war against terror. These aspects of the situation
should frankly and truthfully be placed before the parliament and the people. Will
Mr Zardari do it? The world is being asked to pull Pakistan out of its currently
disastrous economic situation. Its spokesmen say it needs an immediate infusion of
$10 to 15bn, and that is to start with. The country is incurring huge budget and
trade deficits. Mr Zardari has no expertise in economic management that would
enable him to identify the follies that have brought the country to the brink of a
‘meltdown’. Nor does he know specifically what his government must do to help the
nation’s economy recover beyond any help that the outside world may give. His
recent visit to America, with an entourage of some 60 persons, must have cost
millions. It would help if he cancelled all planned foreign trips. The hazards to the
country they carry would reduce if he just stayed home. ¦ The writer is professor
emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 05.10.08

– Black is not white

Fortune has given me the pleasure of having a good friend who has lived on this
earth for 93 years, though looking at him and talking to him one would never be
able to guess his true age. Mahmud Futehally is at peace with his Maker and it
would seem that his Maker is at peace with him. Amazingly, the man still has great
faith in the goodness of man and his aim in life remains, at this advanced age, to
somehow benefit the population at large, and particularly the poor and deprived.
His activities in the field of agriculture and horticulture are laudable. On September
11 of this year, Mohammad Ali Jinnah’s death anniversary, he asked me whether I
was aware that the large cement signboard on a periphery road running past
Jinnah’s Mazar on which was engraved the words ‘Dadabhai
‘Dadabhai Naoroji Road’
Road’ had been
removed and a smaller tin signboard put in its place. No, I was not aware. The
following day, I passed by to check the road’s new name and the tin signboard and
discovered that some enterprising person had been prompted to spray upon it
‘peshab karna mana hai.’hai.’ To digress for a moment: Dadabhai Naoroji Road was
named much prior to the year of Jinnah’s death. Our road-name changers are
obviously unaware that the man who founded and made their country was laid to
rest in the proximity of a road named after one of his mentors. To quote Stanley
Wolpert (Jinnah of Pakistan, pub. OUP 1984): “In “In politics, Jinnah’s heroes remained
Dadabhai Naoroji and another brilliant leader of Bombay’s Parsi community, Sir
Pherozeshah Mehta …” …” One of the original founders of the Indian National Congress,
Naoroji left India for London and decided that he would stand for election to the
House of Commons. In 1891 he succeeded — the first Indian to be elected to the
British parliament. Ironically, he was helped by a man who did his best to ensure
that he would not be elected, the prime minister of the day, Lord Salisbury. By his
speaking the following words he ensured Naoroji’s success: “however
“however great the
progress of mankind has been and however far we have advanced in overcoming
prejudices, I doubt if we have yet got to that point of view where a British
constituency would elect a black man.”
man.” The British, whatever else they may be,
believe in fair play and supporting the underdog. The words ‘black man’ made a
hero of Naoroji. Salisbury was publicly castigated for his insult to members of the
great British Empire, Naoroji became a household name, and his constituency
delivered.

Now, back to this September 12 when I went to the Mazar and asked the keepers to
let me have photocopies of what had been written by the September 11 visiting
‘dignitaries’ in the visitors’ book. I was given copies of remarks recorded by the
president, the Sindh governor and the Sindh chief minister. Subsequently, on
September 14, I wrote in my column: “Recorded
“Recorded by Asif, in illegible handwriting
resembling that of a stressed physician, were the words “May Gaad [sic] give us the
street [sic] to save Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” The internet then took over, and messages attaching
a photocopy of what had been written were flashed around the world. The spooks
sprang into action. They removed from the 100page book the double-page on which
Zardari’s message and that of the Karachi station commander were recorded,
leaving 98 pages in the book in which visitors will now record their views, and on a
fresh page rewrote Zardari’s message correcting the two misspelled words. On
September 26, on the back page of The Nation, a news item under the heading
‘Zardari’s misspelled remarks proved fabricated’
fabricated’ reproduced images of the original
page and the rewritten new page, informing readers that “Some “Some hidden hands have
sent an email … claiming that the President had misspelled the words God and
strength. However a verification of this matter by The Nation revealed that the
campaign was a venomous propaganda against President Zardari … It was
distressing to note that a senior English-language columnist did not bother to verify
the facts and added fuel to fire in his column while referring to this fabricated
story.”
story.” This was picked up by APP and their report on the ‘outrage’ was printed on
September 27 in The News under the heading ‘Spokesman
‘Spokesman slams malicious
campaign against Zardari’
Zardari’ and in The Nation under the heading ‘Propaganda
‘Propaganda
against Zardari ‘malicious’’,
‘malicious’’, both telling us that “The
“The presidential spokesman has
taken strong exception to a malicious campaign initiated by some anti-democratic
elements to tarnish the image of President Asif Ali Zardari.”
Zardari.” Not to be outdone, that
same day an editorial in The Daily Times under the heading ‘A ‘A shameful forgery’
forgery’
commented on the original Nation report of the 26th. It opened up: “The “The past week
has seen a vicious electronic and press campaign maligning President Asif Ali
Zardari through a forgery”,
forgery”, and reproduced the comments about hidden hands and
the columnist.

This was all very unnecessary and somewhat foolish to draw even more attention to
the matter. The initial news report did no favour to the president, and neither did
the amateur ‘presidential spokesman’ who would have done better to remain silent.
Admitting that fuel had been added to fire indicates that indeed a fire burns (or
even rages) when it comes to the matter of Zardari’s image. Unfortunately, for him
and for us as a nation, his image has not been exactly shining since the early
1990s. Botheration and concern about his image is nothing new, but it has all been
enhanced since the tragic assassination of his wife, his usurpation in her name of
the largest (apart from the army) political party of this country, and his subsequent
indirect election through the various assemblies and senate to the post of head of
state. The image took further hefty knocks when he decided to do his bit for his
relationship with the US and attend the UNGA meeting and address it (Benazir’s
photo carried in and placed by him on the rostrum). His behaviour, as reported in
our press and in the international press and as commented upon in detail by the
American media, did little to enhance the image. So be it. Now, what he should do is
appoint a federal education minister in double-quick time so that the upcoming
citizens and leaders of this country at least learn how to spell correctly.

Author Location Dated

M. Ilyas Khan ilyasjans@yahoo.com 05.10.08

– The worst form of tyranny

Bullying in schools is a very serious problem. It is an unfortunate fact that like many
other problems faced by a great many students (and teachers) in our schools, this
problem does not get adequate attention either in our educational research milieu
(which in either case is almost non-existent in our educational institutions) or in our
electronic or press media. This very serious problem is treated trivially by most
educational stake holders, i.e., teachers, educational managers, policy makers and
parents. What bullying is all about and why it should be treated as a very serious
problem are questions that need attention from all these stakeholders. Let us first
try to understand an initial definition of the term. One very comprehensive
definition of the term has been provided in a policy document of the Department of
Education and Training, Western Australia, called “Making
“Making the difference: behaviour
management in schools”
schools” (1998), as reported by Forlin & Chambers (2003). Bullying
according to this document is defined as “A “A wilful, conscious desire to hurt, threaten
or frighten. It can be physical and/or verbal in nature and can include racial,
religious and sexual harassment, rude gestures, intimidation, social isolation and
extortion. It must be recognised that bullying is ongoing in nature and that bullies
are reinforced by another’s pain, fear and humiliation”.
humiliation”. It has been observed that
bullying of the physical kind though not exclusively but for the most part occurs in
single-sex boys’ schools or in co-educational institutions. Boys are more prone to
this kind of bullying both as perpetrators as well as victims. In the co-education
setup, besides boys, girls too, though less frequently, can become victims of
physical bullying by boys. In exceptional cases the vice versa can happen when girls
can physically bully the boys. This happens when older girl students bully younger
boys. As far as the exclusively girl schools are concerned, usually bullying occurs in
its verbal form but this does not mean a total ruling out of the physical form of
bullying there.

Bullying is a serious problem because it can be like a nightmare for the students
who are victims of bullying of one kind or another. It can cause immense life-long
damage to the selfconfidence and steady development of the personality of victims.
Though not well researched in the Pakistani educational culture and an unduly
neglected phenomenon, the effects of bullying are extremely harmful. Students are
at risk of serious harm to their self esteem and to the balanced growth of their
personalities besides physical ailments such as serious heart problems and ailments
of the digestive, nervous and respiratory systems due to consistent stress caused
by longterm subjection to bullying. Continuous subjection to mental and
psychological torture as a result of bullying of one or the other form, can lead
victims to nurture an acute sense of helplessness, desolation and even to suicidal
thoughts. Though not much systematic research on the issue is available in the
Pakistani context, it has been commonly observed that quite a number of dropout
cases and truancy as well as failures and lack of interest in studies and other school
activities are due to the acts of bullying that take place there. Gang bullying is one
very serious form of bullying in schools. This is a situation when bullies form gangs.
This is particularly very dangerous as this union (of the bullies) enhances their
strength both physically and psychologically. Gangs are also very dangerous as
they can easily overpower individual victims. Such gangs are even difficult for the
school administration and teachers to deal with. The gangs are usually formed by
students of higher classes or by students who fail more than once, repeat classes
and thus are older and stronger as compared to other younger classmates. Such
students are particularly dangerous on two counts: one, they are older and stronger
than the rest of their classmates and two, they are usually of the un-academic type
who do not take much interest in their studies, and are more prone to such
unhealthy activities.

Usually in our secondary schools (class VI to X), students in the age group of 14 to
18 and beyond (students who fail more than once in their school life, can remain in
the school up to the age of 20 years) and who consequently get physically and
mentally (in terms of experience in school situation) stronger than the younger
ones, i.e., the age group of 10 to 14 are more prone to becoming bullies. Their
mental and physical strength gives them an edge over their victims. Such students,
who repeatedly fail and still remain in school, are even difficult for the teachers to
keep under control. The teachers too, at times, fall victim to their bullying tactics. In
that case it becomes very difficult even for the teachers to come to the rescue of
the student victims. Another type of students, prone to becoming bullies, are those
coming from broken families or those families where the parents find little time or
inclination to provide for the socio-psychological needs of their wards. Lack of
attention at home creates in them a sense of irresponsibility, carelessness and
revolt, which can turn them into bullies. Sometimes parents play a direct role in
turning their children into bullies by actively encouraging them to be aggressive
(which is taken for being brave!). The act of bullying can have a number of motives
behind it. Bullies can resort to it for simple psychological pleasure that they feel
when they see their victim at their mercy. Bullying also provides the bully with a
sense of power and recognition which he otherwise finds hard to come by both at
home and at school through legitimate means such as good academic performance.
It can also have material and sexual favours as motives.

In most boys’ schools, bullies in the upper teenage group put younger children
through various bullying tactics for sexual favours and in many cases the ones
being bullied end up falling victim to their sexual demands. This is a very serious
situation as it can result in life-long psychological scars for the victims. Sometimes a
simple feeling of jealousy against the higher achievement of the victim can result in
his being put through bullying just to keep him stressed and to draw his attention
away from studies. Snatching, stealing and damaging of books, notebooks and
other such material may also be a means to such an end. Factors that contribute to
the phenomenon of bullying include the following: lack of awareness or interest on
the part of the parents, teachers and school administration about the severity of the
problem and its very harmful long-term consequences both for the bully and the
bullied. Intentional or unintentional endorsement of the phenomenon by parents
and teachers is also one of the causes. It has been observed, in some very
unfortunate cases, that teachers too are, directly or indirectly, involved in the act of
bullying for their own nefarious designs, which can range from material benefits to
sexual favours either from the bully (in return for allowing him the freedom to bully
other students) or the victim (by compelling him through the bully to approach him
for help). This may seem too far-fetched but sadly it is true, though it may be
infrequent.

Another factor that can contribute to the phenomenon of bullying is the act of silent
suffering on the part of the victim. This can be due to a number of reasons but the
most important among them is the socio-psychological distance between the child
and parents or teachers. In many cases there is lack of communication and trust
between the child and the parents, specially the fathers. This leads to a lack of
confidence on the part of the victim to openly discuss his problems with his parents.
Same is true in case of teacher-student relationship. The result is silent suffering on
the part of the victim and reinforcement for the perpetrator, who finds such a victim
an easy prey to his bullying tactics. School-home disconnection and lack of
communication among teachers and parents can also play a role in adding to the
problem of bullying. As an aside it should not be taken that bullying of various kinds
mentioned above is only confined to schools, it also happens in homes and in the
neighbourhood in various forms. So in order to deal with this highly harmful
phenomenon, awareness regarding the nature and severity of the problem and
steps taken to deal with the various factors which support the occurrence of
bullying must be created among all the stakeholders. ¦ The writer, currently
pursuing his PhD in Education at the University of Leicester, UK, is a
lecturer at Hazara University, Mansehra.
Mansehra.

Author Location Dated

Shahab Usto shahabusto@hotmail.com 06.10.08

– The symbolism of terrorism

Causing devastation and mayhem with a view to inspire awe and terror does not
always constitute the motive of terrorism. Sometimes terrorism is couched in
symbols to drive home a far wider and subtler message by targeting the
monuments that represent specific values, political norms or simply the power and
confidence of a nation or even the world. The most vivid expression of such
symbolic terrorism was the assault of 9/11. All the monumental symbols of
American power — corporate, military, administrative — were simultaneously
attacked and the myth of US invincibility was shattered once and for all. In July
1946, Irgun, the Zionist terrorist organisation, carried out a symbolic bombing of the
King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 91 people — among them Arabs, Jews, Britons,
Americans, Armenians, Russians, Greeks and Egyptians — who represented
different cultural, religious and political values. The attack was carried out (under
the leadership of Menachem Begin, the future Israeli prime minister and co-recipient
of the 1978 Nobel peace prize) not because the hotel was the headquarters of the
British Mandatory Authorities. Rather, it was a welltimed and well-executed
symbolic message to the British authorities: pack up, your time is up. At the time of
attack, the Zionists were well aware that the British mandate in Palestine was
unpopular in Britain; that Britain was in dire financial straits and it stood financially
obliged to the US, the champion of the Jewish cause. Therefore, the bombing was
meant to further alienate public opinion and spur the British withdrawal from
Palestine. The message was promptly received. Soon after the attack, Prime
Minister Atlee wrote a confidential letter to President Truman: “the
“the inhuman crime
committed in Jerusalem on 22 July calls for the strongest action against terrorism
but having regard to the sufferings of the innocent Jewish victims of Nazism this
should not deter us from introducing a policy designed to bring peace to Palestine
with the least possible delay”.
delay”. In two years, the Zionist state had emerged over the
lands of thousands of innocent Palestinians who had been killed or driven away by
the Zionist terrorist organisations Irgun and Haganah. In July 2006, the Israelis
celebrated the 60th anniversary of the bombing of King David Hotel.

The bombing of the Islamabad Marriott was also a symbolic act. The hotel was the
‘face’ of Islamabad, something like Delhi’s Taj. For decades, it provided the only
venue for political conferences, corporate workshops and international seminars. It
was the haunt of diplomats, foreign and local businessmen, politicians, NGO
officials, socialites, the liberal intelligentsia and the press corps. Its destruction was
a symbolic wresting of the natural habitat of these rich and powerful people, many
of whom had advocated denying sanctuaries to the extremists in Fata. Two, by
audaciously targeting a venue that hosted people representing varied cultural,
religious and political values, the extremists sent a symbolic message to the world
that liberal and multicultural values are no longer acceptable even in the most
secure tavern of the Pakistani capital. In this highly connected and infectious world
where multiculturalism is already under fire, such a message could boomerang on
the interpersonal and intercommunal relationships of the Pakistani diaspora living in
multicultural western societies. It could make Pakistanis face even more
discrimination, if not the antipathy of the locals. Three, the horrible fate of a safely
ensconced hotel was also symbolic of the threat to the safety and integrity of this
nuclear state. Though the prime minister and the interior ministry adviser issued
conflicting statements visà-vis the purported target of the terrorist act, there is no
disagreement as to its objectives, which is to harm the nascent democratic order
and destabilise the state. In a way, the terrorists have achieved both objectives. At
home, the nascent PPP government received universal flak for the security lapse
and mishandling of the rescue operation. Abroad, a new debate ensued as to the
state’s capability to deal with terrorism and retain its sovereignty and territorial
integrity.

Indeed, the destruction of the Marriott smothered whatever hope that had been
generated by President Zardari’s rhetorical yet promising debut address to
parliament. All his promises — good neighbourly relations with other nations,
revisiting controversial constitutional provisions, giving provincial autonomy,
boosting the economy, empowering women and, above all, stamping out terrorism
— meant little to the public when blazing fires and shrieking ambulances dominated
the TV screens. Four, the timing of the attack was also symbolic. It occurred as the
president was preparing to leave for the US, a country which hedges our economy
and defences. Had he flown there buoyed by the spirit of unity as well as the
respect for the head of state that was seen across the aisles in the National
Assembly after a long time, he could have shown the world a different face of
Pakistan; a confident, democratic and united Pakistan. But what the world saw as
the Marriott burned was a bruised and bleeding Pakistan, making it extremely
difficult for its stewards to entice investors and their capital. In this sense, the
attack was also symbolic of our economic vulnerability to terrorism. This brings us
to the basic question: how can we deal with such sophisticated symbolic terrorism?
The answer provided by nations that have dealt with terrorism can be summed up
in two words: leadership and unity. In 1984, the IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in
Brighton to sabotage the Tories’ annual conference and probably to kill its entire
leadership including Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Notwithstanding the hotel
being badly mangled, the conference was held. But what made the conference a
huge success was the fact that scrapping her ‘bipartisan’ speech, Thatcher
delivered a truly ‘national’ address and the entire British political leadership closed
ranks behind her. The threat militancy and terrorism pose to Pakistan is of course
far graver. But if our political leadership can rise above its factional squabbles, it
can send an equally reverberating symbolic message to the extremists: pack up,
your time is up.

Author Location Dated

Rubina Saigol 06.10.08

– Capitalism’s crisis, lessons for Pakistan

A crisis is usually considered something bad that either needs to be averted or
overcome. However, a period of crisis can sometimes be an ideal opportunity for
soul-searching and finding creative solutions to seemingly intractable problems. A
crisis may be necessary to bring about much-needed change in taken-for granted
assumptions about how we order our collective existence as a nation. The current
global economic crisis can be viewed as an opportunity to rethink, re-evaluate and
reformulate our political and economic policies. The looming collapse of free
market, unbridled capitalism appears to spell doom for global economic systems as
it threatens to envelop the countries that depend on the US for their exports. The
prospect of a prolonged recession in the US means the potential loss of markets for
several less developed countries, and this is causing concern and fear among
exporters and governments in these countries. The nationalisation by the US
government of housing industry giants like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as well as
the insurance company AIG, coupled with the collapse of investment banks like
Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers, exposes the limits of deregulation, a creed that
has been preached by the gurus of a free market economy for the last three
decades. In the Reagan era, car manufacturer Chrysler was rescued by the
government as the company was engaged in the manufacture of tanks for the US
military. The military-industrial complex had to ensure that armament capitalism
was saved so the state had to intervene. In other instances too the state had to
intervene in the market to help out the likes of Chase Manhattan and Citibank — all
this in a country where state intervention in the market is considered a cardinal sin
against the ‘sanctity of the free market’.

Now that the controversial economic rescue package has been approved by
Congress, and promptly signed into law by President Bush, a US administration
committed to promoting a market unencumbered by regulation and state oversight
will be spending over $700bn to bail out an economy in dire straits. It will be buying
out sub-prime housing loans with taxpayers’ money. In other words, the money
owned by middle-and lower-income America will bankroll the bailout of super rich
Wall Street America. The US government and giant engines of global capitalism,
such as the IMF and the World Bank, controlled and dominated by Europe and the
US, never ceased to hawk the virtues of privatisation, liberalisation and deregulation
to the less developed economies. The latter economies were informed that the only
way to eradicate poverty was to let the markets operate freely as they were subject
to self-correcting and self-regulating mechanisms. The state was demonised as a
hindrance that distorts markets. So subsidies were to be withdrawn, production was
to be oriented towards exports, trade barriers were to be lifted and the free flow of
capital, goods and services was to be allowed. Now the state in the US has moved in
to regulate and nationalise — the exact opposite of deregulation and privatisation. It
seems that no lessons were learned from history. The capitalist crisis of the early
1930s had led economists to argue for regulation and state intervention to protect
the weak against the strong. The construction of the welfare state was partly the
result of a historical compromise between capital and labour, and partly the
consequence of the fear generated by a workers’ revolution in Russia in 1917. State
intervention logic promised that people’s economic, social and political rights would
be guarded against exploitation by ruthless markets. However, in the 1970s, when
the Arab-Israeli war disrupted the regular flow of oil to the developed capitalist
countries, the state became an evil that had to be removed from the market. The
mantras of deregulation, liberalisation and privatisation began to be preached with
the certitude of a religious belief. Two inseparable spheres of existence — politics
and economics — were ideologically separated into the state and the market. It was
argued that the state should simply conduct politics and leave the economy to the
vicissitudes of the market. This obfuscated the deeply intertwined nature of politics
and the economy and led to the false illusion that exchange is conducted among
equals in a market. The essential inequality of market actors — those with only
labour power to sell and those who own the means of production — was denied in
the proposition that markets have the capacity to ultimately lower prices and create
equality.

The current crisis has brought the state back to the heart of the issue. As the US
state steps in to rescue the rogues of the market, the irresponsible CEOs who are
getting away with so-called golden parachutes, George Bush has been forced to
admit that the entire economy is in danger. The bailout, he added, will finally
benefit Main Street and not only Wall Street. The limits of capitalism have been
exposed in that the very state which is offering to pour in trillions to rescue banks
riddled with bad debts had failed to provide $6bn to ensure healthcare for nine
million children. This shows the essential heartlessness of an unfettered free market
economy. There are lessons here for Pakistan which has been under pressure from
its bilateral and multilateral donors to deregulate its services, financial and labour
markets, open its borders to the free movement of goods and services, end
protectionism of all kinds, privatise national assets and liberalise the economy. In
the name of good governance, the state’s role has been redefined as the creator of
a conducive environment for foreign capital and MNCs rather than the provider of
basic rights and protection to its citizens. Our state has been restructured to cater
to private rather than public good by giving massive incentives to foreign capital to
invest freely, repatriate all profits, and use cheap credit and cheap labour which
have been provided by changing our laws and labour regulations. Most of the
political parties in power, including the dominant PPP, have veered towards a right-
wing ideology and are now pro-privatisation and pro-liberalisation. They need to
remember that they have been brought in by the people and are accountable only
to them. Given the ravages of unbridled free market capitalism, they must rethink
their economic policies to make them serve the citizens to whom they owe their
power.

Author Location Dated

Anne E. Kornblut Washington, D.C. 06.10.08

– US financial turmoil seems to have altered political map

The faltering economy has left Senator John McCain on the political defensive,
altering the landscape in many of the most important battleground states and
providing a series of avenues for Senator Barack Obama to claim the 270 electoral
votes needed to win the White House in November, according to political strategists
in both parties. Over the past two weeks, Obama has opened up leads both
nationally and in the states likely to decide the outcome of the presidential election.
A combination of factors the tumult in the financial and credit markets, the
performance of the two candidates in responding to it, and increased doubts about
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin have contributed. McCain’s abrupt decision last week to
take down his television ads in Michigan and to shift staff to other states highlighted
the increasingly challenging environment in which the Republican nominee now
finds himself. The McCain campaign once saw Michigan as a prime target for
shifting a big industrial state to the Republican column in what would have been a
major blow to Obama. But strategists said the economic downturn, which has hit
Michigan especially hard, appeared to be too much for McCain to overcome. Now he
is faced with defending a series of states that supported President Bush four years
ago but are currently in danger of going for Obama. Prime among those is Florida.
McCain’s neglect of the state over the summer, coupled with the effects of the
subprime mortgage crisis that has been acute in the Sunshine State, have turned
must-win Florida, with 27 electoral votes, into a struggle for the Arizona senator.
The GOP nominee also faces mounting challenges in other red states. Strategists
see Iowa and New Mexico, both of which went narrowly for Bush four years ago, as
leaning strongly toward Obama. Two other red states, Virginia and Colorado, now
tilt slightly toward Obama. And McCain faces fights in states that once were
considered virtually off-limits to Democrats, such as North Carolina and Indiana.

Obama is playing defence in some blue states, as well, particularly Pennsylvania. A

McCain breakthrough there would significantly complicate Obama’s strategy, and
the Democrat’s advisers are guarded in their assessment of the situation there.
Mike DuHaime, the McCain campaign’s political director, said on Saturday that the
decision to pull out of Michigan does not leave the campaign in a totally defensive
position. “Our
“Our path to victory is clear,”
clear,” he said. “There
“There are a number of close
(Republican) states we are confident we will hold and no shortage of Democrat-
leaning states that I feel we have a very good chance of winning.”
winning.” Obama’s team,
meanwhile, sees the past two weeks as having kept it on a path charted earlier in
the summer. “I “I think we’ve got many more variables, many more scenarios and
possibilities than they do, and that’s always been our goal to wake up on Nov 4 with
a series of scenarios that lead to 270 electoral votes,”
votes,” senior Obama strategist
David Axelrod said. “We’re
“We’re on track to do that. I think their options are growing
more limited.”
limited.” Obama needs those options. If McCain simply managed to replicate
Bush’s electoral map from four years ago, he would be president. Holding the states
Sen. John F. Kerry won four years ago would give Obama 252 electoral votes. To get
to 270, Obama could try the one-state option going all-out to win a big state such as
Florida or Ohio, which alone would put him over 270 if he also held the states Kerry
won. Or Obama could try the two-state strategy, keyed to winning Virginia and a
smaller state such as Iowa or New Mexico. There is also what Obama’s advisers dub
the threestate approach, coupling wins in Iowa and New Mexico with one in
Colorado. GOP strategists outside the McCain campaign say the heavier burden is
on the Republican nominee. “The“The big electoral map story is that they are caught
playing defence in states they ought to be in good shape in,” in,” said Mike Murphy, a
GOP consultant who previously worked for McCain. “They “They are having to fight to hold
onto North Carolina, Virginia, quite possibly Florida, and their offensive campaign
appears limited to Wisconsin, Minnesota and Pennsylvania.”
Pennsylvania.”

Obama also enjoys an advantage in money. Because he chose not to take public
funds after saying that he would pursue an agreement with the GOP nominee to do
so he can spend as much as he can raise. McCain is limited to the federal money
and what the Republican National Committee can provide his campaign, and the
Michigan decision was seen as an acknowledgment that he needs to concentrate his
money where it counts most. McCain advisers insisted that their decision to leave
Michigan does not reflect broader problems, and said that they are challenging
Obama on numerous fronts. On a conference call with reporters, strategist Greg
Strimple said that McCain is tied or ahead in enough states to deliver 260 electoral
votes, just shy of putting him over the top. “We
“We are currently competing
aggressively in Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, Nevada, New
Hampshire and New Mexico,”
Mexico,” Strimple said. “The
“The combination of any of those
states, we have to get 10 more electoral votes in order to be successful and have
Mr. McCain as the next president of the United States.”
States.” But Democrats and public
polls show problems for McCain in Iowa, New Mexico and, increasingly, in
Minnesota. Pennsylvania offers an especially enticing opportunity for McCain, with
its 21 electoral votes and large swaths of white, working-class voters who favoured
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primary contest. McCain and Palin
have visited the state repeatedly, making an aggressive play for votes in the
Democratically inclined suburbs of Philadelphia, where Obama did not do as well as
expected in the primary, and in the more traditionally conservative areas farther
west. Recent polls showed Obama forging a clear lead in the state, and Obama
advisers think they will benefit from the surge in Democratic registration there this
year. There are now about 1.1 million more Democrats registered in the state than
Republicans. In the hope of continuing that trend before the new registration
deadline on Monday, the Obama campaign enlisted Bruce Springsteen to give a free
concert in Philadelphia this weekend so that volunteers could track down new,
unregistered voters in time for them to be added to the rolls. Still, Obama advisers
are wary about the state because of its older population, the relatively high
percentage of Roman Catholic voters and what advisers see as racially based
resistance to Obama’s candidacy. “I “I don’t think we can take that at all for granted,”
granted,”
one Obama adviser said. The travel schedule his campaign has devised for the
candidate, as well as his wife, Michelle, and running mate Sen. Joseph Biden with
frequent trips to Republican areas and states such as Virginia, where both Obama
and Biden are this weekend reflects a growing sense of confidence that Obama is
on the right course since briefly stalling after the Republican convention. “We’ve
“We’ve
had a good few weeks,”
weeks,” Axelrod said in an interview on Friday. “The
“The debates have
gone well for us. Obama has handled the economic issues well. McCain, I think, has
not. So I think we’ve made progress, and that’s reflected in myriad public polls. But
we expect a pitched battle from now to Nov 4, and we’re not intoxicated by these
polls any more than we were depressed by negative polls when we’ve seen them
before.”
before.”

Beyond Pennsylvania, McCain’s blue-state targets include Wisconsin one of the

closest states in 2000 and 2004 and New Hampshire. Kerry won New Hampshire in
2004. In the midterm elections two years later, voters wiped out the state’s all-
Republican congressional delegation to elect two Democrats to the US House. But it
is also an iconoclastic swing state with a deep current of affection for McCain and
the place where Obama suffered his first primary defeat to Clinton. “It’s“It’s tighter than
it should be in New Hampshire,”
Hampshire,” said Doug Hattaway, a Boston-based Democratic
consultant who worked for Clinton in the primaries and is advising Jeanne Shaheen
in her efforts to unseat Sen. John Sununu, R, there. He said that, given Democratic
growth over the past few years, Obama could expect to be in stronger shape, but
added, “New
“New Hampshire is sort of tailor-made for McCain, with its independent
streak, and he is well-known and well-liked there.”
there.” Another wild card for both
candidates is the northern half of Maine, which splits its electoral college votes in
half by congressional district. McCain is making a play for the 1st District, where the
conservative, rural sensibility seems to be a natural fit for Palin. In acknowledging
the decision to abandon Michigan, McCain advisers sought to portray it as a sensible
move that would allow greater concentration on Maine, Missouri, Indiana and
Pennsylvania, among others. Yet it was a stunning admission; campaigns often
pretend to compete in states they have all but lost to try to confuse their opponents
and hold onto an outside chance of winning toward the end. On Friday, Palin said
she had read the news that her ticket had pulled out of Michigan and strongly
disagreed. “I
“I read that this morning and fired off a quick email and said, ‘Oh, come
on, do we have to?’”
to?’” Palin told Fox News, adding that she and her husband, Todd,
would be able to appeal to workers in the distressed auto industry. “We
“We can relate
to them and connect to them. ... I want to get to Michigan, and I want to try.”
try.”

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 06.10.08

– Obama has huge lead over McCain in cyberspace

If the US presidential election was being held in cyberspace, Barack Obama would
win in a landslide. The Democratic candidate has raised tens of millions of dollars
more than Republican John McCain online and proven much more savvy overall at
harnessing the power of the Internet, according to political and Web analysts. Not
surprising, perhaps, for a 47-year-old who is facing a 72-year-old who has admitted
he does not use a computer and is seeking to become the oldest man ever elected
to a first term in the White House. “The“The real Obama story is that he’s using the
Internet as a complete campaign strategy, not just to raise money, but to raise a
volunteer organisation,”
organisation,” said Michael Malbin, executive director of the Campaign
Finance Institute. “It’s
“It’s the social networking, the mybarackobama.com site where
people can find each other,”
other,” said Malbin of the Washingtonbased non-partisan
institute. “No
“No other candidate has ever integrated the full picture the way he has,
that’s what’s really new about his campaign.”
campaign.” Julie Germany, director of the
Institute for Politics, Democracy and the Internet at George Washington University,
said the Obama campaign “has “has been very effective by being highly experimental
and by adapting Web technologies.
technologies. “They
“They have used the Internet to collect
information about people — your email, your zip code, who your friends are, what
causes you care about,”
about,” she said. Besides the all-important fund-raising and get-
out-the-vote categories, Obama leads McCain in virtually every conceivable
“ecampaign” metric, one month away from the Nov 4 vote. The Illinois senator has
more than 1.9 million supporters on Facebook.com compared to the Arizona
senator’s 550,000 while over on rival social network MySpace.com, Obama has
some 650,000 friends to McCain’s 150,000. A MySpace survey of its users has
Obama supporters outnumbering those of McCain in 45 states. McCain is more
popular among MySpace users in just one state — Mississippi — while the other four
are undecided. More than 91,000 “followers” have registered to receive updates
from Obama on Twitter, the popular micro-blogging service, while just 2,100 people
get the short messages known as “tweets” about McCain.

Author Location Dated

06.10.08

– Rupee still not stable vs dollar

The rupee is still limping and not able to retain its level versus the dollar. In the
local currency market, the rupee commenced the week on a firm note with the
public in holiday mood ahead of Eid-ul-Fitr celebrations. Slightly improved supply of
dollar on September 29 enabled the rupee to hold ground versus the dollar. The
rupee traded unchanged at its weekend levels of Rs78.15 and Rs78.20 amid dull
trading in the inter bank market. However, demand for dollar increased on the
second trading day of the week in review.The currency dealers reported 15 paisa
loss on the buying counter and 20 paisa decline on the selling counter on
September 30 in inter bank trading, where the dollar was seen changing hands at
Rs78.30 and 78.40 despite improved dollar supplies. In the open market, the rupee
showed mixed sentiments on the opening day of the week. It managed to recover
10 paisa on the buying counter and 20 paisa on the selling counter and traded at
Rs78.10 and Rs78.30 amid modest trading on September 30. The dollar had closed
last week at Rs78.20 and Rs78.50. On the second trading day of the week in review,
the rupee maintained its overnight upward rising trend versus the dollar on the
buying counter but it managed to hold its overnight rate on the selling counter
trading amid slow trade at Rs78.00 and Rs78.30. Versus the European single
common currency, the rupee strengthened on September 29, gaining 54 paisa
against its previous weekend levels to trade at Rs112.10 and Rs112.20 on the
opening day of the week. The rupee continued its rising trend versus the euro on
the second trading day of the week, recovering 142 paisa in single day trading on
September 30, when euro was seen changing hands at Rs110.68 and Rs110.78.
Consequently, the rupee managed to recover 196 paisa against the euro in two
successive trading days. Trading in inter bank and open market remain suspended
during rest of the week as banks were closed on October 1, October 2 and October
3 on account of Eidul- Fitr. Normal trading in currencies will resume next week
commencing October 6.

Author Location Dated

Shafaq Zaheer 06.10.08

– Breaking the vicious circle

The economic performance during 2007-08 was debilitated by the twin shocks of
rising food and fuel prices. The food and fuel prices climbed to record levels with the
poor segments and fixed income groups, hit hardest by inflated prices. The
government in an effort to protect the consumers, offered heavy subsidies which
collectively reached to a record level of Rs300 billion, accounting for about 3.6 per
cent of GDP. This resulted into an obvious overshooting of the budget deficit from
four to 7.4 per cent of GDP. The present government has been taking many
unpopular decisions to correct the fiscal and external imbalances with a view of
restoring macro-economic stability which is vital for sustaining higher economic
growth, job creation and poverty alleviation. Needless to say, stabilising the
economy and protecting the poor and vulnerable segments of the society from the
effects of price adjustments poses a serious challenge to the newly-elected
government. There is an increased realisation that further policy inaction in the
long-run is bound to have disastrous consequences for the economy. Therefore as a
strategy, the ruling administration has been making difficult choices which have
been accompanied by strenuous efforts to mitigate the sufferings of the poor.
Notable initiatives among these include: The Benazir Income Support Programme
(BISP), launched from Sep 1, offers Rs1,000 per month to each of 3.5 to 4.5 million
families, covering about 14 to 15 per cent of the population in the lowest income
bracket; People’s Works Programme with an allocation of Rs28.4 billion is another
initiative that would provide provisions of electricity, gas, farm to market roads and
water supply. This is expected to create sizeable employment opportunities by
improving access of low-income groups to the basic necessities of life; Government
has announced to set up ‘human
‘human resources development commission’,
commission’, which will
review the state of unemployment, regularly monitor the unemployment rate and
suggest measures for its control. It will co-ordinate all programmes aimed at
providing employment, imparting skills to the unemployed, broadening the
opportunities for technical training and vocational education and encouraging work
for food programmes; Low cost housing:
housing: The government has proposed an
allocation of Rs2 billion for the construction of one million housing units announced
by the prime minister in his 100 day plans for providing housing facilities to low
income groups and government employees.

The implementation of these programmes becomes problematic not only because

ensuring transparency or correct identification of deserving individuals is difficult
but also because, the government is hard pressed to find sufficient resources
required for the financing of these schemes. This leads us back to the negotiation
table where we have to somehow convince the international donor agencies to
provide us with ample finances on one hand and reduce the external debt burden
on the other. The Budget 2008-09, approved by the parliament, earmarked an
amount of Rs34 billion for the implementation of Benazir Income Support
Programme (BISP). The government claims that the original targeted level of
allocation for this programme was Rs50 billion, however due to budget constraints it
has been limited to Rs34 billion which will be increased depending on the
availability of funds. The administrative cost of the implementation of the scheme
would be 1-2 per cent of the total cost of the scheme. The Finance Minister, Naveed
Qamar was quoted as saying; “We “We want to target more poor families but due to
budgetary constraints, it is not possible. However, with the passage of time, the
government would increase the amount fixed for the scheme by arranging finances
from other resources, so that maximum number of deserving families could be
brought under the scheme”.
scheme”. If rational and long-term decisions are to be taken,
borrowing in the form of debt from external or internal sources is simply out of
question, so the possible options for funding of this programme are very limited
indeed. In this context, a debt swap for the purpose of uplifting the poor is not only
favourable but also offers minimum risk in the face of severe budget constraints.
Theoretically a debt-for-poverty-swap would involve the cancellation of external
debt in exchange for local currency funding for initiatives aimed at reduction in
poverty in the borrower-country.

There is a need to do an in-depth analysis of how debt swaps can be effectively

exploited to provide funds for poverty reduction efforts through micro-finances,
BISP, People’s Works Programme, Human Resources Development Commission,
People’s Rozgar Programme, and Low Cost Housing, etc. For this purpose, various
stakeholders in microfinance, bankers, policy makers, and international
organisations can be approached for deliberating on the issue to chalk out suitable
strategies. The increase in world fuel and food prices, especially for rice and wheat,
the two main staples in South Asia, has had a dramatic impact on poor people. The
World Bank Group has recently announced loans, credits, grants, equity
investments, and guarantees totalling over $5.5 billion to South Asia in fiscal year
2008. The funding supports 79 new projects designed to overcome poverty and
boost growth through practical plans enhancing the business and investment
environment and empowering poor people. International multilateral and bilateral
donors do realise that Pakistan as a developing economy needs to be provided with
substantial funds, since the menace of poverty can only be eradicated through
collective endeavors. Isabel M. Guerrero, World Bank VicePresident for South Asia,
was quoted as saying that the last year posed profound economic, political and
social challenges for countries in South Asia. The bank has extended an additional
financing of $75 million for the Pakistan Poverty Alleviation Fund, which has touched
the lives of more than 2.5 million people in about 5,000 villages. Given the rising
figures of debt and deficit, the government is in an effective position to negotiate
the provision of these funds into a debt-for-poverty swap. As stated earlier these
assets are mostly in the form of loans, equity investments, grants and guarantees.
If a debt-for-poverty-swap is effectively implemented it can play a important role in
breaking the vicious circle of poverty, apart from relieving some of their budgetary
restrictions.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 07.10.08

– US supports Taliban return to power

The United States said on Monday it’s “very supportive” of an Afghan reconciliation
effort that could bring the Taliban back into the government in Kabul after severing
their ties with Al Qaeda. A CNN report claimed that the Taliban had already agreed
to dump Al Qaeda, a militant group the United States blames for sponsoring the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States. “We’re
“We’re very supportive of an Afghan
reconciliation programme,”
programme,” US State Department’s deputy spokesman Robert Wood
told a briefing in Washington. The State Department official also made it clear that
the US had only two preconditions: renunciation of violence and adherence to the
Afghan Constitution. “And,
“And, in fact, the Afghan government has outlined criteria for
that programme, which we fully support, one of which is renouncing violence, the
second, adherence to the constitution,”
constitution,” he said. Mr Wood emphasised that the talks
would not affect “a“a long-term US goal”
goal” to try to build up the Afghan army. “It’s
“It’s
important that Afghans be able to take on security responsibility for themselves,”
themselves,”
he said. US military commanders have acknowledged that there’s no military
solution to the Afghan conflict. In a recent testimony before the House Armed
Services Committee, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen
restated his concern that the military effort alone could not bring peace to
Afghanistan. “Afghanistan
“Afghanistan doesn’t just need more boots on the ground. … I’m not
convinced we’re winning it in Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” he said. Brigadier Mark CarletonSmith,
commander of Britain’s 16 Air Assault Brigade, which had just completed its second
tour in Afghanistan, told the Sunday Times this weekend that people should “lower“lower
their expectations”
expectations” about how the conflict would end. He also said they should
prepare for a possible deal with the Taliban. Diplomatic sources here claimed that
while the Afghan government had long advocated talks with the Taliban, a
mounting death toll among coalition troops and a worsening violence inside
Afghanistan forced the Americans to involve Saudi Arabia in the talks. The Taliban
agreed to participate because they also believed that they could not win a war
against the US-led coalition, sources said.

Author Location Dated

London, England 07.10.08

– ‘Militia severs ties with Al Qaeda’ S. Arabia brokering Kabul-

Taliban talks
King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia recently hosted talks between the Afghan
government and the Taliban, CNN’s Senior International Correspondent Nic
Robertson reported on Monday quoting a source. The CNN online alert said the
historic four-day meeting took place during the last week of September in Makkah,
according to the source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the
sensitivity of the negotiations. King Abdullah broke the fast with a 17-member
Afghan delegation — an act intended to show his commitment to ending the
conflict. Taliban leader Mullah Omar was not present, the source said. It marks a
significant departure by the Saudi leadership to take a direct role in Afghanistan,
hosting some delegates who have until recently been their enemies. In the past,
Saudi Arabia has generally dealt with Afghanistan through Pakistan. The CNN
correspondent said the desert kingdom’s current foray marks a significant shift and
appears to recognise the political weakness of Pakistan and the need to stem the
growth of Al Qaeda. The current round of talks is anticipated to be a first step in a
long process. According to the source close to the talks, it has taken two years of
behind-the scenes meetings to get to this point. The talks took place between Sept
24 and 27 and involved 11 Taliban delegates, two Afghan government officials, a
representative of former mujahideen commander and US foe Gulbadin Hekmatyar,
and three others. It was the first such meeting aimed at finding a negotiated
settlement to the Afghan conflict and for the first time, all parties were able to
discuss their positions and objectives openly and transparently, the source said.

Saudi Arabia was one of only three countries that recognised the Taliban leadership
during its rule over Afghanistan in the 1990s, but that relationship was severed over
Mullah Omar’s refusal to hand over Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. While Mullah
Omar was not present at the Makkah talks, the source said the Taliban leader had
made it clear he was no longer allied with Al Qaeda — a position that has never
been publicly stated but emerged at the talks. It confirms what another source with
an intimate knowledge of the Taliban and Mullah Omar has told CNN in the past.
During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to Afghanistan’s conflict is
through dialogue, not fighting. The source described the talks as an ice-breaking
meeting where expectations were kept necessarily low. Further talks are expected
in Saudi Arabia involving this core group and others. The reasons for Saudi Arabia’s
involvement are numerous, including having the trust of the United States and
Europe to play a positive role, at a time when the conflict appears to be worsening
and the coalition’s casualty toll is climbing. Also, Saudi Arabia may fear that Iran
could take advantage of US failings in Afghanistan, as it is seen to be doing in Iraq.
Several Afghan sources familiar with Iranian activities in Afghanistan have said that
Iranian officials and diplomats who were investing in business and building
education facilities are lobbying politicians in Kabul. Coalition commanders regularly
accuse Iran of arming the Taliban, and Western diplomats privately suggest that
Iran is working against US interests in Afghanistan, making it harder to bring peace.
Saudi sources say perceived Iranian expansionism is one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest
concerns. AP adds from Kabul: The Taliban’s former ambassador to Pakistan, Abdul
Salam Zaeef, said on Monday that he met last month in Saudi Arabia
representatives of the Taliban, the Afghan government and Mr Hekmatyar but the
meeting could not be construed as peace negotiation. He said he was invited by
King Abdullah to Iftar. “This
“This is not new, it’s a kind of a guest celebration,”
celebration,” Mr Zaeef
told AP. “They
“They invited some people for this. The list included me, (former Taliban
foreign minister Wakil Ahmad) Mutawakil, some from the Taliban, some from
Hekmatyar, some from the government.”
government.” “We
“We didn’t discuss any issue of
Afghanistan with”
with” King Abdullah, he said. Mr Zaeef, who spent almost four years in
the US military prison in Guantanamo Bay, said there were no “official”
representatives from the Taliban or Hekmatyar’s group, meaning no one authorised
to carry out peace talks.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s government has long encouraged militants to lay
down arms and accept the country’s constitution, but the Taliban leadership has
largely rebuffed repeated overtures from Afghan officials aimed at ending the
country’s six-year conflict. An Afghan opposition leader, former president
Burhanuddin Rabbani, had told the AP earlier this year that the country’s political
leaders had been meeting Taliban and other anti-government groups in hopes of
negotiating peace. He said some Taliban were willing to negotiate, but others were
opposed. One of the Afghan officials at the meal in Saudi Arabia was the country’s
former Supreme Court chief justice Fazel Hadi Shinwari, Mr Zaeef said. He said
Bismillah Khan, the army chief of general staff, also was in Saudi Arabia, though it
wasn’t clear if he was part of the group that met the king. Taliban spokesman Qari
Yousef Ahmadi denied on Monday that any peace talks had taken place, while a
Taliban commander in southern Afghanistan said the issue was raised recently
during a Taliban meeting. “We
“We have been hearing of such talks in Saudi Arabia from
our different sources for some days. A representative of Mullah Omar also present
at the meeting denied it categorically,”
categorically,” Mullah Abdul Rahim said. He said the
Taliban would continue the war until US and British forces left Afghanistan.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 07.10.08

– SBP injects Rs54bn into banking system

The State Bank of Pakistan on Monday injected Rs54 billion into the banking system
to save it from the extreme credit crunch and unexpected high call money rates,
ranging from 32 to 40 per cent. The first full day banking, after long Eid holidays,
opened with a severe shortage of liquidity which pushed up inter-bank money rates
much higher than the expectations of banks. “The “The overnight rate was above 32 per
cent and some deals were made at 40 per cent which showed an extreme situation
in the banking system,”
system,” said the treasurer of a large Pakistani bank. The situation
could be worse had the SBP not injected huge liquidity into the system. The SBP
injected Rs53.9 billion, which eased the banking business, but rates were still
higher. Bankers said that withdrawals during Ramazan were much more than the
amount injected by the SBP. No official figure of withdrawal of liquidity is available,
but shortage in the banking system suggests that it could be around Rs300 to
Rs400 billion during a month. “This
“This huge outflow of cash is the real reason behind
current shortage of liquidity,”
liquidity,” said Shoaib Aleem, a senior banker. Bankers were not
in panic but were hopeful that withdrawals would come back to the system from
other channels. The cash utilised by the general public during Ramazan changed
hands. “The
“The cash withdrawn during Ramazan is utilised for shopping and
purchasing assets which resulted in the shifting of liquidity from one hand to the
other and finally it comes to banks,”
banks,” said the banker. The SBP has been maintaining
a tight monetary policy for more than two years and does not allow ample liquidity
in the banking system. However, as analysts say, the liquidity crunch was not
because of tight monetary policy. “The“The inflow of cash started pouring into the
banking system and would be enough to eliminate the crunch and substantially cut
call money rates in a week’s time,”
time,” said the banker. The SBP injected liquidity into
the banking system for seven days, indicating that a week would be enough to
mitigate the impact of shortage caused by heavy withdrawals. The higher
circulation of currency also showed that the market during Ramazan was much
more liquid than the previous year. According to the latest data issued by the State
Bank, currency circulation from July 1 to Sept 20 added Rs71 billion in the system
while the growth was Rs41.8 billion during the same period last year.

Author Location Dated

Douglass K. Daniel Washington, D.C. 07.10.08

– Palin’s words carry racial tinge

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling
“palling around with terrorists”
terrorists” and
doesn’t see the US like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin
targeted key goals for a faltering campaign. And though she may have scored a
political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged
subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret. First, Palin’s attack shows
that her energetic debate with rival Joe Biden may be just the beginning, not the
end, of a sharpened role in the battle to win the presidency. “Our
“Our opponent ... is
someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough,
that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,”
country,” Palin
told a group of donors in Englewood, Colorado. A deliberate attempt to smear
Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events on Saturday.
“This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,”
America,” she said. “We
“We see
America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”
exceptionalism.”
Obama released his own loaded-word attack on McCain on Sunday, calling the 72-
year-old senator “erratic,” a hard-to-miss implication that his age could be a
problem. “Our
“Our financial system in turmoil,”
turmoil,” an announcer says in Obama’s new ad.
“And John McCain? Erratic in a crisis. Out of touch on the economy.”
economy.” But Palin’s
reference questions Obama’s associations and thereby his character. And her
context is inaccurate. Palin’s reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers,
a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best, if
not outright false. Ayers helped found the organization which took responsibility for
a series of bombings, including nonfatal blasts at the Pentagon and US Capitol four
decades ago. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked
on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early
in his career.

Obama, who was a child when the Weathermen were planting bombs, has
denounced Ayers’ radical views and actions. With her criticism, Palin is taking on
the running mate’s traditional role of attacker, said Rich Galen, a Republican
strategist. “There
“There appears to be a newfound sense of confidence in Sarah Palin as a
candidate, given her performance the other night,”
night,” Galen said. “I
“I think that they
are comfortable enough with her now that she’s got the standing with the
electorate to take off after Obama.”
Obama.” Second, Palin’s incendiary charge draws media
and voter attention away from the worsening economy. It also comes after McCain
supported a pork-laden Wall Street bailout plan in spite of conservative anger and
his own misgivings. “It’s
“It’s a giant changing of the subject,”
subject,” said Jenny Backus, a
Democratic strategist. “The
“The problem is the messenger. If you want to start throwing
fire bombs, you don’t send out the fluffy bunny to do it. I think people don’t take
Sarah Palin seriously.”
seriously.”

The larger purpose behind Palin’s broadside is to reintroduce the question of

Obama’s associations. Millions of voters, many of them open to being swayed to
one side or the other, are starting to pay attention to an election a month away. For
the McCain campaign, that makes Obama’s ties to Ayers as well as convicted felon
Antoin “Tony” Rezko and the controversial minister Jeremiah Wright ripe for
renewed criticism. And Palin brings a fresh voice to the argument. Palin’s words
avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating
the false image of a black presidential nominee “palling around” with terrorists
while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn’t see their America?
In a post-Sept 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as darkskinned radical Muslims,
not the home-grown anarchists of Ayers’ day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative
unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails
about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate. Whether intended or not by
the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as “not like us” is another potential appeal
to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiianborn Christian is, at heart, unAmerican. John
McCain occasionally looks back on decisions with regret. He has apologized for
opposing a holiday to honour Martin Luther King Jr. He has apologized for refusing to
call for the removal of a Confederate flag from South Carolina’s Capitol. When the
2008 campaign is over, McCain might regret appeals such as Palin’s perhaps more
so if he wins.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 08.10.08

– Military to share secrets with MPs

The two houses of parliament meet in a rare in-camera joint sitting on Wednesday
where the military will share with politicians secrets about why blood is flowing with
such abunduncy in a messy war that neither side seems winning. But given a
tradition of distrust between the generals and the politicians, the whole truth about
Pakistan’s role in the so-called “war on terrorism” may not be told in only the third
such secret sitting of the National Assembly and Senate in Pakistan’s parliamentary
history. Unlike normal parliamentary sessions where issues are debated upon, it will
be an army general who will only brief members of the two houses and could also
answer their questions before a likely rounding up speech by Prime Minister Syed
Yousuf Raza Gilani, who arranged the sitting in response to consistent opposition
criticism of the six month-old elected government’s handling of the conflict it
inherited from a discredited military led regime. The sitting is due to begin at the
National Assembly chamber at 5pm and there was no official word on Tuesday
about its duration — although one parliamentary source said it could last two to
three days. National Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza, who will chair the sitting, will
meet leaders of parliamentary groups at 3pm to possibly decide the duration of the
sitting, which will also be witnessed by some prominent political figures from
outside parliament, including former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, and leaders of
some parties which boycotted the Feb 18 elections, parliamentary sources said.
Parliamentary groups of the ruling coalition led by the Pakistan People’s Party and
opposition parties will hold their own separate meetings afterwards to plan their line
of action. For the first time in 20 years, the press gallery will be empty during a
parliamentary sitting, making it a political elite affair whose story will be sought to
be told through the jargon of an official press release.

The first such secret joint sitting was convened in 1974 by then-prime minister
Zulfikar Ali Bhutto to discuss the situation after anti-Qadiani riots, which led to a
constitutional amendment that declared the Qadianis, or Ahmedis, outside the pale
of Islam. A similar session was convened in 1988 by then-prime minister
Mohammad Khan Junejo before signing the Geneva peace accord on Afghanistan
that earned him the ire of military president General Mohammad Zia-ul-Haq who
sacked him months before he himself was killed in mysterious plane crash. Director-
General of Military Operations, Lt.-General Ahmad Shuja Pasha, will brief the sitting
about the progress of anti-militant operations in the Federally Administered Tribal
Areas (Fata) and internal threats of terrorism, a military source said. But political
sources said the parliament members would like to be told about how the militants
sympathetic to Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda and Afghanistan’s formerly ruling
Taliban movement gained sway in most of the Fata’s seven administrative agencies
in the past few years under the nose of heavy military deployment in the region,
how they turned the country’s tourist paradise of Swat into killing fields, and even
spread terror in cities like Islamabad, Rawalpindi, Peshawar and Lahore through
their devastating suicide bombings, and who provides them the sinews to confront
what claims to be one the world’s best fighting machines. There may also be
queries about the Dec 27, 2007 assassination of former prime minister Benazir
Bhutto in a suicide attack blamed on the now banned Pakistani chapter of Taliban
and the possible whereabouts of bin Laden, his top associates and Taliban leader
Mullah Mohammad Omar since Pakistani intelligence ostensibly lost track of them
after the October 2001 US-led invasion of Afghanistan following the 9/11 attacks on
the United States. While military briefs politicians at the parliament house,
Islamabad has still not recovered from the shock of Sept 20 suicide truck bombing
outside the nearby Marriott Hotel that killed more than 50 people. And Thursday’s
suicide attack that ANP chief Asfandyar Wali Khan survived at his native Walibagh,
in Charsadda came as challenge to his party’s traditional policy of non-violence.

There is bound to be a lot of explanation and questioning about Pakistan’s role as

an ally of the mainly Western US-led coalition against terrorism, particularly in the
context of recent rocketing on alleged militant hideouts in Fata by American or Nato
predators based in Afghanistan, at least one incursion by American ground troops,
and the latest agreement for joint patrols on the Pakistan-Afghan border. The joint
sitting seems to be a clear departure from the past years of the conflict when
politicians had little say in Pakistan’s military role in the matter after former
president Pervez Musharraf aligned Islamabad with the US-led coalition soon after
9/11 in a controversial U-turn without consulting even his political allies. But only
time will tell if the expected parliamentary debates after the secret briefing will
contribute to any policy review by the present government, which says it has
already changed course from only use of force to a three-pronged approach to deal
with the militants – talk to and make peace with those who lay down arms, engage
in economic development of the deprived tribal areas and make selective use of
force against those who refuse to surrender. The new military leadership has made
it known it would place ground realities before the political leadership so it could
decide the kind of strategy to be followed. Among 17 non-parliament figures invited
to the sitting will be Pakistan Muslim League-Q president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain,
Jamaat-i-Islami chief Qazi Hussain Ahmed, former Balochistan chief minister
Ataullah Khan Mengal, Pakhtunbkhawa Milli Awami Party president Mahmood Khan
Achakzai, Pakistan Tehrik-i-Insaaf chief Imran Khan, Baloch nationalist leader Abdul
Haye Baloch, and National People’s Party chief Ghulam Mustafa Jatoi.
Jatoi.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 08.10.08
om

– And let’s not forget Iraq

Until as recently as a year ago, the conflict in Iraq was being portrayed by the
primary aggressor as a well intentioned intervention gone wrong, while Afghanistan
was supposed to be the good war. This year the narrative has changed. As
Afghanistan’s pear shape has become progressively more pronounced, Iraq has
suddenly become the success story. Pakistan should not be surprised at being
lumped with more than its fair share of blame for the Afghan mess: blaming its
victims’ neighbours is an old American ploy. Cambodia was bombed in the 1970s
ostensibly as a means of destroying the South Vietnamese National Liberation
Front’s supply routes. This strategy ultimately led to the ascendancy of the Khmer
Rouge. Iran has frequently been cited as an offender in Iraq, while its role in
restraining Shia militants remains officially unacknowledged. Who knows where this
entanglement, with its nuclear component, will lead to. The porousness of
Pakistan’s long frontier with Afghanistan could hardly have come as a surprise to
the Americans, given that they exploited this facility to the hilt while fuelling and
funding the antiSoviet insurgency through the 1980s. The bands of armed Islamists
in the country’s north-west pose a bigger threat to Pakistan’s well-being than they
do to any American interests. If the threat of Talibanisation in Pakistan has
multiplied manifold in the wake of the western military intervention in Afghanistan,
it hardly makes sense to deny some sort of a cause-and-effect relationship between
the two developments. Based on the supposed success of last year’s surge in Iraq,
whereby the ranks of the occupying forces were swelled by 30,000 troops,
influential voices in the US have been advocating a similar plan for Afghanistan.
Fortunately, saner voices are also being heard, not least from within the military
establishment. For instance, Brig Mark Carleton-Smith, the British commander in
Helmand, was quoted on Sunday as saying: “We’re“We’re not going to win this war. It’s
about reducing it to a manageable level of insurgency that’s not a strategic threat
and can be managed by the Afghan army.”
army.” He also broached the prospect of
negotiations with the Taliban, a track that is reportedly already being pursued.

Many in the US would dismiss such talk as defeatist. They would probably be
surprised to find that Gen David Petraeus and his successor as the US commander
in Iraq, Gen Ray Odierno, have been speaking in somewhat similar terms,
describing the gains in that country as “fragile
“fragile and reversible”
reversible” — a far cry from the
premature triumphalism of Republican presidential candidate John McCain and the
contention of his alarmingly unsophisticated running mate, Sarah Palin, that
“victory in Iraq is wholly in sight”.
sight”. “This
“This is not the sort of struggle,”
struggle,” Petraeus pointed
out last month, “where
“where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory
parade.”
parade.” In comparison with the bloodiest phase of the war, the level of violence
has, on the face of it, decreased sharply in many parts of Iraq. This is a welcome
development, albeit within the context of a completely gratuitous war. However, as
Petraeus must be aware, the extent to which this can be attributed to the increase
in troop numbers is questionable. It is likely to be related more directly to the so-
called Awakening movement, whereby Iraqi Sunnis turned away in large numbers
from Al Qaeda in Iraq, recognising it as a purely destructive force, and via their
tribal leaders established contact with US forces, which decided to put them on their
payroll. For $300 a month, former insurgents have been helping to maintain
security in designated regions. The Shia-dominated government of Nuri Al Maliki
wasn’t thrilled by this turn of events, but from this month it has begun taking
responsibility for the Sunni fighters under American supervision. Given the
encrustation of sectarian divisions amid the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq, it is not
hard to see why such a gain should be seen as fragile and reversible. But it had
little to do with the surge. Meanwhile, the fiery young cleric Moqtada Al Sadr’s
decision to remodel his Mahdi Army along the lines of Hezbollah, with greater
emphasis on its social and political role, also contributed crucially to the reduction
in violence. The short-term consequences of these multiple factors have been
something of a boon for McCain, an early advocate of the surge — who also
happens to believe that the Vietnam War would have turned out differently had the
aggressor nation poured in a lot more troops and had its bombs killed a lot more
people. This is a dangerous line of thinking: taken to its logical conclusion, it could
well lead to the ultimate abomination of nuclear weapons being used against an
indefatigable foe.

What has actually helped McCain is not the surge per se, which hasn’t substantially
changed public opinion about the war, but the fact that Iraq has receded from
media headlines. Even his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, who opposed the war
from the outset, has not been talking much about Iraq. This is probably a mistake.
Although most Americans are focused for the time being on their economic woes,
Obama ought to be a great deal more forceful in advancing his argument about the
sheer stupidity of the occupation. There is a plethora of corroborating evidence,
given the host of books about the inner workings of the Bush presidency that have
steadily been appearing in its final year. They range from Gen Ricardo Sanchez’s
Wiser in Battle and Bob Woodward’s The War Within, Within, both of which feature
vignettes demonstrating George W’s wilder streak (“Stay strong! Stay the course!
Kill them! Be confident! Prevail! We are going to wipe them out!), to Ron Suskind’s
thoughtful The Way of the World,World, which contains evidence that well before the
assault on Iraq, the Bush and Blair administrations had more or less incontrovertible
proof that Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction or even WMD
programmes. Meanwhile, notwithstanding the suicide bombings in Baghdad on Eidul
Fitr, in some parts of the city families emerged to celebrate, The Washington Post
reported last week. “A “A few women,”
women,” it said, “even
“even went out in public in knee-length
skirts or without headscarves, just as they did in the days when the government of
Saddam Hussein maintained a largely secular society. With the rise of religious
parties and militias in recent years, most women now cover their hair and wear long
robes or skirts.”
skirts.” If that’s the price of ‘liberation’, it’s hard to see how it can be
distinguished from a defeat, at least for the women of Iraq. ¦ The writer is a
journalist based in Sydney.Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 08.10.08
 – Action or intelligence?
Bush already has; Obama says he will; Hillary Clinton said she would; Palin thinks
she absolutely should; and McCain probably will but won’t talk about it. Launch
raids in Fata on ‘actionable intelligence’ to capture or kill high-value terrorist
targets, that is. The debate is as old as the war in Afghanistan; however, it was
given a public face by Barack Obama last summer. Locked in a bitter contest with
Hillary Clinton, Obama was being pummelled for suggesting he would meet leaders
of rogue nations without preconditions in his first year as president; Clinton even
accused Obama of being “irresponsible
“irresponsible and, frankly, naive”.
naive”. Obama used a major
speech at the Woodrow Wilson Centre last August to respond. It was there that he
uttered the fateful words on actionable intelligence. For those Pakistanis who fear
being caught in the crosshairs of the American military juggernaut it was an
astonishing speech. Not so much because Obama said anything contrary to
Washington conventional wisdom, but that he — a candidate with a realistic chance
of capturing the White House and therefore having to deal with Pakistan — was
laying down such a clear marker against Pakistan. In the speech meant to unveil his
foreign policy and national security agenda, Obama used the word ‘Iraq’ 24 times,
‘Afghanistan’ 14 times — and ‘Pakistan’ 13 times. The senator promised to “wage “wage
the war that has to be won”
won” by “getting
“getting out of Iraq and on to the right battlefield in
Afghanistan and Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Suddenly, a major non-Nato ally had been declared a
battlefield. Then came the sentence that shook Pakistan: “If “If we have actionable
intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,
we will.”
will.” With it Obama’s foreign policy became ‘muscular’ and the Democratic
agent of hope and change had outdone the brashest of Republican. Obama has
since repeated his formulation countless times, albeit replacing Musharraf with
Pakistan after the general’s forced resignation. It has taken on a life of its own in
the media echo chamber and given some Pakistanis recurring nightmares of a
Democrat, traditionally viewed as weak on foreign policy, trying to out-macho the
Republican Bush.

Some have seen restraint in the ‘if‘if you won’t act, we will’
will’ caveat. But most have
overlooked the actionable intelligence part, which is arguably where the idea
originated from. Three weeks before Obama’s speech at the Wilson Centre, The
New York Times (NYT) made a dramatic revelation: in early 2005, a secret American
military mission to capture top Al Qaeda leaders, including Ayman Al Zawahiri, in
North Waziristan was aborted by Defence Secretary Rumsfeld. Zawahiri and co had
allegedly arrived in North Waziristan to attend a meeting but Rumsfeld aborted the
‘snatch and grab’
grab’ mission at the last minute — after “members
“members of a Navy Seals unit
in parachute gear had already boarded C-130 cargo planes in Afghanistan”.
Afghanistan”. The
NYT story claimed Rumsfeld was concerned that sending several hundred troops
(necessary to secure the mission) would convulse US-Pakistan relations, with
unpredictable consequences. Political expediency had apparently trumped a
potentially great military success. This was the interpretation that Ben Rhodes, a
30-year-old wunderkind who is Obama’s chief foreign policy speechwriter, clearly
leapt on as he prepared Obama’s speech. Indeed, the sentence immediately before
the ‘if they won’t act, we will’ warning is: “It
“It was a terrible mistake to fail to act
when we had a chance to take out an Al Qaeda leadership meeting in 2005.” 2005.”
Unfortunately for Pakistan, Rhodes ignored a vital part of the NYT story: two and a
half years after the aborted raid, American intelligence was still “not certain” if
Zawahiri had been present in North Waziristan. The actionable intelligence on which
the Americans came perilously close to acting — and perhaps committing a terrible
mistake — was based on communications intercepts that simply gave intelligence
officials “unusually
“unusually high confidence”
confidence” that Zawahiri was at the meeting. A recurring
theme of the NYT story was how poor the American intelligence has been in Fata; in
fact, to shore up poor intelligence, “in
“in early 2006, President Bush ordered a ‘surge’
of dozens of CIA agents to Pakistan.”
Pakistan.”

Some may recall the infamous Damadola strike. On Jan 13, 2006, Predator missiles
struck Damadola, a village in Bajaur Agency. The target? Ayman Al Zawahiri,
allegedly visiting the home of one Bakhtpur Khan. The Pakistan government claimed
that four foreign militants were killed; however, locals claimed that the nearly two
dozen dead were civilians, including children. Musharraf stuck to the American
script even a month later, telling tribal elders in Charsadda that “five“five foreigners
were killed in the US attack on Bajaur”.
Bajaur”. Conventional wisdom had by then identified
four of the ‘dead’ Al Qaeda men: Midhat Mursi Al Sayid Umar, an Egyptian with a
$5m bounty on his head; Abu Obaidah Al Masri, an Egyptian responsible for plotting
attacks in the West; Khalid Habib, a field commander in Afghanistan; and Zawahiri’s
son-in-law, Abdul Rahman Al Maghribi. It was a lethal hoax. American actionable
intelligence had done its worst. From The Washington Post in September 2007: “US “US
and Pakistani officials now say that none of those al-Qaeda [sic] leaders perished in
the strike and that only local villagers were killed.”
killed.” Given time to reflect, Mahmood
Shah, Fata security chief in 2006, had changed his mind: “I “I just think the
information was not correct.”
correct.” What happened? Eight months before Damadola,
Pakistani security agents, some allegedly dressed in burqas, nabbed Abu Faraj Al
Libbi, a Libyan Al Qaeda leader. Libbi was handed over to the Americans (he is
currently in Guantanamo) and is reported to have told interrogators that he met
Zawahiri at Bakhtpur Khan’s house in Bajaur. Cue the Predator missiles — which
exploded amongst families gathered to celebrate Eid. Surely Rhodes, Obama’s
speechwriter, knew at least some of this inglorious history of American actionable
intelligence in Fata. Anthony Lake, a former national security adviser to President
Clinton and Obama’s top foreign policy adviser, certainly did. Any regrets then for
their dangerous prescription? On the contrary, they are proud of it. An Obama
adviser had this to say to The American Prospect in March about the backlash
against the senator’s comments: “He “He takes policy positions that are a break from
both rigid orthodoxy and the Bush administration. And everyone says it’s a gaffe!
That just encapsulates everything that’s wrong about the foreign policy debate in
Washington and in Democratic politics.”
politics.” Rhodes gushed that it was a “seminal
moment”; Obama thought it was the right policy, claimed Rhodes. Since then the
Angoor Adda raid in South Waziristan has exposed the Obama canard of a break
from Bush — and the continuing problems with actionable intelligence. Might
McCain be a better friend to the hapless tribesmen of Fata? No. After the disastrous
January 2006 Damadola strike, McCain said on CBS’s ‘Face ‘Face the Nation’:
Nation’: “It’s
“It’s terrible
when innocent people are killed; we regret that…. We apologise, but I can’t tell you
that we wouldn’t do the same thing again.”
again.”

Author Location Dated

Abdul Khalique Shaikh 08.10.08

– Police and the community

In a modern civilised society it is the prime responsibility of the state to protect the
life, liberty and honour of its people and dispense justice in an efficient and
impartial manner. The police service occupies a pivotal position among institutions
of the state engaged in the discharge of this essential function. The police force,
however, is not expected to be a mere tool in the hands of the state to be used
arbitrarily. While maintaining order in society it has to work with people, through
people and for people. A police service bereft of community support is unlikely to
achieve the desired goals. Traditionally, the police in our society have been seen as
an arm of the state and police-public relations have been marred by distrust and
scepticism. This is not how it was supposed to be, for a close police-public
participation was envisioned in the Police Rules when they were enacted in 1934. At
the outset it was clearly stated that criminal law and the police organisation were
both founded on the principle that public order depended essentially on the
responsibility of every member of the community to prevent offences and to arrest
offenders while remaining within the law. The magisterial and police set-ups were to
enforce, control and assist this general responsibility. However, relations between
the police and the community have remained far from ideal. The police have not
made much headway in gaining the trust of the general public. The distance
between the police and the public has widened with the passage of time. This has
happened despite the fact that a large number of policemen have lost their lives in
the call of duty and others continue to work under terrible conditions for long and
unpredictable hours for low wages.

Various reasons have been cited to explain the deterioration in police-public

relations but one of the most important factors is the inability of the police to
establish its impartiality. The framers of the Police Rules had set a perfect model to
be followed. It was categorically declared that the ideal to be aimed at in respect of
relations with the public was that every police officer, of whatever rank, should be
regarded by every law-abiding person as a wise and impartial friend and a protector
against injury to his person and property. How can this be achieved if the police are
seen as an instrument used by successive governments to crack down on the public
for reasons that may or may not be justified? It is high time that the relationship
between the government and the police, and between the community and the
police, is redefined. For most citizens, the only interaction they have with the police
is either as offenders when they come in conflict with the law or alternatively as
victims of crime. The police’s role in society is not confined to enforcing the law;
they are expected to provide relief in a variety of distressing situations. A police
force engaged in service-oriented activities besides law enforcement is bound to be
respected by the community as a whole. The Police Order 2002 unequivocally laid
down that it is the duty of a police officer to afford relief to people in situations of
distress, particularly in respect of women and children; provide assistance to
victims of road accidents; supply accident victims and their heirs or dependants
with information and documents that would facilitate their compensation claims;
and raise awareness among victims of road accidents of their rights and privileges.
One example of the police department’s service-oriented activities is assistance
through rescue centres like Madadgar 15. In areas where these rescue centres are
better organised and efficient, police-community relations have improved
considerably. What can also go a long way in bridging the gap between the police
and the community is the attitude of police officers. The Police Order makes it
imperative that police officers interact with the public with due decorum and
courtesy, promote amity, help individuals who are in danger of physical harm and
assist all members of the public, particularly the poor, disabled or physically weak
and children who are either lost or find themselves helpless on the streets or other
public places. However, it will require a great deal of work to walk the talk and take
effectual practical steps to realise the avowed objectives of the Police Order 2002.
The time has come to implement the people-friendly provisions of the Police Order
and bring the police and the community closer. Various factors have contributed
towards widening the gap between the police and the community. These include
the colonial legacy of the police as a force deployed against the public and not for
the public; its oppressive use against the people for political reasons in the garb of
maintaining public order; the bureaucratic way of working of police officers at the
senior level and unfriendly attitudes prevalent in junior ranks; incompetence and
corrupt practices; and slackness in adopting modern practices of community
policing.

Community policing is the best way to bridge the gap between the police and the
public. This is not just theory, for experiments have been successful in some crime-
infested neighbourhoods of Karachi like Ferozabad and Bahadurabad. In these
areas, citizens have pooled resources like patrol cars and manpower and have
joined hands with the area police in prevention of crime. These neighbourhood
watch programmes have not only significantly reduced crime in the selected areas
but a bond of trust has developed between police officers and citizens. The
downside of this model is that the police-community partnership is confined to
certain affluent blocks of these areas. It has to be extended to less privileged
neighbourhoods. The idea of involving citizens’ bodies in policing activities in not
new. Mohalla committees, peace committees and even an organised body like the
CPLC in Karachi have been functioning from time to time though with limited roles.
The Police Order 2002 gives a formal role to citizens’ bodies in the shape of district
public safety commissions, provincial public safety commissions and a National
Public Safety Commission. It is a pity that public safety commissions could not play
their due role as envisaged in the Police Order due to petty politics. No police
service can succeed in the prevention and detection of crime and maintenance of
law and order without substantial support from the community. Investment in
human resources and modern policing equipment in complete isolation from the
community will be an exercise in futility and a sheer waste of money. A police
service accountable to the community and working in tandem with the people to be
policed can do wonders even with meagre resources. The people expect the new
government and the police leadership to deliver in this vital area. ¦ The writer is a
senior superintendent of police in Sindh. Sindh.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Karachi, Pakistan 08.10.08

– Rupee at record low vs dollar

The rupee edged to a record low to the dollar during the last few minutes of inter-
bank trade on Tuesday, weighed down by worsening economic fundamentals and
unrelenting demand for dollars to cover imports. The rupee closed at 78.65-75 to
the dollar in inter-bank market. The previous low was made at 78.65 on Monday.
The rupee has lost 21.7 per cent since the beginning of the year. In the kerb
market, the rupee crossed 79 to the dollar for the first time. With red lights flashing
across Pakistan’s macroeconomic dashboard, the rupee is expected to remain
under pressure following a credit rating downgrade by Standard & Poor’s rating
agency. S&P cut Pakistan’s sovereign rating further into junk territory on Monday,
saying the country’s worsening external liquidity may imperil its ability to meet
about $3 billion in upcoming debt obligations. Pakistan is struggling with inflation at
more than 25 per cent, and a widening current account deficit, and heavy
government borrowing to cover a budget deficit. The central bank has just enough
foreign currency to cover two months of imports, and a potential default on a
sovereign loan is looming in February. Pakistan has a $500 million euro bond debt
obligation due in February next year, but analysts believe a default to be averted.
“Risk of default on the bond debt obligation due in February 2009 may be a bit
exaggerated,”
exaggerated,” said Farhan Rizvi, a senior analyst at JS Global Capital. “But
“But if
reserves continue to fall at $800 to $900 million per month, then certainly, the
concern to default will rise too.”
too.” Pakistan’s foreign reserves fell $690 million to
$8.13 billion in the week that ended on Sept 27 from $8.82 billion the previous
week, while the central bank’s own reserves fell to $4.68 billion from $5.41
previously. In the money market, overnight call rates eased to below 20 per cent
due to maturity of government bonds and treasury bills, but dealers expect rates to
remain high due to a liquidity crunch resulting from Pakistan’s chronic balance of
payment deficit.

Author Location Dated

AFP Nairobi, Kenya 08.10.08

– Anti-Obama
author faces
deportation
from Kenya
The American author of
a best-selling,
controversial book
blasting White House
hopeful Barack Obama
on Tuesday faced
deportation from Kenya
after being detained by
security officials, police
said. Jerome Corsi, who
was scheduled to unveil
“The Obama Nation”
Nation” to
the Kenyan public at a
Nairobi hotel, was
briefly detained in the
capital Nairobi early
Tuesday, officially for
“visa related issues.”
issues.”
Corsi “was
“was detained and
is currently being held at the immigration office,”
office,” a top police official said. The
author’s spokesman confirmed that they were being questioned. “Before“Before we
launched the book, immigration officials came to us and said that they were
investigating us on immigration issues. (Finally) they said that our visa and passport
were in order, but they had lost the customs form,”
form,” said his spokesman Tim Bueler.
Bueler explained that they had been taken to the airport for investigation, but a
Kenyan immigration official said the author was being deported. “A “A decision has
been reached to deport Corsi. He is being transported to the airport,”
airport,” an
immigration official said on condition of anonymity. “There
“There was a problem with his
travel documents and his mission in the country. It is not clearly stated what he
came to do in Kenya,”
Kenya,” he added. Obama’s father, now deceased, was Kenyan and
the US senator running for president enjoys wide support in East Africa. In his book,
Corsi also pillories Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga, whom he accuses of
supporting the agenda of radical Muslims. In a press release distributed earlier this
week, Corsi announced he would “expose
“expose deep secret ties between US Democratic
presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama and a section of the Kenyan government
leaders.”
leaders.” He was also to detail Kenyan leaders’ “connections
“connections to certain sectoral
groups in Kenya and a subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Sen. Obama
win the American presidency,”
presidency,” the release said.

The police officially denied Corsi’s detention was linked to the contents of his book.
“Just like anybody else, we are concerned with his immigration papers. We have
nothing to do with the book or whoever it’s about. It’s about the law of Kenya,”
Kenya,” the
senior official said. Corsi made his name by co-authoring “Unfit
“Unfit for Command,”
Command,”
which maligned 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry’s Vietnam War
record and is believed to have contributed to his defeat by President George W.
Bush. Corsi’s book on Obama, subtitled “Leftist
“Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality,”
Personality,”
was released on Aug 1. The book’s publisher, Threshold Editions, said it examined
“why the extreme leftism of an Obama presidency would leave the US weakened,
diminished and divided, why Obama must be defeated — and how he can be.” be.”
Tuesday’s issue of the US edition of Reader’s Digest Magazine said Obama would
win with a landslide if the entire planet was voting in the US elections, not just
Americans. Respondents voted “overwhelmingly” for Obama in every country polled
except the United States, where Republican John McCain was slightly ahead in the
race for the Nov 4 vote. Barack Obama, who was born in the US, barely knew his
Kenyan father who returned to his homeland when Barack was a young boy. But
Obama was given a hero’s welcome during his last visit to the family village in
western Kenya in 2006. His grandmother still lives there and is now a local celebrity.

Author Location Dated

Patrick Cockburn London, England 08.10.08

– Afghan govt must fight and win its own battles

The first serious talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban took place
10 days ago in Makkah under the auspices of King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia. During
the discussions all sides agreed that the war in Afghanistan is going to be solved by
dialogue and not by fighting. Taliban leader Mullah Omar was not present, but his
representatives said he was no longer allied to Al Qaeda. The admission by a senior
British Army commander Mark Carleton-Smith over the weekend that absolute
military victory in Afghanistan is impossible has been overtaken by the talks in
Makkah. “If
“If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk
about a political settlement, then that is precisely the sort of progress that
concludes insurgencies like this,”
this,” said Brigadier CarletonSmith. “That
“That shouldn’t
make people uncomfortable.”
uncomfortable.” This sounds as if Britain’s latest military venture in
Afghanistan is going to end in a retreat with none of its ill-defined objectives
achieved. In the US, an understanding of the real situation on the ground has been
slower to come. John McCain and Barack Obama still speak as if a few more
brigades of American soldiers sent to chase the Taliban around the mountains of
southern Afghanistan would change the outcome of the war. US policy in Iraq after
the overthrow of Saddam Hussein has been constantly denigrated as a recipe for
self-inflicted disaster. But President Bush’s policy in Afghanistan in the wake of the
fall of the Taliban was just as catastrophically misconceived. In both countries the
administration’s agenda was primarily geared to using military victory to make sure
that the Republicans won elections at home. The Taliban has always been
notoriously dependent on Pakistan and on the ISI. It was the ISI which covertly gave
militants a safe haven after their retreat from Afghanistan in 2001, enabling them to
regroup and counter-attack. But at the very moment this was happening Mr Bush
was lauding the Pakistani government of General Pervez Musharraf, which had
fostered the Taliban, as America’s great ally in its war on terror. The selfdefeating
absurdity of this policy has not struck home in the US as did the debacle in Iraq
though it is obvious that so long as the Taliban have a vast mountainous hinterland
in which to base themselves, they will never be defeated.

The presence of foreign troops was always more popular in Afghanistan than in Iraq.
The Afghans have a deep loathing for their warlords. But no foreign occupation
force, particularly if reliant on ill-directed air attacks and engaged in combat, stays
popular for long. This is particularly true if the foreign troops do not, in fact, deliver
security. Meanwhile their presence means that Taliban fighters can portray
themselves as patriots battling for their country and their faith. The overthrow of
the Taliban in 2001 was never quite what it looked like. Soon after they had given
up the fight, I drove from Kabul to Kandahar along one of the world’s worst-built
roads. The Taliban were adroitly changing sides or going home as local deals were
hammered out. Casualties on both sides were mercifully low. In the ancient town of
Ghazni, an accord on the end to Taliban power was only delayed because of a
disagreement on how many government cars they could retain. In a village outside
Kandahar, I asked a local leader if he could gather some former Taliban for me to
meet and in half-an-hour the village guest house was full of confident and
dangerous-looking fighters. I thought it would not take much for them to make a
comeback. Yet they would not have been able to do so without the blunders of the
White House and the Pentagon. By invading Iraq they convinced General Musharraf
that it was safe to give support to the Taliban once again. There were enough
foreign troops in Afghanistan to delegitimise the Afghan government but not
enough to defeat its enemies. Chasing Taliban fighters around the hinterland year
after year only led to the insurgency expanding. The talks in Saudi Arabia are a long
way from negotiations but they are a sign that the present political logjam might be
beginning to break. Brigadier Carleton-Smith’s forthright admission that there can
be no outright military victory also shows realism. The best route for Britain and the
US in Afghanistan is to have modest and attainable objectives combined with a
recognition that, in its struggle for survival, the Afghan government must fight and
win its own battles.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 08.10.08
 – A question of faith
Among the many changes in attitudes that took place in the West in the wake of
9/11, one was in the way people viewed religion. For the evangelical Christians, the
attacks on America by people thought to be Muslims were seen as a new offensive
in a centuries-old conflict. But for many atheists and agnostics, 9/11 was a reminder
of the bloodshed that has historically accompanied all religious belief, particularly
monotheistic faiths. In England, particularly, Christianity has been at a low ebb for a
long time, with church attendance down to under a million in a population of 60
million. Indeed, going to church on Sunday is now more of a social occasion than a
religious experience. With this background, it is easy to see why people simply
cannot grasp the motivation of Muslims who are willing to kill and be killed in the
name of their faith. To them, this kind of behaviour is not only abhorrent, but also
completely irrational. And while many openly articulate their lack of belief, the two
most persuasive voices in England are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
The latter now lives in America, but his best-selling book, ‘God
‘God is not great: how
religion poisons everything’,
everything’, has become a bible for atheists. In this polemical work,
Hitchens lays down his core belief thus: “God
“God did not create man in his own image.
Evidently, it was the other way about, which is the painless explanation for the
profusion of gods and religions, and the fratricide both between and among faiths,
that we see all about us and that has so retarded the development of civilisation…”
civilisation…”
Richard Dawkins is an acclaimed biologist who rests his atheism on the cornerstone
of Darwinian evolutionary theory. He was catapulted to fame with his book, ‘The ‘The
selfish gene’,
gene’, and has published prolifically over the years. He appears with
religious figures in conferences and TV talk shows, and with his articulate views and
scientific training, elegantly demolishes the arguments put forward by religious
scholars.

In his recent book, ‘The

‘The God delusion’,
delusion’, Dawkins describes an experiment that
involved 1,802 patients who had received coronary bypass surgery. They were
divided into three groups. Group1 received intercessory prayers and knew it; Group
2 received no prayers and did not know it; and Group 3 received prayers and didn’t
know it. Prayers were offered at three churches distant from the hospitals
participating in the experiment. Those offering the prayers were given only the first
names of the patients, together with the first letter of the surname, and were told to
pray for successful operations and quick recovery without complications. The
results, reported in the April 2006 issue of the American Heart Journal, showed
there was no difference between those patients who were prayed for and those who
weren’t. Darwin’s theory postulates the gradual emergence of mankind (and all
other species) through a gradual series of evolutionary steps. This progress was
made as a result of survival challenges successful species faced and overcame
along the way. All physical and mental attributes we have acquired over the eons
can be traced to this constant battle for survival. Thus, our thumbs with opposing
fingers helped us to craft tools; the peacock’s flamboyant tail gives the male an in
strument to attract females. Dawkins quotes Darwin: “…natural
“…natural selection is daily
and hourly scrutinising, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest;
rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and
insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement
of each organic being.”
being.” So what evolutionary benefit does religion confer on its
followers? Clearly, a child born into a faith will probably cling to it as it has few
options until it is an adult. Thus, a boy raised as an animist on a remote island will
not even have heard about other religions, and in his worldview, everybody believes
in the same gods. For this boy, following the faith of his parents is the way to
survive. There is no element of choice here: children believe in whatever doctrine
they are taught to believe.

At the end of his book, Dawkins gives a sample list of websites that feature a
variety of agnostic and atheistic opinions. Clearly, there is huge ferment over the
questions of faith on the internet. Among the scientific community, there is almost
complete consensus on the existence of an allknowing, all-powerful Creator. Ten
years ago, Edward Larson and Larry Withan wrote an article in the Sept 1998 issue
of Scientific American in which they placed the number of scientists who did not
believe in God at around 70 per cent. It would be safe to say that in the decade
since this article appeared, the number has probably gone up. Although atheism
and agnosticism have increased in academia and western Europe over the last 50
years, faith in religious beliefs is going up in the United States and the Muslim
world. These divergent worldviews have produced a mutual incomprehension and
suspicion on both sides of the divide. This gap is most visible in the ongoing
electoral battle in the United States. Although both candidates profess strong
Christian belief, Obama is widely viewed as the secular candidate, while McCain is
seen as the flagbearer for the muscular brand of right-wing evangelical Christians
who are becoming increasingly political. It is a telling comment on these days of
acute polarisation that both candidates are required to take a public stand on their
beliefs. Normally, religion is a private matter between an individual and God, should
he believe in a deity. But across the world, people now tend to wear their faith on
their sleeves. Obviously, in Darwinian terms, this display is an evolutionary survival
mechanism in a dangerously divided world.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 08.10.08

– Obama’s landslide win — in global

If the whole world could vote for US president, Democrat Barack Obama would win
by a landslide, according to polls conducted in 17 countries by Reader’s Digest
magazine. Respondents voted “overwhelmingly” for Obama in every country polled
except the United States, where Republican John McCain was preferred by a narrow
margin, the magazine said in an article posted on its website on Monday. The
surveys, with about 1,000 participants in every country, were conducted several
months ago, from June 2 to July 7, for an article in the November issue of the
magazine. “It’s
“It’s Obama by a landslide — except in the country in which he’s actually
running for president,”
president,” said John Fredricks, polling director for the magazine. What
is most striking is the margin of his support. Obama was preferred by more than 90
per cent in the Netherlands, by 85 per cent in Germany and by similar margins on
all six continents, the magazine said. Polling was conducted in Australia, Brazil,
Britain, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Mexico, the
Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Spain, South Africa, Taiwan, and the United States. An
interactive reader survey by The Economist delivered another resounding victory for
Obama. The Economist has created a “Global
“Global Electoral College”
College” in which readers in
all of the world’s 195 countries can cast votes on its website. Mirroring the US
system, every country is allocated a number of votes in proportion to its population.
In the US electoral college, a candidate needs to win 270 of a total 538 votes to win
the White House. “With
“With over 6.5 billion people (worldwide) enfranchised, the result
is a much larger electoral college of 9,875 votes,”
votes,” the Economist said of its global
version. “But
“But rally your countrymen — a nation must have at least ten individual
votes in order to have its electoral college votes counted,”
counted,” it said. Voting at
www.economist.com/vote2008 will conclude on Nov 1 at midnight London time. So
far, Obama had tallied 8,455 global votes and McCain 16 — from Andorra, Georgia
and Macedonia.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 08.10.08

– US seeks peace with ‘reconcilable’ Taliban: Gates

The United States wants peace with ‘reconcilable’ insurgents in Afghanistan, says
US Defence Secretary Robert Gates while commenting on a new peace move. “The “The
idea is, how do you convince some of these people to stop killing Americans and our
allies and above all Afghans and become a part of the future of the state of
Afghanistan?,”
Afghanistan?,” said Mr Gates while explaining the US goal in supporting the peace
move that led to a meeting between the representatives of the Taliban and Afghan
government in Makkah last month. The United States believes that this target can
be achieved if the Taliban renounce violence and sever their ties to Al Qaeda.
Whether the United States can achieve this objective or not, the Americans and the
Saudis, who are playing a key role in this new move, have made it abundantly clear
that they see no role for Pakistan in this. A senior Pakistani diplomat, who has
stayed engaged with the Americans on this issue, told Dawn that he had noticed “a
sea change” in America’s Afghan policy. “During
“During the cold war, they viewed
Afghanistan from our binoculars. They no longer need to do so. They are now sitting
in Afghanistan,”
Afghanistan,” he said. “Now
“Now they look at Pakistan from Kabul and see what is
good for Afghanistan and how Islamabad can help achieve this.”this.” The diplomat also
noted that neither the Taliban nor the Afghan government were willing to trust
Pakistan any longer. “Both
“Both have more trust in India, than in Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” he said.
“Seen from this perspective, it’s not surprising that both Saudi Arabia and the US
decided to keep Pakistan out of the new move.”
move.” While Pakistani diplomats in
Washington worry about their role in the new peace move, US officials also are not
too excited about it. But they realise that they need to engage the Taliban. A
transcript released by the Pentagon quoted Mr Gates as saying that reconciliation
between the Taliban and the Afghan government which ends attacks on US and
Nato forces was “one
“one of the key long-term solutions in Afghanistan, just as it has
been in Iraq”.
Iraq”. The US defence secretary, while talking to reporters in Budapest,
Hungry, also appreciated the Saudi initiative in bringing together the rival Afghan
groups for peace talks. He said he had no objection to Saudi Arabia trying to broker
a peace deal between the Afghan government and militants. Mr Gates said he
would discuss the Taliban insurgency with Nato officials at a meeting in Budapest
this week as well.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 09.10.08

– Military seeks politicians’ support to fight militants

The military took elected representatives of the nation into confidence on
Wednesday about the worsening situation in Fata, NWFP and Balochistan and the
US-led “war on terror” during a joint sitting of the two houses of parliament held in
camera. It was only the third secret session of parliament in the country’s history.
The military leadership briefed legislators about the source of arms supply and
modern communications systems used by militants and the armed forces’
“limitations” in coping with the airspace violations by US drones and helicopters. A
number of opposition lawmakers expressed dissatisfaction with briefing, saying it
“lacked depth and diagnosis”.
diagnosis”. The meeting was attended by almost all MNAs and
Senators. The governors of Punjab, Balochistan, NWFP and chief ministers of all the
four provinces were also present. Mian Nawaz Sharif, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain and
Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, Chief of Army Staff, also attended the briefing. National
Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza, who chaired the sitting, earlier held a meeting
with the heads of parliamentary parties represented in the two houses to chalk out
an informal agenda for the joint session. The lawmakers from the opposition PML-N
stressed on the government to extend the session to enable them to put questions
to the military high command about their misgivings. The speaker acceded to their
request.

It was a very difficult day for the people of Islamabad, especially motorists and
pedestrians, as they had to make several detours to reach their workplaces because
all roads around the parliament house were closed to traffic. Huge blocks of
concrete and police-Rangers contingents saw to it that no one dared walk on the
Constitution Avenue, where some “sensitive” buildings are located. Prime Minister
Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani moved a resolution requesting the speaker to convert the
joint sitting into the “Committee
“Committee of the Whole House”.
House”. The prime minister moved
the resolution under Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of the Business
of the National Assembly, 2007, read with Rule 33 of the Parliament (Joint Sitting)
Rules, 1973.
1973. The resolution further sought the reversion of the Committee of the
Whole House into a joint sitting after the briefing. According to parliamentarians
who attended the session, MajGen Ahmed Shuja Pasha, the Director General of
Military operations and DG-designate of the Inter Services Intelligence Agency, gave
the briefing. An official press release by the speaker’s secretariat said: “A
“A joint
session of the Parliament was held in camera in the Parliament House today. The
Members of the Parliament were briefed by Major General Ahmed Shuja Pasha,
Director General (Military Operations) on the law and order situation and security in
the country.”
country.” The august house was informed that to curb the menace of terrorism,
internal security operations had to be undertaken in FATA and Swat. It was informed
that the armed forces have successfully conducted the operation with the support
of local people who have risen up against the militants by forming “Lashkars” in the
affected areas.

According to the sources, the MPs were informed in detail about the situation in
tribal areas with special reference to recently launched operations in Bajaur agency
and Swat. It was further informed about the infiltrations from across the border, the
availability of sophisticated arms with militants and recent capturing of foreign
currency, including Afghan rupee and US dollars from some of the dead. The
participants were briefed, through footages and maps, the modus operandi of the
militants in kidnapping important persons. It was stressed that the armed forces
alone cannot win against the war-hardened militants and extremists without
political support which the parliament could provide. The joint house was also
informed that some 2744 terrorists were killed including 321 foreigners and 1400
were injured during the ongoing military operation in Bajaur. There is no written
agenda for the in-camera session but under a broader understanding it has been
decided that the question answer session will start from Friday and the members
will forward their suggestions during course of discussion for insertion in the
national security strategy. It was stated by DGMO that around 1000 checkposts
were set up across Pak Afghan border to check illegal infiltration including
transportation of arms and other resources. The three-hour session was further
informed that arms were smuggled in the war zone from across the border. In his
comments after conclusion of the session, Khawaja Saad Rafiq of the PML(N) said
“There was nothing new in today’s briefing which could have enhanced our level of
understanding the problem for, all those matters were highlighted which we have
been reading in the newspapers”.
newspapers”. He further stated that foreign powers interference
and intrusions had no mention in today’s briefing nor was any remedy proposed to
come out of the turmoil. Khuram Dastagir Khan, another PML-N lawmaker, said the
briefing was “rather
“rather superficial as it only gave us a resume of events, but no
diagnosis”.
diagnosis ”. He said he would like to put question when the question-answer session
starts at 11am on Thursday as to why the army was reluctant to take action against
certain militants that were pointed out by the local tribal. Ayaz Amir, of the same
party, said: “Questions
“Questions will be raised as to how Pakistan was thrown in this war and
which country had brought this fire to our doorsteps.”
doorsteps.” He said: “We
“We need to change
this policy to come out of the quagmire in which we are stuck up now”.now”. On a
pessimistic note, he concluded “I “I feel no new thinking will emerge from this briefing
and we will continue to tread the same path even after this process ends”.
ends”. Marvi
Memon, of the PML-Q, stressed that the input that the MPs from both sides of divide
would forward should be inserted in the final security plan of the country. Ahsan
Iqbal, information secretary of the PML-N, said: “Today’s
“Today’s briefing was mostly
general in nature”.
nature”.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 09.10.08

– SBP steps in to calm down jittery market

The State Bank intervened in the money market on Wednesday with two firefighting
initiatives: first, it lowered the cash reserve requirement for banks to seven per cent
from nine, and second, it injected 100 million dollars to improve liquidity in the
banking sector. The moves came on a day that saw the rupee slumping to a record
low against the dollar as the mounting security and economic problems scared off
investors. The rupee, which has lost more than one-fifth of its value against the
dollar this year, rose to an alltime high of 80.10 rupees from Tuesday’s close of
78.65. As soon as markets opened for the day, rumours swept it that the
government was considering seizing bank lockers and freezing foreign currency
accounts. Shaukat Fayaz Ahmed Tarin, the newly-appointed adviser on finance,
tried to calm the market with a statement assuring that no such proposals were
under consideration. He described the central bank’s move to inject $100 million as
inadequate, underlining the difference in perception between the country’s financial
managers. “There
“There is a liquidity crunch all over the world. But what is special in
Pakistan’s case is that there is no capital inflow because of the ongoing security
concerns and that is because of the war on terror,”
terror,” said Muzammil Aslam, an
economist at KASB Securities in Karachi. “The
“The liquidity situation will be monitored
on a continuous basis and the change in the CRR may be reviewed accordingly,”
accordingly,”
said a State Bank statement. APP adds: Adviser Tarin said that notions about the
bankruptcy of Pakistan were baseless and the government was neither going to seal
bank lockers nor freezing the foreign currency accounts. He said the government
would enhance the confidence of investors through concrete measures and
alleviation of poverty would be among the topmost priorities. He said the constant
depreciation of the rupee was the result of wrong policies of the previous
government which “maintained
“maintained artificial parity of the dollar between Rs60 and
Rs62”.
Rs62”. The adviser said that rumours in the market also depreciated the rupee but
hoped that the situation would become normal in four to six weeks as the rupee was
regaining its value. He, however, said that it seemed difficult that the rupee could
regain its old value. He said the government would devise a special strategy to
alleviate poverty and increase annual growth rate by promoting agriculture and
industry. Special measures would be taken to promote the agricultural sector, he
added. Mr Tarin said the new strategy would focus on increasing exports and
decreasing imports by enhancing dependence on domestic products to save foreign
reserves. “We
“We can afford decline in annual economic growth rate, but not an
increase in imports,”
imports,” he added. The adviser said he would help restore the
confidence of investors by assuring them that the economic reforms would continue
and no basic policy changes would be made. He said not only local but also foreign
investors would be taken into confidence.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood Washington, D.C. 09.10.08
Haider

– Pakistan main issue in US debate

Pakistan overshadowed both Iraq and Afghanistan as an area of concern in the
second US presidential debate, requiring both Barack Obama and John McCain to
spend a lot of time explaining how they would deal with this country when one of
them is elected president on Nov 4. Senator Obama reiterated his controversial vow
to send US troops into Pakistan to catch Osama bin Laden and other key Al Qaeda
leaders if Islamabad fails to do the job. “And
“And if we have Osama bin Laden in our
sights and the Pakistani government is unable or unwilling to take them out, then I
think that we have to act and we will take them out,”
out,” he declared. “We
“We will kill Bin
Laden; we will crush Al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority.”
priority.”
Senator McCain did not rule out the possibility of using force, if necessary, to uproot
Al Qaeda safe havens in the tribal areas but promised to do so with Pakistan’s
coordination. “And
“And by working and coordinating our efforts together, not
threatening to attack them, but working with them, and where necessary use force,
but talk softly, but carry a big stick,”
stick,” he said. The two statements made it clear that
if Mr Obama is elected, the new Democratic government in Washington will turn up
the head on Pakistan, asking it to catch Al Qaeda leaders or let US forces do the job.
If Mr McCain is elected, the new Republican White House will continue the Bush
administration’s policy of working with Pakistan to counter the militants and use
force when necessary. Both candidates were responding to the question: “Should
“Should
the United States respect Pakistani sovereignty and not pursue Al Qaeda terrorists
who maintain bases there, or should we ignore their borders and pursue our
enemies like we did in Cambodia during the Vietnam War?” War?” “We
“We have a difficult
situation in Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said Mr Obama. “I “I believe that part of the reason we have a
difficult situation is because we made a bad judgment going into Iraq in the first
place when we hadn’t finished the job of hunting down Bin Laden and crushing Al
Qaeda.”
Qaeda.” He explained that diverting of US resources to Iraq allowed Bin Laden to
escape and set up base camps in Fata and use them for raiding US troops in
Afghanistan. “They’re
“They’re stronger now than at any time since 2001. And that’s why I
think it’s so important for us to reverse course, because that’s the central front on
terrorism.”
terrorism.” Senator Obama insisted on withdrawing US troops from Iraq as soon as
possible and redeploying them in Afghanistan because “the “the war against terror
began in that region and that’s where it will end.”
end.” He also underscored the need to
put more pressure on the Afghan government to eliminate drug trafficking that’s
funding terrorism but kept his focus on Pakistan. “I “I do believe that we have to
change our policies with Pakistan. We can’t coddle, as we did, a dictator, give him
billions of dollars and then he’s making peace treaties with the Taliban and
militants,”
militants,” he said. “What
“What I’ve said is we’re going to encourage democracy in
Pakistan, expand our non-military aid to Pakistan so that they have more of a stake
in working with us, but insisting that they go after these militants.”
militants.”

“Senator Obama likes to talk loudly,”

loudly,” said Senator McCain while responding to Mr
Obama’s comments. “In “In fact, he said he wants to announce that he’s going to
attack Pakistan. Remarkable!”
Remarkable!” Such a policy, he said, would be counter-productive.
“If you are a country and you’re trying to gain the support of another country, then
you want to do everything you can that they would act in a cooperative fashion,”
fashion,” he
said. “When
“When you announce that you’re going to launch an attack into another
country, it’s pretty obvious that you have the effect that it had in Pakistan: It turns
public opinion against us.”
us.” Senator McCain noted that the US decision to “wash
“wash our
hands of Afghanistan”
Afghanistan” after driving the Soviets out of there was “a
“a most serious
mistake.”
mistake.” “The
“The Taliban came back in, Al Qaeda, we then had the situation that
required us to conduct the Afghan war,”war,” he added. Mr McCain insisted that US
relations with Pakistan were critical because its border areas were being used as
safe havens by the Taliban and Al Qaeda and other extremist organisations. The US,
he said, has to get Pakistan’s support to fight these militants. “We
“We need to help the
Pakistani government go into Waziristan, where I visited, a very rough country, and
— and get the support of the people, and get them to work with us and turn against
the cruel Taliban and others,”
others,” said Mr McCain. When he stopped, Mr Obama asked
for a follow-up to explain his position on Pakistan. He said that he never called for
the invasion of Pakistan, as Senator McCain claimed. “What
“What I said was … if Pakistan
is unable or unwilling to hunt down Bin Laden and take him out, then we should.”
should.” Mr
Obama said that America’s image in Pakistan had diminished because it was
supporting a dictator, giving him $10 billion over seven years while he suspended
civil liberties. “We
“We were not promoting democracy. This is the kind of policies that
ultimately end up undermining our ability to fight the war on terrorism, and it will
change when I’m president.”
president.” Responding to Mr Obama’s remarks, Senator McCain
said if “you
“you look at the context of his (Mr Obama’s) words,”
words,” he was indeed
threatening to attack Pakistan. “We“We have to work much more closely with the
Pakistanis,”
Pakistanis,” Mr Obama said in reply to a question.

Author Location Dated

Jamaluddin Naqvi 09.10.08
 – People-friendly state
Living in Pakistan is a nightmare, with unending terrorist attacks, skyrocketing
prices, loadshedding, an almost nonfunctional state structure and an ever-
deteriorating quality of life. Ours is perhaps the only country in the world where a
prime minister’s, and later the president’s, electronic address to the nation can be
grossly mishandled. With this level of performance, how can people expect their
government to deliver, both in the fields of high politics (issues concerning national
security) and social welfare? Prolonged periods of military rule, which targeted the
political class, resulted in a general debility in the political parties. The Feb 18
general elections reversed the trend but only formally. Instead of chronicling events
that speak for themselves louder than words, the focus of this piece is on the
conceptual hurdle that blocks the path of progress in Pakistan. Much fuss is made
about national security. The American Gulliver is being told again and again by
brave little Tom Thumb that national sovereignty will be defended at all costs.
Maybe we hope that the ababils of Islamic tradition will come to our aid. It is not
known for sure whether Pakistan has given a nod to American intrusion as is
vaguely claimed. Moreover, America’s unmanned drones do not really need a
passport to fly into Pakistani airspace. And all that Pakistan can do is to hope for
succour from the said ababils. Another important issue of national security is the
safety of nuclear assets. India has never objected to Pakistan acquiring nuclear
strength. We have no quarrel with our neighbours. Some say we have a threat from
Israel. At the moment that country’s first target is Iran, not Pakistan. Being at peace
or at least on terms that are not hostile with all our neighbours, we have a surfeit of
military hardware. We have enough guns to take on the terrorists if we have the will
and also enough if some Bonapartist fancies usurping representative authority.
What the country needs is not more arms but more schools, hospitals, energy,
parks, sports complexes, etc.

Social security means more food, medicine, shelter, jobs, education and a peaceful,
leisurely environment. What the elites from Washington to Islamabad have to offer
is counter to what the people dream of, except that the fight against terrorism is
dear to the people of Pakistan and the US administration. A drowning Pakistan
needs airbags and other life-sustaining tools. Most of all it needs release from
tension, a commodity that is available in the form of the Star Laughter Challenge
from across the border. Pakistan faces no external threats; its problems are internal
that can be addressed by good governance. But good governance is nowhere in
sight. The PPP government has motion but no movement. Like all populist regimes,
new feet have been slipped into old shoes. The formal change has been crafted with
finesse, leaving things as they were with the shuffling of a few names. A digression
on populism is not intended, except as a reminder of the fact that sometimes the
elite achieve their objectives by rhetorically raising vague radical slogans. No clear-
cut policy or vision is projected. Things remain as they were. Old names are rolled
out and new ones play the same tune. The PPP has had its ups and downs. It has
had at least two glorious moments. One, when Nawaz Sharif, its arch rival, was in
power in 1997 and the PPP had only 18 members in parliament, it voted with the
government for the scrapping of 58-2(b). The late Benazir Bhutto praised Nawaz
Sharif for restoring the democratic vision of the father of the nation. Two, when she
returned to Pakistan last year. Her sin was that she deviated from the script of
serving the elites. She gauged the unrest amongst the people and forged the unity
of civil society. She built bridges with all relevant segments of society, a feat the
elites did not approve of and she was thus removed from the scene.

Her successors learned their lesson and reverted to the script. They assumed power
but the script left them with no space for effective governance. As a rule, bigger
powers make proposals only after being sure that they have the means to
implement them. Prime Minister Junejo signed the Geneva Accord regarding
Afghanistan with American blessings. President Zia dismissed him, only to be
blasted in the skies. Mirza Aslam Beg, who took over as army chief, learned his
lesson and instead of slipping into Zia’s shoes requested Ghulam Ishaq Khan to hold
general elections and hand over power to the winning party. ‘Stalemate’ sums up
the performance of the PPP government at the centre. It cannot manage even minor
things without hassle. The PML-N government in Punjab is doing better. Wheat flour
is being sold throughout that province at Rs15 per kg, while in the rest of the
country it is available at double that rate. The PML-N is not encumbered by any
script so it can demonstrate as much people’s friendliness as the local power
structure allows. This friendliness is also seen in the honour given by the Punjab
government to deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry. The groundwork of a
peoplefriendly state was laid by the Feb 18 elections, which in turn were the fruit of
the confidence-building lawyer/civil society movement. Though such a state is still a
dream, it is no longer a pipe dream. Tribute should also be paid to the missing
persons who unveiled the horrible face of an oppressive state. Social security in
Pakistan also has a regional dimension — South Asia cannot move ahead minus the
second largest state in the region. The point is that now light can be seen beyond
the tunnel. It is too early to speculate about the agent of change. May be it will be
one of the existing political parties, or a coalition, or maybe a new party adhering to
the principles of the lawyers’ movement as its core will take the driving seat and
bring a fresh breeze to this ailing land.

Author Location Dated

Gwynne Dyer 09.10.08

– Unwinnable Afghanistan
The main purpose of British generals, it sometimes seems, is to say aloud the things
that American generals (and British diplomats) think privately but dare not say in
public. Things like: “We’re
“We’re not going to win this war.”
war.” That was what Brigadier Mark
Carleton-Smith, the senior British commander in Afghanistan, said last week at the
end of his sixmonth tour in command of 16 Air Assault Brigade. His force saw a
great deal of combat and lost 32 killed, but it didn’t lose any battles. Regular troops
rarely lose battles against guerillas. But there were no lasting successes either —
which is also typical of wars where foreign troops are fighting local guerillas.
Carleton-Smith did not say that the foreign forces in Afghanistan will lose the war.
He said that they could not deliver a “decisive
“decisive military victory.”
victory.” The best they might
do, over a period of years, would be to reduce the Taliban insurgency “to “to a
manageable level...that’s not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan
army.”
army.” “If
“If the Taliban were prepared to sit on the other side of the table and talk
about a political settlement,”
settlement,” Carleton-Smith continued, “then
“then that’s precisely the
sort of progress that concludes insurgencies like this. That shouldn’t make people
uncomfortable.”
uncomfortable.” For the truth is that the foreign forces are backing one side in an
Afghan civil war. If the war cannot end in a decisive victory for one side or the other,
then it must end in a negotiated peace that is acceptable to both sides. The reason
neither side can win is that they are too evenly balanced, and each can hold its own
territory indefinitely. The United States allied itself with the main northern ethnic
groups, Tajik, Uzbek and Hazara, who together account for about 60 per cent of the
population, in order to drive the Taliban from power in 2001. But the Taliban were
and still are the major political vehicle for the Pashtuns, who are about 40 per cent
of the population. The Pashtuns were traditionally the dominant ethnic group in
Afghanistan, but in 2001 they were effectively driven from power by the other
ethnic groups and their western allies. That is why they are in revolt: the area
where western troops are fighting “the Taliban” are all the areas of southern and
eastern Afghanistan where Pashtuns are in the majority, and nowhere else. In
practice, the foreigners are fighting Pashtun nationalism. That is why they cannot
win.

On the other hand, and for the same reason, the Taliban cannot win a decisive
victory either. They never established control over northern Afghanistan even when
they ruled in Kabul in 1996-2001, mainly because the other ethnic minorities saw
them as an exclusively Pashtun group. Moreover, most non-Pashtuns who did fall
under their rule were alienated by their intolerance and brutality, and would
certainly not welcome them back in sole power. But a negotiated peace deal must
give the Pashtuns a fair share of power at the centre, and that means giving the
Taliban a share of the power. This is still seen as unthinkable in most western
capitals, but it is a thoroughly traditional Afghan way of ending the periodic ethnic
bust-ups that have always plagued the country, and it will happen sooner or later.
Does this mean that Afghanistan will re-emerge as a base for international
terrorism? Unlikely, since it would not be to the advantage of any Afghan
government, even one that included Taliban elements, to attract that kind of
international opprobrium. Besides, international terrorists don’t need “bases” to
prepare their attacks; a few rooms will do. Brigadier Carleton-Smith did suggest that
the foreign troops need to stay longer: “If “If we reduce our expectations then I think
realistically in the next three to five years we will be handing over tactical military
responsibility to the Afghan army and in the next 10 years the bulk of responsibility
for combating insurgency will be with them.”
them.” There are two things wrong with this
argument. One is the notion that western countries are willing to take casualties in
Afghanistan for another three, five or ten years. The other is that the Afghan
government is not getting stronger. In a recently leaked diplomatic cable the
deputy French ambassador in Kabul, François Fitou, reported that the British
ambassador there, Sir Sherard CowperColes, told him that the strategy for
Afghanistan was “doomed
“doomed to failure.”
failure.” In Sir Sherard’s view “the
“the security situation is
getting worse, so is corruption and the government has lost all trust”.
trust”. The usual
denials followed, but that is exactly what British officials there say in private. So it
would make sense to announce a deadline for pulling out the foreign troops and
start negotiating for a final peace settlement in Afghanistan now. Waiting is unlikely
to produce a better deal. Which is probably why President Mahmud Karzai said last
week that he had asked the king of Saudi Arabia to mediate in negotiations with the
Taliban.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 10.10.08
 – Joint session to resume on Monday No consensus in sight on
terror war policy
If the government aims at creating a national consensus on its strategy in the “war
on terror” through the joint session of parliament, it seems to have failed in its
objective as all opposition groups have been expressing dissatisfaction with the
briefing and the quality of answers to their questions. However, the bonus of giving
solid and unwavering suggestions for formulation of a new strategy on the war on
terror rests with the opposition when they start speaking on Monday – the third day
of the in-camera session. The PML-N’s parliamentary leader, Chaudhry Nisar Ali
Khan, called upon the government to summon former president Pervez Musharraf to
the session to tell the parliament about the “rules
“rules of engagement”
engagement” agreed upon
with Washington. He said his party would not take part in the question-answer
session as it was not satisfied with the format of the briefing so far. “We
“We want the
parliament to be briefed on an umbrella strategy to replace the existing policy.”
policy.” The
parliamentary group leaders had agreed in a meeting with Speaker Fehmida Mirza
that a general debate would follow the briefing and every lawmaker would be
allowed a certain amount of time to speak and forward suggestions for the
formulation of a new strategy. A unanimous resolution containing recommendations
on the basis of suggestions made by the lawmakers is likely to be adopted before
prorogation, sources said. On suggestions from legislators, Prime Minister Syed
Yousuf Raza Gilani promised to brief legislators after consulting his party. President
Asif Ali Zardari has in the meantime convened a meeting of the PPP’s central
executive committee on Friday. It will also be attended by the prime minister,
ostensibly to discuss deliberations of the joint sitting.

Those who spoke or put up questions during the proceedings included Chaudhry
Nisar Ali Khan, PML-Q’s Faisal Saleh Hayat, Leader of Opposition in the Senate Kamil
Ali Agha, Munir Orakzai (Fata), Senator Khurshid Ahmed (JI), Maulana Fazlur Rehman
(JUI-F) Aftab Ahmed Khan Sherpao (PPP-S), Leader of House in the Senate Mian Raza
Rabbani and Asfandyar Wali Khan (ANP). Khurram Dastagir Khan, of PML-N, told
reporters that all questions about a new strategy remained unanswered in
Thursday’s proceedings as Gen Ahmed Shuja, the director general of military
operations, expressed inability to respond to them. He said his party had suggested
that the government should take the parliament into confidence about the US air
strikes and intrusions by ground forces. Insiders said that a major part of the four-
hour session remained lacklustre as majority of the participants left the house after
the first hour. The chief of PML-N, Mian Mohammad Nawaz Sharif, who had attended
the first day’s meeting, was absent from the house. Only Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain
and Chief of Army Staff Gen Ashfaq Parvez Kayani remained seated till the end.
Meanwhile, Information Minister Sherry Rehman has described the session as a new
chapter for democracy. “The
“The ongoing briefing session for the parliamentarians is a
step towards strengthening the democratic system as it is aimed at taking public
representatives on board on the most important challenge the country is currently
facing,”
facing,” she said.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 10.10.08

– Settled areas a worry for US

Two senior US officials have warned that Al Qaeda has expanded its influence from
the tribal belt to the settled areas of Pakistan, attacking targets inside the country’s
capital city. “The
“The threat Al Qaeda poses … has materialised over the course of last
year in a more challenging way into Pakistan itself,”
itself,” said Gen David Petraeus who
takes charge of the US Central Command on Oct 31. The Centcom’s area of
responsibility includes both Pakistan and Afghanistan. At a separate briefing for
Washington-based Pakistani journalists on Thursday, Assistant Secretary of State
Richard Boucher acknowledged that the United States was “quite “quite concerned”
concerned” about
the situation in the settled areas of the NWFP. “Last
“Last year, the militants were making
forays into the settled areas from their bases in the tribal areas,”
areas,” he said. “Now
“Now the
militants are doing more and more things in the settled areas. There is an obvious
expansion of militants’ influence in the settled areas.”
areas.” The two officials, however,
disagreed on the importance of the Afghan peace talks in Saudi Arabia last week
which enabled Afghan officials and Taliban representatives to talk to face-toface for
the first time since the US invasion in 2001. “If“If there are people who are willing to
reconcile (with the Afghan government), then that would be a positive step in some
of these areas that have actually been spiralling downward,”
downward,” said Gen Petraeus. “It “It
appears it was an iftar,”
iftar ,” said Mr Boucher, who looks after South Asian affairs at the
State Department while commenting on the Saudi peace initiative. “I “I would not
hang too much on it.” it.” But like Gen Petraeus, Mr Boucher also welcomed the Afghan
government’s decision to talk to the so-called ‘reconcilable’ members of the
Taliban. “There
“There has to be a way for them to come in,” in,” he said. “We
“We have always
known that there has to be a process like this, an Afghan process.”
process.”

Gen Petraeus said negotiations with insurgents willing to consider reconciliation

could reduce violence by isolating hardcore militants, which is what occurred in
Iraq’s Anbar province when Sunni tribesmen joined US forces against Al Qaeda.
“You’ve got to set things up. You’ve got to know who you’re talking to. You’ve got
to have your objectives straight,”
straight,” the general told a conservative Washington think-
tank, the Heritage Foundation,
Foundation, on Wednesday. The two officials, however, had more
in common in their assessment of the situation in Pakistan. Both see Al Qaeda
spreading its tentacles into Pakistan but also trust the Pakistani government’s
commitment to fight the terrorists. “There
“There has been an increasing focus of
operations by Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” the general noted, saying that some recent steps taken by
the Pakistani government were reassuring. The US general, however, also stressed
the need for a “sustained commitment” to Pakistan by “our “our government together
with other countries in the coalition and elsewhere including some of those in the
Gulf states.”
states.” Mr Boucher noted that the new elected leadership of Pakistan has
made very it clear that it sees terrorism as a challenge to the vision the Pakistanis
have for their future: a modern, moderate and Islamic Pakistan. “The “The US shares that
goal. We are happy to support, the goal of the government and Pakistani people,”
people,”
he said. Mr Boucher, however, said it was difficult to say if Al Qaeda now had more
influence in the settled areas than it did in the tribal areas. Both Gen Petraeus and
Mr Boucher refused to discuss US military strikes into Pakistan. “Cannot
“Cannot talk about
any particular action,”
action,” said Mr Boucher. Mr Boucher also welcomed the Pakistani
military’s decision to brief parliamentarians on the security situation, saying that
the US supports the democratic process in Pakistan. “There’s
“There’s need for military,
political and economic plans to be an integrated,”
integrated ,” he said.

Author Location Dated

 Islamabad, Pakistan 10.10.08

– Media risk radicalising society by glorifying militants

The way the Pakistani media has glorified the radicals and militants has not only
emboldened the radical groups and organisations but also caused an increase in the
trend and level of radicalisation in the society. These views were expressed by
wellknown journalists, mediapersons and intellectuals at a ‘Media
‘Media workshop on
radicalisation in Pakistan’
Pakistan’ organised by the Pak Institute of Peace Studies (Pips) here
on Thursday. Pips Director Muhammad Amir Rana narrated the current intensity and
levels of radicalisation in Pakistan, besides mapping out the historical background of
the phenomenon. Elaborating the growth of religious radicalisation, he revealed that
in 1979 there were only 30 religious organisations of which only seven were active,
and there were 563 religious seminaries. The role of religious organisations was
then relatively more political and accommodative, he said. In 2001, the number of
religious organisations had reached 234 and the religious-political parties 24. The
Jihadi and sectarian outfits saw tremendous growth and their number touched the
figures of 104 and 82 respectively whereas the religious groups which did not
believe in Constitution or democratic process in Pakistan were 12. The religious
seminaries had touched a number of about 10,000 till 2004; the unofficial sources
put them above 15,000, he said. Zafrullah Khan emphasised the need to promote
democratic values of pluralism in order to bring harmony and tranquility. It is very
unfortunate that the different segments of our society, which have long coexisted
peacefully are no longer able to live with one another, he said. He told the audience
that during 1994-2001, Pakistan saw four major movements for enforcement of
Islamic system by illegitimate, unconstitutional and alternate ways. Mazhar Abbas,
another experienced journalist, furnished many incidents and judicial cases while
elaborating his point that injustice in the society had bred disharmony and
intolerance. He cited a number of TV channels and newspapers and their reporting
of certain issues at certain times in explaining that our media had mishandled the
events and statements related to radicalisation, extremism and terrorism.
Presentations were made on the themes like definition and characteristics of
radicalisation and the related concepts, political domain of radicalisation,
radicalization in the tribal areas, the governments’ response to the phenomenon
and its impact on the media. While giving an overview of radicalisation in Fata,
Safdar Sial, research analyst at Pips, elaborated the factors involved in the
phenomenon. He mentioned the Afghan war, sociocultural and political factors, war
on terror state policies and religious factors as being the most important in this
regard.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Asghar Ali Engineer 10.10.08

– Post-modernism and Islam

What is the relation between Islam and post-modernism? Earlier, we used to talk of
Islam and modernism and now we talk of Islam and post-modernism. First let us
understand the difference between modernism and postmodernism. Modernism
which ruled the roost until the early 1950s was characterised by a hegemony of
reason. Modernism rejected anything which was not in conformity with reason.
Modernism was, in a way, quite intolerant of forces of tradition or even anything
supra-rational, let alone irrational. It was for this reason that Freud’s theory of the
subconscious or unconscious was also ridiculed by modernists. It was not deemed to
be in conformity with reason. Even Marxists also rejected Freud and his explanation
of deeper sources of human behaviour. Naturally they also rejected religion as
something irrational. Thus, modernism was as intolerant of anything non-modern as
one religion is said to be of another. Europe throughout the 19th century was
characterised by modernism and Asia and Africa were looked down upon by the
Europeans as anti-modern and irrational. Thus, the 19th century was the century of
modernism and of European hegemony. It was in the early 1950s and ’60s that new
trends began to emerge and post-modernism began to be theorised by academics
and social scientists. In post-modernism, reason lost its hegemony and supra-
rational forces came to be accepted. Post-modernism is mainly characterised by
pluralism, be it cultural, religious or literary sphere. Europe and North America
became multi-cultural and multi-religious societies due to the migration of people
from the western powers’ former African and Asian colonies. Also, it was during this
phase that religion also found a respectable place again in western society. In other
words, religion came to be re-appropriated. Thus, post-modernism, unlike
modernism, is not hegemonic and is tolerant of other cultures; its main
characteristic is pluralism.

Now let us explore the relation between Islam and post-modernism. Islam believes
in religious and cultural pluralism, and while accepting importance of reason it also
accepts supra-rational forces. According to the Quran, Allah has created several
religions and cultures though he could have created only one, if He so desired.
(5:48). Thus, pluralism is the very basic to the Quran. According to the Quran the
world has been created in its plurality, not only in matters of religion but also by
way of ethnicity, nations and tribes. These have been described as signs of Allah
(30:22). About national and tribal plurality, one only need see Surah 49, verse 13.
The Quran stresses pluralism to such an extent that even when one is convinced
that others’ gods are false, it stops believers from abusing them. The Quran says,
“And abuse not those whom they call upon besides Allah, lest, exceeding the limits
they abuse Allah through ignorance.”
ignorance.” Further, it says: “Thus
“Thus to every people have.
We made their deeds fair-seeming…”
fair-seeming…” (6:109) Here, it is a Quranic injunction not to
say bad words about others’ religion(s) because to every people their religion looks
true and valid. The Quran even says that in every place of worship Allah is
remembered and hence it should be respected. Thus, the Quran says, “And “And if Allah
did not repel some people by others, cloisters and churches and synagogues and
mosques in which Allah’s name is much remembered, would have been pulled
down.”
down.” (22:40). Thus, there is no place for inter-religious conflict in Islam. The
Quran also subscribes to the doctrine of what Shah Waliullah and Maulana Azad
called the wahdat-i-Deen i.e., unity of religion, which means all religions are same in
essence and in their core teachings. Both the eminent theologians have thrown
detailed light on this question in their respective writings.

As far as multi-culturalism is concerned, the West accepted it only in the latter part
of the 20th century. The West had otherwise long been a mono-religious and mono-
cultural society, because the Christian church had rejected validity of all other
religions except Christianity. The church now of course believes in inter-religious
dialogue and has issued instructions to Christian organisations to that effect. The
Quran had accepted all Biblical prophets during the revelation itself. Islam accepted
multi-culturalism too by saying that all believers are one Ummah regardless of their
ethnicity, language, tribe or nationality. It also admonished believers not to
discriminate between Arabs and non-Arabs, as Arabs were very proud of their ethnic
origin. Islam spread far and wide among peoples of different cultures and even the
Shariah respected the ‘adat (customs) of different people. Local customs and
traditions were integrated with Shariah formulations from the earliest time. Thus, it
will be seen that Islamic teachings anticipated what came to be called post-
modernism today. The most essential thing is tolerance for diversity and for those
who are different from us. Being different should not mean being inferior, superior
or hostile to the other. We must project Islam in the right spirit, emphasising the
practice of tolerance it so ardently advocates to the faithful. ¦ The writer is an
Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism,
Mumbai.
Mumbai.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 10.10.08

– Complacency kills
As the threat from terrorism increases, Pakistan is more divided than ever in its
response to the challenge. There are many who believe that it is not Islamabad’s
war but Washington’s, and all the terrorism that we face is a result of our
partnership with the US. Then there are others who are of the view that this is our
own war and the Taliban must be eliminated. While there is no doubt that no one
has the right to kill innocent civilians, be it in Pakistan or anywhere else, the
difference of opinion deepens regarding how best to save ourselves from the crisis
of Talibanisation. The basic assumption is that there is growing Talibanisation in the
country because of Arab money, help from unknown sources and the presence of
radicals with a killer instinct. Although the bulk of society is not radicalised, the fact
is that the threat posed by these elements which operate within society is
significant. It really does not take a lot of people to create mayhem and violence.
But countering this menace requires a holistic assessment of the source and nature
of the threat. The liberal segment of society gets extremely unhappy with the
argument that the Taliban or Talibanisation is linked to the class disparity in society.
The view is that making such an argument is tantamount to eulogising the radical
element. The idea is certainly not to glorify the Taliban. However, it is important to
see how the menace is spreading in our society. It is a fact that the state has
contributed tremendously in creating and nurturing such elements, dating back to
the Afghan war of the 1980s when the American CIA and Pakistan’s ISI played a
major role in creating the militants we now call terrorists. Some of these militants
continued to be supported by elements within the intelligence agencies even after
9/11. In this respect, the radicalisation of certain segments of society was
influenced from the top. This particular topdown national security policymaking was
also critical in exacerbating and enhancing sectarian violence in the country which
grew during the 1980s and continues to do so.

However, the above factors were compounded by the problem of a skewed power
structure. The bulk of the people who actually opt to sacrifice their lives in the name
of religion as militants or suicide bombers belong to the lower strata of society. The
managers of the militant outfits — managers of death, if you will — do not sacrifice
their own lives but use the poor to unleash terror. In fact, a microscopic view will
also show that many of the people who manage death or fund terrorism belong to
the conservative middle class, and see jihad and ultra-orthodox Islam as a means of
changing the existing power structure which they believe cannot be dismantled
otherwise. The existing power structure is mired in a system of patronage that is
dominated by local hegemons. There are individuals and families that possess
economic, political and even spiritual power. The other-worldly persona is most
critical because it makes it difficult (though not entirely impossible) for ordinary
people to challenge the influence of the powerful. In a traditional society, the
hegemon is not just part of politics and financially influential but (in a lot of cases) a
pir as well, representing faith that is most difficult to question. The new capital in
certain areas sees orthodox ideologies and jihad as a tool to question the existing
hegemony by raising the ideological bar. Since people dare not question religion,
the radicals fight their battle on a front that no one can dare enter, least of all the
pirs who, in any case, are complacent about their power. The majority of pirs
depend on tradition and the fact that people continue to follow them come what
may. However, the bulk of the pirs today — unlike their predecessors who used to
pray, were respected for their standards of piety or contributed in some way to the
lives of their followers — do not offer much. In fact, most extort from poor devotees.
So the Taliban and their ilk managed to persuade the underprivileged in our society,
especially the young men and women who go to madressahs, to convert to another
ideology.

The battle becomes fiercer where the existing ruling elite does not have spiritual
power. Thus, many who support the Taliban in Swat, for instance, are ordinary
people who are keen to question the maliks who represented the hegemon in that
area. The existing ruling elite represents a continuation of a system that enhances
poverty, which is not just a lack of financial resources but also has to do with an
environment where people are denied access to opportunities to change their lives
or move upwards. Poverty has a deep politico-economic connotation. It might be
hard to swallow but there are glimpses of a hidden socio-economic resistance in this
battle which is connected and supported by other influences as well. So while one is
not keen to support the Taliban or the recipe adopted by them, the fact is that this
trend cannot be entirely reversed through military means. The answer is not just a
meaningless dialogue but a political engagement with society at large with the
intention of changing the existing hegemonic system and making room for the new
capital or other classes to move upwards. Notwithstanding the demands of groups
that desire greater upward social mobility, the lower classes are the worst off and
will remain so because their fate is not going to change even if the Taliban type
manage to establish their writ. The militants use religion to gain power, not to
distribute it amongst the dispossessed. In fact, if the Taliban were to become
powerful they would generate a new set of the dispossessed. So the best way is to
rethink the existing power structure and improve governance through building
institutions that can deliver to the poor. For example, the absence of a potent
judicial and law and order system is pushing people towards Sharia. Furthermore,
ill-planned urbanisation, the unplanned demographic shift, lack of education and a
non-functional education system are producing a disgruntled population that can
fall into the Taliban’s trap. Not recognising the linkages between poverty, bad
governance and Talibanisation betrays a certain complacency on the part of the
rulers and the liberal segment of society. In a country where sections of the state
have systematically eliminated all other ideologies, the dispossessed (at least some
of them) might find extreme religious fervour as the only means to change their
fate. If we can’t recognise this correlation, the war will become unwinnable. ¦ The
writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.analyst.

Author Location Dated

Kuldip Nayar 10.10.08

– Breaking the old mould

Asif Ali Zardari was never taken seriously in India. People either knew him as
Benazir Bhutto’s husband or Mr Ten Per Cent. But his pronouncements after
assuming charge of the Pakistan People’s Party began drawing attention in India. He
was applauded when he said, six months ago, that ties between the two countries
should not be held “hostage” to the Kashmir issue. This was what New Delhi had
been saying all along. Since Zardari’s point of view did not fit into Islamabad’s
policy which ‘mindset bureaucrats’, crusty politicians and the army top brass
devised and pursued, he was denounced. Islamabad interpreted his statement
differently and reiterated the same old policy. Even Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Shah
Mahmood Qureshi, whom I met in Islamabad subsequently, rationalised that Zardari
did not mean what was being presumed. Zardari, now Pakistan’s president, has
expressed similar thought in a more explicit way. He seems to have stirred up a
hornets’ nest of opposition on the Kashmir issue. In an interview to a US daily, he
said that “Kashmiri
“Kashmiri militants are the terrorists.”
terrorists.” I do not understand the furore over
the remark. He has not given away Kashmir, nor has he withdrawn the claim on the
state. All that he has done is to describe today’s militants as terrorists who, by no
stretch of the imagination, are ‘freedom fighters’, the title that Gen Pervez
Musharraf gave them. If this definition is accepted, the entire argument of fighting
against the Taliban falls flat. They too are up in arms to ‘free’ people from the
modern way of thinking and living because it, according to them, defiles ‘Islamic
behaviour’. (The Taliban have burnt down 125 girls’ schools in the territory under
them). Who are the militants except those who were first trained and armed by Gen
Ziaul Haq to bleed India and then sustained by Gen Pervez Musharraf till 9/11 when
the entire scene changed drastically?

True, when the 1987 state elections in Kashmir were rigged, many from among the
youth crossed into Pakistan and obtained arms after getting training in their use.
The first phase of the insurgency was not sullied either by religious fervour or by
senseless killings. But that phase ended soon and the fundamentalists took over.
Terrorists operating under different names of the Lashkar-i-Taiba continue to
indulge in violence and encounters. They kill the innocent. Should they be called
freedom fighters or mujahideen as the fundamentalists claim? Terrorism cannot be
fought if its perpetrators are hailed when they infiltrate Kashmir and condemned
when they operate in Pakistan. Zardari sees the point. Others, prisoners of old
policies, don’t. I am a bit disappointed by the criticism coming from the Muslim
League led by Nawaz Sharif. He knows better because he saw through the game
when he flew to Washington to retrieve the honour of his armed forces after the
debacle at Kargil. They are the same terrorists who indulged in bomb blasts in
Lahore, Bhakkar or elsewhere. They are the ones who burnt the Marriott in
Islamabad. If Nawaz Sharif were to analyse the situation dispassionately, he would
come to the same conclusion as Zardari has. Political considerations should not
cloud Nawaz Sharif’s judgment. Kashmir is an issue which has to be settled. There is
no running away from it. But should even limited ties between the two countries
depend on the solution of Kashmir? Both sides have wasted 60 long years and have
fought three wars. They are nowhere nearer the Kashmir solution than they were in
1948. Had we reversed the order and facilitated trade and travel first, we would
have generated enough goodwill to take up thorny problems like Kashmir.
Whenever I have visited Pakistan, I have found the climate improving. There is no
tension. Pakistanis are awakening to New Delhi’s difficulties in keeping its polity
pluralistic as well as democratic. India is ashamed of many happenings, particularly
those which have made a mockery of our secular credentials. Still the majority of
people are trying to restore the ‘balance’ which India has come to represent over
the years. The task has become more difficult because a band of Taliban has come
up among the Hindus. Since we are nearing the general election, the BJP is at its old
game of dividing the society. The party, burning with the ambition to return to
power, is using all methods to incite the Hindus that constitute the majority.

Equation with Islamabad is an essential ingredient to protect the ethos of

secularism. This is where I find Zardari different from the general run of politicians
in Pakistan. He is preparing his country to face certain realities. He has no hesitation
in saying that India is not a threat to his country. He has recognised India’s
economic prowess. He rightly imagines Pakistani cement factories being
constructed to provide for India’s huge infrastructure needs, Pakistan textile mills
meeting Indian demand for blue jeans, Pakistani ports being used to relieve the
congestion. What is wrong with that? Mercifully, the clarification which Pakistan’s
Information Minister Sherry Rehman issued regarding Zardari’s interview is confined
to Kashmir. The most important part regarding economic cooperation between the
two countries seems to have general support in Pakistan. It goes without saying
that vested interests do not see anything beyond the Kashmir issue. And they are
plugging the same old line. I concede that Kashmir is the core issue. But certain
steps like trade, travel and sharing technology will pave the ground to tackle the
issue more effectively. Even on Kashmir, Sherry Rehman has said that Zardari never
called the Hurriyat leaders terrorists. He did not comment on them. Why bring in
something he never said? He wants Pakistan to be at par with India. But at the
same time Zardari is not scared of India’s influence abroad. One thing striking about
Zardari is that he is courageous enough to tread the ground on which politicians of
the old mould fear to walk. Leaders of different parties in Pakistan have a viewpoint
on India that is not divergent from one another’s. Kashmir is a symptom, not the
disease. The disease is the feeling which the country’s size and economy evokes. It
has more to do with fear than with religious bias. No doubt, New Delhi is closely
watching what Zardari does or says. His meeting with Prime Minister Manmohan
Singh in New York went extremely well. It seems the latter was impressed by the
former’s frankness. Pakistan is passing through difficult times. New Delhi has to do
something concrete to express its solidarity with Islamabad, more so with the
nascent democracy. It is in India’s own interest. ¦ The writer is a leading
journalist based in Delhi.
Delhi.

Author Location Dated

Reuters Karachi, Pakistan 10.10.08

– Forex reserves rise to $8.32bn

Pakistan’s foreign reserves rose $190 million to $8.32 billion in the week that ended
on Oct 4 from the previous week, the central bank said on Thursday. The State Bank
of Pakistan said its own reserves rose to $4.87 billion from $4.68 billion previously,
while those held by commercial banks were flat at $3.45 billion. The foreign
exchange reserves hit an all-time high of $16.5 billion in October last year, but have
been falling since then due to weak economic fundamentals, political uncertainty
and security concerns. ADB on Sept 30 approved a $500 million loan to help
Pakistan address the impact of high fuel and food prices on its people and the
economy. The loan may be reflected in the latest figures. Analysts said the rise can
also be attributed to banks being closed from Oct 1 till Oct 4 for Eid holiday.
Pakistan needs up to $3 billion of foreign capital inflows to arrive quickly if it is to
meet upcoming debt obligations. The newly-appointed finance advisor to the prime
minister, Shaukat Tarin and central bank governor Shamshad Akhtar left late on
Wednesday to attend the annual International Monetary Fund (IMF) meeting in
Washington on Oct 13, officials said, though the government has said it is not
seeking an IMF support package. Dealers expect the rupee to remain under
pressure due to import payments and lack of foreign inflows.

Author Location Dated

Azfar ul Ashfaque Karachi, Pakistan 10.10.08

– Rs3 billion signal-free corridor opened

Sindh Governor Dr Ishratul Ibad Khan inaugurated on Thursday the city’s second
signal-free corridor, connecting Sharea Faisal with Surjani Chowrangi through five
flyovers. Amid strict security arrangements, a formal ceremony was held at the
Governor’s House in the evening where a large number of diplomats, businessmen,
industrialists, provincial ministers, town nazims, elected representatives, senior
government officials and others were present. However, no prominent leader of the
Pakistan People’s Party was seen at the gathering. Before the function, the Sindh
governor with City Nazim Syed Mustafa Kamal and City Naib Nazim Nasreen Jalil
visited all the five flyovers and inaugurated the signal-free corridor at level II of the
newly built Nagan Chowrangi Flyover. The 19-kilometre-long corridor connects
Sharea Faisal with Surjani Chowrangi through flyovers at the Millennium Mall, Jauhar
Mor, Gulshan Chowrangi, Sohrab Goth and Nagan Chowrangi. However, the Gulshan
Chowrangi flyover is yet to be completed and the development work is in its final
stages. But the roads under the Gulshan flyover has been reconstructed and
opened for vehicular traffic. It is the second signal-free corridor as before its
completion, the city government had built the first such corridor that connects
Sharea Faisal with Site through three flyovers and three underpasses. Speaking at
the function, Dr Ibad congratulated the citizens of Karachi for the successful
completion of the corridor in a short period of one year. He agreed that there were
numerous issues, including that of non-availability of funds for the development
projects, but assured the city nazim that the development of the metropolis would
not stop and the people would not allow anyone to hinder the development of their
city.

Referring to the reports of possible abolishment of the local government system,

the governor said there would be some changes or improvements in the system and
the Karachi city government would remain in place. He said the country was facing
several challenges and there was an economic crisis also. He appealed to the
businessmen to come forward and play their role in making the country’s economy
sustainable. He said that the present government was taking every possible step to
bring on board all political parties to devise a joint strategy against terrorism and
extremism. Speaking at the programme, the city nazim said the city government
had initiated work to build five flyovers of the second signal-free corridor and
completed the project with a cost of over Rs3 billion. He said despite some financial
problems due to non-release of funds by the government, the city government did
not stop work on the projects in view of the fact that the delay in their completion
would have increased the cost. He said the city government had slashed its
nondevelopment expenditures and arranged around Rs450 million through bridge
financing for the early completion of the project. “Had
“Had we not taken this step, the
cost of construction material would have gone up many times and the work on the
projects would have halted.”
halted.” Without naming anyone, he appealed to all not to take
development in Karachi as a potential political threat and instead consider it as a
model progress. Mr Kamal said that in the absence of a proper mass-transit system
in the city, the two signal-free corridors had made a non-stop journey possible for
citizens from one end to the other end of the city, reducing their travel time from
two hours to just 15 to 20 minutes. He recalled that when the city government
started development work to build roads and signal-free corridors, it had faced
criticism from all sides. “However,
“However, we remained focused and completed the project
within a short period of three years which has solved many trafficrelated problems,”
problems,”
he said.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 11.10.08

– US ready to reconcile with Taliban, says Gates

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates has said that the United States would be
prepared to reconcile with the Taliban if the Afghan government pursued talks to
end the war. Another senior US official, Assistant Secretary of State Richard
Boucher, said that the United States would like to help Pakistanis attain their goal of
creating “a
“a modern, moderate and Islamic Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” Diplomatic observers in
Washington noted that this ‘Islamic’ gesture can allow the United States to include
moderate political leaders with religious leanings — such as Nawaz Sharif — in its
future plans for Pakistan. The two statements are a major departure from traditional
US policies on Afghanistan and Pakistan and come amid reports that the US
government is formulating a new strategy to deal with militancy in South Asia.
“Things have changed enough in Afghanistan and Pakistan to warrant a review of
our overall strategy there,”
there,” Admiral Michael G. Mullen, chairman of the US Joint
Chiefs of Staff, told journalists on Thursday. “Part
“Part of the effort is to try to ensure
better coordination on both sides of that border, which is a safe haven [for
insurgents].”
insurgents].” The admiral said that the strategy review will address better ways to
coordinate these efforts, while broadening the focus on Afghanistan to include
Pakistan as well as India. He noted that both countries have long historic links to
Afghanistan and an important role to play there. “It “It is not just about boots on the
ground,”
ground,” the admiral said. “It“It is really three pieces. There is the security piece, the
development … [and] economic piece as well as the political and diplomatic piece,
and all of those things have to come together.”
together.” Under the proposed strategy, the US
also plans to train Afghanistan’s tribal militias to combat militants and reduce its
reliance on the central government in Kabul. If adopted, the new strategy will
expand the power and reach of Afghanistan’s tribal warlords.
Defence Secretary Gates’ statement, however, reflects America’s willingness to
reconcile with the Taliban “as
“as part of an exit strategy,”
strategy,” as the Los Angeles Times
noted. Mr Gates also made it clear that the US will not consider any negotiations
with Al Qaeda. Apparently, the proposed strategy seeks to isolate Al Qaeda by
incorporating the socalled ‘reconcilable’ elements in the Taliban in a new
administrative set-up in Kabul which can include some Taliban leaders as well. Mr
Gates told journalists in Budapest on Thursday that the proposed reconciliation
would be the political move to end the conflict in Afghanistan, but it must happen
on the Afghan government’s terms and the Taliban must commit to subject
themselves to the sovereignty of the government. “There“There has to be ultimately —
and I’ll underscore ‘ultimately’ — reconciliation as part of a political outcome to
this,”
this,” he said. “That’s
“That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.”
us.” While not as explicit
as Mr Gates’ reconciliatory gesture towards the Taliban, Assistant Secretary
Boucher’s statement that the US wants to help create a “modern,
“modern, moderate and
Islamic”
Islamic” Pakistan is equally significant. This is the first time since 9/11 that a senior
US official has used the term ‘Islamic” while talking about Pakistan’s future goals. In
the past, all references to Pakistan’s future — either by the US government or the
Musharraf regime – only emphasised the “moderate and modern” characteristics of
a future Pakistani state. The two statements also reflect a realisation in Washington
that Afghanistan can get as messy as Iraq, if not more, if it is not handled properly.

Author Location Dated

F.S. Aijazuddin www.fsaijazuddin.pk 11.10.08

– The me-too syndrome

Split from the same geographical ovum 61 years ago, Pakistan has lived apart from
India like a severed physical twin. It has always been aware of a previous presence.
Every thought, every act, every policy move has been a reaction to something India
said or did or threatened to do. Earlier, it used to be manifest in the theatre of
conventional arms. Today, it can be seen at the test site of nuclear capability. In the
previous bipolar world, it was easy to choose your friends. Your enemy’s enemy was
your friend. India and China fought a war, therefore we courted China as a friend.
India flirted with the Communist bloc, therefore the United States became our
friend. Common enmities were justification enough for creating or joining an
alliance. Now that the United States has emerged as the singular victor from the
Cold War, international politics has become a free-for-all. Your enemy’s enemy is no
longer your friend; your friend’s friend could well be your next enemy. Opportunist
countries like ours just do not know who to trust any more. For years, our sun in
more ways than one rose dependably from the West. We assumed it would never
set, which is why the US-India nuclear deal is regarded here with such foreboding. It
is as ominous as a solar eclipse. We ought to have discerned the portents. We had
been given enough warning by more than one US president. When John F. Kennedy
forgave Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru his flirtation with the Non-Aligned Movement (and
by association communist China), we should have realised that the $160m of US
military aid, given to India between 1962 and 1966 after the Sino-Indian war, was
not simply belated largesse but conscience money for not rescuing the Indians
earlier from themselves. When President Bill Clinton during his visit to India in 2000
described it as a “natural
“natural partner”,
partner”, he was not advocating organic diplomacy.
When, six years later, President George W. Bush deepened Clinton’s tracks with the
statement that “Pakistan
“Pakistan and India are different countries with different needs and
different histories”,
histories”, we should have recognised that we too were being relegated to
history. When Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice announced this year that her
government had de-hyphenated India from Pakistan, we should have interpreted
her words for what they were — a candid acknowledgement that India did not stand
on the other side of Pakistan so far as the United States was concerned.

Diplomatically, India and Pakistan stood equidistant from the US; strategically, the
Indian peninsula shared common borders and common interests with mainland
America. For Pakistan, de-hyphenation from India is a second vivisection, this time
from a Ravana of its own military fears and anxieties. Pakistan still continues to be
one of the highest recipients of US aid, but that is absorbed primarily by the armed
forces under one imaginative heading or another. As one analyst put it, Islamabad’s
view is that “the
“the ‘de-hyphenated’ policy… has virtually come to mean that
Washington is focusing on the Pakistani military role as an efficient, welltrained and
well-equipped border militia in the tribal tracts with Afghanistan.”
Afghanistan.” And what does
de-hyphenation mean to India? Freedom from a shared past, and a second boost to
strive for a separate future. It means being allowed by its international elders (who
in its heart it knows not to be its betters) to be treated as an adult, a ‘responsible
steward’ capable of steering its own ship of state. It means having the United States
on its side — at the United Nations, at the IAEA, at the 45-nation Nuclear Suppliers
Group, and at the order book end for nuclear equipment, fuel and supplies. Such
rewards do not come on demand; they have to be earned. However facile India’s
contention may appear to some that it needs nuclear technology to meet its energy
deficit (Mrs Gandhi’s ‘peaceful nuclear’ has now become Mr Manmohan Singh’s
‘civilian nuclear’), this argument has been accepted at face value by everyone that
matters.

India wants to generate 25,000MW from nuclear sources, and its demands are met.
Pakistan proposes under its Medium-Term Development Framework Plan to enhance
its energy supplies from nuclear sources from a present paltry 400MW to an
ambitious 8,800MW by the year 2030. Its pipe dream remains in the pipeline. India
has electrified 95 per cent of its villages; Pakistan is still struggling to connect
villages to the national grid. India plans one additional power plant every month
(China by comparison commissions one plant every week); over the past eight
years, Pakistan has added only 2,100MW to its power capacity. India meets over 50
per cent of its energy requirements from indigenous coal; Pakistan’s coal deposits
like its heroes lie buried below ground. India’s trade with the US is almost $40bn
with a potential of $100bn; Pakistan imports $2bn worth of goods from the US. India
sees its US nuclear deal as a cashier’s grille where anyone who is willing to supply it
nuclear reactors and fuel can apply. The US views the treaty as a token, permitting
it to stand at the head of the queue. The Indo-US deal is India’s reward for behaving
with brahmacharyan celibacy, by not succumbing to the temptation of nuclear
proliferation. Pakistan’s nuclear programme has been compromised by its own Dr
Frankenstein who was exposed peddling its secrets to the wrong customers. Before
we make demands of the United States to treat us at par with India, we might do
well to reconsider also the limited efficacy of our own nuclear deterrence. Are we
still sovereign even in that? If Mr K. Subrahmanyam (former Indian secretary for
defence production) is to be believed, apparently not. He has cautioned: “Pakistan
“Pakistan
should also take into account that it is under constant surveillance by the US super-
secret ECHELON system and it cannot rule out a pre-emptive strike by the US if it
were to think of a nuclear strike on India.”
India.” Had that been written some years ago, it
would have appeared far-fetched. Today, with the Americans pounding Fata, it
carries in its syllables the chill of the possible.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfan.husain@gmail.com 11.10.08

– How our spymasters view the world

It is difficult to read an article about Afghanistan, the Taliban and Al Qaeda in the UK
or the US without coming across a reference to Pakistan’s ubiquitous Inter Services
Intelligence (ISI). In fact, the ISI has become our only instantly recognised brand
name abroad. Normally, spooks operate out of the glare of publicity. However, the
ISI has become so intertwined with many of the region’s trouble spots that it is
blamed for almost every terror attack, whether it is guilty or not. To listen to its
many critics abroad, the ISI is a rogue agency that dabbles in Islamic causes from
China to Chechnya, and from Bosnia to Bangladesh. Unfortunately, its domestic
record does not inspire the same sense of invincibility and competence. Take the
recent attack on Islamabad’s Marriott hotel as an example. Here, a small truck
loaded with over half a ton of high explosives was able to penetrate into the heart
of a heavily guarded capital, a stone’s throw away from the presidency and
parliament. And this is when friends have been stopped much further away, and
their cars searched as a matter of routine. This was only one intelligence failure out
of many. Last year’s fiasco over the Lal Masjid complex is still fresh in our memory.
Even more damningly, the country is struggling to cope with the extremist
insurgency in the tribal and settled areas on our borders with Afghanistan.
Unanimously, observers place this problem at the ISI’s door for having created the
Taliban, and for having supported them all these years. The agency’s links with Al
Qaeda have repeatedly come under the spotlight as well. The recent changes at the
top of the ISI might shift its direction, but the agency will remain opaque and
unaccountable for the foreseeable future. All countries have outfits that spy for
them, and do their dirty work. Not for nothing has spying been called the world’s
second oldest profession. But generally governments have made it a point to
separate the domestic (or counter-intelligence) tasks from overseas activities,
usually by creating different agencies. Thus, while the FBI operates within the US,
the CIA works abroad. Similarly, MI5 is the British counter-intelligence agency
tasked with domestic security, while MI6 carries out Westminster’s secret foreign
agenda.

Originally, the ISI was established to gather military information abroad, while
Military Intelligence (MI) was the counter-intelligence outfit. However, as Shuja
Nawaz makes clear in his extensively researched recent book Crossed Swords:
Pakistan, its Army and the Wars Within,
Within, the ISI was heavily involved in domestic
politics under Yahya Khan. The agency continued to play this role under Bhutto, and
greatly expanded it under Zia to repress the dictator’s many political foes. It was
during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the eighties that the ISI attained its
current reputation. With a vast infusion of cash from the US and Saudi Arabia, the
agency was expanded and its budget raised to astronomical levels. Staffed almost
entirely by military officers, it remains secretive and unaccountable. To this day, we
know next to nothing about this enormous state within a state. During her brief first
stint in power, Benazir Bhutto made an attempt to reform the ISI by appointing a
committee to make recommendations. Headed by Air Marshal Zulfiqar Ali Khan, it
produced a set of recommendations. But frozen into inactivity by the constant
attempts to destabilise it (by the ISI, among others), the PPP government was
unable to act on them. Since then the agency has continued to accumulate power,
and under Musharraf it became a powerful weapon against his opponents. But these
domestic activities have come at a cost. Deeply embroiled in national politics and
quixotic adventures abroad, the agency has taken its eye off the ball. The result is a
conflagration set off by its own creations among the many extremist outfits it
created to fight our proxy wars in Afghanistan and Kashmir. However, before we
blame the ISI for all our woes, we need to see the region and the world through the
eyes of our spymasters. One problem with having army officers running the ISI,
GHQ and the country for much of the time is that they tend to reinforce each other’s
viewpoint. Suspicious and contemptuous of civilians, they are convinced that they,
and only they, have the motivation and the strength to protect the country.

With this mindset, when they analyse threats to Pakistan, to the east they see a
powerful India — a country that has locked horns rather successfully with our army
four times. To the west lies Iran, a neighbour with which we have no territorial
disputes. To the north and northwest is Afghanistan, a troubled, turbulent country
that our army has traditionally viewed as its backyard, especially after the Soviet
incursion and Taliban rule. This is where our generals have looked in their search for
an elusive ‘strategic depth’. In the post-9/11 world, Afghanistan has become the
focus of the West’s attention, and serious attempts are finally being made to
stabilise and strengthen our neighbour. However, an independent and strong
Afghanistan is our GHQ’s worst nightmare: with Indian influence there growing, our
military planners fear an alliance between the two countries that would effectively
encircle Pakistan. To prevent this from happening, it is in the ISI’s interest to
destabilise Afghanistan. In order to achieve this, the Taliban have to be covertly
supported. However, as we have seen, this policy has caused serious problems with
our home-grown extremists. Balancing the competing demands of a resurgent
Taliban in Afghanistan, and peaceful extremists within Pakistan, is testing the
capabilities of our intelligence agencies, and exposing the limits to their power.
More and more, Pakistan is being blamed for the losses being incurred by western
forces in Afghanistan. With mounting casualties, the Americans are being drawn
into our tribal areas to combat militants our forces are unwilling or unable to take
on. Against their wishes and interests, Pakistan and the US are being sucked into a
conflict that can benefit only the forces of extremism. If we are to step back from
the brink, we need to seriously review our options and the threats we face. It is
clear that India has no serious territorial claims beyond hanging on to the part of
Kashmir it has controlled for the last 60 years. Thus, to keep nearly half a million
soldiers on our eastern border when we face a mortal threat from within, as well as
from our north-west border, is a strategic blunder of suicidal proportions. It’s high
time we took a close look at the dangers facing us; but to do so, we cannot look
through military eyes any more.

Author Location Dated

Karamatullah K. Ghori 11.10.08

– The Pakistan factor in the US elections

The looming presence of the United States in Pakistani politics has always been the
elephant in the room that none could dare ignore. But who would have imagined,
even a few years ago, that a time would come when Pakistan would become the
single most prominent issue in the foreign policy context of a US presidential
election. Well, that inconceivable time is with us and Pakistan is exciting the
imaginations of the pundit and the politician alike in the ongoing one-upmanship
contest in the US, now in its home stretch. So contagious and over-powering is the
fear of Pakistan failing or falling apart in its perceived role of fighting terrorists in
the front trenches of Bush’s global war on terror that neither of the two presidential
hopefuls in the race could afford to take his eyes off the ‘threat’ such an apocalypse
would precipitate for world peace. The Wall Street’s earth-shaking jolts are
unnerving, no doubt, and the tremors are spreading terror all around. But even this
cataclysm is not forcing the threat of a Pakistani meltdown off the centre stage. The
front-runner in the race, Barack Obama, was the first to set the alarm bells ringing
on Pakistan when he advocated, months ago, the use of raw power against the
terrorists, said to be ensconced on the Pakistani side of the prickly hedge Pak
Afghan border. His jingoism was unnerving, even to some of his adoring fans. He
may have, since, made amends in his stance and postulated it quite a bit but still
remains trigger-happy. His reasoning still commits him to unleash US troops and
fire-power in Pakistan’s tribal areas if the latter were seen failing to do what
Washington expected of it. Obama, the knight-in-shining armour, doesn’t fancy US
hesitating from doing the job itself, even if it were tantamount to violating
Pakistan’s sovereignty. Obama’s Republican rival, John McCain, has not been as
strident in advocating the use of unbridled force in this matter. However, his coterie
of advisers includes vintage hawks. The induction of a gun-aficionado like Sarah
Palin — who claims to have the bionic vision that enables her to see Russia with her
bare eyes from Alaska — on McCain’s wobbly bandwagon is simply whetting the
appetite of his hawks to match Obama’s bellicosity, lest their boss was seen as
weak and wimp. The McCain hawks have the ungrudging support of the Bush
neocons in both the government and the bloated fraternity of academic junkies and
gurus ruling the roost in Washington’s right-wing thinktanks. The elitist intellectual
pres sure groups — such as a newly-minted ‘Pakistan
‘Pakistan Policy Working Group,’
Group,’ or the
Pakistan-American Congress,
Congress , to mention just a few — sheltered under the wings of
the Bush neocons don’t cherish the idea of being left behind Obama’s rolling
tumbrel against Pakistan. They, too, are advocating the use of American firepower,
and boots on the Pakistani soil, if Pakistan was seen wanting.

There’s complete consensus across the party lines in the US election campaign that
Pakistan is the single most deadly threat to US homeland security. Partisans of the
two parties are at one in being fear mongers hawking the near-certainty of the next
9/11-like threat originating from the daunting hills of Bajaur or Waziristan instead of
the caves of Afghanistan. There’s also agreement that this threat must be pre-
empted, with or without Pakistan on board. The unravelling of the state in Pakistan
makes it all the more tempting for the Americans — politicians, generals,
academics, crystal ball-gazers et al — to reckon that this is ideal moment to mount
maximum pressure on Pakistan. The government is weak and hardly functioning;
the economy is melting; the country is polarised like never before, thanks, largely,
to the government and the people being poles apart on how to deal with the
mounting menace of terrorism. While this may portend trouble for the integrity of
Pakistan and its welfare as a composite state, to the Americans it’s a god-send
opportunity to bend it to their will so it may do their bidding without so much as a
squeak of demur. Perhaps the most edifying development for the Americans, vis-à-
vis their tangled relationship with Pakistan, is the rise of Mr Asif Ali Zardari on
Pakistan’s horizon as its new strong man and man of destiny — at least that’s how
he has been promoting himself in the eyes of his obliging mentors in Washington.
President Zardari’s problem is the same as has haunted every up start Pakistani
leader and soldier of-fortune, be that in uniform or civvies. Just like his predecessor,
he, too, is desperate to seek Washington’s approbation and agreement for his rule
at the head of Pakistan. So incapacitating is that urge that he rushed, helter skelter,
to the American shores to get the nod from his mentors with out wasting a minute,
leaving, lit erally, a burning Islamabad and Pakistan behind him. It suits the
Americans to be in a symbiotic relationship with Mr Zardari. So they’re pandering to
his whims and giving him an ego massage whenever needed. They seem to be
using both stick and carrot to keep him in tow firmly behind them. Roger Cohen of
the New York Times summed up the American measure of him succinctly: “he’s “he’s a
‘street-smart’ guy who has the guts to not shirk from rising to a challenge. So while
his past may have been that of a ‘wheeler-dealer,’ he has the qualities to become a
model factotum to the Americans. He’s, simply put, the right man in the right place
to serve his masters.”
masters.”

Mr Zardari, on his part, is leading his mentors on to have faith in his abilities to
deliver and deal with him with as much confidence as they used to with Musharraf.
The firing of General Nadeem Taj from his perch at the head of ISI is Mr Zardari’s
way of reassuring his American handlers that he’s a fast learner and knows the art
of pleasing. In fact, Mr Zardari is wielding his democratic credentials as an extra
qualification to earn more brownie points from his mentors. Musharraf was an
autocrat, but I’m not, goes Mr Zardari’s reasoning. And to spice his argument he
seems inclined to embrace the American agenda in Pakistan and Afghanistan as his
own. So the war on terror has become ‘his’ war. And he’s not even coy in
disparaging the Kashmiri freedom fighters resisting the Indian occupation of their
land as ‘terrorists.’ Mr Zardari’s spin doctors have, since, denied that he denounced
the Kashmiri freedom fighters as terrorists in his interview with Bret Stephens of the
Wall Street Journal.
Journal. But WSJ is not prepared to recant the story. It sounds eerily like
being a rehash of General Musharraf telling Washington Post,Post, in 2005, that the short
cut to landing a Canadian visa for a Pakistani woman was to get raped. He later
denied having made that gaffe but the Post had him on their tape recorder.
However, his asking the Americans to give ‘him’ 100 billion dollars so he may stem
Pakistan’s slide into bankruptcy showed how truly naïve and bereft of reality he is.
The Americans don’t have enough dough to arrest their own economic decline.
Where would they find the money to answer his bloated demand? He might think he
has Washington on a barrel; that the US and the West, in general, are so desperate
to have his co-operation that they would bail out Pakistan at any cost. He may be
sadly mistaken for Washington is changing tacks in fighting the seven year-old war
on terror.

There are two new and parallel lines that Washington has just started pursuing in
the war against terror, in marked contrast to Bush’s failed strategy of unbridled use
of force. The first tack is that, at long last, Washington is making a distinction
between Al Qaeda and the Taliban of Afghanistan. It has a plan, now, to separate
the Taliban, who are home-grown in Afghanistan, from their erstwhile, but foreign,
comrades of Al-Qaeda. Generals and politicians alike are getting conscious, after
incurring a horrendous cost to US economy, of the ineluctable need to explore the
more pragmatic and feasible option of a negotiated end to the conflict in
Afghanistan. So a dialogue, on the lines of Henry Kissinger’s secret parleys with the
North Vietnamese in Paris in the early ’70s to find a way out of the Vietnamese
quagmire, is being pursued. The go-between is Saudi Arabia, which still commands
respect with the Taliban. The Saudis are getting engaged into the process because
the Taliban seem ready to put paid to their costly camaraderie with Al-Qaeda. As
CNN disclosed recently, the Americans have already met the Taliban, initially, for
exploratory talks in Saudi Arabia last month to break the ice between the two. The
second notch of the new American strategy is to lessen dependence on Pakistan’s
crucial role of a conduit to feed and equip American and Nato forces in Afghanistan.
An alternative route through Central Asia is being actively explored, with the help of
Putin of Russia, who is enthusiastic in getting on board with US as far as the fear of
the Taliban-like fundamentalism scorching Russia’s ‘near-abroad’ in Central Asia is
concerned. So Pakistan, on this critical crossroads, is facing the twin menace of,
one, owning the American war on terror as its own baby, because of Mr Zardari’s
unremitting zeal to become a new crusader, and, two, ending up fighting this war
entirely on its own, in its own territory, with the Americans having cut a deal with
the Taliban, and the two of them, together, going after Al-Qaeda. The consequences
of Mr Zardari losing his marbles to serve undependable mentors are too scary to
contemplate. ¦ The writer is a former ambassador.
ambassador.

Author Location Dated

Hussain H. Zaidi hussainhzaidi@gmail.com 11.10.08

– Why sovereignty is a myth in our case

The recent US strikes on the alleged terrorist hideouts in the Pakistan territory has
evoked sharp reaction from the government, political parties and civil society for
being a blatant violation of the country’s sovereignty. The matter has been taken up
with Washington at the highest level. However, despite repeated American
assurances to respect Pakistan’s sovereignty and our leadership’s pledges to
safeguard the motherland’s territorial integrity at all cost, it is unlikely that the
strikes will come to an end. How can a country repeatedly violate the sovereignty of
another and get away with that? The answer lies in analysing the concept of
sovereignty in both its theoretical and practical aspects. Sovereignty is the essential
and the exclusive attribute of the state. If a territory is not sovereign, it cannot be
called a state; and only the state is sovereign. Sovereignty is the supreme power in
a political society free from all internal and external control. It means the complete
freedom to make any laws, adopt any political or economic system, pursue any
policy, and establish or break off relations with any other state. Thus a state is
entitled to be a republic or a monarchy, have a democratic or despotic form of
government, establish a capitalist or socialist economy, adopt an isolationist or an
interventionist foreign policy, conclude or repudiate treaties, join or quit an
international organisation, and declare war or peace. In short, sovereignty means
that a state is completely free to conduct its internal and external affairs and no
other state can interfere with that right. The principle of sovereignty, important as it
is, is enshrined in the United Nations’ Charter (Article 2) as well as the Draft
Declaration on Rights and Duties of States drawn up by the International Law
Commission,
Commission, which is entrusted with the codification and development of
international law. The concept of state sovereignty gives rise to certain questions:
The foremost is the relationship between sovereignty and international law.
Whether municipal or international, law is essentially normative; it prescribes how
the subject must act. In international context, law stipulates how a state must —
and must not — act in relation to other states, international organisations and alien
citizens and legal persons (transnational corporations). This means that the very
notion of an international legal order is a negation of that of state sovereignty and
thus incompatible with it.

Paradoxically, sovereignty pre-supposes an international legal order. For without

such an order, which defines rights and obligations of states, no nation will respect
the sovereignty of others. Just as the rights of an individual can exist only when
they are recognised and enforced by the domestic legal system, those of a state
can exist when they are enforced by an international legal order. The principle of
sovereignty notwithstanding, states, actuated by the desire to protect their
perceived national interest, do interfere in the domestic affairs of one another. This
interference may consist in mere expression of concern on certain developments in
a state such as treatment of minorities, advice on how a state should conduct its
internal or external affairs, actual influence on its economic or political policies,
sanctions to coerce a state into abandoning its “wrong” policies, or the threat or use
of force against a “rogue” state. States do differ in their capacity and predilection
for foreign interference but all states are involved in this practice despite their
commitment to respect the sovereignty of others. States also differ in their
susceptibility to external interference. Some states pursue fairly independent
policies. By contrast, there are states whose domestic and foreign policies are
completely in the control of another state. In theory, they are independent but in
practice they are no more than satellite states. From the foregoing, one may infer
that there is a wide gulf between the theory and practice of sovereignty. In theory,
all states are sovereign; in practice, the exercise of sovereign power is subject to
various internal and external factors including the state of the economy, the military
power, the character of the population, the credibility of the leadership,
international power relations, the global economic order, international treaties, etc.
In theory, all states are equal (sovereign equality of states); in practice, there are
strong and weak states. Generally, the more powerful a state, the more sovereign it
is. Hence, in practice, state sovereignty is manifested in national power taking all its
elements into account. This practical aspect of sovereignty also helps resolve the
paradox of its relationship with international law. Since sovereignty is not absolute,
it is not incompatible with restrictions imposed by the international legal order in
the form of treaties or customs.

Coming back to the US raids in the Frontier region, there is no gainsaying the fact
that these constitute a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. It has also been
maintained that the US strikes are the result of a secret understanding reached
between the Bush administration and the former Musharraf regime and that the
new democratic government in Pakistan has not repudiated it. However, both the
previous and present regimes deny that such understanding existed. With or
without consent from Islamabad, the strikes are deemed necessary by Washington
to break the network of terrorists operating in the region bordering Pakistan and
Afghanistan. Even if such a link exists, the raids cannot be justified because they
violate Pakistan’s sovereignty. However, the fact that they violate Pakistan’s
sovereignty will not deter the US from repeating such actions. In a preceding
paragraph, it was mentioned that international legal order is necessary to enforce
respect for state sovereignty. True, but the international legal order is not sufficient
to prevent violation of sovereignty. A state must also be capable of defending its
sovereignty. Is Pakistan capable of such deterrence? Our nuclear power status
coupled with a massive military might have constituted a strong deterrence against
US raids in our territory. But the fact remains that we need to look at other
elements of national power in which we are deficient. Undoubtedly, the economy is
the Achilles’ heel. Decelerating economic growth, growing fiscal and current
account deficit (each around 7 per cent of the GDP), falling levels of investment and
savings, fast depleting foreign exchange reserves, and rapidly depreciating rupee
mean that the economy is in a dismal state and in dire need of foreign capital.
Economy is an element of national power but only when it is strong. An economy
too weak to walk without the crutches of foreign assistance is a drag on national
power and hence sovereignty.

There is no dearth of political leaders who aver that Pakistan should break the
begging bowl and take bold decisions notwithstanding the state of the economy.
Some even maintain that Pakistan should go to war against the US. Every nation, no
doubt, has to take some bold decisions. But such decisions require a credible
leadership — another element of national power. Do we have such leadership? Do
we have leaders who can stand by the people in their hour of trial, who can share
their enormous wealth with the masses, and are ready to part with their privileged
position in society? It is a nice political slogan that the nation should prefer eating
grass to begging for foreign assistance. But who will eat grass? The leaders who say
this have a most luxurious lifestyle, which will make even the richest in the
developed world envious of them, live in palatial houses, drive in imported bullet-
proof cars, and have scores of gun-totting body guards. Such leaders can hardly be
expected to share the price of safeguarding sovereignty with the people. Hence, it
will be the ordinary people, already squeezed by the galloping inflation in an
increasingly laissez-faire economy, who will have to pay all the price of sovereignty.
It is hard to take bold decisions when such leaders are around. Morally and legally,
US raids on Pakistan are without any justification. But international politics is
essentially power politics and a nation has to be strong enough to safeguard its
sovereignty. Shorn of that strength, a nation can only register its protest with, put
diplomatic pressure on, and try and convince the belligerent nation that the
intervention is proving counter-productive. This is what Pakistan is doing with the
US and this is what it can do in the circumstances. Sovereignty in its absolute, a
prior meaning is no more than a myth.

Author Location Dated

Ilhan Niaz niazone80@gmail.com 11.10.08

– Losing the war in Afghanistan

One of the greatest disadvantages of waging a war against a concept or an
abstraction such as “terror” is that it is almost impossible to determine when victory
has been achieved. Recent pronouncements by the allied military commanders and
UN officials indicate that the US-led alliance has begun to realise, or has perhaps
already realised, that it cannot achieve victory in Afghanistan. For an alliance of
occupying powers to publicly declare that it cannot win after seven years on the
ground effectively means that behind closed doors it realises that they will
eventually lose. When this realisation hits, the rhetoric of victory gives way to the
acceptance of fallibility and the expression of the desire to negotiate with the
terrorists. The idea is to prepare domestic opinion for eventual defeat (or retreat)
and perhaps secure an agreement from the armed local opposition to allow for a
decent interval between the withdrawal of occupation forces and the final
obliteration of the local stooges these forces have propped up. Even the rabidly self-
righteous Bush administration is evincing interest in talking to the “moderate
Taliban” — an oxymoron if there ever was one. The moderate Taliban, according to
Robert Gates, the moderate neo-con who succeeded Donald Rumsfeld as the United
States’ Secretary of Defence, may even be brought into the Karzai government
under a power sharing agreement. While Karzai does have nuisance value, which is
primarily used to obstruct allied attempts to curb the poppy cultivation and drugs
trade that is feeding warlordism and insurgency in the country, he cannot be said to
possess any substantial power. What ineffective Karzai has amounts to a tenuous
mayoralty of Kabul which can be very easily taken from him after the western
powers pull out. Even if there is at some stage an agreement between the warring
parties it will collapse soon the western military forces are withdrawn with the
Taliban and their rivals trying to neutralise each other.

The defeat that the US and its allies face is not principally a military one. The
alliance has not suffered substantial military casualties — only about 800 in the first
six years of the occupation. Pakistan has sacrificed perhaps twice as many of its
own soldiers in policing its side of the Durand line in selected operations.
Technically, the Afghan insurgents do not have the firepower to dislodge the
occupation forces and suffer enormous casualties whenever they get into a direct
confrontation. The result is a military stalemate with Nato controlling the cities and
strong points and the insurgents roaming largely unhindered in the countryside.
Though not particularly bloody for Nato, the bill for occupying Afghanistan for seven
years stands at more than $120 billion. The sum is substantial but hardly
unsustainable for the United States and its allies. The admission then that the
occupation is “doomed to fail” reflects the psychological, political and
administrative failure of the US-led effort. At the psychological level the United
States and its allies launched themselves into an impressive imperial undertaking —
the conquest, pacification and rehabilitation of Afghanistan — without paying any
attention to the price that would have to be paid. Rather than urging their people to
be prepared to make sacrifices the alliance leadership thought that they could
achieve their objective without a substantial mobilisation of manpower and
resources. Instead, some 40 different countries contributed about 50,000 troops
with the United States providing the rest of the fighting force of about 70,000. The
size and composition of the force is reflective of a near total lack of comprehension
of what the alliance was getting itself into. It almost seems that the European
countries wanted to secure imperial benefits without sharing the burden of sorrow
and went along with the exercise almost as a sporting event. When the initial lack of
psychological preparedness came up against the reality of a long drawn out
counter-insurgency that might take decades to achieve victory the public mood
started to shift against the war, as did specialist opinion. At the political level the
objective of the United States and its allies was to oust the Taliban and replace
them with a friendly and at least superficially democratic Afghan government. Doing
so required cultivating local clients capable of commanding the respect of the
warlords and tribal elders so that a functional neo-colony capable of maintaining
order could emerge. Instead, a handful of oblivious technocrats were flown in from
various destinations to serve as the leaders of the new regime in Kabul while on the
ground the country was abandoned to caprices of the same warlords whose rapacity
and caprices had earlier paved the way for the ascent of the relatively just Taliban.
At the administrative level little thought seemed to have been given to how exactly
the state apparatus would be built up on the ground.

Essentially, the problem was of ensuring effective area administration. Here, the US-
led alliance could have learnt a few lessons both from the Taliban as well from
earlier imperial systems. The Taliban had established an effective medieval state in
which a highly motivated armed minority faithfully executed its master’s will. What
was needed after their ouster was a cadre of Afghan general administrators,
perhaps no more than five hundred in number to begin with, recruited on merit,
armed with sufficient authority, organised into a clear hierarchy, and backed by
military force to act as the nucleus of the district administration. Hundreds of
millions of dollars have been wasted on an impressive range of absurdities such as
the Civil Service Leadership Development Program, Human Resource seminars,
Executive Development Courses, sub-national governance,
governance, etc. And seven years
into the occupation, there is as yet no functioning administration outside of Kabul
and even within the capital city the situation is abysmal. Those advising the Afghan
government on how to put together a civil service are practically clueless when it
comes to relating intentions and plans, as communicated by Power Point
presentations, to effects on the ground. For Pakistan it is imperative that its
leadership start to seriously think about the situation in Afghanistan after the US-led
alliance withdraws. Depending on the terms of the extrication the withdrawal is
likely to immediately produce complete disaster or at best secure a few years
between the withdrawal of occupation forces and the resumption of a full-fledged
civil war. Either way, Pakistan is liable to be drawn into the vortex even as it
struggles to contain escalating terrorist violence and insurgency on its own soil.
Between now and then there are a number of steps that Pakistan can consider
undertaking. First, the unilateral imposition of restrictions on movement across the
Durand line by mining and fencing as much of it as possible leaving designated
crossing points where biometric instruments can be installed. Second, intensify the
crackdown on militants within Pakistan with the aim of doing as much as possible on
this front before the US-led alliance moves to withdraw. Third, identify the likely
successors in the post-occupation period with which Pakistan can do business and
cultivate. And finally, raise additional and specialised military, paramilitary and
antiterrorist forces to police the Pakistan-Afghanistan borderland. ¦ The writer is a
faculty member of the department of history at Quaid-i-Azam University,
Islamabad.
Islamabad.

Author Location Dated

Tasneem Noorani tasneem.m.noorani@gmai 12.10.08
l.com

– Who’s minding the nation’s morale?

We are at war, whether we admit it or not. We are at war physically, economically
and politically. There was the 1965 war, the 1971 war and now we are in the midst
of the 2008 war. The so-called war on terror (a glib phrase crafted by White House
speechwriters) started off as the US war and imperceptibly became our war. There
have been blasts in every large city of Pakistan, the latest being at the Marriott in
Islamabad. Each time we are shocked, surprised and depressed. These reactions
are based on our ‘ostrich approach’ that a war is going on in a faraway land, on the
border between Pakistan and Afghanistan, and we have nothing to do with it, nor
should we be affected by it. We are shocked when the smell of explosives wafts
over our homes in Lahore, Karachi or Islamabad. The sooner we realise that it is a
total war, like the ones in the 60s and the 70s, the more mentally prepared we will
be to cope with it. In wars, blasts and casualties are normal. In this insurgency by
Islamists, who disagree with the form of Islam being practised by a majority of
Pakistanis, the militants want to capture the whole of Pakistan. After having tasted
power in neighbouring Afghanistan, they will not be content with wresting control of
only a part of the country. The engine of their ‘Trojan horse’ army is driven by
madressah-trained manpower. Most countries in their history have faced
insurgencies of various kinds. India faced the Khalsas in Punjab, faces the
movement for freedom in Kashmir, the Naxalites in the north-east, etc. Sri Lanka is
locked in battle with the LTTE. Russia faced the Chechens, the British the Irish. But
most of these countries came out of it unscathed, because they confronted the
threat with unity, self-confidence and patience. We, on the other hand, are getting
unnerved by each bomb blast or assassination at tempt. Are we displaying a fickle
national character, a lack of confidence in the state? Or a state where our nerves
have been shaken by the repeated presentation of the negatives by the media?
While a lack of confidence in the competence of the government prevails
throughout the land, the role of the media in spreading despondency cannot be
overstated.

Is it necessary for the media to repeat, ad nauseam, only the bad news and discuss
the negatives of the situation ad infinitum? It seems the electronic media has yet to
recognise its own power. Getting rid of an unpopular government is one thing, but
when the future of the country is at stake self-restraint should be a top priority.
British, American and even Indian television is far more circumspect when it comes
to reporting on nationally sensitive issues. I’ve heard TV viewers wonder as to what
was the need to run tickers, for hours on end, of the news that the British
government had asked the children and wives of their staff posted in Pakistan to
leave. Through extensive publicity, news that was of hardly any interest to the
general public came to have an adverse impact on the reputation of the country
and the morale of the public. As for the state, where is the sense in publicising, for
the benefit of the public, that so many suicide bombers have entered such and such
city? That information ought to be meant for the law enforcement apparatus which
should be eliminating such threats without creating undue panic. The ‘I told you so’
policy is not necessary because our interior adviser has an explanation for every
situation anyway. Like the ‘positive’ side of the Marriott incident highlighted by him
— his success in fooling the terrorists into thinking that the president was dining at
the hotel! The leadership of the country, both the president and the PM, has a role
to play in leading the country by example and instilling confidence in the nation by
its words, actions and deeds. Leaving everything to the COAS is tantamount to
abdicating responsibility at this crucial juncture.

The main aim of the terrorists is to shatter the morale of their ‘enemy’. If they
succeed in that objective we will fall into their lap. Why, in the wars of 1965 and
1971, was the damage caused to the other side always exaggerated and personal
casualties always minimised by both sides? To keep the morale of the nation and
the troops high. This is exactly what is required in this war too. The current run on
foreign exchange deposits, among other factors, is a measure of the confidence the
rich have in the country. Leave aside the super-rich, even run-of-the-mill owners of
modest assets are thinking of safeguarding their resources to secure the future of
their children. They need to be engaged and their confidence must be restored by
the leadership. While the Pakistan Army is fighting the insurgents valiantly, the
president and the PM should back it up instead of leaving everything to the COAS.
Why can’t the president or the PM visit the war-torn tribal areas? Why can’t our
media do their duty without sensationalising the issue? Why can’t our intelligence
agencies trace and expose the source of the money and weapons the insurgents
receive instead of informing the public about how many suicide bombers have
entered a city? A group of mullahs can’t fight a full army for so long without
external assistance in the form of men, material and training. Unless the
government takes on its responsibility of stemming the despondency being spread
by the acts and propaganda of the terrorists, we will be making their task very easy.

Author Location Dated

Suzanne Goldenberg 12.10.08

– Obama to spend more

Barack Obama will use his financial superiority over John McCain to dominate the
airwaves in the final days of the US election with a half-hour, prime-time special.
Campaign officials said on Friday that they were negotiating with CBS, NBC and Fox
television for a half-hour broadcast on October 29, six days before Americans go to
the polls. The media blitz represents the most ambitious — and by far the costliest
— use of media in a presidential election. “Strategically,
“Strategically, this is about as big a
megaphone as money will buy at this point,”
point,” said Evan Tracey of the Campaign
Media Analysis Group. “Obama,
“Obama, as a former lawyer, will probably make a fairly well
articulated closing argument with the production value of a Steven Spielberg
movie.”
movie.” He estimated the cost of airtime would be at least $1m for each network.
Former candidates have departed from the traditional advertising format to buy
blocks of airtime. In 1992, Ross Perot bought time on network television and Hillary
Clinton paid for an hourlong town hall special on Lifetime television, a cable network
aimed at women, during the Democratic primary campaign. McCain, who took
public financing, is on an $84m budget for these elections. Obama has no such
constraints. The candidate this week increased his spending on television
advertising to $3m a day, and is expected to spend even more as the election
approaches. The McCain camp, in contrast, spent about $1.6m a day. In some key
battlegrounds, such as northern Virginia or southern Florida, that amounts to a four-
to-one advantage for Obama in airtime. In an attempt to compete, the McCain camp
has resorted to trying to use the media to find an audience for its ads. In recent
days, the Republicans have put out daily video releases. The so-called ads are
seldom aired on television and instead rely on YouTube or cable television news
broadcasts to find an audience.

Friday’s offering from the McCain camp again showed the Republican stepping up
the negative tone of his ads. The ad, which the McCain camp said would be aired
nationally, directly accuses Obama of lying about his association with former 60s-
era radical Bill Ayers. Obama’s purchase practically guarantees the Democrat a
huge prime-time audience because of prior media coverage, as well as analysis
after it is aired. The prime-time programming also increases McCain’s bind. If he
tries to match Obama in making his own closing argument, the Republican will have
to make hard choices about pulling some of his television ads in battleground
states. There were few immediate details on Friday about the content of the
programme. It is widely assumed that the broadcast is intended to make Obama
appear presidential. That means he is unlikely to resort to the negative tone of
McCain’s public appearances. Joel Rivlin, a political consultant, argued that the
broadcast, which will extend far beyond the battleground states, could help Obama
drive up his popular vote. If he were elected, that would allow Obama to claim a
greater mandate to lead — which could help the Democrat in the current economic
and political climate. “Maybe
“Maybe it talks to him trying to run up the score in order to
get more of a mandate to govern,”
govern,” Rivlin said. “It
“It could be something to do with
increasing his popular vote nationally.”
nationally.”

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 12.10.08

– Pakistan’s trust deficit

Pakistan’s sovereign economic rating has fallen to a junk triple-C. Similarly rated, it
would be lower for security and lower still for the institutions that handle the
economy, security and every other matter of the state. So high are the stakes in
Pakistan that the world somehow may find even the $100bn that President Asif
Zardari is seeking only if the donors were to trust the intentions of the people who
are to spend the money — and are held accountable if they squander or embezzle
it. Foreign donors aside, such an assurance is not forthcoming even to our own
people. The first burden that therefore falls on our political leaders is to establish
the propriety of their own conduct and integrity of the state institutions in the eyes
of the people and dispel many doubts that our allies and the world at large
entertain on both counts. The leaders now in the government or in the opposition
have been alternating in that role for the past 20 years — some sticking to their
parties, others switching loyalties and still others breaking away to form parties of
their own. They have been bringing up charges of misconduct and corruption
against each other till Gen Musharraf came on the scene to charge both. The cases
lingered for years before the Ehtesab Bureau established by Nawaz Sharif, and later
before Musharraf’s NAB, but hardly any one was disqualified or otherwise punished.
All that the bureaus had to show in the way of performance was the recovery of a
fraction of the misappropriated amount through plea bargains till Musharraf brought
a sweeping law to close all proceedings. It was an act of political expediency
cloaked in national reconciliation. Who among those charged was guilty of
corruption and who was being persecuted on personal or partisan grounds will
never be known. But that law should not put a premium on corruption nor instil a
sense of immunity or give a licence to plunder with impunity. If the present lot of
leaders wish to pull the country out of the morass of violence and despondency in
which it is stuck, they must first establish their own moral credentials by opening
their books and assets for scrutiny by an impartial tribunal with full opportunity
provided to the people to question the veracity of the disclosures made.
The process of accountability has to be continuous, open and guided by public
perception and not the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials in which one is
taken to be innocent unless proven guilty. The public leaders must be demonstrably
above board. The point to stress is that it is too much to expect of the masses to
suffer privation or make sacrifices when their leaders live in luxury at home when in
power, and in greater luxury abroad when they have to flee the country — who
among them doesn’t have villas in Dubai or flats in London’s Park Lane? The
destinies of the masses and the leaders are thus not intertwined in times good or
bad. In the current crisis centred in the tribal area but with trouble spilling all over,
the normal institutions of the state — the presidency and parliament, the cabinet,
bureaucracy and judiciary — have lost all relevance. Relevant only are the
intelligence agencies. But the countries conducting the war on terror (who are also
now being called upon to rescue our economy) consider these agencies to be
“historically and institutionally complicit”
complicit” in the Taliban insurgency that they are
trying to quell. Noteworthy for sarcasm in this backdrop is the comment of The
Economist in last week’s issue: “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s notorious military spooks deserve credit
for the audacity of their covert support for the Taliban, the enemy of Pakistan’s
greatest ally. But America’s patience with the ISI’s double-dealing is running thin”.
thin”.
The paper then goes on to cast doubts on the assurances of a “civilian
“civilian with a dodgy
past”
past” (meaning our president) to tame the “Invisible
“Invisible Soldiers Inc”.
Inc”. America, though
our ally and best friend, is giving nuclear technology to India but denies it to
Pakistan. This discrimination points towards yet another area where our allies and
international community alike refuse to trust us. To most of us here, Dr. A.Q. Khan is
the country’s ‘greatest benefactor’. The custodians of Pakistan’s ideology
assembled in Lahore would rather see him as head of the Islamic state than a
pathetic, ailing figure confined to the prison of his home.

To the world at large, however, he is the “single

“single worst nuclear proliferator”
proliferator” who ran
a “WalMart
“WalMart to sell the country’s prized secrets to Iran, Libya and North Korea
making the world a more dangerous place”.
place”. These conflicting perceptions apart, an
undeniable fact is that though Pakistan now has nuclear weapons and the people
are close to eating grass, as Bhutto had then put it, yet we cannot buy nuclear
technology for producing desperately needed power for our homes and factories.
Whether it was Dr Khan on his own or the government of the day that was involved
in running the nuclear mart is for us to ponder. But we must make peace with the
rest of the world by clearing doubts that hang over our conduct as a nation. The
nuclear assets that Dr Khan helped create for warfare must not become a liability
now that we need nuclear technology for a peaceful purpose. Lastly, the world has
reservations even about our legal system which not long ago was our strength. It is
nothing short of bizarre that a struggle launched for greater independence and
dignity of the judiciary should be ending in less of both. The accusations made
against the chief justice were never investigated nor was the accusing lawyer tried
for perjury nor was the president impeached. A constitutional issue carried to the
streets forced Musharraf to resign but has sown seeds of division in the ranks of
lawyers and judges alike. An unsafe Pakistan without impartial courts must rank low
in the preference of investors. Lack of investment, in turn, adds to unemployment
and unrest. The answer to violence at home and doubts abroad lies in letting the
institutions work. Individuals should owe allegiance to institutions, not the other way
round. That sadly has been the trend long in evidence now reaching a climax in the
person of Mr Asif Zardari. As promised, he should better shed his 17th Amendment
powers without delay. The cult of his late lamented wife is enough to sustain him in
office.

Author Location Dated

Ardeshir Cowasjee arfc@cyber.net.pk 12.10.08

– ‘Civis Pakistanus sum’

In 1847, the home of a British subject living in Athens, a Jew by the name of Don
Pacifico, was vandalised and plundered by an anti-Semitic mob. After unsuccessfully
appealing to the Greek government for compensation, he turned to the British
government. The British foreign secretary, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount
Palmerston, took unilateral action in support of Pacifico by sending a Royal Navy
squadron into the Aegean in 1850 to seize Greek ships and property equal to the
value of Pacifico’s claims. The squadron eventually blockaded the port of Piraeus.
The blockade lasted two months and the affair ended only when the Greek
government agreed to compensate Pacifico after Greek ships were seized by the
Royal Navy. The British parliament took up the matter and after a fiery debate in
June 1850 Palmerston’s action was condemned by a majority vote. It was then that
Palmerston made his famous five-hour Civis Romanus sum speech in which he
declared that “as
“as the Roman, in the days of old, held himself free from indignity
when he could say Civis Romanus sum, so also a British subject, in whatever land
he may be, shall feel confident that the watchful eye and the strong arm of England
will protect him against injustice and wrong.”
wrong.” Westminster (upon which we are
supposedly modelled) still has clout, and citizens of the United Kingdom may still
rely upon their government, when overtaken by trouble abroad, to come to their
succour and aid. This, sadly, does not apply to the Government of Pakistan which
now finds itself, in so many cases, unable to offer protection or help to its citizens
who rightly or wrongly are detained, or harassed, by officials of foreign
governments all over this world. The green passport and the declaration that one is
a Pakistani is today an immediate condemnation.

How, just how, is this new government, made up mainly of old and tried would-be
politicians who have failed us in the past, and which is beset by myriad problems for
which solutions are a far cry, going to make any inroads into improving the doleful
‘image’ projected by Pakistan which, if one takes any credence from the foreign
media, is in as much of a meltdown as is the notorious global economy? The ‘image’
projected by our leadership is also a hindrance to any improvement in the national
‘image.’ The ‘image’ was brought home to me very clearly on my last visit to Dubai,
this past May. I landed wearing an off-white linen suit (with a tie) and a Panama hat.
At the immigration counter was a ninja-like woman. From what I could see of her,
she was young and attractive, and her manner was charming. She looked at my
Mobil-oil green passport, looked up at me, looked down at the passport photo, and
said, “You
“You don’t look like a Pakistani.”
Pakistani.” Used to hearing such remarks, I kept my
silence. She then turned to consult her superior. Standing behind me was a fellow
compatriot, awaiting his turn. He whispered to me, “Entirely
“Entirely your fault. You don’t
look like a taxi driver.”
driver.” Not that he did, with his trousers and shirt! The young
woman, receiving clearance from the ‘higher’ official, eventually stamped me in.

Now, what is written in our green passports? The director general, immigration and
passports, declares: “Ministry
“Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, requires and
requests in the name of the President of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan all those to
whom it may concern to allow the bearer to pass freely without let or hindrance and
to afford the bearer such assistance and protection as may be necessary.”
necessary.” These
are but words that fall on deaf ears and blind eyes worldwide. Our interior ministry
is run by an unelected man, Rahman Malik, who so far has proved to be pathetically
inept at rendering any protection to the citizens of his own country. What is the
weekly average tally of suicidebomber blasts all over the country since he assumed
charge of the interior six months ago? And let us never forget that it was under his
watch that the tragedy of Dec 27 took place, eliminating Benazir Bhutto, whose
return to the political scenario in Pakistan was largely ‘arranged’ by his interaction
between BB and British and American officialdom which had decided that the days
of President Gen Pervez Musharraf were over and that the party of the people would
replace him. The president, in whose name Malik operates, was never to be part of
the plan put in place for Pakistan by the sole superpower and its British ally. His
entry on to our political backwash was accidental, a quirk of fate. Asif Zardari now
finds himself all-powerful in this nuclear-armed country, beset by terrorism, and
under the ‘arrangement’ negotiated after his wife’s death he has little option but to
toe the American line.

Those who stoutly maintain that Pakistan should opt out of any participation in the
war known as the war on terror must surely by now realise that the roots of this war
lie firmly in our territory and that right now, with the Taliban playing havoc with our
security forces, it is as much Pakistan’s war as it is America’s. One thing that
Zardari knows, from his position of weakness, and about which he is making all the
right noises, is the fact that Pakistan has a problem with terrorism and that the
terrorists must be taken on and subdued if this country is to return to any
semblance of normalcy. ‘In camera’ joint sessions of parliament will not at all
alleviate worries, concerns, or the situation at large. Neither the army, nor the ISI,
nor the president can even think of revealing the truth to a large body of politicians,
most of whom are unreliable and many of whom are at odds with each other. Such
cosmetic measures, nonserious, help not a whit and are a waste of time and money.
Zardari’s much-criticised visit to the States last month was in many ways an
embarrassment, but one positive factor was his interview given to Bret Stephens of
The Wall Street Journal.
Journal. What he said on the subject of relations with India and on
Kashmir revealed flashes of realism and has been welcomed warmly abroad but
castigated at home — attempts have been made to deny that he ever uttered them.
However, when it comes to the credibility of the WSJ or of the redundant and
noxious information ministry, one must opt for the former.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 13.10.08

– Joint session resumes today Opposition MPs flex muscle for

frank debate
After two days of listening to the military that many said informed them little, it will
be the turn of parliament members to speak out on the so-called “war on terrorism”
in a secret debate in search of a consensus beginning on Monday in a joint sitting of
the two houses. But very little will be known to the general public about the likely
heated proceedings, which will be reported only by a press release of the National
Assembly secretariat. Commencing at 5pm as a follow-up of the military’s in-
camera briefing to the joint sitting of the National Assembly and the Senate on
Wednesday and Thursday after a three-day recess, the debate could last three to
four days, parliamentary sources of the government said on Sunday. It will be “like
a full-fledged debate” aimed to develop “some consensus” about the future policy,
leader of the house in the Senate Raza Rabbani told Dawn. He said no time-limit
had been set for the debate, but only the third secret joint sitting of the two houses
in Pakistan’s parliamentary history could continue for three to four more days. After
the military’s briefing for two days, most opposition spokesmen said they hardly got
any new information about what has turned into a full-scale insurgency in the
mountains and valleys in the north of the country by the followers of the Al-Qaeda
and Taliban, who have also struck major cities and towns across the country quite
often with deadly suicide bombings. After complaining of dissatisfaction with the
briefing, some opposition parties as well as some allies are likely to come quite hard
on the six-month-old PPP-led coalition government they accuse of only continuing
former military president Pervez Musharraf’s policy that they say has failed.

The government says it has already moved from Musharraf’s only use-of-force to a
threepronged approach of dialogue with those who give up arms, economic
development of the troubled Federally Administered Tribal Areas (Fata), and a
selective use of force against those who insist on challenging writ of the state.
Questions could be raised about the responsibility for the fast spread of militant
activity to almost all the seven Fata administrative agencies bordering Afghanistan
and some adjoining settled districts like Swat despite a heavy military deployment
in the region. It appeared to be in anticipation of a discussion in parliament on the
conduct of the security agencies that the military leadership voiced its anger on
Saturday about criticism directed against the country’s top spy agency, the Inter-
Services Intellgence (ISI). But Mr Rabbani said the military statement that said a
Joint Chiefs of Staff Committee meeting on Saturday “took
“took a serious note of
insinuations about Pakistan’s nuclear programme and the ISI” ISI” responded only to
some external criticism some time ago that was earlier rejected by Prime Minister
Syed Yousuf Raza Gilani and the foreign ministry. Parliamentary groups seemed to
be flexing their muscles for the debate, in which the Pakistan Muslim League-N is
likely to lead the opposition assault despite its vow to help the coalition government
complete its five-year term despite parting ways with it recently after the PPP
leadership failed to honour its commitment to reinstate all superior court judges
sacked by General Musharaf under a controversial Nov 3, 2007 emergency
proclamation.

PML-N leader Nawaz Sharif, while marking the ninth anniversary of his deposition as
prime minister by General Musharraf, said in Lahore on Sunday his party would seek
peace through dialogue and that he wanted the former army chief to be summoned
to appear before parliament to answer questions. Maulana Fazlur Rehman, whose
Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam faction has been a supporter of the Taliban and is now a
partner in the coalition government, wants the issue to be seen in the context of
perceived American policies to dominate this region. “If “If allowed by the Speaker,
perhaps my speech will be the real briefing,”
briefing,” he told a news conference. But the
government is expected to get full support from coalition ally Awami National Party,
whose leader Asfandyar Wali Khan survived a recent suicide bombing at his Wali
Bagh home in the North West Frontier Province where his party heads the ruling
coalition. Similar support is also likely from the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, which
is a PPP ally in Sindh province and is waiting in the wings to join the federal cabinet
as well and a section of the opposition Pakistan Muslim League-Q. “We “We will try and
develop a minimum consensus to effectively move forward to combat (terrorism),”
(terrorism),”
Mr Rabbani said. “It“It is not (continuation of) the Musharraf policy,”
policy,” he said and
added that the joint sitting debate was in line with commitments of the Charter of
Democracy signed by assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif in
2006 to make parliament relevant in running the affairs of the country and develop
consensus on all major issue confronting the nation. According to him, it was a
demonstration of the supremacy of parliament that army was brought in to give a
briefing to a joint session for the first time. He said an in-camera debate was
preferred only to “avoid
“avoid petty point-scoring at a critical time in the country’s
history”
history” and rather try to build a consensus.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Faruqui faruqui@pacbell.net 13.10.08

– The beginning of history

As the last century drew to a close, it was the Soviet Union and not the United
States that found itself dumped in the “dustbin
“dustbin of history”.
history”. Karl Marx, who coined
this phrase to represent the end-state of capitalism, would not have been pleased.
An era of unchecked prosperity and world peace led by the US beckoned on the
horizon. Against this backdrop, Francis Fukuyama penned The End of History and
the Last Man.
Man. He argued that the world was witnessing “not“not just the end of the Cold
War or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history
as such.”
such.” Fukuyama went on to say that man’s ideological evolution had reached an
endpoint with the triumph of western liberal democracy. Such pulpit oratory, as The
Economist put it, was well suited to the spirit of the 1990s. It cracked as the dot-
com bubble burst in the spring of 2000. And the devastation unleashed by 9/11
swept it out to sea. Events would show that the new century represented not the
end of history but its beginning. Henceforth, conflict and not cooperation would be
the hallmark of the human condition. At the cusp of the 20th century, South Asia
was jolted by a series of nuclear explosions. Pakistan’s fateful decision to launch a
ballistic missile on April 6, 1998 may have been the provocation India needed to
come out of the nuclear closet. It came out swinging in mid-May with five nuclear
tests at Pokhran, less than a hundred miles from the border with Pakistan. In a
couple of weeks, Pakistan gave a “fitting reply” by hitting a six. As the world united
in its disapproval of these tests, the prime ministers of both countries signed a
declaration of peace in Lahore in February 1999. But behind the scenes, Pakistan’s
army had already launched an incursion into Kargil. The ensuing military fiasco
would precipitate a coup d’etat in Pakistan in October. The following year would be
taken up by Gen Musharraf’s feeble attempts to acquire legitimacy. The man whom
the world regarded as a pariah would turn into a hero when he dumped the Taliban
under US pressure. Unfortunately, by refusing to make a similar U-turn in domestic
policy, he sealed his fate. The war in Afghanistan, which deposed the Taliban from
Kabul, failed to bring about the much-awaited capture of Osama bin Laden. The
ensuing civilian casualties fuelled widespread anti-Americanism in Pakistan.

On Dec 13, 2001 a small group of terrorists carried out a failed attack on the
parliament building in New Delhi. This led to the mobilisation of a million troops
along the India-Pakistan border. Western diplomatic pressure on the antagonists
narrowly averted Armageddon. But the recalcitrant jihadis remained committed to
wresting Kashmir from India. They would later morph into the Pakistani Taliban and
wreak havoc at home through a chain of suicide bombings. As the 20th century due
to a close, America was celebrating one of the longest periods of economic growth
under President Bill Clinton. The biggest worry was that a global computer
malfunction might occur as the year 2000, or the Y2K problem as it was dubbed,
had arrived. But this never happened. Soon after a Republican president took office
whose verbal impotence soon became the butt of all jokes. But George W. Bush
found his voice after 9/11. He would work to implement the Project for the New
American Century which had been hammered into shape by the neo-conservatives
in the wake of his father’s defeat to Bill Clinton. The plan called for remaking the
Middle East, and to ensure the smooth flow of oil to the West and the security of
Israel. Oil continued to be the engine of growth in the Middle East. But while
economic growth was brisk — as it had been since the escalation in oil prices
following the October 1973 war and the Iranian revolution — the distribution of
income continued to worsen. In the Arab world, population growth was rapid and
unemployment levels, especially among the youth, were high. Political rights were
non-existent and human rights only partly in evidence. Israel, a self-proclaimed
democracy, continued to deny political freedoms to the Palestinians living in the
territories it had occupied illegally in 1967.

The impact of 9/11 was felt hugely in the region, since the official American
position, unchallenged by any Arab state, was that all the attackers were Arabs and
15 of the 19 were from Saudi Arabia. The US began to withdraw its forces from that
country, in a concession to terror mastermind Osama bin Laden. But it also geared
up to invade Iraq, which the Bush administration said was a grave danger to world
peace. US Vice-President Dick Cheney toured the Arab capitals in the spring of 2002
but failed to garner any public support for the planned invasion. Nevertheless, the
US went through with its plans the following year. The regime of Saddam Hussain
was deposed in three weeks but no weapons of mass destruction were found. The
war fuelled the birth of an insurgency whose existence was first denied by the US,
then conceded grudgingly with the proviso that it was “in its last throes.” Now, we
are told, a temporary surge in American forces has vanquished it. As the eighth
year of the new century draws to a close, the US finds itself mired in the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression of 1929. While the causes are many, it is
clear that the two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taken their toll. The
government which Washington installed in Baghdad wants the Americans to leave
soon. And Washington may soon be inviting the Taliban to join the government in
Kabul. Pakistan’s economy was struggling even before the price of oil crossed a
hundred dollars a barrel. Now it is in free fall. Standard and Poor’s has downgraded
its sovereign rating twice this year, pushing it into junk territory. In a recent
interview with The Wall Street Journal,
Journal, Musharraf’s successor telegraphed his
demand to the West: “Give
“Give me $100bn.”
$100bn.” But this won’t be called aid, which is
“proven to be bad for a country.”
country.” He will not spend the money, just use it to restore
investor confidence “every
“every time there is a bomb”.
bomb”. Fukuyama was half right. Old
history has ended. And a new one has begun. ¦ The writer is the author of
Musharraf’s Pakistan, Bush’s America and the Middle East. East.

Author Location Dated

Dr. Shahid Siddiqui shahidksiddiqui@yahoo.co 13.10.08
 m

– Education & female empowerment

If we trace the history of female education in United India we do not come across
many initiatives in terms of modern education that could help women obtain a job.
On the other hand we see opposition to such educational initiatives on sociocultural
pretexts. One school of thought didn’t approve of any kind of education for girls.
The other school of thought allowed only rudimentary religious education for girls.
Modern education was considered to be injurious to women. In one of the most
popular books written for women, Bahishti Zevar (Heavenly Ornament),
Ornament), which was
part of the dowry for girls in most Muslim families in India, Ashraf Ali Thanvi
suggested that “Only
“Only men need to do a job. Since men are responsible for the
livelihood of women and since women need to observe purdah, job-related
knowledge cannot be acquired by women. Thus this kind of education is useless for
women and just a waste of time; rather it is hazardous for women.”
women.” This denial of
education had less to do with religious reasons and more so with the sociocultural
milieu of United India where women were confined to the household. After partition
in 1947 we saw the emergence in India and Pakistan of a number of institutions for
women. In the Sharif Commission report of 1959 it was proposed that equal
facilities be provided, “in
“in terms of quantity and quality, for the education of boys
and girls”.
girls”. This proposal was not taken in its true spirit because most of the reform
plans for the betterment of female education in Pakistan focused on numbers. A
number of donor-funded projects aimed simply at enhancing the literacy rate. This
quantitative approach saw to it that end-of-project reports demonstrated the impact
in terms of increased numbers. But the problem is much more deeply rooted and
just enhancing numbers cannot address it. The current literacy rate suggests that
there is still a large gap in the male and female literacy rates. The reasons for
relatively low female literacy rate are diverse: poverty, lack of awareness,
sociocultural taboos and location of schools in farflung areas where the environment
isn’t considered safe.

Quantitative expansion, which has been the focus of most funded projects, is
important but enhanced numbers alone cannot tackle the gender disparity in our
society. It is the qualitative aspect which needs to be addressed if we are really
interested in bridging gender gaps. There has been an increase in the number of
educational institutions for boys and girls. Some of them are qualitatively superior
to others, and this difference has been further widened with the advent of private
schools. A large number of girls do have access to school but the question is, what
is the quality of these educational institutions? Mansoor et al report that “In
“In private
schools, including junior schools, where the medium of instruction is English, boys
are more likely to attend these private schools. Parents are reluctant to send their
daughters to these schools because most of them are co-educational.”
co-educational.” Once they
manage to enter a school, girls are exposed to gender-biased books. In the recent
past there have been some attempts to purge the textbooks of sexist material. But
more important perhaps is the class where the teacher’s every action and utterance
constructs the curriculum. There is a common observation that in a co-ed class the
boys tend to engage teachers aggressively in terms of participation. Classrooms are
important places where certain gender stereotypes are validated and perpetuated.
Teachers’ discourse and actions may approve the gendered behaviour at conscious
or unconscious levels. Education, which is supposed to broaden the intellectual
horizons of children and lead them to emancipation, seems to fail in its fundamental
objective. The gender stereotypes which need to be challenged in schools are
further strengthened in the dynamics of teaching and learning in a transmission
mode. The current notion of education is generally to get a certificate or degree to
be eligible to get a job in the market. The real function of education, i.e. to develop
critical thinking skills and to bring about changes at the individual and societal
levels, is either ignored or underestimated.

Challenging gender stereotypes in terms of roles, expectations and opportunities is

crucial for girls as well as boys. For boys it is important to see that most of the
gender stereotypes are based on myths and there is no scientific basis for male
superiority. On the other hand girls, who are the target of these stereotypes, are
influenced to the extent of ‘spontaneous consent’, as Gramsci would put it. It is
important for girls to shed the illusions of an artificially created world where they
are helpless and can never improve their state of being. Education in its essence
should aim at enhancing the choices and opportunities at the personal and public
levels by challenging certain stereotypes regarding women in terms of their roles
and expectations. But what is actually happening on the ground? A large number of
bright female students, after performing excellently in professional educational
programmes, either do not take up jobs or have to quit their jobs because their
husbands or in-laws do not approve of their presence in the workplace. This
questions the very validity of education which has not been able to bring about any
changes vis-à-vis the roles of men and women in society. It suggests that there is
something lacking in the kind of education our schools are providing to the young.
The missing aspect is the critical thinking that allows learners to raise questions,
look for alternatives and transform their lives and ultimately their society.
As we emphasise the quantitative enhancement in the female literacy rate, we
should be cognisant of the fact that education per se is not a source of
empowerment for girls as it is not transforming their status in terms of their roles,
expectations and opportunities. If we are interested in real change, we need to be
concerned about the quality of education and plan to improve it in a systematic
manner. ¦ The writer is director of the Centre for Humanities and Social
Sciences at Lahore School of Economics and author of Rethinking
Education in Pakistan.
Pakistan.

Author Location Dated

Arifa Noor 13.10.08

– If you can’t kill the fish

We are fighting a war in the north of the country. And the nation is so busy arguing
over whether we should fight it at all that no one seems to pay attention to an
equally critical question: what sort of a war is this? To begin with, this is not a
conventional war that involves armies and states facing off, looking to capture
territory and aiming to defeat the enemy. In such a war, the rules of engagement
are clear and the civilians distinguishable from the combatants. The conflict in
northern Pakistan is also not a conventional insurgency, as many assume. Most
well-known conventional insurgencies — such as those led by the likes of Mao
Zedong, Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh — focused as much on winning ‘hearts and
minds’ as on engaging and defeating the enemy. In Mao’s words, an insurgency will
succeed only if the insurgents can move through society as fish through water. This
is not necessarily the relationship the Taliban enjoy with the people of the tribal
areas and the North-West Frontier Province. In many cases, the militants have
gained control through terrorising local people, not by winning them over. People
have been flogged and beheaded in public, ostensibly to curb crime but also as part
of a ‘shock and awe’ campaign. What the Taliban are doing is not unique, though:
this has been so in many conflicts around the world in the second half of the 20th
century. For one, the conflict in the Balkans involved similar tactics as did the wars
between Hutus and Tutsis in Central Africa and the guerrilla war in Columbia. All
these conflicts have so many new but common features that some social scientists
have labelled them ‘new wars’ to distinguish them from old-fashioned ones. The
militants’ relationship with people is not the only distinguishing feature of these new
conflicts. A second distinctive characteristic is that the warring parties — or at least
one of them — define their identity in terms different from those that the state uses
to define it. Many, for instance, see the conflict in the tribal areas as involving
Pakhtuns on both sides of the Durand Line. Many in the Awami National Party, for
instance, believe that the Pakhtuns living both in Pakistan and Afghanistan are the
victims in this conflict and they are suffering at the hands of all warring parties —
the Pakistani military, the Taliban and the allied forces in Afghanistan. This is
certainly not how the state in Pakistan or Afghanistan, or even the United States,
sees the trouble in the tribal areas. A third distinguishing characteristic is a
relatively lesser focus on the economics of such conflicts. Sub-state fighters in these
conflicts finance themselves not just through external assistance but also through
crime. Robberies, kidnappings for ransom and drug trafficking have become
common, and the militants extort protection money from ordinary citizens and legal
businesses. Observers of the conflict in the tribal region will be able to testify that
this is the situation in the region today.

The tribal areas, by virtue of their legal and economic isolation from the state, have
always served as a hub of drug trafficking and arms smuggling besides acting as
markets for stolen items and fields of operations for the timber mafia. All this
affords a lucrative source of revenue for the militants operating in these areas. The
Taliban either protect all these illegal businesses for a fee or they have joined hands
with those running them. Even in this they are behaving like their Columbian
counterparts who support themselves through the drugs trade. Another parallel can
be drawn with the Bosnian Croats who, during the conflict in the Balkans, charged
‘customs duties’ for allowing humanitarian aid to pass through. A necessary
outcome of crime and conflict getting mixed up is that the militants and illegal
businesses become interdependent. The fighters cannot sustain their war effort
without the money they ‘earn’ from the illegal and informal economy in their area
while illegal businesses flourish and thrive, secure in the knowledge that the state’s
laws and regulations will never catch up with them because of the conflict. The
climate of insecurity works to the advantage of both: peace does not suit either of
them. The need to highlight the distinguishing characteristics of these conflicts
arises from the fact that there are no quick-fix solutions. The use of indiscriminate
military force is certainly not one: this is perhaps the most important lesson that
those fighting old-fashioned insurgencies (remember the Americans in Vietnam)
have learnt the hard way. Those fighting the so-called new wars would do well to
keep this in mind.
Another equally important lesson from these out-of-style insurgencies is that a
dialogue has to take place between the warring parties at some stage. Some
‘terrorists’ or ‘mass murderers’ will have to be spoken to. London did it with the
Irish Republican Army and Tel Aviv did it with the Palestinian Liberation
Organisation and Yasser Arafat. To expect that Islamabad can be an exception to
this rule is only unrealistic. If it has to happen anyway one may as well be prepared
for it. But while the use of force and dialogue has to go hand in hand, there can be
no discounting the need for curbing the militants’ sources of revenue. In order to
choke this essential supply of financial oxygen to the militants, the state needs to
deal strictly with the informal and mostly illegal economy in the tribal areas. If the
state had already extended its reach to these areas — along with its accompanying
systems and infrastructure such as laws, enforcement agencies, and education and
employment opportunities — the illegal business activity would not have been there
as a ready source of money for the militants. In other words, militias would have
also found it much more difficult to find willing recruits to their cause if
unemployment in the tribal areas was not as high as it is now. Enforcing the writ of
the state and creating and giving jobs are, however, only one part of the solution.
The rest comes from assuring local people that peace will provide them the
economic dividends that the conflict has robbed them of. If they are made to
believe this, they can also be expected to organise local resistance to the militias on
their own. More than anything else, Islamabad requires a commitment that is long
term and development efforts that are not seen as aid or compensation. Apparently
it was aware of this when the military first went into the tribal areas in 2003: it went
in promising to construct roads, schools and other infrastructure and the Americans
promised to provide financial help for all that. But soon the focus shifted from
building schools and hospitals to using violence and dropping bombs. Five years
later, it is still not too late. To return to Mao’s remarks, if we have not been able to
kill the fish, perhaps it is time to drain the water in which it swims.

Author Location Dated

Khaled Hosseini Washington, D.C. 13.10.08

– McCain, Palin are playing with fire

I prefer to discuss politics through my novels, but I am truly dismayed these days.
Twice last week alone, speakers at McCain-Palin rallies have referred to Sen. Barack
Obama, with unveiled scorn, as Barack Hussein Obama. Never mind that this
evokes and brazenly tries to resurrect the unsavoury, cruel days of our past that we
thought we had left behind. Never mind that such jeers are deeply offensive to
millions of peaceful, law-abiding Muslim Americans who must bear the unveiled
charge, made by some supporters of Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin, that
Obama’s middle name makes him someone to distrust and, judging by some of the
crowd reactions at these rallies, someone to persecute or even kill. As a secular
Muslim, I too was offended. Obama’s middle name differs from my last name by
only two vowels. Does the McCain-Palin campaign view me as a pariah too? Do
McCain and Palin think there’s something wrong with my name? But never mind any
of that. The real affront is the lack of firm response from either McCain or Palin.
Neither has had the moral courage, when taking the stage, to grasp the
microphone, turn to the presenter and, right then and there, denounce the use of
Obama’s middle name as an insult. Instead, they have simply delivered their stump
speeches, lacing into Obama as if nothing out-of-bounds had just happened. The
McCain-Palin ticket has given toxic speeches accusing Obama of being a friend of
terrorists, then released short, meek repudiations of some of the rough stuff,
including McCain’s call Friday to ‘be respectful’. Back in February, the Arizona
senator apologised for the ‘disparaging remarks’ from a talk-radio host who sneered
repeatedly about ‘Barack Hussein Obama’ before a McCain rally. “We “We will have a
respectful debate,”
debate,” McCain insisted afterward. But pretending to douse flames that
you are busy fanning does not qualify as straight talk.

What I find most unconscionable is the refusal of the McCainPalin tandem to publicly
condemn the cries of ‘traitor’, ‘liar’, ‘terrorist’ and (worst of all) ‘kill him!’ that could
be heard at recent rallies. McCain is perfectly capable of telling hecklers off. But not
once did he or his running mate bother to admonish the people yelling these
obscene and potentially dangerous words. They may not have been able to hear the
slurs at the rallies, but surely they have had ample time since to get on camera and
warn that this sort of ugliness has no place in an election season. But they have not.
Simply calling Obama a decent person’ is not enough. Is inaction tantamount to
consent? The McCain campaign certainly thinks so when it comes to Obama and
incendiary remarks from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. By their own inaction, then, are
McCain and Palin condoning these slurs? Or worse, are they willfully inciting the
angry and venomous response that we have been witnessing at their rallies? If not,
then what reaction are they hoping to evoke by their relentless public suggestions
that Obama is basically an antiAmerican liar who won’t put ‘country first’ and has
an affection for terrorists? Do they not understand the kind of fire they are playing
with? I and, I suspect, millions of Americans like me, Republicans and Democrats
alike – couldn’t care less about Obama’s middle name or the ridiculous six-degrees-
of-separation game that is the William Ayers non-issue. The Taliban are clawing
their way back in Afghanistan, the country that I hope many of my fellow Americans
have come to understand better through my novels. People are losing their homes
and their jobs and are watching the future slip away from them. But instead of
addressing these problems, the McCain-Palin ticket is doing its best to distract
Americans by provoking fear, anxiety and hatred. Country first? Hardly. — Khaled
Hosseini is the author of ‘The Kite Runner’ and ‘A Thousand Splendid
Suns’.
Suns’.

Author Location Dated

Ben Feller Washington, D.C. 13.10.08

– Last 100 days to feature ‘no letting up’ for President Bush
So how will it end? President George W. Bush is down to his final 100 days in office
as of Sunday. Don’t expect a quiet fade into the Texas night. The bleakest economic
downturn in decades has changed the dynamic drastically, keeping Bush and his
financial team in activist mode to the end. While the powerful heads of the Treasury
Department and the Federal Reserve keep making radical moves, no one elected
them. Bush is the one charged with reassuring the nation that an abysmal economic
period will give way to better days, even if he is long gone from Washington by the
time that happens. The president will keep speaking about the economy, calling
world leaders about it, meeting with business owners, perhaps attending an
overseas summit. His final act will be overseeing the $700 billion buyout of
devalued assets from banks, in hopes that credit will start flowing to an anxious,
weary country. “It
“It looks like I’m going to have a lot of work to do between today
and when the new president takes office,”
office,” Bush said this past week. The scope of
the credit crisis is so vast that it will likely overshadow anything else Bush does
before he leaves office on Jan 20. “We“We will stand together in addressing this threat
to our prosperity. We will do what it takes to resolve this crisis. And the world’s
economy will emerge stronger as a result,”
result,” the president said on Saturday in the
Rose Garden after meeting with finance ministers from the world’s economic
powers. People are panicked about their retirement accounts and the markets are
reeling. Behind the daily drumbeat of bleak economic news, Bush leaves behind a
national debt that has soared from less than $6 trillion when he took office to more
than $10 trillion now. That staggering bill will fall on future generations to pay.

Beyond the financial mess, there is a daunting list of unfinished items for a
president who has a history of making bold promises. But hope and time are
diminishing. Before his presidency ended, Bush wanted a Mideast peace deal built
around the outlines of Palestinian state. That is unlikely. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert resigned in a corruption scandal, negotiations stalled and the same issues
that have divided the parties for decades seem as irreconcilable as ever. The
ambitious priority of pushing an international effort to rid North Korea of its nuclear
arms has made late progress, but the communist country has a spotty record of
following through on its pledges. After North Korea relented on nuclear inspection
demands, the US on Saturday erased the North from a terrorism blacklist. Bush’s
diplomats acknowledge the challenge of verifying any claims from what one official
calls “the
“the most secret and opaque regime in the entire world”.
world”. Perhaps most
notably, the United States and Iraq still are without an agreement governing the
presence of US forces after Dec 31, when the UN mandate runs out. The two sides
are hung up over legal jurisdiction for US troops and contractors, and a timeline for
US withdrawal. On top of that, White House staff members are devoting valuable
amounts of time to pave the way for the next president. The transition between
administrations, always a complicated endeavour, is the first in the post-Sept 11
world. And it comes with the US at war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush has made
clear to those who work for him that he wants a smooth transition to the next
president. In terms of the sheer time and energy involved, Bush counsellor Ed
Gillespie said: “I
“I suspect the last 100 days are going to feel more like the first 100
days than any of us would have hoped.”
hoped.” The last days of an administration can be
filled with desires to wrap up issues, if not desperation. Michael Green, Bush’s
former senior adviser on Asia, said he expects no dramatic gestures or concessions
from the White House in the pursuit of final deals. He said challenges such as the
nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran will be passed on in the best possible
position, keeping diplomatic efforts intact. “My
“My sense is they’re not going for a
lastminute grab at glory that would put the next administration in a bad position,”
position,”
said Green, an analyst for the Center for Strategic and International Studies,
Studies, a
Washington think-tank.

Meanwhile, just when all his clout was supposed to be gone, Bush has scored some
recent victories. He signed a civil nuclear cooperation deal with India and won
approval for oil drilling off the US coastlines, both of which have lasting implications.
The White House holds dim hopes that Congress could take up trade deals with
Colombia and South Korea if it holds a lame-duck session after the election. In what
has already been his busiest year of foreign travel as president, Bush has at least
one more trip left. He plans to go to Peru in November for the annual summit of
leaders of Pacific Rim nations. There is always the possibility of a trip the White
House never announced in advance for security reasons, such as a final visit by
Bush to Iraq. Bush also is expected to do a final review of pardons and
commutations. His predecessor, Bill Clinton, pardoned 140 people in the closing
hours of his presidency. Don’t expect Bush to do that. Gillespie said the president
will likely make those decisions “well
“well in advance of leaving office”.
office”. It was not so
long ago that Bush, after almost eight long years and diminishing public approval,
might have seemed on a path for a quiet exit. But then came Russia’s war with
Georgia, more Gulf Coast hurricanes and the worst financial crisis since the stock
market crash of 1929. Now Bush is out in front of the cameras a lot, talking about
what it will take to set up the financial rescue program effectively. “There
“There will be a
desire to work every day on this bailout, because they will want to have everything
set before the next guy comes in,” in,” said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for
Tax Reform. A conservative friend of the administration but a critic of the taxpayer-
funded $700 billion plan, Norquist said: “If “If you chose to give the treasury secretary
billions of dollars to play with, why would you want to hand it over to the next guy?”guy?”
The election is in 23 days. Said Gillespie of Bush: “People
“People will not have any doubt
that just because he’s at the end of a second term, he’s not letting up at all.”all.”

Author Location Dated

Chicago, Illinois 13.10.08

– Fierce
new
row
rocks
White
House
race
A war of
words with
racial
undertones
marked the
White House
race on
Sunday after
civil rights
icon John
Lewis accused
Republican
John McCain of
sowing
“hatred”
against Barack Obama. McCain, who has been trying to tamp down abuse of the
Democratic nominee at his campaign events, reacted furiously, lashing out against
Lewis, who only a few weeks ago he described as one of the Americans he most
admired. The latest political turbulence came just over three weeks before the Nov
4 election, with Obama building a steady lead over McCain on the national level,
and on the state-by-state electoral map. It also overshadowed another controversy,
the legislative probe finding in Alaska that state governor and Republican vice-
presidential nominee Sarah Palin had abused her power in a feud involving her ex-
brother-in-law. Congressman Lewis, revered as one of the key figures in the US civil
rights movement, ignited a political firestorm by issuing a statement about McCain’s
recent searing character attacks on Obama. “As “As public figures with the power to
influence and persuade, Senator McCain and Governor Palin are playing with fire,
and if they are not careful, that fire will consume us all,”
all,” Lewis said. Republicans
“are sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility
in our political discourse.”
discourse.” He also appeared to suggest attacks on Obama were
reminiscent of late segregationist Alabama governor and presidential candidate
George Wallace, whose rhetoric in 1963 was blamed for a church bombing in
Birmingham, Alabama, that killed four little girls. McCain said Lewis had launched a
“character attack against Governor Sarah Palin and me that is shocking and beyond
the pale.”
pale.” He said Lewis’ apparent reference to Wallace was “unacceptable
“unacceptable and has
no place in this campaign.”
campaign.” McCain also called on Obama “to “to immediately and
personally repudiate these outrageous and divisive comments.”
comments.” Later, Lewis issued
a second statement in an apparent attempt to defuse the row, saying he had not
meant to draw a link between Wallace and McCain. “My “My statement was a reminder
to all Americans that toxic language can lead to destructive behaviour. I am glad
that Senator McCain has taken some steps to correct divisive speech at his rallies,”
rallies,”
he said. Chants of “terrorist” and “kill him” were reportedly heard at recent McCain
events and some commentators blamed hard-hitting negative advertisements
which claimed Obama consorted with a domestic “terrorist” — 1960s radical William
Ayers.

On Friday, McCain was forced to intervene twice at a town hall meeting in

Minnesota after one voter described Obama as “an Arab” and another said he was
“scared” of the Democratic nominee. The race flap, as well as the financial crisis,
dominated the Sunday talk shows. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, on CBS
television’s “Face
“Face the Nation,”
Nation,” said: “The
“The idea that John McCain and Sarah Palin are
conducting themselves like George Wallace is just incredibly offensive.”
offensive.” He added:
“We are not going to take this. We are going to challenge Senator Obama’s record
versus his rhetoric.”
rhetoric.” Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said that the Illinois
senator did not believe in the comparison between McCain and Wallace. But he said
Lewis “was
“was right to condemn some of the hateful rhetoric that John McCain himself
personally rebuked.”
rebuked.” Palin earlier denied wrongdoing after a probe found she had
abused voters’ trust as Alaska governor. The legislative investigation found Palin
had violated ethics rules by letting husband Todd pressure senior officials for the
firing of her ex-brother-in-law, a state trooper. Asked in Pennsylvania if the charges
were true, Palin replied: “No,
“No, and if you read the report you will see that there was
nothing unlawful or unethical about it. You have to read the report.”
report.” The report said
that Palin had “the
“the authority and power to require Mr Palin to cease contacting
subordinates, but she failed to act.”
act.” McCain campaign manager Rick Davis tried to
draw a line under the furor, saying on Fox News Sunday: “It “It was a great public
circus (but) the bottom line is that this thing now drops dead.”
dead.” But with Obama
gaining in the polls, The New York Times reported on Sunday that Republican
leaders were worried McCain was heading for defeat unless he brought stability to
his campaign and settled on a clear message. “You’re
“You’re starting to feel real
frustration because we are running out of time. Our message, the campaign’s
message, isn’t connecting,”
connecting,” Saul Anuzis, the Republican chairman in Michigan, was
quoted by the paper as saying.

Author Location Dated

A.B. Shahid 13.10.08

– Market liquidity: coming challenges

Governments everywhere are assuring savers, investors and borrowers that,
despite the global financial crisis, market players will be supported in meeting their
commitments. But for the eighth consecutive day, market reaction to the “bailout”
plans announced by many governments continues to reflect low confidence in those
promises that need strengthening through concrete action. In Pakistan, the first
such assurance was held out by the Governor SBP last week; politicians still haven’t
worked out a strategy, although it is high time they did so. Only the PM’s Economic
Advisor broadly repeated (a day after his appointment) what market observers have
been proposing about cutting fiscal debt and imports, and re-building exchange
reserves through the few unfavourable options available including borrowing from
the IMF. While SBP’s view that banks are “resilient” is reassuring, it may prove over
optimistic unless steps are initiated quickly to ensure sustained liquidity of the
financial system. Pakistan simply can’t afford any bank failure. Blaming cash
withdrawals for Eid shopping is not fair. Since July, bank deposits have fallen by
Rs106 billion. Beginning of the season for textile mills to avail credit for buying
cotton – an annual event – has just begun to squeeze market liquidity. This annual
crunch begins in October and lasts well into February. This track record, and
unbridled government borrowing indicated what was to follow. There are reports of
public sector entities shifting large deposits from private to public sector banks (to
fund rising government debt), some banks occasionally not meeting their payment
commitments, and cash shortages in a handful of branches that delayed payment
to depositors. These incidents, thankfully isolated, are signs that require immediate
remedial action.

It is therefore odd that SBP delayed cut the cash reserve requirement (CRR)
although liquidity crunch in the market for a while was reflected in the overnight
borrowing rates shooting up to 40 per cent per annum., even higher for some
troubled NBFIs. The un-admitted reality is the pressure caused by government
borrowing (Rs173 billion in July- August), which delayed the one per cent cut in CRR
because it meant immediate return of about Rs30 billion to the banks. Apparently,
one miscalculation isn’t enough. That’s why we are yet to hear about a premium
over LIBOR on foreign currency deposits that are easier to attract than the billions
of dollars the ‘Friends of Pakistan’ aren’t yet willing to lend. SBP’s promise to meet
the market’s foreign currency needs (although stabilising) can’t be stretched for
long, given the fast depleting reserves. Whether Mr Tarin’s promise about raising $5
billion actually materialise, is anybody’s guess. During a rapid economic slide, slow
recovery of credit causes market ill-liquidity. Serious doubts about banks’ ability to
repay deposits result in their withdrawal. On top thereof, rumours about freezing of
foreign currency deposits and bank lockers, accelerated the flight of capital, which
has been going on since late 2007 but hasn’t been checked tactfully. To worsen
matters, government borrowing, that crossed all earlier records, added to the
liquidity crunch. Banks did lend unwisely but regulations permitted them to
outsource risk marketing, create portfolios in highly loss-prone equities, allow
borrowing up to Rs2 million through credit cards, and lend to individuals sums
whose monthly instalments could be as high as half the borrower’s disposable
income (i.e. after deducting tax, provident fund and existing liability payments), and
that too on floating rates of mark-up whose impact defies estimation. Markets
wherein savers can easily retrieve their deposits, can be revived. Illliquid markets
weaken saver/investor confidence; reviving it takes a gigantic effort. It is tougher
for markets that permit too many innovations about which the stakeholders lack
sense i.e. financial literacy about the fallout from personal, housing and project
borrowing (all long-term) on unpredictable floating mark-up rates. With inflation
unlikely to drop to the single digit in near future, cash flows of the industry and
consumers will shrink reducing their debt servicing ability. This may slow the pace
of loan recovery and may soon begin to strain banks’ ability for timely repayment of
deposits. While the depositors will increasingly be forced to consume their savings
to bear the increased cost of living, courtesy unbridled inflation that the
government seems completely unable to check. The ceremonial importance
attached by both banks and regulators to matching asset-liability tenors, and the
flawed practice of funding longer-term loans out of short-term deposits assuming
that market liquidity will plug the mismatch-caused funding gaps, was a disaster in-
the-making.

With the entire financial sector under strain, that disaster could materialise without
a firm collective commitment to prevent it. Banks with weak loan portfolios will
come under greater strain due to loose lending, of which we saw a lot in recent
years because of a mad pursuit of profit tactlessly permitted by a weak regulatory
regime, and virtually no regulation of the support sectors that help secure and
ensure timely repayment. This is an undeniable flaw that will take its toll. Banks
must be cautious in managing their weak loan portfolios. Merely pressurising
borrowers won’t help; bankers must spend more time with the borrowers to help
plan and implement recovery strategies and re-structure their facilities to ensure
that not many loans go sour because of market-generated stress beyond borrowers’
survival capacity. Businesses must survive to flourish later on as, hopefully, things
get better. Bankers must remember that they face a mix of external and internal
malaise, and its remedy doesn’t lie in killing the bird that lays the golden eggs.
Business and industry must survive so that that millions aren’t made jobless for no
fault of theirs. For a while, we must forget about making profit; the priority should
be implementing a strategy to survive – the ability the world will watch before
lending a helping hand. Exporters must act responsibly by expediting quick
recovery of export proceeds to rebuild exchange reserves and stem the rupee’s
seemingly unstoppable slide. Unless they act, the depreciating rupee will compound
their misery – cost of doing business will keep rising and place all foreign markets
out of their reach. Let us not forget that higher exports are imperative for rebuilding
the confidence of foreign investors. Nearly 54 percent of exports go to the US and
Europe – regions witnessing a sharp fall in consumer demand. Exporters must
hurriedly locate new buyers in Far East Asia, which has suffered less from the global
financial turmoil. This isn’t the time to give in but to explore all viable options.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal 13.10.08

– Friends Group — ‘strategic partners, not donors’

When the so-called Friends of Pakistan Group met in New York on Sept 26 on the
sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly session, many of us thought
dollars will start flowing quickly to help the country overcome its current balance of
payments crisis and prevent its economic slide. But the euphoria died down in a few
hours when the ‘friends’ did not make any firm pledge of aid. “It “It was wrong to
attach hopes (of immediate relief) with the meeting (of the group); nobody carries
cheque books in his hands,”
hands,” Mr Naveed Qamar, who participated in the meeting as
the country’s finance minister, told Dawn. “The
“The Friends of Pakistan Group, though a
permanent body, is not an Aid to Pakistan Consortium. It isn’t an economic body; it
isn’t a donors’ forum. It is a much wider forum than that, in which we can discuss all
issues where we need international support,”
support,” he said. A statement issued after the
meeting said the Friends of Pakistan welcomed focus of the Pakistani leadership on
national development as a strategic priority and desire to promote peace and
stability in both the country and the region. “The
“The group would work closely with
Pakistan to develop a comprehensive and a well coordinated security and political
strategy for bringing about stability (in this country and the region),”
region),” the former
finance minister said. “Since
“Since no strategic partnership can work without being
backed by a solid economy, we also expect our friends to help us in this area as
well,”
well,” he said. Mr Qamar’s words echo the statement made by President Asif Zardari
soon after the meeting of the group. “The
“The Friends of Pakistan conference was not a
donors’ conference. We wanted to create a strategic partnership as Pakistan is a
front-line state in the ongoing war on terror... this war has cast negative impact on
our economy,”
economy,” the president was reported to have said. He sounded quite optimistic
about help from the group when he described the outcome of the conference as
“very constructive”. “All
“All of them want to help. They want to make democracy
work... and help it deal with the economic challenges the country faces,”
faces,” the
president said.

His optimism was backed by United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
who pledged her country’s support for the steps Pakistan must take for economic
reforms. “I“I hope that the president (Zardari) and the Pakistani people were assured
today that the international community will be by their side as they take difficult
decisions and work for a more stable and prosperous Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” she said. British
Foreign Secretary David Miliband described the meeting as “a “a very strong signal of
political and economic support to the democratically elected government in
Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. He said every single country that joined the Friends of Pakistan Group
“stands shoulder to shoulder with Pakistan... equally important every single one of
our countries stands shoulder to shoulder with the democratically elected
government and the people of Pakistan in their struggle against terrorism...”
terrorism...” UAE
Foreign Minister Shaikh Abdullah bin Zayed said his country fully backed the
initiative to “show
“show our commitment to Pakistan”.
Pakistan”. The Friends of Pakistan Group
initiative was launched by London and Washington on the request of Mr Zardari to
help Pakistan avert an economic collapse, and the United Arab Emirates
government is understood to have lent immense support to the idea. Besides rich
G-7 nations, the conference was attended by UAE, China, and Turkey. The European
Union and the United Nations had also sent their representatives. Saudi Arabia, who
didn’t participate in the New York meeting, is also likely to join the forum at its next
meeting. Mr Qamar said that the Asian Development Bank and the World Bank also
wanted to become part of the group when it holds its next meeting. Though no date
has so far been firmed up, the group is scheduled to meet in Abu Dhabi at the end
of this month to discuss the strategy to take forward the agenda. Mr Qamar sought
to dispel the reports that the group or some of its members want Islamabad to
come up with concrete and specific proposals for economic assistance. “They“They
haven’t asked for this. But it surely is in our own interest to firm up specific
proposals before we go into next meeting,”
meeting,” he said.

In its inaugural meeting, which was primarily attended by the foreign ministers of
most participating nations, the group agreed that they “should
“should work in strategic
partnership with Pakistan and other relevant partners”
partners” in such areas as stability,
counterterrorism, development, institution building, economy, etc. “The “The Friends of
Pakistan is a group that will support Pakistan’s democratic government in its efforts
to consolidate democracy, ensure rule of law, bring about political stability and
promote social and economic development in the country,”
country,” said a finance ministry
official who refused to give his name. “Our
“Our friends have assured us of their support
to undertake crucial economic reforms. They have agreed to provide our exporters
greater access to their markets as well as encourage their investors to invest in our
economy,”
economy,” the official said. But officials are not sure if the group will be able to help
Islamabad in the short-term over next few weeks and months to overcome its cash
flow problems as its current account deficit grows to $2.57 billion in the first two
months of the current financial year from $1.57 billion last year and foreign
currency reserves falls to $8.3 billion from $16.4 billion a year ago as almost all
sources of foreign capital inflows have either dried up or slowed down. The
economic analysts suggest that Islamabad may find it difficult to meet its sovereign
debt obligations in January and cover the widening current account gap unless it is
able to raise over $10 billion over the next few months. “We “We are hoping for a few
firm pledges of cash support for economy at the Abu Dhabi meeting. But don’t
expect too much too soon. We are not looking forward to any aid or grant from the
group any time soon. We want investment in our energy, manufacturing,
agricultural and other sectors of economy to turn it around,”
around,” the anonymous official
said. “There
“There will be enhanced economic cooperation with our friends, and over time,
we shall see investment inflows,”
inflows,” Mr Qamar said.

Author Location Dated

13.10.08

– Rupee’s steep fall against dollar

Pakistan’s balance of payments is under significant pressure. Capital inflows which
had in the past covered much of the current account gap, have out flown due the
prolonged political uncertainty and adverse security climate. The repatriation of
profit by the foreign investors has registered a significant decline of 25.5 per cent
during the first two months of the current fiscal year 2009, mainly due to the
negative economic indicators. With the country currently facing balance of payment
and liquidity difficulties, the rumours of Pakistan’s default is on rise. Despite the
prevailing crisis, analysts have rejected the impression that Pakistan is going to
default. The country is still in a position to fulfill its commitments with the foreign
institutions. In order to avert crisis like situation in the local currency market and to
meet dollar demand of customers, the State Bank of Pakistan has offered out right
sale of US dollars to all the exchange companies without any restriction of amount.
The exchange companies have reportedly obtained millions of US dollars from State
Bank of Pakistan. Hence there is no dearth or shortage of foreign currency in the
market. The SBP has taken several measures to stop the fall of rupee against the
dollar. These steps have been taken by the central bank this week, after a free fall
of rupee against the dollar due to high demand on the back of default rumours. The
bank has reported slight increase in foreign exchange reserves this week. Analysts
are hopeful that with the coming up of new aid, the situation would improve in
coming weeks. However, the rupee has come under heavy pressure amid
widespread rumours.

Meanwhile, the rupee in the inter bank market commenced the week on a positive
note, as it managed to recover from weekend losses against the dollar, gaining 12
paisa on the buying counter and 10 paisa on the selling counter. The dollar traded
at Rs78.33 and Rs78.40 on October 6, against previous week’s Rs78.45 and
Rs78.50. However, the rupee came under tremendous pressure on October 7 due to
sharp rise in demand for dollar amid speculative trading after Standard & Poor’s
Rating Agency lowered both short and long-term rating for rupee in view of
prevailing economic crisis. Consequently, the rupee lost 17 paisa on buying and 15
paisa on selling on the second trading day, when the dollar traded at Rs78.50 and
Rs78.55. Sharp rise in dollar demand continued to erode rupee value. On October 8,
the rupee finally crossed Rs80 barrier and traded at Rs80.30 and Rs80.50 in early
session before closing the day at Rs79.45 and Rs79.55, almost 100 paisa down from
previous day’s close. In an attempt to restrict further erosion in rupee value, the
central bank intervened in the local currency market and floated 100 million dollars
to ensure uninterrupted dollar supplies in the market to counter speculative buying
and release the pressure on the rupee. The State Bank has also assured the
exchange companies of its support in case of any liquidity requirement. As a result,
the rupee managed to recover from its overnight weakness against the dollar in the
inter bank market, where it gained 30 paisa on the buying counter and 35 paisa on
the selling counter, changing hands at Rs79.15 and Rs79.20 on October 9. On
October 10, the rupee traded unchanged at its overnight level against dollar due to
slow activity. Steps taken in the past two days by the State Bank of Pakistan to
restrict free fall in rupee value succeeded to some extent in restricting sharp
decline in the inter bank rupee/dollar parity. However, on cumulative basis, the
rupee in the inter bank market still lost 70 paisa against the dollar during the week
in review.

In the open market, down trend in the rupee/dollar parity persisted throughout the
week due to speculative trading. The week commenced on a negative note with
dollar demand rising sharply. Dollar supplies failed to match demand giving rise to
speculation. As a result, the rupee lost 40 paisa for buying and another 50 paisa on
the selling counter, changing hands at 78.40 and Rs78.80 on the week’s opening
day. The rupee had closed last week at Rs78.00 and Rs78.30. The rupee extended
its overnight weakness as demand for dollar continued to rise on the second trading
day of the week in review, posting fresh losses of 30 paisa on the buying counter
and 15 paisa on the selling counter. The dollar was at Rs78.70 and Rs78.95 at the
close of the day. Another sharp decline in the rupee/dollar parity was witnessed in
the open market on the third trading day when the rupee suffered 80 paisa fall for
buying and 95 paisa loss on selling and traded at Rs79.50 and Rs79.90. The rupee
free fall against the dollar continued unabated despite SBP intervention in the
currency market on the fourth trading day. The rupee crossed Rs80 barrier, losing
30 more against the dollar to trade at Rs79.80 and Rs80.20. At one point during the
day the rupee was reported to have even crossed Rs81 mark for a short span. It
further lost 50 paisa on the fifth trading day with dollar changing hands at Rs80.30
and Rs80.70 on October 10. During the entire week in review, the rupee in the open
market lost Rs2.40 against the dollar. Versus the European single common
currency, the rupee reportedly improved on the opening day as it managed to
recover over its overnight levels of Rs 110.68 and 110.78, gaining Rs 4.84 to trade
at Rs 105.84 and Rs 105.94 on October 6. However, the rupee failed to maintain its
overnight firmness on the second trading day and shed 16 paisa on the buying
counter and 26 paisa on the selling counter, changing hands against the euro at Rs
106.00 and Rs 106.20 on October 7. The falling trend persisted on October 8, as
rupee posted fresh losses against the euro for the third consecutive day, losing 70
paisa to trade at Rs 106.70 and Rs 106.90. A sharp decline in rupee over euro was
witnessed on the fourth trading day of the week in review, when the rupee shed 130
paisa and traded at Rs 108.00 and Rs 108.15 on October 9. However, the rupee
managed to recover its week long losses against euro on the last trading day,
gaining 30 paisa on buying and 25 paisa on selling to trade at Rs 107.70 and Rs
107.90 on October 10. This week, the rupee lost Rs 2.98 against the euro on the
buying counter and Rs 2.88 on the selling counter.

Author Location Dated

Afshan Subohi 13.10.08

– Money markets hit by a mild shock

The domestic financial market experienced a mild shock last week following
rumours about the viability of 2-3 banks to the freezing of foreign currency accounts
and seizure of bank lockers. It led to noticeable withdrawals of money from the
banking system experiencing liquidity crunch. Post-Eid illiquid money markets saw
volatile call money rates surge to 40 per cent before settling back to 20 per cent
later in the week. Many experts contacted by Dawn for comments termed the
statements by Governor of State Bank of Pakistan Dr Shamshad Akhtar and the
newly-appointed advisor to Prime Minister on finance Shaukat Tareen timely, strong
and wellworded. While others considered these very people partially responsible for
the situation: Madam Governor for letting banks indulge in imprudent consumer
financing (the policy initiated by Dr Ishrat Hussain) and Shaukat Tareen for
patronising brokers by introducing a new brand of badla — the CFS (continuous
funding system). As the currency market turned volatile, the SBP intervened to ease
liquidity by injecting $20-100 million (different sources quoted different amounts) in
the currency market and lowering the limit of cash reserve requirement (CRR) for
banks from nine to seven per cent. The two per cent phased lowering of CRR is
expected to release an estimated Rs60 billion to the banking system for credit
expansion. Experts felt that in the short-run the government can cut cash reserve
requirements and statuary liquidity requirement (SLR) but in the long-run change in
discount rate could be used to manage the market. However, the government is
currently more focused on mobilising funds from friendly countries to come out of
the financial distress. All financial managers including the finance minister,
secretary finance, financial advisor and SBP Governor are attending the annual
meetings of the World Bank and the IMF in Washington. Some officers of the
ministry of finance said the meetings could provide an opportunity to ‘pursue the
donors’. Several bank branches in Karachi confirmed that they were approached by
customers with queries of all kinds. There were reports of withdrawals from few not-
so-strong small banks but the activity was within manageable limits. As of June
2008, according to figures given out by the State Bank, there are in all 24.816
million depositors in the country in all the banks combined. Approximately two-
thirds of these people primarily use banks to draw their salaries. Many of the rest,
with their savings parked in banks, demonstrated some uneasiness in the post-Eid
week.

Several bank branches in Karachi confirmed that they were approached by

customers with queries of all kinds. There were reports of some withdrawals from
certain banks but the activity was within manageable limits. “People
“People remember the
co-operative and financial companies’ fiasco of 1980s and 90s. They have not
forgotten nor forgiven how the government breached their trust by freezing their
foreign currency accounts in 1998. If they get swayed by rumour mongers it is
because they have sour memories”,
memories”, said a depositor. There were some reports of
more than normal activity at the branches of banks with locker facilities. “Generally
“Generally
people expressed anxiety but the level was not high enough to motivate them to
take their valuables out of lockers. Besides, in the current law and order and
security situation what other options are available”,
available”, a bank manager asked. He
argued that people would not touch their lockers even when they made
uncomfortable by rumours. “Let“Let the fog of suspicion created by the whispering
campaign settle and sanity prevail. The banking sector has a strong foundation. It
would be wrong to confuse the liquidity crunch in the money market or falling value
of rupee with the fundamentals of the banking sector,”
sector,” an ex-banker close to ruling
party said. The financial and corporate circles differ on factors responsible for the
current pass and also on the most appropriate measures to sustain the confidence
level in the banking system. Some blamed economic policies of demand-led growth
of the previous government. Others held brokers-bureaucrats politicians nexus
responsible for creating a bubble economy by diverting the country’s financial
resources to speculative capital market. Yet another group blamed the imprudent
financial conduct of the present and the last government and their reliance on the
State Bank for their liquidity needs. They said they have drained liquidity from the
market. The government borrowing rose by over 100 per cent in the first 11 weeks
of the current fiscal year to a total of Rs173.23 billion from July 1 to Sept 13.
Pakistan is already struggling with a high inflation rate at more than 25 per cent and
a widening current account deficit. Foreign exchange reserves are fast depleting.
The rupee lost about 23 per cent in its value since the start of the year. Pakistan’s
rating by Standard & poor has been revised to CCC-plus, a few notches above
default level. The S&P said: “Pakistan’s
“Pakistan’s worsening external liquidity may imperil its
ability to meet about $3 billion”.
billion”.

Author Location Dated

M. J. Akbar 14.10.08

– Saying what the US wants to hear

No passport has yet been devised that can take one easily across the borderline of
fear. Pakistan used to fear annihilation by India; now it fears hegemony. India used
to fear invasion across the Line of Control in Kashmir; now it fears the export of
terror. One nation’s freedom fighter can, of course, be a neighbour’s terrorist.
Pakistan may sincerely want peace with India but it still has not reconciled itself to
peace in Kashmir. Politicians, bureaucrats and generals sitting across a walnut table
are not the only ones who determine the management of visceral fear. The street
also has a say, the Pakistani street being a less than melodious orchestra of
mohalla, madressah and media. Might I offer a suggestion for the new kid on the
block, Asif Zardari, once ‘Mr
‘Mr Ten Per Cent’
Cent’ and now the honourable President of
Pakistan. The next time he feels inclined towards discussing Kashmir in an
interview, he should outsource the interview to his spokesman. It will save him the
bother of claiming he has been misquoted or misunderstood. Is there any rational
explanation for what Zardari definitely told The Wall Street Journal — that those who
had picked up the gun and bomb in Kashmir were terrorists, and that India has
never been a threat to Pakistan? Part of the reason lies in the fact that he was
speaking to a conservative American paper. Zardari obviously shares one trait with
India’s prime minister, who in September offered the true love of every Indian to
George Bush, the most hated president since polls began to measure such
sentiments. Zardari was telling a Republican paper what he thought the White
House wanted to hear. But this is useful only if it meshes into a larger framework.
Washington is reorienting its policy towards the entire region between Kabul and
Delhi, and the basic foundations are being repositioned for a new architecture. At
the centre of this shift is recognition that the failing war against Afghanistan was
deeply flawed by an error of judgment. It should have been against Al Qaeda,
fountainhead of terrorism, and not against Taliban, government of the Afghan
nation. The determined Taliban have not only turned the flow of battle but have
emerged as champions of Afghan nationalism and good governance, compared to
the utter corruption and incompetence of the Hamid Karzai regime. The British
commander in Afghanistan admitted in the first week of October that absolute
military victory was impossible and that if the Taliban were prepared to sit across
the table this ‘insurgency’ could be concluded. He was only making public a process
that had already begun.

Between Sept 24 and 27, King Abdullah hosted a dialogue between 11 Taliban
delegates, two Afghan officials, a representative of Gulbadin Hekmetyar and three
others. The talks had the official backing of the British government, and the
unofficial support of the United States. America and Britain are talking to those they
went to war against after 9/11 in the belief that they were ‘terrorists’. Their rhetoric
still describes the Taliban thus. It is clear that the US and UK are trying to declare
victory before they get out of a war they cannot win. But since America cannot be
defeated by ‘terrorists’, the Taliban will have to be redefined. The Taliban are
delighted to play ball. Mullah Mohammad Omar has conveyed, through his
representatives at the Saudi talks, that the Taliban were no longer allied with Al
Qaeda. Pakistan has repeatedly been told by Washington to disassociate itself from
terrorists, a tactic that has become second nature to the ISI. If the Taliban can walk
away from Osama bin Laden, then Pakistan should be prepared to abandon
Kashmiri terrorists. In an ideal Anglo-American scenario, the security gap left behind
by departing Nato forces would be filled by an informal, if difficult, alliance between
India and Pakistan. This cannot happen as long as Kashmir remains a source of
conflict. Hence, a new arrangement for the region needs a resolution of Kashmir.
This process cannot begin unless Islamabad decides that Kashmiri militants are not
freedom fighters. Once this happens, the status of Kashmir can be negotiated. In an
interesting twist of fate, Pakistan has now more to fear from terrorists on its West
than from India. It is only such a context that makes some sense of Zardari’s
assertion that the real threat to Pakistan is not from India. He is right, of course:
India has never had any desire for any Pakistan territory, preferring to let Pakistan
stew in the contradictions of its own politico-ideological concoction.

For Zardari, this would mean burial of the strategic legacy of another man he should
hate with passion, Gen Ziaul Haq, who led the coup against his father-in-law Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto and later hanged him. Zia convinced his country that what had been
impossible through conventional war could be achieved through unconventional
means. It was an attractive proposition in the 1980s: Punjab seemed utterly
vulnerable and it was obvious that India could not hold on to Kashmir if it lost
Punjab. Zia, a packed package of craft, wooed India’s opinion-maker elite with time,
double-talk, carpets and silver teapots in the hope they would find rational
arguments for abandoning the defence of Indian unity. Two decades later, elitist
knees continue to wobble far too quickly in Delhi. Zardari’s first serious attempt to
test the elasticity of Pakistan’s thinking has rebounded: the elastic has snapped
back sharply enough to loosen a molar or two. He could not recognise the power of
the Pakistani street because he has never worked on it. He has usurped the
authority of the prime minister and turned the office of the president into the centre
of power. It was a constitutional coup, aided by a sycophantic political party and a
fragile polity. But bullying will not alter a Pakistani’s most durable article of faith
that Kashmir belongs to Pakistan. One presumes Zardari has learnt a primary
lesson: sometimes it is easier to get into office than to sit in it. The American
argument can be beguiling to Islamabad, that when a final prospect of peace is
offered, the Indian elite will accept the compromises in geography necessary to
make a Kashmir deal palatable to Pakistan. A trial run has already been established
in the nuclear pact, where vital commitments have been sacrificed by Delhi and
ignored by most of the Indian elite, whether in parliament or the press. Mediocre
leaders have an almost incurable urge to ‘enter history’ through a single triumph,
even if this means tweaking the national interest here or there. Zardari seems to
have bought into the American dream for South Asia. But nations are not chess
pieces which can be arbitrarily rearranged through clever moves. Rulers might
dream of turning a pawn into a queen; in real life, kings end up as pawns much
more easily.

Author Location Dated

Amjad Mehmood Lahore, Pakistan 14.10.08

– Nawaz Sharif ‘desperate’ to get 17th amendment scrapped

Chief of his own faction of the Pakistan Muslim League and former prime minister
Nawaz Sharif is exploring all possible means to firmly entrench himself in the
country’s politics to play a bigger role. For the purpose, he is also employing his
contacts in friendly countries for using their influence over the Pakistan People’s
Party government to undo the clause of the 17th constitutional amendment that
debars a two time prime minister or chief minister to run for the third term. The
amendment had been introduced by former president Gen Pervez Musharraf to
keep Mr Sharif and the slain PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto, both twice-elected
prime ministers, out of the political arena. After the unfortunate murder of Ms
Bhutto, Mr Sharif is left alone to face the bar and keeping in mind the track record
of President Asif Ali Zardari on judiciary’s issue, the PML-N leader must be nurturing
little hope the PPP co-chairperson will oblige him in this regard. Mr Sharif during his
recent extended stay in Saudi Arabia called on some influential members of the
royal family for seeking their cooperation in pressing the Pakistan government to
repeal the relevant clause of the 17th amendment and thus providing breathing
space to him, a senior party official told this correspondent here on Monday. The
former prime minister stayed in the Gulf Kingdom from Sept 21 to Oct 5. According
to the official, Mr Sharif is also believed to have discussed with a royal family
member the use of the oil supply on deferred payment facility, Islamabad is
presently seeking from Riyadh, for making the PPP government do the desired
thing. The scrapping of the amendment will also benefit twice-elected Punjab chief
minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif as presently a case regarding his disqualification is
being heard by the Supreme Court.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 15.10.08

– Opposition terms briefing ‘shallow and inadequate’

Opposition lawmakers, especially those of the PML-N, criticised the ‘civilian’ briefing
on the war on terror given on Tuesday by Information Minister Sherry Rahman in
the joint session of the two houses of parliament and termed it shallow and
inadequate. The government decided to continue the joint session for another five
days for lawmakers’ queries and a general debate. The house started its
proceedings at around 12 noon and the session was adjourned at 2pm to meet
again on Wednesday. The minister explained the situation in the war on terror with
the help of slides and a film. MNA Ayaz Amir and Senators Iqbal Zafar Jhagra of PML-
N and Kamil Ali Agha of PML-Q criticised the briefing and called the exercise part of
the government’s propaganda campaign. They said that ministers should provide
in-depth briefings and answer their questions. This led to a commotion in the house
and National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza adjourned the session. Khurram
Dastagir Khan of the PML-N told reporters after the session: “We“We are not satisfied
with the briefing because lawmakers were not allowed to raise questions… It was
just fancy talk seeking to maintain the status quo in the war on terror inherited from
the military dictator.”
dictator.” Prof Khurshid Ahmed of the Jamaat Islami criticised the
inclusion of national an them at the end of the briefing and said: “The
“The briefing was
not up to our expectations. It did not indicate any shift in the … policy in war on
terror.”
terror.” However, sources close to the minister for information said that her
comprehensive briefing was praised by everyone except PML-N members who
criticised “various
“various details perhaps under a pre-planned strategy”.
strategy”.

The sources said that the briefing proved “beyond any doubt” that the country was
in the grip of militancy and extremism and if the nation did not realise the gravity of
the situation, it might spin out of control. They said that while the PML-N rejected
the arguments which proved that the country was in danger, the International
Committee of Red Cross declared that Pakistan was caught in a war which was
more serious than in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sources quoted the minister as saying
that the militants were trying to impose their writ in tribal areas and some settled
areas of the NWFP and they were attacking security forces and sending suicide
bombers. Speaking about the pre-Sept 11, 2001, situation in Pakistan, the minister
said that Taliban and jihadi organisations had existed even before that period.
Taliban, she said, turned against Pakistan when it joined the international coalition
against terrorism. After Sept 11, she said, parliament had never tried to forge a
national consensus on ways of handling extremism and militancy to enable the
nation to face the grave threat to Pakistan’s integrity. The militants, she said,
wanted to impose their extremist ideology on the people of Pakistan. She also
mentioned the government’s three-pronged strategy to tackle extremism: dialogue
with elements who surrender, social development and use of force as a last resort.

Meanwhile, an official handout issued by the speaker’s secretariat said: “Dr

“Dr
Fehmida Mirza chaired a meeting of the leaders and representatives of the
parliamentary parties in Senate and National Assembly at the Parliament House
which decided to continue the sitting for five days (and to hold) a question-answer
session on Wednesday, followed by discussion on Thursday, that will continue for
four days.
days. “It
“It was also decided that ample time would be given to members to
express their views. “The meeting was attended by Prime Minister Yousaf Raza
Gilani, Senators Mian Raza Rabbani, Farooq H. Naek, Haji Adeel, Kamil Ali Agha, Prof
Khrshid Ahmad, Israrullah Khan, Dr Abdul Malik, Ms Anisa Zeb Tahirkheli, Ilyas
Ahmad Bilour, Rahim Mandokhel, Maulana Sami-ulHaq Abdul Razik, Zafar Iqbal
Jhagra and MNAs Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, Syed Khurshid Shah, Abdul Mateen
Khan, Makhdoom Syed Faisal Saleh Hayat, Sheikh Aftab Ahmad, Jadam Mangrio,
Munir Khan Orakzai, Abdul Mateen Khan, Dr Abdul Kadir Khanzada.”
Khanzada.”

Author Location Dated

Beijing, China 15.10.08

– High hopes pinned on Zardari’s China visit

President Asif Ali Zardari arrived in China on Tuesday for his first official visit since
taking office, aiming to cement economic and commercial ties with the long-time
ally. President Zardari is expected to sign a range of agreements with Beijing during
his four-day visit. The agreements will focus on strengthening strategic, economic
and cultural ties. Mr Zardari’s visit comes at a time when Pakistan’s relations with
the United States are strained after a series of air raids and at least one ground
assault. Analysts said that while Pakistan would continue to act as an ally of the
United States, Mr Zardari’s visit to China demonstrated Islamabad’s tendency to
‘look East’ when its ties with the West become strained. According to APP, President
Zardari was met upon arrival in Beijing by Assistant Foreign Minister Hu Zhengyue,
Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, Adviser to the Prime Minister on Interior
Rehman Malik, Foreign Secretary Salman Bashir, Pakistan’s Ambassador to China
Masood Khan and Chinese Ambassador in Pakistan Luo Zhaohui. A formal welcome
ceremony will be held on Wednesday at the Great Hall of the People, where Chinese
President Hu Jintao would meet President Zardari. A number of agreements,
protocols and memorandums of understanding will also be signed on Wednesday.
During his four-day visit, the president will hold talks with the Chinese leadership,
focusing on strengthening Pakistan-China strategic partnership and upgrading the
level of cooperation in trade, investment, defence, banking sector and science and
technology. President Zardari will also hold meetings with the Chairman of the
National People’s Congress, Wu Bangguo, and Chairman of the Chinese People’s
Political Consultative Conference Jia Qingling. The president will also hold meetings
with a number of Chinese business executives and heads of financial institutions.

Pakistan’s ambassador to China Masood Khan, who briefed the media about the
importance of the visit after Mr Zardari’s arrival, said that China was extending
“much-needed cooperation to Pakistan and the two countries are committed to
peaceful use of nuclear technology”.
technology”. Xinhua quoted President Zardari as saying that
he was looking forward to a long-term economic cooperation with China. “I “I have a
long-term economic cooperation plan with China.” .”
China “ “Pakistan-China
Pakistan-China relationships is
not restricted to a five-year plan,”
plan,” he said in reply to a question about the
programme for economic and trade cooperation signed between the two counties
during President Hu Jintao’s visit in 2006. The two countries had agreed to increase
their bilateral trade volume to $15 billion by 2011. “I“I am the first businessman
president of Pakistan. So we have a lot of cultural and friendly ties, but that is not
properly depicted by our economic relationship,”
relationship,” Mr Zardari said. About the
changes occurring in China over the past 30 years, President Zardari said he was
deeply impressed by the country’s achievements, especially its transition to a
socialist market economy “with
“with perfection.”
perfection.” Mr Zardari said Pakistan and China
would carry out close cooperation on anti-terrorism. “We “We need commonality to fight
terrorism.”
terrorism.” Our Islamabad Correspondent adds: Before leaving for Beijing, President
Zardari said he was keen to enhance economic cooperation with China. “I’m “I’m looking
forward to visiting China. I haven’t been to China for the past 24 years. China has
changed since my last visit. I am hoping to remind the world how close we are,” are,”
Zardari said. The President said he would like to visit China “every
“every three months”,
months”,
to know more about its economy and seek potential cooperation in all areas. “China “China
is the future of the world.”
world.” “A
“A strong China means a strong Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” the president
said, pledging further cooperation with China in energy, finance and agriculture
sectors.

Author Location Dated

Yousuf Nazar 15.10.08

– Need for a new era of strategic ties with China

President Zardari is visiting China at a time when the global economic power
balance is undergoing a historic shift. “End
“End of US era — now China calls the tune”
tune”
declares a headline of The Sydney Morning Herald,
Herald, Australia’s oldest and most
respected newspaper. “Can “Can Chinese cash save the world’s banks?”
banks?” is a lead story in
Time. “Is
“Is this the end of the American era?”
era?” is the title of an op-ed written by noted
historian Paul Kennedy in The Sunday Times,Times, UK. Billionaire investor George Soros
has predicted the financial crisis would mean the end of a US-led market system
that has dominated the global economy through debt and deregulation since the
1980s. “This
“This is now over. The game is out. It does mean a very serious adjustment
for America,”
America,” Soros said in a CNN interview. China should lead rescue efforts for the
US financial crisis, Mexican tycoon Carlos Sim, one of the world’s richest men, told
the press last week. “China
“China is now the most important country to help responsibly
in this crisis,”
crisis,” he said. “China
“China owns us, lock, stock and barrel, so it’s more important
than ever that the US monetary authorities coordinate their monetary policies with
China,”
China,” Chris Rupkey, New York-based chief financial economist at Bank of Tokyo-
Mitsubishi, Japan’s largest, told Bloomberg. The headlines and report convey a
dawning realisation in western capitals that the biggest casualty of the western
financial meltdown might be the US dominance of the global financial system, the
linchpin of its global power. And that it is China, with over $1.8 trillion in foreign
exchange reserves growing at a pace of $40bn a month, which holds the key to the
financing of the astronomical budget deficit that the US will have to run to finance
the bailout of its financial institutions.
Declining superpower? The reports of the death of American capitalism may be
exaggerated but there is little question that the financial meltdown means the end
of its sole superpower status in what was described as a unipolar world. America’s
western allies, Britain, France, Germany, and other European countries, have
committed over $2tr to rescue the banking system from collapse and will face
mounting fiscal deficits to finance them. Meanwhile, in 2009, the GDP of Asia (ex-
Japan), on purchasing power parity basis, is likely to reach the level equal to that of
the US and Western Europe combined, with China certain to overtake Germany as
the world’s third largest economy. On Jan 20, 2009, either Barack Obama or John
McCain will walk into the Oval Office facing the grimmest economic landscape in
decades: 7-8 per cent of the nation’s workforce unemployed; millions more families
that have lost more than $12tr of wealth in the value of homes and stocks; a global
recession; a crippled banking system; ailing state and local governments -- some on
the verge of bankruptcy; jittery foreign creditors; budget deficit near the landmark
$1tr mark and forecast to cross $2tr in the next 12 months; and $10tr in federal
government debt or 72 per cent of its GDP.
GDP. This year, net interest on US federal
debt is projected at $244bn, about $100bn more than the annual cost of the wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan. Even before the meltdown started, it was expected that the
US would find an exit strategy from Iraq. Now it looks almost certain that it will have
to find an exit strategy from both Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event, the US was
not planning to send more troops to Afghanistan till early 2009, with little signs of
support from its Nato allies. The US has spent an average of $12.1bn a month on its
wars, including $9.8bn in Iraq, $2.3bn for Afghanistan and civilian aid.

The Bush administration has come under heavy criticism for its handling of the
economy this year and spending over one trillion dollars on the ‘war on terror’ in
Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001. It is not a coincidence that it recently decided to
review its entire strategy in Afghanistan and gave a nod to the Saudis to conduct
secret negotiations with the Taliban with the objective of finding a way out of the
quagmire. “During
“During the talks, all parties agreed that the only solution to
Afghanistan’s conflict is through dialogue, not fighting,”
fighting,” CNN reported on Oct 5. The
so-called war on terror will be the biggest casualty of the budget cuts that a
financially crippled US government would have to make, but the axe is also likely to
fall on foreign aid. The US government’s foreign aid budget is $20.3bn in 2008. Joe
Biden, Democratic vice-presidential candidate, said on Oct 2 that the $700bn
bailout might force Barack Obama to reassess his promise to double foreign aid if
elected president. “The
“The one thing we might have to slow down is a commitment we
made to double foreign assistance. We’ll probably have to slow that down,”
down,” Biden
said during a debate with his Republican vice-presidential rival Sarah Palin. The
escalation in the US military campaign on Pakistan’s northern borders can be
viewed in the context of its economic crisis. It shows all the signs of desperation. It
cannot help Pakistan, yet it wants to ‘win’ the war in Afghanistan. On the one hand,
it appears to be using the multilateral lenders to pressure Pakistan to ‘do more’; on
the other hand, it is conducting psychological warfare through drone attacks and
covert operations inside Pakistan’s borders. The good news for Pakistan is that the
US has run out of money to continue its quest for military hegemony in the Middle
East and Central Asia. Given its financial meltdown and astronomical debt levels,
the US has no option but to forget about its ambitions to be the dominant military
power in the region, seek a truce with the Taliban, pursue diplomacy to resolve
conflicts with Iran, and, equally importantly, recognise China’s strategic interests in
the region. After all, China is the largest creditor of the US with nearly $1tr in the
holdings of treasury bills and government guaranteed debt and the US cannot
finance its gargantuan deficits and service its $10tr debt without a steady flow of
funds from China. True, China has a stake in the financial stability of the US but the
extraordinary turn of events has given it a leverage that was unthinkable only a
year ago. “If
“If the world economy darkens further, China will emerge as the likeliest
saviour,”
saviour,” concluded the Economist in a recent issue.

Pakistan enjoys historically close relations with China and the financial meltdown
provides it with a rare opportunity to reduce its dependence on western aid,
possibly disengage from playing the ‘new Great Game’ on behalf of the West, and
make a bold and decisive shift in its foreign policy that is driven by its own long-
term economic and strategic interests. Pakistan may wish to look beyond the
immediate need for financing its external deficit that has bled its foreign exchange
reserves. China has a long-term strategic interest in a strong, stable and
economically independent Pakistan. It is the only major power that has both the will
and the capacity to exploit Pakistan’s natural resources and help build its
infrastructure that is in dire need of huge investment. In contrast to the US, China
sees itself, and not India, as the leader of the future Asian century and has a natural
interest in a Pakistan which is more than a client state of the West. But Pakistan
may need to do more than just ask for help and talk about the history of the
Pakistan-China friendship. It may have to demonstrate through its words and
actions that it considers China — and not the US — its best friend. It should address
China’s concerns about Pakistan’s support for the Taliban in the past and its
spillover effects on Chinese provinces. It may also be expected to demonstrate a
stronger commitment with the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation
(SCO). But all this would require a comprehensive review of Pakistan’s foreign,
economic and defence priorities and policies and a national consensus to
demonstrate that it is indeed ready to enter into a new era of its strategic
relationship with China.

Author Location Dated

Syed Irfan Raza Islamabad, Pakistan 15.10.08

– Marriott owner hopeful of getting adjoining plot

The government is considering granting the request of Marriott’s management for
the adjacent piece of land to secure the hotel which was struck by a suicide truck
bomber last month, leaving at least 55 people dead. “The “The government has given us
hope of providing the plot,”
plot,” the owner of the luxury hotel, Sadruddin Hashwani, said
in a press conference here on Tuesday. The hotel management has been seeking
the land for last many years, but the Capital Development Authority (CDA) always
denied the request and last year put the plot up for open auction for the
construction of another five-star hotel. The highest bid received by the CDA was
Rs1.4 billion, but it was cancelled when the bidder failed to pay the initial amount
on time. However, a senior CDA official said the authority had no plans to hand over
the land to the Marriott. “It
“It is a prime piece of land and we cannot give it to Mr
Hashwani for peanuts,”
peanuts,” he added. On the other hand, Mr Hashwani argued that the
authority had already provided land adjacent to another five-star hotel for its
extension. “If
“If they have provided land to that hotel on subsidised price then this
facility should also be given to the Marriott,”
Marriott,” he said. Mr Hashwani was of the view
that the destruction caused by the suicide bombing would have been much lesser
had the plot located at the back of the Marriott been provided to the hotel
management for parking and entry of vehicles. “If “If the plot would have been
provided to us, we would have established entry point far away from the main hotel
building that had caught fire when the over 600kg explosives (RDX and TNT) laden
truck went off,”
off,” he said. Mr Hashwani said none of the previous governments had
paid attention to the security of the hotel where a large number of foreign investors
stayed frequently. “The
“The attack on the hotel was actually an attack on the country
because it had shattered the confidence of foreign investors,”
investors,” he added. Giving
details about the renovation work on the gutted hotel and compensation to the
affected families, he pledged to reopen the devastated Marriott by December 30
this year. He said for the monetary support of the families of the deceased
employees, his daughter, Sara Hashwani, had established the Hashoo Sahara Fund.
“I, on behalf of my family, have deposited Rs10 million in the fund and many people
have made pledges of Rs4 million,”
million,” Mr Hashwani said. He vowed to provide
monetary assistance to children orphaned in the Marriott blast for their medical
care, education and provision of vocational training. “The
“The fund seeks to address the
families’ situation by absorbing their food, education and health expenses,”
expenses,” he
added. Mr Hashwani said even after the hotel’s closure due to the devastation,
some 750 employees were being paid monthly salary, adding that they would
continue to receive it till the hotel became operational again.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 15.10.08
om

– Zardari’s overture to India

There is something remarkably refreshing about a Pakistani head of state declaring
that “India
“India has never been a threat to Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” In terms of factual accuracy, it’s a
risible claim; it would be equally ridiculous, of course, for anyone on the Indian side
to proclaim that Pakistan has never posed a threat to India. Could the threatening
postures — not to mention the three and a half outbreaks of war — have been
avoided? And can they be transcended? The correct answer on both counts,
hopefully, is yes. What’s more, fibs and illusions cannot serve as the basis for
meaningful progress: the unpleasantness of the past cannot effectively be
exorcised by pretending that it never really existed. In some circumstances it is
indeed wise to let bygones be bygones, but it’s important to know precisely what is
being relegated. If you turn a blind eye to past mistakes, the chances that they will
be repeated multiply manifold. For all that, Asif Ali Zardari’s remark about India —
made last month to a reporter from The Wall Street Journal during an interview
“held under tight security at a midtown Manhattan hotel”
hotel” — is welcome because it
holds out the prospect of India losing its status as Pakistan’s primary official foe. If
New Delhi senses a genuinely conciliatory mood in Islamabad, chances are that it
will be happy to reciprocate. One cannot, of course, be too sure: all too often in the
past, hesitant expressions of warmth from one side or the other have been coldly
received. Nor can anyone deny that in the past governments on both sides have
frequently sought to derive political advantage from the adversarial relationship. In
Pakistan, anti-Indian sentiment has even been mobilised to serve as a spurious
raison d’etre, a substitute for nationalism in a country bedevilled by regional, ethnic
and sectarian rivalries; equally crucially, it has long served as an excuse for bloated
defence budgets. For all that, notwithstanding decades of official and semi-official
propaganda, the majority of Pakistanis would be inclined to accept friendship with
India without a great deal of persuasion. Hopefully, most Indians would feel the
same way. After all, cultural and historical affinities between the two countries run
deeper than the machinations of shallow politicians and generals. It would of course
be premature for anyone to jump to the conclusion that Zardari’s remarks signal a
sea change in Islamabad’s mindset. As has been demonstrated often enough in the
past eight months, his words and intentions don’t always coincide.

It would nonetheless be churlish not to acknowledge that “Why “Why would we begrudge
the largest democracy in the world getting friendly with one of the oldest
democracies in the world?”
world?” is a sensible sentiment vis-à-vis Indo-US relations. In the
past, whenever Delhi and Washington have shown signs of getting fresh with one
another, Pakistan has invariably adopted the jilted posture of a jealous concubine,
refusing over the decades to acknowledge that, given her stature and size, Uncle
Sam has always been more interested in Mother India. In his interview with the
Journal, Zardari also broached the question of trade with India, saying “there “there is no
other economic survival for nations like us”.us ”. There can be little question that
restrictions on IndoPakistan commerce have not benefited either nation. This also
happens to be a sphere in which, given the requisite will, considerable progress is
possible within a relatively short period of time. And, what’s more, growing
commercial relations are bound to increase the incentive for rapprochement at the
political level. The single sentence in the Journal’s report that attracted most
attention in Pakistan and its environs reads as follows: “He “He speaks of the militant
Islamic groups operating in Kashmir as ‘terrorists’ — former President Musharraf
would more likely have called them ‘freedom fighters’ …” The outburst that
followed necessitated hasty clarifications from Sherry Rehman in Islamabad and
Wajid Shamsul Hasan in London, but neither of them could prevent Zardari from
notching up another first: no previous Pakistani leader has been burnt in effigy on
the streets of Srinagar. To be fair, only a complete transcript of the president’s
remarks could indicate whether his condemnation was wholesale or selective. After
all, it’s hardly a state secret that jihadi infiltrators from the Pakistani side wreaked
havoc in Jammu and Kashmir, until the flow was stemmed by Pervez Musharraf.
Whatever the case, Kashmiri leader Syed Ali Shah Geelani’s riposte that “Zardari “Zardari
made these remarks to please the Americans”
Americans” is, in all probability, an accurate
enough critique that could be extended to more or less everything the president
said in New York. It would be a shame if the broader, potentially groundbreaking
comments about India were made purely to ingratiate himself with his hosts, with
no intention of following through. On the other hand, if American pressure could
push India and Pakistan towards amity — as happened under Musharraf, albeit to an
inadequate extent — the consequences may well be positive. Ultimately, however,
improved relations between the two nations can be sustained only if both of them
realise that good-neighbourliness is in their own interests.

It comes as no surprise that in his Journal interview Zardari vociferously declared: “I “I

am an American friend.”
friend.” If that relationship is not entirely unilateral, and if he is
also a friend of Pakistan, it may behove him to raise the occasional question during
bouts of intimacy. Such as why is it that any kind of dialogue between Pakistani
authorities and belligerent militants invariably attracts a stern American reprimand,
whereas the Karzai regime is being encouraged to pursue the path of negotiations?
And why is it that Pakistani exports to the US are so heavily penalised? As last
month’s report by the US Pakistan Policy Working Group points out, “We “We raise the
same tariff revenue from Pakistan’s $3.7bn in exports to the US as from France’s
$37bn in textile exports to the US. The average US tariff rate on Chinese exports to
the US is three per cent, compared to 10 per cent on Pakistani exports.”
exports.” Surely,
seeking to slash this absurdly discriminatory level of protectionism would be less
degrading than extending a begging bowl inscribed with the phenomenal figure of
$100bn? Zardari appears, during his American sojourn, to have charmed neocons
and so-called liberals alike. The Journal report was tagged ‘The
‘The Most Difficult Job in
the World’.
World’. A companion piece in The New York Times by Roger Cohen was
headlined ‘The
‘The Most Dangerous Job on Earth’.
Earth’. In both cases, that might not be much
of an exaggeration. It is undoubtedly a tough job. But there is little kudos to be
gained from botching it. ¦ The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.
Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 15.10.08

– The terror of this war

Sub-optimal. That’s probably the most generous way to describe statecraft in
Pakistan. A week of debate on the debate in parliament and I’m ready to run to the
hills. Or perhaps into the sea, given the threat lurking up in Pakistan’s hills. Start
with the army. Gen Kayani is fighting a bloody insurgency in three areas — Bajaur
Agency, Swat and Darra Adamkhel — and has thousands of troops in other tribal
agencies. It’s a tough fight, with civilian casualties and massive displacements.
Kayani may be giving the militants a bloody nose, but few are optimistic of the long-
term effects of a full-frontal assault. Along the way, the general was coaxed and
cajoled by Zardari into briefing parliament on what the army is up to. So Kayani
roped in his DGMO and sent him forth into the cauldron of stupor to explain what his
soldiers are doing. Lamentably, the DGMO shared nothing a Google search wouldn’t
reveal. This is bad news for everyone trying to understand Kayani’s strategic
thinking. Since the army chief is intent on holding his cards very close to his chest,
the country’s representatives will just have to piece together for themselves the
Bajaur operation. Did I mention that statecraft isn’t an optimum art here? So on to
Bajaur Agency. (Aside:
(Aside: Bajaur was sacked by Babar — yes, the Mughal emperor —
in 1519. From the Babarnama: “As the Bajauris were rebels and inimical to the
people of Islam, the men were subjected to a general massacre and their wives and
children were made captive. At a guess, more than 3,000 men met their death. We
entered the fort and inspected it. On the walls, in houses, streets and alleys, the
dead lay, in what numbers! Those walking around had to jump over the corpses.”
corpses.”
Lesson: history is written by the victors.) Even though we haven’t been told why we
are in Bajaur — as opposed to, say, pounding one of the other six tribal agencies —
that doesn’t mean there are no good reasons for being up there. Bajaur is
geographically the smallest (500 sq miles) of the tribal agencies, but has one of the
largest populations (595,227 at the last census; an estimated million until August).
It abuts Kunar, a north-eastern Afghan province which is a stamping ground of
Gulbadin Hekmatyar’s Hezb-i-Islami. Bajaur, especially the south-west where the
Mamond tribe lives, is known to be home to foreign militants, especially Al Qaeda.
Both Pakistan and the US have launched strikes inside Bajaur in the last three
years, indicating the level of interest in militant activity there.
There’s more. In March 2007, four ISI agents were killed in Bajaur. Before the
present operation started in August, more intelligence agents are believed to have
been killed. Maulvi Faqir Mohammad, the militant leader in Bajaur, has close links to
Maulana Fazlullah and his band of savages in Swat. All of these are very good
reasons for us to be in Bajaur. There is a further possibility: the army thought it
would be like taking candy from a militant. But when several hundred troops
trundled into Lowi Sam, a town near a key border crossing to Kunar province, in
early August, they were subjected to a withering assault. Physically and
psychologically hammered, the army had no option but to respond with even
greater force. But these are outsiders’ guesses — and worth as much. Denied a
clear strategic explanation for why Bajaur now and why Bajaur first, the opposition
certainly has grounds to complain. Predictably, the N League has grabbed the hind
legs of reason though. Rather than release a list of penetrating, relevant questions
that were left unanswered, the N-League has chosen to bray about democracy and
sovereignty. Somebody should ask Nawaz Sharif, what about survival? Despite their
right-wing reputation, the Sharif brothers have old enemies in the anti-Shia jihadi
outfits of Punjab. The Lashkari-Jhangvi, the most vitriolic and lethal of Sunni militant
groups, tried to kill the Sharif brothers in January 1999 by blowing up a bridge
leading to their Raiwind estate (the explosion killed three but missed both brothers’
convoys). The attack was presumably revenge for Shahbaz Sharif’s harsh repression
of the Sipah-i-Sahaba Pakistan (SSP) and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi (LJ), which rocked
Pakistan in the 1990s with their internecine sectarian war against Shias. No one
emerged from that period with their hands clean. The sectarian warriors killed with
shocking viciousness, while on Shahbaz Sharif’s watch police encounters and
extrajudicial killings of militants shot up — though without doing much harm to the
chief minister’s standing amongst a terrorised populace. However, the SSP and LJ
were far from finished. Caught in a frightening covert war, the Sharifs were forced
to the negotiating table to try and ease the crisis in Punjab. Then fate intervened:
Musharraf’s coup ejected the Sharifs. While the Sharifs may have been put into
political cold storage, the LJ lived to fight another day. 9/11 breathed new life into
the organisation, even as its first generation of leaders were hunted down and
exterminated. Today, the relationship between the LJ and Al Qaeda and the Taliban
is so strong that the LJ is effectively the domestic arm of Al Qaeda.

There is much scepticism — some legitimate — of the claim that virtually every
militant group has fallen under the spell of the shadowy Al Qaeda. But in the LJ’s
case, the ideological and operational links are irrefutable. The sectarian aspect of Al
Qaeda’s ideology is undeniable for anyone who cares to explore the issue in its
grim, hateful details. At the same time the operational links are self evident and
self-confessed. The Lashkar effectively introduced suicide bombings to Pakistan to
avenge the US war in Afghanistan. Other sophisticated bombing techniques have
been shared between the LJ and Al Qaeda. The LJ’s links with Baitullah Mehsud are
also well known, with senior members of the LJ hiding out in South Waziristan. It’s
no coincidence that Mehsud’s alleged intent to eliminate the Sharifs has thrown up
the name of the LJ. Meanwhile, the LJ has been busy on the sectarian front, with its
war in D.I. Khan spilling over into Bhakkar. With Shahbaz Sharif back in power and
the LJ in the ascendant, he will have to deal with them somehow. Nawaz Sharif may
publicly deny the threat, but he must surely be alert to the threat the toxic brew of
militancy poses to his government in Punjab. So what exactly does he hope to
achieve with banalities about peace and dialogue? Does he hope the carrot of
opposition to military operations will keep the sectarian militants at bay in Punjab?
Or is he simply playing politics while the polity’s very existence is under threat?
When Nawaz Sharif roars that CJ Iftikhar would have kept this country safe, you’re
inclined to believe the latter. Final thought: the ninth anniversary of Musharraf’s
coup slipped by unnoticed. Before history can repeat itself, the people must prepare
by forgetting.

Author Location Dated

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15.10.08

– Role of blue-collar racism in White House race

John Duffey shakes his head as he recalls bruising racial encounters with his fellow
Americans. From morning to night since May he has been working the phones on
behalf of Barack Obama. “People
“People say, ‘I like the guy. I like what he stands for. I like
his plans, vision, but I am still undecided.’ That has to be the race issue,”
issue,” says
Duffey. Others say outright they will not vote for a black man. Duffey, an official
with the Construction Workers’ Union, works alongside his wife, daughter and two
nephews at a phone bank in the headquarters of the United Steelworkers of
America, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. An African-American, he said: “It “It is actually a
hurtful feeling that in 2008 people can’t get over the race issue.”
issue.” In another room
Kaitlin Decero, a 22 year-old intern from Indiana, is also on the phone on behalf of
Obama. The team she works with averages about 300 calls an hour and race comes
up a lot. People who have voted Democrat in the past tell her they will not be doing
so this time. “Some
“Some people will say openly, ‘he is a black’, ‘I do not trust him’, ‘he is
an Arab’, ‘he is a Muslim’, ‘he was not born in America’. They use the ‘n-word’. We
just hang up.”
up.” Decero puts the ratio of bad calls to good at about 1 in 20. The
impact of race is the big unknown in this election. The lingering fear among
Democrats is that 2008 will be a repeat of 1982 – and subsequent races involving
black candidates – when Tom Bradley lost the California governor’s contest in spite
of polls suggesting he had a lead of between nine per cent and 22 per cent. White
voters had lied in huge numbers to pollsters about their real feelings. Pollsters now
believe the so-called “Bradley effect” has largely disappeared, partly because
polling techniques are better at detecting racism and partly because of a cultural
change in America, with those under the ago of 50 less concerned about race than
their parents.

Scott Keeter, of the Washington-based Pew Research Centre for the People and the
Press, which conducts regular surveys on cultural attitudes, said: “I “I would not say
that the [Bradley] effect is gone completely, but I think it will be substantially
smaller than in the past, if it appears at all. [But] I think it’s prudent to acknowledge
that we are at least partially in uncharted waters ... this is our first general election
with an African-American nominee.”
nominee.” There was serious concern among the Obama
campaign a month ago that, with polls showing him in a dead heat with his
Republican opponent John McCain, lack of enthusiasm on the part of blue-collar
white voters in swing states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Michigan
might cost him the election. That concern has since diminished because of the
economic crisis that is pushing the undecided behind Obama. Mike Harms, an
Amalgamated Transit Union official and one of the organisers of the phone banks in
Pittsburgh, said: “I
“I do believe people are beginning to see that the only colour that
matters in this election is green [the dollar]. When it comes to pocketbook issues,
people will put race behind them.”
them.” Canvassers in Pittsburgh’s workingclass
neighbourhoods – which have been among the most resistant to Obama – confirm
that while there are still a lot of “undecideds”, support for him is on the rise. But, as
in other states with big concentrations of blue-collar white workers, this is more a
vote against the Republicans than a vote for Obama. As those campaigners who
have been targeting union members elsewhere in the US have found, supporters
leafleting outside the Anchor Hocking Glass Company in Beaver Falls, outside
Pittsburgh, at 6am, encountered a sullen response, not entirely due to the early
hour. Their leaflet directly confronted concerns about Obama, saying the election
was about economic issues, health and union rights and “not “not about fear ...anti
American, black, celebrity, elitist, Muslim, terrorist”.
terrorist”. Many of the glass workers
refused to take a leaflet. Some screwed up their faces when they saw the
canvassers’ Obama T-shirts.

Leading the canvassers was Jason Altmire, a Democratic congressman for the
district who is up for re-election on November 4. He described the first hour outside
the gate as “the
“the worst response we have seen in a long time”.
time”. Having Obama on
the ticket did not help him in the district, he said, adding that he was concerned
about the impact of canvassing alongside people in Obama T-shirts. Wayne Boyer, a
54-year-old AfricanAmerican salesman and an Obama supporter, said racism was
evident in the way that white Americans clung to their wallets when they saw him
walking down the street. The fear among them, he said, was that, as president,
Obama “is“is going to push black values”.
values”. Obama’s inner circle plays down race, apart
from when it was forced to deal with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright row earlier this
year. Talking about race, they believe, will cost Obama votes. They also hope the
number of people who will vote against him because he is black will be outweighed
by young and AfricanAmerican voters. But Claire McCaskill, the Missouri senator
who has been with Obama from the start, admitted last week: “You “You can’t be
involved in this election without feeling unease about race in this country.”
country.” Racism
in northern cities and rural areas can be as virulent as in the south. Tom Tuttle, 60,
a white security guard and Vietnam veteran who is undecided, told canvassers in
Brookline, a working-class area in Pittsburgh, that racism was common in the city.
“It is an underlying racism. At least down south you knew they hated them. Here
people have to do it behind their backs ... I think seriously someone will kill the
man.”
man.”

Author Location Dated

Qasim A. Moini Karachi, Pakistan 15.10.08

– ‘Musharraf brought Kashmir close to a solution’

While discussing the complex issues that have plagued relations between the states
of Pakistan and India ever since independence in 1947, eminent Indian lawyer,
author and political commentator A.G. Noorani offered unabashed praise for Pervez
Musharraf, ex army chief and president of Pakistan. As Mr Noorani put it, the retired
general played a vital role in bringing the long-standing Kashmir dispute close to a
solution. He said this while delivering a talk on the ‘India-Pakistan
‘India-Pakistan peace process’
process’ at
the headquarters of the Oxford University Press here on Tuesday. Admitting that it
was not the done thing these days to praise Mr Musharraf, A.G. Noorani went on and
said: “Musharraf
“Musharraf deserves tribute for the constructive role he played in (trying to
solve) the Kashmir dispute. He brought Kashmir to the outskirts of a solution. A few
loose ends remained. These could have been tied up as (Indian Prime Minister)
Manmohan Singh was due to visit Pakistan.”
Pakistan.” However, this could not happen as the
process was thrown off course due to the removal of Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry
from the office of chief justice of Pakistan by Mr Musharraf, an act Mr Noorani
termed “indefensible
“indefensible.”
.” As for the criticism levelled against Pervez Musharraf for
abandoning Pakistan’s traditional stance of demanding implementation of the
United Nations resolutions on Kashmir, Mr Noorani said “they“they had been (already)
abandoned in all but name.”
name .” He said the “harsh
“harsh truths”
truths of the matter were that no
”
Indian government could accept a plebiscite in Kashmir and expect to survive even
a single day there after, while no Pakistani government could be expected to accept
the ceasefire line as the permanent border. He added that the best solution to the
Kashmir issue was a joint administrative mechanism and free movement of people,
as Mr Musharraf had envisaged.

“Manmohan Singh has said that short of (Kashmir’s) secession, we can work with
anything. Let the borders become irrelevant,”
irrelevant,” the Mumbai-based intellectual said
quoting the Indian premier, adding that any solution must be acceptable to both the
governments of Pakistan and India as well as to the people of Kashmir. “Autonomy
“Autonomy
is the best solution.”
solution.” A.G. Noorani was critical of the impression amongst some in
Pakistan that a peaceful solution was possible by working with an Indian
government led by the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party. “The “The BJP is telling
Pakistani diplomats not to settle the issue with Manmohan Singh as an election is
just round the corner. But they are the slaves of their masters, the RSS
(controversial right-wing Hindu group the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh). The
need is to institutionalize dialogue. Why should the leaders of the two countries
meet only at the sidelines of the UN General Assembly or SAARC summits?”
summits?” He also
claimed Pervez Musharraf was treated “very shabbily” during the 2001 Agra
Summit, while relations between Pakistan and India froze thereafter. At the outset
of the talk, Mr Noorani said that for the first 50 years after independence, there was
no proper process of dialogue in place between Pakistan and India, an arrangement
he termed “scandalous
“scandalous.”.” He added that the first serious attempt at addressing the
core issue of Kashmir was made in 1997, with the beginning of the composite
dialogue between Pakistan and India. However, he said that within a week, India
had backed out and avoided putting Kashmir on the table. Nawaz (Sharif) had come
with an agenda of peace, while (former Indian prime minister Inder Kumar) Gujral
had a different agenda. The scholar was of the opinion that the 1965 war was
“thoughtless” and claimed General Ayub Khan – Pakistan’s leader at the time of the
war – regretted later in his life the fact that he did not have the opportunity to
review other options. Reiterating perhaps what is a strange truth in the arena of
international relations, he said diplomacy without force is impotent, while force
without diplomacy is sterile. “India
“India and Pakistan need to put their heads together
and solve the Kashmir issue or we will get nowhere,”
nowhere,” said, adding that the two
countries “were
“were born of the same womb constitutionally.”
constitutionally.” A question and answer
session followed A.G. Noorani’s talk.

Author Location Dated

Ahmed Hassan Islamabad, Pakistan 16.10.08

– PML-N softens stance on parliament briefing

The joint session of the two houses of parliament continued for the fourth day on
Wednesday without any sign of a consensus emerging on the national strategy for
combating terrorism and coping with the threat of Talibanisation. Information
Minister Sherry Rehman, who had briefed the session on the war on terror on
Tuesday, answered questions asked by legislators of the opposition and the ruling
coalition during the four-hour proceedings. She said the PPP-led government had no
‘written accord’ with the United States on the rules of engagement in the war
against terrorism and President Asif Ali Zardari had made no commitments in this
regard during his visit to the US. Senator Kamil Ali Agha of the PML-Q drew the
attention of the speaker to widespread reporting of Ms Rehman’s briefing in the
media which, according to him, was officially leaked out. He said that nothing
remained secret and everything the minister had said in camera had been printed
and telecast today. Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza observed that leaking out in-camera
proceedings had been unfair. Pakistan Muslim League-N legislators, who criticised
the ‘civilian’ briefing on the war on terror on Tuesday, softened their stance outside
the Parliament House after the adjournment of the session till Thursday morning.
The change was attributed to PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif’s advice to his party’s
lawmakers to avoid opposing all efforts of the government to develop a consensus.
Some lawmakers from the PML-Q and JUI-F told reporters that they were not
satisfied with the quality of answers to their questions. Some insiders reported a
lack of interest among a section of lawmakers, forcing the speaker to warn them
against engaging in cross-talk and taking no interest in the proceedings. Some
members from the treasury and the opposition even left the house one after the
other.

Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani offered apologise for the playing of the national
anthem ‘inadvertently’ at the end of Tuesday’s briefing. PML-N leader Javed Hashmi
told reporters that the briefing would help evolve a consensus to meet the
challenge of terrorism, adding the nation hoped the session would yield a positive
outcome. About the previous government’s policy on the war on terror, he said: “If “If
President Musharraf had signed any agreement with the US after the 9/11 incident,
people’s representatives should be informed about it.” it.” Mr Kamil Agha said that 90
per cent of the questioners were not properly answered. Maulana Abdul Ghafoor
Haideri of the JUI-F accused the government of following the policy of the Musharraf
regime on the war on terror. “We“We demand a change in the policy,”
policy,” he said. JUI-F
chief Maulana Fazlur Rehman was reported to have said the briefing contained
nothing new. “We“We know far more than what the government has told us about the
situation in tribal areas.”
areas.” Iqbal Zafar Jhagra of the PML-N said the government had
made a sincere effort to take the parliamentarians on board, adding that a few
aspects not covered could be taken up during the debate. He said that Mr Sharif
had advised the party’s legislators to cooperate with the government wherever
necessary, but without compromising on the national interest. Mr Jhagra said his
party wanted to play a positive role and avoid criticism for the sake of criticism. An
official handout issued after the session said: “The
“The in-camera joint sitting of
parliament continued today with National Assembly Speaker Dr Fehmida Mirza in
the chair. Today was the question-answer session. Ms Sherry Rehman, Minister for
Information and Broadcasting, answered questions of the parliamentarians. The
session continued for over four and a half hours. The sitting was adjourned by the
Speaker till 11am on Thursday.”
Thursday.”
 Author Location Dated
I.A. Rehman 16.10.08

– Dangers in the north

A series of developments in the tribal areas and in Afghanistan over the past couple
of weeks has greatly heightened ordinary Pakistani citizens’ anxieties about their
future. And their expectations of reassurances from the government of safety and
security have remained unrealised. The sequence started with the revival of the
Frontier governor’s interest in enforcing a religious code in Malakand division for the
third time in 14 years. (The Nizam-i-Adl Ordinances of 1994 and 1999, purporting to
enforce religious laws in that territory, are still in force)
force). The implication that in the
gubernatorial view the fight against terrorists was not going well was reinforced
when he advised the US-led coalition in Afghanistan to start negotiating for peace
with Mullah Omar, an indirect way of saying that Afghanistan was as vulnerable as
the Frontier. Then a British military officer found a French publication to inform the
world that the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan could not be won. Similar
observations were attributed to other allied commanders. The head of the coalition
forces added some spice to the brew by asking for reinforcements in anticipation of
a major battle and by proclaiming that he would accept the political high
command’s decision if it chose to hold negotiations with the Taliban. In normal
circumstances these statements would have been interpreted as a reiteration of the
principle that political issues cannot be solved through military means, and that the
western coalition needs to re-examine the non-military part of their prescription for
Afghanistan. This interpretation was ignored. Also ignored was the possibility of
some nexus between the military commanders’ apparent pessimism and two critical
presidential elections — in the United States in November and in Afghanistan a
month or so later. Was somebody trying to frighten the world in order to secure
more resources for the war in Afghanistan? Besides, no thought was given to the
fact that the statements attributed to the coalition commanders were
uncharacteristic of seasoned warhorses who are trained to dismiss suggestions of
defeat even when their rout is clearly visible. Eventually we may realise that the
coalition’s withdrawal from Afghanistan is not imminent. However, the Taliban’s
fellow travellers in Pakistan’s political crowd and their apolo gists were quick to
smell victory in both Afghanistan and Fata, and they started calling for an end to all
military action in the tribal areas.

Now, there is much in the way military operations have been carried out in the tribal
belt that is open to criticism. There have been complaints of disproportionate use of
force, of higher than permissible collateral damage, of costly errors caused by poor
intelligence, and of lack of humanitarian concern for the population trapped in the
conflict zones or forced to wander for shelter across the tribal belt and in
Afghanistan too. The situation has been aggravated by the US raids in the tribal
area. All these aberrations are undermining the fight against terrorism and must be
cured. But anyone who says that force should not at all be used against terrorists is
no friend of Pakistan. And no friend of justice either. Quite a few Pakistanis,
especially those who keep asking everybody in the wonderland as to whose war it
is, need to realise that the militants now threatening to unhinge Pakistan from its
moorings belong to the corps of fighters we ourselves had raised to wage a holy war
in Afghanistan. Drawn from the most conservative layers of the tribal population,
they have been indoctrinated to an extent that they have been drained of reason
and compassion both. The only thing they know is to kill or get killed. Their
prototypes have been seen earlier in different parts of the world. Even successful
revolutions often leave as an unwelcome residue armed men who do not know what
to do with themselves once their mission is over. Many are known to have become
mercenaries. Thus, Pakistan cannot disown its part of the responsibility for
containing the genie it had largely itself brought out of the bottle. Unfortunately, the
task of disbanding the force created and trained to fight in Afghanistan was never
taken up. On the contrary they were encouraged, even helped, to stay in ready-for-
combat formations. The delay in demobilising them has complicated matters.
Among other things they have found defenders amongst Pakistan’s political parties
and possibly amongst its traditional friends abroad as well.

The government is now under pressure to negotiate with the militants. The premise
obviously is that in the tribal areas (and also in Frontier districts) there are only two
parties — the government and the militants. This assumption is wrong and
misleading because it ignores the large population that is angry with both the
government and the militants. It has made its views known in more ways than one.
In the tribal areas the task of bringing the people into the national mainstream,
which was not easy even five decades ago but was not intractable, has now become
unusually difficult. The issue there is not so much religion, which most tribals accept
on their own terms, as cultural and economic autonomy and the fear of loss of
material opportunities in the event of a merger with the Frontier province. In the
settled districts of the Frontier the people indicated their political preference only
eight months ago. Nobody has chal lenged the view that candidates contesting the
elections on the religious card and with ‘book’ as their symbol failed to win a single
seat throughout Malakand division (which includes Swat). Nothing will be more
unjust than dealing with militants over the heads of the far more numerous civil
population. The militants see the population as an obstacle to their political
ambition. They are therefore targeting the people’s elected representatives. At the
same time they are attacking the traditional role of tribal elders as the massacre
during the Orakzai jirga shows. Much as one wishes the tribals, and the Pakhtuns in
general, to break out of the feudal-age bondage to clan chiefs, their supersession by
pseudo-clerics is a prospect too horrible to be contemplated with equanimity. Since
the government is asking the people to fight militancy without giving them any idea
of what good will come to them, they cannot throw themselves into the struggle to
save their future with the vigour and singlemindedness the situation demands. This
failure to take along the people of the Frontier, including Fata, may cost Pakistan
heavier than anything else. Negotiations are a must but with the people and not
only to secure their help for the war. They need to be offered a vision of autonomy,
justice and public welfare.

Author Location Dated

Max Hastings 16.10.08

– Controlled warlordism is Afghans’ best hope

While most of the world spent the weekend trembling for its wealth, in Afghanistan
the Taliban busied themselves dying in quite large numbers, during an ill-advised
assault on Helmand’s provincial capital, Lashkar Gar. Around 50 insurgents were
killed, for no loss to Nato and Afghan security forces. This fits the war’s pattern.
Almost every time the Taliban fights a battle, it loses to overwhelming firepower.
Unfortunately, such western successes are strategically meaningless. Nato is absent
from vast areas of this intractable country, where the insurgents prosper. There is
greater gloom about the conflict than at any time since the Taliban was ousted in
2001. I spent a week in Afghanistan in September, and was shocked by the
deterioration since my last visit two years ago. The British army, which justly prides
itself on its “can-do” philosophy, has been sobered by recent experience. Its
casualties are acceptable within a context of progress. But they become dismaying
against a background of growing Taliban influence and slumping confidence in the
Kabul government. President Bush has decreed an American troop “surge” in
Afghanistan. Some 10,000 additional troops will be committed under General David
Petraeus, the Iraq “miracle worker” who now runs US Central Command. Petraeus,
the most impressive soldier America has produced since Colin Powell, is a clever
and charismatic leader who might one day emerge as a presidential candidate. But
he is well aware that Afghanistan is not Iraq. It is a far more primitive society,
whose people find it hard to perceive the merits of any central government – least
of all one as corrupt as President Hamid Karzai’s – and which is now trapped in a
narco-economy.

It is almost impossible for westerners, military and civilian alike, to engage with
Afghans. Almost none speak the language. It is only possible to travel outside
heavily fortified bases in helicopters or armoured vehicles. Afghan gratitude for the
creation of a few schools and hospitals is outweighed by the simple fact that, in a
diplomat’s words: “Seven
“Seven years ago most of the population felt safe. Now they
don’t.”
don’t.” He added brutally: “The
“The British army has been irresponsible in suggesting
that it could do the business in Helmand. We should never have taken it on. It’s
much more than we can handle.”
handle.” The only bright spot in an overwhelmingly dark
picture is the growing effectiveness of the Afghan army. Its troops are fighting well,
as Afghans usually do, whoever they happen to be shooting at. Smart westerners
argue that we should abandon any notion that Nato can win this war with its own
troops, instead concentrating on helping Afghans to defend their own government –
if they are willing. The Kabul regime is pitifully short of credible people to run the
country. I met Barna Karimi, the deputy local government minister, a 34-year-old
former exile who spent 17 years in California before returning here to work for
Karzai. Unsurprisingly, he talks the language of US business schools: “We “We have
developed a strategic framework,”
framework,” he says. “We
“We are constantly evaluating the
performance of our governors and district governors. We have formulated a social
outreach programme which revives the traditional role of the community. You guys” guys”
– he means westerners, of course – “don’t
“don’t have the problem of lacking a system. I
am trying to create a system without qualified people.”
people.” Listening to this fluent but
unmistakably Californian young social engineer, parachuted into Afghanistan from
an unimaginably alien culture, I found it impossible to believe that Afghans relate to
him as one of themselves.

The newish governor of Helmand, Gulab Mangal, is much more convincing. He is 52

years old and a former commissar in the Afghan army in Russian times; he was a
businessman and ruler of two other provinces before he was transferred to Helmand
during the summer. The British are much in love with Mangal, whom they perceive
as one of the country’s only honest and able officials. Their enthusiasm is
dangerous, however. It feeds Karzai’s morbid suspicions of him as a prospective
rival. When I told Mangal how much his efforts are admired, he said wryly: “Nobody
“Nobody
in Kabul seems to appreciate them.”
them.” He acknowledges that more than half of
Helmand is today under Taliban control. “When
“When government can’t deliver,” he said,
“people think it better to have no government. We need to convince people that we
are working for them. If we cannot do that, it would be better to go.”
go.” I found it easy
to understand why foreigners are so impressed by Mangal’s poise and courage.
There are few people in Afghanistan whom more people want to kill. Every time he
goes out to walk in a bazaar, there is a real chance that he will come back dead.
The British are desperately impatient for the impending US change of government.
They believe that an Obama presidency will recognise the impossibility of military
solutions in Afghanistan. It might throw its weight behind finding a substitute for
Karzai and talking a way out of this shambles. Simon Jenkins has said from the
outset that the Afghan war is unwinnable. I have always shared his dismay about
western blundering. Yet it seems to me that we must keep trying, though the odds
against success are greater than ever. It is futile to escalate the Nato troop
commitment. The only slender chance of stabilising Afghanistan lies in sustaining
military and economic aid for Afghans to help themselves. The highest aspiration
must be for controlled warlordism, not conventional democracy. A civil war may
prove an essential preliminary before some crude equilibrium between factions can
be achieved. If this sounds a wretched prognosis, it is hard to find informed
westerners with higher expectations.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 17.10.08

– World donors’ conditional pledge of $4bn

The international community has agreed to provide $4 billion that Pakistan needs to
avoid bankruptcy, but in return Islamabad will have to undertake a series of painful
economic reforms. US and diplomatic sources in Washington told Dawn that
Pakistan had started negotiating various arrangements with international financial
institutions and friendly nations soon after it realised that it might have to default
on its payments if not helped. The United States played a key supporting role in
these negotiations, remaining engaged with the Pakistani Embassy in Washington.
“There was a real panic in the Pakistani camp,”
camp,” said a US official familiar with the
talks. “Last
“Last month, Pakistani diplomats made 10 visits to the (US) Treasury.”
Treasury.” The
negotiations were finalised during Financial Adviser Shaukat Tareen’s visit to
Washington to attend annual meetings of the World Bank Group. During these talks,
the World Bank, Asian Development Bank, Islamic Development Bank and other IFIs
discussed various plans for providing short-to medium-term support to Pakistan.
During the current financial year, the World Bank will provide $1.4 billion. If
Pakistan’s programmes are approved, its IDA share will also be front-loaded. This
includes a total $3 billion of international development assistance over three years,
from 2008-2011. The Asian Development Bank is negotiating assistance of another
billion dollars. The Islamic Development Bank is negotiating a proposal to raise its
trade facility from $500 million to one billion. This brings the total pledges to about
four billion dollars.

Pakistan is also negotiating further assistance with the Friends of Pakistan group,
formed in New York last year to help rescue Pakistan from the current financial
crisis. The group meets in Abu Dhabi next month. “All
“All we can get,”
get,” said a Pakistani
diplomat familiar with the negotiations when asked what Pakistan expected to get
from the group. “We
“We are certain that the financing gap of four to $4.5 billion will be
bridged,”
bridged,” he said. “It
“It will ease pressure on foreign exchange reserves and foreign
exchange rate.”
rate .” Besides the four billion dollars already pledged, a separate amount
of $900 million of US assistance is in the pipeline during the current US financial
year, which starts on Oct 1. However, to qualify for this generous international
assistance, Pakistan has pledged to undertake a series of painful but necessary
economic reforms. During its negotiations with the World Bank and other IFIs,
Pakistan pledged to reduce its fiscal deficit from 7.7 per cent of the GDP last year to
4.3 per cent of the GDP this year. Pakistan agreed to reform its tax policy and tax
administration with the aim to mobilize additional revenue. The tax to GDP ratio is
to be reduced to 15 percent of the GDP over the next five to seven years. Pakistan
promised to tighten monetary policy as and when needed. Pakistan also pledged to
reduce State Bank borrowing.

Author Location Dated

Agencies Beijing, China 17.10.08

– Beijing to help ward off crisis

China vowed on Thursday to do what it could to help Pakistan avert financial
disaster as President Asif Ali Zardari continued an official visit aimed at rustling up
crucial Chinese investments. The promise came during a meeting between Chinese
Prime Minister Wen Jiabao and President Zardari. The meeting focused on further
cementing strategic partnership between the two countries and Premier Wen said
that bilateral relations and cooperation would witness improvement and depth with
the passage of time. “As“As a long friend of Pakistan, China understands it is facing
some financial difficulties,”
difficulties,” foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang told reporters.
“We’re ready to support and help Pakistan within our capability.”
capability.” Pakistan and
China had on Wednesday signed 12 agreements, memorandums of understanding
and protocols to enhance cooperation on a sound footing in various sectors,
including infrastructure, information technology, energy, telecommunication,
agriculture, industry, minerals, trade, disaster relief and space technology. The
Financial Times newspaper has reported, without citing sources, that Mr Zardari
would seek a soft loan of between 500 million and 1.5 billion dollars from China to
help Pakistan avoid looming bankruptcy. However, Mr Qin offered no specifics on
the form that Beijing’s financial help would take. Pakistan’s Ambassador to China
Masood Khan said earlier this week in a TV interview that an agreement on a civilian
nuclear pact with China could be reached during the trip. But Mr Qin declined to
give any details on the agreements made so far.
“I’m not aware of the specifics of the deals signed,”
signed,” he said. China’s foreign ministry
had earlier confirmed that the nuclear issue would be discussed but gave no
specifics.

President Zardari also met Chairman of the National People’s Congress Wu Bangguo
and vowed to explore new areas of cooperation while expanding interaction in the
existing fields. The two leaders also discussed the strategic partnership and said it
would further invigorate their ties. The NPC chairman called for exploring new
approaches to cooperation and enhancing exchanges and cooperation between
industrial and business communities of the two countries. The two leaders
discussed the bilateral cooperation on politics, trade, science and technology and
culture and agreed that it had injected a new vigour into China-Pakistan relations. A
joint statement issued on Thursday said that the two countries had agreed to propel
the level of economic cooperation in diverse sectors on a fast trajectory as an
important plank of comprehensive strategic partnership. They also agreed to make
continuous efforts to strengthen good-neighbourly relations and friendship, develop
mutually beneficial cooperation and deepen strategic partnership of cooperation
which served the fundamental interests of the two peoples and contributed to
peace and development in the region. Both sides opposed all forms of terrorism,
extremism and separatism and resolved to cooperate with each other to fight these
forces. China conveyed its complete support to Pakistan’s commitment and efforts
to fight terrorism and appreciated the sacrifices made by the government and the
people of Pakistan in this regard.

The two sides agreed that economic cooperation was an important part of strategic
partnership and both sides enjoyed great economic complementarity and should
fully tap the potential and comprehensively deepen mutually beneficial cooperation
in the economic field. The two countries agreed to fast track the implementation of
the five-year development programme on economic cooperation and make full use
of the free trade agreement in goods and investment and Pakistan-China Joint
Investment Company. Both sides agreed that the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation
and Good-neighbourly Relations signed in April 2005 was of great historic and
immediate significance, laying a solid legal foundation for the long-term stable and
healthy growth of China-Pakistan relations. China will continue to view its relations
with Pakistan from a strategic and long-term perspective and make joint efforts to
lift strategic partnership of cooperation to a new height. According to the statement,
President Zardari extended an invitation to President Hu Jintao to again visit
Pakistan at his convenience and Mr Hu thanked Mr Zardari for the invitation.

Author Location Dated

Rawalpindi, Pakistans 17.10.08

– Poverty eradication day Food claims 50pc expenditure of

average Pakistani
As more than 1.4 billion people around the world live on less than 1.25 dollars a
day, the world community commemorates the International Day for the Eradication
of Poverty on Friday with ‘Human Rights and Dignity of People Living in Poverty’ as
its theme. New figures show that poverty has been more widespread across the
developing world over the past 25 years than previously estimated, but also that
there has been strong — if regionally uneven — progress toward reducing overall
poverty. The World Bank said improved economic estimates showed there were
more poor people around the world than previously thought while also revealing big
successes in the fight to overcome extreme poverty. The average Pakistani spends
about 50 per cent of his or her total expenditure on food. Because of the food price
increases for the first quarter of 2008, inequality has worsened by 0.71 percentage
point in Pakistan, estimates Asian Development Bank (ADB). According to
estimates, a 20 per cent increase in food prices would add 100 million people below
the absolute poverty line of one dollar a day around the world. With South Asia
being home to 30 per cent of the world’s poor, the economic managers of the
government have to face the challenge of protecting the poor from contagion of the
recent spike in the food prices around the world, asserts a recent government
survey. The recent research results show that despite income diversification by
rural households, households in the lowest expenditure categories still derive a
larger share of their total income from agriculture when compared to households in
higher income groups. This suggests the need to accord continued attention and
increased resource allocation to the agriculture sector over the long-term.

In sum, there can be no doubt about the critical role of agriculture and rural
development in the attainment of the MDG goal of halving extreme hunger and
poverty by 2015. The most recent session of the Committee on World Food Security
called on all parties to “enhance
“enhance investments in agriculture and rural development
and all related institutions”.
institutions”. Stating that poverty will not be eradicated without due
respect for human rights, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon has expressed his
concern over the rising food and fuel prices, and the global financial crisis, which
are threatening to negate the progress made to reduce poverty and hunger in many
parts of the world. An estimated 100 million people are now at risk of falling into
poverty. Sixty years after the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights, hundreds of millions of people are still deprived of basic human rights such
as food, housing, education and decent working conditions. Those forced to live in
poverty often face social exclusion, discrimination and disempowerment. Poverty
robs the poor of their human dignity, he said in a message on the Day for the
Eradication of Poverty. The ‘State of Food and Agriculture in Asia and the Pacific
Region 2008’ says South Asia has the highest level of underweight prevalence in
the world, with almost half of all children under-five being underweight.Three
countries in this region drive these high levels — Bangladesh, India and Pakistan —
and alone account for half the world’s total number of underweight children. The
report says that it is now widely acknowledged that the role of agriculture and the
rural economy is fundamental for securing sustainable gains in the fight against
poverty. There is much greater appreciation now for the fact that agriculture has
strong links with other sectors. A productivity-induced agricultural expansion can
“pull” other sectors with it and increase economic activity and employment
opportunities in rural areas.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Iqbal Islamabad, Pakistan 17.10.08

– Musharraf persuaded me to confess, says Dr Khan

Nuclear scientist Dr Abdul Qadeer Khan on Thursday told the Islamabad High Court
(IHC) that Gen Pervez Musharaf had persuaded him to make the “so-called
“so-called
confession”
confession” about his role in the nuclear proliferation in the name of “national
“national
interest”
interest” and on the promise of keeping him a “free
“free man and a hero.”
hero.” Chief Justice
Sardar Mohammad Aslam, who had taken up a petition of Barrister M. Javed Iqbal
Jafree, seeking review of the court’s July 21 verdict, reserved the judgment on its
maintainability, but directed Deputy Attorney General of Pakistan Amjad Iqbal
Qureshi to submit in two days relevant cases to help decide the possibility of the
petition on habeas corpus grounds. Barrister Jafree had requested the high court to
review its decision of barring the scientist from speaking on nuclear proliferation,
but allowing him to meet relatives and travel in the country after security clearance.
Dr Khan, in his handwritten letter in Urdu of Sept 21, alleged that the confession he
had read on the television in Feb 2004 had been given to him by the SPD (Strategic
Planning Division) with an assurance that he would be a free man after four months
as “all
“all is being done to satisfy the US”.
US”. “But
“But four months have stretched to four
years and I am still under house arrest.”
arrest.” The letter, however, did not mention what
kind of “persuasion” by Gen Musharraf compelled him to accept “wrongdoings”. Dr
Khan had confessed on television to having transferred nuclear secrets to Iran,
Libya and North Korea. He was pardoned by President Pervez Musharraf, but placed
under house arrest. In a separate letter in English, Dr Khan requested the court to
review its earlier judgment which had virtually put him under house arrest for life
with no rights or facilities. The judgment, Dr Khan stated, had mistakenly mentioned
the Pakistan Science Foundation with which he had nothing to do. “I “I want to
regularly visit Pakistan Academy of Sciences, of which I was President for six years,”
years,”
the letter said. Barrister Jafree told the court that Dr Khan had even been barred
from a mosque that he himself had conceived. The counsel also informed the court
that his client wanted to witness the proceedings provided the government ensured
his security.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 17.10.08

– Reliving Gandhi’s legacy

In this day and age when one desperately searches for men of vision, courage and
integrity it is such a relief to know of a man like Prof Mushirul Hasan, the vice
chancellor of New Delhi’s Jamia Millia Islamia. An established historian, he will be
remembered by posterity for his liberal views, enlightened thought and efforts to
heal the wounds of a community that has a significant presence in Indian society.
This is in reference to the mother-father role that Mushirul Hasan played in calming
down the Muslim community in Jamia Nagar and the Muslim students of Jamia Millia
who were extremely fearful after some students were picked up by the Delhi police
in connection with the seven blasts in the Indian capital. The vice chancellor
established a fund to which teachers and old students of the university contributed
to provide legal aid to the ten arrested Jamia students. Of course this brought lots of
criticism from many in India. They were of the view that the university or its office-
holders had no business to help the students because then every student anywhere
in the country could seek similar assistance. Mushir’s act became even more
noticeable after the vice chancellors of universities in Gujarat decided that all
students of all colleges and universities in the state must take a course in anti-
terrorism. Furthermore, the Gujarat VCs declared that in the event of the police
arresting someone under suspicion of terrorism, the detainee in question would be
considered a terrorist. This stance is diametrically opposed to Mushir’s position. One
hopes that those who fault the Jamia’s VC for helping his students will realise that
his act will strengthen rather than weaken the Indian state and society. It is an
important symbolic gesture in a society where communities today are becoming
increasingly estranged. While the developments post-9/11 have changed global
politics, they have also created bitterness between the majority and a sizeable
minority in India. The liberal and seemingly secular elite in India view Muslims with
a lot of suspicion and this in turn draws a reaction from the minority community.

Some would argue that suspicion is natural in the current circumstances. However,
there are always two sides to a story. The other side, which the majority might not
wish to see, is that given the increased hostility towards religious minorities in India,
namely Muslims and Christians, the minority communities are bound to feel
ostracised and bitter about the state. The Muslims in Kashmir are one part of the
story, but the other reality pertains to the rest of India where Muslims feel less
secure especially after the Babri Masjid incident and the Gujarat carnage. These two
incidents widened the chasm which, in any case, existed due to the disparity in
development. The majority of Muslims are less educated and poor. They are not
even impressed by the few examples of success found in Bollywood in the shape of
Shahrukh Khan, Aamir Khan or Salman Khan. Or some of the cricket stars. Some
might argue this is the fault of the Muslim leadership in India that has done little to
develop the community. But then isn’t it the responsibility of the state as well to
assist the poor people of a community which once had a proud sense of ownership
in the Indian state? Or isn’t it the responsibility of the state to bring development to
the poorer segments irrespective of the community they belong to? What we see as
violence in India is a repercussion of imbalanced development. The country may be
a regional power with nuclear weapons and blue-water capability but it is also a
place where a large segment of the population does not get a share in the
development windfall. On the one hand is the growing middle class, which has
access to education and resources. This is the emerging class which, like in any
other part of the world, suffers from myopia and would like to shut its eyes to
poverty and the dispossessed. In their view, Muslims represent a bunch of terrorists.
It is sad that India, which claims to be the epitome of secularism, has also become a
society where the growing middle class is increasingly prone to stereotyping the
other community. So when discussions take place in most affluent living rooms,
Muslims are dismissed as a bunch of troublemakers and a violent lot. The question
for such people is, what does India plan to do with the Muslims who account for 14-
15 per cent of the total population? Does it plan to drown them in the Indian Ocean
or force them to carve out yet another country for themselves? And let’s not forget
the Christians who are being targeted as well. After all, these people chose to
remain Indians in 1947 and are the country’s citizens.

Recently, during a chat with a senior university professor from Jawaharlal Nehru
University, my suggestion that India is under threat from within was brushed aside
with the argument that the country is too large and can absorb crises. The problem
is that no country is large enough when the crisis it faces is the intolerance of the
majority. Furthermore, the concern in the region is that if anything happens to India
due to internal security issues, its large size will negatively impact the entire region.
The idea is not that the country will disintegrate. After all there are other battles
being fought in India as well. There are the Naxalites, the Assamese and Kashmiris
who are fighting their own battles. However, communal tension is far more lethal
especially in this day and age when people believe that violence may be their
weapon of last resort. A divided society cannot be set right even with an armoury of
lethal weapons. Perhaps what university students in Gujarat need is a lesson in
tolerance rather than counter-terrorism. Therefore, what Mushir has done is show
courage and vision to protect the Indian state. Many have tried to remind him that
the Jamia is the very place he was kicked out of for not supporting the anti-Rushdie
fatwa and resultant demonstrations. So then why support such people? It is
probably his faith in the Indian state that made him take a stand. Unfortunately,
many would rather communalise his decision rather than support it. One wishes
that there were VCs, professors and intellectuals from the majority community who
would come together to heal the wounds of the various minorities in the country. At
the end of the day, Mushirul Hasan represents Gandhi’s legacy better than many
others. One sincerely hopes that India finds more men of vision and similar
character to save itself from violence and internal battles. ¦ The writer is an
independent strategic and political analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 17.10.08

– Rupee falls to new lows against dollar

The US dollar disappeared from the kerb market on Thursday and the inter-bank
market witnessed a severe shortage of the greenback pushing the rupee to all-time
lows of Rs86-87 and Rs82 in both the markets, respectively. The dollar is in high
demand for more than a year as the rupee began to lose against the US currency,
and till Thursday it lost onefourth of its value. But currency dealers said devaluation
of the rupee has picked up pace as within a couple of days it lost over three per
cent in the inter-bank market. The situation in the open market was worse on
Thursday. It was difficult to get even $1000 from one currency exchange company.
The dollar was traded at Rs86 and Rs87. The difference between buying and selling
in the open market also widened up to Rs2 per US dollar. The open market dried up
for three reasons. It was observed that currency dealers are involved in hoarding,
sending dollars abroad through hundi and selling currency to few known people at a
very high rate. The inter-bank witnessed another record sinking of rupee against the
US dollar and was traded at Rs82. “There
“There is no obstacle in falling of rupee.
Country’s reserves are falling, import bills are rising and hopes for immediate inflow
of dollars are fading,”
fading,” said a currency dealer. About 10 days back the country
received $500 million loan from the Asian Development Bank but the inflow failed to
make an impact on the market. The World Bank also announced to help Pakistan
with $1.4 billion but the market sentiment remained depressive. “The “The only way to
stop devaluation of rupee can be the fast devaluation of dollar itself,”
itself,” said the
currency dealer. Analysts believe that Pakistan has forex reserves for only two
months imports and a threat of default is looming over the foreign payments.

Author Location Dated

New York, NY 17.10.08

– Democrat in lead after last debate McCain chides Obama for

comparison with Bush
Barack Obama and John McCain the leading contenders for the presidency of the
United States, had tough and heated exchanges over taxation, abortion and the
conduct of their campaigns in the liveliest and most substantive debate of the
presidential contest on Wednesday.
Wednesday. Mr McCain, who is trailing badly in opinion polls,
was on the offensive for most of the 90-minute event at New York’s Hofstra
University, the last of three debates between the candidates. Mr Obama remained
calm and measured throughout but the Republican landed more blows in his most
impressive debate performance of the campaign. Two quick polls after the debate,
by CBS News and CNN, judged Mr Obama the winner. He was also considered the
winner of the first two presidential debates. A few minutes after the debate began,
Mr McCain rebuked Mr Obama for linking him to the unpopular White House
incumbent. “Senator
“Senator Obama, I am not President Bush,”
Bush,” Mr McCain said. “If
“If you
wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago. I’m
going to give a new direction to this economy in this country.”
country.” Instant polls by CBS
and CNN found that most voters believed Mr Obama won the debate but Mr
McCain’s campaign staff insisted that he had changed the trajectory of the race by
finding a powerful closing argument on the economy and taxation. The democrat
smiled through most of the Republican’s attacks, responding in a cool, measured
tone while Mr McCain often appeared frustrated and peevish. “If“If I’ve occasionally
mistaken your policies for George Bush’s policies, it’s because on the core
economic issues that matter to the American people — on tax policy, on energy
policy, on spending priorities — you have been a vigorous supporter of President
Bush,”
Bush,” Mr Obama said.

Mr McCain questioned the Democrat’s account of his relationship with William

Ayers, a former urban guerilla with whom Mr Obama served on a number of non-
profit boards in Chicago. “Bill
“Bill Ayers is a professor of education in Chicago. Forty
years ago, when I was eight years old, he engaged in despicable acts with a radical
domestic group. I have roundly condemned those acts,”acts,” Mr Obama said. “Mr
“Mr Ayers
is not involved in my campaign. He has never been involved in this campaign. And
he will not advise me in the White House.”
House.” The Republican denied that he has been
running a negative campaign and complained that Mr Obama had not condemned
remarks by Georgia congressman John Lewis comparing his campaign to that of
1960’s segregationist George Wallace. “That,
“That, to me, was so hurtful,”
hurtful,” Mr McCain
said. “And,
“And, Senator Obama, you didn’t repudiate those remarks. Every time there’s
been an out of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I
have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that
were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate.”
inappropriate.” Mr
Obama said that Mr Lewis, who was a civil rights leader in the 1960’s, may have
“gone over the line”, but he held back from criticising the congressman’s remarks.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 18.10.08

– SBP eases monetary policy Rs270bn bailout plan for banks

The State Bank on Friday eased its tight monetary policy and announced a plan to
inject Rs270 billion into the banking system to help the sector tackle a credit crunch
and restore depositors’ confidence. Governor Dr Shamshad Akhtar told media that
with her fresh decision, Rs180 billion would be injected into banks on Saturday. The
banks are facing a serious liquidity shortage in making large payments and
continuing to extend credit to the private sector. Bank-to-bank lending has also
dried up while large banks have stopped lending to small banks altogether. The
liquidity will help banks ease depositors’ fears and scotch rumours that the
government was considering seizing all deposits or that some banks could wind up
operations. The governor dismissed all such apprehensions. The Cash Reserve
Requirement (CRR, which banks keep with the State Bank as reserve money) was
reduced by two per cent to six per cent. It would be brought down to five per cent
from Nov 15. The SBP exempted time deposits of one-year tenure and above from
the Statutory Liquidity Requirements (SLR), yielding another Rs120 billion to the
market. The governor said the central bank was examining the monetary policy and
would bring corrections, if required. The SBP had been maintaining a tight monetary
policy for the past two and a half years, raising the interest rate and making money
costlier for borrowers. Although the bank argued that the interest rate was
increased to check inflation, prices have gone through the roof over the past six
months. More easing of monetary policy is on the cards as the governor said that
more media conferences would be held to provide details about further steps.

However, she maintained that the measures were temporary, aimed at

accommodating extraordinary liquidity requirements of the banking system and
“should not be construed as a change in the monetary policy stance”.
stance”. Ms Akhtar
said the SBP was working with banks and was aware of the situation. “The “The liquidity
shortage is not because of what is happening in US banks and other countries.”
countries.” She
said the problems here had local reasons. Withdrawals made by depositors had
started coming back into the system, she added. The governor also blamed
excessive government borrowing for credit problems. The meltdown in the US and
Europe has cast shadows the world over, but the governor expressed confidence in
Pakistani banking system. “Our
“Our banking is on sound footing and quite capable of
facing shocks.”
shocks.” The governor restricted the press briefing to the liquidity issue. She
said the central bank had also been providing temporary liquidity through open
market operations (OMOs). About Rs300 billion were injected through OMOs. The
governor said the interbank money rate, which was 30 per cent on Oct 4, fell to 16
per cent on Oct 16 because of the central bank’s decisions on liquidity generation.
“The State Bank will monitor the liquidity flow after the injection of massive liquidity
into the banking system,”
system,” she said. “We
“We want to be assured that liquidity is being
effectively utilised.”
utilised.” She said massive liquidity would be required for commodity
operations, which would be at their peak next month. She advised banks to
maintain an advance-to-deposit ratio of at least 70 per cent. The governor gave six
months to all banks to bring the ratio up to 70 per cent. She asked the media to be
cautious in reporting about the liquidity ratio because panic could deal a body-blow
to the sector.

Author Location Dated

Kauser S.K. 18.10.08

– Great nations, suspect leaders

People in Pakistan are great but you have horrible leaders, whereas we have lousy
people and great leaders, said a frequent visitor from South Africa. He found the
people here to be courteous, friendly, caring and accommodating. If one can briefly
shut out the constant reminders of the wrongs with which this land bristles, the
culture of helping others and the philanthropy that flows to soften the brute shocks
of life can be seen more clearly. These attributes cut across the various ethnic and
religious groups that constitute Pakistan. It is the subtext that prevails in sharp
contrast to the mindset of the minority that rules the country. This distinction must
be remembered so that the ills of the few are not used to discredit the vast majority
that is Pakistan. Nor should the ills of the few, even as they have hurt the country
since its creation, be used to question the very existence of Pakistan as a nation.
Pakistan represents a plurality. It is not one nation but a bouquet of nations. All the
nations of Pakistan are caught in various processes of change and in struggles of
competing identities. Rights are claimed on the basis of one or the other identity.
But besides claims of entitlement on the basis of identity, common themes can be
found across ethnic lines. A woman from anywhere in Pakistan could say, I am
discriminated against not only by our customs but also by law. A landless peasant
anywhere in Pakistan could say, I toil on the land but my family does not have
enough food, nor do my children get quality healthcare or education. I walk or get
packed into crowded buses, while those who share my language and religion ride
big cars and are well fed. Ask any poor woman and the meaning of justice becomes
unequivocal. She knows her deprivations. This sense of what is right and wrong is
innate, as some religious scholars also emphasise. It has been said that even the
worst criminal knows deep down that what he has done is wrong, as he would never
want that inflicted on himself. What then is the problem that grips Pakistan?

Today, all those who live within the geographical boundaries of Pakistan watch the
injustices emanating from a powerful centre with mixed feelings of anger,
frustration, helplessness and/or indifference. The centre appears blind to the
importance of the role nations must have in directing their own future, and their
right to negotiate a better future for themselves. Nations are ready to seek a better
future through democratic means, but when this is denied violence erupts. When
rights are demanded not on the basis of democratic principles but through the
barrel of the gun or from behind a rocket launcher, chaos is bound to follow and
render any state dysfunctional. Psychologists differentiate between functional and
dysfunctional families. Dysfunctionality, however, does not indicate absence of
family but a family where its members, especially the children, could start
becoming dysfunctional. Not all such families disintegrate, for many lift themselves
up with the help of therapists or some members from within play the critical role of
positive change. Pakistan today needs a therapist and its emerging civil society
could play this role, for the political leadership remains suspect. Pakistan’s response
to the recent horrific incident of women killed brutally in Balochistan’s Nasirabad
district, and the continuing menace of karo-kari killings in Sindh, presents two
distinct realities: the people who have the strength to say NO and cry out in the
name of humanity and justice, and a leadership that can at best voice its
condemnation but cannot act for substantive change and therefore remains
suspect. Our horror stories belie the deep goodness of people, and the two (the
good and the bad) must be kept separate. Maulana Rumi says that after the rains
you see muddy water streaming down the ground, but within it is the pure water of
the rains. The purity of our people, among the urban and rural poor, among the
ordinary rural and urban literate and educated, is to be respected.

Despite the lousy job done by the leaders, despite the leadership’s inability to
introduce a single measure that would make a difference in the lives of the poor,
people by and large continue to be civilised, erupting only now and then in acts of
desperation like the burning alive this year of suspected dacoits in a middle-class
area of Karachi. There are millions and millions of people all over Pakistan who are
straightforward, honest people struggling to lead an honest life as hardships mount
and the fissures of inequality deepen. What does this do to the inner simplicity and
goodness of people? Needless to say it is challenged, and it comes under
tremendous stress. The leaders appear oblivious whereas for the poor the solution
is simple. If the government cannot give us healthcare and education then why is it
there! exclaimed a poor woman in Sindh. We are forced to go the feudal lords in our
area for justice because the courts are difficult to access, said another woman. An
angry young man at a civil society meeting in Karachi demanded, if it is to be our
Pakistan then it has to be shaped according to our vision. The struggles of nations
can be destructive or constructive as demands are resisted and the cost of change
takes on staggering proportions. The path through the mess created by deprivation,
violence and the indifference of the political leadership can be cut not by the
rhetoric of democracy but the practise of democracy at every level — micro, meso
and macro — and in every domain of life. This path must be predicated on the
dreams of the majority of Pakistanis. After all, as Paolo Freire said in Pedagogy of
Hope, “there
“there is no change without dream, as there is no dream without hope.”
hope.”

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfan.husain@gmail.com 18.10.08

– Peace in our time?

While we in Pakistan are focused on the violence in our tribal areas, as well as on
the suicide attacks in our cities, it has been a long, hot summer in Indian-
administered Kashmir. Before this latest round of unrest, the conventional wisdom
was that the rebellion in the valley was waning. In the current protests, the younger
generation seem to be in the forefront and, unlike many of their parents, they want
independence and not union with either India or Pakistan. The Kashmiri struggle
had always contained a strong element that wanted the people of the valley to go
their own way, but over the years, pro-Pakistani groups, frequently supported by
Islamic parties and intelligence agencies in Pakistan, had threatened to hijack the
movement. In the last few years, however, as the cross-border movement of
militants slowed in the wake of 9/11, it had appeared that the fervour for freedom
had ebbed. It is clear now that passions remain high, and it only needed a spark to
rekindle the torch. This was provided by the government’s decision to transfer 100
acres of land to a Hindu trust to create facilities for pilgrims. In a land where
demography is destiny, the move was bound to provoke a strong backlash. Against
this background, Asif Zardari’s choice of words to describe the Kashmir uprising in
New York during his recent visit was unfortunate. While there are certainly many
terrorists who have committed atrocities in Kashmir, there is a strong element of
idealism as well. In the current protests, in particular, thousands of young Kashmiris
are determined to wage a peaceful struggle. While it is true that one man’s freedom
fighter is another’s terrorist, we do need to tread a fine line here. It has been
convenient for successive governments in New Delhi as well as the mainstream
Indian media to label all the protestors ‘terrorists’. This makes it seem to the
outside world that these are all violent, unreasonable people whose demands
should be rejected. However, this simplistic approach denies the real history of the
protests, as well as India’s own blunders and brutality in dealing with Kashmir over
the last 60 years.

But we are where we are, and cannot rewrite the past. Instead of apportioning
blame, we need to see how this complicated, simmering dispute can be resolved
once and for all. Above all, we must make sure this issue does not continue to
prevent normalisation of ties between India and Pakistan, as it has these last six
decades. Zardari spoke of this recently, and was attacked by the Pakistani media for
calling a spade a spade. Kashmiri groups see the ongoing tension between the two
neighbours as one way to apply pressure on New Delhi to make concessions. But
four wars and countless rounds of talks have shown that Pakistan cannot force India
to give ground. As the disparity between the two countries increases, Pakistan’s
leverage is further reduced. Ultimately then, Kashmir’s fate is in its own people’s
hands. Perhaps if we can detach it from the Indo-Pak rivalry, there is a better
chance that Kashmiris can shape their own destiny. During his years in power,
Musharraf did try and resolve the problem, putting a number of proposals on the
table. Perhaps his biggest contribution to the peace process was to move beyond
the UN Security Council resolutions. Over the years, these had become irrelevant,
but were articles of faith to the Pakistani establishment. By limiting the options
before the Kashmiri people to union with India or Pakistan, the resolutions did not
visualise an independent Kashmir, something most Kashmiris seem to want. Clearly,
given India’s constitutional and political constraints, total independence seems a
distant dream. Kashmiris have to realise that compromise is a necessary part of all
negotiations. Equally, the Indian establishment must see that keeping 600,000
troops in Kashmir indefinitely is no solution either. And Pakistan, although it is an
interested party, must understand that it is a third party, and must not scuttle any
understanding that emerges, even if it is not to its liking. All three need to see that
while we squabble in our backyard, the world has changed beyond recognition. For
easily quantifiable reasons, all three need peace. Kashmir desperately needs
tourists to visit its lovely valley and mountains to prosper. And tourism only thrives
under peaceful conditions. India would like to sort out this issue if it is to play its
rightful role on the world stage. And Pakistan requires peace on its eastern border if
it is to fight the extremist threat within and on its Afghan frontier.

Beyond these pressing compulsions is the larger threat posed by Islamic extremism
to the entire region. This cannot be fought piecemeal: just as these terrorists do not
recognise international borders, the response must be transnational. Then there is
the economic dimension to the conflict. Normalisation would finally unlock the vast
potential for trade and tourism in South Asia. Thus far, Saarc, the regional grouping,
has been largely ineffective because of the bickering between India and Pakistan.
But should leaders in the two countries finally show some maturity and break the
deadlock, immeasurable benefits could result. So what could be the contours of a
settlement that would be acceptable to all three parties? There has been much talk
of softening the Line Of Control, and allowing Kashmiris to come and go. Although a
bus service was started a few years ago, bureaucratic controls have restricted
traffic to a trickle. Unfortunately, hawks on both sides make sure that any positive
mood is rendered meaningless. Spies and soldiers have a vested interest in keeping
tensions high. Unless politicians can rise above short-term interests and take bold
decisions, we will remain frozen in our self-defeating postures. India has the
advantage as it is more powerful, and can therefore take unilateral steps without
fearing losing its edge over Pakistan. In addition, the political leadership in New
Delhi controls the military in a way we in Pakistan can only dream of. But this also
means the government has to carry most of the opposition with it before it makes
any concessions. In Pakistan, the decision-making process is both easier and more
complicated. Ultimately, however, it’s all about vision, political courage, and the
desire to bury the past.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 19.10.08

– Tareen unveils plan to line up $4bn

Adviser to the Prime Minister on Finance Shaukat Tareen unveiled a plan on
Saturday to line up $4 billion with a short-term financial lifeline to bridge the deficit
in balance of payments and build foreign exchange reserves. “I “I am very confident
that we can do whatever it takes to build our foreign exchange reserves and avoid
default,”
default,” Mr Tareen told journalists after addressing a press conference. Mr Tareen
attended the Word BankIMF meetings in Washington recently and visited Beijing
with President Asif Ali Zardari to drum up support for averting any balance of
payments crisis. He said that Pakistan needed around $4 billion for bridging the gap
in balance of payments during the current fiscal year. He said his plan would be
finalised in four to five weeks after consultation with all stakeholders. “We
“We will be in
a sound position in the next 30 to 60 days,”
days,” he asserted. He said “plan A” aimed at
bridging the gap in balance of payments, mainly through multilateral lenders (the
Word Bank and Asian Development Bank) and frontloading disbursements from
development assistance programmes in the current fiscal year. The PM’s adviser
said the Islamic Development Bank and Britain’s Department for International
Development were also expected to virtually double their planned assistance. The
World Bank will provide $1.5 billion and the ADB $1.6 billion. Five hundred million
pounds would come from DFID, $500 million from the IDB and $1.5 billion from
workers remittances bonds. “This
“This is in excess of our needs and does not include
assistance from the ‘Friends of Pakistan’ forum,”
forum,” he said. Mr Tareen said that under
“plan B”, the government was expecting the required assistance from ‘Friends
‘Friends of
Pakistan’
Pakistan’ to balance its budget deficit. “China
“China and Saudi Arabia are likely to make
huge commitments at the ‘Friends of Pakistan’ meeting in Abu Dhabi next month.” month.”
He said under “plan C”, Pakistan would seek assistance from the International
Monetary Fund. “We “We can go to the IMF if we want, but only as a backup,”
backup,” Mr Tareen
said, adding that he was confident Pakistan had a viable plan to surmount its
problems. “If
“If the IMF approves our plan, then we will go for it. We are not getting
additional conditionality. If they approve our plan, we can always talk. Pakistan
cannot wait for a long time,”
time,” he replied to a questioner. “We
“We need action to induce
money into the economy over the next one month. Otherwise, we have to see
option C to curtail the decline in reserves,”
reserves,” he said. “The
“The plan has been presented
to international financial institutions to bail out the country from current economic
woes.”
woes.” He said donors were informed that the government had compounded
people’s misery by increasing electricity tariffs and oil prices. “We
“We urged them to
come forward to help the six-month old democratic government,”
government,” he said.

Mr Tareen gave an upbeat account of his meetings with finance ministers of various
countries and heads of international financial institutions, emphasising that only the
next 12 to 24 months were problematic for Pakistan. He said at the end of this
period, macro-economic indictors — inflation and fiscal deficit — would improve and
expenditure would be reduced. Tax and nontax revenue would be increased from
10.5 per cent to 15 per cent within five years, he added. Talking about poverty
alleviation, the adviser said poor families would be given vocational training to help
them come out of poverty. He said medical insurance ranging between Rs15,000
and Rs20,000 per year would be given to the poor. More working facilities would be
created at the union council level to create employment opportunities, he added. Mr
Tareen said the rupee had been overvalued for the past two to three years. The
overvaluation inflicted heavy losses to local industries. “It
“It has increased cost of
doing business, while consumers opted for cheaper imports.”
imports.” “We
“We need a flexible
and realistic exchange rate. It does not mean that the rupee would regain its value
at 60 against the dollar, but it would be realistic.”“
realistic.”“We
We have to show flexibility in the
currency to discourage imports. The economists are working on it.” it.” The adviser said
agriculture growth had been declining for the past few years. He said the
government was planning to augment water resources, implement food processing
facilities, improve marketing and credit availability. Mr Tareen said the government
had decided to establish a trust to consolidate sick industries. After consolidation,
these units should go into the hands of efficient people. “We
“We need export
diversification. We will give incentives to encourage value-addition.”
value-addition.” He said the
government was planning to develop an integrated energy plan that would not only
include electricity and gas, but also coal-based energy. He said more reforms would
be introduced in the banking sector and the stock market would be integrated with
the mainstream economy.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 19.10.08

– Pakistan’s power dilemma

In the sixty-second year of independence the political dilemma facing the people of
Pakistan is the same as it was in the first year — in whom the executive authority of
the state vests and who actually exercises it? It became an issue serious enough in
the lifetime of Mr Jinnah to have persuaded him to remind the army officers at the
Staff College, Quetta on June 14, 1948 that “under
“under the Government of India Act as
adapted for use in Pakistan which is our present constitution the executive authority
flows from the head of the Government of Pakistan who is the Governor General”.
General”.
Since then the problem has persisted through every regime — parliamentary,
presidential, dictatorial or hybrid of all three — but was never more troublesome
than it is now. The president as head of the state represents the unity of the
republic. The executive authority of the federation also vests in him but the
constitution binds him to act only “in
“in accordance with the advice of the cabinet or
the prime minister”.
minister”. The current practice is the other way round; it is the prime
minister who acts on the advice of the president. Such, at least, is the impression
widely held both at home and abroad. A doubt also hangs over the credentials of
the president to represent the unity of the republic for Asif Zardari is also the head
of his own party which is just one of the many parties represented in parliament and
in the provincial legislatures, some of whom fiercely disagree with the policies being
pursued by him. The executive powers exercised by the authoritarian or charismatic
individuals in our political system have seldom conformed to the intent or letter of
the constitution. One of the more deplorable expressions of this tradition was seen
in the dismissal of the Supreme Court by Gen Musharraf when the chief justice
refused to resign under his pressure. Mr Zardari may now feel more restrained but
he has visibly assumed a role in statecraft which is not envisaged for the head of
state in the constitution.

It can be reasonably argued that Mr Zardari because of his inherited charisma,

which has made him the undisputed leader of the PPP, is better suited to be the
executive head of the country at this critical juncture than Yusuf Raza Gilani. But
then he should have chosen, and the choice was all his, to be the prime minister
rather than turn the constitution on its head. Mr Zardari being the head of state but
acting as executive head of the government gives rise to a question more
fundamental than just exceeding the constitutional role of the president. And that
question is whether the country’s government in its outlook and essential features
is going to be parliamentary or presidential. Ironically, though the executive power
in Pakistan all along has tended to centre around individuals starting from Jinnah
onward to Ghulam Mohammad, Ayub Khan, Z.A. Bhutto, Ziaul Haq, Benazir Bhutto,
Nawaz Sharif and Pervez Musharraf, most political parties have always shown
strong commitment to the parliamentary form of government. So pervasive has
been this Westminster sentiment that even the Supreme Court while validating
Musharraf’s coup and permitting him to amend the constitution, or keep it in
abeyance in parts, expressly prohibited him from tempering with its parliamentary
character (sadly, the court neither censured nor arraigned him when he didn’t abide
by its direction). The people at large, on the other hand, have always been more
concerned about the performance and integrity of a government rather than with its
form. Their elected representatives nevertheless have remained steadfast in their
loyalty to the parliamentary system. So also was the PPP till the time Mr Zardari
became the president and began to raise doubts. The recent inter-party pacts were
also for the instant and total repeal of the changes wrought by Mr Musharraf
through the 17th amendment. Mr Zardari has however left the consideration of this
issue to a parliamentary committee without a deadline. There seems no hurry. The
committee when formed, obviously with the majority of its members drawn from the
PPP and its allies, may propose the repeal of Article 582(b) but, in the present
situation, is unlikely to recommend the abolition of the National Security Council.

Parliament is also unlikely to disturb the powers of the president to appoint the
chiefs of the armed forces, governors, judges and chief election commissioner at his
sole discretion or in consultation with the prime minister but not on his advice. Mr
Zardari’s government in its essential characteristics is thus shaping up to be more
presidential than parliamentary. In practice it would be altogether presidential if he
were to use his party office and personal clout also to take over the functions of the
prime minister and the cabinet which he is visibly doing already on an extensive
scale. The supremacy of parliament which was the unifying war cry in the campaign
against Musharraf thus would remain a myth notwithstanding Mr Zardari’s own
avowal that he is a president subservient to parliament. As president he would not
be even directly answerable to it. The prime minister and the ministers would be
there to defend his actions as their own which they will surely do faithfully. In the
seven months of its existence the performance of parliament even as a debating
forum has been perfunctory. The burning issues relating to terrorism, economic
decline, financial bankruptcy, development planning, lawlessness and crime are all
placed under the charge of advisers who are not members of parliament nor
accountable to it. The briefings by army officers and the information minister, the
parliamentarians allege, have not added to what they knew already about the war
on terror through media reports and bazaar rumours. It is they and not the generals
and the advisers who should have been making the policy to combat terrorism. In
these fateful times the parliamentarians should not be seen sitting on the sidelines
or just sulking. Cutting across party lines, they must support the government or
oppose it unless they have made a conscious decision to leave the fate of the
country in the hands of the generals and advisers only to blame them when it is too
late.

Author Location Dated

Shahid Iqbal Karachi, Pakistan 19.10.08

– Race begins to fetch deposits

The persistent liquidity crunch has forced banks to launch innovative products to
attract deposits which are being withdrawn instead of keeping in banks. Banks are
preparing to pay profits in advance to depositors, which they believe would restore
depositors’ confidence and stop outflow of liquidity from banks. The meltdown of
financial system in the US and Europe has still not entered with a full impact in
Pakistan, but penetrated into the banking system, creating a liquidity shortage.
Bankers say no bank has defaulted and no apparent panic is visible in Pakistan, but
the liquidity has flown out of the system, making it difficult for banks to run their
day-to-day affairs. The State Bank has taken a series of measures, and the latest
step was taken on Friday when a total liquidity of Rs270 billion was pumped into the
system. Meanwhile, the Allied Bank took lead by launching new products on
Saturday which offers profit in advance over deposits. The bank said it would pay
Rs14,000 in advance over a deposit of Rs100,000 fixed for 15 months. The SBP
governor in a media conference on Friday had indicated that such products were
being launched by banks in Pakistan to attract deposits. Banking sources said that
more such products were in the pipeline. “Pumping
“Pumping of liquidity by the State Bank is
not enough as banks, especially small banks, are still in a trouble,”
trouble,” said a senior
banker. The State Bank, despite pumping Rs180 billion on Saturday, carried out
Open Market Operation the same day and injected Rs5.448 billion for seven days.
The SBP had already pumped temporary liquidity of Rs300 billion through OMOs
since the beginning of liquidity crisis.

The banker was of the view that every bank would have to come out with new
products like return on advance to boost confidence of depositors. “We“We can offer
more in advance on deposits for a year,”
year,” said the treasurer of a large Pakistani
bank. He said that competition to attract liquidity could benefit depositors to get
even Rs16,000 to 17,000 in advance for fixing liquidity for one year or more.
Bankers said no confidence-shaking incident happened in Pakistan, no bank
defaulted and no bank refused to pay back to depositors but still confidence
shattered only because of what is happening with giant banks operation on global
level. No foreign bank operating in Pakistan showed any signs of winding up of its
operations or closing down branches, though, some of them are in a deep trouble,
particularly in England where the government bought stakes up to 60 per cent in
banks. An analyst said that foreign banks which have massive exposures of
derivatives, hedge funds, real estate and stocks in the US and Europe market, have
no such investment in Pakistan which ‘means
‘means they are safe at least in Pakistan.’
Pakistan.’
Pakistani bankers did not see even remote chances of making risky investments,
like stocks and real estate. “The
“The question is how to assure depositors that their
hard-earned money is safe despite no losses incurred by Pakistani banks in the
recent turmoil,”
turmoil,” said the banker. He was of the view once the financial system
meltdown completes its course, it would restore confidence in banks in Pakistan too.

Author Location Dated

Zohra Yusuf 20.10.08

– Promoting media ethics

When a government, unnerved by coverage of the lawyers’ movement, imposed
emergency rule and introduced curbs on the media last November, the protests by
journalists received considerable public support. Journalists were also seen to be in
the right when they rejected a ‘code of conduct’ arbitrarily enforced by the
government of Pervez Musharraf. However, it became clear that the people’s
definition of media freedom was at variance with that of journalists when the
private electronic media began to telecast disturbing images of the violence that
has struck Pakistan with increasing frequency and brutality. Criticism of certain
undesirable aspects of media coverage prompted the Pakistan Federal Union of
Journalists (PFUJ) to host a consultation in association with the International
Federation of Journalists to debate the parameters of a voluntary code of ethics. The
outcome was a 26-point code that the PFUJ has circulated for feedback and
suggestions. This code takes into account the public outrage over explicit coverage
of acts of violence — particularly cases of suicide bombings in which scant respect
is shown towards the deceased or the sentiments of their families. The coverage
has become so gruesome that certain channels have run prior warning messages
advising viewers about the unsuitability of the footage for children. Thus Point 20 of
the proposed code states: “A “A journalist shall not publish or broadcast extreme
images of violence, mutilation, corpses or victims of tragedy irrespective of the
cause unless it is necessary in the public interest.”
interest.” Here, one wonders how the
visual projection of mutilated bodies can ever be in the ‘public interest’. It is akin to
clauses in the Constitution of Pakistan that add the proviso of ‘national interest’
while guaranteeing fundamental freedoms. Giving the background to the
development of the code of ethics, the communication from the PFUJ states: “The “The
media adopted 26points Code of Ethics and constituted a five member committee
… to prepare a draft for Media Complaint Commission. The committee will take the
other media stakeholders on board. The Commission will look into the public
complaint against media [sic]”.
[sic]”.

The draft paper on the Media Complaints Commission is yet to be circulated. This
first step in creating a voluntary code of ethics for the media is a commendable one.
There are several points that demonstrate the concern of the framers regarding the
pernicious role the media sometimes plays in instigating hatred — ethnic or racial.
“A journalist shall strive to ensure that his writing or broadcast contains no
discriminatory material or comment based on matters of race, national or ethnic
origin, colour, age, sex, marital status or physical or mental handicap”
handicap” (Point 16).
This clause, however, has some gaping holes. In the context of Pakistan, it is
imperative to include in its ambit issues of sectarianism and religious bigotry.
Colour and race are not exactly the basis for discrimination in Pakistan and this
clause seems to have been picked up from some other similar code. While other
points in the code cover aspects of reporting on sectarian killings, it is necessary in
this clause to specifically indicate the danger of prejudicial comments.The power of
the media to incite faith-based hatred was amply demonstrated when, following the
recent airing of a television programme, three Ahmadis were killed in different parts
of Sindh, apparently in response to views expressed in the talk show. While the PFUJ
condemned the killings and the role of the programme in instigating the murders, it
should consider incorporating strict safeguards against such malicious broadcasts.
The proposed PFUJ-IFJ code rightly takes cognisance of discriminatory and damaging
reporting against women. Women’s rights groups have for long demanded an end
to biased and stereotyped media coverage of women. The worst examples are from
the field of crime reporting in which gender, age, looks and personal details are
given coverage with barely concealed pleasure. Point 17 of the proposed code
states: “A journalist shall respect and uphold principles of gender equality both in
performance of his/her professional duties and in his/her relations with fellow
journalists. A journalist shall not discriminate and shall avoid sex-role stereotyping
and exploitation in his/her work.”
work.”
Again, the proposed code doesn’t go far enough in categorically discouraging sexist
reporting, though read in conjunction with other points it does attempt to respect
women’s right to fair and equal treatment by the media. Rights groups need to look
at those points of the code referring to coverage of women analytically and
formulate their response to the PFUJ-IFJ document. One of the most significant
issues the code of ethics rightly addresses is the media’s attitude towards terrorism
and the campaign (by Pakistani security forces or the US forces) to combat it. This is
reflected in the following point: “A“A journalist shall not glorify the perpetrators of
illegitimate acts of violence committed under any garb or cause, including honour
and religion”
religion” (Point 14). Since the Lal Masjid operation last July, the objectivity of
the media is becoming increasingly questionable when it comes to coverage of
terrorism. After criticising the then government for inaction, a total turnaround in
positions was seen when the security forces finally stormed the mosque to flush out
armed militants. While the level of force used or the lack of planning on the
government’s part could be challenged, news channels and journalists — by and
large — began to play a partisan role, leaving no doubt where their sympathies lay.
Similarly, terrorists are often glorified in reporting on the current military operations
in Fata and Swat. Commentators invited to give their opinion generally include
hardliners such as Gen (retd) Hamid Gul whose proTaliban views are no secret. It
has come to be believed that anti-Americanism means being anti-Pakistani military
operations — and, consequently, pro-Taliban (or terrorists by any other name). The
code, seeking to promote ‘responsible media’, has proposed a crucial value system
to ensure ethics-based journalism, both at personal and institutional levels. Through
the Media Complaints Commission it seeks to ensure “That “That there is credible and
effective peer accountability through self-regulation by journalists and media
professionals that will promote editorial independence and high standards of
accuracy, reliability, and quality in media.”
media.” The PFUJ has circulated the draft code of
ethics to media organisations and individuals to elicit comments and suggestions.
This is an initiative long overdue and one that needs a broad spectrum of support.

Author Location Dated

Baqar Sajjad Syed Islamabad, Pakistan 21.10.08

– US pours cold water on hopes for immediate remedy

Richard Boucher, the US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, on Monday said
‘Friends of Pakistan’
Pakistan’ were committed to helping the country overcome the financial
crisis, but “wouldn’t
“wouldn’t throw money on the table”.
table”. “It
“It is not going to be a cash
advance for Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” Mr Boucher told reporters at a media briefing at the US
embassy, indicating that a framework for promising any kind of assistance would
come only after a thorough assessment of Pakistan’s plans. The statement by the
top US diplomat for South Asia soon after he attended a preliminary meeting of the
‘Friends of Pakistan’
Pakistan’ here dashed hopes of all those who were expecting immediate
relief from the forum created last month to help Pakistan raise billions of dollars to
avert a possible economic collapse, which is becoming imminent with every passing
day and warnings by financial experts that the next 30 days were crucial. The
United States has been working behind the scenes with other governments ahead of
next month’s crucial meeting of the forum comprising some of the world’s richest
nations. “It
“It is going to be a strategic process in which Friends of Pakistan would
look into what the (Pakistan) government is doing; what is it planning; and how
could those efforts be supplemented,”
supplemented,” said Mr Boucher. “The“The assistance would be in
the form of “strategic support to give ordinary Pakistanis better and safe life.”
life.”
Although an assistant secretary of state, Mr Boucher met the country’s top
leadership, including two meetings with President Zardari and Prime Minister Gilani;
and discussions with the foreign minister, the adviser on finance, the NWFP
governor and the chief minister. Last but not the least, he also met Nawaz Sharif,
the chief of the main opposition party (PML-N). The US official noted that his
government was cognisant of the enormity of economic and security challenges
confronting Pakistan and its assistance was targeted to enable the country deal with
its woes. He reiterated Washington’s resolve to continue helping Pakistan in the war
on terror and said new areas of cooperation in the fight against militancy and
extremism were being explored. Referring to his meetings with the Pakistani
leadership, he said: “We
“We looked into other areas we can help.”
help.” The US has recently
launched an initiative for training of Frontier Constabulary to improve its capacity to
fight terrorists. A small unit comprising 25 special services troops has been
deployed for this purpose.

Pakistan had earlier refused this training program after a US attack on a border post
killed 11 troops. However, Mr Boucher, indicating the acceptance of the program
now, said: “There
“There is a lot of support for modernising the army.”
army.” Mr Boucher also had
a rare word of praise for the government’s actions against Taliban and Al Qaeda
along the border with Afghanistan. “It “It is good the Pakistan government is taking
serious military action against the militants.”
militants.” The US official said there was a clear
commitment and willingness on the part of Islamabad to take forward the fight
against militancy. “We’re
“We’re glad to see serious military action against people whose
only goal seems to be to blow up the Pakistan state and society.”
society.” Speaking on the
issue of dialogue with militants, the US official said at present there were no “active
talks” going on with the Taliban at any level. He said although the US government
realised that there had to be a political process at some stage, currently there was
no other option but to fight militants because they hade not shown “sincerity
“sincerity in
renouncing violence”.
violence”. Much of the US criticism of Islamabad’s talks with militant
factions, he emphasised, had been based on “past ineffective agreements”. The US
official said he had discussed the issue in his meetings with Pakistani leaders and it
was for Pakistan and Afghanistan governments to decide as to when and how they
undertake the peace process. A mini-jirga comprising representatives from Pakistan
and Afghanistan in Islamabad on Oct 27-28 would, among other issues, discuss
moves to engage the Taliban, referred to as opponents in the jirga objectives, in
some sort of an arrangement for bringing normality to a strife-torn region. Mr
Boucher also rejected the criticism of US drone attacks in tribal areas and said
Washington was instead helping both Islamabad and Kabul Afghanistan in
“extending their writ to the border region and dealing with the enemy”.
enemy”. “The
“The
problem in tribal areas is quite acute”,
acute”, he said adding people were moving in both
directions and mounting attacks on both sides of the Durand Line.

Author Location Dated

Krissah Williams Thompson/
Thompson/ Jenkintown, 21.10.08
Jacqueline L. Salmon Pennsylvania

– Political differences over abortion growing among Catholics

Mary Anne Burke’s voice was full of emotion as she left her 31st message of the
night, this one for a parishioner of the Church of Immaculate Conception. ”I’m
”I’m a
member of Our Lady Help of Christians in Abington,”
Abington,” she said, “calling
“calling with a
request that you support McCainPalin on one nonnegotiable issue. The issue is life –
life from birth to death. Hopefully, prayerfully, you will consider it.”
it.” Burke, 76, a
volunteer for the Pro-Life Union of Southeastern Pennsylvania, has been an active
opponent of abortion rights for three decades, but “it’s
“it’s never been this intense,”
intense,”
she said, putting the phone down. “They
“They are muddying it up.”
up.” By “they,” she means
Democrats who are reaching out more aggressively to Catholics than she can ever
remember. Rather than argue over the morality of abortion, these Democrats
contend that the church’s teachings on social justice and such issues as poverty,
the environment, health care and unjust warfare should guide Catholic voters as
much as abortion. The Democratic effort includes antiabortion Catholic scholars who
have come out in favour of Sen Barack Obama, a proliferation of progressive
Catholic organizations that have sprung up contending that Catholic teachings do
not forbid voting for a pro-choice politician, and such high-profile Catholic
Democrats as Sen Joseph R. Biden Jr, the party’s vice presidential nominee, and
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. ”The”The stakes here are just so much greater,”
greater,” said Alan
Wolfe, director of the Boisi Center for Religion and American Public Life at Boston
College. “If
“If you’re one of those Catholics who makes abortion the absolute priority –
the issue of all issues – and Obama wins, you could say goodbye for the rest of your
life to Roe v. Wade being overturned. ...At the same time, (people) ... also think
there are other issues and that the last eight years of the Bush administration have
raised questions about economic and social justice – core Catholic issues – that
simply have to be addressed.”
addressed.”

In the final trek to Election Day, it is a debate making its way to the centre of the
presidential contest in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan, home to
large and influential Catholic populations. It is a debate McCain appears to be
winning. The latest Washington Post-ABC News poll shows Catholics supporting
McCain by 54 to 41 per cent – a significantly wider margin than a month earlier. But
white Catholics are also more apt than other voters to say they could change their
minds or remain uncommitted before Election Day, making them a target for both
campaigns. Obama’s Catholic outreach team has trained field staff members to be
comfortable talking to people about faith, and has run phone banks targeting
parishes, as well as held Sunday brunches after mass and house parties to push the
message that Obama is a Christian man who welcomes religious voters and who
wants to reduce the number of abortions by providing social services to women and
children. McCain’s staff has connected with groups such as Pro-Life Union, which
also worked hard to elect President Bush as part of a reliable volunteer network of
eager conservative Catholics, along with evangelicals. They are buoyed by the
growing backlash from conservatives to the outreach by Democrats, and volunteers
push McCain’s long history of voting against abortion rights. More significant to
Burke is the role of Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, who has begun frequently talking about
her opposition to abortion, pounding Obama on the issue at campaign stops,
something McCain has not done. Palin is already a hero to anti-abortion advocates,
as a mother of five children, including a Down syndrome baby and a pregnant
teenage daughter, Burke said. Catholics are fairly divided over the issue of legalized
abortion, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, with slightly more saying it
should be legal in most or all cases. As a whole, they rank the economy as the top
issue in this election. The jockeying by the candidates and the conflict among
Catholics this year stand in stark contrast to 2004, when a handful of bishops
threatened to deny Holy Communion to Sen John F. Kerry, the Democratic
presidential candidate, and encountered little organised opposition from other
Catholics. This time, high-profile anti-abortion Catholic scholars have come out in
favour of Obama, and a number of progressive Catholic organisations have sprung
up, contending that Catholic teachings do not forbid voting for a pro-choice
politician. Catholics United, a non-partisan group promoting the message of social
justice, and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which calls for a “consistent
ethic of life” on such issues as poverty and capital punishment, argue that
economic policies may be the most effective way to combat abortion by providing
social services, such as affordable health care, for pregnant women.

Douglas W. Kmiec, a law professor at Pepperdine University who served in the

Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, is one of the anti-abortion
scholars who has endorsed Obama. In his recent book, “Can “Can a Catholic Support
Him? Asking the Big Questions About Barack Obama,”
Obama,” he contends that overturning
Roe v. Wade would not end abortion, and that the bigger priority should be
addressing “the
“the economic and cultural and social circumstances that force women
to believe that they must make a choice against life.”
life.” In Pennsylvania, Pat Stanton,
whose father founded Pro-Life Union of Southeastern Pennsylvania, has been
handing out brochures outside of churches that read “Catholics
“Catholics have a moral
obligation to withhold their vote from Barack Obama,”
Obama,” and he organized the phone
drive Burke worked on to pressure Catholic voters to “do the right thing.” ”It’s”It’s
people who are wishy-washy about their faith that would vote for Obama,”
Obama he said.
,”
“How can you be a Catholic and vote for Obama? You can’t honestly do it. I don’t
buy it for a second.”
second.” But the debate continues. At a “Theology
“Theology on Tap”
Tap” discussion in
a pub in Philadelphia’s Manayunk neighborhood recently, several dozen young
Catholics turned out to hear Jerry Beyer, an assistant professor of theology at St
Joseph’s University try to explain how a Catholic could hew closely to the teachings
of the church and still fairly conclude that there are other issues as important as
protecting human life. ”Reasonable
”Reasonable people can disagree about how best to
implement the values and principles of the Catholic tradition in concrete
circumstances. If you disagree on this level, it doesn’t make you a bad Catholic,”
Catholic,”
Beyer said, using a document issued by the US Catholic Bishops on political
participation to explain that Catholics have a responsibility to “form
“form their own
conscience properly”
properly” and choose the best candidate. He is backing Obama, and so
is a 36year-old mother of three who sat at a table near the bar, but she is not
advertising her support for the Democratic nominee. ”We ”We are being told explicitly
don’t publish things about Obama on Facebook because it could cost us a job,” job,” she
said, asking later that her name be withheld because her husband is an untenured
faculty member at a Catholic university, and she worried he could be fired. “It “It really
is charged. You just have to sit there and just ride through the times. It’s a shame,
because our church has historically been united, and now it’s not.”not.” Burke said she
hopes the rifts will heal when the election is over. She understands how young
Catholics could favour Obama in a historic election and wonders aloud if she would
feel differently were she younger. ”Oh, there’s a lot of division, but God is with us,”us,”
she said. “He’s
“He’s going to protect the church for all time. We’re all sinners.”
sinners.” Then she
called another member of Church of the Immaculate Conception, and left her final
message of the night.

Author Location Dated

Amir Wasim Islamabad, Pakistan 22.10.08

– Nawaz puts forth proposals on anti-terror war

PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif in a letter to Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani has
presented a grim picture of the state of affairs in the country and submitted six
proposals for evolving a consensus policy on the so-called ‘war against terrorism’
and the overall security situation. According to the letter, a copy of which was made
available to Dawn, the PML-N chief suggested formation of a joint parliamentary
committee to oversee the affairs relating to the efforts to curb terrorism and
militancy in the country. In his letter, which was delivered to the prime minister’s
secretariat on Monday evening, Mr Sharif said he was writing the letter at a time
“when Pakistan is going through the worst crisis of its history”.
history”. “The
“The fresh wave of
widespread violence and unabated spate of suicide attacks are causing colossal
damage at home and adversely tarnishing our image abroad. The insurgency is
critically straining our limited economic resources. “As a consequence, the nation is
facing unprecedented inflation, scarcity of food supplies and energy crisis of the
worst kind. There is a complete breakdown of law and order creating a pervasive
feeling of insecurity,”
insecurity,” he wrote. The six proposals presented to the government by
Mr Sharif are: “Adopting
“Adopting a strategy based on comprehensive dialogue with all
stakeholders; defending and safeguarding Pakistan’s sovereignty and territorial
integrity; restoring governance in the tribal areas keeping in view local traditions,
customs and social norms; focusing on employment generation and socio-economic
uplift in Fata and other areas of the NWFP and Balochistan; building bridges to turn
hostile PakistanAfghanistan border into economic gateway for the region; and
ensuring that no one uses Pakistan’s territory for terrorism in any other country.”
country.” Mr
Sharif criticised the policies of the past regime, saying “the
“the country is paying a
heavy price for pursuing short-sighted policies of Gen Musharraf, made without any
consultations and consensus.”
consensus.” The genesis of this policy, says the letter, “relates
“relates to
the unbridled ambition of the military dictator who plunged Pakistan into a war-like
situation on our western borders.”
borders.”

Commenting on the decision of the Musharraf regime to reverse the country’s policy
towards Taliban government in Afghanistan, he said that “it “it did not come from any
sound evaluation of the domestic and foreign policy fundamentals. It was not even
strategic in outlook. The revision was evidently tactical and driven by external
compulsions rather than internal dynamics.”
dynamics.” Opposing the ongoing military
operation in Fata, he writes, “the
“the military intervention in Fata completely ignored
the character of the local population. Stunned by intense tribal resistance to military
intervention, agreements with the tribes were effected without forming a
mechanism for enforcement. The 9/11 dictated a tactical retreat, but the
fundamentals were never reviewed. The dysfunctional administration, ineffective
civil armed forces and even military intervention has failed to assert authority in the
tribal areas.”
areas.” In his letter, Mr Sharif also highlights the importance of
PakistanAfghanistan relations. “The
“The key to regional peace lies in Kabul. The quest
for stability would come only by comprehending this adhered destiny of the two
countries, realising the significance of bilateralism to resolve the issues and the
importance of the resultant cross-border economic dividends. Internally, Pakistan
needs to prepare and adopt a counter insurgency strategy that evokes broad
support, and employs all means to diffuse ex tremism and promote forbearance and
amity.”
amity.” He writes: “Needless
“Needless it is to overemphasize that the key traits of Pakistan’s
current anti-terrorism strategy are that the military operations are in fact, driving
the political strategy. This is fatal. An all inclusive counter insurgency strategy is
vital. It should have broad base political support.”
support.” He suggests that “Pakistan
“Pakistan
should, therefore, use its influence with all stakeholders to encourage them towards
political dialogue in restoring peace and stability in the region.”
region.” Mr Sharif assures
full support of his party to the prime minister in evolving and implementing a
consensus policy on the issues of terrorism and extremism.

Author Location Dated

Mahir Ali mahir.worldview@gmail.c 22.10.08
om

– Yes he can, apparently

Two weeks hence, the world will be waiting with the proverbial bated breath for the
result of the US presidential election. At the moment, any number of American
pollsters and pundits are willing to wager their reputations on the likelihood that, on
Nov 5, the world will be greeted with the news it desperately wishes to hear:
namely that the junior senator from Illinois has been elevated to the status of
president-elect. But, to paraphrase Harold Wilson, two weeks is an eternity in
politics, and it would be a mistake to write off the senior senator from Arizona just
yet. There can be little question, though, that it has lately been a rough ride for John
McCain. At his third and final debate with Barack Obama, the Republican nominee
tried very hard to maintain a benign visage throughout the proceedings.
Unfortunately for him, the supposed smile came across as more of a smirk, and his
pale, constipated demeanour offered a telling contrast to his rival’s confident, suave
cool. Only a killer blow in that debate would have substantially altered McCain’s
prospects. In the event, he could come up only with Joe the Plumber, a voter whom
Obama had encountered recently in Holland, Ohio. Joe Wurzelbacher wanted to
know whether the Democratic candidate would increase his taxes. Joe claims annual
earnings of $250,000 and Obama, to his credit, didn’t say no. He expressed a
preference for “spread[ing]
“spread[ing] the wealth around”.
around”. The very idea of redistributing
wealth from the rich to the poor is anathema to the Republicans (although they
have no serious objection to the reverse process), and they pounced on Obama’s
pronouncement as evidence of his socialist inclinations. A spot of socialism would
do the vast majority of Americans no harm. However, to insinuate that Obama
intends to be the vehicle for a transition away from neoliberalism is, regrettably, a
gross exaggeration. At best, he can be expected to marginally redress the
imbalances overemphasised by George W. Bush’s tax cuts for the extraordinarily
rich.

Unfortunately for McCain, Joe the Plumber can hardly be characterised as an

Ordinary Joe, or even as a regular plumber: as Obama subsequently pointed out,
there are unlikely to be many plumbers who rack up a cool quarter of a million
dollars a year. What’s more, Wurzelbacher evidently owes some money to the
Internal Revenue Service, and there are also other discrepancies in his narrative. As
in the case of Sarah Palin, it appears that the McCain campaign didn’t look too
closely at Joe before signposting him as an epitome of the Obama-sceptical voter.
This may seem like an insensible approach, but it’s not entirely illogical: in their
desperation, the Republicans are clutching at straws. Palin herself was one such
thistle, and although McCain has reappropriated the limelight after allowing her to
pretend for a while that she, rather than he, was the Republican nominee, the
Alaskan governor continues to relish her role as an attack dog. She has been
focusing particularly on Obama’s acquaintanceship with William Ayers, a University
of Illinois professor who, some 40 years ago, was a founding member of a group
known as the Weather Underground. This is tantamount, in Palin’s eyes, to “pallin’
around with terrorists”, and at least one state Republican leader has gone as far as
to suggest that Obama’s relationship with Ayers means he’s in the same league as
Osama bin Laden. (Coincidentally or otherwise, several hundred of the postal ballots
sent out to potential early voters named the Democratic option as “Barack Osama”,
supposedly a typographical error).
error). Obama has responded that his casual
relationship with Ayers, a prominent educationist who 11 years ago was named as
Chicago’s Citizen of the Year,
Year, hardly amounted to an endorsement of the
Weathermen. At the time Obama was about eight years old, Ayers and his wife,
Bernardine Dohrn, did indeed sign up to an organisation sworn to violence. The
Weather Underground was a minuscule offshoot of the radical Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS), which was at the forefront of popular opposition to the
American aggression against Vietnam. The Weathermen — who acquired their
nomenclature from a line in a Bob Dylan song, “You
“You don’t need a weatherman to
know which way the wind blows”
blows” — had witnessed the peaceful movement for civil
rights that culminated in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, and the non-
violent antiwar movement that had gathered momentum without affecting the
conduct of the conflict in Vietnam. They decided that violence against the state
perpetrating such atrocities at home and abroad was a perfectly reasonable course
of action.

This may have been a seriously wrongheaded and, ultimately, self-defeating

conclusion, but the analysis it stemmed from made good sense at the time and
does not seem particularly jarring 40 years on, not least in view of the tendency
among many Americans to ignore the lessons of their nation’s grotesque role in
Indochina (in which McCain was a proud participant). Notwithstanding Palin’s
rantings, there is, unfortunately, no evidence that Obama is comfortable with this
analysis. Had it been otherwise, chances are that his approach to Afghanistan and
Pakistan would have been a great deal more enlightened. Ayers and Dohrn have,
sensibly, avoided public comment since their association with Obama was
highlighted by Hillary Clinton back in March. Meanwhile, the Democrats have not
dwelt inordinately on McCain’s past, which has included a seat on the advisory
board of the US Council for World Freedom — in the words of The New Yorker’s
Hendrik Hertzberg, “the
“the American outpost of the World Anti-Communist League, a
sort of clearing house for former Nazi collaborators, Central American death-squad
leaders, and assorted international thugs”.
thugs”. They have also not made much of Palin
and her husband’s links with the leading Alaskan secessionist party, or of her
relationship with the lunatic fringe of Christian fundamentalism. However, should
the Republicans overcome their reluctance thus far to invoke Obama’s ties to the
Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a radical preacher who questions American domestic
and overseas policies on moral grounds, chances are the Democrats won’t be able
to resist the temptation to excoriate Palin for her susceptibility to anti-witchcraft
sermons from a priest who makes Wright seem like the epitome of compassionate
common sense. Obama was arguably boosted last Sunday by an endorsement from
Bush’s first-term secretary of state, Colin Powell, who was himself once touted as
the African-American likeliest to become president. He discredited himself
thoroughly by standing by Bush for four disastrous years, but appears to have
recognised the error of his ways. Let us hope that at least some of the Americans
who voted twice for George W. will, similarly, not repeat their unforgivable error. ¦
The writer is a journalist based in Sydney.
Sydney.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 22.10.08

– Money in a broken bank?

Hey,
ey, Mr Government, desperate for some cash to save the banks? Here’s an idea:
auction a few ministries. Every man, woman and dog with money wants the
trappings of power. They want the outriders, the phalanx of flashing lights, the
sycophants, the army of hangers-on. Money certainly has its uses but it becomes a
bit boring after the first three Prados. Serving the people without having to actually
serve is the next step up our inverse-Maslowian hierarchy of needs. Think about it.
Shamshad Akhtar is injecting liquidity into the system like a junkie with the weight
of the world on his shoulders. Shaukat ‘Over
‘Over my dead body’
body’ Tareen has spelled out
plans A, B and C. And yet, walk into your neighbourhood bank and fear is still oozing
from the walls. So why not fling open the doors of the presidential palace and send
out a clarion call across the nation, a ministry can be yours for the taking. The price:
cold, hard cash deposited in local banks. They will come from far and wide, with
sacks and trunks and bags and Prado boot-fuls of cash. Pakistan’s banks have a
problem: the rupee is a terribly unattractive store of value at the moment. It’s
simple math really. If you save Rs100 in a bank in Pakistan today, you will get less
than Rs115 a year from now. With inflation hovering around 25 per cent, what you
buy for Rs100 today will cost you Rs125 a year from now. But your Rs100 will only
be worth Rs115 by then. Economists call it a negative real rate of interest; in
layman’s terms, it means you are punished for keeping your savings in rupees. By
itself, a negative rate of savings is not catastrophic to a banking system. What
matters are the other available investment opportunities — and intangibles such as
fear. This is where our banking system is being walloped. With the rupee sliding
towards oblivion against the dollar, you could have earned more than the 25 per
cent annual rate of inflation in 10 months had you bought Rs100 worth of dollars in
January. And having being rebuffed by the US, China, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
countries, the incentive to dollarise your rupees has only grown stronger.

Since July, Rs150bn has been withdrawn from the banking sector. It doesn’t take a
genius to figure out that money has left these shores. (Disclaimer: I have no
investments or assets, here or abroad. The cash I do have is parked in one of those
faux-savings accounts which never seem to earn a profit. I have done this because I
am young, unmarried and have a reasonable expectation of a rising income path in
the medium to long term. However, I have taken the short-term precaution of
withdrawing a sum of cash equivalent to six weeks of living expenses, in case there
is a systemic shortage of cash in the weeks ahead.) The fact is no one — not China,
not the US, not Saudi Arabia, not the Gulf countries, not the IFIs — trusts Pakistan to
behave responsibly if handed a fistful of dollars. This is their cumulative judgment
from their accumulated experience of dealing with us for decades. Our friends are
pushing us into the death grip of the IMF because they believe it, and it alone, has
the capacity and inclination to keep up with a slippery, profligate character like
Pakistan. The IMF will demand that Pakistan live within its means by spending as
close to much as it earns. Translated into numbers, it will mean cutting the fiscal
deficit to four per cent or less; raising the tax-to GDP ratio from 10 per cent to 15
per cent; and slashing growth targets to near-recessionary levels of four per cent or
less. For any government, most of all a newly elected, transitionary government
beset by multiple crises, the IMF pill is a bitter one. It will slash development and
current expenditure, dramatically reducing the government’s capacity to dole out
patronage and employment. But it is the price our friends are demanding to ever so
slightly open the cash spigot to douse an impending balance of-payments crisis.

Before we curse them, we should ask ourselves, are they the only ones pessimistic
about Pakistan’s ability to reform itself? Every time the head of a bank or ‘Over my
dead body’ Tareen or a minister appears on TV to assure us all will be well, I can’t
help but wonder if their bank statements of the past 12 months would tell another
story. Show us your money, Pakistanis should say, and we’ll show you our trust. We
will emerge from this mess eventually. Perhaps as early as mid-2010 we may touch
the bottom of the economic trough of low growth and high inflation. We have 170
million people who need to be fed and clothed and whose needs have to be met.
We have a reasonable export base. Building a mobile telecom and TV news industry
from scratch is indicative of the adaptability of the private sector. Our world will not
end with this crisis. The question is, will we finally learn our lesson from the
balance-of-payments crises that afflict us every decade? The solutions are not
Nobel-prize material. Go back to the basics: shore up the agrarian base of the
economy; branch out into simple manufacturing; widen the tax net; expand our
exports; get serious about institutional reform — basically do the dull and boring
stuff that doesn’t grab headlines. But we are attracted to bling, to shiny, quick
growth inside a bubble. In an unstable political system with alternating bouts of
military and civilian rule, it makes sense: when your policy timeline is uncertain and
your political shelf life unknown, you go for the biggest, brightest, shiniest trinkets
you can have. Better to dazzle than to go out with a whimper. But with every
iteration of the cycle of boom and bust the problems are magnified, raising the
question of how much longer can we go on. This is not wanton doom and gloom.
There is a genuine reason to question our leaders’ inclination to reform this country
as long as they believe that Pakistan is too big to fail. It’s bandied about with
distressing ease. Give us your money, we have nuclear weapons. And Al Qaeda. And
the world’s seventhlargest standing army. And did we mention nuclear weapons?
How long before our friends think, well, maybe they shouldn’t have any of those?

Author Location Dated

Abdul Khalique Shaikh shaikhsp@yahoo.com 22.10.08

– Crimes and punishment

The new government has immense challenges to meet. The most formidable of
these myriad tasks is combating terrorism, which the president and the prime
minister say is their administration’s top priority. The internal, regional and
international situation also makes it imperative for the government to successfully
eliminate terrorism. However, the drive against terrorism is intrinsically linked to
the government’s ability to establish the rule of law and to restore the writ of the
state in various parts of the country. No government which fails to control day-to-
day conventional crime can expect to succeed at the enormous task of breaking the
back of terrorism. The ongoing fierce battle against a highly organised network of
terrorists cannot be won if the state apparatus is allowed to become too weak to
defeat an ordinary criminal in the street. Rule of law and writ of the government are
prerequisites for attracting foreign investment, encouraging remittances from
expatriates, halting the brain drain and preventing flight of capital. Thus even the
economic woes of the country cannot be effectively handled without an unflinching
commitment to maintenance of law and order. This cannot be achieved without
putting in the kind of effort and resources needed to establish a professional,
meritorious, well-paid, welltrained and motivated police organisation capable of
rising to the occasion. The writ of law can be established if the law enforcers
successfully open up no-go areas, control illicit arms, regulate illegal immigrants
and effectively stop the menace of land-grab bing, encroachments, traffic violations,
day-to-day incidents of street crime and highway robbery. This must be coupled
with concerted efforts aimed at addressing the pervasive fear of crime and
improving police-public relations. Success on this front will not be forthcoming until
an efficient and effective police organisation is established in the cities as well as
rural areas. Various governments at the centre and in the provinces have in the
past expressed the desire to maintain order and peace but their actions never
matched their words. Successive governments have paid only lip service to this
pressing issue. The government of the day has to make it its top priority.

Over the last few years the police have been diverted from their primary task of
preventing and detecting crime to assisting their political bosses in achieving their
own agendas. Every successive government has used the police as a convenient
tool to crush political opponents, bolster its position and settle personal scores. The
previous government’s policies, in particular, made the police subservient to local
influential persons. In a bid to keep the main political parties out of power,
handpicked police officers were deputed to key field assignments to embolden local
influentials of the government’s choice. Crucial positions in the police hierarchy
were doled out as favours. Incompetent, unscrupulous and unprofessional police
officers ended up in positions much beyond their limited capabilities. Such practices
have made the organisation highly politicised and badly eroded the writ of the
state. In most urban centres the bulk of police resources is diverted towards the
protection of ‘VIPs’. Escorts and gunmen for politicians, religious leaders, police of
ficers, judges, civil servants and anybody who is somebody are a major drain on
institutional resources. Some religious leaders and status-conscious politicians have
more policemen in their service than the entire functional strength of a medium-size
police station. This has to be discouraged. From the man in the street to the
English-speaking chattering classes, people are quick to lash out against the
increasing lawlessness but make little or no effort to respect the law. From ordinary
traffic violations to flagrant disregard for building-control regulations, we take pride
in our ability to bypass clearly laid down laws. If we exhort the government of the
day to make a clear shift from a politically motivated agenda to a crime-control
agenda, citizens must shun the feudal and macho mindset as well. There is a need
to develop a culture where laws are enforced without fear or favour and no
exceptions are tolerated. The motorway police can serve as a perfect model where
no political interference is brooked and police officers enforce the highway code
without any discrimination. It is high time to take corrective steps and stop the
relentless decline. The new government has to rise above conventional petty
politics and institutionalise a culture of merit in the police organisation. The
government can hope to get long-term results if it shows transparency and fairness
in recruitment, promotion, reward and punishment, and discourages political
interference in operational matters of law enforcement.

The police leadership and policymakers in the government need to ensure that the
police are provided with latest technology and equipment required for prevention
and detection of crime. Use of scientific methods and forensic facilities will not only
improve chances of detection but increase convictions in the courts and deter
potential delinquents from offending. As things stand, policing is heavily dependent
on the physical deployment of policemen. Surveillance through closed-circuit
television (CCTV) and other electronic methods is almost non-existent. Even some
private hospitals and corporate offices have far more sophisticated security
equipment than the police. The Karachi-based Citizens-Police Liaison Committee
(CPLC) has better gadgets and computer-based support than the capital city police
of Karachi. Although the police have been provided huge quantities of automatic
weapons and ammunition, the expenditure on modern surveillance, security and
crime-detection equipment is proportionately much lower. A neglected, ill-equipped,
unprofessional, politically manipulated and operationally restrained police
organisation is bound to fail in establishing the writ of the state. This will encourage
armed groups to establish their areas of influence and create states within the state
which may serve as safe havens for militant groups and terrorists. Consequently it
will become extremely difficult for the law enforcers to police those areas.
Conversely, an efficient, impartial and operationally independent police organisation
will be capable of offering solutions to this pernicious problem in these trying
circumstances. The writ of the state can be established if enforcement of law is not
subservient to political expediency. This challenge has to be met and it is still
possible to do so. ¦ The writer is a senior superintendent of police in Sindh. Sindh.

Author Location Dated

Nasir Jamal Lahore, Pakistan 22.10.08

– Most banks run out of dollars

As Pakistan’s finance managers began crucial talks on its economic stabilisation
programme with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on Tuesday in Dubai, most
commercial banks back home had already run out of dollars in hard cash. While
some banks were straight forward in ‘informing’ their customers that they couldn’t
withdraw hard cash from their foreign currency accounts for at least another one
week, others offered to encash cheques worth up to only a few hundred dollars. “I “I
needed $3,000 in cash for travelling abroad, but my bank told me that it did not
have dollars to give me when I presented my cheque to the teller this morning,”
morning,” a
customer, who maintains a foreign currency account with the National Bank of
Pakistan’s main branch on The Mall in Lahore for more than two decades, told
Dawn. “I“I don’t know what to do now because the bank has asked me to wait for at
least one week before it could arrange dollars,”
dollars,” the man, who is scheduled to take
his flight this week, said. An NBP executive from its main branch confirmed that the
bank was refusing to encash foreign currency cheques because it did not have
dollars. But, NBP main branch chief manager Shahid Majeed claimed there’s no
problem in transferring money from Pakistan to any destination around the globe.
The foreign currency accounts are safe and fully funded. “It
“It is just that we have run
out of cash in recent days because of the increasing gap between the inter-bank
and open market exchange rate. “Our head-office in Karachi is trying to arrange
dollars from Dubai – at a better rate, but that will take another few days to one
week.”
week.” An executive of the Askari Bank, who asked not to be named, told Dawn that
his bank did have “some dollars” in hard cash. “But
“But we are asking our customers
not to withdraw cash unless they needed it direly. We are encouraging our
customers to write smaller cheques so that nobody goes back home without some
dollars in his pocket,”
pocket,” he said jokingly. Pakistan’s net foreign currency reserves
have plunged to $7.749 billion – with banks holding $3.414 billion from $16.4 billion
a year ago. The foreign reserves held by the State Bank have dwindled 74 per cent
to $4.335 billion, barely enough to cover six to eight weeks of imports. The
depleting foreign reserves and widening current account deficit made the rupee
slump to all-time record low last week, and triggered fears that the country may
default on its foreign debt obligations when these mature early next year. The IMF,
whose officials will encourage Islamabad to join its programme during the ongoing
crucial talks, says Pakistan needs as much as $10 billion from donors over the next
two years to avert default on its debts.

Author Location Dated

Tariq Fatemi 23.10.08

– Zardari’s debut in diplomacy

Asif Ali
Ali Zardari, who was recently elected as the country’s president but now
operates as its chief executive as well, has already travelled to the UK, US and most
recently to China. While his visit to Beijing was both important and urgent, rushing
off to London and New York appeared unnecessary. In any case, Pakistanis were not
too enthused to see their president extolling Bush for bringing peace to the world
and crediting him for delivering democracy to Pakistan. It was however his remarks
in New York on India and more specifically on Kashmir that caused quite a stir.
Though Indian commentators pointed out that this initiative could be a harbinger of
a major change in Islamabad’s policy towards its eastern neighbour, Pakistanis were
not amused by Zardari’s claim that “India
“India has never been a threat to Pakistan”.
Pakistan”.
Another faux pas was his reference to Kashmiri freedom fighters as “terrorists” —
this at a time when the occupied territory is facing a spontaneous and indigenous
agitation. The normalisation process with India should of course be pursued with
seriousness and sincerity. But Musharraf’s policy of unilateral concessions and
advocacy of out-of-the-box solutions will neither satisfy the Kashmiris nor secure us
the peace that people aspire for. The veteran Indian journalist Praful Bidwai
however advocated that Zardari’s statements should be taken at their face value
and “India
“India must reciprocate Zardari’s overture by giving a determined push to the
peace process”.
process”. This makes eminent sense but given India’s track record a
meaningful initiative from Delhi is not likely. By the time President Zardari decided
to visit China, political discord, economic problems and deteriorating law and order
had combined to pose the gravest challenge ever to the country. Moreover,
Pakistan remained a key concern in the US presidential debates, overshadowing
even Iraq and Afghanistan. A joint report by a dozen US think tanks also warns that
“Pakistan may be the single greatest challenge”
challenge” facing the next president. It calls
on him to order a new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to determine what
precisely the US should ask Pakistan to do to counter the terrorists, so that it could
become the basis for developing a strategy that “seeks to adjust” Pakistan’s
position in a cost-benefit analysis.
It was in this atmosphere that Zardari met with Chinese leaders, including President
Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao. Twelve agreements and understandings were
signed, including those relating to cooperation in the oil, gas, coal and mining
sectors. The joint statement described our relations as an “all-weather friendship”
that had “withstood the test of time and practice”. More importantly, China
reiterated that it would “continue
“continue to view its relations with Pakistan from a strategic
and long-term perspective and make joint efforts with Pakistan”
Pakistan” to take this
cooperation to new heights. It also referred to the Treaty of Friendship signed in
April 2005 as “historic
“historic and of immediate significance”.
significance”. Contrary to media reports,
there was no official word of any financial assistance, though a Chinese spokesman
did affirm that Beijing was ready to “support
“support and help Pakistan within our
capability”.
capability”. This was understandable because the Chinese are unlikely to extend
major economic assistance, not because they do not have enough reserves at their
disposal (currently estimated at over US$1.9tr), but because providing large cash
grants is not in the nature of their policies. As regards cooperation in the civilian
nuclear field, this would be forthcoming, as confirmed by Foreign Minister Qureshi.
Chinese commitment on this score was, in fact, made some five years ago. China
remains Pakistan’s closest friend and strategic ally. This has been proven on more
than one occasion. Nevertheless, notwithstanding the public bonhomie, Pakistan’s
relations with China today are not without question marks. This is primarily because
China is no longer simply a regional power that has to cater to Pakistan’s interests
alone. As a world power, it has to see Pakistan through the prism of its global
interests. Moreover, China has a laundry list of concerns vis-à-vis Pakistan that
precedes the latter’s decision to join the US-led war on terror. In this context, it is
important to recall that while the Chinese were happy to see the Taliban being
driven out of Kabul, they viewed Musharraf’s enthusiastic embrace of the US,
without prior consultation with Beijing (as should have been done), with
considerable misgiving. More surprises were in store for China when it saw Pakistan
agreeing to unprecedented concessions being granted to US and Nato forces to use
Pakistan’s facilities. This gave rise to concern not only in Beijing but in Moscow,
Tehran and some of the Central Asian capitals as well.

But it was Musharraf’s policy of hunting with the hounds and running with the hares
that left the Chinese nonplussed, unable to fathom how Musharraf could be a US
ally in the war on terror while allegedly extending support to jihadist elements. They
would not, of course, speak out publicly but their misgivings with our policy were
deepened when Chinese nationals began to be targeted by the militants. It was only
when Musharraf received a phone call from the Chinese president and their firms
were advised not to send personnel to Pakistan that Islamabad woke up to the
gravity of the situation. Currently, China is also worried about recent strains
between Pakistan and the United States, fearing that this could trigger greater
instability in Pakistan that could delay or deny China the economic benefits that it
wishes to draw from its relationship with Pakistan, including use of Gwadar Port and
participation in the energy corridor project. This does not however mean that the
Chinese are willing to countenance any dilution in their strategic ties to Pakistan.
This is indeed a ‘time-tested’ friendship, established by China’s founding fathers.
Pakistan continues to be viewed as a potential counterweight to India,
notwithstanding China’s efforts to improve relations with its southern neighbour.
Moreover, Pakistan’s importance may not now be necessarily in the military sphere
but increasingly in the economic realm. With China’s voracious appetite for energy
growing by the day, it has to tap all possible sources and it is here that Pakistan
could play an important role as a resource bridge to China, especially for the flow of
oil and gas from the Gulf and Iran. It would be an expensive and difficult project, but
given China’s massive energy requirements it cannot afford to depend on the
vulnerable sea routes alone. But for the full potential of Sino-Pak relations to be
achieved, Pakistan has to set its own house in order and arrive at a national
consensus on issues such as terrorism before it can draw China into its economic
life. Zardari’s decision to personally chair inter-ministerial meetings to monitor the
implementation of agreements signed with China may not be appropriate, but if
seen as evidence of the government’s seriousness in this regard it should be
welcomed. But it will need much more, including vision, imagination and resolve, to
achieve this strategic objective.

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 24.10.08

– President’s conduct faces appraisal in Senate

President Asif Ali Zardari will face an early appraisal beginning on Friday when the
Senate meets to debate his first address to parliament last month, on the heels of a
signal government success to bring all parties around its view on combating
terrorism. Though the debate on Mr Zardari’s Sept 20 address to a joint sitting of
the two houses of parliament will be a customary affair, parliamentary sources said
his conduct in office for only one a half months so far, some controversial powers he
continues to enjoy and the performance of the PPP-led coalition government he
controls are likely to come under opposition criticism. The ruling coalition could face
a hard time against an opposition that is in majority in the 100-seat upper house, so
soon after celebrating a unanimous resolution passed by both houses of parliament
at the end of a prolonged secret session on Wednesday that largely endorsed the
government’s line of action in fighting militancy mainly in tribal areas bordering
Afghanistan and some adjoining settled districts of the North West Frontier
Province. The presidential address will be taken up at the start of the Senate
session, due to begin at 10am, according to Law and Parliamentary Affairs Ministry
adviser Izhar Amrohvi, and is likely to continue for several days. There was no
official information yet about any government plan for legislative business in the
current session, which is likely to continue until the end of October. There is not
much left for the opposition to say about Pakistan’s role in the so-called war on
terrorism after an exhaustive debate in the in-camera session of the two houses
that ended on Wednesday night with a unanimous resolution that made only an
ambiguous call for an “urgent
“urgent review of our national security strategy”
strategy” and for
civilian armed forces to replace the military deployed in the troubled tribal areas “as
“as
early as possible”.
possible”. The rest was practically the approval of the government policy to
have dialogue with those ready to lay down arms, seek economic and social
development of the tribal regions and use selective force against those who still
challenge the writ of the state.

Government negotiators succeeded in persuading the main opposition party, the

Pakistan Muslim League-N, to refrain from bringing a threatened parallel resolution
and even allies like the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam party to fall in line after the religious
party’s leadership seemed to speak for the so-called Taliban during the debate
rather than for the government in which it has a share. But opposition members are
likely to question the government about how and when it plans to move to
implement President Zardari’s own call to curtail the autocratic powers he inherited
from the country’s fourth military president Pervez Musharraf but which most major
political parties of the country seek to do away with. Mr Zardari had asked
parliament in his Sept 20 speech to form an all-parties committee to “revisit” the
controversial clauses inserted in the constitution by General Musharraf by decree
and legitimised by a compliant majority of parliament, such as those empowering
the president to dissolve the National Assembly, sack a prime minister, and appoint
armed forces chiefs, provincial governors and the Chief Election Commissioner. But
nothing has been done so far to form such a committee, creating fears the
government might be trying to delay the issue until March when half of the Senate
will be up for re-election that will likely give the ruling coalition a big majority in the
upper house as well and seekers of constitutional amendments a guaranteed two-
thirds majority in both houses of parliament. The highly emotive issue of superior
court judges sacked by General Musharraf under his controversial Nov 3, 2007
emergency proclamation is also likely to come up in the debate along with some of
the broken promises on the issue by Mr Zardari in his capacity as Pakistan People’s
Party cochairman that he keeps even after being elected as the head of state. It
would be worth hearing how legal czars like Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister
Farooq H. Naek and AtttorneyGeneral Latif Khan Khosa will try to wash the blame
slapped on them by a protesting legal community for their controversial roles in the
affair and tell the house why Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani’s government failed
to fulfil its own commitment to reinstate all these judges before deposed Chief
Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry discloses “many things” he says he knows on
his sacking’s first anniversary on Nov 3.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 24.10.08

– Defence as a public good

The Pakistan Institute for Legislative Development and Training just held an
international conference on civil-military relations in Lahore. The institute put in a
lot of effort bringing people from Turkey and Indonesia to talk about their
experiences. One wishes they had also invited people from Bangladesh and Latin
America to deepen the international flavour of the conference. Also, while there
were quite a few PML-N parliamentarians present, the PPP was conspicuous by its
absence. Even if provincial assembly members had attended the conference it
might have given them a few ideas about the future of civil-military relations in the
world, especially in Pakistan. But perhaps the ruling regime thinks that it knows all
or the issue is not a priority for the government. After all, some of the foreign-based
Pakistani advisers of the present government tag civil-military relations as one of
the lowest-priority issues. The conference was refreshing in terms of the
atmosphere and location. The audience in Lahore was involved in the discussion,
improving the quality of debate. It was certainly exciting to see real people amongst
the audience rather than the usual retired diplomats, bureaucrats and military
officers who are abundant in seminars held in Islamabad. For their part, the Lahoris
seem to have enjoyed the discussion including a debate on the army’s role, which
has remained taboo for so many years. Thanks to the revolution in information
technology and advancements in the media, military or civilian dictators now find it
difficult to gag information and debate beyond a certain point. It is hoped that
things will improve further despite the one rather tense moment during the two-day
conference. A bunch of retired army officers including one retired lieutenant general
created a ruckus in protest against what they considered to be criticism of the
armed forces. Like uncontrolled and ill-mannered children these grown-up men
shouted for an opportunity to speak despite having had the chance to do so from
the rostrum for a day and a half. In fact, the abovementioned lieutenant general
was one of the keynote speakers in the earlier session in which he had castigated
political and military governments for their treatment of Balochistan. However,
when it came to a rather academic discussion of the military he stood up and
behaved in a manner contrary to what the organisation points to with such pride —
discipline.

After seeing the attack launched by a few retired officers, one wondered what the
retired brigadier meant when he proposed that military dictators or usurpers of
power should be tried under Article 6 of the 1973 Constitution. Will they actually
allow this to happen if they can’t stand a discussion? One of the latest arguments in
defence of the army is, why blame the entire institution for the fault of a few at the
top? Such an argument is flawed on two counts. First, it ignores the fact that the
military is a disciplined force and orders flow from the top and everyone in the
hierarchy is meant to carry out every decision taken at the top. This could be an
order to overthrow a civilian regime, usurp power or attack an enemy. Second, all
personnel own the decision of the superior management. Those who differ with the
policy to usurp power either speak out, for which they are phased out of the armed
forces, or resign. Those who remain behind are partners in the decision as they
share the benefits of being in the organisation. The principle of individual morality
and capacity to take independent decisions was upheld during the Nuremberg trials.
During the trials of numerous general officers in Hitler’s army, the court disregarded
their argument that they were merely carrying out orders and only the highest
command was responsible for the decision to kill millions of innocent people. What
about human conscience and the ability to differentiate between what is wrong and
immoral and what is right and good for the community of human beings? The above
discussion dovetails into the larger question of defence as a public good. The state
and society are bound in a social contract to provide for the military by accepting
that defence is a public good and so part of the necessary expenditure of the state.
That expenditure is financed by compulsory taxation, which is meant to pay for
services provided to all. According to this definition, the people or the state cannot
dismiss the military. Instead they have ownership of the institution.

This leads to another vital issue: when is defence a public good and when does it
cease to be one? Defence is a public good so long as it is beneficial to the general
public. When its benefits are restricted to a few hundred or thousand people, then it
ceases to be a public good, which must be provided for all. Military officers are
bound by their conscience and links with society and the state to judge what
decisions are harmful to the state and society and what are not. In the case of the
Second World War, the German officers and officials that killed innocent civilians
were not providing public good but indulging in their own craving for power.
Establishing the principle of defence as a public good is also tied to the unwritten
social contract between the state and society on the one hand and the state and
the military on the other. The problem with mercenary militaries was that their
personnel were tied to a social contract with those providing resources for the
upkeep of the forces. In Europe this changed with the post-French revolution
military which became a national armed force. The people of Napoleon Bonaparte’s
army were French citizens responsible for providing security as a public good for
which they were remunerated and equipped as well. Whether the state wanted to
expand its sphere of control to other territories, and thus create space for French
commerce, or merely defend against a foreign army were objectives left to the
political leadership that was responsible for organising resources for the armed
forces. The problem with some modern-day militaries, including Pakistan’s, is that
the social contract which defines defence as a public good has been weakened
because of the autonomy of the military and its independence in raising resources.
Since the 1950s, the military has sought and received money from the US. So while
the Suhrawardy and Bogra governments were keen to reduce defence spending,
there was very little they could do in terms of reining in the autonomy of the army,
which by then had established its independent channel of communication with
Washington. The refurbishment of equipment, especially quality weapons,
depended upon America which made military generals more independent in
defining their priorities. Since then, no one has been able to put the genie back in
the bottle. At this juncture, it is vital for the nation to engage in debate on defence
and to ensure that it serves the public good, if it doesn’t do so already. ¦ The writer
is an independent strategic and political analyst. analyst.

Author Location Dated

New York, NY 24.10.08

– Obama leads McCain by 12

points
The latest poll figures released on Thursday
by Zogby and C-Span revealed that
democrat Barack Obama leads his
Republican rival John McCain by 12 points in
the US presidential race, with crucial
independent and women voters increasingly
moving to his side. Senator Obama leads
McCain 52 per cent to 40 per cent among
likely voters in the latest threeday tracking
poll, which had a margin of error of 2.9
points with less than two weeks left in the
elections scheduled for Nov 4, said another
news report on Thursday. Obama has made
consistent gains over the last four days and
has tripled his lead on McCain in the past
week of polling. “Obama’s
“Obama’s expansion is
really across the board,”
board,” pollster John
Zogby said. “It
“It seems to be among almost
every demographic group.”
group.” The Illinois
senator saw his lead among women — who
are expected to play a decisive role in this
election — increase to 18 points from 16
points on Wednesday. And independent
voters, who have been the target of intense campaign efforts by both sides, have
now swung behind Obama by a 30-point margin, 59 per cent to 29 per cent. Zogby
said McCain, appeared to have lost the traction he won after the third and final
presidential debate last week. “McCain
“McCain can still try to turn it around, but he has to
find focus,”
focus,” Zogby said, adding that economic issues, which dominated the
campaign amid turmoil in the credit, housing and financial markets, still seem to be
working in Obama’s favour. “At “At some point there are some issues that just
overwhelm, and McCain has been particularly weak on the economy,”economy,” Zogby said in
a statement. Other recent national polls have given Obama a narrower lead, but
Zogby said he was confident in his sampling methods. The latest poll showed a
continued erosion of McCain’s support even among his “base” voters. While Obama
wins the backing of 86 per cent of Democrats, only 81 per cent of Republicans back
the Arizona senator. Obama holds a 6-point lead among men, 48 per cent to 42 per
cent, while white voters — who had been among McCain’s core support groups —
now only back McCain by a 2-point margin. Independent Ralph Nader and
Libertarian Bob Barr held relatively steady at 2 per cent and 1 per cent respectively.
Three per scent of voters said they remained undecided, unchanged from
Wednesday. The rolling tracking poll surveyed 1,208 likely voters in the presidential
election. In a tracking poll, the most recent day’s results are added while the oldest
day’s results are dropped to monitor changing momentum.

Author Location Dated

Matt Spetalnick Washington, D.C. 24.10.08

– Summit may give Bush chance to be relevant

What’s a lame-duck US president to do between Election Day and his successor’s
inauguration 77 days later? If you are George W. Bush, with the global financial
system in its worst crisis since the Great Depression and allies clamouring for
action, you host a summit of world leaders. He may not have the clout to achieve
much at the gathering on Nov 15, 11 days after the election, and the new president-
elect – be it fellow Republican John McCain or Democrat Barack Obama – will
certainly have plans of his own. But the meeting could give Bush, his opinion poll
numbers at home near historic lows and his popularity overseas even lower, one of
his last chances to stay relevant in his final weeks in office. It will be no easy task.
Leaders sitting at the table with Bush will also be looking beyond him, wondering
how the next occupant of the White House will deal with the turmoil shaking global
markets and deepening fears of a worldwide recession. “This “This conference is Bush’s
way of saying ‘hey, I’m still here, I’m still in charge,’”
charge,’” said Stephen Wayne, a
political scientist at Georgetown University. “But
“But the big question on foreign
leaders’ minds will be what, if any, buy-in there will be from the next occupant of
the Oval Office.”
Office.” The Europeans have ambitious hopes that the summit, the first of
what is planned as a series of such meetings, will eventually lead to reshaping the
global financial order. Bush, who had long made the push for free markets the
centrepiece of his global economic policy, has agreed that market reforms are
needed but has been more sceptical of the need for such a far-reaching overhaul.
He has backed coordinated government action to unlock frozen credit markets and
agreed under intense pressure from European leaders like French President Nicolas
Sarkozy to convene a meeting of economic powers to address the crisis. Sarkozy,
urging a revamp of the international financial architecture forged at the 1944
Bretton Woods conference, had suggested the meeting be in New York. That would
have made Wall Street a ready target for criticism of capitalism’s excesses. By
opting for the Washington area as the venue, Bush may be better able to control
the focus of the talks. Asked whether Bush backs a wholesale rewrite of financial
market rules as some allies want, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said: “I “I
think that everybody will come with their ideas ... but not every country is going to
have the same solution.”
solution.” The time between election and inauguration has
traditionally been quiet for departing presidents. Bill Clinton was an exception,
using the transition to Bush’s first term to try, to little avail, to broker Israeli-
Israeli-
Palestinian peace.

Author Location Dated

S. Akbar Zaidi 25.10.08

– Everyone is an economist
Pakistan’s economic crisis and confusion, exacerbated primarily on account of
unforgivable delayed responses by the incumbent government, has also revealed
the rather sad state of Pakistan’s media and of its economists. The huge media
explosion, particularly in the electronic media but also the English newspapers, has
revealed how bare Pakistan’s scholarly cupboard is, and how charlatans have been
crowned kings. These days, given the deserved interest in both the global financial
crisis and the domestic economic meltdown, all television channels have been
giving extended time to information and views pertaining to such issues on their
channels. Today, the electronic media has made bankers, businessmen,
stockbrokers and journalists experts on the intricacies of economic and financial
issues of which most know very little. Personal anecdotes, and not even informed
opinion, replace any sound academic or general discussion about Pakistan’s
economy or about the international financial crisis. Barring very few exceptions,
most supposedly informed guests on these channels cannot distinguish between the
capital market, capital investment or the capital account, yet speak with an
authority which only reveals their complete ignorance. Stockbrokers hold forth on
monetary policy, bankers and MBAs on fiscal policy, and journalists on an
assortment of issues ranging from what they think the impact of raising (or
lowering) the CRR and SLR would be to the impact of an IMF programme of which
they know barely the basics and can claim no understanding. In the 25 years in
which I have taught and done research in economics in Pakistan, I have never seen
so many people appearing in the public arena and being called ‘economists’. Most
of these self-styled, or increasingly media-styled, economists have hardly written
academic papers or books, yet speak with the authority of someone who
understands how a complicated and complex social, political and economic system
works. Many now call themselves ‘political economists’ which gives them license to
talk about anything at all, without having understood what it is that makes up the
discipline of political economy.

High journalism — and usually not even that — substitutes for scholarly and
academic discussion in the media. Moreover, access to the Internet has made a cut-
and-paste job far easier, and for many newspaper readers who do not scan more
than just a single column, material which has been developed and debated in very
different contexts is recycled as original. Editors often complain about the huge
dearth of ‘good writers’ and this is particularly marked in the case of economic and
financial issues. While many articles or reports in newspapers simply provide a
great deal of information, the inability of many writers to make sense of the data is
an obvious and chronic problem. Given the format of the electronic media, even
data and information are not a requirement, and with generalist anchors not even
trained in the very basics of economics and hence unable to ask the right questions,
both anchors and their guests make do with a few popular sound bites, talking a lot
but saying very little. It is very seldom that one hears an informed discussion on the
economy. Yet, it is important to state that it is not just the media that is responsible
for the low level of discussion or debate, but economists too are to blame. While
there are a few competent and trained economists in Pakistan, many of them
having worked in educational institutions and with practical experience, most shy
away from the media leaving the spaces to be filled in by the excess supply of
mediocrity that this country has to offer. In the long list of highly accomplished
eminent economists who constituted some of the many committees set up by this
government, very few speak to the media or write in the press.

Some of course, for numerous often petty reasons, prefer not to be seen as critics of
the government and stay away. Others consider themselves to be ‘above’ such
populist or frivolous activity, feeling that their time is better spent teaching, writing
papers or advising government. Then there are those who hardly have the time any
longer, given the huge commitments their lucrative consulting involves. Moreover,
speaking publicly may require them to articulate an opinion which may cause any
one of their donors to take issue. As one prominent economist said once when
asked why he didn’t write: discretion is the better part of valour. Nobel prize
winners like Joseph Stiglitz and Paul Krugman, to name perhaps the two most
prolific, write regular columns in numerous newspapers in addition to teaching and
their academic commitments which include writing articles and books. They write
for a general audience and are immensely popular and critical of numerous issues. I
believe, following the footsteps of such economists, there is a need for many of the
best economists in Pakistan to intervene and shape public opinion and educate
readers and viewers in the country. There is a large audience out there, hungry for
scholarly and academic discourse on issues which now affect everyone’s lives. More
importantly, only those with understanding and scholarship can replace much of the
nonsense that one reads or hears regarding the economy in Pakistan’s media.

Author Location Dated

F.S. Aijazuddin www.fsaijazuddin.pk 25.10.08

– Time to learn from China

It reflected all the forlorn hope of a tail-ender, a twelfth man even, that last of a
dozen protocols signed between Pakistan and China at Beijing on Oct 15. The final
document was a memorandum of understanding between China’s Cricket
Association and the Pakistan Cricket Board. That the Chinese should wish to learn
the game from us — once World Cup victors — is understandable. They learn from
the best and then outstrip their teachers. Just count the number of medals they won
at the Beijing Olympics: 51 gold at the Olympics, and 89 gold at the Paralympics.
Such laurels are not won by simply resting on them. In the 1960s, we were an
economic role model for the South Koreans and our national airline PIA taught
others (including the now unstoppably popular Emirates) how to fly. Our Tarbela
Dam was the envy of developing countries for being the world’s largest earth-filled
dam. We played hockey and, sometimes, cricket better than the inventors of the
game. Today, we have been relegated to a position of geopolitical irrelevance, and
geo-economic bankruptcy. Shamefully, and worse still shamelessly, we have yet
again dusted our begging bowl and begun importuning our friends for help and
financial support. In the past, China has invariably been the quickest off the mark. It
has never baulked at coming to our aid — whether it was in the form of material as
in 1965 or in 1971, or in cash when the Chinese government provided $500m
during the early years of Musharraf’s penury to bolster our foreign exchange
reserves. The only condition they placed was that it should not be spent. It should
lie untouched in the balance sheet of the State Bank, a borrowed fig leaf covering
our insolvency. Today, a new government in Pakistan is hearing a different response
from a new China. While both parties value the special relationship that Chinese
President Hu Jintao once described during his 2006 visit to Pakistan as “higher
“higher than
the Himalayas, deeper than the Indian Ocean and sweeter than honey”,
honey”, President
Zardari was reminded by President Hu Jintao during his visit to Beijing of the need
for “deepening
“deepening the Pakistan-China strategic relationship in new circumstances.”
circumstances.” The
Chinese also emphasised that both sides need “to “to accelerate the implementation of
the Five-Year Development Programme on Economic Cooperation”,
Cooperation”, their elliptical
way of expressing disappointment at the lack of progress on a mechanism they take
more seriously than we do.

The five-year programme, signed with great fanfare in November 2006, aimed at
expansion of bilateral trade to over $15bn by 2011, cooperation in agriculture,
manufacturing, automotives, urban infrastructure, minerals, tourism, financial and
engineering services, and investment policy support. Two years have gone by and
the Chinese are still waiting for any one of these sectors to attain measurable
progress. According to some sources Pakistan had hoped before Mr Zardari
travelled to Beijing that China would improve upon its earlier largesse and deposit
anything up to $3bn in our coffers. The Chinese and their hardearned dollars are not
so easily parted. A Chinese official explained: “We
“We have done our due diligence, and
it isn’t happening.”
happening.” It is believed that the Chinese have agreed to provide two more
nuclear plants on the lines of Chashma I & II. Interestingly, this commitment was
disclosed not in the joint communiqué but unilaterally by the Pakistani side, which
then coyly declined to tell when or how these two plants would be built. The new
plants should add 680 megawatts of electricity to our national grid, but before we
invite the neighbours in to admire our illuminations we would do well to remember
that it took Chashma I nine years to reach commercial operations and that Chashma
II, begun in 2005 and assuming it proceeds according to schedule, will not be
complete until 2011. Even with all four Chashmas — two in hand and two still
confined to the drawing board — we will still only have 1,300MW against the target
of 8,800MW from nuclear sources planned in Vision 2030. Meanwhile we must
reconcile ourselves to many long, hot summers, while our neighbours luxuriate in
nuclear energy made possible by the US and by Russia. Had Charles Dickens been
alive, he would have been tempted to use Pakistan as a model for Mr Micawber,
who despite his perennial insolvency, remained convinced that “something will turn
up”.

Our ‘somethings’ are plans A, B & C. Plan A is to obtain $1.4bn from the World Bank,
$1.5bn from the Asian Development Bank, $1bn from the Islamic Development
Bank, and another billion dollars from DFID. All this funding is project-related and
disbursable once projects have undergone the gauntlet of rigorous appraisal
procedures. Plan B is to approach the Friends of Pakistan, an informal gathering of
friendly creditor-nations who are being asked to put their money where their hearts
are. Although the first formal meeting is yet to be held in Abu Dhabi, US Assistant
Secretary of State Richard Boucher has chilled Pakistani expectations with his
comment that no cash should be expected. It seems that while our friends are
prepared to teach us how to fish, they are reluctant to trust us with the cash with
which to buy the tackle. Plan C, which is not really a plan at all, is to crawl to the IMF
and to eat crow. It will not be the first time. Between 1998 and 2001 we entered
into nine separate arrangements with the IMF. They know us all too well, with the
practised understanding of a family pawnbroker. There is a feeling in official circles
that as the IMF will always be there anyway, other sources of fiscal support should
be explored before going to a Shylock of the last resort. One can expect that
whatever conditionalities the IMF applies to us will be, no matter how beneficial
they may appear to be in the long run, no more welcome than a penitent’s hair
shirt. It is time perhaps for us as a nation to learn the lessons we have been
teaching others for so long. Rather than borrowing money from the Chinese, we
could perhaps borrow their ideas. Once the Chinese wanted to learn English so that
they could spread throughout the world and then teach everyone Chinese. Perhaps
they want us to teach them how to play cricket so that they can compete
throughout the world, win the World Cup, and then teach everyone how to play
mahjong.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain irfan.husain@gmail.com 25.10.08

– An inside account of the army

As our troops fight the militants in Bajaur and elsewhere, we are suddenly reminded
of the point of having an army. For far too long, the institution had become
synonymous with dictatorship and repression. But now we can see it as the last
bulwark against an enemy that has so far faced little or no resistance in its bid to
take over the country. Unlike earlier operations, when the political and military
commands were combined in the hands of a general, this time the army’s
leadership is free to focus on its primary duty without juggling simultaneously with
political calculations. The result is a focused campaign in which the military enjoys
the support of the elected government. And although there might not be a clear-cut
public endorsement of its offensive, at least the majority is behind it. While most of
us are saddened by the collateral damage caused by the fighting, we do understand
that these militants have to be neutralised. Clarity of purpose is essential to
succeed in military matters. As Shuja Nawaz makes plain in his book Crossed
Swords: Pakistan, its Army and the Wars Within,
Within, our army has been so deeply
involved in politics that it is now considered the country’s most powerful political
party. Indeed, it is impossible to write about Pakistan’s history without dwelling at
length on the activities and personalities of our generals. In his magisterial account
of the Pakistan Army, Shuja Nawaz takes us back to the days of British India when
the colonial army was raised. He then writes about the early days of the fledgling
force when, even in its infancy, it began to display Bonapartist attitudes. The plots
and the jockeying for power are fascinatingly laid bare in this painstaking history.
For many of us who have lived under the army’s jackboot during its repeated
interventions, it is hard not to be angry and bitter as we assess its impact on
Pakistan’s political development.
Nawaz has the advantage of distance: for several decades, he has worked in
Washington at the IMF. From here, he has been able to gain access to many
American sources and key players. And while Crossed Swords is an objective study,
it is also an insider’s account: the author is from a distinguished military family, and
whose brother, Gen Asif Nawaz, was army chief until his tragic death during his
tenure. In addition, many of Shuja Nawaz’s relatives have served in the army in
senior positions. This has given him unparalleled access to the upper echelons of
the military. He writes knowledgably about the Islamisation process in the army that
began under Zia, and was continued by some of his successors. Thus, operational
plans are now often subject to prayer for the Almighty’s intercession instead of
rigorous cost-benefit analysis. In a fascinating and depressing passage about this
trend in the ISI, Nawaz writes: “[Newly
“[Newly appointed director general of the ISI Gen
Javed Ashraf] Qazi describes a strange non-military atmosphere at the ISI when he
arrived to take over on very short notice. The corridors were filled with bearded
officers in civilian shalwar-kameez, many of them with their shalwar hitched up
above their ankle[s], a signature practice of the Tablighi Jama[a]t to which the
former DG Javed Nasir belonged. He was shown the ‘strong room’ that once had
‘currency stacked to the ceiling’, but was now empty as adventurist ISI officers had
taken ‘suitcases full of cash’ to the field, including to the newly independent Central
Asian states, ostensibly to set up safe houses and operations there in support of
Islamic causes. There were no accounts or receipts for these money transfers …
Most officers were absent from their offices for extensive periods, often away for
‘prayers’…”
‘prayers’…” Combining political and military leadership was to spell disaster in 1965
and 1971. Nawaz’s account of the latter conflict, in particular Yahya Khan and his
coterie’s bumbling approach, made me angry all over again after all these years.
Pakistan’s pathetic military efforts in its western wing exposed the hollowness of
the doctrine ‘the
‘the defence of the East lies in the West’.
West’.

When the Indians attacked East Pakistan in November 1971, our soldiers mostly sat
in their tanks and their bunkers, waiting for orders to counter-attack. Those orders
never came. Our planes attacked in pairs instead of waves. This paralysis at GHQ
and the presidency led directly to the surrender ceremony at the Race Course in
Dhaka on Dec 16. I wish the author had used his encyclopaedic knowledge to
expand on the atrocities committed by the army in the run-up to the war. All kinds
of casualty figures have been tossed around, but that is not the point: if the army, a
disciplined fighting force, killed even a thousand unarmed civilians, such acts could
not be justified or defended (as they were sought to be) by the terrorist attacks
carried out by the Mukti Bahini, the Bengali freedom fighters. In the event, the
number of victims was far higher, a matter of shame for every Pakistani. The author
was eyewitness to many of the events then unfolding in West Pakistan as he was a
news presenter with PTV. The ham-handed propaganda efforts masterminded by
Roedad Khan would have been funny had not their consequence been so tragic. Not
only did Pakistan lose all sympathy and support in the rest of the world, our media
managers had convinced the leadership as well as the public that victory was
around the corner. With only the official radio and TV to tell us what was going on,
many Pakistanis fell for the official line. In his impeccably researched and fluently
written account, Nawaz tells us of the manoeuvring that goes on behind the scenes
each time a new army chief is being selected. But despite the efforts of politicians
to select a soldier without political ambition, they usually get it wrong. And each
time, we end up paying for these errors in judgment. Today, the dangers Pakistan
faces call for a closer understanding between the political leadership and the army
command. This partnership must be based on the universal concept of military
subordination to elected political government. Only this will ensure the public
support the military needs to function effectively. But before the army can take on
the Islamic militants in the tribal areas and within our cities, it has to cleanse its
own ranks of these elements.

Author Location Dated

AP Ormond Beach, Florida 25.10.08

– McCain’s terse response on Palin’s shopping spree

Presidential candidate John McCain isn’t happy about having to explain why the
Republican Party has had to buy running mate Sarah Palin $150,000 in clothes, hair
styling and accessories. McCain was asked several questions about the shopping
spree — and he answered each one more or less the same way: Palin needed
clothes and they’ll be donated to charity. “She
“She needed clothes at the time. They’ll
be donated at end of this campaign. They’ll be donated to charity,”
charity,” McCain told
reporters on his campaign bus between Florida rallies. Asked for details on how
they’ll be donated, McCain said: “It
“It works by her getting some clothes when she
was made the nominee of the party and it will be donated back to charity.”
charity.” Asked if
he was surprised at the amount spent, McCain said: “It “It works that the clothes will
be donated to charity. Nothing surprises me.”
me.” McCain offered no further comment,
except to say that the Republican National Committee doesn’t buy his clothes.
News of the purchases, largely from upscale Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus,
contrasts with the image Palin has crafted as a typical hockey mom. Asked on
Wednesday who had paid for the suit he was wearing, Democratic vice presidential
candidate Joe Biden told WSLS-TV in Roanoke, Virginia: “I “I pay for my suits. I pay for
all of my own clothing.”
clothing.” Meanwhile Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a private
watchdog group in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Election
Commission against Palin, the Republican National Committee and several political
operatives alleging that the purchase of clothing for Palin and her family violates
Federal Election Campaign Act. The law prohibits a candidate for federal office from
converting campaign funds to personal use. CREW notes that FEC regulations make
clear the prohibition applies to clothing but also provide that donations by
candidates to charity are not for personal use. CREW argued this exception might
apply to Palin’s clothes but doesn’t appear to apply to clothes for her family.

Author Location Dated

Ewen MacAskill Washington, D.C. 25.10.08

– Focus intensifies in handful of key states

Political strategists and pollsters refer to them as the “Triple A” states, the handful
that will determine the outcome of this election and where Barack Obama and John
McCain are focusing their energy, best people and cash over the final days.
Identifying the states is easy: they are the ones that in the last few weeks have
received the highest number of visits from the candidates, the biggest volume of
advertising and where the campaign teams have placed their best staff. Huge
swaths of the US, from reliably Democratic California to solidly Democratic New
York are ignored, as are Republican bastions such as Texas. Instead, campaign foot
soldiers are battling from dawn to midnight in a relatively small number of states
and, in most cases, in a small number of counties within those states. Mark
Mellman, a pollster for the John Kerry campaign in 2004, identified these toss-up
states as Pennsylvania, Florida and Ohio, traditionally big swing states, but also new
ones that until a few weeks ago would have been regarded as safely Republican,
Virginia and Missouri. “These
“These are the Triple A states,”
states,” Mellman said. Also on the list
is Colorado, Nevada and North Carolina, which was an even more unlikely swing
state a few weeks ago than Virginia. “Any
“Any of these could be decisive,”
decisive,” said Mellman.
McCain’s hopes of taking the White House have dwindled to one state,
Pennsylvania, which voted Democratic in 2004. He needs to take this and hold on to
Ohio, the key to the midwest where Obama is ahead in the polls, and Florida, where
the two candidates are in a dead heat. Obama, having made inroads into a host of
Republican states, has many more options. If he does not make it in one state,
there are a host of others that could still swing the election his way. McCain spent
Thursday in Florida – as hotly contested as Pennsylvania – and Obama was there for
two days earlier this week. Both men are certain to return to the Sunshine state at
least once in the final week – Pennsylvania and Ohio also. Since the official start of
the campaign on September 5, Ohio and Florida have each been visited 20 times by
Obama or McCain or their running mates. Pennsylvania has been visited 16 times,
Virginia 13, and Colorado and Missouri 11 times each. New Hampshire and North
Carolina have both had seven, Nevada and New Mexico five, Indiana four and Maine
one.
The other indicator to which states are the most hotly contested is spending on
advertising. Evan Tracey, the president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group,
which tracks ad spending, said the presidential race always whittles down to a few
states. “In
“In every one of these states advertising is very heavy. These are the states
they know they have to win.”
win.” The difference in the 2008 campaign is that Obama’s
encroachment into traditionally Republican areas means that McCain is having to
spend money in states traditionally his party thought it could take for granted.
“Obama has McCain exactly where he wants him. McCain’s team would not have
planned on fighting in North Carolina in October. He would rather be spending
money elsewhere,”
elsewhere,” Tracey said. Republican and Democratic strategists involved in
past campaigns say the pace will become even more frenetic in the final days, with
planned schedules altered at the last minute based on overnight polls. Pennsylvania
appears to be an odd choice for McCain to make what is effectively his last stand.
Many analysts and pollsters, such as Mellman, no longer include Pennsylvania in
their lists of battleground states because Obama is regarded as so far ahead: two
polls on Thursday placed him ahead by 10 per cent and 11 per cent respectively.
But Mark Salter, McCain’s chief strategist, told reporters in the state on Tuesday:
“When we look at our numbers, we think we’re competitive here.”here.” Democrats in
Pennsylvania agree. Its Democratic governor, Ed Rendell, sent a memo this week to
Obama’s headquarters warning that the state is traditionally volatile. Rendell, who
went into election day for the governorship in 2002 with a 25 per cent lead but won
by nine per cent, urged Obama to make more visits to the state. Karlyn Bowman, an
election analyst at the American Enterprise Institute,
Institute, the neoconservative thinktank
in Washington, said Obama would win the election but she understood why McCain
was concentrating on Pennsylvania. “Remember
“Remember how well Hillary Clinton did there,”
there,”
Bowman said, recalling Clinton’s victory over Obama in the state earlier this year,
mainly with the support of white, blue-collar workers.

In Florida campaign teams are concentrating on a relatively narrow strip, the

Orlando-Tampa corridor. Registration figures there for July indicate just how tight it
is, with 159,000 recorded Republicans and 157,000 Democrats. Another indication
of the fierceness of the fight is that the ratio of negative ads by McCain and Obama
is higher in that area than any other part of the country. Obama can lose Florida
and still win by taking states such as Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia, all
of which voted Republican last time. Virginia would be a big prize; a southern state
that has voted Democrat only once since 1948, and that was for Lyndon Johnson in
1964. Michael Dimock, an associate director of research at the Washington-based
Pew Institute, said that in 2000 and 2004 the number of battleground states
remained basically the same from the start of the campaign to election day. But this
campaign had turned out to be more fluid as polls showed Obama becoming
competitive in traditionally Republican areas. States such as Michigan, that had
been competitive at the start, and which received more visits than any other, had
since dropped out of the contest, with McCain giving them up as lost. Dimock sees
the potential changes in the offing comparable to Bill Clinton’s win in 1996 and
Johnson’s in 1964, all the more remarkable given that they were southern
politicians and Obama is from the north. Though the intense campaigning taking
place in the battleground states in 2008 mattered, it was less important than the
economic meltdown and the unpopularity of George Bush. Said Dimock. “Even “Even in
the best circumstances, it would be hard for McCain to do well.”
well.”

Author Location Dated

AFP Honolulu, Hawaii 25.10.08

– Obama takes time off to visit grandmother

Democrat Barack Obama took time off the campaign trail on Friday to visit his
gravely ill grandmother and help her around the house in a highly unusual move
just 11 days before the election. “I
“I want to give her a kiss and a hug,”
hug,” Obama told
ABC before arriving in Hawaii where his 85year-old grandmother, known
affectionately as “Toot”, lives and where Obama spent a large part of his childhood.
“And then we’re going to find out what chores I can do, because I’m sure there’s
been some stuff that’s been left undone,”
undone,” he said. On arriving on the island, Obama
headed straight to the apartment complex where his grandmother, Madelyn
Dunham, lives. She and Obama’s maternal grandfather cared for Obama during
much of his childhood, and Obama has often paid tribute to Dunham on the
gruelling campaign trail. Dunham, who broke her hip earlier this month and suffers
from osteoporosis is the US presidential hopeful’s sole remaining link with his tight-
knit immediate elder family after his mother died of cancer more than a decade
ago. “Without
“Without going through the details too much, she’s gravely ill,”
ill,” Obama said in
the ABC interview aired on Good Morning America. Besides her hip, Obama said:
“She had some other problems that were getting worse. You know, we weren’t sure,
and I’m still not sure, whether she makes it to election day. We’re all praying and
we hope she does.”
does.” His compassionate leave comes with Republican John McCain
searching for a sudden shift in momentum and new polls showing the Democrat
well positioned in the vital battleground states set to decide the November 4
election.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Syed anwarsyed@cox.net 26.10.08

– Advocacy of change
Optimistic about human in genuity and creativity, the liberal disposition is not
reluctant to change its surroundings because it believes that the existing order of
things can be replaced by more satisfactory arrangements. The conservative, on
the other hand, believes that the status quo has resulted from the exertions of
uncounted generations, each having built on the accomplishments of its
predecessors. It cannot be replaced by a given set of individuals. If something has
broken down, he will tinker with it, fix it, not throw it out. It is common knowledge
that many Americans are sick and tired of their present situation: rising prices,
fewer jobs and shrinking wages, want of access to adequate health care and quality
education, mounting unpaid bills, the danger of losing one’s home because of
inability to make mortgage payments.
payments. Many millions of people in this country,
presumably the richest in the world, do not have enough to eat. This situation has
resulted from President Bush’s wrong policies and actions, the war in Iraq which
costs $10bn every month, tax cuts for the wealthy and neglect of the majority’s
pressing needs. America wants change. Many political observers believe that, if
elected, John McCain, the Republican candidate for president and a firm
conservative, may make some peripheral changes but will for the most part retain
Bush’s socio-economic outlook and policies. Mr McCain and his supporters want to
dispel this image and insist that he is not another Bush. His running mate, Sarah
Palin, has been calling him a change-maker, indeed a “maverick”. But this claim
does not have many takers. McCain, convinced that the free market economy is
superior to other systems, will let it take its course without letting the government
come in its way. He will reduce taxes on the wealthy on the reasoning that this will
enable them to expand existing enterprises and establish new ones, all of which will
create many new jobs. He will leave it to each individual to provide for his
retirement, healthcare and education with minimal contribution from his employer
or the government. He thinks this is upholding freedom of choice.

If elected, Barack Obama, a liberal and the Democratic candidate, is likely to make
sig
significant departures from President Bush’s dispensation. He will work to raise
taxes on the wealthy and lower them for small businesses and middle-class
individuals, extend health insurance to all Americans, improve public schools and
make college education affordable for all those who want it, develop new sources of
energy, build infrastructure, encourage local manufacturing of hybrid automobiles,
withdraw troops from Iraq within a specified period of time, fight and defeat Al
Qaeda and Taliban militants in Afghanistan and, if necessary, in Pakistan’s tribal
regions, and open talks with heads of foreign governments currently opposed to
America (such as Iran’s). He favours government regulation of the economy to keep
the barons of commerce and industry from exploiting their workers and robbing
consumers, and to check reckless operations of the kind that have brought on the
current financial crisis. He will extend regulation to all those domains where the
public interest requires it. Predictions of election results can go wrong. I remember
that on the presidential election day in America in November 1948, pollsters,
newspapers and radio stations expected Governor Thomas Dewey of New York, the
Republican nominee, to be the winner. But after the vote count had been completed
later that night, it transpired that President Harry Truman was going to remain in
office for another four years. Polls show that Obama is ahead of McCain. It is
conceivable that a majority of voters will act contrary to the general expectation,
but the likelihood is that Obama will be declared the winner on the evening of Nov
4. Some advances in bringing about the changes he has been promising may then
be made. This will require enabling legislation which is the province of Congress. If
the coming elections return a Democratic majority in both the House of
Representatives and the Senate, Congress will probably provide the needed
legislative support. America will then be a nicer place to belong to and live in.

Change denoting something new should be distinguished from reform that comes
from making the existing arrangements work more effectively. In a place like
Pakistan both systemic change and reform are needed. The police and numerous
other enforcement agencies are already in place and so is the relevant legislation.
But domestic security and tranquillity are nowhere to be found because the law
enforcers are not doing their job. They are incompetent, lazy, poorly paid or
otherwise unmotivated to make the necessary exertions. The same holds for all
other departments of public affairs. Let us, for further illustration, take the case of
our ‘sovereign’ parliament whose members have been insisting that they should be
the ones to settle all major issues of policy. The two houses were recently called to
a joint session to consider the grave threat to national security posed by extremists
and militants and tell the government how to deal with it. They met for a number of
days, heard a briefing from a general and another from Ms Sherry Rehman, the
minister for information. The opposition members complained that the briefings did
not tell them anything they did not already know from reading the newspapers. But
they did not say what it was that they wanted to know. On most of the days after
the briefings the great majority of parliamentarians stayed away from the house.
Over and over again the speaker had to adjourn the proceedings because less than
60 or so of the 442 members of the joint session were present. This state of affairs
may have given outsiders the impression that parliament had no interest in being
sovereign. Beyond the more effective working of existing arrangements, there is the
matter of making systemic changes. The parliamentary system of government is
generally accepted. Remaining within its bounds, one may argue that the Senate
should have the same authority and power as does the National Assembly. Then
there is the persistent demand for provincial autonomy. All political parties endorse
it but none of them has ever done anything to implement it when in power. The
culture of Pakistani politicians does not require them to actually do what they have
been pronouncing desirable. Those in the ruling elite do not want to be change-
makers because the status quo suits their personal and class interests. ¦ The writer
is professor emeritus of political science at the University of
Massachusetts.
Massachusetts.

Author Location Dated

Kunwar Idris kunwaridris@hotmail.com 26.10.08

– Will Musharraf join politics?

Is Pervez Musharraf entering politics — or should he? The first part of this question
is for Musharraf himself to answer; the second is for the people and the politicians
to contemplate. Last week some newspapers quoting the former president’s
unnamed callers reported that his entry in politics was a settled question. Only a
formal announcement remains to be made till he shifts from the Army House to his
own country home — and that would not be long. Yet another report, more in the
nature of a rumour, about Musharraf going abroad to relax or to lecture was
dismissed by the Sindh home minister who said he wouldn’t be allowed to leave the
country — as if it lay in the minister’s power. He has either spoken out of turn or
was asked to voice the thinking of the party caucus. Maj Gen Rashid Qureshi, who
was Musharraf’s spokesman when he was at the peak of his power and again when
he was down in the dumps, came out of his own retirement to speak for him when
no politician did — not even any of his three prime ministers on whom no one but
Musharraf could have bestowed that high office. There is no question of engaging in
active politics, Qureshi said about his former master. To the contrary he is
distancing himself even from the politicians he knew. Seemingly, it is the politicians
who are keeping their distance from him. Mr Musharraf himself has yet to confirm or
deny the reports. But the hunch of most people is that he will join politics one day
for, by temperament, he is as much a politician now as he was once a soldier. The
surviving commando instinct in him is likely to mark his return to politics in the
same way as it did when he captured power in 1999. He took everybody by surprise
then and will so again.

In his current loneliness, a thought haunting Musharraf must be what went so wrong
that he had to quit the presidential office when he was all set to enjoy it for another
five years with less hassle and more golf and bridge. He too, like everyone else,
might be blaming the mishandling of the chief justice affair. That indeed he bungled
in a display of hubris. Surely, the two Pirzadas — Sharifuddin and Hafeez — could
have counselled him to follow a more subtle course like the state counsels asking
for the exclusion of the chief justice from every bench that was to hear, say, the
petitions concerning ‘mysterious disappearances’. The police jostling the country’s
chief justice in full public view aroused widespread sympathy for him and anger
against Musharraf but the cause of his downfall was the tinder he had been
gathering from the very first day of his advent to power. It was waiting to be
ignited. A humiliated chief justice showed it the flame. He became a hero though he
was among the 13 judges who had validated Musharraf’s coup. By the same token
Musharraf became a villain. Even the general elections held 11 months later which
in common reckoning were free and fair could not rid him of that image. Sooner or
later time ran out on all of Pakistan’s rulers for none of them was able to fulfil the
expectations of the teeming millions — more than half the population — who live in
urban slums or dusty villages and have no job nor a piece of arable land to subsist
on. It ran out faster on Musharraf for life became ever so insecure in his time and he
didn’t even have a scapegoat. Men like Zafarullah Jamali and Chaudhry Shujaat
couldn’t be one. The coup-makers before Musharraf did not align themselves with
politicians, not to begin with at least. Musharraf threw away that advantage by
choosing some from among the malcontents of the government he had dismissed
as his partners because he was wary of imposing martial law and designating
himself as CMLA, though he acted in much the same way. That gambit was not
worth the loss of his impartial image. Musharraf then went on to compound his
problems in more than one way. He demolished the country’s long-established,
though not perfect, law and order system. The local elected officials replaced the
career civil servants and the police was placed under the direct control of the
ministers. The nazims on whom he relied to provide him a countrywide constituency
remained loyal to their respective parties. The whole administration was thus
swamped by politics. The nazims were not content to manage just civic affairs. They
worked to promote the image and interests of the parties to which they belonged.

Meanwhile, Musharraf’s ‘enlightened moderation’ gave in to extremism when his

regime was threatened by moderate or secular forces. The Lal Masjid-Hafsa citadel
of militancy couldn’t have come up in the heart of the capital without the
encouragement its clerics received from the regime’s ministers and spooks. Looking
back it can be safely surmised that if Musharraf had not demolished the
administrative and judicial structures nor succumbed to religious radicalism, foreign
militants wouldn’t have been able to make our tribal areas their base of operations
nor would have their bombers been attacking our garrisons deep inside the country.
When all has been said it remains to be acknowledged that while Musharraf was as
much into extravagance and cronyism as any other head of government, his
interference in the working of the government was much less. He might have put
his power to some personal gain but did not plunder. No one talks of his accounts
and villas abroad. His brother and son never appeared on the scene, much less cut
deals. Mrs Musharraf remained a simple housewife like any other wary of an uppity
husband. He is much criticised for his policies relating to the economy and terrorism
but his successors have not reversed but only strengthened them. Their attempts to
rehabilitate the administrative and judicial institutions also look desultory and
sometimes mere eyewash. It is too early for the people to miss Musharraf but that
may not be too far away either. How far depends on how the politicians conduct
themselves. Every powerful ruler when forced out of office by noisy demonstrators
or by scheming politicians or by the angry generals feels that the silent masses
were still with him. Such was the feeling of Ayub Khan as of Z.A. Bhutto. Ayub
became too sick to return to put his feeling to popular test. Bhutto had to be put to
death for he surely would have. If Musharraf is spared their misfortune surely he will
put his feeling to test one day.

Author Location Dated

AP Washington, D.C. 26.10.08

– Obama promises rosy days, McCain disputes his ability

Buoyed by a huge fund-raising advantage and a steady lead in national polls,
Democrat Barack Obama began his closing arguments for the presidency on
Saturday with an optimistic message that his economic policies would bring better
days for hardpressed middle-class Americans. Republican John McCain sought to
raise doubts about his rival’s tax policies and readiness to be commander in chief as
he fought desperately to stem losses in traditionally Republican-leaning states on
the next-to-last weekend of the testy presidential race. Both campaigns focussed on
western states on Saturday. Once reliable Republican territory, much of the West
has seen its politics and demographics shift over the last decade as the Hispanic
population, which tends to favour Democrats, has grown. Three states considered
still in play to varying degrees -- Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico – could be vital
if the electoral math gets tight. But time is running out for McCain who
acknowledges that he is trailing in the polls and needs to mount a comeback. A
Newsweek poll of registered voters showed Obama with 53 per cent to McCain’s 40
per cent. The poll found Obama leading in every age group and among men as well
as women, and even holding a slim 46-to-44 per cent edge among working-class
whites. The telephone poll, conducted from Oct 22-23 with a margin of error of 3.6
percentage points, also found that 62 per cent of those surveyed had a favourable
view of Obama. Obama resumed his campaign in Nevada on Saturday with rallies in
Reno and Las Vegas before holding one at night in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and
plans to head to Colorado on Sunday.

The Democrat put aside political events on Thursday night and Friday to spend time
with his grandmother in Hawaii, whom he described as gravely ill. Obama’s
emphasis is on getting supporters to vote early --- locking in votes that might not
materialise if people get busy or stay home because of bad weather on election
day. McCain, after his three stops in Colorado on Friday pushed hard in New Mexico
on Saturday. He held rallies in Albuquerque and in Mesilla. The Republican
candidate heads to Iowa on Sunday, looking to make up for some lost ground in a
Midwestern state his campaign aides argue is closer than the public polling shows.
His running mate, Alaska Gov Sarah Palin, was in Iowa on Saturday. The Democratic
vice presidential candidate Joe Biden was campaigning on Saturday in Virginia,
where polls show Obama leading in a state last won by a Democratic presidential
candidate in 1964. Obama, a senator from Illinois, unveiled a two-minute TV ad that
asks, “Will
“Will our country be better off four years from now?
now? “At
“At this defining moment
in our history, the question is not, ‘Are you better off than you were four years ago?’
ago?’
” Obama says in the ad. “We “We all know the answer to that.”
that.” Without mentioning
McCain, the ad promotes Obama’s economic policies while saying that Obama will
work to end “mindless partisanship” and “divisiveness”. The length of the ad, which
will start airing in key states on Sunday, highlights Obama’s fundraising superiority.
McCain, a senator from Arizona, used his weekly radio address on Saturday to
attack Obama on taxes. The Republican National Committee, meanwhile, released a
TV ad questioning whether Obama has the experience to be president.

Author Location Dated

Masood Haider New York, NY 27.10.08

– Pakistanis taking keen interest in White House race

Pakistanis living in New York and other parts of the US are following the US
presidential campaign with keen interest. In the past Pakistani Americans
traditionally threw their support behind the Republican nominee as the party was
deemed to be friendlier to Pakistan than the Democratic Party. But all that changed
in the aftermath of occupation of Iraq. President George Bush’s support for former
President Pervez Musharraf in the face of the lawyers’ movement and silence over
quashing of civil and democratic institutions resulted in Pakistanis shunning the
Republican camp. Nevertheless they still remain divided as to their support in the
wake of positions taken by Presidential candidates on dealing with Pakistan. In the
presidential campaign Pakistan has become a major concern with Barack Obama,
the Democratic presidential candidate, and John McCain, his Republican rival,
clashing over the unilateral use of military force to attack inside the country if
Osama bin Laden is found to be hiding there. They jeered Mr Obama when during
debates he expressed determination to order US forces to attack inside Pakistan in
pursuit of Osama bin Laden while the Republican John McCain called for more
cautious approach towards America’s old ally. But of late the economic downturn
has become the main concern for the community. In interviews most American of
Pakistan origin have been expressing apprehension about the impact the financial
crisis would have on their daily lives. “It’s
“It’s the economy stupid”,
stupid”, the slogan coined
by President Bill Clinton in 1992 when he beat George Bush senior in US elections,
again resonates with the Pakistani community. The community has been adversely
affected following the 9/11 attacks in New York. In the borough of Brooklyn-the
Coney Island Avenue area which had come to be known as “little Pakistan”,
Pakistani population has shrunk as the attitudes of local residents changed against
them.

Thousands of Pakistanis were deported from the area after registering with the US
authorities as part of new “special registration” demands made on them following
the attacks. Up to 45,000 of an estimated 100,000-strong community were
deported or left voluntarily following the attacks, according to reports. “Immigration
“Immigration
is a big issue for us in this area and we feel that Obama might be a bit more
receptive than Mr McCain”,
McCain”, said one Pakistani shop keeper. Besides now the
financial down turn does impact the community and may be forced to leave the
area. On recent visit Pakistani community leaders say that the rising cost of food is
a major issue for those living there and luxury goods, such as jeweller, are no longer
in demand. Many Pakistanis in New York are taxi drivers, -- although Bangladeshis
have replaced them -- their income is also being threatened as many people take to
travelling across the city using other means of transport. They cite drop in
consumer spending as a major reason for the struggling community like rest of the
Americans. “The
“The economy is really difficult and people are really distressed,”
distressed,” said
one housewife shopping in the area. “The“The bag of flour that used to cost eight dollars
is now at $20.”
$20.” Economy as a vital issue resonates with the Pakistani community
and it has become the number one issue of concern with all Americans.

Author Location Dated

Ahmad Faruqui faruqui@pacbell.net 27.10.08

– US in the year 2025

The global financial crisis, triggered by the meltdown on Wall Street, continues to
dominate the headlines. It has rekindled debate about America’s global standing.
The crash, triggered by the sub-prime mortgage crisis, was seen by some as a
shortlived event. Early in the crisis, it was argued that that 99 per cent of the drop
in stock prices was driven by emotions. For a few months prior, Senator John
McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, had been saying that the
fundamentals of the US economy were sound. McCain’s view was echoed in The
Wall Street Journal. However, as the crisis deepened, the tide shifted and beached
McCain. What appeared to be a lack of liquidity problem had morphed into an
economic problem. The ‘R’ word loomed on the horizon, and not just in the writings
of the Bush administration’s critics, prominent among whom was Paul Krugman,
who recently won the Nobel Prize in economics. The new conventional wisdom is
that the US has already entered a recessionary period. The only question is, how
deep will it be? The pessimists are drawing parallels with the Great Depression of
the early 1930s. In a sign of the times, the economist John Kenneth Galbraith’s
classic depiction of that period in American history has been reissued. The optimists
are saying this is just a periodic phenomenon that will last between six and 16
months. They have dusted off the iconoclastic work of Joseph Schumpeter,
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. In that, the Harvard economist spoke of how
“creative destruction” stimulated progress in capitalistic societies. Bret Stephens is
typical of the optimists. Writing in The Wall Street Journal,
Journal, he finds comfort in that
“Constantinople fell to the Ottomans after two centuries of retreat and decline. It
took two world wars, a global depression and the onset of the Cold War to lay the
British Empire low.”
low.” But has he forgotten that the Byzantine and British empires had
lasted for centuries before their decline set in? The US empire is largely a post-
Second World War phenomenon, with a half-century of existence. And the other
major empire of the 20th century, the Soviet Union, lasted for just seven decades.

Stephens notes wistfully that the fall in the price of oil is weakening Iran, Russia,
and Venezuela — countries that pride themselves as being global counterweights to
the US — while alleviating economic pressure on Americans. But the world price of
oil won’t continue falling. In the long run its price will be governed by the laws of
demand and supply. As long as India and China continue to grow at a torrid pace,
and as long as there are no viable substitutes for petroleum, oil prices will continue
to gravitate upwards toward the hundred-dollar mark. No one would dispute the
presumption that the US is the world’s colossus. With only five percent of the
world’s population, it accounts for a quarter of the world’s economic output and
nearly half of its financial wealth. American universities remain the primary
institutions of higher learning around the globe and its communities are the primary
destination of choice for immigrants. However, there is little doubt that American
influence is waning. Even though the US spends more on its military than the next
20 nations combined, victory against rag-tag bands of militants in Iraq and
Afghanistan remains elusive. The IsraeliPalestinian problem defies solution despite
numerous visits by American officials from President Bush on downwards. And
Pakistan, despite billions in American aid, is on the brink of bankruptcy. Terrorists
have seized not just the commanding heights in Waziristan but have set its future
agenda. Against this backdrop, the US government’s top intelligence analyst, Tom
Fingar, has compiled a remarkable assessment of global trends. He leads the ‘2025
Project’ which is scheduled to produce its report soon after the November elections.
In a recent speech, Fingar argued that the US will remain the “pre-eminent” power
globally, but its global dominance will be much diminished in the next decade and a
half. Taking a long view, Fingar said that the postCold War period of overwhelming
US dominance in the globe was “anomalous” and never constituted a long-term
trend. In his view, America’s elevated status on the military, political, economic and
possibly cultural fronts “will
“will erode at an accelerating pace, with the partial
exception of the military.”
military.” Others, such as Harvard historian Niall Ferguson, have
long argued that American power has peaked and decline has set in. Ferguson has
authored two leading books on the decline of the British and US empires. Another
historian, Paul Kennedy, currently with the London School of Economics who
authored the classic study The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers,
Powers, traces imperial
decline to strategic overreach, of which clues can be found in the current American
deployments.

What is driving America’s decline? One simple reason is that America’s

infrastructure is decaying. It will take trillions of dollars to upgrade it to world
standards. This and other domestic priorities (such as improving the standard of
education in America’s elementary and high schools, providing universal health care
and shoring up social security) will seriously impair America’s ability to fund
economic develop ment in foreign countries. Foreign aid, never a popular item
domestically, will be hit hard. Another reason is that during the past two decades,
China and India, the world’s two most populous countries, have been growing at
rates that are twice and thrice those of the US. China is expected to become the
largest economy in the globe by 2030, two decades ahead of prior projections. No
wonder that Fareed Zakaria, a former editor of Foreign Affairs magazine and who
has launched the newest Sunday morning talk show on US TV, envisions a
postAmerican future in his new book. But while accepting that premise, Zakaria
says that the end of dominance should not be a cause for alarm among Americans.
He is right. The citizens of Canada and the Scandinavian countries score higher on
many indices of happiness than Americans. In the year 2025, the American cowboy
may not be able to call the shots on the world stage. But back home, Americans will
have the opportunity to find contentment and good health. ¦ The author is an
associate of the Pakistan Security Research Unit at the University of
Bradford.
Bradford.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal Washington, D.C. 27.10.08

– Most Americans ready for change

This year’s presidential election in the United States seem to be both discouraging
and encouraging racism in US politics. The possibility that the next occupant of the
White House could be a non-white has electrified America. There are those who see
Democrat Barack Obama as a beacon of hope, someone who could end the politics
of hate and bring a new era of ethnic harmony. There are others who fear such a
change and want to keep America white. They include millions of middle-and
working-class white Americans, especially in small towns and rural areas, who do
not relish the idea of a non-white American with a name like Barack Husain Obama
occupying the White House. Although Senator John McCain has distanced himself
from this camp, the issue is raised at almost every election rally or meeting his
Republican Party holds across America. This message is then magnified and spread
across America by conservative radio talk show hosts, mainly those from the
Christian right. They keep reminding their listeners that Barack Husain Obama is a
“closet Muslim” who wants to destroy America by occupying the White House. So
far this message of hate does not resonate with the mainstream America which
seems to have made its mind to vote for Mr Obama on Nov 4. At a recent Obama
rally in Leesburg, Virginia, whites outnumbered non-whites by 10 to 3. It is a huge
accomplishment in a state like Virginia which has not voted for a Democrat since
1964 and that too in Leesburg, an old colonial town surrounded by the working class
whites. “Can
“Can we change America,”
America,” asked Mr Obama from the podium. “Yes,
“Yes, we can.
Yes, we can,”
can,” chanted the crowd of about 20,000 people, a huge number for an
election rally in America. “Are
“Are you ready to defeat the policies of divisiveness,”
divisiveness,” Mr
Obama asked again. “Yes,
“Yes, we are. Yes, we are,”
are,” the crowd responded.

And it seems that such sentiments are echoed not just by the traditional Democrats.
Opinion polls show that Mr Obama’s popularity transcends party loyalties, ethnic
divides and religious and cultural concerns. Democrats and non-Democrats,
independents, left-leaning Republicans, whites, Blacks, Hispanics and Asians are all
voting for Mr Obama. On Saturday, just 11 days before the election, a review of 11
national polls gave Mr Obama a comfortable lead over Mr McCain. He led by a
double-digit margin in five of the 11 polls reviewed on Saturday, with over 50
percent support in seven of the 11. But right at the entrance of the Leesburg rally
stood about 100 McCain supporters, including a group of women who supported
Hillary Clinton during the primaries but switched to the Republican camp when she
did not win nomination. “I“I will turn my attention to Lord and pray to Him to see me
through this difficult period,”
period,” said one of them when asked what he would do if Mr
Obama won the election on Nov 4. “Yes, “Yes, I too will seek refuge in God,”
God,” said another.
And media commentators in American predict that this despair could further
increase the racial divide if Mr McCain was defeated on Nov 4. In its latest issue, the
Newsweek magazine warned that in 2012, the conservative faction of the
Republican Party could launch a “fullfledged
“fullfledged culture war”
war” to win back voters.

Author Location Dated

Afshan Subohi 27.10.08

– The fear of unemployment

If 2008 can be described as a year of inflation, 2009 may turn out to be a year of
unemployment unless the government gives up its habit of waiting for an issue to
assume the proportion of a crisis, and re-energises the economy to nip the problem
in the bud. Even people not conversant with economics understand what it means
when nan (bread) sells at Rs7-10, up from Rs3-5, in many parts of the country. It is
not difficult to understand the impact of the hike in basic food items on the family
budget of the segment of population that spends 60 per cent of its income on
kitchen items. Currently, the average food inflation at 35 per cent is an all-time
high. While the citizenry is reeling under the pressure of inflation, the problem is
being compounded by lay-offs and retrenchments or the fear of job loss in the days
ahead. There is no firmed up data available, but scattered information suggests that
the slow down in the economy is now taking its toll on an already uncomfortable
employment situation in almost all categories. No consolidated figures of people
pushed out of regular work over the last six months are available and the official
figures put unemployment at 7.5 per cent in fiscal 2008. This rate is higher by one
per cent over the previous year. An informal survey by Dawn, however, reveals that
the situation is alarming in many key sectors that include some star performers that
dominated the economic horizon during Musharaf/Shaukat Aziz regime. There are
reports that indicate that problem is brewing in financial sector, real estate
business, media, supporting services in capital market, currency business,
automobile, pharma and the ailing textile industry.

Javed, 27, joined a media group three years back as a member of supporting staff at
a salary that far exceeded his expectations at that time. He was shunted out along
with a few dozen others this month as media houses struggled to readjust to
difficult times by cutting costs. A few marketing executives in private media outfits
confirmed that the flow of advertisement income has come down by at least 10 per
cent in case of leading groups as compared to the last year. The situation is worse
for smaller companies.There are unconfirmed reports that at least two TV channels
have been closed down and a few others are seeking mergers and sell-offs. “The “The
advertisement budget is the first to come under axe in situations of distress and the
last one to increase when a business is booming”,
booming”, said a frustrated marketing
professional. “If
“If business shrinks, the employment-base in an organisation also
shrinks. It hardly comes as surprise to me if media groups are trimming to become
leaner. I expect many more lay-offs from media organisations across the board if
the current economic environment persists”,
persists”, a corporate head responded from his
office in Lahore. The financial sector, currency, capital and real estate markets are
all depressed. The mutual funds and asset management firms are involved in an
exercise to contain their losses. The situation is worse for currency dealers who
reportedly have fired a sizeable number of their staff. The real estate and capital
market have an alltime low turnovers for the last few months driving small time
brokers out of the rings. Car sales during July-September have come down by 40-50
per cent for many companies.The situation has impacted adversely on the car
vendors, who have responded by cutting on their staff in Karachi and some cities in
Punjab. “I“I used to make a decent salary a year back. There was more work than the
company could handle in the market. The overtime used to supplement my regular
salary. The situation has changed drastically over the last one year as orders from
major companies have declined. First, overtime was stopped, then contractual
workers were shown the door, now the jobs of even regular workers are at risk”, risk”,
said Tauqeer, father of five school-going children, an experienced automobile
expert engaged in the automobile vendor sector. “The “The drastic drop in sale of cars
and motorcycles has led to closure of some auto vendors while others are
struggling to keep afloat with fewer workers”,
workers”, said owner of a small workshop.

In banking, there are no reports of noticeable retrenchment but the mood is

understandably grim.The trend of poaching and jumping jobs in an upbeat sector
has disappeared and people are worried for their future. “The
“The process of mergers
and acquisition, now taking place, entails human cost. Some people are shunted
out”,
out”, said a senior banker watching developments from close quarters. There are
some reports of closure of 50 per cent of textile ginning units in Faisalabad and to a
lesser extent, in some other cities. Dilshad, an experienced housemaid, said that
her family paid an agent Rs75,000 to arrange placement for her son-in-law in the
Middle East. “For
“For the last eight months Javed has not been able to find a regular
job. You cannot let young men wander around and become useless. When my
daughter got married, he was working in a garment factory but the factory closed
down and he was rendered jobless eight months back”back” she said. Three major
multinational pharmaceutical companies - MSD, Orgenon and BMS - have left and
half a dozen are rumoured to be in the process of winding up their operations.There
is anxiety in workers over terms of employment and great concern over their future
in the industry. Some trading companies also confirmed that many firms are
troubled as increase in customs duties has led to reduction in demand of imports in
certain categories. Are there some inherent anti-workers biases in corporates that
induce them to retrench them at the first opportunity, a local tycoon was asked?
“Not at all, retrenchment of workers is a very difficult decision for any entrepreneur
and is taken when it becomes unavoidable. We do not run welfare trust. I can only
hire if there is need. Besides, we cannot cut on fixed cost, so cost on variables has
to be rationalised when a business comes under stress”,
stress”, said a business executive
in Karachi. Syed Khursheed Shah, federal minister for labour and manpower and
overseas Pakistanis, was not available for comments. Malik Asif Hayat, secretary
labour and manpower, however, was not too worried as he expected mild impact of
the global economic upheaval on the domestic economy. He said textile sector was
almost unaffected that employs the highest number of workers. He dismissed the
view that unemployment would assume serious proportion in the near future;
besides, he felt, that the elected government was alive to the problems facing the
country. “The
“The government’s economic revival package will be announced shortly. It
concentrates on pumping huge sums of money into the economy through massive
public sector development programmes (PSDP). It will take care of many problems
being faced by the economy,”
economy,” he said confidently.

Author Location Dated

Sabihuddin Ghausi 27.10.08

– Diversifying exports
Efforts are on, both at the government and at the private level, to explore new
markets and also to consolidate positions in places where Pakistan has a token
presence in export volumes, following the shrinking of the US and EU markets hit by
economic slump. For long, the EU and the US absorbed as much as 40-45 percent of
Paskistan’s total annual exports and remained as the main suppliers of capital
goods. But during the last decade, Pakistan slowly diversified its export markets and
signed Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with China, Malaysia, Mauritius and Sri Lanka.
A proposed FTA with US has been a subject of periodical bilateral consultations over
the last few years but with no outcome. With market diversification, the exports of
non-textile products rose by more than 24 per cent in the first quarter this fiscal
year. While the textile sector seem discouraged by the withdrawal of research and
development subsidy, exporters of leather and leather products, sports goods,
surgical instruments, cutleries, furniture and a variety of other assorted items, have
grabbed the opportunity offered by rupee depreciation, and they are all set to push
their foreign sales in different markets of the world. Textile exports were down by
five per cent in the first quarter 2008-09, mainly because of the economic meltdown
in the US and EU, forcing many to look elsewhere. ‘’My‘’My next destination is South
America,’’
America,’’ says Iqbal Ibrahim, Chairman All Pakistan Textile Mills Association
(APTMA) who mentions Brazil, Mexico etc as other promising markets. ‘’Yes,‘’Yes, there
are logistics and freight issues involved in export business, but then no business in
the world is problem-free,’’
problem-free,’’ he maintains. Akbar Sheikh, a prominent APTMA leader
from Lahore looks at China where textiles can have a market. With increased
prosperity there, the labour cost is rising, pushing up the production cost and offers
opportunities for export of selected textile products. ‘’We
‘’We have generations-old
relationship with many Hong Kong businessmen who would serve as a springboard
for an export drive in China mainland’’
mainland’’ he said. “If
“If the government helps textile
exporters in resolving some of logistics problems, we can generate a few billion
dollars from exports in such non-traditional markets,
markets, ‘’ Akbar added.

Aziz Memon, a leading garment manufacturer and exporter does not mind,
‘’collaborating with competitors’’ in new markets. He was obviously referring to
Indian businessmen who are found in many non-traditional markets such as, South
America, Africa and Asia and who may consider to join hands with their Pakistani
competitors in the marketing of selected textile products. Pakistan’s declining
dependence on the US and EU markets was more than visible in 2007-08 when
exports to the US came down to $3.72 billion from $4.18 billion a year ago. The US
share in total exports was also down to 19.5 per cent in 2007-08 as against almost
25 per cent in 2006-07. In the current fiscal, exports to US are likely to further come
down because of fall in value as well as volume. UAE—the hub of cross-country
trade-- has shown almost 50 per cent jump in imports from Pakistan amounting to
over $2 billion in 2007-08. The export is handicapped because of its very narrow
base, consisting hardly of 1,200 products as against the trading of over 5,000
products in the international market. ‘’Right
‘’Right now we are striving to get our due
share in the international ‘halal’ food business that is controlled to the extent of 80
per cent by non-Muslims,’’
non-Muslims,’’ said Syed Mohibullah Shah, the Chief Executive of Trade
Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP). While trying to explain the strategy for
diversifying the expanding the export base. Pakistan, he said, has all the potential
to offer branded ‘halal’ food products. ‘’Our
‘’Our focus is on value addition and branded
products.’’
products.’’ Shah has held a series of meetings with businessmen recently in which
his emphasis was on discouraging sale of agricultural raw material as far as
possible; and instead to go for industrial processing, hygienic packaging and
obtaining a number of products from a single agriculture produce. ‘’There
‘’There are bright
prospects of harvesting 24-25 million tons of wheat next spring,’’
spring,’’ he said, which
should make at least one million tons of wheat available for export sometimes in
May or June next year. ‘’But
‘’But our strategy is to export bakery products, confectionary
items and a variety of cookies from wheat surplus rather than exporting it in raw
form’’,
form’’, he said. Pakistan’s confectionary industry has expanded considerably in last
decade and has ample potential to enter export market in a big way.

The UAE and Saudi Arabia have a big food import bill and are eyeing Egypt, Pakistan
and Sudan as their sources of food requirement. The UAE investors have indicated
their plans to acquire huge farms in Pakistan to produce grains, fruits and
vegetables and even dairy products. In the early eighties, Saudis invested in a
livestock farm at Mianwali but suffered heavy losses because of a lack of
entrepreneurship and managerial skills of their local partners. Official planners are
considering this option for export. A glaring example of market diversification is the
seafood export. For long, Europe remained as the main market for food, that
fetched about $250-300 million a year. For the last few years, the EU de-certified
Karachi fish harbour because of its “unhygienic conditions” and put a ban on fish
import.. ‘’We
‘’We are now exporting fish of the same volume with better prices to Asian
countries,’
countries,’ the TDAP Chief Executive informed. Plans are in hand to give a clean
look with hygienic environment to Karachi Fish harbour, upgrade local fish industry
and modernise fishing boats. ‘’We
‘’We want to regain our share in European sea food
market and would rather like to improve it and at the same time further push up
our presence in South East Asian and Middle Eastern countries’’,
countries’’, he said. New
markets and new products are the two main pillars on which the future export
policy is being planned. Russia has already been targeted for future market
exploration as its 300 million population has much more purchasing capacity
because of oil and gas earnings. A delegation to Moscow is being planned
sometimes in December/January. Depending on reports from commercial
counsellors from East European countries, Pakistan’s proposed trade delegation
may include Ukraine and other East European or Central Asian countries in its
itinerary. China and East Asia are other target markets. Minerals and agro-based
products are set for enlarging Pakistan’s export product line in future. Pakistan is in
rich minerals but its exploitation system needs to be modernise
modernised. The last mineral
policy was made in 1995 and preparations are afoot to revamp it under the
changing conditions.

Author Location Dated

27.10.08

– Rupee up against dollar

The rupee showed strong upward trend versus the dollar and euro in the local
currency market this week as a result of several measures announced by the State
Bank of Pakistan in the past three weeks to improved dollar supply, restrict rupee
slide, end speculation and restore public confidence of the business and banking
community. However, the government has so far failed to restore the confidence of
foreign investors. The country’s foreign exchange reserves have further reduced by
$426 million during last week due to rising trade deficit, huge foreign payments and
slow inflows. The country’s foreign exchange reserves currently stand at $7.32
billion. The trade deficit is continuously on the rise. Traders and business
community seems little bit shaky about the government ability to deal with the
current economic crisis prevailing in the country. They fear that reserves will
continue to decline in the next few weeks due to the huge foreign payments, rising
current account deficit and slow foreign inflows. But some economists express their
confidence that Pakistan has enough resources to meet the existing challenges,
provided steps are taken to improve law and order situation and to establish good
governance. Measures taken by the central bank last week seem to have brought
some positive change in the local currency market on the opening day of the week.
In the interbank market, the rupee remained fluctuated against the dollar
throughout the week in review. After closing previous week at Rs83.10 and Rs83.20
it managed to rebound against the dollar this week posting fresh gains of Rs1.90 on
the buying counter and Rs1.80 on the selling counter on the week’s first trading day
to trade at Rs81.20 and Rs 81.40. The rupee recovery on the first trading day,
however, proved short lived as it failed to hold its overnight strength and shed 25
paisa for buying and 10 paisa for selling due to rise in dollar demand for financing
import payments on October 21. Thus the dollar was seen changing hands at
Rs81.45 and Rs81.50 on the second trading day of the week. Marginal improvement
was seen in the rupee value on the third trading day, when five paisa gain made the
dollar to trade at Rs81.40 and 81.45 on October 22. On October 23, the rupee/dollar
parity remained stable, trading unchanged at its overnight level of Rs 81.40 and Rs
81.45. But on the fifth trading day, the rupee retained its October 22 level after
shedding five paisa against the dollar, which traded at Rs 81.45 and Rs 81.50 on
October 24. During the week in review, the rupee in the interbank market managed
to recover 170 paisa against the American currency amid fluctuations.

In the open market, the rupee stood firm against the dollar, gaining 80 paisa on the
buying counter and another Rs1.50 on the selling counter to trade at Rs83.70 and
Rs 84.00 on October 20. The rupee had closed last week at Rs84.50 and Rs85.50.
October 21, the rupee further gained 120 paisa for buying and 100 paisa for selling
and traded at Rs82.50 and Rs83.00 against the dollar. It, however, failed to retain
its firmness versus the dollar on October 22 and shed 50 paisa against dollar on the
buying counter and 20 paisa on the selling counter, changing hands at Rs 83.00 and
Rs83.20. On October 23, the rupee retained its overnight level on the buying
counter but lost 50 paisa on the selling counter, trading at Rs83.00 and Rs83.70
against the dollar. On October 24, the rupee in the open market staged a smart
recovery against the US currency, gaining 80 paisa on buying and 100 paisa on
selling. At the close of the day, the dollar was at Rs82.20 and Rs82.70. This week,
the rupee in the open market managed to sharply recover 280 paisa against the
dollar Versus European single common currency, the rupee strengthened this week.
It gained sharply on the opening day of the week in review, trading at Rs110.85 and
Rs 111.00 on October 20, up 160 paisa on the buying counter and another 165
paisa on the selling counter over the previous week close of Rs112.40 and
Rs112.60. The rupee further extended its firmness against the euro on the second
trading day, changing hands versus euro at Rs110.85 and Rs111.00. The upward
trend in the rupee value persisted for the third consecutive day, with euro trading at
Rs108.15 and Rs108.30. The rupee further strengthened versus euro and traded at
Rs106.90 and Rs107.10 on the fourth trading day of the week in review. The rupee
further extended its gains against euro after recovering another 270 paisa on the
fifth trading day, with euro changing hands at Rs104.20 and Rs104.40 on October
24. On cumulative basis, the rupee during the week in review gained Rs8 over the
European single common currency.

Author Location Dated

Ghulam Mohammed 27.10.08

– Curbing currency speculation

One of the key issues facing the country is sliding of the rupee because of the
widening current account deficit, falling foreign exchange reserves and unbridled
speculation. Speculation has been fuelled by relaxation of foreign exchange
transactions rules. Until November 2001, banks were authorised to deal in foreign
exchange and permitted to undertake purchase/sale of foreign currencies among
themselves provided such purchases/sales were backed by the “permissible”
transactions. This conditionality was withdrawn by the State Bank of Pakistan [SBP]
vide F.E. circular No.20, November 21 2001. In other words, speculative
purchases/sales between authorised dealers were allowed. Like the oil price bubble
in the crude oil market, one can deem that the current domestic exchange rate
scenario is also the partial outcome of speculative activities by the big market
players to mint money. When the rupee is falling against foreign currencies, the
authorised dealers stand to gain by building up foreign currency stocks as the SBP
had abolished the limits given to the authorised dealers for maintaining foreign
currency balances. In the past, the excess was required to be surrendered to SBP on
day-to-day basis. This condition was also abolished. Currently, the authorised
dealers can maintain foreign currency balances (stock) without limit and the control
is exercised by the SBP through the open position limits given to the dealers. There
was a proposal from some quarters that interest rates on foreign currency accounts
should be enhanced to increase inflow of foreign currencies with a view to reducing
pressure on rupee to arrest its fall. Until 1998, the amounts of foreign currency
deposits were surrendered by the banks to SBP against payment of equivalent
rupees and provision of forward cover by the SBP on payment of the prescribed
fees. The amounts of such deposits swelled to $11 billion which were misused for
meeting balance of payments deficit. Therefore, withdrawals from such accounts in
foreign currencies were disallowed in May, 1998 [actually it was not freezing of
accounts as the accountholders were free to withdraw money in equivalent rupees].
This shook the confidence of the depositors and hence the scheme was revised and
now the amounts of foreign currency deposits are not surrendered to the SBP.

The money is kept by the banks with them and is utilised for foreign currency
lending or placement with their correspondents abroad; even though such holdings
with the banks are “technically” taken into country’s foreign exchange reserves but
the country cannot utilise these funds for meeting its day to-day requirements. The
enhancement in the interest rates on foreign currency deposits will in fact increase
pressure on rupee as it would encourage more purchases of foreign currencies by
the public from the open market. The resident Pakistanis make purchases of foreign
currencies from open market for placing in the foreign currency accounts or keeping
in their coffers while the foreign currency deposits mobilised from outside cannot be
counted as “inflow” because such funds are parked by the banks outside the
country. The proposal will merely increase pressure on rupee rather than reducing
it. To reduce pressure on the rupee, the SBP should: Monitor the daily open
[exchange] position of the banks for the last quarter and if any bank has exceeded
the prescribed limit, arrangements should be made to take back the monetary
benefit derived by the concerned bank; Check the banks’ coffers to find out the
foreign currency holdings. In case the volume of holdings suggest that any bank
was indulged in speculative purchases it should be severely punished; Ban fresh
deposits of foreign currency notes in the foreign currency accounts of the resident
Pakistanis; Temporarily withdraw the authorisation given to exchange companies
for making remittances in foreign exchange; No more foreign exchange be provided
to exchange companies from country’s reserves as the money will find its way
abroad by the unscrupulous elements for purposes other than those specifically or
generally authorised by the SBP.
SBP. If these measures do not succeed, there will be no
option but to revert to the fixed rate regime [the managed float system] as was in
vogue from 1982 to 1998] which was administered by the SBP, as free fall of rupee
will ruin the economy. The writer is a retired Additional Director/Foreign
Exchange , SBP.SBP.

Author Location Dated

Ashfak Bokhari 27.10.08

– Economic bubbles and cycles

Nobody knows for sure how long America’s financial crisis will persist and what kind
of debris it will leave behind when it ends. Economic crises or bubbles are often of
cyclic nature and keep revisiting the world every 10-15 or 50-60 years whenever
there develops fault lines in the system. The current turmoil which many
economists saw coming and ultimately erupted in late September is seen to be
much different from the previous ones. One reason, according to economist Branko
Milanovic, is that this is the first crisis in the current era of globalisation. And since
globalisation has already wired the entire globe into one single financial system,
any crisis in its citadel would have a worldwide impact. So, all the advantages of
financially-driven globalisation (speed and volume of transactions, geographical
reach) have suddenly turned into disadvantages. That is why central banks in many
countries have drawn up rescue packages for banks firms. The term economic cycle
refers to the fluctuations of economic activity around its longterm growth trend.
Despite being called cycles, these fluctuations do not follow a predictable periodic
pattern. The main types of these cycles have been named after those identifying
their characteristics. They are: the Kitchin inventory cycle (3–5 years), Juglar fixed
investment cycle (7–11 years), Kuznets infrastructural investment cycle (15–25
years), Kondratieff wave (45–60 years) and Forrester cycles (200 years). years). Which
cycle the current crisis fits in is not clear. But it is said to the worst crisis since the
Great Depression of 1930s. Famous financier George Soros says the current crisis in
the US has been caused by what he considers a “super-bubble” in the US economy
which is bigger than just the recent housing crises, and this, in turn, has been
caused by exotic financial instruments. These instruments were traded in very large
volumes; some of them were rated AAA and institutions bought them, and a few
months later they turned out to be valueless.

Major speculative bubbles have been known to have left behind disastrous effects
on the economy. It is interesting to note that the first major speculative bubble in
economic history revolved not around property or companies, but around tulip bulbs
and came to be known as tulip mania.
mania. After tulips were introduced by Ottomans
(modern-day Turkey) to Europe in the mid-1500s, the Dutch became much fond of
them, seeing them as a status symbol. Soon, the tulip became an object of
speculation. To secure the fancy tulips in advance (they can take as long as 12
years to develop from seed to flower) a market came into being. Traders signed
medieval futures contracts that guaranteed them tulips at the end of the season. In
the 1630s, speculators, lured by tales of sudden riches, flooded the market. The
Dutch government banned short selling of futures contracts to control the mania
but failed. Bulb prices kept climbing until early 1637 and then demand collapsed,
causing a big drop in price. The futures trade stopped and the government
permitted futures contracts to be voided with a 10 per cent fee. Hundreds of Dutch
traders slipped into poverty. Another historic bubble, called the Mississippi Bubble,
Bubble,
occurred in the 18th century France. When the value of metallic currency began
fluctuating wildly, John Law, an exiled gambler, was called back to help. He
suggested the Banque Royale take deposits and issue banknotes payable in the
value of the metallic currency. This introduced paper currency in France and his
strategy helped create financial stability. In 1717, Law launched the Mississippi
Company to which the French government gave a monopoly on trading rights with
French colonies. In 1719, he devised a scheme under which his company subsumed
the entire French national debt. He promised 120 per cent profit for shareholders,
and there were at least 300,000 applicants for the 50,000 shares offered. As the
demand for shares continued to rise, the Banque Royale continued to print
banknotes, resulting in severe inflation. The bubble burst in May 1720 when a run
on the bank forced the government to acknowledge that the amount of metallic
currency in the country was not even equal to half the total amount of paper
currency in circulation. By November, shares in the Mississippi Company were
worthless. John Law had to flee the country.

The ‘Panic
‘Panic of 1825’
1825’ occurred in London ten years after the end of the Napoleonic
Wars. It refers to a stock market crash that started in the Bank of England arising in
part out of speculative investments in Latin America including in the fabled
imaginary country of Poyais. The crisis was felt most acutely in England where it led
to the closure of six London banks and 60 country banks, but was also manifest in
the markets of Europe, Latin America, and the United States. An infusion of gold
reserves from Banque de France saved the Bank of England from complete collapse.
In the recent history, a major event was the Great Depression which happened
when hundreds of thousands of investors contributed to a speculative bubble in the
Wall Street. Many went into debt to purchase stock, resulting in more than $8.5
billion in debt which was more than the money in circulation at the time. When the
market turned bearish on October 24, 1929, investors panicked, causing a massive
sell-off that hit the stock markets and contributed to the Great Depression of the
1930s. To demonstrate confidence in the market, the Rockefeller family and the
heads of major banks bought large quantities of stock but it did not stop the panic.
By October 24, the market lost a total of $30 billion — an amount more than the US
had spent on World War I. The crash caused business closures, massive lay-offs and
a spate of bankruptcies. An international run on the dollar resulted in increased
interest rates, driving out around 4,000 lenders. After an investigation, Congress
passed the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 (repealed in 1999 to herald the era of
regulation) which spelled out a separation between investment and commercial
banks. This law was expected to stop future dramatic sale in the market but it could
not when the Dow Jones index fell 22.6 per cent in 1987.

The Japanese asset price bubble occurred during 1986-1990 period. After World War
II, Japan’s domestic policies encouraged people to save money and the banks to
advance easy credit. As a result, Japanese companies were able to produce and sell
high-quality products at extremely competitive prices, becoming a major world
economic power in the process. At the same time, people used easy credit to
develop property and buy homes, contributing to a speculative real estate bubble.
The Nikkei reached an all-time high of 38,957.44 in December, 1989. Then, in the
early 1990s, the bubble burst, leading to Japan’s “lost decade” and many Japanese
started investing abroad. Similarly, the dotcom bubble in the US, driven by
technology, began developing in 1995 and burst in 2000. When bubbles grow, they
look wonderful in every way. Everybody makes easy profits. When they sink, they
can set the economy back more than a decade. In the cycles before World War II or
that of the late 1990s in the United States, the growth periods usually ended with
the failure of speculative investments built on a bubble of confidence. In these
cycles, the periods of contraction and stagnation reflect a purging of unsuccessful
enterprises as resources are transferred by market forces from less productive uses
to more productive uses. Cycles between 1945 and the 1990s in the United States
were generally more restrained.

Author Location Dated

Sher Baz Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 28.10.08

– Reduction in petrol prices proposed

The ministry of petroleum has proposed a reduction of Rs5 per litre in prices of
diesel and petrol for next month. The proposal was made in a communication to the
finance ministry in the run-up to the fortnightly review of prices, due at the end of
the month, sources told Dawn. The proposal was based on calculations done by the
Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra), the sources said, adding that the
government was earning Rs11 billion a fortnight through the petroleum
development levy (PDL). The government has kept prices of diesel and petrol
unchanged since Sept 15 despite a steep decline in international crude oil prices.
The official said that even if the government approved the proposal, it would still
earn more than Rs6 billion a fortnight. An official told Dawn that the government
was now earning Rs12.95 per litre from tax (PDL) on diesel and Rs30.53 a litre on
petrol. This does not include the general sales tax (GST) of 16 per cent which is
being collected by the Federal Bureau of Revenue (FBR). At present, petrol is being
sold at Rs81.66 per litre and diesel at Rs68.68 in retail. The sources cited latest
Ogra calculations to contend that the government was also earning a PDL of Rs1.5
per litre on kerosene. They said the government owed nothing to oil marketing
companies on account of price differential claim because it was not providing any
subsidy on petroleum products anymore. According to Ogra calculations, the
sources said, oil marketing companies and dealers were now pocketing extra money
in commissions. The government had capped commissions on the crude oil price at
$100 a barrel. But it is still paying at old rates – four per cent commission to dealers
and 3.5 per cent to oil marketing companies. The ministry of petroleum has also
proposed a cut in commissions in keeping with prices in the international market.
The marketing companies are getting a margin of Rs1.7 a litre on petrol and Rs1.22
on diesel, while dealers are pocketing Rs1.36 per litre on diesel and Rs1.95 on
petrol.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 28.10.08

– Race a factor in US presidential poll

Can a white American voter be trusted to vote for a black man when he or she is
alone in the polling booth and nobody is watching? “Yes “Yes,”
,” they can be trusted, says
Michelle Obama, whose husband Barack Obama is the first non-white presidential
candidate of a major American party. Others disagree. Former San Francisco mayor
Willie Brown says that “race
“race is still a problem in this country”
country” and it could cost Mr
Obama several battleground states — and possibly the presidency. People like him
say that when surveyed on issues like race, many people do not express their true
feelings because they are afraid of being labelled ‘racist’. But when they enter the
polling booth, they allow their real feelings to take over. American political scientists
also have a name for the phenomenon: the Bradley effect. effect. It is named for Tom
Bradley an African-American who lost the 1982 California governor’s race despite
being ahead in voter polls. In other races involving a black candidate – most notably
Charlotte mayor Harvey Ganttt’s bids against Senator Jesse Helms for North
Carolina’s seat in the US Senate in 1990 and 1996 and L. Douglas Wilder’s run for
the Virginia governor’s office in 1989 — the Bradley effect came into play. Although
Mr Wilder won the race, his votes were far less than predicted. But Michelle Obama
told CNN’s Larry King that a lot has changed since Mayor Bradley lost. “That’s “That’s
several decades ago, and I think there’s been growth and movement,”
movement,” she said. “I“I
just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people’s hearts more so as they go
into the voting booths this time around.”
around.” But Mr Brown told CNN that while
American voters seemed more focused on issues like the economy and Iraq war,
“race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn’t before Nov 4.” 4.” The issue,
however, is much more complicated than either Mrs Obama or Mr Brown appears
willing to acknowledge.

In a new nationwide survey by Gallup, 88 per cent white voters said race would
have no role in determining how they vote on Nov 4. Roughly three-quarters of
black voters said the same. In a Washington Post-ABC News,
News, 87 percent of white
voters said they would be comfortable with a black president, including 66 per cent
who said they would be “entirely comfortable” with the idea. But when Gallup asked
whether Mr Obama’s being black would gain him more votes than it would lose him,
one in every four white voters said it would cost Mr Obama more votes than it would
gain him, while 21 percent said the reverse. Asked how likely it was that each party
would use race as an issue in the campaign, 50 per cent of white voters said it was
either very or somewhat likely Democrats would use it, roughly the same number
(49 per cent) of white voters who said the same of Republicans. Interestingly, black
voters agreed with their white counterparts on the likelihood of Democrats using
race as an issue — 48 per cent said it was likely. But they broke with whites on
whether Republicans would use skin colour as an issue; 43 per cent of black voters
said Republicans were “very” likely to use race as an issue and 27 per cent called it
“somewhat” likely — for a total of 70 per cent.

Author Location Dated

Karachi, Pakistan 28.10.08

– Rows break out over power bills payment

A large number of Karachi Electricity Supply Company consumers complained on
Monday that banks refused to accept the 60 per cent payment of enhanced bills
issued to them under the new tariff rate, while adding that an end to prolonged and
unannounced loadshedding was nowhere in sight. The banks’ reluctance to accept
electricity bills angered many power consumers and sparked noisy arguments
between people and bank staff at many places on Monday. Some consumers
complained that post offices also refused to accept the 60 per cent payment of bills
and asked them to first get the bills changed at KESC offices. Banks’ staff claimed
that they had not yet received any instruction in writing to accept the 60 per cent
amount of the total electricity bill, which customers were insisting on after a series
of written and televised statements of government functionaries had appeared in
the media. Some people who went to the KESC offices in their areas also faced the
same problem when the KESC staff expressed its inability to issue instructions to
banks to accept the 60 per cent of the total bill. Despite the massive protest in
recent days against the tariff hike, no one in the power utility seems to get serious
about the issue of reduced payment, said a power consumer. No one is answering,
as there is no accountability of the power utility, another angry consumer added.
However, the industrial sector in the city, to facilitate its members, organised itself
and set up special cells where the KESC personnel have been deputed to complete
formalities for payment of bills.

Many KESC consumers also complained that the power utility personnel were also
changing electricity meters without any prior notices or intimation of their move. On
the other hand, many consumers are not even aware that their meters have already
been changed and that what the reading was at the time of the meter’s removal.
People said they feared that the ‘questionable manner’ in which the meters were
changed showed that the KESC had planned to impose excessive units on them by
installing new ‘fast meters’. They also maintained that on the pretext of the ‘faulty
old meters’ the KESC was planning to charge the consumers for the units which the
consumers had not even consumed. The KESC spokesman, Qashif Effendi, did not
respond to Dawn queries with regard to the above two issues. Meanwhile, the KESC
continued to operate its Bin Qasim power plant. However, unit 5 of the plant is still
out of order and not expected to be restored in three to four days. Unit 1 is
generating about 160 megawatts, unit 2, 170MW; units 3 and 4 are churning out
70MW each, while unit 6 is also producing 160MW. Kanupp is not expected to be
restored before Oct 30, causing a shortage of about 80MW.

Author Location Dated

Anwar Iqbal/Masood Washington/New York 29.10.08
Haider

– US willing to hold talks with Taliban, says report

The US is willing to hold direct talks with elements of the Taliban in an effort to quell
unrest in Afghanistan, the Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday, citing
unidentified Bush administration officials. The Washington Post reported that
Taliban leader Mullah Omar had shown openness to the idea of repudiating Al
Qaeda, which encouraged the Bush administration to explore the possibility of
holding direct talks with the militia. Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that the Taliban
had conveyed this message to representatives of the Afghan government during a
meeting in Saudi Arabia last month. Amid these reports of a possible break through
in the search for a peaceful solution to the Afghan conflict, Christian Science
Monitor noted that on Monday the Taliban militia showed “a new potency” in the
fight against coalition forces, bringing down a US military helicopter near Kabul,
while a suicide bomber struck and killed two Americans in northern Afghanistan.
The Los Angeles Times on Tuesday highlighted the significance of the attack, noting
that “choppers
“choppers are a crucial mode of transport for troops and supplies”
supplies” in
Afghanistan. Speculations about a possible breakthrough in the talks with the
Taliban follow a series of meetings last month in Saudi Arabia between
representatives of the Afghan government and the militia. But even before the
Saudis initiated the talks, the Karzai government had been putting out feelers to the
Taliban for negotiating an end to its insurgency in exchange for some sort of power-
sharing deal. Though the US has so far been on the sidelines but at a recent news
conference Gen David McKiernan, the commander of US troops in Afghanistan,
grudgingly said he would support the Afghan government if it chose to go down the
path of negotiations. And now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the US might
get involved in those negotiations directly. “Senior
“Senior White House and military
officials believe that engaging some levels of the Taliban — while excluding top
leaders — could help reverse a pronounced downward spiral in Afghanistan and
neighbouring Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” the report said. Both countries have been destabilised by a
recent wave of violence.

Senior Bush administration officials told the Journal that the outreach was a draft
recommendation in a classified White House assessment of US strategy in
Afghanistan. The officials said that the recommendation called for the talks to be
led by the Afghan central government, but with the active participation of the US.
The US would be willing to pay moderate Taliban members to lay down their
weapons and join the political process, the Journal cited an unidentified US official
as saying. The Central Intelligence Agency has been mapping Afghanistan’s tribal
areas in an attempt to understand the allegiances of clans and tribes, the report
said. WSJ noted that joining the talks would only be a first step as the Bush
administration was still in the process of determining what substantial offer it could
make to persuade the Taliban to abandon violence. “How “How much should (we) be
willing to offer guys like this?”
this?” asked a senior Bush official while talking to the
Journal. Gen David Petraeus, who will assume responsibility this week for US military
operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan as head of the Central Command, supports
the proposed direct talks between the Taliban and the US, the WSJ said. Gen
Petraeus used a similar approach in Iraq where a US push to enlist Sunni tribes in
the fight against Al Qaeda helped sharply reduce the country’s violence. Gen
Petraeus earlier this month publicly endorsed talks with less extreme Taliban
elements. Gen Petraeus also indicated that he believed insurgencies rarely ended
with complete victory by one or the other side. “You
“You have to talk to enemies,”
enemies,” said
Gen Petraeus while pointing to Kabul’s efforts to negotiate a deal with the Taliban
that would potentially bring some Taliban members back to power, saying that if
they were “willing to reconcile” it would be “a positive step”. US Afghan experts
outside the Bush administration have also been urging the White House to try to
end violence “by
“by co-optation, integration and appeasement”,
appeasement”, as one of them said.
They urge the Bush administration to give the Taliban a positive reason to stop
fighting. This, they argue, would allow Washington to separate hardcore militants
from others within the Taliban and would also expose the extremists before the
Afghan people.

Author Location Dated

Islamabad, Pakistan 29.10.08

– PML-Q offers support for scrapping 58(2)b

The Pakistan Muslim League-Q offered in the Senate on Tuesday to help the
government undo the controversial presidential powers to dissolve the National
Assembly, but said President Asif Ali Zardari seemed to have a change of mind.
PML-Q parliamentary leader in the Senate Wasim Sajjad said his formerly ruling
party, the largest single 40-strong group in the 100-seat upper house, would vote
for it if the PPP-led coalition government brought a bill in parliament to amend the
Constitution to repeal the controversial article 58(2)b inserted by decree by former
military president Pervez Musharraf. In what looked like a challenge to test the
sincerity of the PPP leadership about its pledges on the second day of a Senate
debate on Mr Zadari’s Sept 20 address to a joint sitting of parliament, Mr Sajjad
asked the government to bring the bill now without waiting until March, when half of
the Senate will be up for re-election mainly by the four provincial assemblies that
the ruling coalition hopes will give it a necessary two-thirds majority to amend the
Constitution. “We“We are ready to support you,”
you,” the PML-Q leader said without evoking
an immediate response from the poorly-attended treasury benches, which had to
listen to more criticism than praise for the president in less than two months after
his election, mainly for his broken or unfulfilled promises, especially about a
promised restoration of superior court judges sacked by then general Musharraf
under a controversial Nov 3, 2007, emergency proclamation. But the strongest
criticism of the president came from Jamaati-Islami Naib Amir Prof Khurshid Ahmed
as the leader of the Independent Group of Opposition, who cited several
disappointments from Mr Zardari and perceived failures of the present government
to fulfil its pledges, including those about the restoration of the pre-Nov 3 judiciary
and deposed Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry and undoing the 17th
Amendment of the Constitution that legitimised the Musharraf decrees.
In the two days of the debate, nobody from the treasury benches has replied to
criticism to the highly emotive issue of the judiciary, despite a strong defence of the
government by leader of house Raza Rabbani on Monday and some clarifications on
Tuesday about the government’s response to the US drone attacks on Pakistani
tribal areas to target suspected militant hideouts. Law and Parliamentary Affairs
Minister Farooq H. Naek came in and went out of the house at times but did not
take the floor as lawyers voted across the country to elect an iconic judicial activist,
Ali Ahmed Kurd, as the new president of the Supreme Court Bar Association, in a
political blow to government moves to divide the judicial community over the
judges’ issue. Some PML-Q figures had in the past promised in their individual
capacity to vote for a repeal of 58(2)b but Tuesday’s was the first time Mr Sajjad
gave the assurance on behalf of the party of former Musharraf loyalists. But Mr
Sajjad doubted Mr Zardari’s sincerity to go ahead with what his Pakistan People’s
Party and its allies had pledged to do in their election manifestos and the famous
Charter of Democracy signed by assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto and PML-N
chief Nawaz Sharif in 2006. The PML-Q leader said he had expected a clear
statement from the president to ask parliament to repeal 58(2)b, which empowers
the president to dissolve the National Assembly and sack a prime minister at his
discretion, but his ambiguous call only to ‘revisit’ that particular clause the 17th
Amendment “indicates a change of thinking”.

Prof Khurshid regretted that an all parties parliamentary committee proposed by Mr

Zardari to ‘revisit’ the deformed articles of the Constitution had not been formed
yet and said it seemed the new president was trying to use the authority arrogated
by his predecessor by constitutional deviations. He also took the government to
task over the prevailing economic crisis and the law and order situation and, while
referring to military operations in the tribal areas and some adjoining areas of the
NWFP and in Balochistan, accused both the president and Prime Minister Yousuf
Raza Gilani of following General Musharraf’s policies. Muttahida Qaumi Movement’s
Babar Khan Ghuari, who mainly spoke about the prevailing economic crisis and
power shortages, called for a reduction in bank interest rates for a revival of
industry and the stock market and warned that higher power rates, if not scrapped,
could lead to a civil disobedience. Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party’s veteran
parliamentarian Abdul Rahim Mandokhel complained of a lack any share of Pashtun
population of Balochistan in decision-making before calling for a rectification of
what he called a ‘wrong’ done through moves he said amounted to liquidation
rather than safeguarding judicial independence. The Senate will resume its session
at 4pm on Wednesday to hear Prime Minister’s Adviser on Finance Shaukat Tarin
about how the government plans to tackle the present economic crisis.

Author Location Dated

Hasan Zaidi 29.10.08

– Do US polls really matter to us?

“The United States has essentially a one-party system and the ruling party is the
business party.”
party.” — Noam Chomsky.
Chomsky. Since
Since the nominations for the US presidential
elections kicked off last year, there has been an inordinate amount of discussion in
Pakistan’s media about which candidate is, or would be, more sympathetic to
Pakistan. Of course, there is a tremendous amount of ambiguity in the basic idea of
what being ‘sympathetic’ to Pakistan actually means. Generally, this is understood
to mean being liberal with the aid dollars, supportive at international forums and
indulgent about our real or perceived follies. Whether previous such ‘sympathetic’
US presidents — Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush being the most recent
incarnations — have actually been a blessing or a curse is an entirely debatable
issue. However, putting aside this valid question for the time being, the debate
about the merits of various American presidential candidates has focused almost
completely in the Pakistani media on one of two factors — their personal history or
chemistry with Pakistan on the one hand, and the relative stance of their political
parties regarding our country on the other. Both of these issues are trivial and of no
consequence, and the Pakistani media has hardly added a whit to the cumulative
understanding of its audiences. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

In the current match up, much has been made of the Democratic Party’s nominee
Senator Barack Obama’s statements that he would support unilateral American
action inside Pakistani territory to attack Al Qaeda leaders. Such has been the
chorus of disapproval from Pakistanis both within Pakistan and in the US, that it has
drowned out the earlier (muted) euphoria over the discovery that Mr Obama had
close friends from Sindh whose homes he had visited during his college days (the
personal connection we are so fond of). But if any Pakistani had any illusions about
Obama’s rival, the Republican Party candidate John McCain, having a greater
concern for Pakistani territorial sovereignty, they were certainly disabused of such
notions during the presidential debates. McCain attacked Obama for his
pronouncements about Pakistan, but mainly over style. “You “You do what you have to
do,”
do,” he told the American public, “but
“but you don’t say it publicly.”
publicly.” So, basically, the
choice for us is between someone who supports disregarding Pakistani sovereignty
on the one hand, and on the other, someone who also supports the same line but
just doesn’t want us to know. Of course, it would be entirely legitimate to question
how either Messrs Obama or McCain’s line would be any different in substance from
what the US is already pursuing under President George Bush. With Predator-Hellfire
missile attacks every day — whether with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani
government or not — and tribal areas that are under the state’s writ only in name at
best, the very idea of ‘Pakistani sovereignty’ seems a laughable one. In any case, so
much for the personalities affecting their attitudes to Pakistan.

Let’s now take a look at another great myth — the difference between the two main
American political parties vis-à-vis Pakistan. The conventional wisdom is that the
Republicans are pro-Pakistan, while the Democrats are pro-India. The source of this
fairytale is traceable to the line propagated by Gen Zia’s administration that was
the beneficiary of American largesse during the Afghan war and the perception is
fairly strongly tied in with the flow of aid. Since Ronald Reagan and his Republicans
held sway through most of Gen Zia’s tenure at the helm, and aid to Pakistan dried
up during Clinton-the-Democrat years, only to be resumed during Republican
George Bush’s tenure, this perception has almost assumed a position of
unchallenged fact. You could poke holes in this argument by pointing out that
Pakistan was recognised as a state in 1947 by a Democratic US president, Harry
Truman. That it was during the Republican administration of Richard Nixon that half
of Pakistan’s territory seceded. Or that the Pressler Amendment (drafted by
Republican Larry Pressler) and military and economic sanctions were enforced
under the Republican administration of George Bush the Senior. But one cannot
argue with this perception without questioning the entire basis of the ‘pro-Pakistan’
argument as espoused by the Pakistani establishment. Does anyone other than
Hamid Gul or Qazi Hussain still believe that Zia pushing Pakistan head first into the
Afghan quagmire at the behest of the American CIA was in Pakistan’s long-term
interests? Was having Pakistani society overrun by cheap Kalashnikovs, sectarian
mafias and heroin a good trade for the aid the Americans pumped in? In more
recent times, whatever opinion one may have about Gen Musharraf, would most
Pakistanis consider their country becoming a frontline ally of George Bush’s neocon
‘war on terror’ a prudent move in the best interests of the country? If anything, has
it not tainted our own necessary battle against Talibanisation? But lest this be taken
as arguing the case for the Democrats, the corollary to the above bit of
conventional wisdom is that the Republicans favour military rule in Pakistan while
Democrats are more, well, prodemocratic.

Let’s cast a brief glance at history. Aside from Gen Ayub Khan’s coup in 1958, which
took place during Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s tenure, all subsequent
coups in Pakistan have taken place during Democratic administrations. Ayub had
very cordial relations with both the Democratic administrations of John F. Kennedy
and Lyndon Johnson despite the folly of Operation Gibraltar in 1965. Regardless of
the Republican support to latter Pakistani military dictators, one can even argue
that all military dictatorships in Pakistan have only met their end during Republican
administrations — Ayub and Yahya Khan during Richard Nixon’s tenure, Ziaul Haq
during Ronald Reagan’s tenure and Pervez Musharraf during the current Bush
administration. The point is this: it really does not matter to us which party is in
power in the US. American interests — or at least the perception of American
interests — is what drives American policy towards Pakistan, or anywhere else in
the world. We would do well to remember that it was under Bill Clinton that
American cruise missiles hit Afghanistan for the first time, and a most crippling
economic embargo was imposed on Iraq that reportedly led to the death of
hundreds of thousands of children. The differences between the Republicans and
Democrats are limited to their domestic arena, and at best to the style of
international diplomacy. Yes, Obama being quite possibly the first black president
does send a good message to the world about America. Yes, his early schooling in
Muslim lands may give him a better understanding of cultures other than American.
But to believe that his ethnicity, his parentage or his party affiliations are going to
fundamentally alter real American geopolitical interests with regards to places such
as Russia, China, the Middle East or Central Asia is to live in a make-believe world.
It’s time Pakistan’s media woke up, and as Americans are fond of saying, ‘smelled
‘smelled
the coffee’.
coffee’.

Author Location Dated

Irfan Hussain 29.10.08

– In the wilds of Wales

As a rationalist, I have never believed in ghosts, but a couple of recent incidents
have forced me to reconsider my views. After spending the last weekend at Kim’s
lovely Net House on the outskirts of Hay-on Wye, we went off to Bala in Wales
where we had borrowed a remote cottage from Tom Stacy. Tom is a writer and
publisher, and is a very old friend. He is also one of the hardiest men I know, going
off to swim in the Serpentine lake on winter mornings. His cottage was built in the
17th century, but has circular stones in its foundations that were cut some three
thousand years ago. Nearby is an old Roman road that the legions used to fight
their way into the Llewyn Peninsula. Going up the drive, our car got stuck in the
mud that had been caused by days of rain. But we forgot about this once the log
fire was roaring in the huge fireplace. The walls are a yard thick, and the cottage
gets very cold. Tom has a Spartan lifestyle, and this is reflected in his cottage that
would not be awarded any stars for luxury. As we settled down, the lady wife began
looking for her book. She had been reading Patrick French’s recent biography of V.S.
Naipaul, and although all three of us hunted for it, we just could not find it. As this is
a fairly hefty tome, we could not have overlooked it, and I was sure I had carried it
out of the car. After an hour or so, I went to the ground-floor loo, and there was the
book, propped up against the floor next to the toilet door. It was in such an obvious
place that we could not possibly have overlooked it. Throughout the evening, Kim’s
dog Puppy kept staring towards one corner of the living room, something she
doesn’t do normally. After dinner, we went off to bed. As I read in bed, I heard a soft
thud of something falling nearby. I looked around, and there was the case of my
reading glasses on the floor. This object had been on the bedside table, and I had
not moved, so there was no logical reason for it to have fallen. Odd, I thought.

The next morning, we went off to explore the Llewyn Peninsula, a place the lady
wife and I had spent a few weeks in over the years. It’s wild, beautiful countryside,
with ancient churches and steep hills covered with heather. While there are very
few people, thousands of sheep and cattle graze on the hillsides and in pastures.
You are never far from the sea, and we had a long walk on the beach where Puppy
and our Puffin raced around, delighted to be in the open. The next day, it was grey
and wet, and we decided not to spend time driving up to Snowdonia, the highest
mountain in Wales. Instead we went to a valley in Powys where there is an eighth
century church. Legend has it that the local prince was hunting a hare that took
refuge behind a girl who was praying in a grove. When a huntsman raised his bugle
to alert the others, he found he could not blow it. The prince was so impressed by
the girl’s piety that he gave her the valley. Here, she built the church that stands to
this day, while her bones rest in a tomb in the ancient building. That evening we
returned to Tom’s place for the night. When we were there a day earlier, Kim and
the lady wife had been discussing the absence of any tea towels in the kitchen. This
made the task of drying the washed dishes difficult, but they put it down to Tom’s
eccentric ways. When we entered the kitchen, there was a stack of these towels
sitting on the table where we had eaten two meals without seeing them. While all
these odd, trite incidents happened around us, none of us sensed any malice. Later,
when she rang Tom to thank him, the lady wife told him about our experience, and
asked him if he had felt anything over the years. He laughed, and said in his usual
elliptical way that the cottage was located on a very old site where there had been
continuous human habitation for three thousand years. In any case, he had become
used to whatever presence there was in the cottage, and it had become
accustomed to him.

Talking of ghosts (not that I believe in them!), there is a major exhibition of the
works of Francis Bacon on at the Tate Britain. Bacon was one of the most influential
painters of the last century, and the show was packed. His figures and faces have a
haunted, tortured expression that were far more disturbing than any Welsh spirits.
Large canvases with convoluted figures and contorted faces dominated the walls.
Critics have seen in them the alienation and agony of individuals coping in a
disorienting world, bereft of the crutches of faith. The loneliness and angst of
modern life haunts Bacon’s subjects as he distorts their faces into soundless
screams, their mouths gaping in pain and terror. After an hour of this horror show,
give me ghosts any time… Luckily, there was some light relief as we emerged into
the main passage of the Tate. An artist called Martin Creed had a live happening
going on that consisted of a runner hurtling down the length of the hallway at full
tilt every thirty seconds. So as you watched, young men and women in shorts, T-
shirts and joggers would charge down the sixty-metre length of the space “as if
their lives depended on it”, according to the panel on the wall. Clearly, after a few
sprints, boredom reduced the speed of the participants. But it was fun,
nevertheless, especially after the unrelieved bleakness of the Bacon show. Finally,
news from the ever-active atheists in the UK: with support from Richard Dawkins,
they have collected a hundred thousand pounds for placing a message on London
buses that will read: “God
“God probably does not exist. So stop worrying and enjoy life.”
life.”

Author Location Dated

Washington/New York 29.10.08

– Muslims eager to make a difference in US polls

“Get
“Get out and vote on Nov 4,”4,” says a one-minute televised message by a Muslim
umbrella organisation, the American Muslim Taskforce on Civil Rights and Elections.
Elections.
The message reminded American Muslims that they “can “can make a difference in this
upcoming election, especially in battleground states”.
states”. The message does not say
whether Muslims should vote for Mr Obama or Mr McCain. It just urges them to
exercise their right to elect the next US president. “We
“We encourage Muslim voters to
vote for candidates who support issues on civil liberties and human rights, reviving
the economy, world peace, the environment, education, universal healthcare, and
who can build a national consensus on an immigration policy in the 21st century,”
century,”
the message adds. “Each
“Each election cycle America’s Muslims become better
organised and more savvy about asserting our voice into our nation’s electoral
dialogue,”
dialogue,” says another Muslim umbrella organisation, the Council on American-
Islamic Relations.
Relations. While Muslim organisations avoid taking sides, voters do not. At a
recent gathering in Springfield, Virginia, an overwhelming majority of Muslims said
they would vote for Democrat Barack Obama. “We “We do not trust the Republican
Party,”
Party,” said Ammar Hasan, 25. “Their
“Their policies are dangerous for the Muslims and
for Americans.”
Americans.” But some Pakistani Muslims were reluctant to vote for Mr Obama.
“He wants to invade Pakistan,”
Pakistan,” said Khan Mohammed when asked why he opposed
the Democratic candidate. But the Muslim distrust of the Republican Party is so
strong that during a recent state election in Virginia many refused to vote for a
Muslim candidate although he lost to his Democratic rival only by a few hundred
votes. There were hundreds of Muslims voters in his constituency but many voted
for his Democratic rival or did not participate. Another Muslim nominated by the
Democratic Party in a nearby Maryland district won.

But can the Muslims be as effective in the presidential election? Muslim advocacy
groups, such as AMT, say they can. Others say that they are too few to matter.
Estimates of Muslim population in the United States vary from 1.1 million to 6 to 7
million. CAIR says that there are 6 to 7 million Muslims in the US, about 2.2 percent
of national population. American Jewish Committee estimates that there are 1.9
million Muslims, about 0.6 per cent. In 2005, Encyclopaedia Britannica noted that
there were 4.7 million Muslims in the US, roughly 1.5 per cent of national
population. A recent survey of those who attend mosques, showed that 33 per cent
of them were South Asians, 30 pc African-Americans, 25 pc Arabs, 3.4 pc Africans,
2.1 pc Europeans, 1.6 pc White Americans, 1.3 pc Southeast Asians, 1.2 pc
Caribbean, 1.1 pc Turkish, 0.7 pc Iranians and 0. 6 pc Hispanics and Latinos. This
week, CAIR also conducted a survey of 1000 American Muslim registered voters.
The survey indicates that American Muslim voters are concentrated in 12 states:
California, 20 per cent; Illinois, 8.9 pc; New York, 8.6 pc; Texas, 7 pc; New Jersey,
6.8 pc; Michigan, 6.7 pc; Florida, 6.4 pc; Virginia, 6.3 pc; Maryland, 3.1 pc; Ohio, 3
pc; Pennsylvania, 2.9 pc; and Minnesota, 2.8 pc. All other states and the District of
Columbia are home to 17.5 per cent of this segment of American voters. The survey
showed that 89 per cent Muslim voters vote regularly; 86 pc celebrate the American
independence day; 64 pc fly the US flag; 42 pc volunteer for institutions serving the
public (compared to 29 pc nationwide in 2005). About 47 per cent Muslims voters
are in the 35-54 age group; another 20 per cent are in the 25- 25-34 age group. As
many as 62 per cent have obtained a bachelor degree or higher, double the
comparable national figure for registered voters. About 50 pc are professionals.
Forty-three pc have a household income of $50,000 or higher. Seventy-eight pc are
married. Of those, 83 pc have one or more children.

It is difficult to say what motivates a community with such a diverse social and
ethnic background but the American Muslim Taskforce describes the objectives of
the AmericanMuslim voters as: 1) becoming full partners in the defence,
development and prosperity of our homeland, the United States, 2) defending civil
and human rights of all, 3) mainstreaming the American Muslim community, and 4)
developing alliances with like-minded fellow Americans on a wide variety of social,
political, economic and moral issues.
issues. A group of Muslim leaders has said that
majority of American Muslims would vote for Democratic presidential nominee
Barack Obama. But they decided not to openly issue any strong statement of
support for Mr Obama. Addressing a press conference, leaders of the so-called
American Muslim Alliance said on Monday they have decided to ask their
congregations to vote for Senator Obama but it would up to the individuals to vote
in accordance with their conscience. Most Muslim Imams and leaders believed that
any overt expression of support from a Muslim group for Obama was likely to hurt
rather than help his bid for the White House. Many refused to give out their identity
on record in order not to offend any Republican sensitivity. The leading Muslim
organisations and groups have been requested by Obama supporters not to declare
their support to the Democratic candidate openly as they fear it would be used to
decry the senator as a Muslim which was unacceptable to many Jewish and
extremist organisations.

Author Location Dated

Aneela Babar 30.10.08

– Being secular and a Muslim

If Pakistan had an annual Eid address to the nation, much like the Queen’s
Christmas address, the president would not have been amiss in quoting her in
referring to the past year as Pakistan’s annus horribilis. As Pakistanis at home and
overseas witnessed the bloodshed that has engulfed their country, they wondered
how long will be the wait for dawn to break? In this era of globalisation some have
attempted to articulate the tragedy befalling our nation this Ramazan in the very
New York-words of ‘Pakistan’s 9/11’, however it is very clear that the crisis that
faces our country is one unlike any other. So, at such a difficult time in Pakistan’s
history as we are battling numerous domestic and international crises, would it be a
case of misplaced priorities on my part if I revisit the long-debated argument on
whether it is possible to be secular, Muslim and Pakistani today? I am confronted
with the same barrage of queries every time there is an act of violence in our part
of the world, “do
“do many Pakistanis want to be fundamentalist?”
fundamentalist?” Every time I fumble
to explain that it is just not religion but a smorgasbord of ethnicity, history,
deprivation and location that drives some to violence, so yes it still remains
pertinent to return to some debates that we have long abandoned. It is not that our
leadership has abandoned these questions, in fact it is the first exercise that any
Pakistani head of state undergoes to exhibit the ‘urbane face’ of Pakistan to the rest
of the world. It is the sign of the times and the deterioration of the quality of our
leadership that these attempts have corroded from Jinnah’s astute observation of
the difference between a country for Muslims that maintained a secular spirit and
an Islamic nation that was a theocracy perse. This as elaborated in his much quoted
address to the Constituent Assembly when he asked of us to embrace our freedom
to frequent our places of worship in the new state of Pakistan and told us how our
caste, religious or ethnic affiliation was outside the purview of the state.

It is our misfortune that in more recent times our leaders have shown less
imagination. So for President (then Chief Executive) Pervez Musharraf a ‘secular
Muslim’ meant posing with his pet dogs. This to assure the world that unlike other
military men who took to wooing the clergy to bolster their popular support, this
general could afford to be a bit daring. President Zardari might have thought he
could accomplish it by conducting his charm offensive in New York. That his
attempts towards being the sophisticated man about town became the stuff that
enrages women everywhere and that makes late-night talk show hosts rub their
hands in glee is another story. We have suffered the lack of a coherent debate on
this issue because for one we have absorbed an authoritarian and one-dimensional
narrow definition of Islam. For another there has been state control of any kind of
dissent towards the ‘official definition’ of Pakistani Islam, whether it has been the
particularly Wahhabi shades of the ’80s or the post-9/11 diktat that today we are all
Sufis. This has coincided with the religious extremists controlling any available
platform to conduct such a debate. For instance, what would one mean by a secular
Pakistani? This is crucial, for religious elements in Pakistan read secularism as
ladeeni (having no belief system at all). In today’s times we have to lower our
expectations of the Pakistani public’s perception of secular Islam, suffice to say it
would be enough if they interpret it as not approving acts of violence in the name of
defending their Muslim brethren. There are many voices, especially amongst young
Muslim men that I encounter in my classroom lately, with their own common-sense
perception of what being Muslim means. They are of the thought that being violent
or militant comes naturally to Muslims. Hence the urgency to bring to their attention
alternative spaces and definitions where one can be both a good Muslim and non-
violent and identify an ethic of self-reform that makes legitimate other readings of
Islam. Amartya Sen’s work on inter-communal dialogues in the recent past has
shown that “tolerance
“tolerance towards diversity of opinion was not alien to the South Asian
region”
region” (this is Sen, 2005 in The Argumentative Indian). Episodes where our leaders
have sponsored and supported dialogues to address difficult problems of religious
upheaval should be dusted off the cobwebbed library shelves and be shared with
the larger public.

Even if they are the ubiquitous tales of Akbar’s “pursuit

“pursuit of reason”
reason” rather than
“reliance on tradition”
tradition” and his “visionary
“visionary insistence on the need to have
conversations and interchanges among holders of different convictions”.
convictions”. (All this as
Sen impresses on us in a time when “Giordano Bruno was being burnt at the stake
in Rome for heresy, in the public space of Campo dei Fiori.”) However it was the
father of our nation who impressed upon us in his much-censored and diluted
address of 1947 how he believed that: “History
“History shows that in England conditions
some time ago were much worse than those prevailing in India today. The Roman
Catholics and the Protestants persecuted each other. Even now there are some
[s]tates in existence where there are discriminations made and bars imposed
against a particular class. Thank God we are not starting in those days. We are
starting in the days when there is no discrimination, no distinction between one
community and another, no discrimination between one caste or creed and another.
We are starting with this fundamental principle that we are all citizens of one state.”
state.”
Words to remember and stand by in the long, difficult months ahead as we turn
upon particular ethnicities within our nation accusing them of sponsoring violence,
accuse a particular class and ‘liberal ideology’ for being the bane of all our woes,
and emulate an ostrich head in the sand in our declaration that abandoning a
particular alliance will resolve our current woes. Yes, an absence of the background
noise of drones might simplify our conflict but it is not the only solution. May we be
blessed with wisdom and prudence today and tomorrow.

Author Location Dated

Jehangir Khattak mjehangir@aol.com 30.10.08

– ‘Obamania’ and Pakistan

Public opinion polls, media vibes, and popular sentiment all point to ‘Obamania’
sweeping across America. Barring his becoming the victim of the Bradley effect or
dramatic tumult, Barack Hussein Obama is on the verge of history. The Democratic
transition team is already at work for America’s first black president. Thanks to
Obama’s widening lead over underdog John McCain, key traditional Republican red
states are likely to turn Democratic blue in the country’s most expensive election,
costing a staggering $5.3bn. Projections are giving Obama more electoral votes
than the magic number of 270 needed to win the White House. McCain is troubled
not just by Obama’s greater appeal on the economy that is expected to be decisive.
He has been trying hard to come out of the shadow of George W. Bush. But his
biggest political liabilities are turning out to be his own vice-presidential political
gamble. All it took to bust the so-called ‘Palin effect’ was two serious television
interviews. No wonder, wheels started flying off the Straight Talk Express as
McCain’s closest aides openly called Sarah Palin a slow-learning rogue diva who
cares only about herself. With Palin’s $150,000 Republican National
Committeefunded wardrobe story still scaring away voters, the so-called ‘Palin-
McCain strain’ just days before the voting day is nothing short of a disaster. Besides
winning the battleground states, McCain must win the toss-up states — Florida,
North Carolina, Ohio, Missouri, Colorado and Nevada — to become the ‘comeback
kid’. However, the voter mood seems unfavourable. McCain is either trailing or in a
dead heat with Obama in most of these states. Three factors seem to be pushing
McCain to defeat — the Bush presidency, the economy and Sarah Palin.
Palin. Obama’s
slogan of ‘change’ has endeared him to a weary nation caught in the middle of
corporate greed and governmental impotency to fix a decadent Wall Street, which
has already eaten up tens of billions of dollars of American pension funds. Popular
sentiment is that Obama can pull America out of the biggest economic crisis since
the Great Depression.
Depression.

In Pakistan, the man on the street could care less about these issues. However,
Washington’s foreign policy outlook for the region will remain a focal point for
apprehensive Pakistanis. Obama is promising a multi-pronged approach for the
region he calls the ‘real front’ of the war on terror. He is pledging to promote
democracy in Pakistan, increase non-military aid to Islamabad, institute greater
scrutiny of military aid, strike inside Pakistani territory if and when Islamabad is
unwilling or unable to move on actionable intelligence about the presence of high
value targets on its soil, send at least two more brigades of US troops to
Afghanistan, build pressure on President Hamid Karzai to curb corruption in the
Afghan government, control the drug trade, and establish the state’s writ in much of
the ungoverned countryside. He is likely to end the current Karzai-centric US policy
for Afghanistan. Obama says the Karzai government has “not “not gotten out of the
bunker”
bunker” to rebuild the war-torn country. Obama has repeatedly clarified that he
does not support an invasion of Pakistan. However, he is giving broad indications of
raising the bar for Islamabad’s ‘performance’ in the war against terror. If Obama’s
thinking for Iraq is any indication, he is expected to put greater responsibility on the
nations of the region by building their capacity to fight the war in unison with
Washington. America’s 16 intelligence agencies warn that Afghanistan is on a
dangerous ‘downward spiral’ and have zeroed in on three major reasons for the
worrisome increase in Taliban’s power, namely rampant corruption, the booming
heroin trade and increasingly sophisticated attacks from militants based across the
border in Pakistan. As president, Obama would certainly not ignore these findings,
and more action against militants and state control over ungoverned territories
would be the core demand not just from Pakistan but also Afghanistan. While US
pressure would not be new to Pakistan, it could be a bit destabilising for the weak
Karzai government. Being the closest US ally, Karzai has rarely been held
accountable for letting Afghanistan become the opium capital of the world.

Obama’s ability to rebuild America’s image and to boost and bolster alliances at the
international level through mere economic tools would be challenged by resource
restraints. This dilemma could affect key American allies. Cash-strapped Pakistan
will be no exception. Islamabad could see a longer ‘to-do’ list and tougher scrutiny,
especially of military aid. Pakistan’s nearly flat economy would make it more
vulnerable and susceptible to pressure from an Obama administration. An economic
meltdown in Pakistan would certainly offer a new foothold to the Taliban and Al
Qaeda on its territory. Americans know that Pakistan, which like any other Third
World country never contributed to the US economic crisis and yet became its
victim, would not be expected to win its part of the war on terror with an empty
kitty. An Obama administration will have to pull Islamabad out of its current
economic morass before expecting more Pakistani input into the war. An Obama
presidency is expected to bring change, and not just in policies. Early indications in
this regard abound. A recent international survey found Obama hugely popular in
17 of the 22 countries surveyed. At home, the mood is changing too. For example,
when the Republican conservatives tried to portray Obama as a Muslim, it was
aimed at making the voters confused and suspicious. But this negative campaign
proved counterproductive as the answer came from powerful personalities such as
Colin Powell and influential media outlets like CNN. During the course of his
endorsement of Obama, Powell so rightly noted, “[H]e’s
“[H]e’s not a Muslim; he’s a
Christian; he’s always been a Christian. But the really right answer is, ‘What if he
is?’ Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is
‘No, that’s not America.’”
America.’” Powell’s powerful articulation of the true American values
is the harbinger of the expected — that change is coming to America. Will Obama
make it the mother of all changes — the change of mindset? Only time will tell. ¦
The writer is a US-based journalist.
journalist.

Author Location Dated

Andrew Brown 30.10.08

– The return of religion

The return of ideology has taken us all by surprise, because no one expected it all
to be about religion. Twenty years ago, when the Berlin Wall fell and it seemed
reasonable to suppose that all the big questions about how to organise society had
been solved by history, if you had asked what could possibly disrupt this
progressive consensus, hardly anyone would have supposed that the answer had
anything to do with God. There may have been a few prescient pessimists who
thought Islam would be an important and dangerous disruption on the forward
march to the future — perhaps important and dangerous enough to need quelling
with a few brisk, punitive expeditions — but even such pessimists could hardly have
imagined the fiasco that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have turned out to be, nor
9/11 attacks and the widespread fear and loathing they have produced. Nor could
anyone have foreseen the emergence of the religious right as such a dominant
force in American politics and its extraordinary takeover of the Republican party.
But now the Reaganite model of capitalism is collapsing around us, liberal
democracy is no longer poised to take over the world but worrying about where and
how it may survive — and the arguments about religion are back as fiercely as ever,
and almost as popular. This is extraordinary. Communism would not have fallen in
the way it did were it not for the passionate Roman Catholicism of the Poles, and
even in the other countries of Eastern Europe there were Christian groupings at the
forefront of the revolutions of 1989. Sure enough, the Catholic church in Ireland
imploded in scandals, and even in Poland lost much of its influence. The slow
etiolation of liberal Protestantism continued. The simple message of hedonistic
liberalism — there is probably no God; there is nothing to worry about; enjoy
yourselves — seemed in the West entirely self-evident.

The wierdos who didn’t know the enjoyment of this life was all one could hope for
were clearly dying off and religion was no more than a “licensed
“licensed insanity”,
insanity”, in the
words of John Bowker, then dean of Trinity College, Cambridge. What changed?
What brought us to the contemporary world, where millions of Muslims, Christians,
atheists and Hindus understand the existence of infidels and heretics as an
existential threat, against which almost any degree of violence is sometimes
justified? The one thing that almost all intellectuals would now agree on is that
other people’s theological and philosophical opinions threaten the continuation of
human life, a belief unknown since the cold war. Of course, we all disagree about
which beliefs are dangerous. Nor is there any accepted way to resolve these
disagreements, or even to live with them. Part of the answer to what changed is
obviously Islam. Without the attacks of September 11, and before them the fatwa
on Salman Rushdie, the idea that religion might be dangerous as well as wrong
would not be nearly so widespread. But it is also, I think, related to a general
realisation that, for whatever reason, the welfare states of western Europe have
fallen far short of their original promise. Marx said: “Religious
“Religious distress is at the
same time the expression of real distress and the protest against real distress.
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as
it is the spirit of a spiritless situation. It is the opium of the people... The demand to
give up the illusion about its condition is the demand to give up a condition that
needs illusions.”
illusions.” I agree, but what if we cannot give up the “condition
“condition that needs
illusions”?
illusions ”? What if the demand to give it up is itself as infantile a piece of wish-
fulfilment as anything in anyone’s scriptures? The fear of these questions is surely
part of the explanation for the hysterical and apocalyptic tone of some atheists.
Asking these questions doesn’t guarantee an answer, but they suddenly seem
pressing, which guarantees that religion will continue its resurrection. ¦ The writer
is author of The Darwin Wars and editor of the Guardian’s new faith site. site.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 30.10.08

– Landslide for Obama forecast

A new poll of battleground states released on Wednesday show Democrat Barack
Obama poised to pull off an electoral landslide by winning traditionally Republican
states. The AP-GFK poll, conducted on Oct. 22-26 in eight battleground states — not
only show Republican John McCain lagging behind Mr Obama six days before the
election but also in trouble in his home state. Mr Obama is up by 18 percentage
points among likely voters in New Hampshire, by 12 in Pennsylvania, by 12 in
Nevada, by 9 in Colorado, and by 7 in both Ohio and Virginia. Mr Obama is tied with
McCain in North Carolina and Florida. Those surveys have margins of error of plus or
minus 3.9 percentage points in Colorado and Nevada, and 4 points in the other
states. A battleground or swing in the US presidential politics is a state in which no
candidate has overwhelming support and each has a reasonable chance of winning
there. Such states are targets of both Republican and the Democratic parties as
winning these states is the best opportunity for a party to win the election. In
another poll by the Quinnipiac University, Obama led 47 per cent to 45 per cent
among likely voters in Florida, 51 per cent to 42 per cent in Ohio, and 53 per cent to
41 per cent in Pennsylvania. The surveys were conducted Oct 22- 22-26.

Author Location Dated

AFP Washington, D.C. 30.10.08

– No reconciliation with Mullah Omar: Pentagon

The United States supports Afghan government efforts to reconcile with insurgents
but not with Mullah Mohammed Omar, the Taliban leader who harboured Al Qaeda
leader Osama bin Laden, a Pentagon spokesman said on Wednesday. “We “We as a
government do not believe that Mullah Omar is somebody you reconcile with,”
with,” said
Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary. “Mullah
“Mullah Omar has the blood of
thousands of Americans on his hands, based on the support he provided to Osama
bin Laden. So we do not reconcile with Al Qaeda,”
Qaeda,” he said. Morrell’s comments were
the most pointed rejection yet of a negotiated peace with Omar, who protected bin
Laden before and after the September 11, 2001 attacks and is today a key figure in
a resurgent Taliban. Afghan President Hamid Karzai has initiated contacts with the
Taliban through Saudi Arabia amid growing concerns over rising violences and signs
that insurgent groups are coalescing against his government. The president’s
brother Qayoum Karzai was part of an Afghan delegation that met with former
Taliban leaders in late September in Saudi Arabia. “We “We are trying so that our
brothers, those Afghan Taliban who have taken the gun against their people and
country, and their leader Mullah Omar, can return back to their country and work
for peace,”
peace,” the president said Sept 30 after the talks. General David Petraeus, who
assumes command of US forces in the Middle East on Friday, said earlier this month
that the United States should be prepared to talk with its enemies. “The “The key there is
making sure that all of that is done in complete coordination, with complete support
of the Afghan government and with President Karzai,”
Karzai,” he said. “If
“If there are people
that are willing to reconcile, then I think certainly that that would be a positive step
in some of these areas that have actually been spiralling downward throughout the
course of this year,”
year,” he said.

Author Location Dated

Laura King Kabul, Afghanistan 30.10.08

– Prospect of peace talks gains momentum in Afghanistan

The Afghan war is at its highest pitch since it began seven years ago, growing daily
in scope and savagery. Yet on both sides of the conflict, the possibility of peace
negotiations has gained sudden prominence. Among Western and Afghan officials,
analysts and tribal elders, field commanders and foot soldiers, the notion of talks
with the Taliban, once dismissed out of hand, has recently become the subject of
serious debate. Both sides acknowledge that there are enormous impediments.
Each camp has staked out negotiating positions anathema to the other. Neither side
professes the slightest trust in the other’s word. Each side claims not only a
battlefield edge, but insists that it is winning the war for public support. But whether
or not they are willing to admit it publicly, both sides have powerful incentives for
turning to negotiations rather than pushing ahead with a grinding war of attrition.
Wouldbe mediators have emerged, preliminary contacts have taken place, and
more indirect talks are likely soon. All around, a sense of battle fatigue is
undeniable. ”The
”The most important consideration is the feelings of the Afghan
people,”
people,” said Humayun Hamidzada, a senior aide to Afghan President Hamid Karzai.
“And the fact is that they are sick and tired of war.”
war.” A major poll released this week
by the Asia Foundation found that Afghans are growing more pessimistic about their
future. Large swaths of the country are under Taliban control. Travel by road
between major cities is a life-threatening gamble. Here in the capital, where three
Westerners were gunned down last week, abductions and attacks are becoming
commonplace. Karzai has been the strongest proponent of reconciliation, at times
alarming his US patrons with his appeals to the insurgents. But some ex- ex-warlords
who bear the scars of their own battles against the Taliban also support broad-
based talks. A number of the movement’s former adherents believe there is room
for negotiation, as do tribal leaders who called for talks after a traditional jirga, or
assembly, in Islamabad that ended on Tuesday. The insurgency in Afghanistan,
which is made up of many disparate factions, has serious internal disagreements
over any discourse with the enemy. Western allies, as well, appear divided.

”No one wants to be seen as tipping their own hand,” hand,” said a Western diplomat in
Kabul, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak
for his government. “So
“So whenever there is some suggestion of readiness to talk
expressed from any particular quarter, there’s also a backlash.”
backlash.” The departing
British commander in Afghanistan, Brig Mark CarletonSmith, said this month that
the war could not be won militarily, suggesting that reconciliation was the only
route to peace. Army Gen. David D. McKiernan, the American commander of NATO
forces in the country, responded by criticizing what he called defeatist attitudes.
Taliban spokesmen also disparaged the idea of peace talks, even though contacts
took place last month in Saudi Arabia between Afghan representatives and several
ex-Taliban who remain close to the austere Islamic movement. More such talks are
expected soon. Western and Afghan officials say there are signs of discord between
ideological hard-liners who identify with Al Qaeda and local Taliban – native Afghans
who do not necessarily subscribe to the idea of an overarching jihad, or holy war,
against the West. ”You
”You can talk to some foot soldiers, even to some commanders,”
commanders,”
said Khaleeq Ahmad, a former senior aide to Karzai. “But “But the ones who are out
there beheading people, you can’t talk to them. So where does that leave you?” you?”
Among longtime observers, there is disagreement over whether so-called local
Taliban can be separated from more radical, Al Qaeda-influenced factions. Wakil
Ahmed Muttawakil, a former Taliban foreign minister who took part in the Saudi
Arabia talks, told the Reuters news agency this month that Al Qaeda “will “will not be
allowed to create an obstacle. ... It is the right of Afghans to negotiate for peace.”
peace.”
But Waheed Muzhda, a senior Taliban official when the movement was in power
who is now a researcher in Kabul, said Westerners would be disappointed if they
sought to drive a wedge between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. ”You ”You cannot separate
the two,”
two,” he said. “The
“The Taliban didn’t give up Osama bin Laden, under the greatest
possible pressure. Why would they break from Al Qaeda now?” now?” Hamidzada
reiterated that Karzai is willing to talk to fugitive leaders of the insurgency – even
those with a US bounty on their heads. “The “The president is willing to talk with anyone,
anywhere, even Mullah Omar,”
Omar ,” he said, referring to Mullah Mohammed Omar, the
Taliban move ment’s self-described “emir” who sheltered bin Laden.

Critics within Karzai’s administration believe certain figures within the insurgency
should remain blacklisted. But others insist that times have changed, and so should
the policy. ”I
”I fought against them, but that is not the way to solve the problem
now,”
now,” said Taj Mohammed Mujahid, a former warlord who is now a lawmaker. “It “It is
time to talk.”
talk.” Mujahid said any talks that did not eventually involve Omar and
another key insurgent commander, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, would be meaningless.
“They are the ones in charge,”
charge,” he said. Still, Omar and Hekmatyar do not control all
factions in the field. The insurgency is intertwined with criminal gangs, drug lords,
arms smugglers and local militia chieftains. And some prominent commanders with
a large following in Pakistan, such as Jalaluddin Haqqani and his son Sirajuddin, are
thought by some Western intelligence officials to answer to a Pakistan spy service.
Although NATO’s military superiority over the Taliban is unquestioned, some
observers believe the insurgents will seek to strengthen their hand in negotiations
by scoring whatever high-profile victories they now can. They managed to down a
US helicopter this week, although the crew survived and the craft was recovered.
”They have got some important advantages lately, like more powerful explosives
for IEDs, which have been inflicting a lot of casualties on the foreigners,”
foreigners,” Muzhda
said of improvised explosive devices. “It’s
“ It’s like the lesson learned from the time of
the Russians: you can kill a bear with a thousand small injuries.”
injuries.” Recruitment for
insurgent groups has grown easier here as attention shifts away from the conflict in
Iraq, he said. “All
“All across the Muslim world, they are saying now: ‘If you want to join
the jihad, go to Afghanistan,’
Afghanistan,’ “ said Muzhda.

Western military officials said such talk amounts to little more than bravado,
disguising a bedrock recognition on the insurgents’ part that it is virtually
impossible for them to prevail militarily against more than 65,000 coalition troops,
whose numbers are slated to grow in coming months. ”We ”We are a very strong
military, and the enemy knows this,”
this,” said Brig Gen Richard Blanchette, the chief
spokesman for NATO’s International Security Assistance Force. Among Afghans,
there is widespread disillusionment with the Karzai government, but also growing
revulsion over brutal acts by the Taliban. Earlier this month, insurgents dragged
more than two dozen young men off a bus and executed them, some by beheading.
Days later, their home village rose up in a rare public protest. More than 1,000
people chanted: “Death
“Death to the Taliban.”
Taliban.” Officials in southern Helmand province
related that earlier this month insurgents had gouged out a farmer’s eyes in front
his wife and seven children, apparently suspecting him of aiding the government or
Western forces. ”All
”All this butchery, for what?”
what?” asked Kabul fruit-seller Jamal Khan.
“What does this gain for our country?”
country US officials have said little about the Karzai
?”
government’s peace overtures, other than that any talks must take place only with
insurgents who accept the Afghan constitution and are willing to lay down their
arms. But Defence Secretary Robert Gates has suggested publicly that some form
of negotiated settlement was possible, if not inevitable. ”There
”There has to be ultimately,
and I’ll underscore ‘ultimately,’ reconciliation as part of a political outcome to this,”
this,”
Gates told NATO defence ministers in Budapest, Hungary, earlier this month.
“That’s ultimately the exit strategy for all of us.”
us.”

Author Location Dated

Raja Asghar Islamabad, Pakistan 31.10.08

– Govt denies wavering on 17th Amendment

Dismissing doubts of critics, the government assured the Senate on Thursday it
would not waver in its aim to undo the controversial 17th Amendment to the
Constitution to curtail presidential powers, as it faced a last-minute opposition
assault before the house was prorogued after a seven-day session. The assurance
came halfway through the sitting from Leader of the House Raza Rabbani, who also
renewed the PPP-led coalition’s commitment to the famous Charter of Democracy
political roadmap signed in 2006 by assassinated PPP leader Benazir Bhutto and
Pakistan Muslim League-N leader Nawaz Sharif. “There
“There is no wavering on the
(question of) 17th Amendment,”
Amendment,” Mr Rabbani said and told the house that National
Assembly Speaker Fehmida Mirza would soon constitute an all parties committee,
as suggested by President Asif Ali Zardari in his address to a joint sitting of both
houses of parliament last month, to “revisit” the 2004 amendment which
legitimised the sweeping powers assumed by former military president Pervez
Musharraf and his other decrees. But only four days before the first anniversary of
then Gen Musharraf’s controversial Nov 3, 2007, emergency proclamation under
which he sacked about 60 judges of superior courts, there was no reiteration, or
even a mention, from the treasury benches of the government’s oft-repeated
assurances for the reinstatement of all the deposed judges. After a period of
congeniality that generally marked the proceedings since the start of the session on
Oct 24, outbursts of opposition leader Kamil Ali Agha and his young, loudspoken
Pakistan Muslim League-Q colleague Jamal Khan Leghari, mainly about the
government’s plans to seek an International Monetary Fund loan to meet the
present economic crisis, aroused strong responses from Information and
Broadcasting Minister Sherry Rehman of the PPP and Housing Minister Rehmatullah
Kakar of coalition ally Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam.

Ms Rehman, who spoke just before Chairman Mohammedmian Soomro read out the
presidential order proroguing the house, seemed annoyed by what she called a
“heap of accusations” from Mr Leghari, a son of former president Farooq Ahmed
Khan Leghari, and said her party would save the “broken boat” of the country in the
present crisis in the same way as it had “saved
“saved Pakistan in the past with its blood”.
blood”.
She blamed the previous PML-Q government for the present economic difficulties
and the food and power shortages but said “it “it is now our responsibility to save the
broken boat”.
boat”. While assuring the house that the PPP would make sacrifices as it did
in the past, the minister complained of “ungratefulness” of unspecified people in
what appeared to be a reference to the sacking of Ms Bhutto’s second government
in November 1996 by her own handpicked then president Leghari. Mr Kakar
promised transparency of government decisions if it had to take the IMF package or
sell stakes in the National Bank of Pakistan or the Qadirpur gas field, all of which Mr
Agha wanted to be brought to parliament for prior approval. But he rejected
charges that the present government was responsible for a sharp slide in the
country’s foreign exchange reserves, which he said were artificially shown higher by
withholding due payments, including some to Saudi Arabia for its supply of oil on
deferred payments. He said the present government was once confronted with a $6
billion bill of such dues by the Saudi government, but he did not say whether this
amount had been paid. PPP’s Senator Enver Baig found it depressing for Pakistan to
have to go to the IMF while its friends were not forthcoming and proposed that, to
“stand on our own feet”, the government exploit its connections with rulers in the
Middle East, particularly in the Gulf, to have the country’s manpower employed
there rather than ask for cash. Such a course, he said, could double foreign annual
remittances to $12 billion. Speaking in the inconclusive debate on the Sept 20
presidential address to parliament, which will be carried to the next session, he
asked all politicians, the military leadership and civil servants to be “honest to the
nation,” otherwise, he said: “We will be doomed”. PML-Q’s Salim Saifullah wondered
about a coalition’s right to rule when it could not complete its cabinet, demanded
extension of the Political Parties Act to the Fata and offered his party’s support if
the government brought constitutional amendments to undo the 17th Amendment
or the Article 58(2)b that empowers the president to dissolve the National
Assembly.

Author Location Dated

Asghar Ali Engineer 31.10.08

– Women’s rights in Islam

The question of women’s rights in Islam has become more pertinent in our time
because literacy and higher education have significantly increased among women,
as have urbanisation and the pressures exerted by it. Women are no longer
prepared to accept their position as ‘the second sex’, as the French feminist Simone
de Beauvoir put it in the last century. Women today are very conscious of their
rights and they rightfully demand gender parity in all fields. Muslim women are far
behind their counterparts in other world communities; they are more subjugated to
men’s will than women in other faith-traditions. Muslim women arguably suffer
more because of Sharia rules whose interpretation is projected as ‘divine’ and
‘immutable’ which it is not. This illusion persists among Muslims (men and women)
perhaps only because Sharia is based on the Quran and hadith. What few people
realise is that Sharia, though based on the Quran and hadith, is in fact based on the
interpretation of the Quran (and hadith), and interpretation is human while the
Quranic text is divine. This human interpretation of the divine text has all along
been done by men and hardly by any women. Even when some women attempted
it, the overwhelming authority has been that of men. I meet many women educated
in women’s madressahs today, who fully justify all such interpreted Sharia rules and
accept their secondary position in society. This situation can be balanced perhaps if
more women scholars interpreted the Quran. The Quran indeed gives equal rights to
women unambiguously (2:228). Thus, when women interpret the Quran from their
perspective, they would benefit from the rights given to them by the Holy Book. In
some cases problems also arise because Quranic verses have been interpreted in
the light of certain ahadith; ahadith also need to be critically examined. The science
of hadith was developed by the muhaddessin (those who specialise in the science of
hadith), which entirely depends on the narrator. The authenticity of a hadith
depends on the character of narrator, not on his/her intellectual capacity or
ideological position towards women. Also, in some cases even if a hadith apparently
contradicts a Quranic formulation it may be accepted as long as it fulfils other
criteria. Thus, it will be seen that riwayat (narration of text) is held as more
important than dirayat (i.e. intellectual criteria) by traditional theologians.

This is precisely why the Quran was perhaps so interpreted in a male-

male-dominated
and feudal society to subject women to men’s overriding authority. The Quranic
positions and unambiguous formulations for equality of men and women were
considerably diluted in such formulations. One of the key values of the Quran,
namely, adl (justice), became secondary when it came to women’s rights. Quranic
verses on polygamy or nushuz (rebellion by women, 4:34) were so interpreted,
especially with the help of ahadith, that their real meaning and intent were lost and
social ethos prevailed over divine intent. Even the verses on talaq (divorce) were
interpreted by some to justify triple divorce in one sitting. Thus, the verses on
polygamy and divorce were so interpreted to subject women to men’s overriding
authority. There is a great need for women theologians in Islam who can read and
interpret the Quran. Some men like Maulavi Mumtaz Ali Khan, who was one of the
colleagues of Sir Syed Ahmed Khan, did excellent work in the 19th century to
advocate gender equality, based on his interpretation of Islam. His book Huququn
Niswan is an excellent work published in early 1890s. Another such theologian in
the 20th century was Maulana Umar Ahmad Usmani, who was a graduate from
Darul Uloom (before he migrated to Pakistan), and a great advocate of gender
equality. He named his book – quite significantly – Fiqh al-Quran because his
understanding of the Quran is not based on hadith literature; he depends for his
formulations only on the Quran. Recently some women scholars were making efforts
to understand the Quran from their own perspective. Fatima Mernissi of Morocco
and Amina Wudud and others have done excellent work interpreting the Quran from
independent scholarly perspectives. Also, from the US, one scholar, Laleh Bakhtiar,
has translated the Quran into English from a feminist perspective. She calls it
‘inclusive’ as against others’ ‘exclusive’ translations. But all this is not sufficient
though quite important. More and more women theologians should come forward
and interpret the Quran. It is not easy to challenge the corpus of literature on the
Quran for the last 1,300-1,400 years. This is necessary to restore to women the
rights they lost to men under a feudal social ethos. ¦ The writer is an Islamic
scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism,
Mumbai.
Mumbai.

Author Location Dated

Ayesha Siddiqa ayesha.ibd@gmail.com 31.10.08

– Whither academic culture?

Writing opinion pieces in a newspaper is a tricky job. While many people may agree
with the opinion expressed, there are others who become extremely unhappy.
There is nothing surprising about such a divide in opinion especially in a country of
160 million people. I am not assuming that all these people read newspapers but
some do. And not to forget those who access newspapers on the Internet these
days. The unhappiness of readers relates to the fact that they expect more from an
article than what, in their view, was presented. So, there is always the accusation of
all sorts of bias of the writer on a certain issue. This is where the readers must also
be blamed for their unhappiness with opinion pieces. There are two issues which
must be kept in mind. First, these columns or opinion pieces are not necessarily
written by trained journalists (in any case, there are very few trained journalists in
this country. The list of those who joined journalism because they didn’t have any
thing better to do is rather long).
long). Second, opinion pieces are more like teasers to
highlight a certain issue and present a certain perspective on a matter and nothing
more. These daily columns are meant to draw attention to wards what the writer
thinks is significant. The biases, of course, are there. And why not? Opinion pieces
are not academic articles which are meant to present all arguments or the thesis
and the anti-thesis on an issue to be followed by the synthesis which is the writer’s
opinion on the subject. Unfortunately, the above-mentioned method of argument is
not the forte of scholarship in many countries, particularly South Asia. So we see
lots of books that are not strong on their scholarly credentials. However, as far as
op-ed pieces are concerned, these are certainly not meant to do the job. The basic
parameters of newspaper columns, as mentioned earlier, is to make people think
about an issue — perhaps get emotional about the issue and feel angry about or
agree with what was written.

What is even sadder in Pakistan is that oped pieces are treated as scholarly articles
which are meant to present both sides of the argument, which is certainly not
possible in the limit prescribed by a newspaper. Such confusion is owed to the
advent of the modern media, particularly the electronic media, which in the past
decade or more seems to have produced ‘scholars’ who would otherwise fail the
test of scholarship in a decent academic environment. So, not only do we have
people pretending to be scholars but we also have trained academics who have
stopped doing the job they were actually trained for and are using the print and
electronic media as the main source of information and forum for expressing their
views. Resultantly, there are fewer books being produced by Pakistani scholars,
especially those based in the country. The majority of publications are memoirs of
retired civil and military bureaucrats. Of course, the media is not the only reason for
the dearth of scholarship. In social sciences, in particular, local academics rarely get
access to information and are ostracised and rejected the minute they come up with
an opinion or hypothesis that is not supported by the establishment. The other day,
someone asked me why there wasn’t any book-sized work by a Pakistani academic
on the Afghan war of the 1980s. The answer is simple — locals aren’t trusted with
information that is provided to foreigners, especially those with acceptable skin
colour. Furthermore, why should anyone burn the midnight oil if ultimately he will
be accused of being a foreign agent? The blame must be shared by academics as
well who fall into the trap of immediate publicity by appearing in the media. The
number of non-journalists writing in newspapers creates the false impression that
op-ed pieces are scholarly articles, which are meant to go into the intricacies of
issues, discussed in a 1,100-1,200 word space. These pieces are at best what fast
food is to cuisine; they showcase a larger concept. So, it is interesting when people
argue that someone has left out such and such an idea. Perhaps, it is the
information age that we live in which attracts people towards such fast-lane
scholarship through column writing. However, a greater problem is due to the
nature of the public sector university system which does not encourage great
scholarship, particularly in the social sciences. Research and writing requires
availability of resources including money and material which means books, access
to information and the ability to meet people. All public sector universities are short
on resources. There is no concept of travel grants, meeting people for interviews or
getting access to published journal articles and books. There is so much published
material being produced outside the country all the time which a scholar must
access for his work. The inability to stay up to date has a negative impact on
academic work.

Not to mention the fact that public sector universities lack intellectual autonomy
which means that once there is a tradition of holding back ideas people slip into the
habit of not producing at all. It is very rare for Pakistani academics in public sector
universities to have written books. This is not to say that private sector universities
are doing any better. The academic staffs of most private universities are either
engaged in consultancies or teaching which means that quality academic work in
the form of a book is not produced. The Higher Education Commission’s policies of
the past nine years have not favoured the social sciences either. There was little
encouragement in this field which means that the next decade will be barren in
terms of social scientists, who are needed by every country that seeks to progress.
While pure and natural sciences are vital for technological, scientific and industrial
growth, the social sciences provide direction for the future. Sadly, even those
monitoring the Vision 2030 programme at the Planning Commission were natural
scientists. At this juncture, Pakistan lacks a third generation of analysts based in the
country. Most of the good research on Pakistan is being conducted outside the
country for reasons given above. But the most important reason for the dearth of
local analysts is the lack of an academic culture in educational institutions. The
responsibility for such a state of affairs does not fall solely on the government but
also on senior scholars who have used universities as launching pads or platforms
for themselves rather than for the growth of academics in the country. A glance
around and I can only find one professor at the University of Karachi who has made
consistent efforts at mentoring students and encouraging them to work. In the
absence of good social scientists we will find it even more difficult in the coming
years to project ourselves as a sane society. We will all have to pay a cost for
politicising our universities. ¦ The writer is an independent strategic and
political analyst.
analyst.

Author Location Dated

Cyril Almeida cyril.a@gmail.com 31.10.08

– Old wine, new skin

Every political season produces its own mascot, a figure for comic relief amidst the
darkness. ‘Tis the season of Shaukat ‘Over my dead body’ Tareen. Like Superman,
Tareen is everywhere; unlike Superman, he can’t seem to save even himself from
spouting rubbish, let alone the country from an economic meltdown. Call him the
violator-in-chief of the public record. His statements defy belief. The floor of the
stock exchange will be removed; unless it isn’t. Electricity tariffs will be raised;
unless they aren’t. We need $4bn; until we need $10bn. Make that $15bn on a rainy
day. Or $100bn if you’re taking cues from your political godfather, President
Zardari. (Funny thing, in Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery a clueless Dr
Evil tries to hold the world hostage with a nuclear weapon for a $100bn ransom. Life
imitating art? You decide).
decide). There’s more from ‘Over my dead body’ Tareen. Money
will pour into our coffers; unless it doesn’t. The Saudis will give us oil; or perhaps
the Iranians will. Banks have money; unless they don’t. Petrol prices will be
decreased; until they aren’t. Power outages will decrease; unless they increase. The
incidence of poverty is five per cent or 44 per cent or 26 per cent or 70 per cent —
or whatever you want it to be really since accuracy is only important if the poor
matter. They don’t. Inflation will be down to five per cent in nine months; unless it’s
95 per cent in five months. The government has decided, yes, decided, according to
‘Over my dead body’ Tareen, to increase the tax-to-GDP ratio to 15 per cent. It will
also tax agriculture and force investors to pay capital gains tax on real estate and
stock market earnings. And, in case you missed it, a crack team of flying pigs will
swoop in to take charge of the economy and overtake the Chinese by 2015, or
within the next millennium. Oh, and those upstart Indians with their fancy rockets?
We’ll put them in their place by growing a mountain of wheat and simply climbing
to the moon.

What exactly is Tareen up to? How would he react if a VP at one of his banks stood
up and spouted pie-in-the-sky figures and ideas? I’ll bet he would fire the man on
the spot. Then why are we being treated to such fantastical ideas? Tareen isn’t
fooling the market or the IFIs or foreign governments with his bluster. It’s obvious
Tareen hasn’t gotten to where he has by being naïve — so he’s clearly pandering to
someone. Question is, who? Perhaps he’s concluded that the president likes to hear
good news? Which would be very bad news for the rest of us, for the surest way to
economic hell is to have the people in charge say the things their boss wants to
hear. Turns out, Pakistan is a poor country. Yes, really. Forget what your flat-panel
TV, shiny new car, laptop, top-of-the-line mobile and gold credit card suggest — we
were living the future these past few years. It’s a good future, one where the
middleclass is rewarded for working hard. The sin wasn’t of the consumers coveting
a better lifestyle, but of the financial architects who gave them a dream without
knowing how to pay for it. Now that we’ve seen the future, we have to figure out
how to go back to it. The problem is that our government is like a rich man in a
mansion who steals from his servants to keep up appearances. Tareen’s pabulum
misses the point: rather than locking up the valuables, the solution is to take the
rich man to a doctor. But therapy isn’t easy. Same goes for the economy: if reform
was easy, Pakistan wouldn’t be prostrating itself before the IMF yet again. You hear
it all the time — structural change, institutional reform, systemic overhaul, top to-
bottom cleansing. What that all boils down to is fixing the system, which can only
be worked towards by hunkering down away from the glare of the cameras and
getting your hands dirty. That does not include polishing your sound bites and
buying a bulletproof limousine. About that limo Tareen has so proudly purchased
with his own money (it’ll make a fine status symbol once he’s gone back to private
life): how endangered are finance czars anyway? The job description essentially
involves running the economy into the ground every decade or so — for what it’s
worth, I’ll throw my hat in the ring for a measly Corolla.

Since nobody is serious about our problems, we have wacky new ideas bandied
about as fixalls. No cash for development? No worries, public-private partnerships to
the rescue. Joe Stiglitz was on the ‘Colbert Nation’ recently joking about the secret
of PPPs: the profit is private; the loss public. Sounds like that other PPP we’re more
familiar with. Fact is, this government inherited a balance sheet splattered with red
ink. That is a cross that the Musharraf legacy will have to bear. But the change of
guard at the finance ministry was badly botched. Three heads in six months is
disgraceful — and cannot be blamed on anyone else. There are some things that
Tareen could do though. A damning institutional legacy of Musharraf is the
breakdown in communication between the finance ministry, the State Bank, the
SECP, the competition commission and sundry financial regulators. Last year the
Shaukat Aziz-
Aziz-Salman Shah combine capitulated to Musharraf’s demand to not rock
the boat in an election year and allowed subsidies to explode, borrowing heavily
from a state bank pursuing the opposite monetary policy. While Aziz and Shah
didn’t rock the economic boat, they set it on a course that led to it being smashed
on a rock, after they had jumped ship of course. If Tareen is serious — and he has a
good track record as an administrator according to people who have worked with
and know him — this is an area he must urgently address. But will he? That’s a
political question which can only be answered in the negative if he keeps publicly
pandering to his boss. And what about the poor, growing more poor by the day?
They will have to take solace from the Beatitudes, the biblical promise that the
meek shall inherit the earth while the kingdom of heaven belongs to the poor. You
see, everything in between belongs to the less spiritually privileged. That’s a reality
even a crack team of flying pigs will struggle to change. Final thought: is it just me
or are we hurtling towards the depths of depravity? Ins Insured to women being beaten,
raped, maimed and murdered, 2008 has brought us the horrors of women buried
alive and deliberately set upon by dogs. And for what? Sex and money. Grotesque
as the women’s fate was, thank God for those amongst them who dared to love: in
death they have proved there still beats a heart in the soulless carcass of this land.

Author Location Dated

Johann Hari 31.10.08
 – How we fuel Africa’s bloodiest war
The deadliest war since Adolf Hitler marched across Europe is starting again – and
you are almost certainly carrying a bloodsoaked chunk of the slaughter in your
pocket. When we glance at the holocaust in Congo, with 5.4 million dead, the
clichés of Africa reporting tumble out: this is a “tribal conflict” in “the Heart of
Darkness”. It isn’t. The United Nations investigation found it was a war led by
“armies of business” to seize the metals that make our 21st-century society zing
and bling. The war in Congo is a war about you. Every day I think about the people I
met in the war zones of eastern Congo when I reported from there. The wards were
filled with women who had been gang-raped by the militias and shot in the vagina.
The battalions of child soldiers – drugged, dazed 13-year-olds who had been made
to kill members of their own families so they couldn’t try to escape and go home.
But oddly, as I watch the war starting again on CNN, I find myself thinking about a
woman I met who had, by Congolese standards, not suffered in extremis. I was
driving back to Goma from a diamond mine one day when my car got a puncture.
As I waited for it to be fixed, I stood by the roadside and watched the great trails of
women who stagger along every road in eastern Congo, carrying all their
belongings on their backs in mighty crippling heaps. I stopped a 27 year-old woman
called Marie-
Marie-Jean Bisimwa, who had four little children toddling along beside her.
She told me she was lucky. Yes, her village had been burned out. Yes, she had lost
her husband somewhere in the chaos. Yes, her sister had been raped and gone
insane. But she and her kids were alive. I gave her a lift, and it was only after a few
hours of chat along on cratered roads that I noticed there was something strange
about Marie-Jean’s children. They were slumped forward, their gazes fixed in front
of them. They didn’t look around, or speak, or smile. “I “I haven’t ever been able to
feed them,”
them,” she said. “Because
“Because of the war.”
war.” Their brains hadn’t developed; they
never would now. “Will
“Will they get better?”
better?” she asked. I left her in a village on the
outskirts of Goma, and her kids stumbled after her, expressionless.

There are two stories about how this war began – the official story, and the true
story. The official story is that after the Rwandan genocide, the Hutu mass
murderers fled across the border into Congo. The Rwandan government chased
after them. But it’s a lie. How do we know? The Rwandan government didn’t go to
where the Hutus were, at least not at first. They went to where Congo’s natural
resources were – and began to pillage them. They even told their troops to work
with any Hutus they came across. Congo is the richest country in the world for gold,
diamonds, and more. Everybody wanted a slice – so six other countries invaded.
These resources were not being stolen for use in Africa. They were seized so they
could be sold on to us. The more we bought, the more the invaders stole – and
slaughtered. The rise of mobile phones caused a surge in deaths, because the
coltan they contain is found primarily in Congo. The UN named the international
corporations it believed were involved. They all deny the charges. But instead of
stopping these corporations, our governments demanded that the UN stop
criticising them. There were times when the fighting flagged. In 2003, a peace deal
was finally brokered by the UN and the international armies withdrew. Many
continued to work via proxy militias – but the carnage waned somewhat. Until now.
As with the first war, there is a cover-story, and the truth. A Congolese militia leader
called Laurent Nkunda – backed by Rwanda – claims he needs to protect the local
Tutsi population from the same Hutus who have been hiding out in the jungles of
eastern Congo since 1994. That’s why he is seizing Congolese military bases and is
poised to march on Goma. It is a lie. FranAois Grignon, Africa Director of the
International Crisis Group, tells me the truth: “Nkunda
“Nkunda is being funded by Rwandan
businessmen so they can retain control of the mines in North Kivu. This is the
absolute core of the conflict. What we are seeing now is beneficiaries of the illegal
war economy fighting to maintain their right to exploit.”
exploit.”

At the moment, Rwandan business interests make a fortune from the mines they
illegally seized during the war. The global coltan price has collapsed, so now they
focus hungrily on cassiterite, which is used to make tin cans and other consumer
disposables. As the war began to wane, they faced losing their control to the
elected Congolese government – so they have given it another bloody kick-start. Yet
the debate about Congo in the West – when it exists at all – focuses on our inability
to provide a decent bandage, without mentioning that we are causing the wound.
It’s true the 17,000 UN forces in the country are abysmally failing to protect the
civilian population, and urgently need to be super-charged. But it is even more
important to stop fuelling the war in the first place by buying blood-soaked natural
resources. Nkunda only has enough guns and grenades to take on the Congolese
army and the UN because we buy his loot. We need to prosecute the corporations
buying them for abetting crimes against humanity, and introduce a global coltan-tax
to pay for a substantial peacekeeping force. To get there, we need to build an
international system that values the lives of black people more than it values profit.
Somewhere out there – lost in the great global heist of Congo’s resources – are
Marie-Jean and her children, limping along the road once more, carrying everything
they own on their backs. They will probably never use a coltan-filled mobile phone,
a cassiterite-smelted can of beans, or a gold necklace – but they may yet die for
one.

Author Location Dated

Ewen MacAskill Orlando, Florida 31.10.08

– Republicans prepare for the worst

Senior Republicans are planning to meet at a rural retreat in Virginia within days of
next Tuesday’s election to discuss how to rebuild a party they expect to be badly
beaten in the White House and Congressional races. News of the meeting emerged
as a poll in Arizona indicated that John McCain was in danger of suffering the
embarrassing loss of his home state. The poll put McCain on 46 per cent, just two
points ahead of Barack Obama on 44 per cent, a lead that is all but irrelevant given
the poll’s margin of error. Other recent polls have been more flattering to McCain,
however, giving him an average lead of around six per cent. Details of next week’s
postelection meeting, to be attended by state chairmen and prominent activists
from the conservative wing of the party, are being kept secret for fear of being seen
to pre-empt the outcome of the presidential contest. It is intended to look at who
should take over chairmanship of the party, whether the party needs to switch to
the right, and to make plans for the next presidential election. Sarah Palin, John
McCain’s running-mate, though not present, will be a central figure in discussions
about the party’s future. “It
“It is about what direction the party takes, the proverbial
struggle for the soul of the party,”
party,” Norman Ornstein, an analyst at the Washington-
based American Enterprise Institute, the home of the neo-conservatives, said on
Wednesday. “There
“There will be a million postmortems and finger-pointing. What is
unusual is that the finger-pointing has begun before the campaign has ended.”
ended.” One
of the biggest post-mortems, assuming McCain has lost, is scheduled for the week
after the election, when Republican governors hold their annual meeting in Miami.
Sessions planned include Looking Back on the Election: An In-depth Evaluation of
the 2008 Election Cycle.
Cycle. Another session is titled Looking Towards the Future: The
Grand Ole Party in Transition.
Transition. There is also a section on the “rising stars of the
party”. One of the concerns of the party is that, if the polls prove accurate, the
Democrats are poised to make huge advances into its traditional base in the South
and in western states such as Colorado. With New York and the northeast and
almost all of the West Coast primarily in Democratic hands, the question is where
do Republicans look to rebuild their base?

The other problem is that apart from Palin, the party is short of political “stars” – in
contrast to the Democrats. The hunt for new potential leaders could shift to the
younger generation, including figures such as Bobby Jindal, the governor of
Louisiana. To avoid accusations of being premature, the Virginia meeting is to go
ahead whether McCain wins or loses. On the agenda for the meeting, at the home of
a prominent Republican, are economic, foreign and social policy. The aim is to build
a new grassroots organisation, comparable to Republican efforts after Jimmy Carter
won the White House for the Democrats in 1976, and a similar rebuilding by the
Democrats after a wipe-out in the 1994 Congressional race. An unnamed source
involved in the planning told the Politico website, which first disclosed news of the
Virginia meeting, that: “This
“This is going on if McCain wins, loses or has a recount –
we’re not planning for the loss of John McCain.”
McCain.” The source blamed the party’s
decline on betrayal of conservative principles by President George Bush and
Republican leaders in Congress. “There’s
“There’s a sense that the Republican party is
broken, but the conservative movement is not.”not.” Ornstein said he had heard the
buzz about the Virginia meeting for some time and had spoken to some of those
involved. The participants were mainly state chairmen and political activists and he
did not anticipate elected representatives taking part.“There
part.“There are a bunch of people
who are planning, assuming that McCain loses, to try to shape the future of the
Republican party. You are going to get a little bit of a struggle,”
struggle,” Ornstein said. There
will be those who argue that the party lost because it strayed from the conservative
path while others will argue that the party lost the middle ground, he said. At the
governor’s conference, from November 12 to 14, speakers lined up include Charlie
Crist, the governor of Florida, and a host of southern governors, as well as retired
general Tommy Franks, the rightwing columnist Bill Kristol and the pollster, Frank
Luntz. Another post-election meeting is one to be hosted by the South Carolina
Republican chairman, Katon Dawson, who has invited state party leaders and others
to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, to “discuss
“discuss the lessons learned from the 2008
campaign, what we can do better and what it will take to win in 2010”,
2010”, when the
Congressional mid-terms will be held.

Author Location Dated

Washington, D.C. 31.10.08
 – McCain terms
event a ‘gauzy
feel-good
commercial’
Obama blitzes
US airwaves
Democrat Barack
Obama took to the
airwaves with a half-
hour paid television
appeal on Wednesday in
an effort to lock in his
lead in the polls just six
days before a
presidential election
that could alter the US
political landscape. The
programme, running on
several major television
networks simultaneously, was an extraordinary last-minute effort to win over
undecided voters, made possible by his huge financial advantage over Republican
John McCain. McCain dec decrib
ribed the event as a “gauzy, feel-good commercial”, paid
for with broken promises. He appeared as a guest on CNN’s “Larry “Larry King Live”
Live” after
charging earlier that Obama lacks “what
“what it takes to protect America from terrorists”.
terrorists”.
In Obama’s broadcast, the candidate was shown addressing large crowds on issues
including health care, education and jobs, interspersed with the story of struggling
American families, and interviews with Obama’s family and colleagues. Obama
talked about how his mother died young of cancer. “I “I know what it’s like to see a
loved one suffer, not just because they are sick, but because of a broken health
care system.”
system.” He also pledged to protect the US while seeking to wind down the war
in Iraq. “I
“I will not be a perfect president,”
president,” Obama said. “But
“But I can promise you this
— I will always tell you what I think and where I stand.”
stand.” As the commercial ended, it
cut to live shots of an Obama rally in Florida, where the candidate was shown with
his running mate, vice presidential candidate Joe Biden. McCain dismissed the
Obama broadcast as a “TV special”. “As “As with other infomercials, he’s got something
to sell you,”
you,” McCain said in West Palm Beach, Florida. “He’s“He’s offering you
government-run health care.”
care.”

After Obama’s broadcast, the candidate made his first joint campaign appearance
with former president Bill Clinton, a fellow Democrat. At the rally in Kissimmee,
Florida, Clinton declared: “Folks,
“Folks, we can’t fool with this. Our country is hanging in
the balance. And we have so much promise and so much peril. This man should be
our president.”
president.” “Barack
“Barack Obama represents America’s future, and you’ve got to be
there for him next Tuesday,”
Tuesday,” Clinton said to the cheers of a partisan crowd. The
broadcasts came as a new Associated Press-Gfk poll shows Obama well-positioned
to dominate the state-by-state races that will decide the presidency. With Obama
poised to win all the traditionally Democratic states, the poll shows him leading
McCain in four solidly Republican states — Ohio, Nevada, Colorado and Virginia.
Virginia. The
candidates are tied in two others, North Carolina and Florida. The poll numbers
apparently reflect Obama’s decision to pour money and effort into states that in
previous elections could be relied on to back McCain. In addition, Democrats are
dominating early voting in six key states that President George Bush won four years
ago, forcing McCain to play catch-up even before election day. Democrats
outnumber Republicans among early voters in Iowa, North Carolina, Florida,
Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada,
Nevada, according to statistics from election and party
officials in those states. Bush won all six in 2004, and McCain needs to win most of
them to claim the White House this year. Georgia, another usually Republican state,
doesn’t track early voters by party, but it does by race. About 1.4m Georgians have
already cast ballots, and blacks are voting in disproportionately large numbers.
Black voters overwhelmingly support Obama, who is bidding to become the nation’s
first black president. The beleaguered Republican, meanwhile, has been forced to
commit his limited time and resources to shoring up his support in these traditional
party strongholds.—AP The AP-GfK polls show Obama winning among early voters,
favoured on almost every issue and benefiting from the country’s sour mood.
McCain faces a tight race even in his home state of Arizona, where the Cronkite-
Eight poll showed him statistically tied with Obama. McCain led by only 46 to 44
percent, within the poll’s margin of error of three percentage points.

“If you believe in miracles,”

miracles,” said Republican consultant Joe Gaylord of Arlington,
Virginia, “you
“you still believe in McCain.”
McCain.” Republicans control the White House, and the
McCain campaign has struggled to distance itself from President Bush — whose
popularity has evaporated as the public has grown weary of war abroad and fearful
of economic turmoil at home.—AP Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, McCain’s vice
presidential candidate, has called for a “clean break” from the Bush
administration’s energy policies, which she said relied too much on imported oil.—
AP Palin also suggested that she will not disappear from the national political scene
if she and McCain lose on Tuesday. “Absolutely
“Absolutely not. ... I’m not doing this for
naught,”
naught ,” Palin said in an interview with ABC News, according to excerpts released
by the television network. In recent days, the McCain campaign has accused Obama
of aspiring to be the “redistributionist-in-chief” by advocating steeper taxes for
couples making more than $250,000. Other Republicans have called Obama a
socialist. Obama told a crowd in North Carolina he expected the Republicans soon to
accuse him of being “a secret Communist” because he shared his toys as a child.
Obama leads in just about every national poll, but aides to McCain, a four-term
Arizona senator, insist their internal surveys show victory is still within reach. A
reversal of fortune cannot be ruled out for the Republican. The mood of the
electorate has shifted radically in the course of the campaign. McCain was written
off by experts early in the campaign last year, and Obama seemed poised for
victory in New Hampshire’s Democratic primary just before Hillary Rodham Clinton
charged to victory there.

Author Location Dated

AFP Mumbai, India 31.10.08

– Indian astrologers predict sweeping Obama win

Indian astrologers are predicting Barack Obama will win the US presidential election
by a comfortable margin, but one warned of potentially life-threatening times ahead
for the Democratic candidate. “Obama
“Obama is 100 pe cent in Leo and Leos are not only
born leaders but they have a special charm all of their own,”
own,” well-known Indian
astrologer Bejan Daruwalla said. “(Republican
“(Republican candidate) John McCain has good
points but he’s nowhere in the picture. He’s miles away. He has been outshadowed
by the Leo. He might have been very good in his time but this is not the right time.”
time.”
Fellow Mumbai astrologer Raj Kumar Sharma also forecast a clear Obama victory in
the Nov 4 vote — mirroring the latest opinion poll data that suggests the 47-year-
old Illinois senator is out in front. “The
“The circumstances and conjunction of stars are
very clearly indicating that John McCain is going to lose this election and Barack
Obama is going to win, at least by 10 per cent,”
cent,” he said. But he said he was worried
about the weak sun moving into Obama’s chart from April 2010 to January 2011.
“The month from April 5, 2010 to May 16, 2010 is very dangerous for him. I really
pray that everything should be all right,”
right,” he said. Daruwalla, who writes a column in
the Times of India newspaper, said the United States was in transition after being
ruled by comfort-loving Cancer — sign of the outgoing President George W. Bush —
and Gemini the communicator. “America
“America is now ready for a change because
America is entering into the age of Aquarius, which means liberal thinking and
tolerance. Therefore I think that Obama is the right person in the right place and at
the right time,”
time,” he said. Barack Obama’s political rise has attracted much support in
China, with many people curious to see if a black man can break down perceived
racial barriers and become president of the United States. Major web portals in
China have set up pages dedicated to the US elections, and thousands of citizens
citizens
have voted in online polls, with Obama largely ahead of his opponent, John McCain.
 DAWN,
PAKISTAN -
NOVEMBER
2008
Kamaal K. Lalany - HayaHbK ©
http://www.facebook.com/HayaHbK
November 2008 of the DAWN
Compilation Series, put together by
Kamaal Lalany.
camiehbk@live.com
camiehbk@live.com
DAWN, PAKISTAN

Author Location Dated

Sher Baz Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 01.11
01.11.08

– Speakers breathe realism in Pakistan-China ties

China has been a great friend of Pakistan but in romanticising that friendship the
people and government of Pakistan have lost sight of the fact that in the real world
nations build bilateral relations on common interests, not on clichés and poetry.
This hard message emerged from a two-hour discussion at the Centre for Research
and Security Studies (CRSS) here on Friday on the unrealistic hopes put in President
Asif Zardari’s recent visit to China to seek help to save Pakistan from a financial
meltdown. “In“In the world of diplomacy, romanticism and poetry has no place,”
place,”
stressed the area experts and analysts who dissected the limitations of Pakistan
and its habit of labeling its relations with China as “all-weather”, “higher than
Himalayas and deeper than oceans”, and “time-tested”. At a time when President
Zardari, taking on his shoulder an economy that is ill to the bones, has arrived home
from his Chinese excursion brining with him only promises at a time when Pakistan
badly needs cash and assistance, the country now must re-assess its foreign policy
priorities. The speakers at the discussion advised the policymakers not to put their
eggs in one basket as the friends of Pakistan, including China, had refused to
provide the required ready cash amounting to a modest $4 billion to get the country
out of the economic quagmire. Pakistan is now after the International Monitory Fund
(IMF) to get the high interest non-concessional loan. Dr Ishtiaq Ahmed of the
Department of International Relations,
Relations, Quaid-i Azam University said that China was
suffering from the paradox and irony of having capitalist economy and a communist
type of politics. But the fourth generation of the Chinese leadership, which is in
power now, did not carry the baggage of ideology (socialism) on their shoulders.
They even did not know about the Pakistan-
Pakistan-China relations which were drenched in
romanticism than pragmatism since its establishment back in 1950. Zhou Rong,
Chief of South Asia Bureau of Chinese daily Guang Ming, said that there was a
consensus among the Chinese leadership to help Pakistan, but they were still
thinking how. He said the Chinese needed some time to sort out what could be the
best option available with it to assist Pakistan. Fazalur Rehman of the China Studies
Centre,
Centre, Islamabad, said that further strengthening its friendship with China was in
the best interest of Pakistan. Dr Farrukh Saleem, in his opening remarks said that
Pakistan-China friendship had been known as “all-weather” despite the fact that in
the real world, relations between states were based on common interests. Journalist
and CRSS Chairman Imtiaz Gul, and Resident Editor Dawn, Zaffar Abbas also spoke
on the occasion.

Author Location Dated

Sher Baz Khan Islamabad, Pakistan 01.11
01.11.08

– Petrol and diesel prices reduced

The government has reduced the prices of petrol and diesel by Rs5 and Rs4 a litre,
respectively. Petrol will now sell at Rs76.66 and diesel at Rs64.68. The new prices
will be effective from Nov 1 till Nov 15. According to a notification issued by the Oil
and Gas Regulatory Authority (Ogra) on Friday, jet fuel (JP-1) price for domestic and
foreign airlines has been slashed by Rs8.85 per litre to Rs50.9. For commercial,
cargo and technical flights, the price has been reduced by Rs2.63 a litre to Rs43.88.
The price of JP-4 has been cut by Rs12.6 per litre to Rs42.66 and that of JP-8 (ex-
Parco) by Rs8.77 to Rs57.01. Prices of kerosene, HOBC (high octane blending
component) and light diesel oil will remain unchanged. With the price of crude
having declined considerably over the past few weeks, the government is now
earning Rs30.23 per litre Petroleum Development Levy (PDL), compared to Rs25.07
it was getting earlier. The government has also increased the PDL on light diesel
from Rs3.27 per litre to Rs12.23.
Author Location Dated
Shadaba Islam 01.11
01.11.08

– Europeans await President Obama

Here is some advice for French President Nicolas Sarkozy: do not worry too much
about the rising sales of your lookalike voodoo dolls.
dolls. True, French men and women
may enjoy sticking pins into the bestselling doll for a few days. But come Nov 4,
French nationals — as most of their counterparts in other European countries — are
likely to be too busy following the US elections to pay attention to the antics of their
leaders. Especially if the polls are correct and Barack Obama is elected US
president. It’s no se