A change in the White House

Mr. Barack Obama, the first Afircan-American and the 44th President of the United States, has finally made it to the White House thus ending the debate regarding the readiness of America to elect a non-white President. The unprecedented turnout during the Election Day is a signal of his support and strength which makes his ascendancy, full of euphoria, unseen since Kennedy’s election to the presidency.

Mr. Obama has won the election riding on his slogan and promise for a change that America needs at this hour to replenish its poor record which has diminished U.S. credibility and its ability to lead the world due to a weakening economy and two successive terms of outgoing President Bush, whose contempt for international law and rash behaviour has largely isolated U.S. from its tested friends as well as greatly polarized the world in a way not witnessed since the Cold war and the breakup of the U.S.S.R. Mr. Obama must work fervently to restore the pride of a superpower, which had the moral authority to lead the post-Communist world, built upon the strength of its capitalist system, which is itself feared to be on the verge of collapse and is already being studied as a failed model by economists who are revisiting the socialist model and appreciating the strengths of a hybrid system such as China’s, which has survived the economic plague of the capitalist models adopted by countries influenced by the success of U.S. and the other Western countries based on the capitalist economy.

The credibility of the U.S. has suffered in other ways as well, pertinently its role as a guarantor of peace and arbitrator during conflicts due to its failure to play the role of a neutral player. It is impossible to perceive a settlement for the Palestinians in the Middle East in the immediate future due to the pro-Israeli stance embraced by the Bush administration and refusal to exert pressure on Israel to settle its territorial disputes, most importantly over Golan Heights vis a vis Syria and the dispute with Egypt over territory seized during the 1967 war. Worse still, the U.S. administration acquiesced in the Israeli settlement and demolishing of the Palestinians’ houses in additional territory and also nodded with approval over the grueling bombing of Beirut by the Jewish state which was an unjustified response to the kidnapping of its soldiers, which were never recovered despite the barbaric bombing and killing of innocent civilians. The blockade of Gaza is yet another inhumane act of Israel, supported by the U.S. in a rather illogical manner.

The nuclear standoff with Iran and Bush’s personal hate for the Islamic nation has also not met with much approval in the world, with the European leaders preferring a ‘dialogue’ approach as opposed to the diplomacy of issuing threats and pleasing the Jewish lobby in the U.S. and intimidating Iran by talks of pre-emptive strikes on the ‘suspected nuke sites’ in that country. It is not surprising that the U.S. has been unable to garner much support over this mode to resolve this issue given its past history and the false case it made out of Iraq’s nuclear capability to support an invasion, which had been planned regardless of the fact that whether Iraq possessed such weapons or not. In fact, when Mr. Powell, the then Secretary of State was making a case in the U.N. for supporting the war, the U.S. intelligence and White House officials were already aware that there were no such weapons, as Mr. Ron Suskind, a prominent journalist disclosed earlier this year in his book.

The Iraqi leadership is demanding a quicker withdrawal then previously anticipated and Mr. Obama’s pledge to withdraw would therefore increase the possibility of disengagement of the U.S. forces from the region in the foreseeable future. The Iraqis, like most Arabs are highly patriotic and fiercely independent. Their patience has withstood U.S. engagement in the region and the present peace in the region must not be allowed to break down, especially since election season is not far away and reduction of U.S. forces, a longstanding demand by most Iraqis, must be expedited. Amongst other factors, it would pave the way for stability in the region as well as decrease the possibility of strikes in violation of international law, as happened during the invasion of Syria by U.S. forces some days ago.

Pakistan’s relations with the U.S. were based on relations between two individuals, President Bush and General Musharraf. Due to the dictatorial rule of General (R) Musharraf, who looked at the U.S. for support and control rather than his own people, as is the norm in a democracy. The Bush administration did broker a deal between the PPP and General (R) Musharraf but it was only when the restoration of the judiciary movement shook the power structure in Pakistan that progress over the deal was hastened and General (R) Musharraf was convinced to hold free and fair elections and step down. Stability in the region and democracy for Pakistan became a U.S. interest only because its own engagement in the neighboring country as well as Pakistan’s ability to conduct the war within its borders felt threatened as the military’s popularity in this country recorded a new low. Even under democratic rule and in an allied position, Pakistan’s protests over territorial violations fell on deaf ears and relations reached a critical level when in September, a ground incursion was carried out which took away the lives of innocent people. Even though a moratorium on such violations seems to be in place, violations of territory by drones and missiles are taking place uninterrupted and in the absence of a ‘secret arrangement’ as is being alleged by certain quarters between Pakistan and U.S., it is hard to imagine that relations would not further deteriorate if Pakistan choose to suspend supplies to the U.S. instead of summoning the U.S. Ambassador, which seems to have no effect at the moment.

It is hoped that under Mr. Obama’s leadership, all these trends would be reversed and a credible American leadership, which is in the interest of even its enemies for the U.S. alone has the sole ability to change the complexion of a country’s politics through a combination of, or separate application of, entangled and complicated set of diplomatic tricks as well as brute force. Much work needs to be done to better the perception of the United States in the world by the incoming administration.

Balochistan- a ray of hope for reconciliation?

The news of the devastating earthquake in Balochistan which killed hundreds and made thousands homeless brought to the international spotlight, a glimpse of a province which has been exploited rather than rewarded for the benefits that it has accrued upon us all, with pictures of the weak-structured houses sprawled across the newspapers worldwide.

The government has in the past provided little resources towards social welfare of its inhabitants in comparison with other provinces. People in Balochistan rightly blame the federal government for their plight and point out that the benefits derived from the province's natural wealth have not been returned to it. This province is the richest in natural resources, including gold, silver, copper, oil, natural gas, iron ore and uranium. It supplies natural gas to the whole of the country yet three quarters of the province does not have the access to natural gas. Sui is the area from where natural gas is being supplied but Sui is the one of the worst affected areas of military operations since long. The Government of Pakistan pays a meager percentage of the total income from natural resources as royalty to Balochistan, much of it ending up with the few but powerful chieftains, many of whom are oblivious of the plight of the ordinary people and social development and uplift of Balochistan and spend little for this cause.

Baloch people also suffer from poverty. According to the Social Policy and Development Centre (SPDC), poverty levels are the highest in this largest province. Every second person in Balochistan lives below the poverty line. Only 50 percent of the province's seven million people have access to clean drinking water, only half the children attend primary schools and only a third of children between 12 and 23 months are immunised, according to the SPDC.

Due to constant resort to military operations by civilian and military rule alike, thousands have disappeared since their arrest and languish in jail which adds to the sense of desperation in the province. Although there is much debate over the Indian involvement and support to separatist groups but not much research is conducted over how to alienate these groups and reconcile Balochis into Pakistan by removing their genuine grieviences and force is so often chosen as an easy option, only for a return to the negotiating table once more with even greater polarisation and resentment in the minds of ordinary Balochs. The allocation of area to the military in the province has increased the sense of hatred for khakis in the minds of many Balochs.

There are many other issues over which the Balochs have raised their concerns in a civilized way but no lasting solutions have been provided to many. To state a few, the federal government’s policy of issuing licences to domestic and international trawlers for fishing in Balochistan’s waters has been alleged to harm the interests of local fishermen in the province. Similarly, it was alleged by members of Balochistan Assembly in 2006 that the management of the Gwadar Seaport Authority had shifted the assets of the Gwadar port to Karachi, without informing the provincial government. It was unfortunate that what was guaranteed under the constitution had to be stated in the form of a resolution in the same year when the Balochistan Assembly unanimously adopted a resolution on Friday demanding royalty for the Iran-Pakistan-India (IPI) gas pipeline.

The setting up of the Balochistan Reconciliation Committee by President Asif Ali Zardari can prove to be an important step to reverse the excesses of the past. Although all political elements, both inside Balochistan and outside, may be suspicious of this move at present but if, as pledged by Mr. Zardari on Thursday during a meeting held under the auspices of the special committee that Balochs would be provided their due rights including the first right to its resources is indeed implemented, it would be hard for these elements to stay away from this positive initiative by a man, who unlike his predecessor, is a representative of a political party which has roots in the other three provinces. It was encouraging that Mr. Zardari followed up on his apology to the province for its sufferings by setting up such a committee but his real challenge lies in how he devolves a plan to resolve this difficult issue which has years of historical tensions behind it not least the growing acrimony he may have to face from the ‘establishment’ as well as the other provinces who may not be as forthcoming in this regard. This would be the crunch issue for him and if he is able to reach a consensual decision with most of the stakeholders (as there would certainly be dissenters), it would be a momentous description of his tenure and silent his critics.

The name of the committee is self-explanatory- there is a need for reconciliation between the largest, yet most neglected province of the motherland. These candid admissions, apologetic tones and concrete steps are crucial as time is running short and the enemies at the gate would be the ones to benefit the most if attempts to mend our fence fails. Deterrence is not merely achieved through nuclear tests, long-range missiles, strong international coalitions or even a sustainable economy. Only if a country is strong from within with harmonious relations between different ethnic groups and provincial factions can it continue to subsist as a single enterprise and face hostile borders and survive economic meltdowns.

Accord in the Parliament

The joint session of the two Houses adopted a ‘fit for all’ resolution which somewhat encompass the government’s present strategy of continuing with the military operations as well as the opposition’s stand, led by PML(N), which calls for seizure of operations and negotiations leading to a peace settlement. It needed no Pirzada or constitutional expert to figure out a way to break the deadlock between opposing views on the policy on tribal areas and militants. Both the government’s view and the opposition’s were included in the final draft by a Committee which was formed specifically for this issue. Whether it can be called a consensus or a document full of contradictions would be determined through the political bickering which would follow soon afterwards, the focal point of which would be as to the ‘real intent’ of the vague and broad resolution.

It was surprising to note that the House fell in line and voted unanimously in favour of a resolution when all signs of discord over policy issue were visible between the PPP plus its coalition partners on one hand and the PML(N) headed block, which had threatened to move its own resolution just a few days ago on the other. An editorial had captioned the session: ‘A dangerous lack of consensus’, just a day earlier.

Media pundits and experts had predicted a deadlock over the issue since the session was being criticized for being more of a military debriefing affair rather than outlining the policy of the present government in detail on how it sought to put up its case of ‘ownership of the war’ by Pakistan as well as detailed progressive approaches it had planned to achieve the desired objectives, which were also to be defined by the government itself. Sherry Rehman, Information Minister had to participate in the session, having been chosen by the government for the purpose, to dispel this impression and clarify the position of the government over the matter. She reiterated that the government was following a three pronged strategy, namely political dialogue, socio-economic uplift and the use of military force.

However this missed the important points requiring the scrutiny of key questions by an elected body for the first time since our alliance with the U.S. in the so-called ‘war on terror’; some of which being: Who in fact are the Taliban and like-minded militant organizations some of whom are not so well-organized? Why were they ‘Pakistan’s enemies’? Whether we were fighting them at our own behest or at someone’s instance? This latter question requires an in-depth analysis of the Taliban movement as well as the role of the government in promoting the cause it stood for during the 1980s as well as throughout 1990s. Crucially, the role of these elements leading up to 9/11 and the early period beyond it when Afghanistan was invaded needed detailed presentation. The period which was most important namely when a decision was made to break links with the Afghani Taliban required a studious debriefing and analysis including its repercussions to date.

Since the government now has access to classified documents and meeting minutes which reveal the extent and nature of the American interaction with the Musharraf regime and the concessions and approvals it bestowed upon it including extradition of its nationals to Guantanamo, the time was more appropriate than ever to reveal the agreements and concessions, including the alleged tacit approvals in favour of NATO and American drone attacks across the Durand Line. It should have been clarified which of the agreements are still in place or were renewed since the PPP-led government took power. Rather than condemning territorial violations, the resolution calls upon the government to ‘deal with it effectively’.

At a time when the world has since long looked down at the offensive and degrading treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo and revelations of inhuman interrogative methods used upon them like water boarding surfacing, the time was apt for a call for a return of Pakistani citizens who await justice in this ‘prison’. The deeply flawed system has been criticized by even former prosecutors who accept that the much evidence which has substantial bearing upon the defence of the detainees is suppressed during trials and subsequent reviews which makes a conviction or upholding of a conviction upon review highly likely. Yet the Pakistani parliament had no mention of it in the resolution and the Government Minister had overlooked this important point. It would be too optimistic to suggest that the Pakistani detainees may have returned as a result of such a resolution passed by our Parliament but the families of the missing people would have been relieved somewhat upon hearing that the representative body had started owning the prisoners who were sold for a few million dollars and for a change those at the helm of affairs were not turning their backs on them as if they are a ghost from the past, never to be heard from.

The contents of the resolution passed is more like a promising opinion of the Parliament that in the future, politicians from opposing factions would dilate upon a phase oriented policy. One hopes that the formation of the Special Committee for follow up could lead to such a move in the future. A study should also be commissioned which focuses on the geo-strategic conditions leading up to the participation of Pakistan in events which eventually led to the inflammation to the militant organizations who easily identified any abettor to American designs in the region as their enemy much like the Taliban who ruled Kabul declared us when we allowed our intelligence services and airbases to be used for the successful overthrow of the Taliban regime from Afghanistan. It is imperative that the longer term implications of our continued participation be gauged and monitored with recourse to outcomes. It would not be a bad start to define our objectives emphasizing our interest in the conflict of ideologies and exploring the prospects for reconciling those who feel disillusioned or forced to join extremism and use of violence substantially aided by the pro-Israel and imperialist policies of the U.S. which seem inequitable to many Muslims.

There is a need to improve upon the dangerous law and order situation which makes the common man insecure, further imperils our already weak economy and shatters the confidence of investors. The level and expertise of security and intelligence services should be markedly enhanced and brought at a level to cope up with the increase of suicide and bomb attacks in the major cities of late.

Merely providing Chinese AK-47s to the rifle-bearing tribesmen or ‘lashkars’ as they are more fondly called will not do to the trick since the tribesmen have limited influence and following in their sphere and are in a weak position against the well organized and well supplied Taliban who brandish latest weapons systems. The hesitance of the U.S. to provide the logistical and military support in the way that it used to do in the past is a severe handicap (and quite recently as happened in Iraq) is a stark reminder of the issue-based ‘friendship’ of the U.S. with Pakistan which has more often been self serving for the U.S. and corrupt leaders of the past. An independent foreign policy, as urged in the resolution must be pursued and relations must be expanded with other countries to counter the increasing influence that the U.S. asserts over us due to our over-dependence on it for aid and military supplies.

An economic meltdown- no questions asked?

With declining foreign currency reserves estimated at around $ 7.5 billion and a rupee which is weakening itself against the dollar at a staggering pace, Pakistan has all eyes on lenders and client states for deferral of payments to avoid a default-like situation. The trade deficit is alarmingly high at just over $ 2 billion (recorded for September). At this pace, around a billion dollar is required per month out of the dwindling foreign reserves to help meet the balance of payment. With State Bank intervening to control the fall of rupee against the dollar precipitously, the repercussions in terms of state borrowings should not be discarded whilst studying any rescue plan or aid package to which we have become accustomed to over the last two decades in particular. Increase in the global oil price has been virtually passed to the consumers which have added to the cost of transportation, production as well as the cost of living for many. The energy shortfall has certainly not helped matters much and the longer term implications on our productivity are believed to be severe.

For an ordinary man, at the end of the day it is the inflation rate, at a whooping 25 percent, which matters the most since it severely limits the decisions that he makes for himself and his family. With capital outflows and reduction of expenses and manpower by settled entrepreneurs, SMLB’s (small, medium and large businesses) and industrialists becoming apparent in many sectors it is likely that many people have added, with many more to follow, to an unacceptable proportion of the population that is unemployed. Add to this, the worsening law and order situation and the increase in the crime rate in urban and rural areas with different degree over the same period of the year regardless of these economic conditions that we face and we may see a percentage of those who face unemployed engaged in illicit and violent activities and it will be an instance of failure by the society and the state in general to provide them with a better future which they deserve or at least what they thought they so deserved.

If the government is to be believed, the financial woes of the state, which it has a legitimate claim to govern, were inherited and a result of the dubious economic policies of the Musharraf era with rampant corruption and nepotism. However, all talks of accountability and an effort to evaluate his policies fall on deaf ears or met with the ‘defence’ of ‘reconciliation’ by the government as has the most recent one by the opposition, although it was in the context of his ‘secret agreements’ with the U.S. and concessions he granted to NATO forces without conducting any comprehensive policy appraisals or benefiting the state of Pakistan in a manner which may have been the outcome of a just and equitable negotiation rather than a simple surrender to demands unconditionally without recourse to the effect in the longer run.

‘Reconciliation’ or whatever it seems to suggest, has been used as a blanket cover to protect Mr. Musharraf and his team from the process of accountability which in turn strengthens democracy and promotes transparency as well as provides a check against ‘bad governance’ and corruption. The government’s answer: Mr. Gillani’s ‘forward-looking’ approach which in essence implies: “Forget all past malpractices, lets start afresh”. The question that begs an answer then is: “Is this not a vicious cycle that would never stop and hence no one would be deemed to be accountable as public official over bad governance ever?” A leading English daily’s editorial on Friday lends support to Mr. Gillani’s view, albeit on a different and a worrisome argument. In essence it suggests that since the opposition had rejected Musharraf as a legitimate ruler, it was estopped from questioning his conduct as the ruler! There is a difference between a de facto and de jure ruler for a start and it is amazing how such crude distinctions are overlooked. To put it a slightly different way rather simply, would be to understand that one can oppose one’s legitimacy to rule as well as the actions one took whilst doing so. There is no contradiction in such a view but to the contrary they are supplementary in nature.

In the present economic context for example, had some initiatives been undertaken to promote industrialization and boosting exports during the Musharraf-era instead of for example spending billions in failed campaigning and wasted expenditure in the run up to the elections of 2008, the falling rupee may have been a blessing in disguise for the introduction of our goods in the international market (keeping apart the present international financial crises in some rich markets which is limiting the spending spree of those countries).
As if this was not enough, Pakistan has now complained to the heads of international financial institutions and development partners that the economic cost caused by the war on terror in Pakistan is unbearable level with the major portion of the war being born by it alone. Mr. Tareen, the new Finance Adviser has stated that Pakistan might be amongst the few countries that had successfully adjusted to the unprecedented increases in the prices by eliminating nearly all the subsidies. He stated that the country was fighting a rising inflation by adjusting the interest rates and by containing the monetary growth. However he failed to mention that the revised growth rate for next year, which is down by more than half of the predicted level, had severely limited our capacity to meet the inflation challenge through adjustment of interest rate alone.

On one hand we state the ‘war’ is Pakistan’s own- intended audience is domestic. Yet we seek aid from the global community and the West, particularly the U.S. crying that we are conducting this ‘war’ doing it as an ally and therefore the cost must be shared. What we suggest is either that the people are foolish enough to believe different things at different times or that we are not bound by our own words, which may be changed at different times. The question of policy over the ‘war’ which the joint session of parliament seems to focus and address is secondary. We must first locate and eliminate the contradictions from within ourselves. More urgently, we must await once more that the international loans from ‘friends’ and ‘friendly organizations’ would profit once more through increasing their stake in Pakistan and we are rescued by them to avoid yet another ‘default’. Without conducting ourselves transparently backed by the threat of accountability, the ‘economic meltdowns’ are likely to recur.

Nothing to loose

There is a growing sense of urgency, amongst the parliamentarians as well as the general public, to find a sustainable solution to the constitutional dilemma which was imposed on the country on November 3 last year when the then General Musharraf imposed ‘martial law’ and assumed the position of supreme “Law-giver’ of this country. People want the government to focus on other issues that they face which can only happen once this crises is resolved for good as it has become the priority number one since March 9, 2007 last year. At that time everyone was wondering how Musharraf could expect his acts to be indemnified by a future national assembly and the parliament on the whole, especially so when it was widely perceived that the votes would be against his policies and against his supporters who had bred and nurtured during his rule under the umbrella of ‘Pakistan Muslim League’, which came along sometimes with a ‘Q’ and sometimes without it. This party was so short in self-belief that it had to change names in a failed attempt to create an impression in the minds of people that it was indeed the ‘real’ Muslim League headed by Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

Now that the new government can be said to have been formed almost completely in all provinces as well as in the center, one can expect the coalition partners getting together to come to a quick but just solution in order to overcome the illegalities of the November acts. It would be hard for anyone, including the Pakistan People’s Party which has edged out all other political parties overall, to ignore the concern and voice of others and the smaller parties are likely to have a greater voice than at any time in the past mostly because they assume greater leverage whenever no single party enjoys a clean majority.

The present talk of a constitutional package which is being linked with the issue of the restoration of the judiciary is a calculated move of the Pakistan People’s Party which wants to get over the bitter truths of the past and wants to resolve constitutional issues at the earliest and with the least possible hue and cry over it. It is presupposed that most of these packages would include indemnification of most acts of General Musharraf. Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz would try and alienate these two separate and distinct issues which must be resolved differently and not through the passing of a resolution. According to PML(N), the Murree Declaration had nothing to do with the indemnification of Musharraf’s acts or some constitutional package which might have similar effects.

The first issue, the restoration of the judges is not any indemnification, rather the complete opposite of that in the sense that an unconstitutional measure would be thrown out of the window in a civilized and democratic manner by using the forum of the masses, which is the Parliament. The next issue is a totally different one and must be given due diligence and care before coming to a solution. This issue being: which acts of Musharraf to legalize and indemnify by using the Parliamentary procedure provided under the Constitution? What is the procedure of doing so? As to the latter question, no resolution or executive order in this world would be able to achieve this and the only way out is through a Constitutional amendment which can only be achieved by a two-thirds majority. Before passage of such Bill however, it must be duly scrutinized by the Parliament even if it means that most of the steps of General Musharraf do not find respect in a final draft. Rather than setting a dangerous precedent for the future or a repetition of the recent past when the MMA helped General Musharraf amend the Constitution by incorporating the 17th amendment in the Constitution, the political forces riding together in the coalition must show greater maturity now. One must also not forget that General Musharraf ‘broke’ his promise to MMA to step down as army chief after the promulgation of 17th amendment, if one were to believe the MMA.

It is true that there are other issues which need the immediate attention of the government and it must find ways to resolve the preliminary issues which were unnecessarily imposed upon them through the act of a single man who has tried to link his own future with that of this country. The political parties must be in total unison in distancing themselves from such measures and any indemnification must be of only those acts which are non-controversial, absolutely essential and do which do not set a precedent for the future.

The hidden hand

The events of this week have succeeded in drawing the attention of people away from some issues that were being termed as the ‘real issues and challenges’ for the new government. Twice, the former Chief Minister of Sindh, Ghulam Arbab Rahim was manhandled in an undignified manner. This event was followed by manhandling of Sher Afgan Niazi, the self-proclaimed supporter of a dictator. Sher Afgan Niazi has justified all unconstitutional actions of Musharraf and not hesitated in issuing contemptuous statements against the judiciary during the judicial crises. He probably knew at the time what was forthcoming and was therefore was not afraid of the wrath of justice and considered himself above the rule of law and as it turned out he went away with it. However, he found himself being punished in a very different way when he was held up for a long period of time in a lawyer’s chambers in Lahore and was thrashed with shoes and glass when he made his way out.

As if this was not enough to make headlines and provide talk shows with a topic for the week, another incident took place in a city, which never lags behind when it comes to violence and violence related casualties--Karachi. Several innocent lives were lost. Astonishingly, the explanation of the MQM regarding the issue is next to a self-indicting statement. Allegedly, lawyers of MQM were ‘attacked’ by other lawyers, when they were ‘peacefully protesting’ outside the bar. This is not the end of story though. The lawyers (non-MQM) allegedly went on to burn more than 50 vehicles and took around a dozen lives. This explanation is not tenable and the opposite explanation presented by the lawyers is much more plausible. According to this version, lawyers stopped the MQM lawyers from entering the bar premises as they were holding a meeting inside and the presence of MQM lawyers who were chanting slogans in favour of Sher Afgan Niazi and ‘protesting his mishandling’, could have led to some unwarranted clashes. However this denial of entry infuriated the MQM lawyers who unleashed a wave of violence on not only the lawyers but the city of Karachi and its habitants. Just when people had thought that the good atmosphere prevailing within the ranks of MQM and PPP had ensured a peaceful future of Karachi for some time, we were reminded of the menace that is perhaps beyond the control of even leaders who sit far away and script party politics from abroad.

Had these three incidents been separated by a period of time, it would have been imaginable that they were not related at all. However, their proximity in time as well as nexus connecting them, especially the thrashing of Sher Afgan Niazi and the ‘protest’ by MQM lawyers, suggests that perhaps there is a hidden hand involved in some if not all of them, which wanted to extract some leverage out of them. Perhaps the involvement of lawyers in two of the incidents is an indicator of what was the intended effect. It is pertinent to mention that during the thrashing of Sher Afgan Niazi, he was roughed up by people in plain clothes as well, who sabotaged even the ambulance that was supposed to rescue him.

Sher Afgan Niazir has stated that the judiciary cannot be restored and Musharraf has responded to the violence by restraining lawyers from disturbing peace. Whether these statement were mere coincidence or issued in good faith and without any relation to the incidents is anyone’s guess. One guess can be that perhaps the issue of restoration of judges is being sidetracked by such incidents. Whether it is true or not only time will tell.

The problem is that since this country is best known for conspiracies and state within state, one cannot but ignore the broader circumstances of every incident which is intended to produce a specific result.

Only an independent inquiry into these issues will let us know the true culprits and whether the incidents were engineered to a certain degree or not. Thanks to the mushroom growth of electronic media, just as Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was made clear and the official version of the cause of her death rebutted through use of video footage, it is easy to identify those involved in these incidents as well conduction of an enquiry headed by an impartial tribunal is likely to produce genuine results. However, many would be tempted to bury the issue under the carpet just like the May 12 incident in Karachi was buried.

The real challenge for the new government would be to open a new chapter of accountability, even if it means that some supporters of the PPP, which is leading the government, are found involved in Ghulam Arbab Rahim’s thrashing. The credit would nevertheless go to PPP, if it were to happen. PPP would have opened a new chapter of accountability even if it means disciplining its own die hard supporters. A line has to be drawn between what can and what cannot be acceptable behaviour in politics and party discipline must be enforced without any regard to any other factor. Politics of violence must be abandoned once and for all. MQM must seek to dispel the negative image that has surrounded it over the years. Otherwise it is inevitable that it will land itself into trouble one day or the other as long as it continues to care little about human rights and resorts to violent measures. After all, prayers of its victims can be answered when the One who matters decides that enough is enough.

The hidden hand

The events of this week have succeeded in drawing the attention of people away from some issues that were being termed as the ‘real issues and challenges’ for the new government. Twice, the former Chief Minister of Sindh, Ghulam Arbab Rahim was manhandled in an undignified manner. This event was followed by manhandling of Sher Afgan Niazi, the self-proclaimed supporter of a dictator. Sher Afgan Niazi has justified all unconstitutional actions of Musharraf and not hesitated in issuing contemptuous statements against the judiciary during the judicial crises. He probably knew at the time what was forthcoming and was therefore was not afraid of the wrath of justice and considered himself above the rule of law and as it turned out he went away with it. However, he found himself being punished in a very different way when he was held up for a long period of time in a lawyer’s chambers in Lahore and was thrashed with shoes and glass when he made his way out.

As if this was not enough to make headlines and provide talk shows with a topic for the week, another incident took place in a city, which never lags behind when it comes to violence and violence related casualties--Karachi. Several innocent lives were lost. Astonishingly, the explanation of the MQM regarding the issue is next to a self-indicting statement. Allegedly, lawyers of MQM were ‘attacked’ by other lawyers, when they were ‘peacefully protesting’ outside the bar. This is not the end of story though. The lawyers (non-MQM) allegedly went on to burn more than 50 vehicles and took around a dozen lives. This explanation is not tenable and the opposite explanation presented by the lawyers is much more plausible. According to this version, lawyers stopped the MQM lawyers from entering the bar premises as they were holding a meeting inside and the presence of MQM lawyers who were chanting slogans in favour of Sher Afgan Niazi and ‘protesting his mishandling’, could have led to some unwarranted clashes. However this denial of entry infuriated the MQM lawyers who unleashed a wave of violence on not only the lawyers but the city of Karachi and its habitants. Just when people had thought that the good atmosphere prevailing within the ranks of MQM and PPP had ensured a peaceful future of Karachi for some time, we were reminded of the menace that is perhaps beyond the control of even leaders who sit far away and script party politics from abroad.

Had these three incidents been separated by a period of time, it would have been imaginable that they were not related at all. However, their proximity in time as well as nexus connecting them, especially the thrashing of Sher Afgan Niazi and the ‘protest’ by MQM lawyers, suggests that perhaps there is a hidden hand involved in some if not all of them, which wanted to extract some leverage out of them. Perhaps the involvement of lawyers in two of the incidents is an indicator of what was the intended effect. It is pertinent to mention that during the thrashing of Sher Afgan Niazi, he was roughed up by people in plain clothes as well, who sabotaged even the ambulance that was supposed to rescue him.

Sher Afgan Niazir has stated that the judiciary cannot be restored and Musharraf has responded to the violence by restraining lawyers from disturbing peace. Whether these statement were mere coincidence or issued in good faith and without any relation to the incidents is anyone’s guess. One guess can be that perhaps the issue of restoration of judges is being sidetracked by such incidents. Whether it is true or not only time will tell.

The problem is that since this country is best known for conspiracies and state within state, one cannot but ignore the broader circumstances of every incident which is intended to produce a specific result.

Only an independent inquiry into these issues will let us know the true culprits and whether the incidents were engineered to a certain degree or not. Thanks to the mushroom growth of electronic media, just as Benazir Bhutto’s assassination was made clear and the official version of the cause of her death rebutted through use of video footage, it is easy to identify those involved in these incidents as well conduction of an enquiry headed by an impartial tribunal is likely to produce genuine results. However, many would be tempted to bury the issue under the carpet just like the May 12 incident in Karachi was buried.

The real challenge for the new government would be to open a new chapter of accountability, even if it means that some supporters of the PPP, which is leading the government, are found involved in Ghulam Arbab Rahim’s thrashing. The credit would nevertheless go to PPP, if it were to happen. PPP would have opened a new chapter of accountability even if it means disciplining its own die hard supporters. A line has to be drawn between what can and what cannot be acceptable behaviour in politics and party discipline must be enforced without any regard to any other factor. Politics of violence must be abandoned once and for all. MQM must seek to dispel the negative image that has surrounded it over the years. Otherwise it is inevitable that it will land itself into trouble one day or the other as long as it continues to care little about human rights and resorts to violent measures. After all, prayers of its victims can be answered when the One who matters decides that enough is enough.

Miscarriage of justice--The story of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

April 4 is a tragic day for justice in Pakistan when a popular former Prime Minister was executed by a dictator, who used the judicial machinery to achieve this objective. A lot has been said about why Zia ul Haq deemed it necessary to eliminate his self-proclaimed ‘mohsin’, who had appointed him Chief of Army Staff in order to control bonapartism in the army, yet failed miserably and was made its victim.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was wise enough to predict after assuming power from a military usurper that dictatorship had not been buried for good. He was little aware however that his hand-picked General would betray him and the betrayal would cost him nothing short of his own life as well as incarceration of his family in an undignified and humiliating manner. He was denied his last rituals and his family was not even allowed to see his face before burial, which is contrary to all rules of morality and ethical norms.

Whether it was the personal fear General Zia ul Haq had of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto which lead him to adopt such an inhumane treatment to his ‘mohsin’ or the carrying out of the will of a super power which wanted to punish Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for continuing Pakistan’s nuclear program, or a combination of both these factors, cannot be said for certain. But one thing is clear. After his hanging, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto emerged as a hero and after his plane crash, Pakistanis were relieved and astonished that they had got rid of a hideous ruler, who used religion as a tool to engineer his personal ambitions and to marginalize the party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who even after his death was the only thing that haunted him before the Soviets entered Afghanistan.

It is easy to identify the defects in the prosecution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, be that the composition of the judiciary that heard his case or the use of fabricated evidence in corroboration with witnesses who were under pressure to give such evidence. Maulvi Mushtaq remains the second biggest culprit after Justice Munir who has supported the case for Pakistan being a place where it is impossible for the judiciary to give a verdict which is independent and not influenced or tainted by external influence, pressure or inducements. To this day, we continue to suffer from the same defects in the judiciary, which has been interfered at will, predominantly by military regimes, which need to legitimize their illegality or face a trial for high treason and abrogation of the constitution of the personnel responsible for such coup. It was seen how very recently members of the judiciary refused to become party to the personal desire of Musharraf to be elected illegally in uniform as well as his wish to continue to oust Nawaz Sharif-the chief threat to his allies—the PML(Q)’s Chaudhries. However, once more we saw the utter contempt Musharraf had for such a judiciary which refused to tame itself to his desires, as he is so often used to.

Until all of us, especially the political parties pledge today that we would not allow the judiciary to be manipulated in a manner that has been seen in the past, we would continue to see miscarriages of justice. We have suffered a lot already to risk another setback in future. It is true that only when principles of justice, equality before law and the importance of an independent judiciary is realized by all political forces, can we truly avoid the repetitions of the past, be that execution of a former Prime Minister or providing legitimacy to the doctrine of necessity which justifies illegal coups and military take overs and brings us back to square one.

Miscarriage of justice- The story of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

April 4 is a tragic day for justice in Pakistan when a popular former Prime Minister was executed by a dictator, who used the judicial machinery to achieve this objective. A lot has been said about why Zia ul Haq deemed it necessary to eliminate his self-proclaimed ‘mohsin’, who had appointed him Chief of Army Staff in order to control bonapartism in the army, yet failed miserably and was made its victim.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was wise enough to predict after assuming power from a military usurper that dictatorship had not been buried for good. He was little aware however that his hand-picked General would betray him and the betrayal would cost him nothing short of his own life as well as incarceration of his family in an undignified and humiliating manner. He was denied his last rituals and his family was not even allowed to see his face before burial, which is contrary to all rules of morality and ethical norms.

Whether it was the personal fear General Zia ul Haq had of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto which lead him to adopt such an inhumane treatment to his ‘mohsin’ or the carrying out of the will of a super power which wanted to punish Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for continuing Pakistan’s nuclear program, or a combination of both these factors, cannot be said for certain. But one thing is clear. After his hanging, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto emerged as a hero and after his plane crash, Pakistanis were relieved and astonished that they had got rid of a hideous ruler, who used religion as a tool to engineer his personal ambitions and to marginalize the party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who even after his death was the only thing that haunted him before the Soviets entered Afghanistan.

It is easy to identify the defects in the prosecution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, be that the composition of the judiciary that heard his case or the use of fabricated evidence in corroboration with witnesses who were under pressure to give such evidence. Maulvi Mushtaq remains the second biggest culprit after Justice Munir who has supported the case for Pakistan being a place where it is impossible for the judiciary to give a verdict which is independent and not influenced or tainted by external influence, pressure or inducements. To this day, we continue to suffer from the same defects in the judiciary, which has been interfered at will, predominantly by military regimes, which need to legitimize their illegality or face a trial for high treason and abrogation of the constitution of the personnel responsible for such coup. It was seen how very recently members of the judiciary refused to become party to the personal desire of Musharraf to be elected illegally in uniform as well as his wish to continue to oust Nawaz Sharif-the chief threat to his allies—the PML(Q)’s Chaudhries. However, once more we saw the utter contempt Musharraf had for such a judiciary which refused to tame itself to his desires, as he is so often used to.

Until all of us, especially the political parties pledge today that we would not allow the judiciary to be manipulated in a manner that has been seen in the past, we would continue to see miscarriages of justice. We have suffered a lot already to risk another setback in future. It is true that only when principles of justice, equality before law and the importance of an independent judiciary is realized by all political forces, can we truly avoid the repetitions of the past, be that execution of a former Prime Minister or providing legitimacy to the doctrine of necessity which justifies illegal coups and military take overs and brings us back to square one.

Miscarriage of justice- The story of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

April 4 is a tragic day for justice in Pakistan when a popular former Prime Minister was executed by a dictator, who used the judicial machinery to achieve this objective. A lot has been said about why Zia ul Haq deemed it necessary to eliminate his self-proclaimed ‘mohsin’, who had appointed him Chief of Army Staff in order to control bonapartism in the army, yet failed miserably and was made its victim.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was wise enough to predict after assuming power from a military usurper that dictatorship had not been buried for good. He was little aware however that his hand-picked General would betray him and the betrayal would cost him nothing short of his own life as well as incarceration of his family in an undignified and humiliating manner. He was denied his last rituals and his family was not even allowed to see his face before burial, which is contrary to all rules of morality and ethical norms.

Whether it was the personal fear General Zia ul Haq had of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto which lead him to adopt such an inhumane treatment to his ‘mohsin’ or the carrying out of the will of a super power which wanted to punish Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for continuing Pakistan’s nuclear program, or a combination of both these factors, cannot be said for certain. But one thing is clear. After his hanging, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto emerged as a hero and after his plane crash, Pakistanis were relieved and astonished that they had got rid of a hideous ruler, who used religion as a tool to engineer his personal ambitions and to marginalize the party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who even after his death was the only thing that haunted him before the Soviets entered Afghanistan.

It is easy to identify the defects in the prosecution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, be that the composition of the judiciary that heard his case or the use of fabricated evidence in corroboration with witnesses who were under pressure to give such evidence. Maulvi Mushtaq remains the second biggest culprit after Justice Munir who has supported the case for Pakistan being a place where it is impossible for the judiciary to give a verdict which is independent and not influenced or tainted by external influence, pressure or inducements. To this day, we continue to suffer from the same defects in the judiciary, which has been interfered at will, predominantly by military regimes, which need to legitimize their illegality or face a trial for high treason and abrogation of the constitution of the personnel responsible for such coup. It was seen how very recently members of the judiciary refused to become party to the personal desire of Musharraf to be elected illegally in uniform as well as his wish to continue to oust Nawaz Sharif-the chief threat to his allies—the PML(Q)’s Chaudhries. However, once more we saw the utter contempt Musharraf had for such a judiciary which refused to tame itself to his desires, as he is so often used to.

Until all of us, especially the political parties pledge today that we would not allow the judiciary to be manipulated in a manner that has been seen in the past, we would continue to see miscarriages of justice. We have suffered a lot already to risk another setback in future. It is true that only when principles of justice, equality before law and the importance of an independent judiciary is realized by all political forces, can we truly avoid the repetitions of the past, be that execution of a former Prime Minister or providing legitimacy to the doctrine of necessity which justifies illegal coups and military take overs and brings us back to square one.

Miscarriage of justice- The story of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto

April 4 is a tragic day for justice in Pakistan when a popular former Prime Minister was executed by a dictator, who used the judicial machinery to achieve this objective. A lot has been said about why Zia ul Haq deemed it necessary to eliminate his self-proclaimed ‘mohsin’, who had appointed him Chief of Army Staff in order to control bonapartism in the army, yet failed miserably and was made its victim.

Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto was wise enough to predict after assuming power from a military usurper that dictatorship had not been buried for good. He was little aware however that his hand-picked General would betray him and the betrayal would cost him nothing short of his own life as well as incarceration of his family in an undignified and humiliating manner. He was denied his last rituals and his family was not even allowed to see his face before burial, which is contrary to all rules of morality and ethical norms.

Whether it was the personal fear General Zia ul Haq had of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto which lead him to adopt such an inhumane treatment to his ‘mohsin’ or the carrying out of the will of a super power which wanted to punish Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto for continuing Pakistan’s nuclear program, or a combination of both these factors, cannot be said for certain. But one thing is clear. After his hanging, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto emerged as a hero and after his plane crash, Pakistanis were relieved and astonished that they had got rid of a hideous ruler, who used religion as a tool to engineer his personal ambitions and to marginalize the party of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, who even after his death was the only thing that haunted him before the Soviets entered Afghanistan.

It is easy to identify the defects in the prosecution of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, be that the composition of the judiciary that heard his case or the use of fabricated evidence in corroboration with witnesses who were under pressure to give such evidence. Maulvi Mushtaq remains the second biggest culprit after Justice Munir who has supported the case for Pakistan being a place where it is impossible for the judiciary to give a verdict which is independent and not influenced or tainted by external influence, pressure or inducements. To this day, we continue to suffer from the same defects in the judiciary, which has been interfered at will, predominantly by military regimes, which need to legitimize their illegality or face a trial for high treason and abrogation of the constitution of the personnel responsible for such coup. It was seen how very recently members of the judiciary refused to become party to the personal desire of Musharraf to be elected illegally in uniform as well as his wish to continue to oust Nawaz Sharif-the chief threat to his allies—the PML(Q)’s Chaudhries. However, once more we saw the utter contempt Musharraf had for such a judiciary which refused to tame itself to his desires, as he is so often used to.

Until all of us, especially the political parties pledge today that we would not allow the judiciary to be manipulated in a manner that has been seen in the past, we would continue to see miscarriages of justice. We have suffered a lot already to risk another setback in future. It is true that only when principles of justice, equality before law and the importance of an independent judiciary is realized by all political forces, can we truly avoid the repetitions of the past, be that execution of a former Prime Minister or providing legitimacy to the doctrine of necessity which justifies illegal coups and military take overs and brings us back to square one.

Visit of United States Deputy Secretary of State Negroponte

This week the focus of attention has been on the visit of a U.S. official, who has just concluded his second tour of Pakistan in less than five months. This fact alone emphasizes the importance the U.S. attaches to its interests in this region primarily because of the presence of ‘militants’ who are more commonly referred to as ‘terrorists’. Since Pakistan is strategically located, at the foot of Afghanistan at the West where NATO forces led by U.S. are deployed in huge numbers, the tour can hardly be termed as a confidence building measure but is closer to an effort to undermine the prerogative of the new government to formulate its own policy regarding the issue of ‘militancy’ on its soil in consultation with all the stake holders who are now represented in the new national assembly.

The order of the meeting, first with Mr. Musharraf and then Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani, who has just taken an oath for the Prime Minister’s office, questions the sincerity of the U.S. in developing contacts with the elected officials. Although as is being argued that the visit was planned beforehand, it would not have been an unusual matter had the order of meetings switched to take into account the newly emerging power structure in the country, if one were to believe we are indeed passing through the transformation phase, the culmination of which would of course be if the National Assembly’ dissolution by an indirectly elected man is prevented by the abolition of the notorious 58 (2)(B) (although it is a disputed question whether he is duly elected to be fair in all respects). The visit could have possibly been postponed to allow the formation of the government to be complete in all respects, with the swearing in of the cabinet as well.

There are already growing signs that Mr. Musharraf is hoping to cling on to power with active U.S. support and is not shy of issuing statements supporting the U.S. ‘war on terror’ as dictated by the U.S. However, in an effort to minimize public discontent, he has reiterated that only Pakistan Armed Forces had the right to operate in its territorial boundaries. This is mere rhetoric and repetition of past assertions. It is a fact that the territory of this country has been invaded by drones and missiles and what not and the blame has been taken by the Pakistan Armed Forces to avoid a negative fall out on the ‘Pak-U.S. cooperation’. Although we understand that these missions have inflicted casualties and suicide bombings as a response, what boggles one’s mind is why the previous government has been unable to embrace the truth and take the people into confidence over the issue in a complete manner.

Perhaps it would have been asking too much from the Musharraf led regime which surpassed all levels of distortions of facts be that the detention of the deposed judges, who were officially never even detained in the first place, or the cause of death of the recently slain leader of PPP, late Benazir Bhutto.

It was somewhat soothing to hear the new Prime Minister rebuff the U.S. Secretary of State and emphasize that the Parliament would decide all issues including the war on terror and all options would be explored. Neither any commitment has been given to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State explicitly nor the option of use of force been ruled out. This is the balanced approach we need in dealing with the U.S., with whom we are interested in retaining close ties but not at the cost of public suffering and discontent amongst the masses for supporting the U.S. unilaterally.
The policy of supporting the U.S. post 9/11 should have been a result of consultation and consensus building. It was indeed a big decision for us which reversed our decades long policy of securing our Western border. We could have hardly ignored the support and approval required of the representatives of the tribal areas as well as taking into confidence the representation of NWFP. Mr. Musharraf however, chose to make the decisions himself, supposedly after being threatened by the U.S. It is not clear whether the U.S. indeed had made the threat in the first place that Pakistan would be thrown back to the stone ages (as Mr. Musharraf asserts in his book, although the U.S. denies the issuance of such threat).

The U.S. does employ every option at its disposal to make ‘allies’ cooperate but such threats were mere rebuffs as any annihilation of Pakistan because of 9/11 would have been totally unjustifiable. It is to be noted that the U.S. had made a false threat before 9/11 to the then ISI DG Mahmoood Ahmed, which the U.S. officials later appreciated was a bluff but Mr. Ahmed fell for it anyway. It is inconceivable moreover, that a democratically elected government could have been threatened in such an outright way, which is contrary to diplomatic norms, where other options such as collaboration could have always been sought as an exploration point.Hopefully, the U.S. would get the message right this time and understand that the benefits of negotiating and interacting with a democratic government are far more beneficial than dealing with an autocratic one. Mr. Musharraf’s arbitrary use of powers have done little to eradicate or isolate extremism in this country and have given rise to cases like Lal Masjid and manipulations by him to use the event to the best of his advantage. Although some top Al-Qaeda leaders have been arrested and thrown into Guantanamo bay, there is little to suggest that they would not be replaced by more ardent activists and masterminds with greater vigour. Only a democratic government can find avenues which have not been explored yet to solve the deteriorating law and order situation as well as dealing with extremists who are thought to be responsible for this. The U.S. must take a backseat and resist its impulses to react in haste as it has in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and instead let the democratic forces work in tandem without any intervention, coercion or intimidation.

This week the focus of attention has been on the visit of a U.S. official, who has just concluded his second tour of Pakistan in less than five months. This fact alone emphasizes the importance the U.S. attaches to its interests in this region primarily because of the presence of ‘militants’ who are more commonly referred to as ‘terrorists’. Since Pakistan is strategically located, at the foot of Afghanistan at the West where NATO forces led by U.S. are deployed in huge numbers, the tour can hardly be termed as a confidence building measure but is closer to an effort to undermine the prerogative of the new government to formulate its own policy regarding the issue of ‘militancy’ on its soil in consultation with all the stake holders who are now represented in the new national assembly.

The order of the meeting, first with Mr. Musharraf and then Mr. Nawaz Sharif and Mr. Yousaf Raza Gillani, who has just taken an oath for the Prime Minister’s office, questions the sincerity of the U.S. in developing contacts with the elected officials. Although as is being argued that the visit was planned beforehand, it would not have been an unusual matter had the order of meetings switched to take into account the newly emerging power structure in the country, if one were to believe we are indeed passing through the transformation phase, the culmination of which would of course be if the National Assembly’ dissolution by an indirectly elected man is prevented by the abolition of the notorious 58 (2)(B) (although it is a disputed question whether he is duly elected to be fair in all respects). The visit could have possibly been postponed to allow the formation of the government to be complete in all respects, with the swearing in of the cabinet as well.

There are already growing signs that Mr. Musharraf is hoping to cling on to power with active U.S. support and is not shy of issuing statements supporting the U.S. ‘war on terror’ as dictated by the U.S. However, in an effort to minimize public discontent, he has reiterated that only Pakistan Armed Forces had the right to operate in its territorial boundaries. This is mere rhetoric and repetition of past assertions. It is a fact that the territory of this country has been invaded by drones and missiles and what not and the blame has been taken by the Pakistan Armed Forces to avoid a negative fall out on the ‘Pak-U.S. cooperation’. Although we understand that these missions have inflicted casualties and suicide bombings as a response, what boggles one’s mind is why the previous government has been unable to embrace the truth and take the people into confidence over the issue in a complete manner.
Perhaps it would have been asking too much from the Musharraf led regime which surpassed all levels of distortions of facts be that the detention of the deposed judges, who were officially never even detained in the first place, or the cause of death of the recently slain leader of PPP, late Benazir Bhutto.

It was somewhat soothing to hear the new Prime Minister rebuff the U.S. Secretary of State and emphasize that the Parliament would decide all issues including the war on terror and all options would be explored. Neither any commitment has been given to the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State explicitly nor the option of use of force been ruled out. This is the balanced approach we need in dealing with the U.S., with whom we are interested in retaining close ties but not at the cost of public suffering and discontent amongst the masses for supporting the U.S. unilaterally.
The policy of supporting the U.S. post 9/11 should have been a result of consultation and consensus building. It was indeed a big decision for us which reversed our decades long policy of securing our Western border. We could have hardly ignored the support and approval required of the representatives of the tribal areas as well as taking into confidence the representation of NWFP. Mr. Musharraf however, chose to make the decisions himself, supposedly after being threatened by the U.S. It is not clear whether the U.S. indeed had made the threat in the first place that Pakistan would be thrown back to the stone ages (as Mr. Musharraf asserts in his book, although the U.S. denies the issuance of such threat).

The U.S. is known to employ every option at its disposal to make ‘allies’ cooperate but such false threats were mere feelers as any annihilation of Pakistan because of 9/11 would have been totally unjustifiable. It is to be noted that the U.S. had made a false threat before 9/11 to the then ISI DG Mahmoood Ahmed, which the U.S. officials later appreciated was a bluff but Mr. Ahmed fell for it anyway. It is inconceivable moreover, that a democratically elected government could have been threatened in such an outright way, which is contrary to diplomatic norms, where other options such as collaboration could have always been sought as an exploration point.Hopefully, the U.S. would get the message right this time and understand that the benefits of negotiating and interacting with a democratic government are far more beneficial than dealing with an autocratic one. Mr. Musharraf’s arbitrary use of powers have done little to eradicate or isolate extremism in this country and have given rise to cases like Lal Masjid and manipulations by him to use the event to the best of his advantage. Although some top Al-Qaeda leaders have been arrested and thrown into Guantanamo bay, there is little to suggest that they would not be replaced by more ardent activists and masterminds with greater vigour. Only a democratic government can find avenues which have not been explored yet to solve the deteriorating law and order situation as well as dealing with extremists who are thought to be responsible for this. The U.S. must take a backseat and resist its impulses to react in haste as it has in Iraq and elsewhere in the past and instead let the democratic forces work in tandem without any intervention, coercion or intimidation.

The United States must put its own house in order first

According to news reports, the U.S. Defence Department mistakenly shipped secret nuclear fuses to Taiwan 18 months ago and did not realize its blunder until only last week. Given the sensitivity of China’s policy vis a vis Taiwan, which China says is an integral part of it under the One-China policy, this gross act of negligence is bound to attract suspicion. Taiwan is the biggest U.S. arms customer and has received more than 10 billion dollars in arms purchases which include sophisticated weapons and F-16s.

This is not the first instance that a high level investigation has been ordered in the U.S. over errors involving strategic weapons or its components. In August last year, the Air Force lost track of six nuclear warheads for 36 hours when they were inadvertently flown on a B-52 bomber between bases in North Dakota and Louisiana. The incident exposed security flaws and raised similar questions about the safety of U.S. nuclear weapons.

These incidents highlight that the threat that the world faces from weapons of mass destruction does not only emanate from the alleged underground terrorists who seek such sophisticated weapons and threaten humanity. It is the mass stockpile of the nuclear weapons themselves possessed and maintained by the official members of the nuclear club, headed by the U.S., which poses the gravest threat to humanity. The U.S. arguably has the largest and most complex nuclear safety system which allegedly ‘minimizes the risk of unauthorized detonations’. However the incidents involving its nuclear assets undermine the capacity of the U.S. to control its inventory.

The North Koreans and the Iranians must be secretly laughing as the U.S., which has lead the isolationist approach towards these two countries, as it seems unable to assert itself as a power able to command its own nuclear arsenal. Similarly, the safety of nuclear weapons of Pakistan has also been made an issue, which has been blown out of proportion in comparison to the threat the world faces from a super power, which has suddenly lost track and count of where its strategic weapons are located at what time and place and ‘mistakenly’ ships nuclear parts instead of helicopter batteries.

The Foreign Office of Pakistan must take note of the matter and relay its concern over the matter, as all of us are stakeholders of a safe world, where no nuclear weapon is ever detonated. This would not only reassert our responsibility as a nuclear state but also send a clear message from the newly formed government that it is prepared to take a principled stance on every issue, even if it involves our so-called ‘friend’, the U.S. When the U.S. is not prepared to exercise retrain when it comes to its so-called concerns over the safety of our nuclear weapons and draws up covert plans to capture them, we must stand by our much time tested friend-China and review our relations with the U.S. which has done more harm than good.

The U.S. must undertake huge efforts to reduce its strategic arms, now that the Cold-War is over. In the event that it is unable to control them as seems to be the case, it must seriously think about giving them up completely in the larger interest of mankind. Perhaps the answer is not nuclear non-proliferation and reduction. A world free of nuclear weapons is the most assured path of survival for the generations to come, and perhaps as the U.S. has proved by its ‘errors’, for this generation as well. It seems like in the ‘pursuit to save the world’ that the U.S. undertakes in dictating the haves and have nots in the nuclear club, it is loosing track of what is happening in its own backyard.

PPP, Murree Accord and the Judiciary

The nomination of the Prime Minister from Pakistan Peoples Party, the party having the most seats in the National Assembly, is the first significant sign that all is not well within the party. The interference of PML(N) in an internal issue of the party, through the remarks of one of its senior leaders, Khawaja Asif, reflects the propensity of PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari to isolate Makhdoom Amin Fahim into submitting to his decision-making powers and absoluteness over party affairs in the same way that late Benazir Bhutto enjoyed during her tenure as ‘life chairperson’ of PPP.

Benazir Bhutto was considered to be a uniting factor of the PPP after its founding chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto lost his life at the hands of Zia ul Haq, who himself acknowledged Bhutto as his benefactor. Benazir Bhutto had the rare privilege of becoming the Prime Minister of Pakistan in her mid-thirties and then once more was granted an opportunity of leading at the highest level. Having a charismatic personality and a sound reasoning ability, she was able to unite the party around her in a manner that could perhaps only be bettered by Sonia Gandhi in modern times.

Prior to her demise, critics had termed her marriage to Asif Ali Zardari, a liability to her personality and career. Being dismissed twice on corruption charges, which were often pointed towards her husband whom she had according to a report started to loathe of late, she sought to distance herself from him when she re-entered the political arena this time, destined to become Prime Minister again, but for a fatal bullet of an assassin. Things started to change dramatically after that.

Asif Ali Zardari appeared to be the only person who would have been able to lead the party in such tragic circumstances. Having the experience of staying in the shadows of her wife’s prime ministerial days as well as behind bars on corruption charges where he must have reflected on his fortunes and whether they were worth all that PPP lost, he had perhaps matured into a somewhat sophisticated person. However, realizing that his decision-making capabilities and authority over the party may not go unchallenged as it used to be the case with her, Benazir Bhutto had wisely appointed Asif Ali Zardari as only an interim chairperson, until the party leaders had decided on the issue unanimously. However as it happened, Asif Ali Zardari looks set to hold onto the position for an extended interim period which may only end when he deems his son, Bilawal Zardari set to take the reins of the party, much like a succession process in a simple monarchy then a democratic selection of a party leader.

The present dilemma for the party seems to be how to reconciliate the expectation of a party stalwart, Makhdoom Amin Fahim to be nominated as the Prime Minister and Asif Ali Zardari, who seems to be setting himself up for the post and wants to nominate a not-so-prominent Prime Minister for an intermediate period after which he would himself become the ‘real’ Prime Minister. On the other hand Aitzaz Ahsan finds himself isolated as well on the reinstatement of the judiciary issue and he is unable to abide both to party discipline on the issue and his compulsion to lead the lawyers’ movement as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as the lead lawyer of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Aitzaz Ahsan has a moral compulsion to remain on the lawyers’ side as well. Ever since he decided to defend the deposed Chief Justice and subsequently argued against Musharraf’s candidacy for the presidential office, he had burnt his boats to switch sides or to dampen his quest to make Pakistan Musharraf-free and put it on the path of democracy. It is thought that he was wrong to believe that General Musharraf would not impose martial law, as he did later on. Aitzaz Ahsan had, during the course of arguments of Musharraf’s presidency case, dispelled rumors that an emergency or martial law would be imposed in Pakistan or the judges would be sent to jail, as it was being thought at the time. Therefore he owes it to the lawyers’ community to help reverse all that and to date he seems to be performing his task well, devising new strategies and innovations such as the black flag week that he recently helped organize.

It is perhaps the result of his attempts to refuel the lawyers’ movement that his party, PPP has succumbed to the demands of the lawyers and PML(N) and its acceptance to restore the judiciary through a resolution is a sign of that. Although a resolution does not have the legal force as is being claimed by the presidential camp as well as some in the PPP itself, it would be damning for the PML(N) and PPP coalition government to abstain from passing any order in their capacity as executive, to bring into effect the intention of the resolution. The PPP certainly hopes that the agreement with the PML(N) is limited to the passing of the resolution. Certainly, the passing of the NRO and the dismissal of cases against Asif Ali Zardari demands a certain degree of reciprocity from him and his party and that is what PPP would do, contrary to an expectation that it would move beyond that. Notwithstanding these issues, the Murree Accord is certainly the first of its kind after the Charter of Democracy which expresses the resolve of PML(N) and PPP, two large parties of Pakistan to move towards democracy and away from dictatorship.

The most that can be expected is that the PPP would only agree to the reinstatement of the judges, and that too possibly a certain number of them and the PCOed judges would be retained with them. Whether PML(N) would be willing to go ahead with the PPP in lead with such an ambiguous solution or a solution somewhat close to that, would depend on what course the Aitzaz Ahsan led lawyers take on the issue. Ever since the Pakistan Bar Council announced its decision to relax the High Court boycott of lawyers and some of its members agreed to become part of the PCO judiciary, Pakistan Bar Council has ceased to be a representative body which can claim sanctity in its decisions. In this scenario, Aitzaz Ahsan’s views on the issue along with others like Justice (R) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim, Justice (R) Saeed uzz Zaman Siddiqi and Justice (R) Wajihuddin are likely to be close to the aspirations of the lawyers, if more defections are not made that is.

One hopes that the political parties are able to position themselves over the matter in a manner that does not do disservice to the hardships of the legal fraternity. True, the parliament must in effect resolve the matter and sovereignty of parliament demands that the mandate of the people is respected and the decisions reached are not threatened with actions detrimental to the democratic future of this country but any short-term solution which does not cater to the legitimate grievances of the relevant stake holders threatens to undermine the future politics of the mainstream political parties and would question their desire to move towards an independent judiciary, without which the parliament’s sanctity and sovereignty may be challenged in future as well as in retrospect. Democracy’s long-term sustainability may be inhibited in this case.

PPP, Murree Accord and the Judiciary

The nomination of the Prime Minister from Pakistan Peoples Party, the party having the most seats in the National Assembly, is the first significant sign that all is not well within the party. The interference of PML(N) in an internal issue of the party, through the remarks of one of its senior leaders, Khawaja Asif, reflects the propensity of PPP co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari to isolate Makhdoom Amin Fahim into submitting to his decision-making powers and absoluteness over party affairs in the same way that late Benazir Bhutto enjoyed during her tenure as ‘life chairperson’ of PPP.

Benazir Bhutto was considered to be a uniting factor of the PPP after its founding chairman, Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto lost his life at the hands of Zia ul Haq, who himself acknowledged Bhutto as his benefactor. Benazir Bhutto had the rare privilege of becoming the Prime Minister of Pakistan in her mid-thirties and then once more was granted an opportunity of leading at the highest level. Having a charismatic personality and a sound reasoning ability, she was able to unite the party around her in a manner that could perhaps only be bettered by Sonia Gandhi in modern times.

Prior to her demise, critics had termed her marriage to Asif Ali Zardari, a liability to her personality and career. Being dismissed twice on corruption charges, which were often pointed towards her husband whom she had according to a report started to loathe of late, she sought to distance herself from him when she re-entered the political arena this time, destined to become Prime Minister again, but for a fatal bullet of an assassin. Things started to change dramatically after that.

Asif Ali Zardari appeared to be the only person who would have been able to lead the party in such tragic circumstances. Having the experience of staying in the shadows of her wife’s prime ministerial days as well as behind bars on corruption charges where he must have reflected on his fortunes and whether they were worth all that PPP lost, he had perhaps matured into a somewhat sophisticated person. However, realizing that his decision-making capabilities and authority over the party may not go unchallenged as it used to be the case with her, Benazir Bhutto had wisely appointed Asif Ali Zardari as only an interim chairperson, until the party leaders had decided on the issue unanimously. However as it happened, Asif Ali Zardari looks set to hold onto the position for an extended interim period which may only end when he deems his son, Bilawal Zardari set to take the reins of the party, much like a succession process in a simple monarchy then a democratic selection of a party leader.

The present dilemma for the party seems to be how to reconciliate the expectation of a party stalwart, Makhdoom Amin Fahim to be nominated as the Prime Minister and Asif Ali Zardari, who seems to be setting himself up for the post and wants to nominate a not-so-prominent Prime Minister for an intermediate period after which he would himself become the ‘real’ Prime Minister. On the other hand Aitzaz Ahsan finds himself isolated as well on the reinstatement of the judiciary issue and he is unable to abide both to party discipline on the issue and his compulsion to lead the lawyers’ movement as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association as well as the lead lawyer of Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, deposed Chief Justice of Pakistan.

Aitzaz Ahsan has a moral compulsion to remain on the lawyers’ side as well. Ever since he decided to defend the deposed Chief Justice and subsequently argued against Musharraf’s candidacy for the presidential office, he had burnt his boats to switch sides or to dampen his quest to make Pakistan Musharraf-free and put it on the path of democracy. It is thought that he was wrong to believe that General Musharraf would not impose martial law, as he did later on. Aitzaz Ahsan had, during the course of arguments of Musharraf’s presidency case, dispelled rumors that an emergency or martial law would be imposed in Pakistan or the judges would be sent to jail, as it was being thought at the time. Therefore he owes it to the lawyers’ community to help reverse all that and to date he seems to be performing his task well, devising new strategies and innovations such as the black flag week that he recently helped organize.

It is perhaps the result of his attempts to refuel the lawyers’ movement that his party, PPP has succumbed to the demands of the lawyers and PML(N) and its acceptance to restore the judiciary through a resolution is a sign of that. Although a resolution does not have the legal force as is being claimed by the presidential camp as well as some in the PPP itself, it would be damning for the PML(N) and PPP coalition government to abstain from passing any order in their capacity as executive, to bring into effect the intention of the resolution. The PPP certainly hopes that the agreement with the PML(N) is limited to the passing of the resolution. Certainly, the passing of the NRO and the dismissal of cases against Asif Ali Zardari demands a certain degree of reciprocity from him and his party and that is what PPP would do, contrary to an expectation that it would move beyond that. Notwithstanding these issues, the Murree Accord is certainly the first of its kind after the Charter of Democracy which expresses the resolve of PML(N) and PPP, two large parties of Pakistan to move towards democracy and away from dictatorship.

The most that can be expected is that the PPP would only agree to the reinstatement of the judges, and that too possibly a certain number of them and the PCOed judges would be retained with them. Whether PML(N) would be willing to go ahead with the PPP in lead with such an ambiguous solution or a solution somewhat close to that, would depend on what course the Aitzaz Ahsan led lawyers take on the issue. Ever since the Pakistan Bar Council announced its decision to relax the High Court boycott of lawyers and some of its members agreed to become part of the PCO judiciary, Pakistan Bar Council has ceased to be a representative body which can claim sanctity in its decisions. In this scenario, Aitzaz Ahsan’s views on the issue along with others like Justice (R) Fakhruddin G Ibrahim, Justice (R) Saeed uzz Zaman Siddiqi and Justice (R) Wajihuddin are likely to be close to the aspirations of the lawyers, if more defections are not made that is.

One hopes that the political parties are able to position themselves over the matter in a manner that does not do disservice to the hardships of the legal fraternity. True, the parliament must in effect resolve the matter and sovereignty of parliament demands that the mandate of the people is respected and the decisions reached are not threatened with actions detrimental to the democratic future of this country but any short-term solution which does not cater to the legitimate grievances of the relevant stake holders threatens to undermine the future politics of the mainstream political parties and would question their desire to move towards an independent judiciary, without which the parliament’s sanctity and sovereignty may be challenged in future as well as in retrospect. Democracy’s long-term sustainability may be inhibited in this case.

Testing times

About two weeks past the elections, millions of those who exercised their vote in February expect a lot from the mandate they have bestowed upon their representatives. The challenges facing this country are many, least of which is the breakdown in a sense of security of citizens, no matter where they are in this country. The armed personnel--who are symbols of providing security as servants of the state--are prime targets themselves. It is advisable that one stays clear from their person and the vehicles they drive for one�s own benefit or on the other hand if one were to strictly apply the mortality argument and believes that life would surely end one day, just stay aloof of such matters and resign to one's fate.

There isn't much good news in other domains of life and activity of the state and its subjects. The country is on the verge of a power deficit which now adds to the list of deficits we face today. The huge budgetary deficit is another hot item threatening the economic viability of this country. It is surprising that even though the country has allegedly benefited due to the rescheduled debts which results in a saving of about a billion dollars each year, the economy of the country is apparently in disarray and the deficit continues to increase, seemingly at a rate which is not healthy. Faced with a high inflationary rate which is seemingly out of control, the common man strives to survive himself as well as support his family members.

And if it were not enough, the power crisis is still on. Of late, the �city of lights�-- Karachi, the most productive city of this country--has been thrown deep into a well of darkness. Pakistan never truly looked to become an industrial nation soon, thanks to the negative conditions that exist today. But this famine of electricity in the country which has hurt the existing industry most severely, seeks to discourage the present industrial managers from either expanding their industrial activity or plunge them into a crises which may eventually lead to closures of their existing plants indefinitely or altogether outright for good.

Needless to say, the soaring price and shortage of wheat and gas are other items which would require attention of the managers of this country.

The misdeeds of individuals of the previous regime has also contributed to a large deal to the misfortunes that we face today. This is not to say that Pakistan was corruption free before the Musharraf era and good governance was a prevailing phenomenon. Only a threat to public officials that they are at all times subject to rule of law, regardless of who they are, can they be desisted from engaging in large-scale corrupt activities which are manifested today in sophisticated corporate activities and white-collar crimes. An independent judiciary can be the only effective check on this system.

Although the Parliament exists as a debating platform for administrative activities and scrutiny of such actions, it has been seen in the past that governments have successfully bypassed the platform by subverting the effectiveness of parliament through the use of the speaker�s office and carpeting of issues. Additionally, the attendance of ministers in the sessions of Parliament needs to be ensured for an effective policy monitoring and critical analysis of governmental actions. The judiciary issue is in effect also another of our problem, which although being mentioned finally as the greatest problems that faces us all as well as the new government-in-waiting, is the greatest of all problems which must be resolved and the reinstatement issue must be discussed as being proposed by the leading parties, PML(N) and now more actively, by the PPP.

An independent judiciary goes far beyond issues such as those which are deemed to be merely �constitutional� by those who seek to dodge the crises rather than address it seriously and move on towards resolving it. Such elements consistently point to �economic issues� as well as �security issues� as paramount thereby implying that the judicial issue can be avoided and be dealt with maybe at a later stage and perhaps pushed under the carpet for the moment. Political parties must desist from such tactics which would have drastic consequences. It has been seen that the judiciary has exposed the government in the recent past when it has tried to usurp its powers in the name of �privatizations� and resource generation which was in fact a ploy to loot national assets. Without accountability and transparency, which is ensured with the help of an independent judiciary, any move to lift the country out of other crises threatens to be short-lived with limited effects.

Perhaps the accountability factor of an independent judiciary is an impediment towards the goals of governments which have in the past used the state machinery to promote the interests of its members. It has been seen how the NRO has successfully absolved Mr. Zardari of all the cases in which allegedly billions were looted by him. On top of this a lot has also been spent on the pursuit of such cases by governments, paid at public expense of course.

One cannot ignore but stress the importance of a free press which is another effective pillar of the state and a check on the government of the day. Along with the judiciary, the press faces a common enemy which is the government of the day. Having great tendencies to adopt secrecy in lieu of transparency and accountability, governments have never been comfortable with a free press which exposes administrative actions in public and subject elected representatives to electoral accountability in an increasingly vibrant society which thanks to the press is more enlightened, which allows them to enjoy the fruits of democracy and making governments as they should be-by them, of them and for them, as once famously said.

It is encouraging that coalitions between traditional enemies are in the offing thanks to a matured form of politics which is apparent at the moment. Although the difference over the reinstatement issue seems to be the biggest hurdle between PML(N) and PPP, an eagerness to work together for the sake of democracy is an encouraging sign for the future of democracy and parliamentary sovereignty. However, a common ground must be reached soon enough on the judiciary issue or the coalition will fall apart sooner than it took to get the two in the same camp, hand-in-hand. It is true that differences over the issue between the two parties have some history now and have not just cropped up in the recent past all of a sudden. However, one side, the PML(N) has adopted a consistent stance, refusing to bow down to pressure by the establishment or inducements of ministerial posts by its PPP partner. On the other hand we have the fluctuating position of PPP, which has swayed like a pendulum over its position on the issue. The same is true about accepting General Musharraf as president with PML(N) adopting a harsh stance and PPP, sensitive to the public opinion in the pre-election period, having asked General Musharraf to resign in a not so distant past, now looks set to accept him as president and work with him.

Unless the two sides find common grounds soon, the foundations of the National Assembly would be built upon loose blocks and it would be a matter of time before the building comes crashing down. Faced with an APDM, which would provide fresh impetus to the lawyers� movement along with civil rights activists, time is of an essence to the representatives of the people arriving at a common a solution towards finding the right solution, acceptable to all in the Parliament. APDM has wisely allowed times to the peoples� representatives to reach a consensus on the issue. With nothing to loose, APDM and the lawyers� movement looks set to go on overdrive soon if a solution is not founded for the crises within a reasonable period of time. The problems of the elected representatives are compounded enough to be dealing with such an issue and their attention must be focused on other pressing issues after finding a just solution to this issue first.

Pakistan under attack again

After a short period of peace in the country, terror has struck again. A senior doctor, belonging to the armed forces was killed in a suicide attack adding to the list of incidents of this post ‘war on terror’ phase. Another police officer has died yesterday when a remote controlled device planted on his car blew up killing him on the spot along with others. The terrorists had perhaps planned another murderous event on the same day when it later transpired that participants in the funeral procession of the police officer were also targeted, which included his family members and other police officials amongst others. More than 50 people are being reported killed or injured as a result.

Terrorism in the form as is being seen in this country cannot claim its affiliation with any religion, least of all Islam. The barbaric nature of the attacks which claims the lives of innocent citizens is to be condemned in the strongest terms. Perhaps out of fear of their own lives or their political standing, the political leaders of this country who claim to lead the religious parties have failed to denunciate these attacks in clear terms. This would serve to embolden the ‘carriers’ or handlers of these terrorist activities who are often brainwashed from their childhood into believing what is taught to them in religious seminaries set up by extremists who seem well equipped in terms of personnel and weapons to achieve their objectives.

One cannot help but ask what allowed this war to be declared on all of us by a breed of people who are willing to die for their beliefs and are used as devices by their masterminds. The absoluteness of the decision to participate in the ‘war on terror’ which included allowing our airspace to be used to eliminate targets in our country provided a fuel to the burning desire of militants to seek political control of the northern parts of this country as well as launch fatal attacks against strategic targets. The goal seems to be to disrupt the state functioning as well as demoralize the people of this country as well as state actors and force them into submission sooner or later. However, the American pressure on us prevents us to think of the war in more broad terms, or to reconsider the tactics to achieve a negotiated solution by engaging the local populace in the war zones.

The absence of an option to negotiate in itself limits our sovereignty in a sovereign country which questions our integrity as a nation. The Americans are least concerned about our interests. This is reflected in their ignorance of any collateral damage which occurs either when an American unmanned spy drone hits a target in South Waziristan or when the Pakistan Army battles out militants and in the process several innocent civilians die for reasons their families would never know. Since no American blood is wasted in this war, there is absolutely no pressure on the White House to seek alternatives to a war at all times and achieve the ultimate goal---elimination of extremism and militancy. It is highly likely that relatives, friends and even locals of the area of all innocent people who die every day as a result of ‘inevitable collateral damage’ are likely to be indifferent to militants, if not sympathetic, and to the extreme methods used by them by each passing day. It is impossible to eliminate extremism without the support of the population which is under control of such elements.

But we are prevented from discussing any other option than eliminating our very own in the process as and how dictated by the Americans. American drones operate freely in this country as if it were a part of California. The only difference is that this time there is a barrage of hell fire missiles whenever they fly by. If this is a sovereign Pakistan then sovereignty needs to be defined again.

It should be interesting to see how the Americans would respond if say what is happening in Pakistan was happening in America instead. What if the Americans had to face suicide attacks in their own territory on a regular basis as it is in Pakistan? What if Americans had no idea whether they would return home safe as it is in many parts of this country and bomb attacks were no longer a rarity a normal event? What if even funeral processions for affectees of terrorist activities were not spared? It is predictable that in such a case, both domestic opinion and U.S. interest would have forced the White House and other power brokers to seek alternatives to an outright war which would include cease fires to control the loss of innocent lives. Negotiations are sometimes not only desirable but the inevitable solutions of conflicts and wars which have no end in sight. This seems to be true in Sri Lanka as well although the war is somewhat different in nature there. The Americans learnt the same in Vietnam. Yet their increasing ability to replicate past mistakes proves that they have learnt nothing from history and continue to use the gun as the only option to satisfy their nemesis of being the world superpower which has the right to do as it pleases without even trying and reaching a consenses on issues, even with its so-called allies.

As all respectful nations, we must act in our own interest and not allow ourselves to be used as mere puppets. Politics apart, continued subversion to the American will without thought about national interest may not necessarily lead to extinction, but can certainly divide and disintegrate a society as Iraq has proved. For the Americans, Pakistan is just another test case as Iraq was yesterday and it would not loose much if turmoil were to increase at an alarming rate as it is now. For us however, we have nothing beyond to look forward to if the final result is catastrophic for the nation. The new political leadership must be free to decide what is best and its mandate must be respected. This is where all hopes that we have lie, not only for democracy but also towards finding solutions to the insecurity of the people of this country as well its integrity in the league of sovereign nations.