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.