For world economy & Americans What should Pakistan be prepared for? (22-01-2009)

Imperfect it may be, but democracy is beautiful. That’s what Barack H. Obama’s swearing in as the President of the world’s most power and richest democracy proved. It is beautiful because as the system evolves it raises people above race, religion, sex and other discriminations. It is beautiful because it inculcates tolerance for the difference of opinion. It is beautiful because it ensures freedom of expression — the freedom that is directly linked with development. It is beautiful because it allows people to change the course of their country through vote and not through ‘barrel of the gun.’ It is beautiful because it is organic and not static and dogmatic. It has the capacity to adjust with the changing values harmoniously avoiding violent clash between the old and new.

Who could have thought some 46 years ago that Martin Luther King Jr’s dream would come true one day? When he said that he had a dream that one day all people will have equal rights, there were still some states in America where the blacks had no voting rights. There were still many hotels, restaurants, schools and universities where the black Americans could not enter. But today when this dream has come true, a black American is the President of the United States of America. Not only is he a black American, but a first generation migrant. The Americans have shown convincingly that they have the democratic spirit to rise above racial discrimination.

It’s not only in United States that people have expressed their democratic spirit. Closer to home our next door neighbour has proved time and again that they are essentially democrats. Many in Pakistan may hate to accept it, but the fact is that India the world’s largest democracy can take pride in rising above religious and caste discriminations. People have voted without discrimination for Muslim presidents, a Sikh Prime Minister, a Dalit architect of India’s constitution and a chief minister of the biggest state of India. No doubt there are always narrow-minded people in every society, but as the democratic process is developing in the world we see that such petty intolerant people are being out-numbered.

Isn’t it something to rejoice about? Isn’t it a moment to once again to broadcast that where Barack Obama and Manmohan Singh are today is thanks to the peaceful democratic struggle of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. Even Pakistan is the creation of a peaceful struggle.

Many pertinent questions are however relevant here: Fine Obama’s election as President shows that majority of Americans have beaten racial prejudices, but would he be able to bring peace to Afghanistan? Would he be good or bad for Pakistan? Would he able to bring peace to Middle East? Would he able to lead the world out of the century’s worst economic crisis? And so on…

For a Pakistani the first two questions are most important. Obama has talked about ‘hard-earned peace in Afghanistan in his inaugural speech. Well here he has his tense wrong. There is no hard-earned peace in Afghanistan yet. Yes it has to be earned and sure enough it would be hard and is not near. Can peace be brought by Obama by shipping more troops to Afghanistan, as he plans to do? The answer is it may put more pressure on Taliban, but if that pressure is not converted into forcing and convincing them to come to the negotiated peace table, more troops would do no good. At the same time if more economic assistance is not poured in to Afghanistan, if the governance does not improve there and above all if the roaring heroine trade is not closed, peace would remain elusive in Afghanistan for Barack Obama.

The question whether he would be good or bad for Pakistan is directly linked to his Afghanistan policy. He has already spelt it out for Pakistan that economic aid would be linked to the security we can provide at the North Western borders. Meaning we have to either shove the Afghan Taliban to the negotiating table, whereby they agree to join the democratic process in Afghanistan, or fight them out. So if we will fail to deliver, he will be bad for the Islamabad establishment. If we are seen as a sincere partner in containing Afghan Taliban and the umpteen Jihadi organisations, he would be good for Pakistan. Thus much depends on our behaviour and using our influence on Afghan Taliban to bring peace to the region.

In the Middle East the announcement to pull out from Iraq in 16 months is a good omen. But the real test for him would be to push Israel to agree to the ‘land for peace demand’ of the Palestinians and Arab nations of the region. He has talked about even-handed approach, but the chances are that American administration would remain tilted in favour of Israel. His new Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Chief of Staff are known for their pro-Israel views.

On the issue of leading the world out of the present economic crisis, his initial remarks about managing the domestic economic melt-down show that the direction is right. He is talking about doing more for the poor and middle classes of America, about closer regulation of financial and corporate America, about tax cuts for the middle classes and not the rich, about injecting a trillion dollar booster to the ailing economy and about helping the poor countries of the world. All this is good music on the paper, but the real test will be when this composition is played.

To sum it up Obama is both unlucky and lucky. Unlucky to have inherited America that is disliked by majority of the world population and that is going through the economic depression worst than it saw in 1929. And lucky as against a dark Bush era backdrop, even a firefly would look beautiful and a ray of hope.

(ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

Save the sapling of democracy in the winter of discontent! (16-01-2009)

No sooner a democratic government is sworn in Islamabad, we hear that it is about to go. We hear about the cracks in the government. We hear the corruption stories. We hear that the government is inefficient. We hear that the constitution is being violated. As usual should we blame the agencies and army? Should we blame the scheming opposition? Should we, like always, blame an international conspiracy to destabilise the government? Pause. This time it seems the onus of instability reports is more on the ruling coalition. And of course on some impatient critics who are not familiar with the painful process through which democratic institutions grow in any society.

While the reports about the fall of the government seem to be too pre-mature, the signs of power struggle between the President and the Prime Minister are now out in public. The actions are speaking louder than the denial by both sides. The Prime Minister has unceremoniously dismissed National Security Adviser Maj. General (Retd.) Durrani. His fault was speaking the truth, but without taking his “official” boss in confidence. He says that he had discussed it with President Zardari. Everybody believes that the President is the de-facto chief executive of the country, and de jure chief executive is not the real boss. This perception is strongly embedded in Islamabad’s official and media circles; hence Durrani’s faux pa that cost him his job is understandable.

Now this is where the trouble lies in Pakistan. President Zardari alone cannot be blamed for transgressing his powers and over-shadowing the chief executive of the country indiscreetly. Living in a quasi-feudal society we have inherited this mind set. Right from the very beginning Pakistani politicians have been confused on whether they want a presidential or a parliamentary system. Quaid-e-Azam Mohammed Ali Jinnah opted to be the Governor General and not the prime minister, although inspired by the 1935 Government of India Act Pakistan’s constitutional framework was parliamentarian. On the other side Jawaharlal Nehru opted to be the prime minister. There after only three head of states remained within the constitutional parameters – Khawaja Nazimuddin (Governor General), Ch. Fazal Elahi (President during Bhutto era and Justice Rafiq Tarrar in Nawaz Sharif’s second term). They were thorough gentlemen who respected the constitution.

Even today most of the people who talk about clipping the presidential powers joke about the three honourable Heads of State who did not trespass in to PMs domain. We have seen how in the past the opposition, the army and some journalists pushed the successive presidents to cross the line drawn for them.

There has been little realization among the past presidents that even the most unassuming Prime Minister like Junejo tried to exercise his constitutional powers. For attempting to claim his constitutional space he was sacked by the all powerful President Zia. So the moment a prime minister starts taking himself seriously and is nudged by his supporters to assert, he is bound to have problems with the over ambitious president and the establishment which backs him.

Such has been the fate of this country. Now who wins, remains to be seen? President Zardari’s position is different. It is yet not clear which side the real powers that be will tilt. It seems this time it might be the prime minister if the American influence is disregarded.

But the fact is President Zardari has retained his position as co-chairman, which might enable him to use inner-party clout to remove Prime Minister Gilani if the need be. (Although as Head of State he should have stepped down from the party leadership in good grace). So he doesn’t need to invoke the infamous 58(2) B and pack-up the National Assembly along with the Prime Minister if things come to a real impasse. In any case dissolution of National Assembly doesn’t suit him, because mid-term elections are likely to reduce PPP seats drastically in Punjab.

Some of President Asif Zardari’s critics in PPP and media think that the President should be more subtle and discrete in dealing with the Prime Minister. They are right. He should keep the sanctity of the division of power between the President and the Prime Minister according to the spirit of the constitution given by his party founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. Prime Minister Gilani was Mr. Zardari’s choice, they are not from the same party but are jail buddies.

In the interest of strengthening the democratic institutions in the country and his personal interest, best approach for the president would be to remain in the background, avoid daily media coverage and avoid giving direct executive orders like how to fix the load-shedding or economic problems. If he wants to take the credit of responding to the people’s immediate problems he should not forget that the blame for failures (which are more likely) will also fall on him. He should advise his jail buddy privately and not in public or in full media lime light. He should keep his cards close to his chest. For instance he spoke too soon on moving fast on normalisation of relations with India. And then had his own Kargil in Mumbai. Mr. President a low-key profile is good for you if you want to redeem your image and don’t want to fall into the old trap.

PPP leadership should recognise that the parliamentary system was consciously adopted by the founding fathers of the country because it is suitable for the multi-ethnic societies. Heterogeneous India has successfully maintained a parliamentary democracy since independence. We have never heard the President of India over-stepping the constitutional powers. No Indian prime minister is heard cribbing about the interference of the President in his day-to-day working.

Presidential systems, which are majoritarian in nature, are not suitable for a multi-ethnic federal governmental structure. Already Pakistan has many pending volatile power sharing issues when it comes to the relations between the center and the provinces. The country is faced with multiple internal and external threats; it’s not the time for the ruling leadership to squabble for power and blessed protocol importance!

(ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

Gaza Conflict (9-01-2009)

Seething anger over the killing of Palestinian children and women by the brutal Israeli forces has entered the living rooms of all Pakistanis. For the time being FATA, Bajaur and Swat have taken secondary position.

People are disgusted with the Islamic countries for not doing enough to stop the massacre. People are dismayed at the world leaders’ slow reaction against Israel’s killing spree. People are angry with the US administration for not keeping its spoilt brat leashed. People are upset that the international press is biased and is not projecting Palestinians plight adequately. People are mostly contemptuous against the Jews and cannot draw the line between Zionists and Jewish.

Then there are some intellectuals who blame Israeli government and the Hamas leadership in the same breath for the miseries of the Gaza people.

Let’s look at all these aspects dispassionately. While we are angry on the Israeli forces massacre of the Palestinians, the Western press, some western and Gulf governments feel that Hamas has provoked this fresh attack. Their plea is that Hamas had broken the peace accord by firing over 300 rockets on Israel. But the fact is that Hamas was frustrated by the continuous economic blockade of Gaza by Israel. Even the UN trucks with humanitarian aid were not allowed by Israel into Gaza for many days. It is also a fact that Hamas was not accepted as the legitimate government after they secured a majority in the Legislative Council elections in 2006.

This was the major mistake of Israel and its masters. Any student of political history knows that in most of the cases an extremist leadership acts responsibly once they are in power. The coalition government they formed with Al Fatah collapsed because of the “aggressive American neoconservatives participated in the sinister plot to instigate a Palestinian civil war. Their meddling was a major factor in the collapse of the national unity government and in driving Hamas to seize power in Gaza in June 2007 to pre-empt a Fatah coup,” blames Avi Shlaim, a professors at Oxford University in a scathing article against Israel in Guardian. (Note: Avi Shlaim is a Jew but that does not distort his views).

The chronological trail of Gaza conflict should be kept in mind while analysing this issue. The Gaza issue is directly linked with the universally accepted demand that Israel should withdraw from the areas occupied by it in 1967.

Israel captured the Egyptian-controlled Gaza Strip during the six-day Middle East war. An Israeli census had put the Gaza population at 380,000, at least half of whom were refugees from Israel. Today the population stands at about 1.5 million. According to U.N. over 1 million are refugees and their descendants.

In 1987 a clash in the Jebaliya refugee camp started a Palestinian uprising, which lasted until 1993 and claimed the lives of more than 2,000 Palestinians and 192 Israelis. The militant Islamic Hamas was formed early in the uprising.

In September 2005 Israel agreed to a truce and withdrew its troops and its 8,500 Jewish settlers, but retained control of Gaza’s airspace, coastal waters and border crossings. But this was just a cover-up because Israel’s Sharon established a settlement of 12000 hardliner Jews (who are aptly labeled by Christina Amanpour as ‘Gods warriors’) in the West Bank.

In June 2007 Hamas violently seized control of Gaza after routing forces loyal to the rival Fatah faction of President Mahmoud Abbas, which was the major mistake and only helped the Israeli hawks. In June 2008 Hamas and Israel reached a truce to halt the cross-border rocket attacks and end Israeli offensives in Gaza.

But this truce did not last long as Israel tightened the economic blockade of Gaza. Now this is where the situation gets murky. Israel says it has tightened the economic siege because Hamas resumed rocket and mortar fire into Israel and was smuggling arms from Egypt. The Israeli army says clashes erupted late on 4^th November after its forces uncovered a tunnel in central Gaza that militants planned to use to abduct Israeli soldiers.

On December 19, 2008 Hamas formally declared that the truce was over and started firing rockets on Israel. This move was a miscalculation and without taking into account that it would bring death and misery to the Gaza inhabitants. In response Israel launched a fierce air offensive, killing more than 200 Palestinians in the first day. By the time UN woke up, the casualty figure had risen to 700. And the ceasefire demanded by UN is still not in sight as Israel and its masters are defying the world with impunity.

The slow reaction of the US and its allies on this seems to be deliberate, as they think that this might weaken the Hamas popularity. Hamas leaders appear callous when they talk about not stopping the rocket fire, as the Israeli response is disproportionate. Idealist position is that this is against the international norms of war. But Israel has never cared about the international law or any ethics because of unequivocal support of the US. By the way Israel and the US are only the two countries that have not signed the convention which is against disproportionate killings in war. That is the reason that the US administration does not even blink over the killings of civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As far as the issue of Islamic countries is concerned the Muslims of the world expect too much from them. They are not expected to do much more than any other nation, which reacts in proportion to the public reaction. They are all nation states, where majority of the population is Muslim, and that is all. They have their own interests. Both Israel and its guardian US have never challenged the autocratic rulers of these states, so why would they upset the apple cart. So the support for the wretched Palestinians is not going to go beyond rhetoric.

The supporters should keep in mind that it’s a pure and simple secular struggle for the Palestinian rights and not a conflict between Islam and Judaism. There are a number of Jews in the world who condemn the Israeli atrocities like we do. There are more processions against Israel’s aggressive policies in the west where people from all religions participate.

Similarly, while blaming the media we should keep in mind that most of the heart-rending footage of Gaza which is being brought to us is by the media. All have condemned Israel for its disproportionate response. And this has forced the leaders of all the western powers to criticise the Israeli government. Different media groups have different policies. Even some of the Middle Eastern newspapers have been criticising Hamas for its hardline policies. So let’s not be carried away in the heat of things.

Palestine issue has been agitating our mind for the last six decades. A workable solution has to be found. Realistically speaking it has to be based on the acceptance of the fact that the two nations would have to learn co-existence. A Palestinian refugee in Nobel Laureate Le Clezio’s novel ‘Wandering Star’ wonders “Does the sun not shine for us all?”

This accord has to come from a negotiated peace accord between the two states – Israel and Palestine. But some Middle Eastern experts believe that non-state actors like Hamas and Hezbollah have so far spoilt such moves. Instead they should strengthen the hands of the Palestine state, which is at present represented by Palestine Authority. They are at present being used by some other nations, which hold extremist views.

Easier said than done. But this would only be possible if the US and European countries pressurize Israel’s leadership to abide by the previous truce terms and withdraw to the post 1967 position. And the leadership on both sides of the divide is truly secular. This is important because the extremist Jews believe that God has given them this land and till they don’t have total control over it the Messiah would not come. This is also supported by some US evangelists. Rabin tried to overrule this element and he was shot.

The problem with the states created in the name of religion is that they are held hostage by the Rabbis and Mullahs. The genesis of these states gives these extremists enough political space. Such religious extremists take their inspiration and guidance from their respective theology and not from today’s value system that provides for equal rights to all without any discrimination.

(ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com)

Can 2009 be any better than 2008? (29-12-2008)

When the sun is setting on 2008, I am groping for some light through the dark clouds that hang over 2009. The trouble is each glimmer of hope, is defused by the harsh realities. I have asked a number of friends to give some redeeming points, which can help the wretched Pakistanis live through the gathering storm. It’s hard to find the redeeming points. And equally harder to dismiss the reality dampeners.

Redeeming point: When the developed world economic growth is expected to be minus 3%, most conservative estimate for Pakistan is plus 2.5%. The government is envisaging over 4% growth. Added with the parallel economic sector growth, we may arrive at a respectable figure.

Dampener: Almost all the major industrial sectors are reporting a drop in production, particularly led by the textile sector. The reliance for growth is on the agriculture and service sector. Now if the major cash crops fail because of water shortage, pest attacks and bad weather, the growth hopes would be dashed.

Redeeming point: So far the democratic system has faired well by developing consensus on the national security issues. It is for the first time all the parties discussed the national security issues in the parliament, they were briefed by the armed forces on the challenges and they decided to give a clear message to the militants that Pakistan’s territory cannot be used for interference in other countries.

Dampener: In spite of the politician’s resolve there is immense international pressure on the Pakistan government to implement the resolution. We are being blamed for harbouring militant organisations which planned and manned the terrorists who attacked Mumbai. Whether the allegation is true or not, the fact remains that we do have such organisations which are capable of such attacks.

Redeeming point: President of Pakistan in his speech at Ms. Bhutto’s death anniversary rightly admitted referring to terrorist organisations that Pakistan is aware of this “cancer.”

This shows that at least the civilian government is conscious that such organisations are liabilities and not assets, as perceived by the establishment. The President suggested that this cancer needs regional cooperation.

Dampener: There are doubts that the establishment and the civilian government fully agree on this issue. This would mean we will keep beating around the bush, and militants would continue to operate with impunity. As a consequence we would land ourselves in international nutcracker. Though belligerent Bush government would give way to change-oriented Obama government, there would be pressure on Pakistan to deliver Afghan Taliban either at the negotiating table or back the surge against them in 2009. Remember Obama has declared that Afghan war is just, while Iraq was the wrong war.

Redeeming point: Government’s Chief Justice is due to retire in March 2009. This is yet another opportunity for the government to redeem itself and appoint CJP Iftikhar Chaudhry. If the PPP government would rise to the situation, they will help their party in regaining the lost respect in the civil society.

Dampener: The chances of rising to this occasion are not bright. There are also rumours that the government would not even appoint the senior most judge of the Supreme Court, as CJP, after Justice Dogar’s retirement. This would damage the credibility of the government and the already mauled judiciary.

Redeeming point: The coalition government would manage to get two-third majority in the Senate in 2009 March. This should give them courage to move with some important laws and strike down some of the toxic clauses introduced in the constitution through the 17^th Amendment. It would also be an opportunity to amend the laws which are a bone of contention between the federal and provincial governments.

Dampener: The coalition party some insiders say would like to use it to further strengthen its grip instead of making the much awaited laws. President Zardari it seems has learnt from the most recent history of Pakistan, as he has adopted Musharraf’s ruling style, which means transgressing the constitutional power envisaged by the party founder Zulfikar Ali Bhutto. In Bhutto’s constitution the President’s role was that of Chaudhry Fazal Elahi, not that of over-whelming Musharraf.

Redeeming point: So far PPP has followed the “Reconciliation Policy’ of Ms Bhutto. The government’s tone towards opposition parties is reconciliatory. Though PML (N) is opposing PPP-led coalition government everyday, their unhappy marriage in Punjab can still be saved.

Dampener: Chances are that PPP’s alliance with PML (N) in Punjab is not seeing through 2009. This would not augur well for the democratic process of the country.

Sadly, it seems that 2009 for Pakistan is not going to be much different from 2008 – politically turbulent, economically stressed, externally pressurized and law & order wise bloody. Oh! How I wish my redeeming points list was longer with no dampeners. Last year I hoped my forecast about 2008 is proven wrong. Alas! it didn’t. But then ‘Hope is the only balm for bleeding wounds.’

(ayazbabar@gmail.com Blog: babarayaz.wordpress.com )

.

.