Daily Times Editorial Feb 1, 2013

US pressure no longer working? In an interesting turn of events, the federal cabinet, chaired by Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf, has taken two decisions that indicate that Washington may no longer be able to call the shots on everything related to Pakistan. One decision is to hand over Gwadar Port to a Chinese company after the contracted Port of Singapore Authority (PSA) failed over many years to operationalise the port. General Musharraf is believed to have handed over the project on the Mekran coast to the Singapore entity after the US exerted pressure to get the Chinese out of an area at a stone’s throw from the Straits of Hormuz, through which the bulk of the Gulf’s oil passes on its way to the international market. PSA claims in its defence that it had been unable to operationalise the port because it was not allocated the land it requested for full development and operationalisation. The land issue in Gwadar is a sensitive one ever since the project first started, the accompanying development of Gwadar city attracting land speculators and investors from all over Pakistan in the hope of windfall profits, the land having been obtained from local owners at dirt-cheap prices. This resentment still simmers, adding to all the other complaints the Baloch people have of being deprived of their land, resources, and rights. The handover to a Chinese company is a case of the project returning full circle to where it began, the concerns of the US notwithstanding. China provided 75 percent of the initial $ 250 million for the project. The Chinese company that has won the contract is expected to invest further to bring the port online. The problem though with the port is that no planning or implementation has gone into providing the inland infrastructure that could really make the port viable and take some of the pressure off Karachi and Bin Qasim ports to the east. However, in the absence of road or rail links from Gwadar port to the rest of the country, goods imported via Gwadar have to travel overland along the Mekran Coastal Highway to Karachi before being shipped north to the rest of the country, a route that defeats the very purpose in terms of cost and time that the Gwadar port was intended to fulfil. Now that the Chinese have moved back in, one hopes the federal and provincial governments and the port authorities will ensure that the Chinese contractor puts in place plans to train and induct local people to boost employment and allow some of the benefits of the project to trickle down to local citizens, thereby earning a lot of goodwill and allaying some of the resentment the project has left lingering in its wake. The other decision the cabinet took is to approve a government-to-government agreement with Tehran to build the Pakistan portion of the Iran-Pakistan (IP) gas pipeline. On this project too the US has been trying to exert pressure on Pakistan to abandon the project, given the state of Washington’s relations with Iran and the concerted efforts by the US and its western allies, not to mention Israel, to prevent Iran from developing what is alleged to be a nuclear weapons programme. The Iranians of course consistently deny this and argue their programme is purely for peaceful purposes and they have no intention of going down the nuclear weapons route, which they reject on the basis of their late leader Ayatollah Khomeini’s instructions as well as their religious conviction that such weapons are anti-humanity and anti-Islam. The Pakistan federal cabinet has set up a high-powered committee to analyse the IP project further. The Islamabad-Tehran deal is worth $ 1.5 billion for laying the 785 kilometres Pakistan segment of the pipeline that will deliver 750 million cubic feet of natural gas per day by January 2015. International finance for the project being hard to come by because of the known hostility of the US and the sanctions threatened against any country or company that engages with Iran, the latter has offered $ 500 million financing repayable in 20 years, with Iran's Tadbir Energy actually building the pipeline through its sub-contractors. Almost half of the remaining $ 1 billion will be arranged through a Chinese loan and about $ 500 million will be raised y Pakistan through a gas infrastructure development cess. While it is a welcome sign that Pakistan has taken these decisions in its own interest and without being deterred by US pressure, this may not be an inappropriate moment to point out that both projects on Balochistan’s soil should remind us once again that the province is going through very troubled times. In the interests of Balochistan’s as well as the country’s development and progress, it is imperative that peace return to the province by talking to the insurgents and conceding their genuine demands, addressing their genuine grievances, some dating back to the very emergence of Pakistan, and embracing our Baloch brothers instead of trying to drive them into 'paradise' at the point of a bayonet.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 30, 2013

NAB Chairman on the SC Chairman NAB Admiral (retd) Fasih Bokhari, in a letter to President Asif Ali Zardari, has pointed the finger of accusation at the Supreme Court (SC) for unnecessarily pressurising NAB investigating officials in high profile cases, especially the Rental Power Projects (RPPs) case. If these concerns are not addressed expeditiously, the Admiral wrote, it will not be possible for him to fulfil his responsibilities and has hinted at resigning. The Admiral has pointed out that the country is poised at a critical juncture in its history when fair and free elections are anticipated. At this juncture, the people, political forces and the military are on the same page and determined not to allow non-state actors to derail the democratic transition. The Admiral has made a distinction between the legitimate role of the SC in monitoring NAB investigations to the limited extent of ensuring fair investigation, but criticised the growing tendency of the court to itself get involved in guiding investigation in a direction desired and perhaps pre-conceived. Contempt notices (of which the Admiral too has received one), verbal orders that differ from written ones, insufficient time to prepare numerous progress reports are all placing extreme pressure on NAB officials, running the risk of NAB personnel losing their independence and being rendered unable to conduct their investigations in a proper manner. Admiral Bokhari referred to the matter of investigation of very senior members of the government, in which orders even to arrest them had been issued on the basis of regional investigators’ reports, which had yet to be put up to and decided upon by the Executive Board of NAB headed by the Chairman, the only authority so empowered. He refers to the National Accountability Ordinance, which mandates that no reference can be filed unless the chairman has been allowed to exercise his mind on the matter before him and decide whether a clear case of criminality had been made out. In a memorable quote to reiterate that he is under a statutory obligation to uphold the law, the Admiral says, “…there can be no sacred cows, nor raging bulls”. Turning his attention to the media, the Chairman states that there is a clear revolt within NAB, abetted by a certain section of the media that has used the death of NAB investigator Kamran Faisal to vilify the Chairman and some senior NAB officials. “This section of the media appears to be acting as an intelligence unit influencing the public, and possibly influencing certain members of the judiciary. Long-standing ‘stay’ on taxes to be paid by this media house appears to be relevant also,” the Admiral writes. This campaign he argues, in which the role of the SC is evident, is placing great pressure on him to please the court, which could be construed as pre-poll rigging (since by implication it is aimed only at the government). He asks the relevant state institutions to look carefully at the possible role of members of the judiciary and a section of the media in undermining state institutions and the confidence of the people in the state itself. The letter in question has reached the media and been fully reported without any explanation how such a sensitive communication between the chairman NAB and his boss, the president, has become public property. This mystery aside, the contents of the letter constitute a damning indictment and devastating critique of the apex court and sections of the media. The sum total of the NAB Chairman’s charges against the SC revolve around overstepping its juridical powers as the supreme appellate court, interfering in and pressurising investigations in what appears to be a pre-determined direction, and consciously or inadvertently producing an impression of bias against the government. These are very serious charges, and invite questions about the conduct of the court. There is no denying that disquiet has been growing about the manner and direction in which the SC appears to be moving. Some legal minds are even of the opinion that the court is veering towards judicial tyranny. Be that as it may, we have been arguing in this space for a long time that the SC must not only do justice (without the heavens necessarily falling), but also be seen to be doing justice. An overbearing posture or intervention in areas beyond the purview of the court has the unintended effect of bringing the court under a cloud of suspicion and controversy, something undesirable for the judiciary. That is precisely why we have been advising the court to exercise the time-honoured principle of judicial restraint, to avoid precisely these kinds of allegations and accusations. We hope His Lordships will take account of this advice, without flinching from doing what is right and just, but ensuring that no damage accrues to their respect and dignity.

Government-Qadri talks After the first meeting between the government negotiating team that persuaded Maulana Tahirul Qadri to call off his sit-in in Islamabad and the redoubtable Allama, there are hardly any surprises in the outcome. Both sides have stuck to their guns on issues of import in their view, while converging on points agreed in the Islamabad Declaration. For example, as far as the objection that all the agreed points in the Islamabad declaration are unconstitutional or illegal, Federal Minister for Information Qamar Zaman Kaira tried to assuage any worries on this score by asserting that legislation would be enacted to provide cover to the agreed points. It remains to be seen if this task can be completed before the Assemblies go home. Now first the agreed points that emerged after this meeting. The government has committed to announcing the elections date within 7-10 days and will meet Qadri again on a date to be announced by January 31. Qadri asserts that the Assemblies will be dissolved before March 16, the cut-off date that marks the end of the tenure of the National Assembly (though the provincial Assemblies have later dates, extending in all by another month). Qadri further said the elections would be held within 90 days after the dissolution, with 30 days sanctioned for the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to scrutinize the eligibility of candidates aspiring to stand in the elections on the touchstone of Articles 62 and 63 of the constitution relating to the character and honesty of all candidates. Consultations on the caretaker prime minister and chief ministers will first be held between the government and Qadri, and only afterwards between the government and the opposition. It may be pointed out that the legitimacy of the first consultations is purely ‘political’ in nature, while the latter are now part of the constitution. Should there be any disagreement in the first consultations, or should the two consultations produce different results, in the fitness of things, things constitutional should prevail over things purely ‘political’. Logically, while Qadri's views on this issue can and should be solicited, as should those of all players whether they are in parliament or not, the final decision according to the constitution rests on the consultations between the government and the opposition. The government and Qadri have disagreed over the latter’s demand to dissolve the ECP on the grounds that the provincial members (excluding the Chief Election Commissioner) were not properly appointed according to the procedure laid down, central to which is the hearings the parliamentary committees in each provincial Assembly are supposed to hold of all the names put forward by the provincial governments. Mr Qadri objects that these members were appointed without being heard and therefore their appointment is illegal. Since the government does not agree, Qadri has threatened to take the issue to the Supreme Court, which these days has acquired a forbidding profile. The two sides also disagreed on Qadri's demand that all funds under the control of the prime minister and chief ministers be frozen to prevent their misuse for electoral advantage by the incumbents in the run up to the elections. The government argues this would bring all development activity in the country to a grinding halt and is in any case violative of the right of incumbent governments to continue exercising their inherent powers and functions until they depart. Qadri, in a populist gesture, demanded these frozen funds be used to give relief to the people. Nice thought, but impractical. The damp squib the Islamabad long march ended as has now been ‘transferred’ to, and been reflected in, the meeting between the two sides in Lahore. What a colossal waste of the time and energies of a beleaguered people and country the entire exercise has turned out to be. Dr Qadri’s megalomaniacal ambitions may have been partially assuaged by his increased political profile emerging out of obscurity stretching over many years, but it has done little else for the polity or the country. Mercifully, at the very least the adroit handling of Qadri has prevented any suggestion of postponing the elections. This may be the only silver lining in a rather dark cloud.

Obama’s democracy, peace promise US President Barack Obama’s second inauguration speech promised oratorical principles that may not so easily be attained. Emphasising his second term foreign policy objectives, the president vowed the US would support democracy in Asia and the Middle East and resolve its differences with the world peacefully. This may serve to remind those who remember the ‘promise’ attached to the first black president in the US’s history when he was first elected four years ago. The hype surrounding Obama’s ascent to the pinnacle of the most powerful country blinded many to the exigencies of power and the interests of the US worldwide. Reaching out to the Muslim world was one of the foremost commitments Obama made, as witnessed in his famous Cairo speech soon after taking office the first time. The inevitable disillusionment that set in could and should be ascribed to the vested interests of the US’s security and foreign policy establishment, including the powerful Israeli lobby, all of which hamstrung Obama’s intent to make departures and strike out in a different direction in the US’s relations with the rest of the world. One manifestation of that failure can be seen vis-à-vis Palestine, owed in no uncertain measure to the right wing Israeli premier Netanyahu with whom Obama’s relations have been, to put it politely, frosty over Israeli settlements expansion that has all but buried the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in the sands of the West Bank. Obama’s first term also witnessed the intervention by the western alliance in Libya, leading to the overthrow and horrific murder of Gaddafi. Currently, the ongoing intervention in Syria through pro-western proxies, amongst whom ironically al Qaeda affiliated groups have a major role, is another example of what Obama means by supporting ‘democracy’ in the region. Both the Libyan and the Syrian regimes have been the foremost opponents of Israel. Is it an accident then that they were the first to feel the brunt of the new messianic call to democracy? And if the US and western allied regimes of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and others are counted, how many tatters does this reduce the democracy mantra to? While ‘peace’ in Palestine, Syria and even Afghanistan, the last despite or even because of the fears surrounding developments after the US troops withdraw by 2014, seems a long way off, the continuing confrontation with regimes such as Iran and North Korea signal new conflicts simmering on the surface. As if all this were not worrying enough, we now have the doctrine of the ‘pivot’ to the Asia-Pacific, a euphemism for potential conflict with China, the rising power in that region. While on the foreign policy front the second term is unlikely to yield much that will be different from the first, Obama’s domestic agenda is likely to dominate the next four years. Obama talked in his speech about equality and unity, while conceding the fraught state of the traditional consensual system of decision making in the US polity because of what he termed “absolutism", a reference no doubt to the intransigent attitudes that inform the Republican Party. Obama’s domestic agenda of seeing through the implementation of healthcare, gun control, climate change, gay rights and illegal immigration promises a bruising confrontation with his opponents in the Republican Party. Some American analysts have repeatedly stressed that the US traditional political system is broken, with no redressal in sight. The fight therefore within the US may turn out really ugly and leave Obama without the means to boast of major accomplishments by the time he leaves office. US presidents tend to be sensitive about leaving a legacy. In Obama’s case, while his first election was a historic turning point for a US with a history of brutal slavery that needed a bloody civil war to eradicate, and his re-election is a further proof of how the US has, and is, changing, legacy-wise, so far at least, the Obama period may be seen with hindsight more as unfulfilled promise than anything to write home about.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 21, 2013

Algerian hostage crisis One of the deadliest hostage crises the world has seen has ended in bloody fashion at a remote gas plant in Algeria. Militants affiliated to Al Qaeda In the Maghreb (AQIM) claimed the attack was in retaliation for the French military intervention against Islamist rebels in neighbouring Mali, although western governments seemed sceptical of the claim on the basis that the attack seemed too well planned to have been put together in such a short time. They do however concede the possibility that it may have been triggered by the Mali intervention. The numbers of dead and missing western hostages is still clouded in uncertainty, but the toll seems to run into the hundreds. The isolated gas plant lies in the Sahara, a vast desert shared by many north African countries with scant population except nomads whose traditional way of life has remained virtually unchanged even after borders were drawn in the sand reflecting the limits of colonial domination by various western powers. Thus for example, the Tuareg tribal nomads of Mali and other north African countries that share the Sahara have more or less been left to their own devices, their areas becoming a hotbed of smuggling and kidnapping for ransom. Into this wild and purely policed desert area has intruded the AQIM, seizing large parts of the country in the desert north. When the UN Security Council finally woke up to the threat posed by the AQIM and adopted a resolution sanctioning military intervention to prevent a takeover of unstable Mali by the militants, France, the ex-colonial power, was the only one to brave the risks of a military intervention that promises uncertain prospects. Logistical support has come from the British, but both they and the US have stopped short of committing troops, as reflected in the statements of their respective defence ministers after a meeting in London. The emerging al Qaeda and its affiliates’ threat to the established states of north Africa from the Atlantic to the Red Sea arguably owes itself to the original intervention by the US and NATO in Afghanistan, where the Bush administration occupied the country to remove al Qaeda from its base and prevent further attacks such as 9/11. The ‘splat’ produced by trying to squash the al Qaeda mosquito in Afghanistan through a major invasion and occupation has led to the unintended spread of the al Qaeda franchise across the Muslim world. Outgoing US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta as usual voiced the intent of the US and its western allies to prevent any attempts by al Qaeda or its affiliates to overthrow governments anywhere in the region, citing interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Yemen and now north Africa (not to mention the unintended consequence of the birth of al Qaeda in Iraq after the US occupation). The emergence of jihadi extremism in threatening form was owed to the use of these militants in Afghanistan against the Soviets and Afghan communists. The chain of cause and effect has by now linked the al Qaeda franchise groups across the arc or crescent that geographically defines the Muslim world. Unfortunately no lessons have been learnt from the outcome of using jihadi extremists in Afghanistan, as witnessed in the Libyan and now Syrian interventions, both of which house al Qaeda affiliates in the western-backed opposition’s ranks. In fact the attack in Algeria used weapons obtained from Gaddafi’s armouries looted by Islamist militants during that struggle as well as possible routes from that country to evade detection before it was too late. Although some western governments whose nationals were killed or are still missing in Algeria have expressed reservations about the Algerian military’s assault on the gas plant, arguably accelerating the hostage casualties, France has fully backed the assault, arguing that there was no room for negotiation, particularly after the captors started killing their hostages. Algeria has a tough attitude to terrorists, having been through a bloody civil war against Islamist militants in the 1990s that killed 200,000 people but led to the final defeat of the Islamists. Relief that the hostage crisis is over is tempered by disquiet about another western intervention in a volatile region besieged by al Qaeda affiliates, which could so easily turn once again into an endless quagmire a la Afghanistan, with eventual failure not something that can be ruled out categorically. The western dilemma is that they will be damned if they do intervene, and damned if they don’t. But at least this should be a rude awakening, albeit belated, that flirting with al Qaeda affiliates in the ongoing Syrian struggle may not be the best option.

Democracy’s march towards maturity As these lines are being written, the government’s negotiating team composed of ministers is holding talks with Maulana Tahirul Qadri regarding his demands, in the hope that some agreement can be hammered out that will allow the Maulana to call off the sit-in in Islamabad and spare the country (and the rally participants) further unnecessary misery. This development followed the deadline of 3:00 pm on Thursday set by the Maulana for a government response, otherwise he said it would be responsible for the consequences. The ‘consequences’ were not spelt out, but concern centred on the possibility of the rally participants attempting to advance on parliament and other sensitive government buildings at the end of Constitution Avenue, which the police and security forces deployed around the rally seemed to be under instructions to prevent at any cost. Earlier, reports in the media speculated about the use of force against the crowd if the Maulana refused to yield to reason, especially since Information Minister Qamar Zaman Kaira had rejected the Maulana’s demands on Wednesday in a press conference by dubbing them unconstitutional. Reportedly, President Asif Ali Zardari overruled the use of force. Instead, the government wisely opted for talks to try and defuse the situation and offer the Maulana a face-saving retreat. The government’s hand had been immeasurably strengthened by the consensus of the opposition parties gathered by PML-N chief Mian Nawaz Sharif in Lahore on Wednesday, a moot that delivered a very clear message. The consensus spoke of resisting the anti-democratic forces attempting to derail the system on the cusp of a democratic transition. The opposition also gave voice to what many sensible people have been advocating since the ‘crisis’ overtook the country. They urged the government not to waste even a moment in announcing the dates (and composition?) of the caretaker setup and the elections after consultations with all the political parties. Both the president and the prime minister welcomed the opposition’s considered and wise stance. The president charged the prime minister with contacting all the political parties for the purpose. Meanwhile on Thursday, while the negotiations with Qadri were still continuing, the president summoned a session of the National Assembly for January 21, which sparked off speculations that an announcement regarding the caretaker setup and elections may be made during the session. Interestingly, Imran Khan’s PTI refrained from accepting Qadri’s invitation to join the sit-in, reiterating its commitment to follow the path of elections and upholding the democratic order. Perhaps the steady but seemingly irreversible dribbling away of support for the Maulana’s demands may have finally persuaded him to seek a dialogue and even abandon his earlier insistence that he would only negotiate with the president. So what was being discussed in Qadri’s ‘bunker’? His four demands, which he reiterated on Wednesday, comprised dissolution and re-creation of a new election commission, election reforms before holding elections based on the provisions of Articles 62, 63, 218 (regarding candidates’ honesty, etc), allowing the election commission one month to vet candidates’ eligibility on this touchstone, dissolution of the National and provincial Assemblies, and last but not least, the caretaker setup to be decided not just on the basis of the two main parties’ consensus. The Maulana’s desire for an election commission of his choice when the current one enjoys credibility and acceptance by the political parties does not make sense. The honesty criterion can only be implemented on the basis of whether any candidate has been proved guilty of misdemeanour by the courts. Dissolution of the Assemblies will automatically follow the announcement of the date of the elections; the Maulana should therefore acquire some sensible patience. The caretaker setup that so agitates the Maulana will be created by the consensus of all the parties, not just the two main ones, so this demand too is more hot air than substance. Hopefully, the government’s negotiators should be able to bring the frothing Maulana down to earth with logic and reason, and persuade him to call it a day as far as the sit-in is concerned. If and when the standoff is resolved, the government and opposition should not sit on their hands but urgently address the programme for the elections so as to cut out any further attempts to derail the democratic process. The whole episode though, is an indication of the slow but steady march of democracy towards maturity, a long overdue goal for our troubled country.

Daily Times Editorial Jan 17, 2013

Crisis and response The political crisis triggered by Maulana Tahirul Qadri’s long march, continuing rally in Islamabad and set of demands, and the suspiciously coincidental order of the Supreme Court ordering the arrest of Prime Minister Raja Pervez Ashraf and others in the RPPs case has revealed the divide in the polity and society. On the one hand stand Qadri and his supporters within the political parties, chief amongst them MQM and PTI. On the other side can be counted almost all the parties represented in parliament, government and opposition, civil society, the lawyers community, and concerned citizens. The former camp has come out through Qadri’s rantings and Imran Khan’s so-called charter of seven demands with ideas that stripped of their verbiage, amount in essence to a return to the affliction of anti-democratic forces putting the cart before the horse, or more accurately, red herrings to sabotage the historic elections due soon. The other camp is agreed on the historic nature of this conjuncture, when Pakistan is poised for the first time in its history to witness a consensual convergence of almost all shades of political opinion on the way forward: fair and free transparent elections through a consensus-based Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) under a consensual caretaker setup whose neutrality will be beyond doubt because it will enjoy the confidence of both government and opposition. It is strange then that the anti-democratic camp is still railing on about rejecting just these consensual rules of the game framed after a great deal of thought and discussion in parliament, and enshrined in the 18th Amendment. The qualified criticisms being levelled at the CEC of being too old to ‘resist’ the machinations of the parties in government and the opposition make no sense when these governments will cease to be in power once the Assemblies are dissolved and the caretaker setup takes over. If the caretaker setup to come is being criticised as some kind of underhand deal (muk-muka) amongst the parties in parliament, surely this is an illogical stance given that inherently the government and opposition are rivals in the elections and have framed these rules of the game to avoid the usual accusations of election rigging that have bedevilled every such exercise in the past. On the touchstone of the constitution, best democratic practice and intent, therefore, the critics are making no sense. The people of Pakistan may or may not be happy with the performance of the incumbent governments during the last five years, but only uninformed and foolhardy elements without an iota of understanding of our past want to throw the baby of democracy out with the bathwater of these governments. The ‘crisis’ engendered by these sinister simultaneous moves aside, the demands of Qadri have exposed his hand. He wants, as in the past, the military and judiciary to settle the fate of the country. Powerful as these institutions are, this is neither their remit nor in accordance with any constitutional or democratic principle. The days of imposed governments manipulated into power by hook or by crook by the establishment may or may not be over (the jury is still out), but the situation and the conspiratorial moves to deny the people the right to bring in another elected government for the first time in the country’s history through fair elections cannot and should not be denied them, especially when the moment is tantalisingly close (this very closeness may well explain the frantic efforts to sabotage the electoral exercise). It is the interests of all political parties, arguably even those supporting Qadri for whatever misconceived reasons, that the electoral exercise is allowed to proceed on time and without putting obstacles in its path. Authoritarian, military, imposed governments are littered through Pakistan’s passage through time, but each one has left a bigger mess in its wake than when it started. The lesson is inescapable: our discontents with democracy and its failings notwithstanding, there is no way forward in the foreseeable firmament other than letting the democratic political process play itself out in what promises to be an increasingly credible manner since it enjoys across the board consensus, and using the space and freedoms only democracy allows to tackle the very serious problems confronting the country and our society.