The Politics of policy making

Statements from Human Resources Development (HRD) Minister Arjun Singh reflect his determination to ensure that 27% of seats are reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) students in institutions of higher education. Despite growing agitation against the move, one must list the reasons why such a move was proposed in the first place. Contrary to popular perceptions, vote bank politics remains an outcome of reservation as opposed to the cause and this article seeks to highlight the same.

The reason behind the proposal for the hike in reserved categories, ostensibly, is to bring about the alleviation of OBC’s in India. While the intentions maybe noble, the Government is surely not going about the same in a very methodical fashion. For one, they have not considered the percentage of OBC’s who could benefit from such a move, since a census on their numbers and need has not been tabulated. Two, it seems the Government seems to have ignored the question of whether the implementation of an extra 27% reservation for Other Backward Castes would finally ensure their attaining educational and economic parity. Three, if the Government seeks to offset the hike in reserved categories with an increase in the number of seats in the general category, one must wonder whether, practically speaking, this increase can be met especially considering the acute shortfall of qualified teachers institutes of higher learning are already facing? With these stupefying questions and in the face of growing agitation against the proposal it seems very odd that the UPA government seems intent on pushing the hike in reservation. What specifically are the reasons guiding their ‘hand’ in this matter?

In the 2004 general elections, when the Congress Party returned to power in the face of what seemed to be formidable odds, it also received a vantage point from where to correct the party’s thus far wavering fortunes. And, as is the norm of the times, the Congress could only return to power with a coalition of parties representing the various shades, ideologies and identities of Indian polity. If one were to study the broad spectrum of Indian politics today it becomes very easy to recognize the exact identity construct of the various political parties. With linguistic, religion, caste, regional, ethnic, secular, economic bases various parties have carved a niche for themselves. This sole identity ironically seems to be lacking for the Grand Old Party of India. Thus in an attempt to broad base the Party’s traditional support base various steps were introduced to ensure the same.

Judging the recent acts of the Congress Party it becomes clear that religious minorities and the OBC’s have been identified as potential categories of the electorate that can be won over. This understanding is not restricted to Central acts but extends to the various states under Congress rule as well. Thus to woo the religious minority the Party has introduced several proposals - from proposing a head count of a particular religious minority in the Indian Army to promising sops to illegal migrants in a border state of India etc. Not having a particular party representing the minority at the national level, barring secular outfits, assisted the attempts of the Congress. As far as the backward castes were concerned the situation was a little different. Most of them already had political representation in the form of various state level parties and as a result of coalition politics at the national level as well. In order to counter this, sops were proposed for the OBC’s - in the private sector by reserving jobs and in institutes of higher studies by reserving seats thus bringing the Indian electorate to the unfortunate crossroads it seems to have reached today. Let there be no doubt that reservation in educational institutes will go hand in hand with reservation in the private sector. Hence the two will have to go in tandem so if ever one is promulgated, the other would also see the light of day, eventually.

Thus in a clever, albeit unfortunate, play of politics the Congress party seems to have recognized the identified constituencies need of the hour – that of economic and educational opportunity. Ironically despite being a progressive thought, the step in it self is extremely retrograde. What relevance would it have to reserve seats for the backward castes in institutes of higher learning when their primary and basic education has been in want? This is the most basic of arguments to counter the proposal. Moreover one does wonder if the Congress high command has actually thought out the implications of such a step. Politically speaking the Congress party can never really command the loyalty of the backward castes, even if the sops are introduced, in subsequent election cycles. Political life is short and political memory shorter still. Besides, as has already been pointed out, various state level parties already exist to counter any significant move in electorate allegiance. Moreover such a step might just alienate the middle class voter, a traditional vote base for the Congress. Would the Congress want to alienate its traditional vote base for the option of unreliable possibilities? Therefore even if reservation is guided by political gains, however short term they maybe, at the end of the day the Congress high command would need to consider if greater divisive politics is in its favour in the long run and thereby its political fortunes.

Nonetheless, as things stand as of now, these counter arguments have seemingly not been considered by the Congress. What potentially makes the situation worse is that after having taken a determined stand in favour of the proposed reservations, they cannot appear to be forced into a rethink as a result of the growing agitations. So it is fast also becoming a case of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’ for the Congress party.

Considering the statements of HRD Minister, one does expect the Government of the day to continue with a determined stand in favour of the proposals, at least for some time. What fails to be understood however is why the BJP has not moved to take advantage of the situation? Like the Congress, the BJP too has been trying to move beyond the confines of its current identity and acquire a more broad based identity but has so far been unsuccessful. Supporting the anti reservation stir would provide the BJP a positive standing amongst the urban, educated middle class youth that has been leading the anti reservation drive and has traditionally not been its primary electorate. It might also just be the opportunity the party has been seeking to move beyond its current identity construct.

At the end of the day politics means power and the current stand off on reservation holds testament to the power play that is currently being played out on the unassuming Indian electorate.

Disclaimer

Articles given below represent a collection of my writings that have been previously published in various fora. Henceforth new articles would be uploaded on a regular basis. Watch out for this space.

Look forward to your comments.

Avanti

Pakistan proposes and India disposes

Ever since the ceasefire almost two years ago along the Line of Control between India and Pakistan, speculation has been rife on a) whether this ceasefire would finally result in the brokering of a lasting peace between the two neighbours; b) what would be the nature of a final solution and c) how long would it take for this solution to materialize? Besides this, there has always been the constant worry over India’s threshold for cross border terrorism and whether or not it would succeed in derailing this peace process.

India’s focus since the ceasefire has been to keep Pakistan engaged on two fronts – one, by ensuring continued dialogue on a number of fronts in the form of confidence building measures and two, engaging with Islamabad on Kashmir specific issues. The results for both have been significant. The former has helped bridge the trust discrepancy between the two neighbours and the latter has aided in highlighting the two neighbours ability to work on contentious bilateral issues. The difference between India and Pakistan however has been over the pace with which the two countries approach discussions. For India, the developments should be gradual, a point indicative in its stand for first building trust through CBM’s, whereas for Pakistan an earlier resolution to this issue seems acceptable.

The disclosure that Pakistani Prime Minister had made a proposal for self-governance along the sidelines of the SAARC summit to Indian Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh had only increased speculation about the aforementioned three questions. It is another matter of course that the Indian side dismissed the proposal, albeit on grounds of official modalities. But before one considers the reasons behind New Delhi’s rejection of the proposal, the ‘Musharraf proposal’ as it is being called must be studied.

This is not the first time that President Musharraf has made statements on what would constitute a viable solution for Kashmir. In fact approximately a year back he had made proposals that called for the identification of seven regions from the erstwhile state – two in Pakistan and five in India – which would then be demilitarized and their status changed. This proposal was summarily rejected by India because it would have meant the division of the state of Jammu and Kashmir along communal lines. A year on, the proposal from Pakistan does not seem all that much different. The Musharraf proposal in essence calls for the division of the state into five geographical entities, demilitarizing them and according them maximum self-governance. Thus besides the reduction in the number of regions that needed to be demilitarized, the new addition in this proposal is the concept of self-governance. In fact the roots for this new proposal can be found in the US based Kashmir Study Group’s report of February 2005 on solutions for Kashmir. The report of 2005 is itself a departure from its report released in 2000 wherein it had called for the division of the state into 7 regions – a concept now popularized through President Musharraf’s suggestion.

On the face of things, it appears that the new proposal cannot be dismissed so easily since the projected self-governance probably comes closest to New Delhi’s stated desire of extending ‘maximum self-autonomy’ to the state of Jammu and Kashmir. But there remain numerous reasons for India to reject this proposal from Pakistan.

For one, even if the proposal calls for the establishment of five and not seven entities, the division in Jammu and Kashmir would still take on communal overtones. In the previous proposal, the division of the regions was along religious lines was overt. If considered, the new proposal still manages the division of the state into a Muslim Kashmir, a Hindu Jammu and a Buddhist Ladakh. This arrangement would never be acceptable to New Delhi in any eventuality. Secondly, the increased infiltration from across the border, in the wake of the devastating earthquake and especially in the face of India’s aid to Pakistan, has not helped bridge the trust factor. To acknowledge a proposed solution in the face of increased infiltration would negate India’s stand on cross border terrorism and portray New Delhi as weak. Thirdly, the call for demilitarization of the region, as the proposal suggests can never materialize if cross border terrorism continues. So the actions from across the border contradict the proposal themselves. Fourthly, India’s stand on soft borders would at least ensure its continued sovereignty over the state – a concept not possible under the proposal. Lastly, the proposal still does not take into account the wishes of the people from Jammu and Ladakh – two of the three regions from India – who have consistently called for greater integration with New Delhi.

Thus from all conceivable angles, a proposal in this form, could never be accepted by India. However, New Delhi will soon need to devise its own framework for a solution rather than merely rejecting a formal submission of one from Islamabad especially since reports from Pakistan suggest that President Musharraf is in no hurry to yield on this ‘solution’ any time soon.

Implications of Violence in Balochistan

The largest of Pakistan’s four provinces, Balochistan is also the least developed and the least populated. Because of its sparse population it is ignored in federal fund allocation – accorded as it is on the basis of the census figures of a province. Further, despite being rich in mineral resources and natural gas, the province has been unable to ensure that benefits of this advantage accrue in its favour. For instance, even though gas from Sui district of Balochistan accounts for 38 percent of Pakistan’s supply, only 6 percent of the province’s population has access to it. Largely a tribal society, where the Bugti, Murri and Mengal tribes have been predominant, the province has of late also been witness to a demographic shift. A significant number of Pashtuns have travelled across the Afghan border in the wake of US intervention, resulting in the undermining of the one uniting factor – the socio-cultural identity that the tribals collectively imposed - in the province. This is the reality as it exists in Balochistan province of Pakistan today and it is primarily because of these socio-political and economic reasons that an uprising is being witnessed in the province.

The region’s present is not far removed from its past either. Recalcitrant and unwilling participants in the eventual composition of Pakistan, the people of the province have underlined their independent streak vis-à-vis the state on at least three different occasions in the country’s 58-year-old history. But the events of last year underline intensity and coordination that has so far not been witnessed in any of the previous confrontations of the Baloch nationalists against the state. For the first time the three different tribes have come together under the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) banner to contest the writ of Islamabad in the province. Secondly, the leaders of the students’ agitation, witnessed in the 70’s, are leading the current unrest. Thirdly, the unrest is far more organised and well equipped than it has ever been in the past with the tactical understanding of the rebels becoming apparent through attacks on gas pipelines, army installations and other such areas of strategic relevance.

Oddly this unrest comes in the midst of major development projects that are in the pipeline in the province. The federal government had only recently sanctioned Rs. 140 billion for the development of roads and water reservoirs in the region. In addition the development of the Gwadar port is expected to bring in a lot of revenue for the region. However, it is these very development projects that have fuelled suspicion amongst tribal leaders over the designs of the federal government in the resource rich region. For one, the tribal leaders feel that the advantages of these projects would not benefit the region itself. Rather, they feel that the benefits would be reaped by Islamabad and to support their contention they point to several instances in the past. Second, tribal leaders are worried that the development of road networks linking the province with other parts of Pakistan will accord Islamabad greater presence in the region. The development of three more army installations in strategic areas reaffirms their suspicions. Third, there is a growing fear that the Balochis are being reduced to a minority in their own region, a trend that will grow with the development of the port and road networks. To this end tribal leaders point to the recent election results in the province where the dominant electorate of the Pashtuns voted the ultra right Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal into power. Therefore, there is a general awareness that the traditional political base is being slowly eroded.

Thus, fuelled by these suspicions, exemplified by events in the past, the tribal leaders are exploiting a developing ‘fear psychosis’ within the community in order to wage a growing conflict with the state of Pakistan. The goals that they hope to achieve with this fight are greater control over resources and more say in the development projects undertaken in the region. Taken together, the recent events in Balochistan do lead one to consider the growing strategic implications of violence, for the province, and for the state of Pakistan. Is this violence expected to spiral out of control leading to the break up of the state? And more importantly, could it be that this conflict be supported by India?

The answer to both these questions is a resounding no! Even if the violence does fester, eventually Islamabad and the tribal leaders are likely to arrive at a consensus that would benefit all. And even though the rebels are well armed and better organised it does not appear that they have India’s tacit support especially since bilateral relations between India and Pakistan have been on the upswing. The foremost fall out of this conflict; besides human rights violations and delay of development projects in the province, would be the intensification of nationalist sentiments amongst the Balochis – something that will affect Pakistan in the long run.

Why a peaceful resolution to Kashmir seems improbable

It would not be fair to term Syed Salahuddin's statements on Kashmir as the official Pakistan policy. But the fact that Salahuddin has been making, rather freely, statements on Kashmir, which seem to be contrary to the stance taken by Islamabad-at least for the time being-is a clear pointer to Pakistan's strategy on Kashmir.

The first is to adopt a calibrated, if crude, flip-flop approach to the "K" issue. The second is to make diplomatically correct statements on Kashmir. Third, to keep the issue alive on a third front by letting people of all hues, from terrorists to commentators, to keep talking and writing about Kashmir. Pakistan has been quite successful in this approach. Kashmir, by and large, without being on the agenda of the SAARC conference, remained, throughout the past three days, the central theme of nuances, posturing and statements. Islamabad had fielded two players in this game. One official, another demi-official. Syed Salahuddin, the chief of Hizbul Mujahideen and the head of United Jihad Council, was the proxy. The official one was Pakistan's Information and Broadcasting Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad. Salahuddin has been holding forth on Kashmir rather vigorously since the peace initiative had begun. He clarified his views on the issue in a signed article in Nawa-i-Waqt and Ausaf, two of the most influential Urdu newspapers in Pakistan, a few days before the SAARC summit. He wrote there could be no peace in the world without solving the issue of Kashmir. He said the mujahideen should be given due credit for keeping the Kashmir struggle alive. He praised President Musharraf for extending moral and material support for the struggle and added, Pakistan should not make the past mistake of letting the people of Kashmir down by signing agreements like the Shimla Accord or Lahore Declaration. He said he was sure that President Musharraf would not let the people of Kashmir (read jihadis) down this time.

On January 5, 2004, on the second day of the summit, the Hizb leader said the SAARC nations should not ignore the ground realities and take steps to resolve the Kashmir issue "in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiris". He said that was the only path to peace. If Salahuddin was the only one making such noises, it would have been sensible to ignore him and his histrionics. But his official counterpart, Information and Broadcasting Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmad, too, has been echoing the same sentiments for quite some time.

On January 2, speaking to the media (reported in Ausaf) about the preparations for the SAARC conference, Mr. Rashid Ahmad said Kashmir was a question of life and death for Kashmiris. This statement was remarkably similar to the one made by President Pervez Musharraf sometime back, when he said Kashmir "runs in our blood". The Pakistanis do not even change the script. It would not be surprising if one were to look at what Mr. Rashid Ahmad has been saying in the run up to the SAARC conference. On December 23, for instance, speaking on behalf of President Musharraf, he declared that Pakistan was committed to resolving the Kashmir issue in accordance with the wishes of the Kashmiri people. Talking to the Associated Press of Pakistan, the official news agency of that country, he said the President reiterated that Pakistan has a firm commitment to its principled position on Kashmir dispute. He quoted the President assuring a delegation of Kashmiri leaders that Pakistan would give due regard to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people whenever there is progress towards resolution of the Kashmir dispute. On January 5, the Minister said "the way leading to normalcy in India-Pakistan relations is passing through Kashmir" (Indian Express, January 6, 2004). Saying that friendship was in the mutual interest of India and Pakistan, he said the objective can be achieved only if the Kashmir issue was addressed.

Jang, a widely read English newspaper in Pakistan, quoted Mr. Rashid (Jan 6) as stating: "The issue of Kashmir involves three parties including India, Pakistan and Kashmiris. So the concerns of all parties have to be addressed to have a sustainable solution of the lingering dispute." He said the people of Kashmir have waited over a half-century for the solution of their problem and it will be unjust to make them wait further. Put these statements together and it would be easier to locate the common thread. Both are talking in the same vein. What they are saying is this: Peace is fine but not at the cost of Kashmir. It means the terror campaign would not be over. In fact, my suspicion is that the Army-jihadi network is already busy setting up new camps, pushing in weapons and explosives and training new recruits for renewed violence in Kashmir, once the hyped bonhomie of SAARC is over and India gears up for elections in spring. This is the time for the snow-bound passes to thaw. Remember 1999. There was similar hype, hoopla and declarations of friendship while General Musharraf was sending in his troops camouflaged as intruders.

There are indications this time round too about Pakistan's intentions in the near future. Don't hear, listen. Listen to what the General and his brigade is not saying. One, they are not saying there should not be terrorism in Kashmir. They are not even mentioning the word "terrorism".

For a country which is supposedly working with the United States in a war on terrorism, this amnesia is a matter of concern but not exactly unexpected. As the General said early this year at the United Nations, there was only "indigenous struggle" going on in Kashmir. Though everyone thought it appropriate to talk about the people of Kashmir, no one paid even a lip service to the hundreds and thousands of innocent civilians killed in Kashmir. They too were Kashmiris.

So which Kashmiri welfare is the General and his brigade talking about? Second, peace has become a catch word in Pakistan. From militant to the military, every one is talking about peace in south Asia. But, and here is the catchword, if only India could settle the Kashmir issue with Pakistan. Hear Salahuddin or Mr Rashid or General Musharraf. That is the common refrain. The Pakistani propaganda machine has achieved another success. By provoking India to take an aggressive stance two years ago, Pakistan turned Kashmir into an international issue.

Now, it has queered the pitch by suffixing 'peace' to Kashmir. There would be peace if the Kashmir issue could be resolved. And the issue will only be resolved if India sits across the table with Pakistan to decide the fate of Kashmir. What should be our reaction? Shake hands with the General. Smile to the cameras. Talk peace. And ignore the bait. Don't react. Be extra alert at our borders. Plan a counter-proxy strategy for this summer. This would be a hot summer on, and inside, the Line of Control.

Mission Kashmir….well almost!

If anyone ever thought that a solution to the Kashmir problem was around the corner, the events of the past week may well convince them to think again.

In light of the growing bonhomie between India and Pakistan, President Musharraf invited the leaders of the separatists conglomerate, the Hurriyat conference, to Pakistan for talks. The Hurriyat on its part was pleased at the invitation it had received. For them it meant an increased role and greater prominence in any bilateral dialogue between India and Pakistan. In fact, the Hurriyat had insisted on visiting Pakistan before resuming talks with India. For India, the visit of the Kashmiri separatist leaders to PoK, in the peace bus, would have translated into a fantastic public relations exercise. Symbolism travels a long way in politics and nothing would have been more symbolic and supportive of India’s recent initiatives on Kashmir than this. Unfortunately chaotic travels, contradicting statements and changing itineraries dominated the developments in the run up to the visit reflecting possibly the problems that hinder peace in the region.

The moderate Hurriyat leaders wanted this high profile visit to reassert their role in any dialogue on Kashmir, which may not be to New Delhi’s liking. For Pakistan, and especially President Musharraf, the visit would merely have been another opportunity to highlight their ‘support’ for the Kashmir cause. And this is where it all began to unravel, unfortunately, mostly for India.

The fact that the moderate leaders have indeed traveled from PoK to Islamabad, without legal travel documents, indicates the negation of India’s Kashmir policy. As opposed to New Delhi’s desire to have soft borders, the visit has instead prompted visions of alternative solutions wherein an autonomous state of Kashmir could be a possibility. In addition the bus service linking Srinagar and Muzaffarabad has been rendered completely irrelevant given the fact the Hurriyat leaders took all means of transport, excepting the bus, in their journeys. For instance instead of taking the peace bus to the Kaman bridge, the Hurriyat leaders opted instead to travel in their own cars to the last Indian outpost. These developments have to be seen against the background of India’s policy in the recent past when New Delhi had refused to even discuss the issue of Kashmir with the Hurriyat leaders, outside the purview of the Indian Constitution. It is not surprising that the Government has preferred to not comment on the Hurriyat’s visit and subsequent statements in Pakistan.

The events of the coming weeks would be even more interesting for all stakeholders. For the Government of India, dialogue with the Hurriyat leaders would probably be on the anvil upon their return and it would be interesting to see how the Government decides to approach the same. What would be even more important to note is the level at which the dialogue takes place, when it does. In the recent past when the Hurriyat had demanded direct consultations with the Prime Minister their request has not been acquiesced. Now with the Hurriyat returning from Pakistan, after holding face-to-face consultations with President Musharraf himself, India may have to consider a altering its strategy to regain some momentum in the changed scenario. After all it has become clear that if New Delhi does not court the Hurriyat, Islamabad would be more than willing to bridge the gap. The Hurriyat leaders on their part would be keen on making their presence felt as representatives of the Kashmiri people in New Delhi. Their only singular worry in a dialogue with India would be if no headway takes place in the dialogue process despite their visit.

In the midst of all the brouhaha there remains one tantalizingly interesting question to address – what means would the Mirwaiz and other Hurriyat leaders use to return to India and thereby Kashmir?

Centre and Hurriyat dialogue: Why now?

Days before the historic talks between the separatist amalgam, the All Parties Hurriyat Conference under the leadership of Maulana Ansari, and the Government of India, there is widespread speculation as to the outcome of the same. After all this is the first time that the Government of India has formally invited the APHC leaders for talks on Kashmir, a demand the latter has been making for a long time. So why agree to meet the APHC now, especially at a juncture when the status of talks with Pakistan on Kashmir, looks increasingly promising and therefore a more viable option? The nature and outcome of the talks can thus be predicted with almost a degree of certainty and here are the reasons why.

The primary reason to hold talks with APHC representatives is governed by the fact that in the past year or so the Government’s policy towards Kashmir has been dictated by its presence in the valley. There has been a concerted effort to showcase a different, more-friendly image, of the Union Government. The holding of the Inter State Chief Ministers Conference in Srinagar etc can be seen within the larger framework of promoting a more inclusive image of India per se; an image which includes Kashmir and Kashmiris in it. Thus the decision to engage the All Parties Hurriyat Conference for talks on Kashmir is not only unprecedented but also in line with their broader vision of promoting the Government’s presence, through alliances with mass based groups in the valley itself.

But why does the Government feel the urge to hold talks with the Hurriyat at this stage? There are two sides to the same issue which speak primarily of the compulsions facing the Government and the Hurriyat, rather than their collective desire to achieve a breakthrough. Their compulsions should be seen separately and then jointly to get a clear understanding of the reasons behind the talks.

For the Government of India emerging successfully from the talks with the Hurriyat would do more for the image for the BJP led NDA government in the upcoming general elections than anything else because of two reasons. For one successful talks with the Hurriyat would not result in a resolution on Kashmir but a possible resolution once the electoral process of 2004 is completed, could be proposed. This factor in itself would underscore the Government’s re election bid, for in order to achieve the breakthrough the BJP led NDA government would have to be reelected. In the same vein, as an electoral topic the holding of successful talks with the Hurriyat may well reflect the secular character of the Government as well. This is so because the talks would primarily showcase the sincerity of the Government’s efforts in resolving the Kashmir issue through successful engagement of the Hurriyat and Pakistan. Further, initiating a dialogue with the Hurriyat leadership is necessary as they are decidedly seen as being more moderate in their approach vis-à-vis the breakaway Geelani faction and therefore more open-minded.

Then there is the Hurriyat side of the coin. The APHC under Maulana Ansari’s leadership would want to appear reasonable yet principled in its stand on holding talks with the Government. As far as the latter case is concerned the Hurriyat’s principled position may be derived on the basis of three reasons. Firstly and primarily it may well arise from the acknowledgement of the fact that the Government would be faced with electoral compulsions to call the first such public dialogue with the separatist amalgam ‘a success’. Armed with this knowledge they may want to come to the talks with demands that are extreme from the Government’s point of view. After all any concessions that may be derived from the Government can be procured now. The success however would be in getting the Government of India to recognize the demands. Secondly, the APHC representatives would not want to appear as if they have sold out the interests of the Kashmiri people in New Delhi. Thirdly the representatives would also not want to appear ideologically weak towards the cause they propound, especially in light of the death threats that militant organisations have made towards them for having agreed to hold the talks.

Seen together there are compulsions on both sides to emerge successfully from the talks. There would be efforts, from both sides to find a common ground between them for a few reasons. For the Government it would be the desire to appear flexible and accommodating on the Kashmir front primarily so because they can push the claim through that they would be able to reach a consensus on the same if reelected. For the APHC on the other hand it would make sense to appear flexible yet hardline in their approach for two reasons. It is after all the first time the Government has heeded to their demands and agreed to hold a dialogue with representatives of the faction. As much as this meeting represents hope for the people of Kashmir it also represents the first time a component of the trilateral meet, desired by the APHC, would be realized. It would appear highly unlikely that the APHC, after having traversed this long road demanding talks, would want to return to status quo due to their failure to see eye to eye with the Government. Flexibility would thus mark their approach so that the continuity of talks is ensured.

After having observed the compulsions weighing on either side for entering into talks, it remains wise to hold off on expecting a breakthrough. Rather, what can be expected is a feel good factor emerging from the talks that would hopefully continue after the elections.

Talks with Pakistan: Feel good factor of a different kind?

In one of the most recent analytical pieces on this website it was very wisely quoted “Don't hear, listen. Listen to what is not being said” (sic) as regards the Indo – Pakistan peace talks and their decision to hold a composite dialogue. Thus ironically while most peaceniks, in Pakistan and India are hailing the recent thaw in relations it remains advisable to be cautiously optimistic for the time being. This opinion is not being proffered for the mere reason of being conservative as regards Indo – Pak initiatives towards peace in Kashmir. Rather this opinion is based upon media reports emerging from India and Pakistan which convey the compulsions and significance for both countries on this road to peace. When delineated they fall into three broad categories; the economics of peace, domestic compulsions and international pressures.

Up until September and the UN General Assembly any mention of bilateral talks were denied vehemently by both sides. Regularly stated arguments were resorted to at frequent intervals clearly belying any interest in the resolution of the Kashmir conundrum. However while all the parleys at the political level were discontinuing, at the economic level, the same were clearly intensifying. In September 2003 an India-Pakistan CEO’s Business Forum was launched by India’s Foreign Affairs minister Mr. Yashwant Sinha where he called for expanding bilateral trade between the two nations. Considering that unauthorized illegal trade between the two nations is estimated at $2 billion whereas legal trade is estimated to be a mere $200 – $250 million this proposal makes good economic sense. Pakistan follows a very restrictive trading regime versus India primarily as it links the issue of Kashmir with the normalization of any bilateral economic ties. Thus actual volumes of trade have always remained limited. Now however there appears to be a distinct change in the way issues are approached vis-à-vis Pakistan. It should be noted that this author had in a previous article mentioned the veritable fork in the road as far as bilateral relations with Pakistan is concerned. There is a willingness to discuss all outstanding issues with Pakistan, a composite dialogue as it were, with Kashmir being only one of the issues for discussions. At the same time the political plane between New Delhi and Srinagar is being leveled to a certain extent with the decision to hold high level talks with separatist amalgamations. That Kashmir, the issue, has been relegated as a secondary cause in the bureaucratic lexicon of both India and Pakistan would be too early to declare. But one can definitely assert that it no longer remains the only issue for consideration for bettering bilateral ties. Thus would it be so difficult to imagine that the imperatives for peace with Pakistan, over Kashmir and any other outstanding issues may actually be determined via economic prospects and the accruable advantages of the same? That the economics of peace would play a major role in the times to come has also been ascertained by reports that suggest that trade and economic issues would be a priority for India and Pakistan in their composite dialogue rather than Kashmir. Then again the improved economic ties should not pose a problem in the long run. One can always cite the example of China and Taiwan. For all practical purposes and for all the razor edge tensions between the two nations, China and Taiwan still maintain healthy economic relations. In fact statistics reveal that bilateral trade for these two nations rose by 25% thereby exceeding US$50 billion this year. Thus despite increasing tensions trade volumes for Taiwan have been steadily increasing. The enormity of these statistics does not reflect the fact that up until a decade ago no formal economic relations existed between these two neighbours. The signing of the free trade agreement or SAFTA at Islamabad is an indication that both India and Pakistan are ready to trade with each other. Thus it would not be wrong to speculate that the current peace efforts were being dictated by the accruable economic advantages for India and Pakistan rather than at efforts to settle Kashmir. Were it so then it would truly mark a departure from previous efforts of this administration.

But the economic imperatives may not be the only factor leading up to the talks. For each of the leaders in India and Pakistan there are various factors at stake in initiating bilateral dialogue at this stage. For one there may be this inherently logical reasoning which calls into question the need for a dialogue at this particular hour. After two almost fatal attacks on his life why would President Musharraf agree to talks with India, an act which may further anger the very people being suspected of being the masterminds behind the attacks? It could be theorized that for President Musharraf the only way to defy the militants and simultaneously assert his authority maybe to change tack on India and thereby Kashmir. As radical as it does sound this may well be one of the reasons that have resulted in the coming together of Prime Minister Vajpayee and President Musharraf at Islamabad. Then again there may have been little maneuverability for President Musharraf especially when Mr. Vajpayee declared that this may be his last attempt at forging peace between the two warring neighbours. Alternatively, skepticism would be paramount as to the timing of the sudden change of heart. Facing increasing criticism on the charges that Pakistan has been proliferating nuclear technology to countries like Iran, Libya and North Korea; this may well be an opportune time to show a change of heart on an issue as contentious as Kashmir and thereby Pakistan and General Musharraf’s sincerity in resolving other outstanding issues.

Similarly in India talks on Kashmir could well serve the electoral and policy compulsions of the NDA government. Speculations are awash in the media about the now almost certain postponement of general elections, initially slated for September 2004. Thus the peace talks with Pakistan on the one hand and the Hurriyat on the other would be shining examples of a ‘feel good’ factor of a different kind. Both when taken together will serve as an invaluable electoral manifesto that can promote the secularity of the BJP led NDA government. Fringe voters may thus be influenced on the apparent perception that peace with Pakistan and within Kashmir was possible after reelection.

When one insulates all the implications on a probable peace dialogue with Pakistan the recent peace forays tend to be understood better. The last such compelling factor for the peace initiatives may well have come from the American pressure on both nations to resolve the Kashmir issue or at least appear that they were close to resolving the same. Though not out rightly American presence and involvement in Kashmir has steadily and gradually been increasing. Statements from Mirwaiz Umer Farooq and Secretary of State Colin Powell himself have asserted that the United States has played an important role in facilitating the discussions between India and Pakistan. But to understand the extent of their involvement one just has to glance through the itinerary of diplomats visiting Kashmir in the past six odd months. The US deputy chief of missions and its current Charge d’ Affairs Robert-O-Blake was the first foreign dignitary to meet with the Chairman of the moderate Hurriyat faction in Srinagar. Besides a number of American delegates, from the State Department and otherwise had met and held consultations, with relevant groups, on Kashmir, in Delhi and Srinagar.

So this is what we have…the current peace initiatives when seen as a result of pressurizing economic, political and domestic compulsions. This author is of the fervent opinion that the Kashmir issue per se is not going to be resolved at least until after the general elections in which case a change of heart may well be expected on either sides. Thus for all those wanting to see more in these peace efforts than there is, a word of caution; be prepared for the worst.

Building Baglihar

Talks between India and Pakistan, on the construction of the Baglihar Dam, recently broke down in New Delhi after 4 days of intense discussions. Currently both countries are planning counter steps to protect their interests while trying to keep the dialogue route open. The stakes are high to resolve this issue and it is important to highlight why remaining engaged through diplomatic channels remains the most viable option available to both, India and Pakistan.

Pakistan, which was identified as the lower riparian when boundaries were redrawn during Partition, has much at stake in the continuation of Indus Waters Treaty. The 1960, World Bank arbitrated treaty gives Pakistan exclusive use of water from the rivers Indus, Chenab and Jhelum – all of which flow from India to Pakistan. India is however allowed to generate electricity from these rivers. Thus in 2000, India started building a two phase, 450 MW each, hydroelectric project on river Chenab. The site of the project is in southern Doda district of Chandrakot. Pakistan does not have an objection to the project per se but to the ‘design’ of the project. Pakistan is of the view that the design was not approved by both countries, as specified by the clauses of the treaty and that the construction of the dam would allow India to store and thereby control the flow of water into Pakistan.

While Indian officials summarily dismiss the validity of the above claims, there is no doubt that Pakistan’s long-term benefits lie in continuing within the ambit of the Indus Waters Treaty. If World Bank is indeed moved for arbitration, a consequent action may well be the annulment of the treaty. This would not bode well for an increasingly agrarian Pakistan economy dependent on the waters of these very rivers, especially in the province of Punjab. In addition two main dams in Pakistan – Mangla and Terbela – which receive and store water from melting snowcaps, have not even reached the average capacity level this past year. Rainfall too was lower than average in Pakistan last year. Thus if Pakistani officials are arguing that the construction of the dam may well result in a loss of almost 8000 cusecs of water each day, they must also acknowledge the reality of the above facts before approaching the World Bank for arbitration. Faced with the arguments, Pakistan should be prompted to continue in engaging with India.

India’s stake in the construction of the project and continuing with talks is equally if not more important. First and foremost are financial constraints. Even while talks between representatives of the two countries were collapsing, the Power Finance Corporation granted a sum of almost Rs. 1770 crores to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir for the construction of the dam. Even New Delhi recently set aside Rs. 630 crore for the continuation of the project. With the amount of money that has already been spent on the project there is obviously concern over the completion of the same. The government does not want to incur costs to the project through unnecessary delays and is also not keen on suspending the project at the stage that it is in. Secondly this project is important to the state government of Jammu and Kashmir and therefore to the Central government as this is the only power project owned by the former. In addition this project would help generate much needed electricity in a region, which already suffers from daylong power cuts.
It is important to bring in here the objections to the design of the dam as raised by Pakistan. India denies that the dam would be used for storing water thereby depriving Pakistan of its water resources. Lowering the height of the dam, as Pakistan suggests, would reduce the power producing capacity of the project to a mere 50 MW from the stated capacity of 450 MW of the project. This would reduce the viability of the project especially in light of the focus with which it is being built.

Most importantly however it is important that India continues to engage Pakistan through diplomatic channels because if the latter does indeed approach the World Bank for arbitration it would be indicative of the discussion of Kashmir – or at least an aspect of Kashmir - in an international forum. This is something that India should avoid at all costs.

Thus if one was to conclude that talks remain for now the most viable option for both India and Pakistan then thought must be extended to agreeable options that may be approved by both countries. The first option would indubitably be to convince Pakistan of the benefits of the project, especially for the people of Jammu and Kashmir. Another option maybe for India to extend a ‘water and electricity’ sharing deal with Pakistan thereby allowing the construction and eventual functioning of the project. Eventually however it must be acknowledged by both countries that dialogue would be a far better option than any unilateral action that either India or Pakistan may pursue.

Kashmir: New Hope?

The Cabinet Committee on Security’s decision to have Deputy Prime Minister Lal Krishna Advani as the new person to be heading the talks with separatist outfits raises several questions. What had prompted the Government to finally involve a separatist outfit at the level of talks that the latter have been demanding for so long? And then what would be the status of talk’s vis-à-vis Pakistan especially after this peace initiative? This is an attempt to find out where this latest peace overture would leave us?

If one were to see the peace initiatives, against the backdrop of previous efforts by the Indian Government, then a distinct change between the past and current policies can be discerned. With previous policies Pakistan had been a factor as regards Kashmir. Initiatives were launched wherein it was imperative to involve Pakistan through dialogue irrespective of the fact that the initiative may not have eventually succeeded at all. The true essence of bilateralism, if not exploited, was explored in the past initiatives. But there is a perceptible fork on the road to Kashmir which symbolically has come to represent India’s changing strategy on Kashmir. On the one hand direct talks between separatist outfits between separatist outfits in Srinagar and New Delhi could prove to be a more successful approach as the issue of Kashmir is now going to be discussed with people from Kashmir. The latest impetus to the peace moves can be placed within this category.

The second component, in this figurative fork in the road, is that of ties between India and Pakistan. On the face of it a new impetus is being provided to peace in the region through normalization talks and peace proposals etc. But this is also being brought about by literally discussing, with Pakistan, everything under the sun except Kashmir. The twelve points, introduced by the Prime Minister, represent the latest proposals within this second component. The points themselves can be divided into economic, strategic and diplomatic factors which if accepted can be potentially advantageous for India. Thus while the ostensible reason is to promote people to people contact, so as to restore normalcy, the undertones of the proposed points cannot be missed. For instance economically India will have a lot going for it if the air links and over flights are reestablished. Similarly strategically and diplomatically also India would be better placed if a degree of accountability can be established with the Pakistani forces across the border especially through coast guard contacts.

The last aspect at this junction involves fairly long term approaches but options which are inherently achievable. India’s border talks with China can be placed within this reasoning and could imply in the long term, an attempt at resolving the issue of the 5000 sq km Aksai Chin territory that Pakistan ceded to China in March 1963. Thus the overall emphasis bluntly put is to continue with bilateral talks, regarding Kashmir, with actors other than Pakistan while simultaneously keeping Pakistan engaged on all matters except Kashmir. That the Pakistanis are not happy with the offer made also comes across through the official statement from the foreign office who expressed disappointment at India’s desire to discuss everything but the core issue of Kashmir.

The decision to have Deputy Prime Minister Shri Lal Krishna Advani directly interfacing with the Hurriyat Conference leaders is a decision that is loaded with implications. While it is highly unlikely that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to be involved in the absolutes of the discussions to be held, his presence will nonetheless remain symbolic at the least. For one it will be symbolic of New Delhi’s desire to continue engaging with all players in Kashmir while simultaneously also encouraging the separatists to come to the negotiating table by offering them the possibility of engaging with the Government at the highest possible level. Secondly Advani’s appointment is also important because greater maneuverability in decision making can be expected from him, something which the State’s previous interlocutors had not been able to achieve. Also were it to be so that Advani was not to succeed in his talks with the Hurriyat leaders, a higher court of appeal in Prime Minister Vajpayee still remained open as a foreseeable option. Lastly ideologically speaking any hard line approach, that the Hurriyat may come to adopt, can only be successfully cornered by L K Advani.

On the Hurriyat front the talks can be seen as an acknowledgement of their long stated demands of talks at the highest level but probably not of their desire to be acknowledged as the head of a de-facto nation. That the All Party Hurriyat Conference has recently broken into two factions headed by hardliner Geelani on the one hand and the moderate Maulvi Ansari on the other hand is also an important factor for the Government. The offer for talks can be seen as a recognition of the Ansari led Hurriyat faction which the Center has come to acknowledge as the Hurriyat that represents the ‘voice’ of the Kashmiri people, in contrast to the Geelani faction, which has been recognised for pretty much the same purpose by Pakistan. The offer has been made to the Hurriyat council per se but in what form will the Hurriyat council come to be represented only the events of the coming few days will show. If the Geelani faction does come on board and the talks fail the blame would not fall on the Government for in all respects they have attempted to engage the outfit. If the Geelani faction does not come on board then also the Government emerges on top as the offer had been made to the body of Hurriyat as such; Hurriyat without any specifications. Also they would have managed to disengage Geelani from all future talks effortlessly.

On the State government front the Center has clearly established the dominant power role that it plays vis-à-vis the State on Kashmir. Politically also this is an important issue as the BJP led Center has overshadowed the Congress-PDP led State government through its peace initiatives and contrary to their healing touch policy.

Lastly this peace proposal will reinforce not only within the state of Jammu and Kashmir but also internationally India’s stated position of wanting to resolve the Kashmir issue, as it were, through engagement and dialogue.

The growing Indo – US bilateral dialogue

For long, having been in the wilderness of the geo-political objectives of the United States, India is finally emerging as a strategic ally in its own right. In the aftermath of 9/11, and given India’s swift response to the tragedy, the United States has given renewed consideration to the possible role India could play in the geo-strategic politics of Asia with a key responsibility in the Indian subcontinent. Subsequently, a number of bilateral moves have been initiated, most prominently, in the fields of military, technology and counter terrorism operations. This growing strategic relationship between the world’s oldest and largest democracies was even articulated in the National Security Strategy of the United States in 2002, which recognized the conviction, which the United States imparted to developing a strengthened bilateral relationship with India.

The second term of President George Bush is widely seen as favorable for fostering these ties further. As has been interpreted from the various speeches that President Bush has made since his second inaugural, the focus this time round would definitely be on multi lateral initiatives. Furthermore, the members of his cabinet are known for their pragmatism and multilateral leanings. Then there is also the widely acclaimed but little followed - Next Steps in Strategic Partnership (NSSP). The potential of the NSSP for defining the Indo - US relations in the coming years, can be gauged with the immense progress that has been made since President Bush made the announcement in January 2004. But key events in the past few weeks have underlined that a mutual level of understanding still needs to be developed between the two countries. News of the decision by the United States to sell F-16 fighter aircrafts to Pakistan came as a rude surprise to policy makers in India, especially since this decision was announced a few days after Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, visit to India.

Juxtaposing the bonhomie over the NSSP with the confounding news of the sale of the F-16’s it becomes important to evaluate broader US foreign policy interests in the Indian subcontinent and the region. One of the first issues to consider would be the US presence that already exists in the subcontinent. A cursory glance at the map of India and its immediate neighbors shows considerable US presence (or influence) in the region. Therefore before one gauges Indo – US foreign policy, one must consider US foreign policy towards India’s neighbors.

A tentative step in this direction has been taken with the recent announcement that the United States was willing to sell advanced fighter aircrafts (F-16’s and F-18’s) to India while lifting the embargo on American firms bidding for Indian defense contracts. In addition the United States would also be willing to look at assisting India in generating nuclear energy. All these developments should be indicative of the growing bilateral and strategic dialogue between the two nations. The United States can further prove itself to be a dependable ally to India, something that has not been achieved in the past through sustained techno logistic support in the future. India, for its part, must not hyphenate this growing relationship with the United States vis-à-vis Pakistan.

If a strategic relationship has to be sustained between the two countries, or at least be acknowledged, as is the case with the NSSP, then significant steps need to be taken to sustain the NSSP. While the NSSP does signify the intent of the two countries, sustained efforts are needed from both sides, to move bilateral relations to a higher trajectory. It therefore becomes imperative that there be a convergence between the United States and India on issues that affect the interests of both nations in the immediate region and beyond. These collaborations could then become key strengths in the bilateral association.

In any event, Indo – US bilateral relations have come a long way and one can only expect a deepening of this relationship in the coming years.

Abu Ghraib: Lesson in Hypocrisy?

“An eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind”

The abuses perpetrated in the Abu Ghraib prison complex have yielded something that has so far been unfamiliar in the ongoing war on terrorism. The President of the United States has apologized as have several other top ranking civil and military officials. While the apologies were timed to coincide with Defence Secretary Rumsfeld’s testimony to the Senate and House Armed Services Committee, it has brought little or no sympathy for the Bush administration. There is a systematic framework behind these apologies and it has little to do with offering sympathy to the prisoners, who more often than not were ordinary Iraqi civilians. The Abu Ghraib prisons had long ago gained infamy under Saddam Hussein’s regime. It is indeed reprehensible that its worst characteristics continue to be perpetuated under the American liberators.

The prison abuses would have to be seen in their impact on America and the Arab world separately. Domestically the fallout of Abu Ghraib will spell real trouble for a President known for his straight talk, deep religious beliefs and conservative values. More importantly the Abu Ghraib prison photos would directly affect President Bush’ main re-election campaign plank, the war on terrorism, of which Iraq was an integral focus. This is even more damaging as the behaviour is quite obviously contrary to the stated platform of a US campaign aimed at bringing democracy and civil rights to Iraq. An extensive public relations campaign, both inside Iraq and within the United States, would have to be implemented to undo the fallout of Abu Ghraib. This is already underway with President Bush’s interview telecast live to two Arab channels. But the worst fallout for the US would be if the Abu Ghraib photos overshadow Saddam’s impending trial of war crimes.

Internationally the Arabs remain angry at the treatment being meted out by the Americans to the Iraqis. This has reinforced their feeling of resentment towards the presence of US forces in the greater Arab region. These photos could completely undo even the limited sympathy in the region over Saddam’s removal and appreciation for US actions. The distinguishing line between Saddam’s regime and the US led occupation of Iraq may get blurred if a positive spin cannot be given quickly to the US presence in Iraq. But while damage control may well be underway, it is not aimed only at soothing frayed sentiments domestically and internationally. The aim appears to be to cover up potentially more damaging accusations over the Abu Ghraib incident.

The photographs reveal not just violations of the Geneva Convention but also human rights violations of the most extreme kind. The violation of human rights has for long been the trump card for the United States to prevail over nations like China. Also this has for long been the one distinguishing factor between the American path of moral righteousness and the rest of the world. The Abu Ghraib prison photos may just blur the lines defining this gap. Thus in order to maintain their moral pre-eminence and prevent any accusations of human right abuses on the United States, long the self proclaimed champion of the same, the apologies will continue to come in fast and heavy.

The only person to gain from the entire incident is the presumptive Democratic nominee, Senator John F. Kerry. Long lampooned for projecting a multilateral approach to resolving American presence in Iraq, Kerry’s stand on Iraq was not winning him any laurels. This holds especially true for Mid–west America where President Bush’s policy statements on staying in Iraq were being seen as an example of his steadfastness and determination. The prison photos are likely to damage President Bush’s standing among the voters who are inclined to judge his performance based on policy and actions rather than be carried away by statements and appearances.

Ironically, what emerges from the Abu Ghraib prison abuse is not limited to the US and the Arab world. In a way it reveals the hypocrisy of today’s leaders who can go to any extreme to curry favour with the masses. Similar human rights abuses are probably being practiced with the same intensity in many other countries across the world. This incident could well serve as a much needed warning to the international community to seriously take up the issue of human rights abuses in other countries also.

Arab Americans: Political Constituency or Liability?

One of the most admirable facets of American style democracy is the ability of small ethnic groups to emerge as influential blocs in electoral events including the Presidential elections of year 2004. If the bloc happens to be represented by the relatively large population of approximately 3.5 million Arab Americans, tracking their participation in the Presidential elections becomes an important indicator of the potential outcome of the race to the White House. The Arab Americans uniquely represent the influencing aspect of having juxtaposed domestic policies with foreign policy. This interplay of domestic and foreign policies and its relative impact on Arab Americans becomes an area of study especially since 9/11.

Therefore, tactically speaking the factors influencing them in the post 9/11 world would have to be accounted before assessing their broader political inclinations. First, there is obvious insecurity reflected at the domestic front, for the Arab Americans, especially post 9/11 when greater scrutiny is being accorded to an immigrant’s country of origin. Second coming from a region as contentious as the Middle East means that the political outlook of the Arab Americans is expected to be influenced by the broader political agenda of the United States in the Middle East. Thus, shaping a politically viable and feasible identity in the United States has become crucial for the Arab Americans. There are visible attempts by the Arab Americans to align themselves with mainstream America and its concerns. A poll conducted by the Arab American Institute in 2000 showed that 85.5% of the Arab American population are registered voters with 14.5% of registered voters contributing to a Presidential campaign. Poll results conducted in April 2004 show that the rank order of issues for the Arab American community appears to be no different than mainstream America. Economy, healthcare and terrorism round off the top three choices for them. This indicator is startling as it is contrary to a widely held opinion that their biggest concern was the crisis in the The question that now remains to be answered is whether Arab Americans can be counted as a viable political constituency in the Presidential race? Polls conducted by Zogby International for the Arab American Institute take into account the Arab American voters in four key battleground states i.e. Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The reason to look into the trends in these states is important as Arab Americans are widely represented in these states. Interestingly in 2000, Michigan and Pennsylvania were won by Gore, while Bush won Ohio and Florida was a virtual tie for both candidates. But amongst Arab American voters the results in these states were reversed. Bush beat Gore by a margin of 46 to 29 with Nader receiving 13%. Year 2004 could turn these results on their head as polls predict that Kerry is in a position to beat Bush by a margin of 45 to 28 with Nader remaining at 13%. This would represent a swing of 170, 000 votes in what are potentially decisive states this year.

John Kerry ought to take heart from the fact that he still commands a double - digit lead over President Bush amongst Arab Americans in these four states. While the ‘compassionate conservative’ platform may have attracted the Arab electorate in 2000 President Bush’s policies towards the Arab region have not reflected the same. The Bush administration has followed, along the line of many an administration before them, a pro – Israel policy. The difference lay in the policies followed after Sept 11 vis-à-vis Arab countries and the subsequent war on terrorism. This may be the key to understanding the dramatic shift amongst the Arab electorate. Ironically the Arab electorate remains an after thought with both campaign strategies. Both President Bush and Senator Kerry have been courting the American Jews, separately through policy statements and stump speeches. Strategically speaking both candidates should acknowledge the role of Arab Americans especially in a race that is so closely fought. Further the race also provides a caveat in the shape of Ralph Nader who interestingly is of Arab American heritage and could prove to win more than the projected 13% eventually. Any
substantial gain by Nader would spell into an even bigger loss for John Kerry who is already
haunted by the substantial voter bloc claimed by Nader in the 2000 elections.

Therefore both tactically and strategically it would be important to factor in the role that the Arab Americans can provide to either of the candidates in the November elections. From all angles the Arab electorate in the United States seems more than up to the task. It remains up to the candidates and their campaigns to utilize their presence.

Prosecuting Saddam: Vendetta or Justice?

“Ladies and Gentlemen, we got him” and with these historic words the Coalition Provisional Authority head in Iraq, L. Paul Bremer announced the capture of the deposed Iraqi President to the waiting American and international media. But after assigning various monikers to Saddam Hussein and his ruling clique, primarily to underline just how important Saddam was to the Americans, when you have the person in question, beyond the immediate euphoria of the capture there was the nagging problem that needed to be addressed – how does one prosecute Saddam?

Consider the dilemmas. With the hype being built around Saddam, before and after the war, there is no doubt that a certain degree of justice would have to be delivered. But how is this justice to stand the legal scrutiny of history? The Iraqi Governing Council had only recently (December 10) established a judicial commission that will be setting up a special court system to investigate and prosecute former members of the government. The crimes that they would be trying were classified as genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes (as reported in the recent Human Rights Watch piece). The establishment of the judicial commission is in itself a belated effort to prosecute the deposed ruling clique of the previous regime. For instance thirty-seven of the fifty five, advertised on the deck of the most wanted cards, were in Coalition captivity by August 22 this year. There had been no attempts of prosecuting them until recently. Secondly the judicial system of Iraq, done in by years of ineffective functioning, may not be able to produce the jurists needed for trying people charged with crimes such as genocide or even war crimes. Then again, prosecuting members of Saddam Hussein’s inner circle calls for a different approach from prosecuting Saddam Hussein himself. Justice for Saddam Hussein would have to be delivered by Iraqis, but in a manner that eludes criticism and appears just. And this is where the structure of the recently set up judicial system in place in Iraq, comes into focus.

International experts are calling for Saddam’s trial to be conducted under the joint supervision of a tribunal consisting of international and Iraqi experts. Doing this, they say, would ensure the evenhandedness of the trial and the judgment. Unfortunately conflicting connotations can be construed from a mere reading of the tribunal’s statute. While article 4 of the charter of the judicial commission allows the Iraqi Governing Council to appoint “non Iraqi judges who have experience in the crimes encompassed in this statute”, article 28 of the same states that “all judges shall be Iraqi nationals”. Then there are the calls for a death penalty, coming famously from President Bush himself (who also says that any punishment for Saddam should be decided upon by Iraqis themselves); the daughters of Saddam meanwhile, in exile in Jordan, are calling for an international court to try their father which could give them a chance to provide him with defense lawyers that could argue a case out. Lastly there remains the lasting incongruity on Saddam’s legal status. While he is being currently treated as a prisoner of war, according to the established Geneva Conventions, whether or not he is tried under the Third or Fourth Conventions remains a question mark. This is primarily because the Third Convention is applied to members of the armed forces, who are required to merely state their basic details such as name, rank, position held etc. All other information they may decide to give is purely voluntary. Persons held and charged under the Fourth Convention on the other hand have no such provision. Lastly and most importantly, charging and trying anyone under categories of crime such as genocide or crimes against humanity would require carefully collecting and corroborating extensive mounds of prima facie evidence, the evidence on whose basis the prosecution would build its argument and evidence which will eventually be used for conviction.

With so many questions remaining unanswered the fate of Saddam Hussein, however bleak, is ambiguous to say the least. Justice has to be delivered by the Iraqis, justice has to be meted out through a judicial system that can be favourably compared with international parallels, justice which does not appear to be a case of vengeance and justice has to be delivered after carefully applying the standards required in the trials of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. Can it be delivered? It remains a tall order for the Americans as well as the IGC to deliver. What could however give us an insight into the future course of action the US may adopt vis-à-vis Saddam comes from a US Senate resolution passed in March 1998. A largely symbolic resolution it called for the United Nations war crimes tribunal to bring Saddam Hussein to trial for his war crimes.

Iraq and Nation Building

November 15, 2003 can be seen as a red letter day for the task of nation building in Iraq for on this day the Agreement on Political Process was signed between the US led Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraq Governing Council (IGC). According to this agreement the CPA was to hand over civilian power to a sovereign Iraqi government by June 2004. The mission for the CPA and the IGC, laid out by this agreement, appears to be onerous, yet it is not the task at hand that ought to be examined rather the causes that called for a change in US led Coalition Authority’s vision of its long term presence in Iraq.

Firstly this agreement represents a complete turn around for the US led authority on its previously specified plan on presence in Iraq. Under the initial proposal by Paul Bremer, the return of self rule in Iraq was to have been the result of a long drawn process, spread over a period of four years and seven points. At the earliest this proposal sought the submission of a draft on how the constitution for Iraq ought to be drafted by December 2003. The November 15th agreement however specifies the transfer of power from the CPA to an interim Iraqi government earliest by June 2004. This turn around can be attributed to a number of reasons examined below.

The current US position is primarily a tacit acknowledgement of ground realities in Iraq. On the one hand it highlights the decline in domestic support for the US led occupation of Iraq primarily due to the mounting US casualties. On the other hand the agreement signals a change in the perception of the American ground forces in Iraq. This can be understood when the dynamics of the ethnically divisive population of Iraq is traced. For instance the Kurds in northern Iraq have long supported American presence and policies in Iraq. However they are adamant about incorporating their ideal version of federalism in the new Constitution to be framed for Iraq which would include an elected Parliament and a President. This stand of the Kurds, which juxtaposes their support of the US policies vis-à-vis their demands for a separate identity, could more importantly highlight the friction between the Kurds and the Shiites in the South. The Shiites, who constitute the largest ethnic population in Iraq, do not approve of the American presence in Iraq and any undue concessions to the Kurds would not be acceptable to them. Concern about accommodating the Shiites objections becomes more important as the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the preeminent religious authority of Shiites in Iraq, rejected the initial proposal of transferring power through a fatwa. Most recently the grand Ayatollah has issues a fatwa rejecting the legitimacy of the Iraqi Governing Council. Then there are the Sunnis of Iraq, living along the so called Sunni triangle of the country. Having long enjoyed preeminence under Saddam, they are now facing problems as a result of the de Baathification and disbanding of the Iraqi military. They remain potentially dangerous and armed and therefore need to be included in any constitutional framework being envisaged for Iraq.

Thus when seen in this perspective there appear to be essentially two prominent reasons which are weighing in on US presence in Iraq. On the one hand domestic support for the US occupation in Iraq seems to be withering and with no immediate support and the US presidential elections of 2004, a pullback or a pullout seems to be logical. Secondly the hurried pullback by the Americans can be attributed also to the changing dynamics within Iraq itself. The framework for transfer of power so laid out hurries the process. The hurried nature of this pullback may succeed in establishing a government in Iraq without accommodating all the concerns of the various ethnic groups. Most importantly however it will also ensure that the process of nation building in Iraq is perceived as a process being carri9ed out successfully by the people of Iraq for Iraq.

John Edwards: Balancing the ticket

Senator Edwards was chosen as the running mate of Democratic Presidential nominee, Senator John Kerry on July 6. While the selection and vetting process had been shrouded in secrecy, the potent question that now remains to be answered is just what does John Edwards bring to the ticket? Consider the odds that Senator Kerry was working with. He had long established a lead over President Bush in domestic issues but just did not break free into a clear lead in national polls, despite a barrage of negative publicity for the latter. Further, polls continued to show that as a candidate, Senator Kerry was being preferred by the majority of registered Democratic voters, not for his candidature or policies, but because he is ‘the’ lone considered alternate to President Bush. Then again Senator Kerry was having trouble communicating his policies and vision to a waiting and reenergized Democratic base. Often lampooned for the use of complex terminology and multitude of policy references, Kerry often missed the basic of points; that he needed to engage people in a debate on the incumbent President’s policies while delineating and clarifying his own.

To this election blend of policies, statements and Presidential hopefuls enters a Senator with a total of 5 ½ years in public office but who more importantly managed to connect with the people as witnessed in his strong showings during the primaries. Known to be an engaging speaker with a sunny demeanour, Edwards is definitely expected to define Senator Kerry to the voters in a manner which has yet not been achieved by the candidate himself. A trial attorney by profession, who made his personal fortune through medical malpractice suits, John Edwards is a first time Senator from N. Carolina. Describing him as a political lightweight however would not be entirely correct as he has repeatedly demonstrated that he can deliver. When he won his Senate seat in 1998, Edwards had done so by successfully defeating a three time Republican incumbent. In the Senate, his political training has come under the guidance of Senator Ted Kennedy who is now also a senior advisor to Senator Kerry. John Edwards meteoric rise can also be affirmed in the fact that he was even considered as the Vice Presidential candidate in 2000 by the then Democratic nominee, Al Gore.

Interestingly while the Democrats are banking on Edwards’ ability to appeal to blue collar America, the Republicans are attacking Edwards for his lack of foreign policy experience. While this is a reflection of just how relevant foreign policy has become in this year’s election it also shows the different tacks being employed by both parties in engaging and portraying Edwards. Ironically a lot of Edwards’ past foreign policy statements have reflected upon the current concerns of the present Bush administration. Most importantly he had recognised terrorism as the key threat to the United States, four months before the 9/11 attacks.

For Kerry, Edwards would certainly be an asset in Southern states as he would bridge the gap between the liberal North and conservative south. Second, his stump campaigning in the Midwest would be beneficial as polls there have showed that he was able to better connect with the voters than John Kerry. Third, there can be no potential for potential policy miscues between Edwards and Kerry as both have not differed on voting records, in the Senate, except on three counts. Fourth, Edwards is also expected to provide the balance to the ticket by hedging the difference in personality, experience and youth. Fifth, fears that Edwards might overshadow the candidate have so far proved to be unfounded. Lastly, the selection of Edwards was probably made on the grounds of not what he could bring to the ticket but what the other final contenders could not. For instance Congressman Dick Gephardt of Missouri, a favourite of trade unions, could not have added as much to the ticket especially since Kerry has been endorsed by all major trade unions. Senator Bob Graham would have been helpful with Florida votes, especially since he had served in the state House and Senate and also as Florida’s Governor in the past, but probably not beyond. Governor Tom Vilsack of Iowa would have helped in his state but would have, beyond Iowa, added to the air of ambiguity which already prevails around Kerry’s nomination and candidature.

Even if the polls have not shown a substantial boost after the selection of Edwards, John Kerry has reasons to be satisfied. He probably knows that in tapping Edwards he is tapping into mainland America.

Outsourcing the US Economy? Myths and Facts

A report called ‘Jobs, Trade, Sourcing and the Future of the American Workforce’ was released in April this year by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States. The release of the report was aimed at dispelling the myths of outsourcing, an issue that has come to dominate the debate on the current economic health of the US. Defined by the 2004 Economic Report of the President as the process by which ‘a company relocates labour intensive service industry functions to another country’, outsourcing or offshoring of US jobs has come to be seen as the key cause affecting the US economy. When seen as a key cause affecting the US economy its only natural that debate in this year’s election campaigning will focus on the impact of this ubiquitous and subjectively perceived threat. Debate has thus focused on the candidate’s ability to project an outlook for the US economy which strikes a chord with the majority of Americans and therein lays the relative support or attack on the process of outsourcing jobs. With little or no understanding of the process of offshoring and the reality of dwindling job numbers, the argument has been attributed for the ills of the US economy. But as the report shows, offshoring aids the US economy much more than it could ever hurt and here are the reasons why.

First, an increase in productivity, coupled with the economic decline and continued uncertainty are the primary reasons for the recent job losses and not the offshoring of work. Second, the report reveals that despite job losses in manufacturing and service sectors, more Americans are working now than at any other time in history. Third, no one has a clear estimate of the actual number of US jobs that have been outsourced. Under any circumstance it would amount to only a fraction of the 138 million strong US workforces. Fourth, insourcing beats outsourcing in the US economy, by nearly $60 billion annually ie more jobs are shipped to the United Stated from other countries than vice versa. Fifth, American knowledge workers have not lost out on job opportunities as a result of outsourcing with unemployment rates amongst fresh graduates being strikingly low. Sixth, outsourcing of technological jobs would not affect the leadership of the United States. Seventh, a projection, based on current data, shows that by 2010, there would not be a shortage of jobs but rather a shortage of workers. Lastly, the report underscored the relevance that the US remain open to economies worldwide and not adopt isolationist measures in response to a perceived threat from offshoring.

With the above reasons it becomes distinctly clear that a threat from offshoring remains just that – ‘perceived’. Objectively speaking also there is no single factor affecting the US economy. The burden of fiscal deficit can be factored in, as it is the largest ever in US history, besides rising oil prices, declining investor confidence, domestic and international security worries and the burgeoning burden on the exchequer as a result of the war on terrorism are all playing on the slow growth of the US economy and therein slowing employment figures. Despite all these factors the most rhetoric, in this election, has been on the effect of offshoring of jobs to countries such as India, China and Mexico. It’s relevant to understand the line which candidate comes to adopt as it reflects the party line, stage of campaigning, and the party’s base structure. Thus for President Bush it is imperative to showcase the accruable advantages and relevance of offshoring jobs to American companies while for Senator Kerry, it remains important to propound a line that is consistent with the multiple labour unions that have vouched support for his candidacy. With the release of this report and various journal articles on the relevance of offshoring, one can hope that the negativity associated with it can be dispelled.

9/11 Commission and November elections

The ‘National Commission on Terrorist attacks upon the United States’ looking into the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington may well turn out to be one of the decisive factors in the Presidential elections. The Commission over the past few days grilled senior officials of the Clinton Administration as well as the current policy makers. It is the testimony of former White House terrorism expert, Richard Clarke that has clearly defined the battle lines. With the carefully timed release of his book “Against all Enemies: America’s war on terror”, Clarke had launched a powerful indictment of the Bush Administration. His main contention is that the White House did not take seriously the threats of an impending Al Qaida attack and that even after 9/11 terror attacks the main focus of the Bush administration was on engineering a regime change in Iraq.

This is after all the election year and the war on terrorism and national security are the twin electoral planks for President Bush in his re-election bid. In fact polls reveal that these are probably the only two issues on which President Bush leads the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee Senator Kerry. Thus for the Bush administration defending and even countering Richard Clarke’s testimony is proving to be a major challenge. National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, after initial reluctance has agreed to testify before the Commission. While she might have had some technical arguments on the turf to avoid testifying, it now has become a political necessity. Having been put on the defensive, for the first time on the conduct of the war against terrorism, the Bush Administration has adopted a two pronged counter attack. One is to question the personal credibility of Mr. Clarke by releasing confidential documents which detail Clarke’s own assessments, during his tenure, that the administration was doing a good job of fighting terrorism. The other is to make a reasonable case that the Administration was fully engaged with the challenge of al Qaida even before the attacks on September 11.

With the election promising to be a bitter one, and the Democrats determined to undercut, by all means the President’s claim to be a successful wartime president, all eyes in the U.S. will now be focused on Ms. Rice when she testifies before the Commission on Thursday. Given the high political stakes, expect some fireworks, through media leaks, even before she is grilled by the Commission.

The 9/11 Commission: Why Rice’s testimony was so important

If politics were a game of puzzle then a number of pieces from the political puzzle of the United States are definitely missing right now. Up until a fortnight ago the spotlight of the commission was on National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice who had rather reluctantly and belatedly agreed to appear before the 9/11 panel members. Prior to her testimony the debate amongst commission members raged on two questions: whether the Bush administration had ignored warnings of impending terrorist attacks and whether Iraq had featured as a priority even in the early stages of the war on terrorism.

In her testimony to the commission the main thrust that has emerged is basically multi pronged, both in intent and effect. Dr. Rice can be seen as trying to simultaneously deflect criticism of the Bush administration while launching a forceful denial of responsibility for the 9/11 terror attacks, enunciating upon the administration’s efforts at building a comprehensive counter-terror strategy and most importantly, passing the buck, as it were, on the accountability for the attacks. The main focus however remained on denying the Bush administration’s responsibility for the attacks by adopting the ‘cultural’ and ‘structural’ argument to explain the same. The cultural issue reflected the administration’s inability to implement an agenda against Al Qaeda as its policy on Pakistan and in turn Afghanistan was not effective. The structural issue referred to the lack of communication and coordination between the two central intelligence agencies of the US government; the CIA and FBI.

Unfortunately for the families of 9/11 victims, it is the structural argument that has lingered in mainstream media opinion rather than the lack of conclusive versions of accountability emerging from the commission testimonies. Thus despite the fact that Dr. Rice stated the name of the now declassified Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001 as ‘Bin Laden determined to attack inside the United States’, the attention has shifted from analysing pre 9/11 focus of the administration to resolving the communication gap between the CIA and the FBI.

A quick study of the recent headlines from mainstream newspapers in the United States reveals the shifting focus in the 9/11 blame game and the role of National Security Advisor’s, Condoleezza Rice’s testimony in ensuring the same. The headlines and the content pages are now concentrating on analysing how the Commission may approach the shortcomings of the FBI, the CIA, the Attorney General and even the Justice Department. This pattern is striking as instead of attempting to get to the bottom of the revelations emerging from Dr. Rice’s testimony, the commission is instead concentrating on unraveling the directions indicated by Dr. Rice. Thus, in essence, it can be said that the 9/11 panel members are concentrating on resolving the structural differences existing between the primary intelligence agencies of the United States instead of studying the failures of the Bush administration to heed to repeated intelligence warnings.

Taking into account the changed and evolving terms of debate is a measure of Dr. Rice’s success. She has not only carefully deflected any criticism of the Bush administration and it’s handling of pre 9/11 intelligence but her testimony has also helped alter the focus of the Commission which has gone from questioning the White House to questioning communication and structural failures between the nation’s intelligence agencies which could have resulted in the terror attacks.

There is no denying that structural differences do exist between the FBI and the CIA but neither is it the task of the Commission to suggest remedial measures for bridging this communication gap and nor is it the sole prerogative of the Commission to concentrate solely on attributing 9/11 to communication difficulties. Unfortunately the case of the panel is developing along these very lines and any output would not be able fit in the remaining pieces of the puzzle.

The EU: Discordant voices for a united future?

Ireland, one of the fifteen member states of the European Union took over the rotating Presidency on January 1st 2004 from Italy. The fact that Ireland was handed a constitutional mess by the outgoing Presidency of Italy is to understate the implications of the task at hand for the Irish. Italy’s tenure end was marked by the failure to ratify the EU Constitution. An understanding of the issues and tasks at hand would better clarify the uphill task that the Irish are faced with.

The European Union for all practical and theoretical purposes first became a reality with the signing of the Treaty of Paris of 1951. The signatories included the nations of erstwhile West Germany, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, Holland and Italy who came together to form the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC). With two subsequent treaties being signed by 1957 the ties between these nations grew stronger. Nine other European nations including Denmark, Britain, Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Austria, Finland and Sweden have since joined the ‘Community’ thereby transforming it into a ‘Union’.

The growing ties between these nations have been fostered at various economic and political levels. The Euro remains the single most pertinent example of an ambitious European future that is being envisaged. But of late various issues have slowed down the progress rate of the EU. The level of knowledge and enthusiasm amongst the people of the Union’s member states is partly to blame for the compulsions it poses for their respective governments. And then there remains the general skepticism over the economic implications that may arise from the induction of ten, mostly former Soviet bloc countries, as members. The EU's population is projected to grow by 20 percent to 450 million people. But within this growth of voices and opinions that span the continent lies a problem. It has become increasingly difficult for EU policy planners to find a common footing that would suit the requirements, wishes and aims of one and all member states.

And the problems do not end domestically for the members. Within the European Union per se, legal and back door wrangling has been taking place as regards the political mileage each nation state maybe able to derive. The most discerning example of this can be seen as the recent failure to ratify the EU Constitution in December 2003 which would have streamlined decision making processes and foreign policy issues before the induction of the ten new states. The Constitution was primarily not ratified as it would have reduced the voting powers of Spain and Poland from the current 27 – a number disproportionate to their populations and unacceptable to France and Germany. Then there remain other lesser voiced issues such as concerns over the roles of an EU President and Foreign Minister; powers of a European Parliament and the mention of Christianity in the Constitution. The list remains long and exhaustive. All in all there remain about a hundred issues that still need to be resolved.

The Irish are thus faced with an unenviable task of sorting out this constitutional mess through coaxing and persuading the members to come to a mutually accepted solution on a number of issues. Reports seem to suggest that the Irish Premier, Mr. Bertie Ahern would revive the constitutional debate during Ireland’s tenure. He has already warned of a "dangerous" vacuum if no deal is reached soon. While this will be Ireland's sixth turn at the EU presidency and its theme optimistically proclaims "Europeans working together" things do not appear equally rosy. It seems improbable that the constitutional concerns can be sorted out under Ireland’s presidency. But at the same time the economic implications of the EU would override, in the long term any domestic compulsions. Within all this debate there remains the unstated worry of trying to match EU’s economic clout with a political entity.

Musharraf in China

Pakistan President Musharraf’s recent three day visit to China saw a new chapter of warm and friendly bilateral ties for the two countries. The visit was a reminder for others to see how strong the ties between the two countries had remained and also how they could come to pose a strategic and military challenge, to others, in the subcontinent. The expressions of bonhomie were resonating even in the joint declaration, presented at the end of Musharraf’s visit, which called bilateral ties “exemplary”.

Signed by Presidents Pervez Musharraf and Hu Jintao, a declaration also described cooperation between the two countries as an "indispensable" factor towards maintaining peace and stability in Asia. Congratulatory plaudits were expressed by both countries with Musharraf even calling the partnership as being "deeper than the oceans, higher than the mountains". The statements made by the Pakistani camp, during Musharraf’s three day visit focused explicitly on the growing economic prowess of China in the subcontinent and also the world. Therefore it should come as no surprise that the real essence of the three day visit lay in the economic undertones of the agreements that were signed between the two countries. For instance of the eight accords signed between China and Pakistan, export of goods, tariff cuts, preferential trade agreement, infrastructure development etc featured prominently. Pakistani and Chinese business signed joint ventures amounting to $220 million and Gen Musharraf also hinted at the setting up of an Exclusive Economic Zone to further the existing volumes of trade.

The second and more obvious area of cooperation between the two countries lay in the defense sector. Ironically while the Pakistanis came away with renewed commitments on defense cooperation between the two countries they were not able to secure China’s assistance in building the second stage of the Chashma nuclear plant in Pakistan. The Chinese have assisted Pakistan in building the first stage of the nuclear facility but have resisted in actively providing logistical support for the second stage. There could be a couple of probable reasons which may be influencing their thinking which may enforced this waiting period upon Pakistan. On the one hand the Chinese decision of not signing on the dotted line, despite tacitly agreeing to assist Pakistan, may probably have been taken in light of the international furor being raised over the nuclear developments of Iran and North Korea. On the other hand the US has been putting additional pressure on the Chinese to prevent them from providing active support to the Pakistanis and had the agreement been signed, both countries would have stood accused of further raising the tensions in the subcontinent by actively aiding nuclear proliferation. Thus the Chinese gesture may be seen as a practice which successfully accommodates international concerns and regional constraints for the immediate future.

That the Pakistan camp was hopeful, that the agreement would come through officially, can be made out from the statement by a foreign ministry official who had claimed that all technical agreements would be signed during the summit meeting. But all is not lost on the defense front for Pakistan. The two sides had recently conducted joint naval exercises off the coast of Shanghai, the first such exercise for the Chinese navy. The defense bonhomie continues even further with both sides having agreed to further their defense cooperation with the manufacturing of tanks and the testing of the fighter jet Super – 7. It should be noted here that the Pakistani military establishment heavily relies on the China’s military support especially with the restrictions that are in place for its purchases from the US.

So where does this mutual camaraderie leave India in the political power play of South Asia. The best option would probably be to have a non speculative approach on the current bonhomie between India’s two neighbours. There is an increasing recognition that the closeness shared between two neighbours may not necessarily close the doors on other aspects. Therefore parallel processes between India and China are being exploited which could rival the developments on the other front. On the economic and strategic front a new openness in discussions is signaling a new dimension in relations on this side also.