Being Musharraf

On Friday, President Musharraf effectively terminated the services of the serving Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhary by placing him under 'house arrest' and referring his case to the Supreme Judicial Council on charges that have thus far not been revealed. Of course, giving credit where it is due, this extreme step was taken only after the President had 'asked' the CJP to resign - presumably for the same charges that will be now form the basis of his hearing on March 13 by the Supreme Judicial Council. Thus while the CJP of Pakistan languishes alone in his residence without any visitors and completely isolated from the outside world, Islamabad appointed an acting CJ in the form of Justice Javed Iqbal who superceded Justice Bhagwan Das to the post (incidentally Bhagwan Das, a Hindu, was out of the country during this dramatic turn of events).

These recent events have made Pakistan a very compelling case study even for a casual observer of Islamabad's political upheavals. While a number of reasons have been ascribed to this sudden turn of events, a wonderful summary of which can be read here, I have my own reasons and summations for the same.

There are a number of theories floating around regarding the dismissal of the Chief Justice and in my personal opinion these theories cannot, singularly or collectively, explain the actions taken for the simple reason that no one knows what prompted the General himself to take action. The perceived 'independence' of the Chief Justice in rendering judgements on issues as diverse as the missing persons case, asking for clarifications from intelligence agencies, cancelling the privatisation of the Pakistan Steel Mills, adjudicating on the educational qualifications of the MMA leaders, so on and so forth actually represented feathers in President Musharraf's cap as it was possibly the only institution which appeared to be democratic and an effective platform for redressal of grievances in an otherwise lawless Pakistan. This independence of the CJP might have been alarmed the President but certainly not compelled him to take action. I say this because when power is absolute, reasons such as the above, cannot be causal factors per se.

I do believe that there is more to what meets the eye in this case. A study of the recent political events highlight growing concerns over the efficacy of President Musharraf as the ruler of Pakistan by both domestic and foreign concerns. No longer the 'to go' guy of the US and unable to ensure his continued presence at the helm of Pakistani affairs (the deal with the PPPP is yet to be finalised) could have prompted President Musharraf to underline his absolute authority in this drastic fashion. After all who else could he have targeted to achieve this goal - the main opposition leaders are in exile abroad and the CJP was the only remaining constitutional authority relevat enough to challenge the writ of Musharraf. With this understanding the dismissal of the CJP was merely the means to an end and not an end in itself.

Then again, and as any ardent observer of President Musharraf's would attest, his style of functioning relies on the element of surprise more than anything else. Nothing and no one could have anticipated the way in which the Chief Justice of Pakistan was swiftly dismissed. Catching his detractors offguard with the sheer audacity of his act allows Musharraf to work around his critics and re-establish his authority. This he achieves whilst his detractors are left second guessing the fallacy of their assessment of the General's sway on Pakistani polity and military.

While the events do portend a bleak future for Pakistan they also show that politics in Pakistan begin and end with Musharraf. The Chief Justice unfortunately happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time. What happens now in Pakistan will reflect the polity one can expect for the coming decade.

Other interesting articles on Musharraf and the dismissal saga can be read here and here.

Whirlwind

A number of events have taken place since I last updated the blog not least of which include - the trouncing of the Congress in 2 of the 3 states in which elections were held, Quattrocchi's arrest by Argentinean police and the failure of New Delhi in disclosing the same, bombing of the Samjhauta express by Muslims/Hindus/religious/communal/secular/Indians/Pakistanis, growing instability in Pakistan and Afghanistan with bombings taking place with increasing frequency, sustained confusion in the state of Dhaka's politics so on and so forth. These are events with a distinct S Asia focus. I am not even considering the escalating violence in Iraq and Syria, interesting verbal spats between Obama and Clinton, Iran's steadfast refusal to halt uranium enrichment, renewed violence between the Israeli and Palestinians over the construction of a rampart near the Al Aqsa mosque - I mean really - the list can get pretty lengthy!

A few thoughts however on the aforementioned events as time and days passed me by

- While I am personally gleeful at BJP victories in the states of Punjab and Uttaranchal, I do highly doubt if these would have an impact on the electoral fortunes of the NDA at a national level. There are a few reasons for this - the core party structure is still unsteady in its Hindutva ways having shunted out Modi and other RSS stalwarts who posed a threat to the power of party President Rajnath Singh; the party is still grappling to replace the power centres of the Vajpayee-Advani combine; the top down imposition by the RSS that 'the party is bigger than the person' is not so ironically, fuelling ego clashes and power struggles within the party are just some of the institutional issues that the BJP is facing. Fortunately for the BJP and unfortunately for the state of Indian politics the Congress is faring no better when it comes to putting its house in order.

- I am not quite sure how New Delhi and indeed Sanjaya Baru - the PMO's press advisor can utilise the government's propaganda machinery to spin news about the Gandhi family's close associate and key accused in the Bofors case, Quattrocchi’s arrest almost a month by Argentinean police at the Iguazu airport in response to an Interpol Red Corner notice issued against him in 1997. I don't think that explanations regarding the delayed disclosure of this vital news can be sought in any of the humbug reasons the Government has so far put forth -verification of the man arrested, difficulties in translating the Spanish text (Quoi??!!!) etc etc. So if spin is not the answer in this situation, the Govt has sought the next best thing - to keep the hum about Quattrocchi to a bare minimum in national dailies. Strange as it may be, the losses faced by the Congress in state elections allowed for public and indeed media attention to shift from Quattrocchi to Punjab/Uttaranchal; from the state of the Government to the state of the party. Even the BJP dropped the issue and reverted to crowing about its victories. Currently the annual Budget occupies the remarkably short span of collective political memory in India. A good overview of the Q saga can however be found here.

- The bomb blasts on the Samjhauta express were indeed disconcerting but what probably worried more were news reports on the 'terrorists' responsible for it. The usual suspects were spelt out with no conclusive evidence to back claims by either Pakistan or India; the doves of the Kashmir peace process were convinced that this was an effort to sabotage the peace process while the hawks were convinced that the bombings were another proof of Pakistan's complicity in sponsored terrorism in Kashmir. Both camps thus reached their near sighted conclusions and favour of and against peace talks. Unfortunately it did not end here. Ridiculous news reports claiming that since Muslims were targeted meant that some right wing Hindu outfit was involved whilst others were convinced that the blasts were part of Pakistan's dirty game plan to foil communal harmony in secular India. The fact that no one has as yet claimed responsibility does not matter. Conspiracy theories are aplenty. My question is - why does the religion of the victims matter when a terrorist act is carried out? Aren't victims faceless? Isn't the grief of a Muslim equal to that of a Hindu? Terrorism is terrorism - period. Why typify it on the basis of a man made construct - religion?!

- I have given up tracking the bomb blasts, suicide attacks, rocket attacks, IEDs and other sundry devices that have recently been deployed against the military and state installations in an increasingly volatile Pakistan. Unfortunately however, the victims are mostly innocent civilians. With daily reports referring to a growing presence of Taliban and that of a regrouped Al Qaeda in the lawless FATA and North western province of Pakistan, one wonders if this is indeed another case of a self fulfilling prophecy for Musharraf which would have allowed him to re-establish the Taliban in Afghanistan. Fortunately the US has at least started seeing the fallacy of believing everything that the General promises. It remains to be seen of course what Musharraf can do in the face of this increasing pressure or the alternatives that the US can employ in such a situation.

- Politics in Dhaka of late has begun to remind me of those extreme acrobatics that can only be witnessed in the Cirque du Soleil and therefore it has sparked renewed interest! The BNP and AL - two parties consistently at loggerheads with each other, have suddenly joined hands to demand early elections from the caretaker Govt. Of course the rationale for this sudden desire to impart good governance can be sought in the anti corruption drive that was recently launched by the caretaker government and the announcement of the formation of a political party by Nobel Peace prize winner Mohammed Yunus. Realising that their political space was being targeted - both by the Government and by the new entrant - the two parties decided to bury their differences and survive together to fight another day. Their ploy may however not be working as latest reports suggest that the caretaker government of Dr Fakruddin Ahmed has decided to postpone elections indefinitely! Oh well - I give the BNP and AL full marks for trying at least. Interestingly, Dr Yunus had recently stated that were elections to be held soon he would not be able to form an effective party structure or for that matter affect a change in the political stage of Bangladesh! Food for thought?!

My whirlwind recollection of recent political events with a S Asia/India focus concludes here. More regular posts to follow soon.

PS: Oh and Kim Jong Il, the venerable leader of North Korea, celebrated his 65th birthday amidst much fanfare in February. Joy!

A Presidential Mission

Senator Hillary Clinton (D - NY) recently announced what many have suspected and expected for a while - her bid to return to the White House in 2009, albeit as President elect of the United States of America and not as the First Lady. While her announcement may not have been surprising, it does throw open a set of delicious questions for the forthcoming US Presidential elections.

The most relevant question of course focuses on Senator Clinton's running mate, should she win the party's nomination that is. Could it be the very popular Senator Obama (D - Ill) or the charming John Edwards, both of whom are incidentally expected to be front runners for the nomination themselves. In the event that its a Clinton-Obama ticket, the question that would then seek to be addressed is whether America was liberal enough to elect its first female President and African American Vice President. I have my reservations on this count but polls in the coming months should give a clearer indication of this assessment.

Interestingly, even though Senator Clinton has only announced her decision to set up an exploratory committee to gauge her viability as the party's candidate, the manner of her announcement (made online and not at a press briefing as is traditionally done) and her words 'I'm in and I'm in to win' pretty much underline her intention. Her words can also be interpreted as an open challenge to Senator Barack Obama, who many see as her main competition for the party nomination. Similarly the urgency of her announcement can be attributed to the need to corner prominent fundraisers and contributors before they endorse other candidates. (Senator Obama had announced the setting up of a similar exploratory committee only last week and had immediately received the endorsement of billionaire George Soros)

Needless to say, Elections 2008 and the battle for the White House promises to be a political rollercoaster and one which New Delhi should closely follow given the possibilities of another Clinton administration.

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.

Denial of visa to Narendra Modi and its aftermath

The aftermath of any event is always a good place to start adjudicating on an issue and event – simply because it gives one the advantage of hindsight. The denial of a visa to Narendra Modi, an elected head of state in democratic India, would obviously result in dividing public opinion on the man and the issue itself. But before one considers the monikers of ‘victim’ or ‘villain’ for Modi one must first read the facts in a clear and objective light.

The whole incident emerged when activists representing the ‘Coalition against Genocide’ drew the attention of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom to the purported role of the Gujarat government in the 2002 riots. I specifically use the word ‘purported’ for despite the statements and public perceptions, neither Narendra Modi nor the state Government apparatus have ever been indicted on charges specific to the Godhra riot. Nonetheless the efforts by the Coalition yielded results with the role of the Gujarat government finding mention in the Commission’s reports for two years running – in 2003 and 2004. Ironically the Commission cited the findings of our very own National Human Rights Commission’s (NHRC) report on the Godhra riots to reach its conclusion on Modi and the Gujarat government. Thus upon intimation of Modi’s impending visit to the United States and on the basis of the Commission’s report, the US State Department revoked Modi’s business and tourist visa under the Immigration and Nationality Act, Section 212 (A) (2) (G) which prohibits the entry of a person responsible for ‘particularly severe violations of religious freedom’.

With the pronouncement of the decision taken by the United States, statements of protest came from both the Centre and the State government and therein the public question of whether Narendra Modi is in fact the victim or the villain in these proceedings? One must consider the fact that the United States would not have taken this extreme step without informing the Government of India prior to the public announcement of their decision. That said it could also be assumed that the Government of India would have informed the Gujarat Chief Minister of the impending judgment on his visa application. The question that one must consider now is why Narendra Modi actually went ahead with the application after all in the first place? Knowing that his application would be rejected can’t it truly be said that Modi in fact went ahead with his plans merely to accrue political mileage out of the whole episode?

A cursory glance at newspaper headlines and the extent of media coverage this issue received reveals the scope of the mileage that Modi has indeed been able to derive out of this whole exercise. For one it clearly shows that besides being a divisive figure in national politics, he can still carry the media with him. The denial of the visa gave Modi the perfect opportunity to campaign and spell out his stand sans the Godhra backdrop, and this time, he was able to successfully portray himself as the victim rather than the villain. He even went out on a limb to woo the Muslim constituents of Gujarat by claiming that he ‘not against Islam but against Jihad’.

The Centre’s response to the whole episode was to wholly back Modi while expressing regret at the decision of the United States. I don’t think that there could have been any other way for the Government of India to react on this issue. If the GoI had distanced itself from the visa issue then Modi would have been inadvertently accorded more political mileage as he could have then claimed that New Delhi had let petty party politics affect the nation’s image. However supporting him may not exactly have been the right way either. The latest public relations strategy by the Gujarat government is in the form of a 47 - page booklet entitled ‘US refusal of visa to Shri Narendra Modi: India stands united’. A not so subtle indication of the stand that the Central government took on the issue came in the form of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s photograph next to Modi himself on the cover of the booklet.

This brings me back to my first point. Why did the United States feel impelled to refuse and revoke Narendra Modi’s visa? Had he gone to the United States, Narendra Modi would have been there in his own personal capacity, and not as the elected head of an Indian state. He was therefore neither representing Indians nor his electoral constituents in the state of Gujarat. Moreover why did the United States revoke Modi’s visa citing ‘violations of religious freedom’ especially since there is no registered case against him in any of the courts, charge sheeting him in connection with the Godhra riots. Public perceptions and subjective opinions of Modi apart, the enforcement agencies have not been able to prove his complicity in the Godhra riots in a comprehensive fashion. The decision by the United States becomes even more odd as they did not have any qualms in according L K Advani, a person who has cases pending against him in connection with the Ayodhya dispute and Babri Masjid demolition case, a reception normally reserved for visiting heads of state, when he last went to the United States in June of 2003.

All said and done it is obvious that there is more to what meets the eye in this whole episode. But one thing that can be said conclusively is that Narendra Modi has emerged with a lot more political mileage and gain, with the ensuing media circus, than he could have anticipated.