Possibility of early general elections

THE WOMEN Protection Bill which seeks to amend the existing Hudood laws when passed by both the Houses of the Parliament will have far-reaching impact on the political scene. The Muttehida Majlis-e-Amal (MMA) has vowed to resign from the National Assembly if all its reservations on the issue are not addressed. The ruling party appears to have bent forward and backward to accommodate some of the demands of the MMA so as to avert a political crisis which should develop once MMA, as threatened, would quit the Assemblies though some leaders of PML (Q) have been claiming that no significant problem will arise as seats to be vacated would be filled through by-elections.
However, the ruling party is reported to be considering calling for early polls to spring a surprise on the former Prime Ministers Mian Nawaz Sharif and Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto who have announced their plans to return to Pakistan ahead of the scheduled elections. The Assemblies would complete their tenure around November 2007 and thereafter a caretaker set up would be inducted to supervise the general elections which can not be held earlier than February 2008.
The present Assemblies are likely to re-elect President Pervez Musharraf for the second term and immediately thereafter elections could be announced. The ruling party has strong following and conduct of elections ahead of schedule would not give ample time to the opposition to muster enough support to gain a meaningful strength in the next Assemblies.
The former Prime Ministers are reluctant to return to Pakistan early. Mian Nawaz could face cases which were shelved as a result of a deal brokered by Saudi rulers which resulted in his10-year exile. Mohtarma Benazir has already been convicted in absentia and several NAB references are pending against her. On return to Pakistan, she is likely to be arrested. Perhaps she does not want to take that risk.
The present Government appears to have come under tremendous political pressure because of the Bajaur seminary attack in which 83 persons perished. While the officials are yet to state that there was any link between Bajaur tragedy and the suicide bomber’s dastardly attack at the Army training centre at Dargai where 42 cadets were martyred, the ground realities indicate that present anti-terror strategy is coming under lot of strain. Some retired Army Generals have cautioned the authorities against the continuing operations in FATA and advised the Government to review its military strategy because they feel that pursuit of terror suspects has created more problems than solved.
Following Democrats’ victory in the US midterm elections, Washington is likely to change its policies in Afghanistan and Iraq. Islamabad, under these circumstances, shall have to make necessary adjustments. All these factors may oblige the Government to hold early elections.

Diplomacy of clenched fist

The latest staggering example of the total lack of comprehension with which President Bush and his dogged ally Tony Blair have conducted their Iraq policy came yesterday as both leaders began to seek Syrian and Iranian support. In holding out their hands to the two countries, the best gesture they could manage was a clenched fist.
Blair began this doomed foray into diplomatic ineptitude Monday night in a speech during which he called on the Iranians to come to Washington and London’s assistance, but only after they had first suspended their nuclear program of uranium enrichment. They should also cease their “support for terrorism” — for which read interference in Bush’s interference in Iraq.
Bush still wants UN sanctions against Iran unless it halts its nuclear work. This seems doubly foolish. Clearly this threatening approach puts Teheran in absolutely no mood to be helpful. Worse, it is highly unlikely that fellow permanent Security Council members Russia and China will agree to sanctions if for no better reason than that they do not believe sanctions will work. Thus Bush is wrecking any chance of the Iranians helping in Iraq for the sake of a contentious UN resolution that is not going to happen anyway. Had the US president a greater reputation for thoughtful analysis or thought at all, it might be suspected that he actually wanted Iraq to continue its bloody slide into chaos.
Syria may, however, be a different matter. Subtle British diplomacy appears to have taken off here with recent high-level diplomatic visits to Damascus from London. It was notable that Blair made only a passing reference to Syria during the speech in which he supposedly sought Iran’s diplomatic cooperation. Syria might make some impact on the parlous security situation in Iraq by working harder to stop Al-Qaeda fighters and insurgent weapons coming into Iraq from the west. It is at the same time arguable that Iran’s influence over the rising power of the Shiite militias would have greater effect if it chose to use it.
The British may yet recognize that Syria holds the key to a far larger door, a Palestinian settlement and a stable Lebanon. The resignation of all five Shiite members of the Lebanese Cabinet, after their government colleagues endorsed a UN investigation into the assassination of former Premier Rafik Hariri, indicates some of Syria’s price. It does not want an enquiry likely to point the finger of blame at Damascus. A wider Palestinian settlement would also have to include the return of the Golan Heights. Damascus has always feared the issue would be excluded from negotiations on Palestine.
Tony Blair is doubtless telling Bush that he can still secure his place in history by ending 60 years of injustice and creating a viable Palestinian state. But Bush may not be listening. Didn’t the Palestinians elect a government he didn’t like? The diplomatic complexities may unfortunately escape the president’s limited grasp and in addition, Israel, the real pivot to any settlement, doesn’t care at all about his place in history.

—Arab News