Politics of deal-making

DESPITE government’s cautious stance, statements from former prime minister Benazir Bhutto, doing loud rounds in the international media, suggest a Musharraf-BB deal has all but been put into place, with just a few screws needing tightening. However, those would involve crucial matters like parliamentary autonomy and the president’s power to dismiss the lower house, especially if Musharraf will accept a toned down personal portfolio by finally shedding the uniform. And BB has timed the deadline card just right, just after the supreme court facilitated Nawaz Sharif’s unexpected re-entry into the fray. Confusions notwithstanding, it is important to look into the quality of the broth cooks from left, right and centre of Pakistan’s political mainframe will partake in preparing. And it will not be long before it’s time to cook. No doubt presently Benazir enjoys considerable western attention, like Musharraf did post-9/11. And with the president’s popularity dipping (though not his terror-war utility to the west), the proposed marriage of convenience is seeing BB have her way on most demands. But with Nawaz Sharif suddenly ready to return and contest, especially since he minces few words about no partnership with Musharraf, the urgency in the BB-Islamabad dialogue is also not unfathomable.
However, it is beyond the deal-making that the real complications lie. Neither BB nor Sharif would be welcomed too warmly by patriarchs of the ruling structure put in place to ensure Musharraf’s survival. Already ministers have voiced discontent over secrecy with a parliament that is supposed to re-elect the president. And demeaning remarks from the administration’s key positions to the ousted leaders would have undoubtedly roused passions that are all too familiar in third world politics. From an international perspective, Pakistan is perhaps the most crucial geo-strategic country in South Asia. And political stability there, or lack of it, is reflected well beyond its borders also. So, while its powerbrokers are busy streamlining its politics, they would be well advised to give more than rhetorical-service to what should be held supreme – the constitution. The politics of deal-making, amounting to allowing personal survival instinct dictate the road to general elections, can be vindicated only if the subsequent exercise is held in true democratic spirit, with concrete commitment from the centre. For all the disorder and perplexity in the country’s political make-up, the first cleansing step must be letting the people decide first, and letting the deals follow.

Path of negotiation

TAKING hostages is an appalling crime that imposes a living death on the victims and an agony of anguish upon family and friends. The Taleban have behaved with murderous dishonor in seizing 23 South Koreans, butchering two including their leader and threatening the lives of the rest unless their demands were met. Among those conditions was the withdrawal of South Korean troops from the multinational security forces in Afghanistan. The government in Seoul has announced just such a pullout by December but insists that the decision had already been made before the group kidnapping. It also insists that no money has been paid to the Taleban when there are strong indications that it has. The behavior of the South Korean government is therefore also dishonorable. By caving in TO the blackmail it has made potential victims of all foreign civilians engaged in a wide range of projects in Afghanistan. There is a fundamental argument that no government should pay ransoms for any of its citizens, most especially when those people have gone out of their way to work in conflict zones. This little band of Koreans courted the disaster that befell them. Groups like this not only endanger themselves by choosing such hot spots to do their work, they also endanger the lives of soldiers who might have to put their own lives on the line to rescue them. These groups amount to sheep for the slaughter to those who believe they can win victories by kidnapping and murdering non-combatants. But regardless of who is kidnapped, no government should bow to kidnapping demands. They should, however, be more willing to go to the negotiating table in other regards. By bargaining with the Taleban for 21 lives, the South Koreans have demonstrated the fundamental principle that in the end, it is only through negotiations that conflict in Afghanistan will be ended. Washington continues to delude itself that all geopolitical problems can be solved by force. US generals will doubtless have been buoyed up by the apparent slaying of over 100 Taleban this week when air-to-ground strikes broke up a big attack on an Afghan-US convoy. But in truth the loss probably hurt the Taleban not at all.
In the first Loya Jirga after the Taleban’s ouster, tentative efforts were made to include some Taleban elements within the new political process. But the old government was on the run; it was not the time for negotiations. Now the Taleban has re-established itself on the map, with serious consequences beyond the country. This year opium poppy crop is set to be the biggest ever and will enrich the Taleban who once eradicated from the areas it controlled. The time would seem to be right to start talking to the Taleban and offering them a place at the political top table. They were themselves appalling administrators but in coalition with other parties, this would not matter. The message needs to be sent that all reasonable men know there is no lasting military solution to the civil strife.

—Arab News