Pakistani politics & Presidential election
Nasim Zehra

IN PAKISTAN, it is the politics around the presidential election which is acquiring increasing significance as a determining factor. It trumps all else as the force that determines the context within which the interplay between state, society and politics takes place.
Admittedly, Pakistan’s new reality is that the media-facilitated discourse has generated public awareness. That awareness has ensured that intangibles like rule of law, constitutionalism, fair play and moral legitimacy acquire mental and emotional significance for large sections of society. Yet ultimately it is politics that can convert these crucial intangibles into concrete and tangible realities that will define Pakistan’s political systems and guarantee the constitutional accountability of the exercise of institutional and individual authority. Hence the focus on what politics surrounds the issue of the highly controversial presidential election.
The politics of the ruling party which is essentially General Musharraf’s political arm is simple. Its members will support the president since he and by extension the establishment have until now been like their insurance policy for political relevance in the corridors of power. With general elections nearing the ruling party, though having taken independent positions on the Bugti, the judiciary, the Kalabagh Dam and the uniform issues, still generally appears to be an establishment-dependant political force. The party, barring some lone skeptics, is therefore committed to General Musharraf’s re-election. Some are giving general Musharraf advice on how to cross the legal and political barriers. The party leadership’s only ‘no sir’ to Musharraf has been regarding a constitutional amendment, a third term clearance to the PPP chairperson Benazir Bhutto.
General Musharraf’s unwavering commitment to his own re-election combines with his willingness to take dramatic U-turns to wriggle out of political or legal dead-ends. He will soon be giving up his army chief position, his dialogue with Benazir Bhutto may soon yield some agreement on basic but desperately needed quid pro quos, his political team’s engagement with the JUI leadership to divide the MMA will continue, as will his negotiations with the Saudis on Nawaz Sharif’s return in October.
Overall however it’s a no-holds barred effort to see General Musharraf as president for the next five years and preferably without uniform. Musharraf, they know, unless some dramatic developments catapult drastically different factors on Pakistan’s political scene, is and will remain an establishment-supported candidate. They therefore view him as their insurance policy for continued political relevance even after the return of Pakistan’s currently Dubai and Jeddah-based political titans on the political field.
As the president’s men are jointly politicking to ensure Musharraf’s re-election, above all, they are seeking credibility for the highly divisive election process. Numbers for the re-election they do have. Technically even if a provincial assembly or two is wrapped up before his election, the presidential election can still go through. But resignations of all opposition members and provincial assembly dissolutions are what would make the re-election completely controversial. It will forever be stamped as a polarising election which threw up a highly controversial presidential candidate.
The president’s men and his party recognise it. Hence the political strategy to engage with any political group, the PPP and JUI principally, that is willing to move away from a ‘go Musharraf go’ political strategy.
The Musharraf camp’s politics is largely focused on damage limitation through reactive political and administrative moves. Bogged down by the yet unsettled legal parameters of elections, less than two weeks from an election the president’s men have no positive narrative about their candidate. His men often repeat a few bureaucratic statements on how well the economy has done. Then there are short documentaries portraying General Musharraf as Pakistan’s savior-messiah. The public space on Musharraf’s performance is largely occupied by his opponents. It’s a fire-fighting exercise for the president’s team. And this fire-fighting may extend beyond national boundaries too if blundering moves likes arresting political opponents continue prompting increased criticism by General Musharraf’s principal supporters in Washington.
Beyond the ruling coalition other politically active forces opposing General Musharraf can be divided into three groups. One, the pragmatists’ group, that seeks to compromise with him in exchange for some personal and party gains. This includes the PPP and the JUI leadership which also hopes to take credit for receding military-democracy.
Two, the radicals groups, which consist of political parties seeking radical action, to remove the individual they believe is the main impediment to genuine democracy. From among the political mainstream groups it includes the APDM parties which appeard willing to even take on the supreme court incase it did not rule out Musharraf as a presidential candidate, which has happened. At least public statements by some of the ADPM leaders suggest that they will also resort to agitational violence, unlike the peaceful protest favouring the deposed chief justice.
The third group is the lawyers’ movement group which seeks genuine constitutional democracy by battling Musharraf through continued engagement with legal and political tools. Half a dozen among thousands of lawyers have also wrongly taken to violence in pursuit of their goal of removing Musharraf. After winning the CJP’s case, the lawyers have become directly involved in the presidential elections. They are following a two track policy. First arguing against the illegality of the process itself they are now focusing on the illegality of the candidate. To directly confront General Musharraf they have nominated their own presidential candidate. This is a positive move. The lawyers have given a concrete shape to the alternative that they seek — a civilian president who believes in constitutional democracy. That is what Justice Wajihuddin, who refused to take oath under the PCO, represents. By nominating a candidate the lawyers have not only indirectly shown faith in the election process, but have also encouraged parties like the PPP to nominate its own presidential candidate. The lawyers’ movement may not have made a winning move but they have certainly made a constructive contribution towards promoting constitutional democracy.
Against this political backdrop Musharraf’s political survival stands a fifty-fifty chance. However, no matter who wins the next presidential elections, Pakistan’s journey into political adulthood has already begun. It will be somewhat turbulent but no longer will it have the diversions that will take Pakistan away from constitutional democracy. Martial laws have forever been trashed in the dustbin. Any attempt to reclaim them as instruments of rule will devour its author.

—Khaleej Times
 

Aznar’s silence
Fidel Castro Ruz

During a Round Table program aired on Cuban television on April 25, 2003, I pointed out that the then Spanish President José María Aznar, an ally of the world’s leader in genocides and massacres, had met with President William Clinton on April 13, 1999, at an uncertain juncture of the war in Yugoslavia, and had told him, verbatim: “If we’re at war, let’s make it an all-out war, in order to win, to achieve more than a partial victory. Even if the war must last a month, three months, let’s wage it. I don’t understand why we have not yet bombed Serbian radio and television”. Aznar and US government spokespeople have kept silence about this. The text that follows has never before been published. I will use other materials, both public and confidential, in reflections to come.
“AZNAR: I will speak frankly. As I’ve already told President Clinton, the one thing that cannot happen is for NATO to be defeated now. Not only NATO’s credibility, but its very existence as well, is now at stake. Had this conflict taken place 30 years ago, we would not have intervened. Europe has always been plagued by ethnic cleansings, confrontations between minorities and majorities, religious conflicts. Today, this is no longer tolerable. From the political point of view, we will never be in favor of Kosovo’s independence, because of what we said before”. Referring to Chirac, the French president, he said: “I will speak with him tomorrow in Brussels. When I want to have a good time with Chirac, I start by saying to him that ‘these Americans are truly horrible’. I had dinner with him at the Elysium three weeks ago. I don’t know what had happened between you, but he was saying terrible things about you. I told him that was all fine and good, but that I wasn’t there to discuss that.
“My idea is that, in order to win the war, the lines of communication between the Belgrade government and the people must be cut off. All of Serbia’s lines of communication, its radio, television and phones, must be put out. “In addition to this, we must restructure our information policy. NATO’s information policy is disastrous. We’re giving people the impression we’ve set out on an adventure, not that we’re waging a war. There are real communication gaps. We have to go as far as we can on this, patiently cut off all supplies and lines of communication. “We have to be careful with Italy and Greece. Air traffic and tourism in Italy are being severely affected. D’Alema is doing a good job, given the circumstances. We must not let him arrive at facile solutions. “We must step up humanitarian aid efforts. Our citizens must see the efficacy of our humanitarian work as the other side of the bombings. “It would be senseless to change positions now. I spoke with Annan yesterday. I saw that he had a firm stance on the matter. I stressed this   to Annan. We can be flexible, but we cannot give people the impression that NATO is withdrawing.
“We can be flexible with respect to whether NATO would lead this force or not, but we cannot content ourselves with having OSCE (Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe) observers return. In addition to transparency, we must have a guarantee. “We must continue to pursue this strategy, to see if it possible for him to be overthrown internally” (He is referring to Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic). “If a number of his generals fear that they can be accused before the Hague Tribunal, they may cooperate. Milosevic will likely try and come to an agreement. We must attempt to have that agreement reduce and not increase his power. “We need not even touch on the matter of the land operation. “Everyone understands that plans are in the making, anything else would be illogical. If our current strategy isn’t working, we have to explore other options. It must be put on the table for consideration. If everything we’re doing leads us nowhere, we’ll have to intervene in the coming months. But our actions could not be limited to Kosovo. Rather, they would include other areas of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, going through Bosnia and Hungary, even. The Hungarian president is a young and intelligent leader, he told me that we will never be successful unless the following happens: Milosevic out of office, Kosovo split into two and a reformulation of the policy towards Bosnia-Herzegovina, to be divided as follows: a united Serbian Republic for Serbia, the Croatian part for Croatia and an independent Muslim part. I don’t agree with this idea, but I believe it is gaining ground in countries in the region. It will be very hard for Serbs and Albanians to go back to living together again. We must continue to do what we’ve been doing, but we’ve been in Bosnia for many years now and we don’t know when we will be able to get out of there. The Albanians may accept the idea of a confederation, but this will not be possible if Milosevic remains in power.
“If they have no guarantee of a Serbian presence in the regions that symbolize the birth of their civilization for them, they won’t accept it. The feeling that native soil has been lost, that this soil must be “liberated”, will arise. “Our priority is to win the war; we’ll see what happens afterwards”. I ask Mr. Aznar to tell us whether it is true or not that, on April 13, 1999, he advised President Clinton to bomb Serbian radio and television.



Cashing in on the dream
Tang Yuankai

I TOTALLY did not realize that I had made a mistake—-I just want to express our best wishes toward the Olympic Games,” said the boss of a small factory after being warned for violating intellectual property rights law for printing “Our factory wishes a successful Olympic Games in Beijing” and the five-ring Olympic symbol on company packages.
According to the media there have been many similar “accidents.” The enormous profits that the Games attract are a magnet for businessmen wanting to cash in. Unavoidably, some unauthorized enterprises or individuals violate the law and infringe on the interests of authorized enterprises.
According to the regulations of International Olympic Committee (IOC), only sponsors, cooperative partners and suppliers for the Olympic Games can use Olympic symbols. There are altogether 52 enterprises participating at four different levels of sponsorship all over the world.
Some unauthorized enterprises try to find ways to escape punishment when they are caught breaking the rules, but “no matter how crafty those tricks are, they cannot totally avoid intellectual property laws,” said Li Yanjun, Division Chief of BOCOG’s Legal Affairs.
The funds of the Olympic Games come mainly from the sale of Olympic products, sponsors and other business development programs. After successfully bidding for the Olympic Games on July 13th, 2001, Beijing made a promise in a host city contract to “ensure the lawful protection of Olympic symbols, logos and mascots.” “The scope of Olympic intellectual property rights protection demanded by the IOC includes not only graphs, patterns, words and slogans, but also some special phrases. Our traditional laws on intellectual property rights protection, including the Trademark Law of the P.R.C.; the Copyright Law of the P.R.C.; the Patent Law of the P.R.C. and the Regulations on the Administration of Special Signs cannot fully meet the demands of Olympic intellectual property rights protection,” said Li. “For example, the phrase Beijing 2008 is formed by the name of a city and Arabian numbers and cannot be registered according to the Trademark Law of the P.R.C.” In order to fully protect the rights of Olympic sponsors China enacted the Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols on April 1, 2002 to set a clearer standard for law enforcement agencies.
Taking harsh measures
According to the Regulations on the Protection of Olympic Symbols, BOCOG implemented a series of measures including introducing “sole sponsor” or “corporative sole sponsor” principles in marketing, taking every possible step to prevent a blind marketing between enterprises producing the same products, preventing rival enterprises from joining different market development plans and forbidding enterprises to promote sales by making use of Olympic tickets.
BOCOG asks every Olympic merchandise manufacturer to participate in every link of the entire supply line, and limit the number of products to a fixed number. Besides, many Olympic products have adopted hi-tech labels including holographs, watermarks, bar codes and other technologies to prevent copies being made. China Banknote Printing and Minting Corporation is responsible for making Olympic holograph labels.
“We will keep in touch with the departments of commerce, copyright, patent, city management and customs in every province and announce information on the legal usage of Olympic symbols through such media as newspapers and websites,” said Li.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)