Rising tensions 
Ding Ying

IRANIAN President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s remark on August 28 that Iran was determined to continue its nuclear program despite opposition from some “big powers” stoked the fires of contention with the United States, which opposes his plan to build up Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Ahmadinejad further enraged Washington when he said that although Iran was not interfering in Iraq’s affairs at present, his country was ready to work with neighbors such as Saudi Arabia to fill the power vacuum that eventually would appear in Iraq when the Americans withdrew.
That same day, while addressing a veterans group in Reno, Nevada, U.S. President George W. Bush shot back that Iran’s actions threatened the security of nations everywhere and put some countries “under the shadow of a nuclear holocaust.” Bush said that the United States, which believes that Iran intends to use nuclear power for weapons, was ready to confront the danger. He then accused Iran of being the world’s “leading state sponsor of terrorism” and demanded that it stop supporting extremists in Iraq. In response, the United States was rallying its allies to isolate Iran’s regime and impose economic sanctions, Bush said.
After Bush’s comments, Tehran threatened on September 2 to change its mind on cooperating with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) if the UN Security Council issued a new resolution against it. Iran would “study various options” on a possible new UN resolution, said Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad-Ali Hosseini at a press conference. In response to Bush’s warning of a so-called nuclear holocaust, Hosseini said, “We will reject any remarks which are far from logic and the existing realities. … There were various parts in President Bush’s speech in which he repeated all his previous unfounded accusations against Iran.” War looming large
With this renewed spate of tough talk, international affairs experts wonder if an armed conflict between the two countries might erupt soon. Despite previous attack threats by the United States, the situation has become more serious, they said.
Yin Gang from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences said that the possibility of a U.S. attack on Iran was much greater than three months ago. The attitudes of both countries show that there is a slight chance that the two can sit together and talk, he said.
Other events point in this direction. On September 1, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, appointed a new head of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which operates its own ground, navy and air forces. The corps runs parallel to Iran’s regular army, but responds directly to Khamenei. Because the new chief, Brigadier General Mohammad Ali Jafari, has had previous war experience, it seems that Iran is preparing for a possible war as well, Yin said.
According to a report in the British newspaper The Sunday Times, a high-ranking official in the Bush administration said the U.S. Government was planning to declare Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps a foreign terrorist organization and was going to strike at its financial and military capabilities. The Sunday Times report also said that Washington would state its position on this matter before the UN General Assembly in September. If true, this would be the first time that the U.S. Government included a sovereign state’s military army on its list of terrorist organizations.
In recent months, U.S. legislators have debated whether diplomacy alone can put the lid on Iran’s nuclear plans. Hardliners have taken a firm stance and opposed talks between the two countries, because they don’t think diplomacy will work. By listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps as a terrorist organization, the Bush administration was able to reassure these hawks and prompt allies like Britain to ask the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution to punish Iran.
A second report in The Sunday Times on September 2 said that the Pentagon had blueprinted a “three-day blitz” plan for massive air strikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, which would wipe out the country’s entire military capabilities in three days. According to the report, Alexis Debat, Director of Terrorism and National Security at the Nixon Center based in the United States, said the U.S. military concluded that whether it went for “pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus.”
Meng Xiangqing, a researcher at the People’s Liberation Army’s National Defense University, said that the new dispute between Iran and the United States differed from previous situations, because news reports detailed a prospective U.S. attack on Iran. The fact that the Nixon Center released information about a simulated attack lends some credibility to the notion that Washington may be preparing to take action against Iran, he said.
Meng also pointed out that an article from Xinhua News Agency said that a conservative foundation in the United States had conducted a simulated attack on Iran during the past four months. The U.S. Government was so serious about the plan that it rehearsed the simulated attack on Iran in advance, he said. This rehearsal is another indication that the United States is preparing for an actual attack on Iran, because prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, the American army rehearsed almost all its military actions before it launched real ones, Meng said.
In recent months, the U.S. army has increased its carrier strength around the Gulf region, while it has kept two carriers permanently stationed there. Because the United States has more than a total of 200,000 soldiers stationed in Iraq and Afghanistan, it does not have enough manpower to launch an attack on Iran, Meng said.
Better think twice If war did break out between Iran and the United States, it would throw the region into an even more perilous situation and affect world oil prices. These factors, observers said, will make both countries think twice about rushing to arms.
General Rahim Yahya Safavi, the former Chief of the Revolutionary Guards who now serves as Khamenei’s senior military advisor, said that if the United States attacked Iran, it would face three prospective problems: The United States would not be able to predict “the volume of our response;” it would not know what would happen to Israel and Washington; and it would not know what the oil flow would look like at that time.
The results of the simulated American air strikes on Iran showed that Iran could possibly cut off its oil supplies to the U.S allies, according to news reports. Tehran also has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz, a vital channel for transporting the region’s oil to the rest of the world. Meanwhile, Iran would strengthen its support of Iraqi anti-government militants and stop exporting 60 percent of Iraq’s oil. If that happened, world oil prices would double, according to Xinhua News Agency. Furthermore, Iran always has insisted that its nuclear research is only for civilian purposes, and so far there has been no evidence that the country has produced nuclear weapons. Ahmadinejad has justified Iran’s push for nuclear capabilities by saying that the IAEA gives every country the right to gain access to peaceful nuclear energy.
Nevertheless, there was a sign of hope for the possibility of revived diplomacy to resolve the standoff when Iran’s former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who serves as chairman of the country’s Expediency Council, was elected on September 4 as the new chief of the country’s powerful Assembly of Experts. The assembly is responsible for supervising Khamenei in the performance of legal duties. It is believed that Rafsanjani, who was considered a moderate president compared to Ahmadinejad, could prove to be more open to talks with the United States.

(The Daily Mail-Beijing Review Articles Exchange Item)

Pakistan’s untidy end-game
Tanvir Ahmad Khan

I AM returning to Pakistan on October 18,” wrote Benazir Bhutto recently “to bring change to my country”. A more accurate hope would be that she establishes a firm grip on a political landscape that is already buffeted by winds of change. Unlike some celebrated exiles of history, she would return not to lead a revolution but to pre-empt it. She has rightly calculated that the current turbulence could degenerate into anarchy or invite a more draconian dictatorship.
President General Pervez Musharraf had eight years to preside over a smooth transition from his authoritarian military regime to credible and effective democratic institutions. He concentrated power in his own hands by combining the office of the president with that of the chief of army staff and by creating a king’s party by offering incentives to amenable politicians or subjecting them to coercive pressure. Once he became a major partner in the US-led war on terror, he forgot that Pakistan was a heterogeneous multi-ethnic and multilingual South Asian federation with a history of constitutionalism.
One wrote some three years back that this “system” would produce discontent in which Musharraf would not get credit even for his solid achievements. The disquiet he ignored became a tornado when he sacked the Chief Justice of Pakistan last March. The turmoil that followed - a typical South Asian protest movement - made it evident that he could continue as president only by swallowing his pride and seeking a new coalition with political parties suppressed for years.
The situation caused immense concern in the West especially the United States. Washington needs Pakistan to avert another defeat in Afghanistan after the fiasco in Iraq. It has engaged itself covertly and not so covertly with influencing the outcome of the current constitutional and political tussle; it must not adversely affect the availability of the Pakistan army for the US war in Afghanistan. Washington’s preference was a coalition of moderate forces that would guarantee this objective and also act as a dyke against extremism threatening Pakistan’s own polity. It was logical that the lynchpin of such an initiative would be a power-sharing arrangement between Benazir and Musharraf.
Benazir asked for reforms that included the separation of the offices of the president and the army chief, legislative measures that would empower the parliament, removal of an arbitrary bar on her becoming prime minister for a third time and finally, indemnification against politically-motivated legal cases involving her and many others.
Reasonable
Her demands were reasonable and Musharraf could have saved Pakistan and his own image much wear and tear if he had moved fast to accommodate them and allow fair and free elections. Instead, for highly ambiguous reasons he insisted on getting re-elected while still wearing the uniform of the army chief. His counsel’s statement in the Supreme Court that he would give up the army command only after getting elected was widely seen as a threat to the electors.
Pakistan’s original constitution forbids any one holding an office of profit in the government to seek elections. A civil or military officer aspiring to an elected public office has to wait for two years after he retires or resigns. The political parties trying to prevent his re-election turned to higher judiciary to get him disqualified as a candidate on these grounds. In the process the Election Commission which is supposed to act an impartial and neutral body attracted much criticism and challenges in the Supreme Court for having changed the rules in Musharraf’s favour. The opposition is now using the tactic of mass resignations from all assemblies to deprive the presidential electoral college of legitimacy and moral authority. Musharraf would still win but with a smaller vote than he should get to be hailed as an exalted symbol of the state and the federation. In the dialogue with Benazir Musharraf has followed a policy of making concessions grudgingly and gradually. It was partly because the so-called King’s Party has been trying to beat Benazir’s demands down to a minimum. On October 2 he promoted a highly regarded military officer to the rank of a four -star general saying that he would take over as the new army chief after his election and the contingent retirement from the army. Simultaneously, it was revealed that a presidential ordinance would completely indemnify Benazir and many others from all cases on which the regime has spent millions during the last eight years. Both these announcement were made a day before Benazir’s party was to decide whether to join the other parties in resigning from the assemblies. The presidential election scheduled tomorrow still faced new legal challenges in the Supreme Court. Controversy. Musharraf would be re-elected tomorrow in an atmosphere vitiated by controversy. He should urgently address the task of repairing the damage to the august office of the head of state. Appointment of General Kiyani as the new army chief could be the first step towards re-defining the role of the army.

— Gulf News



A story of resistance & reconciliation
Nasim Zehra

AN INTENSIFICATION of political polarisation is taking place as Pakistan revolves around the presidential elections. The high point of this polarisation was the September 29 unprovoked and barbaric police attacks on the lawyers and journalists.
While the prime minister and his cabinet sat inside the election commission as the election commissioner scrutinised their candidate General Parvez Musharraf’s papers, men from Islamabad and Punjab’s police, armed batons, tear gas shells and stones, were busy intermittently applying unfettered force on the protesting lawyers and on the reporting journalists.
For at least five hours an unbelievable contest of wills between the around 400 plus unarmed yet determined lawyers and the armed attacking police continued. The journalists were meanwhile on the receiving end being hit by stones, batons and tear gas shells. Unfortunately but not surprisingly two cabinet ministers became the target of angry lawyers and journalists. These were ministers who had taken injured journalists and lawyers to the Polyclinic. But in a highly charged environment intolerance and violence inevitably breeds some degree of violence
Meanwhile all else including the September 28 supreme court decision favouring general Parvez Musharraf’s candidacy and the subsequent the lawyer community’s open anger and rejection of a supreme court judgment got subsumed under these ugly events. By the end of the day the government had two active fronts to fight on — one with the lawyers and the second with the journalists.
On the political front the expected followed. The government tried to hit back with blaring stories highlighting only the partial consequence, of its own blunder. Most vocal about the beating up of the two ministers. By contrast the action against the blatant police action, targeting journalists and lawyers, was bureaucratic. The prime minister set up the usual inquiry commission. It was to report in 10 days.
The following day the journalists and lawyers continued with protest and resistance. Nation wide the bars went on strike and boycott the courts and marched towards the Press clubs. The journalists and the lawyers are politically almost like a united front. The traders and other public too joined the lawyers’ and journalists’ rallies. Meanwhile the Abottabad bar has banned, for life, the entry of the chief election commissioner. The government responded with widespread arrest of lawyers including a member of the Sindh Bar Association Karachi bar, took place. It was busy linking the mayhem initiated by the police action, to the lawyers attempt to scuttle the presidential election.
The legal recourse has been taken by all the aggrieved. The lawyers, the presidential candidates, political parties and ordinary citizens have filed petitions against General Musharraf’s candidacy and the presidential elections. They have challenged the election commission decision of validating the nomination of General Musharraf. They asked the court to instruct the chief election commissioner (CEC) to hold the election to the office of the president within 30 days of the general elections in accordance with Article 41 (4) of the constitution. Another petitioner pleaded postponement on grounds that presidential poll at this stage would not resolve the serious crisis of legitimacy Musharraf faces and will exacerbate political polarisation in Pakistan. These legal moves dovetail into the political moves by the opposition and the government: for example the oppositions’ attempt to dissolve the NWFP and the government’s attempt to move a vote of no confidence so the dissolution can be averted. Similarly the government-PPP negotiations have yielded an initial agreement, preventing PPP resignation from the assemblies.
All this contributed to the making of a turbulent journey towards the presidential polls. In fact the events of September 29 again placed general Musharraf as the divider, as the contentious figure in Pakistan’s sharply polarised polity. Indeed the events of September 29 also opened another front for the Musharraf government. The vicious attacks on the media by the police left no option for the media but to demonstrate
Yet there is a silver lining to all of this. While these inevitable developments do take place on a power scene that is in transition, there is no inevitability of anarchy and chaos. The likelihood of ‘all things fall apart’ under all the pressure of these contesting forces is minimised by only one fact. That factor is an independently functioning supreme court which has emerged as a referee among the many and unequal forces competing against each other to ‘have their way’ in Pakistan’s power scene.
For example the SC also took suo motto action against the administration’s brutal beating of the lawyers. It ordered the suspension of Islamabad’s top district officials including the IG police. The government obeyed the orders. Such a move once again resurrected the public’s confidence in the Supreme Court which was beginning to be criticised openly by the lawyers for its September 28 judgment.
Pakistan’s positive picture now presents a state, executive and administrative power that continues to be held accountable as the forces of political resistance, activism and courage that emerged in the post-March judicial crisis period, continue to remain active on Pakistan’s mainstream political scene. These forces, which principally include the lawyers and the media now also gradually includes other members of the public including the middle class professionals, traders and civil society groups. While radicalism in Pakistani politics has largely remained on the margins of Pakistani politics, there has at the same time been a tradition of political activism and resistance erupting in times of suppression and blatant injustice. In fact beginning with the military ruler Ayub Khan , the popularly elected ruled Zulfiqar Al Bhutto, the deadly Machiavellian military dictator Zia ul Haq and the subsequent elected leaders especially Nawaz Sharif, the anti-democratic practices of all these rulers have been resisted by Pakistan’s students, labour unions, journalists, human rights groups and other political forces. There has always been politics beyond the mainstream political forces. And we are now again witnessing a replay.
With the emergence of the Supreme Court (SC) as an independent institution, as the credible arbitrator among the contesting groups, the resistance and political activism will neither be anarchic nor will lead to imposition of martial laws. Until a new assembly emerges in the next few months it will be the Supreme Court of Pakistan which will set the parameters for the political struggle in Pakistan. As the contesting groups keep turning to the SC for its intervention , the SC will set the parameters within which the various players on Pakistan’s political platform will conduct themselves. The journalists and the judiciary have emerged as two forces that will both facilitate and monitor the march towards democracy. All this political turmoil notwithstanding Pakistan’s one way journey to constitutional democracy is irreversible. While the October 6 presidential election will be a determining factor in sending the army back to the barracks, it will not determine conclusively determine Pakistan’s political scene. The real defining events for Pakistan’s power scene will be the next general elections; how they are conducted, contested and which are the victorious forces.

—Khaleej Times