The return of Nawaz Sharif

PRESIDENT Pervez Musharraf seems to have finally relented under international pressure and allowed the former Pakistani prime minister, Nawaz Sharif, to return home after eight years in exile. This should certainly be seen as a positive development in the trouble-ridden country. The other former prime minister, Benazir Bhutto, has apparently thrown down the gauntlet to the president after he imposed emergency on the country while various other opposition forces have been gathering momentum over the past few days. Hence, it can be reasonably hoped that elections could be held in the country in a level playing field. In addition to the widespread condemnation of his emergency rule, Musharraf has been facing mounting pressure from Western powers that want him to bring democracy to the country which, the West feels, might help in containing extremist elements. Observers maintain that the return of Sharif after Musharraf’s recent visit to Saudi Arabia indicates that a deal has been struck between the erstwhile rivals. It is also being said that Musharraf wants Sharif to counter Benazir’s growing popularity and pull voters away from her. Many feel the general in reality wants to confuse the electorate which can help him retain his power. An inconclusive poll outcome is likely to benefit Musharraf.
Deal or no deal, Sharif’s return is certainly a welcome move. He made a futile attempt at homecoming in September after the Supreme Court ruled in the middle of this year that he had an “inalienable right” to return home. But he was forced by the general to leave the country only a few hours after he landed thereby bringing to an abrupt end the high-tension political drama. Sharif vowed that he would do all he could to put an end to military dictatorship. It is hoped that the former prime minister would be given an opportunity to deliver on his promises. Meanwhile, the political scenario in Pakistan is set for another U-turn with the arrival of Nawaz Sharif who returned home from exile in Saudi Arabia. While Lahore is bursting with festive fervour - and optimism - to welcome its favourite son the script sees the entrance of a proven political heavyweight and key contender for the post of prime minister. Should the political mechanism be allowed to run in rationalised fashion - and Sharif be allowed to contest in what the rest of the world believes will be impartial democratic elections - the equation of the race for the prime minister’s office could be altered greatly. Sharif’s party, the Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz), has a deep-rooted power base and he has proved this twice before by winning the post of prime minister. A fair fight, in the parliamentary elections, could even see a setback for the Musharraf-backed Pakistan Muslim League (Qaid-e-Azam). That being a forecast for the future, for the present, however, it would appear that Musharraf himself has proved his acumen by allowing Sharif back home. The vote between Sharif and Benazir now stands to be clearly split. And with the general firmly ensconced as president he will leave it to the rest to fight over the spoils.

High-stake meet

President Bush probably saved his blushes when announcing that the Arab-Israeli conflict would not be solved in a day and a night at Annapolis, but that a full year would be needed — basically the rest of his term — for the US to try to broker a peace. Washington hopes that the two sides work toward the establishment of an independent Palestinian state before Bush leaves office and that the negotiations will be launched at the conference in Annapolis. The US is thus giving itself more breathing space and not putting too much pressure on itself or the other parties to come up with anything big at Annapolis. It is going for what looks like an unambitious definition of success. It will be satisfied if the conference does not end in an argument, and if it can kick-start a new series of meetings between the Palestinians and Israelis that will begin trying to tackle the biggest differences they have between them, the “final status” issues. The issues have not really changed. To reach a final solution, the parties have to agree on the borders of Israel and a state of Palestine, the future of Jerusalem, the question of Israeli settlements on the land Israel captured in the 1967 war, the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to towns and villages from which they fled or were expelled in 1948. Only a deal along the lines described above stands the remotest chance of bringing permanent peace. But there has been little sign that the two sides are anywhere near agreement. From the conference, the Palestinians are hoping for a joint declaration with the Israelis on these main issues. The Palestinians were negotiating to have a joint declaration before the conference began; now they must wait until after it ends.
As Annapolis is yet another attempt to get a final Middle East settlement, it is fair to ask if this is really more about giving the appearance of progress than making progress. There is no specific Arab agenda as such, but there is a US-Israeli agenda, one which subsumes within it the agenda of pro-Western Fatah leader and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. But ironically the prospects of a major breakthrough at the conference have been dampened by both Israel and the United States. It is easy to say that Annapolis is better than no peace initiative at all. Yet if the experience of seven years ago is anything to go by, a failure at talks on resolving the conflict can be devastating. Annapolis will be the first full-fledged Middle East peace talks since 2000, when former US President Bill Clinton hosted a meeting between leaders Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak at Camp David. The collapse of Camp David II was followed by the launch of the second Palestinian uprising and an Israeli re-invasion of large areas of the West Bank controlled by the Palestinian Authority. In other words, the stakes at Annapolis are very high. This attempt may not work. The list of what needs to go right might just be too long. But it is worth trying, because the alternatives are far worse.

—Arab News