White elephant was grey !

Reasons behind Bush's
Mideast arms deals

Uri Avnery

The King of Siam knew how to deal with domestic opponents: he would present them with a white elephant.
   White elephants are rare in nature, and therefore sacred. Being sacred, they may not be put to work. But even a sacred elephant does eat, and eat a lot. Eats so much that is enough to turn a rich man into a pauper.
   My late friend, General Matti Peled, one time Quartermaster General of the army, pointed out the similarity between this elephant and many of our gifts from the President of the United States.
   According to the stipulations of the grant, most of it must be spent in the United States. Let's assume that Israel needs Merkava tanks, made in Israel. Or anti-missile systems, also made in Israel. Instead of acquiring these in Israel, the Israeli army buys American airplanes, which it does not need.
   A state-of-the-art military airplane is an immensely expensive object. True, we get it for nothing. But like the white elephant, the airplane is very costly to maintain. It needs pilots, whose training costs a fortune. It needs airfields. All these expenses add up to much more than the price of the airplane itself.
   
   Invaded by white elephants
   The Middle East is now being invaded by a herd of white elephants.
   This week it became known that President Bush is about to supply Saudi Arabia with huge quantities of the most advanced weapons. The price tag is 20 billion (20,000,000,000) dollars.
   Ostensibly, the arms are needed to strengthen Saudi Arabia against the Great Satan: Iran. In Saudi eyes, this is now the great danger.
   How did this happen? For centuries, Iraq served as a wall between Shiite Persian Iran and the Sunni Arab Middle East. When President Bush toppled the Sunni regime in Iraq, the whole region was opened up to the Shiite power. In Iraq itself, a Shiite government was installed, and Shiite militias roam at will. The Shiite Hizbullah is growing in power in Lebanon, and Iran is extending its long arm to all the Shiites in the region.
   Allah, in his infinite wisdom, has seen to it that almost all the huge Middle East oil reserves are located in Shiite areas: in Iran, in the South of Iraq and the Shiite areas of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf principalities. If these reserves slip away from US control, it will cause a drastic change in the balance of power, not only in the region but in the entire world.
   Therefore, the strengthening of Saudi Arabia - ruled by conservative Sunnis - makes a lot of sense from the American point of view. However, the arms deal is quite irrelevant to this.
   The Saudis do not need weapons. They have an instrument that is much more effective than any number of airplanes and tanks: an inexhaustible supply of dollars. They use it to finance friends, buy influence and bribe leaders.
   On the other side, Saudi Arabia is unable to maintain the weapons that are flowing to it. It does not have enough pilots for the airplanes it is buying, nor crews for the tanks. The new weaponry will collect sand in the desert, like all the expensive weapons it has bought in the past.
   
   9000 Saudi princes, lots of wives
   Well, the Saudis are selling oil to the Americans for dollars. A lot of oil, a lot of dollars. The United States, with a huge gap in its balance of trade, cannot afford to lose these billions. So, in order to make it possible for the US to carry this burden, the Saudis must give back at least a part of the money. How? Quite simple: they buy American arms that they don't need.
   This is a merry-go-round that benefits all. Especially the Saudi princes. Saudi Arabia is blessed with a great abundance of these - some 9000 (nine thousand) princes, all belonging to the House of Saud. A prince has a lot of wives, a wife has a lot of offspring. Some of them are arms dealers, who automatically receive fat commissions from the arms billions. (It is easy to work it out: a mere one percent of 20 billion amounts to 200 million. And they would laugh at a commission of one percent.)
   The princes have, therefore, a vested interest in this convenient arrangement.
   
   Jewish lobbies
   This is where Israel enters the picture.
   Every arms deal made by the White House needs the assent of Congress. In Congress, the "friends of Israel" -- the Jewish and the Evangelist lobbies -- rule supreme. Any senator or congressman can forget about being re-elected if he offends one of these lobbies.
   When Israel raises its voice against an arms deal with Saudi Arabia, the White House has a problem. The more so since there is a certain logic to the Israeli objection: the Saudi airbase in Tabuk is but a few minutes flying time from the Israeli port of Eilat.
   What to do? Easy: give us a present of weapons, in order to maintain "the balance of power" and our "qualitative superiority over all the Arab armies combined".
   
   Immense boost
   So, together with the $20 billion deal with the Saudis, President Bush decreed that the American yearly grant of military assistance to Israel should be raised from $2.4 billion to 3 billion. This means that in the coming 10 years, Israel will receive arms to the value of $30 billion dollars.
   Apart from the small part of the grant that Israel is allowed to spend elsewhere, this huge sum must be spent in the United States. From the economic point of view, the gift to Israel is really an immense boost to the American arms industry. It will enrich the arms producers, who are so dear to Bush's heart. It will also show the American public how their wise president creates a lot of nice new jobs for them.
   That, of course, is not the end of the story.
   It would be unacceptable to "strengthen" the rulers of Saudi Arabia in such an impressive way, without giving something to the other kings, presidents and emirs who cooperate with the Americans. Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf emirs expect their share, too.
   The new arms deals will, therefore, amount to 40, 50 and God knows how many more billions of dollars.
   That's not bad for the arms producers, who helped Bush get elected and continue to support him. Not bad for the arms merchants, the princes and all the others who profit, the corrupt regimes that rule the Middle East (and, in this respect at least, Israel has succeeded in becoming an integral part of the region.)
   All this could be amusing, were it not for the dark side of these circular deals.
   
   Arms merchant
   When I was a child, I was taught that one of the most despicable human types is the arms merchant. He is quite different from all other kinds of trader, because his merchandise is death. His riches are drenched with blood.
   Times have changed. The arms dealer is now a respectable person.
   The killing potential of weapons is getting "better" all the time, and their producers need testing grounds. Some days ago, one of our generals revealed on television that under an American-Israeli agreement, the Israeli army is obliged to report to the American military establishment on the effectiveness of all kinds of arms. For example: the accuracy of "smart" bombs and the performance of airplanes, missiles, drones, tanks and all the other instruments of destruction in our wars.
   
   Collateral damage
   Every "targeted killing" in Gaza or use of fragmentation bombs in Lebanon serves also as a test. The levelling of a neighbourhood in Beirut, the death of women and children as "collateral damage", the ongoing amputation of limbs by fragmentation bombs in South Lebanon - all these are statistical facts that are important for American arms manufacturers to know, so they can improve their merchandise.
   A deal is a deal, and goods are goods.
   In the same week that these huge arms deals were announced, Ehud Olmert spoke about a dialogue (unlimited in time) about the (nonbinding) principles for a final status agreement. Condoleezza was again buzzing around the region's capitals, smiling and talking, embracing and talking.
   Saudi Arabia is hinting that perhaps-perhaps it may be ready to sit with Israel at the table of the "peace meeting" that may take place in the autumn. This is also intended to make it easier for Congress (meaning: the pro-Israeli lobby) to confirm the arms deal.
   Bush's people have announced for the umpteenth time that a "window of opportunity" is now open.
   All this activity somehow reminds me of another story about the white elephant:
   An American billionaire had set his mind on acquiring a white elephant, in order to impress his peers. But it is strictly forbidden to export white elephants from Thailand, because they are so rare.
   A shrewd operator promised to get him a white elephant, and even told him how he would go about it: he would paint the elephant gray before smuggling him out.
   And indeed, at the promised time a crate arrived, and out walked a gray elephant. When the gray paint was scrubbed off, a white elephant was revealed. But with a bit more scrubbing, the white paint also came off, and underneath - the elephant was gray.
   - Courtesy: Counterpunch

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Who tells the truth?

Barrister Harun ur Rashid

There seems to be a political game going on to bamboozle public on the nitty-gritty of US nuclear deal with India, in which the US has agreed to provide India nuclear fuel and technology, to make it "a great power". The agreement is subject to the approval of the US Congress and India's Parliament.
   The US says that if India conducts nuclear tests, the agreement will be suspended, while India asserts that it is free to conduct nuclear tests in terms of the agreement and the agreement does not curtail the sovereignty of the country in conducting nuclear trusts. Both cannot be right in their assertions.
   
   What is the truth?
   It is difficult for a common person in both countries as to who is right. The statements have confused ordinary people and there is a speculation that one party tends to hide the fact from public.
   .One thing is sure that the deal will not be easy sailing in both the US Congress and India's Parliament for different reasons altogether.
   While the Administration is determined to halt nuclear proliferation for Iran and North Korea, it allows India, a non-party to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1970, to accelerate its nuclear programme both civil and military.
   Some of the US Congress lawmakers find the deal inconsistent with the US law and the Bush administration's stance against nuclear proliferation.
   Meanwhile, Indian newspapers on 16th August reported the US State Department spokesman Sean McCormack as saying that the US reserved the right to cancel the deal if India carried out a nuclear test.
   Both the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha - the two houses of parliament - witnessed angry protests by members of the opposition parties. "Stop speaking lies. Stop selling the country and save India," the opposition members chanted.
   One fact clearly emerges that many of India's nuclear plants would be open for the first time to UN inspections as a result of the nuclear deal. The UN agency IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency), based in Vienna, will ensure that nuclear fuel does not go to military nuclear plants. The nuclear fuel provided by the US would be used for peaceful purposes, meaning generating domestic energy.
   
   Another hurdle to cross
   Even if the deal is adopted by the lawmakers of two countries, there is another hurdle to cross. The deal is subject to the approval of Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG) that includes China.
   The NSG is a multinational body concerned with reducing nuclear proliferation by controlling the export and re-transfer of materials that may be applicable to nuclear weapon development and by improving safeguards and protection on existing materials.
   The NSG was founded in 1975 in response to the Indian nuclear test of 1974. The test demonstrated that certain non-weapons specific nuclear technology could be readily turned to weapons development. Nations already signatories of the NPT saw the need to further limit the export of nuclear equipment, materials or technology.
   An international nuclear non-proliferation research and advocacy group, the Arms Control Association, accused the Bush administration and other potential suppliers of nuclear fuel or uranium (Australia) to India of flagrantly contradicting their stance on nuclear non-proliferation. They suggest there cannot be one rule for India and another for others including Iran and North Korea.
   Meanwhile Pakistan joined in with the chorus of opposition to the deal. It took the view that in the interests of non-proliferation and strategic stability in South Asia there should be a "package approach" where both India and Pakistan get the same deal.
   Pakistan is pained to see that despite President Musharraf's alignment with the US on war on terrorism, the Bush administration does not see India and Pakistan in the same light. It gives an edge to India over Pakistan, because India and the US are democratic countries while Pakistan is not and the US is worried that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal may eventually fall in the hands of religious extremists.
   Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, an ally of President Bush, said that "we want to be satisfied that the uranium will only be used for peaceful purposes." He announced strict conditions on any uranium sales to India after a telephone conversation with India's Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh, according to a media report.
   With Australia having 40 per cent per cent of the world's known uranium reserves, Australian leaders think that they have have an advantage to strike a deal with India.
   One fact that has been ignored is that if India gets nuclear fuel or uranium from the US and Australia, they can easily divert their total domestic supplies of uranium to military atomic plants for catching up with China's nuclear capability.
   American current drive to make available nuclear fuel to India is to make it a counter-weight to China's influence in the region.
   The implications of the nuclear deal may not be lost to China. The deal is likely to accelerate arms race in Asian-Pacific region with disastrous consequences.
   Many strategists suggest contemporary American military doctrine is designed to rattle and confuse an adversary. The US is pursuing dominance over China across the military spectrum-building up its conventional-warfare, space-warfare, and information-warfare technologies as well as missile-defence and offensive nuclear-strike systems.
   Observers believe this growing American counterforce is deemed to be counter-productive in the long run if the goal is to prevent nuclear escalation.
   Observers suggest that China is neither a foe nor a friend of the US. The current US policy of considering China a "strategic competitor" is misconceived and should regard China as "strategic partner". Such shift of policy may usher in cooperative relations between the US and China.
   Optimists may contend the economic dependence of the US and China on each other is a factor that may encourage not to consider each other a competitor and this will lead to peace and stability in the region.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Prof. Ram Puniyani in New Delhi

The attack on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad recently came as a jolt to the liberal and democratic values.
   The attack on Taslima Nasreen in Hyderabad, where she came for release of Telugu version of her book Lajja, (9th August 2007), led by three MLAs of Majlis-e-Ittehadul-Muslimeen , came as a jolt to the liberal, democratic values and to the values which Koran preaches.
   The reaction to this was diverse. A section of Urdu media glorified the attack. The moderate and liberal section of Muslims strongly condemned the attack as reflected in the letters to the editors of major national dailies, the statements issued by various Muslim groups and the articles of prominent Muslim thinkers.
   From amongst the Hindu groups not much was heard. BJP, has been 'defending' the rights of Taslima with great amount of zeal. One presumes the BJP, in tune with its partisan attitude would have been strongly defending her. For parties like BJP the matters are simple, if someone is criticising Islam and Muslims, defend them loudly but condemn the one's who use Hindu motifs, imprison them as in the case of Baroda arts student Chandra Mohan or hound them out of the country as in the case of M.F. Hussein.
   The problem comes with the liberal secularists, who are the favorite whipping boys/girls of right wingers as well as those pretending to be liberal but are getting slowly bitten by the sting of communal thinking in the face of global ascendance of anti Muslim and anti Islam feeling.
   Leading columnists are questioning as to where are these banner wielding groups and where is there writing condemning the attack. Factually speaking this observation is far from true. One witnessed that in one of the less publicised morcha the democratic groups and individuals marched in Hyderabad itself condemning the attack on Taslima.
   Also by now enough statements are already out criticising the fanatic elements who insulted the Bangladeshi writer. As such there is a deliberate ploy to project that secularists are partial to Muslims and that they criticise only the Hindus. This is even used as explanation for the anti minority pogroms. Atal Bihari Vajpayee explained the Gujarat genocide by stating that since the secular elements and minorities did not condemn enough the incident of Godhra the Hindu anger came out in the form of this carnage.
   This was a lie of highest order. Within hours of train burning the well planned pogrom was unleashed. In the mayhem created by the violence, the statements, the protests condemning Godhra were subdued and 'under projected'.
   Why this impression that the secularists' are soft towards the Muslims and harsh towards Hindus? The major question here is how do you quantify the condemnation? By the protest marches, statements, articles and letters to the editors. Now the social activists have always a problem that their events are not always covered, the peace making efforts do not have much news value, while violence and sensationalism takes all the banners.
   If one does a serious exercise, digs up the unpublished articles, statements and letters one should not be surprised that reaction is quite close to equal. But here what is visible is what is reported, and in this the secularists are on the receiving end as far as projection of their events is concerned. One should note that overall there is a growing intolerance within the society and probably most of the sections are affected by it. The major example of that comes from the comrades of West Bengal, when they banned Taslima's Dwikhandito, on the grounds of hurting of Bengali sentiments.
   The intolerance is of various types, various mechanisms go into perpetuate it. It grows more amongst the threatened communities. This feeling of insecurity leads to conservative values and forms the base for the orthodox values and right wing intolerant politics. The insecurity can be real or constructed, and both of them give rise to the retrograde narrow thinking. In Germany the insecurity amongst Jews was for real. The success of Hitler was in the fact that he could make the majority feel that the miniscule minority is a threat to them. German majority fell to most intolerant views and norms due to projected fear of the Jews.
   In today's India, RSS-BJP's biggest success is that it has been able to manufacture insecurity amongst the majority, that the minorities, the Muslims, the Christians are posing a threat to Hindu religion. The carnage does not take place in the vacuum it reaps its crop from the Hate ideology and consequent fear of the minorities. What results is the aggressive intolerance exhibited in cases dealing with Hussein, Chandra Mohan, Deepa Mehta's attempt to make Water, attack on newspaper offices of Mahanagar and now on Outlook. On the other hand the minority is gripped by the defensive intolerance, the intolerance which comes up due to the pattern of riot victims, majority being Muslims, due to their being sidetracked from the social and economic facilities in the society, due to their post carnage ghettoisation and all this resulting in relegating them to the status of second class citizens.
   At no cost can any act of vandalism against our democratic freedom be exonerated. But the real fertile ground of minority fanaticism is created due to their feeling of insecurity. The real problem is the ascendance of politics deriving its legitimacy in the name of religion, this politics targeting the minorities and in turn creating responses which are deplorable to the highest order. In the face of the online auditing of the actions of secularists by the liberal sounding voices, should the secularists put forward the balancing act?
   While the principled amongst secularists do hold that the fanaticism breeds fanaticism, it is also true that fanaticism constructed by the political streams rooting in the majority are the one's who matter more and need to be engaged seriously. Minority groups indulging in such insane, acts should be condemned equally. At the same time demand for their physical security also need to be provided sincerely.
   -SAN-Feature Service
   Prof. Ram Puniyani is Secretary of
   All India Secular Forum.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

Sri Lankan govt. has potential
to do the right thing

Jehan Perera in Colombo

With regard to relations with the international community the difference that has overtaken Sri Lanka in the space of five years is stark. In 2002, with the signing of the Ceasefire Agreement, Sri Lanka was seen internationally as a messenger of hope to a world in which there are too many protracted and intractable conflicts. The international media came down in droves to report on a success story in conflict resolution, and to give sympathetic coverage to the country as a whole. It was a case of "blessed are the peacemakers". But last week Sri Lanka again took the international spotlight again, unfortunately for the worst of reasons. The country showed itself as not only being very much at war with itself, but also ready to take on the United Nations.
   The target of the government offensive was the United Nations Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, John Holmes, who had just completed a short visit to the country, where he had inspected the situation of displaced persons in the conflict zones of the north and east, and also had met with representatives of the government, civil society and international missions in the country. In an interview with the international media he referred to Sri Lanka as one of the most dangerous places in the world for humanitarian workers.
   Few humanitarian workers in Sri Lanka at the present time would disagree that working in the country presents dangers to them. Apart from a death toll of 20 in the past year that even government spokespersons do not dispute, humanitarian workers have been questioned by government authorities in various forums and received various types of threats from a variety of sources both known and unknown. They have faced these threats in both government-controlled areas of the north and east, as well as in Colombo, apart from the threats and abductions that have been reported from LTTE-controlled areas.
   But completely ignoring this ground reality, and perhaps even oblivious to how humanitarian workers on the ground actually feel, Prime Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake pitched into Mr Holmes in colloquial Sinhala as a devil and an uncivilized one too. Not to be outdone, the Government Spokesman, Jeyaraj Fernandopulle who is believed to be a contender for Mr Wickramanayake's prime ministerial position, denounced Mr Holmes as a terrorist and in the pay of the LTTE who needed to be taught a lesson. These leading politicians do not seem to have cared that from the viewpoint of the international community these comments are shocking, even if from a certain Sri Lankan point of view they are not.
   
   Continuing relevance
   Not being satisfied with having put Mr Holmes in his place in the eyes of their constituents and potential voters, some government leaders also attacked the international media for giving prominence to the interview and gloated that the UN was not defending its man. But this observation was only valid for a brief moment of triumph. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon finally stepped in to defend his assistant by noting that the accusations against him were both unwarranted and unacceptable. Spokesman in the UN Secretary General's Office,Farhan Haq told BBC's Sandeshaya Sinhala Language service that in 2006 Sri Lanka was placed as the second worst country in the world for humanitarian work mainly on account of seventeen humanitarian workers being killed in a single incident in Mutur.
   Important sections of the international community in addition to the UN would have felt indignant about the abuse heaped upon Mr Holmes. But others, including Sri Lanka's best friends in the Asian region, appear to have taken the matter in a more pragmatic spirit. They recognized that the outbursts of the government leaders were more directed at their voter bases than at the international community as such. This division of opinion within the international community has been to the advantage of the government. Some of the harsh comments made, were indeed at local level meetings, where the government leaders were speaking down to the rural masses than to a global audience.
   It is likely that the international interest in this matter will soon diminish as the international community has other matters outside of Sri Lanka , such as the humanitarian catastrophes in Iraq , Afghanistan and Zimbabwe to dwell upon. But Sri Lankan interest in this debate must not end because it reveals a state of denial on the part of the government with respect to the deficiencies in its governance.
   This applies in equal measure to the issues of the absence of any noticeable reconstruction of the east following its recapture by the government, to government support for the Karuna group (which recruits children into its forces, to the economic crisis caused by excessive expenditures on defence and grandiose loss making projects, and to large scale corruption and commission taking that is reported in the media. While the deeds of the LTTE, especially as regards child recruitment and forcible recruitment are far worse, the government needs to measure up to a higher standard.
   The denials of government leaders of the concerns that humanitarian workers suffer from is part of a web of denials of violations of the rule of law and of human rights. Several media workers have been killed in the last two years, many of them from the Uthayan, the main newspaper in the Jaffna peninsula whose office is within the high security zone. The government has arrested no one for those crimes. If they are to be believed the main problem stems from the LTTE and no other.
   The issue of the killing of the 17 aid workers has recently been re-opened by the government through the agency of its peace secretariat that has taken an increasingly assertive stand in championing the government's cause. The peace secretariat has accused the international organization, the French-based ACF, which employed those aid workers of negligence in failing to evacuate them from a war zone. However, the aid agency's negligence must in no way detract from the efforts of the government to find out who the killers were and bring them to justice. The contention that ACF failed to evacuate its workers is irrelevant because the 17 aid workers were not killed by stray bullets but killed with gunshots to the head, execution style.
   
   Leadership role
   The denial of what has gone wrong, and dramatic counter-attacks upon those who find fault with the government on account of those wrongs, may serve the government well with its voter base. The more brazen denials and counter attacks may make those who defend the government win the admiration of those who support the government come hell or high water. But if problem solving is the goal, then it is necessary to face up to what has gone wrong and correct those mistakes.
   Only those who acknowledge what is wrong can correct themselves. Further, by attacking the international community instead of correcting itself, the government will lose the goodwill and support that the international community is prepared to richly provide Sri Lanka , as indeed they did during the highpoint of the peace process in the three years of the Ceasefire Agreement.
   Fortunately, the element of balance is still present in Sri Lanka at the highest levels. Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama, when questioned, publicly dissociated the government from the attacks on Mr Holmes, demonstrating sensitivity to international concerns.
   It is the respect for human rights standards that are applicable universally that unites all those who seek to see improvement in the world, whether they be in the UN, media, and civil society, which the government presently views with suspicion as its opponents. They can once again be made allies, as they became in 2002, in the common and joint search in Sri Lanka for peace, justice and good governance. Where the rot starts at the top, it will take no less than a change of heart and strategy on the part of President Mahinda Rajapaksa to go back to his roots as a human rights champion to make the difference.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

ISLAMABAD DIARY

Jonaid Iqbal

The Pakistan Senate saw some excitement on Tuesday after Federal Minister Sher Afgan made waves by calling for review of Pakistan policies with the US. The minister was also opposed to a new US law that makes it obligatory for US President to certify that Pakistan would continue to target the Al-Qaeda and Taliban and that it would not upgrade its nuclear facilities, before release of any kind of financial assistance.
   
   'Dishonest' US policy
   Sher Afgan called the US policy against Pakistan 'dishonest', and much more to the advantage of India. He regretted saying , "Pakistan had helped the United States become the super power after defeating the Soviets in Afghanistan."
   Sher Afgan said, Russia broke up after its defeat in Afghanistan, and America became a super power.
   It was for the first time that a minister has spoken so candidly and so openly against the Americans in the Pakistan Parliament.
   Sher Afgan's speech set every one thinking if Pakistan is considering taking another U-turn in its global policy?
   No. The excitement was short lived. The same day, Pakistan foreign office issued a disclaimer saying that only minister of foreign affairs Khurshid Mahmud Kasuri was entitled to officially expound the country's foreign policy.
   Winding the debate next morning, Kasuri all but reversed the impact of Sher Afgan's speech and gave thumbs up to the present foreign policy being followed.
   That should have been expected because President Musharraf who derives so much strength from his 'tight buddy', George W Bush II.
   Kasuri knew that President Musharraf could not afford to annoy the Americans, who want him to continue as President for the second term.
   Musharraf says he is seeking re-election for the sake of Pakistan but public sentiment is in favour of his stepping down, now that he has governed Pakistan for eight years, without improving the people's lot, who are promised from time to time of happier days to come with trickle down effect of welfare projects.
   We may have a better idea of which side the public is on after the general election, but that is three months away.
   Between September and October this year, President Musharraf in uniform would have won the election as President with the votes of the present assemblies unless there is some blocker. The lawyers have tried to block this move by sending a petition to the Supreme Court seeking to stop the re-election.
   According to the 17th Constitutional amendment General Pervez Musharraf is entitled to keep his uniform until 17 November, the cut off date for the present assemblies, unless the life of the assembly is extended by another year.
   This idea, thrown up by ruling party president Shujaat Husain is now under study, along with similar ideas to slap emergency or even martial law, which ever would be more practical, to increase the chance of President Musharraf's, though we have heard from the President that he is not contemplating any of the two measures. He may have sensed by now that the move might not be acceptable in the present mood of the public.
   In addition, a number of US officials have been informing the Pakistani public that President has promised to them to take off his uniform after election.
   It is however up to the people to decide if they are willing to put their trust in such statements considering that the President reneged on a solemn promise to resign his post as chief of army staff in December, 2004.
   
   Benazir-Musharraf deal
   The latest word from Washington is that Benazir Bhutto wants the deal between her and President Musharraf finalised by end of September. That is one way of authenticating the private meeting she had with the President in Abu Dhabi last month, though until now no side has certified that the reported meeting did take place.
   However, the Pakistan public has to contend with the news of another deal between former prime minister Nawaz Sharif, the PML-N President and President Musharraf. Until now Sharif has denied that he went to Saudi Arabia on the strength of this agreement.
   Last month Sharif sent an application to the Supreme Court, seeking the Court's permission that he should be allowed to return to Pakistan.
   Recently the government threw in a bouncer to his application by filing in the Supreme Court a copy of the agreement. At the same time it asked for three weeks' time to produce the original agreement, which they said had to be procured from a foreign government.
   
   Sharif's denial
   In a teleconference with the media and the former prime minister, Sharif categorically denied the existence of such an agreement with Pakistan government, saying he had reached an agreement with his hosts in Saudi Arabia. However, every Media office has a facsimile of the copy of this agreement.
   So, we have one more element of mystery now in the nature of deals those prominent politicians enter with powers that be to extricate themselves from a difficult situation.
   However, we have to await the decision of the Supreme Court to validate whether the copy is really a 'deal' or an agreement.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE