Main Page «
Front Page «
Metro «
Business «
International «
Sports «
National «
Editorial «
Home «
Timeout «
Letters «

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

HEADS of state are usually not into the business of ghost-writing their memoirs while in office, much less hawking them in the course of leisurely foreign visits. But stranger things have happened in Pakistan where it is not unusual for the bizarre to become the norm.
   There is the precedent of Field Marshal (self-appointed) Ayub Khan’s ghost-written attempt at autobiography, ‘Friends Not Masters’. It made a splash as long as he was president. But it ended on the footpaths where second-hand books are sold when he left office. In time it was sold as raddi, the more evocative Urdu word for rubbish, for wrapping meat, fruit and other items of daily use.
   So we shouldn’t be too surprised if another soldier-president has fallen for the same temptation although as patriotic Pakistanis we should hope that Gen Musharraf’s book, ‘In the Line of Fire’, doesn’t meet a fate similar to that of Ayub’s unfortunate memoirs.
   Understandably, the general’s American trip has been divided almost equally between diplomacy and book-promotion. Accompanying him was an entourage of about seventy, including a clutch of cabinet ministers, only going to show that in the matter of foreign travel Pakistani leaders like to do things in style.
   The title, In the Line of Fire, evokes the image of a leader surrounded by danger, battling huge odds and coming out on top. But it is not beyond the usual cynics to think that more than the leader it is the people of Pakistan who have been in the line of fire for the last seven years that the general has been in power.
   After all, the general consulted no one when he came to power. He has since done things much his own way, consulting his convenience rather than anyone else’s. Even now if there is any roadmap for Pakistan’s future, it revolves around his wishes.
   But this is not a great problem. The people of Pakistan are used to uninvited rulers. What rubs them the wrong way is something else: the constant insulting of their intelligence when they are expected to believe that night is day and darkness incandescent light. Not only that, they are also expected to applaud the fiction.
   The attitude of our American friends, however, is instructive. They know how to drive a hard bargain. Simon and Schuster, the publishers, are said to be paying Gen Musharraf upwards of a million dollars for his literary labours. Impressive perhaps in Pakistan but not a huge sum by American standards where presidential memoirs — ask Bill Clinton — fetch much more.
   Even so, the general has been more than loyal to his side of the bargain, not allowing false modesty to come in the way of book promotion. On CBS’s ‘60 Minutes’ (CBS being a sister company of Simon and Schuster) the general set off a minor explosion when he said that then US deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage, had threatened to bomb Pakistan into the Stone Age unless it cooperated in the ‘war on terror’. Asked about this revelation at a joint press appearance with Bush, Musharraf famously replied: ‘I am launching my book on the 25th and I am honour-bound to Simon and Schuster not to comment on the book before that day.’
   A book promo can’t get any better than this.
   As for the substance of the book, it is an extended tribute to the art of spin, the inconvenient filtered out, the rest seen through rose-tinted glasses. Understandably we hear nothing about broken promises, such as the general’s public pledge to take off his uniform by this and this date. Kargil of course figures but as victory not defeat. Or at least it is presented as a military victory which turned into a political defeat when Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif ordered the army to vacate the heights it had captured.
   This is self-serving history, the awkward truth being slightly different. As even unbiased Indians admit, our troops showed great valour but by end June ‘99 they were getting no supplies and were not being relieved. Pushed into the jaws of death (this not being a melodramatic statement), they were left to fend for themselves. They did not flinch. The army high command lost its nerve, realising belatedly it had taken on more than it could handle. Despite suffering heavy casualties, the Indian army had started retaking the lost heights one by one.
   The expected masterstroke turning into a fiasco, the high command more than the political leadership was desperate for a way-out. Nawaz Sharif dashed to Washington for a meeting with Clinton on July 4, American Independence Day. Withdrawal had become unavoidable but he wanted to put a respectable face on it by giving an impression of American involvement. This was not undermining the army. It was covering up for it. (How Sharif was repaid for his pains is another story.)
   It takes some audacity to put such a spin on events. But it is wholly in character and hardly surprising, no one yet accusing Gen Musharraf of timidity when it has come to giving his version of history.
   The Stone Age remark (since denied by Armitage) presents a problem of its own. Was it because of that threat that Pakistan changed direction and decided to become a US satellite as the US prepared to attack Afghanistan? Perish the thought. ‘I wargamed the US as an adversary,’ we are assured. ‘The question was: if we do not join them, can we confront them and withstand the onslaught? The answer was no...our military forces would be destroyed....’
   This is strong stuff because no one has ever suggested Pakistan should have taken on the US. That wasn’t the question at all. It was, and still is, whether Pakistan should have swung to the other extreme and bowed to US pressure so completely. There was a middle way. Without incurring the risk of being bombed into the Stone Age, we could have turned our backs on the Taliban, cut all ties with them, but excused ourselves from providing military bases and becoming a pawn in American hands.
   This would have required some courage. What we were getting was a meltdown. Maleeha, our ambassador in Washington, and Lt Gen Mahmood, the ISI chief, who happened to be visiting the US, went to meet Armitage, little realising that an elephant likely to go on the rampage was best avoided. They got a rough handling, Armitage, by his own account, telling them, ‘...for Americans this was a black and white issue. Pakistan was either with us or against us, that US-Pakistan relations would begin on that day...if they agreed to help, I would give them a list of requirements that were not negotiable... So it was a strong presentation.’
   Strong? A Mafiosi would have been proud of it.
   Maleeha can be tough as nails when she wants. Mahmood (one year my senior in Lawrence College) was the person who, at the head of an army contingent, marched into the prime minister’s house on October 12, ‘99, and spoke in a threatening tone to Nawaz Sharif. Neither showed much toughness in Armitage’s presence, in fact crumpling in the line of fire. When their panic was transmitted to Islamabad, Army House was ready to crumple. Colin Powell didn’t have to do much persuading when he made his famous telephone call to Gen Musharraf. The pitch had already been queered.
   ‘Line of fire’ suggests standing up to fire. We see precious little standing up, a lot of falling down. But we are expected to believe it was all worth it because Pakistan was ‘saved’.
   On ‘60 Minutes’ Musharraf says Armitage made a very ‘rude remark’. That he may have but it did not prevent him from being warmly welcomed during his several trips to Pakistan, each time being received by the president.
   The A Q Khan nuclear proliferation saga is regurgitated. It may sell the book but it is a moot point how Pakistan’s interests are served by reminding the world once more of our reputed irresponsibility in this field? Or how national honour is enhanced when the president of Pakistan says that his country has received millions of dollars (in bounty money) from the CIA in return for handing over al-Qaeda suspects? The book may be good for the president’s image but out of its pages Pakistan comes out looking poorly. After reading it the average American may come away thinking that Pervez Musharraf is a hell of a guy standing up to all these dangers but he is likely to take a dim view of a country which has so many dangerous people running around.

At last week’s UN General Assembly in New York, most of the world’s attention was focussed on the dramatic statements made by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and Iranian President Mamoud Ahmadinejad, who not only exhorted the other delegates to oppose the American war on terrorism, but also went on mini-speaking tours within the permitted radius of the UN Headquarters.
   Whatever the results of these performances may be, a subtler, and more serious rebuke was to come from Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. Taken at face value, Musharraf used his trip to the United States to promote his new book and get himself re-elected next year. On a deeper level, however, Musharraf’s autobiography, ‘In the Line of Fire,’ and his media strategy signal a sea change in Pakistan’s foreign policy, and the balance of power in Central Asia may follow.
   Musharraf began his tour with an interview on CBS ‘60 Minutes,’ where he dramatically revealed that the day after the attacks of September 11, 2001, then Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence) chief Mahmoud Ahmed that Pakistan would be bombed back into the stone age if it did not cooperate with the US in its campaign against the Taliban. Then off to the White House. At a joint press conference, George Bush denied the charge and barely let the Pakistani leader speak. Musharraf, looking a bit intimidated, coyly suggested that anyone interested in the subject should buy his book, which would be released in a few days. And so it was, with dramatic effect.
   The autobiography instantly became a best seller in India, where it was ‘rubbished’ by persons ranging from former US Ambassador to India Robert Blackwill to K Subrahmanyam, who headed the Kargil Review Committee appointed by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Indeed, no issue strikes at the heart of Indo-Pak relations more than the status of Kashmir and the details of the Kargil campaign in 1999, which nearly led to nuclear war. Musharraf also wrote in his book that the Indians obtained their nuclear centrifuge plans from the notorious proliferation network of A Q Khan. In a part of the world where nuclear weapons are considered a benchmark of technological achievement, this could only be meant to offend the Indians. A semi-official reaction came from the Indian police, who took the opportunity to announce that the ISI and the outlawed pro-Pakistan group Lashkar-e-Taiba were responsible for the July 11th bomb attacks in Mumbai that killed 186 people and injured more than 800.
   Perhaps the highlight of Musharraf’s tour was his appearance on the Daily Show, an American TV comedy about politics which is normally critical of the Bush administration. Musharraf was served Twinkies and jasmine tea, imported from Pakistan, and immediately asked ‘Where is Osama bin-Laden?’ Musharraf didn’t know…. In more recent interviews, Musharraf appears far more confident and independent.
   This became evident when the President General crossed the pond to meet privately with Tony Blair. In an interview with BBC radio afterwards, Musharraf announced that ‘[y]ou will be brought down to your knees if Pakistan doesn’t co-operate with you. That is all that I would like to say. ... Remember my words: if the ISI is not with you and Pakistan is not with you will lose in Afghanistan.’ One can assume the meeting with Blair did not go well.
   Musharraf’s book release coincides with war of words that has erupted between himself and Hamid Karzai, the president of Afghanistan. The main subject of debate has been the rather nonsensical one of whether Osama bin-Laden is hiding in Afghainstan or Pakistan. Another point of contention is the wisdom of the agreement the Pakistani government has reached with tribal elders, which Musharraf says will enlist their aid against foreign insurgents sheltering in Pakistan’s tribal belt, and Karzai says will provide for a safe haven for them. The two leaders were invited for a special dinner and fondue at the White House in order to make amends, with George Bush acting as peacemaker. But whatever political effect this bizarre event was intended to achieve was overshadowed by Musharraf’s other engagements.
   Whether Musharraf himself has any choice is also hard to say. The Pakistani president has been pushed to the wall by an endless series of demands and threats. On September 20th, when asked on CNN whether he would send ground troops into Pakistan to capture bin-Laden, Bush replied ‘absolutely.’ This fell on the heels of the accusation by NATO commander James L Jones that the Taliban had openly set up their headquarters in the Pakistani city of Quetta, prompting calls to bomb the city. Yet those promoting the idea of taking direct action in Pakistan seem unaware of the instability in Baluchistan, a province that has always had some degree of autonomy from the central government. And unable to comprehend the likely reaction by the Pakistani people should the US attack. A recent Pew survey showed that only 30% of Pakistanis have a favourable view of the US.
   In the last weeks the President General has done an about-face, realising that the appeasement of Washington has its limits. Casually-made threats to bomb Quetta or send in ground troops to capture Osama bin-Laden are in fact threats to the stability of the government of Pakistan. Pakistan has made dramatic economic progress in recent years, which could easily be ruined by involvement in the Afghan insurgency. Aside from conspiracy theories about the ISI, there is no reason to believe that Pakistan has any interest in destabilising its western border.
   If Pakistan is pushed to take further measures against the tribals in the hunt for Osama bin-Laden, it will have little choice but defiance. Pakistan may have little choice but to take shelter in the long term relationships it has built with China and Iran. This would greatly complicate American efforts to pacify Afghanistan. No doubt Musharraf would prefer to avoid a confrontation, but it’s far from clear that appeasement of Washington’s demands, and accepting the blame for the disaster caused by the hated occupation of Afghanistan, will accomplish that.
   CounterPunch, October 4, 2006. Paul Wolf is an attorney in private practice in Washington DC, working in international law, humanitarian law, and human rights. He is creating an online history of Pakistan based on declassified US government documents on file at the US National Archives.

It is almost impossible to imagine, as we sit in a well-lit, fully functioning gas station on Main Street, USA, that a community blessed with oil riches under its soil could look as impoverished as Yenagoa in the Nigerian state of Bayelsa.
   Yenagoa is the site of one of Nigeria’s first oil wells, built in pre-independence 1956 . Yet as in many communities in Nigeria’s oil rich Delta region, most people of Yenagoa live in mud huts. Some reside only a few feet away from the oil wells. But they lack electricity and indoor toilets. They have no hospitals, no running water, and no schools. And there is unemployment too. Oil companies like Royal Dutch Shell, BP, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil bring in foreign workers for even the most menial jobs.
   I recently took a trip to Yenagoa as part of a tour of three African countries—Nigeria, Chad, and Liberia—that may well fuel future US energy needs. Historically, the United States has gotten two-thirds of its oil from other countries. Most US oil imports come from Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Mexico, and Canada. Increasingly, as the United States, China, and other nations expand their thirst for oil, and instability deepens in the Middle East, Sub-Saharan Africa is becoming a more attractive source for crude. The US National Intelligence Council estimates that Africa could supply 25% of US oil by 2015.
   The three countries I visited could well play a role in meeting that goal. Each is at different stages of oil production. In Nigeria, oil exploration dates back to 1956. In Chad, extraction started just three years ago. In Liberia, where I spent much of my childhood, the potential of oil off its expansive coastline holds hope for the future.
   In each of these countries, a complex web of geo-political actors, from oil company executives and government officials to military agents, makes decisions that impact the lives in the communities that produce the oil that flows straight to consumers in the United States.
   
   Nigerian injustice
   The residents of Yenagoa lack jobs and basic social services. What they do have in abundance is environmental damage from decades of oil spills, compounded by the constant burning of gas flares necessary to extract the crude. Farmland is rendered useless while rivers and waterways, once well-populated with marine life, are now barren. One local chief explained that he received from Shell oil 150 Naira ($1.15) for each acre of land used by the company. I was astonished when he went on to say, ‘150 Naira, once every four years.’ With oil prices at historic highs, how could the compensation to communities long suffering the health impacts of oil spills and gas flares be such a pittance?
   Military and security personnel blanket the area around Yenagoa to protect oil interests. The communities are under siege.
   In Odi, a community adjacent to a well built in1958, villagers are demanding basic services like clean running water, electricity, and schools. The response from security agents has been severe. Our delegation watched in horror as one young man after another came forward to show fresh wounds from 5 days earlier. They told us that uniformed military men had grabbed 15 youths as they walked home from an adjacent village in the middle of the afternoon. The young men were beaten, tortured, and imprisoned, as a warning to others in the village. For almost a week, the youths languished in a prison miles away. Their family members were forced to walk for a day and a half to see them or bring them food in that decrepit prison. Their crime? Clamouring for basic rights.
   As oil companies celebrate record profits and the price of oil hovers close to $65 per barrel, African communities ostensibly blessed with the curse of oil languish in squalor. In fact, with no useable farmland or waterways, many in Nigeria say that they are worse off than their grandparents were before the discovery of oil.
   
   Hope in Chad?
   Recognising the plight of their neighbors in Nigeria, communities in Chad’s oil producing areas worked hard, even before the onset of oil production in 2003, to minimise environmental damage and maximise the benefits to communities from which the oil flows.
   The 650-mile Chad-Cameroon pipeline (Africa’s biggest investment project) links landlocked Chad to world export markets through Cameroon’s port city of Douala. It was funded through loans and other support from the World Bank. Heroic measures initiated by activist, civil society, human rights, and religious community leaders led to a forward-looking revenue management law to manage the flow of oil revenues in a transparent way, ensuring resources for future generations.
   However, the Chadian government has subverted its own revenue management law. It has diverted spending away from the original priorities of agriculture, health, and education and toward ‘security.’ As a result, money that only now is beginning to flow from oil production is spent on weapons and other military equipment, instead of poverty reduction and the interests of future generations.
   The oil wells in Chad are newer, so its oil-producing areas haven’t yet experienced the damage caused by decades of oil spills. However, gas flaring, with its related health and environmental damage, is an integral part of the production cycle. When the wind blows, the smell of the burning gas blankets villages miles away.
   In a community near Doba, with gas flares as a backdrop, villagers told us about increased death and dying in the past few years from respiratory ailments and contaminated water supplies.
   Meanwhile, in Chad’s fertile agricultural zone, mangoes, cotton, gum Arabic, and cattle are abundant. Yet there is not one factory transforming the raw produce into goods for domestic or international markets.
   In spite of these challenges, Chadians maintain that their vigilance will minimise negative social and environmental impacts of oil and secure poverty reduction. Chad could easily feed itself and its neighbours if productive capacity were built in the agricultural sector. Oil revenue directed at building an education system, providing healthcare, as well as basic electricity, running water, and roads, could go a long way toward improving the condition of people’s lives.
   Throughout the country, in spite of a recent coup attempt and the elections in April that the majority of people boycotted, Chadians remain hopeful. From the capital city to the Southern oil fields, everyone seemed confident that future generations will experience a better life.
   
   Liberian alternatives
   Liberia, the third country I visited, has recently emerged from 25 years of war. People there are hopeful too, despite the 85% unemployment rate and the complete lack of functioning schools or healthcare.
   Liberians hope that concessions now being granted for off-shore oil exploration will lead down the road to a new source of revenue. Liberia’s National Oil Company negotiated two contracts with the Nigeria-based Oranto Petroleum Limited and British-based Broadway Consolidated PLC. With exploration already underway, few in Liberia think that leaving the resource untouched is a viable option.
   The key question is, whether and how Liberia can escape the oil curse that so clearly has hurt Nigeria, Angola, and other countries in Africa’s richly endowed Gulf of Guinea region.
   One possibility is for countries like Liberia to consider alternative models for oil development. What, for example, can Liberia learn from Venezuela’s example of 61% national control of oil revenue and management? Or from Norway’s use of oil revenue to diversify the economy while advancing social services?
   Like many Africans, I fear that oil companies look to Africa for its resource wealth without seeing the people. Resource-rich communities are dehumanised and the colour line is ever present as the greatest profits flow steadily to wealthy white men who already control enormous wealth and power.
   The price of oil has nearly tripled since President George W Bush took office in 2001, yet the majority of the people who live in the countries from which the fuel flows still experience grinding poverty. Viewed side by side, the $10 billion quarterly profits of Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, or Shell and the $1.15 per acre compensation paid (every four years) to some farmers in oil-producing zones show just how unfair the global oil industry has become.
   Foreign Policy In Focus, September 28, 2006. Emira Woods is co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies.

Shooter Asif likely to miss Asian Games

Gold medallist shooter Asif, while preparing for the Asian Games, became a victim of police torture and now is likely to miss the tournament! I can’t believe a thing like this has happened, but I have to believe it.
   The shameless act of police has brought shame for us as a nation.
   Nahid Mahfuza Alam
   On e-mail

Any nuclear power, especially the US, has no right to object to others having such weaponry unless they themselves give up theirs.
   Bary Myers
   UK
   

Next on Quick Comments

a. Dialogue on reforms in motion b. RMG commission sets Tk 1662.5 as minimum pay (New Age, Front Page, October 6) c. Violence to women comes mostly from their partners (New Age, Front Page, October 6)