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

Archive «
Launch Supplement «
Special Supplements «

‘It seems that you haven’t changed a bit in these four years and more, captain,’ said Nikolay Vsyevolodovitch, somewhat more amiably. ‘It seems in fact, as though the second half of a man’s life is usually made up of nothing but the habits he has accumulated during the first half.’ —Dostoyevsky: The Possessed
   AS with individuals, so perhaps with tribes and nations: some habits become second nature, first to be accumulated, then to be repeated over and over again. Frightening thought if you have had the gift of accumulating bad habits.
   This is the year of our 60th anniversary as a nation or at least a country and we can see that certain habits have become part of our national temperament. Question is: are we condemned to live with them for the next 60 years of our existence?
   This is a country whose national skyline is dominated by one single institution, the army. Standing at 600,000-plus, in terms of numbers, it figures among the half a dozen large armies in the world. But its spread in Pakistan goes beyond the mere fact of numbers. Such has been our history, such the tale of errors written into this history, that the ethos of the state is today represented by the army.
   The direction of higher policy, the narrative of national security, the priorities of national endeavour, are all scripted, consciously or unconsciously, by the army.
   The political process is subservient to the army. Indeed, instead of the political process laying down any kind of parameters for the army, it is the other way round — the army determining the frontiers of politics.
   And the remarkable thing is that instead of rebelling against this state of affairs, as might be expected in a more turbulent landscape, the Pakistani political class, its leading icons and its foot soldiers, give every indication of having learnt to coexist with this condition.
   The Pakistan People’s Party’s (PPP) pretends to be a left-of-centre political party, but it is not. It is a centrist party which long ago arrived at the conclusion that knowing what one stands for can be the greatest political liability. True, it still retains a hold over the affections of the disenfranchised classes. Pity the closed choices before these classes.
   Why blame the PPP alone? All of Pakistan’s political parties –– and they make a sorry collection –– hover either in the centre or the right, a few benighted ones stretching out to the far right, there to delve in the dark byways of religious confusion and frenzy.
   Creatures of the status quo, none of these parties –– ‘liberal’, secular or religious –– questions the fundamentals of the existing system, the way wealth is distributed, or indeed not distributed, the way national priorities are set and national myths propagated. No danger of a Hugo Chavez arising from the murky waters in which they swim.
   The PML-N of Nawaz Sharif is as much a creature of the status quo, if not more so, than any other party. Nawaz Sharif is anti-Musharraf, not anti-army. He is also pro-business and pro-corporate culture which makes him an unlikely champion of any other class.
   Three exceptions to the overall, pro-status quo trend of Pakistani politics should be noted.
   Firstly, the MQM in Karachi is a party based on the politics of mass mobilisation. But its appeal is limited to one community and the Fuehrer principle in it is so strong that it invites comparisons with the principles of National Socialism flourishing in some parts of Europe in the 1920s and `30s. The MQM can be admired from a distance but at closer quarters it gives rise to somewhat different feelings. Having to talk in euphemisms about it is itself a tribute to its ubiquitous power in Karachi, Pakistan’s largest city.
   Secondly, Balochistan is 10,000 miles away from the rest of Pakistan if the discontent and inchoate anger seething among its hills and ravines is any measure of distance. The politics of army rule itself contributes to this distinction because Balochistan is virtually unrepresented in the higher echelons of all the services, military and civil.
   If we were at all careful about the federal principle, we would have the sense to make someone from Balochistan president of the republic. But that would presuppose a maturity of outlook and a change in the national mindset that it would take us some time to arrive at.
   Thirdly, the religious radicalism which has taken hold of some of the tribal areas –– notably North and South Waziristan and the Bajaur Agency –– is a response to the situation in Afghanistan. It is also an offshoot of the games the Pakistan army under General Ziaul Haq played during the days of the anti-Soviet resistance. The dragon’s teeth sown then have sprouted to haunt all the original cultivators: Yanks, Brits, the Saudis and the general staff of the Pakistan army.
   But the point to note is that although this is a conservative country, this religious radicalism represents no widespread national tendency. Whatever appearances may suggest, this is not a nation awaiting the summons of Taliban-style religious insurrection.
   The army has blundered in Waziristan, adopting highhanded and ham-handed tactics in the beginning which, given the intractable nature of the tribal Pakhtoons, was almost guaranteed to trigger a militant response. Had the army not succumbed to American pressure, and had it been faithful to its own instincts, it could have saved itself much subsequent trouble and agony.
   Americans may be the most dynamic people on earth, theirs may be the last word in rocket science, but as Vietnam and Iraq testify, they are not to be trusted when face to face with the dynamics of popular resistance. Time and again this most talented of nations has tried to solve a political problem as if it were a mathematical equation. The human condition is not a series of mathematical equations.
   Returning to the army’s domination of the national skyline, some of it was prefigured in the circumstances of our birth. Apart from Mohammad Ali Jinnah, a towering figure, the movement culminating in the creation of Pakistan produced no crop of outstanding leaders. Competent and even sincere, they were not outstanding. They were helpless against the rise of the mandarin class which, given the poverty of the political material produced by the Muslim League, was powerful even under Jinnah but which came into its own when he had departed from the scene.
   Hostility with India only partially explains the rise of the military ethos. True, Pakistan was beset by insecurity from the moment of its birth. But was this insecurity greater than Israel’s when it came into existence a year or two later? How has Israel, even through wars and endless conflict, managed to preserve a democracy while Pakistan, less challenged, remains trapped in an ugly hybrid halfway between democracy and dictatorship? An Israeli president has to leave office because he forces his attentions upon unwilling women. An Israeli justice minister faces charges because he kisses a female soldier a bit too hotly, again against her wishes. An army chief of staff faces a storm of criticism because of his poor handling of the war against Hezbollah. These things are unimaginable in Pakistan. An army chief can bungle Kargil and face no retribution, bungle Waziristan and face no questions. The spirit of democracy remains an elusive bird.
   Why? Sixty years is a long time. The British were in Punjab (I am not talking of the rest of India) for only 98 years –– 1849-1947 –– and look what they accomplished (from their point of view, not ours). They laid the foundations of a strong administration (from their point of view again) and planted the first seeds of representative government, first at the municipal level, then higher. Far be it from me to glorify the achievements of Empire. Still, this question is hard to avoid: why have we so signally failed to put in place the rudiments of a stable democratic order?
   And if we have failed to do this in 60 years, does it mean that for the next 60 we are condemned to live through different or similar cycles of the same accumulated experience? Depressing thought. We certainly deserve better.

We were delighted to have the opportunity to see Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed and his wife Neena, when they graciously invited my wife and me to dinner at the Jamuna, the official residence of the chief adviser of the caretaker government. Great responsibilities have been thrust on Fakhruddin Ahmed, an able man with outstanding credentials, at a critical juncture in the nation’s history.
   It has been the worst of time –– the months preceding October 28 and the subsequent months of strikes and ‘oborodhs’ and the faulty steps of the first caretaker government with President Yajuddin, doubling as the chief adviser. People’s despair and hopelessness knew no bounds. By declaration of the state of emergency on January 11, the derailed train of the state, as the Bangladesh army chief aptly put it, has been rescued and put back on the track. Most people have welcomed it. Though some uncertainty persists, it can also be the best of time for beneficial changes in Bangladesh’s society and politics.
   On January 12, three hours before his swearing-in as chief adviser, I happened to call Dr Fakhruddin Ahmed to invite him to a dinner I was hosting later in January. I got confirmation of the news from the horse’s mouth. He was his usual calm, cool and restrained self, and a model of humility and amiability. Having known him at home and abroad for more than forty years, I gave him my sincere best wishes on the eve of assumption of such a high office. From that moment, it was not possible for Fakhruddin and Neena, very warm and hospitable social beings, to lead a normal life. We surely missed them during the last one month at many dinners and gatherings of old friends taking place in the wonderful Dhaka winter.
   We finally met them on February 9. In our conversation on wide ranging subjects, some of the current and future issues affecting the nation were also covered. Although our visit was a social occasion, in view of the momentous developments and public interest in the matters discussed, it may not be inappropriate to give my sense of the discussions. The caretaker chief was conscious of the daunting tasks before him, the constitutional mandate of the caretaker government and the dilemma in fulfilling its historic role.
   People expect that his government would cleanse the political and administrative system of corruption, musclemen, terrorism, vindictiveness and sheer irresponsibility and negligence in governance and development. Major institutional changes in the election, anti-corruption and public service commissions are expected. The long suspended local government system also needs to be revived, to bring effective representative government nearer to the people. In my view, a narrow interpretation of the constitution may limit the area of the caretaker government’s operation, as well as the available time to accomplish what the people want.
   This caretaker government, according to some legal experts, is not constitutionally limited to a 90-day term. It can continue until a new parliament is elected, and the CG hands over powers to the next elected prime minister. So in addition to doing its onerous task of holding an election acceptable to all by creating a suitable environment for it, there is a general expectation of the people that the CG will remedy many of the past political governments’ acts of omission and commission. This includes anti-corruption measures and ridding important state institutions of partisanship and patronage appointments.
   The above poses a challenge and a dilemma for the caretaker government. If it sticks to strict constitutionality, it can deal only with election-related measures, avoid all other policy matters and hold elections as soon as practicable. Distinguishing between election policy issues and other policy issues is not an easy task. This time, the CG has the additional burden of fulfilling people’s expectation that it will leave behind a clean and professional administration. People also expect it to make sustainable reforms in the election commission and other state institutions, so that the country does not again plunge into a disastrous precipice. Some of these measures are related to the holding of credible elections and might require some time, over and beyond the minimum time required for the holding of elections, which is of some urgency. Does the Fakhruddin government have this kind of latitude? If not, could the people later accuse him of failing to deliver or neglecting to do so? In addition, it is to be seriously considered whether, without consultation with and the support and cooperation of the major political parties, he can at all succeed in undertaking an ambitious agenda? For the CG, the challenges and rewards are great indeed, but it is also an unenviable dilemma for an unelected government.
   For example, should the caretaker government deal with the urgent issue of buying power and new investments in power generation to relieve the chronic power shortage affecting people’s lives and commerce and industry? Should it go into other matters of long-term nature like transportation issues, the Chittagong port, local government set-up, and administrative and judicial reforms and the like? As the caretaker government continues in office, decisions need to be taken to maintain and accelerate the momentum of economic growth. Actions and investments, if foregone now because of the interim nature of this government, would surely have detrimental effects on the country’s economy, compounding problems in the future. I believe a test should be applied case by case– whether the public had overwhelming support for any urgent measure that the CG was planning to undertake. If the CG was truly confident of such support, and in its professional judgment, the measure was essential for good governance and sustaining the development of the country, it could proceed.
   The above are my own thoughts as I came out of Jamuna that night. I had taken the liberty to think aloud and raise issues which, I thought, were consistent with the country’s best interests and the current opportunity for making a significant and long-awaited break from the immediate past of politics as usual. I believe that the people of Bangladesh would continue to support the efforts of the caretaker government of Dr. Fakhruddin Ahmed and wish it all the success.
   Azizul Jalil writes from Washington.

SYDNEY: A new US military communications base planned for Western Australia will draw Asia more deeply into the clandestine signals war being waged by security agencies across the globe.
   The facility, to be built at Geraldton, 400 kilometres north of Perth, will relay intelligence data from a new generation of satellites to ground forces in Asia and the Middle East, with the US-led alliance fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan likely to be the chief recipient. It will be located alongside an existing US-Australian base that intercepts mobile telephone signals and other communications in an area stretching from the South Pacific to Northern Europe, including all Asian countries.
   Security analysts say the new complex, which is expected to pass on intelligence collected from Geraldton and elsewhere, will control the two most important of five geostationary satellites that are being launched by the US armed forces. Both will be positioned directly above the Indian Ocean to allow maximum coverage of the Middle East and the autonomous area between Pakistan and Afghanistan where al-Qaeda leaders are believed to be directing their terrorist networks.
   On a broader level, the base will form another link in the mysterious global signals-eavesdropping web known as ECHELON that the US operates with four allies –– the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada and New Zealand ––under the UKUSA Agreement for intercepting and processing international communications.
   Established in 1947 by Washington and London, UKUSA arose from a conviction by World War II signals analysts, later realised, that the emerging Cold War with communism would be defined by access to intelligence information –– political, military and commercial.
   Researcher and writer Duncan Campbell has revealed that by the 1980s, independent signals intelligence networks operated by the three former British colonies had been added, while other countries, including Norway, Denmark, Germany and Turkey, became ‘third party’ participants. The format chosen was ECHELON, an interception technology capable of sifting through messages from the Internet, e-mails, fax machines, telephones, radio transmissions and communications equipment inside embassies, as well as satellites that could be used to monitor signals anywhere on Earth.
   A 2001 study by the European Union found that ECHELON provided 55,000 military and intelligence operatives with access to data being gathered by 120 spy satellites worldwide.
   Collected information, including satellite photos and maps, is encrypted and forwarded for processing at the Fort Meade headquarters of the National Security Agency between Washington and Baltimore, which is the main US partner in the operation. At the intelligence level, useful data are fed into a form of intranet for use by mainstream intelligence organisations such as the United States’ Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service.
   Military units tap in via the British Skynet communications satellites and the US Milstar system. Even submarines have access, through two facilities in Western Australia –– the Northwest Cape relay base and a naval communications station near Exmouth. The Exmouth facility sends very low-frequency radio to US and Australian submarines and has the most powerful transmitter in the Southern Hemisphere.
   Regions of the world are carved up among the ECHELON partners, with Britain covering Africa and much of Europe, the US the rest of Europe and the Americas, and Canada northern latitudes and polar regions. Australia handles Asia and the Pacific in conjunction with listening posts and ground stations in Hawaii, the mainland US, Japan, New Zealand, Guam and Korea.
   
   Comprehensive coverage
   The system is unique in that it offers –– technically, at least –– a complete surveillance capability and is the first involving comprehensive cooperation among a range of different countries that share the proceeds.
   It is based around a triangular grid of ground stations at Geraldton, the British defence facility at Menwith Hill –– the world’s biggest signals eavesdropper –– and at Yakima in the US state of Washington, supported by interceptors and transmitters in Japan, South Korea, Germany, Guam, Cyprus, Hawaii, Canada, Puerto Rica, Denmark, Spain, Ireland and New Zealand, as well as the US, Britain and Australia.
   Satellite interceptions in Asia began in earnest with the launch in 1971 and 1975 of the second generation of civilian Intelsat orbiters, which were tracked by a base established in Hong Kong in the late 1970s that would provide a window on the emergence of China after the Cultural Revolution.
   By the mid-1990s and the arrival of the seventh generation of Intelsat satellites, as well as the expanding Inmarsat network, signals interception bases had been established in Geraldton and Waihopai in New Zealand, while the existing Pine Gap complex in Australia was being upgraded. Britain’s Government Communications Headquarters transferred its Hong Kong operations, including all of the transmitters and most personnel, to Geraldton in 1994 ahead of the return of the territory to China from the UK.
   Geraldton became the key listening post for civilian communications from Intelsat orbiters over the Indian Ocean, backed by Pine Gap, Morwenstow and Menwith Hill in Britain and Misawa Air Base in Japan. In the Pacific, Inmarsat transmissions are monitored by Pine Gap, Waihopai in New Zealand, Misawa, and Yakima in the US. Pine Gap is the main ground station for the intercepts, with half of its 900 operatives believed to be from the CIA and US signals agencies.
   Misawa, staffed by Japanese and US technicians, specifically intercepts signals from Russian satellites in the North Pacific, together with bases in Hawaii, Osan Air Base in South Korea, and the Yakima and Sugar Grove, West Virginia, ground stations in the mainland United States.
   One of the 1970s generation of Intelsat satellites still covers East Asia exclusively and is tracked from Pine Gap and Kojarena. But the focus since the 1990s has increasingly been on regional satellites. Palapa, the Indonesian orbiter that has a footprint covering most of Asia, including China, is monitored from Shoal Bay, a base in Australia’s Northern Territory.
   Australian Defence Minister Brendan Nelson has said the new Geraldton base will be part of a Mobile User Objective System that the US is developing that will use satellites to supply ground troops in Asia and the Middle East with instant intelligence, graphics and maps. Nelson said negotiations with the US began in 2003.
   The success rate of ECHELON is not known, but many analysts doubt that it is possible to trawl efficiently through billions of items of information in a time frame that would make it readily available to military forces and intelligence agencies.
   
   Commercial applications
   Nevertheless, the ECHELON concept has been copied –– on a single-country basis –– by Russia, France and China, among others.
   One reason may be that the objective has widened from filtering diplomatic and military transmissions to getting a head start on commercial competitors. There is circumstantial evidence that the system has been used by both the US and Britain to decide the fate of business contracts in Asia.
   Documents released in the US suggest it is also used for direct commercial espionage, often under the guise of monitoring corruption. ‘It is the new Cold War. The United States intelligence agencies, facing downsizing after the fall of the Berlin Wall, have found themselves a new role spying on foreign firms to help American business in global markets,’ said Campbell.
   In 1990, the German newsmagazine Der Spiegel claimed that president George H W Bush, father of the current US president, had used intercepted messages between Indonesian authorities and Japan’s NEC Corp to stop a US$200 million telecommunications deal. He is said to have insisted that it be split with a US telecom firm, AT&T.
   Boeing landed a $6 billion deal for arms, airliners and maintenance in Saudi Arabia in 1994 after the National Security Agency reportedly handed president Bill Clinton evidence from intercepted faxes and phone calls that the rival European Airbus consortium had discussed the payment of bribes to government officials. Clinton is also said to have cited intercepted evidence implicating one of former president Suharto’s daughters in a $150 million kickback to gain leverage in a $40 billion package of deals, including the Paiton power station, signed with Indonesia in 1994.
   Washington has even used intercepts against its own ECHELON partners. In 1995 a portfolio compiled by the CIA led to Britain losing a $400 million contract to build a power station near Bombay (now Mumbai) that went instead to the United States’ Enron, General Electric and Bechtel. Similarly, the British were pushed out of a major construction deal in the Philippines.
   The ultimate act of commercial espionage may still be working itself through the system. In 2000, a French intelligence report accused US intelligence agencies of developing software –– in conjunction with Microsoft –– that would enable the CIA to spy on the 90per cent of computer users around the world who use Microsoft programs. Briton Brian Gladwell, a former North Atlantic Treaty Organisation computer expert, stated in an interview after his retirement that the practice was akin to ‘where we were 250 years ago with pirates on the high seas’.
   ‘Governments never admitted they sponsored piracy, yet they all did behind the scenes. If we now look at cyberspace, we have state-sponsored information piracy. We can’t have a global e-commerce until governments like the US stop state-sponsored theft of commercial information.’
   Asia Times Online, February 22, 2007.

Madrassahs excluded!

It is shocking to read that the education ministry excluded madrassahs from a circular that ordered educational institutions to hoist national flag at half mast to mark the Amar Ekushey and International Mother Language Day.
   The lame excuse given by the education secretary is not acceptable. It simply proves his irresponsibility and callousness.
   Tahmina Haque Joya
   Bangladesh Medical College

---