President Barack Obama's superb start

Posted on 25 January 2009. Tags: Pakistan, President Barack Obama, USA

President Obama Makes a Great Start

President Obama has impressed the world by starting early on fulfilling his campaign promises. His early actions reveal not just his agenda but also the principle – rule of law – that underpins it.

Usman Khalid

President Barack Obama is a professor of law. America has been on the wrong side of law since the end of the Carter Presidency. President Carter was the last International Law respecting and Human Rights supporting President of the United States. That he failed to do anything effective to free the American diplomatic mission staff held hostage in Iran sealed his fate. The American people did not give him a second term in office. But another American leader – President Bush Sr. – also did not succeed in getting the second term even though he won a impressive victory in the First Gulf War. He waged and won the war with the endorsement of the UN Security Council strictly in accordance with the international ‘rules of war’. He failed because of the opposition by the AIPC and the neo-cons. That marked the beginning of the rule by AIPC and the Neo-cons in the USA. The sixteen years of Clinton-Bush Presidency marked the decline and fall from grace of America. All of America was aware of the contempt and fear in which America has been held because of Clinton-Bush policies but no one really came forward with ‘what to do’. Until President Obama.

President Obama came up with an arresting slogan of ‘change we can believe in’ but no one (at least not in the UK and Europe) really knew what ‘change’ to expect? Now we know. Immediately upon taking over he signed orders relating to “Guantanamo Bay Detainees”, ” restrictions on lobbyists” and appointment of special envoys for Palestine and for Afghanistan and Pakistan. In one fell swoop he spelt out by his actions what he had been saying in words during his election campaign. America is not returning to the ‘Carter Era’ of ‘upholding human rights’ as corner stone of foreign policy. America under President Obama is returning to an era of the ‘rule of law’ both internally and internationally. That is similar to President Bush Sr. but it is not the same. His early actions underline his resolve to bridge the gap between America’s principles and policies. Holding US prisoners at Guantanamo and elsewhere in the world outside the protection of US law was clearly intended to circumvent the US law. Use of torture, allowed by an executive order by President Bush, was a violation of international law. Law professor Barack Obama knows perfectly that as the Chief Executive of the USA he is personally liable for violation of US or international law. He avoided personal liability by ending such violations even though these were sanctioned by his predecessors.

“Rule of Law” is a potent weapon in the hands of a leader who can maintain consensus in internal politics. This is even more potent weapon of ‘foreign policy’ in a world where defiance of law (of UNSC Resolutions) by America’s ‘strategic partners’ – Israel and India – is the source of instability in the regions most important for world peace – the Middle East and South Asia. No details of the brief for Middle East Envoy – George Mitchell – or the Envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan – Richard Holbrook – have been announced. The UNSC Resolution 242 provides the legal basis for a settlement in Palestine. But the ‘Wall’ and the ‘Jewish settlements’ in occupied territories that have been built as ‘neo-realities’ are bound to be used to delay matters. The Oslo Agreement, which was reached under the Presidency of George Bush Sr., and probably became the reason for his failure to win a second term as President, has been successfully undermined by Israel by the use of the ‘neo-realities’. But there is another neo-reality that has been ignored thus far. Under International Law, the Palestinians forced out of their homes and land from 1948 onwards have a ‘right to return’. If they do return, there would be no part of Palestine with Jewish majority. Law Professor Barack Obama can and must insist on respect for international law. The UNSC Resolution 242 and the right of the Palestinians to return to their homeland equip the international community with the necessary legal and moral authority to resolve the Palestinian issue. Besides, the Arab countries may be willing to bear the cost of houses built on confiscated land. Having nominated his envoy to the Middle East, he has to insist on strict application of international law.

Peace in Afghanistan has no impediment in its way except that India believes that the ‘great game’ has resumed in Central Asia and it wants to fill the shoes of the erstwhile British Empire in India in that game. In contrast, all the neighbours of Afghanistan have nothing but goodwill for its people and are eager for peace in that war-torn country. The USA, having walked out of Afghanistan after the exit of Soviet forces, returned in the wake of 9/11 with its own ideas of a ‘game’ to be played in Pakistan and Afghanistan. The new ‘great game’ revolves around re-drawing the frontiers of states in the region creating several small countries unable to resist Indian hegemony. The neo-cons chose India for the role of ‘local hegemon’ for two reasons: 1) India is a country with imperial expansionist ambitions, but being the only Hindu country in the world it needed a powerful ally to achieve its objectives; 2) Hindu India sees Islam and Muslim as its nemesis. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the USA embraced the World of Islam as its archenemy. The two factors made India and America ‘natural allies. It is not in the power of President Obama to challenge this neo-reality easily. But India can still be made to submit to international law. There is UNSC Resolution of 1948 on Jammu and Kashmir that is more than a resolution; it is an international agreement. The resolution says: “India and Pakistan agree……………to resolve the dispute……..by a plebiscite under UN auspices”. That resolution is the only international agreement to resolve the dispute. The effort of India and more recently of the USA has been to bully and blackmail the government of Pakistan to agree to a partition of Kashmir rather than hold a plebiscite. Since every government since the death of President General Zia in 1988, has submitted to Indo-US pressure on Kashmir, every government quickly became unpopular. Pakistan has remained unstable as the resistance in Jammu and Kashmir found non-state organisers.

It is too early to say if the Obama Administration understands the nature of the problem fully and has ideas that resolve the Kashmir dispute permanently. The people of Pakistan have several questions and doubts: 1) Is the USA ready to abandon its hostile stance towards the ‘Muslim World’ that will inevitably involve the sidelining of its erstwhile strategic partnership with India and Israel? 2) Would the US abandon its objective of redrawing the frontiers of Pakistan and building up India as its ‘regional hegemon’? Neither India nor the USA has admitted to having such aims; it is not likely that they renounce them publicly. Yet, the policies and actions of the USA would give an indication how far America has changed. Richard Holbrook has been assisted in his work by India saying it does not see a link between Kashmir and ‘global war on terrorism’. There indeed isn’t a link. The resistance in Kashmir is to Indian occupation; it has no global aim or reach. Having been appointed an envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan he has no – not yet – responsibility for resolving the Kashmir dispute. He can concentrate on Afghanistan where all its neighbours are ready and eager to co-operate with the US to bring peace to that country. Richard Holbrook can complicate his work by trying to bring Russia and India into the fold of guarantors of peace in Afghanistan. The Karzai Government would like to get India involved; even the Zardari Administration in Pakistan might be eager to do India a favour by welcoming it. But USA has to provide leadership. There are no diverse pulls inside or among the neighbours of Afghanistan that usually undermine an agreement. The USA can achieve an early success by bringing durable peace in Afghanistan. All that it needs to do is to avoid getting Russia or India involved.

The USA may be willing to end its hostility to the World of Islam. A significant number of Israelis also see merit in making peace with Palestinians and their Arab neighbours. But India is not going to abandon its imperial dreams and implement the agreement on Kashmir it entered into with Pakistan and the UN in 1948. But the USA can make friends with the people of Pakistan if it really wanted. After all, the USA and Pakistan are friends of long standing. It was the good offices of Pakistan that made early US diplomatic links with China possible that underpinned peace and prosperity of the world over several decades. The most potent instrument to bring that about is once again the ‘rule of law’. A movement of fellow lawyers of President Barack Obama has been going on since March 9, 2007 to get the Chief Justice dismissed by General Musharraf restored. The Lawyers in the USA and the UK have expressed support for their Pakistan brethren very strongly. It is time for the US Government to add its weight and earn much gratitude. Among the first few things Ambassador Holbrook should take up with President Zardari is to restore the CJ. That would be a victory of ‘rule of law’ that is the main theme for the change that President Obama evidently wishes to bring about. It is pointless making deals with India on ‘terrorism’ because its share in the ‘global war on terror’ is to suppress the freedom movement in Kashmir and Assam even more brutally and to demonise the Naxalites as terrorists just because India is unable to reform the society to end caste apartheid. In the end, India would also have to submit to the ‘rule of law’ in dealing with dissent and resistance. India would have concede that it is not a country but an empire even less wiling to accommodate dissent than Hindu empires of the past none of which lasted more than sixty years. ++

The writer was a Brigadier of the Pakistan Army currently the Director London Institute of South Asia. www.lisauk.com