Thoughts from London

C'wealth left with egg on its face
When the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meets in New York this week on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly sessions, there will surely be some red faces.

The change of colour might not show on some faces given the composition of the ministerial group but that will not hide the emotions of embarrassment and anger among some ministers and Commonwealth officials.

On the agenda of the CMAG meeting is the issue of Pakistan which was readmitted to the Commonwealth last May after its membership was suspended when Army Chief, General Pervez Musharraf grabbed power in a bloodless coup almost five years ago.

Though readmitted, Pakistan was to remain on the CMAG agenda so that the foreign ministers could periodically monitor the country's progress towards genuine democracy.

The October 2002 general elections, the revival of an elected parliament (though some call it perverse) and the formation of federal and provincial governments were viewed by CMAG as signs that General Musharraf was on the road to democracy.

But there was high expectation that the good general, who, by now had added the title of president to his be-medalled tunic, would relinquish his military post as chief of army staff by the end of December this year.

That would have created the appearance, if it did not prove the reality, of the civilian control of government returning to Pakistan. But what do we find now. Just days before CMAG was to assess the progress made toward firming up democracy in Pakistan since last May, President General Musharraf says that, after all, he would like to keep both his posts.

"The president has decided to keep both offices, of the president and the army chief, beyond December 31," Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed announced.

Ewen MacAskill, Diplomatic Editor of The Guardian writes: 'Asked why the decision to step down announced last December, has been reversed, Sheikh Ahmed said: "The situation has changed."'

Sri Lanka was a member of the CMAG that supported the lifting of the suspension that was confirmed by Commonwealth leaders at their summit in South Africa in 1999 and later reaffirmed by them in Nigeria.

But that is not the reason for Sri Lanka's embarrassment. For the first time Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar will be face to face with Commonwealth Secretary-General Don McKinnon after his ill-advised and ill-conceived foray into international politics when he tried to oust McKinnon from his post and was badly beaten.

Kadirgamar did not attend the CMAG meeting in May that saw Pakistan's restitution as a Commonwealth member and was spared the blushes then. But those personal embarrassments are only a minor sub-plot in a bigger drama that is being played out beyond the confines of the Commonwealth.

That it what makes it most embarrassing for the secretary-general and the Commonwealth secretariat, whatever its officials and apologists have said and will continue to say, perhaps with greater vehemence now, to hide what must surely be a blow to Pakistani democracy-or what there is of it.

The Pakistani announcement on President Musharraf's change of heart or mind did not come as any surprise. Just a day before Information Minister Ahmed got into the act, Pakistan's High Commissioner in London Dr Maleeha Lodhi seemed to give a hint of what seemed to be the thinking in those exalted circles in Islamabad.

Speaking to the UK branch of the Commonwealth Journalists' Association, Lodhi underlined the fact that Pakistan did not have to justify its actions to anybody.

The only explanation due was "to the people of Pakistan.” In a wide-ranging speech, she said that actions are "determined by domestic dynamics" and so Pakistan did not have to give explanations of its behaviour to "the international community."

Questioned about President Musharraf's pledge to relinquish his army post, the High Commissioner said, "no undertaking has been given to anybody. We only give undertakings to the people of Pakistan." "I cannot second guess him," Lodhi said, adding that President Musharraf's decision on democratisation is irrevocable.

One thing is now certain. General Musharraf is only sending his military uniform to the cleaners not to the attic of discarded things. Only time will tell how long he will continue to have one leg in the civilian administration and one leg in the military.

But right now the Commonwealth, particularly CMAG, does not have a leg to stand on. On re-admitting Islamabad last May, CMAG praised Pakistan's progress in restoring democracy but noted "continuing concern in regard to the strengthening of the democratic process."

If Musharraf is going to continue playing a dual role, the military will remain a dominant player in the governance of the country when the military should be under civilian control as in any functioning democracy.

The military's role in politics has now been sanctified through the National Security Council (NSC) though some would try to minimise its real power and importance by calling it an advisory body. What matters is not the nomenclature but its composition as it will "advise" the government on security matters, crisis management and other issues of "national interest", a description that hides all sins.

By the way, the NSC is headed by President Musharraf. Shortly after the suspension was lifted, former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku publicly took exception to the Commonwealth decision.

He argued that though Pakistan had made progress on the path to restoring democratic government, such developments could not be regarded as complete to warrant readmission until the president and executive head of state became an elected civilian politician. It was only then that Pakistan deserved to be permitted to rejoin the councils of the Commonwealth.

As a further embarrassment to the Commonwealth, the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) has criticised the London-based organisation's decision in a report titled "State of Democracy in Pakistan", released this month.

Stating that the repression of fundamental freedoms and human rights continue in Pakistan, HRCP argues that "power transfer from the military to the civil administration is a must to restore democracy, but the constitution has been amended to institutionalise the military's role."

HRCP says that the Commonwealth's decision was misguided, politically motivated and undermined its credibility. What was this political motivation? It was the diplomatic pressure exerted by the UK and Australia on behalf of the US and themselves to legitimise President Musharraf because he is pivotal in their so-called war on terrorism.

In the 1980s the US and the West used Pakistan as a conduit for sending arms and funds and to provide logistical support to the Taliban and the Afghan resistance in the war against Soviet occupation. Having created the monsters Washington needs Pakistan's support once more but this time to slay its creation.

What the US wants it gets, even from the Commonwealth. But it is the Commonwealth that is left with egg on its face.

Back to Columns