Will they grasp the moment?

They love to disagree and fight on anything and everything under the sun; but when it comes to India, even bitter political rivals in Pakistan now manage to find a common ground – for peace. Yes! The country’s key mainstream political parties – the ruling and the opposition – want an end to hostilities with India. They desire peace, friendship and close economic and trade ties with our neighbour to the East that not too long ago was officially considered the enemy number one and the biggest threat to Pakistan’s security.
This rare consensus on a complex and, to an extent, emotional issue for many Pakistanis has again been manifested in a compelling manner during the 2nd Pakistan-India Economic Conference held in Lahore on May 7-8. The conference, organised under the banner of Aman ki Asha – a media-led peace initiative of the Jang Group and The Times of India – attracted not just the frontline businesspersons and corporate leaders from both sides of the border, but also some frontline political leaders and government officials. Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani, whose Pakistan Peoples’ Party-led government has made some big strides in easing trade relations between the two countries over the last one year, set the ball rolling at the inaugural session of the conference, saying that improvement in ties with India remained a cherished goal of his government.
The sentiment was echoed by Tehreek-e-Insaf leader Imran Khan, who is trying to position his party as the third force in the murky waters of Pakistani politics. The crux of Khan’s message was that the new generation wants a new Pak-India relationship based on mutual trust. Chief Minister Punjab Mian Shahbaz Sharif, a businessman-turned-politician, perhaps articulated what the business communities of both Pakistani and Indian Punjab desire the most – to trade directly among themselves rather than through the far-flung Karachi and Mumbai ports, to reduce freight cost and save time.
The three mainstream parties reflected the sentiment of other important political players including the Muttahida Qaumi Movement, the Awami National Party, the Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam and the Baloch nationalists, who all want a paradigm shift in Islamabad-New Delhi relations by breaking away from the bitterness of the past.
In a highly polarised and ideologically divided country, this consensus among rivals on a major foreign policy issue bodes well for internal politics as well as regional peace, given the fact that not long ago this kind of warmth and unequivocal support for friendly relations appeared impossible.
The newfound impetus in the peace process also draws strength from the business community, industrialists, corporate giants and traders, who see vast opportunities for growth and wealth if the two countries fully open their borders for trade and allow economic collaboration. In fact, much before the politicians came out openly in support of this process, it was these interest groups that lobbied and raised their voice for the normalisation of Pakistan-India relations.
But the credit for staying ahead of the curve that leads towards the normalisation of Pakistan-India relations goes to the Jang Group and The Times of India, which launched the Aman ki Asha initiative in January 2010. Initially, the effort was seen with scepticism, even hostility, by forces caught up in hidebound and warlike state narratives ever since Partition. The concept of peace and friendly relations between Pakistan-India was not in vogue at that time, but the Aman ki Asha managed to create waves and served as a catalyst for improvement of ties between the two countries, by providing an organised and neutral platform.
While there is much to celebrate on the recent gains made at the official level for enhancing trade ties, the peace process between the two countries still remains fragile and vulnerable to the knotty historical disputes and unforeseen incidents of terrorism. Islamabad and New Delhi require vision and strong political will to keep the peace process on course in the minefield of historical disputes that include the unresolved Kashmir issue which bedevils relations between them. The two governments must take advantage of the newfound warmth and goodwill at the people-to-people level to tackle fundamental issues, ensuring durable and sustainable peace in South Asia. The sense of current euphoria and optimism may prove short-lived if the governments fail to capitalise on this and continue to drag their feet on big decisions.
From Pakistan’s point-of-view, the Kashmir issue cannot be left on the backburner. A just solution of this protracted dispute over the divided Himalayan region according to the aspirations of the Kashmiri people remains the basic prerequisite for sustainable friendly relations and any meaningful economic collaboration. Governments come and go and people can make or lose money in trade, but state interests remain permanent, which cannot be abandoned for short-term gains.
While it is encouraging that Islamabad and New Delhi have made meaningful decisions to boost trade ties during the last few months, they have made little headway on the political front, even on issues whose resolution would be as difficult as plucking low-hanging fruit – such as the disputes over Sir Creek, Siachen Glacier, and the distribution of water resources.
At the same time, Pakistan needs to address the international concerns regarding terrorism and ensure that its territory is not used by militant non-state actors to hatch terror plots against any other country. This is easier said than done, given the porous border with Afghanistan, the weakened writ of the state in many parts of the country and the presence of a strong terror network which continues to target and kill innocent people; but Islamabad must move to fight the menace and must be seen to be moving to do so.
The people-to-people contacts, the enthusiasm of interest groups for boosting economic relations, media-led peace movements, all play an important role in setting the stage, but in the end it will be for the governments to take bold and meaningful decisions to lock the gains and ensure peace in South Asia where the armies of two nuclear powers stand eyeball to eyeball.
The leadership on both sides has an opportunity to make history anew by giving their relations a determined direction towards peace, progress and prosperity in South Asia. The question is: Will they grasp the moment?
The writer is editor The News, Karachi. Email: amir.zia@gmail.com


The French break right-wing spell
Praful Bidwai
Socialist Francois Hollande has become France’s president by ousting Nicolas Sarkozy in a bitterly polarising election. This breaks the Right’s post-1995 spell over the French presidency. This is good news for the 17-nation crisis-bound Euro-zone, and the larger world.
The much smaller-than-forecast margin of Hollande’s victory in the second round of voting – barely four percentage-points – means he couldn’t garner many non-Sarkozy votes cast in the first round, except for the 12 percent polled by the Far Left led by Jean-Luc Melenchon. This spells some uncertainty. Many French regions and cities, which enjoy a degree of autonomy from the centre, are still under conservative influence. The Socialists aren’t sure of winning the national legislature elections in June. Nevertheless, the end of Sarkozy’s reign and his political project calls for celebration.
Sarkozy was a boorish politician with an offensive street-fighter style who attacked social inclusion and stoked anti-immigrant prejudice, militarism and Islamophobia, while weakening the welfare state. He aligned France closely to the US. Under him, France rejoined the Nato military command, which it had quit under De Gaulle. Sarkozy led the Western coalition which attacked Libya, deposing Muammar Gaddafi.
Ironically, a highly credible media-watch organisation has revealed that Sarkozy was paid Euro 50 billion by Qaddafi for his 2007 presidential campaign. In the European Union, Sarkozy formed a close Right-wing alliance with German chancellor Angela Merkel (the “Merkozy” axis) which implemented a tough austerity regime through a fiscal compact. This led to a severe erosion of welfare spending, withdrawal of public services, and growing unemployment, deprivation, homelessness and poverty.
In France, Sarkozy carried crony capitalism to new heights, and privatised many core public assets. He raised employees’ pensionable retirement age from 60 to 62 years. He lengthened the statutory 35-hour working week. This was one of the Left’s greatest achievements, which gave people more leisure and created more jobs. Sarkozy ran a vicious campaign against the very concept. Sarkozy made immigrants, especially France’s five million Muslims from the Maghreb and sub-Saharan Africa, feel unwelcome and insecure. This undermined social cohesion and encouraged xenophobic Far-Right currents like Marine Le Pen’s Front National.
Sarkozy personified semi-authoritarian, highly divisive rule which provoked fear and loathing. He had an ostentatious lifestyle and flaunted his close connections with rich industrialists and foreign dictators. His critics despised him far more intensely than any other French conservative. As social scientist-activist Harsh Kapoor, a long-time resident of France and keen observer of its politics puts it, Sarkozy’s rule will be remembered for media manipulation, shady campaign finance, and confrontationist (some would say, gutter-level) politics.
Sarkozy blatantly meddled in the print media, appropriated to himself the power to appoint the heads of France’s public television channels, and cynically exploited his business connections to manipulate publications like Le Figaro, France’s biggest-selling daily, and a host of smaller papers. Sarkozy controlled two-thirds of the French media through his business friends. In this, he came closest to Italy’s disgraced Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi. The difference is, Berlusconi actually owned publication and channels, Sarkozy didn’t. Sarkozy injected sleaze into the financing of conservative political campaigns through payoffs made in arms deals with French companies.
Even worse was his anti-consensual, macho, confrontationist political style, his contempt for parliamentarians, and his undermining of democratic institutions. This was particularly evident in his handling of the civil unrest of 2005, triggered by North African immigrant youth, as the interior (home) minister. When bigger protests broke out in 2009 under his presidency, he was even worse. Instead of healing social divides, he widened them.
Sarkozy, then, leaves behind a toxic and retrograde legacy. The French voted powerfully against it rather than positively for Hollande. Migrants and progressives are celebrating Sarkozy’s defeat in the streets. Besides the promise of social inclusion, a key factor in Hollande’s victory was his opposition to the harsh austerity measures imposed on the Euro-zone’s most crisis-ridden countries. These are slowing down Europe’s recovery from the Great Recession, and impoverishing people.
The worst example is Greece. Massive spending cutbacks, on top of a vicious, protracted financial crisis, have caused acute social distress. Unemployment runs at 20 percent and civil servants’ salaries have been slashed by one-half. The Greeks have voted out the main parties responsible for the austerity programme.
Hollande’s opposition to austerity is well founded. What Europe needs is more, not less, state spending so that more purchasing power is put into the hands of the people, thus stimulating a recovery. Yet, Hollande doesn’t have a programme which can radically alter the direction of the French economy. Hollande and his cabinet will take a 30 percent salary cut – a welcome move. He is committed to balancing the budget over the next five years. But what France, like all EU, needs is an expansionary policy. More state spending even with some inflation would be preferable to a “double-dip” recession. Deflationary balancing of the budget will further depress the economy.
Hollande, in keeping with his “Mr Normal”, non-controversial personality, is only promising a “soft” Social Democratic programme which won’t rock neoliberal capitalism’s boat. This 35-point plan is far milder than the proposals of the Socialists’ candidate in the 2007 elections – and Hollande’s former partner – Segolene Royale.
Hollande wants to renegotiate the Euro-zone’s fiscal compact to promote growth, social security and ecological concerns. He has promised Euro 20 billion additional social spending and 150,000 new jobs, including 60,000 teachers’ jobs. He wants to give workers the right to retire with pension at the age of 60 if they started working at 18. Hollande wants to invest in renewable energy and reduce the role of nuclear power. He would also advance the pullout of French troops from Afghanistan by a year.
Hollande’s most radical proposal is a 75 percent tax on income above a million Euros. But that would only affect small numbers. Yet, the new president will face countless hurdles, including resistance from Merkel on changing the fiscal compact, Nato pressure on Afghanistan, and corporate and finance capital opposition.
Such opposition would be similar to but more intense than what the Manmohan Singh government faces today for proposing General Anti-Avoidance Rules, and taxing the Vodaphone merger deal. Singh has caved in to pressure. Hollande shouldn’t.
France has lost its AAA credit rating. The bond markets will groan as its government borrows Euro 200 billion-plus in medium-term loans this year. Hollande is aware of this. He recently said: “My real adversary has no name, no face, no party. It will never be elected. Yet it governs. The adversary is the world of finance.”
How Hollande will fight the adversary isn’t clear. But fight he must – unless he wants to go the way of the rulers of Greece, Ireland and Spain. He has good allies in the Far Left, the trade unions which also oppose austerity, and France’s depleting, but still substantial, progressive intelligentsia.
The fight will become easier if the Socialists win the legislature elections. But even if they lose, Hollande must wage a determined struggle against neoliberalism and to bend capital investment to the ends of a just and equal society. The fight will be hard, but worth waging. On it will depend the fate of the Socialist project in Europe, and eventually, the world.