Obama passes the real test--or does he?

Ever since his inaugration, I have been saying that the real test on human rights for the Obama administration will not be what he does in Guantanamo Bay--which he had committed to close down as a campaign promise. The real test will be what he and the administration do in Bagram, which is much bigger, and from the Pakistani point of view, much closer to home.

I have been meaning to write something about this. And my point really isn't to just take a "Marg bar Amrika" point of view; to imply that America is always evil or that no American President can do any good. I really do feel that Obama has a chance to change the actual policies and procedures of the American presence around the world in all its forms, and to set a new tone.

But, as I have said repeatedly since before the last presidential elections (in the US), what Pakistanis remember from the 2008 presidential election cycle is Obama making his foreign policy chops by saying, in effect, that "we will bomb Pakistan, and its sovereignty be darned". And in the last month or two, the influx, or rumoured influx, of a thousand or two each of marines and mercenaries (oh, okay, Xe/Blackwater "consultants") in Pakistan, that image has been reinforced many fold. (See this story in the News Observer.) And in the mean time, the other story being followed and, very frankly, used to whip up anti-American fury in Pakistan is that of Dr. Afia Ahmed, "Prisoner Number 650". (Just google her name for a taste--or search Bloggers.pk, the main Pakistani blog aggregator.)

And just a night or two ago, I heard the Obama Administration's General Counsel of the Department of Defense tell the American Bar Association (on the eve of the anniversary of 9/11, no less) that Bagram was completely different from Guantanamo, and that what was happening there was okay, and so on. (The event is on CSPAN.)

But, suddenly, now I see the following story, which actually reverses, or substantially changes what the General Counsel said. Is Obama actually doing better than even his own team expected--and keeps thinking it should be doing? Or am I missing something? I would love to hear from our legal friends--and anyone else who has a real thought on this:

U.S. Gives New Rights To Afghan Prisoners

Challenging Detention to Be Allowed

These detainees were released from Bagram in June 2006. About 600 people remain in the prison. (By Musadeq Sadeq -- Associated Press)

By Karen DeYoung and Peter Finn

Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, September 13, 2009

Hundreds of prisoners held by the U.S. military in Afghanistan will for the first time have the right to challenge their indefinite detention and call witnesses in their defense under a new review system being put in place this week, according to administration officials.

The new system will be applied to the more than 600 Afghans held at the Bagram military base, and will mark the first substantive change in the overseas detention policies that President Obama inherited from the Bush administration.

(Full Washington Post at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/12/AR2009091202798.html)

What's with the PPP?

In all the angst that is turning up in the chattering and protesting classes in Pakistan, one question is coming up pretty often: whatever happened to the PPP? Others express a complete disdain for it. And I don't want to sound naive; the PPP and its founders and others since have done much to deserve all the reactions they get: both positive and negative.

But too often today, too many people talk only of Zardari. Or, if they want to discuss politics just a wee bit more, of the group that was close to BB herself as the counterpoint. But the PPP today remains the largest grouping in the country and, as such, consists of, and has always consisted of, a coalition of groups. It was set up as a left-of-center vehicle that, if you believe some of the very first die-hards, very rapidly was dominated (taken over, if you believe some folks) by the personality of the charismatic (evil genius, if you believe others) of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto. There were the left-of-center (and some outright "Left") activists. There were the urbane, well-read, (and, in some cases, most nobtably and visibly nowadays Aitzaz Ahsan) Leftist lawyers and intellectuals. There were the gritty, "awami" activits, not least those from Karachi's Lyari section and it's Afro-Pakistani/Baloch community, but others as well. There are the Sindhi nationalists, both inside and, on-and-off, supporting from the outside. And, of course, there were those who were just taken by the charisma of the man--either because he convinced them that he would carry their causes to victory or because of the sheer electric power of his personality. And there were other such components--not least the professional politicians, the feudal lords, the industry-walas, and the military folks that hitched their stars with a rising star. The opportunists, if you will.

The amazing thing is how long the coalition that Zulfi built has lasted. I often tell the story of a colleague of my father's (they were both college professors) who, in the late 80's still had a larger-than-life picture of the man in his "drawing room", even as he shook his head with disappointment written all over his face and said "He had such a dynamic start; but power went to his head. For a man who had risen on street power to get to where he said 'I can crush street power with state power'..."

The morning after Benazir was assasinated, I was on KQED San Francisco's Public Radio Station and halfway into the discussion, after everyone had discussed the personality of the heir not-quite-apparent, Makhdoom Amin Fahim, and the modalities of how a successor will be picked, I had to pull everyone back and say, "Wait a minute; y'all are forgetting one person. The husband. He's paid his dues; spent a decade in jail (whatever the conditions of his incarceration)--and he has always been a smarter person--and speaks much better English--than caricatures of his have given him credit for."

Of course, we all know what happened next. To cut a long story short, Zardari took over the party at the head of the opportunist wing, and that wing is now dominant.

Personally, in terms of discussing the internal dynamics of the PPP, I think what is interesting to follow is whether the Uncles (Mirani and that generation that worked directly with ZAB), or the Young Turks (the above-mentioned Amin F & Co., which, as in the case of Amin Faheem himself quite literally, are either children of that first generation, or younger people who joined later) or the Leftist Lawyers (the aforesaid Aitzaz, et al), or anyone else can throw up a leader that can bring together and hold a coalition...

Otherwise, as I also often say, it might be time to build a new political movement, a new coalition in Pakistan; something that has only been done twice since indepence--once by Mr. Bhutto himself, and once, on a regional level, by Altaf Hussain and the MQM...but more on that another time.

For forms of government let fools contest;

Just a reminder:

For forms of government let fools contest;

Whate'er is best administer'd is best:

For modes of faith let graceless zealots fight;

His can't be wrong whose life is in the right.

In Faith and Hope the world will disagree,

But all mankind's concern is Charity:

All must be false that thwart this one great end,

And all of God that bless mankind or mend.

Alexander Pope, Essay on Man, EPISTLE III: Of the Nature and State of Man, With Respect to Society

Or, to quote a South Asia poet I have quoted before:

mazhab thoe buss mazhab-e-dhil hai; baaqee sub gumraahee hai

[the only (true) creed is the creed of the heart; all else is heresy]