New year resolutions

The French have never been more ambitious on the eve of a new year than they are on this holiday season – the first of the Sarkozy era. A dynamic push from our tireless president led us to an unprecedented number of new year resolutions. The French will smoke less in 2008 and work more, as the government is moving forward with a plan that could put an end to the renowned ‘35-hour week’. But more than anything, France is aiming for world peace.


Solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, once referred to as “the black hole of all conflicts” by former FM Michel Barnier, is France’s secret resolution for 2008, as it tries to maintain its international stature, and French diplomacy evaluates that pressing for a quick creation of a Palestinian State could be an efficient way to reach its goal.



FM Bernard Kouchner placed the creation of a Palestinian State at the center of the Paris Donor Conference organized on December 17 and went as far as to joke around and declare: “And the winner is: The Palestinian State!” in his final press conference with Mahmoud Abbas.


My friend the Israeli journalist Shmuel Tal told Kouchner that one of the main actors, Hamas, was absent from the Paris conference, and therefore no decisive progress was possible. However, Sari Nusseibeh, former PLO representative in Jerusalem, told me he thought that, on the contrary, no positive evolution would ever be possible with Hamas.
“Hamas ideology, its nature, cannot change,” said Nusseibeh. “The only solution is to move forward and attract gradually Hamas supporters.”



Aside from peace, the quest of love and good business are two of the main new year resolutions for 2008. For the first time in history, French newspapers have started a ‘shiduchim’ campaign to find new love for the recently divorced president.



All of the country’s dailies, radios and most TV stations have treated Sarkozy as the new ‘bachelor’, first trying to match him with various local stars and then widely reporting on his 3-week dating affair with former top model Carla Bruni, with whom he has apparently spent Christmas in Egypt. The love story took center stage in the media and some have accused President Sarkozy of using his liaison to take attention away from the recent Gaddafi fiasco – the Libyan leader’s exuberant visit in France - which left many French speechless. No analyst can seriously support such a maneuver, yet one must stress that the president’s red carpet invitation to the Libyan leader, in exchange for multi-billion dollar business deals, was highly criticized, even within his own party and government.


“Colonel Gaddafi must understand that France is not a doormat on which a leader, terrorist or other, may wipe his bloody shoes” declared young secretary of state to Foreign Affairs and Human Rights Rama Yade.


“Gaddafi has turned us into fools” – wrote France Soir editor Gérard Carreyrou. “God created the world in six days and Gadaffi used his 6-day visit to mock everyone: the French Republic, our elected president and millions of citizens.”

“We’ve given Gaddafi a red carpet treatment to the eyes of the world,” said opposition member François Bayrou. “We sold away our values for a bunch of uncertain trade deals with Libya [..] signing defense agreements that turn us into Tripoli’s ally. [..] As a result, France will be marginalized and weakened.”

“France has been dishonored!” wrote Pascal Brukner, an author who is generally among Sarkozy’s supporters. “We’ve already humiliated ourselves with a presidential visit to the Anti-Semitic Algerian regime, with enthusiastic phone calls to Putin and with a visit from Hugo Chavez. When will we unroll a red carpet for M. Ahmadinejad?”
(Some critics added President Bush to the list of Sarkozy’s questionable contacts.)


The critics recalled Gaddafi’s recent renewed support for terror, when stating at the Lisbon EU-Africa summit that terror was the weapon of the weak. They also stressed his lack respect for human rights in Libya, and more specifically the affair of the Bulgarian nurses, imprisoned for years although they were innocent.


“Gaddafi has 6 million hostages – Libya’s inhabitants,” wrote Charly Hebdo Weekly.
However loud and unanimous throughout Paris, critics were silenced, almost forgotten and unsuspected in various events organized for the Libyan guest.


I had the rare opportunity to attend a gathering of women in favor of Gaddafi which seamed as anything from surreal to hallucinating. The mere topic of the conference: ‘women’s rights’ was yet another attempt by Gaddafi to embarrass the French. In preceding days he accused them of neglecting human rights and failing to respect their immigrants - turning Western criticism of Libya against Europe.


Hundreds of women from African countries such as Senegal, Mali, Libya and Northern African countries dressed in traditional and glamorous dresses, many of them veiled, cheered Gaddafi in his three-hour appearance as if he were a rock star, waiving veils with his picture and applauding everyone of his extraordinary statements.
The atmosphere was so unusual that an elected representative of the Jewish community found herself greeting Gaddafi in the name of the community. – I was later asked not to report on this in the local media to avoid unnecessary embarrassment, as this was anything but planned.
“I’m here to save Europe,” said Gaddafi. “Europeans abandon their children on the streets, and when these children grow up they can reach powerful positions and then their psychological trauma can lead them to launch wars and genocides.”
Gaddafi persuaded the assembly that working is not always in women’s best interest.
“Men and women have equal rights, but not equal duties,” he said “Women shouldn’t lower themselves to certain jobs which may be decent for men, but not for them.” “Women have so much to do at home – They start a second job once they come home from their official working place.”
A veiled woman turned to me, laughing, and said “Well, the men are the ones who should start changing”.


A delegate from UNESCO turned to Gaddafi and asked him to contribute to the education of African girls. Gaddafi answered that the European women are the ones who should be saved, getting cheers from the crowd.


One can wonder how women living in Europe can cheer and hail such words and bow to such a dictator. While talking and observing several women and their address to Gaddafi I noted there were different crowds. Some women chairing various African associations were trying to get Gaddafi’s attention on various problems they were facing, lobbying the leader for women’s interests. Others were simply overwhelmed, trying desperately to get a picture of the “guide of the revolution” on their cell phones, cheering every word.


Will Gaddafi’s criticism against France’s immigration policies have an effect on France’s troubled suburbs? Some experts fear that it may. And the effect can be revealed when one speaks with some immigrants.



One of my Moroccan journalist colleagues, Fatima, told me today that France had some nerve accusing Libya of failing to respect human rights.


“It is in France that human rights are not respected,” she told me in the way Gaddafi stated it a week ago, “You French have a limited notion of human rights. Human rights are not about freedom of speech, they are also, and mainly about giving everyone the chance to earn a living.”
“Whenever I get to a job interview, even in state offices, my resume is suddenly not good enough,” she added. “Human rights are about dignity and I don’t feel that I have that here in France.”


Political scientists such as Zaki Laidi evaluate that inviting dictators like Gaddafi only reinforces them and weakens those who oppose them, and Laidi questions the results of Sarkozy’s will to respect such guests he is forced to invite for strategic and economic reasons, selling them nuclear plants and various weapons.


Sarkozy argues that Libya has abandoned terror. He adds that he is not alone and that time has come to reintegrate Libya in the ‘International community’.



The French may be asking themselves other questions: whether their country has invited such guests in order to regain its past international stature, whether France will succeed in its attempt to reintegrate, or cling to, the ‘powerful nations community’ or whether the very resolved Sarkozy is experiencing his first presidential setback.

Sarkozy faces antisemitic jibes in Algeria

French President Nicolas Sarkozy’s first official visit to Algeria this week was overshadowed after he became the target of antisemitic insults.

Only a few days prior to the visit, Algerian minister Mohamed Cherif Abbés claimed in the El–Khabar newspaper that Mr Sarkozy had been elected through the manoeuvres of “the Jewish lobby” and made reference to the president’s Jewish origins.

The Algerian authorities refused to apologise for the assault, and Socialist leaders Jean-Christophe Cambadélis and Pierre Moscovici pleaded for a rescheduling of the trip, stating the attack was “intolerable”.

However, Mr Sarkozy decided to push forward with the meeting, attempting to consolidate tense bilateral ties and to sign $5 billion (£2.5bn) of energy deals.

Mr Abbés’s comments were not the first antisemitic attacks launched against Mr Sarkozy. Extremist leader Jean-Marie Le Pen has pointed at Mr Sarkozy’s ancestors, saying “he is Jewish through his mother”, and several weeks ago Mr Sarkozy was even accused of spying for Israel’s Mossad intelligence service. But Mr Abbés’s assault was the first public antisemitic attack made by an Algerian official and was followed by the Algerian authorities’ refusal to allow entrance to one of Mr Sarkozy’s guests on the visit, a French-Jewish singer of Algerian descent, Enrico Macias. The French Jewish umbrella group CRIF said it was “disgusted” by these decisions.

The attacks may have been intentional, coming at a time when Algeria is trying to make its mark in the region. Mr Sarkozy, who has strengthened relations with Morocco, Algeria’s rival, wants to develop a Mediterranean Union that would include Israel, but Algeria prefers to keep Israel out.

However, the most obvious issues of discord were France’s past colonial rule in North Africa and Mr Sarkozy’s refusal to issue an official apology, as well as his immigration policy, which has been strongly criticised in Algeria.

The French president chose to remain focused on his mission, condemning colonisation but refusing to issue an excuse. He replied to the minister’s antisemitic attacks in his speech, calling for a fight against racism, antisemitism and Islamophobia.

“Nothing resembles antisemitism more than the hatred of Islam,” Mr Sarkozy told the Algerian Parliament. “Antisemitism and Islamophobia have the same face, the face of foolishness and hatred. We can’t explain them, we simply have to fight against them.”

Letter from Paris courthouse

Something unusual happened in the small 11th Appeals courtroom of Paris on Nov. 14. The footage used for a September 2000 report by French TV on the death of Mohammad al Dura in the Gaza Strip was screened and examined by a judge in a slander trial against an Internet site that had claimed the Al Dura report was forged.

Charles Enderlin, the veteran correspondent of French public television in the Middle East and author of the report, described to the judge every segment of the footage filmed by his cameraman at the Netzarim junction, while Enderlin was in Ramallah. The journalist maintained that his report was genuine and accused the Internet site, Media-Ratings, of slander, but, for the first time since the events of September 2000, the French news agency, AFP, concluded that something was wrong with Enderlin's report.

"The [edited] TV report ends with an image of the boy laying still, leading the viewer to believe that the boy was killed in the shooting, but in the unreleased footage screened in court, we could see in the following seconds the boy moving his arm," read the AFP story, adding that this did not exclude the possibility that the boy died later.

AFP added that Enderlin refused to answer its questions after the hearing.The trial, attended by no major French media except for the AFP correspondent, might shed new light on the Al Dura affair and on media coverage in general.

During the first few years, French television succeeded in avoiding major criticism regarding the Al Dura report and Enderlin's firm statement accusing Israeli soldiers of killing the young boy, but in 2004 the course of events changed when two renowned journalists began investigating the case.

Senior French editors Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte were alerted by former Le Monde journalist Luc Rosenzweig on possible misreporting by Enderlin, and they requested to view the footage. Jeambar and Leconte published a story criticizing Enderlin's work in January 2005. It pointed out some troubling details, such as the staged battle scenes filmed by Talal Abu Rahma in the first part of the footage, the lack of evidence proving Enderlin's claim that the bullets were shot from the Israeli position and other major details, such as the lack of blood on the victims, although Enderlin said the Al Duras had been hit by bullets.

Enderlin declared that he had edited the images to avoid showing the boy's last minutes of agony. But in the footage, there was no trace of these images. However, Enderlin's theory stood as unquestionable reality, and Abu Rahma's images weren't questioned or analyzed.

Jeambar and Leconte called on French TV to launch its own internal inquiry, citing a lack of journalistic standards, but did not share the theory of a possible staging of Al Dura's death.

Five years after the incident, Arlette Chabot, French public TV's new head news editor, told Jewish radio and the Paris Herald Tribune that "no one knew who shot at Muhammad al Dura," but she maintained that accusing Enderlin of forgery was pure slander and confirmed the case against Media-Ratings' owner Philippe Karsenty.

Was public French TV trying to shake off growing criticism from senior journalists by suing a small Internet site for defamation?

The hearing was probably not the result it was aiming for.

The trial against Karsenty, which French TV expected to win easily, turned unexpectedly into a first public re-examination of the TV report, when the judge demanded to view the footage before ruling whether the accused was guilty of slander.

This strategy might pull Enderlin even farther down. Jeambar and Leconte criticized a possible lack of journalist deontology, but Karsenty's charges denouncing an alleged forged report pushes Enderlin to a rougher spot.

Furthermore, only 18 minutes were provided by Enderlin, when Abu Rahma claimed originally to have filmed 27.

For Karsenty and others, this has become a far-reaching battle.

"The Al Dura report has had terrible consequences, causing hatred against Israel, Jews and the West," Karsenty told me. "It generated violence and terror when it became a symbol throughout the world and was invoked in the killing of Daniel Pearl, among other tragedies. This fabricated symbol, represented on stamps, graffiti and even monuments, could sink in and generate profound hatred for several generations. We have to repair the damage now, before it's too late."

The trial will resume on Feb. 27.

Soldiers in the Park

The mayor of Paris surprised me today.

Let's face it, like every other resident of our capital, I've gotten used to complaining over just about every little detail that could annoy our beautiful and privileged life. A Parisian cannot visualize life without his five-week yearly vacation, without his regular three-day weekends, etc., and the more he gets used to his privileges, the more he gets annoyed by anything that could disturb his quiet life.

In the very same way, we all desire that our city hall would understand and endorse our political views, even when they don't concern the city or even our country.

It seems that our mayor, Bertrand Delanoe, has become a true gymnast in the diplomatic sport of pleasing various lobbies based in our district.

Delanoe is a communications pro who knows how to address crowds and who would love to become the next resident of the Elysee presidential palace.

Although I have no intention of campaigning for the mayor, I cannot reasonably ignore the way he managed the campaign for the liberation of the three abducted Israeli soldiers these past few months.

The mayor launched in the summer of 2006 a solidarity campaign in favor of civilians in Lebanon and in Israel. When he received the families of the three abducted soldiers, Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser, he promised to hang their pictures in the city and call for their quick liberation, just as he did for French-Colombian hostage Ingrid Betancourt and for various journalists detained in Iraq.

All of those who heard Delanoe smiled and thought that the pictures would never see the light of day, and that if they were hung, it would be in some dark corner of an abandoned neighborhood in the outskirts of Paris. However, Delanoe instructed that the poster be placed in the beautiful Bercy Park, more specifically in the Yitzhak Rabin Garden, which is a leisure area for thousands of Parisians.

A few days after the poster was placed in the park, and just after Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert found a few minutes to stroll through the garden when visiting his friend French President Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, an anti-Zionist group, the CAPJPO, tagged the poster with the inscription, "Occupation army," turning the tribute into an anti-Israeli message.

It was quite disturbing to see the soldiers' portraits covered with graffiti, although the move was expected, but my greatest surprise came when I visited Rabin Garden to see if the pictures have been further damaged. To my astonishment, new pictures of the soldiers had been put up, but this time even higher, so that vandals could not reach them easily.

The fact is that CAPJPO's operation, filmed and posted on the Web, led to even stronger support for the liberation. The pictures stand high, where passersby can see them, and the city stood by its controversial campaign.

As would any self-respecting Parisian, I would end the story with a slightly bitter note. MEP and Deputy Mayor Pierre Schapira is the official who managed the operation, which was somewhat surprising, since Schapira is one of those who remain reluctant to add Hezbollah to the EU list of terror groups.

When I asked him three years ago in a Jewish commemoration event if he thought Hezbollah should be added to the list, he simply answered that it already was on the list. When I insisted that I was asking about Hezbollah, Schapira answered, "I heard you. It's on the list." For a minute there, I almost believed that it was.

Olmert Sees Conference as Step

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert visited Paris in October, meeting with President Nicolas Sarkozy mainly to discuss Iran and this month's Annapolis conference. When meeting with a small group of Jewish community leaders later the same day, Olmert gave little hope regarding the conference:

"Annapolis will not be a negotiation but an umbrella of support in order to move toward negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians," he said.

Olmert described Sarkzoy as a "genuine friend of Israel and the Jewish people" who, unlike others, "did not change his ways after his election to the presidency."

"If I could tell you what he told me ... you would feel much better, less preoccupied about our future" Olmert repeated, while smiling. "Unfortunately, I can't tell you."

Olmert concluded by telling the elderly community leaders, professors and businessmen that he was moved when he saw "their shiny eyes looking at him."

The Annapolis paradox

(Edited by France 24)

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas are meeting – along with representatives of more than 40 countries and organisations – in Annapolis, Maryland, to try and resume the Mideast peace process, seven years after the Camp David summit ground to a halt.

It’s a meeting of moderate leaders on either side of a fractious conflict that has dragged for more than half-a-century.

According to Nissim Zvili, former Israeli MP and ex-Israeli ambassador to France, never before in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, have leaders from both sides held closer standpoints as Abbas and Olmert.

And yet, like most Middle East experts, Zvili believes their chances for reaching an official agreement are slim.

“The paradox is that Annapolis gathers leaders who are moderate, they both share the vision of a two-state solution and agree on the need to negotiate the question of (Palestinian) refugees and (the status of) Jerusalem, yet they cannot reach an agreement because they are both too weak,” said Zvili.

Domestically, both Abbas and Olmert are politically weak leaders. After the 2006 war with Hezbollah, Olmert’s approval ratings have dipped and few Israelis trust Olmert to make a deal with the Palestinians.

On the Palestinian side, Abbas has effectively lost control of a segment of the Palestinian nation since his Fatah party was routed out of the Gaza Strip by the Islamic Hamas movement in June. The legitimacy of Abbas, as the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA) – the interim administrative organisation that governs the West Bank and the Gaza Strip territories –will be questioned by a segment of the Palestinian population.

As Bilal Hassan, noted journalist and former member of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), puts it, Abbas is in an unenviable position. “If Abbas accepts the Israeli conditions, the crisis within the Palestinian nation will increase – I believe that’s exactly where we’re heading,” he said. “On the other hand, if Abbas refuses the Israeli conditions, tensions will rise between the PA and Israel.”

Don’t expect a deal

No official document is expected to come out of Annapolis and even the final common statement US President George Bush was counting on seems further than ever as disagreements have emerged over most of the issues plaguing past peace summits.

However, analysts say Annapolis could have positive results and that its mere existence could lead to future talks and give new a dynamic to the Israeli-Palestinian process.

“The main goal of Annapolis is to strengthen Abbas and to show Palestinians that the moderate way leads to compensations, contrary to the violent methods of Hamas,” Frederic Encel, from the Paris-based Institut français de géopolitique, told FRANCE 24. “Obviously the Bush administration and Ehud Olmert are also hoping to gain some benefits for themselves out of the conference, as they’re both in a weak position.”

Days before the conference, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the US would try to close the Israeli-Palestinian peace deal before Bush leaves office in January 2009.

Israeli President Shimon Peres also appeared pessimistic regarding the American administration’s hope for a quick breakthrough in negotiations: “A Mideast deal would be impossible to settle during the term of President Bush,” he admitted to reporters.

Hopes on the ‘moderate axis’

Much of the hopes for Annapolis rest on what President Bush refers to as the “moderate axis,” that promoted the 2002 Beirut peace plan.

“The goal of Annapolis is also to try and strengthen this ‘moderate axis’, of which Saudi Arabia is a major actor,” said Zvili. “The goal is also to encourage Syria to join the moderate circle.”

In some respects, Annapolis has succeeded in pushing parties closer to that goal. For the first time in history, Saudi Arabia – which has never recognised the state of Israel - will be sitting at the table with Israel to discuss Middle East peacemaking.

Rice has expressed the hope that Annapolis could be a “launching pad” for the two-state solution.

Analysts believe that most Palestinians support a two-state solution. But a contentious issue is the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. The Palestinian position is that a recognition of Israel as a Jewish state would forfeit the right of return of Palestinian refugees. Israel opposes the right of return since it would jeopardise its Jewish majority. And that, says Encel, lies at the heart of the problem.

“The crucial issue Palestinians and Israelis have to address today is the fundamental need to genuinely recognise one another. The other issues, such as the Israeli settlements and the Palestinian right of return, are not fundamental and can be resolved,” he said. “Palestinians see Israelis as Jews and Israelis see Palestinians as Arabs and as long as they keep their distorted vision, negotiations will fail. The Oslo agreement was a first step to mutual recognition as Israel accepted the Palestinian Authority and the Palestinians recognised the state of Israel. But both parties have to go further. Peace cannot be reached otherwise.”

French court examines Al Dura footage

15/11/2007



PARIS - A French appeals court screened footage Wednesday of the September 2000 television report on the death of Mohammad al-Dura, in a case of defamation brought against French television and its correspondent in the Middle East, Charles Enderlin.


The veteran journalist was accused in 2004 by Philippe Karsenty, the owner of an internet site, of broadcasting a staged report on the al-Dura killing, and of instigating hate against Israel and Jews throughout the world.

Karsenty was convicted in the original defamation trial, but a second trial ended with the judge demanding to examine the full footage of the al-Dura report before deciding whether Karsenty was guilty of defamation or not.


Enderlin explained in court each segment of the 18-minute footage- filmed on September 30, 2000 by his cameraman Talal Abu Rahma at Netzarim junction while Enderlin was in Ramallah- the street battles with dozens of people throwing stones and Molotov cocktails at an IDF outpost, an interview with a Fatah official, and the incident involving Mohammed al-Dura and his father in the last minute of the video.


Karsenty challenged Enderlin's explanations. "The boy moved his head after we heard the cameraman say he was dead. How do you explain this?" asked Karsenty. "Why is there no blood on their shirts although they had bullet wounds?"


Enderlin said that Talal Abu Rahma did not say that the boy had died, but that he was dying. The journalist maintained that only the Israelis shot at the al-Duras, explaining that he could hear the difference between the shooting of the Israeli rubber bullets and Palestinian regular ones.


Karsenty repeated several troubling details already pointed out in an article by senior journalists Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte in 2004, noting some staged scenes filmed by Abu Rahma in the first part of the footage, which they had examined at French TV studios with former le Monde journalist Luc Rosenzweig. Jeambar and Leconte called on French TV to launch its own internal inquiry, citing a possible lack of journalistic standards, but did not not share the theory of a possible staging of al-Dura's death.


"The al-Dura report has had terrible consequences, causing hate against Israel and Jews," Karsenty told Haaretz. "We have to repair the damage now, before it's too late."


Tension was high in the courtroom Wednesday, and some pro and anti-Enderlin militants were arguing loudly, causing some commotion. Dozens of Jewish bloggers were present at the courthouse.

Serge Kovacs, a friend and co-worker of Enderlin, said Enderlin was falsely accused and has become a "new Dreyfuss." Enderlin told journalists that there was no new "affair," and suggested they come to the next hearing on February 28.


Karsenty said that he intends to counter-attack French TV by pointing out that they only presented 18 minutes out of the 27 minutes Abu Rahma originally claimed to have shot.

"Bhutto isn't part of the opposition"

Maryam Abou-Zahab, researcher, Pakistan expert at the Paris Institute of Political Studies reacts to Musharraf’s call for fresh elections.

Monday, November 12, 2007

FRANCE 24: Pervez Musharraf has announced that elections could be scheduled for January, but then he added that the state of emergency will continue. Can free elections be held in these conditions?

Abou-Zahab: The situation evolves from day to day in Pakistan. Today, no one can say if elections will take place and under what conditions. One thing that’s for certain is that it would be difficult to organise elections during a state of emergency.

If the elections are to be free and credible, it’s imperative that all the parties and candidates are free to campaign and travel within the country. This isn’t the case right now. Most notably, Nawaz Sharif must be allowed to return to Pakistan. Finally, security needs to be guaranteed throughout the country.


FR24: What forces are at play?

AZ: There’s no easy answer to this question. The situation is changing constantly. Alliances have not yet been struck. Keep in mind that there aren’t homogenous political blocs in Pakistan, and negotiations are underway between most political parties, often in secret.

The religious parties, nationalist Pashtun parties, Bhutto’s party and Musharraf’s followers are all engaged in different negotiations for eventual alliances.

Contrary to appearances, Bhutto isn’t part of the opposition. She’s simply a figure who wants to govern. She has, unlike others, complete freedom to move around as she wishes. As a result, this spectacle that we’ve been watching for the last three days is a show because she, like Musharraf, needs to save face.

You have to understand that Bhutto cannot obtain an absolute majority, and that she will have to find partners to form a coalition. At the same time, the democratic religious parties are divided. Some are in negotiations with Bhutto and don’t support a revolt against Musharraf.


F24: What are Musharraf’s reasons for first declaring a state of emergency then calling for elections to remain on schedule in January?

AZ: Musharraf is already unpopular due to the situation in the country and economic problems facing the population. But he was further weakened after the state of emergency was declared. Musharraf is a strategist and he played the election card in order to get back into the game. However, other twists and turns are possible. We are in a period of absolute uncertainty.

Musharraf knows that his survival is assured thanks to American support. The United States has certainly criticised the state of emergency, but their position remains ambiguous. All the different American political players have been hot and cold during this crisis: President Bush, Condoleezza Rice, the State Department and former officials have staked out contradictory positions.

Musharraf knows that their biggest concern is the establishment of security and that their stated worries about the maintenance of democratic values is nothing other than a façade to seal the leaks in Musharraf’s system, which they count on.


FR24: How can the Pakistani people survive during this troubled period with both a state of emergency and political confrontation?

AZ: The population isn’t really affected by the state of emergency because their problems are deeper and more immediate: the difficulties of finding food, rising prices, inflation, unemployment and insecurity, etc.

Pakistanis are not mobilised to protest in the streets. They are, however, tired of the political leadership on all sides that cannot solve their problems.

But, contrary to many commonly held beliefs, the Pakistanis are not ready to sign up with religious extremists either.

The democratic religious parties have very weak electoral support, and the militant Islamists cannot attract much of a following. They aren’t a major risk today, and the large majority of Pakistanis aren’t responding to their message.

Musharraf le joueur sort ses carte

« Bhutto ne fait pas partie de l'opposition »

Mariam ABOU-ZAHAB, chercheur au CERI, Sciences-Po Paris, nous donne sa lecture des événements au Pakistan.

lundi 12 novembre 2007
Par Shirli Sitbon

Pervez Musharraf vient d’annoncer que des élections pourraient avoir lieu dès janvier, mais il a ajouté que l’état d’urgence sera maintenu. Des élections peuvent-elles être libres dans ces conditions ?

La situation évolue de jour en jour au Pakistan, personne ne peut dire aujourd’hui si les élections auront lieu ni dans quelles conditions. Ce qui est certain c’est qu’il est difficile d’organiser des élections sous l’état d’urgence.

Pour que des élections soient libres et crédibles, il est indispensable que tous les partis et candidats puissent faire campagne librement et se déplacer dans le pays. Ce n’est pas le cas actuellement. Il faut notamment que Nawaz Sharif puisse rentrer au Pakistan. Et par ailleurs, garantir la sécurité sur l’ensemble du territoire.

Quelles sont les forces en jeu?

Cette question n’a pas de réponse simple. La situation change continuellement. Les alliances ne sont pas encore faites.

Il faut savoir que contrairement aux idées reçues il n’y a pas de blocs politiques homogènes au Pakistan et les négociations sont en cours entre la plupart des partis, parfois dans la discrétion. Les partis religieux, les partis nationalistes pachtouns, le parti de Bhutto, les partisans de Musharraf notamment sont tous engagés dans différentes négociations pour d’éventuelles alliances.

Bhutto ne fait pas partie de l'opposition contrairement aux apparences. C’est une figure politique qui veut gouverner. Elle a, contrairement à d’autres, une liberté de mouvement complète.

Le spectacle que l’on voit depuis trois jours, est pour ainsi dire du cinéma car elle doit, tout comme Musharraf, sauver la face. Il faut comprendre que Bhutto ne peut obtenir une majorité absolue et qu’elle doit trouver des partenaires pour former une coalition.

De leurs côtés, les partis religieux démocratiques sont divisés. Certains sont engagés dans des négociations avec Bhutto et ne sont pas favorables à une révolte contre Musharraf.

Pour quelles raisons Musharraf a-t-il successivement décrété l’état d’urgence puis appelé à la tenue d’élections en janvier ?

Musharraf est un leader déjà impopulaire à cause de la situation dans le pays et des problèmes économiques auxquels font face les habitants.
Mais on peut dire qu’il s’est davantage affaibli depuis qu’il a décrété l’état d’urgence. Puisque Musharraf est joueur, il a sorti la carte des élections pour relancer l’échiquier. Mais d’autres rebondissements sont possibles. Nous sommes dans une période d’incertitude totale.

Musharraf sait que sa survie est assurée grâce au soutien américain. Les Etats-Unis ont certes critiqué l’état d’urgence mais leur position est ambigüe. Les différents responsables politiques ont soufflé le chaud et le froid dans cette affaire, le président Bush, le Congrès, Condoleezza Rice, le département d’Etat et d’anciens responsables ont émis des positions contradictoires. Musharraf sait que leur grande préoccupation est l’instauration de la sécurité et que leur souci du maintien des valeurs démocratiques n’est qu’une préoccupation de façade pour calfeutrer les failles du système Musharaf sur lequel ils comptent.

Comment la nation pakistanaise vit-elle cette période mouvementée, l’état d’urgence et la confrontation politique ?

La population n’est pas touchée par l’état d’urgence car ses problèmes sont plus profonds et immédiats : les difficultés de se nourrir, la hausse des prix, l’inflation, le chômage, l’insécurité, etc.

Les Pakistanais ne sont pas mobilisés pour descendre dans la rue et manifester. Ils sont en revanche lassés par les leaders politiques de tous bords qui n’apportent pas de solutions à leurs problèmes.

Mais contrairement à certaines idées reçues, les Pakistanais ne sont pas non plus prêts à s’engager sur le terrain de l’extrémisme religieux.

Les partis religieux démocratiques disposent d’une base électorale extrêmement faible et les islamistes militants de leur côté ne parviennent pas à attirer le soutien du peuple. Ils ne représentent pas de risque majeur aujourd’hui et la grande majorité des Pakistanais n’adhère pas à leur discours.