Kya Karega Qazi

Sources say UN secretary general Kofi Annan was leaning toward Haider until he began consultations with "major countries"—mainly Washington, the plural being redundant in this case. Annan had been impressed by Haider whom he first met on a trip to India in 1997. He had sent for him for a meeting in Doha two weeks ago, well-informed officials said.

But a fortnight is an eon for the Bush administration which is desperately pushing diplomatic pieces into place to hang a bleeding Iraq around the UN’s neck before the November presidential elections. The heavy American hand was all over the process, informed diplomats claimed. Secretary of state Colin Powell talked to Annan several times and UN sources say the two discussed the Iraq job while on a visit to Sudan in late June. A major supporting role in the drama was played by Iqbal Riza, a veteran Pakistani diplomat and Annan’s chef de cabinet, who helped float Qazi’s name and ensured it stayed on top of the A-list.

It is unusual for the UN to induct a serving diplomat, say insiders, but once again telephone diplomacy, America’s weapon of persuasion, came in handy. After Powell and Annan decided, the secretary general called President Pervez Musharraf and asked him to relieve Qazi early and a formal announcement was made on July 12. It wasn’t a snub to Haider or a pat for Qazi. The game was grander and had to do with Washington’s determination to raise Pakistan’s profile while forcing its hand on the question of troops. The new Indian government has said it won’t send troops but Pakistan has kept the door ajar. And, if there is anything the US really wants in Iraq, it is foreign troops.

With Qazi in place, the US has one more pawn in position in the high-stakes drama of convincing other countries to take over the "war of choice" it began. And one more gift for Pakistan. Was it a coincidence that Qazi’s announcement came as Richard Armitage, the US deputy secretary of state, was heading to Pakistan? The last US visit resulted in Pakistan getting the status of a "major non-NATO ally," a boon for its military. The sweeteners are flowing for a reason—to get Musharraf to part with troops. It seems that Musharraf had agreed ‘in principle’ after the Camp David treatment by President George W. Bush last June to send troops under a UN flag, assuming the Iraqi ‘government’ formally asked for them. The latest UN resolution fulfils one condition and the other might soon be met as the Americans work on the hand-picked interim Iraqi government. Musharraf can now justify sending troops on the grounds that they are needed to protect Qazi in Iraq.

But it’s a sad irony that the UN’s Iraq envoy, whose job is to restore democracy, sectarian harmony, isolate terrorists and oversee reconstruction, will be from Pakistan, a country where democracy is stifled, Shia-Sunni violence rages and terrorists find sanctuary. "The signal it sends is awful. A Pakistani diplomat is uniquely disqualified for this position," commented an insider. It is well known that Annan had wanted a Muslim diplomat for the job and all three finalists qualified on that score, the third being a Thai diplomat. He didn’t want anyone from Iraq’s immediate Arab neighbourhood because of the obvious difficulties he might face earning the confidence of Iraq’s Shia majority or Sunni minority.

While Haider would have been Annan’s eyes and ears on the ground with no undivided loyalties, Qazi might be forced to cater to the $3 billion (the aid packagethe US announced last year) worth of promises Pakistan made to the Americans. The question many are asking: Is this a good choice for Iraq?