The reluctant peacemaker

MR LAKHDAR BRAHIMI’s statement on Wednesday will hardly reassure those who are hoping for an agreement on a feasible political settlement in Afghanistan and the prospect of such a settlement facilitating a quick end to the war. The UN special representative has made it clear that the world body is not seeking a role in peacekeeping, nation-building or in the formation and running of a transitional government in Afghanistan. If not the UN, then who? Barely two weeks after American air power was unleashed to carry out aerial strikes ostensibly against military targets in Afghanistan, the complexities of government-formation in that beleaguered and politically fragmented country are coming to the fore. The anticipated obstacles in setting up a broad-based government are also believed to be hampering the course of the war. Whether the UN, Mr Brahimi’s scepticism notwithstanding, will muster more enthusiasm for a role in Afghanistan remains to be seen.

Undoubtedly Mr Brahimi understands the ground realities in Afghanistan better than any one else, given his experience in 1997-99 when he worked to bring some sanity to the Afghan situation and resigned in frustration when he failed to do so. Reappointed as the UN secretary-general’s Special Representative, the Algerian diplomat has pointed out that there are no easy solutions to the problems in a country with a marginal infrastructure, no national army but awash with arms, and surrounded by nervous and unstable neighbours. Small wonder, the UN is reluctant to undertake a responsibility which will be onerous and may even prove to be futile and thankless. Though Mr Brahimi is right, he would not deny the need for creating an appropriate political structure in post-Taliban Afghanistan — whenever that will be. One only hopes that the changed military situation on the ground will make it somewhat easier to set up a broad-based transitional government in Afghanistan. This must inevitably be followed by the process of political reconciliation and economic and social reconstruction and rehabilitation in which the world community will be expected to play a major role.

All this is possible only when the fighting in Afghanistan is over. If the United States is bent on fighting a relentless war which will inevitably become a protracted one, the UN can truly not play much of a role. As it is the world body is not in any way involved in the military campaign after it had initially provided the legal cover for President Bush’s retaliatory military action against Afghanistan. If the UN has to be given a more substantive role than what it has played so far, the military offensive must be called off soon. Representatives of various UN bodies have also called for an early end to the war, the most notable being the Human Rights Commissioner. With the war creating humanitarian problems of a massive kind and the UN’s relief efforts being seriously hampered, it is understandable that the world body is not focusing sufficiently on the political dimension of the Afghan crisis. Thus the UN Security Council has so far not taken any decision on the political options placed before it in respect of Afghanistan’s future.

Given the reports of the political manoeuvres being made to dislodge the Taliban from power, it is logical to expect the US to change tack too and focus on the political part of the agenda in Afghanistan. It is now generally recognized that a broad-based government representing all sections of the Afghans must be installed in Kabul as soon as possible. But this may be indefinitely postponed if the war in Afghanistan stretches into a long-drawn-out one. The prolongation of the war will cause casualties to mount which in turn will destabilize the region which will preempt the political process.

Sharon’s killing spree

RAGED into action by the assassination of the ultra-nationalist tourism minister, Reehavam Zeevi, Ariel Sharon’s tanks have rolled back into the West Bank once again, viciously threatening to open a blood-drenched “new era” between Israel and the Palestinians. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine has claimed responsibility for the tit-for-tat killing, which was carried out to avenge Israel’s ambush murder of its leader, Abu Ali Mustafa, in August. For his part, Zeevi’s views on the Middle East crisis did little to endear him to the Israeli moderates, let alone the Palestinians. He not only vehemently opposed the peace process but also advocated the expulsion of all Palestinians from Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip to neighbouring Arab countries. Hours before his assassination Zeevi had resigned his cabinet position in protest against Sharon’s going ‘soft’ on the Palestinians. This must be the unkindest accusation that one can make against Sharon whose present policies towards the Palestinians fully bear out his reputation as the ‘Butcher of Beirut.’ Ominously, Sharon has given the Palestinian Authority an ultimatum to arrest and hand over the assassins of Zeevi or face harsh retribution. Within hours of the ultimatum, Israeli troops shot dead five Palestinians — among them a ten-year-old schoolgirl. It appears that in the assassination of Zeevi, Ariel Sharon has now found an excuse to ruthlessly attack Palestinian civilians and indiscriminately kill as many people as he possibly can so as to present it as a fait accompli before the US even tries to restrain him. Given the US-led coalition’s on-going action in Afghanistan, Sharon’s policy is not only dangerous for the Middle East but it can have far-reaching effects beyond the region. The hardliners in Israel have time and again advocated an all-out war against the ‘other’ civilization since the September 11 attacks in the US. To thwart this catastrophic ideology of hate and war, it is imperative that all those in the West who do not see the US-led war against terrorism as a war against Islam, should do whatever it takes to rein in Sharon.

Deadly driving

ONE must express one’s horror over the large number of deaths caused by rash and negligent driving in Karachi. On Wednesday, four people, including a navy official, were killed, while two were simply run over by a minibus. They were changing the tyre of their vehicle when two minibuses trying to overtake each other near the Natha Khan bridge crushed them. The two died on the spot. The same day, an Afghan boy was run over and killed in Liaquatabad. Clearly, if the causes are analyzed, drivers of minibuses would most likely top the list of reckless driving. Their way of driving holds all traffic rules in contempt. While trying to collect as many passengers as possible, they jump the red light and race not only along roads but also along flyovers and bridges. Most of them may possess a driving licence, but, as is known, they learn driving on the job, for the licences are acquired without a proper driving test. The seriousness of the situation calls for greater vigilance on the part of the police and on-the-spot action against erring drivers. Besides, the process of issuing driving licences needs to be thoroughly streamlined. This virtual sale of driving licences must stop, and police officials in league with the so-called training schools must be proceeded against for making a joke of licensing the drivers.