| February 7, 2002 | Thursday | Ziqa’ad 23, 1422 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Belgium’s example
Misuse of mobiles
IT IS most unfortunate that India should have again rejected President Musharraf’s offer of a dialogue for a solution of the Kashmir dispute. Speaking to a joint session of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Legislative Assembly and the Kashmir Council on Tuesday, the president said that instead of indulging in brinkmanship, Prime Minister Vajpayee should accept Pakistan’s offer of talks in the interest of a “lasting peace and harmony” between the two countries. However, since bilateralism had in the past failed, the chief executive underlined the need for the international community to help break the deadlock. This could be in the form of “mediation and facilitation”.
It goes without saying that bilateralism holds out no hope for a resolution of the Kashmir dispute for two reasons. First, if and when India did agree in the past to talk to Pakistan on the Kashmir issue, its attitude was invariably negative. Never once did it try sincerely and honestly to resolve a problem that has led to two wars between the two countries. The Agra summit failed basically because India was not willing to accept the centrality of the Kashmir issue in a process of peace and normalization. Instead, it was prepared to talk on all issues except Kashmir — a highly unrealistic stance to adopt. Second, of late, New Delhi has scuttled the very idea of bilateralism by brazenly refusing to talk to Islamabad. Since the Dec 13 episode particularly, it has adopted an intransigent stance and made it known to the whole world that it does not believe in a dialogue with Pakistan. At the same time, it has used the terrorist attack on the Indian parliament building as an excuse for massing its troops on Pakistan’s border. More dangerously, India is interested in perpetuating the confrontation on the border, for it has refused Pakistan’s offer of talks for a phased withdrawal.
To avoid talks, India has generally taken cover behind the Simla agreement. However, the Simla accord does not in any way rule out methods other than those bilateral in nature. Clause II of the agreement says, the two sides agree to settle their differences “by peaceful means through bilateral negotiations or by any other peaceful means mutually agreed upon between them”. This means that if the two sides agree, a third party acceptable to both can mediate on the dispute. India, however, refuses to agree to third-party mediation. What then is the solution if New Delhi wants neither bilateral talks nor mediation?
By reacting quickly — almost compulsively — to President Musharraf’s speech, India has made its intentions palpably clear: it either wants the prevailing stalemate to continue or prefers a solution of its own choice. The refrain of “cross-border terrorism” is merely a subterfuge to draw attention away from the fact of the Kashmiri people’s militant struggle, particularly over the last twelve years, for their right of self-determination which India has been denying them with the use of brute force. It is this problem that India should face up to and try to resolve through talks with Pakistan and the Kashmiri people and not by relying on an occupation army to hold the Kashmiris down.
BELGIUM’S admission that it bore moral responsibility for the killing in 1961 of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba is a courageous step that should be emulated by other countries with a guilty past. Lumumba, who led Congo’s anti-colonial struggle against Belgian rule, became the country’s first prime minister after it won its freedom in 1960. However, just four months after coming to power, the fiercely nationalist Lumumba was overthrown, abducted by his Congolese rivals, and assassinated. While the Belgian parliamentary commission investigating the killing could not find any concrete evidence about direct Belgian involvement in his killing, it concluded that the assassination could not have taken place without the complicity of Belgian intelligence and the American CIA. The Belgian foreign minister read out a statement in parliament on Tuesday extending his government’s apology to the people of Congo and Lumumba’s family for the pain inflicted on them by the assassination. In the ’50s and ’60s, Africa was a major focal point of the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union, with the US active in destabilizing many nationalist and anti-colonial leaders suspecting them to be communist fellow travellers. Lumumba was perhaps the best known victim of this tussle for ideological control in Africa.
Belgium’s bold and dignified gesture clearly represents an effort to come to terms with the country’s controversial colonial past. Unfortunately, many other countries with an even worse record of crimes against other nations and peoples continue to make the question of an apology a matter of ego and national pride. This is a shortsighted approach. Many countries fear that an apology would open up a Pandora’s box of claims and counter claims from aggrieved groups. However, if such claims and accusations are properly investigated, as in Belgium’s case, there should be no problem about making a clean breast of the crimes and excesses that were in fact committed and trying to heal past wounds. The US, for example, has consistently refused to apologize for one of the most shocking acts of the last century: the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The US is also under pressure from various lobbies to apologize for the brutal enslavement of African-Americans and offer reparations to the victims of slavery. These are just a few of the cases where aggrieved parties are seeking a simple apology and some compensation for the brutal treatment meted to them. Saying sorry for past sins is not a heavy price for the goodwill such gestures could generate. After all, Belgium’s recent apology has earned it worldwide respect rather than causing it any loss of face.
AMERICAN journalist Daniel Pearl’s disappearance has brought into public view the dreadful consequences of playing with technology. For example, investigations by the police and other agencies have been consistently hampered by the fact that the people holding Mr Pearl have been communicating via e-mail. The other problem that has come up is that several of Mr Pearl’s contacts used mobile telephones issued on the basis of false identity documents. Clearly, this is something that cannot be eliminated but at the very least mobile phone companies should be scrutinizing more closely applications for new numbers. Foreign journalists in Pakistan for a brief period also use mobile phones by renting them from their local contacts. This is obviously convenient and cheaper but could lend itself to misuse.
However, the more sinister form of misuse happens when a number is applied for, usually using fake documents, with the sole purpose of using it for a crime, such as the abduction of the American reporter. Since mobile companies cannot know beforehand for what purpose an individual is applying for a new connection, they should treat all applications with the greatest of care. All applicants should present their credentials in person, asked to present a photo ID and proof of current residence. Other than that, anyone wishing to sell his connection to another person should be directed to report the transfer of ownership to the mobile company.