| March 18, 2002 | Monday | Muharram 3, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Micro-finance bank
Freedom to detain?
THE revelation that the US is preparing contingency plans for nuclear strikes against at least seven countries has been received with deep dismay in a number of world capitals. The classsified Pentagon report, leaked to the Los Angeles Times, represents a significant and quite alarming departure from traditional US nuclear policy. Such reports can only add to global concerns about the increasingly belligerent and unilateralist nature of US thinking on a number of important global issues. The report, presented to Congress in January, outlines contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons against seven countries: Russia, China, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria and North Korea — in effect, two major world powers, the three so-called ‘axis of evil’ countries and two ‘troublesome’ Arab countries, Syria and Libya. Since it was made public, the US has tried to play down the significance of this explosive report. Secretary of State Colin Powell brushed aside as routine the alarming implications of the document by stating that it simply represented “sound military contingency planning”. Vice President Cheney insisted that the US does not currently target nuclear weapons on any nation and has no intention of launching pre-emptive strikes.
These soothing words did nothing to calm the fears of potential nuclear targets. The Russians stated that “such reports can only cause regret and concern.” Commenting on the report, a foreign ministry spokesman in Moscow added: “How can you reconcile it with declarations of the US that it no longer considers Russia as an enemy?” The publication of the document could jeopardize the upcoming summit in which the Russian and US presidents are to propose cuts in their nuclear arsenals. A spokesman in Beijing also denounced the contents of the report and said that China was “deeply shocked” at being listed as a potential target for a nuclear strike. Iran, for its part, stated that the blueprint was further proof of the US desire to impose its will on the rest of the world.
The leaked document represents a clear break with the traditional US doctrine in a significant way: it does not rule out the possibility of a nuclear strike against a non-nuclear power. The report outlines three scenarios that could lead to a US nuclear strike. The strikes could be against targets that could withstand an attack by conventional weapons; in retaliation against an attack by nuclear, biological or chemical weapons; and in response to what the report vaguely and ominously termed “surprising military developments”. The document also dangerously blurs the distinction between nuclear and non-nuclear warfare by stressing the deployment of smaller nuclear weapons. This line, in effect, turns what was hitherto considered an unthinkable option of last resort into just one of many possible options.
If the report becomes policy, it could seriously jeopardize efforts towards nuclear non-proliferation. Countries which do not possess nuclear weapons could feel threatened enough to speed up their development to stave off an attack by the US. It could also encourage countries that possess nuclear weapons to give up their inhibitions more readily. Such a policy also mocks at America’s non-proliferation concerns, especially when it criticizes countries like Pakistan, which has a small number of nuclear weapons to serve as a deterrence. The world community, especially America’s traditional allies, should exert pressure on the US to abandon implementing this controversial report. The last thing an increasingly dangerous world needs is to make the use of nuclear weapons an acceptable option for the world’s most powerful nation.
INAUGURATING the First Micro-Finance Bank in Islamabad last week, President Pervez Musharraf welcomed the establishment of a bank for small borrowers in the private sector. Terming it a valuable addition to the on-going national effort to alleviate poverty, he pledged the full support of his government to the building of micro-finance institutions to provide affordable financial services to the poorest section of society. The new bank, having a capital of Rs 500 million, will be backed by two decades of successful experience of the Aga Khan Rural Support Programme (AKRSP) and Aga Khan Foundation in managing micro-credit and mobilizing small savings among the poor. The president’s appeal to affluent groups to join in the endeavour of reducing poverty and enabling people to raise their living standards deserves a prompt and favourable response.
Poverty in Pakistan has been growing rapidly in recent years. In the last two decades, the proportion of the poor and indigent has nearly doubled from 20 per cent of the population to 40 per cent. Today, four out every ten persons are living below the internationally recognized poverty line. The rise in poverty can be attributed to various factors: stagnating, in fact declining, economic growth, a high population growth rate of nearly three per cent, and rising unemploymant caused by the restructuring of the economy.
Basically, poverty is the consequence of the maldistribution of national wealth and income. The traditional banking system aggravates this maldistribution by placing nationally mobilized resources in the hands of those few who already hold assets. Skill and initiative are not bankable collaterals for getting access to resources. What micro-finance aims to achieve is to overcome this liability by substituting social acceptability and group guarantee for tangible assets as collaterals for securing loans. To function successfully, such institutions need to be close to the target groups and work in surroundings where clients feel comfortable. Lavish offices in affluent areas often intimidate poorer clients and make the institution appear unapproachable. The First Micro-Finance Bank and its public sector counterpart, the Khushhali Bank, would do well if they keep this simple truth in mind.
VOICING concern over the US government’s policy of detaining suspects of Sept 11 terrorist attacks without trial, Amnesty International says there are some 1,200 non-citizens under detention whose basic human rights have been violated. They have not been told why they are being held and not being allowed to consult a lawyer; some are in shackles, confined to prolonged solitary imprisonment, and even extended cruel treatment. The US justice department refuses to release any information regarding these detainees, depriving them of the basic right to challenge their detention. AI gathered the information about the detained foreigners, and how they are being treated in American prisons, from their friends and relatives.
Some of the people have been under detention for several months now, without the US authorities bringing them to trial even under a new law that gives non-citizens fewer rights than citizens. It seems that, under the ongoing security drive and measures applied by the US authorities, foreigners detained on suspicion are simply assumed guilty without having been given the right to prove themselves otherwise. This is in sharp contrast to the law applied to US citizens. It not only gives them prompt access to a lawyer but also assumes them to be innocent until proved guilty. AI is right in warning against a situation where it sees certain governments indulging in a “security overdrive” and exposing foreigners living in these countries to human rights’ violations. After the release of the AI report the other day, we now know that this is already happening in the US. It is now up to the United Nations Human Rights Commission and rights bodies within the US to take serious notice of these detentions in a country that does not tire of pointing fingers at others for similar violations.