| August 5, 2002 | Monday | Jamadi-ul-Awwal 25,1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Security paranoia
Taming the bullies
THE war of nerves over a proposed US attack on Iraq took on a new twist on Friday, with Baghdad inviting the chief UN arms inspector to return to the country for talks. The move is widely seen as a shrewd attempt by Baghdad to fend off the threat of an immediate attack. The US, however, has responded coolly and seems determined to pursue its jingoistic line against that hapless country. The weapons inspectors had left Iraq in December 1998 amid Iraqi accusations of spying for the US. The team had spent over seven years in Iraq following the end of the Gulf War, minutely examining installations across the country and destroying those facilities that were deemed capable of producing weapons of mass destruction. The latest talks between the Iraqis and the UN inspectors over the resumption of arms inspection had broken down last month, raising fears that the stalemate could serve as a pretext for a US-led invasion aimed at overthrowing Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein. While the US and Britain were quick to dismiss Iraq’s latest move as a ploy to delay an attack, the Russians and French welcomed it. The US continues to accuse Iraq of developing weapons of mass destruction, including a nuclear device, despite the absence of any such proof from independent sources.
While few would defend Saddam’s brutal dictatorship, the US must produce more credible proof of his involvement in potentially dangerous activities before launching a ‘pre-emptive’ attack. For the moment, Washington seems to be transfixed by its Saddam obsession and is determined as ever to carry on with its plan to overthrow him, despite the growing chorus of opposition to such a move. Not only are traditional US allies in Europe and the Middle East deeply alarmed by the prospect of another Gulf war, there are even voices within the US and UK military establishments that have pointed to the high risks of such an adventure. Public opinion in Europe and the Middle East is also strongly opposed to an attack, with a recent opinion poll showing that over 90 per cent of the British public is against such a move. The Europeans, with the exception of Britain, have argued that an attack on Iraq can only be supported if it is sanctioned by the UN Security Council. The increasingly unilateralist US, however, feels there is no need for any such sanction.
The recent US Senate hearings on the issue saw a number of experts paint a sobering picture of the cost of such a campaign in both financial and political terms. Other experts have warned that the move could lead to the break-up of Iraq into three states, a prospect that could threaten the stability of the entire region. Any attempt to overthrow Saddam is also likely to lead to a strong upsurge of anti-American sentiment across an Arab and Muslim world already seething with rage at Washington’s policies, especially vis-a-vis Israel. Given this backdrop, the obsession to oust Saddam seems more like a personal vendetta than a logical policy objective. It is time President Bush began to listen more closely to the pragmatic voices of reason pleading caution, both at home and abroad, rather than go along with the coterie of dogmatic hawks surrounding him.
MUCH to the chagrin of the Blair government, Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission has declared that the hurriedly passed Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act is discriminatory and violative of the European Convention on Human Rights. Accepting an appeal by some nine foreign suspects detained under the said law and held in British jails without trial, Justice Collins of the commission ruled the detention without trial not only discriminatory but also unlawful. This is because, according to the existing law, only foreign nationals can be held without trial while British suspects accused of similar crimes have the right to a proper trial. The ruling comes as a blow to the Blair government, which, in its rabid enthusiasm to join the US in its war on terror had pushed the said law through parliament without a customary debate on the pros and cons of the legislation.
The ruling comes on the heels of a rising crescendo of criticism over excessive security mechanisms the British government has put in place following last year’s terrorist attacks in the US. Human rights groups have consistently warned against such a paranoid security concern becoming a virtual tool of oppression in the hands of western governments, some of which may be tempted to use it with impunity against immigrants and foreign visitors. This is clearly the case with those detained under a similar American law in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in many jails in the US itself. The ruling in question is a watershed in that it has upheld the argument forwarded by the rights groups, and not minced words in declaring the British law in question unlawful. Just goes to show how an Englishman’s traditional sense of natural justice has come to prevail upon the political expediencies that have fashioned the Blair government’s all-out drive to please the present gung-ho lot of power wielders in the White House. How one wishes the Americans also shared some of these good old Anglo-Saxon virtues.
IT IS encouraging that the Rawalpindi district nazim has taken serious note of the attack on a teenaged girl by members of a local influential family in Gikh Badhal, 65 km south of Rawalpindi city. The nazim’s visit to the victim’s family and his interest in the case has had the effect of boosting the morale of the poor villagers hitherto unable to fend themselves against the village bullies. Three members of the influential family — husband, wife and son — had torn off the clothes and beaten the girl who had gone to them to complain about the behaviour of their boys against her younger brothers. The commotion had drawn the attention of a villager, the imam of the local mosque, who intervened and rescued the girl. Later on, the husband shot the wife in the leg in an attempt to implicate the father of the girl in the shooting and to pre-empt the latter from registering a case against them for humiliating and beating his daughter.
The family is said to have been bullying villagers and getting away with unlawful acts, but until now the villagers had not dared to complain to the police. The latest incident could have turned out worse for the girl had it not been for the timely intervention of the local imam and his speaking out to the police. Given the fact that the family has been known to get away with their criminal excesses before, it is obvious that the authorities have to ensure that all victims and witnesses to the incident are protected against pressure and threats of revenge from the culprits. So far, only two of the accused have been arrested while the third is still at large. The authorities would need to do much more than merely arresting all three culprits and cancelling their arms licences. They must ensure that the culprits are not only duly proceeded against but stopped from behaving as village bullies in the future.