| November 4, 2002 | Monday | Sha’aban 28,1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Cosmetic measures won’t do
Rational land use
QUITE understandably, America is finding it difficult to carry other permanent members of the Security Council with it on the Iraq question. Given its clout with the world body, Washington should have had no problem in achieving a consensus and getting a desired resolution through the UN Council. However, so unreasonable has been the American position on Iraq that the other members, except Britain, find it impossible to endorse its war-like stance. The issue originally was that Iraq, according to the US, was not only developing weapons of mass destruction (WMDs), but it already possessed some of these. However, neutral observers do not believe that Baghdad has WMDs or is in a position to develop these. Iraq clearly won on the diplomatic front when it announced it was ready to allow the UN inspectors in and give them “unfettered” access to all suspected sites, including presidential palaces. If the destruction of WMDs or unearthing them were the US aim, Washington should have welcomed the Iraqi offer. Instead, it characterized Baghdad’s willingness to allow full inspection as a ploy. Not only that, it suddenly changed its position, claiming the issue was not inspections but disarmament.
Even this disarmament issue can be tackled through the UN, but America would not like to wait for the inspectors to go in and report back on their findings. Instead, it wants a resolution that would authorize it to use force against Iraq straightaway. France, Russia and China have a more rational approach. France wants two resolutions: one asking the weapons inspectors to start their work, and the other authorizing the use of force if the Saddam regime does not cooperate with the inspectors. Russia has a slightly different stand. It believes that the inspectors should be allowed to do their job, and that, in case they do not get Iraq’s cooperation, the Security Council should take up the issue again and authorize the use of force. These two positions run counter to the Bush administration’s frame of mind: it wants to punish Iraq anyway and to oust Saddam Hussein from power — to show other countries in the region what it means to be defiant towards the US.
All of Iraq’s neighbours are worried about the prospect of a military offensive against Iraq. Arab states, especially, have been improving their relations with Iraq — Saudi Arabia opened its border with Iraq the other day. But reports say the US has speeded up its military build-up in the Gulf region. Obviously, the hawks in the Bush administration are impervious to world opinion and to criticism from some fair-minded fellow-Americans, including Scott Ritter, a former arms inspector. On Friday, Mr Ritter reiterated his belief that the inspectors who were expelled by Iraq in 1998 were working as spies for the US, that Washington was deliberately blocking the return of the inspectors, and that it was determined to provoke a confrontation with Baghdad. He was categorical that the Saddam regime possessed no WMDs. One hopes the Bush administration realizes that it is virtually isolated on the Iraqi question. An attack on Iraq would be like opening a can of worms. A collapse of the Iraqi state structure could unleash a new anti-American wave and create a backlash against moderate regimes in the region. Those to profit from such a development can only be religious extremists.
THERE is something inherently patronizing about the State Department’s current campaign to garner goodwill for the US among Muslims. The 15 million-dollar campaign, launched in collaboration with the Council of American Muslims for Understanding, is meant to promote a better understanding of Islam in the US. The PR offensive seeks to show Muslims the positive aspects of American life, including the country’s tolerance towards Islam. As a State Department spokesman put it, “there are an awful lot of people who need to know more about the US,” adding that “what they know is based on distorted images and rumour”. The campaign is obviously a response to criticism of US policies towards Muslims following the events of September 11. While the decision to launch such a campaign may be well-meaning, it is also based on certain naive assumptions. First, it assumes that Muslims are against the US simply because they do not know enough about the country’s democratic traditions and its ambience of tolerance. That is not quite correct. Most Muslims are aware of the many positive aspects of US life and society and admire the country’s democratic credentials.
However, following the events of September 11, many Muslims have also been exposed to the negative aspects of US life. The current witch-hunt against the Muslim community make many of them feel harassed and insecure. Draconian discriminatory laws, racial profiling, surveillance, arbitrary arrests, and deportation for relatively minor misdemeanours have not helped matters. For visitors from certain Muslim countries, finger-printing and rigorous security checks are now routine occurrences at airports. Above all, US actions in the Middle East, particularly Washington’s blatant tilt towards Israel and its current obsession with Iraq, are viewed with much bitterness in the Muslim world. It will take more than cosmetic measures such as advertising campaigns to reassure Muslims about the inherent goodness of the US. What is required is a radical shift in Washington’s policies, which are widely perceived as hostile to Muslim aspirations. The Americans too need to educate themselves better about Islam and Muslims, their norms, values and susceptibilities and try to understand why there is so much anger in the Muslim world against Washington’s policies and actions.
BUILDING and planning experts hit the proverbial nail on the head in pointing out at a seminar the other day that Karachi’s physical and environmental degradation could be reversed only by formulating a master plan that took into account the views and needs of all stakeholders. Once such a plan for the city’s development is in place, it must be strictly enforced and kept away from political manipulation and control. We have seen how in the past elected and non-elected governments have, by acting in a generally haphazard and ad-hoc manner, distributed land to political favourites, party loyalists or influential vested interests. The acquisition, sale, and improper re-classification of land, say, from amenity to commercial use, continues unchecked with even government organizations joining the fray because of the massive profits involved.
Over a dozen federal, provincial and local agencies own land in Karachi and this is often cited as one reason for the absence of any legal uniformity regarding land use. To make matters worse, some of the most valuable plots of land fall in areas where the authorities tend to be indifferent to the wishes of local residents. Residents of the city’s Defence Housing Authority and Clifton Cantonment Board often complain that their views are never taken into account while developing new schemes or amending local bye-laws. It is hence imperative that any master plan should adequately reflect the concerns and needs of the city’s residents.
Such a framework will allow the random growth that we see happening today to be replaced by some semblance of order. It also needs to be emphasized that all levies charged for land use or conversion from one use to another should be spent locally. All regulations and information regarding land use should be adequately publicized for the benefit of the residents.