| November 19, 2002 | Tuesday | Ramazan 13, 1423 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Excessive & open to abuse
Local govt. for Islamabad
HOSNI Mobarak seems to emphasize a valid point when he demands that Israel should also be made to throw open its weapons sites for UN inspections just as Iraq is being made to. The Egyptian president wondered why Israel should enjoy immunity from the current drive against the spread of weapons of mass destruction and their delivery systems while other states were being subjected to crippling sanctions and tough and humiliating UN inspections. Mr Mobarak’s reported statement coincided with the UN arms inspectors’ departure for Iraq following the passage of the Security Council resolution 1441 earlier this month. The resolution gives sweeping powers to the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Unmovic) and asks Baghdad to provide “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional and unrestricted access” to all sites suspected of, or involved in, producing weapons of mass destruction.
The UN inspectors are going into Iraq for the second time, having failed to find any worthwhile WMDs during eight years of intensive inspections. They were expelled in 1998 by Baghdad because it was subsequently confirmed that many of the inspectors were spying for the CIA. All along this period, crippling sanctions have destroyed the very fabric of Iraqi society. The denial of vital drugs and the ban on the import of chemicals and equipment used for water purification and sewage treatment have contributed to the spread of alimentary and other diseases. The worst affected are women and children, with neutral observers estimating that a minimum of half a million people have died. Similarly, the after-effects of the use of depleted uranium in Iraq during the Gulf war has led to an ominous rise in cancer. Resolution 1441 does not make any reference to the need for lifting the sanctions after Unmovic has completed its job. This means that thousands more will die from the effects of the continued sanctions.
Israel, even by modest estimates, has 400 nuclear weapons. As for delivery systems, it has some of the world’s latest and most sophisticated equipment, developed indigenously or given by the US. These weapons systems include, besides F-16s, short-range and long-range missiles and a vast array of secret weapons. It also has submarine-based nuclear-tipped missiles. All these weapons systems have been generously donated to Israel by leading western powers. Its nuclear plans began when France gave Israel the nuclear plant that now operates at Demona. Since then it has been developing nuclear weapons with the full knowledge and help of the US and some European countries. Once Israel even “stole” enriched uranium from an American nuclear reactor. Actually, it was a faked affair, and the “theft” was done with the full connivance of some American officials.
Israel is the only Middle East country that has illegally occupied two of its neighbours’ land now for 35 years. Iraq also occupied Kuwait, but was made to pay for its folly in more ways than one. Israel, on the other hand, continues to be backed by the European Union and the US in spite of having weapons of mass destruction, which it will not hesitate to use. It also has designs on other Arab territories and considers all land between the Nile and the Euphrates as its own. It is the pampering and lionizing of Israel, a predatory state in possession of WMDs, that denies a moral basis to America’s insistence on Iraq’s disarmament.
HUMAN rights groups and lawyers across the country have voiced concern over the provisions of the amended Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997, which came into force on Monday through a presidential ordinance. The amended law now gives the police the right to detain any person found indulging in, or suspected of planning to carry out, an act of terrorism for a period of 12 months without formally arraigning him in a court of law. This is in direct contravention of Article 10 of the Constitution, which states that preventive detention of an accused cannot exceed three months. The fear is that the law could and very likely would be abused by a police force known for its excesses and rough-and-ready methods.
There is no doubt that an increase in terrorist activities over the past few years calls for greater vigilance and a tougher approach to prevention and control. Those responsible for sectarian killing and other acts of violence, terror and subversion aimed at creating panic and chaos in society must be dealt with unsparingly and with a firm hand. The task essentially calls for greater vigilance and efficiency on the part of the police and intelligence agencies rather than draconian laws which are likely to be abused. Legal experts say that the Anti-Terrorism Act of 1997 in its original form, which provided for a three-month preventive detention period, sufficed to meet the requirements. The extension of this period now to 12 months under the revised law, is not only excessive but also unnecessary. That there may be external pressure on the government to tighten the grip on the still elusive remnants of Al Qaeda and the Taliban, many of whom are suspected to be hiding in Pakistan, is no reason to opt for measures that are wholly unjustified in terms of the fundamental rights of the citizens and basic norms of civil society. An over-extended detention period for suspects is certainly not the answer to the problem of terrorism that we should be looking for.
THE federal capital is finally going to be brought in line with the rest of the country, following the establishment of District Council Islamabad under a new ordinance. This will hopefully pave the way for the holding of local body elections in the capital. The people of Islamabad have long been demanding representation at the local level so that their day-to-day problems can be solved at the grassroots. It is good to see that the government has at long last acceded to this demand. The local government system envisaged for Islamabad is similar in many ways to that in force in the rest of the country. However, there are also some significant differences because of Islamabad’s federal status. It is believed that the CDA will continue to have a major stake in governance in the future, although the district will be headed by the nazim. If the district council contravenes the CDA Ordinance of 1960, such actions will be taken to the proposed Federal Capital Commission that will comprise members of the CDA board, bureaucrats and elected representatives. The other new factor is that the interior minister will be designated the chief executive and enjoy the powers of a provincial governor.
While the inclusion of Islamabad in the local government system is a welcome step, the government must now move to end the exclusion of two other areas. FATA is one obvious anomaly because of its peculiar constitutional and administrative status. The other areas still to become part of the mainstream are the cantonments which constitute significant pockets within the major cities. There are reports that some cantonment boards, rather than gradually becoming more representative in nature, are moving in the opposite direction. In the neighbouring Rawalpindi Cantonment Board, for example, the formerly elected civilian members are to be replaced by military nominees. This is an old innovation and should be done away with in favour of representation on the basis of unrestricted franchise.