INDISPUTABLY the pervasive corruption in the country cannot be eradicated or slashed heavily unless its root causes are examined. Coping with the symptoms or apparent manifestations of the endemic corruption will not yield adequate results as its history, since the days of the promulgation of Proda in the days of the Quaid-i-Azam, has demonstrated.

The National Accountability Bureau (NAB) with its enhanced powers has come up with a new National Anti-corruption Strategy (NACS) and proposes to focus on the basic causes of corruption. Real political will is needed to make a success of the Strategy, says Lt. Gen. Munir Hafeez, chairman of NAB, launching a new awareness campaign to make the people familiar with the strategy and seeking their cooperation.

To make the NACS more popular and less controversial it is essential that no exception is made in this area, whether in terms of sections of people in the government or individuals. When earlier the armed forces and the judiciary were exempted from the purview of the NAB there were protests in the country and widespread dissatisfaction. And now that formal army rule has ended that exemption has become all the more untenable. And the judges who judge all others should not hesitate to be judged when their turn comes, so to keep their ranks clean and their performance above board.

There cannot be exceptions in respect of politicians either. Gen. Hafeez says politicians cannot be barred from contesting elections until they are convicted of charges against them. He may be right. But the issue here is not only letting them contest the elections but also making them ministers, including the key portfolio of interior minister.

If the rule of laws has to be universal there can be no exceptions in terms of groups or individuals however useful or expedient they are to the ruling system..

The new strategy was drafted as early as last February and has since then been fine-tuned. It has since then secured the approval of the president and the prime minister and is now to be sold to the federal and provincial cabinets, says Gen Hafeez. That is the small part of the story of part one of the campaign. What matters is its full and sustained implementation. And for that real political will is needed.

The opposition parties in the National Assembly, Senate and provincial assemblies will be in favour of strong action against corruption. But will the ruling coalition led by the PML (Q) be in favour of such strong action because of the compromises and clandestine deals it has been accused of indulging in? Will the bureaucracy be equally supportive? And will the PML (Q) leaders be firm in taking action against senior corrupt officials?

The anti-corruption strategy cannot be a success unless public servants are paid reasonably, says Gen. Hafeez and he is right. At the same time he concedes that the salaries of all the government employees cannot be increased at one go. They number around four million, inclusive of federal provincial and local body employees. He wants that to be done on a selective basis beginning with employees of departments more sensitive or prone to corruption.

Any widespread increase in the pay scale would lead to a rise in inflation. And a rise in inflation would negate the rise in salaries. Already the cost of living index has risen by 3.53 per cent in seven months ending January. So what the government should seek is a non-inflationary pay rise.

But a rise in the salaries of government employees alone would not check corruption. Senior government officers who are also provided with rent-free houses, cars with drivers, domestic servants and so on have not abstained from corruption. If the small officials take to small acts of corruption the senior officials take to larger acts of corruption, commensurate with their scope and rank.

When a poor country becomes a consumer society and conspicuous consumption at the higher levels of society becomes common, the rich would want to become richer and splurge their wealth. Pakistan is exposed to the good and costly things of the world — all this while 40 per cent of its people live below the poverty line of a dollar a day and 40 per cent more earn less than two dollars a day. In such a society too many who want to live well rely on their illegal or tax-evaded earnings to be able to spend more. Or they rely on defaulted bank loans.

NAB has also decided to set up an implementation committee and has said that all the stake-holders, including the private sector, will be represented on it. That means the committee will be reviewing the progress of the NACS from time to time and make changes to plug any loopholes to make it a success.

Under the strategy all federal and provincial government schemes costing Rs. 50 million and more will be approved by NAB. Does that means it will have an elaborate structure to scrutinize such schemes and prevent their misuse? Gen. Hafeez says the NAB will not be scrutinizing and approving all schemes but rather that it will conduct a random check to examine a few of them.

How this scheme will actually work and eliminate corruption in project financing remains to be seen. NAB’s preoccupation with a few schemes may save them from corruption but what about the many other development schemes with far larger funding?

In the earlier years it used to be said that it was not enough if the bribe-takers were punished. Those who gave bribes too must be punished. While that contention was accepted in principle that was not found feasible. Businessman and industrialists bribing the officials on a regular basis, if not for favours, for getting their work done quick, would not complain against the officials they had bribed, including the customs officers. Only when some of these officials made excessive demands did a few of them got exposed.

NAB says its short term objective is to strengthen the “national integrity system” and that its long term objective is to eliminate corruption by engaging all the stake-holders in a programme that is holistic as well as progressive.

The fact is that the people want an effective drive against corruption. Successive governments had wanted it but often left the country more corrupt. The issue is one basically of belling the cat, which is proving to be an exasperating or frustrating exercise.

External assistance is available to combat corruption. The present anti-corruption strategy has been drafted with the help of the United Kingdom’s Department of International Development.The Asian Development Bank has offered larger assistance in this regard. China has offered to develop a scandal-free financial system. But ultimately the job has to be done by Pakistan, its government and other sectors of society. And it has to begin with a clean political system which we lack.

At the moment there is a great deal of talk of big money being offered to get the Senate seats. The amount goes upto Rs 6 to Rs 7 million a provincial assembly voter. That does not provide for a clean political system which can usher in good governance. And without good governance there will be far more corruption.

We have now far more members of the national and provincial assemblies and far more political corruption. A larger assembly does not mean more checks on corruption but larger corruption in the electoral process and thereafter. Those who pay heavily to get a Senate seat will indulge in far more corruption after their election and as they become ministers.

How does the political will to fight corruption develop in such a political climate? The voters or the people are not strong enough to assert their will, and there are limits to the efficacy of foreign intervention in this regard. The only thing they can to do is to reduce their external assistance and monitor its use more diligently which will produce protests from our earning officials.

Thriving corruption and poverty eradication cannot go hand in hand. Nor can there be good governance in an environment of corruption. What this means is we may have an elaborate machinery to fight corruption but with no effective outcome or result. That means we would have more of the same, as in the past more slogans and less substance. More campaign rhetoric and less punishment for corruption.

Gen. Hafeez wants to step up the campaign to promote public awareness of corruption. The fact is that the people are aware of the corruption and are its victims. They are the victims of the greedy cops as well as absentee school teachers and medical workers in government hospitals. And they have been crying hoarse for action against such employees of the government as well as against the ever profiteering traders and industrialists. And they see no one coming to their rescue. And when they move the courts it takes ages to get a judgment, if that be the right judgment at all.

In such an environment the people want action and relief, and not be made more aware of the corruption amidst them. The question now is what can the government do, what can the political leaders do, and how can bureaucracy be more helpful and less corrupt, particularly the lower order of society with which the people have to deal most of the time?

The government and political leaders have to look inward and find solutions instead of looking outward to the common man. They have to show results by punishing the more conspicuously corrupt among them and lead a less ostentatious life which will provoke the people less.

The failure to provide for good governance will be more crimes and more lawlessness, more political murders and more kidnapping for ransom. The choice before us is obvious: either we get better, and quick, or we become far worse.

THE chief UN weapons inspector, Hans Blix, and the chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency Mohammad ElBaradei presented their reports to the Security Council meeting on February 14. Hans Blix stated that the inspectors had not found any weapons of mass destruction during their search in Iraq. He also cast doubt on intelligence information offered earlier by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell.

Similarly Mohammad ElBaradei declared that his inspectors had not found any evidence of prohibited nuclear activity in Iraq. Report by the weapons inspectors called for extended searches and bolstering with surveillance flights.

The French foreign minister received a burst of applause when he pleaded for more inspections rather than war preparations. The applause revealed the depth of global opposition to the US position. The Russian foreign minister also called for more inspections. According to him, it was not yet time to consider the use of force against Baghdad. China has joined France, Germany and Russia in insisting that it has genuine doubts about the Iraqi threat and would be stampeded into a catastrophic war. The other powers are equally eager to curb the enormous power of the United States. Most of the Security Council members were opposed to an invasion of Iraq. The discussion in the Security Council clearly indicated that much of the world was strongly opposed to American war plans against Iraq. United Nations has in fact rebuffed the call for war.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell tried to rally the support of reluctant allies to threaten Iraq with force. The response was tepid. He said “What we need is for Iraq to disarm” Colin Powell rejected a French proposal for more inspectors and more time for inspections, saying “Iraq continues to deceive, deny and divert the attention of the international community. We cannot allow Iraq to get away any more.” The US and British diplomats continue to lobby support for a possible Security Council resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Only Britain and Spain gave support to such a move.

President Bush has come out with a warning that Iraq has to be disarmed one way or another. US National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice has been reported to have said, “We are in a diplomatic window, but it cannot last very much longer. It will have to come to an end pretty soon. Enough is enough. The US would soon abandon a diplomatic solution.” The Bush administration has shown contempt for the United Nations. If the United States does not get the UN backing for its plans against Iraq, it could turn its back on the world body making it largely irrelevant in world affairs.

While presentations were being made before the Security Council, a media war against Iraq being carried on by US radio and television, reviling Muslims and Islam with little regard for truth and objectivity. While the pro-peace groups and some newspapers were trying desperately to douse the flames of hatred and war, the fanatics continue to denigrate such efforts. Several television stations in the United States want war even if there is no moral or legal justification for it.

In certain situations such as the present one, some governments do, indeed, want war even in the absence of perceivable external threats. One can see that an enemy is invented or imagined where there is none. Many leaders are not aversive to risks, but thrive politically by wrestling with risks. For them nothing succeeds like successful crisis. managements. A small war in a remote place can sometimes, through a series of often unpredictable or unconnected development snowball into a giant conflagration. Should Bush give the order to attack without the UN approval, it will be considered an act of aggression to build a new American empire. This will certainly raise the political cost of war. The United Nations on which millions around the world pin their hopes for peace is already showing signs of becoming ineffective or even irrelevant. It is naive to assume that the UN, as at present constituted and empowered, could douse the flames of war. The UN needs to be reorganized.

We are passing through an ominous moment in human history. The general pace of life, including everything from the speed of business transactions to the rhythms and pace of political changes, the pace of technological innovation and other variables are racing at break neck speeds. Could we expect to create a world in which life is reasonably safe and secure, hunger, disease and illiteracy less pervasive and in which richer diversity of religions, cultures and ethnicity makes for harmony and brotherhood, making it possible on people to participate in shaping the future of mankind in which war is ruled out? But we appear, instead, to be going into wars multiplied by wars. The big question is how do we deal with this threat and determine how our children live in peace and harmony?

Armies all over the world are racing to equip themselves with more and more lethal weapons of mass destruction to meet the requirements of future conflicts. The shape that wars of tomorrow may assume is frightening. In contrast, peace-making efforts and initiatives plod along, trying to apply methods that are largely obsolete. It is obvious that the revolution taking place in methods and weapons of warfare require a greater and more a effective instrument and methods of peace-keeping, peace-making and conflict resolution. While generals are under instructions to study war, governments, leaders, statesmen and international organizations should study and discover new methods to avoid war.

Massive anti-war protest rallies around the world today leave no doubt that opposition to US war plans against Iraq is overwhelming and universal. World says no to war. However, war cannot be stopped only with speeches, prayers, demonstrations or marches calling for peace. It needs actions taken by governments, politicians, diplomats and leaders of opinion making their views forcefully known and creating conditions that deter war. At the highest level it involves strategic applications of military, economic and informational power to reduce the risk of war. This is as much relevant to the Iraqi crisis as it is to similar situations elsewhere.

There is need for greater emphasis on preventive diplomacy. Helping resolve conflicts before they erupt into war can make for a safer world. For such an important and demanding task, it may be worthwhile to explore the possibility of creating a United Nations institute of mediation. Even more desirable might be selling up a strong United Nations peace enforcement outfit that is available to assist threatened countries in their defence if they so request.

With the growing destructiveness of modern warfare and the increasing proportion of civilians among causalities, the time has come to abolish war as an acceptable means of settling disputes and differences, the same way as slavery and colonization are no longer accepted. There is a need for taking a comprehensive view of security, which includes not only protection from military attacks, but from anything that may threaten peace and public order, or the life, welfare and freedom of the citizens of state.

The writer is a retired major-general of the Pakistan army.

Prophets are everywhere. First there was Isaiah, paraphrased by President Bush in his eulogy to the seven dead astronauts. ‘Lift your eyes and look to the heavens. Who created all these? He who brings out the starry hosts one by one, and calls them each by name.’

Then came Colin Powell, a seer accorded the Cassandra fate of being forever disbelieved, at least in Paris, Moscow and Beijing. What Secretary Powell’s warnings lacked in novelty or substance was balanced by his phial of (US-made) anthrax, his grainy espionage shots and a rhetoric blending Blackpool beach clairvoyancy and Old Testament gloom.

All suspicion and no proof, Le Monde complained the next day. That is not quite fair. It is true that, in trying to hitch Iraq to the war on terror, Bush and Blair have offered the long-running impression of a Jane Austen matriarch attempting to betroth an ageing daughter to a regency buck. Once again, Secretary Powell offered no credible evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda are an item.

Otherwise, his case was plausible, if you discount the toytown security dossier compiled by the Internet pirates of Downing Street. Saddam, as we knew, has chemical and biological weapons. He is a murderous tyrant bent on obfuscation. Powell’s assertions of mobile laboratories and field officers whispering of nerve agents did not sound mad. The absence of even a smoking catapult may not matter. You can buy almost the entire Powell package, agree that victory might be swift and still reject the case for war.

It is late. We are past the five to mid night set by Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector. Saddam’s attempts to turn back time are likely to be spurned by Bush. The ‘Screaming Eagles’, the 101st Airborne Division whose 36-hour deployment capacity makes it the harbinger of war, have landed. In this time of nemesis, doves are pitied, or reviled in the case of Tony Benn and his Listen with Saddam broadcast, suitable for credulous under-fives.

And still the case for peace is stronger than the argument for war. The imperative of smashing Saddam before he goes for us ignores three caveats. There is no sign he plans to do so. Pre-emption encourages the bellicose, from Washington to Pyongyang, to arm up and strike first. And we have been here before. ‘The international community cannot tolerate continued Iraqi defiance. There is too much at stake for the UN and the world.’ That was George Bush Senior in 1992, deeming inspections a failure. But containment worked, however patchily, for 10 years more. What changed things? September 11, Afghanistan, and a President with old scores to settle, oil-fields to secure and the need for a scalp to flourish. Since Osama bin Laden’s head could not be sourced, the substitute was Saddam, a monster with a pedigree and postcode. He turned out to be no closer to al-Qaeda than the network’s 60 other mostly unwitting hosts, but at least Bush knew where he lived.

Such arguments repel advocates of a humane war. Only a democratic revolution can really help the children of Iraq, they say, and they may be right. But there is no certainty that an imposed solution would work in a country with no track record of democracy.

The UN is sure, conversely, that urbanized Iraqi children will suffer worse than their rural Afghan counterparts did in a war that killed 5,000 civilians outright and ordained the deaths of 20,000 more. The price, in torment and the torn bodies that rarely make it on to CNN, may be terrible. Plans for rebuilding a wrecked country are vestigial. A democratic war, prosecuted by Britain, a nation acting without the democratic mandate of its own parliament, and against the wishes of a majority of its people, carries no warranty of salvation.

We are terrified lest our own children, a generation of PlayStation generals, are corrupted by mock violence. Dare we subject Iraqi children to the real thing, confident beyond reasonable doubt that it will all be for the best? Ends rarely justify the means, particularly when the outcome is so opaque, for them and us. You can guess at how much weaponry Saddam may be incubating, but hatred is impossible to calibrate.

This conflict, the successor to the more legitimate first Gulf War, may be a touchpaper for terror. It may, in David Owen’s dreams, also be a necessary prerequisite for a Palestinian solution, although it is hard to see how war would make Israel feel more secure, or Washington’s neo-conservatives more benign. Then there is equivalence. Syria, Egypt, Iran and Libya have chemical weapons. Some rogue states, and the US, maintain a cavalier attitude to arms proliferation treaties. Why Iraq? Why now? the peacemakers ask. In part, and paradoxically, through the actions of those who called for Resolution 1441.

Bush’s wimps’ charter also supplied a potential casus belli where none existed. If the arms inspectors report a material breach by Saddam, the trigger for ‘serious consequences’ is in place. The Security Council, a useful brake on conflict, should not be a sop to fragile consciences. Unanimity procured because France wants the spoils of war, Russia is buyable and China abstains would offer no moral imprimatur.

The second resolution demanded both by Blair, who needs its sanction, and by doubters seeking consolation would make war more consensual, not purer. The emphasis, as Kofi Annan wishes, should stay on containment. An imperfect policy, even if Saddam Hussein is more compliant, it remains the last best solution, on which the safety and the peace of the world may hinge.

But the tide runs fast the other way. Bush is intent on a war predicated, in Dustin Hoffman’s synopsis, on ‘money, oil, power and suits’. In the eyes of humanitarian hawks, it is a war of mercy, even though the prime object is the West’s protection. It is also about imperialism, global hegemony and God.

No, Bush and Blair do not pray together, as Jeremy Paxman discovered. The crude question seemed, understandably, to infuriate Blair. Even so, God is, I believe, the coalescing agent of this war, the unifying bond between a prime minister guided by religious certitude and a president in thrall to bible and gun. The countdown, presented as a play-off between Hobbes, an advocate of superpower rule, and Kant, the patron of the nation state, is presided over by a higher force.

War, if it cannot be stopped, will be the ultimate in modern retribution, an initiation into the virtual way of death. It may become, or lead to, the first nuclear conflict of the century. It will also echo back through 2,500 years of bloodshed justified by the sway of good over evil. Bush should have studied Old Testament prophecy further.

The president’s anointed guardian of astronauts’ souls also foretold the destruction of the land Saddam now rules. Even at a time when the vengeance of the righteous went unquestioned, the prophet recoiled from the ‘grievousness’ of war. ‘Babylon is fallen; is fallen, and all the graven images of her gods broken unto the ground’ — Isaiah, chapter XXI, verse nine. Here we go again. — Dawn/Guardian Service