| March 11, 2003 | Tuesday | Muharram 7, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A shocking episode
Prisoner’s death
WITH diplomatic efforts over Iraq reaching a crescendo, a deeply divided UN Security Council is bracing itself for a vote this week on a second resolution that could pave the way for an attack on that country. Backed by the US, Britain and Spain, the new resolution lays down a March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm, failing which a war against that country will be sanctioned. This deadline is clearly far too short and seems designed to put Iraq in an impossible position. There is a growing consensus that it would be far more sensible to disarm Iraq by peaceful means by allowing the UN weapons inspectors to continue with their work. The inspectors have repeatedly stated that Iraq has been fully cooperating with them and is not putting any obstacles in their way of inspection, scrutiny and verification. Only last week, Iraq complied with the inspectors’ demand to destroy 46 of its al Samoud missiles, which were deemed to have a range beyond the prescribed limit. What’s then the need and logic of war when its stated objectives are already being achieved by a well-judged combination of political pressure and physical inspections and verification at an appropriate level? However, nothing that Baghdad does or says seems to have any effect on the US and its allies. Washington seems to have made up its mind already and is determined to launch an attack on Iraq regardless of its culpability on any count.
Frantic diplomatic efforts are now underway among both the pro- and anti-war camps to persuade the members of the Security Council to back their case. US Secretary of State Colin Powell was highly critical of France’s position as the leader of the anti-war camp. He grimly warned that the French use of a veto would badly damage Franco-American relations. He also seemed overly optimistic when he stated that “nine or ten” members of the Security Council would back the new resolution. The US is now focusing its energies on putting pressure on the Security Council members. Most members will remember the fate of Yemen, which found its aid unceremoniously cut off in 1991 following its refusal to back the US attack on Iraq during the first Gulf War. Even if the US is somehow able to win the nine votes required to pass a resolution authorizing war, it still has to contend with the possible use of a veto by France, and possibly by Russia and China, to scuttle the opposition. However, even if the resolution is defeated, the US and Britain have stated that they will still go ahead with their war plans anyway.
This is gunboat diplomacy at its worst and if followed up to its logical end, would set a dangerous precedent for the rest of the world. Such a course of action would encourage other nations to disregard the UN at will and act unilaterally in self-interest whenever it suited them, thereby seriously undermining the authority of the UN. However flawed, the world body does provide a forum for the nations of the world to air their grievances and thus act as a useful shock-absorber and conciliator. Despite pleas and warnings, the US seems to be in no mood to listen to the voices of sanity urging it to stop and think of the consequences of its reckless policy. A war against Iraq could kill thousands of innocent civilians, undermine the leadership of a number of moderate pro-West regimes in the region and further inflame anti-US sentiment in the Muslim world. That could only strengthen the hands of the extremists and provide more recruits for terrorist groups such as Al Qaeda. That is clearly too high a price to pay for putting Iraq in its place and proving who calls the shots in this unipolar world.
THE kidnapping and torture of the deputy opposition leader of the Punjab Assembly, Rana Sanaullah Khan, by a dozen men wearing masks and belonging, as the legislator vehemently insists, to an elite intelligence agency, is as shocking as it is outrageous. The PML-N MPA from Faisalabad, a lawyer by profession, was picked up on Saturday night after his car was blocked on a busy road. He says his kidnappers used iron rods to beat him mercilessly. Mr Khan’s flowing moustache, his eyebrows and much of the hair on his head were shaved off, after which he was thrown in a deserted part of the Lahore-Islamabad motorway. He says he had to walk half an hour to the nearest petrol station in that condition and call for medical help. The legislator has publicly accused the Inter-Services Intelligence of being behind his kidnapping and torture, saying that one of the kidnappers included a major whom he had seen before.
Regrettably, it has to be said that there might be much truth in what the legislator says about his ordeal and his tormentors. He was given similar treatment a few years back when, following the ouster of the Nawaz Sharif government in 1999, he became quite vocal against army rule at a party meeting in Lahore. This time too, speaking out against the men in uniform on the floor of the Punjab Assembly, seems to have landed him in trouble. What is even more unfortunate is the manner in which the legislator was kidnapped and tortured. If this could happen to a member of a provincial assembly, then one shudders to think what might have been the fate of an ordinary citizen in a similar situation. The agencies have often been accused of acting like a state within a state — clandestinely promoting certain political lines, persons and parties and queering the pitch for others. The Punjab government has asked the Faisalabad DIG to carry out a probe into the incident and report to the law minister. That is all right as far as it goes, but will the authorities directly concerned have the gall and nerve to act decisively if the allegations being made by Rana Sanaullah Khan about the identity and affiliations of his kidnappers are substantially correct?
THE death of a prisoner in Dera Ghazi Khan jail on Thursday, allegedly by police torture, points to the unchecked brutalization of inmates in our prisons. The tragic incident followed a quarrel between the deceased and another convict. Both men were tortured at the behest of the jail administration in order to teach them a lesson, leading to the death of one prisoner. While a routine probe has been ordered, attempts are being made to cover up the incident, with a senior jail official being quoted as saying that the prisoner died because he was diabetic. Reports of maltreatment and death by torture are commonplace in the country’s jails. Inhuman and degrading punishments are regularly inflicted on prisoners on the pretext of maintaining discipline. Gross violations of the prisoners’ human rights are committed in order to humiliate them or extort money. Cross fetters, for example, have been declared illegal by the superior judiciary, but these continue to be used. Rampant corruption among the jail staff allow drugs and even firearms to be smuggled into jails, leading to horrifying incidents involving the killing of prisoners by inmates. Shortcomings in the criminal justice system, the growing congestion in jails and torture and other forms of retributive violence have made the task of prison reform extremely difficult. Curbs should be placed on the discretionary power of jail officials and errant officials must be punished. There is a need for greater supervision to eradicate corruption and other malpractices that fuel frustration and violence in jails.