| April 26, 2003 | Saturday | Safar 23, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A more ethical pizza
Why is Iraq so important?
More time with the kids
The ball is in Pervez’s court
THE US Central Command has circulated a list of 55 men belonging to the deposed Baathist government whom it wants “pursued, killed or captured”. The names, job description together with their photographs have been supplied to the rank and file of the occupying troops in several forms, including the flip desk of playing cards. The Iraqi citizens have also been induced to join in the man-hunt of their former rulers.
FOR a variety of reasons, the Iraqi people, whose ancestors represented the first flowering of human civilization, have the potential to be a catalyst for the establishment of a progressive civil society and economic reconstruction based on equity and justice in the Arab and the Islamic world.
FOR some time one thing which has got crystallized is that all the three points — New Delhi, Islamabad and Srinagar — have to be tackled to sort out the Kashmir problem. Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee seems to have appreciated this.
While the US Central Command has been wreaking vengeance upon the leaders of the former government, its troops appear to be amused spectators of the widespread pillage and plunder of public property by criminal elements. If this outbreak of lawlessness was motivated by anti-Saddam sentiments, the hoodlums and goons would not have looted most of the UN compound, rendering humanitarian assistance difficult.
The spokeswoman of the United Nations Office of Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, Veronique Taveau, has blamed the US-led troops for turning a blind eye to the rampant lawlessness in these words: “The coalition forces seem to be completely unable to restrain looters or impose any sort of control on the mobs that now govern the streets”. This inaction by the occupying powers is in violation of the Geneva Conventions.
This should have awakened Washington and London to the legal responsibility of the occupying power in Iraq; instead, the US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, rebuffed the worldwide criticism and unabashedly justified the loot and lawlessness as a natural expression of the pent-up feelings of a people long suppressed by a brutal regime. Ironically though, the US troops mowed down peaceful protesters in Mosul, calling for the immediate withdrawal of the occupying forces.
It was an action replay of the bloody 1920s when the colonial Britain assumed the mandate of Iraq and appointed Sir Percy Cox as the commissioner of that country. It was then claimed, as it is being claimed now by the occupying powers, that the white man had occupied Iraq to liberate its people from the tyranny of the Ottoman rule and that Britain had no territorial designs on that country; all it wanted was to develop Iraq’s economy, educate the masses and train them in the art of democracy. But the people of Iraq were not duped by the promises of the colonialists and rose in rebellion which was brutally suppressed.
The April 15-16 massacre of protesters in Mosul has given the lie to the claim of the invading troops that they were welcomed by the people as liberators. As heirs to the world’s most ancient civilization, Iraqis have an inbred sense of history and they know from Hulagu to Percy Cox that invaders cannot be liberators. They come to kill and loot and vandalize a peaceful nation.
All these tragic happenings prompt us to ponder the matter whether the occupying power has unlimited authority over the territory and the people it has conquered and occupied. The answer to it can be found in the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Just like the belligerents do not have unlimited right to use weapons and methods of warfare, the occupying power, too, does not enjoy unrestricted authority over the occupied land and its people. Its right and jurisdiction as occupying power are circumscribed by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
The basic principle of the said Convention as embodied in its Article 4 is that as soon as a country is occupied by an invading state, the former’s population that falls into the hands of the occupying power is deemed to be protected from any harassment. Nor is the occupying power the absolute authority in the occupied territory. For Article 9 provides for the induction of Protecting Powers into the occupied territory “whose duty it is to safeguard the interests of the parties to the conflict”. To this end, the Protecting Powers may appoint, in addition to their diplomatic or consular staff, delegates from amongst their own nationals or the nationals of neutral powers. The parties are required to facilitate as far as possible the task of the representatives of the Protecting Powers.
The involvement of Protecting Powers is a safeguard against acts of highhandedness of the occupier against the occupied people. In Iraq the US Central Command has become the sole arbiter of the destiny of the unfortunate people to the exclusion of Protecting Powers. To deny their due role in occupied Iraq is a breach of Article 9 of the Convention.
Under Article 70 the people of the occupied territory known as Protected Persons for the purpose of the Convention “cannot be arrested, prosecuted or convicted by the occupying power for acts committed or for opinions expressed before the occupation”. They are, however, not exempt from war crimes. Judged in the light of this provision, the announcement of the US Central Command for the pursuit, capture and the killing of the members of the former Baathist government is a blatant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
In fact, it is the American High Command that should be held answerable for violation of the laws and customs of war. Here it is the other way around. The occupying power has been carrying on systematic witch-hunting of the Iraqi opinion leaders, newsmen, intellectuals, using third-degree methods to extort information from them. Hundreds of such detainees are denied legal assistance. Again, this is a violation of all the norms of civilized behaviour. Article 71 of the Geneva Convention insists that the accused persons who are prosecuted for any offence by the occupying power shall be promptly informed in writing of the specific charges, and “shall be brought to trial” as soon as possible.
In the meantime the Protecting Power shall be informed of all the proceedings in cases involving death penalties or imprisonment for more than two years. The occupying power cannot pronounce sentence except after a regular trial by a competent court. According to Article 72, the accused has the right to call witnesses, present evidence and appoint a counsel to defend him at the trial while under Article 73 he has the right to appeal against his sentence. The US Central Command not being a court of competent jurisdiction has no power to order the pursuit and assassination of the fiftyfive “most wanted” Iraqis.
If, however, any person of the occupied territory commits an offence provided it does not constitute an attempt on the life or limb of members of the occupying forces or administration, nor a serious damage to their property or installations, he may, under Article 8, be awarded simple imprisonment proportionate to the offence. Article 67 of the Geneva Convention enjoins that the courts shall apply the laws that were in force in the occupied territory prior to the occupation provided they conform to the general principles of law, especially the principle that the penalty should be proportionate to the offence.
The Geneva Convention is humane towards the accused since it (Article 69) provides that the period which a protected person has spent in detention awaiting trial or punishment shall be deducted from the term of imprisonment awarded to him. The Protected Persons are guaranteed their dignity and honour, religious belief, political opinion and protection against acts of violence and threat of force (Article 27).
The Convention prohibits torture, murder, extermination, mutilation, corporal punishment and medical and scientific experiment of Protected Persons not needed by their medical treatment (Article 32). Collective punishment, pillage, reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited (Article 33).
The Protected Persons shall have the right to make application to the Protecting Power, the International Committee of Red Cross, the National Red Cross / Red Crescent, etc, and other organizations (Article 30).
In sum, the international humanitarian law aims at humanizing the practice of war and according humane treatment to the prisoners of war and the people of an occupied territory. The Nuremburg trial is a landmark case in bringing the perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity to justice. Unfortunately, after over half a century, the international community is back to square one, looking for ways and means to deal with war crimes committed by the victorious power.
THE leaders of House of Representatives made their priorities clear on the opening day of the 108th Congress when they bypassed their own ethics committee and further undercut the supposed gift ban they had adopted with great fanfare in 1995 after the GOP takeover.
The first category of new restrictions concerns the so-called “pizza rule,” which allows lobbyists and other private groups to send catered meals — worth as much as $50 a person — to members and staff working late or on weekends. It’s become a common — and, from our point of view, particularly offensive — practice for lobbyists with an interest in a particular piece of legislation to make sure the folks writing it stay well fed.
The new guidance from the ethics committee includes the reminder that the food “must be refused entirely” if it comes from someone with a “direct interest” in what they’re doing. It also points out that it’s unethical to solicit such meals, as has been done at times by some staffers who have come to think of K Street as their personal version of Takeout Taxi.
—The Washington Post
Modern-day Iraq, whose pre-1914 name was Mesopotamia, roughly comprises the former Ottoman Empire provinces of Basra, Baghdad and Mosul. Its formal frontiers were determined between 1920 and 1937.
According to historian Arnold Toynbee, Iraq was the cradle of mankind’s most ancient civilization (Sumerian) that flourished in Babylonia, the southern plain between Baghdad and the Persian Gulf, and Assyria, the northern region around the present-day Mosul. A high order of civilization was developed in Babylonia around 3000 BC and this part of Iraq remained the cultural centre of the region until the Persian conquest in 537 BC. The Sumerian society’s innovations were: surplus production, class differentiation, script, monumental architecture and urban settlements.
Islamic caliphate was established in Iraq by the Abbasid dynasty in 750 AD and a new capital was built in 762 AD on the site of a Sumerian village called Baghdad. Baghdad reached the zenith of prosperity under Harun-al-Rashid. Despite the declining power of later caliphs, Baghdad remained a great centre of trade and culture until its real downfall when the Mongols under Halagu Khan overran Mesopotamia and sacked Baghdad killing 800,000 of its inhabitants, including the caliph, Al-Mustasim.
Some of the principal reasons why Iraq could again rise to its erstwhile glory and become a new model for the progress and development of the Arab and the Islamic world are discussed below.
To begin with, Iraq is not as overpopulated as Egypt nor is it as underpopulated as most other Arab states. It is the only Arab state with enough water to sustain a vibrant agricultural economy. Also, it has the world’s second largest proven oil reserves, enough to finance long-term economic uplift and betterment. That is not all. Iraq is blessed with the largest middle class in the Arab world. Iraqis represent a large part of the intellectual, scientific, literary and technological elite in the Arab world. More than four million people of Iraqi origin live abroad, including Europe and North America. Many are immensely wealthy and highly educated and could help the country of their origin build a robust private sector.
Iraq has yet another distinction which, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, carries far-reaching implications for some of its neighbours. It is the only Arab country where the Shiite Muslims form a decisive majority. If the Sunni Arab minority no longer dominates Iraq as it has for decades, Saudi Arabia in particular will be disconcerted. The Saudi government has no love for the Shiites and Riyadh will be deeply concerned about the impact of empowered Iraqi Shiites on the Saudi Shiite minority that inhabits one of the Saudi oil-rich regions. Saudi Arabia feels about the Iraqi Shiites the same way as Turkey feels about the Iraqi Kurds.
Even Iran, a Shiite country, is warily watching developments in post-Saddam Iraq. Najaf-e-Ashraf, the centre of Iraqi Shiites, could regain its traditional status as the heart of forward-looking, moderate, innovative and open Islam. Such a development could help Iran’s current reformist movement win its battle against the retrogressive clerics in Tehran who still control the key organs of the Iranian state.
Since Iraq will need some time to develop the institutions of civil society such as a free press and political parties, a quick transition to Westminster-style democracy is not possible. But even if Baghdad manages to develop a somewhat more representative system of government, one in which the slightest dissent is not punished with long-term imprisonment or even death, the impact of the new Iraq on the neighbouring despotic Arab regimes could be profound.
Not even one of the 22 Arabic speaking countries is a democracy. None, apart from a few of the tiniest oil-rich sheikhdoms, delivers prosperity to all its citizens. Most of the despotic Arab regimes have been in power without making much use of that power for the good of their people. According to the Unified Arab Economic Report (2001), jointly published by the Arab Monetary Fund, the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development and the Organization of the Arab Petroleum Exporting countries, about three-fourths of all Arab people are poor and have been getting steadily poorer in the past two decades.
The gross domestic product per person in the Arab world as a whole was $ 2,469 in 2001 — a drop from $ 2,578 in 2000 and $ 2,612 in 1980. If these figures are adjusted for inflation and foreign exchange value decline since 1980, the average income of Arab citizens has fallen substantially in real terms.
How helpless and irrelevant the Arab regimes have become in today’s world was amply shown during the recent American attack on Iraq. So what the United States does in Iraq by way of economic, social and political reforms will become the catalyst for similar reforms and changes in other Arab countries different variants of dynastic, despotic and monarchical rule.
Lastly, let us see why Iraq has become so important for the Americans. The recent war was not for oil only. It was also for a bonanza of reconstruction and nation-building work, involving billions of dollars for US-based firms with close links with the Pentagon and the State Department. School systems, textbooks, airports, police operations, local government, water plants and sewers all will be overhauled and in some cases created from scratch by US contractors paid, presumably, out of US funds. It is not yet clear how the US taxpayers’s money will be recovered from Iraq — perhaps from oil.
Independent analysts say the cost of rebuilding Iraq will reach $ 20 billion a year over the next several years. The reconstruction contracts are being awarded exclusively to US firms and the Bush administration is drawing fire from critics who say contracts are being handed out to a few favoured firms, many with high-level contacts in Bush administration and a history of donations to the Republican party.
The biggest of the contract awarded so far is worth seven billion dollars for fighting oil well fires. It has been handed over to a division of Halliburton, the company run by vice-president Dick Cheney from 1995 to 2000 before he stepped down to run for vice-presidency. When Cheney stepped down, according to a Guardian report, he received a $33 million thank-you cheque and is still receiving from the company $180,000 a year in deferred income from the business.
The winner of another contract in Iraq is the construction company, Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco, whose employees have been some former US cabinet members, including George Shultz and Defence Secretary Casper Weinberger.
Foreign businesses and governments have complained of being shut out of the profits of post-war reconstruction work. The European Commission is investigating US procedures to see whether they violate World Trade Organization rules against restricting government procurement.
The Bush administration has been criticized for being even “beyond Nixon” when it comes to secrecy. There is no denying the fact that the present administration in Washington is very close to corporate America. The danger is that the easy victory in Iraq will pave the way for a corporate-driven triumphalist agenda which may become the hallmark of the US-dominated New World Order.
The writer is a former ambassador.
EVERY time an executive gets fired for screwing up, the corporation puts out a press release that he is leaving because he “wants to spend more time with his family.”
So the other day, whom should I run into waiting for his two kids to come out of the Washington International School but Edward Turner, who had just been fired from Boom Boom Communications for losing $23 million.
“Good seeing you, Ed. I see you’re spending more time with your family.”
He didn’t know if I was being funny or not.
Finally he said, “Too much time, if you ask me. I didn’t know that spending more time with my family meant having to drive the kids to school every morning and home every afternoon.”
“It figures,” I said. “That is how you get to know your family.”
“When I first got home they didn’t know who I was. My wife explained that I was not only the father of the family, but had once been the breadwinner — at least until recently. In the first days I kept getting the children mixed up at dinner. I called my son Sherry and my daughter Rick. They were as confused as I was.”
“It takes a workaholic time get used to his family again,” I said to cheer him up.
“They play those stupid video games all afternoon and evening. I was hoping we would gather around the piano and sing Stephen Foster songs.”
I said, “Ed, you have been working too long.”
“Sherry and Rick’s friends say I bankrupted the company. I don’t deserve that just because my picture keeps appearing in the papers and on TV.”
“The kids should defend their father. After all, you managed to get a golden parachute.”
“My wife says all of her friends’ husbands have lost their pensions, but she says that everyone claims I came out smelling like a rose.”
“You still did the right thing by having a golden parachute,” I said. “There are a lot of fathers who say they want to spend more time with their kids, but most of them say it because they don’t have a job.” “At least I’m now offering them quality time. But all they want is quantity time with their friends.”
“That’s today’s culture,” I said. “The kids prefer their pals to their parents and talks on the telephone with anyone except their mother or father.”
“You got that one right. I think I was much more comfortable when I spent all my time buying businesses that went bust.”
“You haven’t said much about your wife. Where is she in all this?”
“As soon as she read I was quitting to spend more time with my kids, she went back to practising law. She said I should try to see what it’s like to stay home.”
I said, “I see the kids are starting to come out.”
“No big deal — mine are always the last ones to leave. They will get in the car, arrive home, then go to their rooms and call the people they just saw a few minutes ago.”
“And what will you be doing?”
“I’m starting to build up a nifty stamp collection.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services
When he appointed N.N. Vohra as an interlocutor on Kashmir Vajpayee touched two points, New Delhi and Srinagar. Vohra may be a lightweight and New Delhi may not have yet decided how far it is willing to accommodate the aspirations of the Valley people.
Still Vajpayee has openly indicated his intention to span the distance between New Delhi and Srinagar. At the same time, he has underlined India’s policy: it does not favour touching the three points simultaneously, something for which the All-Party Hurriyat Conference has been pressing for long.
Vajpayee has followed the same policy in trying to normalize relations with Pakistan. His willingness to have a dialogue with Islamabad also shows that he wants to touch only two points at one time, New Delhi and Islamabad. This should go home to all those who want to jumble up India, Pakistan and Kashmir together.
Vajpayee’s initiative is bold and deserves praise. I wish General Pervez Musharraf’s response had been quick and positive because he has been saying repeatedly that he is ready to talk to India any time and at any place. Pakistan Prime Minister Jamali and Foreign Minister Kasuri have welcomed Vajpayee’s statement. There is also a feeling of jubilation in Pakistan on the possibility of talks. The Muttihada Majlis-i-Amal (MMA), a combination of six religious parties, has also hailed Vajpayee’s move. The latest news is that Pakistan is trying to choose its representative for the talks.
My information is that Abdul Qayyum Khan, leader of Azad Kashmir, reportedly telephoned Jamali to agree to the talks even if one of the conditions put by India were to be to make the LoC the international border. For Qayyum, Vajpayee had given Pakistan an opportunity which might not come its way again. All this is welcome. But it does not go far enough. Musharraf has to say what is in his mind. Ultimately, his word alone will count because he is Jamali’s boss.
The official reaction is a bit disappointing. Vajpayee is being blamed for putting conditions. All that he has said is that Pakistan should come clean on cross-border terrorism. Musharraf has himself admitted cross-border terrorism when he assured Washington that he was trying to curb infiltration and dismantle the training centres.
The Lashkar-e-Taiba’s response to Vajpayee’s offer for talks is that it has renewed its vow to continue jihad in Kashmir and to have “more” suicide-bomb attacks. How should India interpret the threat against the offer of talks when the Lashkar’s headquarters is in Pakistan and when it operates from that country?
Pakistan Information Minister Sheikh Rashid Ahmed is now on a propaganda trip. He has said that his government has proof that India is developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). His source of information is America which has not found WMD in Iraq even after the war it waged on that count. Surely, Rashid is not making a case for America’s intervention in India. Even if he does, India is no Iraq.
New Delhi is aware of the fact that the US is trying to establish its presence in neighbouring countries. Nepal recently held joint military exercises with the US. Washington plays a big role as a donor in Bangladesh, the country which is pathetically dependent on foreign aid.
Negotiations between Sri Lanka and the LTTE have the involvement of America. As for Pakistan, the less said the better. There are some 20,000 American soldiers operating in the name of “destroying” the remnants of the Al Qaeda.
Musharraf just cannot shrug it off and say that there is no terrorism across the border. A US Congress committee has said in its report that the infiltration went up last year and looks like increasing this year. Musharraf’s solution of Kashmir is still a third country’s mediation.
After seeing the fate of the UN, where 13 out of 15 Security Council members opposed the invasion on Iraq, he should have been a disillusioned person. Apparently, he is not.
Musharraf should know that no country can escape the long arms of America. He is mistaken if he believes that President Bush is on his side. America is only using him. He should recall his own statement: Pakistan may be the next after Iraq. Vajpayee said more or less the same thing when he warned the third world countries to learn a lesson from the fate of Iraq.
In this context, the resignation of Robert Blackwell from American ambassadorship in India is significant. It looks as if he was not able to prevail upon the Bush administration to leave the region alone. Probably, he differed from what the US administration has planned for India and Pakistan. He said, “The fight against international terrorism will not be won unless terrorism against India ends permanently.” Islamabad should not consider Blackwell’s exit as an advantage. President Bush may charge a price which no self-respecting country can pay.
What is increasingly becoming clear day by day is that normalizing relations between New Delhi and Islamabad is not on the agenda of the Pakistan military. Conciliation does not suit it because it then loses its dominant role in Pakistan. At present, the real power is in the hands of the military. It does not want to lose it. The greater the hostility with India, the more indispensable it becomes. Wrong noises against Vajpayee’s initiative may only confirm that those in khaki are a reluctant party.
The Pakistan president should reciprocate Vajpayee’s offer. To prove that he really means it, Musharraf should order the ISI and other special agencies to stop “interfering” in Kashmir and in the north-east. The understanding between India and Pakistan may stop America from carrying out its plans in the region. It may bring the entire South Asia together for a new identity as South Asians, transcending religions and borders, without disturbing the sovereignty of individual countries.
I am not too hopeful of such a development in the near future. But there is no other way out. In the world of tomorrow, regional combinations, not the UN, would count. The European Union will gain strength. Why not Saarc? For this, the nations in the region will have to show all the resilience and accommodation they can muster.
Vajpayee had shown the same courage in touching the two points: New Delhi and Srinagar. He is cautious. Vohra is not G Parthasarathi, who was Mrs Indira Gandhi’s emissary. GP was able to reach an agreement with Sheikh Abdullah, Kashmir’s popular leader. The Sheikh accepted the say of New Delhi - beyond the 1952 agreement between himself and Nehru - because he and GP had confidence in each other. GP was a bureaucrat in the sense that he was a top official in the government of India. But he had his own standing. Too much dependence on bureaucrats is the Vajpayee government’s Achilles’ heel.
I only hope that if and when the dialogue between India and Pakistan is finalized, some top bureaucrat is not chosen to take over Vajpayee’s initiative. All these matters are political. And they require finesse and a sense of accommodation which bureaucrats do not have, particularly retired ones.
The writer is a leading columnist based in New Delhi.