| April 27, 2003 | Sunday | Safar 24, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Guantanamo horrors
THERE is some hope now that the deadlock over the Legal Framework Order may after all end, and the government and the opposition may agree to coexist. There is, of course, no room for being cock-a-hoop about such a possibility. Nevertheless, what has generated a little hope is President Musharraf’s briefing to the editors on Thursday. Then on Friday, the government and the opposition talked. Nothing spectacular emerged — no one expected this — but at least there is a silver lining in the dark clouds hovering over the nation’s political horizon for some time. The president, of course, did not give a specific date as to when he would shed his uniform; but neither did he insist on wearing it throughout his full five-year term. More significantly, he divided the LFO into three “blocks” and hinted that parts of it were negotiable. This was in contrast to his earlier stance that the LFO was not negotiable. The rigid position on the LFO was compounded by what seemed to be a gratuitous insult to the legislators. At his meeting with the editors, however, he did seem to imply that a bit of political engineering was needed to allow the system to become functional.
The government and opposition leaders are to meet again tomorrow to continue the talks, but their spokesmen had something positive to say on Friday — that the “agreed points” of the LFO would be taken to parliament. This means that the government has moved away from the absurd position that the LFO was already part of the Constitution and did not need parliamentary ratification. The non-agreed points of the LFO basically concern the National Security Council, Article 58-2(b), and the head of state also being the chief of army staff. Then there are the discretionary powers of the president which impinge on the role of the elected chief executive. Thus, there are quite a few sticking points in the negotiations.
What is basically at issue is simply democracy whose working, though rarely smooth, has been interrupted ever so often. The authoritarian forces remain very strong, and their stake in power continues to be high. The forces of democracy suffer from divisiveness and lack a common focus of orientation. Powerful heads of state and non-political forces are inherently incapable of protecting and nurturing democracy because they tend to look at the political process as something that can be manipulated from the sidelines. As Pakistan’s history shows, governors-general, presidents and army chiefs have messed up with this country’s constitution and politics. Their extra-constitutional and political mechanisms have always tended to impair the process of evolution and consolidation of representative rule. Article 58-2(b) itself has not at all contributed to political stability. Instead, as a review of the period between 1988 and 1999 shows, it has strengthened the hands of the authoritarian elements, weakened the political process and militated against the growth and consolidation of democratic institutions. It was during this period that as many as four elected governments got the sack in consequence of the exercise of arbitrary presidential powers under Article 58-2(b).
Given the regional and international situation, with neo-colonialism trying to spread its tentacles around, Pakistani leaders in and out of uniform must realize their responsibility. The country must set its house in order. The nation wants to get out of the vicious political circle in which the country seems trapped. Already, the National Assembly stands paralyzed, and the president has not yet been able to address a joint session of parliament, as required under the Constitution. This itself is a sad commentary on how we manage our politics. Let the government and the opposition sort matters out.
A major issue surrounding the talks is the absence of a recognized negotiator for the government. One often wonders who really represents the president — the prime minister, Chaudhry Shujaat or any of the PPP turncoats? This is both a problem and an opportunity for the opposition which a Suhrawardy could have skilfully turned to his advantage. At the same time, one is appalled by the pathological hatred which the government has shown for the two mainstream opposition parties — the PPP and the PML (N). The two parties between them represent a very large section of our population. It will be counterproductive to deprive them of their rightful place in our scheme of things. Both parties possess a good deal of resilience. The continuing attempt to neutralize them will only impoverish our political system and undermine constitutionality without necessarily strengthening the power of the authoritarians.
WESTERN media reports suggesting that there are as many as half a dozen teenagers who are being held as prisoners in Cuba’s Guantanamo Bay detention camp, are disturbing. These teenagers are said to be between the ages of 13 and 15, which means that they were a year younger when the Americans hauled them up from Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban regime. The US authorities’ contention that the teenagers will be allowed to be repatriated to their home countries after the authorities have made sure that they would not pose a threat to American life and interests anywhere, is cynical and self-serving. The continued detention of many adult and as well as minor prisoners by the Americans on flimsy grounds, and keeping the details of their trials under wraps, make a mockery of international law, human rights and all norms of justice and civilized conduct.
There are nearly 700 prisoners at the Guantanamo Bay camp, who have been denied all legal and human rights by their American captors. A handful of those who have so far been released have harrowing tales of torture, harassment and intimidation to tell: they were kept incommunicado, blindfolded and in chains as a matter of routine. Reports of prisoners attempting to commit suicide out of desperation have also appeared in the media, but the US authorities have done nothing to change the conditions of detention. In fact, they have not even bothered to deny or explain such reports of torture and ill-treatment saying the prisoners in question are ‘unlawful combatants’, who fall outside the purview of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of war prisoners. The US courts have also refused to hear the pleas filed on behalf of the prisoners, saying they have no jurisdiction over the Guantanamo Bay camp. It is time rights groups and the relevant United Nations agencies took up the matter with the US authorities. The prisoners in question are after all human beings and deserve to be treated more humanely, and not like slaves of America’s ‘wild west’ days.