| May 12, 2003 | Monday | Rabi-ul-Awwal 9, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Afghanistan — out in the cold
Shorkot tragedy
THE US-backed draft resolution tabled in the UN Security Council on Friday clearly aims at legitimizing the questionable war on Iraq and to provide a legal cover for the indefinite occupation of the country. Despite promises made by US President George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the blueprint does not envisage a major role for the UN in post-war Iraq. Instead, the resolution calls for the lifting of the tough sanctions imposed on Iraq in 1990 and the rapid phasing out of the UN’s oil-for-food programme. The 1996 programme is aimed at relieving the distress of the ordinary Iraqis caused by the sanctions and is financed through the sale of Iraqi oil. Aid workers are worried about folding up the food programme in haste as it caters to the needs of some 60 per cent of all Iraqis. The demand to lift sanctions and to phase out the oil-for-food programme has a more sinister aim: to take away the UN’s control over Iraqi oil revenues and place it under the control of the US and Britain. In this way, Iraqi oil revenues will finance the reconstruction of the country.
The UN will also have only a symbolic role in the setting up of a new administration in Iraq. While the draft resolution calls for a special UN coordinator to be dispatched to Baghdad, his role will be subservient to that of the commanders of the occupying forces. The coordinator will have a purely advisory role in the process of a political transition, with the main decisions taken by a new entity to be known as the “Authority”. Needless to say, the Authority is directly under the control of the occupation forces. This decision is a short-sighted one. If the UN had been given a major role in the process, the credibility of a future administration in Baghdad would be immeasurably enhanced in the eyes of Iraqis as well as the rest of the world. The draft resolution also calls for a renewable UN commitment to allow US and British troops to remain in occupation of Iraq for as long as they consider it necessary. This can only confirm the worst fears of those who believe that the US has a long-term agenda for Iraq — and the region.
The US and Britain refer to themselves for the first time as an “occupying force” rather than the earlier preferred euphemism of a “liberating force”. This terminological change will entail a number of responsibilities for the occupiers under the Geneva Conventions. Most significantly, there is no mention whatsoever in the draft resolution of a return of UN arms inspectors to Iraq before the lifting of sanctions, as Russia has demanded. Ironically, the US and Britain, which launched the war mainly over the issue of weapons of mass destruction, are now in the forefront of obstructing the return of the inspectors. The draft resolution is obviously a divisive document and strongly reflects the current unilateralist drift in US policies. It seeks to keep the UN and those opposed to the invasion of Iraq out of the picture and reward only the military victors. The draft is not likely to go through the Security Council without serious objections, especially from France and Russia, and could yet reopen the wounds inflicted on the UN by the unilateralist attack on Iraq.
IS history going to repeat itself in Afghanistan? As the security situation in the country deteriorates, many Afghans are anxiously asking whether the Americans have simply lost interest in their country, just as they did after the withdrawal of Soviet troops in the eighties. On his recent visit to Kabul, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld painted a rosy picture of the future. He confidently stated that the fighting had all but subsided and that most of the country was now safe and secure. The implications of such optimism were ominous. With Iraq at the centre of US priorities, are the Americans thinking of a gradual disengagement from Afghanistan? The realities on the ground belie Rumsfeld’s misplaced optimism. The security situation in Afghanistan is highly precarious, with factional fighting between rival warlords and attacks on government targets and aid workers becoming a routine affair. Most ominously, the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda continue to mount more and more daring attacks on US and Afghan government positions.
The Taliban’s resurgence has been fuelled by the deep sense of alienation among the once dominant Pakhtoons. The largest ethnic group in the country is seething with resentment over what it sees as the dominance of other smaller ethnic groups in the government headed by Hamid Karzai. While Karzai is himself a Pukhtoon, the government is dominated by Tajiks such as the powerful Vice President and Defence Minister, Mohammad Qasim Fahim. The security situation has made the task of rehabilitation and reconstruction extremely difficult, and the ambitious plans to rebuild the country remain at a virtual standstill. Despairing aid workers believe that if urgent attention is not given to restoring security, Afghanistan may well plunge back into the kind of anarchy witnessed following the withdrawal of the Soviets. As the UN Special Representative Lakhdar Brahimi put it, “the issue of security casts a long shadow over ... the whole future of Afghanistan.” The world community, especially the US, owes it to Afghanistan to urgently step up efforts to restore some kind of normality to the country. Extending the writ of the international peacekeeping force beyond Kabul, for example, could be one positive move. Afghanistan must not be allowed to drift back towards anarchy once more. The repercussions of that kind of relapse could prove disastrous for the entire region.
FRIDAY’S ghastly accident involving a coach and an oil tanker near Shorkot in Jhang district is a frightening reminder of the unchecked mayhem on our roads. So forceful was the collision that 20 of the 24 people killed in the mishap died on the spot. As if this were not enough, the very same day there was another fatal mishap involving an oil tanker near Sahiwal, killing two and injuring many others. Serious accidents are taking place every day all over the country at a dizzying rate. Yet, amazingly, little is being done to check this menace. The Shorkot tragedy occurred at the Sadhaywali Pul where several fatal accidents have happened in the past. This suggests that there could be flaws in the design of the bridge which might be impeding the flow of traffic. But even otherwise, there are a whole lot of factors like blind corners, bottlenecks, narrow bends, sharp turnings and encroachments, not to speak of the miserable conditions of our roads, which lead to terrible tragedies day after day. But perhaps a greater threat is posed by the wanton disregard for the rules of road safety. There have been quite a few tragic mishaps involving oil tankers over the last few years. Given the dangers involved, these vehicles are supposed to be driven with great care and caution. However, these vehicles are often found speeding like other bulk carriers and private cars. The results are before us. Even more disturbing is the lack of any significant effort at better enforcement by the police. No particular attention has been paid to creating awareness about the rules of road safety and respect for human life. These aspects must be accorded greater importance if the appalling accident rate in this country is to be brought down.