| September 13, 2003 | Saturday | Rajab 15, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Who will rule Iraq?
A practical approach
THE Israeli cabinet’s decision, “in principle”, to expel Yasser Arafat from occupied Palestine is the latest display of Israeli arrogance. Who is Israel to expel anyone from territory that does not belong to it? It is a faithful replay of the example of regime change set by its mentor America in Iraq. Immediately after the Israeli cabinet’s decision, Mr Arafat came out of his besieged Muqataa compound in Ramallah and told cheering supporters: “They can kill me with bombs, but I will not leave.” Hours earlier, one of Israel’s leading newspapers had advised its government to kill the Palestine president, something that Ariel Sharon will no doubt dearly love to do and which Israel has already attempted to execute through indirect and devious ways. Looked at in another way, the Israeli decision reinforces Mr Arafat’s centrality in the Middle East equation. Reviled initially by many of his own supporters for making too many compromises for peace, he is now seen as the one person standing between Tel Aviv’s wish to establish a greater Israel and the Palestinians’ right to an independent state. Trying to sideline him in a settlement is simply not possible if a just peace is the objective, as Abu Mazen’s predicament and his subsequent replacement as prime minister has clearly shown. But if the aim is merely to expand Israel and create a Palestinian enclave under Israeli tutelage, then no interlocutors are needed anyway because the project will be carried out through sheer force of arms, with which Israel is awash and which it knows how to use to deadly effect.
But as has also been proven, brute force is no guarantee of security. Mr Arafat’s removal will have grave political repercussions for the entire region. It will add to militancy within Palestine, give strength to Hamas and Islamic Jihad, and turn even those committed to non-violence into militants and suicide bombers. Countries in the neighbourhood will have to face a new wave of public anger that may be directed as much against the regimes in place as against Israel. Hezbollah in Lebanon will get another opportunity to activate itself. The possibilities of de-stabilization, as the prospect of peace recedes, are immense. The Bush administration made a fatal mistake when it decided to leave out Mr Arafat from its plans for the Middle East and allowed Israel to lead it into a dangerous cul-de-sac. Its objectivity is totally compromised: it is now up to the other three members of the road-map Quartet — the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — to prevent Israel from going ahead with its expulsion plan.
AS AMERICAN casualties in Iraq mount by the day, the focus of western diplomacy has shifted to the UN Security Council. The US and some European powers, namely France, Germany and Russia, are locked in a tussle on a new draft resolution they would like the Council to adopt. The US-proposed draft and two amendments, which are doing the rounds, underline the differences between various members on the basic issue of political and military control of Iraq. The American draft seeks to change the complexion of occupation of Iraq by drawing in other states and redesignating the force as a multinational one authorized by the UN but under a US commander. This understandably is unacceptable to France and Germany which want the UN to have a bigger role in supervising elections and the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty. The Russian amendment would give the occupation force a mandate of one year to be renewed on the recommendation of the UN secretary-general. Another contentious issue is the control of the reconstruction budget. The Europeans are not happy with the contracts being largely given to American companies.
Even if some agreement is reached at Saturday’s meeting of key Security Council foreign ministers it would address the semantic aspects rather than the fundamental issues at stake. The fact is that the presence of American troops in Iraq will continue to be a factor of provocation in a country that has suffered much at the hands of the US. President Bush realizes this and that is why he is so keen to bring in Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi and Turkish troops. The soldiers from these countries, three of which are Muslim, would help dilute the composition of the coalition force at present operating in Iraq. It is, however, illogical to expect this manoeuvre to camouflage the American dominance in the military occupation of Iraq. Keeping the force under American command would only ensure that it is thoroughly alienated from the people. If the United States wishes to avoid greater damage, it should seriously consider withdrawing in favour of a genuinely multinational UN force with a limited mandate.
Politically, too, it would be wise to make the United Nations actively involved in the process which has been devised. The world body has considerable experience of playing a transitional administrative role in territories torn by conflicts where a neutral, non-controversial body is needed to act as a buffer between parties at war with each other as is the case in Iraq. The transitional authority should be involved in the reconstruction of the country and should have the final say in determining the award of contracts.
THE reported tussle between the environment and science and technology ministries over the establishment of a nationwide environmental monitoring system needs to be sorted out in a spirit of realism. Considering the arguments presented by both sides, one would have to say that the science ministry does seem justified in objecting to the one billion rupees scheme going ahead. The environment ministry’s defence is that since a foreign donor has agreed to finance the scheme it makes little sense to oppose it. It has also said that till now no city has any mechanism in place to monitor air and water pollution levels. The science ministry, however, argues that everybody in the country knows that the quality of the environment is deteriorating day by day. Therefore, there is no need to spend that much on buying and installing equipment which will tell us what we already know. It would make infinitely better sense if at least a sizeable chunk of the money was used for what the science ministry calls “solution-based projects”. The environment will get cleaner only if monitoring, say, air or water quality is followed up with clean-up measures.
Even if the government is not spending any of its own money on this project, the point is that Pakistan would immediately benefit if a substantial part of the donated money is spent on preventing and controlling the high level of air and water pollution that already exists. Would it make sense to devote a one billion rupee donor-funded scheme entirely to monitoring pollution when there aren’t even enough resources to fight the oil spill off Karachi’s coast? The environment ministry should become somewhat more practical in its approach and initiate schemes that are meant to benefit the people directly and tangibly in terms of making the water they drink and the air they breathe cleaner. It must strike a balance between competing priorities: we do need a scientific and reliable system of monitoring pollution but we also need the government to take measures that actually make the environment cleaner.