IN recent years, the United Nations has been severely criticized for its poor performance. Scepticism is growing about its usefulness as a multilateral institution. There are apprehensions that, like its predecessor, the League of Nations, it may also go into extinction sooner or later.

This criticism is actually attributable to the dismal performance of the Security Council, which is the most important organ of the United Nations. It is responsible for the maintenance of international peace and security. It also acts on behalf of all the members of the world body. Each important decision is either initiated or approved by it.

The United Nations has aptly been described by its Charter as “a centre for harmonizing the interests of nations”. Regrettably it has not been able to pursue this fundamental objective. The big nations have made it subservient to their whims to advance their own interests, all at the cost of the smaller nations. It may be recalled that the most important cause of the failure of the League of Nations was that its powerful members showed scant regard for the common good of its members and openly flouted the fundamental principle of multilateralism.

Proposals have been advanced by experts from time to time for reforming the United Nations, to make it a more effective instrument and for it to meet contemporary challenges. The UN General Assembly had also created different working groups, within the UN System, to address different aspects of reform. However, it was not possible to bring about the proposed structural changes to the existing UN system as this required an amendment to the UN Charter. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council (UNSC), for their own reasons, were not willing to agree to this, notwithstanding the fast changing world environment. Consequently, the voluminous reports and documents containing the suggestions and recommendations, submitted by experts to reform the UN system, seem to have been consigned to the archives.

Shortly after the assumption of charge in 1997 as Secretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan cautioned the world that “the coming century promises to be a time of yet deeper and more rapid global changes. The United Nations must be ready”. He also presented a sweeping reform package aimed at helping the UN change with the times and adapt to a new era of global affairs. However, his proposed reform package could not also be implemented for want of an amendment to the Charter. The UN Millennium Summit’s decision to intensify efforts to revitalize the United Nations also remains in the doldrums for the same reason.

In the circumstances, there is little hope, at least in the foreseeable future, for any worthwhile structural changes in the existing UN system, which are absolutely necessary if the UN has to keep pace with the fast changing world. It seems unlikely that the permanent members would be willing to voluntarily amend the Charter, particularly at this juncture, for a variety of reasons. Despite the prevailing mistrust among them, it may be difficult to break their united stance on this issue. This does not, however, mean that the quest for restructuring the United Nations be given up. On the contrary, the same must be pursued, relentlessly, and with perseverance, if the UN is to be saved from failure.

The big five must be made to realize that all the members of the UN irrespective of their size and economic/military potential, want to have a full say in the decision making process of the United Nations. This is their right on the basis of sovereign equality, enshrined in the Charter. Smaller nations also want to play a much greater role in the pursuit of all its activities. Needless to say that collective decision making would inculcate a sense of participation, particularly in the smaller members of the UN. This would immensely contribute to its success as a functioning body on world affairs.

It is quite clear that the question of veto is intrinsically linked to UN’s restructuring. Secretary General Kofi Annan recently said that the reform of the United Nations is “not merely an event” but a process “to make it stronger, more resilient and more flexible.” The elimination of the veto right, which has proved to be a stumbling block to reform the UN, has, therefore, become inevitable and needs to be pursued with alacrity.

In any case, the concept of a veto is not only anachronistic, it also goes against the democratic ethos of the UN. Hence a vast majority of its members has been demanding its withdrawal. US President Eisenhower, in a letter to the then Russian Prime Minister, also criticized the right of veto at the UN, enjoyed by five big powers, as being “against the universal collective security system, embodied in the UN Charter.”

Another important aspect, which also has a direct bearing on the restructuring of the United Nations, is the proposed expansion of its Security Council. Since its establishment, in 1945, the membership of the United Nations has increased from the original 52 to 191 states. The scope of its programmes and activities has also expanded considerably. The present composition of the UNSC, with five permanent members and ten non-permanent members, therefore, does not correspond to the increased membership of the Organisation.

During the presidency of George Bush Sr the induction of Germany and Japan, as permanent members of the UNSC, was advocated. As the US Administration had not proposed commensurate seats for the developing countries, its proposal for the expansion fizzled out. It was, however, revived during the presidency of President Bill Clinton when the US Administration proposed three seats, one each for Africa, Asia and Latin America, without naming the countries that may fill them.

An increase in the strength of the UNSC may be desirable, in accordance with the cardinal principles of equitable geographical distribution and sovereign equality of states. The expansion and reform of the UNSC should not, however, lead to new centres of privilege. The proposed expansion, with additional permanent members, may further alienate the small and medium-sized countries if not done properly.

A number of the UN’s members are even questioning the rationale behind the existing ‘permanent membership’ of the UNSC. The proposed reform of the UNSC should, therefore, be aimed to make it more democratic with an equal opportunity to all the states to become its member, in even it rotation.

It may also be pertinent to point out that the UN Charter provides for the election of the non-permanent members of the UNSC on the basis of the contribution of the members to the maintenance of peace and security. This is done keeping in view an equitable geographical representation.

In practice, however, the UN General Assembly, while electing non-permanent members to the SC, has generally adhered to the principle of geographical distribution and ignored the most important and relevant consideration, laid down by the Charter, to give due regard to their contribution to the maintenance of international peace and security.

It would, therefore, be necessary to ensure that, in future, the new members, to be inducted to the UNSC, meet the prescribed criteria and that they also do not have a record of flouting UN resolutions, particularly relating to the settlement of disputes between members. Deliberate defiance of the UN resolutions should be considered derelict behaviour on the part of a member, who should be disqualified from the membership of the UNSC.

There is absolutely no doubt that the United Nations is at the crossroads. However, despite its numerous shortcomings and failures, it has not lost its relevance as an international institution that was established to seek international cooperation and to take a collective approach to world problems. It remains the last hope for global peace and security. However, there is an urgent need for its reform to pursue the purposes it was created for and to meet the daunting challenges the world is facing now and may do so in future.

The writer is former ambassador of Pakistan.

TOWARDS the end of 1944, when Adolf Hitler was engaged in a rearguard action against the collective military might of 19 nations, and it had become obvious that Germany could not win the war, one of his generals asked him why he didn’t try to put an end to the hostilities and negotiate a peace settlement with the Allies. Hitler’s answer was as profound as it was predictable. “One can only negotiate from a position of strength. We may lose the war, but we will take a world with us.”

This business of operating from a position of strength, runs like a thread through the fabric of every military ruler’s armour, and Pakistan is no exception. Ayub Khan held all the trumps during his decade of development, and tried to legitimize his actions by having a go at a fractionalized Muslim League, until a fiery politician from Larkana set in motion a revolt which ultimately ousted him.

Zia-ul-Haq, who believed he had the authority of scripture, did at least succeed in giving his actions some sort of legal cover by pushing through Article 58(2)B of the 1973 Constitution through the parliament. But in spite of his public profession of humility Zia came across as a brutal dictator, intolerant of criticism. And it wasn’t until Mohammed Khan Junejo, whom he had appointed prime minister, that freedom of the press was restored, much to the relief of the journalist fraternity.

President Musharraf differs from them in the degree of finesse he has applied in holding on to his power. He has achieved this by circumventing the various political and legal traps which the politicians and the lawyers have set for him. He has managed to do this in four ways.

By suspending the Constitution and issuing the Provisional Constitutional Order. By restoring what could best be described as a quasi-democracy, while at the same time not transferring power to the elected representatives of the people. By refusing to take the LFO to the parliament for approval on the plea that the supreme court has already validated the controversial amendments. And by clinging to the belief that his position as constitutional head of Pakistan has already been regularized, because the referendum which was held, has been given legal cover by the LFO.

Eminent jurist Lord Birkenhead, and celebrated barrister, Sir Patrick Hastings would have thoroughly enjoyed the ramifications and complications of this legal hiatus, as they once did in the 1930s in Cambridge, when they entertained law students by reversing their roles of lawyer and judge.

The political scene in Pakistan is understandably a little confusing to the foreigner who has a completely different understanding of democracy. Currently, President Musharraf is holding all the trumps and it looks the status quo will remain until 2008, when a weary nation will once again go to the polls. How different things were four years ago when a grateful people welcomed him after the airport fiasco. He entered the country’s political scene like a knight in shining armour, making all kinds of exhortations and promises and spouting the usual cliches about how bad politicians are, as others did before him.

But at the end of the first year, he realized that it is extremely difficult to govern a people who don’t want to be governed. It was around this time when it became apparent that the military government was in no mood to combat religious militancy and sectarian disharmony. This is not to suggest that the president doesn’t have his admirers in this country.

There is a hard core of supporters outside the ring of privileged armed forces personnel, culled from a variety of people who believe he is still the best thing that has happened to this country, and who still fervently cling to the hope that he might still some day revert to his original form and clamp down on the anti-social elements who are destroying the fabric of society. The general impression, however, is that the law enforcement agencies are so deeply involved in hunting down the terrorists at the behest of the Americans, that they have no time to perform the functions for which they were initially hired.

The publication of my article ‘A League of their own’ evoked an interesting response. A couple of writers took the extreme position that even the worst kind of democracy is better than a benevolent dictatorship. But a few other emails carried a torch for the president. I am reproducing an extract from one of the letters written by Mehreen Anwar, who has made no bones about where her sympathies lie.

“I agree in essence with your thoughts but beg to differ on certain points,” was her introduction. “ It appears that you disapprove of the army’s role in our local politics but I ask, only referring to recent history, what major strides have we made economically and socially during the terms of democratically elected governments? The country has been on the brink of ruin these past few years and some semblance of normalcy has returned only after President Musharraf’s tenure.

“The streets aren’t deserted after 9 p.m. and we’ve exceeded the two billion export mark for the very first time in the history of Pakistan. This isn’t to say that I advocate dictatorship under any garb, but the fact is that our people have proved they lack the ability, borne of lack of education, to make a sensible choice. Besides, who has the charisma and dedication to lead the pack at this juncture?

“The MMA’s agenda borders on paranoia and misinterpretation of Islam. Can we rely on them to keep any promises and would the President’s ‘small gesture’ truly appease them? What will stop them from asking for other ‘reasonable deals’ after this? “

This is stirring stuff. But what the email writers have left out are details like — there has been no worthwhile direct foreign investment in the country during the last four years, and the growing foreign exchange reserves can be attributed to generous remittances from overseas Pakistanis who were frightened by some of the actions taken by the Americans after 9/11.

The president has inundated civilian posts with over a thousand military personnel which has disenchanted, among others, members of the civil service. People who compile statistics have pointed out that during the last four years, there have been more sectarian deaths than during the stewardship of Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif. If this is true, it doesn’t say very much for the efforts of the military government to curb the menace of sectarian strife.

Internationally, the president is also in a peculiar position. He is trying to project Pakistan to the Muslim world as a country which practises enlightened moderation. He hasn’t been able to convince members of the British Commonwealth about his brand of democracy as the country’s membership of this exclusive club remains suspended.

And he has not been able to convince the Americans about his sincerity to curb terrorism and religious extremism in his own country. That is probably why the Americans drag their feet whenever the issue of supplying sophisticated weaponry to Pakistan comes up.

Perhaps the president should spend more time at home and less abroad and try to come to grips with the fundamental problems confronting the nation. Foreign exchange reserves and exports are important, but surely not at the expense of social justice. If President Musharraf wants to be remembered as a liberator, he must, as a first step, get rid of the ugly, repressive Hudood Ordinance, which was introduced by President Zia-ul-Haq, who gave the word obscurantism a special meaning. It is this iniquitous, dreadful ordinance which, along with the practice of Karo-Kari, continues to project Pakistan as a barbaric nation.

Email: a-mooraj@cyber.net.pk

THERE is a story which has gained the status of a folklore. It goes something like this. In the early 1960s, Pakistan was seen as a model of economic development around the world, and there was much praise for the way the economy was progressing. It has been suggested by numerous economists and bureaucrats, that many countries sought to emulate Pakistan’s economic planning strategy and one of them, South Korea, ended up copying Pakistan’s Second Five Year Plan (1960-65).

Those who recount this story argue that in the early 1960s, Pakistan’s and Korea’s per capita incomes were more or less equal. On account of following that strategy, it is said, Korea ended up among the more developed of the developing countries, with a GDP per capita greater than $ 8,000 today; Pakistan’s GDP per capita is still only $ 460.

Even if this story is not entirely true, it does reveal a great deal of truth in the fact that Pakistan has been left behind in terms of economic development, by numerous countries. Many bureaucrats, planners and economists who have always felt the need to be overly patriotic, have reluctantly accepted the fact that many of the East Asian countries — the newly industrialized countries, as they were once called — have advanced to near developed country status.

This they have argued is a recognized fact — the Asian Miracle — and Pakistan should learn its lessons but not feel too discouraged by this trend. After all, it has always been maintained, Pakistan is well ahead in South Asia, and is the most developed of the three most populous countries in the region.

These Pakistani patriots have been particularly pleased that our growth rate and per capita incomes are way ahead of India. Little do they know, this is no longer true, and India has not just overtaken Pakistan, but is set to increase the difference between the two. Pakistan has surely been left behind, a fact that has major repercussions on the political economy of Pakistan and of the region as a whole.

In 1990, both Pakistan and India had identical per capita incomes, at $ 390 each; in 2001 for which the latest figures are available, Pakistan’s per capita income was $ 420, and India’s $ 460. It is probable, given Pakistan’s poor economic performance compared to India’s these last two years, that the difference has widened further. What is more suggestive, and worrying for Pakistan, is the comparison between India and Pakistan in terms of per capita income when we use a far more useful measure called the Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) figures.

These PPP comparisons allow a far better assessment of standard of living in terms of what people can actually purchase equalising for differences in prices. Pakistan’s per capita PPP income in 1990 was $ 1360, while India’s was $ 1380. In 2001, Pakistan’s per capita PPP had risen to $ 1860, a rise of $ 500 or 37 per cent. India’s PPP per capita in this decade had more than doubled and rose to $ 2820 per capita. Indeed, a highly impressive achievement.

This critical indicator, that of the per capita income, is only the first of numerous social and economic indicators which show the growing difference between India and Pakistan during the 1990s, a trend which has increased further these last three years, and is going to continue to increase, for some considerable time to come into the future. Some additional figures will support this claim.

What is particularly interesting is, that in the decade 1980-90, Pakistan’s economic performance measured in terms of growth rates in agriculture, industry, growth in merchandise exports, and even GDP growth, was better than that of India. In the 1990s, however, following both Pakistan and India’s economic reforms and liberalization — albeit done very differently, no doubt — India’s growth rates for the decade in all of these sectors (except agriculture) were not just higher, but significantly higher (often twice as high) in every single category.

Perhaps the most extraordinary difference in comparative growth trends between India and Pakistan is in India’s more than double export growth, and the four-times higher growth in new investment measured by Gross Capital Formation. Pakistan has had very little addition to Capital in the 1990s, a trend, which sadly, has been made even worse in the last two years following 9/11 and Pakistan’s role in the War Against Terror.

Since 1993, India’s growth rate has been higher than Pakistan’s in every single year, and in four years in the last ten, India’s growth rate has been double of Pakistan’s. This is not all. If we look at all the seven Saarc countries, today even lowly Bangladesh and Nepal perform far better than Pakistan, and this is especially so if we compare the 1980s. In the decade of the eighties, Pakistan’s had the second highest GDP growth rate after the Maldives. In the 1990s, Pakistan’s GDP growth rate was the lowest of the seven.

It is not just these ‘hard’ economic statistics which show how Pakistan has been left behind by other Saarc countries and particularly by India, but numerous other softer indicators also re-emphasize this trend. The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a good indicator of broad social development in a country and includes social indicators as well as economic ones. In the HDI ranking of 1991, Pakistan was placed higher than India and Bangladesh. In 2003, India is ranked far higher than Pakistan, as is Bangladesh. More importantly, Pakistan’s rank fell from being at 138 to the 144th rank in just one year, 2002-03, and Nepal and Pakistan are the only two non-African countries to be classified in the low human development group. Clearly, a most ignoble achievement.

There are numerous other social and economic indicators which re-emphasize the fact that Pakistan has been left far behind. Poverty in India, for example, has fallen from 45 per cent of the population in 1983 to 26 per cent today; in Pakistan it increased from 17 per cent in 1987 to 33 per cent today. Not only do the past trends show a worsening gap, but while we were just celebrating a mere five per cent growth in GDP for the first time since 1995, hoping to achieve the same rate this year, the Reserve Bank of India was increasing its earlier expectations to well above six per cent for the next three years for India.

The difference is clear: India’s economic growth has by far overtaken Pakistan’s, a trend which is unlikely to be reversed for some time to come. The implications of this should be obvious to all. It is high time that Pakistan’s leadership realizes this fact and starts putting its economic, social, political and foreign policy houses in order.

THE Norwegian Peace Prize Committee decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2003 to Shirin Ebadi, a jurist and human rights activist from Iran. She thus became the first Muslim woman to have received the Nobel Prize, which has acquired high prestige for recognizing outstanding merit in select fields that include mainly the sciences and medicine, but also cover literature, economics and peace.

The names that were being most frequently mentioned for the Peace Prize were those of the Pope John Paul II, whose momentous reign of 25 years appears to be drawing to a close, and Vaclav Havel, Czech statesman who personified the struggle against communism and dauntless championing of democratic values.

The choice of a woman lawyer from a prominent Islamic country ruled by hardline clerics that was once America’s surrogate in the region but is now included in the “axis of evil” by Washington carries a series of messages to Iran as well as the Muslim world. It also comprehensively conveys the assessment of Islamic culture and civilization in the dominant West. The biographical sketches presented of Shirin Ebadi describe her as the first Iranian woman in Iran to be appointed a judge by the Shah in 1974, a post from which the Ayatollahs removed her following the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

This decision by the Nobel Peace Committee has provided the media in the West, which dominate the field, with an invaluable opportunity to voice opinions about Iran, and Islam. Her dismissal by the Islamic Republic after its establishment in 1979 put the spotlight on its extremist and reactionary character.

Various Iranian emigres who were interviewed on western TV channels also underlined the fact that she had been imprisoned for a while on account of her role as a human rights activist, who sought in particular to defend the rights of women and children in Iran. This served to project the regime also as authoritarian and indifferent to public opinion in a world where human rights and specially women’s rights are receiving growing attention.

With the US having included Iran in the “axis of evil”, and now stirring up concern over its nuclear ambitions, the attention of the vast audiences listening to the western electronic media, and reading western newspapers is focused less on the lady honoured than on the country to which she belongs. All reports and comments point out that Iran stands accused of supporting international terrorism, and is being subjected to scrutiny by the IAEA over its alleged ambitions to develop nuclear weapons. There are even reports that Israel, which has already launched a pre-emptive attack on Syria, may now target nuclear targets in Iran.

While providing ammunition to advocates of regime change in Tehran (including the neocons around President Bush) the move also has the effect of encouraging the softer option of reform, and indirectly supports the 70 per cent of the Iranian voters who have been voting for President Khatami. Analysts point out that the way the constitution of the Islamic Republic is framed, the orthodox religious clerics headed by the Rahbar, Ahmad Khamenei, have the decisive say in determining the country’s internal and external direction.

The honour bestowed on Ms Shirin Ebadi is expected to boost the morale of the younger generation in Iran, that has participated in growing numbers in agitation against the conservative elements dominating the religious establishment. Though not against Islamic ideology, the youth of Iran has shown growing resentment over the dominance of the reactionary clergy many of whom they perceive as corrupt and an obstacle to the progress of their country, which could have been in the mainstream of contemporary trends.

By stressing that Ms. Ebadi is the first Muslim woman to receive the Nobel Peace Prize, the attention of public opinion all over the globe has also been drawn to the value system in the Islamic world, specially of its orthodox interpretations. These are seen to be discriminating against women and according them an “inferior” status.

Interviews on electronic media and write-ups in the printed word pointed out that Islamic Sharia does not permit appointment of women to judicial posts, and that the testimony of a Muslim woman in court is supposed to have half the weight of the testimony of a male Muslim. The chairman of the Norwegian Peace Committee stated in his announcement that he hoped that the selection would lead to the improvement of the human rights situation, and particularly of the status of women, both in Iran, and the Muslim world.

The popular perception in the West, following this choice, is therefore of an Iran that is dominated by a reactionary clergy representing an extremist version of Islam that violates basic values of democracy and human rights and breeds terrorism. The award also reflects the self-image of the West as representing the vanguard of culture and humanistic values, which continues to have the “civilizing mission” that was once used as a justification for colonizing the countries of Asia and Africa.

The current preoccupation with the threat of extremism and terrorism that resulted from the 9/11 events has resulted in a war being declared against terrorism, (perceived to be centred in the Islamic world), accompanied by a resolve to spread democracy and human rights to the benighted lands.

Thus the immediate political fall-out of this award is to strengthen opinion favouring a “regime change” in Iran, and to bring into the spotlight of the world media the “reactionary” and backward image of Islam. This has happened on the eve of the first Islamic summit to be held after the 9/11 events. There is already a strong undercurrent of resentment in the Islamic world against being targeted as the main source of religious extremism, and of terrorism, that has produced pre-emption by the sole superpower in Iraq and is being used to justify state terrorism in Palestine and Kashmir. How to react to this more subtle criticism that comes in the guise of an honour?

The Iranian government has cautiously welcomed the honour bestowed upon one of its citizens, who is not an emigre, but continues to live in her homeland and to pursue her agenda of reforms. Ms. Ebadi’s own reactions, apart from those of personal gratification, have been to emphasize that in her view, Islam is perfectly compatible with modern concerns over women’s right. She projects a gracious image of modesty, combined with good breeding and learning. If forces of reform in Iran feel encouraged, and their role grows in proportion to their popular support, that would be good both for Iran and its region, for that would promote stability and progress in this major country.