| December 15, 2003 | Monday | Shawwal 20, 1424 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Deadline not sacrosanct
A ‘feel-good’ factor
THE defence plan which has won the EU leaders’ approval at the Brussels summit will not prove to be as big a step forward for the Union as some of its members had hoped. Ever since six West European countries launched their economic grouping in the fifties, idealists had hoped that the European Community would eventually grow into a powerful political entity. Although the EU, as it has evolved over the decades, is a powerful economic force today, politically it lacks the clout its size and economic strength warrants. One factor accounting for this is that it does not possess an independent military capacity. The WEU, which was established in 1954, is merely a consultative body and has no military structures. Hence the EU’s move to establish its own common defence policy and a military planning cell promised to give it the teeth the organization needs to assert itself in unipolar global politics.
Not surprisingly, what has emerged is a mere skeleton of the autonomous structure for European defence planning and operations which the key sponsors, France and Germany, had envisaged. It was in the wake of the American attack on Iraq earlier this year, which the two West European states had vehemently opposed, that the concept of Europe’s independent defence came up. But as could have been anticipated, the United States staunchly resisted it. America has traditionally perceived any enhancement of Europe’s military power as a threat to its own preeminence in world politics. This is not a new perception. It was at the American insistence that WEU could not develop into a defence mechanism and Nato — where America has a big say in decision making — was assigned the role of safeguarding the security of the Atlantic alliance.
It has now been agreed to restructure the defence mechanism — beefing up the existing defence planning unit in the EU’s council of ministers and setting up a permanent EU cell in Nato’s headquarters and a Nato liaison office in the EU. But these may at best be cosmetic moves for a reassurance has been held out that the EU’s military planning cell will be used only as a “last resort” and Nato will continue to be the forum for discussion and “the natural choice” for an operation involving Europe. To appease the Americans, whose cause has been championed by Prime Minister Tony Blair, the EU leaders have assured Washington that the military planning cell would not be upgraded into a full-fledged military headquarters. If military action is taken by EU members, it would be conducted by their national headquarters.
That should, therefore, put paid to expectations of the EU emerging as a military power on the world scene. As it is, the future of the union would be determined by the decision the various member states and the members-to-be take on the voting provisions in the new constitution. It has proved to be the most contentious. With no consensus on issues of a political nature, defence matters have been set aside as they are not considered to be so crucial at present. But if the EU, which will grow into an unwieldy body of 25 next year, cannot operate as a compact political entity, cooperation on defence and security would be impossible to achieve.
THE December 31 deadline set by the National Database Registration Authority (Nadra) for the validity of old national identity cards needs to be extended. Judging from the long queues of people lining up for hours outside Nadra centres all over the country in the past few weeks, it seems that the rush to have the new computerized ID cards has reached a point where Nadra is finding hard to cope with it. This has affected the performance of the organization, which has otherwise done a commendable job considering the immensity of the task involved. So far, Nadra has managed to issue 32 million cards in a period of two years. While it has the capacity of producing about 100,000 cards daily, it is said that the backlog of applications being processed stands currently at over two million, and this number is expected to rise further as the December deadline approaches. The National Identity Card is an indispensable mark of identity. It is required in connection with different processes whether an application for a passport or a job or even for opening a bank account. Given that a large proportion of Pakistanis, especially those in the rural areas, still do not have the new IDs, it does not seem a practical idea to cancel the old cards at the end of this month as it will leave millions in a quandary.
One should take a practical view of the situation. While the deadline for the expiry of the old cards has been shifted before as well, penalizing the people for not possessing a new card by January 1, 2004, is neither wise nor practical. The deadline is nothing sacrosanct. What should also be taken into account is the fact that many do not have the new card for no fault of theirs. For example, complaints about mistakes in the particulars given, or non-delivery or delay in the delivery of cards by courier to applicants have grown over the past few months. In this manner, many people who have applied may still not get their proper cards by the end of December.
CALL it naivete or excessive idealism, but there is a distinct sense of optimism among many people this December as far as relations between India and Pakistan are concerned. A three-day peace moot, with as many as 260 Indian delegates, including intellectuals, journalists, activists, film-makers, actors and writers taking part, got off to a start in Karachi on Friday with calls for an easier visa regime between India and Pakistan and disarmament. For the more optimistic, the increased people-to-people contacts seem to have acquired heady dimensions. Those for peace in both countries are now asking whether such positive developments will actually motivate Islamabad and New Delhi to change, once and for all, the course of their till-now conflict-ridden and adversarial relationship. Such an expectation is not hoping for the impossible. The people of both nations have had enough, and even those in power on either side have acknowledged in public that a confrontational approach is proving to be a drain on their economies and holding back their true socio-economic potential.
The increased contacts, though for now limited mainly to the elites of both countries, have created a distinct ‘feel-good’ environment. For a moment it seems as if there is nothing, not even the visa offices of the respective high commissions, holding back people-to-people exchanges between Pakistanis and Indians. But what does this all really mean? Is it a sign of even better tidings ahead for Indians and Pakistanis? Will ordinary Pakistanis be able to get an Indian visa with ease and vice versa, or will everything go back to square one once the delegations leave and the conferences end? The cynical will probably say that they have seen all this before without any meaningful outcome. Thankfully, though, there are many who think otherwise. They are not willing to give up on peace and are giving expression to their convictions acting in various ways. One can only hope and wish that their governments will pay heed to what they have to say.