| 05 April 2004 | Monday | 14 Safar 1425 |
Women's right to contest polls
Courting Karimov
Faced with insecurity rooted in India's rejection of the two-nation theory that was the basis of Pakistan, successive governments in Pakistan have sought to safeguard the country's sovereignty and independence by developing security arrangements with other major powers. The US, which has been the richest and most powerful country in the world since the Second World War, has been favoured as an ally over the years.
The cold war having broken out soon after World War II, the US began to build up an alliance system, starting with Nato in 1949. The success of the communist revolution in China in that same year gave a tremendous jolt to the West.
After the Republican victory that brought General Eisenhower to the White House in January 1953, his Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, began cobbling together a set of military alliances along the soft underbelly of the communist world in the Middle East and Asia.
South Asia, that shared a long frontier with China and was geographically close to the Soviet Union, assumed special importance in the effort to contain the threat of communist expansion.
Dulles first headed for New Delhi, capital of the largest country in the region. However, Prime Minister Nehru set great store by his links to the socialist countries, and was also anxious to play an independent role as the leader of a third force in the world.
Dulles then went to Pakistan where he found greater receptivity to the idea of a military pact with the US that would facilitate both security and development.
With the army under General Ayub already exercising a decisive role on such matters, Pakistan not only joined SEATO in 1954 but also the Baghdad Pact, in 1955, and became the bridge between the two alliances. When Ayub Khan visited the US in 1959, after having assumed power the year before, he underlined Pakistan's importance to the West by calling his country the "most allied ally" of the US.
The years between 1954 and 1961 marked the heyday of the alliance relationship, when both economic and military aid flowed in from the US. The cold war rivalry was at its height, with the Soviet Union using its ideology, supposedly based on socialism, to attract the countries in Asia and Africa that were gaining independence.
There was intense competition in the military field, and when the Soviet Union won the race for launching a satellite, the "sputnik", in 1957, it appeared that Moscow had overtaken the US. Within a year, the US also launched a satellite of its own.
At this stage of the cold war, maintaining surveillance over parts of the Soviet Union that were closer to South Asia, notably the space launching facilities in Kazakhstan, became quite important.
The base provided by Pakistan to the US near Peshawar at Badaber became crucial for keeping track of Soviet advances. When an American U-2 spy plane that had taken off from this base was shot down over Central Asia in the summer of 1960, the Soviet Union not only protested to Washington, but Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev threatened to use missiles against the base in Pakistan if such flights continued.
This US-Soviet confrontation was also reflected in the US-Pakistan alliance on the one hand, and a growing Indo-Soviet strategic convergence on the other.
The election of John F. Kennedy to the White House brought about a shift, as the young president was an indophile, who attached importance to cultivating closer relations with India. The course of events in the region also brought India and the US closer, as the boundary dispute between India and China became heated up, with India seeking to capitalize on China's tense relations with both the superpowers.
When Indian forces sought to follow a "Forward Policy"along the frontier with China, a clash resulted in the autumn of 1962, in which India was humiliated. Both the US and Britain rushed arms to India, without consulting their ally Pakistan.
Feeling abandoned by its western allies, Pakistan proceeded to improve relations with China, which alone provided diplomatic and military support during the 1965 conflict over Kashmir. The end of the policy of relying exclusively on the US and the West marked the maturing of Pakistan's foreign policy, and the next few years saw the relations with both the major communist powers, China and the Soviet Union, improve significantly.
In the early 1960s, the US perceptions on China were still shaped by the experience of the Korean War when Beijing had intervened on the side of North Korea, and thousands of American soldiers had died, while many were held as prisoners of war.
The US, therefore, reacted unhappily to Pakistan's rapprochement with China following the signing of the Boundary Accord between the two countries in 1963. When Pakistan provided an air link for China to the outside world in 1964, the US showed its displeasure by cancelling aid earmarked for improving the Dhaka airport. In 1965, the US postponed the annual Aid to Pakistan consortium meeting to show further disapproval of its emerging friendly relations with China.
The continued estrangement during the Johnson administration was reflected in the embargo on arms supplies applied to both Pakistan and India after the latter crossed the international frontier on September 6, 1965, following outbreak of fighting in the disputed territory of Kashmir. The embargo affected Pakistan much more adversely, as India had other sources available. Pakistan therefore turned to China for military hardware.
Following the election of Richard Nixon to the White House in 1969, the US saw the wisdom of a rapprochement with China, in order to capitalize on the Sino-Soviet split. Pakistan's close relations with China became an asset, and Islamabad played the role of an intermediary in this historic turn in US foreign policy.
Though a "tilt" towards Pakistan replaced the hostility of the Democratic administrations of Kennedy and Johnson, the US played a role during the East Pakistan crisis of 1971 that was not in keeping with the alliance relationship.
Nor was the US attitude over India's nuclear ambitions that were exposed following its "peaceful" explosion of 1974 even-handed. As Pakistan launched efforts to develop nuclear deterrence, a discriminatory policy came to light. The Carter administration imposed sanctions on Pakistan in early 1979, over its nuclear programme, when both economic and military aid was suspended.
The alliance relationship suddenly acquired a new life after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late December of that year. A decade of close political and military cooperation followed, as Pakistan became the frontline state against this audacious intervention by what President Reagan designated as the "evil empire".
However, no sooner had Moscow withdrawn from Afghanistan, and conceded defeat in the cold war than the rules changed again, and the stringent sanctions of the Pressler Law were imposed on Pakistan. With additional sanctions imposed in 1998 over its nuclear tests, and in 1999 over the military take-over, Pakistan became the "most sanctioned" state.
Just as the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan had made Pakistan an indispensable frontline ally in 1979, the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001 have turned it into a "major non-Nato ally" in the war against terror.
Given the overall reservations in the West about Pakistan's nuclear programme, some policy-makers would have favoured availing the terrorist outrage for pre-emptive attacks against the sole Islamic country having nuclear weapons. But with Al-Qaeda located in Afghanistan, under the protection of the extremist Muslim Taliban regime, the priority for the US was to neutralize the source of organized terrorism.
Once the military government in Pakistan joined the US as an ally in the war against terrorism, its steadfastness and determination in extending the maximum support could not fail to earn high praise.
No less important was the role President Musharraf took upon himself to fight religious extremism within the country, and to create a model of moderation and tolerance within the Islamic world.
Pakistan not only banned extremist Muslim militant organizations within the country, but also moved decisively against militant individuals and groups, handing over 500 suspects to the US, including some of the top organizers of terrorism against the West.
With its Iraq venture going badly, success in fighting terrorism in Afghanistan became central to the Bush campaign for re-election. The decision to name Pakistan as a "major non-Nato ally" is designed to obtain the maximum support from Pakistan, which controls the tribal area along the border with Afghanistan.
In committing Pakistani armed forces in this area, President Musharraf has taken a major risk as many militants have sought sanctuary with the Pathans whose code of honour requires that persons under one's protection must be defended at all costs.
The designation of Pakistan as a "major non-Nato ally" does bring some short term benefits, such as access to some military equipment previously denied to Pakistan, though delivery of F-16 fighters is not assured. Participation in military exercises and training facilities for its armed forces would also serve to upgrade the military capability of Pakistan, while the country has also been included among the powers that would patrol the Arabian Sea.
India's initial alarm over the announcement of the alliance relationship with Pakistan by Secretary of State Colin Powell was related to the absence of any advance intimation during his earlier visit to India. However, the reaffirmation by the State Department of the strategic relationship with India has publicly removed any doubts that India has been sidelined.
In fact, India rejected the offer of a similar status, supposedly to demonstrate its independence of approach. It is well established that the developing strategic partnership with India is considered crucial to the long-term US objectives of containment of China.
Pakistan as a "major non-NATO ally" is likely to have a short-term role in the US goals in the region, currently focused on operations against Al Qaeda and Taliban elements who have taken shelter in the mountains along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan's tribal belt.
These operations, repeatedly urged by the US, have not only resulted in heavy casualties but are also deeply resented by the tribes there, which have enjoyed internal autonomy since British times.
They are likely to leave a legacy of hostility and mistrust that will damage relations between the federal government and the Pashtuns, who constitute the majority in NWFP and Baluchistan.
Another price paid by Pakistan to earn US approval has been the investigation it has conducted against its leading nuclear scientists who are regarded as heroes by the people of Pakistan.
It is possible that the US may change its stance again after the 2004 presidential election, and adopt a more proactive policy against countries holding WMDs in the Islamic world. As many US analysts point out, the importance of the "ally" status is symbolic.
The conferment of this title on Pakistan has not upset China, which understands the long-term US game plan that will eventually seek Indian support in its goal of containment of China.
Pakistan's role for the moment relates primarily to the election strategy of Bush who wants quick results in Afghanistan in the war against terror to boost his chances. With their experience of ups and downs in US policies over the past half-century, the people of Pakistan are unlikely to be overly impressed with the title of "major non-Nato ally".
Women's right to contest polls
Last week I came to know about two events that greatly saddened me. The first was about the gruesome rape of a nine-year-old peasant girl, allegedly by a member of a family which wields considerable influence in Gujranwalla district.
The incident, by itself, would not have raised too many eyebrows. One is used to reading about the molestation of minors which, while it might titillate jaded appetites and provide a vicarious thrill to the pedophiliac, invariably ends up just another unpleasant statistic for the crime reporter of a newspaper.
But what made this case different from the others was the way the local government authorities handled the issue. The girl's father went through the usual motions. An FIR was filed.
The local police did their bit by offering the usual words of sympathy and regret. The child, bleeding and in shock, along with her bloodstained clothes, was taken to the female medical officer in Gujranwalla, and subsequently deposited in the District Headquarters Hospital for a medical examination.
Both functionaries, with a robust estimation of their ability, also went through the motions, sombre, learned and thorough in a rural sort of way. They issued reports that grossly falsified the victim's medical condition. What this meant, in effect, was that a vital piece of evidence which could have been used by the victim and her family to prosecute a case against the rapist, had been wilfully denied.
The case, however, had a happy ending, if one could call it that. The family, determined to seek justice, plodded on for eight tension filled months. They knocked on a number of official doors, including the one used by the Punjab health secretary, and were rebuffed everywhere they went.
Finally, a certain amount of dramatic tension, coiled like a watch spring, was suddenly released. Human rights activists got into the act, and with help from the high court, a provincial medico-legal board went into session and determined that the victim had, indeed been raped.
While writing these lines I remembered the old Persian saying about Delhi being far away. It was supposed to have been uttered by a Mughal king when an invading army was attacking India.
For the poor peasant girl and her family Delhi is still a long way away, because influential people invariably have financial resources, and are in a position to hire lawyers with a successful track record. The good news is that the human rights lawyers are on her side, and some of them have also been successful in obtaining justice I just can't wait to see how it all ends.
What is so unfortunate is that instead of helping unfortunate victims who suffer such indignities, government machinery is often manipulated and used to protect the very people accused of perpetrating atrocities on helpless victims. This is not peculiar to Punjab.
It happens in all the four provinces. But this incident did make me wonder why the governor and chief minister of the province didn't react when such news came down the pike. I know Nawaz Sharif would have reacted had he been in power. Don't poor people also have rights under the law?
The other issue which saddened me was when I read recent news reports about the alarming decision that had been taken by several political parties to bar women from contesting the local bodies by-elections in Lower Dir in the NWFP. This blatant attempt to prevent women from participating in the political process is not just an obvious violation of fundamental human rights, it is also a repudiation of the equality guaranteed to women in the 1973 Constitution.
The plea that is invariably advanced is that there is a time-honoured tradition in the Frontier that there are certain things that women are supposed to do, and things that they are not supposed to do. And one of the things that falls into the second category is political activity.
According to the elders who rule the roost in Peshawar, Dir and Mardan, and who have obviously not heard of Mrs Emily Pankhurst and the Suffragette movement which took place in England, the place of the woman is in the home. Women can teach girls the 3Rs and yank out a loose, infected molar. And they can take up briefs and appear in court. But they cannot sit with men in the assembly and decide the political fate of the people of the province.
One of the falsehoods that was spread in this report, was that the NWFP wing of the PPP was a party to this decision, which subsequent research has shown to be untrue. Not only was the PPP secretary-general of that district not present at the signing of this accord, the action was widely rejected and condemned by the rank and file.
As a matter of fact, as soon as the issue was brought to the attention of the chairperson of the PPP, an immediate enquiry was ordered, in case there had been any deviation from party policy.
All reports from the NWFP party president and other office-bearers stated that the PPP was fielding 10 women candidates from Dir district in the election scheduled to be held last week.
In Lower Dir itself, where restrictions against the mobility of women are perceptible, the same political party is preparing to field women candidates for the next local bodies poll.
Records show that in the last general local bodies elections in 2001 in Lower Dir, out of 204 seats reserved for women in the 34 union councils, 196 remained vacant, as only eight women managed to file their nomination papers.
In that election too, one of the religious parties now in power in the NWFP convened a meeting where an election agreement was signed on notarized stamp paper by the representatives of several parties to keep women from contesting the polls.
Many such agreements were signed in Swabi, Mardan and Dir districts by nazims and contesting councilors, where women were not just prevented from filing their nomination papers, in some areas like Lower Dir, agreements were actually signed to prevent women from even voting in the general elections. In Malakand division, several religious leaders gathered together on May 27, 2001, to declare that the nikah , namaaz-i-janazah and all other religious rites of women candidates and voters in Dir would be boycotted.
To ensure that this boycott was enforced, these leaders declared that this ban would also extend to the families of all such women who violated the agreement against the participation of women in the elections.
Despite repeated appeals to the chief election commissioner and to President Musharraf to act swiftly to curb the boycotts and bans being imposed on women, no action was taken in 2001, and no action is apparently being taken now. And this is happening in spite of the fact that the Constitution of Pakistan guarantees every citizen the inalienable right to enjoy the protection of the law.
Under Article 4, the state is in direct violation of these women's rights. The political parties that are in the government backed alliance in the NWFP, are in clear violation of Articles 25 and 34 ( Principles of Policy ) which binds the state to ensure the full participation of women in all spheres of national life. They demonstrate, with unfailing relish, how the rights of women are being sacrificed on the altar of political expediency.
One can only hope that public awareness and pressure will create the kind of atmosphere to enable women to play a meaningful role in the political process of their province and country.
Courting Karimov
After a wave of bombings and attacks across Uzbekistan left 40 dead recently, the Bush administration quickly offered the strategic Central Asian state help in "fighting Islamic terrorism."
Uzbekistan plays a key role in White House plans to dominate key Central Asian oil producing states - the region I call "Petrolistan." The new US air base in Uzbekistan at Khanabad is the lynchpin of a network of American bases in neighbouring Tajikistan, Kyrgystan. Afghanistan and Pakistan guarding the planned pipelines exporting oil from the great Caspian Oil Basin.
Khanabad is a vital stepping stone in this new strategic "imperial lifeline" beginning at bases in Germany, Bulgaria and Romania, heading eastward to bases in Iraq and Qatar, then to South and Central Asia. The air bridge is designed to speed highly mobile US forces to trouble spots across the Muslim world, serving the same military function as did roads to Rome's legions and Suez to the British Empire's maritime power.
Uzbekistan, hailed by the White House as "our partner in the global war against terrorism," is a favoured US ally and aid recipient. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says relations between the US and Uzbekistan are "growing stronger every month." Russians, however, have long called the communist despots who rule Soviet Central Asia the "Red Mafia" and "Red Sultans." Aptly, because these regimes combine Stalinism's extreme brutality with the mafia's criminality, clannishness and rapacity.
The Bush administration's shameful tryst with Uzbekistan shows how the fake "war on terrorism" has allowed some US allies and vassals to massively abuse human rights under the banner of fighting terrorism. Numerous rights groups - most lately Human Rights Watch - accuse the brutal totalitarian regime of Uzbekistan's president for life Islam Karimov of being one of the world's worst abusers of human rights.
All political opposition parties have been outlawed as "Islamic terrorists," free speech banned, newspapers censored, mosques and religious institutions put under secret police control. My extensive travels across Uzbekistan, which took me from the grave of the conqueror Tamerlane in Samarkand to the fabled desert oasis of Khiva, revealed one of the most repressive police states I had seen.
Uzbekistan holds over 7,000 political prisoners in under unspeakable conditions - more political prisoners than held in the Soviet gulag during the 1980's. Human rights groups report that prisoners are subjected to electric torture, burning with blowtorches, boiling alive, gang rapes, acid baths, and other atrocities. Ironically, President Bush keeps trying to justify invading Iraq by citing Saddam's "torture chambers and rape rooms" while ignoring the horrors in Uzbekistan.
The Bush administration rejects normal relations with communist Cuba because of its sorry human rights record and political prisoners. Cuba holds about 350 political prisoners. The US's new best friend, communist Uzbekistan, an infinitely more brutal, despotic tyranny than Cuba, holds over 7,000 prisoners.
America's other allies and satraps across the Muslim world also tolerate no real opposition; anyone stepping out of line is immediately jailed. Patrick Seale, one of the finest journalists covering the Middle East, recently observed this has created a dangerous political void - and terrorism. Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas. "have stepped into the vacuum created by the failure of Arab governments to stand up to Israel and protect their countries from Western pressure." In other words, privatization of failed state policy.
An inevitable reaction to Karimov's despotic regime has been growing armed resistance by the Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan (IMU). After 9/11, the US wrongly declared the IMU a terrorist organization, attacked its Afghan bases, and reportedly killed its deputy leader, Juma Namangani.
The IMU, and other local militants, all branded "terrorist groups," seek to overthrow Central Asia's communist regimes. Washington has been blasting Pakistan over its black market dealings in nuclear components.
President George Bush urgently needs senior Al Qaeda leaders captured or killed before the November elections. So a deal was struck: Islamabad agreed to attack the supposed concentration of IMU and Al Qaeda militants in South Waziristan.
After a lot of wild claims about killing or wounding Al-Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri and IMU chief Tahir Yuldash, Musharraf's copycat war on terrorism resulted in the deaths of about 100 local Pashtun tribesmen, and dangerous unrest in the traditionally autonomous tribal belt.
Small wonder so many Pakistanis were deeply upset by the Waziristan raids, coming as they did after the back stabbing of old allies like the Taliban and IMU to placate Washington. The US seems to have learned nothing from the cold war, when all sorts of dictatorial regimes and massive human rights violations were condoned under the banner of fighting communism. Today, any group forced to take up arms against intolerable injustice is automatically branded by Washington, guardian of the status quo, "terrorists."The IMU, Nepalese Maoists, Hezbollah, Hamas, Kashmiri independence fighters, and Filipino separatists are recent additions. Talk about picking fights where no important US interests are involved.
Fighting Uzbekistan's Stalinist regime is not terrorism, it is liberation of an oppressed people. By supporting despotism for the sake of oil and anti-Islamic crusader ideology, the US is putting itself on the wrong side of justice and history. -Copyright Eric S. Margolis, 2004