| 07 April 2004 | Wednesday | 16 Safar 1425 |
Favourable winds of change
Polluting the environment
From the American perspective, the situation in Iraq has taken a grimmer turn in the last few days. Trouble in the so-called Sunni Triangle was to be expected. The horrifying images of the gruesome incident in Fallujah, long recognized as one of the most turbulent cities in the Sunni belt, was bound to have an impact on ordinary Americans. But the more enduring and far more troubling issue is the uprising of the followers of the Shia leader Moqtada Sadr.
The demonstrations, prompted by the closure of Sadr's Al Hawza newspaper last month and by the recent arrest of an aide of Sadr, took a violent turn in Baghdad's Sadr City and Kufa, and their reverberations were felt in other cities throughout southern Iraq. The death count is yet to be established but it seems certain that at least eight Americans, one Salvadoran serving under Spanish command in Najaf, and some 35 Iraqis died in the clashes.
From Basra to Amara and Nasiriyah and then to Kufa and Najaf, tensions have erupted pitting for the first time a substantial Shia force against the occupation troops. The demonstrators in Kufa were joined in full measure by the American trained and recruited Iraqi police officers.
They made it clear to inquiring reporters that the only writ in Kufa during those fateful hours was that of the nominees of Moqtada Sadr. This was perhaps understandable since police officers and men recruited by the Americans and the interim governing council have been the target of terrorist attacks even in areas theoretically controlled by the Americans.
Sadr's militia, the Mahdi Army, dismissed earlier as a ragtag collection of about 500 men has grown to a strength of more than 10,000 many of them raising slogans suggesting a willingness to accept martyrdom if Moqtada so demanded.
Moqtada's standing in the hierarchal Shia clergy is low but he has been able to capitalize on the name of his father, the late Ayatollah Sadiq Sadr who was killed in 1999 by Saddam's forces.
He has been termed, perhaps accurately, as "a populist, a critic and a rabble-rouser", but he clearly has the power to bring disaffected Shias out into the streets, and other clerics, including rival Sistani, do not think it politic to oppose him publicly.
Some 6,000 Iraqis have lost their lives since the so-called "end of the war" declared by President Bush last May. By April 5, a total of 611 Americans have been killed in Iraq.
Now that the Shias are out on the streets it would appear that prospects for an early restoration of peace have receded further as have those for an orderly handing over of the reins of government to an Iraqi administrative body by July 1.
Building on the adoption of the Transitional Administration Law (TAL) as the interim constitution is being termed, Paul Bremer, the US administrator in Iraq, announced the setting up of an Iraqi intelligence service and an Iraqi defence ministry apparently in preparation for the handing over of power to an Iraqi administration in July.
Steps such as this are, however, of little value until there has been some agreement on how the Iraqi administration is to be chosen. Bremer may have secured the acceptance of the interim constitution by the Iraqi governing council but the opposition at the street level is strong. A Shia clergy-run campaign against the legitimacy of the interim constitution has been gaining ground.
The UN's Lakhdar Brahimi, on whom the US is relying to pull its chestnuts out of the fire, has yet to arrive in Iraq. It is not clear whether, after the incidents of the last few days, he will even want to embark on what is becoming a more and more impossible task of seeking Iraqi consensus on how the administration that would take over from the Americans should be chosen.
Elsewhere too, the Americans are having little luck in persuading other countries to share the Iraqi burden. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell was rebuffed in Brussels last week when he urged the 26-member Nato alliance to consider playing a role in Iraq after sovereignty is restored to the Iraqis on June 30.
The Americans have cordoned off Fallujah in preparation for stern reprisals against the perpetrators of the American massacre. It is probable that this will trigger a new wave of violence in the Sunni belt.
The Americans are probably going to seek the cooperation of Sistani and senior Shia clerics to bring Moqtada to heel. It is quite likely that any such attempt will lead to a split in Shia ranks and the pitting of the Mahdi Army of Moqtada against the militias of other Shia groups. Certainly, prospects of disarming the militias, which the Americans were hoping to achieve, have become dimmer.
The grim situation on the ground is but one facet of the quagmire in Iraq. On the Al Qaeda front, President Bush is having difficulty in denying the charge made by a former National Security aide Richard Clark that his administration had not focused adequately on the warnings of an impending terrorist attack before September 11, and that after the attacks, had diverted its attention from the battle against terrorism to Iraq.
Clark's charge has been backed by his reference to a conversation with Bush in which the latter asked for evidence that Iraq and Saddam were involved in the September 11 attack.
At the time of writing, the testimony of National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice before the intelligence committee has not been recorded but it is fair to assume that her vigorous defence of the Bush administration record will not change the perception that Bush was obsessed with Iraq and did not pay sufficient attention to the impact this would have on the anti-terrorism campaign.
A few days ago, the State Department's counter-terrorism coordinator Cofer Black in testimony to a congressional body, maintained that some 70 per cent of the Al-Qaeda leadership had been eliminated. However, he went on to add that "several newer and smaller groups, made up predominantly of Sunni Muslims, are moving in to take the lead in the jihadist holy war agenda against the United States and its allies, which has complicated the task of stamping out the threat from Islamic militants." He also conceded that Iraq was a "focal point" for jihadists who were linking up with Sunnis opposed to the occupation.
While he did not elaborate, many in America are beginning to share the view of the former French foreign minister, Dominique de Villepin, who, in a Le Monde article, pointed out that "Terrorism didn't exist in Iraq before. Today, it is one of the world's principal sources of world terrorism."
There is no doubt that terrorist activity in Iraq has grown in tandem with activities in other parts of the world. Villepin is not alone in suggesting that the Iraqi occupation gave fresh impetus to terrorism or that American actions in Iraq provided a pretext for Ariel Sharon to terrorize the Palestinians and to fuel new resentments.
Cofer Black, were he more candid, would probably have had to acknowledge that the catalyst for the emergence of the new Sunni Muslim militant groups has been Iraq and Israeli actions in the wake of the Iraqi occupation.
At the same time, the Bush administration continues to be berated for misleading the world on the question of Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. A former National Security Adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a partisan but respected analyst has said, perhaps with a measure of hyperbole, that "The global antagonism towards the United States is much higher than before.
International mistrust of the United States is at unprecedented heights. And the United States is more isolated internationally than probably at any point in its history. You cannot be leading if you are misleading".
The New York Times, an opponent from the start of unilateral US action in Iraq, commenting on the WMD question has been equally forceful. It said, "No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors.
"Iraq's weapons programmes had been shut down, Mr Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks. The war in Iraq has diverted scarce resources from the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and other places."
In a poll conducted in the first week of March, a time at which Senator Kerry, the undisputed Democratic nominee for the presidential election was enjoying the spotlight, the erosion of support for Bush was quite significant.
Fifty-seven per cent of the people said they wanted the next president to steer the country away from the course on which Bush had set it. Only 46 per cent supported his policy on Iraq and 39 per cent did so on his economic policies. Later polls have shown a recovery for Bush but it would be safe to conjecture that the events in Iraq in the first week of April will have a significant negative impact.
The news a couple of days ago that new jobs have been added to the American payroll will give Bush some ground for claiming that his economic policies are working and that a drop in the unemployment rate can be expected to accelerate in the coming months before the elections. It appears doubtful, however, that the economy will show the sort of spectacular results that Bush desperately needs to offset the bad news from Iraq.
Saddam Hussein after his defeat in the Gulf War in 1991 had boasted that while he had survived, Bush Sr had failed to win a second term. It would be ironic though entirely possible that Saddam, from his American controlled prison cell, was able to boast again that even while he had fallen he had taken Bush Jr down with him. One can imagine him saying that Iraq is the graveyard for the second term ambitions of American presidents.
Favourable winds of change
Ever since its creation in 1985, the performance of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (Saarc) has been anything but awe-inspiring. In this regard, the main hurdle is Article X of its charter which reads, "Decisions at all levels shall be taken on the basis of unanimity, and bilateral and contentious issues shall be excluded from its deliberations".
Ab initio, this downgrades the importance of Saarc. India, larger in size, with more resources and power potential than the rest of the Saarc members put together, has repeatedly taken cover of Article X to delay Saarc's previously scheduled sessions. The noble vision and pious intentions of the founding fathers of Saarc to transform South Asia into a region of peace and prosperity for the poverty-ridden and toiling millions of this region has thus remained a fond hope.
For inexplicable reasons, India believes that Saarc member states may join hands to the disadvantage of New Delhi. However, its misplaced fears are firmly negated by history. It is a documented reality that on numerous occasions India's South Asian neighbours have been victims of her browbeating.
This attitude has hindered the smooth and uninterrupted functioning of the organization that has been prevented from utilizing its economic, industrial and other capacities to the optimum level.
Given this background, it was heartening that the belatedly held last Saarc summit in Islamabad ended on a positive note. This favourable wind of change is a healthy sign. The agreement on the South Asian Preferential Trade Area (Sapta) and the South Asian Free Trade Area (Safta) are hopeful indicators for the future. One hopes that the present upward surge in mutual ties will persist.
On the bilateral plane, India and Pakistan agreed on a roadmap for the settlement of all disputes including the one on Kashmir. Both countries agreed to initiate confidence-building measures (CBMs) to replace the antagonism and mistrust of the past with bilateral cooperation and trust in the future.
This demands vision, perseverance, patience and justice to accomplish. The amicable settlement of contentious disputes, Kashmir included, is essential to promote stability and progress in South Asia. Any attempt to play games on this issue may lead both countries into a blind alley.
The declared policy of India and Pakistan is to achieve durable peace and to promote the welfare of their peoples. Settling prolonged disputes is the best political option for both countries. In this process, CBMs have a major role. However, CBMs on their own may be unproductive unless accompanied by appropriate progress on negotiations towards the solution of all disputes.
The best results can be obtained if CBMs and bilateral negotiations go hand in hand. India and Pakistan have a long history of bilateral negotiations starting with fanfare but ending in fiasco.
Both may learn from the follies of the past and avoid illusions and setbacks. While one should be optimistic about the future it is foolish to become euphoric merely because of the prospects of starting the dialogue process.
The vast majority of people in both countries seek peace. There is also no dearth of extremists in either country who, under the guise of nationalism and self-serving reasons, become peace spoilers. They oppose the settlement of disputes on the basis of justice, fairplay and the will of the people. All well-wishers of peace in this region and beyond should expose these radical mindsets.
Given his long political affiliations with extremist parties that have thrived on anti-Pakistan slogans, many in Pakistan have strong reservations about Indian Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee's policies vis-'-vis Pakistan. They are not impressed by the carefully orchestrated media blitzkrieg in India and by strategic partners that project him as the soft face of a hard-line Bharatiya Janata Party.
Vajpayee, a shrewd and experienced politician, knows too well the virtue and the art of tactical necessity. Impartial observers in Pakistan shall judge him by his deeds not words. This is not to doubt his sincerity or intentions of peace.
But the people of this country cannot easily forget his previous incendiary outbursts. He needs to do more to convince Pakistan that his change of heart is genuine and his desire for an amicable settlement will remain even after the upcoming Indian elections.
Pakistan has shown pragmatism and flexibility that many in this country think excessive, even one-sided. While hoping for the best, it is invariably wise to plan for the worst. At present, the ball is in India's court. She must reciprocate in good measure.
Negotiations should be held and concluded on a positive note. Mutual trust will take a nose-dive if this is not achieved. If the people of Kashmir are continuously denied their legitimate aspirations of the right to self-determination, they could in frustration opt for a choice unacceptable to both India and Pakistan.
New Delhi, Islamabad and the power brokers of this age may rise to the occasion and realize that the colonial era is long dead and buried and cannot be brought back to life with the arrogance of power. The defenders of Vietnam humbled the US. Afghanistan taught a lesson to the erstwhile Soviet Union. The Berlin Wall fell. East Europe is free. But President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair remain stuck in a self-created quagmire in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Durable peace deserves a chance. Given the sincerity of effort on both sides, quiet diplomacy is a better option than political rhetoric for settling complex disputes. Both sides have made their positions amply clear to each other. The media will always be inquisitive and seek more and more information. This is their bread and butter.
Senior policy makers on both sides may like to be particularly selective in choosing words and phraseology while addressing audiences. Their question-answer sessions should preferably be restricted to at best four to six questions and this arrangement should be settled in advance. Political rhetoric is at times necessary. But when negotiations commence, diplomacy - open and backdoor - deserves much higher priority.
Prime Minister Vajpayee's recent election statement in Amritsar deserves attention. However, it may be assessed in its totality and not in parts. South Asia has waited for the amicable settlement of Kashmir and other disputes ever since 1947. Let us wait for another couple of months to assess each other's sincerity.
It will enhance their image if they rise to the occasion and transform their hopes into reality. The risk of failure is too great for them as it could consign them to the dustbin of history. The negotiations will indicate in which direction the wind will blow in South Asia.
At this crucial moment in history, Pakistan should demonstrate internal unity and complete solidarity despite differences over a myriad political issues. Such differences are a part of the democratic system. They are a healthy indicator that the political system is taking root in the country.
Let us prove by words and deeds that on all substantive issues - Kashmir, defence and nuclear assets included - the country is solidly united and the government and the opposition speak with one voice.
The writer is a former general of the Pakistan Army.
Polluting the environment
Environmental pollution is a comparatively new expression. Basically concerned with garbage, industrial effluents and contaminated air, wags are inclined to use the expression to cover the selfish deeds of ruling party politicians, corrupt practices of those with a clout, and the amoral behaviour of society's spoiled brats, not necessarily juvenile.
While pollution of the atmosphere may be rectified by public awareness of its dangers and strict government action against culprits, we are nowhere near doing anything to counter the ravages of the second variety. Sadly, many of us are included among them. However, they are not my subject today, for I notice that already they get the most attention from indignant but helpless newspaper columnists.
The provocation for this piece is a year-old report from Quetta that an official of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had named the city as "the second most polluted city in the world," the first, with the highest overall pollution being Mexico City.
There, we have missed the Guinness Book of World Records again. We could, of course, request Mexico City to slow down, just enough to let Quetta come first, but such things are not done. Not even to get into Guinness.
The trouble with pollution is that it doesn't bother the people. For them it is something vague and indefinable which newspapers write about and social workers talk about. It might come to mean something if their legislators, for whom they had voted two years ago, also laid some stress on its perils and the need to counter them, but they don't. Apparently, these johnnies have more important things to do, like polluting society with their shenanigans.
Just as in the home and your place of work tidiness comes after cleanliness (that is if you really are prone to tidiness) pollution in community life attracts attention long after the exercise of the penchant for civic cleanliness, if at all.
And if the public is not bothered about cleanliness, sanitation and hygiene, how will the turn of anti-pollution ever come? We have some of the dirtiest cities in the world. Their citizens have got into the habit and don't worry about dirtiness any more. So how can one expect them to lose their sleep over pollution? Quetta is no exception.
According to the EPA official, the worst offenders in Quetta were smoke-emitting auto-rickshaws stalking the city's roads in their thousands. They were responsible for 70 per cent of the contaminated air that the citizens were obliged to inhale.
He said that government vehicles discharging black poisonous fumes from their exhausts were equally guilty. Another contributor was un-collected garbage which, at the present rate, may amount to five lakh tons during the year. (How did he calculate that?)
The official's reported press talk was about Quetta a year ago. My information says that things have not improved but have rather grown worse. He also stated about the measures that the government was adopting to counter at least a part of the menace, thought they didn't sound impressive.
However, Quetta is simply a drop in the ocean. The state of affairs in all other towns and cities may be a little less worrisome but, by my count, it is terrible. The saddest part of the whole business is that, except for EPA experts or some local anti-pollution NGOs, members of the civic bodies responsible for keeping the environment clean haven't the faintest idea how to go about it. They think that if municipal sweepers are made to work hard everything will be all right.
For long years when I was in service, I had to travel a lot between Lahore and Rawalpindi on the Grand Trunk Road. Beside a number of smaller towns, the G.T. Road passes through the heart of two major cities - Gujrat and Gujranwala. Every time I hoped that some new deputy commissioner of the much-vaunted breed, the SCP, would do something about the disgracefully dirty and stagnating portions of the two cities that lay alongside.
Over the years, from hopes of beautification I came down to expectations of some cleanliness, but nothing doing. All that happened was that, for through traffic, by-passes were laid in the countryside, maybe to spare travellers from the sight and stink of the filth left by public neglect and civic incompetence.
I have seen that in our homes, generally, the drawing room and the dining room are treated as showpieces while the rest of the house, particularly the kitchen and bathrooms, are left to themselves.
In important cities like Lahore too, the main public thoroughfares like The Mall and Gulberg Boulevard are decked out as showrooms while the rest of the city wallows in dirt and filth of all kinds. But in places like Gujranwala and Gujrat and Faisalabad (another lingering eyesore) and even Rawalpindi city there is not even a showroom area. The only relief from decay and decrepitude is provided by the cantonments wherever they exist.
City roads can be a polluting factor if they raise dust. One of the worst some ten years ago, and brimming over with potholes and smelly puddles, was in Gujrat where my wife and I used to go to browse and buy in the indigenous pottery shops.
This road was the home of the famous political family of Chaudhry Shujaat Husain and Chaudhry Parvez Ilahi. They were not in government at that time but controlled the district council and the municipality. They are of course very rich. My wife always said, "In their place I would build up this road at my own expense." I don't know how that road fares now.
With this kind of lack of concern prevailing in the entire country at the highest level of education and social status, how much interest can you expect the public to take in environmental pollution? Only those of its aspects trouble the people that are visible, palpable and show their deleterious effects on community health, otherwise life goes merrily on.
That is why education in environmental pollution is so difficult to impart. The only sure method that occurs to me is to teach the subject in schools from the primary level and broaden its range and technical features in higher classes. This means years of effort, but it will be effort well invested.
Poor Quetta! Or rather, poor citizens of Quetta! Since I did not read of the EPA official's talk in the Urdu papers, most of these citizens must have missed his exciting disclosure that their city was on the verge of creating a world record. But then, considering their indifference to cleanliness and ignorance about environmental pollution, I don't think they were grieved by this close shave with international notoriety.