| 02 May 2004 | Sunday | 11 Rabi-ul-Awwal 1425 |
Torturing Iraqi prisoners
The country's flaccid political scene has registered some ripples recently. The PML-N leader, Shahbaz Sharif, has announced that he will return to Pakistan, and his party has said the event is imminent. The senior vice-president of the official PML-Q has accused his own leader, Prime Minister Zafarullah Khan Jamali, of damaging the party and said Mr Jamali should resign.
The PML-Q president, Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain, has ruled out any in-house change, saying that his senior vice-president's views were expressed without his (Shujaat's) consent, but that he would be taking up the issues raised with the prime minister. The PML-Q fracas arose during Mr Jamali's absence abroad on a South-East Asian tour - reviving memories of Mr Mohammad Khan Junejo's fateful 1988 trip - and against the background of persistent rumours of differences between him and Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain.
It is interesting that in his charges against the prime minister, the PML-Q vice-president included the Australian wheat rejection affair, an issue that some believe has been revived at this particular stage to provide ammunition against Mr Jamali.
We could let the PML-Q shenanigans pass and leave politicians alone to play their little games. But the pattern is depressingly familiar. Elections are held, governments are formed, sometimes new parties are cobbled together to suit the needs of the establishment, a year passes quietly, and then the petty-manoeuvrings start. In this particular instance, the only surprise is that it has taken so long for the PML-Q to start showing signs of strain, given the manner in which it was formed.
Another pressure point is provided by the coalition partners it has been forced to adopt to maintain its hold on parliament. The ruling party is beholden not only to the military but to its allies and rebels from other parties. Now the latter are trying to spread themselves, and they may have the quiet backing of those who believe that the PML-Q leadership in parliament has not been assertive enough to defend a weak case.
Ultimately what we see is rooted in our failure to develop mature political institutions and our persistent disregard of all principles of public accountability, probity and democratic dissent. Artificially creating political parties can only produce artificial results.
Mr Shahbaz Sharif's proposed return is also part of the general Alice-in-Wonderland quality of our politics. The nation still does not know the terms of the agreement under which he and his brother, the deposed prime minister, Mr Nawaz Sharif, had to leave the country. It was said that there was a ban on their taking part in politics for 10 years and on leaving Saudi Arabia. Then, Mr Shahbaz Sharif was allowed out for medical treatment in the US and is now in Britain.
The Saudi Arabian government has not categorically said whether, once out of their jurisdiction, he can travel wherever he wishes and can return to Pakistan. Our Supreme Court believes that as a citizen he is entitled to come and go as he pleases - subject to law. Government spokesmen say Mr Shahbaz Sharif will be arrested as soon as he lands and deported, but this would certainly mean making the 'exile' deal public, which the government should have done in any case.
It is said that scrutiny of passenger flights has been stepped up. It is also said that the PML-N leader has cases against him that could be reactivated. Naturally, his old companions from the PML-N, who are now with the 'sarkari' League, are also worried. It almost seems as if the whole system feels threatened by the prospect of Mr Shahbaz Sharif's return, although the reason is not quite clear.
Meanwhile, elder brother Nawaz keeps his thoughts to himself. And if Mr Shahbaz Sharif comes, can Ms Benazir Bhutto be far behind? Prime Minister Jamali on his return from tour has dismissed rumours of change, and said people should stop firing shots in the dark. But is something really cooking? As they say - watch this space for future developments.
Torturing Iraqi prisoners
The torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers in charge of Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison has understandably led to an outcry of angry protests and condemnation across the world. America, which sees itself as the moral policeman of the world and spares no opportunity to lecture others on human rights and democracy, has seen its soldiers caught red-handed torturing and humiliating prisoners in Iraq.
In its decision to invade Iraq and occupy it, America's main argument was and has been that such action was necessitated by the need to remove a ruthless dictator and restore human rights and democratic freedom there. Now, that argument, in the eyes of the people around the world and presumably among many in America itself, stands torn to shreds.
The pictures, some showing US women soldiers smiling at the camera and flashing a 'thumbs-up' sign at naked Iraqi prisoners, reinforce views held by many in the Arab and Muslim world that American policies on Iraq and the so-called war against terror are self-serving and duplicitous and will only cause further alienation among the Muslims. The British soldiers in Iraq too are guilty of similar excesses.
In fact, with such abominable and inhuman behaviour on display by what is portrayed as the best trained and most advanced fighting machine, even Mr Bush's closest allies in Europe will now be hard put to defend the conduct of the US forces in Iraq. One of the soldiers under investigation said that he was a prison warden when called for active duty to serve in Iraq and was not aware of the Geneva Conventions.
A serviceman of a country which has consistently sought a high moral ground is now hiding behind the absurd excuse that the soldier in question was not aware of the basic international law relating to treatment of prisoners of war. Either he is lying, or the training he received did not put a high priority on respecting the rights of POWs. Or, his superiors knew that this was going on and looked the other way, because the same standards that America prescribes for other countries do not have to be applied to itself.
In fact, even before such conclusive proof appeared in the media, leading human rights organizations, especially Amnesty International, had been saying that many Iraqis detained and later released by American occupation forces had complained of torture during interrogation.
While the US government has announced a court martial for seven soldiers, including a brigadier who was in charge of the prison facility where the atrocities took place, it will have to do much more before the rest of the world begins to believe that the occupation of Iraq will do the country and the region any good. Hopefully, Washington will realize that its doubled-faced policies are at the root of it all.
What is happening in Iraq is an extension of the inhuman treatment being meted out to detainees at the Camp X-Ray prison in Guantanamo Bay. They have been detained indefinitely on mere suspicion and it has been the studied policy of the US government to deny them even legal aid.
Such is the heady effect of unilateralism and its being today's sole superpower that the US has divested itself of all compunctions about the widening gap between what it preaches and what it practises when it comes to imposing its will on the rest of the world.