| 26 July 2004 | Monday | 08 Jamadi-us-Saani 1425 |
Returning Afghan refugees
Waiting for more disasters?
After weeks of humming and hawing and periods of stony silence, the government has finally announced its readiness to send troops to Iraq. But it has said it will do so only if the request came from the provisional Iraqi government, other Muslim countries also contributed contingents, and if parliament approved the move.
It has been clarified that the time to take the issue to parliament has not yet come, but that the government wants to obtain the legislature's approval is welcome. A public outlining of the government's position had become necessary following a couple of recent developments.
First, Pakistan's ambassador to Washington, Mr Ashraf Jahangir Qazi, was named the UN's envoy to Iraq. This led to fears in many quarters in Pakistan that his appointment was a prelude to the dispatch of Pakistani troops to Iraq.
Next, on Thursday, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reportedly said Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi was asking some Muslim countries to send troops to Iraq. If that happened, then Pakistan, too, might contribute.
President Musharraf was said to have advocated an Islamic protection force created by the United Nations to provide security to the UN mission going to Iraq next month. News relating to these developments had created tremendous pressure from the opposition for the government to come clean on the issue.
Despite the safeguards outlined by Islamabad, the issue has many other implications. Any country sending troops to Iraq while it is under occupation would be seen as collaborating with the US.
Protecting the UN mission is a narrow, though important, step, and there is little evidence to suggest that the Iraqi resistance's attitude to a UN presence has changed in any significant manner since the killing of the previous UN envoy.
The larger issue is the fate of Iraq itself and the conditions prevailing there. That country must be salvaged, its infrastructure re-built, conditions of normality restored, and elections held to pave the way for a democratic Iraq.
All this can be done only when the US-led occupation forces withdraw gradually and are replaced by a UN presence with the broad consensus of the Iraqi people.
Nobody then would object to Islamabad sending its troops to Iraq to help in establishing peace, security and law and order. Sending troops now when Iraq is still under occupation would still be seen as helping the occupying powers.
The transfer of power on June 28 was no more than a formality - a smokescreen to hide the reality of power. Mr Paul Bremer, the US proconsul, might have flown back home after handing in a letter to Mr Allawi, formally transferring sovereignty to Iraq, but nearly 140,000 troops are still present in the country.
In fact, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said last Wednesday that he could send more troops to Iraq. A withdrawal timetable does not appear to be on the cards at all, and Washington's intentions are suspiciously vague, making the occupation look open-ended.
Genuinely free elections can be held only when the occupation ends and a UN-led administration holds polls under a UN peacekeeping force. It is only when such conditions exist that Pakistan can consider contributing its soldiers.
Given the government's preponderance in parliament, its approval would not be difficult to get. But the correct decision, based on an independent and objective assessment of the Iraqi situation in its totality, must first be made.
Returning Afghan refugees
The military operation in South Waziristan has led thousands of Afghan refugees in the vicinity to return home sooner than expected. While the prospect of the refugees going back to their country has long been the desire in Pakistan, their departure this time did not take place under ideal circumstances.
Many had only a few hours to pack their belongings and had little time to contact relatives in other parts of the country to apprise them of their travel plans. Most would also not have been able to avail themselves of the UN refugee agency's assistance in repatriation that many returning families have taken advantage of.
Indeed, the number of Afghan refugees who have already returned under a voluntary repatriation programme under UN auspices this year has crossed the 100,000 mark, and it is expected that this figure will go up to half a million by December.
The South Waziristan exit notwithstanding, it is believed that the bulk of the Afghan refugees in the country would prefer to stay on, even though they would, in all probability, continue to live under squalid, often appalling, conditions.
This is not surprising, given the worse state of underdevelopment, unemployment and insecurity that exists in Afghanistan, where private militias occupying the land of those who fled are unwilling to give it back to the rightful owners.
Also, the postponement of elections for reasons of insecurity has filled the refugee population with serious doubts about the stability and power of the regime in Kabul.
If repatriation is to be stepped up, Afghanistan and its international supporters will have to do much more to create a congenial political and security environment in that country.
A good start can be made by extending the writ of the present administration to those areas where warlords currently hold sway, and that includes most of Afghanistan. Only then can the law and order situation improve enough to convince the refugees that it is safe to return.
Waiting for more disasters?
Friday night's gas leak from a fertilizer plant in Multan, which left 24 factory workers unconscious, once again brings into focus the negligence on the part of industries and the government in maintaining safety standards and implementing laws governing the transportation and storage of lethal substances.
The leak occurred when the plant was put into operation after repairs. Reports that the management did not take steps to ensure the safe storage of its ammonia facility despite workers' complaints and warnings from the environment protection department need to be investigated.
This is not the first incident of its kind. Chlorine gas leak from a cylinder during transportation claimed two dozen lives in Baja Lines, Lahore, in early 1997. Similarly, a gas explosion in Hasilpur left 14 people dead in 1999.
There have been scores of other fatal cases involving gas leaks or fireworks blasts in urban areas of the country, especially Punjab, but the authorities never adopted long-term measures to prevent the recurrence of such disasters.
Nor has a survey been carried out to enlist the concerns using hazardous chemicals or gases. A survey conducted by an NGO in Karachi in 1997 identified nearly 100 chemical factories and sale points in congested areas of that mega-city alone.
Departments meant to oversee the trade in dangerous substances have not been empowered and equipped to discharge their responsibilities. Similarly, guilty industrial concerns have hardly been punished that can serve as a warning for others.
The government cannot absolve itself of its responsibilities merely by giving compensation to families of victims or by setting up inquiry committees. Money cannot mitigate the sufferings of gas leak victims.
Besides taking long-term measures at the national level, what the government needs to do is to involve the general public in ensuring a check on the storage and transportation of toxic and inflammable substances.
Neighbourhoods will be much safer if people are made aware of the hazards of poisonous chemicals and rules governing their transportation and storage are properly enforced.