| 10 October 2004 | Sunday | 24 Shaban 1425 |
Going back and back
A fitting recognition
As the world is rocked by different brands of terrorism, it is not surprising that the UN Security Council has responded to the situation by adopting an anti-terror resolution on Friday. It calls upon all members to cooperate fully in the war against terror by denying safe haven to its practitioners and bringing to justice any person who supports or participates in the financing, planning or commission of acts of terror.
The original draft which was later modified had proposed a blacklist of the groups and individuals against whom action was to be taken. Attempts to define terrorism also ran into trouble, since it is now generally known that terrorism is perceived differently by different people, depending on which side of the divide they are on.
The problem with resolution 1556 is that when it comes to implementation, the unanimity it enjoyed on Friday may not prove very helpful. Pakistan and Algeria as well as other Third World countries which have been victims of imperialist occupation are concerned about the safety of the freedom fighters who have waged wars of liberation. By playing on semantics, the big powers can put them all in the same basket. Besides, blacklists can also be controversial for one man's meat might be another man's poison. Hence it is important that instead of having a blanket definition of terrorism, every case must be examined on its own merit. It is therefore important that the resolution provides for the establishment of a working group to determine which are the organizations which fall within the purview of this resolution.
No one would deny that terrorism has emerged as problem number one in the post-9/11 world. It is also conceded that effective measures such as freezing of assets of terrorists, arms embargo and prompt extradition of wanted men could help governments preempt acts of terror or take deterrent action to prevent future acts. But given the terrible and unwarranted destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan by the United States on the plea of rooting out terrorism and under the ostensible cover of the UN, the crucial issue is to determine who are the terrorists against whom action is to be taken.
The general fear in the Third World is that the resolution might be used as a cover by a big power to act vindictively against any country it wishes to punish. The United Nations should not allow this to happen. Nor should it serve as a handmaiden of major powers.
It is more important that the world body addresses the root causes of terrorism. In this context, the United States' assertion that root causes in no way justify terrorism may not be very helpful, especially if it is construed to mean that causes are not important. The Security Council should look at the areas where state terrorism is provoking retaliatory responses, as in the case of Palestine and Iraq, and a solution found.
Going back and back
The government has finally and formally come out in the open with a bill designed to enable General Pervez Musharraf to continue as both president and army chief. The bill is certain to be passed after a token look at it by a parliamentary committee.
Previous military rulers too kept both offices with them for varying periods of time and had this constitutional travesty later indemnified. Gen Musharraf too has retained his army uniform for five years, first as chief executive and then as president.
Parliament is now being asked to make a constitutional amendment or addition to legalize what was so far considered an aberration. It brings little credit to Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz and his elected colleagues in the National Assembly that they are voluntarily abridging the supremacy of parliament and the Constitution that they have sworn to uphold and protect.
It is not absolutely certain that between now and December 31, Gen Musharraf will not decide in favour of laying down his uniform. But even if he does take that sensible course, the ruling party's parliamentarians have shown how willing they are to undercut the sovereignty of the people. The bill is specific and restricted to the person of Gen Musharraf. But another unhealthy precedent has been set that will be available to future authoritarians.
We have over the years accepted many departures from established constitutional and democratic norms - arbitrary dismissals of assemblies and prime ministers, the doctrine of necessity, referendums and so much else. What, one may ask, does another deviation matter, particularly when it is to be brought about through parliament?
It matters because we take a further step backward in our political life and prove our incompetence to run our affairs in a democratic manner. What kind of a system is it that depends for its continuity, viability and stability on one person - and that too in uniform?
But this is not a question of one person: indeed the political debate has often become too personalized and we have missed the wood for the trees. The issue goes beyond Gen Musharraf. It relates to our lamentable lack of concern for institution-building that promises to keep us in a perpetual state of political retardation. There may be pressing calls on Gen Musharraf which he feels require retention of his uniform, the ongoing peace process with India being one, needing difficult decisions and on which he deserves full backing. But it is a tremendously weak and fragile polity that has to rely on the army chief and the military to remain afloat. It was not always so: it has been reduced to this state by Ayub Khan and the military men who have followed him.
A fitting recognition
In a refreshing departure from the usual, this year's Nobel prize for peace has been awarded to an environmentalist and, like last year's winner, a woman. The Norwegian Nobel committee's choice of Kenya's deputy environment minister, Wangari Maathai, is perhaps somewhat belated recognition of the fact that political leaders do not have an exclusive right to working for peace. It is also an acknowledgement of the essential link between peace, sustainable development and the right to a clean and livable environment.
Maathai beat 193 nominees for the prize, including apparent favourites Hans Blix and Mohamed Elbaradei. In the past, many winners were selected more out of political considerations or because they happened to be political leaders, and their selection tended to lower the credibility of the award. For instance, take the case of the 1994 award to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin. Ten years hence, the Oslo peace accord they signed and for which they received the prize is more or less dead and peace in the Middle East is nowhere nearer than it was in 1994.
Thankfully, Maathai's contributions are proven and significant. She is credited with starting a mostly women-based movement in Africa which sought to preserve biodiversity and to educate people, especially women and girls, about their living environment and their rights. Dwindling forests mean not only a loss in habitat for animal and plant species but also have substantial adverse effects on humans. In many poor countries, trees are a valuable resource not only for households, cooking, medicinal or heating purposes but also because they prevent desertification and infertility of soil. Hopefully, this year's award is a sign that people who use non-political and unconventional methods to promote peace in this world can expect due recognition of their efforts.