| 22 October 2004 | Friday | 07 Ramazan 1425 |
George Bush's predicament
Nuclear power is back in vogue
The current political impasse
The Quran exhorts the believers to spend in the way of Allah from whatever He has given them. It emphasizes two kinds of spending. One is specifically termed as zakat the payment of which, at the specified rate, is obligatory on those who can afford it. The other refers to spending out of whatever wealth or substance one has got, which is not obligatory. This is evident from the Quranic verse (2:177) which speaks of both.
Zakat is payable once a year on gold, silver, cash, cattle and goods used for trading purposes. Its rate in the case of cash amount is 2.5 per cent of the total amount in hand at the time of payment. In the case of gold and silver, the rate is also 2.5 per cent of the total current value of the gold and silver in excess of a certain quantity in hand. There is yet another kind levied on the produce of land at a different rate called ushr.
Zakat may be paid directly to the deserving persons or may be spent on such persons through an institution set up for the purpose. The fact that the Quran provides for the payment of salaries of the persons responsible for collection and administration of the zakat fund, indicates that the system can be institutionalized where possible.
It was, in fact, institutionalized after the establishment of a Muslim state in Madinah when its rate was fixed. Persons were appointed for its collection, and its payment was made obligatory on those who were in a position to afford it, and arrangements were made for spending the amount in the manner prescribed in the Quran.
The Quran specifies the persons and purposes on whom and on which the amount of zakat should be spent. They are the needy, the poor, the salaries of persons who collect and administer the zakat fund, those whose hearts have to be reconciled i.e. those who have just embraced Islam, the liberation of slaves, payment of debts and fines on behalf of those who are unable to do so, sponsoring those who have dedicated themselves to serving and defending the faith and wayfarers (9:60).
As regards spending otherwise, rather than by way of zakat and ushr, neither the Quran nor the Sunnah prescribe a rate or mode - whether payment should be in cash or kind. But the Quran clearly indicates that only that much of one's wealth or substance should be spent which is over and above one's needs (2:219). Likewise, it specifically emphasizes exercise of moderation in spending, whether by way of charity or otherwise, when it says "do not tie your hands to your neck nor stretch them without restraint lest you should become blameworthy and left destitute" (17:29).
The Quran specifies the persons and purposes on whom or for which such wealth or substance shall be spent. They include parents, relatives, orphans, the poor, those who ask for it, wayfarers and the liberation of slaves (2:177 and 2:215). It means that the main object of spending in the way of Allah, whether by way of zakat or otherwise, as enjoined by the Quran, could be to meet the essential physiological, economic or social needs of those who are unable to meet such needs for genuine reasons.
For the acceptability of spending, whether by way of zakat or otherwise, the Quran lays down certain conditions. It says, "those people who expend their wealth in the way of Allah, and they do not follow their charity with reminders of their generosity nor injure the feelings of the recipient, shall get their reward from their Lord: they will have no fear and no grief of any kind" (2:262). In fact, spending in the way of Allah means that whatever one spends should be spent on the persons and for the purposes in the manner specified or prescribed by the Quran or Sunnah.
There is yet another condition for the acceptability of such spending and it is that anything that one may like to give as charity should be such that if it were offered to him, he would have gladly accepted it. In this connection the Quran says, "O believers, expend in the way of Allah the best portion of the wealth you have earned and of that we have produced for you from the earth, and do not pick up for charity those worthless things which you yourselves will only accept in disdain by connivance, if they were offered to you" (2:267).
A question that strikes one in this connection is that why should have Allah placed the obligation of meeting some of the basic needs of those who are unable to meet them for some reason on others when He Himself is the Creator, Nourisher and Provider of everything? It is true that Allah is the Creator and Provider of everything but the object of spending in the way of Allah, whether through zakat or otherwise, is not simply to meet some of the basic needs of those who are unable to meet them. The Quran repeatedly says that Allah is trying human beings in whatever He has given them (2:155).
Wealth is one of those few things that people love most. As the Quran says, "man is blind in the love of wealth" (100:8). Besides, wealth is generally earned through putting in great efforts and hard labour. If, in spite of that, a person parts with a portion of his wealth and spends it in the way of Allah, it could be only reflective of firm faith in the Omnipresence, Mercy and Graciousness of Allah.
He believes that whatever he has got could be given only by Allah and that whatever he spends is in response to the command of Allah. That's why the Quran says "you can never attain piety unless you spend (in the way of Allah) of that you love" (3:92) which could wealth.
Spending in the way of Allah could also be of great help in discouraging hoarding and encouraging equitable distribution of wealth in society. The Quran condemns the hoarding of wealth. It may also remove hatred and envy from the hearts of the have-nots towards those who possess wealth, and foster in its stead, a sense of goodwill among the recipients towards the givers. Besides, it is also likely to curb the tendency towards the commission of crimes in society as the root causes of most crimes committed are poverty and hunger.
That is why the Quran promises rewards, both in this world and in the hereafter, for whatever is spent in the way of Allah. It says, "The charity of those who spend their wealth in the way of Allah may be likened to a grain of corn, which produces seven ears and each year yields hundred grains" (2:261).
George Bush's predicament
The contradictions of the gap between the official policy and the popular will in Britain and the United States in respect of the US-led war against international terrorism has created a whole lot of complexities not merely confined Iraq. To make matters worse, the situation in Afghanistan, also an important battleground in the US-led war against terrorism, continues to be a matter of undiminished concern. Many countries, including Pakistan. affected by America's war are confronted with a whole lot of uncertainties and the outlook can only be described as grim.
Iraq continues to be an unending source of concern. Despite its superior military strength and enormous resources, combined with its capacity to resort to brutal methods (such as sending scores of people to Guantanamo prison without any concern for legal formalities), the US has not been able to bring Iraq under control. The military action in Iraq has already resulted in the death of thousands in the US-led coalition forces and scores of casualties are being reported almost every day.
The interim administration installed in Baghdad after the ouster of Saddam Hussein shows no sign of settling down. On the contrary, the full-fledged armed rebellion by a section of the Shia population led by Moqtada al-Sadr earlier this year led to some of the bitterest battles at the gates of some of Iraq's holiest cities including Najaf, and posed a real challenge to the administration in Baghdad.
It was only when a top cleric Ayatollah Sistani called for peace that the ferocity of the fighting began to simmer down. A western diplomat in Iraq has been reported as saying that Ayatollah Sistani brought the Iraqis away from the brink of utter devastation. As he asked the people to urge the Americans to leave their country without much delay he also advised them against revenge killing.
As the reports acknowledge, that was the only reason why there was no bloodbath in Baghdad, and Washington was forced to lay out a lengthy timetable for the US to abandon many of its designs for Iraq's future and also lay out a plan for returning the country to self-rule. Western observers are also of the view that "Ayatollah Sistani's objection to the American designs forced them to deliver a swift hand-over to the Iraqis."
They maintain that the Ayatollah is uncompromising in his call for prompt elections, and when the US proposed a complex caucus system he responded by putting 100,000 peaceful demonstrators on the streets to support his call for national one-man one-vote elections by January 2005.
Inside the US, the situation in Iraq has become an important factor in the race for the next president of the country, due to be elected on November 2. While most polls suggest that George Bush's position continues to be quite stable, it is also said that Bush's war policy has changed the dynamics of the presidential race, with Democrat John Kerry a serious contender for the presidency.
Robert Blackwill, the Iraq expert in the US National Security Council, is said to be working hard to put up a favourite as a counter to Ayatollah Sistani. The reported view of a western diplomat is that Sistani is the most moderate ayatollah in sight and the US needs to see eye to eye with him on basic political steps. According to the Associated Press, Iraq and terrorism are dominating voters' attention in the final weeks before the date for the presidential elections in the US.
In Britain, President Bush's close ally Prime Minister Tony Blair also appears to be facing an extremely tough time. The massive anti-war rally in London last week was primarily targeted against Tony Blair and his Iraq policy. There were countless banners and placards calling upon Blair to quit and to pull the British troops out of Iraq. They bluntly proclaimed: "Blair must go." A large number of Muslim women in hijab were conspicuous by their presence in the protest rally. According to unofficial estimates, as many as 65,000 to 75,000 persons took part in the anti-war demonstration.
The anti-American sentiment may have resulted at least partly from the suspected attempt by the American commanders in Iraq to use the British soldiers to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for them. The report in a section of the foreign press has suggested that the US military authorities in Iraq have been attempting to send British troops into the more dangerous areas in the war zone and that British commanders are resisting the attempt.
Ironically, it is not only in England that the culpability of the American establishment in precipitating the war in Iraq is being criticized. Within America also it is by no means perceived as a commendable development. Letters from common readers frequently appear in popular American journals questioning President Bush's wisdom in opting for war in Iraq.
President Bush has been called "palpably unstable" in the American media. What must be particularly painful to him is the observation of a Republican colleague, described as wise and experienced in the ways of Washington, who has been quoted as saying that "Bush may not be unstable but it was clear that he is manifestly unfit to be president of the US."
Nuclear power is back in vogue
"The worst possible nuclear disasters are not as bad as the worst possible climate change disasters," declared the Centre for Alternative Technology in Britain recently, urging "a modest revival of nuclear energy...to sell the idea to the sceptics." And while Europeans and North Americans are still reluctant to build new nuclear power stations, recalling the disasters at Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island around two decades ago, Asians have no scepticism: China plans to build two large new nuclear reactors per year for the next 16 years.
In the rest of the world, the number of new nuclear reactors under construction barely balances the number being retired at the end of their lives, but it's boom time in Asia: 16 of the 27 nuclear power stations now being built worldwide are in China, India, Japan and South Korea. That is largely because Asia has had no similar reactor disaster that alienated public opinion from nuclear power, but there are signs that European and American governments are also starting to reconsider new nuclear power plants.
Only a year ago, the whole nuclear power industry was facing a death sentence in the West. No new nuclear reactor had been ordered in the US for 25 years, and only one was under construction in all of Europe (in Finland). Indeed, a number of European countries that currently get much of their electricity from nuclear power generation, including Germany (28 per cent), Belgium (55 per cent) and Sweden (58 per cent), had decided to phase out their existing plants. The last-minute reprieve was almost entirely due to the growing anxiety about global warming.
In the past year, belief in the reality of climate change has passed the tipping point. At the same time, Russia's decision to ratify the Kyoto accord on reducing greenhouse gas emissions is making the idea of paying for excess carbon emissions a reality, which transforms the economics of low-carbon energy sources like nuclear power. $54-per barrel oil doesn't hurt the competitiveness of nuclear energy either.
In a world of cheap, plentiful fossil fuels and no worries about carbon dioxide emissions, the low capital cost and short build time of oil-, gas-, and coal-fired generating plants put the nuclear power industry at a huge disadvantage, and concerns about nuclear safety provided the coup de grace. But when oil gets expensive and future reserves get scarce, the shoe starts shifting to the other foot - and then rising concern about carbon emissions does the rest.
Nuclear power's 16 per cent share in global electricity generation saves around 600 million tonnes of carbon emissions per year. By contrast, electricity generated by burning fossil fuels accounts for one-third of the entire human contribution to greenhouse gases worldwide. The whole nuclear power cycle from uranium mining and reactor construction to waste disposal has a carbon emission cost comparable to solar power and wind power - so suddenly, nuclear is in.
The nuclear power lobby has leapt on this new argument for their product. "With carbon emissions threatening the very stability of the biosphere," says Ian Hore-Lacy of the World Nuclear Association, "the security of our world requires a massive transformation to clean energy." Well, he would say that, wouldn't he? But is this really going to push the world back into a major commitment to nuclear energy?
In many ways, the case for nuclear power today is a different argument from that of 20 years ago. Modern reactor designs are less complex and therefore safer than their predecessors, using fewer pumps and other moving parts, and far less of the pipes and cables where problems most often occur.They produce around one-tenth as much nuclear waste as older designs, and there are better methods of disposing of the waste. On the other hand, reactors take an eternity to build and their capital cost is immense.
Solar energy, wind and other natural forces can be exploited to meet rising demands for electrical power far more quickly: Britain hopes to be generating 15 per cent of its electricity from wind-power in the next five years. Simple conservation measures are even faster and cheaper. The Rocky Mountain Institute calculates that saving a given amount of electricity by using energy more efficiently costs only one-seventh as much as generating the same amount of energy through nuclear power.
So expect to see a few more nuclear power stations but not forests of the things. - Copyright
The current political impasse
The events of the last fortnight in Islamabad, which centred on the issue of whether or not the president should remove his uniform, were a sad reflection of the system under which this country is governed. The script had all the trappings of an early Kurosawa movie in which the thinking man is asked to decide, as Thasymychus was by Socrates over two thousand years ago in Plato's Republic, if might is right.
The cast predictably conformed to the script. Members of the opposition, temporarily united, each face eloquent of polite misgiving, directing a rising tide of angry protest, eventually ending in a boycott of the proceedings. The treasury benches, reinforced by a hard core of turncoats, some with a smile of satisfied malice on their lips, staring at the television cameras with that look of startled innocence on their faces, suggesting that what the opposition had been doing was in exceptionally bad taste. And finally, the speaker, embroiled in a battle with the opposition, enwrapped in a stifling intellectual smugness, secure in the knowledge that somehow or the other he will muddle through when he is hauled over the coals today.
The passing of this controversial bill was a foregone conclusion, especially when there was nobody in the hall to oppose it. One wonders, however, if the people who dreamed up the title couldn't have come up with something a little more pithy. "The Bill to enable the President of Pakistan to hold another office" is a particularly wordy and long-winded title.
The president, who has now been formally allowed to wear two hats, must be a greatly relieved man. Irrespective of one's political beliefs and views, one must admire his presence of mind in an atmosphere that has been fraught with panic. Though he must have had some anxious moments, he manages to keep up a cool serenity. Shaukat Aziz and the other loyalists have delivered, and so far as he is concerned, that's all that really matters. Unfortunately, for him and the king's party, not everybody sees it that way.
The crux of the issue is that members of the ruling clique , from the fringe thinkers who have suddenly assumed a para political role, like Sheikh Rashid, to the more seasoned veterans like Chaudhry Shujaat, who has achieved some of his most striking effects by adroit shifting of perspective, have rather quaint views about how a democracy should function and how a country's constitution should be interpreted.
The nub of the issue is that the treasury benches believed they did not need a constitutional amendment to push through the controversial bill. This is something that could be accomplished through an act of parliament, by the simple process of counting the number of heads that nod in the affirmative. But it isn't all that simple. There are two Articles of the 1973 Constitution that militate against any such move.
There is, first of all, this nagging business about how to handle Article 244 which hangs like a millstone around the neck of every military man who has political ambitions. The crucial words are... "that I will not engage myself in any political activities whatsoever...". These words stick out like a sore thumb, and it is not at all clear how the minister of law proposes to tackle the problem.
This is not all. There is a much more pressing legal issue, which was recently pointed out in an article by Shujaat Ali Khan in this newspaper. An apparent paradox exists which appears to have been completely overlooked in the heat of battle, and this is: the day President Musharraf gives up his army post, he stands disqualified from holding the office of president! This is because one of the clauses of the article under which President Musharraf is being asked to hang up his uniform, 63 (1) (k) also bars any person who has been in the service of Pakistan from being elected to parliament, unless two years have elapsed since the time he or she ceased to be in service.
The government, aware of the problem, has tried to wriggle out of the legal strait jacket by giving a special interpretation to Article 63 (1) (d), according to which a person is disqualified if "he holds an office of profit in the service of Pakistan other than an office declared by law not to disqualify its holder."
The crucial words are declared by law, and the government will certainly take advantage of this phrase. There is also Article 43 which inhibits the president from holding any office of profit in the service of Pakistan, or occupying any other position carrying the right to renumeration for the rendering of services. But the government lawyers are marvellously prescient, and one is certain that they will find the answers.
The king's party and their allies have built their case on three justifications, which have been trumpeted at regular intervals during the last 12 months. The first is safeguarding the national interest and helping to combat terrorism and subversion. The second is safeguarding the integrity of Pakistan. And the third is providing continuity to the government's economic policies and reforms.
The opposition sees the sudden emergence of these justifications as an afterthought, imposed for glossy relief on an argument that is wearing thin. After all, as Qazi Hussain Ahmed would argue, wasn't the president prepared to hang up his battle fatigues last December when negotiations were being conducted with the MMA for the safe passage of the LFO? Besides, why should one assume that only a president in uniform can uphold and protect the integrity of Pakistan? The third justification certainly makes a lot of sense, but even here economists in the PPP will argue the improvements are perceived rather than actual.
These are, of course, academic questions. The real issue is, like devolution, the parliamentary system is also not working in this country, and this is due to no fault of the opposition. The representatives of the PPP, PML(N) and the MMA in the National Assembly and the Senate, who are obviously sitting on the wrong side of the great divide, have now widened the spectrum of people they would like to see make a hasty exit from the scene , and have included the speaker who is seen as being grossly partisan and partial in his conduct of national affairs.
The opposition did consider mass resignations, after the PAI chief Tahirul Qadri threw in the towel, but ruled out the move under pressure from their constituents, and because they believed this would give the opponents a completely free hand. Certain saner elements in the government party, however, who perceived the ongoing confrontation might take some ominous and unexpected turn, opposed the privilege motion of Dr Sher Afgan Niazi who wanted to censure the entire opposition for violating the rules of procedure and breaking the speaker's microphone.
Opposition MNAs have been briefing delegations from a number of countries, including the world's largest democracy, India, about the political impasse. The delegates have listened patiently, nodded sagely and returned to their respective countries. The opposition should, however, be under no illusion that there will be any pressure from the outside world to set the record straight.
Emissaries from the United States, currently playing the role of the world's policeman, keep praising Pakistan's efforts to restore "full democracy", and the efforts President Musharraf is making in the international fight against world terrorism. Sorting out the legal conundrum in the country is probably the last thing Christina Rocca has on her agenda.
With the deck completely stacked against it, the opposition appears to have no other option but confrontation, and there is a very real danger that it might eventually take the conflict outside parliament and into the streets. This would be disastrous for the nation, for the last thing this country needs is civil strife of the kind one witnessed during the last days of Ayub Khan.
There is only one person who could bring a semblance of normality to the national scene, and that is the president himself. Nobody can doubt his integrity, his honesty and his cool-headedness in a crisis. It is up to him to find the answers and to restore the viability of the parliamentary system he had helped to restore.