| March, 12 2005 | Saturday | 1 Safar 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Evolving NFC consensus
Abu Ghraib cover-up
A PRAISEWORTHY decision on paper, the government’s latest directive concerning heavy weapons in Fata is already being flouted. A notification issued on Thursday by the governor’s secretariat allows tribesmen to keep small arms for personal protection while banning the use and display of heavy weapons. The unrestricted use of heavy weapons, the notification said, especially their use in tribal feuds and against security forces, had been “a serious cause of concern”. However, our Fata correspondent points out, the directive was being flouted and tribesmen were moving around in vehicles mounted with heavy weapons that included anti-aircraft guns in bazaars and passing through security checks. It is quite possible that the directive might not have yet reached personnel at the lower levels and it will take time before it is enforced. However, experience tells us that such orders issued from time to time not only in Fata but throughout the country often go unheeded.
The truth is that the entire country is now a tribal area so far as heavy weapons are concerned. If these weapons were a Fata phenomenon, perhaps the security forces could have concentrated all their energy on the tribal belt and flushed out such arms. But heavy arms are available throughout the country. In January, the supply of gas to a large part of the country was partially affected when miscreants fired no less than 400 rockets in just one night on gas installations. Elsewhere in Balochistan we hear every now and then of rockets being fired at Wapda’s power pylons and transmission lines. Even as far away from Fata as Karachi, heavy weapons defined in the notification — machine-guns and submachine-guns, rockets and grenades — besides explosives and bomb-making material are as easily available as cigarettes. What is amazing is that the security agencies know where these are coming from; who carries them from Fata to elsewhere in the country; where they are stored, and who sells them and to whom. In Karachi alone, one knows that Sohrab Goth is one big arms market where anyone can buy weapons one wants. These do not come from Fata alone; Afghanistan is one big arms dump which serves as a major source of supply for Pakistani buyers of all sorts. The tragedy is that these arms are acquired not only by criminals; there are groups and elements who get them to maintain their well-armed militias. Sindh and Balochistan have quite a few of such armed but “secular” militias. There are also parties and groups which preach a very militant and sectarian version of Islam and have been carrying out acts of violence with the help of well-armed and well-trained cadres.
The notification of an order exclusive to Fata is, thus, not going to rid the country of the menace of guns. Let us hope the situation in Fata improves and Thursday’s notification is efficiently enforced. Since the issue concerns the whole country, not only should the government acquire heavy weapons through its “buy back” programme, it must also seal off all routes through which arms flow into the rest of the country. The security agencies — and we have a plethora of them — obviously need to do more. Some of those patronizing gun running have political influence. This inhibits the security agencies’ ability to lay hands on them. It is here that the government has to put its foot down and bring to book anyone violating the law, no matter how powerful.
PROSPECTS for a settlement of the National Finance Commission award prior to the federal budget later this year seem to have brightened. The basis for this optimism is, first, the statement made by President Pervez Musharraf recently that he had asked the government to finalize a new NFC award on the basis of a 50:50 share between the centre and the provinces. This has been a long-standing demand of the provinces. Now, reinforcing this is a statement by PML leader Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain that the Waseem Sajjad report on Balochistan has recommended distribution of revenues on the basis of poverty, backwardness, unemployment and law development level of provinces instead of population as the only basis — a bone of contention between Punjab and the smaller provinces.
The sharing of federal revenues is a subject that needs to be settled in a manner that is acceptable to all. Punjab’s position in sticking to a one point criterion should be modified as should Sindh’s demand to include revenue collection as a criterion — an advantage it enjoys mainly because of Karachi being the country’s only port which the country’s import and exports needs and collects revenues on this score. To use the collection of taxes and duties as a major factor for a higher share in revenue sharing is unfair. Another point to consider in terms of development is that some provinces, like Balochistan, incur a higher cost for infrastructural and development projects because of the long distances involved. This should not continue to be a factor of disadvantage for the provinces concerned. One way to hammer out an agreement would be to consider the possibility of shortening its tenure or opening it to short-term revisions. One cannot forget the fact that billions of rupees in funds meant for development often lapse because of disagreement on a new award. One hopes that some consensus will be is arrived at in the next couple of months so that the provinces can plan their development budgets with greater confidence.
DETAILS of an internal US military report on the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in Iraq, presented before a US Senate committee on Thursday, seem to point to a cover-up. A handful of US soldiers who served as prison guards have been court-martialled and sent to prison, but the report, prepared by a senior US navy officer, has exonerated the Pentagon of any blame in the humiliation, abuse and torture that took place at US military prisons in Iraq. While it is not clear what evidence led it to arrive at this conclusion, the US soldiers tried for the torture of Iraqi prisoners have steadfastly maintained that what they did was approved by their superiors and that they were only carrying out orders to achieve the primary objective of holding the prisoners: to obtain as much information and intelligence as possible out of the detainees.
In fact, some reports in the independent US media have pointed the finger at US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for approving the interrogation practices to be used against prisoners taken by the US military not just in Iraq but in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay as well. While Mr Rumsfeld has always denied such charges, he has found it difficult to completely disassociate himself from the allegations, not least because reports of torture of prisoners by the US military have been quite widespread, providing credence to the belief that such practices have been sanctioned by higher authorities in the US government. After all, the White House counsel at that time, and now US attorney-general, Alberto Gonzales, was the author of a memo that sought to seek presidential approval of torture of those detained as part of America’s war against terror. And it was President Bush who publicly declared that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to such detainees. Given the obvious conflict of interest in conducting an internal military inquiry, it would have been better if the US government had appointed an independent commission to probe into the scandal.