| September 18, 2005 | Sunday | Sha'aban 13, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Contaminated water deaths
Misery unending for Sonia Naz
Afghan poll: some misgivings
To protect and defend
BEFORE discussing the implications of the forthcoming elections for Afghanistan and the Afghan people, it is necessary to make one thing clear that it is not for the first time that the Afghans will be electing their representatives through adult franchise as is being made out by some apologists who would make us believe that in fact it is the American invasion and occupation that has brought to that country the twin blessings of elections and female education.
MR Shaukat Aziz’s views on Israel, expressed at a press conference in Islamabad on Friday, constitute a reiteration of Pakistan’s known position on the question of recognizing the Jewish state. A fresh enunciation of Islamabad’s policy on the issue was needed because President Pervez Musharraf had a “chance meeting” with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York on Wednesday. This and the epoch-making Istanbul contact between the two foreign ministers have led to speculation of all sorts and to criticism and praise at home and abroad. The popular reaction in Palestine was negative, while at home the religious right and the two mainstream opposition parties joined hands to give a call for a nationwide strike against the contact with Israel and warning against recognition.
On Friday, the prime minister said that the Istanbul meeting was merely an “engagement” with Israel. He denied that the two meetings were a prelude to recognition and ruled out the possibility of trade with Israel. The high-level contacts should lead to inter-faith harmony, he said, and emphasized that Pakistan would recognize the Jewish state only after a Palestinian state had emerged. This has been Pakistan’s principled position on the issue, and the prime minister has done well to reassure all that recognition is not on the cards.
In considering an Israel’s recognition, certain historical facts need to be taken into account. First, Israel came into being through terrorism and has survived through state terrorism. Two, Israel is the only country in the world without a fixed border. Three, as pointed out by Edward Said, Israel is a state not of its citizens but of Jews wherever they are in the world. The law of return, one of the first legislative acts by the Knesset, provides for the “return” of all Jews to Palestine, but the Jewish state refuses to recognize the right of the expelled Palestinians to return to their homeland. Four, Israel is an artificial garrison-state. The Jews constituted less than 10 per cent of Britain’s Palestinian “mandate”. So Palestinians were expelled from their ancestral land and people brought in from Europe to create an artificial Jewish majority. Five, Israel does not recognize the West Bank (and until recently Gaza) as an occupied territory, because it says that prior to Israeli occupation, these territories formed part of no recognized state. Six, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza is still incomplete, because it will continue to control all its sea, air and land exit points. Seven, Israel has not apologized to the Arab and Muslim people for its depredations in Palestine, its burning of the Al Aqsa mosque in 1967, and its countless massacres of Arab people — Dier Yassin and Sabra-Chatilla among them. Seven, its indifference to UN censures for trying to change Palestine’s Arab-Islamic character.
As for the West Bank, Israel has no intention of quitting it. Settlements continue to expand, and the separation barrier — condemned by the International Court of Justice — has been declared legal by the Israeli Supreme Court. It has also declared Al Quds its “eternal capital”. Unless Israel takes some fundamental decisions to undo injustices to the Palestinian people, it is difficult to see how it can be accommodated in the Middle Eastern community of nations. A two-state solution appears nowhere in sight because Israel’s occupation of the West Bank seems open-ended. A proper “engagement” with Israel must, therefore, take these facts into consideration.
TO understand the magnitude of the problem caused by consumption of contaminated water that has resulted in severe illnesses and deaths in Karachi these past few weeks, one should familiarize oneself with the statistics. For a start, it is disconcerting that nearly half the population has no access to safe drinking water; neither do 90 per cent of those living in the rural areas. Contaminated water accounts for 250,000 deaths amongst children every year in the country. Yet, none of these horrific statistics has seen decisive action on the part of the government which continues to fail in providing its citizens with the most basic of facilities. The outbreak of water-borne illnesses in Karachi’s Gulshan-i-Iqbal two weeks ago was caused by leaking supply lines, according to the managing director of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KWSB). At that time, Sindh health officials treated over 1,000 people for water-borne diseases in public and private hospitals around the area. As the number of patients began to dwindle, it was assumed that the crisis was over. However, the problem soon resurfaced, this time in Landhi where, on Friday, over 700 people were afflicted with some form of water-borne diseases after drinking contaminated water. Of that number, 350 were admitted to one hospital in Korangi while eight people are said to have died. Once again, KWSB officials cite broken water supply lines as a cause of the outbreak of these diseases.
Tampering with water lines, which often results in seepage of sewage into pipelines, is not uncommon. People are known to adopt all kinds of methods to get water from the main line. It is also accepted that such illegal practises are done with the connivance of KWSB field staff. This needs to be thoroughly investigated for it plays havoc with people’s health and lives. Numerous lives have been lost all over the country because of drinking polluted water. Agencies concerned need to adopt a long-term strategy to ensure that potable water is available to the people all over the country. The KWSB will have to do more for monitoring of water lines to avoid the problem of contamination. It is the scarcity of water after all that leads to such unauthorized withdrawals.
The continuing misery of Sonia Naz should put to rest the views of those in this country who think that rape is used by some as a means to seek a better life in the West. What has happened to Ms Naz so far is heart-rending, and the worst part is that the end seems nowhere in sight. It has now been several weeks since she made a series of shocking allegations of rape, torture, graft and illegal detention of her and her husband against members of the Faisalabad police. The Punjab government had ordered a judicial inquiry which has been conducted by a district and sessions judge while the Punjab police launched its own probe, headed by a DIG.
The victim however did not express too much confidence in either inquiry and made her reservations quite clear but regrettably they were not addressed. The judicial inquiry seemed not particularly receptive to her, amid reports (which were not denied) that the person heading it was related to one of the main accused. In the other probe, Ms Naz had expressed scepticism in the ability of the police to conduct an impartial probe because one of their own was involved in the crime. Things worsened for her particularly when her husband sent her a letter saying that he was divorcing her. The reasons that he quoted were a sign that in a society like ours the odds are heavily stacked against rape victims. Instead of prosecuting and ostracizing the perpetrators of such crimes, many in our society end up examining and scrutinizing the rape victim, especially her character which is inexcusable and the last thing that the victims needs. The least the government can do is to ensure the registration of an FIR against the accused, so that the law can take its course.
In fact, the Afghans have been choosing their representatives since the promulgation of the first constitution in 1923 under King Amanullah Khan. Then election started from the lowest administrative unit the “illaqadari” or village. Each village elected four persons who were to represent their area in the “Hukumati” or town council which was required to send its representatives to the “Hukumata-i-Kalan” and then to the district level and so on. This representative mechanism was to go up to the highest level known as Shura-i-Markazi. Thus the Afghan democratic experiment started at the grass-roots level and culminated at the highest level of the national parliament.
This process was continued by successive rulers with some variations till 1977 when the last election for 429 members of the Loya Jirga was held in January that year under the constitution promulgated by Sardar Daud Khan as the head of state. In fact, as against the bicameral legislature, which is the norm in democratic countries, Afghanistan used to have election for three tiers; the People’s Assembly or “Ulusi Jirga,” the Upper House or “da Masharano Jirga” and “Loya Jirga” or the Supreme Council.
The elections in the past were decreed by the constitution of the day promulgated by legitimate rulers and held under the supervision of an independent election commission. It was a purely Afghan affair, managed and supervized by Afghans themselves. There never was a complaint of manipulation, influence peddling or rigging. In fact in 1965 election, two diehard communists, namely Babrak Karmal of Parcham and Hafizullah Amin of Khalq, were duly elected.
The most impressive feature of the Afghan democracy was that the entire proceedings of the parliament were broadcast live by Radio Kabul. Contrast this with the environment in which the forthcoming elections are to be held. The country is under foreign occupation and governed by a coterie of persons imposed by the occupying power who have no roots among the people and the government’s writ, courtesy of the International Security Force, is confined only to the capital city.
Security and law and order are almost nonexistent. Major parts of the country are under warlords who owe allegiance to no one. The provincial governors and administration function through the courtesy of the local machos. What kind of election could or would be held in this environment is anybody’s guess.
Even otherwise the magnitude of the electoral process is mindboggling for a country like Afghanistan; 12.4 million voters voting for over 5,000 candidates, including 582 women for an assembly of 249 deputies in the lower house and an unspecified number in 34 provinces. This in a country which has no infrastructure worth the name and where the government is incapable of guaranteeing the safety of either the candidates or the voters.
The Brussels-based widely acclaimed International Crisis Group, in an analytical report on the Afghan elections has predicted the relative success of the election process only “if the electoral system enables a true reflection of popular will; if the election process, including registration and vote counting, is properly conducted. If overall security is sufficient to allow for a free and fair contest and if the elections are for institutions and properly defined roles and responsibilities.”
Meeting a criterion which is qualified by so many ifs and buts is not easy for many developing countries, much less for the present-day Afghanistan. The report also describes the weakness in the process by pinpointing the poor groundwork that has been done for the legislative or locally devolved bodies.” All eggs of state have been put in the basket of one man, the chief executive, President Hamid Karzai,” the report says. Some other prestigious international organizations have also expressed similar apprehensions.
Add to these institutional and administrative flaws the absence of any census figures, lack of authentic voters’ lists, discouraging political parties to openly work for their candidates, prohibiting the use of election symbols that is the only indication by which an illiterate voter can recognize his favourite candidate and vote for him, and you have a fairly accurate picture of the chaotic conditions in which over 12 million Afghans are supposed to exercise their right of franchise.
Considering the prevailing chaotic scenario, one is forced to question the necessity or the rationale of holding election at this stage when the country seems to be utterly unprepared for this critical exercise. Rationally considered, the election is bound to bring more chaos and further fragmentation of an already fractured society. To think that free, fair and impartial elections, reflecting the true will of the people, could be held in a country occupied by foreign forces and virtually ruled by warlords is asking for the moon. What then is the rationale for this undue hurry for holding election?
One reason that readily comes to mind is an American desire to leave Afghanistan at the earliest possible opportunity. The main impelling factor is the non-fulfilment, so far, of the pledges made and a timetable set at the Bonn conference of which holding of election was an important component and the culmination of the process. Once this is achieved, the Americans will have no justification for staying on in Afghanistan.
In fact, Americans have a very limited objective in Afghanistan which they are not prepared to admit publicly but which is a fact recognized by many American think-tanks and others. The foremost is the capture or elimination of Osama bin Laden and to ensure that his organization does not have the same friendly environment which was provided to it by the Taliban regime. Once this objective is achieved the Americans will then seriously think of quitting Afghanistan, leaving a subservient government in place.
Is election the panacea for all the problems that Afghanistan is currently facing? No keen and dispassionate observer of the Afghan scene will agree with this proposition. Election can be a blessing and a legitimate exercise only if it is held in a peaceful environment, free from intimidation, corruption and influence paddling. The electorate is to have a highly developed sense of civic responsibility and understands the value of vote. Also, that process has to be held under the supervision of an independent election commission that ensures that the entire process, before and during the election, is free fair and impartial.
In the current context, elections in Afghanistan will neither be free nor impartial and, consequently, will not solve the myriad problems that the country is facing, nor will it provide legitimacy to Mr Karzai that he is so desperately seeking. Warlordism will be further strengthened as most of warlords are contesting elections and are sure to win because of their power and money. This will give them the added advantage of exercising political power as people’s representatives.
The urgent need of Afghanistan, at the present juncture, is not election but reconciliation amongst the different factions of society. This will bring the much-desired unity that has been badly bruised because of the factional fighting in the last two decades. Once this is achieved, then, of course, elections should be held for a truly representative parliament
Afghans are very lucky as they now have a personality in their midst that is capable of bringing about the desired reconciliation. The former King Zahir shah is the only father figure who is respected by most of the Afghans because of his forty years’ benign rule. During this period Afghanistan saw record development in all fields. There is no doubt that the Afghans will listen to his call for reconciliation and unity. One also hopes that by now the Afghans have learnt a lesson from their self-inflicted misery and will be more amenable to heeding the voice of sanity and rationality.
The writer is a former ambassador.
NOT much can be said in praise of the UN world summit, which has ended with little more than a heavily spun restatement of its loftiest ambitions. It was clear in advance that issues as vital as the millennium development goals were not going to progress very far.
It was a “disgrace”, as Kofi Annan put it bluntly, that disarmament was too controversial to agree on, while reform of the security council was put off. But there was one real shift: recognition that the world body has a “responsibility to protect” — to ensure that genocide, ethnic cleansing and other war crimes should not be ignored in the name of state sovereignty.
Like other issues on the summit agenda, this was subject to much battering as the final document was negotiated. Egypt, Algeria, Pakistan, India, Russia, Cuba, Iran, and Syria tried to block it. And for all its rhetoric about freedom, the US did not want to be obliged to act in all such cases, preferring a reference to “moral responsibility”.
Happily, a majority of states, including many in Africa, the EU and Japan, backed Canada’s initiative — producing what amounts to a significant advance in international humanitarian law.
— The Guardian, London