| September 27, 2005 | Tuesday | Sha'aban 22, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Dadu deaths
Controlling TB
Downgrading the UN
A mandate and a monopoly
THE completion of 60 years by the UN this year was marked by a special summit, perhaps the largest gathering of world leaders in this century, when heads of state and government from 175 countries attended. The basic agenda of its two sessions comprised UN reform, to make it more effective, and a review of progress towards the poverty alleviation goals adopted at the Millennium Summit in 2000.
THE formation of a two-man committee to prepare rules and procedures for the accountability of judges must be welcomed without reservations. The decision is a follow-up on the passage of the 17th Amendment by parliament in August 2002. The amendment empowered the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) to prepare and adopt procedures for setting up an institutional mechanism for receiving complaints against judges. Bar councils and lawyers’ associations have long been demanding the creation of such a body for tackling corruption in the judiciary. The need for such a mechanism was all the more necessary because the accountability process that followed the army takeover in October 1999 kept military officers and judges out of it. The military-led government insisted that the judiciary and the armed forces had their own accountability system. The argument might have been right technically, but there was widespread belief among the people that the two were exempted basically to focus on the accountability of politicians, businessmen and civil servants, particularly those not on the generals’ right side. Once the rules and procedures are in place, the SJC will turn into a forum of accountability for the judiciary. This should enable the SJC to receive complaints against judges, conduct inquiries and take action against those found guilty.
The 17th Amendment might be a controversial law, but it has done a good job by authorizing the SJC under Article 209 to take suo motu action where called for. Recently, the judiciary did a commendable job by taking action on its own in the Sonia Naz case. The result was that a case that was in danger of fizzling out was investigated in all earnest, with judicial and police inquiries. The suo motu powers enable the SJC to take action in areas where the executive has failed to act. In this category should fall unreported rights abuses by security agencies and the violation of the rights of women and minorities, and the nation will look forward to more judicial activism from the higher courts. A relevant point here is the judges’ code of conduct. The SJC has decided to amend the code of conduct and assigned the task to the Lahore High Court Chief Justice. Judges shun publicity the world over and avoid exposure to the media. Court proceedings are open and transparent, because the public has a right to know. But the judges themselves do not crave the limelight. In Pakistan, it is not uncommon to find judges presiding over functions and being in the glare of the media. This does not mean that as part of the legal community judges do not have the right to take part in scholarly discourses or speak at symposia devoted to finer points of law and constitution. But cutting tapes at the inauguration of schools or hospitals and making formal speeches are hardly a judge’s function. The SJC would do well to focus on this aspect of the code.
Our judiciary’s reputation has taken a knock over the past decades. While there have been outstanding judges who have refused to kowtow to the government of the day, many others succumbed to pressures and preferred to be on the right side of the government. The SJC can do a lot to improve the judiciary’s image if it adheres to the ideals and examples of Mr Mohammad Ali Jinnah. A brilliant constitutionalist and a man whose integrity was proverbial, Mr Jinnah should serve as our judiciary’s frame of reference in all its actions.
THE weekend deaths of at least 44 people in two separate accidents on more or less the same stretch of highway in Sindh is a horrifying reminder of the hazardous state of road travel in the country. The accidents took place during unusually heavy traffic because of the urs of Lal Shahbaz Qalandar. Both involved head-on collisions and from the details reported so far, it seems that speeding and driver misjudgment played a large part in the tragedies. In one accident, a van was being driven on the extreme left of the highway and despite that it collided with a bus from the opposite direction, indicating perhaps the latter was trying to overtake or that its driver may have dozed off. The second possibility seems more likely given that both the accidents happened late at night. Add to this the long hours that drivers on inter-provincial routes are made to work by their employers. In such a state of fatigue, even a moment’s stupor or misjudgment on a driver’s part can lead to terrible consequences.
Road travel is becoming safer worldwide — but not in Pakistan. Maybe, part of the reason is that senior government functionaries who have the powers to make road travel safer hardly ever travel on highways, and even if they do, they travel in their cars and never use public transport. This explains the apathy and indifference of the government to the risks and hazards that ordinary Pakistani commuters have perforce to face as part of their travel from one place to another. Our decision-makers have no idea of how unsafe road travel has become in the country. All buses and coasters are required to have emergency exits, but the rule is not followed or enforced. In most cases, bus windows have bars thus blocking off even this way of exit. Both these factors were present in the two accidents and led to the high death toll. The transport authorities need to impress upon bus operators that all long-haul trips should have at least two drivers who can then rotate so as to reduce the chances of a driver falling asleep while driving. There is patrolling on the main motorways, but other inter-district roads largely go without the benefits of any surveillance. This omission needs to be rectified.
SPEAKERS at a Lahore conference on lung diseases held on Sunday cited grim statistics for the spread of tuberculosis in the country. According to them, 1.5 million people in Pakistan are suffering from this potentially fatal disease while the number of new cases each year is 210,000. Among the 22 afflicted countries, Pakistan ranks sixth, and it is feared that in the absence of new, inexpensive drugs to combat the disease and the emergence of multi-drug resistant strains of TB bacilli, the number of patients is bound to increase. This is especially so for low-income areas where people live in unhealthy, congested surroundings and are an easy target for the transmissible bacilli. In fact, one TB patient can infect up to 15 people a year. The picture is worrying for those responsible for the National TB Control Programme that clearly needs to review the implementation of its current strategy and plug the loopholes that are obstructing the prevention, control and cure of the disease.
The good news is that the World Health Organization has recognized that Pakistan is making progress on DOTS (directly observed treatment, short course). According to this strategy, a TB sufferer has to take medication under supervision — not necessarily of a doctor — so that the course is completed and the patient does not leave off on the first signs of recovery that could enable the weakened bacilli to gain resistance to the drugs. Pakistan should put in greater efforts to expand its DOTS coverage to include all districts in the country, for not only is DOTS aimed at curing TB patients, it is also an effective means of raising public awareness about the disease. Moreover, more TB detection centres are needed so that patients do not mistake their symptoms for some other disease and resort to self-medication.
With the US bestriding the globe like a colossus, its attitude was crucial, especially as its unilateral policy, that turned into the doctrine of pre-emption after 9/11, had tended to sideline the role of the UN. However, with the US getting bogged down in Afghanistan as well as Iraq, a rethink in favour of a larger role by the UN that had made a difference in Afghanistan is due. The US might invoke UN assistance for its exit strategy from Afghanistan, and Iraq, for which a sentiment is developing within the US.
There were other imperatives that appeared to make a stronger UN in the interest of US global objectives. With globalization proceeding apace, which not only spreads prosperity but also creates global financial crises as well as terrorist networks, the need for effective global financial institutions has become greater. A second reason to strengthen global institutions is that the current US role of underpinning global prosperity through its unchallenged military and economic supremacy may not endure, in which case stability in the world could be ensured through these institutions. Finally, even the war against terrorism can only succeed if the US mobilizes global support, which is best done through the UN.
The sad reality, that emerged in the preparatory meeting of the ambassadors to the UN that was working on UN reform, was that a consensus could not be achieved on many major issues. These included the enlargement of the Security Council, and other items like disarmament, and human rights. The Bush administration, taking note of congressional sentiment in favour of administrative reforms, following the Iraqi “oil-for-food” scandal, shifted its emphasis to reforming the secretariat, sidelining measures that could have reinforced the role of the UN, most notably in poverty alleviation.
The conservative sentiment in the US in favour of limiting the role of the UN prevailed, much to the disappointment of those who had hoped that the opportunity offered by the UN’s 60th anniversary to set the world body on a more active path, as envisaged by its founders, was missed. In 1945, President Truman had urged the establishment of a world body that could tackle all the problems likely to confront the world. He stated,”We all have to recognize, no matter how great our strength, that we must deny ourselves the licence to always do as we please.”
The UN began with some inbuilt limitations, as the five veto-wielding permanent members of the powerful Security Council, the only body whose decisions are binding, came from the victorious side in the Second World War. As the membership of the world body crossed 175 a few years ago, a strong sentiment arose in favour of enlarging the Security Council, that was last expanded 20 years after its foundation, when its strength was raised from 11 to 15.
In the recent years, discussions on UN reform have largely centred on this issue, with major countries seeking the bulk of the expansion of the permanent members. In the reform proposals prepared by Secretary General Kofi Annan, their number according to Plan A would increase from five to 11, while the number of non-permanent members would expand only by four to 14. As a result, within its total membership of 25, the privileged permanent members would have a number (11) close to the number (14), representing the remaining 180 members of the UN. This is basically in gross violation of the Charter principle of sovereign equality of all member states.
Mindful that this alternative would please only major countries anxious to acquire the privileged status of a “great power” in the Security Council, the secretary-general formulated Plan B as well. This also raised the total strength of the Security Council to 25, but would add only non-permanent seats, of which eight might be elected to four-year terms, a measure designed to accommodate candidates for permanent seats.
Negotiations on the subject have been going on actively since last year when Japan, Germany, India and Brazil formed a group (G-4) to pool the canvassing strength of these main aspirants for permanent seats. Pakistan has adopted a position of principle, by supporting Plan B because it does not accentuate the element of privilege already present in the Security Council, and facilitates a change that is more democratic, and could strengthen the role of the UN as originally envisaged by the founding fathers.
Incidentally, through the activities of a group of countries calling itself Uniting for Consensus (UFC), the weight of opinion among the members has shifted towards Plan B, and even the four-year term idea has lost acceptance.
Overall, the main agenda items of the special summit did not receive the careful and detailed attention one had expected. Critics recalled that the package adopted hardly touched the main goals such as reinforcing the UN’s role and assessing the progress made in achieving the goals of the millennium summit of 2000, that also involved the key UN goal of poverty alleviation. The US was held primarily responsible for limiting the scope of reform.
US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice drew attention to the seven main issues touched upon in the document, namely a new human rights council to replace the discredited human rights commission, steps to promote development and reduce poverty, a new peace-building commission, a management overhaul, nuclear non-proliferation, terrorism, and international intervention to protect populations from genocide. The summit had approved broad principles in key areas, and the General Assembly would have plenty of opportunity to fill in specific details.
However, the message from the summit is that the UN is not likely to receive the boost it needs to deal with a whole range of problems that will not find a solution through the exercise of power. In fact, the special summit fell short of expectations that it would to take long-delayed measures in order to counter poverty and human suffering through diseases like Aids, tuberculosis and malaria.
The UN has been urging the developed countries since the 1960s to provide 0.7 per cent of their GDP to assist the poorer countries in overcoming poverty, disease and other consequences of backwardness. That target has been achieved only by a few small countries, like the Netherlands and Sweden, while the actual overall percentage made available by major economies for economic assistance has hovered around 0.3 per cent. Unless major efforts are made during the General Assembly session, the gap between the haves and have-nots will persist, and abject poverty could spawn terrorism, and social conflict in many parts of the world.
The need to strengthen the UN, and make it more effective is becoming clear and former presidents of the US are joining in the chorus of voices being raised for global management of the many challenges we are facing. To disease, hunger and social unrest have been added environmental issues (notably global warming) and shortages of energy and even water. The downgrading of the role of the UN by great powers is not going to help in facing the growing number of challenges.
The frequency and severity of hurricanes hitting the US is being traced to global warming, a problem the mighty country has treated with contempt. Germs of dangerous diseases such as bird flu can spread across continents. The fact that 60 million children are malnourished in India alone was recently highlighted on the CNN. The Islamic world may also have a similar problem, as indeed may Christian and Buddhist populations in the developing countries.
As awareness grows of the magnitude of our problems as a planet, the obvious response lies in strengthening multilateral and global cooperation. One hopes that we shall not wait for catastrophes to strike more regions and continents before we strengthen the role and effectiveness of the multilateral agencies grouped under the UN.
THE Japanese prime minister, Junichiro Koizumi, has won a stunning victory in the general election. When Mr Koizumi called the election in August in an effort to out-manoeuvre internal opposition within the ruling Liberal Democrat party to his reform of the postal system, the predominant mood was that his gamble could fail.
Following the opposition Democrat party’s success in the earlier Tokyo elections, there might even have been the ultimate seismic change, with the Liberal Democrats losing control of a government they have dominated for half a century. In fact, the reverse happened. The LDP has an increased majority, winning up to 60 more seats, and Mr Koizumi is master of the scene.
Although postwar Japan has all the trappings of a western democracy, in practice it has been and remains a one-party system. Much has been made of the fact that Mr Koizumi is, in Japanese terms, a market reformer, but this has been greatly exaggerated. In practice, privatisation, for example, has been very limited.
No doubt Mr Koizumi’s victory will be greeted as a mandate for reform. But in reality it is not unreasonable to argue the reverse. Mr Koizumi’s biggest single achievement yesterday was to revive the flagging popularity of the Liberal Democrats — and thus to entrench their monopoly of power once more.
—The Guardian, London