|
| October 7, 2005 | Friday | Ramazan 2, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Teachers as role models
Hospital delays
Acceding to the CTBT
UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, in his statement to the fourth conference on facilitating the entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), held in New York from September 21 to 23, inter alia, said that the conference was being held at a time of heightened global anxiety about weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons and that a collective effort was required to promote and strengthen the various multilateral instruments to reduce the threat these weapons pose to humanity.
AND now the army may be asked to control traffic. Speaking at a press conference in Karachi on Wednesday at the Press Club, where the police chiefs were present, Sindh Law Minister Rauf Siddiqui said the army’s help may be sought for “providing relief to the people”. The army has been “providing relief” to the people since 1958, but the result has not exactly been one of “relief”. This is no place to dwell on the intricacies of the traffic situation in our major cities — in Karachi it has acquired the dimensions of a nightmare. But then what are the traffic police for? Ignoring the army’s monopolization of state power at the top, the nation is seeing an extraordinary spectacle in which people in khaki are running a host of civilian departments and utility services. Serving or retired military officers now run or have in the past run the Water and Power Development Authority, the Pakistan Railways, the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation, the Federal Public Service Commission, major universities, entire provinces and numerous departments and corporations. Soldiers whose duty is to defend the country were seen reading electricity meters or locating ghosts schools in Sindh.
The issue, of course, is far more complex than blaming the army for being ever so eager to be everywhere. Are not civilian departments to be blamed first and foremost for being incompetent and failing to come up to the people’s expectations? Why would the army be needed to run, say, Wapda or the KESC if the civilian set-up could acquit itself well? In this particular case, a civilian minister is talking of bringing in the army to control traffic. Why cannot the police and the other related departments dealing with road repair and town planning do the job efficiently themselves? The army does manage things better in some cases, mainly because an order issued runs down a chain of command. The construction of an underpass in record time in Karachi is a good job done by the Frontier Works Organization. Why could not this be carried out by the Sindh bureaucracy or the city government?
The army’s “shock effect” produces results temporarily; in the long run, things fall back into the usual pattern. We see the KESC now as much in the red as it was before the army came. Power outages, once confined to summer, now torment the citizens throughout the year, and the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board offers no better service than it did before. Is the army really going to improve the traffic situation, especially because at least part of the problem stems from the people’s lack of a sense of discipline?
Politicians practise an extraordinary dichotomy. On the one hand, they resent the army’s interference in politics; on the other, they expect the army to bail them out. During the PNA movement, the opposition asked the army to “do its duty” and overthrow Mr Bhutto’s government. During the period of political governments (1988-99), opposition politicians every other day asked the army to overthrow the government of the ruling party. The generals, of course, oblige. But once in power, they never leave before a decade — Ayub (1958-69), Zia (1977-88) and now Gen Musharraf, who is still not sure whether he will shed his uniform in 2007. The army has, no doubt, created a mess, but can the politicians evade their responsibility for having done the same over and over again?
THE world teachers’ day that was observed on October 5 helped focus attention on the status of teachers. Marked since 1994, this day has been promoted by Unesco to “recognize the essential role of teachers in educational advancement and the importance of their contribution to the development of man and modern society”. Speaking on the occasion, Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz rightly emphasized the need for reviving the lost status of teachers. This is essential if the education standards in Pakistan are to be upgraded and the students groomed to be ideal citizens, making society a progressive and enlightened society. But the strategy proposed by the prime minister to achieve this goal is not exactly what will take us any closer to the goal of good education for all.
He suggests that the teachers’ status be revived by providing them with more benefits and facilities. Admittedly, benefits and facilities help improve the economic conditions of teachers and should relieve them of the worry of making ends meet. But what will win the teachers true esteem and respect is an upgrading of their professionalism, training and knowledge. In this respect, the government has not done much to improve the pedagogy in the country. If some teachers are of internationally comparable standards, as a small minority is, the credit goes to the non-governmental institutions that are working in the field of training teachers with full devotion and professionalism. The products of the government’s own teachers’ training colleges are generally not the kind that can be expected to transform the education sector in Pakistan. The prime minister also advises teachers to concentrate on the character building of students. Here it would not be out of place to say that if teachers were to show a deep commitment to their profession and were to display strength of character so that they emerge as role models for the younger generation and act with dignity and decorum, their influence would be more positive and durable. They would then achieve the goals of imparting knowledge and character-building more effectively. This would also win them the respect of society and their students rather than just a hefty pay packet.
IT WAS rather distressing to learn that 26 surgeries could not be performed a few days ago at the Karachi Civil Hospital for want of water supply to the operation theatres. Hospitals often face shortage of water on account of the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board suspending its supply, affecting the working of the hospitals. This time the shortage was caused by another factor: the staff of the Public Works Department, which operates machines that supply water, was unable to get to work because of a transport strike that day. This explanation, is however, no consolation for the families of those who come to the CHK for treatment, including critical cases of surgery. Given that alternatives to the CHK are more expensive, patients have no choice but to contend with their lot. Unfortunately, PWD staff does not come under the hospital administration, so there is little CHK can do other than writing letters to the PWD, asking it to take notice of the staff absence — as it has done in this case. It is now for the higher-ups to formulate an effective strategy that will put an end to such untoward incidents. The PWD too will have to devise methods that guarantee that enough staff is on hand to ensure regular supply of water. What happened at the CHK is illustrative of what is going on elsewhere in the country where public hospitals usually have deplorable working conditions, lacking in facilities, equipment and other essentials. In March, the Sindh government decided to set up management boards for government hospitals with the first being at the CHK. But what has now happened at this very hospital is exactly the kind of situation that calls for the board’s urgent attention. It must realize that until and unless a reliable water and power supply system is put in place, incidents of this kind will continue to pose a serious risk to patients’ health and lives.
The secretary-general stressed the enforcement of the CTBT as soon as possible and called upon all states that have not signed or ratified the treaty to do so without delay, particularly those who have to ratify it to facilitate its enforcement force. Pending its entry into force, the Secretary General urged all states to maintain a moratorium on nuclear weapons test explosions or any other nuclear explosions, and to refrain from acts that would defeat the object or purpose of the treaty.
The fourth conference on the CTBT, which concluded its three-day meeting on September 23, also endorsed the secretary-general’s call for all member states to accede to the CTBT and urged them to sustain the momentum generated by the conference and remain seized of the issue at the highest political level. The conference also asked its special representative, ambassador Jaap Ramaker, to accelerate the ratification process of the CTBT and continue to assist Australia, nominated by the ratifying states, to obtain further signatures and ratifications in order to facilitate the treaty’s entry into force.
The conference also reiterated that the cessation of all nuclear weapons tests, through constraining the development and qualitative improvement of nuclear weapons and ending the development of advanced nuclear weapons, constituted an effective measure of nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and would be a meaningful step in the realization of a systematic process to achieve this goal.
The CTBT, which aims to ban all nuclear tests for all time, has so far been signed by 176 countries and ratified by 125. However, out of the 44 designated countries whose ratification is essential for its operation, 11 countries have still not done so. These countries include the United States, China, North Korea, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, Indonesia, Iran, Vietnam and Colombia. As a matter of fact, India and Pakistan have not even signed the treaty. They have, however, voluntarily declared a moratorium on further nuclear tests after carrying out nuclear explosions in May 1998.
The special representative in his report to the New York Conference on the CTBT stated that the unilateral moratorium on further nuclear tests, declared by Pakistan and India, cannot take the place of the treaty which, once it entered into force, would ban nuclear weapon tests for all times. It is believed that in the coming days both Pakistan and India will come under immense pressure to sign and ratify the CTBT. It is, therefore, necessary to make an objective analysis of whether or not acceding to the CTBT would be in Pakistan’s national interest.
There is a general consensus in Pakistan that adherence to the CTBT, that is designed to bring Pakistan into the process of nuclear non-proliferation without giving to its demand for nuclear status, will impinge upon its security interests. However, exponents of the CTBT hold altogether different views on this issue, which also need closer scrutiny, with a view to understanding the full implications involved in the accession to the CTBT by Pakistan. These views are summarized in the following paragraph with comments:
i. The proponents of the CTBT argue that since Pakistan has already achieved minimum nuclear deterrence there is no need for it to conduct further tests. Experienced nuclear scientists and engineers are, however, of the view that nuclear testing is essential for maintaining credible nuclear deterrence. Otherwise, they argue, that Pakistan’s existing weapons components could become brittle and corroded rendering them unreliable and ineffective.
ii. The proponents of the CTBT also argue that the treaty only bans nuclear tests and does not prohibit the possession of nuclear weapons by the states. It may, however, be mentioned that the CTBT is not an end in itself but a means to prevent nuclear proliferation, as enunciated in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The preamble to the CTBT also confirms this assertion as it clearly states that an end to all nuclear explosions constitutes an effective measure of nuclear disarmament, in all its aspects. In this connection it may also be pertinent to refer to the UN Security Council’s resolution 1172, adopted on June 6, 1998, which also reaffirms that the CTBT is the cornerstone of the international regime on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and an essential foundation for the pursuit of nuclear disarmament.
iii. The proponents also assert that unless all the 44 designated states have ratified the treaty, which, they think, is highly improbable, Pakistan may accede to the treaty as it would improve its profile on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation without causing any harm to its security interests. Apparently, Article 18 of the Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties has escaped the attention of these elements. This article clearly states that a country is obliged to refrain from acts, which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty, even pending its entry into force, if it has signed it subject to ratification. It follows from this that in case Pakistan accedes to the CTBT it will be bound by its provisions even prior to its coming into force.
Since Pakistan had neither signed the NPT nor the CTBT, it carried out its nuclear explosions, in May 1998, to correct the strategic nuclear balance in the region without violating any international treaty obligations. Pakistan may possess and maintain nuclear weapons only as long as it remains outside the purview of the NPT and the CTBT. If Pakistan accedes to these treaties, without being recognized as a nuclear state, it would be asked to contribute effectively to the prevention of the proliferation of nuclear weapons, in all its aspects, and to the process of nuclear disarmament as a non-nuclear state.
The United States and other permanent members of the UNSC, should, however, take a realistic view of the situation and recognize both Pakistan and India as de jure nuclear states to enable them to fulfil their obligations towards an effective nuclear disarmament.
It is noteworthy that the world summit, held in New York from September 14 to 16, could not agree on the way forward on disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. Astonishingly, the outcome document of the summit did not even mention these vital issues, which was an indication of the serious impasse facing the nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation regime.
According to political observers, the failure of the world summit to reach an agreement on these important issues, following the failure of the review conference earlier this year, indicates that the five recognized nuclear states want to remain outside the realm of nuclear disarmament and want to retain their nuclear arsenal in perpetuity which is bound to frustrate all efforts aimed at achieving global nuclear disarmament.
There are pragmatic reasons for seeking nuclear disarmament. However, if the nuclear weapons states continue to insist on retaining their nuclear arsenal, for an indefinite period, it would not only run counter to their advocacy for global nuclear disarmament but the legitimacy of all the existing multilateral instruments to attain this goal would also be rendered infructuous.
The writer is a former ambassador.