|
| December 12, 2005 | Monday | Ziqa’ad 9, 1426 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Curbing the arms trade
Disappearance of a journalist
Iraq’s bleak future
NHS: market reforms
THE latest poll in the United States shows that 59 per cent of the Americans want US troops withdrawal from Iraq as soon as possible even if conditions there are not completely stable. However, President Bush, while speaking at the US naval academy in Annapolis, Maryland, declined to set a date for US pull-out from Iraq where, he warned, there would be violence for many years.
ONE can understand the reason why American Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is so fond of “new Europe”. As more details come to light about the CIA’s secret detention centres worldwide, East European countries seem only too willing to offer cooperation to the US in the illegal confinement of terrorism suspects. Poland and Romania have already been found to have offered either detention centres on their soil or helped in the arrest and transfer of prisoners. Also to offer similar “facilities” to the CIA is Macedonia, while the UN-controlled Kosovo would obviously be in no position to know, much less resist, what the US intelligence agency did. Other nations which are in the picture are Norway and Germany. While the former confirmed a secret CIA flight from Oslo to Paris, the latter is angry over the arrest and torture of one of its citizens. Lebanese-born al-Masri was arrested by the CIA and flown to Afghanistan, where he was tortured, stripped and photographed.
The revelations dogged US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s recent tour of Europe, where she was pressed by Washington’s Nato allies to explain the American position on the issue after rights groups blew the whistle on the CIA’s shenanigans in Europe. At issue is not only the existence of illegal detention centres but also secret flights and torture. In Kiev, Ms Rice said the US had specifically asked its troops worldwide not to resort to torture. There is nothing new in this, for American interrogators are officially forbidden to resort to torture. But as Abu Ghraib and Bagram show, these orders are flouted brazenly not only by corporals and privates but even by high-ranking officers who should know the Geneva Conventions better. Ms Rice herself admitted that what she was saying was not a shift in policy but a reaffirmation of the American position on torture. On the question of secret flights, she said the US interpretation of civil aviation agreements was no different from that of the European governments. The Nato ministers did not press her hard, knowing that further details could reveal the complicity of some of their own governments.
That some East European governments should be the CIA’s willing tools in this gross violation of human rights and international law shows these governments’ foreign policy orientation. A Europe dominated by France and Germany would not kowtow to the US, as became obvious in 2003 when Paris and Berlin opposed the attack on Iraq. In contrast, Germany’s eastern neighbour, Poland, has sent troops to that country. While the induction of nuclear weapons and the end of the Cold War might have rendered traditional strategic concepts anachronistic, the scars of history do not disappear so easily. Caught in the crossfire of the traditional rivalry between Russia and Prussia, later Germany, the East European countries’ first priority has always been security. The expansion of Nato and the European Union towards the east following the collapse of the Soviet Union may be a desirable phenomenon from the point of view of all European governments, but for the US it means an addition to the number of small states that would always look to Washington for help and succour. This new Europe would be a much more pliable entity than a reincarnation of the old Europe — one with its pride wounded, because it never could recover from the horrors of World War II and still harbours a nostalgia for its lost glory.
ONCE again the interior ministry seems to have woken up to the dangers of the 18 million illegal arms in the country and is said to be working on a plan to regulate the weapons trade emanating chiefly from the tribal town of Darra Adamkhel. One does not know how serious the government is in its present resolve to do away with the arms menace, but if the past is any pointer, it is likely that the enforcement of any measure it takes to control the manufacture and sale of weapons inside the country will be half-hearted. This observation is borne out by the report in this paper some months ago that in this year alone, hundreds of licences for prohibited bore weapons were issued to members of the ruling elite and those wielding influence in government circles. In any case, considering the vast number of arms dealers in the country, it is not difficult for criminal elements, or even ordinary citizens, to obtain banned weapons. In fact, in parts of the country, including the Frontier and Balochistan, the possession and display of arms form an integral part of the prevailing tribal ethos.
On the other hand, there are laws to control arms proliferation, but these are rendered useless when the government is reluctant to enforce them. There are a number of measures, ranging from stricter vigilance to the registration of arms, that the government could employ to curb the spread of weapons. But to do so, it must first demonstrate the necessary political will, and not cave in to pressures exerted by political bigwigs or retired military men. Here, it is important to give serious thought to the kind of message that is sent out to ordinary citizens when the law is not applied uniformly and effectively. At another level, an alternative means of livelihood at par with the present earning capability of the gun-makers of Darra Adamkhel might contribute positively to efforts aimed at curbing the gun culture, and bringing down the number of illegal weapons in the country.
THE mysterious disappearance of Hayatullah Khan, a journalist working out of North Waziristan, raises quite a few questions. Working as a stringer for a European picture service, Mr Khan was abducted on Dec 5 by masked men north of agency headquarters Miramshah as he was on his way to cover a protest rally. Initially, it was suspected that local militants may have kidnapped him but now suspicion seems to be centring on other quarters. Khan’s brother has told the press that the local Taliban of the area have written to him saying that they were not behind the abduction.
In fact, when the abduction was first reported in the international media, the journalist’s family was quoted in the Los Angeles Times as saying that he may have been detained by intelligence agencies because he took pictures of the remains of a missile, said to be of US origin, which reportedly killed an alleged Al Qaeda leader in the area. A spokesman of the NWFP government told the newspaper that the situation in the tribal areas was “not very favourable” for journalists but denied that any secret agency was involved in his disappearance. The tribal areas are indeed a most hazardous place for journalists, but the government’s inaction against elements hostile to the media and, on occasion, its own complicity in the harassment of journalists is disturbing. The fact is that journalists working in sensitive areas have been routinely detained and kept incommunicado by intelligence agencies. The modus operandi usually followed in such cases is to deny any knowledge of a disappearance and then quietly release the detainee after the matter is brought to a court. The federal government needs to clarify if the journalist in question is in the custody of any of its intelligence agencies, and if so, he should be released forthwith or located from wherever he is.
He also said that the decision about troop levels in Iraq will also be driven by the conditions on the ground there.
It may be pointed out that the US-led coalition forces failed to provide adequate security to the people of Iraq following their invasion of that country in 2003. They were not even able to impose some semblance of law and order in the country that was occupied by them. According to a recent Amnesty International report, the US-led forces in Iraq themselves have committed serious human rights violations, including unlawful killings and arbitrary detention, and evidence have emerged of torture and ill-treatment.
Thousands of Iraqi civilians have been killed during armed clashes between the coalition forces and Iraqi security forces on one side and Iraqi armed groups on the other. The US forces even used ‘white phosphorous’ against the civilians in November last year. (White phosphorous causes painful burn injuries to exposed human flesh and in some cases can prove fatal).
A recent United Nations report on Iraq has also painted a grim picture of civilian bloodshed and rights abuses fuelling a pervasive climate of fear in that country. The report has noted that the on-going military and security operations by multinational forces and the Iraqi security forces, including resort to aerial bombardment, negatively affected human rights. These operations also displaced more than 10,000 families in Al Anbar and Ninewa governates.
The report has also stated that the price paid by the civilians, including women and children, during military action currently underway, calls for further reflection on the nature and conduct of the conflict and on the quantum of the use of force.
Thus, abundant evidence is available to prove that the US forces in Iraq are involved in serious human rights violations, including war crimes. They resorted to political violence on the one hand and failed to exercise adequate controls on the conduct of security operations on the other and have, therefore, forfeited the right to maintain the law and order in Iraq which is under their illegal occupation.
Irrefutable evidence is also available to the effect that, contrary to the US public posture in favour of territorial integrity of Iraq, it is actually fanning the flames of religious and ethnic differences only to prolong its stay in that country with the aim of promoting its political and economic designs there and to expand its sphere of influence and control over other countries in the region. Thus, peace will remain an illusion in Iraq with the continued presence of the occupying forces.
After the long tyrannical and ruthless rule of Saddam Hussein, the people of Iraq are now looking forward to a democratic and cohesive future. The foundation for any system of governance is the rule of law which alone can address the legitimate interests of all the components of society and weld them into a single coherent entity ensuring territorial integrity of the country, which has to be placed above all other considerations.
Regrettably, the relentless cycle of violence in Iraq has produced debilitating consequences for the country and its people. For obvious reasons, democracy cannot take roots in Iraq if the simmering insurgency and factional fighting continue unabated.
The vast majority of the Iraqi people is against the continued occupation of their country by the United States and its allies and has put up a fierce resistance to them, which not only continues but has increased in intensity with the passage of time. The daily statistics of deaths and destruction so shocking that one finds it hard to get reconciled to them. The United States and its allies need to realize that in Iraq the desire for complete national independence and sovereignty has already begun to manifest itself and, therefore, their prolonged stay in that country on the pretext of maintaining law and order was fraught with serious implications and would create insurmountable difficulties for them.
It is, therefore, in the allied forces’ own interest to immediately announce a time-table for their withdrawal from Iraq leaving that country in the hands of a democratically elected government that is expected to be in place after December 15 elections. The new government should assume the responsibility for the maintenance of the law and order in the country without too much delay. If necessary, an international “peacekeeping” force, under the auspices of the United Nations, may help the new government in maintaining peace and public order in the country till such time that Iraq’s own security forces are able to undertake this onerous task. It may be noted that the Iraqi National Accord Conference which was held in Cairo on November 19-21, under the auspices of the Arab League, and attended by all the Iraqi political factions, important political figures and representatives of the Iraqi clans, not only unanimously demanded a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces but also gave implicit support to the on-going resistance to them by calling it “a legitimate right” so long as it does not involve terrorism and acts of violence against civilians, institutions and places of worship.
The importance of a national dialogue among all parties for a united and stable Iraq can hardly be overemphasized. The Arab League’s initiative in bringing together a wide range of Iraqi leaders to share their perspectives, though belated, was an important step in conducting a broad national dialogue and reconciliation in Iraq, with full respect for Iraq’s national sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence.
It is hoped that all the political entities in Iraq will demonstrate greater perception in their assessment of the situation in and around their country. They must also show determination and vision to preserve the unity of their country. They should not remain oblivious of the fact that a break-up of Iraq is being openly suggested in the western media and the vested interests are purposely fanning the flames of ethnic and sectarian tension in country.
The writer is a former ambassador.
IN one of her first interviews as Britain’s health secretary Patricia Hewitt declared six months ago that it was “not only inevitable but essential” that the government’s market reforms would create instability.
The aim was to get underperforming units to improve, but it would lead to some units closing if they could not deliver. Over the last 10 days this newspaper has documented just how unstable the health service has become. About one quarter of NHS trusts are in deficit and currently forecasting an aggregate deficit of one billion pounds.
Seasoned observers will say there is nothing new in this. NHS units always are in deficit in the run-up to Christmas and when trusts that are in surplus are included the deficit shrinks to 620 million pounds. But this year is different. First, the NHS is about to embark on probably the biggest changes in its 57-year history. The instability which Ms Hewitt hoped to create was not due to have started yet. It was supposed to happen with the launch of Labour’s sharp-elbowed market next April when financial flows to hospitals, ambulance services, primary care and mental health teams will be much more dependent on the number of patients they treat.
This was going to be difficult enough with a ship on an even keel. Wallowing as it currently is in a turbulent financial sea makes the exercise even more hazardous. Second, although there is a history of deficits, the pattern has been getting worse as a joint report from two government spending watchdogs set out in June. Third, the worsening financial situation comes despite the NHS already having received five record years of investment more than doubling its budget in cash terms to 75 billion pounds.
Certainly the top of the NHS is taking these developments seriously. For all the bullishness of Sir Nigel Crisp, the NHS chief executive, at this week’s launch of his annual report, his actions belie his assertions that the reforms are not unravelling. Budget hit squads (or in the NHS jargon “turnaround teams”) are being dispatched to 50 trusts in trouble to halt their escalating deficits.
After eight years of calls to cut waiting times and waiting lists — which have been remarkably successful — the health secretary this week urged trusts in trouble to delay non-emergency operations, reduce other non-essential services and even leave capacity idle to ensure the deficits are reduced. Even with these initiatives, the service may still be in trouble. Absurdly, the current system is in the middle of a radical restructuring of the 300 primary care trusts (PCTs) that hold 70 per cent of the NHS budget. They are due over the next year to shrink by as much as a half with redundancies expected to reach 6,000. The 28 strategic health authorities are due to follow suit.
More serious still, at a point when senior managers should be totally focused on planning the start of the new market, all chief executives, chairmen, and senior staff are being required to reapply for the new posts once the new structure is clear. Guess what most of their minds are focused on?
The top was quick to condemn trust managers in deficit. Undoubtedly some are incompetent. But accountability does not stop there. It goes to the top - or even above the top once Downing Street interference is included.
—The Guardian, London