|
| February 7, 2006 | Tuesday | Muharram 8, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Balochistan blast
Irregularities in compensation
Hamas and the Palestinian gridlock
Many ways, no will
THE Palestinian people have rejected the Fatah party that ruled the embattled occupied West Bank and Gaza in favour of the fundamentalist Hamas in January 26 elections which were monitored by foreign observers. By capturing 76 of 132 seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council, leaving the ruling party far behind with a paltry 43 seats, Hamas is now in a position to form its own government.
A NEGATIVE linkage between human rights and the war on terror is something against which rights groups in the West, especially the US, have been agitating for quite some time. The US Patriot Act and whatever has been going on in Guantanamo for four years have been seen widely in the US and abroad as an attack on freedom and a violation of the fundamental principles of the judicial process. The murder of an innocent Brazilian in London in the wake of 7/7 has been widely criticised in Britain and elsewhere. In Pakistan, the intelligentsia has been slow to wake up to this reality. It is thus reassuring that the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan has finally drawn the nation’s attention to this aspect of the war on terror. In a report released on Saturday, the HRCP laments what it calls “the eroding structure” of civil society and deplores the “militarization of every part of Pakistan”.
The war on terror and human rights are linked to whatever is happening in Wana and Balochistan. At both places, militants and security forces have indulged in gross violations of human rights, resulting in the death of innocent people, the destruction of private property, the arrest of people not related to acts of terrorism, and the denial of the right of journalists and political activists to visit the troubled zones to assess the situation for themselves. In the Wana area, the presence of foreign militants is a challenge to the government. But it is debatable whether the government has exercised caution to ensure against loss of lives; in fact, it often appeared that both the militants and the security forces were utterly indifferent to the presence of civilians, including women and children, in the troubled area. The result is that civilians have often been caught in crossfire between the two sides. One must also take notice of the American air attack in the Bajaur area on Jan 23. Besides constituting a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty, the attack killed many innocent people, without the target — Ayman Al Zawahiri — being there. The government lodged a protest with Washington, but instead of making it a national issue, the government went solo — as was evident from its refusal to let a delegation of parliamentarians visit the place. That is where the HRCP comment makes sense when it says the people of Pakistan are being increasingly excluded from the decision-making process. A visit by the parliamentarians, who included some well-known figures, would have served to pacify the population and help win their support against the foreign militants’ presence. In Balochistan, those claiming to fight for Baloch rights have been reckless, for their bomb blasts and rocket attacks on towns and gas installations have killed more civilians than members of the security forces.
There is no doubt that the war on terror is in Pakistan’s interest, but the crackdown on terrorists and their sources of arms and funding should not mean a carte blanche for the government and its plethora of security forces. The lack of growth of democratic institutions is a corollary to the military’s monopolization of power. That is the reason why we do not see parliament playing the role it should in national affairs, nor do the parliamentary committees on foreign affairs and other subjects assert their right to scrutinize government policies. The general election due next year can help Pakistan move towards unadulterated democracy but only if the election is truly transparent.
THE deaths of 13 people, including three soldiers, in a bus near Quetta on its way to Lahore is horrifying, given that it comes on the heels of two train derailments, both of which may have been caused by sabotage. While the police are saying that it is too early to pinpoint the blame on any particular group or entity, the link with the continuing unrest in the province and the government’s stand-off with some tribal sardars cannot be ignored. Investigators might also want to explore the similarity between the bombing of the bus and the two derailments; that is, all were on their way either to or from Lahore. While the Baloch have justified grievances against the federal government, what has to be underscored is that their expression needs to be done in a peaceful and non-violent manner.
Attacks on government installations and now on buses are difficult for any government to put up with. One is not denying that the government, and most previous ones as well, have tended to ignore the province on various important issues, notably in providing adequate funds for its socio-economic development, improving education and health facilities and in generating local employment. It is also understandable that if this happens to a community or group of people, they will feel neglected and will be resentful and that such resentment and frustration will inevitably surface. However, violence is not going to help anything, and will only end up, as it has in this case, in killing innocent people. Again, those behind the blasts and rocket firing may well argue that the soldiers who died were not ‘innocent’, but the point remains that the only way forward for both sides is dialogue and peaceful forms of protest. For its part the government must deal with those who indulge in such acts of terrorism with an iron hand and needs to improve the efficiency of its intelligence agencies to catch the culprits and prevent such incidents from recurring. Buses and trains need to adopt more stringent security measures and to educate passengers on the need for greater attention to safety procedures.
RIGHT after the earthquake last year, one of the biggest fears was the possibility of discrimination in distributing relief funds to victims. Judging by the protests that took place in Muzaffarabad on Sunday when President Musharraf visited the area, those fears seem to be coming true. While there have been no serious allegations of misappropriation of funds, there are reports of how victims feel discriminated against as far as payment of compensation is concerned. For example, complaints seem to be about some families — with connections to army officials — being able to secure two compensation cheques when they should have got only one. There are also instances of people who received compensation for their destroyed homes when in fact their homes were not as seriously damaged as their neighbours’. It is the genuinely aggrieved peoples’ grievances that demand priority. Protesters on Sunday, who have formed a committee and claim to have evidence of violation of rules committed by officials, are demanding that compensation claims be treated in a fair and transparent manner in which funds are handed out according to the damage suffered by individuals. It is important that any charges of wrongdoing against any official are promptly looked into so as to reassure the people that the government is fair and impartial in the matter.
According to President Musharraf, the government has so far distributed Rs 12 billion to victims and another Rs 80 billion — of which AJK will receive half — have been earmarked for construction of houses. To ensure that the process of handing out the second instalments of cheques to victims is carried out in a smooth and fair manner, the civilian and military authorities concerned must look into any charges of discrepancies: they cannot afford to lose credibility on this account.
But the architect of its victory, the pragmatic leader, Ismail Hani, is inclined to form a government of national unity — a gesture that it would not pursue an unilateral policy. The outgoing prime minister, Ahmed Qorei, and his cabinet, in the best parliamentary tradition, has quit his office.
It seems that the Palestinian people did not listen to the Europeans who had warned them against the consequences of voting a party into power which has not recognized Israel. A similar threat was held out by the US President George Bush soon after the elections. He also asked Mahmoud Abbas to stay in power although Hamas hadn’t asked him to quit. Even so Mahmoud Abbas had been elected president by overwhelming majority of Palestinians for six years and although the recent elections have weakened his position, he is entitled to complete his term.
It is a common parliamentary practice that the president might belong to one party but the prime minister may belong to the opposition, such as often has happened in France. Then again, to say that the secularist Fatah cannot coalesce with the fundamentalist Hamas is repudiated by the fact that in Israel Likud, a religious party, Shaas and Refai have been coalition partners. In India the Communist Party (M) supports the Congress-led coalition at the centre. Similarly, Hamas can have a power-sharing arrangement with Fatah — more so because both have been struggling for the same cause, the liberation of occupied West Bank and Gaza.
Palestinians have greater unity today than at any time in the past. If they quarrel among themselves, like the warlords of Afghanistan, they would only hurt the Palestinian cause.
It should be admitted that Fatah launched an epic battle against the occupation. Its leader, Yasser Arafat, transformed the refugees dwelling in camps into a nation and gave them an identity. He galvanized them into political action and raised a guerrilla force from the slums of Gaza, Nablus, Ramallah, Al Khalil and Jerusalem, led them to victory at the battle of Karameh in 1968 from whence began the Palestinian war of independence.
Then ensued a series of skirmishes, forays and expeditions into the enemy-occupied territory. The PLO’s main component, Al Fatah, went through trials and tribulations, bludgeoned not only by Zionists but also by fellow Arabs as well as Jordanians and Syrians — in 1970 and 1975, respectively. Thus isolated, they fell easy prey to the predatory Zionist hordes who attacked Beirut with tanks and warplanes. For eleven weeks did the Fatah fight Israel’s invading army, longer than any Arab state or states had ever fought Israel. It was on the intervention of the US that the PLO was given safe passage from Beirut to Tripoli in Tunis.
The Israeli pirates did not leave them alone even in exile and murdered the top-notch leaders — Abu Iyad and Abu Jehad and others — during the early eighties. Neither the US nor the then European Community nor the UN denounced this blatant act of terrorism. But by then the PLO had won international recognition. In 1974 Yasser Arafat addressed the UN General Assembly session waving the olive branch in one hand and brandishing the freedom fighter’s gun in the other.
The PLO charter like Hamas’s agenda called for the liberation of the whole of the former mandated Palestinian territory, but it had to modify its agenda, limiting it to the liberation of West Bank including Jerusalem and Gaza. Since that conformed to the UN resolution on Palestine, the international community readily accepted it, giving legitimacy to the Palestinian liberation movement.
Just like the US, Israel and EC (European Community) had demanded of PLO/Fatah to renounce the Palestinian claim to that part of Palestine where Israel was situated, the West has been pressing Hamas to do the same. It may be recalled that the Hamas leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, had declared in his lifetime that his movement would not carry the war into Israel proper but would target the Israeli occupation army and administration in the West Bank and Gaza, which is what the PLO/Fatah have been doing.
Since the time Arafat went from the battlefield to the tortuous negotiation table, he was offered mere Arab version of Bantustan under Israeli tutelage; his popularity among the Palestinians waned. The veteran freedom fighter retrieved his honour by fighting a last-ditch battle in Ramalla as a captive. Mahmoud Abbas is but a poor substitute for the father of Palestinian nation, Yasser Arafat. The only justification for Mahmoud Abbas remaining at the helm of affairs in Muqtadara could be his influence with Washington and Tel Aviv but he failed to break the stalemate since 2000.
It seems that either at the instance of outside forces or out of frustration over losing the loaves and fishes of office that Fatah and its servile police stormed the parliament building on January 27 calling for blocking the assumption of power by Hamas. It is going to be action replay of Algeria where Islamic Salvation Front, which had won the first round of elections, was not allowed to contest the remaining round. Instead, an army-backed rump was foisted upon the nation that plunged Algeria into a bloody civil war. This would be the worst-case scenario in occupied Palestine.
So far the Hamas has avoided a head-on collision with the ruling Al Fatah and even Israel which murdered Sheikh Ahmed Yasin, Abdul Aziz Rantisi; and other top-ranking leaders in air raids and missile attacks as part of its counter-insurgency operation. Thus Hamas itself has been the victim of state terrorism, but it has observed complete restraint in the face of provocations.
Founded in 1987, the Islamist movement has been engaged in relief and rehabilitation of tens of hundreds of Palestinians rendered homeless by Israeli bombing. The organization is running hospitals, schools and orphanages for them. How can those engaged in philanthropic and humanitarian work be called terrorists? The western media have seldom presented this aspect of Hamas’s activities. Their militancy is armed at Israel’s military occupation of their native land.
The West denies Hamas the right to rule its own country if it does not renounce its right to resistance. This is not fair. In the past Dr. Soekarno, Ho Chi Minh, Jomo Kennyata, Ben Bela, Nelson Mandela, Robert Mugabe, Sam Njuma, all freedom fighters were first denied legitimacy but eventually they assumed power in their countries.
It makes sense, though, that an elected government should not keep private militia but this is possible only after the termination of foreign military occupation. The Americans and Europeans must adopt an even-handed policy towards Hamas and Israel. If they disarm Hamas without terminating Israel’s military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, it will mean that they want to perpetuate Israel’s occupation. Justice and fair play demand that the disarming of Hamas and other militants should come about simultaneously with the withdrawal of Israel’s occupying army from the West Bank, including Jerusalem and Gaza.
The elections in Palestine reflect the mood and determination of Palestinian masses who have lost faith in the twelve-year peace negotiations which have not brought liberation any nearer. They seem determined to resume the independence struggle. For its part Hamas should realize that it cannot achieve its goal without the support of Palestinian Muslims and Christians.
Therefore, they should not press their agenda of a religions state lest it might alienate the Palestinian Christians who have been in the vanguard of national resistance to Israel occupation.
LISTENING to President Bush’s State of the Union address, you’d think the United States has reached bottom in its addiction to foreign oil and is so desperate to break free that it will take the ultimate step — investing in research — to find a way out. But, by and large, it isn’t a lack of technology that keeps the nation so dependent on oil. It’s the lack of will to use it.
Engineers have produced a basket of new technologies for making cars burn less gasoline, yet fuel standards for passenger cars in this country haven’t changed in more than two decades, and fuel economy has barely budged. Brazil has shown the way to energy independence by powering cars with ethanol made from sugar.
This country, meanwhile, continues to pour billions of dollars in subsidies into producing ethanol less efficiently from corn. Advances in solar energy have made it less expensive and more reliable, yet only California is making a significant bid to exploit the power of the sun.
Instead of any decisive action to force or even encourage the adoption of these technologies, the president is proposing a 22% increase in energy-related research funding. Who would argue against more research? We won’t, certainly. Neither will industry or consumers, especially if the money comes not from higher gas prices or shareholder pockets but from digging a slightly deeper hole in the federal deficit. There is plenty of room to improve the science of new fuel sources, and the U.S. should lead the way.
The increase, generous though it is, doesn’t exactly amount to a Manhattan Project-like commitment to alternative energy sources.
—Los Angeles