|
| March 24, 2006 | Friday | Safar 23, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Agreement on crime control
Women’s sports complex
Ties strengthened, made more meaningful
Fining the Blues
RARELY if ever has such a major visit to Pakistan as that of President Bush taken place against a background so laden with negative overtones and a sense of foreboding. The New York Times’ editorial of March 3 dismissed the visit in advance as being utterly pointless. For weeks prior to the visit a steady drumbeat of scathing articles had been carried by other American newspapers.
PRESIDENT George Bush’s declaration that American troops will stay in Iraq till 2008 coincides with the availability of some Iraqi audio tapes which quote former president Saddam Hussain as saying that his country had nothing to hide by way of weapons of mass destruction. The tapes contain high-level secret Iraqi meetings and were obviously in Arabic. English translations now made available and released by the American government show that the Iraqi dictator felt frustrated that the world did not believe him when he said that his country had no WMDs. He even wondered whether the UN monitors would find any such thing even if they roamed Iraq for 50 years in “a pointless hunt”.
The Baathist leader might have lied a thousand times to eliminate his rivals, achieve power and perpetuate his tyranny, but here he was not lying. The biggest proof of Iraq’s truthfulness in the matter came when in September 2002 Baghdad agreed to the return of UN inspectors — thus disappointing Washington and London which had hoped that a rejection of the UN resolution demanding the inspectors’ return would make a case for war. Then in October Iraq and the UN observers reached a comprehensive agreement that gave UN inspectors “immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access” to all suspected sites, including eight presidential palaces. Yet, the American reaction was that it was “a tactic that will fail”, with President Bush calling Saddam Hussain “a murderous tyrant” whose “nuclear holy warriors” were ready to wage war on the US. But that was not what Mr Hans Blix had to say, for after extensive search, the chief of the UN Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission told the Security Council that his inspectors found no ‘smoking gun’. Determined to wage war, the American and British governments disregarded the UN inspectors’ findings and to prepare the world and their own people for war falsified the intelligence data, including the insertion of the now-discredited “45-minutes” claim.
Three years after the end of the Baathist regime, American troops are still there, haplessly bogged down, and yet President Bush does not think they can be pulled out during his stay in the White House. In fact, at Tuesday’s press conference, he said “more tough fighting [was] ahead”. Also, an indication of a longer stay in Iraq is the report that the US is now building permanent bases, for which the administration has authorized one billion dollars. Are the permanent bases going to help matters? Resistance continues unabated, and the American casualties have already crossed the 2,300 mark. The Iraqi parliament has failed to break the deadlock over the formation of a new government, and most observers of the Iraqi scene feel the country is teetering on the brink of a civil war. As Prince Hasan bin Talal of Jordan said the other day, Iraq is in danger of splitting into “a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian minorities which could affect the region as a whole”. The warning comes from Jordan’s former crown prince, who is a friend of America’s. Add to this the repeated threats to Iran by Israel and the US, and one can expect a widening of the area of conflict with consequences as bad for the Muslim world as for America. The biggest casualty in such a scenario will be America’s war on terror, for Washington will then be seen to be pursuing not a war on terror but an unabashed pursuit of geopolitical interests that serves Israel’s cause more than even its own.
THE agreement reached between India’s Central Bureau of Investigation and Pakistan’s Federal Investigation Agency to fight some categories of crime is a major development in their bilateral relations. Considering the growing cooperation between the two governments in different fields — political, economic, socio-cultural and technological — it is good that the area of crime has also been addressed. At present only specifics have been identified. Thus the focus is to be on human trafficking, counterfeit currency and illegal immigration which affect the lives and human rights of a large number of people. In the case of trafficking, the humanitarian dimension of the crime is also of far-reaching importance. Hence it has been felt for long that these issues need to be tackled promptly in an organised manner to provide relief to the victims and also to protect the moral status of the governments affected by the negative consequences of these social and legal ills. The very nature of these crimes involves cross-border planning which takes place in collusion with groups operating in both countries. Hence close cooperation between the law enforcement agencies of India and Pakistan is essential if the racket is to be eliminated.
The joint statement issued after the talks speaks of the will of the two sides to deal expeditiously with Interpol cases referred to them. It is not clear if the two sides think it is enough to express their good intentions or whether they will take further measures in this respect. For instance, they have set up a joint study group to decide on the modalities of future cooperation in human trafficking, counterfeit currency and illegal immigration. But nothing of the kind has been done for the Interpol cases which are politically more sensitive — a case in point being the disagreement between the two governments on the extradition of some persons wanted by India. The joint statement only says that periodical meetings at short intervals will be held between their Interpol nodal points. One hopes that this issue will also be addressed in earnest by the two countries now that they are taking their composite dialogue seriously and seeking solutions to even the knottiest of disputes. Given the escalation in cross-border traffic, bilateral cooperation is increasingly becoming unavoidable to check crime.
IT comes as no surprise that despite its completion seven months ago, Karachi’s only women sports complex remains unoperational. This kind of apathy, coupled with a lack of interest on the part of the administration to address people’s recreational needs, speaks of an attitude that has come to be the norm. Work on the project began in 1996, was stalled several times by various governments before the previous city government provided the required amount to complete the construction, which was finally done last year. The reason being cited for the delay in the opening is the administration’s inability to formulate a fee structure and appoint the relevant coaches and staff to run the complex. Why this should cause such an inordinate delay is inexplicable and can only point to inefficiency on the part of those in charge of the complex. This is puzzling for it is the aspiring and trained athletes of Karachi who are suffering as a result of this delay. Already there is a dearth of facilities where young women can participate in sporting or recreational activities.
Not only are sports and exercise vital to leading a healthy life, but access to a sports complex — that has a gymnasium, track and swimming pools — also provides a platform for women to meet and gradually become involved in community-based activities. As it is, there are few places where women can meet and exchange ideas or share their experiences. Given that the government repeatedly claims that it is trying hard to improve the lot of women, there is no better time than now for it to live up to its claims. By doing so, it will also regain some credibility which it sometimes lacks for its failure to live up to the expectations of the people.
Aware of the crucial importance of keeping Pakistan on board in the struggle against international terrorism, President Bush went ahead with the visit, disregarding the bomb blast in Karachi that killed an American diplomat, and braving a nation-wide strike protesting against the blasphemous cartoons on the day of his arrival.
On the morning of March 4, the two presidents met in Islamabad for about 70 minutes in a one-to-one session, followed by a restricted meeting with selected aides. A joint statement on the United States-Pakistan strategic partnership issued at the conclusion of the talks spelled out the major issues that were discussed and agreed upon.
In the talks the US president expectedly urged President Musharraf to intensify operations against the Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists allegedly hiding in the tribal areas of Pakistan. From President Musharraf’s demeanour and body language during the joint press briefing, observers deduced that he was upset, probably on account of President Bush’s denial of nuclear cooperation and differences over Afghanistan.
President Bush apparently fell for President Karzai’s line, seconded by US commanders in Afghanistan, that Pakistan was lax in hunting the Taliban fugitives on its soil. The American president’s ingenuous Texan style comment is revealing: “Part of my mission today was to determine whether or not the (Pakistan) president is as committed as he has been in the past to bringing these terrorists to justice, and he is.”
President Musharraf emphatically defended Pakistan’s role in fighting terrorists. One hopes he told Mr Bush that Pakistan had more troops engaged in combat along the rugged Pakistan-Afghan border than the entire Afghanistan army and all the Nato forces in Afghanistan put together. Several hundred Pakistani soldiers had sacrificed their lives in military operations in the NWFP. (The US war dead in Afghanistan over a much longer period is around 270, and for the rest of the coalition 204). Also, many Al Qaeda terrorists have been killed or captured by Pakistan’s security forces and handed over to the Americans, who have extracted valuable security information from them.
President Musharraf’s blast against the Afghan government in his CNN interview with Wolf Blitzer on March 5 lent credence to the view that he was incensed that the US president had uncritically accepted the Afghan allegations.
The exchanges on the sensitive issue of US air attacks against targets in Pakistan are not precisely known. Our American ally ought to understand that launching air strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas can be messy, ineffective and damaging to larger US interests in Pakistan, by alienating a warrior race known to wreak vengeance, apart from compromising Pakistan’s position as a staunch ally of the US.
In consideration of India’s firm position that third parties may not mediate on Kashmir, the US president played an exhortatory role by urging the leaders of both nations “to step up and lead” to resolve the “difficult issue” of Kashmir.
President Bush highlighted the need to enhance the quality of democracy in Pakistan, and underscored the importance of ensuring that the general elections in 2007 would be free and fair. President Musharraf responded positively by publicly pledging that he would adhere to democratic and constitutional norms.
The US President committed publicly to provide robust assistance to meet Pakistan’s legitimate defence needs. Upon receiving appropriate assurances from President Musharraf, Mr Bush publicly acknowledged that “Pakistan is an important partner in fighting proliferation... We’ll continue to work together to ensure that the world’s most dangerous weapons do not end up in the hands of the terrorists.”
President Bush thanked Pakistan for agreeing to join the Container Security Initiative, under which Pakistani cargoes for the US are pre-inspected by US customs in Pakistan to prevent shipment of hazardous matter to the United States.
Pakistan’s request for the grant of the same status as India in peaceful nuclear cooperation with the US invited an inevitable rebuff. To rub salt to Pakistan’s wounds President Bush made the rebuff public at the press briefing. It is unlikely that the US will deviate from its discriminatory approach in the foreseeable future by acceding to Pakistan’s request to sell a nuclear power plant to it even under the most stringent international and bilateral safeguards.
Within 10 days of the US president’s visit, Energy Secretary Samuel W. Bodman held in-depth discussions in Islamabad on March 13 on Pakistan’s energy needs other than nuclear. He offered US help to Pakistan in developing renewable energy sources like wind, solar, oil and hydropower, as well as more efficient use of non-renewable fuels.
President Bush capitalised on the goodwill generated in Pakistan by the effective use of American troops and civilian agencies in earthquake relief operations in Azad Kashmir and the NWFP. He mentioned in the joint press conference that the United States had pledged over $500 million for earthquake assistance. This includes $100 million. in the private sector being coordinated by President Bush senior, who had recently visited Pakistan.
A significant advance was the agreement to initiate a strategic dialogue to be co-chaired by Pakistan’s foreign secretary and the US undersecretary of state for political affairs. They will meet regularly to review the issues of mutual interest.
The United States agreed to provide finances for an entrepreneurship centre in Pakistan to promote entrepreneurial training of skills to young women and men to launch business initiatives that would generate employment opportunities.
The bilateral investment treaty, however, which both governments favour, did not materialize during the visit, apparently to allow for further discussion to clarify and resolve complex legal issues.
The US-Pakistan joint statement records the two leaders’ agreement that acts that disturb inter-faith harmony should be avoided.
The United States is Pakistan’s biggest trading partner and a source of investment. The New York Times’ critical editorial of March 3 had one single positive point recommending adoption of a free trade agreement with Pakistan, recognising that such an agreement would create jobs, and counter the drift towards “jihadist” culture.
President Bush voiced support for President Musharraf’s idea to create reconstruction opportunity zones. The products manufactured in such zones, located in remote areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan, would be eligible for duty-free entry into the United States. The details are being worked out.
The US president’s visit confirmed that neither side could afford to get bogged down in negative thinking. The Pakistan-US bilateral relationship is a process, not a single event or a single issue.
The pomp, ceremony and expressions of mutual esteem in Delhi’s Red Fort and above all the landmark, NPT-emasculating US-India agreement on nuclear cooperation may have impressed observers abroad and in Pakistan that President Bush’s visit to South Asia represented a triumph for India and a put-down for Pakistan. New York Times journalist Somini Sengupta gloated that, “It was India that appeared to come out the biggest winner this week. Pakistan walked away with little more than a mild pat on the back”.
Such a facile zero-sum analysis misses the point. Judged in their totality, and on a time scale, Pakistan-US relations are not doing badly at all. Economic and military assistance to Pakistan is flowing in at the rate of $700 million a year in addition to approximately one billion dollar a year for services Pakistan is providing in support of the war on terror.
By no means does this signify that Pakistan can afford to be complacent about its ties with the United States, even though Pakistan’s geo-strategic location and political currents makes it more exigent to US security concerns. Conversely, India’s huge size, accelerating economic growth and interdependence with the US makes it a valuable economic partner of the US today.
Pakistan-United States relations are passing through an active, positive phase. The vital security interests of the United States and Pakistan coincide, requiring the closest liaison and cooperation in all spheres, not just in the on-going battle against international terror. The mutual relationship curve may be expected to continue its upward trajectory, irrespective of the entirely separate expansion of US-India relations.
The United States has a vested interest in helping Pakistan become economically viable, so that it may provide more jobs, more schools, more hospitals and greater hope for a better tomorrow for its burgeoning population. If provided the wherewithal to accomplish these objectives Pakistan can truly be a force for peace and stability in the region.
To sum up, President Bush’s visit has put in place institutions to transform a single issue relationship into one that is more broad-based, long-lasting and mutually beneficial. The joint statement covers vital areas, such as periodic dialogue on strategic and policy issues, energy, education, social issues, and science and technology. Pakistan must take advantage of the these new openings. Only extreme pessimism could view these developments as inconsequential.
The writer is a former ambassador.
THE Federal Communications Commission is in a tough spot when it comes to enforcing the law against broadcast indecency. Determining what crosses the line from acceptable to indecent isn’t easy in an increasingly coarse culture.
As network programming has become racier and more graphic, the FCC has been deluged with complaints in recent years, understandably so. Parental controls such as the V-chip can help shield children from inappropriate programs, but they aren’t always effective; sports and awards shows, for example, aren’t rated in advance.
At the same time, the theory that allows broadcasters to be fined for such speech consistent with the First Amendment — that “uniquely pervasive presence” of broadcast media “in the lives of all Americans” — seems increasingly obsolete in an age when the overwhelming majority of American households (more than 85 per cent) get their television programming via cable or satellite — receiving numerous channels that aren’t subject to indecency rules.
As a result, a single profanity uttered on one (broadcast) channel can result in a multimillion-dollar fine, while worse language spoken at the very same time on another (cable) channel is exempt from regulation.
Last week the FCC once again ventured into this politically, legally and emotionally charged territory, ruling on complaints involving nearly 50 programs broadcast between February 2002 and March 2005 and signalling a renewed zeal for indecency enforcement under its new Republican chairman, Kevin J. Martin.
The FCC, citing a previous decision that profanity in “Saving Private Ryan” would not subject broadcasters to indecency fines, noted that “in rare contexts, language that is presumptively profane” will still be allowed “where it is demonstrably essential to the nature of an artistic or educational work or essential to informing viewers on a matter of public importance.”
But the commissioners didn’t find that standard was satisfied in the case of the documentary, whose educational purpose, it said, “could have been fulfilled and all viewpoints expressed without the repeated broadcast of expletives.”
— The Washington Post