|
| July 16, 2006 | Sunday | Jumadi-ul-Sani 19, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A sad aftermath
Testing for thalassaemia
A test case for Pakistan’s diplomacy: Realism of India’s UN ambition-II
IN the first part of this article I had tried to explain the dynamics of the process of selection of the UN secretary-general, in addition to briefly examining the prospects of the Indian nominee. I propose to devote this sequel to the possible options available to Pakistan to thwart India’s ambition to occupy the premier multilateral position in the world as this eventuality would directly impinge upon our national interests.
ALLAMA Hassan Turabi’s assassination in Karachi on Friday raises a question or two about the direction in which we as a nation are headed. The Shia divine had survived an attempt on his life last April when a roadside bomb blew up beside his vehicle. This time the killers used a suicide bomber posing as a beggar to make sure they succeeded. Even though, after the attempt on his life on April 6, the authorities had strengthened his security, there is really no fool-proof defence against a suicide bomber, as events in Pakistan and abroad have shown. Ignoring the Nishtar Park tragedy — we do not know who caused the carnage because a judicial inquiry is still in progress — Allama Turabi’s assassination is the ninth sectarian incident in Pakistan this year. The worst of these was in Hangu on Feb 10, which led to 40 deaths. Last year was no better, for there were 29 such cases, 15 of them in Karachi alone, six in Gilgit, two each in Quetta and Lahore, besides those at Islamabad, Skardu, Faisalabad and Mandi Bahauddin. The blast in Islamabad at the Bari Imam shrine on May 27 killed 20 persons and injured 100 others. While cataloguing these gory incidents one cannot but ask the question: who are the brains behind this sectarian frenzy, where do they get money and arms from, where are their training centres, and why have not the authorities been able to unearth them?
While the intelligence agencies’ failure stemming from what one would call professional incompetence is obvious, one is appalled by the atmosphere of intolerance and bigotry that has gripped the country for long. The sectarian fanaticism that guides banned outfits like Sipah-i-Sahaba and Lashkar-i-Jhangvi is too well known to be retold, but one must also admit that the kind of hate atmosphere that exists in the country has helped these terrorist groups draw recruits to their cause, and they strike their targets whenever and wherever they choose. While it would be unfair to accuse all ulema of encouraging fanaticism and militancy, there is no doubt that the kind of politics that some of our religious parties and leaders have been practising and the recklessness with which appeals are often made to raw emotions for political purposes have contributed a great deal to the rise of a kind of fanaticism that kills and maims without mercy because it attaches no importance to the sanctity of human life. The violence in the wake of the Danish cartoons is just one example of how religious passions can be channelled into senseless violence.
The issue is basically societal and requires more than state efforts. Perhaps most ulema do not realise that a mere ritual condemnation of acts of sectarian terrorism is not going to improve matters. The people of Pakistan need peace and a modicum of normality in which they can pursue normal lives, and this requires a concerted effort on the part of the ulema, intellectuals, teachers, political leaders and NGOs to shift the people’s focus away from violence and parochialism and help create a society free from intolerance and bigotry. The ulema’s role is crucial because people listen to them. A continuation of the anarchy and terrorism as seen in Allama Hassan Turabi’s assassination poses a threat to the very fabric of Pakistani state and society.
THE Indian government’s decision to call off the foreign secretary-level talks with Pakistan next week will not improve the prospects of the composite dialogue between the two countries. Immediately after the Mumbai blasts, New Delhi adopted a constructive stance that encouraged people to believe that the two countries would address the issue of terrorism in a levelheaded manner. After throwing broad hints for three days, official circles in India have changed their stance and have let it be known that they suspect a Pakistani hand behind the blasts and now they do not want to continue the dialogue. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh even warned that the negotiations could not continue until terrorism stopped. Mercifully, he held out the assurance that this did not spell the death of the peace process. These are obviously semantics and the message is loud and clear. The talks have been stalled for the moment, which indicates a change in the Indian policy of engaging with Pakistan.
This is a pity for two reasons. First, it is not possible for Indian intelligence and investigators to have established the identity of the perpetrators of the terrorist acts in Mumbai so soon. Without any hard evidence on this count, this was an overly hasty and drastic step to take which New Delhi should have avoided at this moment when passions are running high. Secondly, these issues could have been discussed quietly across the table. The way they have been taken up at the moment can have negative repercussions. The two sides have started blaming each other through the media which will only embitter relations between them — something most undesirable at the moment. Given the sensitive nature of India-Pakistan relations, the two sides will have to be extra careful about how they manage the peace process. If need be, the secretary-level talks can be moved to a later date and the issue of terrorism can be discussed between the representatives of the two foreign offices without bringing it in the glare of the media limelight. It should be remembered that Pakistan too is a victim of violence unleashed by terrorists many of whom use Pakistani territory for their foul deeds. The two governments need to cooperate in fighting these elements rather than indulge in a blame game.
IT pays to be careful, and even though the incidence of HIV/Aids in Pakistan is low at the moment, the government has done well to announce plans for a voluntary programme aimed at encouraging couples to have themselves tested for the disease before marriage. Unless precautionary measures are taken before and after birth, the virus can be transmitted from an infected woman to her child. But while one appreciates this move, it is puzzling why the government does not seem as concerned about thalassaemia, a common genetic disorder of the red blood cells that, in its less virulent form, afflicts some 10 million people in the country. The greater danger is thalassaemia major. Frequent blood transfusions are needed in this condition, and patients are exposed to increased risks of contracting other blood-borne diseases.
Given the high figures for thalassaemic patients, there have been suggestions that the best way to bring down its incidence is to prevent the birth of children with that condition. This is where pre-marital blood testing comes in so that couples can make an informed choice when it comes to having children. True, there are sensitivities involved as more than 30 per cent of marriages in Pakistan are between first cousins who may both carry the recessive gene, thus compounding the chances of producing a thalassaemic child. But there are countries with cultural norms similar to ours — like Iran — that have made such testing mandatory and are dealing successfully with the problem. Cultural traditions can be diluted and made more flexible by disseminating greater information about thalassaemia and its potentially fatal effects. After all, it is a question of saving our children from a life of misery and spending much of their time in a protected environment.
First, a brief word on Asia’s turn to occupy the post. Rotation amongst regional groups is a tradition , not a Charter stipulation. U Thant was the last Asian incumbent who vacated the office several decades ago. Since then Europe, Latin America and Africa have had their turn. Reports suggest that the East European countries have also staked their claim with tacit American support. This is a false claim.
During the currency of the Cold War this group of countries did indeed represent a specific political ideology which gave it a distinct outlook and a credible claim for separate treatment in UN affairs. That is no longer the case. Most East European countries are now part of the European Union and many have joined Nato. Apart from Russia and possibly Belarus they all vote in unison with the West. In political and economic terms these countries are no longer entitled to separate group treatment, like Asia, Africa or Latin America. Their loyalty and destiny now lie with the west and should in principle be absorbed in that group.
The 53 African countries have formally upheld Asia’s turn to provide the next secretary-general. The 114 strong Non-Aligned Movement has decided likewise. This number constitutes a clear majority of the entire UN membership. More importantly, China, too, is committed to support an Asian candidate. The sentiment being overwhelmingly in Asia’s favour, an act of blatant highhandedness would be required to deny Asia its right. The possibility that Shashi Tharoor’s candidacy might be derailed by East European claimants, thus, needs to be effectively ruled out and should not figure in the formulation of our own strategy.
Now what should Pakistan do? Essentially we have two options; launch our own candidacy or initiate a diplomatic offensive, starting with the permanent five, to impress upon the international community the deleterious implications of appointing an Indian secretary-general on South Asia and beyond.
It might be tempting to field a Pakistani candidate to cancel out the Indian. Here three factors need to be borne in mind; first, our nominee would not be seen as a serious contender for the secretary-generalship but simply a ploy to deny India the post. The merit of our candidate, if we can find one with the right credentials, would figure only marginally in electoral appraisals. The fact that we were caught by surprise by Tharoor’s candidacy constitutes a serious lapse in our diplomatic judgment. Timing is the essence of good diplomacy. The inability of our multilateral machinery to foresee an Indian nomination denied us the opportunity to preempt it by announcing our own interest first. Now, no matter what spin we give, our candidacy would be seen primarily in a spoiler mode.
Second, the nature of the selection process mitigates the cancellation phenomenon. In a head to head election it is possible to cancel out a rival by draining votes away from him That would not be possible in the present instance. The Security Council does not vote simultaneously on all the candidates. It takes a separate straw poll on each one of them to determine the overall trend within the Council. The candidate polling the highest votes, without a veto, is then presented as the unanimous choice of the Council. It is difficult to see how under this scenario a Pakistani candidate would be able to cancel out the Indian.
Thirdly, does Pakistan have a credible candidate? The names currently been mentioned do not create a state of euphoria. Since they have been colleagues, a personal commentary would be inappropriate. Suffice it to say that the qualities which ensure success within a country are not necessarily accorded similar weight in international assessments. If the decision is indeed in favour of fielding a candidate, simply to make a political statement, then only one name comes to mind; former foreign secretary and state minister, Inam ul Haq.
Many concrete and irrefutable arguments are available against an Indian secretary-general, the most potent being the complete absence of regional support for India. Tharoor’s success would be pathbreaking since never before had an individual been appointed the head of a multilateral agency, let alone the United Nations, in the teeth of regional opposition. Is it not pertinent to inquire how could the nominee of a nation, which has conclusively proven itself incapable of living peacefully with its immediate neighbours, be expected to bring peace to the world. India’s problems with Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are too numerous to require repetition. Shashi Tharoor’s candidature, thus, falls far short of the first critical benchmark of a successful electoral bid; regional support.
The secretary-general of the United Nations has been designated as the custodian of the Charter. Is it not logical that an aspirant should represent a country with an impeccable record of proven devotion to the principles of the organisation? A simple yardstick exists to gauge a nations commitment to the United Nations; respect for and implementation of its decisions. India categorically fails this test. Its association with the UN began with its defiance of Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and remains so to this day. Despite an extraordinary show of flexibility and accommodation by Pakistan and the Kashmiris, India remains adamant in its refusal to take even a small tentative step towards resolving the dispute. A nation in unlawful occupation of foreign territory is not entitled to occupy the secretary-general’s seat.
Linked to this is another crucial factor. The international community has scrupulously avoided conferring the post of secretary-general on a country involved in a major dispute with another member-state. The logic is simple enough, that a situation should not be created in which an incumbent could use his authority in favour of his home country. India remains locked in a major dispute with Pakistan on Kashmir. Till this dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of all the parties concerned, India’s candidacy cannot be considered with much seriousness.
Promotion and protection of human rights is amongst the important objectives of the UN Charter. Can an Indian holding the post be expected to honestly discharge this function? As if decades of depredations in Kashmir were not enough, India has presented to the world such human rights pioneers as Bal Thackeray and Narendra Modi. Would it ever be possible for Mr Shashi Tharoor to raise the faintest voice of protest against the ongoing carnage in Kashmir?
Since September 11, a new dimension has been added to the standard norms of interstate relations; the looming prospect of a civilisational clash which would devastate world peace and security. Contemporary challenges demand a UN leader who is intellectually and temperamentally equipped to move human civilisation away from confrontation and towards the path of mutual respect and understanding.
The starting point for this enterprise would be to earn the trust and confidence of the Islamic world on the one hand and the west on the other. Mr Tharoor might succeed on the second count but not the first. In fact, his country, India, has made no small contribution to the promotion of Islamic extremism. The gross abuse visited on the Kashmiri people has most certainly fed into the seething cauldron of radicalism. Appointing him as the secretary-general of the United Nations would be a divisive step which would impede efforts to promote civilisational harmony, a fundamental requirement of these uncertain times.
Diplomacy is described as a sublime craft in which harsh facts are articulated in subtle and muted undertones. True, but not when a nation’s core interests are at stake. The issue under discussion is of such vital import that aggressive diplomacy, pursued within a well considered strategy, would be necessary. Pakistan, indeed all countries of South Asia and beyond, would be closely affected by the outcome of this contest.
We should in the very least make our views emphatically clear to the international community. I, for one, doubt that we would be able to achieve this by fielding a candidate of our own since, in that scenario, we would be constrained to continuously defend his credentials, instead of effectively focusing international attention on the inadvisability of appointing an Indian secretary-general.
Concluded
The writer is a former ambassador.