|
| September 02, 2006 | Saturday | Sha'aban 8, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
These appalling disparities
Spread of gastroenteritis
Unilateral US sanctions on Iran?
THE passing of the August 31 deadline for Iran to comply with the Security Council resolution calling upon it to end its programme of uranium enrichment has obliged the US to decide on its future strategy vis-a-vis Tehran. Ever since the ceasefire in Lebanon, President George Bush has been ascribing Hezbollah’s defiance to Iranian sponsorship and arms, and has highlighted the threat from Iran’s nuclear programme.
IT was an extraordinary statement, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan Niazi telling the National Assembly that “he (Nawab Akbar Bugti) has been rightly killed”. While the opposition chose to walk out of the house on what indeed were provocative words not in keeping with the solemnity of the occasion, the minister did a disservice to his government, because its version of the event went by default as a result of what followed next. Originally, Speaker Chaudhry Amir Hussain had decided that an equal number of MNAs from both sides would speak- something to which the opposition had objected, citing the tradition that the movers of adjournment motions had the right to speak first, and the government could later wind up the debate. Mr Farooq Amjad Mir, a PML MNA, tried a bit of damage control and received the opposition’s applause by saying that what Mr Niazi had said were his personal views. But the damage had already been done, the opposition walked out, and the house was denied a meaningful debate. Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao must have deeply regretted that a fellow minister’s indiscretion denied him an opportunity to present his version of the tragedy, beginning with the Bugti chief’s death in a Kohlu cave, what led to it and what was being done to retrieve the Baloch leader’s remains.
Mr Niazi should have been more discreet in his choice of words. That Nawab Akbar Bugti was a controversial figure goes without saying. He evoked feelings of both admiration and contempt. Even some Baloch leaders differed with him on policy and tactics and on what Sardar Khair Bux Marri called his “mode of resistance”. Indeed, given the acts of sabotage in Balochistan over the last two years, especially the wanton blowing up of such national assets as gas installations and railway and power lines, Mr Niazi could perhaps have received tacit approval even from some of those sitting on the opposition benches when he said that he did not believe that the late nawab was engaged “in a struggle for people’s rights”. But the minister, whose words of wisdom in parliament have included those approving wife beating, seemed to have taken leave of common sense when he uttered words which would appear repugnant to anyone who believes in even the rudimentary concepts of the sanctity of human life and probity.
Should the minister’s remarks be considered as representative of the government’s point of view? The statement is chilling, because Balochistan is on the boil, and a lot more remains to be done in Wana before we can say that normality has been restored in Waziristan. Obviously, if the late Bugti sardar has been disposed of “rightly”, then must we expect more deaths in similar fashion? If the answer is yes, then the government must know that this policy will not only boomerang on those who adopt such methods to tackle political problems, but could do incalculable harm to Pakistan. We must also take notice of a BNP leader’s statement on the floor of the house on Thursday that he would approach Nato, UN and international human rights organisation to seek justice for the Baloch people. This is absurd. Whatever is happening in Balochistan is Pakistan’s internal problem, and the issue must be settled within the country. It is utterances like this that have hampered rather than advanced the Baloch cause.
SOME observations made by speakers at the launch of the South Asian Human Development Report, 2005, are most pertinent to the conditions prevailing in Pakistan. They pointed out that the bane of our society was poor governance, lack of a sense of security, imbalance in the distribution of resources and the impediments to peace and stability posed by the ideology, greed and politics of a minority. These views cannot be disputed. It is quite disconcerting, however, to find that some of the speakers who expressed concern over our failure to remove poverty are themselves in a position to do something about it. Dr Ishrat Husain is the chairman of the National Commission on Government Reform, while Dr Naseem Ashraf is the chairman of the National Commission on Human Development. They might have made some impact in their limited areas. But it is regrettable that they too have failed to bring about changes in the direction of national policy.
The fact of the matter is that pretty words and high sounding theories do not bring about far-reaching changes in society. The three basic requirements are to have the structures of good governance to have good policies formulated and followed. Secondly, good policies must be formulated to benefit the people. Thirdly, financial resources must be generated and equitably distributed to implement these policies. In democratic and well adjusted societies this would not be such a tall order. But Pakistan is hardly a democratic state or a socially adjusted entity. As a result, institutions work to the advantage of the rich and the privileged. Policies are skewed for the benefit of the elite. Funds are in abundance but they are channelled into projects that meet the needs of only a handful. Can this pattern ever be changed? As Dr Khadija Haq, the author of the report, succinctly put it, South Asia is divided between the hopes of the rich and the despair of the poor. Change can come only if those in a position of political, social and economic usurping the power realise the folly of keeping the masses deprived. The poverty-stricken are generally weak, downtrodden and illiterate. Wouldn’t it be wiser for the advantaged to secure their own long-term survival by sharing their privileges with the masses?
WATERBORNE diseases, particularly gastroenteritis, are cutting a swathe of misery across Sindh, with children and the elderly being the worst affected. Since the onset of the monsoon, over 30,000 cases of gastroenteritis have been reported in the province and at least 14 patients admitted to government and private hospitals have died from the disease. Estimates of those affected in remote areas are unavailable. However, given the debilitating nature of the ailment, coupled with the constraints of poverty, it can be assumed that some villages remain without any kind of medical help. Of the cases on record, the majority are being reported from districts Nawabshah, Khairpur, Mirpurkhas, Larkana, Naushero Feroze and Sukkur. Hyderabad is also affected, while government hospitals in Karachi are receiving an estimated 150 gastroenteritis cases a day.
The need now is to mobilise teams of healthcare professionals who can travel to remote villages and provide treatment. Wherever possible, these mobile units must carry emergency supplies of clean water for the most critically affected. Provision of chlorine tablets, along with guidelines for safe use, is another option. Since such measures are sustainable only in the short term, it is imperative that efforts be made to raise awareness of the dangers of contaminated water and the ways by which they can be overcome. A concerted campaign is required in both rural and urban areas to highlight the need to vigorously boil drinking water prior to consumption. In the longer term, the drainage and sewerage systems should be overhauled to ensure that rainwater and household and factory discharges do not seep into water lines and underground tanks. Water treatment plants also need to be upgraded and professionally managed. In the rural areas, plans to bore bacteria- and arsenic-free ‘deep wells’ must be pursued with sincerity of purpose. All this is possible. Just doing the doable will suffice.
The American president and other policymakers have been stressing the need to impose economic sanctions on Tehran for non-compliance. They have repeatedly pointed out that Iran continues to be the major source of support to terrorist organisations, and that its nuclear ambitions need to be checked by the international community.
However, there is general realisation in the US that Washington is unlikely to achieve its goal of imposing sanctions owing to the lack of support from China and Russia. The Iranian response, conveyed on August 22, was meant to be conciliatory, and offered to enter into a dialogue on the package of incentives put forward by the five permanent members of the Security Council and Germany.
But the US has regarded the response as unsatisfactory because, at the same time, Iran has stood by its right under the NPT to carry out uranium enrichment. The usual American view that the offer of dialogue was a delaying tactic to enable Iran to continue the work on achieving weapons capability was reiterated.
A week after the official response, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad invited President Bush to a television debate where both leaders could discuss their respective stands on the nuclear issue before a global audience.
In his statement, the Iranian president again defended his country’s right to conduct uranium enrichment under the NPT and called the US attitude discriminatory. The immediate reaction among US opinion-makers was that Iran was claiming a status of equality with the US, thus exploiting the situation after the recent conflict in Lebanon.
Observers even in the US point out that the superpower’s double standards have been evident from its different approach to Iran and North Korea. Though both were included in the “axis of evil”, Bush used threats and intimidation against the Muslim nation, while adopting the path of multilateral dialogue with North Korea.
The discrimination had been further accentuated by the US-India agreement on cooperation in the peaceful use of nuclear technology that was also noted by Iran.
Responsible experts, including the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, believe that even if Iran has nuclear ambitions, it will take Tehran several years to achieve nuclear weapons capability, so that the threat is not immediate. The IAEA, helped by the latest technology, can monitor Iran’s progress by seeking access to all facilities where work is going on. However, the US view, that is largely influenced by Israel, is that Iran cannot be trusted and that the IAEA cannot be 100 per cent effective in reaching all points where research on weapons manufacture may be in progress.
This line of thinking has generated two parallel lines of action. The traditional Bush approach, based on pre-emption and regime change, has not been abandoned.
Its exponents, such as Vice-President Dick Cheney and Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, retain this stance, and the Pentagon, in particular, goes on with its contingency planning. For instance, a Special Air Force Command for Iran is said to have been established.
The other line of action relates to domestic politics in an election year. With anti-war sentiments in the country running high, President Bush is obliged to be circumspect and not stress his hawkish outlook, although he keeps defending the war in Iraq as well as the need to persevere for the long-term security of the US and of the “democratic order”.
One is reminded of the Cold War period when the Soviet Union had established the same kind of proprietary hold over the word “peace”. Any development hostile to Soviet interests was described as harmful to the cause of peace, while events favourable to the Soviet Union were depicted as strengthening the forces of peace. Just as the world’s leading democracy, the US, now claims that anything serving its interests reinforces “democracy”, while any setback to its policy “weakens” the forces of democracy. One only need look at the many instances of rejection of the results of democratic elections by Washington to realise that its championing of democratic values is subordinate to its national interests.
The campaigning for mid-term elections has started and President Bush is not only defending the war in Iraq, he is also playing on post-9/11 fears, telling US voters that if the war against terrorism is abandoned in Iraq, it will have to be fought on American soil.
In the Iranian case, as the deadline of August 31 is over, the official position taken by Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns is that the US will press for sanctions. The possibility of unilateral action by the US is among the options available.
However, in a speech on August 31, in Salt Lake City, President Bush stated that the US would consult its allies to find a diplomatic solution, while insisting that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons.
Incidentally, the report of the IAEA, released to Russia, the current chairman of the Security Council, is factual, leaving further action to the Security Council. It states that Iran has not ceased uranium enrichment, though the tempo of the work has remained unchanged. It draws attention to further traces of highly enriched uranium found in nuclear waste in Iran, indirectly confirming that Iran continues to withhold sensitive information from the IAEA. Iran has rejected the report as biased.
The fifth anniversary of 9/11 is approaching, and the continuing terrorist threat, as evident from the London bomb plot discovered in July, is being played up. Passenger flights in Europe and even within the US have been forced to land on account of suspicious behaviour of passengers with Asian or Muslim appearances.
On several occasions, local passengers have refused to fly with such passengers, who are off-loaded and compelled to take other flights.
Apart from stringent security checks, the practice of profiling passengers, on the basis of their country of origin, is becoming common, though protests by Muslim and Asian passengers have been reported, notably over the off-loading of 12 Indian passengers from a US flight at Amsterdam over which the Indian government lodged an official protest.
The 61st General Assembly of the UN is also approaching, and the US president proposes to address it on September 19. Though he is likely to stress the continuing threat from terrorism, and would doubtless call for sanctions against Iran, many senior political figures are calling for focus on other problems that are undermining the quality of life on this planet.
Former President Clinton is joining global campaigns to fight Aids and poverty, both of which need concerted action, as does the threat to the environment, notably global warming, that may make this planet uninhabitable unless we harness technology and impose serious restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. Former Vice-President Al Gore’s warnings on the environment are not only being heeded but the need for the US to provide leadership in addressing these issues is being recognised.
There is growing recognition that while security against terrorism will remain a major concern, even that threat needs to be addressed at its roots, by tackling political and economic injustices in the world. The anniversary of Hurricane Katrina has highlighted that racial discrimination persists in the US, half a century after it was banned by the country.
The US may want to exploit the fear from terror to justify the unilateral use of force over the issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
However, the rest of the international community must call for a peaceful settlement of the problem. Even the imposition of economic sanctions will produce reactions by Iran that may lead to an energy crisis and do more damage to the international economy than to Iran.
Pakistan, which has a history of fraternal relations with its neighbour, must use its influence to support a resolution through dialogue, which Tehran has offered to hold, bilaterally with the US, or under UN auspices.
The writer is a former ambassador.