|
| November 04, 2006 | Saturday | Shawwal 11, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Killing fellow soldiers
Strange logic
Increasingly, the heat is on Turkey
IT’S crunch time for relations between Turkey and the European Union. EU leaders may have decided to open negotiations on Ankara’s membership of the 25-nation bloc last year but the last few months have witnessed a rise in tensions between Ankara and Brussels over an array of issues, including Turkey’s troubled relationship with Cyprus.
THE meeting of Baloch leaders being convened by the President of Pakistan in Islamabad next week is ostensibly designed to “associate the people of Balochistan with the efforts to develop the province and help it achieve political stability”. Pacification of Balochistan, which has been in turmoil for quite some time now, is of utmost importance. The killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti in August has not helped curb the turbulence in the province, although the government had thought that the use of force would bring the Baloch to heel. Realising the compulsion for a change in strategy, Islamabad has turned to the dual approach of infusing more funds for development into the troubled region while giving the Baloch a sense of political involvement in their own affairs. The other day Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz announced a Rs19.5 billion ‘New Vision for Balochistan’ package during his visit to Quetta with the aim of creating employment and changing the economic landscape of the area. The meeting in Islamabad is expected to address the political aspect of Baloch grievances.
One only wishes the initiative succeeds in producing the desired results. Doubt, however, arises because the move bypasses the leadership that wields considerable influence in the province, such as the Mengals, the Marris and the Bugtis. Besides, the meeting should have been held in Quetta — if for no other reason than as a gesture of goodwill to the Baloch people. While others who do not have as much clout in the province will be talking to the government, the BNP will be planning a province-wide protest. There is obviously something seriously wrong with a strategy that does not take into account the confrontation that is going on between the nationalist elements and Islamabad which has chosen to talk to a group of compliant Baloch leaders.
One can expect more of the same in Balochistan in the absence of a correct strategy. The province has suffered from a sense of deprivation and discrimination that has left the Baloch people impoverished, backward and neglected. Their anger is understandable because their resources, such as Sui gas, have been used for the benefit of the other provinces while the locals have been denied the gains that should have accrued to them. Politically too they have not enjoyed the autonomy that they had expected. Take the case of Gwadar which has led to much heart burning since many of the jobs being created there are not going to the local people. The land being developed in the port area has been allotted mainly to moneyed and politically privileged people from other provinces. This has caused much resentment and, as a result, some sections of the Baloch have taken up arms against the federal government. They probably feel they have nothing to lose by having recourse to violence. But the government has a lot to lose and will have to act to counter the militants. Since violence begets violence, it would be ill-advised for the government to continue with its strategy of suppression. It must adopt the policy of conciliation. It is time the government started talking to those whom it calls dissidents. It would also help if the recommendations of the Mushahid Hussain subcommittee are also implemented since they were drawn up after the parliamentary committee had visited Balochistan and talked to various leaders there.
THE winds of change blowing through South Asia because of the reconciliation process between Pakistan and India have not improved the stifling atmosphere existing in Indian-occupied Kashmir. A manifestation of it is to be found in the murder of fellow soldiers by Indian troops. In October alone, eight soldiers including a lieutenant-colonel fell victim to fratricidal killings. Occupation forces suffering from combat stress and developing psychological disorders is a known phenomenon. America faced this problem in a big way during the Vietnam war when soldiers returned home with what is called post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), which in many cases turned out to be terminal. Many committed or attempted suicide. The same phenomenon is to be seen in Iraq where the number of American dead is nearing 3,000. However, thousands of those returning home are found to be suffering from PTSD and in need of psychiatric help. As statistics show, of the five million veterans treated at American counselling centres, 48,733 had taken part in the Iraq and Afghan wars. Unlike the situation in set-piece battles where a soldier fights an enemy he can see, guerrilla war is a different phenomenon. Here the soldier is fighting an invisible enemy and lives and moves about in fear of an ambush.
Following these murders and suicide and attempted suicide cases, the Indian army is now reported to be following “a pro-active” approach whose aim is to improve “officer-men relations”. This is beating about the bush. The real issue is the continued insurgency in occupied Kashmir. Without putting an end to it through a political process, the “pro-active” approach is unlikely to serve as a psychiatric remedy for Indian soldiers. They are fed up with a war in which the Indian army has been accused by world human rights agencies and some of India’s own HR groups of colossal atrocities on the civilian population. Before there is a final settlement of the Kashmir dispute, the least New Delhi can do is to address the rights situation in the valley and let the Kashmiri people have their share of the winds of change blowing across the subcontinent.
THE enthusiasm with which the Punjab government has been pestering Islamabad to hand over all historical monuments in the province to its care rings as hollow as the way in which it has managed the Lahore Fort and the Shalimar Gardens after their custodianship was transferred to Lahore. The demand was originally made by former chief minister Mian Shahbaz Sharif who, after some persuasion, got his way with Islamabad. Since then there have been little improvements made in the condition of the two monuments, except the repair work being carried out on the 17th-century Shish Mahal pavilion at the fort with financial assistance provided by Norway under a Unesco conservation plan. For its part, the Punjab government had doled out a multi-million-rupee contract to the Parks & Horticulture Authority to beautify the green areas at the two monuments. Dissatisfied with the work done by the PHA, the provincial government has reportedly held back the payment due to the authority.
The truth is that the Punjab archaeology department, which was set up to take charge of the historical monuments handed over to Punjab by the federal government, remains an ill-equipped entity. The Lahore Fort and the Shalimar Gardens, two monuments figuring on Unesco’s world heritage list, have also made it to the same international organisation’s endangered monuments’ list. By the Punjab chief minister’s own admission the other day, the problem is that there are not enough qualified personnel available with the government to help it in arresting the decay the monuments are suffering from. It defies all logic that even then the Punjab government should not rule out the holding of official functions inside these monuments — in contravention of a court ruling against it — which in the past has been a major factor contributing to the historical buildings’ wear and tear.
The mood has soured even further ahead of a long-awaited European Commission report to be issued next week on Turkey’s progress in complying with the EU’s entry requirements. The outlook is not good. With only days to go before the November 8 release of the Commission report, relations between the EU and Turkey are becoming increasingly fraught, with tempers fraying on both sides.
The current difficulties are over Ankara’s slow progress in reforming its political structures. But many in Europe continue to insist that Turkey as a Muslim nation — albeit with a secular constitution — has no place within a largely Christian club.
The suspicion that it’s religion rather than politics which is the key obstacle to Ankara’s EU membership bid also persists in Turkey and other countries in the Muslim world. The mood is getting meaner on both sides. Leading EU officials have warned Ankara repeatedly in recent months to speed up political reforms or face a “train crash” which could fatally derail the 12-month old membership talks.
Turkish leaders, for their part, are accusing Europeans of being impatient, making excessive demands and constantly moving the goal post. Many have warned that the EU stance — with many politicians in Europe openly opposing Turkish accession to the EU — is turning ordinary Turks against EU entry.
Echoing such concerns, the EU commissioner for enlargement Olli Rehn cautioned recently that by constantly playing down Turkey’s chances of joining the EU, European politicians were weakening both EU credibility and Turkey’s reform drive. Rehn’s report next week, however, is expected to be tough. Officials say it will not mince words on Turkey failure to make enough progress on freedom of expression, curbing the use of torture and establishing civilian control over the military.
Turkey’s refusal to normalise at least some elements of its frozen relationship with Cyprus stands at the core of many of Ankara’s current difficulties with the EU. EU officials have repeatedly warned Turkey it must open its ports and airports to Greek Cypriot vessels as part of an overall commitment to treat all EU states equally. Ankara continues to argue, however, that it will only move on the issue once the EU agrees to end the economic isolation of the poor, northern Turkish part of the divided island.
After months of sterile argument, Finland, as the current EU president, has started working on a plan under which the EU would end its current economic boycott of Turkish Cypriots in exchange for a commitment by Turkey to allow access to its harbours of Greek Cypriot vessels. The Finnish initiative has won praise from Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul but reaction from Greek Cypriot president Tassos Papadopoulos has been less supportive.
Cyprus, which joined the EU in its 2004 big bang expansion and can veto any moves on Turkey, has so far rejected EU efforts to open up direct trade with the Turkish part of the divided island. But earlier this month, Nicosia finally agreed to allow some EU financial aid for Turkish Cypriots.
EU governments remain split over how best to deal with Turkey. Some including Britain have voiced concern that public opinion in Turkey is turning against Europe and that continuous EU criticism of Ankara has slowed down reform efforts. But Turkey has few other friends in Europe. Most other countries, including heavyweights France and Germany, remain adamant that Turkey must be pressed to speed up reform.
Some politicians in France — including presidential contender Nicolas Sarkozy — and in Germany have repeatedly said Ankara should be offered a form of “special relationship” rather than full membership.
Adding to the strains, the French Parliament last month passed a law declaring that anyone who denies that the mass murder of Armenians in eastern Turkey in 1915-17 was a genocide will face a year in prison. Objections to the bill have even come from the French Foreign Ministry which has called the law “unnecessary and untimely.” In an unusual move, French President Jacques Chirac — who can veto the law — even telephoned Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyib Erdogan to apologise for the parliament’s move.
Analysts have speculated that the conservative majority in the French parliament may have deliberately set out to annoy the Turks in order to provoke a nationalist backlash in Turkey which would further damage that country’s already difficult relationship with the EU. With the French public already in a furore over the EU’s 2004 enlargement and the subsequent influx of eastern European workers into the west, the prospect of 80 million Turks joining the EU — even if it is in about 20 years — is also worrying many in France.
The Commission is expected to identify an array of areas where Turkey must step up the pace of modernisation. “Turkey needs to relaunch the reform process with full determination,” said Rehn recently.
Freedom of expression will be a key focus. The EU executive is likely to insist that prosecutions and convictions for the expression of non-violent opinion under certain provisions of the new penal code are a cause for serious concern. It will also add that while there is a downward trend in the use of torture, cases of torture and ill treatment are still being reported, in particular outside detention centres.
The predominant role of the military in politics is expected to be highlighted. The commission is also expected to fault Turkey for corruption, insufficient independence of the judiciary, and inadequate protection of minority rights.
What happens next is unclear. The speculation in Brussels is that faced with the Commission’s damning assessment of Ankara’s failure to meet many of the EU’s requirements, EU governments could decide to suspend the current negotiations. Some argue, however, that the freeze in discussions will only apply to the trade chapter because of Ankara’s failure to move on transport links with Cyprus. But that means persuading Nicosia to lift its veto on opening new negotiating chapters with Turkey.
Cypriot President Papadopoulos has said that delaying or conditionally suspending the talks were alternatives to the two ‘extremes’ of allowing Turkey to continue negotiations unhindered, and a complete breakdown in talks. “Between the two extremes of Turkey continuing its talks unhindered, or talks being interrupted, there are a variety of measures each country will look at. The options discussed are delays, a suspension, (or) a conditional suspension for talks to restart if and when Turkey complies,” said Mr Papadopoulos.
Although his report will make matters worse for Ankara, EU Commissioner Rehn has cautioned European politicians against playing hot and cold on Turkey’s membership. “This weakens our credibility and the strength of the reforms in Turkey, and through this we shoot ourselves in the foot,” said Rehn, adding: “It is much better to be fair but firm. Fair in keeping our word and commitments in terms of Turkey’s membership goal, but meantime firmly demanding reforms and fulfilment of the membership criteria.”
Asked about divisions within the EU on reaching a decision on accepting Turkey as a member later on, Rehn said that if Turkey reached a point in 10 to 20 years where it had fulfilled all membership criteria, the decision would be easier as the country would be very different from what it is today. “The time span is essential in this discussion,” Rehn said.
The EU will also be quite different. As of January next year, Romania and Bulgaria will be full-fledged EU members. Negotiations are also under way with Croatia while Macedonia has been acknowledged as a future member. Further down the road, all western Balkan states are waiting to join — and the queue may one day also include Ukraine and Georgia. New applicants face tough tests ahead. The mood in Brussels and other EU capitals is not expansion-friendly. Policymakers complain openly about “enlargement fatigue” and caution that more members will only be allowed into the bloc if the EU can “absorb” newcomers without undergoing financial and institutional strain.
All eyes for the moment, however, are on Turkey, with EU leaders expected to decide whether or not to continue accession talks with Ankara when they meet in Brussels in mid-December.
While the Commission report certainly does not augur well for the meeting, at least some thoughtful EU leaders are expected to argue that any suspension of talks will send a grim message to reformists in Turkey.
They may also argue that a freeze in EU relations with Turkey will further strain Europe’s already difficult ties with other Islamic countries and signal worldwide that the EU is closed to membership of Muslim nations.