|
| December 12, 2006 | Tuesday | Ziqa'ad 20, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Where laws are sidelined
Death of a tyrant
China’s ‘indispensable partnership’
Avoiding great expectations
EVER SINCE Pakistan emerged on the world map in 1947, in the teeth of opposition from the subcontinent’s majority community, national security has been the main concern of its people. Though Pakistan’s entry into western military pacts was driven by the same concern, the US and UK showed scant regard for Islamabad’s sensitivities when they rushed weapons to India in 1962 during India’s boundary conflict with China.
AN indication of the deteriorating law and order situation in Bangladesh is the decision by President Iajuddin Ahmad to deploy the armed forces throughout the country. On Sunday, army, navy and air force units took over strategic points and will remain there, according to a defence spokesman, “until further orders”. How the Awami League will react to troop deployment remains to be seen. But the very fact that the decision has been taken by a president who had been installed by the government led by the Bangladesh National Party could make AL leader Hasina Wajid react negatively. Getting rid of President Iajuddin and purging the election commission of officials purported to be BNP supporters have been the motive behind the 14-party AL-led alliance’s decision to stage crippling strikes and transport blockages throughout the country. The transport blockage was called off on Dec 4, but the AL has threatened more countrywide strikes unless the reform package promised by the interim government is implemented immediately. This is humanly impossible. By estimates worked out by foreign think-tanks, the electoral lists contain 12 million errors, and to correct them is no easy task. Yet the AL has instructed its workers to go to election commission offices in their thousands to see to it that the lists are corrected. This is hardly the way to help the election commission and could in fact prove to be counterproductive. In fact, it is doubtful if the election commission could prepare new lists in such conditions in time for the Jan 21 election.
The reservations about the president and the election commission officials and the demand for the reform package to be implemented “within 24 hours”, as the AL secretary-general demanded, are merely a symptom of a greater malaise that has afflicted Bangladesh, and this is the hatred which the two principal figures, Ms Wajid and Ms Khaleda Zia, have for each other. The principle that an interim government should hold elections has on the whole been working well. This time, however, Ms Wajid and the parties on her side accuse the president and the election commission of a bias against her party. But the strategy she has adopted has brought misery to the people of Bangladesh, for there have been four nationwide transport blockages since Oct 27, costing the economy an estimated $70 million a day. This is a pity for a country whose exports, especially apparels, have been doing quite well. This is in addition to at least 40 people killed in clashes between BNP and AL supporters and between protesters and the security forces.
The greater danger, however, is to democracy itself. All said and done, Bangladesh is a democracy, and elections and transfer of power have by and large been a peaceful process. This should continue if Bangladesh is to remain a democracy and develop economically. However, the political differences between the two leaders has turned into animosity, and the two feel the use of every weapon in their armoury is justified if it could prevent the other from coming to power, no matter if this destroys Bangladesh’s democracy and the prospects of its economic progress. The troops’ duty so far is to help the civilian bureaucracy in peacekeeping, but a recrudescence of violence, if the mobs continue to interfere with the working of the election commission, could delay the election. A frightening prospect is a general moving in to clear the mess, as has happened in the past.
FOR the morally impoverished, human dignity is meaningless and laws are made to be flouted. In a brazen resort to strong-arm tactics, a local contractor supported by law enforcement personnel thrashed and injured fishermen on Bundal and Buddo islands near Karachi on Friday and evicted them from their huts. These temporary shelters were razed along with at least one permanent dwelling occupied by a couple said to be in their nineties and whose family has lived on Bundal for over a century. Tractors and other machines were then used to level land and build helipads as well as a sandy road connecting the twin islands. Some mangroves too were allegedly cut by the contractor. Clearly, the first salvo has been fired in the ‘development’ of Bundal and Buddo by the UAE-based Emaar Group, which plans to transform the islands into an exclusive enclave featuring luxury housing and recreational schemes, hotels and an offshore business district, among other facilities. The $43 billion project will imperil the livelihoods of fishing communities and decimate a thriving ecosystem located in a coastal stretch designated by conservationists as a high-priority area. Besides being denied access to marine resources in the vicinity of the islands, fishermen in the area may also lose more of their traditional fishing routes. Parts of the coastline are already out of bounds for fishing boats following the construction of the Korangi Creek air force base and the emergence of private seaside clubs. The allotment of Bundal and Buddo to the wealthy may be the last straw for many fishing families that are barely eking out a living as it is.
“Urban development and tourism” projects of this magnitude must, by law, be subject to an environmental impact assessment (EIA), as clearly stated in the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997 and Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Review of IEE and EIA) Regulations 2000. Yet construction has begun on the islands without fulfilling key legal prerequisites. The Sindh government, which initially contested the islands’ allotment on the grounds that the Port Qasim Authority and the centre had no claim to the land, is now strangely silent on the issue, suggesting that a sweetener may have been offered and received. It is time for all right-thinking people to strongly oppose this perilous project.
REACTION to General Augusto Pinochet’s death has been mixed. A number of people believe that the former Chilean dictator, who came to power through a US-backed coup toppling the elected government of President Salvadore Allende in 1973, saved the South American country from falling into the clutches of communism. However, the majority view is that Gen Pinochet’s death is hardly an event to mourn. In fact, for the large majority, the regret is that the military tyrant escaped justice in his lifetime for heading one of the most repressive governments in South America. At least 3,000 people died or just “disappeared” during his 17-year rule, while hundreds of thousands of political dissenters were tortured or fled the country. Even after a resounding “no” vote in a 1988 referendum and defeat in the 1989 presidential elections forced him to relinquish his office, he remained the chief of the army until 1998 when he became a lifetime member of the Senate.
It was around this time that the wheels of justice started catching up with him. While on a trip to Britain, he was detained for 18 months following an extradition request issued by a Spanish court on charges of human rights violations. Eventually, he was allowed to return home on health grounds but from then on the Chilean courts swung into action by stripping him of his legal immunity and allowing criminal suits to be brought against him. Although he died before the ends of justice could be met, Gen Pinochet’s last years were marked by an agony that led him to accept “political responsibility” for the deeds of his regime, days before his death. With democracy returned to Chile, it is to be hoped that its people will put the past behind them and close one of the darkest chapters of tyrannical rule in South America.
Meanwhile, the conclusion of a boundary agreement between China and Pakistan in 1963 marked the beginning of a friendship that has stood the test of time and grown in strength despite internal changes and evolving external circumstances. Hence the expression “all-weather friendship”.
Pakistan has figured in the changing regional and global environment on account of its strategic location at the crossroads of South, West and Central Asia. But the one power with which there has been no downward trend in relations and cooperation has constantly expanded has been China. Hence new expressions are thought up to describe this model relationship, such as “a comprehensive and time-tested friendship”.
The recent visit of President Hu Jintao has raised worldwide interest on specific issues. President Hu Jintao had come to Pakistan after a three-day visit to India, which was marked by the signing of 13 agreements, including one to double trade over the next four years to the level of $40 billion.
How does Pakistan feel about the positive direction of Sino-Indian relations, keeping in mind that the US has concluded a nuclear deal with India that reflects its status as a strategic partner of the US? Secondly, will China step up its nuclear cooperation with Pakistan to make up for Washington’s apparent unwillingness to share nuclear technology with Pakistan despite the latter’s status as “major non-Nato ally” of the US?
Though China and Pakistan stress that their friendship is not directed against any country, the fact remains that China has provided both political and material support to Pakistan to help defend its sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the other hand, US ties with Pakistan have undergone major ups and downs. The US provided Pakistan with substantial military assistance during three phases: 1954 to 1964 when the Cold War was at its height, 1980-89 when Pakistan was a front-line state during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and since 9/11 when Pakistan has become a major ally in the war against terror. In between, there have been periods when the US has perceived Pakistan in an adversarial light.
However, since 1963, the graph of Sino-Pakistan friendship has gone steadily up. Pakistan has found China a reliable provider of military hardware and technology, and there exist significant projects for defence cooperation between the armed forces of the two countries. In 2005, the two countries signed a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation, binding them to commitments which they do not have with any other country.
Judging from the extremely cordial tone of President Hu’s speeches and statements, there is no doubt that he and his large entourage wanted the visit to Pakistan to stand out, and to underline the exceptional nature of this unique relationship.
President Hu’s diplomacy during the last three years has concentrated on advancing China’s fundamental objective of economic modernisation but the political content has varied according to security imperatives. As China’s remarkable growth has raised various types of concerns, he has sought to stress the “five principles of peaceful coexistence”, with special stress on sovereign equality, non-interference in each other’s internal affairs, and mutuality of benefit.
For creating a global and regional environment that is conducive to economic modernisation and peace, he has continued the tradition of promotion of peaceful settlement of disputes, of abjuring hegemonic aims, and of identifying China’s outlook and aspirations with those of developing countries. The adoption of policies based on principles rather than power has also meant that China supports the UN as well as other multilateral organisations. Interestingly, its interaction has grown both with developed countries, whose investment and technology it seeks, and with developing countries whose goals it shares as a developing country itself.
In the light of President Hu’s visit to South Asia, China’s ties with India, a country of comparable size, will inevitably be competitive. Pakistan, though smaller in size and with fewer resources, has nevertheless important assets that have in the past come to China’s rescue when it faced hostility from the Soviet Union, the US and India after 1960. Since 1963, no differences or clash of interests has marred the Sino-Pakistan relationship, whereas India keeps referring to the perceived threat from China to justify its military build-up, which it uses to establish hegemony over smaller neighbours, including Pakistan.
The outcome of President Hu’s visit to the two major countries of South Asia conforms to the basic elements and history of China’s evolving relationship with the international community since the revolution. It has suited India to have a quarter century of confrontation with China, and to recall the basic threat from China in order to justify its nuclear test of 1998. India also follows an ambiguous policy on issues of fundamental concern to China, such as Tibet and Taiwan. In contrast, Pakistan and China have come to regard each other as reliable friends, who have stood by each other despite internal and external changes.
China has also described its evolving relationship with India as reflecting a strategic convergence. Both countries have stated that they do not regard the other as posing a military or strategic threat. However, the fact remains that India was almost the first country to support President Bush’s ballistic missile defence initiative within days of its announcement in May 2001. Though the US launched it to counter a nuclear threat from “rogue” states, US strategists saw it as directed primarily against China. It becomes obvious that the US policy of building a strategic alliance with India is because of the latter’s potential to contain China.
On the other hand, 55 years of the Sino-Pakistan relationship — since the establishment of diplomatic ties — have been marked by uninterrupted trust and confidence in each other. The main outcome of President Hu’s visit to India was the decision to double trade in the next four years. By contrast, truly epoch-making decisions marked his visit to Pakistan. The two countries have adopted a five-year programme of developing multi-faceted cooperation in various fields ranging from agriculture to defence.
An agreement was signed for a Sino-Pakistan free trade area. More than 30 agreements and MoUs were signed between the public and private sectors China is setting up a centre to promote trade and investment in Lahore. Energy has emerged as a key sector, with Pakistan providing a regional corridor linking the Gwadar port to the Karakoram Highway. Cooperation in the nuclear field will continue, which means several nuclear power stations will be built in response to an understanding reached during President Musharraf’s visit to China in February this year.
The unprecedented warm public reception accorded to the Chinese president led him to come up with a new superlative to describe the comprehensive all-weather friendship, as “an indispensable partnership”.
The writer is a former ambassador.
IT should not have been necessary for Tony Blair to go all the way to Washington to hear that the situation in Iraq is now “grave and deteriorating”, as James Baker and his colleagues determined in their damning indictment of George Bush’s policies.
The spin from Whitehall is satisfaction that the study group’s recommendations are “in line” with UK thinking - though that only raises the troubling question of why Britain, as an unswervingly loyal but increasingly lonely ally, has so far been able to wield so little influence on the catalogue of disasters that has passed for American strategy.
Standing shoulder to shoulder in the White House, perhaps for the last time, the two leaders still betrayed few doubts about Iraq - though happily there was no “Yo Blair” to lower the tone. But the timing of the prime minister’s visit may be in his favour. Weakened by his mid-term election defeat, the president has little choice but to act on at least some of the Baker recommendations.
Mr Blair is thus likely to be pushing at a door that has already been forced open by the American public and political establishment. But it would be a grave mistake to exaggerate how much he is likely to be able to achieve now. Self-serving delusions about the Middle East have already done untold damage. New ones must be avoided.
It may make sense for the prime minister to argue for engagement with Iran and Syria — though there are reasons to assume that it will not produce very much very soon. Tehran is happy to see the US discomfited in Iraq as long as instability there does not spill across the border; its influence is relatively limited. It is hard too to see Syria detaching itself from its alliance with the Islamic Republic or dropping support for Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. No one in Washington will sign up to a grand bargain that includes acquiescence in Iranian nuclear ambitions. Nor is the US likely to deliver the Golan Heights back to Syria.
— The Guardian, London