|
| December 18, 2006 | Monday | Ziqa'ad 26, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Stopping the kidney trade
Regulating kite-flying
Our relations with Afghanistan
Pentagon Papers revisited
IT IS strange that the Pakistan government has come out with little specific comment on the recent statements made by President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan. This could be a show of contempt for Mr Karzai, implying that he talks nonsense, or an effort not to publicly say things that would worsen Pakistan-Afghanistan relations.
IN A move that is politically to be welcomed, Saarc’s agriculture ministers have approved a concept paper to set up a regional food bank. The underlying idea is to provide support to member states in case of an emergency. It is also designed to deal with food shortages in the region collectively. But sceptics cannot be blamed if they question the viability of the project. Not that such a bank cannot be created and made a success of, but it could well become a victim of the absence of political will that has prevented Saarc from becoming an economic force to reckon with in South Asia. Pakistan’s agriculture minister identified the factors that have hindered progress as lack of a strong follow-up, implementation mechanism and institutional capacities. These could well prove to be a stumbling block for the food bank as well.
The fact is that after two decades — only last week Saarc observed its 21st anniversary with some fanfare — the association has still to make an impact as a regional body. Politically it was never designed to represent the interests of its seven South Asian members. But even in the area of economic cooperation it has hardly managed to integrate the South Asian economies. Intra-regional trade which should have been the easiest to promote has not grown beyond six per cent of the total trade of all the countries. Compared to the EU’s 61 per cent and Asean’s 23 per cent, Saarc’s showing is very dismal indeed. Will the food bank fare any better? If one considers the fact that agriculture is the mainstay of the economies of all the South Asian states and that cooperation in the agricultural sector has been the key priority of the Saarc agenda, the members should already have been well on the way to an integrated approach to agriculture to achieve food security, especially for the poor. The seventh Saarc summit held in Dhaka in 1993 had committed itself to the eradication of poverty in the region by the year 2002. One of the items on the agenda of action was the adoption of a policy of decentralised agricultural development that focused on household-level food security through the universal provision of the basic nutritional needs of the people. As far as one knows nothing has come out of these pious hopes. The only tangible outcome of these moves has been the establishment of Saarc Agricultural Information Centre (SAIC) at Dhaka in 1988, which was the first regional institution to have been set up.
Although there has been much interaction at the level of research, training and information on agriculture, there does not appear to have been much progress in trading in agricultural commodities or in devising integrated programmes in the agricultural sector. It is therefore not surprising that we now have the agricultural ministers worrying about the emergence of the private sector, the WTO and intellectual property rights. Without any kind of cooperation at the regional level, the South Asians can be expected to be overtaken by the more powerful and developed food sectors of the western world. Had Saarc not been so slow in integrating, its governments would not have been required to express such concern. Moreover, without food security and greater cooperation in agriculture, it would not be possible to eradicate poverty which is most rampant in the rural areas in South Asia.
THE Supreme Court has once again underscored the urgency of a law to check the growing organ trade in the country. In stressing the importance of such a law, the court has advocated the promulgation of a presidential ordinance to curb illegal organ sales if speedy legislation cannot be enacted. For some time now, the kidney trade has been the subject of hot debate as foreigners come to Pakistan for quick renal transplants that are denied to them in their own countries where strict legislation forbids sale and purchase of human organs. Patients arrive even from neighbouring India where such transplants are prohibited by law. Unfortunately, Pakistani lawmakers have not been able to do much beyond drafting an organ donation bill and promising its passage as the Human Organs and Tissues Transplant Act. Their inaction is a telling comment on the low priority they attach to the human consequences of a nefarious business that nets thousands of dollars for unscrupulous middlemen and doctors working for certain hospitals in the country. The greatest sufferers of this trade are the poor, who, in order to escape their poverty and indebtedness to landlords or employers, are often willing to part with one of their kidneys for a small sum of money. Many, especially those with a weak constitution, have lived to regret their decision.
If enacted, the law would promote voluntary donation by live donors and through cadaveric transplant. This, in turn, would weaken the influence of unscrupulous doctors and middlemen who would be liable to severe punishment if found guilty of engaging in the organ trade. At present, in their haste to make money, many doctors overlook potential health complications for the recipients, especially if the tissue match is faulty. As long as the lawmakers dillydally with the passage of the bill in question, matters will continue to worsen, as they already have with kidneys being removed without a patient’s knowledge and sometimes by force. This is an indication of the growing influence of unscrupulous individuals and doctors who, emboldened by the absence of a law, are freely practicing their nefarious trade.
THE Punjab government is considering a proposal to restore Lahore’s Basant festival to its original harmless charm after putting in place certain kite-flying safeguards. The activity is a traditional and popular sport in Lahore which was banned by the Supreme Court last year following several deaths by razor-sharp twine used by some unscrupulous enthusiasts. The provincial government, however, managed to get an exemption from the apex court last year for the celebration of the Basant festival, which, again, in view of continuing deaths was withdrawn at the last minute. Lahorites, however, flouted the ban en masse and it remained business as usual on the day of the festival, resulting in embarrassment for the government. The one-day festival generates over two billion rupees worth of economic activity; hence the stakes are high for the traders involved as well as thousands of kite-flying enthusiasts who flout the ban anyway. This time round, it is good that the government has decided to build a consensus among all stakeholders ahead of the festive season, with the aim of ensuring that kite-flying remains a safe sport instead of the deadly one it has been turned into by a handful of ‘killer twine’ importers.
The government says it is ready to put in place a legal framework in consultation with the stakeholders to ensure that risks involved in kite-flying are minimised and violators are swiftly brought to book. It intends to issue licences to kite and twine makers and retailers to regulate the twine, made only to strictly specified strength and unable to harm the people in any way. The provincial government then intends to seek permission from the Supreme Court to allow kite-flying for a specified number of weeks. This is a sensible approach which, however, needs to be pursued with due caution and respect for human life and safety as the paramount consideration.
But Mr Karzai’s remarks, which have been quite stinging, have coincided with a report by the Brussels-based International Crisis Group (ICG) that says that the Musharraf government’s appeasement of Taliban sympathisers in Waziristan has resulted in a base in Pakistan’s tribal areas that militants are using to stoke instability both at home and in Afghanistan. One of the ICG’s directors is quoted as saying: “Over the past five years, the Musharraf government has tried brute force, then appeasement. Both have failed. Islamabad’s tactics have only emboldened pro-Taliban militants.”
A State Department spokesman, when asked about the situation in Waziristan and the Taliban infiltration into Afghanistan, was neutral in his comments, and it is absolutely possible that Mr Karzai’s latest remarks have been inspired by the US, which itself is reluctant to publicly criticise Islamabad at this particular juncture.
But on Friday, the Washington Post reported Mr John Negroponte, director of America’s National Intelligence, as saying that with new fighting expected to break out next spring in the border region, Pakistan would have to decide what it could do about the tribal authorities who had not been living up to their agreement to prevent Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters from moving back and forth across the border.
He said a growing Al Qaeda and Taliban presence had de facto sanctuary in Pakistan, a major presence in the east and south, and a growing presence in western Afghanistan.
The position appears to be that the deal entered into by the Pakistan government, primarily of course the military, with the tribals and the Taliban in the tribal areas has now lost credibility although initially it was cautiously supported by Washington and even the Nato force in Afghanistan. There has been a sharp change in the situation although its precise determination is not really clear because of lack of information. The ICG report even said that Pakistan’s tribal region had become a virtual ‘mini-state’ used by the Taliban and foreign militants.
Mr Karzai even linked Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri’s recent visit to meet him with a spate of suicide bombs. There has been no comment on this remark by the foreign office in Islamabad — and one can again presume that this is because what the Afghan president has said is considered too ridiculous to be noted.
What do we make of all this and what is really happening? Of course, Mr Karzai has his own axes to grind and has never been considered a leader of great distinction. He is certainly a protege of the US and the assumption mentioned earlier that the US, disenchanted by Pakistan’s so-called peace deal with the Taliban and militants, is using the Afghan president to speak out its own thoughts — however flawed they may be — may have some validity. The thoughts will be seen as flawed here in the sense that despite a huge infusion of US-led international military and monetary aid and political and military support, the Afghan government’s writ extends not much beyond Kabul.
No tangible security or benefits otherwise are going to the populace. Leaving a large number discontented and disappointed with the existing government and leaving the way open for other, more organised forces to fill the political vacuum cannot be the responsibility of the Pakistan government.
But there is concern among many in Pakistan also at not only the accommodation being made with the militants and the Taliban in the northern areas but also the feeling that the Pakistan Army and political hardliners remain, as ever before since independence, anxious to delve in Afghan affairs and neutralise Afghanistan. The prospect of some peace with India could reinforce thoughts that our influence in Kabul should be increased. There is also a sense among many ordinary persons here that coming to an accommodation with extremists in the tribal regions has led to the creation of a new system by them where they crush education and spread their own version of religious dominance.
No one seems worried about this in Islamabad; nor does anyone seriously consider how the northern areas can eventually be made part of the rest of Pakistan. Giving freedom to elements that hold sway now in the tribal areas and act in totally reactionary ways contrasts with the policies adopted and statements made with regard to Balochistan.
In Balochistan, attacking nationalists and militants, Gen Pervez Musharraf said earlier this month that there was only one “lashkar” in Pakistan, and that was the Pakistan army, and no other lashkars would be allowed. But in the northern, tribal areas, lashkars can be permitted and they can even start running their own states, with the military’s and the government’s connivance. Why let the Taliban have the liberty of lashkars and armed groups and running their own governments?
The reasons should at least be rationally explained so that the people can be convinced of what is happening is right. Why is it that retired seniors of the ISI continue to be accused of patronising the Taliban and seeking to create their own groups in Afghanistan? And no proper denial is made?
The old association with the Taliban, whom we created and supported against the Soviets (and of course with full US backing), has not gone away despite what they did in association with Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. We seem to prefer them to ordinary Afghan nationalist politicians and we want Afghanistan to be run in keeping with our interests. The cultural backwardness of the Taliban and their Pakistani associates doesn’t bother us. We won’t ever be able to live down our refusal to condemn the Taliban attack on the Bamiyan Buddhas.
The military has certainly used force against the militants before entering into the jirga-type agreement and lost many precious lives. But the present compromise with the Taliban type should also be sensibly reviewed — if only because of its repercussions in the political field in these months leading to our elections. Pakistan and Afghanistan must establish relations normal among all neighbours, and Islamabad should take action against people who are fighting against the Karzai government.
Political parties other than the official League do not look greatly moved by what is happening in Waziristan, other northern areas and on the Pakistan-Afghanistan border. Only the MMA has its quiet links with the parties in those regions.
Perhaps it is time the situation in that region was not seen as the military’s sole concern but other political parties were also involved in offering their suggestions on how to deal with the problem. This is vital if the MMA is to be prevented from now using this card in its election campaign and forcing the Musharraf-led establishment to again come to some arrangement with it rather than with moderate and progressive parties.
NO administration likes leaks. But not since the Nixon administration has the government so aggressively sought to crack down — not just on leakers, but on reporters and others who obtain leaked material.
In the latest manifestation of its disregard for First Amendment principles, the administration has used — misused, to be more precise — a grand jury subpoena to retrieve “any and all copies” of a document, marked “secret,” obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union. The ACLU’s request that a federal judge quash the subpoena should be granted.
The grand jury is an important tool for prosecutors to investigate wrongdoing — not a vacuum cleaner for material the government wishes hadn’t gotten out. The government is seeking to abuse the grand jury process to do an end run around the constitutional prohibition against prior restraint enshrined in the Pentagon Papers case.
In that 1971 ruling, the government wanted to stop the New York Times and The Washington Post from publishing classified documents about the Vietnam War; the Supreme Court said no. What if the government, instead of suing to block publication, had simply issued a grand jury subpoena demanding that the newspapers return the Pentagon Papers? If the ACLU, which advocates and litigates on issues of public policy, can be forced to comply with such a subpoena, news organizations would be similarly at risk.
Why would that be so terrible? Because even in a time of war — in fact, especially in a time of war — vigorous public debate about controversial policies is essential. An uninformed public can’t conduct such a debate, whether the topic is the CIA’s secret prisons or the warrantless surveillance of telephone calls.
As Justice Potter Stewart wrote in concurring with the Pentagon Papers ruling, “In the absence of the governmental checks and balances present in other areas of our national life, the only effective restraint upon executive policy and power in the areas of national defence and international affairs may lie in an enlightened citizenry”.
— The Washington Post