|
| December 24, 2006 | Sunday | Zilhaj 02, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
A solution for Sir Creek?
Environmental tribunals at last?
Nuclear option for peace in Mid-East
Married names for grooms
A PARTITION of Iraq, into three sovereign states, however unfortunate, cannot possibly be ruled out. Such a reversal will conform to its rule under the Ottoman’s — the ‘Valiyats’ of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. These ‘valiyats’ represented the preponderance of the Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the middle belt of Baghdad and the Shias in the southern marshlands.
CLARITY seems to elude the Bush administration when it comes to Iraq, for its policies and statements by top leaders often appear contradictory. Having said in an interview with The Washington Post that America was not winning the war in Iraq, President George Bush told a press conference the other day that he was considering increasing the number of troops in that country. It was going to be, he said, a long haul for “the ideology of liberty to finally triumph over the ideology of hate”. The hopes aroused by the Iraq Study Group’s report and the change of leadership at the Pentagon are now fading, and America looks settled for the “long haul” there. The Joint Chiefs of Staff are now said to be unhappy with the president’s demand for 30,000 extra troops, for the generals obviously know that more troops will hardly accomplish what the 140,000 troops already there have so far failed to achieve.
Defence Secretary Robert Gates has returned to Washington to report on talks he had with the Iraqi leadership and the political and military situation there, but it is doubtful if he has anything pleasant to report. The law and order situation continues to deteriorate, and even though the number of Iraqi security forces has gone up to 323,000 the Maliki government is unable to arrest the worsening sectarian violence. Agency reports about what the American troops he met in Iraq told Mr Gates about the Iraqi security forces are interesting. Their number was impressive, one soldier said, but they do not show up for work. While the army felt itself to be Iraqi in outlook, the police, he said, had ethnic and tribal loyalties. In fact, rogue elements have infiltrated the police and some of them are criminals. In Basra, the British army arrested seven police officers who were using their ‘Serious Crime Unit’ as a cover for death squads.
There is no quick-fix solution to the situation in which the Bush administration has landed America. A continuation of the status quo will merely prolong Iraq’s misery, cause more civilian casualties and increase the number of the American dead. A withdrawal would be catastrophic, for there will be no central authority able to hold Iraq together. The resistance has discovered its strength and knows that the US-led coalition forces, with or without the help of the Iraqi security outfit, are not going to crush them. Their supply of arms is uninterrupted, and that makes American victory an impossibility. Between withdrawal and status quo, there has to be a via media, and perhaps the Baker-Hamilton report shows the way. As suggested by the ISG report, Iran and Syria must be engaged to help America find a way out. Dismissing them merely as supporters of terrorism and as members of the ‘axis of evil’ is not going to help matters. If helping Hezbollah is a crime, then perhaps supplying Israel with the most modern arms and helping it perpetuate its illegal occupation of Palestine and wage war on Lebanon is a greater crime. This approach is unrealistic and is hurting America. Israel does not want an American pull-out because the status quo is in its interest. Israelis are not getting killed; it is Americans who are getting killed. The Bush administration must decide whether it will continue to kowtow to the Israeli lobby or if it is capable of taking decisions in the interest of peace and sanity.
A SENSE of hope has centred around the peace dialogue between India and Pakistan ever since President Musharraf’s NDTV interview earlier this month. This has been lately reinforced by talks in Rawalpindi on the modalities of a joint survey on Sir Creek that should lead to the demarcation of the maritime border in the marshy area of the Rann of Kutch. Although there have been eight rounds of talks on the disputed waters since 1969, it is only in the last few years that the matter has assumed urgency as part of the Indo-Pakistan peace process envisaged by the composite dialogue that began almost three years ago. One hopes that a solution is achieved soon so that a precedent is set for resolving other outstanding issues between the two countries.
What has not helped is the atmosphere of mistrust that still clouds Indo-Pakistan relations despite the strides made. While more travel facilities between the two countries and greater people-to-people contact have contributed to a thaw in ties, no concrete progress has been made on any of the eight issues — of which Sir Creek is one — that the composite dialogue is meant to resolve. As in other areas of dispute and differences, each country wants to gain maximum advantage for itself before the maritime borders are demarcated. Although Sir Creek has little military value and is not considered navigable by Pakistan (a point contested by India), it is known to contain rich deposits of oil and gas that could partially meet the two countries’ energy requirements. This aspect has made them ignore the human misery that has resulted from an undefined status for the maritime border. On several occasions, Indian and Pakistani fishermen have inadvertently crossed into each other’s claimed territorial waters and ended up in jail. While it is important to keep this in mind when working for a final solution following the joint survey, it must also be remembered that time is not on the side of either country. India and Pakistan must find a solution before 2009; otherwise, under the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the matter will pass into the hands of the UN.
SPURRED into action by the Supreme Court, the government confirmed on Friday that environmental tribunals will become functional in all four provinces by January 8, 2007. The creation of these environment-specific judicial bodies was mandated almost a decade ago under the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act (PEPA) 1997. Despite the passage of time, Punjab is currently the only province with a semblance of a tribunal, but even there the chairperson’s post has been lying vacant for six months, rendering the body inoperative. Given the lethargy shown thus far, there is no knowing how long the authorities would have continued to ignore their responsibilities had it not been for the Supreme Court’s intervention earlier this month. On Dec 12, the apex court directed the federal government to correct this omission within two weeks. Since then progress has been rapid.
The creation of provincial environmental tribunals should help expedite cases involving violations of environmental laws and regulations. As things stand now, cases can sometimes get mired in confusion about jurisdiction, with high courts obviously unable to refer petitions to environmental tribunals that do not exist. Under PEPA, “No court other than an Environmental Tribunal shall have or exercise any jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which the jurisdiction of an Environmental Tribunal extends under this Act or the rules and regulations made thereunder.” As such, it would seem that high courts are meant to hear appeals against environmental tribunal rulings, not the original petitions. When they become functional, the tribunals will serve as the first point of reference for complaints against any form of pollution and environmental degradation, including loss of habitat and biodiversity. The ‘development’ of Bundal and Buddo islands near Karachi, for which no environmental impact assessment has been carried out so far, could make for an ideal test case.
Such a division seems acceptable to the Northern Kurds, who currently enjoy autonomy pretty close to de facto independence. It is also acceptable to the Shias of the south, who, by geography and religious beliefs, are close to Iran. Both north and south regions contain some of the world’s largest oil reserves.
Any partition of Iraq or even true federalism (which is the present de jure constitutional status of Iraq) is vigorously opposed by the Sunnis of the large middle belt for two reasons. Ever since Iraq was unified by the British in 1921, the state has been dominated by the Sunni Arab minority, who comprise 20 per cent of Iraq’s population. The other reason is that the Sunni middle belt has small oil reserves as compared to the north and south regions. Kirkuk, formerly a part of the Kurd area, lost its Kurd majority to Sunni Arabs and Turkomans by design under Sunni military dictators. A partition of Iraq might see a series of wars for possession of the Kirkuk region.
The Sunni province of the old Baghdad valiyat perceives itself marginalised and impoverished under the current loose federal system whereby the oil reserves belong to the region and not to the state of Iraq; and the regions are permitted by law to raise their own armies. These concessions were demanded and granted at Kurds behest by the elected Iraqi parliament. This far-reaching constitutional autonomy is a virtual template for independence. It is this apprehension of the former dominant minority (Sunnis of the middle belt) which has let loose a reign of terror in the big cities allegedly with help from Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is passionately a Sunni in the Wahabi tradition.
In Baghdad, the heart of Iraq, the communities live cheek-by-jowl. The Shias dominate the eastern half of the city and the sunnis the western half. The twin pillars of law and order — the army and the police — barely function, being themselves divided on sectarian lines. The common man seeks safety in one or other of the militias. Al-Maliki, the prime minister, is a former head of an Iraqi religious Shia coalition, turns a blind eye to the depredations being visited on the Sunnis by the shia militias such as the Mahdi army.
Likewise, the speaker of the national assembly, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, who is closely associated with Ansar-al-Islam, an Al Qaeda linked terror group reciprocates in kind. It is estimated that about a hundred persons are killed every day by the rival terror groups. The only area of relative peace is the Kurdish north, which has a strong army and flies its own flag in Kurdistan.
A partition of Iraq into three sovereignties is no doubt the least attractive solution. Kirkuk will become an issue like Kashmir — a cockpit of uncertainty and strife — for years to come.
A possible partition of Iraq must take into account the Turkish-Kurd relationship. A northern Kurd sovereign state will upset Turkey which holds a large Kurd minority in areas adjacent to Iraqi Kurdistan. The Turkish Kurds are likely to push for a union with Kurdish Iraq. A similar situation exists in Iran and Syria which hold large Kurd minorities. A Kurdistan in northern Iraq is therefore likely to upset the region in unpredictable ways. A sovereign Iraqi Kurdistan will be opposed by Turkey, Iran and Syria.
However, the Iranian viewpoint on an Iraqi Kurd state is likely to be ambivalent. A Shia state in the south (Basra region) will be dominated by Iran because of its sectarian ties. Iranian clout will therefore extend to some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves — Iran’s own and that of the southern Iraq. Also, partition of Iraq is likely to be opposed by the major oil consumers — the US, EU and Japan as it is likely to create instability in the region and disturb shipping passages.
Can partition be avoided? Perhaps, if the loser in the current Iraqi conundrum — the Sunni middle — is compensated in terms of political clout and oil revenue, by the Kurd north and Shia south. This means in effect that Iraq should have a national army in which Sunnis have a more than their fair share and an equitable sharing of oil revenues between the regions and the centre.
The two countries that can help consolidate an Iraqi union are Turkey and Iran. Turkey has a deep interest in ensuring that an Iraqi Kurdistan does not happen. It may even invade Iraq to secure this aim. Such is not the case for Iran, however. Its gains of influence in the oil-rich Shia south will be far greater than a presumed loss in its own Kurdish areas.
For the West, therefore, Iran becomes the crucial player not only in helping secure a unified Iraqi state by means of a federation acceptable to the Sunnis, but also in securing peace in Lebanon. Iran is the main supplier of arms and mousy to Hezbollah in Lebanon using Syria as a conduit. The militia group of Moqda al Sadr won its spurs against Israel during the last Israeli invasion of Lebanon forcing the Israelis to withdraw. Iran and, to a lesser extent, Syria are therefore crucial not only to Iraqi unity but also to maintaining the delicate equilibrium in Lebanon and, most of all, to keep the oil flowing from the Persian Gulf without interruption. To secure Iranian cooperation is therefore vital for the West.
Iran’s price for cooperation is summed up in two words: Palestine and the nuclear bomb. A future US administration push must come to a shove in forcing Israel to surrender larger tracts on the West Bank in compliance with the 1967 UN resolutions and the realization of a Palestinian sovereign state. This will happen when the American people realise that homeland security and Palestine are inextricably linked. Israel enjoys a subsidy of two billion dollars per annum from the US. This provides the leverage against Israel.
On the nuclear issue, the broad logic is: if Israel is permitted to have nuclear weapons, why not Iran? Likewise, if sunni Pakistan has nuclear weapons, why not shia Iran? The bargain in the 1980s was Pakistan’s crucial help in rolling back the Soviets in Afghanistan in securing US acquiescence in exceeding uranium enrichment beyond three per cent. US presidents obliged by certifying annually that Pakistan’s enrichment was below the threshold to overcome riders imposed by Congress.
The bargain worked for both sides. The nay sayers of the American and Indian “think tanks” painted horrific scenarios of an “Islamic Bomb”. But what happened? The exact opposite: Pakistan has become the apostle of peace in the sub-continent.
The idie fixe in the American and Israeli minds is that an Iranian bomb might presage the end of Israel. Quite wrong. It will almost certainly become the harbinger of a Palestinian settlement state. Political bargains are reached on the perception of damage that either party can inflict on the other. It is this perception that has prevented at least two, if not three wars, in the subcontinent since 1986.
Israel is stubborn and defiant because it has no fear of an Arab invasion. However, the last Lebanese war proved that it is vulnerable to the invisible army of terrorism. An Iranian bomb will complete the circle of fear for the Israelis. Taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, by Israel-US, is more or less unthinkable after the current Iraq experience.
With India today, the ‘nuclear underdog’ of the past, now virtually a de facto member of the Nuclear club, and Israel, Pakistan and North Korea with proven nuclear status, the realisation that an Iranian bomb in the years ahead may force the peace in Palestine and help maintain the unity of Iraq and Lebanon is not a far-fetched idea. It is a prospect that is more likely to work than trying to impose sanctions on Iran and endless confrontation.
Come what may, the Iranians are likely to make a nuclear bomb in the near future; the moth-eaten slogan “atoms for Peace” will be transmogrified into “atom bombs for Peace”.
The writer is an MNA.
IT WASN’T so long ago that a woman who wanted to keep her surname after she married had to go to the absurd length of getting a judge’s permission. And, until the mid-1970s, some states required women who were divorced or widowed to get court approval before they could use their own surnames again.
Doesn’t it sound terribly retrograde? So Helen Reddy, circa 1972? Yet it turns out California has been stuck in a time warp — not when it comes to women taking their husbands’ names but husbands taking their wives’ names.
These men have to jump through bureaucratic hoops once reserved for women who bucked the system. They must pay $320, file a petition, advertise a public notice of their intentions and get a court’s permission.
As for women who take their husbands’ names, they just pen in their new last names on the marriage license application.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California filed suit against the state in federal court last week on behalf of a Southern California couple, Mike Buday and Diana Bijon, who had planned to use her name after they wed.
—Los Angeles Times