|
| March 10, 2007 | Saturday | Safar 20, 1428 |
Women’s emancipation
MMA’s misplaced priorities
Implications of Cheney’s Mideast tour
Guantanamo intimidation
RATHER than moving towards a resolution, the crises in Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan have become further complicated. US Vice-President Dick Cheney recently toured the Middle East as American military build-up proceeded in the same manner as it did before the pre-emptive attack on Iraq in 2003.
IRAQ policy is not the only area where acute differences exist between the Democrat-dominated Congress and the Republican administration; aid to Pakistan, too, is a major contentious issue. Since the Democrats’ victory in the mid-term elections last year, unfriendly voices in Congress have often expressed reservations about the aid to Pakistan and demanded a linkage between the economic and military aid pledge at Camp David in June 2003 and Islamabad’s “performance” in the war on terror. Pressing for such a linkage was, of course, the House of Representatives’ exuberant first-ever woman speaker, Ms Nancy Pelosi. She found support among other Congressmen, leading finally to the passage by the lower House in January of a bill demanding a presidential certificate for aid to Pakistan — just like the Pressler amendment that made aid subject to an annual presidential certificate saying that Islamabad was not engaged in a nuclear programme geared to military purposes.
The linkage question — and perhaps in a most insidious form — came to the fore again when three senators, including Mr John Kerry, the loser in the last presidential election, introduced a resolution in the upper House, threatening to withhold the delivery of F-16s to Pakistan unless Islamabad did more against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. The resolution is non-binding, but it made it clear that the Senate could pass legislation if it did not feel satisfied with Pakistan’s role in the war on terror. Another occasion for the Democrats to display their displeasure with the Republican administration’s handling of foreign policy came on Wednesday when Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher testified before a House subcommittee, lauded Pakistan’s role in the war on terror and pleaded for a continuation of aid to it. During the hearing Congressman Gary Ackerman, chairman of the South Asia subcommittee of the House Foreign Relations Committee, asked whether or not the aid to Pakistan should be “terminated” if Islamabad did not do enough to eliminate “the safe havens which terrorists have found” in this country. Congressman Ackerman is chairman of the India Caucus in Congress, making it obvious where his sympathies lie. The congressman said something ridiculous when he opined that Mullah Obaidullah Akhund, one of Mullah Omar’s deputies arrested by Pakistan recently, could as well have been captured “last year or the year before”. Secretary Boucher defended the aid to Pakistan pointing out that an aid cut would not only hurt US-Pakistan relations but also the war on terror.
A pattern now seems to be emerging: sections of the media hostile to Pakistan print stories based on “highly placed” diplomatic or security sources which know precisely where Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar are hiding and demand pressure on Islamabad to do more. This is followed by Bush administration officials lauding Pakistan’s role and justifying the continuation of aid. There is no doubt that there is little possibility of an aid cut-off during the less than two years remaining for the Bush administration. But what Pakistan should worry about is the shape of things to come after the 2008 presidential election which could bring a Democrat to the White House. In brief Pakistan has to fight terrorism in its own interest, and if Ms Pelosi and Mr Ackerman and their likes are unable to grasp this reality then that is their problem. Perhaps they will display a greater sense of realism when a Democratic administration takes over.
PRESIDENT Musharraf’s acknowledgement at a women’s day seminar in Islamabad of the role women can play in curbing extremism is a welcome thought. It is not clear if Pakistani women can expect the general to repeal the laws repugnant to women’s status in society in return for their help against extremism. In this country, women’s struggle against extremism, violence and regressive laws made by a former military dictator is well known. Today, more and more women victims of primitive tribal customs, discriminatory laws and domestic violence are stepping forward to mobilise public opinion against these and to reform social attitudes. The growing popularity and dimension of the struggle have been a challenge for the forces of extremism in society, for which women have needed no prodding from above.
Women and violence, of which extremist acts are often a manifestation, do not mix, because nature has made women the nurturers of all that is good and benign in human society. Women have an important role to play not only in curbing extremism in society but also in establishing a humane social order. Gen Musharraf’s assertion that some 40,000 women are serving in the public sector today as a result of his policies can only be seen as a meaningful breakthrough if he acts to repeal the laws that virtually treat women differently from men. Also, more meaningful empowerment of women can only take place if a concerted, sustained effort is made jointly by the government and civil society. For their part, women can play a decisive role by instilling a more humane spirit and attitude in their offspring, family members and co-workers; for this they need no permission from the traditional ‘masters’ of their destiny. The government can facilitate this by creating consciousness among the public by launching a social awareness programme. If a cruelly wronged woman like Mukhtaran Mai can virtually rise from the ashes and go about bringing change in society single-handedly, there can be no hurdle in the way of implementing a national awareness programme aimed at removing gender bias from society.
THERE is nothing wrong if the Frontier assembly passes the Prevention of Discrimination on Basis of Hijab Bill. Just as it is unfair to discriminate against women who choose not to wear the hijab or cover their faces, it is equally wrong to forbid women from wearing them. News that the latter was happening in the province prompted six MMA female assembly members to move the above bill which they hope will be passed soon. Unfortunately, this is just one more example of the MMA’s misplaced priorities, especially in a province where access to basic amenities remains limited. Perhaps the move is not so surprising given that the MMA has repeatedly proved that it is not willing to deal with issues like healthcare, for what else explains its decision some years ago disallowing women from being examined by male doctors? It does not seem to be interested in reducing the number of women who die during childbirth as they are denied access to proper healthcare. The same is true for other important matters that were sidelined when the MMA concentrated all its efforts and attention on passing the Hasba bill.
In its five years in power, the MMA has very little to show in terms of a marked improvement in people’s lives. Unemployment is rampant, crime is widespread (especially in the urban areas) and it is difficult for people to make ends meet. Against this backdrop, it seems senseless for members of the NWFP assembly to be arguing about the merits and demerits of fining someone Rs15, 000 or imprisoning him for three months for discriminating against women who wear the veil. Such inane issues must not take precedence over the real and pressing needs of the people.
The UN Security Council is likely to consider a second resolution on Iran’s defiance of the first one that called for a cessation of uranium enrichment activities. Though Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has underlined the US commitment to a diplomatic solution, Vice-President Cheney insists all options remain on the table. This scenario can be viewed as an elaborate exercise to build up pressure on Iran, but the regional situation appears to be spinning out of control as neo-con influence appears to be dominant once again.
Israel is again resorting to strong-arm tactics, as evident from the occupation of Nablus and the resumption of repressive measures against militants. Meanwhile, there has been hardly any effort to build on the Makkah agreement, brokered by Saudi Arabia, between the warring Palestinian factions.
Cheney’s tour of the region was aimed at reviving the assertive response to the 9/11 terrorist attack. Despite the growing domestic disapproval of the Iraq war, undertaken by President Bush and the neocons to dominate a strategic and resource-rich region, and signs of unpopularity within the region, the US hawks want to demonstrate their resolve to defeat terrorism and militant manifestations of Islam.
If one remains focused on the Middle East and takes note that the land of Palestine that has witnessed conflict and confrontation for nearly six decades is sacred to all three revealed religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam, one is somewhat discouraged by this approach.
Tragedy, bloodshed and suffering have come to pass despite the existence of the UN. As Israel came on the map through a resolution of the UN, that was pushed through by its main backer, the US, and was then built into the most powerful country in the region, the world body was manipulated in a manner contrary to its principles and the purposes of its charter. Terrorism emerged as the balance of power was overwhelmingly with those who usurped the rights of the native population.
Perhaps 9/11 was the ultimate form of protest against injustice. As injustice, both political and economic, persists, the weak and deprived of the world are driven to despair that can take the form of suicide or terrorism. Our planet is getting overpopulated, so that many regions suffer from lack or essentials. An excess of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is producing global warming that requires a collective response.
The Middle East region has been in the “arch of crisis” since the Second World War. The creation of Israel by collusion between Britain and the US gave birth to one trouble spot that shows little sign of return to normalcy as the Jewish state, with total US support, seeks to dominate the region. The large number of mini-states and sheikhdoms created in the region have remained a chessboard of power polities on account of their strategic location and rich oil reserves.
While Europe largely stabilised after the two World Wars, the scene of economic and political contention shifted to Asia. Even the focus of Cold War rivalry shifted eastwards with proxy wars fought in Vietnam and Afghanistan.
Some other disputes, left to fester by departing colonial powers notably that over Kashmir, led to conflict and confrontation between the two largest states in South Asia, namely India and Pakistan. The fact that both became overtly nuclear in 1998 drove them towards a peace process that also figured in the global trends unleashed by the 9/11 events.
Since the start of 2007, President Bush has undertaken to announce a revised strategy in Iraq, including fresh initiatives in the region as a whole. But the fundamental US aims and military commitments have not changed. The one significant departure is that the Iraqi army and police are being given a greater role, but the projected increase in the number of US troops in Iraq by about 21,500 and the appointment of new US field commanders means there is no target date for a withdrawal which will presumably begin in a phased manner after victory is achieved.
The US is already showing two different faces in the region, one stressing diplomacy, that is represented by Condoleezza Rice, and the other that underlines continuity of the post-9/11 thrust for dominating the region, reflected in the tour by Dick Cheney. The Republican contender for the 2008 presidential election, Senator John McCain, supports the augmentation of US forces to achieve victory, whereas the Democrat candidates seek to exploit the disenchantment of US public opinion over the Iraq venture.
The Iraqi government is showing readiness to interact with all its neighbours, including Iran and Syria, which have indicated their willingness to cooperate with the regime in Baghdad. US policy is showing a divided approach. Israel, whose influence can be a decisive factor in decision-making in Washington, insists upon treating Syria and Iran as hostile, and much of the talk of a US pre-emptive strike is being fuelled by Tel Aviv.
However, Iran and Syria are not allies of Al Qaeda, and the US has agreed to attend a meeting of neighbours of Iraq called by the government in Baghdad. This meeting will discuss security issues. But, at the same time, the threat of military pre-emption is being maintained, with a second US aircraft carrier strengthening Washington’s offensive capacity. Even Condoleezza Rice insists that Iran must stop its uranium enrichment or face additional sanctions.
Even in Palestine the US will not back the roadmap solution as long as Hamas keeps refusing to recognise Israel, while Israel keeps attacking Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
The US attitude towards the sectarian issue has been ambivalent. As Saddam Hussein’s power base was in the Sunni triangle, the US had received support from Kurds in the north and the majority Shias in the south following its occupation. However, US support to Israel alienated many Shias, and the risk of a Shia-dominated Iraq succumbing to Iranian influence was realised.
The Sunni rulers of many Arab countries, notably Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt, have also expressed alarm over the rising influence of Shia powers. The US is therefore inclined to capitalise on the sectarian divide, and Pakistan appears to be playing a role to activate the OIC though it opposes use of force against Iran.
The resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan has created problems for Pakistan which is blamed for “not doing enough” to stop incursions launched from its territory. Cheney even threatened to intervene. With terrorist incidents taking place in Pakistan and the heartland of the Muslim world involved in a dangerous game involving the US and Nato, we have to tread carefully and also safeguard our national interests.
National unity and support for sovereignty and independence remain a necessity. Although Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad occasionally issues provocative statements, his recent visit to Saudi Arabia was well-timed to prevent the sectarian card being played against the Muslim world. It is an important neighbour with which we should maintain close contact.
We have been active diplomatically, as evident from tours by the president and prime minister, and the OIC foreign ministers’ meeting we hosted in Islamabad. Our strategic as well as economic interests demand that peace and stability prevail in the Middle East as well as in South Asia.
The writer is a former ambassador.
CULLY STIMSON may be gone from the Pentagon, but his spirit unfortunately lives on. Mr. Stimson, one may recall, was the Pentagon official in charge of Guantanamo Bay prisoners who had to leave his post after suggesting that private law firms shouldn't be representing detainees.
Now the Pentagon's chief Guantanamo prosecutor, Air Force Col Morris Davis, has gotten into the attack-the-defence-lawyers act, this time complaining about the conduct of a military lawyer assigned to defend Australian David Hicks, who has been accused of terrorism. Mr Hicks, who has spent five years at Guantanamo after allegedly being caught fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, was charged last week with providing material support for terrorism and is to face trial before a military commission.
Mr Hicks's outspoken military lawyer, Marine Maj Michael Mori, has spent a good deal of time in Australia helping stir up public support for his client, and he has been unsparing in his criticism of the military tribunals, going so far as to call them kangaroo courts. His needling clearly is getting under the prosecution's skin.
"Certainly in the US it would not be tolerated having a US Marine in uniform actively inserting himself into the political process. It is very disappointing to see that happening in Australia, and if that was any of my prosecutors, they would be held accountable," Col Davis was quoted as telling The Australian newspaper. Col Davis, though he later said he wasn't suggesting a court-martial, noted that it is a crime under military law for an officer to use "contemptuous words" about high public officials.
— Los Angeles Times