Continued stand-off

THE Lal Masjid stand-off has now begun to affect Pakistan’s relations with the outside world. On Wednesday, the Chinese government called upon Mr Aftab Sherpao to take steps to ensure the safety of Chinese nationals in his country. The visiting interior minister said in reply that his government would take more “rigorous” actions for the safety of Chinese nationals and institutions in Pakistan. Beijing’s justifiable concern followed the kidnapping last week of a number of Chinese, including women, at an acupuncture clinic wrongly referred to as a massage parlour. Regrettably, this is not the first time that Chinese experts working in Pakistan have been harmed. In October 2004, two of the Chinese working at the Gomal Zam dam site in South Waziristan were kidnapped by the Abdullah Mahsud group. The subsequent commando action secured the release of one of the two Chinese engineers, while the other one was killed. The one-legged monster, Abdullah, a Guantanamo Base returnee, is still at large. Last year three Chinese were killed and 13 injured in an ambush in Hub, while in 2004 three Chinese were killed in a bomb blast at Gwadar. The latest incident, however, occurred right in the federal capital and, besides causing diplomatic embarrassment for Pakistan, has led to the flight of a large number of Chinese from Islamabad to Lahore. Some have returned to China.

Ambiguity surrounds the government’s policy with regard to the Lal Masjid stand-off. The Rangers keep being deployed and withdrawn, but it seems unlikely that they will get an order to storm the mosque. Inside it is the little “kingdom of heaven” run by two weird characters masquerading as ulema, who have at their disposal young boys and girls ready to die at their bidding. Their interpretation of Islam is laughable because they have resorted to outright crimes, like trespass, kidnapping, beating and humiliation of their victims. They have also threatened suicide bombings throughout the country — all this in the name of Islam. They may not be aware of it, but they have made a joke not only of themselves but of Islam itself. They also know that a government crackdown is unlikely because no government would want to open fire on a mosque, even if those who have barricaded themselves inside it are using the sacred precincts of the mosque for criminal activity, self-glorification and flaunting their non-existent piety.

The government is in a bind. If it orders a crackdown, there will be heavy casualties on both sides, and the authorities will be accused of human rights violations and excessive force to solve a problem that could have been tackled by negotiations. If it does not take action, it will continue to be accused of inaction and of failing to enforce its writ even in the federal capital. That leaves negotiations as the only way out of the crisis. However, despite prolonged negotiations in which the authorities often seemed to have surrendered to the Lal Masjid clerics, the stand-off continues. What is plain is that neither the liberal opinion nor the religious lobby is prepared to play a mediatory role because both are enjoying the government’s predicament on this score. The authorities have to be cautious if they decide to use force, since an unthinking crackdown will play into the hands of the extremist lobby and prove counterproductive.

Coming to Balochistan’s aid

BALOCHISTAN must not be left alone in its time of misery. The tropical cyclone that slammed into Balochistan on Tuesday morning has caused widespread destruction in the province, with Turbat, Pasni and Ormara the worst affected. Dozens of villages have been inundated or washed away by flash floods and embankment breaches in rivers swollen by heavy rain. Almost a quarter of a million marooned people are believed to be in serious distress, rendered either homeless or lacking shelter and basic supplies. On Thursday, the head of the provincial disaster management authority said that up to 800,000 may be affected. At least 24 are reported dead while countless are still missing. Curiously, the Balochistan chief minister insisted on Wednesday that no fatalities had occurred — an inexplicable claim given that he needs all the help he can get. Downplaying the numbers in this time of calamity serves neither the Jam government nor the needs of the people in distress. Already, complaints are being voiced that the provincial administration is not playing its due role in the relief operation. The navy and army, however, are said to be active in the field, rescuing and feeding the stranded.

Flood waters have entered Turbat city and the Mirani Dam could be at risk as reservoir levels continue to rise. Vast stretches of south and south-west Balochistan have been reduced to a disaster zone, and the roads, communications and other infrastructure are in a shambles. On Wednesday, the federal government announced a Rs200 million assistance package for Balochistan, but much more needs to be done given the scale of the disaster. Islamabad must step into the breach forthwith, essentially on humanitarian grounds but also with an eye on the political fallout of any delay in coming to the province’s help. Many in Balochistan feel alienated for various reasons and any perceived disinterest on the part of the federal government at this time will only compound the problem. This is not the time for half-measures, and Islamabad must extend its full support to the relief operation and, subsequently, to the rehabilitation and reconstruction effort that must follow.

Power crisis must end

IT IS difficult not to sympathise with the protesters in Karachi who are involved in the power riots. One understands that they have been pushed into this situation as they have no other way to voice their outrage over the power outages. A report in Wednesday’s paper says that many areas did not have power for 80 hours since the rains began on Saturday while other areas suffered power outages for 15 to 18 hours. There can be no excuse for denial of power for that long. People’s inability to get through to the KESC for information on the power outages or even to lodge their complaints has also been a constant source of frustration. Yet the KESC has done practically nothing to improve the power situation. A year-and-a-half after being privatised, the KESC seems to be in worse shape, so much so that calls for it to be taken over by the government were heard in Thursday’s National Assembly session. Earlier, the MQM advised consumers not to pay their power bills for June — a prescription that is hardly workable. The government must find a quick and durable solution to the problem.

There is a technical aspect to the problem — the company’s inability to raise its power capacity — but there are also some management issues that need to be addressed. Is the privatised utility being run by the right people? For example, is it correct to have a person with no engineering experience as director of operations at KESC? By the same token, should a retired army person be heading the organisation? Who is responsible for the delays in the repairs that need to be carried out? The right leadership can make all the difference and this is clearly lacking at the moment. The government must look into all these problems affecting the KESC’s working and take prompt steps to set things right.

Treatment of war prisoners

“O ye who believe! Be steadfast witness for Allah in equity, and let not hatred of any people seduce you that ye deal not justly. Deal justly, that is nearer to your duty. Observe your duty to Allah. Lo! Allah is informed of what ye do.” (5:8)

Hazrat Abu Bakr, the first successor to the prophet, (PBUH) gave his soldiers the following instructions, which summarise the original humanitarian spirit of Muslim law: “Remember that you are always under the gaze of God and on the eve of death; that you will have to reckon on the Last Day… When you fight for glory of God, behave like men, without turning your back, but let not the blood of women or that of children, or the aged tarnish your victory. Do not destroy palm trees: do not burn dwellings or wheat fields; never cut fruit trees and only kill cattle when you need it for food. When you agree upon a treaty, take care to respect its clauses. As your advance progresses, you will meet religious men who live in monasteries and who serve God in prayer; leave them alone, do not kill them or destroy their monasteries…” These instructions date from the 7th century of our era, a period during which barbarian kings drove their swords into the ground of the battlefield calling for massacre of all enemies.

Muslims’ doctrine is laid out in form to cover the entire conduct in hostilities. Their binding force derives mainly from the “fear of God”, from the obligation of moderation and from the strict prohibition of excesses, corner-stones of the whole fabric of legal system. Roughly speaking the limits can be categorised in three groups –– in terms of time, depending on objectives, and as a function of the means of dealing with the enemy. Let us review them briefly.

First, war must, of necessity, be preceded by a declaration or an ultimatum, so that the enemy is not taken by surprise. The same goes for resumption of the hostilities, following the expiration or the breaking of a truce. What is more, the automatic suspension of hostilities each year during four months is also considered a humanitarian provision, limiting the hostilities in time and making it possible for belligerents to diminish the hardship of the civilian populations and to bind the wounds of war. Finally, the institution of “safe conduct” (aman) acts as a restraint on violence in time by allowing even one Muslim pledging the responsibility of the community as a whole to establish a truce, guaranteeing not only an end to the battle but also to the possibility for the enemies of leaving the camp and being conducted peacefully and in safe custody to the boundaries of the Muslim community.

Limiting the hostilities in space coincides with the definition of the objectives. The above mentioned instructions of the Hazrat Abu Bakr are illustrative and might seem exhaustive: protection of civilian and prohibition of useless destruction. As far as the Quran is concerned, it orders the faithful to: “Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.” (2:190)

This verse is taken both as a prohibition of aggression and a protection of non-combatants. Muslim legal philosophy brought forth an axiom, which came into effect in the West only after Rousseau, that is, the notion that war does not set peoples against one another, but their governments. The doctrine very quickly defined combatants and distinguished them clearly from the non-combatants:

Women, children, the aged, clerics, the ill (physically and mentally), peasants, artisans, servants and slaves. In Holy Quran, God orders men to help each other “in works of goodwill.” Theoretical speculation elaborated from this, the rule of neutralisation of hospitals, of ambulances, and of medical and paramedical personnel. Accounts of crusaders with examples show that Muslim doctors took care of the “Franks”, either in the camp, dispensaries of the Islamic forces or behind enemy lines. (Kitab Al I’tibar by Ibn-Munqidh).

As for prisoners of war, the Quran offers an alternative: “Either liberation or ransom: Until war lays down the burden.” (56:4)

“Prisoners are your brothers and collaborators. By the grace of God, they are in your hands. Since they are at your mercy, take care to treat them like yourselves as to food, clothing and shelter. Do not demand of them work beyond their strength, rather help them to complete their tasks.”

Is not this an expression, grippingly brief, of the entire spirit of the Third Geneva Convention? Unconditional liberation seems to have been obligatory when the Muslim authorities did not dispose of sufficient supplies of material means decently to support their captives. During the Crusades, Salahuddin obeyed this requirement. Limitation of space, that the newspapers and periodicals can spare for an ordinary mortal make it impossible to elaborate that particular aspect of the statute, which would take into account historical factors and evolution of standards. Nonetheless, let it be emphasised that the institution had been very clearly defined.

From the Quranic Revelations and from the examples of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), and his immediate successors, theoretical elaborations formulated legal rules of lofty humanitarian qualities, namely:

Strictly forbidden are excesses of any kind: inflicting cruel and useless sufferings upon the enemy, using treacherous means and weapons of mass and indiscriminate destruction;

The illegality of those reprisals which could constitute a violation of basic humanitarian principles; The distinction between combatants and non-combatants, respect for those who are no longer engaged in battle — the dead, the wounded, the prisoners — and neutralisation of medical personnel and supplies; protection of civilian populations living in conquered territories conservation of their social and legal institutions, respect for their dignity and culture.

The above mentioned rules are binding in the case of “internal” conflict, as well. Legal scholars, searched for the guiding principles of their speculation, in the sources of faith and example of the Holy Prophet, established, as early as 8th and 9th centuries, imperative norms which regulate internal and international conflicts.

Transatlantic justice

DURING the last few weeks of revelations about BAE Systems, the great and the not-so-good have lined up to suggest there is nothing to worry about. The Guardian revealed allegations that BAE had secretly paid £1bn to the Saudi Prince Bandar, in connection with Britain's biggest arms deal, and did so with the knowledge of the UK government.

As the allegations emerged, former ministers from Denis Healey to Sir Malcolm Rifkind argued that such dealings were just the way the world worked. Sure, Tony Blair upset anti-corruption anoraks by pulling the plug on the police investigation into BAE's Saudi affairs. But the establishment view was that serious business and politics would face few ripples. That is, until Tuesday.

News of an anti-corruption probe by the US Department of Justice (DoJ) has changed everything. BAE's share price was soon plummeting like a Typhoon fighter making a crash landing –– at one point yesterday it was down 11 per cent, knocking well over £1bn off the company's value. British and overseas investigations are already scrutinising BAE's conduct in markets as far-flung as eastern Europe, South America and Africa.

The company was not hurt by these; the resilience of its price almost suggested that investors saw such inquiries as proof that BAE was serious about earning a return. But the DoJ inquiry is different. For one thing, BAE will now be put through the mill in the very market that is central to its commercial strategy.

By disposing of civilian and European interests, such as Airbus, the firm has concentrated on becoming an official supplier to the Pentagon. It has bought into 15 American firms in recent years, getting the go-ahead for the latest takeover, Armor Holdings, only last week. Winning contracts might prove trickier, however, for a firm under investigation by the federal authorities.

The other big difference with investigations in other countries is that the DoJ looks well placed to get to the bottom of things. The investigation takes place under the 1977 Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, stronger legislation than that in Britain, passed not long after Watergate had showed the nation where corruption could lead. Whether it is in busting cartels or pursuing white-collar criminals, the tough approach of America's law-enforcement agencies balances the indulgence shown to business by US politicians.

There are political reasons why they might want to play hardball. BAE is not American, and Congress has become more protectionist even than last year, when it railed against Dubai Ports gaining control of US seaports. And the weakened and unpopular president may not be able to offer much cover, despite his family friendship with the former Washington ambassador Prince Bandar.

What could, however, still hinder the inquiry is less than full cooperation from the British government. For, as the Guardian has reported, the Ministry of Defence has been intimately involved in BAE's Saudi dealings, and so it seems likely that it will possess many of the crucial documents.

Having halted the Serious Fraud Office investigation at home, the British government may be reluctant to provide the DoJ with the ammunition to pick up where the SFO left off.

But on what grounds could it refuse? Tony Blair defended the SFO decision on national security grounds. He said it risked cutting off intelligence from the Saudi government.

Even if that argument held water in that case, it does not do so now. British ministers could hardly argue that Riyadh, which is so dependent on Washington, would cut off intelligence links with America.

The secrecy enjoyed by Britain's military-industrial complex dates from a time when manufacturing exports and the balance of payments dominated politics. That era has passed. It is time to let in the light. If Gordon Brown is serious about restoring trust in politics he should start by making plain that the US investigation into BAE will enjoy his full support.

–– The Guardian, London