Search for democracy

WITH the government getting more rattled by the day, Mr Nawaz Sharif has further upped the ante by announcing a date for his return to the country. Whether the former PM will follow the schedule announced in London still remains to be seen, as does the administration’s response to his expected arrival on Sept 10. The attorney-general is clear on one point: there will be no violation of the Supreme Court’s ruling that the Sharif brothers have “an inalienable right to enter and remain in the country”. In its Aug 23 decision, the SC had also asked the government not to obstruct their return “in any manner”. As such it is unlikely that there will a repeat of the events of May 11, 2004, when Mr Shahbaz Sharif was arrested on arrival in Lahore and promptly deported. But there are legal cases pending against the Sharifs — indeed more could be framed or reactivated — and their immediate or subsequent detention cannot be ruled out. The Sharifs, in turn, will be looking to the courts for remedy. With the judiciary today acting independently of executive diktat, the brothers have reason to believe that any submissions made on their behalf — such as applications for bail — will be decided on legal merit. Even an omnibus bail before arrest, covering all existing cases, may be a possibility.

Mr Nawaz Sharif and his PML-N have chosen to strike while the iron is hot. The popular image of Ms Benazir Bhutto and the PPP has suffered following her decision to try and cut a deal with a general who overthrew an elected government. These overtures, made ostensibly in the national interest, are in sharp contrast to the stance taken by the PPP for much of the last eight years, leading even some of her supporters to question her motives. This is not to say, of course, that the Sharifs would have indignantly rebuffed dialogue had they, not Ms Bhutto, been approached by Gen Musharraf. While there is no knowing how that scenario may have panned out, expediency has historically dominated politics in Pakistan. Still, almost by default, the PML-N is now in a position to present itself as the party that stuck to its guns and refused to compromise on principles.

So far the PML-N chief has espoused a single-point agenda: President Musharraf’s exit from the corridors of power. Beyond that one objective, his party’s future course of action remains unclear. Ms Bhutto, meanwhile, is adamant that President Musharraf must relinquish his army post before seeking re-election and repeal Article 58-2(b) of the Constitution, which authorises the head of state to dissolve the National Assembly and sack the prime minister. These and some other demands made by Ms Bhutto are both legitimate and timely. The president, for his part, should not be faulted for talking to a top opposition leader. What is of paramount importance, however, is not the benefit accruing to any one player but a peaceful transition to genuine democracy through free and fair elections. All the contenders have every right to a level playing field, be it in the arena of pre-election campaigning, casting of ballots or the physical counting of votes. That said, any posturing or agitation that could further destabilise the country must be avoided at all costs. For this the responsibility rests with the opposition as well as those currently in power.

Wrongful detention

HOW can two teenage boys who spent three years in prison for no fault of their own be expected to resume normal lives after their release, thanks to the courts who took note of this miscarriage of justice? The boys were imprisoned under the archaic Frontier Crimes Regulation for three years in Bannu all because they were related to an alleged criminal. While it is not uncommon for law enforcement agencies to round up relatives of alleged criminals, it is shocking to read that in this case 21 relatives — including the two 13-year-old boys — were sent to prison. Over a period, everyone was released, including the alleged criminal himself, but these two young boys remained incarcerated for three years until the court took up their plea. The court is right to ask why these boys were made to pay for crimes they did not commit and it is hoped that the administration has learnt some lessons, namely that even if youngsters are suspected of crimes, they are bound to be treated as juveniles and detained accordingly. On a broader level, this practice of rounding up and detaining relatives must be abandoned as it is illegal and also serves no purpose.

How can the legal system be improved so as to prevent miscarriages of justice? In the tribal areas, the FCR is the only law in operation and it made no concession to the two juveniles who were then locked up for three years. This needs to be reviewed. In fact, bringing Fata and the other tribal regions into the country’s mainstream — legally, politically and socially — is long overdue. If the police are trained in modern methods of investigation and crime detection, the practice of picking up innocent family members would be discouraged. Many times the law enforcement agencies resort to this measure to show their ‘efficiency’ and it is not their concern if innocent people suffer in the process. This cannot be condoned. As for those who have been wrongfully detained, they need assistance in their rehabilitation process and it is hoped that a welfare department will provide it to them.

Rights abuses in the valley

AMONGST the many instances of brutal torture condemned by Amnesty International in its report released on Thursday to coincide with the International Day of the Disappeared, the one with far-reaching international implications is that of the Indian security forces’ handling of the insurgency in Indian-held Kashmir. Many other governments have also come under scathing criticism for gross human rights violations, including torture. But Kashmir has attracted world attention because it has been the cause of much tension between India

and Pakistan — it has even led to wars. AI’s observations, therefore, assume great significance. According to Amnesty, torture by the Indian security forces is routine and “often particularly brutal”. AI refers to many atrocities that stem directly from the sweeping powers New Delhi has given to its security forces under the anti-terrorism laws in force. The soldiers use the preventive detention law with impunity and act as though they are above the law. Among other measures to end rights abuses in occupied Kashmir, AI suggests that India should ratify the UN convention against torture.

The Kashmiris do not seem to be getting enough of a benefit from the wind of change that is blowing across South Asia. Since the normalisation process began, especially after the two sides pledged in Islamabad in 2004 to pursue a “composite dialogue”, Pakistan and India have achieved much. The confidence-building measures already in place have perceptibly improved the geopolitical atmosphere in the subcontinent and enjoy the whole-hearted support of the people on both sides. This process should continue. It is in keeping with this spirit that New Delhi should address the human rights dimension of the Kashmir problem, which has been pointed out by many HR groups in India as well. An end to the rights violation and a reduction in the number of troops in the valley should help strengthen the détente process.

EU’s soft corner for Gul

TURKEY’S new president Abdullah Gul may still face hostility from the country’s staunchly secularist army because of his past in political Islam. But the Turkish leader can count on the support of a surprising number of European Union policymakers.

They believe his election will further consolidate Turkish democracy and ensure stability by ending months of political turmoil sparked by the standoff between the Islamist-rooted Justice and Development (AK) Party and the secular elite, including army generals, judges and politicians.

Many in the EU are also convinced Mr Gul will reinvigorate Ankara’s flagging bid to join the 27-nation bloc.

EU support for Mr Gul — including from heavyweights like French President Nicolas Sarkozy, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso — is based not only on the urbane former foreign minister’s reputation as a determined and unwavering reformer and modernist, but also a strong conviction that despite his Islamist past, the new president will carefully adhere to Turkey’s secular constitution.

This in turn, say EU officials, will reinforce Turkey’s image as a stalwart modern democracy and help quell European fears over the mainly Muslim nation’s long-standing drive to join the European mainstream.

While some in Brussels and other EU capitals remain wary of allowing a Muslim nation to enter through EU gates, the Turkish army has few friends in Europe. Many believe the military’s commitment to secularism is mixed up with an unacceptable refusal to cede political authority and economic power to Turkey’s increasingly influential — and more religious — emerging middle class.

Significantly also, the Turkish army is no supporter of EU membership, with army officials in some cases deliberately obstructing the government’s pro-EU reform efforts. In addition, the ruling AKP — from which Mr Gul has now resigned — is viewed as more modern, free-market oriented and more committed to human rights than secularist army officials.

As a result, EU officials who may be wary of the growing number of Muslim women wearing headscarves in Europe, are much more sanguine than Turkish army officers at Mr Gul’s wife’s choice to cover her head, arguing that such matters should be left to personal choice and that there is no risk to the modern Turkish state from the headscarf — if the choice is not politicised.

At a time of rising tensions between the West and Islam, EU policymakers also believe that Mr Gul’s success or failure will dictate not only the future of Turkey but also determine whether Islam can co-exist with democracy and modern statehood.

With Turkey in good hands, Mr Gul’s election could provide fresh impetus to Ankara’s on-again, off-again EU entry talks, Barroso told reporters. The arrival to power of a new government in Turkey was “an opportunity to give fresh, immediate and positive impetus to the EU accession process,” said Barroso, adding,

“I am confident that you will

fulfill your task with a strong sense of duty and commitment to your country and fellow citizens.”

Barroso’s favourable comments come only weeks before the Commission — the EU’s executive arm — is scheduled to release its annual evaluation of Turkey’s efforts to meet EU membership standards, including in the so far sticky areas of judicial reform, human rights and fundamental freedoms.

Last year, Olli Rehn, the Commission’s leading enlargement official, famously warned of a “train crash” in EU-Turkey negotiations over Ankara’s failure to step up the pace of reform.

When Ankara also refused to establish transport ties with EU member Cyprus, EU governments last December partially froze the membership talks in eight areas.

Discussions have reopened in two sectors since then but EU and Turkish officials admit that the negotiating momentum has been well and truly lost.

But a more upbeat scenario now looks possible given that French President Sarkozy, who campaigned against Turkish membership during this summer’s French presidential elections, appears to be having second thoughts about keeping Ankara out in the cold.

As a result, diplomats in Brussels say that Mr Gul has the ideal platform to relaunch negotiations — and keep them on track over the coming years. This may require nerves of steel, however, since the French leader is still insisting that only legislation that does not touch directly on EU membership should be discussed by the two sides. And the French leader also appears to be sticking to his calls for a union of countries on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea, an option which Ankara has denounced as being designed to keep it out of the EU.

Mr Gul’s reputation has been further boosted by the new pro-EU reformist cabinet announced last week which also reflects Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan’s aim to push ahead with stalled political and economic reforms needed to join the bloc.

EU officials are especially pleased at the appointment of Turkey’s chief EU negotiator Ali Babacan as the new foreign minister, as well as the fact that former banker Nazim Ekren was named minister in charge of coordinating economic issues, an important position as the government pushes for further economic reforms.

All eyes will also be on Suat Kiniklioglu, a new AKP member born and raised in Germany, who will play a key role in the government’s new public diplomacy. Mr Kiniklioglu, a liberal-minded pro-European technocrat who was elected to the Turkish parliament after heading the Ankara office of the US German Marshall Fund, has said that despite the party’s Islamic roots, he is “not very religious” and his wife does not wear a headscarf.

But Mr Kiniklioglu faces a tough task ahead. While the tide of public opinion in Europe now appears to be changing in favour of Turkey — a Belgian newspaper went so far as to describe Mr Gul as the “oriental George Clooney” — sceptics in Germany and France remain convinced that EU accession will not only mean the spread of radical Islam in Europe but also the mass immigration of relatively poor and unskilled Turks into western Europe.

Time, however, is likely to be on Turkey’s side. Even the most enthusiastic pro-Turkey policymakers in Brussels admit that it could take Ankara up to 15 years to complete EU membership negotiations.

During that period, Turkish workers will be needed in Europe to reverse a demographic imbalance and help pay for pensions, changing current public aversion to immigration.

Increasingly also many in the EU argue that Turkey, with the second largest army in Nato, could help Europe fulfil ambitions to be a global player, especially at a time when most West European member states are reluctant to increase defence spending.

Even more importantly, given Europe’s dependence on energy supplies from an increasingly volatile and assertive Russia, there is a growing consensus that Turkey could help guarantee EU access to alternative energy sources in former Soviet states like Azerbaijan as well as suppliers in the Middle East.

As such even more than a “bridge” between Islam and the West, EU policymakers now see Turkey as an even more vital “corridor” for bringing much-needed Central Asian and Middle Eastern oil and gas into Europe.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent based in Brussels.

A president of the people

ON Aug 28, 2007, the Turkish parliament elected Foreign Minister Abdullah Gül as the country’s 11th president. By doing so, parliament not only chose the most eligible man for the top office, but it also proclaimed that Turkey is a democracy, and not a banana republic…

As the son of a religious family from the conservative town of Kayseri, and the husband of a wife who wears the headscarf, he symbolised the “periphery” of Turkey, not its “centre”…

Moreover, he has a past in “political Islam.” Actually all of these were not a big problem when he served as prime minister (briefly in 2002) and foreign minister. After all, these were the posts that the people’s representatives could attain. But the presidency, ah, that was reserved for the representatives of the establishment.

Hence came the harsh “secularism warning” by the Turkish military on the night of Apr 27, which blocked the way for Mr Gül’s presidency. The establishment had given its verdict: this man would not be the president. Yet the people had their say, too.

On Jul 22, 47 per cent of them voted for Mr Gül’s party, granting him and his best ally, Prime Minister Erdogan, an astounding political victory… — (Aug 30)

Going around in circles

WHILE it is of course welcome that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert are now tackling final status issues, it is frustrating to learn that what most Israeli officials claim to be aiming for at this autumn’s US-sponsored Middle East meeting is a “framework” for the end of the conflict.

Haven’t we been there before? Is there not already an agreed-upon framework in the Oslo accords as well as the Arab Peace Initiative that is based on international law? Is it not already clear what the “framework” for the end of conflict is?

It is extremely unfortunate that the momentum created by the Arab Peace Initiative is being wasted. Israel…simply does not come across as serious when officials are allowed to say such things.

It has a big opportunity by agreeing to negotiate on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative.

But instead it wants to renegotiate, ad nauseam, the framework for negotiations. It is an Orwellian nightmare. Coupled with what is happening on the ground, Palestinians, whether officials or civilians, Hamas or Fatah, are right to be extremely sceptical that Israel means business.

On the ground, there is still no movement on the Israeli pledge to ease travel restrictions on Palestinians in the West Bank. — (Aug 30)