|
| November 25, 2007 | Sunday | Ziqa’ad 14, 1428 |
The troubling BIT
Why this cable car service?
Why we miss the talk shows
OTHER VOICES - Pushto Press
EVEN if the channels were to return on air now, they can hardly be expected to compensate for what has been taken away from us over the last few days. The country has just lost a battery of fiery official spokesmen who lent energy and crispness to the private television enterprise. The famous ministers prone to speaking their mind at the feel of a microphone are no more, their places taken up by the sober, even demure, caretakers. For the moment at least.
DEMONSTRATIONS, even those that are peaceful, are no doubt a violation of the draconian laws which rule our lives in these dark days of the emergency. Fundamental rights, including those of assembly and free speech, ceased to exist on Nov 3 when the entire nation was slapped in the face by a military ruler who chose to lash out when cornered. As such the police with their enhanced powers are perfectly within their rights to prevent protest and arrest those who choose to participate in public demonstrations. This was precisely the justification offered by the Karachi police chief after his men thrashed and arrested journalists protesting peacefully against curbs on the media and the imposition of what is essentially martial law. But this reasoning is flawed as far as the unprovoked violence by the state machinery is concerned. True, the police are entitled to arrest anyone who is knowingly, and with gusto, breaking a law he or she neither recognises nor respects. The men in uniform are only doing their job and it is not for them to ponder the ethics, the rights or wrongs, of the breaking of black laws imposed by a man who himself acted illegally when he overrode the Constitution.
The police do not, however, have the right to manhandle, let alone thrash, peaceful protestors who are neither confronting the enforcers of the law nor destroying public property. When the chanting of slogans is met with batons, kicks and slaps, the rule of law — even in its current perverted form — is truly dead and buried. Brutality aside, the wisdom in such police action is also questionable. When turning a blind eye ensures an incident-free day with everyone going home after a few hours, why exacerbate matters by lashing out with batons and hauling people off to police stations, only to release them after a few hours? Is it simply to teach the protestors a lesson? Or is it some twisted form of catharsis in which poorly paid policemen give vent to their worldly frustrations at the expense of the public?
Perhaps the mode of action depends on the judgment of the officer in charge, or the mood of his superiors and orders received from the top. The police have chosen not to intervene in several peaceful demonstrations across the country, with the end result that no one got hurt or arrested and everyone dispersed calmly in due course. While the occasional crackdown has been witnessed in other parts of the country as well, it is noticeable that protest these days is least tolerated in Sindh, particularly Karachi and Hyderabad. The reason remains a mystery: is it a policy statement or simply an overreaction by a jittery police force? Whatever the case, there can be no justification for police brutality directed against protestors who are simply demanding their rights.
THAT the curtain seems to have fallen on Pakistan’s long-drawn talks with the United States for a Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) — a step towards the Free Trade Agreement — should not surprise anyone. The US and the European Union have long been pushing bilateralism across the globe. The emphasis on bilateralism increased after the breakdown of multilateral trade talks under the World Trade Organisation (WTO) in Cancun in 2003, mainly because of the refusal of the industrialised economies to allow greater market access to agricultural products and services from the developing nations. Bilateral agreements are often referred to as ‘WTO plus’ because they move things beyond WTO standards. Both the US and the EU use bilateralism as an extension of their foreign policy tools to advance their political agenda and protect the interests of big business.
Washington agreed to initiate negotiations with Islamabad, its frontline partner in the fight against terrorism, on BIT leading to FTA in June 2003. At that time, the US trade representative had stated that a “BIT based on the high standards contained in our model text can play an important role in strengthening Pakistan’s economy, so as to create new opportunities for exporters and investors in both economies and assist in meeting the economic conditions to counter terrorism”. It was against this backdrop that the report about the snags hitting the BIT talks came as a rude shock to some. In view of the US’s changing relations with Gen Pervez Musharraf in recent weeks and his rejection of the Bush administration’s demand to lift emergency rule for transparent elections, it is but natural to see the suspension of BIT talks as part of the American effort to push for democracy and civil liberties in Pakistan. That may be so, partly. But it is not the whole story.
The Americans had been dragging their feet on BIT negotiations right from the start and trying to force Islamabad to agree to what officials describe as ‘harsh conditions’. These mainly relate to America’s insistence on greater intellectual property protection and an agreement on dispute settlement procedures of its choice. By demanding a more stringent IPRs environment and the selection of the International Centre for Settlement of Disputes for arbitration, the US is unduly asking for huge legal protection for its investors and transnational corporations. Thus, the failure to finalise BIT shouldn’t distress anyone, especially those in government, because it is far less likely to hamper the flow of foreign investment or affect the economy than the current political turmoil. Instead, the opportunity must be seized to step up efforts for the successful conclusion of multilateral talks under the WTO for a just and fair global trade regime. In the meanwhile, Islamabad can reach out to India and other South Asian nations for boosting regional trade.
IT seems the vultures were only waiting to swoop in for the kill and they found the right opportunity with Interior Minister Aftab Sherpao’s exit. Mr Sherpao was firmly opposed to the construction of a cable car project in Islamabad, which was nearly finalised when he cancelled it on environmental grounds. The construction of the cable car service was between the Children’s Park and Margalla Hills, a distance of about 2.5kms, and which, if built, would have caused considerable damage to the flora and fauna in the National Park Area. Mr Sherpao must be commended for halting the construction, especially since so many of his colleagues did not care about the environmental degradation taking place in the country. It is, however, tragic that with his departure, the Capital Development Authority has decided to restart the project — and it seems there is no responsible voice to stop it this time round.
Instead of being venerated, environmentalists’ voices seem to carry no weight today. Even though environmental assessment reports are meant to play a crucial role in deciding whether a development project should go ahead or not, their findings are rarely paid heed to. Even in the case of the cable car project, the concerns raised by the Pakistan Environment Protection Agency have been ignored. The agency recommended an alternative route for the cable service but that too was rejected. Those at the helm must realise how the environment is being butchered in the name of development. And there is reason to believe that those involved in multi-million-rupee projects stand to gain a lot financially. Such allegations must be seriously investigated and the proper procedure already laid out must be strictly adhered to, especially in respect of the environment assessment report.
The responsibility for setting the tone for a discourse lies with the government functionaries. They are bound by an unwritten code that puts a premium on decency in the face of the most obnoxious of calls by the opposition.
They are not supposed to retort in anger as desperate journalists ask the question about the military-democracy equation for the millionth time since Oct 7, 1958.
They have to or are supposed to carry themselves with grace in the most trying and potentially most embarrassing of situations. They are not supposed to shout dissent down.
Is this how the official side has behaved during the just-concluded glorious period of media freedom? Is the old query to be blamed or can we be allowed to question the staleness, the sheer hypocrisy of the answer, which breeds more frustration?
When General Pervez Musharraf proclaimed his second Provisional Constitution Order on Nov 3, he inevitably invited uncharitable remarks about the futility of his first eight years in power. Among the objectives towards which his regime made little progress was the introduction of a culture of tolerance where the government did not always have to play the persecutor.
Mr Musharraf might himself have at times shown an ability to take criticism but his lieutenants who had a knack of placing themselves in favourable positions in front of the television camera fell hard on anyone and anything that to their eye was anti-government.
They did the job for the tolerant general and played the main hand in giving the channels the reputation that has now become a bane for them.
Most of these hard-talking Musharraf defenders came from Punjab. Many among them were not a part of the Pakistan Muslim League when it was reinvented. Consequently, they worked with the guilt and passion of converts, providing a microcosm of aggressive behavioural trends in Pakistani society.
The bunch was undoubtedly led by Chaudhry Wasi Zafar, an erstwhile Pakistan People’s Party politician from Faisalabad, who finally earned his due place in the country’s hall of fame by managing to muscle his way out of impossible situations during television talk shows.
He survived as the spokesman and he continued unthreatened as a minister, albeit with a late change in his portfolio. His shows drew large audiences and the channels are greatly indebted to his services.
Mr Zafar had managed to enter the fold of the official PML before the 2002 general election. No one from the loyalists in the league came close to competing with him for the coveted post of the chief defender of the Musharraf government.
The toughest challenge came from Dr Sher Afgan Niazi, a Patriot and a PPP renegade who had joined the government post 2002 polls.
By his own accounts hurt by the indifference of Benazir Bhutto towards a senior party colleague like him, the Sher from Mianwali roared the loudest on the floor of the National Assembly — with reason, he reminded everyone around, and in favour of all action initiated by his new-found leaders. But it was the television talk shows that brought out the best in him.
His ‘main nahin manta’ (I don’t accept) refrain on television after a certain Supreme Court decision would have placed him next only to Habib Jalib in the history of Pakistani politics, but for the fact that while Jalib had openly declared his opposition to the Constitution, whatever Dr Sher Afgan does he does according to the Constitution.
He was a talk show star, taking on the most brilliant opposition orators with ease and without ever having to raise his voice.
Sheikh Rashid Ahmed is another outgoing minister to whom the channels owe a special gratitude for their popularity. At the outset, he was a bit confused about which of the two Leagues he should side with and at one point in time even indicated that he could gift the two Rawalpindi seats that he had won hands down in 2002 elections to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz. Five years on, he is fully behind General Musharraf even if he maintains his independence in the official PML.
If Dr Afgan swore by the Constitution, Sheikh Rashid’s slogan all through was that he was the voice of undiluted truth. That led to plenty of coarse yarns spun by the silk merchant for the benefit of the ordinary man.
The printed word is ill-equipped to measure the service these politicians have provided to the ordinary man over the last many years — at just Rs300 a month courtesy the cable operator. That has to be seen to be believed and marvelled at.
The fans of these candid politicians will be hoping that the power of their speech will not be compromised as the authorities move to bring errant television networks in line, hoping that they will return to wax eloquent in a manner no opposition jiyala or matwala can ever come close to matching.
Women prisoners in Pul-i-Charkhi
The emissaries of Afghan Peoples’ Jirga report that security officials are involved in sexual excesses against women in the prison of Pul-i-Charkhi in Kabul.
Presently, there are some 100 women prisoners in Pul-i-Charkhi. All those involved in sexual excesses against these prisoners, no matter how powerful, must be brought to book by the high ups of the security forces in Kabul.
…It seems that those involved in these heinous acts against women in Pul-i-Charkhi have conspired against the incumbent government in Afghanistan. … Sexual excesses against women have always been abhorred in Afghan culture and society.
Those involved, regardless of the nation they belong to, must be shown to the people of Afghanistan. They need to be punished according to the law so that others learn a lesson from them, and in future, nobody dare repeat gross violations against women. We suggest that the Afghan government establish a commission to inquire into the matter at its earliest.
The people involved in this abuse are not only involved in an act that will slap a stigma on Afghan culture and society, but are also causing unrest amongst the people which may go against the interests of the Afghan government.
It seems as if international agencies working for human rights are either not present in Afghanistan or unaware of their duties and responsibilities.
These human rights outfits must demand the accountability of those involved in sexual violations against the women.
These agencies are expected to take these perpetrators to task and not let them stay at large.—(Nov 16)
Durand Line issue
A report by Craig Cohen of CSES, translated by Jamal Khan, appeared in a monthly magazine from Peshawar. The report carries six proposals for the resolution of conflicts between Afghanistan and Pakistan. This list of suggestions says that the war on terror in the border areas between Afghanistan and Pakistan can be won only by the US forces.
The report also recommends that, if Pakistan is truly an American ally in the war on terror, it should allow the US forces to continue their strikes in the border areas even if it is damaging for the civilian population.
The US should conduct a clandestine search for people who are willing to fight against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
The report further advises that Pakistan military and Frontier Constabulary should be trained to dismantle the bastions of terrorism in the border areas. The report says that the problem cannot be resolved through military means alone.
The tribal elders should be taken into confidence to find a political solution to the problem.
The report also says that the core reasons of terrorism should be identified so that the menace can be adequately eradicated. It further points out that funds allocated for the tribal areas should be made conditional to the disbanding of the Frontier Crime Regulation.
The report has also divulged some other surprising facts. It is not in the interest of the Afghans to ignore the long-lasting interests of the Afghan nation, though at present the government of Afghanistan may not be in a position to negotiate with the world on sensitive issues. The issue of Durand Line is the basic problem and all the other problems, including terrorism, are corollaries of this basic issue.
As Muslims and as Afghans, we are of the view that the simple solution for this predicament
lies in bringing the whole Pukhtoon and Afghan population under one administrative structure so that an action plan to fight terrorism may be developed, and both the upper and lower Pukhtoons get their right of developing a viable socio-political structure for themselves.—(Nov 22)
—Selected and translated by Khadim Hussain