Terror in Lahore

JUST when Lahore thought that it existed outside the reach of suicide bombers who killed more than 3,000 people — including a former prime minister — in the country last year, a young militant blew himself up on Thursday at the busy GPO crossing outside the Lahore High Court to kill at least 23 policemen and civilians and wound more than 70 others. The blast was loud enough to shake the city’s confidence. The whole city felt insecure — even if, in formal terms, it was difficult to say who the bomber had targeted. Authorities claim that the target were the police — a symbol of the state, the foot-soldiers in a war whose origins lie outside Pakistan’s boundaries. Lawyers argue the attack was directed at them; it took place minutes before an anti-Musharraf rally of lawyers was to pass by the site of the explosion. Others hold that the terror attack on the eve of Muharram had sectarian connotations. Well, that is for the investigators to probe and it is for President Pervez Musharraf’s government to make the findings public. The hard fact is that the extremists were able to reassert themselves and send the message that they can strike any time, anywhere. They were also successful in causing panic and further eroding people’s trust in the ability of the state to protect them.

It is useless at the moment to debate the causes of the growing extremism and suicide bombings in the country. It would also be futile to discuss the government’s inability to fight the menace of terrorism, or where the origins of our current situation lie — unless these debates and discussions lead to an earnest search for a solution and, indeed, an enduring solution. We have to move fast lest the threat undermines the state itself. Most people believe that a popular political government, responsive to the nation’s aspirations, can tackle the problem more effectively and, hence, the establishment must not exploit the incidents such as the one that occurred at Lahore’s GPO Chowk as a pretext to put off the general election scheduled for Feb 18. We doubt that any future government would find it easy to put the genie of religious extremism back in the bottle. But a democratic government, elected in a fair and free election, would surely be the first step towards a lasting solution to the problem.

Will Bush live up to it?

UNLESS the harsh reality of America’s domestic politics makes him dither, President George Bush seems to mean business, for Israel must have been shocked by the word “occupation” he used for the West Bank. “There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967,” he said and called for a peace treaty by the year’s end to create a Palestinian state. Speaking in occupied Jerusalem on Thursday after talks with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, President Bush asserted that the Palestinians should have a state of their own. This is not the first time he has spoken of a peace deal by the end of the year. He expressed similar hopes at the Annapolis summit where the document signed by the American, Israeli and Palestinian leaders visualised the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state by December this year.

The issue boils down to making Israel abide by the Annapolis agreement and help President Bush succeed where previous US administrations failed. This is a tall order. Israel has a record of violating UN resolutions and international treaties to some of which America is a signatory. These include the celebrated Declaration of Principles signed in Washington in September 1993 by Yasser Arafat, Bill Clinton and Yitzhak Rabin. This agreement laid down that a final settlement, including the status of Jerusalem, would be in place by April 1999. This never happened. Rabin was murdered by a Jewish fanatic, and the three subsequent prime ministers — Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon — tore the DoP to pieces. The Camp David summit in July 2000 also failed to achieve any results because of Clinton’s extreme partiality towards Israel.

The roadmap, prepared by the Quartet and unveiled by President George Bush in April 2003, died the day President Bush said that 2005 was an unrealistic date for a Palestinian state to emerge. He also agreed with Sharon that Israel should retain some land in the West Bank even after quitting it. The most recent demonstration of Israel’s contempt for international treaties came last November when within a week of the signing of the Annapolis document Olmert declared that Israel was not bound by the 2008 deadline. He also confessed recently that Israel had not been faithful to the roadmap. The resolve expressed by President Bush to give the Palestinians a state of their own will succeed only when his administration, dominated as it is by confirmed Zionists, makes it clear that it will tolerate no nonsense from anyone and that a Palestinian state must come into being by the end of 2008, no matter what obstacles Israel creates.

No child’s play

THE greatest paradox of childhood is the fact that while it may be the most resilient stage of life, it is also susceptible to lifelong scars. A wound that rarely heals is one left by child abuse. A recent survey conducted by an NGO working for the cause revealed that child abuse is on the rise in Pakistan with a 24 per cent increase recorded in the first quarter of 2007. An astounding 1,315 cases were reported last year with the number of girls being more than twice the number of boys. Society for the Protection of the Rights of the Child (Sparc) declares that countrywide over five cases of child abuse are reported in a day. These can be physical, emotional and sexual or pertain to parental neglect and can happen in the home or in school, but high-risk areas appear to be government or local neighbourhood schools and madressahs. The devastating aspect of this despicable crime is that it creates more abusers. The primary reason for this is that conservative attitudes force families to see it not as a crime but as a stigma, and instead of keeping the focus on the victim, the issue is swept aside and the child grapples with the sense of violation without external help. The aftermath often includes depression, detachment, anxiety, low self-esteem and difficulties in sustaining childhood and adult relationships. International studies conclude that most child abusers and those who commit substance or spousal excesses have been silent victims of childhood violations.

However, the four core principles stated in Unicef’s Convention on the Rights of the Child are gender non-discrimination, which unfortunately is missing in our society, right to life and survival, harmonious development and respect for the views of the child. But the task of making a child’s rights inviolable must begin at the grassroots. A widespread public education campaign that targets low-income localities must be undertaken by the government and relevant NGOs. This should also be supported by parallel victim support groups which include a greater emphasis on counselling facilities for both the child and his/her family. Uneducated and poor sections of society should be made accessible through home visits by psychiatrists monitored by concerned departments. After all, it is an issue that threatens our collective future.

EU’s focus on our polls

THE United States and the European Union may not see eye to eye on the root causes and solutions for the many wars and conflicts raging across the globe. But policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic agree on one key issue: Pakistan today is the “world’s most dangerous place”.

Attention on both sides of the Atlantic remains on Pakistan although domestic issues have climbed to the top of the agenda. The US media is clearly focused on the fluctuating fortunes of the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates following the recent primaries in Iowa and New Hampshire. In the EU, attention is centred on the very public love life of the newly-divorced French President Nicolas Sarkozy who now appears to have found everlasting love with the glamorous Italian model/singer Carla Bruni.

Despite the competition, however, Pakistan remains a focus of attention as both Washington and Brussels worry about rising lawlessness in the country, Pakistan’s toxic mix of terrorism, religious extremism and economic deprivation and the grim political future facing the country in the aftermath of the tragic murder of Benazir Bhutto.

Americans and Europeans also fret equally over fears that Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal could fall into the hands of Islamic militants, a concern expressed most recently by none other than Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

There are other points of trans-Atlantic consensus on Pakistan. US and EU officials share the view that Pakistan’s success or failure in tackling extremism will be a determining factor in America’s so-called “war on terror”. Americans and Europeans were similarly fascinated by Bhutto as a pro-western, secular democrat. And stability in Pakistan is seen as vital not only for the country’s immediate neighbours — particularly Afghanistan where Nato has deployed over 30,000 troops — but also for the wider region and possibly the Islamic world.

But coming back to Brussels after an eventful and often sombre two-week winter break in Pakistan, this correspondent was struck by the very different EU and US perspectives on how best to bring sanity back to a very troubled Pakistan. Put simply, while the US still seems to be backing President Pervez Musharraf as the sole and stalwart soldier against extremism, Europeans remain wary of both the president and the military’s over-arching role and influence in the country.

Mr Musharraf’s star never shone very brightly in Europe’s heavens. His blundering efforts to keep his grip on power through the declaration of emergency rule in November, the sacking of judges and heavy-handed repression of lawyers, human rights activists and reporters, has further sullied his reputation in many EU capitals.

While Pakistani diplomats struggle to portray the Pakistani leader as an affable man — and a reluctant dictator courageously leading the battle against terrorism — few in Europe believe such spin. In fact, Mr Musharraf’s public image has taken a further battering following the Bhutto assassination, with many friends and EU officials asking over and over again not only whether the government had a hand in the murder but also how the authorities could have so badly mishandled the immediate aftermath of the slaying.

As one colleague pointed out, not only did the authorities issue “daft” statements on the causes of Bhutto’s death but the president himself appeared to be disconnected from events and seemed to be dealing with the crisis as if it was happening in a faraway foreign land. Musharraf’s consistent refusal to recognise any responsibility for growing extremism and terrorism in the country is seen as particularly bizarre. “If the president of Pakistan isn’t in control of the country…then who is?” an old friend and colleague asked me on my return from Karachi.

Public sympathy and fascination for Bhutto remains high across Europe, with most people genuinely saddened by the disappearance of one of the world’s more charismatic leaders. However, admiration for Bhutto’s courage as a modern Muslim woman in a country dominated by macho male politicians — not to mention her bravery in going back to Pakistan despite the terrorist threat against her — is mixed with disappointment at her failure to help either the cause of Pakistani women or promote democracy and good governance in the country.

Bhutto is seen therefore as William Dalrymple described in the Observer several weeks ago as a “flawed and feudal princess” rather than the paragon of virtue as portrayed in several US — and Pakistani — newspapers. There is an equal measure of dismay and disappointment at Bhutto’s legacy, including her apparent decision to pass the baton of leadership of the Pakistan People’s Party to her discredited husband Asif Zardari — who then magnanimously handed it to their son, Bilawal.

While dynastic politics are seen as a chronic problem in South Asia, many had erroneously believed that a modern female politician would have opted for merit and democracy rather than maintaining the so-called “bloodline” of her clan.

First and foremost, however, the EU’s focus now is on ensuring that the upcoming elections are free, fair and transparent, a demand made repeatedly by Michael Gahler, the head of the European Observer Mission (EOM) which will monitor the long-awaited polls on Feb 18. Gahler’s task looks set to be tough, however. The EU will not endorse an election if there are suspicions of rigging and if the polls do not conform to international standards.

EU policymakers are convinced that stability in Pakistan and its contribution to wider anti-terror efforts require rapid transition to legitimate civilian government. There is also increasing focus on building the country’s fragile political institutions, restoring the independence of the judiciary and encouraging moves towards the rule of law.

While personalities are obviously seen as important, many in Brussels argue that to stop the cycle of short civilian rule followed by years of military government, the focus must be on building stronger Pakistani institutions and working hard to improve governance. The focus is also on fighting extremism through development, a strategy only recently espoused by the US.

In short, while America is putting its money, arms and energy in boosting Pakistan’s military hard power — which unfortunately is currently being used only to suppress democratic forces within the country — Europe’s soft power focus is on encouraging progress and democracy by investing in the people of Pakistan. Three guesses which route is likely to reap long-term dividends.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent based in Brussels.

OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press

A year on, crisis lingers

THE army-backed government steps into the second year of emergency…Chief adviser Fakhruddin Ahmed pledged a year-end election, and we believe the government will not budge from its stand. It is certain that the public support the government started its journey with is now waning. The government took the reins in critical times. The political governments of yore pushed the country’s institutions to the brink. The coalition government (of Khaleda Zia and Jamaat-i-Islami) failed to make a flawless voters’ list in two years, but the Election Commission has now made much progress in its work.

The government took a series of regulatory and administrative measures. One major step was the creation of the Regulatory Reforms Commission. Two others — the Human Rights Commission and the Right to Information Act — are under way.

Natural disasters such as two spells of flooding and the Nov 15 cyclone plunged the country into a deep crisis. The government deserves appreciation for its efforts to rehabilitate the affected.Some steps drew flak. The government cleared hawkers and small businesses from the city roads, leaving thousands of people jobless or pushing them into hardship. Six jute mills shut down, laying off thousands of workers...The anti-corruption crackdown…dampened the spirits of businessmen. The measures designed to inject momentum into the economy seemed to have fizzled out.

People lauded the government for arresting corrupt politicians…But the blanket arrest of graft suspects and detention in jail even after court bail raised questions about its motive. Finally, the government must end the state of emergency in phases and clear the way for elections to take place. We hope the crisis will be over and Bangladesh will have a better future. — (Jan 11)

New advisers raise new hope

THE interim cabinet went through a sudden change. President Iajuddin Ahmed swore in five new advisers on Wednesday, a day after as many advisers resigned their posts in the cabinet — all citing “personal reasons”.

But questions swirled over the sudden changes…The resignations, which many top government officials said were forced, came three days ahead of the…changeover. The five advisers who quit the Fakhruddin administration were not alone to blame for the failure of the government. The bottom line is that no advisers made major decisions on their own. There was no scope for it.

It is still not clear why the makeshift administration forced the changes so suddenly. There was no official statement on the “inefficiency” of the advisers. They resigned for the sake of the country. Still, it was embarrassing.

The caretaker government largely succeeded. The major problem was the soaring prices of essential commodities, especially rice. There was no denying that the government took major steps.

Critics said that the government had widened the areas of work and had fallen short of the target because of too much work to do in too little time. Setbacks to the economy strained people’s faith in the government. Twin floods, Cyclone Sidr and the fallout from rising international prices of oil threw the country into a tailspin…The advisory council must put in more efforts to inject dynamism into the economy...

Despite all odds, we hope the redesigned cabinet will be able to tread the path back to democracy by transferring power to an elected government. The new advisers are well-known in their sectors. We hope they will work hand in hand with others... — (Jan 11)

— Translated and selected by Arun Devnath