Action or carrot?

THE various peace deals the government and the military signed with the extremist militants holding swathes of Fata and the Frontier in a state of siege have had their chance — and for all practical purposes failed to bring peace. The fact that our big cities and national leaders were not attacked while the accords struck with the militants held, as some are proudly pointing out, is no big achievement. Hence one derives little comfort from Thursday’s announcement by the Frontier government that the peace agreement with the Taliban in Swat still holds. Until the menace of extremism and its encroaching evil remain a stark truth, how can the peace deal be welcomed? The fact is that the acts of lawlessness on the part of the militants never fully ceased even as they engaged in talks with the government or military commanders. The destruction of a PTDC motel in Swat on Thursday should come as an eye-opener, if one is needed, for those in the Frontier government who still advocate reaching an understanding with the Taliban operating under the command of the cleric Fazlullah.

Some rethinking is in order on the strategy of appeasing militants while they hold the people hostage to an obscurantist agenda. True, there may be fringe groups indulging in violence who are not under the control of those negotiating with the government. But then those among the Taliban seeking a deal must disown their colleagues who refuse to respect their commitment and exert pressure on them. Innocent, law-abiding citizens cannot be left at the mercy of armed zealots who commit heinous crimes in the name of enforcing Sharia. The need is to ensure that girls’ schools and colleges are reopened, music shops are not threatened with bombings and those who do not obey the Taliban’s edicts are not tried and meted out horrible punishments by parallel courts run by semi-literate mullahs. The writ of the state and a uniform law of the land must prevail across the board, with no exceptions made to enforce the variety of the Sharia that only the Taliban subscribe to.

The meeting held on Wednesday between the prime minister and the army chief, which was also attended by the Frontier governor and chief minister, was a good start in that the government made its intent clearer in dealing with the extremists henceforth. It is not a question of furthering the objectives of the global ‘war on terror’ any more. It is Pakistan’s own war because the victims of the militants’ actions are Pakistani citizens. The targets of the Taliban are strategic installations, paramilitary personnel, tribal elders seen as errant, the writ of the state and the country’s foreign relations. A lack of vision thus far has emboldened the militants to appropriate more territory and exert illicit control over trade and commerce in the areas under their influence, which in turn funds their virtual war against the state. This lifeline must be severed and decisive action taken against the militants now.

After the by-elections

THE ‘grand coalition’ may celebrate its victory in Thursday’s by-elections but in reality there is not much to cheer about. The results were no surprise. Held four months after the February general election, the by-elections in five NA and 29 PA constituencies tended to reflect the people’s choice made on Feb 18. Of the five National Assembly seats, the PML-N won three — all in Punjab — while the PPP secured one in Punjab and the other in the NWFP. Of the 11 PA seats the PML-N won, 10 are in Punjab with the other one coming from the NWFP. The PPP won PA seats in all the provinces — four in Punjab, all three in Sindh, two in the NWFP and one in Balochistan, its tally coming to 10. In at least one Punjab PA constituency, the traditional rivalry between Foreign Minister Shah Mahmood Qureshi and Javed Hashmi of the PML-N cost the PPP a provincial seat. Besides, in the current political situation, with the judiciary issue overshadowing all other national problems, the PML-N obviously enjoys an edge over the PPP because of Asif Ali Zardari’s somersault on the reinstatement question. The fate of two constituencies still remains to be decided. The Supreme Court has stayed the by-election in NA-123, where obviously Mian Nawaz Sharif will win if the legal hitch in his participation in the by-election is removed. Polling in another PA constituency had to be postponed on account of the death of a candidate. Voter turnout was low because the PPP and PML-N had generally not fielded candidates against each other.

The five assemblies are now at their normal strength, with the balance of political power remaining unchanged. The big issue is what the two major parties intend to do with their electoral victory. Going by all that has happened since Feb 18, with the PML-N and the PPP divided over the judges issue, one can expect little from the federal government in the near future. In Punjab, the change of guard at Governor House and the uncertainty stemming from Shahbaz Sharif’s two-constituency affair have added to a sense of crisis in the country’s largest province. The provincial government must prove that it has not been hamstrung by an uncomfortable political situation and that it is capable of initiating new development plans and keeping the bureaucracy, especially the law-enforcement agencies, on its toes.

Hazard on the roads

THE container trucks that crowd our roads are a major hazard if the prescribed safety rules are not followed, as is usually the case. Time and again there have been reports of fatalities, injuries and property damage due to overturned containers. A simple mechanism to secure containers known as twist locks, which fix all four sides to the truck, has been devised and is integral to safety procedures. Needless to say, containers can topple over if not secured properly, causing harm to those in close proximity. According to the International Convention for Safe Containers (CSC) issued by the International Maritime Organisation, rules have been formulated to “formalise structural requirements to ensure safety in the handling, stacking and transporting of containers in the course of normal operations”. Signatory states to the CSC commit themselves to establishing an effective procedure for the testing, inspection and approval of containers in accordance with the criteria set out. Pakistan is a signatory to the convention.

The law providing for a safety procedure came into force in 1977 but accidents involving loose containers have continued to take place across Pakistan. This has given rise to numerous questions about how the concerned authorities are dealing with the issue. It is not that the rules do not exist. A highway protocol is on the books. Vehicle fitness certificates are a prerequisite and terminals have repeatedly issued warnings that trailers without twist locks will not be entertained. The problem is of implementation which is only possible with a combined effort by all concerned parties such as shippers and custom agents along with regulatory bodies like the transport authorities. Even if the terminals refuse entry and exit, the transport authorities should exert control during the registration and issuance of fitness certificates and while containers are on the roads. It is the duty of the authorities to ensure the safety of users. For this across-the-board accountability of the parties involved, successful implementation of safety procedures is imperative. The country should adhere to the principles of the CSC.

OTHER VOICES - Bangladesh Press

Bring masterminds to justice

Sangbad

In a significant development in the investigation of a 2004 case, the Criminal Investigation Department has pressed charges against 22 people for their suspected roles in launching grenade attacks on an Awami League rally. Former prime minister, Sheikh Hasina, was the target. She escaped the attacks but 22 people were killed — mostly on the scene.

In a report known as a charge sheet in police jargon, the investigators also named former deputy minister Abdus Salam Pintu, and his brother Tajuddin and leader of the banned Harkatul Jihad, Mufti Hannan. In the light of different speeches by leaders of the banned outfit, it appears that the attacks had been designed with a political motive. It also seems that the Harkatul Jihad had been used as an agent to implement the then government’s dark design. It is alleged that the grenades had been supplied by people in the four-party coalition of the time. Also, with one deputy minister being allegedly involved in the plan, the attacks were definitely carried out with the approval of the government.

Although, early media reports point to alleged moves aimed to let the ‘real criminals’ off the hook, we believe that the investigation into the case is finally back on track. We also tend to agree with the allegations that the top brass of the four-party alliance were aware of the plan and urge the investigators to identify who backed the former deputy minister and others in launching the deadly attacks. There is no denying that Harkatul Jihad was just an ‘operator’. Operatives of the outfit were guided by influential people who remained behind the scenes.

People questioned how the police let go of the attackers after the grisly incident unfolded on Bangabandhu Avenue, in the heart of the bustling city, on Aug 21, 2004. The grenades that were found unused on the spot were later defused to remove any evidence of the attacks. It was later discovered that these shells are generally used by the army.

We believe ‘Islamic militancy’ played into the hands of politicians who were hell-bent on terminating their opponents and that the cases filed in line with anti-explosives and criminal laws are far from enough. The ‘charge sheet’ was incomplete and the masterminds of the attacks remain beyond the reach of the investigation. But we must acknowledge that the current caretaker government has succeeded in exposing the ugly side of the previous four-party alliance that wreaked havoc in the country.

An insidious move to derail the investigation has been exposed and we appreciate the government’s initiative of putting the case to trial. But it is not enough. The government must bring the politicians who masterminded the attacks to justice. — (June 25) n

— Selected and translated by Arun Devnath

EU’s future in limbo

SO much for European unity. Hopes that the European Union (EU) would be able to forge a joint front following the stunning defeat of the bloc’s much-touted reform treaty by Irish voters on June 12 were summarily dashed at the EU summit in Brussels last week as leaders quarrelled openly over the reasons for the latest crisis and its domestic and international implications.

The renewed outbreak of acrimonious EU in-fighting is not unexpected: Having spent the last eight years hammering out new constitutions and treaties — needed to streamline decision-making and create the new posts of EU president and foreign minister — only to see them rejected by voters, first in 2005 by France and the Netherlands and now by Ireland, European leaders are quite simply in a bind over what to do next.

Since the new treaty can only enter into force if it is ratified by all 27 member states, the hope is that Ireland will hold another referendum on the blueprint once the other 26 countries have ratified it, possibly by the end of the year. Dublin has been given until mid-October to put forward proposals to solve the impasse.

But in a sign of more trouble ahead, Irish Premier Brian Cowen has been careful not to promise a second referendum and, in another blow to proponents of the treaty, the Czech Republic is also being coy about prospects for securing its approval in parliament. Ratification in Britain — another ‘problem’ country — is being held up by a legal challenge. The treaty’s send-off to a virtual no-man’s land has major implications for the bloc’s hopes of playing a more forceful global role.

The appointment of first-ever EU president and foreign minister were designed to give Europe more visibility and a higher profile on the international stage, especially in crisis zones such as the Middle East, Iraq and Afghanistan. There were also hopes that this would ensure the EU spoke with one voice when dealing with difficult countries like China and Iran — and would help put relations with a new US president on a fresh footing.

With plans for the two key jobs — and the creation of a European foreign service — now on the backburner, foreign diplomats in Brussels predict continuing EU disarray on key foreign policy challenges and an increased tendency to focus on domestic affairs and the immediate neighbourhood rather than extending Europe’s global reach.

The current stalemate has important repercussions on future expansion: British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has said he is ‘still confident’ enlargement can proceed, despite the Irish rejection. But this has been emphatically denied by French President Nicholas Sarkozy who warned in Brussels there can be no further enlargement of the bloc, casting doubts even on Croatia’s entry in 2010. The other formal candidates for entry are Macedonia and Turkey but both countries face enormous political obstacles in joining the club.

Current rules “expressly foresee that Europe cannot go beyond 27”, Sarkozy told reporters after the summit, adding: “There will be no enlargement of Europe as long as there are no new institutions.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Luxembourg Prime Minister Jean-Claude Juncker agree with Sarkozy’s sentiments but others are furious at the mercurial French leader’s stance. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has called Sarkozy’s comments ‘unacceptable’, Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik has also warned that Croatia “should not become the first victim of the Irish referendum”.

‘‘We have to keep our word, it would be a wrong signal to the Balkan states to put a question mark over enlargement,” she said.

EU policymakers fear that delays in EU membership prospects will set back foreign investment and economic growth across the Balkans, a region still recovering from the civil wars of the 1990s. Croatia is aiming to become the second ex-Yugoslav country to join, after Slovenia in 2004.

Squabbles over responsibility for the Irish fiasco are even more toxic. Most officials in Brussels recognise that Irish voters were reacting to fears of ever-increasing EU influence and fears this would force changes in Ireland’s anti-abortion laws, its much-cherished neutrality and corporate tax rates.

But French President Sarkozy has also started a poisonous internal blame game which threatens to further breach any remaining remnants of EU unity. At a press conference in Brussels, the French leader lashed out at European Commission trade policies, saying this was the reason alarmed Irish farmers had voted against the reform treaty.

”A child dies of starvation every 30 seconds and the commission wanted to reduce European agriculture production by 21 per cent during World Trade Organisation (WTO) talks. This was really counter-productive,” said Sarkozy. EU trade chief Peter Mandelson was especially responsible for the Irish treaty defeat, said Sarkozy, reflecting France’s opposition to any reduction in costly EU farm subsidies, a key element of the Doha round of negotiations on liberalising world trade.

Paris is also hostile to José Manuel Barroso, the commission president, because he is seen as representing an anti-protectionist, “Anglo-Saxon”, free market agenda. Berlusconi recently called for action to change “the attitude of the European commissioners, who leave governments in difficulties with their declarations”.

The Italian leader is especially peeved at a commission decision to launch an illegal state aid probe into an emergency 300-million-euro loan aimed at saving flag carrier airline Alitalia from bankruptcy.

The EU executive is fighting back. Barroso has hit out against Sarkozy and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi for using ‘populist slogans’ to woo public opinion. But neither Sarkozy nor Berlusconi are likely to change their ways. The commission has always been a useful whipping boy for EU governments seeking to escape public criticism for unpopular reforms. However, fighting between leaders is hardly the best way to win the hearts and minds of European citizens.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Brussels.

Ceasefire in doubt

ISRAEL closed its border crossings into Gaza on Wednesday as doubts grew about a week-old ceasefire agreed with the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.

Israeli military officials said the closure was a response to the firing on Tuesday of four rockets from Gaza into southern Israel, which slightly injured two people. The rockets were fired by the militant group Islamic Jihad, who said it was acting in response to the killing of one of its commanders in the occupied West Bank earlier that day. “Any reopening will be in accordance with security considerations,” Peter Lerner, an Israeli military liaison official, said. The closure of the border prevented the delivery of fuel to Gaza’s one power station. The industrial diesel for the plant is paid for by the EU.

Under the terms of the ceasefire, Israel and Palestinian militant groups were supposed to halt violence in the Gaza Strip and Israel was to ease its economic blockade of the territory. But as well as the rockets on Tuesday, Palestinian reports suggested that two Palestinian farmers had been shot and injured by Israeli troops while working on land in Gaza close to the Israeli border, one on Monday and another on Wednesday. The Israeli military said it had no knowledge of the incidents.

Reports said Israel would reopen the crossings in an attempt to maintain the ceasefire, although there is scepticism on both sides about how long the agreement may continue.

Israel and Hamas accused each other of violating the ceasefire. Khalil al-Haya, a Hamas leader in Gaza, said the movement was still committed to the truce but said it would not confront other militant groups trying to launch attacks into Israel.

“Even if there is a violation by some factions, Hamas emphasises its commitment to the calm and is working to implement the calm,” he said. “But Hamas is not going to be a police securing the border of the occupation.”

Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, struck a last-minute deal late on Tuesday night which managed to avert a parliamentary vote that threatened to end his government as well as the Gaza ceasefire. But the compromise he struck with the Labour party, which is part of his ruling coalition, means he could be replaced as prime minister as early as September.

The party, led by the defence minister, Ehud Barak, had threatened to vote in favour of a bill that would have called for the dissolution of the Knesset, the Israeli parliament.

But late-night talks produced a compromise in which Olmert promised that his Kadima party would hold an internal leadership primary by September 25. Labour hopes this will produce a new leader for Kadima and therefore a new prime minister for the ruling coalition.

—The Guardian, London