Defence accountability

THANK God for parliament where we are beginning to see some accountability of the defence sector. The Public Accounts Committee (PAC) under the chairmanship of opposition leader Chaudhry Nisar has begun to raise questions about irregularities in the defence budget.

A sporadic flow of information regarding the performance of this sector was observed in the life of the previous parliament as well. The fact is that even the weakest parliament is able to access more information than when there is no political government in place.

For instance, had it not been for the questions raised in the National Assembly, we might not have come to know that there are still about 2,500 serving military personnel in government departments. This means that not all were pulled out as was being claimed during the drive by the current army chief to bring about professionalism in the armed forces.

Because of the constant debate on the civil-military divide in the country, the present parliament managed to bring relatively greater transparency to the defence budget and we now know more details than what was presented in terms of the one-line budgetary figure given in the past. Needless to say, the space for greater information was created due to the peculiar political turmoil in the country. In order to do some face-saving and improve the military’s image, the top brass had to give in to the need for greater transparency, expecting that this would create a friendly image.

Now we know the allocations for the three services, defence production and inter-services organisations. But it is still difficult to access how much is spent on essentials versus non-essentials or what exactly is the ‘teeth-to-tail’ ratio of military expenditure. These details should not be expected even in the foreseeable future for two reasons.

First, the government is operating with an under-capacitated, weak and militarised ministry of defence. Given the PPP government’s aversion to building institutions, it cannot impose greater restrictions or challenges of accountability and transparency on the armed forces.

Second, since even the Indian defence budget’s transparency is restricted to certain ballpark figures, the military will insist that it cannot disclose more because of the need for secrecy.

Contrary to the view that more should be disclosed, I would argue that we should be happy with the current state of disclosure provided parliament prepares itself to improve the exercise of accountability rather than focus on greater transparency. In fact, transparency can be improved through accountability.

The performance of the PAC should be emphasised through strengthening the committee’s secretariat.

This means bringing experts on board that could help the PAC assess the military’s financial performance. The committee has a permanent bureaucratic set-up that operates even if parliament is non-existent. The audit reports are only debated once the PAC is constituted.

This is one of the reasons for the delays in debating audit reports. For instance, the reports pertaining to years 1989-90, 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1994-95, 1997-98, 1998-99, 2001-04 and 2006-07 are still pending because of the earlier absence of the PAC. This also means that the current PAC has a huge backlog. Reportedly, the PAC has decided to deal with current reports and let sub-committees sort out the backlog. So, it is hoped that the new parliament will exercise a better sense of accountability vis-à-vis the armed forces.

Since the adoption of the new accounting and auditing methodology, which is owed to the assistance provided by the World Bank to revamp the financial accounting and auditing system, the auditor general’s department is in a position to shorten the time it takes to present audit reports.

Technically, the department can complete its audit cycle by September, which is within three months after the end of the financial year, and then present its report by March the following year. Hopefully, if the government is allowed to complete its duration, the PAC could finish its work uninterrupted.

But more importantly, the audit observations mostly pertain to what could be called tactical irregularities. For instance, there are cases in which sanctions are not received prior to when expenditure was incurred but ex post facto.

In the past, the chairmen and members of the PAC made observations outside parliament almost in the fashion of out-of-court settlements. So, the tendency has been that serious irregularities pertaining to the procurement of weaponry, an area rife with financial kickbacks, have not come to the surface. The concept of a performance audit, which we find in India’s case, does not apply to defence audits in Pakistan. It is noteworthy that the Bofors scandal in India which led to the destabilisation of Rajiv Gandhi’s government was disclosed by the comptroller and auditor general of India.

The PAC of Prime Minister Junejo’s parliament (1985-88) had recommended an independent organisational set-up for the audit of defence purchases that was established but later packed up. Only when the government truly begins to probe defence purchases will it be able to assess the extent of corruption and discover that the much-touted accountability mechanisms within the military actually do not function. A primary reason for this is the lack of a rational system of procurement in the military through which financial mismanagement can be checked.

It is also necessary for parliament to impose PAC decisions. For instance, the observations of the ad hoc PAC during the initial years of Musharraf had observed the mismanagement of military farms. It was observed that the military managers of the Okara farms were responsible for the pilferage of resources and not the system of contract that the army then tried to change resulting in a battle between farm labour and the army.

Only when parliament manages to create accountability mechanisms will we find that there is as much wastage of resources in the defence sector as anywhere else in government. So when people argue that the allocation for education must not be increased because the education ministry is far too inefficient and cannot spend its allocated resources, the counter question is: is there no evidence that the defence sector is inefficient?

Years of poor accountability and transparency have given the semblance of greater efficiency which is actually a myth. Money is spent and wasted without proper accountability. It is hoped that matters will begin to improve now.

The writer is an independent strategic and political analyst.

ayesha.ibd@gmail.com

Violence will get them nowhere

IN a way, what has happened to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in Sri Lanka is similar to what has happened to the Hurriyat in Kashmir. Both of them, ‘freedom fighters’, have ceased to be relevant in their respective places.

This does not mean that the alienation of the people they represent, either the Tamils or the Kashmiris has ended. But it does mean that the fight to project their stance has not met with success. In any case, the violence, which has no place in the settlement of political problems, is practically over, more in Kashmir than in Sri Lanka.

This is the only conclusion which can be drawn. Anything beyond that may be wishful thinking on the part of the LTTE and the Hurriyat on one hand and the governments in Sri Lanka and India on the other. What we see is a military victory. Moral victory is still distant. Tamil Nadu cannot force its will on Sri Lanka through bandhs and hartals.

I do not want to belittle the two struggles. The LTTE has fought for eelam (independence) and the Hurriyat for azadi (independence) for many years. Both have sacrificed thousands of their adherents. Yet, they did not realise in the midst of their fight for their ‘cause’ that the gun would never give them victory. They pitted themselves against states which had more guns.

Even the general opinion was against them. In the long run, the governments were bound to get the better of the ‘freedom fighters’. Neither the LTTE nor the Hurriyat has ever faced the fact that no nation would allow any part of its territory to break away, however emotional the call for self-determination or autonomy may be. Had the two asked for a status within their respective countries, the sky would have been the limit.

Some countries like China are unfortunate examples. The Dalai Lama, the spiritual head of Tibet, has said more than once that he was prepared to accept an autonomous state within China, leaving defence and foreign affairs to Beijing. India would give its right arm if the Kashmiris were to accept that.

Maybe the solution to Kashmir lies in a similar formula whereby people of the state enjoy power over all subjects except foreign affairs and defence. Islamabad could do likewise, transferring all power, except foreign affairs and defence to the elected government in Azad Kashmir. Both New Delhi and Islamabad can give the Kashmiris a sense of coherence and integrity by making the border between Kashmir and Azad Kashmir soft. This will make the borders irrelevant. Pakistan has already said that it would agree to an arrangement which the Kashmiris accept.

Jammu will still need to be tackled. If it is assured of its identity, it would rather stay with the Valley — a ‘relationship of decades’ — than jump into the welter of India where linguistic chauvinism is taking over the centuries’ old coherent tradition. Much depends on the people living in the Valley in terms of how far they are willing to accommodate Jammu.

In the same way, it depends on the Sinhalese how far they are willing to go to win over the northern part of Sri Lanka where the Tamils abound and where the LTTE has been most active. Absorption of Tamils or those who harbour the dream of Eelam depends on the government in Colombo. A federal structure instead of the unitary system the country follows or the devolution of power to the different parts may provide a way out. But then the authoritarianism of the ruling party will have to be curbed. The spirit of democracy must defeat the sense of ethnic superiority which has come to guide the winning side.

I was shouted down when I told a gathering of students at the Srinagar University that their movement would have made far more impact if it had been non-violent. Yasin Malik, the first militant, underlines the futility of violence when he says that he has turned Gandhian.

Similarly, when I met a few LTTE leaders some years ago, they were violent even in their tone. They are as much in the wrong as the Hurriyat leaders if they believe that a principle can only be stoutly defended by the language of violence or by condemning those who do not accept their point of view.

For both of them, there are no shades, only black and white — those who are not with them are against them. This is the old approach of the bigoted, not of tolerance and feeling that others might also have some share of the truth. This approach is wholly unscientific, unreasonable and uncivilised, whether it is applied to the realm of politics, religion or economic theory. All Saarc countries must realise this.

Whatever Colombo and New Delhi may think about their respective strategies, we have arrived at a stage where an attempt of forcible imposition of policy or an idea is ultimately bound to fail. In the present circumstances this may lead to further alienation.

I wish the two would realise this and treat the defeated with dignity and care. They have to win them over and make them feel that their stake in peace is no less than that of the government. If the LTTE and the Hurriyat continue to defy reason and live in the darkness of misdoings they would be living in a make-believe world.

Similarly, there can be no victory for Sri Lanka and India. In fact, the status quo is a defeat for everyone. We have seen in the past that it is not easy for even great powers to reintroduce colonial control over territories which have become independent. Both Colombo and New Delhi have to accept that the desire for identity is strong and cannot be suppressed.

The ground is ready for Sri Lanka to have a settlement with the Tamils who harbour a feeling of denial in their own country. In the same way, the government in Delhi has to sort out things with the Kashmiris who find that the autonomy they enjoyed in 1950 has been eroded over the years.

In fact, people in all the countries of South Asia want to rule themselves without governments’ interference. They are sick and tired of violence and would like to settle down to a stable, secure future. They want democracy, but they know that it is not an end unto itself. It is the means to attain peace and equal opportunities. What has not sunk in is that wrong means will not lead to right results.

The writer is a leading journalist based in Delhi.

Not this way

THE UN’s Benazir commission is Asif Zardari’s idea. It is one of his worst. If there was any doubt about the former, Ban Ki-moon’s visit dispelled it.

At the secretary general’s press conference with PM Gilani the commission was really the only subject anybody cared about. But when neither mentioned it, a reporter was left to ask, what about the UN investigation? Wait until I meet the president, Ban Ki-moon replied. In Asif Zardari’s Pakistan, everyone knows who really runs the show.

Why is a UN commission a bad idea?

Start with the importance of finding Benazir’s killers quickly. Whoever or whatever follows this PPP government, this much is certain: the next government will have minimal interest in pursuing any investigation into BB’s death. And since continuity in government isn’t one of the things we do best here, history suggests that the PPP government has only a small window of opportunity to fully investigate her death.

But can the UN deliver on Pakistan’s abbreviated political timeline? Not if the Rafik Hariri investigation is anything to go by.

Hariri was assassinated on Feb 14, 2005. On Feb 15, the UN Security Council issued a statement that called on the secretary general to “report urgently on the circumstances, causes and consequences of this terrorist act.” By Feb 25 the Kofi Annan-appointed Mission of Inquiry into the Circumstances, Causes and Consequences of the 14 February Beirut Bombing arrived in Lebanon.

On March 24, Peter Fitzgerald, head of the fact-finding mission and a former Irish deputy police commissioner, submitted his report. Paragraph 62 of the Fitzgerald report states:

“The Lebanese investigation process suffered from serious flaws. Whether caused by lack of capabilities or commitment, this process is unlikely to reach a satisfactory conclusion … It is therefore the Mission’s view that an international independent investigation would be necessary to uncover the truth.”

Onwards to UN Security Council Resolution 1595 of April 7, 2005, which set up the “international independent investigation Commission based in Lebanon” that was to “assist the Lebanese authorities in their investigation of all aspects of this terrorist act, including to help identify its perpetrators, sponsors, organisers and accomplices.”

Don’t be misled by the promptness. It may have taken less than two months to set up the Hariri commission, but, four years on, the investigation continues. In the meantime, 11 reports have been submitted by the commission and five more resolutions have been passed by the UNSC.

The commission’s last report in December 2008 stated: “The Commission has acquired new information that may allow it to link additional individuals to the network that carried out the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. The Commission also made further findings that help to identify the possible geographic origin of the suicide bomber.”

But was it willing to name names? “Progress has been made. However, to describe particular aspects of such progress would also be to publicise the identity of persons who may have information relevant to the investigation and to put their lives in jeopardy.”The commission’s mandate expires on Feb 28 and on March 1 a Special Tribunal for Lebanon in The Hague will be activated. Does that mean someone will finally be indicted?

From the Hariri commission’s last report: “The launch of the Tribunal does not mean that the investigation has been completed. While extensive work has been done on the investigation, the Commission, and the Office of the Prosecutor, once it begins to operate, must continue to gather evidence that would support an indictment before the Tribunal.”

So nearly four years since Hariri’s death, the 12 published UN reports have identified a total of zero suspects and led to the indictment of no one. This is not necessarily a bad thing; international law and investigations proceed slowly, for they must be thorough.

But that’s the point — the PPP government doesn’t have the luxury of that kind of time. Four or five years hence they may or may not be in power and with them will go any real chance of finding BB’s killers. And a six-month deadline isn’t going to produce anything other than vague theories.

The UN isn’t in the business of fingering persons it can’t substantiate its allegations against.But even if Zardari knows something we don’t, is it a good idea to be inviting the UN in at all? No.

An indication of the powers the Benazir Bhutto commission will enjoy is in UNSC Resolution 1595: “To ensure the Commission’s effectiveness in the discharge of its duties, the Commission shall … Enjoy freedom of movement throughout the Lebanese territory, including access to all sites and facilities that the Commission deems relevant to the inquiry.”

What this means is that we will give legal sanction — and set a precedent — for foreigners to stamp around the country. BB was killed. She wasn’t very popular with the army, let’s subpoena some retired generals and ask them stuff about stuff. And she probably wasn’t on A.Q. Khan’s Eid card list either; let’s call him in.

Frankly, I would love as much as the next person to see some of Pakistan’s sacred cows hauled over the coals. If they’re bad, they deserve what they get; and if we can’t do it, then let others.

But that is naïve. Pakistan’s failure to ensure its internal sovereignty has brought it to the cusp of the outside world intervening here in ways unimaginable. The Bush presidency may have convinced some that laws and precedents are irrelevant when the big guys want to get their way but the fact is the world doesn’t usually operate that way.

States like some sort of legal cover, however tenuous. If another Mumbai or 9/11 or 7/7 or Madrid train bombing or worse occurs, the PPP government may well have handed the international community a tool it can use to prise open the state and force all sorts of change. If that sounds far-fetched, it probably is. For now. A few years ago drone attacks in Fata were unimaginable. Until Mumbai, international demands for an investigation weren’t on our radar either. The basic rule of international relations: don’t invite others in when they’re already itching to snoop around.

And finally, a UN investigation is an emasculation of the PPP itself. When Musharraf was in charge, even the most uncharitable of PPP’s critics questioned whether an impartial credible investigation was possible. But now that the PPP is in charge?The government has put itself in the odd position of arguing that it is capable of finding and punishing the Mumbai collaborators, but can’t pursue those involved in the murder of its own party chief. Doesn’t the same nexus of militants and shadowy quasi-state actors have a role in both?

Zardari’s PPP has no credible answer. Worse, a do-nothing UN commission which leads nowhere throws up a damning question: is the PPP trying to gain political mileage from its leader’s death at the expense of finding her killers?

cyril.a@gmail.com

Obama’s oratorical skills

GREEK philosopher Plato was Socrates’ protégé. He believed in his mentor’s assertion that every society has, or should have, a three-tier structure: productive, protective and governing.

The last bit, he thought, should be the domain of rulers or philosopher-kings. It has been more than two millennia since this theory sparked off an interesting debate, and to date is the topic of heated discussions.

Perhaps one of the underlying suggestions of the idea was that people with a philosophic bent of mind usually know how to make a notion, however convoluted, sound buyable by being eloquent. Leaders who can articulate themselves usually garner overwhelming mass support compared to those who can’t make themselves clear when they address an audience.

It remains to be seen whether the new US president, Barack Obama, pulls a rabbit out of his top hat and helps turn our world into a place worth living in again. But what’s as clear as day is the fact that he has won millions of fans all across the globe through his remarkable oratorical skills.

Even in countries where English is not spoken as a first language, Obama is listened to with utmost interest. Millions of men, women and children were transfixed to their TV or radio sets when he delivered his inaugural speech after taking oath of office on Jan 20. Even in Pakistan, all of a sudden there were boys who were seen wearing Obama T-shirts and girls praising his style no end.

The most striking news came from Japan where someone gathered many of Obama’s speeches and made it into a textbook. It was sold as an aid to learning English and became a best-seller.

No less than 400,000 copies of the textbook were bought by the Japanese public in two shakes of a lamb’s tail. The 95-page paperback has the US president’s speeches from the 2004 Democratic National Convention and during the Democratic Party primaries.

This makes one wonder: when was the last time Pakistan had an eloquent leader who could blow away the masses with his public-speaking skills? Two names spring to mind — M.A. Jinnah and Z.A. Bhutto — and then there’s an eerie blank space. Benazir Bhutto could also dot her i’s and cross her t’s literally, but compared to her illustrious, livewire of a father, she had a fair distance to cover.

Like many other art forms, the art of delivering a convincing speech doesn’t come naturally to Pakistanis. That’s why we usually take our leaders’ promises with a pinch of salt. They never sound trustworthy. Their words lack auditory value, a major component of the art of conversation.

But when it comes to being foul-mouthed, we beat the entire world hollow. Take note of that during our favourite pastimes that include sit-ins, processions and speeches on the floor of the national and provincial assemblies.