|
| February 16, 2009 | Monday | Safar 20, 1430 |
Ready for the next tranche
Obfuscating the real issue
OTHER VOICES - North American Press
Creating a just world
Tsvangirai’s choice
AROON Purie, editor-in-chief of India Today begins his editorial of the Dec 22nd, 2008 issue describing Pakistan as a “malignant tumour in [India’s] brain … for the last 60 years” and ends with “… we reserve the right to take appropriate unilateral action. We must not let these Machiavellian generals succeed in their evil designs.”
ON Feb 11, in Harare, Morgan Tsvangirai drank the poisoned chalice, knowing that it was poisoned. He was sworn in as prime minister of Zimbabwe, in a government that is still controlled by his deadly enemy, President Robert Mugabe. He must know that his chances of success, even of political survival, are close to nil.
THE simmering province of Balochistan, which had fallen off the national radar in recent months, is at a crossroads again. On Fri-
day, the Baloch Liberation United Front, threatened to kill UNHCR official John Solecki unless 141 Baloch women alleged to be held in captivity by the state are released by today. The demand has come in the wake of allegations that a Baloch schoolteacher, Zarina Marri, has been abused in custody. On Jan 31, Ms Marri’s issue echoed in the Balochistan Assembly, where four ministers and a legislator staged a walkout and demanded that Ms Marri either be released or produced before a court. On its part, the government has strongly denied the claim and Interior Adviser Rehman Malik has promised prompt action on any information provided. But the schoolteacher is only the tip of the missing persons iceberg which continues to poison relations between the Baloch and the state. It is not known how many people have gone missing — the Baloch claim several thousand are missing but have only identified several hundred — but it’s clearly a sine qua non for bringing peace to Balochistan.
Beyond that there is a long list of Baloch grievances. The return of displaced persons, estimated by human rights organisations to run into the hundreds of thousands in Dera Bugti and Kohlu districts alone, is a key issue. Then there are the development projects in Balochistan, which the Baloch argue should benefit local people first and foremost. There is also a demand that the formula for revenue sharing to be determined by the National Finance Commission reflect the needs of Balochistan’s people.
To date, the government has taken some positive measures. For one, the military operation of the Musharraf era is no more; the present violence is low-level and more of a tit-for-tat response. Secondly, the government has released several high-profile Baloch leaders and reached out to them publicly. Thirdly, the federal government has tried to ease the financial woes of the Balochistan government. Meanwhile, there is talk of the next Senate chairman being from Balochistan. While all of this is positive, the problem remains that there is an impression that the government is distracted by other issues. The Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Reconciliatory Committee on Balochistan, set up by President Zardari, laid out a roadmap for the resolution of Balochistan issues last October and some preliminary meetings were held between its members and prominent Baloch figures, but nothing has come of the consultations. Admittedly, the demands of the most militant of Baloch nationalists are hard to meet and make negotiations difficult. However, this is all the more reason to engage the political parties that are willing to talk and help lower the temperature in the province.
THE International Monetary Fund (IMF), which is reviewing Pakistans economic performance during the first half of the current fiscal, will find that the economy is in much better health than it was a few months ago. The IMF is likely to give a nod for the release of the second tranche of $750m. From being an economy teetering on the brink of sovereign default in November that forced it to seek IMF financial assistance worth $7.6bn, Pakistan has largely overcome its balance of payments woes. Most macroeconomic fundamentals have improved and are expected to stabilise before the year is out. The fiscal deficit is projected to decline to under 4.2 per cent by the end of the year from 7.4 per cent last year. The current account is also showing improvement and is expected to slide to 6.5 per cent of the GDP from last year’s 8.4 per cent. Though core (non-food, non-energy) inflation remains stubborn, the headline inflation is down to just 20.3 per cent. The trade gap is closing. The only worry is a shortfall of Rs45bn in tax revenue collection.
Of course, not all our economic problems are over. The economy faces internal and external challenges. Domestically, tax revenues and savings are abysmally low as a percentage of GDP. Globally, it is yet not clear how the commodities markets, especially oil, will behave in the months to come. And we do not know how long the global slowdown is going to last and how deep into the abyss it is going to take us. Any external shock can strain our current account and drag down the economy.
Common people, not the ruling elite, have paid a heavy price for the sense of economic stability achieved so far. Most energy subsidies have already been eliminated and the remaining will go soon. Instead of cutting its non-development expenditure, the government has reduced development spending for the social sector by a hefty Rs79.5bn. Both these steps have helped it slash the fiscal deficit, but have done harm to the people. The economic slowdown triggered by stabilisation policies has left hundreds of thousands of workers jobless. It is feared that poverty, which has already shot up to 38 per cent from 23 per cent, will grow faster than official projections during the next couple of years. Let people not say that the government officials who have done so little are in surplus to our requirements.
IT would be a pity if the Palestinian Authority’s plea to the International Criminal Court to probe Israel’s war crimes in Gaza were to be bogged down in technicalities on Palestine’s status as a legal entity. On Friday, PA Foreign Minister Riad al-Malki and Justice Minister Ali Kashan moved the ICC to demand an investigation into the war crimes committed by Israel in Gaza during the recent 22-day blitz and earlier. The ICC’s chief prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo had said earlier this month that the court would first determine whether Palestine enjoyed the status of a state. Tackling this issue, Mr Kashan said the documents they had given to the court showed that Palestine was a state; 67 governments had recognised it as a state and it had bilateral agreements with countries in Africa, Asia, Europe and Latin America. The PA dossier given to the ICC pleads for probing Israel’s war crimes since 2002 — the year when Ariel Sharon reoccupied the areas vacated by Israel following the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993.
The PA is not the only one demanding the trial of Israeli leaders for war crimes. Among others who have accused Israel of committing war crimes are Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and B’Tselem, an Israeli rights body. When these bodies approached the ICC and it chose to send to Gaza a team of investigators, the Egyptian authorities stopped them from crossing over into the strip. According to a western wire agency, the Egyptian government has won Israels “praise for not allowing people’s basic needs and arms from reaching the Palestinian government of Gaza. This being the attitude of perhaps the Arab world’s most important country, one can understand what chance there is of the Arab League and the lame-duck Organisation of Islamic Conference joining hands to put pressure on the international community to mete out justice to Israeli war criminals. During the 22-day Israeli blitz on Gaza, European doctors accused Israel of using depleted uranium and artillery containing phosphorus on the territory’s civilian population. With the ICC focusing on Palestine’s status rather than on the allegations, Israel once again has had its crimes whitewashed.
Not even a little torture
Los Angeles Times
HAS Barack Obama retreated on his promise to end the Bush administration’s lawless and sometimes cruel treatment of suspected terrorists? By no means, but some of his actions — and comments from some of his key appointees — are sending a mixed message.
First, the encouraging news…. President Bush mused that it would be nice to shut down the Guantanamo Bay detention centre; President Obama has ordered that it be closed within a year. The Bush administration transported suspects to other countries to be interrogated by the CIA at secret prisons; the new administration will close such “black sites”. The president’s promises of change, however, come with equivocating asterisks, most recently an acceptance of the Bush administration’s use of the “state secrets” doctrine to thwart a lawsuit over alleged torture as part of the CIA’s so-called extraordinary rendition programme….
Under Obama’s order, the CIA is now abiding by the army field manual, which rules out interrogation tactics such as sexual humiliation, mock executions, the use of attack dogs and the withholding of food and medical care.
The administration’s opposition to torture also was clouded by a comment from [CIA director] Panetta in response to the hoary scenario in which a terrorist in custody is known to have information about an imminent attack….
Finally, Obama rightly has suspended trials by military commissions at Guantanamo, pending a study of whether detainees accused of war crimes should be tried by civilian courts or by a revised commission system. Affording due process to detainees accused of committing crimes in the past can be accomplished without releasing those considered to be dangerous in the future — an option reserved by the Obama administration. But even “high-value” terrorists are entitled to have their status determined by a thorough, adversary process.
In this area as in others, Obama must adapt some of his campaign rhetoric to the realities of government. But Obama the candidate was right about the Bush administration’s disastrous anti-terror policies. Obama the president must be careful not to revive them. — (Feb 14)
This is followed by the cover story by Raj Chengappa titled The Real Boss about Pakistan’s army chief. The cover photograph of Gen Ashfaq Kayani shows a grim, determined man and is worded “Target India: Pakistan’s army chief is the man calling the shots against India”.
The tone of the whole issue is obsessed with the so-called ‘malignancy’ of Pakistan’s top military leadership. It conjures up a picture of the political leadership as being ineffective, inadequate and bungling. This may or may not be a true picture but there is no logical connection that brings the reader to the ipso facto conclusion of the guilt of the Pakistan army chief in the Mumbai terror attacks. This kind of media hype is the most harmful reaction possible to a tragic event.
It is quite clear that blaming the chief of the Pakistan Army for the Mumbai attacks in such a direct manner or in any manner whatsoever is tantamount to fanning the flames of war hysteria which could lead to massive devastation. The mind is both outraged and dumbfounded by the sheer anarchy of such suicidal ideas. This is not an example of responsible and well-reasoned journalism.
Two extremely important and self-evident factors are easily put aside by seemingly ultra-nationalist media pundits. First, that the people of Pakistan, the so-called ‘common man’, have suffered murderous and painful attacks by deranged terrorists, including attacks on top leaders like Gen Musharraf and other high-ranking army officials. Many soldiers have sacrificed their lives in the continuing war against Al Qaeda and various other extremist organisations inside and outside Pakistan. The country has suffered the overwhelmingly tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, revered by Pakistani masses. In fact, all tiers of the people of Pakistan and more recently, the Pakistan Army, have been a victim of the war on terror, and not perpetrators of terrorist activity.
Secondly, the freedom movement in Kashmir has seen thousands killed and maimed by the Indian Army which has a heavy presence in the Valley. Therefore, we can get a clear picture of which army is the ‘terrorist’ army. It is no wonder that Kashmiri youth would retaliate in other parts of India. Also, let us not forget the role of people like Colonel Purohit and his cahoots in the Indian Army. Why not give him to Pakistan in exchange for someone of his ilk? At the moment we are all victims of terrorists.
The civil war in Kashmir is the root cause of all our troubles. A positive solution to that is necessary. In this context, the one good deed by Gen Musharraf was the recommencement of the peace process. It is the Kashmiri people who have borne the brunt of Indo-Pak hostility and war. Meanwhile, the people of the subcontinent, particularly the poverty-stricken masses in India, have also suffered grievously as a result of the governments’ large defence spending.
Extremism must be fought jointly. Both Muslim and Hindu extremists have to be combated. A joint realisation is also in order that much of the reason behind the unjust wars being waged lies in the flawed approach of Israel and the US. Besides its own actions in Iraq and Afghanistan, the US appears only too happy to let a terrorist regime like Israel bare its fangs in Gaza and murder hundreds of men, women and children. The overall picture of the brutality of national, international and inter-state terrorism, wherever it is being perpetrated, must penetrate our minds.
The destruction of the Twin Towers was indeed a terrible act, but where does it stand in relative terms to the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945? Was it worse than what happens every day in Iraq and southern Afghanistan and Waziristan? Was it worse than the suffering endured by the people of Palestine and Kashmir?
For the sake of fairness, the world must be viewed through the eyes of those who are the true victims of terror.
Meanwhile, the United Nations has failed as an international peace-keeping force. It has allowed the wanton destruction of areas like Kashmir and Palestine, despite resolutions seeking to stem the tide of barbarism. Perhaps we will see some change with the installation of President Obama’s government, despite his threats of strengthening troops in Afghanistan, and keeping silent on Israeli and Indian occupation of other people’s homelands.
A system based on a military-industrial economy for the perpetuation of global power may just see cosmetic changes made by Washington in the wake of George Bush’s two disastrous presidential terms. The blinkers must be removed and avarice and greed reined in as we try to bring peace to a world devastated by war. The media, wherever it is, should raise the rallying cry for people being given a fair deal instead of seeking public acclaim.
“We are not joining Mugabe,” he said bravely. “This is part of a transitional relationship, negotiated. Mr Mugabe has executive authority. I have executive authority.” But Mugabe has exclusive control over the army and the police, which are regularly used to harrass, imprison, torture and kill Tsvangirai’s colleagues and supporters. He also controls the courts, through the justice ministry.
Few Zimbabweans foresaw this outcome when the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) unexpectedly won a majority in parliament and Tsvangirai won more votes than Mugabe in the election last March. It was an accident that only happened because ZANU, the overconfident ruling party, was less thorough than usual in intimidating the voters and rigging the count, but the apparent defeat of Mugabe’s 30-year-old regime awakened hope in the hearts of despairing Zimbabweans.
The hope was premature. The regime declared that Tsvangirai’s majority was not big enough to avoid a second round of voting, and then launched a campaign of violence against MDC officials and supporters that killed over 200 people and injured thousands. Shortly before the second vote, Tsvangirai withdrew from the race to save MDC voters from a bloodbath on election day, and Mugabe was “re-elected” without opposition as the president of Zimbabwe.
That wasn’t the end of it, because Mugabe’s brutal, corrupt regime has not just ruined the Zimbabwean economy; it is dragging the whole southern African region down. Unemployment in Zimbabwe is 94 per cent, the currency is so worthless that even street traders will only accept foreign currency, cholera is raging across the country, and average life expectancy is now the lowest in the world.
Foreign investors are famously ignorant about the distant places they invest in, and easily panick if something bad seems to be happening in the vicinity.
The other members of the Southern African Development Community, the nine-country regional organisation, had to do something about the catastrophe of Zimbabwe because they were all at risk of being tarred with the same brush by those ignorant foreigners. So the SADC intervened — sort of.
Their intention was to force some sort of deal that ended the mess in Zimbabwe, but they had no real plan — and they were in awe of Mugabe’s history as one of the main heroes in the liberation struggle a generation ago. South Africa’s then-president Thabo Mbeki was particularly determined to ensure that the old man be treated with respect, even though he is a murderous tyrant.
So the SADC, rather than supporting Tsvangirai’s complaint that Mugabe had stolen the election, forced him last August to accept a “national unity” government in which he would inevitably be the junior partner. Tsvangirai did not even get agreement on which ministries the MDC would receive, although it was obvious that Mugabe would never willingly surrender control of his main instruments of repression, the army and the police.
The last six months have been filled with futile wrangling as Tsvangirai tried to wrest those ministries away from Mugabe, while the country sank ever deeper into poverty, hunger and disease. Now he has joined the government anyway, although Mugabe’s thugs were still arresting and torturing senior MDC members even last week.
Tsvangirai’s vision for how this might succeed, insofar as he has one, seems to be that his presence in the government will unleash a flood of foreign aid that will rescue Zimbabweans from their desperate plight. It isn’t going to happen. Western aid donors have been giving Zimbabwe nothing except food relief (two-thirds of the population depends on foreign food aid) because they assume that Mugabe’s cronies will steal anything else — and they see no reason to change their minds.
