It was a global non-event

‘THEY came, they spoke and they left.’ This is what happened at last month’s world summit meeting in New York which was thought to be “once-in-a-generation opportunity” to give new direction to our turbulent world, but which turned out to be nothing more than a global non-event. Indeed, it was our generation’s lost, and perhaps the last, opportunity to reshape the UN in conformity with the “needs and circumstances” of this century.

The final outcome emerging from the protracted down-to-the-wire inter-governmental negotiations became possible only because an outcome document was needed to save the three-day world summit from possible collapse. Everybody heaved a sigh of relief at its last minute availability and, for obvious reasons, welcomed it as “good news.”

But the “good news” was nowhere close to what UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan had all along been showcasing to the world as his “vision” of a global consensus on the “core issues” of development, security, human rights and UN renewal. His report ‘In Larger Freedom’ itself represented an ambitious agenda with several “controversial” elements which most countries found difficult to accept or endorse.

The developing countries which constitute the overwhelming majority of the UN membership saw the report more responsive to the preferences of a smaller but more influential group of countries. With a clear imbalance between its “development-related content” and the over-bearing “security agenda,” the report was seen to be lacking the larger development focus.

In the realm of security too, there was an alarming emphasis on “new” threats at the expense of “existing and old” threats including “unresolved disputes, territorial claims, military occupations and wars of aggression” which for decades have given rise to the forces of hatred and violence.

The proposed criteria for the “use of force” also seemed to advance an ominous re-interpretation of Article 51 “portending” an “interventionist” approach. The overwhelming majority of the UN membership remains convinced that no country, however powerful or dominant, has the right to use its might for “unilateral armed intervention” and that the only acceptable option is “collective action based on collective interest” under the authority of the UN Security Council.

The secretary-general’s vision of collective security rightly underscored the inter-connected nature of global threats which affect all regions and societies across the globe in today’s globalized world. But in embracing his new version of contemporary threats, he forgot what he himself had said while addressing New York’s Council on Foreign Relations three years ago at the peak of the UN’s counterterrorism campaign.

The universally acknowledged principle of self-determination was conspicuous by its absence in the report. Nowhere did the secretary-general’s recommendations give any weight to the concepts of conflict prevention and conflict resolution that form the essence of the principle of “pacific settlement of disputes” under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.

In making recommendations to deal with the contemporary threats and challenges, the secretary-general chose to focus only on the symptoms rather than the disease. He ignored the actual root causes of the threats to global peace and security and their cost in terms of human life and misery.

Pervasive armed conflict and ascendant violence including militancy in the name of freedom and justice that the world is so worried about today are merely a manifestation of the deeper issues inherent in unaddressed historical grievances, the continued denial of the right to self-determination, unabated exploitation of peoples, increasing communal and religious estrangement and the ever-growing socio-economic asymmetry.

In the secretary-general’s own words, “the threats to peace and security in the twenty-first century include not just international war and conflict but civil violence, organized crime, terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.” He admitted only secondarily that these threats “also included poverty, disease and environmental degradation” which, according to him, “can have equally catastrophic consequences” for the international system.

On terrorism, the secretary-general’s “comprehensive” strategy was based on five pillars: dissuading people from resorting to terrorism or supporting it; denying terrorists access to funds and materials; deterring states from sponsoring terrorism; developing state capacity to defeat terrorism; and defending human rights.

The majority view at the UN, however, was that no strategy or roadmap in the war on terror would be comprehensive without focusing on the underlying political and socio-economic problems. Global terrorism is a mindset that cannot be eliminated by nabbing or killing individual perpetrators of violence or by changing a government in one country or the other. The war on terror has to be waged at all levels — national, regional and global — in a non-selective but steady and measured manner to root out the causes of political oppression and socio-economic injustice which fuel hatred and violence.

To address these problems, the world community also needs to build global harmony through inter-faith tolerance and understanding, promoting peace and stability, as well as sustainable development, and protecting political freedom, genuine democracy and respect for fundamental rights particularly the inalienable right of self-determination.

In combating terrorism, the foremost responsibility lies with national governments which must reorder their priorities and focus on the socio-economic uplift of their societies. People-centred development, not military arsenals, should be their priority. Education must become a strategic need and priority of every developing nation. Home-grown democracy built on pluralism and stable institutions, would provide the ground for sustained economic growth and social cohesion. The Political culture must be freed from a sense of despondency and frustration.

The secretary-general’s proposal for replacement of the human rights commission with a smaller human rights council was another controversial and inconclusive aspect of the world summit’s outcome document. Most countries perceived this move as politically motivated on behalf of the western countries which were not happy to see their agenda facing resistance in the commission. It is no secret that the commission’s sessions have become a regular arena for animated political battles between the western group and the developing countries represented by G-77 and China.

The latter have always questioned the western-driven human rights agenda and its trend of “selectivity” in focusing on certain countries as part of the global power politics. They fear the new mechanism will be heavily tilted against selected developing countries to bring them under greater pressure and scrutiny.

Washington, on its part, is keen for this structural change in the human rights machinery and makes no secret of its preference for a smaller human rights council which it hopes will be “ideally composed of democracies committed to promoting and upholding of human rights.”

It must be recalled that the US had lost its seat on the commission four years ago, and since then has taken special exception to the regular election to this body, on the basis of regional endorsements, of countries that in its view are the “worst of worst” abusers of human rights. It believes the UN has lost its credibility because of the “poor performance” of some of its important bodies, particularly the General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission, where allegedly “illiberal and anti-democratic” interests always prevail due to their numerical majority and regional solidarity. The argument used by the protagonists of this move is that the UN’s credibility on human rights is undermined by its failure to hold its member-states to the human rights standards codified in the UN Charter. If this rule is to be the norm, the UN itself, with its moral and legal authority totally eroded by repeated violations of its Charter, might soon become eligible for a similar “surgical” treatment. The world could ask for a new body capable of upholding and promoting the purposes and principles of the UN Charter.

Among other outstanding issues that still remain unresolved are “use of force, pacific settlement of disputes, sanctions, peacekeeping, thematic aspects of human rights and rule of law, democracy, the key issues of terrorism involving definition and legitimization of genuine freedom movements, and strengthening of the UN. There is also no prospect of any consensus emerging on issues of disarmament and non-proliferation

Likewise, differences over the UN reform seem intractable. No doubt, we do need reform in the UN that makes it a stronger, more effective and more representative inter-governmental organization. The democratic principle of sovereign equality and one-state-one-vote must also remain the sole basis of the UN’s strength and participatory character.

However, on the question of the expansion of the Security Council, what is evident is that we now have two fundamentally different approaches, one of “dividing for privilege” and the other of “uniting for consensus.” The secretary-general’s report has not facilitated the task by espousing what he describes as the realities of power and advocating the divisive approach. Some countries even blame him for promoting artificial deadlines to accelerate a decision on the expansion of the council.

Interestingly, the western group at the UN welcomed the secretary-general’s report in all its aspects as an “acceptable basis” for a new security consensus and was particularly keen on his recommendations on the main issues of criteria for use of force, nuclear non-proliferation, weapons of mass destruction, terrorism and human rights.

The G-77 representing the developing countries at the UN, on the other hand, was alarmed when an attempt was made to bulldoze the outcome document through a non-transparent process called “broad consultations” by the UN General Assembly president with the help of his “facilitators.” The western group was reluctant to have any inter-governmental discussions or negotiations on the report and preferred secretariat-led shortcuts for finalization of the outcome document. In the UN’s history, this practice has always been seen as non-democratic in character.

In the final analysis, the world summit was seen as a dismal failure. It provided no new direction to our troubled world. The outcome document comes across as a rehash of what the UN is now most well-known for the same old rhetoric that has yet to become reality, the same old promises that have never been fulfilled and the same old commitments that have seldom been honoured.

No decisions were taken at the summit on major issues, nor was any common ground prepared for subsequent consensus on those issues. The vision of collective security remains blurred. The scourge of terrorism, in its core, remains unaddressed. Human rights and other fundamental freedoms are now a matter of expediency. The Security Council is no more than a debating forum with no authority or credibility to its actions. Its meetings and deliberations are mere spectacles, some in public and some in camera, choreographed in advance to conform to what the secretary-general describes as today’s “realities of power.”

What went wrong and who rocked the boat? The secretary-general puts the blame on a “group of spoilers” who in his view thwarted meaningful progress in inter-governmental negotiations. The latter took pride in their actions which they claimed were in their “national interests.” Some circles, however, thought the responsibility was widely shared, although the host country, being the most indispensable and influential member, bore a “disproportionate share.”

Despite all this controversial hype, and despite the uncertainties looming large on UN’s horizon, the Secretary-general, true to his character, is not ready to give up. He already has a checklist of priorities with which to proceed afresh with his agenda which he knows is ambitious, yet “achievable.”

What he should also know is that after his annus horribilis, and the Volcker Committee’s indictment of the UN for its “illicit, unethical and corrupt” management of the Iraqi oil-for-food-programme, he no longer has the freedom of action and members’ confidence that he once enjoyed. It will need a miracle of this century for the last year of his tarnished second tenure to be an “annus mirabilis.”

The author is a former foreign secretary.

When disaster struck

WHAT lessons did Saturday’s earthquake in the north of the country carry for us? In the initial shocking days there was not much to learn and much more to mourn. There were moments of hope as well when the efforts of the rescue teams were rewarded and a survivor was pulled out — like the smiling infant whose picture was splashed across newspapers all over the country.

The images of death and destruction made one sad. With television channels vying with one another to give a better and more innovative coverage of the events in the north, the tragedy numbed the nation.

Thousands and thousands were killed — at first the authorities were cautious in releasing casualty figures — but as the extent of the devastation unfolded, the death toll also rose. The latest official estimates speak of 20,000 dead and 47,000 injured. Then there were thousands who were living away from their families to earn their livelihood. Their agony was indescribable — with the communications in shambles there was no way for them to get in touch with their relatives back home.

It will take time for the dust to settle, and mercifully the relief operations are picking up, though more efforts are needed to coordinate the massive rescue work that has been mobilized. The normal rhythm of life will come much later for those who have suffered or have been made homeless. For those who have lost their loved ones, life may never be the same again.

As we come to grip with the shock, the lessons will start to sink in. The first to strike one is the humanism of mankind. Contrary to what many religious leaders were saying endlessly on television — that the earthquake was God’s wrath on man for his wrongdoings — the people of Pakistan did not emerge the sinful lot they are made out to be. They rose to the challenge and responded with generosity to help their less fortunate compatriots. Crowds flocked to the impromptu camps set up by various relief agencies in all cities and flooded them with goods and donations.

Although the opposition parties initially tried to politicize the event and launched a tirade against the government for its “crisis management failure” and its “failure to carry out relief activities”, it has come to see the folly of making political capital of human misery. Hence, the ARD has now announced that October 12 that was to be observed as a day of protest is now to be a day of prayers for the dead.

The government’s response may be described as being as best as could be in the circumstances. With no preparedness for meeting such natural calamities, the administration could have done no better. There was a lot of activity on the scene of the disaster. Yet the rescue operation was slow and those affected failed to get prompt relief. This was not surprising in view of the absence of trained personnel and the necessary equipment. With the roads and bridges in many places having collapsed the worst affected areas were rendered inaccessible.

As a result, some of them, such as Muzaffarabad, received no help until Monday. The relief fund which was set up by the prime minister with an initial contribution of one billion rupees was enhanced to five billion rupees within a day when the magnitude of the disaster became clear.

The government’s appeal for help brought aid in the form of cash, goods and rescue teams pouring in from abroad. A number of countries, especially in the neighbourhood, responded magnificently and extended a helping hand. They were most welcome since Pakistan’s own resources to cope with a disaster of this magnitude seemed inadequate.

But three aspects were of special significance. One was the open-ended offer of assistance that was offered by India and accepted by Pakistan. Although initially President Musharraf had been hesitant about accepting the offer, citing “sensitivities” in the matter, better sense prevailed. Many of the areas in Azad Kashmir are more approachable from the Indian-held Kashmir side of the LoC which was also affected by the earthquake but not as intensely.

The logistics of the operation have not yet been disclosed but the two sides have allowed the helicopters of the other to fly close to the LoC which they normally did not permit. This is certain that this has been possible only because of the changed political climate of today in the wake of the composite dialogue between the two countries. This gesture from both sides will be long remembered and one hopes that it will have a positive impact on the ongoing peace dialogue.

In fact, Indian and Pakistani soldiers have reportedly been cooperating with one another on both sides of the LoC in exchanging intelligence about how best to get medical help to the worst affected victims. They have been communicating by radio to facilitate movement to the distressed areas.

The second notable event was the demand by the Jamaat-i-Islami that the government should reject America’s offer of assistance, because it was no more than peanuts. With Pakistan’s relief operation already being hampered on account of communication difficulties, the helicopters offered by the US have eased somewhat the pressure on logistic facilities. The Jamaat also urged that the armed forces should not distribute the aid in the affected areas since they had lost the confidence of the people.

How should one respond to leaders whose compassion for fellow humans is minimal? For them, national honour dictates that we reject American aid because it is too little, even if that costs us more lives in the process. It is rightly said that times of calamities bring out the best or the worst in people, especially in politicians.

Thirdly, we need to adopt a rational approach to natural calamities and how to manage them. It is plain that in the short term it is not always possible to prevent the erratic workings of many awesome natural elements. Earthquakes, floods and hurricanes have affected mankind since times immemorial, though their frequency and intensity have increased lately, thanks to human anti-ecological activities that have led to global warming. Thus the UN’s International Strategy for Disaster Reduction says that in 2003 nearly 254 million people were affected by natural disasters. This was nearly thrice as many as in 1990. Nearly 83,000 were killed in 2003 compared to 53,000 13 years ago.

Asia alone has encountered a major earthquake practically every year since 2001: Gujarat (India), Bam (Iran), the tsunami and Saturday’s tremblor. If we can’t prevent them we can at least make concerted efforts to prevent colossal loss of life and mitigate the sufferings of those affected. Early warning systems work for floods and hurricanes but not for earthquakes. But the redeeming feature is that earthquakes do not kill people, it is the collapsing structures which prove to be fatal. By making buildings earthquake-proof and resistant a lot can be done to save lives.

It is also important that rescue operations are speedy to save lives. Pakistan’s experience shows that the country was caught unawares in that it did not even have a disaster management mechanism/ strategy in place. As a result the initial lack of coordination led to confusion and duplication of efforts or paralysis. This would not have happened if the Disaster Management Agency that has been on the cards for sometimes now had actually been in place. Its formation should now be expedited and a strategy worked out as a matter of urgency.

It is also time that an international coordinating unit was set up — may be the International Committee of the Red Cross could be assigned the task — to coordinate relief efforts by governments and charities which traditionally respond generously on such occasions. But without any coordination their work is duplicated or delayed and fails to have the impact it should.

Kohinoor again

WHY this sudden activity on the part of some people in India and Pakistan demanding of the British government to return the fabulous diamond Kohinoor which adorns the royal crown of Britain? But this activity takes place periodically. I remember writing about it in this column some years ago, but a report in a London newspaper has obliged me to take up the subject again.

The report says that the Government of India has been sounding Her Majesty’s Government about the possibility of the diamond’s return. However, it makes no mention of the fact that Pakistan is an equal claimant and that the British are bound to take its claim into consideration if there is a decision. Moreover, is that the only priceless valuable that the British appropriated during their 200 years rule over the subcontinent? And do we have another Indo-Pakistan dispute in the making?

Cultural treasures once stolen are seldom returned. They are supposed to be part and parcel of political and military conquest. Though there have been cases recently where the thieving country admitted the crime and made retribution, but such cases are rare. Germany and Russia have been, in the past few years, locked in a dispute. Germany wants the art treasures that the Soviet Army carted away to Moscow in the last days of World War II. Experts allege that many of these treasures were themselves stolen by Hitler from European countries over-run by his army.

One may recall Melina Mercouri, the star of the famous movie “Never on a Sunday.” She went into politics and became Greece’s minister for culture. This was about ten years ago. She had a special gallery built in Athens to house the Elgin Marbles which are pieces from the Parthenon that Lord Elgin, Britain’s ambassador in Greece, quietly pilfered nearly 200 years ago. She was unable to get the marbles back, but, as a gesture of defiance, has kept the gallery vacant for a possible change of heart in Britain. It was reported a few months ago that Britain has again turned down Greece’s request.

Fruitless official efforts to retrieve the Kohinoor have a history. Some time in 1994, when Sheikh Rashid, the firebrand “Son of Rawalpindi,” was culture minister during Mian Nawaz Sharif’s first tenure, he grandiloquently announced his determination to compel the British government to return the Kohinoor to Pakistan. Was the Sheikh merely building up an image as a brave Pakistani minister ready to take on Britain single-handedly? Significant, no official representation on the subject was made by the Nawaz Sharif regime to Britain.

But Sheikh Rashid did make a memorable faux pas. He betrayed his scholarship by saying that since the diamond had been taken by the British conquerors from the Muslim Mughals, therefore it must revert to their heirs, the people of Pakistan. Are we heirs to the Mughals? What had happened was that the Kohinoor had been held by Shah Shuja, the exiled ruler of Afghanistan living in Ludhiana in Punjab. Maharjah Ranjit Singh coveted it and was anxious to secure it for himself, as most kings in those days must have been.

It is a story that is highly romantic though unconfirmed. Ranjit Singh offered Shah Shuja certain concessions to help him get back his throne in Kabul in exchange for the Kohinoor. Shah Shuja being averse to the deal, the Maharajah invited him to Lahore, showered praise and affection on him, and declared that henceforth they were brothers. In a masterpiece of native cunning (as the story goes) he told the Afghan prince that it was now incumbent on the two brothers to exchange turbans in true Punjabi fashion, and without waiting for a reaction he took Shah Shuja’s turban, placed his own on his “brother’s” head and became the owner of the Kohinoor. Shah Shuja used to keep the diamond sewn into his headgear.

When the Sikh dynasty was finally overthrown and Punjab was formally annexed by the British, Ranjit Singh’s minor grandson, Duleep Singh, was whisked away to be educated in England. After some time he embraced Christianity and married an English girl and was prevailed upon to make a gift of the Kohinoor to Queen Victoria. It was thus that the “Mountain of Light” landed in the British crown. One may not call it thievery or extortion but that is what it was.

The only time the Kohinoor was displayed in the subcontinent was when King George V held a magnificent durbar in Delhi in 1911, where the shifting of the capital from Calcutta to Delhi was announced. He wore the regalia for the occasion, including the royal crown. If Sheikh Rashid had been around at that time he could have pinched the diamond in the durbar. Otherwise now there is no chance of its coming back.

As culture minister in 1994, the Sheikh did not bother to consult the Foreign Office which would have told him that Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, as prime minister, had made a diplomatic effort in 1976 to get the Kohinoor from the British but the request had been politely turned down.

He would also have come to know that when Mr Bhutto called upon Britain to return the diamond it was not because he thought he was the natural successor to the last Mughal emperor but because the Kohinoor had gone to the British from Lahore, and it was on the basis of its ownership by the last Sikh ruler of Punjab that Pakistan claimed it.