Closing in on Iraq

THE world’s disapproval notwithstanding, the US seems determined to go ahead with a full-scale attack on Iraq, for there is no other way to explain Thursday’s massive Anglo-American air raid on an Iraqi command and control sight. Even though US-British air raids on Iraq have become a routine — this was the 25th such attack this year — Thursday’s raid was the biggest ever in four years. A British newspaper reported that 100 planes were involved in the attack. The Pentagon denied that such large numbers took part in the operation, but it did admit that the raid was bigger than usual. The planes included a dozen aircraft that dropped precision bombs, the aim being to hit Iraq’s air defences to pave the way for special forces to search and destroy Scud missiles. Gradually, but with deadly certainty, Washington seems to be edging towards a war on Iraq.

The whole world is against such an offensive. On Friday, President Bush talked to the Chinese, French and Russian presidents on the telephone but failed to convince them of the need for military action against Iraq. All of them opposed a war and pleaded for giving time to diplomacy. The French president believed that the international community must be firm in making Iraq submit to outside controls. But if Baghdad refused to let the international inspectors return, he said it should be left to the UN to decide the course of action. The strongest reaction came from President Putin, who expressed his “deep doubts” about the justification for an attack on Iraq. He believed diplomacy should be given more chance and thought that a strike on Iraq would have negative consequences for the Middle East. The Arab and Islamic world has already expressed its opposition to such a war. All of Iraq’s neighbours, have expressed strong opposition to such a move. These states include not only Iraq’s Arab neighbours but also Iran and Turkey. The latter two especially are worried about the possible consequences of the break-up of the central authority in Baghdad and its effects on the Kurdish minorities in Turkey and Iran.

There is still room for a peaceful settlement of the inspection issue. Baghdad itself has not been as intransigent as is being made out. Recently, Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz said his country could consider a return of the inspectors as part of “a comprehensive settlement”. Foreign Minister Naji Sabri also said the UN inspectors could return if the sanctions that have crippled Iraq were lifted. After a recent meeting in Cairo, Arab foreign ministers also called for a dialogue through the UN. The aim of such a dialogue, they said, should be to get Baghdad to admit the inspectors in return for a lifting of the 12-year sanctions.

Washington must realize that an offensive against Iraq will split the world coalition against terrorism and create a backlash not only against the US but also against moderate Arab and Muslim regimes. Such a scenario will help strengthen rather than weaken extremist forces in the region. Patient diplomacy can achieve what the war cannot. War may satisfy the pro-Israeli hawks in the Bush administration, but it will only create anarchy in the region and hurt long-term western interests.

Why this secrecy mania?

OFFICIALDOM in Pakistan continues to cling to anachronistic notions about sharing information, considering even the most innocuous of documents as being highly sensitive. A case in point is the government’s recent decision to stop NGOs and private firms from being involved in drainage and irrigation-related projects. Only military-owned concerns will now be allowed to work on such projects. While a case could be made to encourage NGOs to focus on more basic needs such as health and education rather than wasting their energies on large-scale capital- intensive projects, the reasoning behind the government’s decision is quite flawed.

According to a report, army sources claim that private consultants and foreign-funded NGOs should not be allowed access to maps of irrigation networks because these are of a sensitive nature and could compromise the country’s strategic interests. Given the vast leaps in technological advancement, this is a ludicrous claim. In the age of satellite imaging and other sophisticated technology, maps have become increasingly detailed and precise and are readily available even on the Internet. One need only surf the net or walk into a specialist bookshop abroad to find maps so detailed that you can spot your home on them. Foreign intelligence agencies obviously have access to even more sophisticated maps of every important installation. Yet our officials continue to cling to the archaic notion that even a map of the country’s irrigation system could become a lethal tool in the hands of the enemy. This security obsession permeates every level of our civil and military bureaucracy.

Getting simple maps of the country out of official organizations, such as the Survey of Pakistan, can require security clearances at various levels. Not surprisingly, there is a dearth of good maps of the country. Even taking photographs of bridges can result in cameras being confiscated or the offender being hauled up for spying. This paranoia may have its justification in a pre-satellite age but makes little sense today. It is time the government rethought this policy which only creates serious hindrances for visitors, academics and students. A freedom of information act that allows the public access to non-classified government documents and maps would be a welcome first step in ending this over-extended form of paranoia and secrecy.

Showdown on campus

THE standoff between the Karachi University administration on the one hand and students and faculty on the other took a nasty turn on Saturday. There was a clash with a Rangers’ force, and some of the protesting students were injured. The clash came amidst a boycott of classes by students and teachers prompted by the university administration’s refusal to have a dialogue on several issues. These include alleged harassment and torture of students at the hands of law enforcement personnel, who are said to frisk everyone entering or leaving campus; the forced retirement of a professor; and similar other actions taken by the vice-chancellor which are seen as arbitrary. The resentment at the presence of law enforcement agencies on campus and their conduct will only increase after Saturday’s incident.

The Karachi University is one of the country’s premier seats of higher learning, with some of the best facilities and qualified faculty members in the country. The vice-chancellor himself is a respected scholar.

It is, therefore, very surprising that things should have come to such a sorry pass as to cause a disruption in the academic session. In this particular instance, the students and teachers appear well within their rights to protest over the treatment meted out to them by the administration. Their viewpoint deserves a hearing, and the vice-chancellor ought to have shown a readiness to discuss some of the controversial steps recently taken by the administration. If these measures were meant to establish greater discipline on campus, they seem to have ended up by achieving the exact opposite. Negotiations to restore peace and harmony on campus should be started immediately, and the incident involving the Rangers should be thoroughly and impartially investigated.