War and its aftermath

WITH the American ultimatum to Baghdad having expired at 0100 GMT (0600 PST) today, all is set for George Bush’s war on Iraq. One does not know when the American president finally gives the ‘go-ahead’ signal to his wehrmacht. Maybe, he has already done so, and the countdown to zero hour has already begun or, perhaps, the war would have begun by the time these lines are read. Or, maybe, hoping against hope, one believes there are still a few hours left before the drama of death and destruction begins in Iraq, this earliest cradle of human civilization. As if 12 years of mass misery stemming from the US-led sanctions and half a million children’s deaths from a lack of medicines and baby foods were not enough, America would like to kill more Iraqis for its regime’s defiance of America. It is now war for the sake of war, and killings for the sake of killings. Otherwise, how else would one explain the American position that it would invade Iraq in any case, even if President Saddam Hussein and his sons went into exile?

There is no justification for an attack on Iraq. Those waging this war know this truth as much as all those sane minds around the world who have opposed it out of sheer conviction that Iraq is being attacked for no logical, much less moral, reasons. Even some of America’s allies who have been through thick and thin with it even in the most nightmarish days of the cold war find no reason for this resort to armed action, because Iraq has given in to all demands contained in Resolution 1441 and because they believe that it is possible to disarm Iraq of the weapons of mass destruction without resort to war.

The real question now is: what after the war? The first casualty of the war has already occurred: it is the United Nations. America and Britain have fatally harmed it by stripping the world body of its international authority and by establishing a dubious principle — that if it suits a state or a group of states, the UN can be bypassed. What matters is the unabashed pursuit of geopolitical and commercial interests. If the UN stands in the way, it should be brushed aside. By refusing to table a second resolution for fear it may not get a Security Council majority or it may be vetoed, the US and UK have seriously undermined the world body.

The world should now get ready to witness a descent into the law of jungle. All this talk about the war ushering in an era of democracy in the Middle East is poppycock. Democracy cannot be imposed from above; it has to grow from within as a result of a people’s home-grown struggle. America is coming to the Middle East in force to give more money and arms and lebensraum to Israel; and oil to itself; it is not going to become the Middle East’s new imperial power for the benefit of the Arabs.

The shock of a quick Anglo-American victory may paralyze the Arabs for a while. But, sooner or later, they will play the role which history has assigned to them — to rid the Middle East of traces of apartheid and racism and fight for an honourable place for themselves and for the Palestinians among the nations of the world. What form this struggle takes cannot be predicted. But its first target could be the “moderate” Arab regimes for their failure to save the Arab world from the terror of their American “friends.” The collapse of the Iraqi state is bound to set in motion a process of fragmentation of states bordering Iraq, thus starting an era of widespread lawlessness and anarchy. Temporarily, Israel may rejoice at the break-up of these states. But this will be a temporary respite for America’s proconsul in the region, for those who will really profit from this anarchy most certainly will not be democrats but soldiers of fortune, mad adventurers and religious extremists. None of them will be America’s friends or help Washington, much less Israel, achieve any of their long-term objectives in the region.

The global effect of America’s unilateralism as seen in the Iraqi war will be an erosion of the very concept of globalization as preached and practised by the US. Already, France and Germany have discovered a commonality of interests with Russia and China. Other states, especially Arab and Muslim, including some of America’s traditional friends, will thus rightly look to this new Eurasian alliance for guidance and help in safeguarding their economic and political interests. In such a world, America is likely to face increasing isolation, its military victory over Iraq being of no consequence.

State of human rights

THE annual report of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP) makes for disturbing reading. As expected, women, children and minorities stand out as the principal victims of rights’ abuses. The occurrence of several tragic cases where tribal jirgas ordered cruel and inhuman punishments against innocent women has been particularly criticized as has been the tendency in some clerics to use the controversial blasphemy law to blackmail and harass members of the minorities and settle personal scores. In all of this the government has been seen to be standing aside — neither taking any substantive action against the perpetrators nor taking to task officials for looking the other way. Government institutions, particularly the office of the president and the Supreme Court, have also come in for some very strong criticism, especially in the context of the flawed process of democratic restoration. The former has been accused of promulgating too many ordinances, including basic changes in the Constitution and of not allowing democratic institutions to take root. The latter, for its part, has been criticized for legitimizing and shielding the actions of the president by dismissing all petitions challenging his authority. Both allegations carry considerable weight. As for so-called honour killings, though there is now greater awareness and public disapproval of such heinous acts, they continue to happen as frequently as before, leading to the obvious conclusion that much more needs to be done to fight these evils on both legal and social planes. One significant step could be for parliament to pass legislation outlawing this kind of murder and prescribing capital punishment for the offenders.

Such a sorry state of human rights in Pakistan is no surprise when one considers the fact that a sizable section of the population — and not just women, children and the minorities — is not even aware of its rights, let alone in a position to fight for them. Part of the blame must also rest with society. A major reason why reprehensible practices like honour killings karo-kari and ‘wani’ continue and are tolerated lies in warped social attitudes, especially of those in positions of authority and influence. Crimes like honour killings are not necessarily practised by the poor and the ignorant; the affluent land-owning class and tribal influentials are no less guilty on this score. The message coming from the HRCP’s report is loud and clear: much more needs to be done by the state and society to ensure better protection of, and respect for, the rights and interests, especially of the poorer sections of society. More important, policies that seek to empower various disadvantaged sections of society must be effectively enforced, with officials being told clearly that they would be held accountable for lapses and failures on this account.