Diplomacy’s last chance

THERE are signs that the US-led coalition seeking UN approval of military action against Iraq is increasingly in disarray. Clearly, the six wavering members of the Security Council are not willing to support the new resolution tabled by the US, Britain and Spain unless certain radical changes are made in the draft. At the heart of the matter is the March 17 deadline for Iraq to disarm or face military action. Most members of the Security Council believe this deadline is far too short and seek to extend it by several weeks. The six nations — Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Guinea, Mexico and Pakistan — have called, instead, for a 30-45 day deadline. There are now signs that Britain is willing to extend the deadline but not to the extent being demanded by the group of six. The US, meanwhile, seems unwilling to accept any compromise and remains firm on action at the earliest. This headlong rush to war has provided more ammunition to the anti-war camp led by France and strongly supported by Russia, China and Germany, among other nations. What is the need, they argue, for a military offensive in a volatile region when Iraq has been fully cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors in every respect? The chief weapons inspector, Hans Blix, has repeatedly confirmed that Iraq has been fully cooperating with his team and has not obstructed its work in any manner.

Why then is the US so dead-set on attacking Iraq and risk killing thousands of innocent people and undermining the security and stability of the entire region? Opinion polls in most countries reveal that even the minority which backs war would much rather that action was taken with the sanction of the UN. While the US president and the hawkish lobby around him seem quite willing to go it alone if need be, the British prime minister seems lately to prefer UN authorization to be able to justify military action to his people. While Blair continues to insist that he will act even without UN authorization, he is clearly aware of the political risk he faces at home. A vast majority of people in Britain, not to mention significant sections within the Labour Party itself, are opposed to unilateral military action. That is why Blair has been working so vigorously in recent days to thrash out a compromise in order to win over the undecided members of the Security Council.

Given this delicate scenario, it must have come as quite a shock to his camp when US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blithely stated that even if Britain pulled out, the US would go ahead and attack. The statement sent shock waves through Downing Street. It seemed to undermine Blair’s efforts to keep up a united front and avoid an impression at home that Washington was just using Blair as a fig-leaf for its unilateralist designs against Iraq and its regime. Two opposite options now seem to lie ahead. One, a compromise resolution extending the deadline for disarmament could be thrashed out to appease critics in the Security Council. The other, more likely, is that the US will push ahead with its war strategy to prevent further cracks in its shaky coalition. Refusing to listen to the voices of reason and sanity, the US now seems poised for war regardless of its terrible consequences.

Task before Erdogan

CAN Turkey’s new prime minister make the parliament reverse its negative vote on the deployment of American troops on Turkish soil? Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s election to parliament and his appointment as prime minister are a tribute to his indomitable will to fight for his cause. A former mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan was jailed for writing a poem which the generals thought was “seditious.” This barred him from taking part in last year’s elections. However, Erdogan steered his Justice and Development Party (AKP) to a resounding victory, giving Turkey its first parliament in 15 years with a party having an absolute majority. The task before him now is to convince his colleagues in parliament that they should reconsider the question of the American troops’ deployment. This may not prove easy, considering the strong anti-war sentiments in Turkey and the widespread criticism in the Muslim world of the $46 billion in grants and loans Ankara had demanded as the price for allowing the American troops to open a “northern front” against Iraq.

Erdogan denies that his party is Islamist; he says it is conservative. Immediately after last year’s elections, he visited European capitals to solicit support for Turkey’s membership of the European Union. The deployment of US troops, he thinks, will mean more aid for Turkey at a time when the economy is in bad shape. Also, Turkey will be able to have a say in Iraq’s post-war affairs. Of special concern to him is Iraq’s Kurdish-majority north. An independent Kurdistan will have repercussions for Turkey, which has its own restive Kurdish minority to worry about. The area is also oil-rich, and for that reason is of added importance. Turkey also does not want to suffer again the huge losses it did in the wake of the 1991 Gulf war and the sanctions on Iraq. However, anti-war sentiments in Turkey are strong, and it will take a lot of efforts on Erdogan’s part to convince his partymen that a reversal of vote would be to Turkey’s advantage. In this, he sees eye to eye with the generals.

Sabzimandi park

THE announcement by the corps commander of Karachi the other day that the army was constructing a modern public park at the site of the old sabzimandi on the University Road is reassuring. According to the details, the project is to commence shortly on a 38-acre piece of land, which, on completion, will have walking tracks, green lawns, a children’s playground, a women’s enclosure, a botanical garden, a food court, an army museum and other public facilities. The corps commander said that if vested interests did not create any more hurdles in its way, and the land area needed for the project is cleared early, the city would have the much-awaited park within a record time.

Last reports on the subject suggested some litigation proceedings being carried out against the civic agencies by certain land developers and builders who wanted to commercialize the land vacated by the shifting of the old sabzimandi. The district city government would do well to pursue the case in a diligent manner in the best public interest. The area around the old sabzimandi comprises congested commercial and residential quarters with no provision made for open spaces for public recreation. The plan to shift the central jail, located adjacent to the old sabzimandi, to an appropriate location outside the city, has also seen long delays and dithering. It is time the authorities concerned went ahead with the original plan and made that piece of land available too, so as to include it in the public park being set up in its vicinity. The land mafia should be told once and for all that no more commercialization of land would be allowed in that congested part of the city. No other city the size and population of Karachi anywhere in the world, fares so poorly when it comes to having public recreation facilities and open spaces.