The threat from militarism

FRANCE has indicated that it will not veto a new resolution authorizing a greater United Nations role in Iraq, but President Jacques Chirac was outspoken in his criticism during his address to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday of the original US decision to invade Iraq. He said the war launched without Security Council authorization shook the multilateral world order, and warned that “no one can act alone in the name of all”. America’s action also came under questioning by Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who said unilateral preemptive military action without UN authorization risked returning the world to the law of the jungle. However, conscious of his role as a neutral personality, Mr Annan also cautioned against denouncing unilateralism without trying to understand what prompted countries to feel gravely threatened. President George Bush was typically simplistic in his review of the Iraqi situation, and his tone fully reflected the self-righteousness that has marked his administration’s entire foreign policy. In a ‘sound-bite’ aimed at fawning US media, he said transfer of power in Iraq would be “neither hurried nor delayed”.

The questions that have been framed at the General Assembly session are two: unilateralism and military action to further perceived policy goals. In Iraq, the two issues have got mixed up, although militarism is a far wider phenomenon. Many countries, big and small, have been guilty of using armed force to solve both internal and external political problems, and there is little evidence that nations are ready to give up their militaristic mindset. The annual military parades that mark national days present just one indication that the concept of strength based on a show of force remains unchanged. The search for newer and more destructive weapons continues, with countries that have failed to feed or clothe their people also joining the race. Economic power has also been used to subjugate and entrap the weak, but economic domination on its own can be and has been resisted, as was just shown in Cancun. Therefore, moves to enforce economic hegemony also have to be backed by military force. France and Germany, which opposed the US invasion of Iraq, have given no sign that they are against the use of military force as a matter of principle, and the attack on Afghanistan went ahead without a murmur. In a throwback to imperial days, America has extended the use of force to include unseating governments that resist its objectives.

How the world can get out of this mess is not easy to see. Mr Annan has said he is setting up a panel to reconsider the United Nations security structure, but this too will be as strong or as weak as the will of the dominant member states. If the US can attack a country without UN sanction, it can flout whatever international security system that may now be devised. The basic reform has to come from within the more powerful countries, which have to win the moral respect of other nations. The one hope that we might one day move towards an international order that is based on peace and justice is that with every episode like America’s Iraq invasion, a small lesson is learnt. Its unilateralism and preemptive militarism are being denounced not only throughout the world, but also increasingly by its own people. The new fall in Mr Bush’s popularity ratings to 50 per cent is significant, as is his forced return to the UN.

Tribal wrath

THE harassment of a young married couple from Sukkur by members of the woman’s tribe, despite the fact that the two married of their own accord and with parental consent, is a matter of concern. Narrating her ordeal to this newspaper in the presence of Maulana Abdul Sattar Edhi, 22-year-old college teacher Shaista Almani said that initially her father was not amenable to her marriage to a person from a different tribe, but eventually he agreed. Despite this, she and her husband were being chased by members of her tribe, apparently because the chief of the clan did not want women to marry outside the tribe. The couple had to flee Sukkur to escape the tribal chief’s wrath but were followed, first to Islamabad and then to Karachi. In fact, if it were not for intervention by the police, matters might have ended on a grimmer note.

As the husband and wife have so emphatically stated, their troubles are not the least bit over. They have been forced to seek refuge, and thankfully we have someone like Abdus Sattar Edhi who has stepped forward and given them some measure of protection. The police in Karachi have also, for a change, played a positive role. However, for how long will Shaista and her husband have to live in fear of being killed? The government must play a role by not only providing protection to the couple but by using the influence of some of its ministers from Sukkur district to persuade the tribal chief to lay off on the tormented couple and direct his henchmen to let the couple live in peace. The episode should also again draw civil society’s attention to the primitive traditions and oppressive tribal customs that hold countless people in thrall, and the need for their reform.

Fuel smuggling

IT IS high time the government took notice of the practice of fuel smuggling from across the border in Iran to parts of Balochistan and the North-West Frontier Province. This illicit trade has become so rampant that industry analysts estimate that 18 per cent of the oil market in Balochistan and the NWFP has now been captured by smuggled fuel. The advantages of this line of business are obvious to the middleman as well as the consumer. Smuggled fuel is sold at almost one-third the cost of regular fuel and fuel products, even after the middleman has made a tidy profit. The actual cost of this malpractice is borne by the government in the form of unearned revenue, because of evasion of duties. The other sufferers are the oil companies which see their market share being reduced owing to unfair competition. They have responded to this situation by freezing their expansion plans in the NWFP and Balochistan as they feel that the prevailing situation is not conducive to investment. For its part, the government has remained largely silent on this issue.

Keeping in mind that the smuggling is done on a very large and organized scale with huge tankers bringing in fuel through border posts, it can safely be said that some government officials are involved in making all of this possible. This cannot be allowed to continue. There are other dangers associated with this racket. One is the introduction of low-grade and substandard fuel, which poses a risk to both cars and the environment. The other is the careless handling of the products by middlemen and retailers, which puts the lives of the general public at risk. There is no check on quality or protection against the possible hazards involved. The government should put an end to all this and take to task the various departments responsible for letting this illegal business continue for so long without any hindrance. This will also go a long way in boosting investor confidence in the oil and gas sector.