The Turkish decision

THE Turkish parliament’s decision to authorize the sending of troops to Iraq is likely to increase US pressure on Pakistan to do likewise. The recent flurry of high-level contacts between American and Pakistani military and civilian officials could well have been directed towards this end. The United States has managed to secure some form of participation from nearly three dozen countries for its occupation forces in Iraq, but the participating countries are for the most part inconsequential and their role peripheral. It is desperately in need of more credible involvement, particularly from Muslim countries, in the hope, almost certainly misplaced, that this would lessen hostility to occupation. Turkey’s decision is its own and is based on both its own strategic interests in Iraq as well as its membership of Nato and assurances of enhanced US financial aid. But it has been a reluctant backer, initially refusing to let the US use the country as a staging point before the invasion of Iraq and then delaying a decision on troops’ participation. Even now, the Turkish government has said the decision will not have immediate effect and any deployment, if it goes forward, will be only for one year. Prime Minister Recep Erdogan has said Turkey has a moral responsibility to help its neighbour and stressed that any deployment must also bolster Ankara’s own security needs, presumably connected with the Kurdish factor.

Pakistan has no moral obligation whatsoever to ease things for the occupation forces in Iraq. It has no security needs connected with Iraq — except perhaps indirectly by way of increased US military help it might get from Washington in return for sending troops to join the coalition. The American draft providing for a greater role for the United Nations in the Iraqi transition has been revised, but France, Germany, Russia and most of all UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan all have expressed doubts even about the revised draft. A time-frame for a political process leading to the transfer of power to an elected Iraqi government is unclear. The hostile Kurdish reaction to the Turkish parliament’s decision was expected, but others also in the Iraqi governing council, set up by the Americans, do not appear particularly enthusiastic about it. Meanwhile, attacks against US troops are getting deadlier, according to the admission of the American commander on the ground. Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has drawn a parallel between the present Iraqi situation and the one the Soviets faced following their occupation of Afghanistan. All these circumstances militate against any hasty decision by Islamabad on the troops issue. The matter should in any case be brought before parliament, and it should also be remembered that we have enough on our plate already by way of security concerns, both local and external.

Trend towards violence

MAULANA Azam Tariq’s murder and the outbreak of rioting in its aftermath serve only to highlight, again, the dangerous trend towards violence in Pakistan. On Tuesday, while passing a resolution condemning Maulana Tariq’s assassination, the National Assembly asked the government to ensure a better law and order situation by stepping up its action to eradicate terrorism. The resolution came within hours of violence in the wake of the fallen leader’s burial. True to pattern, a few days earlier, mourners had taken to the streets and started burning vehicles following the murder of six Suparco employees in Karachi. In July, too, after the carnage in a Quetta Imambargah, there were acts of violence in Quetta and Karachi. A wave of shock over murders of religious leaders is understandable. But one is appalled to note that mourners resort to arson and vandalism immediately after funeral prayers — as if the prayers uttered on such occasions do not teach forbearance and restraint from violence.

The truth is every Pakistani crowd of this kind is now violence-prone. Burning cars and buses, vandalizing public and private property, and blocking roads and highways have now become the standard form of protest. Whether it is students waiting for mark-sheets or an Eid-eve rush at railway stations, people resort to violence on the slightest pretext or provocation. One is tempted here to ask many of those behind Tuesday’s NA resolution what role they have played or are playing in checking the trend toward violence.

Violence has now entered the mainstream of Pakistani politics, and all leaders — religious and secular — consider resort to mob force a legitimate form of political assertion. This would be an unfortunate trait for any country, but more so for one whose founder was known for his strict adherence to constitutional norms and whose entire struggle for the creation of Pakistan was conducted within the confines of law and constitutionalism. Deviation from constitutional means has blocked legitimate avenues of dissent, and this has made its own contribution to resort to extreme methods of agitation.

Those who voted for Tuesday’s resolution included parties which have often paralyzed the country by “wheel jam” strikes. They have also felt no qualms about laying siege to the parliament building, or organizing their student wings on military lines, giving them arms and using them for street violence. Violence being a double-edged sword, the opposition parties themselves fall victim to it when they come to power. It is time all our politicians and religious leaders asked themselves what precisely they have done to check the trend towards violence and, if at all, to inculcate democratic values among their followers, and promote the values of restraint, tolerance and civilized conduct among the people.

Misleading the public

THE outrage expressed by an informed audience present at a seminar organized in Karachi to discuss the Tasman Spirit oil spill is ample evidence that the government needs to do much to restore public confidence in its handling of the after-effects of the disaster. According to a report, the audience, comprising mostly members of civil society and concerned citizens, interrupted government officials after the latter appeared to be prevaricating and veering away from the topic which was planning for the future and how to prevent such disasters from happening again. A KPT representative especially came in for severe criticism after he repeatedly tried to defend his organization and invoked divine benevolence to assure the audience that the beach would eventually be restored to its pre-disaster state. Technical points regarding the grounding of the vessel and the immediate response to it were sharply contested by members of the audience, including a navigation expert.

Though the conference ended without any conclusion, the proceedings did suggest that the government agencies in charge of dealing with the after-effects of the spill have not learnt any lessons. Their officials continue to mislead the public on basic aspects of the disaster and several questions regarding the post-spill situation remain unanswered. There was talk initially of making public the findings of the government’s inquiry into the disaster. However, that too seems to have been quietly pushed aside, nor is one sure about the utility of a ‘high-powered’ committee that was set up to meet daily and ostensibly to formulate a plan to tackle the after-effects of the spill. Meanwhile, the waste collected during the initial days of the disaster continues to lie on Karachi’s Clifton beach, precariously close to residential areas. No wonder the city’s residents continue to vent their ire against what they perceive to be slothful and apathetic officialdom that does all it can to obfuscate the truth and mislead the people.