Time for a change

THE UN General Assembly session, which opened in New York on Wednesday and marked the 60th anniversary of the world body, is expected to adopt a reform package that a committee has been working on for the last six months. But it is not certain that this will actually happen. The draft document was finalized — hours before the opening of the session — in a watered-down form after objections led to the dropping of several controversial proposals. Issues such as the use of force and collective security, humanitarian intervention, reconstituting the Security Council, definition of terrorism, establishment of a peacebuilding commission, the constitution of a human rights council and non-proliferation affect the fundamental power relationships between members and could bring about a paradigm change in international relations. Nevertheless, it is now widely recognized that the status quo is no longer maintainable. If changes are not introduced, the international system as it has developed will head for a collapse.

Although all the reforms would in one way or another change the role and powers of the UN, three of them are of special significance. One is the section concerning use of force and collective security. The second relates to humanitarian intervention and the third to terrorism. Given the experience the international community has had of the United States’ unilateral invasion of Iraq and the slow response of the world body to the genocide in Rwanda in 1994, there is much concern that the concepts of collective action and domestic jurisdiction of states call for a revision. Terrorism, which has led to violence, also needs to be redefined so that the response to it is given legal cover. At present, the UN charter authorizes the use of force in self-defence when backed by the Security Council. But the US wants the use of force to be sanctioned even if the threat is not imminent. Similarly, Washington is opposed to military interventions as a UN responsibility even when civilian populations are at risk because of genocide.

This would amount to giving big powers the sanction to act unilaterally or, in their own selfish interest, turn a blind eye to situations that warrant intervention. This in effect means that collective action, developed as an idea in the UN, would be replaced by a system which gives power to the strong and leaves the weak at their mercy. This is most undesirable. The underlying idea of collective action is that it should be undertaken with the consensus or majority support of a community in its common interest. Conversely, states cannot be allowed to shirk their responsibility of humanitarian intervention and thus shield genocidal acts. If these principles are abandoned, they would amount to recognizing the axiom of might is right. This militates against the principles of equality and sovereignty of states. It is in this context that the definition of terrorism is so important. In the absence of any agreed definition, some states would have the privilege of branding any act as being that of a terrorist and then taking action against the perpetrator of that act. UN members must look into these issues and not sweep them under the carpet because they find them uncomfortable. At a time when the global pattern of international relations is in the process of change, it is important that a new system underpinned by democratic principles is devised.

Border fencing?

ARE we for bringing down walls and barriers between countries and peoples or are we in favour of erecting new barricades? First this issue has to be resolved before the other problems connected with the proposal to fence the Pakistan-Afghanistan border can be taken up. We have protested against the fence raised by India along our border with that country. We have opposed the wall built by the Israelis to separate Palestinian areas in the occupied territories. Why should we then suggest building a fence on the border with Afghanistan? If Foreign Minister Khurshid Kasuri is to be believed, the fence will be meant to “silence those who blame Pakistan for everything”, by which he meant the criticism emanating from Kabul about infiltration by militants. In a fit of petulance, the minister told journalists in New York: “We are fed up with these allegations and we have offered to fence the border but so far Afghanistan has not responded to our proposal.” Losing one’s patience and then seeking a brick-and-mortar solution to a political problem is just what we don’t need if the rocky Pakistan-Afghanistan relationship is to be stabilized.

There are also historical, geographical and physical aspects involved. The Durand Line is ill-defined, and many areas on either side may overlap. Are we going to opt for redemarcation of the entire border and thus unwittingly reopen the Durand Line issue? Peaceful Afghan citizens have traditionally come down to Pakistan’s plains during winter to earn a living and then go back. How will a fence affect the life pattern on both sides of the border? Then there is the daunting physical task of erecting a fence along a 2,500-km border. And even after we do that, will that stop infiltration from either side? We have seen how those bent on trouble can make a mockery of the most stringent border controls. The question should be calmly thought through by both countries. It is ultimately the responsibility of the two governments to isolate militants through the political and economic development of the tribal areas.

Mounting backlog of cases

According to the Chief Justice of Pakistan, the Supreme Court has started the new judicial year 2005-06 with a backlog of over 30,000 cases. Addressing a ceremony in Islamabad, he made several candid observations, including one that the general public did not hold a favourable view of the Supreme court administration and its lower staff. In fact, this is something true of courts in general, regardless of their jurisdictions. The Chief Justice also said that in many cases the side that loses either does not accept the verdict or raises questions regarding the court’s neutrality. There is also the problem of law’s delays and loopholes and lacunae in the trial procedure, making it possible for a trial to be frequently postponed and for the process to go on endlessly. All this creates doubts in the public mind about the judicial system’s ability to deliver quick and fair justice.

That takes us back to the issue of the mounting backlog of cases before courts at various levels. The only way that the backlog can be reduced is by taking measures to reduce the time taken to hear and dispose of a case. This means not allowing lawyers of both sides to make requests for frequent adjournments of a particular case for whatever reason. Also, there is a tendency among government prosecutors to come to court unprepared or to not to show up at all and this also makes for delays. This needs to be checked along with a filling up of all existing vacancies for judges and government prosecution lawyers so that there are enough of them to handle cases regularly. Finally, a whole lot of cases that do end up in the courts are not of a serious nature and should be settled out of court, but for that a proper conciliation system should be established under adequate legal cover — other than, of course, the jirgas and panchayats which normally dispense anything but justice.

Night stains of tyranny

...can darkness hide stains Which the night of
tyranny Itself has etched onto our souls?
— “Tyranny”,
by Shahryar Rashed

NIGHTFALL — in the trees outside silence clings to leaves like dust on a summer’s afternoon. In the street beyond a funeral procession measures itself in uncertain steps, mourners gather to bury a young girl, strangled to death, punished for having transgressed the dangerous line between life and longing.

There are only a handful of people who accompany this woman’s body to the site beyond the graveyard where “dishonourable” women are buried in unmarked graves. They bury her under the cover of night, the stain of their shadows like blood seeping into the earth.

It has been a while now, since sadness lifted itself out of some deep chamber where I keep it buried. Kept buried long enough, there are chances that sorrow transmutes itself into acceptance. Much as I wish, the layers of silence that numb my view of my reality do not peel away like the skin of an onion. That denuding of my own illusions takes place only when sadness transforms itself into outrage, the outrage of a sky, the outrage of sensibilities which are constantly insulted by simplistic rhetoric couched in the hallowed language of progress.

Five years ago in Geneva, I found myself poised between fury and farce, a developing world nobody sandwiched between international luminaries serving as Goodwill Ambassadors for the United Nations. We were witnessing the birth of the Millennium Development Goals, or MDGs as they have come to be known. There was some debate on the priorities of the various objectives outlined in the UN formulated document — but largely there was acceptance of the lofty ideals towards which all civilized nations were to strive. I, in all my existential insignificance, seemed to be the only voice of dissent, a voice which insisted that these goals read like a shopping list, a wish list for a child’s Christmas present.

For those three days in Geneva, I was the enfant terrible, the one who couldn’t see what was comprehensive about a document which failed to address fundamental issues of the distribution of wealth, the ownership of production, global inequities, distortions of democratic norms, systemic injustices which reflect structural imbalances in power between nations, within nations, and the farcical sovereignty of so-called independent states. I insisted that while it was necessary to pursue each of the MDGs towards achieving a better quality of life for all, it was also necessary to see the connectedness of each goal to the other, the inherent causal relationships which force us to recognize that none of the issues the MDGs intend to address can be seen in isolation from the other.

Let us take four significant MDGs and analyze them. Perhaps that should help to understand why I have looked at this document with serious reservations. The first goal enshrined by this document is the eradication of extreme poverty and hunger by 2015. The question to be asked here is: Who creates food and wealth, who owns that food and wealth, and who consumes what is produced on the vast tracts of land worked by impoverished, landless tillers? Who controls the distribution of that food and wealth? Who controls the markets where the food is sold? Who decides on subsidies, on prices, on the fundamental planning of what crops are to be grown for consumption and which crops are to bring in cash? Who replaces staple grain with flowers so that the centre piece on the dining table of the wealthy costs more than the entire meal of the peasants who grew the plants in the first place?

The second goal refers to the achievement of universal primary education by 2005. Does this goal take into account that for countries like Pakistan, teacher absenteeism is a major issue which needs to be addressed? What about pay scales for these teachers, and training, and tools? What about the fact that there is a high dropout rate in primary schools because of the violence which children suffer at the hands of their teachers? Is there a concern here for the fact that many young, adolescent girls are taken out of school since the protection of their virginity is far more significant than the provision of an education?

In Pakistan, sending a girl to school means transgressing social norms which restrict young girls to the home, protecting them from harm beyond those walls. Even at the “model” school in Narowal run by the National Commission for Human Development, the young girls I spoke to you about their plans for further schooling told me that they shall not be able to go beyond the village to the secondary school across the road because of restrictions on their mobility.

That the teacher at this “model” school did not have a basic teaching tool, a blackboard, or the requisite training, is significant in itself, spiralling off a debate on the value of organizations which need to fund human development with the proceeds of fashion shows and the objectification of women inherent within.

The third goal addresses the need to eliminate gender disparities in education as well as in political, economic and social spheres. Does this goal address socio-economic structures in member states of the United Nations? In this country, two per cent of the population owns 70 per cent of its wealth.

In Pakistan, women occupy 33 per cent of local government seats, and 17 per cent of the National Assembly seats. Whether they are true representatives of their constituencies or are just serving in “proxy” capacities for vested interests which did not make it through the “stringent” criteria of the Election Commission is a major question. Have most of these representatives questioned the structural causes for the imbalance in power? Have the daughters and wives of feudal lords questioned the violence perpetrated by their men folk on the daughters and wives of powerless peasants? Has there been any effort, other than the lame look at passing legislation to address honour killings, to eliminate patriarchal institutions? Are they not just “prisoners of power” in hierarchical global and national social orders who cannot be creators or defenders of democracy?

Eliminating disparities in the economic spheres would necessitate rethinking the value of women’s work. It has been documented that while a man performs up to five tasks during the course of one working day, a woman performs thirty six tasks during the same day. Of course a woman’s work is never done, but that it is completely unrecognized is the issue at hand. How do women achieve economic parity when their work is not valued, when ownership and control of resources is denied to them? What is the proportion of assets owned by women? What is the share of women in wage employment in both the agricultural and industrial sectors?

Achieving social parity between men and women is the largest goal set by the Millennium Development Goals, larger than the eradication of hunger and poverty. The fact that this particular goal does not address the patriarchal institutions which ensure the continuation of a dominance-submission dynamic between men and women is troubling indeed. How do women break out of the confines of patriarchy without the dismantling of an ideology which believes in their inherent “inferiority”? How can one move towards the achievement of gender parity in any sphere without replacing patriarchal interests with more egalitarian ones that are compatible with the fulfilment of human rights for all?

How can one not address the question of the brutalization and dehumanization of women and girls in countries which profess to “honour their sisters and mothers”? How can one not point to the collusion of the state in crimes against women who are left vulnerable to further abuse by the custodians of the law? Is it possible to deny that violence is the predictable result of norms and inequities embedded in and expressed through the very structures of society? How can we not condemn the commodification of women inherent in capitalist economies? How do we ignore the objectification of women in the media which reduces human beings to sexual things created for the titillation of idle minds?

There are three MDGs which address health: Reducing child mortality, improving maternal health, and combating HIV/Aids and other diseases. Recently, the UN Human Development Report ranked Pakistan 135 out of the 177 countries covered by it. The same report states that higher incomes and growth rates in countries like India and China have not ensured the cutting of child mortality rates. In fact, Bangladesh, ranked 139, had cut this rate faster than these countries, suggesting that higher income alone does not ensure better health and education.

Indeed, in Pakistan, where health care consumes less than two per cent of the budget, government spending on the military exceeds 30 per cent of the national expenditure. We seem to have the resources to finance numerous junkets for irrelevant persons travelling on irrelevant purposes, but we do not have the resourcefulness to save the lives of mothers and children.

In Pakistan, more women die of pregnancy-related causes and unsafe abortions than in most parts of the world. The child mortality rate for girl children is higher than it is for boys, suggesting that once a female child is born, her nurturing is poorer than that of her brothers, leaving her vulnerable to disease and death.

Pakistan is one of the seven South Asian countries where the male to female sex ratio has been reversed, reminding one of the 60 million women missing from the South Asian population census. That most female fetuses are aborted following amniocentesis testing is testimony to this glaring omission and inhuman denial of women to the right to life itself.