DAWN - Opinion; September 21, 2005
Dilemmas of the same kind
THE United Nations at 60 is weak and frail, not in size, but in terms of its credibility and authority. It now also stands crippled by scandals of corruption, inefficiency and gross mismanagement. Two years senior in age to our own country, it is doing no better with a woeful record of failures and a dismal culture of poor governance.
Throughout its independent statehood, Pakistan that came into being as a fortress of ‘peace and honour” for the Muslims of the subcontinent, has gone through traumatic experiences, including costly wars, loss of half the country, political breakdowns, military takeovers, economic stagnation and social malaise.
Throughout its existence since it came into being as “mankind’s last best hope”, the UN has failed to deliver on its Charter obligations. It has prevented no war or genocide and resolved no dispute and remains helplessly far from fulfilling its promise of peace and prosperity. In both cases, the visions given to them by their founding fathers remain unfulfilled. Democratic norms as well as the respective basic legal frameworks, the Charter in the case of the UN and the Constitution in the case of Pakistan have received little respect or adherence in practical terms.
The vision of an ideal democratic state and a progressive Pakistan promising to its people long-cherished freedom, genuine democracy and social justice remains illusive. The UN also envisioned a global system, which would be based on justice and equity and governed by rules, laws, values and cooperation. Unfortunately, the world that ensued was neither just nor equal, and remains divided between two unequal parts, one incredibly rich, and the other desperately poor.
Agonizingly, since independence, Pakistan has been wallowing in political and economic uncertainty and has had neither domestic stability nor peaceful borders. Its 58-year political history has been replete with crises that perhaps no other country in the world has experienced.
In both cases, the goals of freedom from fear, want and ignorance continue to elude realization. Pakistan has not achieved socio-political stability and economic self-reliance nor has the UN freed the world from conflict, oppression, violence, poverty, hunger and disease. Pakistan’s founder Mohammad Ali Jinnah had warned against the “evils” of bribery, corruption, black-marketing, nepotism and jobbery. He wanted these evils to be nipped with “an iron hand”.
We as a nation have not only failed to grapple with these challenges but are living with these problems as an “integral” part of our society. Crime and corruption are rampant. Aversion to the rule of law is endemic. Poor governance is our national hallmark. There is constant erosion of law and order.
The UN’s reality is no less grim. As a universal organization, it was meant to provide a moral edifice for the reordering of the global system in conformity with its ideals and to function as an instrument of international legitimacy upholding the “fundamental values of freedom, tolerance and solidarity as well as the basic principles of human dignity, equality and equity” at the global level. Unfortunately, the UN has never risen above the considerations of “power and expediency”. Today’s UN is no more than a debating club, producing voluminous and repetitive documentation without any tangible results.
And now, according to Paul Volcker’s Independent Inquiry Committee, which Secretary-General Kofi Annan had himself tasked to look into the scandals surrounding the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme, has indicted the UN as being guilty of “illicit, unethical and corrupt” behaviour.
Though absolved himself of any wrongdoing, the secretary-general is being blamed for “poor leadership and complacency” over the scandals involving the Iraqi Oil-for-Food Programme and sexual abuse charges against senior UN officials as well as the blue-helmeted peace-keepers in Africa.
Indeed, the UN has never been so helpless and ineffective in meeting its Charter obligations. In recent years, its role has been circumvented by the unabashed use of power. The new unipolarity is responsible for an ominous effect on the role and relevance of the UN, leaving very little to be addressed meaningfully through a multilateral approach.
Ironically, both Pakistan and the UN have been at the mercy of the US, always in need of “political and material” support and succour from Washington for their survival. Both have had painful experiences and yet have learnt no lessons. Both seem to be content with their respective “errands” and roles on behalf and in the interest of the sole superpower of this century. Both appear to have no other option. Perhaps they have a point.
The world has changed. Pakistan and the UN confront a dual challenge in terms of the risks and opportunities presented to them by the turbulent world of today. After a century of “great wars” and “great upsurge” in terms of freedom, democracy and human rights, the new millennium unfortunately did not start well for Pakistan and the UN.
Both remain burdened with the same problems, perhaps in their acutest form. Pakistan’s difficulties have been exacerbated by decades of political ineptitude and instability, protracted military rule, economic stagnation, rampant corruption, and general aversion to the rule of law. Religious extremism, obscurantism and terrorism-related problems have given Pakistan a new identity and placed it on the global radar screen.
For the UN, its multiple challenges lie in the uninterrupted global legacy of armed conflict, unresolved disputes, military occupations, invasions in the name of self-defence, wars of aggression and attrition, human tragedies and humanitarian catastrophes, massacres and genocides, which continue to define the “new world disorder.” There is no let up in violence. Injustice and oppression continue unabated. Poverty, hunger, disease, and above all, human rights violations and denial of basic rights are endemic to most societies.
The global development agenda has been set aside, if not shelved. Humanity finds itself divided along economic and religious lines. Dialogue among civilizations is almost dead.
The economic adventurism of the 19th century is resurfacing. Iraq is still burning. Peace has yet to come to Afghanistan. Kashmir stands disillusioned. Palestine has given up. Terrorism is the new scourge afflicting our world. Unfortunately, the war on terror has not gone beyond retribution and retaliation.
According to the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, terrorism is the product of what he once described as “a broader mix of problems caused by bad governments, opportunistic politicians and militant leaders who exploit grievances”. At one time, he also believed that “when there are no legitimate means of addressing the massive and systemic political, economic and social inequalities, an environment is created in which peaceful solutions often lose out against extreme and violent alternatives”. Our president also subscribes to this view and believes that terrorism stems from unresolved disputes and issues that have not been addressed, giving rise to forces of hatred and violence.
With growing complexity and magnitude of inter-connected global challenges, the despair over the UN’s capacity to manage these has been increasing. What aggravates this bleak scenario is the growing inability of the international community to respond to these challenges with unity of purpose. There is no global consensus on major peace and security issues or on how to address them. The UN General Assembly, despite its universal character, has no role or authority in decisions of global relevance and impact.
In Pakistan too, there is no consensus on major national issues with the mainstream political forces standing “marginalized,” and the country’s parliament remaining “trivialized”. The people of Pakistan or the parliaments “elected” in their name have also had no role in determining the course of their history or the direction of their country’s political, economic and social policies.
The closeness of problems and challenges between Pakistan and the UN does not end here. Both suffer a serious image problem with deep-rooted negative perceptions about their policies and performance. Both are conscious of the need to correct this image and their leadership, howsoever beleaguered, is sparing no effort to manage the grim situation.
President Musharraf is seeking to enlighten Pakistan with “moderation and tolerance” while also projecting its credentials of “peace and honour” at regional and global levels. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, on his part, has been vigorously pursuing “bold and radical” reform for the strengthening of the United Nations. Intentions on the part of both are genuine but the issues they are seeking to grapple with are complex and need an attitudinal change.
These are exceptional times warranting exceptional responses to common challenges. With this imperative in mind, the secretary-general through his report In Larger Freedom, tried to forge a global consensus on core issues of “development, security, human rights and UN renewal”. In his ambitious approach, however, he went too far in advocating the “realities of power” and espousing a “compromise” on principles.
The overwhelming majority of UN membership also saw in his report a clear imbalance in the development-related content and the “security agenda”. Some thought he was more responsive to the preferences of a particular group of influential countries and trying to appease certain quarters at a time when he was under “pressure and scrutiny” on his handling of the Oil-for-Food Programme.
In New York, world leaders, found it difficult to endorse the secretary-general’s “ambitious” agenda or to allow him the authority and powers of a “corporate chief executive officer”. They gave him only a limited framework to proceed with his reform programme.
What is clear in today’s context is that both in Pakistan and the UN, the “system and methods of governance” are no longer an issue of relevance as far as the international community is concerned. Perhaps, there is no alternative to continuing with the present system in both cases.
There must be lot of anxiety, however, among the major powers on the prospect of “succession” which in both cases will be due in 2007. Kofi Annan’s renewal of office has statutory limitations, though as in 2001, he may be counting on Asia’s inability to field a unanimous candidate this time too.
On his part, President Musharraf is well-entrenched, both domestically and externally, constitutional constraints notwithstanding, for another five-year term.
Meanwhile, there is “good news” in the final outcome at the New York Summit for us in Pakistan. A “democracy fund” has been established at the UN in support of “democratic principles and practices” in the member states. Whatever its size, the fund may not be sufficient to meet the “going price” of getting elected to Pakistan’s local bodies or assemblies or for switching loyalties and affiliations, but hopefully will be sufficient at least to serve the “genuine” needs of our politicians in terms of their “training and travelling” in the name of democracy. No wonder, India, the largest democracy, will be contributing significantly through “generous funds and rich experience”.
On its part, the UN is also groping for help to reinforce and renovate its 38-storey headquarters building in New York at an estimated cost of a billion dollars. An American business magnate, Donald Trump is believed to have offered assistance. The UN in need will indeed accept the offer, if it has not already done so. But it will never consider moving its headquarters to a more “hospitable” city even if the host government offers to build at its own cost “an equally grand and posh” premises. In the ultimate analysis, indeed, Pakistan and the UN, despite their “dilemmas of the same kind,” have no choices.
The writer is a former foreign secretary.
Crime with social implications
ON SEPT 5, a six-year old girl in Badin was abducted as she was walking down to a neighbourhood store, raped, tortured and murdered. Her grieving father, Abdul Haq, came down to Karachi when he learnt that a demonstration was being held outside the Press Club last Friday.
More than grief was the acute sense of injustice that had weighed him down since his daughter’s brutal murder. The rapist had been caught but was bringing pressure on the police to release him in lieu of some monetary compensation. The aggrieved family was demanding justice. There the matter stands.
Justice was also the demand of the 200 or so men and women who had gathered at the gate of the Karachi Press Club, a spot that has emerged as an island of free speech in a besieged city. They were protesting against President Pervez Musharraf’s reported remarks on rape. The Washington Post of September 13 carried an interview with the president in which he described rape as a money-making concern in Pakistan. He went on to say, “A lot of people say if you want to go abroad and get a visa for Canada or citizenship and be a millionaire, get yourself raped.”
Coming from him and on foreign soil, these words shocked people, not just in his own country but also in Canada. Prime Minister Paul Martin, who spoke to the president on the sidelines of the UN Assembly, told a news conference televised live in Canada, “I stated unequivocally that comments such as that are not acceptable and that violence against women is also a blight that besmirches all humanity.”
When the uproar set in, President Musharraf retracted saying he was wrongly quoted. The denial came a whit too late because two days had elapsed since the interview was published and reactions had already set in. Later, Glenn Kessler, Washington Post staff writer, in an article in his paper on Sept 19, wrote : “The interview was conducted by three Washington Post reporters and was tape-recorded. A review of the recording...confirmed that Musharraf — who was surrounded by aides who took notes and also recorded the interview — was accurately quoted.”
It might be recalled that only a few months ago the president had ordered that Mukhtaran Mai be placed on the Exit Control List. Mukhtaran is the woman from Meerwala who has made history by standing up against her jirga-ordered rapists. President Musharraf didn’t want her to leave the country on the invitation of an NGO in America. He explained that his concern was that she would bring Pakistan a bad name abroad.
It is strange that despite his obsession with a soft image for Pakistan, the president didn’t remember to mind his own language. Hasn’t he himself sullied the country’s image by making such allegations to a nationally circulated newspaper in America at a time when 160 or so world leaders had gathered in New York for the millennium summit? And since most of these countries consider rape to be a “blight” that they all have to address, the public rebuke from Mr Martin was not unexpected.
The Joint Action Committee for People’s Rights which brings together 21 NGOs — some of them umbrella organizations under which a number of organizations operate — gave the call for Friday’s demonstration saying, “We strongly resent these remarks of General Musharraf against the women of Pakistan which reflect a patriarchal attitude. It is deplorable that instead of offering justice to innocent victims of violence, General Musharraf has labelled them as racketeers and money-makers, thereby encouraging the perpetrators of heinous crimes against women.”
President Musharraf’s contention is that rape is a crime which takes place in every country. So why should Pakistan be singled out? To prove his point he called a regional conference in Islamabad on violence against women earlier this month ostensibly to trumpet his government’s “pro-women” policies in a world that is universally known to commit violence against women. But what shocks one is the president’s inability or refusal to comprehend the essence of the problem in Pakistan. As in the case of Abdul Haq whose little child was raped and murdered in Badin, it is the injustice coming in the wake of rape that compounds the hurt and anger of the victim.
Take the case of Mukhtaran Mai. Having suffered at the hands of members of a socially powerful caste which had the backing of a jirga, Mukhtaran could never have obtained a trial for herself without the publicity she received in the media and the support of civil society — another term for NGOs who also stand condemned by the government for their role in highlighting the human rights violations in the country. No sooner had the media attention flagged a bit the alleged rapists were let off. The pressure had to be kept on constantly. In Sonia Naz’s case, the police are the alleged culprits and she can never hope for the normal course of justice.
The most worrying aspect of the problem of violence against women in Pakistan is that in a patriarchal society where men consider it their right to keep a tab on women such an approach places the onus on the woman to prove that she did not invite the rape. The impression conveyed is that if women are raped, they themselves are to be blamed. As a result the perpetrators feel absolved of all responsibility for their crime. This only encourages violence against women as our society, including its leader preaching enlightened moderation, regresses into the pre-women’s liberation age when women were universally expected to protect their honour and were held responsible when they failed to do so.
Western societies, where, as President Musharraf pointed out, rapes are still committed in their thousands, do not accept the inevitability of rape. They consider it a “blight”, to use Mr Paul Martin’s words. Besides they do not pin the guilt of being raped on a woman. Thanks to decades of the feminist movement, the police, the judicial system and the administration provide protection and support to the victim.
After all the research that has been done on the subject, rape is regarded as a legacy of a patriarchal society where men use gender violence to perpetuate their dominance over women. Even in societies where women have won a measure of liberation and gender equality underpins the concept of human rights, rape has not been eliminated. In Pakistan, all the power structures — the family, religious institutions, landownership, entrepreneurship, government set-up, defence and police forces — being patriarchal in their mindset, it has been an uphill struggle for women for their emancipation.
There have been positive aspects of this struggle, though. The silence has been broken and what was once considered a family matter to be brushed under the carpet has now been brought into the open. This is the result of the consciousness raising campaign launched by the Women’s Action Forum 24 years ago when it came into existence to seek justice for women victimized by the Hudood Ordinances. There is no going back on this issue.
The second positive aspect of this struggle is the involvement of a large number of men in it. They have been sensitized to the indignities women are subjected to in our society. They are conscientious people who feel they have to come forward to demand equal rights for women. For them rape is as much a man’s issue as a woman’s issue. Rape is not a personal matter which happens to an unfortunate woman. It is a political issue — primitive man’s expression of power over women. That is why in wartime armies not only kill people they are fighting against, they also rape the women. This happened in Bangladesh in 1971 and in Bosnia in the nineties. It is a sign of progress that many of our men have outgrown this mindset. In the demonstration on Friday, there were more men present than women.
It is, therefore, time that these men should also mobilize their ilk in an effort to change their psyche. It is happening in many countries where men’s anti-violence projects have mushroomed and men are emerging as the strongest allies of women.
As Jonah Gokova, a member of the Zimbabwe-based Padare, says, “It is important for men to sit down and interrogate themselves and identify a new man within themselves whose identity does not thrive on conquest or on the use of violence against women.”
Politics and the PM
In fact there are two schools of thought on the subject. One is that by not indulging in politics Shaukat Aziz gets only praise and commendation and is spared the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune that are a necessary part of a politician’s life. Is he then running away from politics?
The other is more realistic and, if I may say so, also an essential requisite of democratic practice. Whatever you may say about the ruling regime in Pakistan today, it is a PML government and an ostrich-like stance is not in keeping with either reality or what one expects of a highly sensible and bold leader of the country.
Since this is the topic of my piece today let me clarify one aspect of it. When I call it a PML regime I do not attach any letter of the alphabet to it to denote its political affiliation. I have a theory that these letters are only a sop to the vanity of the respective politicians whom they represent, while basically it remains a Pakistan Muslim League dispensation. And this is where Shaukat Aziz, who, like most of his educated countrymen, must have a sentimental attachment with the Quaid-i-Azam’s party — the party that gave us Pakistan — comes in.
It is now a well-known fact that Shaukat Aziz has his own team of trusted advisers and aides whose sole duty is to keep the ship of state on an even economic keel. This is his favourite subject, and has over the years become his favourite occupation, to the exclusion, as people allege, of politics. Whatever the truth of the assertion it has certainly taken Pakistan up and up in world ranking in the matter of deregulation and economic reforms. A World Bank report entitled Doing Business 2006 includes Pakistan among the 12 top reformers in the world.
The report is based on eleven steps for entrepreneurs to launch a business and is a study of various countries that offer incentives and a helpful atmosphere. Overall, New Zealand comes out best to do business with followed by Singapore, the US, Canada, Norway, etc. It is heartening that ever since Shaukat Aziz came on the scene, Pakistan’s rating has come up to 12th from the previous abysmally low figure.
I have no means of gauging the PM’s mind so far as involvement in politics is concerned, but there are indications that he is not totally averse to thinking and talking politics. It is said that newspapers are sometimes the best way of understanding a government leader’s mind. Recent news reports in various dailies are a significant pointer to the change in Shaukat Aziz’s attitude towards matters other than economic reform.
One was about Saarc and the prime minister’s expressed view that the organization should be made more active in order to ensure progress and prosperity of one-fifth of the world’s population living in the seven member-countries. I was a little surprised to read it, because, going by his work-style, one should have thought that this fell in the category of foreign affairs, a subject that people justifiably felt lay in the president’s portfolio. I think the news report was quite suggestive of the prime minister’s interests and his responsibilities.
The report from Multan must have come as a welcome development for Shaukat Aziz that, in the local government elections, the opposition parties had failed to find potential candidates for the top district slots in most of the cases in south Punjab, except in two districts. No prime minister, howsoever apolitical he may be, can see it fit to ignore such a development because of Multan’s political importance. In fact I think all news about the elections, whether good, bad or indifferent from the government’s point of view, is sure to have excited the imagination of Shaukat Aziz.
Looking at his reactions as a whole one cannot but take notice of a press statement issued by him at the conclusion of the LG elections that the manner of the polls had been entirely satisfactory and that the government had no cause to go along with the allegation that many of the elections had been rigged by one party or another.
Then, what would you say to the report splashed across every newspaper some days ago that the prime minister had held a meeting with Makhdoom Amin Fahim, president of the Alliance for Restoration of Democracy (ARD) in the National Assembly during the current session of parliament? If Shaukat Aziz finds politics taboo, or intellectually unpalatable, why should he take the trouble of having a tete-a-tete with the ARD chief right before the eyes of the whole elected assembly?
The meeting lasted 20 minutes and the leaders discussed the political situation of the country. A short while afterwards he held another meeting — this time with Liaquat Baloch and Hafiz Husain Ahmed, legislators of the Muttahida Majlis-e-Amal. He told press reporters later that “We are used to meet in order to discuss issues of mutual interest. The opposition has its own point of view while the government has its own. This only shows that we don’t believe in negative politics.”
So, while there may be some truth in the opinion held by many people that Shaukat Aziz feels more comfortable with economic problems rather than with the vagaries of politics, it can be safely asserted now that he feels a change in attitude on his part is called for. In any case, he is the chief executive of Pakistan, and he is the best person to decide how he must spend his time and with whom. The great thing about his activities is that no one can lift an accusing finger about their propriety or otherwise.