Makkah declaration

UNLIKE the declarations issued in the past by Islamic summit conferences, the joint communique released by the summit at Makkah on Thursday is focussed on a reform of the Muslim world. Both the Makkah Declaration and the 10-year Programme of Action adopted by the summit lay emphasis on responding to the challenges facing the Muslim world in a manner that is realistic, forward-looking and result-oriented. The programme of action, prepared by scholars drawn from countries within and outside the OIC and presented to the summit conference, was is in response to King Abdullah’s call earlier this year for drawing up a plan that would “set the Muslim ummah free from its state of impotence and disunity”. The scholars divided themselves into three panels — one dealing with political and media issues, another with economy, science and technology, and the third with Islamic thought, culture and education. The recommendations are wide-ranging and go into details on such issues as extremism and sectarianism, good governance, conflict prevention and post-conflict conciliation, dialogue among civilizations, Islamophobia and rights of Muslim minorities. On specific issues — like Palestine, Kashmir and Cyprus — the joint communique reaffirms Muslim positions, demands an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and the Golan, calls for preserving Al Quds’s Islamic character, pleads for the right of the Kashmiris to decide their own future, and asks “concerned parties” to respect human rights — an implied reference to rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir.

It is, however, on terrorism and the problems stemming from it that the scholars have shown realism and an awareness of the fact that Muslims do not have an isolated existence but are part of the human community. As the joint communique notes, Islamic civilization is “an integral part of human civilization” and this means that any framework for reform and progress — though it must be within the Islamic mould — must be in harmony with the “achievements of human civilization”. This emphasis on co-existence and harmony with the rest of the world is essential, given the fact that the terrorist attacks in New York and later in Madrid and London have led to the rise of Islamophobia in large sections of the western media and public. Thus, while condemning terrorism in all its forms, the communique uses very strong words for groups that “misguide and mislead” Muslims and distort the Islamic principles of “love, peace, harmony, and the civilized way out”.

It remains to be seen whether the recommendations are translated into action. What must be welcomed is the realization among the Muslim leaders of the condition in which the majority of Muslim people live and the need for addressing such issues as poverty, illiteracy and disease. Eradicating these problems are tasks that need sustained efforts and not empty rhetoric in which the blame for the plight of the ummah is often put on the rest of the world. One may here recall the historic paper read by Algerian leader Houari Boumedienne at the second Islamic summit conference in Lahore in 1974. The task of uplifting the Muslim masses speedily would be possible only when the kings and dictators now ruling the Islamic world empower their people and make them partners in governance. The absence of democratic institutions in the Muslim world is the single biggest cause of the Islamic world’s economic, cultural and technological backwardness. The unity of the ummah is an important goal, but it can have meaning only when the Muslim masses live in freedom and prosperity rather than in want and disenfranchisement.

Waziristan under siege

VIOLENCE has once again erupted in Waziristan. The agency has been in turmoil since the war against terror was launched. Because it has been a sanctuary for many militants, the focus of the campaign shifted to that region, mainly Waziristan. Lately, things have taken a turn for the worse and in the last one week 54 people have been killed in Waziristan; five have been kidnapped, two of whom were later killed. What is more disturbing than the magnitude of violence is the spasmodic pattern of the killings which makes it difficult to determine the ground reality. The three broad elements involved in the violence are the militants — referred to as the Taliban, many of them foreigners but enjoying a good measure of local support — the locals opposing them and the Pakistan armed forces. But the battle lines are not very clearly drawn, with the allegiance of the various parties quite blurred. Some supporters of the administration have become vulnerable and have come under attack on suspicion of being informers. There are still others whose political loyalties to different religious parties complicate the situation.

This week’s outburst of violence has resulted in many deaths and left the government in a state of paralysis. In many places the law enforcement personnel have been pulled out — probably as a tactical measure — and the administration’s offices have also been moved to safer places. This has obviously given the impression of the government being in a state of retreat as it gropes in the dark for a clear political and military strategy. It is important that the army should crack down on the terrorists, especially the foreigners among them whose presence in the tribal areas is unlawful and damaging to Pakistan’s interest. At the same time, there is need for a policy of pacification and conciliation to win over the radicalized Pakistani elements. A political dialogue must be opened with the local leadership as well as the political parties that have some following in the area. Moreover, the safety of the locals who do not support the Taliban should be ensured by the security forces which should not be pulled out of the affected areas when they come under pressure. The present situation seems like a free-for-all

Controlling population growth

ONE of the participants at a workshop in Peshawar held to increase awareness about family planning estimated that at its current growth rate the country’s population could touch 1.04 billion by 2060. It would be unrealistic to believe that the present growth rate can be drastically reduced any time soon to avert that disaster. The country is riddled with examples where short-sighted policies are the cause of so many ills, population control being one of them. If there has been any success in bringing down the rate in the past, it is negligible. At the moment, the population growth rate stands at 2.2 per cent, which is still higher than the average of 1.7 per cent in less developed countries. It is equally unfortunate that while the government has taken serious note of this issue, funds have been allocated to the unnecessary building of a “Population House” ostensibly to provide facilities to those involved in promoting population welfare.

Part of the problem is that the debate on family planning still centres round whether it has been sanctioned by Islam. This is rather unfortunate given that other Muslim nations have adopted bold measures to slow down the growth rate. Pakistan has been unable to ensure that contraceptives are available in rural areas where they are most needed. Despite an international ulema conference on population welfare in Islamabad in May, the country has failed to overcome the cultural and religious bias on the issue. The plan to pay a stipend to those religious scholars who promote family planning has also not proved a success. Until the government tackles these issues head-on, estimates that predict Pakistan’s population will double in 32 years are likely to come true — and prove disastrous for the country.

Implications of Indo-US alliance

THE July visit of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to the US was hailed by both sides as a “historical watershed”. The true import of this visit, however, has not been sufficiently grasped by Pakistan, in particular the long-term adverse impact that growing Indo-US relations, especially in the context of a strategic partnership, would have on Pakistan.

Wide-ranging bilateral agreements, particularly those under the rubric of the “Framework for the US India Defence Relationship”, establish India as a major world power.

Of all the defence-related agreements, the most significant in its reach and impact has been the Proliferation Security Initiative. The PSI will confer on India a special status in the 44-member Nuclear Supplies Group (NSG), granting it permanent exemption from NSG guidelines which currently prevent India from purchasing nuclear reactors and bars nuclear cooperation with non-NPT members.

Major nuclear powers Britain, France and Canada are supportive of a special status for India, while Sweden has asked some “hard questions” and Brazil, Argentina and South Africa are at present opposed. The US is, however, determined to obtain the approval, as the proposal is “a key element of bilateral nuclear cooperation”, with India which it regards as “a strategic priority.”

President Bush is scheduled to visit India early next year and the administration is according the meeting high priority to securing NSG and US legislative approval needed for the implementation of this agreement. The next NSG session is scheduled in May 2006 but a special meeting would be convened to cross the hurdle. Congressional approval will be required before the meeting so that other nuclear suppliers may not beat US companies to the lucrative Indian markets.

The US proposal would effectively recognize India as the sixth nuclear weapons state and make it “assume responsibilities and practices and acquire the same benefits and advantage as other leading countries in sensitive nuclear technologies.”

The agreement would require India to separate its civilian and military nuclear facilities and place the civilian ones under IAEA safeguards and also sign an additional protocol allowing intrusive IAEA inspections of its military nuclear facilities. While initial reports indicated a “deep unease” on Capitol Hill with several legislations expressing concerns that the deal excessively benefited India and undermined international efforts for non-proliferation that US administration remains confident of congressional approval.

The lawmakers have been told that India’s nuclear weapons do not pose a threat to America’s security or geo-political interests. In fact, the strategic partnership is seen as advancing America’s strategic objectives in Asia and beyond. It is also being argued in some circles that the agreement is a part of a grand strategy being laid by the to prepare US for a conflict with China and constructing an anti-China coalition. “In that scenario India is even more valuable as a nuclear power rather than as a non-nuclear country.” This also explains the US policy to help India become, “a major world power in the 21st century.”

Ashley J. Tellis, an analyst of Indian origin with Carnegie Endowment, in a study entitled “India as a new global power. An action agenda for the United States” argues that India should be viewed as part of the solution to nuclear non-proliferation rather than as a part of the problem.” He goes on to recommend that “by integrating India into the non-proliferation order at the cost of capping the size of its eventual nuclear deterrent, the US would place New Delhi at a severe disadvantage vis-a-vis Beijing, a situation that could not only undermine Indian security but also US interest in Asia in the face of the prospective rise of Chinese power over the long term.”

The considerable opposition to the US-India nuclear deal on the Hill can be overcome with those strategic implications and India’s volte face in IAEA on the Iranian vote which has already softened US legislators’ concern. The Indian vote, in the forthcoming meeting in Vienna will finally set at rest their concerns. Nuclear experts and those committed to non-proliferation have expressed opposition to the deal in their testimonies before the International Relations Committee meeting on Oct 26, but their real impact is only academic.

There is no denying that there are considerable difficulties and opposition to the proposed deal, but looking at the broader picture of how both countries perceive the deal of permanent interest against their respective potential and strategic objectives, the agreement after initial hiccups would go through.

United States, in the words of under-secretary of state Nicholas Burns “considers India to be one of our most important partners worldwide. We have never had a relationship in nearly 60 years with India like the one we have now established.”

The NSG countries, after initial reservations, are also likely to defer to the US proposal. They may, however, seek more information from India, particularly on the classification of its civil and military reactors. India has 14 nuclear reactors and eight are under different stages of construction. Manmohan Singh in his forthcoming Moscow visit in mid-December into ask for four additional nuclear reactors for the Koodan Mulam atomic power plant, after the NSG impediment has been cleared.

The Indian declaration of a particular facility as civil or military could, however, pose problems. Canada is already watching how the CIRUS reactor set up by it would be categorized. It is not under IAEA safeguards. However, Canada did stipulate that it could be used only for peaceful purposes. Nonetheless, CIRUS has produced much of the weapons plutonium stockpile, and could produce up to 10 kilogrammes of plutonium in a year.

India is required to initiate actions on its part simultaneously with NSG and Capitol Hill actions to facilitate the process. India would file the declaration regarding its civilian facilities with the IAEA. Until now it had agreed to put only the new facilities, like the two Tarapur reactors and one Rajasthan under IAEA control.

India is also required to secure its nuclear material and technology through comprehensive export control legislation and adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR). These actions are “different, complex and time consuming”, as Burns noted. The US action at the Hill would be concurrent to the Indian “taking the necessary steps to fulfil our agreement.”

While the US leadership has extended assurances to Pakistan that the nuclear deal with India is not against Pakistan, its serious implications for Pakistan’s security cannot be overlooked. Pakistan must persevere in its demand for being accorded a similar status at par with India. The Pakistani role in and contribution to the war against terror has been phenomenal and has vastly served US security interests. Why can’t the US reciprocate, by following to a non-discriminatory approach towards India and Pakistan? The China dimension of the emerging nuclear relations between New Delhi and Washington must be causing serious concern to Beijing.

Given our 40 years of close partnership with China, it would be worthwhile to convince China that a similar “strategic partnership” with Pakistan would redress the imbalance in the region to our mutual advantage. The selective application of the NPT by the US should also release China from any obligation not to follow the same course.

To pre-empt Pakistan getting a similar deal during his Washington visit, Manmohan Singh raised the bogey of “religious extremists” seizing Pakistan’s nuclear assets. “I have to be realistic enough to recognize the role that terrorist elements have played in the last few years in the history of Pakistan.”

Foreign Secretary Shyam Saran in a lecture explaining India’s vote against Iran at the Sept 24 IAEA meeting dilated on the same theme. He called for “a new global consensus on non-proliferation which can take into account new challenges, based on new and more stringent standards being observed in expert controls on sensitive technologies such as these involved in reprocessing and enrichment” and referred to Dr. A.Q. Khan as “a man who has been accused of running a global nuclear Wal-mart.”

Struggles in Afghanistan

PARLIAMENTARY elections in Afghanistan three months ago resulted in the most unlikely of career moves for many of the candidates. Once they were warlords or Taliban fighters; now they are legislators who can craft policy to rebuild the country they helped devastate.

The election results offered a troubling portrait of the future for a nation racked by decades of invasion and war. Worse, the balloting has done nothing to stop the killing in the bloodiest year since the United States ousted the Taliban from power four years ago. Insurgents continue to wreak havoc and kill US soldiers and Afghan civilians.

As insurgents borrow a page from the Al Qaeda playbook in Iraq, suicide car bombings, once rare, have become more common. Last month, assailants struck in Kabul, the capital, as two cars rammed into crowds and killed nine people, including a German soldier. Kidnappings also are on the rise. An Indian working on a road project was kidnapped and killed in November; in August, two Japanese tourists and a British engineer were kidnapped and killed in the south. Nearly 90 US soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan this year, twice as many as last year.

— Los Angeles Times