Resolving Iranian crisis
THE United States is once again mounting pressure on the Islamic Republic of Iran with whom it has a 27-year-old score to settle. Three years of frustration in Iraq have failed to produce an understanding of the need for the US to review its controversial policies embodied in the Bush doctrine. Though a government has been formed in Baghdad more than five months after elections, it doe snot appear to have scaled down the anarchy and bloodshed that has prevailed in the country since its occupation by the US-led coalition in 2003.
Having toured the Middle East extensively, President Bush should have grasped a better judgment about the feasibility of his ‘grand design’ to bring democracy and development to a region characterised by autocratic regimes. Indeed, his problem now is how to devise an exit strategy that will enable the US and coalition forces to withdraw with a semblance of dignity. For this, a dialogue with Iran offers the best hope. Instead, he is pursuing a vendetta against the Islamic regime in Tehran and while maintaining multilateral pressure continues to hurl threats of use of force, preferably under cover of Chapter 7 of the UN Charter.
So far, while the UN Security Council has gone along with the US in its call for greater compliance with the International Atomic Energy Agency rules for confidence building measures, Russia and China have preferred that the matter remain within the purview of the IAEA and that the latter is not made an instrument of US pressure via the Security Council. However, the US appears to have no intention of letting the war clouds disperse, by its insistence on invoking Chapter 7 to impose sanctions on Iran for persisting in uranium enrichment, even though such enrichment for peaceful purposes is permissible for signatories of the NPT.
Washington is showing almost a reckless determination in bringing the Islamic regime in Tehran to heel, possibly by trying to bring about a regime change. It believes that the trends of the past two or three years, notably the collapse of Libya’s defiance, show that firm policies, backed by the type of pre-emption used in Afghanistan and Iraq, are adequate to demoralise militants and religious hardliners.
The current phase of US pressure followed the surprise election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, former mayor of Tehran, as president in June 2005. He defeated former President Rafsanjani, who was regarded as a pragmatist, willing to build bridges to the West. Ahmadinejad, while holding populist views on economic issues is an ideological conservative, who identifies himself with the clergy-dominated school led by Ayatollah Khamenei that supports militant Islam. It was the defiant attitude of this group that led Bush to include Iran in the “axis of evil”.
Iran’s plans to acquire uranium enrichment technology for peaceful use to which it was entitled as a signatory of the NPT had been on hold as it had suspended uranium enrichment under an agreement with Britain, France and Germany which had undertaken to transfer peaceful technology to Iran. However, the three western powers had not delivered on the promise, and in the meantime accusations were raised against Iran about its efforts to acquire this technology secretly. The US, in the meantime, accused Tehran of efforts to develop a nuclear weapon and demanded more stringent controls and inspections.
President Ahmadinejad did not endear himself to the US or its allies by recalling, on more than one occasion, Imam Khomeini’s statement that Israel should be wiped off the map, since its creation was based on extreme injustice to the people of Palestine. This was in response to mounting military attacks by the Sharon regime in Israel against the Palestinians. He also declared that since its two-year long suspension of uranium enrichment had not been reciprocated, Iran would be within its rights to restart its programme. President Bush responded by repeating his accusation that the Islamic regime in Iran was one of the main sponsors of terrorism, and the US would be justified in eliminating its centres of nuclear research that were a threat to its security. Iran called upon the UN to stop the US from resorting to military action since Tehran was extending full cooperation to the IAEA.
The year 2006 has seen mounting tension as the Islamic regime in Iran has persisted in its defiant stance against the US. Though keeping the diplomatic path open, especially through the three European powers that have been engaging with it on behalf of the West, the US has also kept preparing for resort to force. On the one hand it has supplied Israel with 100 deep-penetrating bombs that can cause havoc comparable to that by nuclear weapons, and on the other it is getting ready to use pre-emptive force if it can get the Security Council to endorse sanctions under Chapter 7. By now, the decision to attack Iraq without UN sanction has cost Bush so heavily in terms of domestic support that he is really anxious to secure UN backing.
Despite the continuing mayhem in Afghanistan and Iraq, and his decreasing popular support at home, President Bush is showing such persistence in seeking grounds for military intervention that many analysts are genuinely worried that he might attack Iran since his calculations are that Iran is isolated.
As a powerful Shia country, the Arab and other non-Shia Muslim countries may not extend serious support, and may in fact be secretly pleased if Iran is brought to heel. Bush does not expect Iranian resistance to be a serious impediment, and believes that the majority of Muslim countries that matter are already with him. The rest of the developing countries, as well as the UN and other multilateral forums may not cause much of a problem, and a quick military success would rekindle American pride over the punishment meted out to a country whose leader talks of wiping Israel off the map of the world.
While this would be the reasoning of the hawks around him, an objective analysis would reveal that there are powerful arguments against the resort to war. Iran has been fairly active diplomatically to present its case against the accusation that it is violating the NPT, and that it poses a threat to peace. Russia and China, which are major trading partners of Iran, have been opposed to the matter being put on the agenda of the Security Council. Their view is that the IAEA should be strengthened and that the Security Council should not be involved unless a genuine threat to peace exists.
This brings us to the role of the IAEA whose director-general Mr El-Baradei was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize last year. His report to the Security Council did not totally clear Iran but it called for further investigation before backing any conclusion that justifies sanctions or other punitive action. Indeed, the five permanent members, who are the only legitimate nuclear powers, would be seen to be in much greater violation of the NPT since none of them have acted to reduce their nuclear weapons. If Iran ratifies the special protocols on nuclear inspection it signed two years ago and continues to cooperate with the IAEA in opening up all its facilities, there would be no justification for any punitive action.
We may recall that President Ahmadinejad addressed a lengthy letter to President Bush on May 7, in which he not only repeated his assurances on the peaceful nature of Iran’s nuclear programme, but also called for a direct dialogue. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has also urged the two countries to hold direct talks, a view supported by the majority of world leaders who have expressed their views.
The text of a resolution for the Security Council, drafted mainly by the US and European countries, is being considered. China and Russia, both permanent members with veto power, have already made their views public. They would prefer that the question is brought back to IAEA and that Iran extend full cooperation to that body to reassure the international community that its nuclear programme is peaceful. They will reaffirm their view on nuclear non-proliferation but they are unlikely to agree to sanctions, or to involving Chapter 7, that might encourage resort to force. The majority of Muslim countries also support a diplomatic solution and Pakistan has said that it sees no ground for resort to force as that will upset the entire Muslim world.
Looking at the unfolding scenario, Iran has given clear assurances about the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme. It is cooperating with the IAEA which should remain the organisation responsible for verification. If the US chooses to apply the doctrine of pre-emption in this case, not only will its own difficulties increase, the prevailing world order will be greatly disturbed. Besides, the price of oil and gas may break the $100 barrier, and result in hardship and an economic setback to the whole world. The UN will not give the US a carte blanche to attack Iran. The decision will have to be taken by the US on a unilateral basis and one can only hope that the great traditions of that great power will prevail. These stand for peace, progress and democracy, rather than mindless destruction a la Genghis Khan.
The writer is a former ambassador.
Movie of mass destruction
(This column was written by Art Buchwald from his hospice in Washington, D.C., where he is undergoing care. Buchwald has resumed writing his regular column.)
THE war isn’t over, but that hasn’t stopped Hollywood from making its plans. Parafox is at work right now on its first war blockbuster.
The producer and his staff are gathered in his palatial offices. He asks the art director, “How many Iraqis do we need for the battle scene?”
The art director replies, “We could use 100,000. There is a lot of unemployment in Iraq now, so we can get them cheap.”
The casting director asks, “Do we want to use Sunnis or Shias?”
The producer replies, “The Sunnis had all the fun under Saddam, so we ought to give the Shias a break.”
The assistant casting director says, “The Kurds have a powerful extras union, so we have to set aside some jobs for them.”
The producer adds, “In the movie the good guys should be wearing uniforms.”
The art director agrees, “Good idea, because the bad guys shouldn’t have uniforms. They should look like the Arab fighters in ‘Lawrence of Arabia.’ We could use a lot of leftover footage from that film.”
The producer asks, “Where are we going to make the film?”
The director answers, “Well, it’s too dangerous to make it in Iraq. Maybe we could shoot it in Arizona.”
The producer agrees. “There are parts of Arizona that look exactly like Iraq.”
The director says, “OK, now let’s deal with the plot. We have a despot like Saddam Hussein. The picture opens with him coming out of a spider hole, surrounded by American troops. They take him to Tucson, which we’ll fix up so it looks like Baghdad.
“Tom Cruise will play a CIA agent, and every time he captures a terrorist he will fly him off to some friendly country to be tortured.”
The art director says, “That will save us a lot of money not having to rebuild Guantanamo. We’ll make a deal with the CIA to use their aeroplanes to fly the terrorists there. Do you want to eliminate the woman Army guard who tortured the prisoners at Abu Ghraib?”
The producer says, “No, we have to have a love story.”
The casting director says, “How about Angelina Jolie?”
The director says, “She has very good connections with the United Nations, so the audience will be rooting for her.”
The producer says, “We still don’t have a plot.”
The screenwriter says, “Suppose Secretary Rumsfeld is coming to Baghdad and the insurgency finds out about it. They make an announcement on Al-Jazeera saying Rumsfeld is coming to Baghdad to resign.”
Someone asks, “Who do we get to play Rumsfeld?”
The director answers, “We could get Rumsfeld to play himself.”
The producer asks, “Has anybody checked out how many coalition soldiers we need?”
The casting director replies, “We could get by with 150,000.”
The screenwriter says, “Every 10 minutes in the film we will have a shot of President Bush announcing that the war is over.”
The producer asks, “Do we have a finish for the film?”
“The president wants to make Tom Cruise head of the CIA, but Angelina makes him turn it down because there is no job security.” —Dawn/Tribune Media Services
Attack on human rights
THIS is a dangerous time for freedom in Britain. The country’s most powerful politicians have joined its irresponsible press in a shameful attack on the idea of human rights.
Tony Blair says that the nation needs to re-examine what he calls the “philosophy” behind the Human Rights Act so as to change the balance it strikes between individual freedom and the community’s security. David Cameron says a Tory government would reform that act or repeal it entirely. The rightwing press goes still further: the Telegraph calls for Britain to renounce the European Convention on Human Rights that Britain sponsored (it was signed in London) in 1950.
The immediate cause of Blair’s turning against human rights appears to be his government’s embarrassment at having botched the prosecution of the Afghan hijackers and lost track of aliens released from jail. But the two provisions he most wants to “balance” away have a more pervasive impact: a ruling that forbids deporting aliens to countries where they are likely to be tortured and killed; and the provisions the House of Lords relied on in its 2005 Belmarsh decision condemning the government’s policy of indefinite detention of suspected terrorists without trial.
People accused of crimes or terrorism may have rights, Blair says, including the right not to be imprisoned indefinitely without trial and the right not to be sent where they will be killed. But the British public has rights, too, and a new balance must be struck between the two sets of rights. The balancing metaphor is dangerous because it suggests no principled basis for deciding how much torture we should facilitate, or for how many years we should jail people without trial. It leaves that decision up to politicians who are anxious to pander to the tabloids.
The metaphor is deeply misleading because it assumes that we should decide which human rights to recognise through a kind of cost-benefit analysis, the way we might decide what speed limits to adopt. It suggests that the test should be the benefit to the British public, as Blair declared in his “Let’s talk” speech, when he said that “the demands of the majority of the law-abiding community have to take precedence”. This amazing statement undermines the whole point of recognising human rights; it is tantamount to declaring that there are no such things.
Most political decisions require a cost-benefit balancing in which disadvantages to some are outweighed by the overall benefit to the community. Building a new airport is bound to disadvantage some people, but the damage is justified if it is the best choice for the nation. However, some injuries to individuals are so grave that they cannot be justified by declaring that that is what the public wants. A civilised society recognises rights precisely to protect individuals from these grave harms.
It might well be in the public interest to lock up people who the police think dangerous even though they have committed no crime, or to censor people whose opinions are offensive or unwelcome, or to torture people who we believe have information about impending crimes. But we do not do that, at least in ordinary legal practice, because we insist that people have a right to a fair trial and free speech and not to be tortured. We insist on these rights even though the majority would be safer and more comfortable if we ignored them.
Of course it is terrible when deluded terrorists or criminals on probation kill innocent people. But the increased risk that each of us runs is marginal when we insist on enforcing human rights rather than abandoning them just because they have proved inconvenient. It is one of Britain’s most honoured traditions to accept the marginally increased risk as the price of respect for individual human dignity. That is what self-respect requires. It is dangerous gibberish to say that the public has a right to as much security as it can have; no one has a right to security purchased through injustice.
Simon Jenkins, in the Sunday Times, recently declared his enthusiasm for the 18th-century philosopher Jeremy Bentham who said that all that matters is the greatest happiness of the greatest number, and that the whole idea of human rights is therefore “nonsense upon stilts”.
But Europe, led by Britain, rejected Bentham’s utilitarianism after the second world war when it established the European human rights convention. The 20th-century tyrannies have taught us that protecting the dignity of human beings, one by one, is worth the increased discomfort and risk that respecting human rights may cost the public at large. The Human Rights Act, which makes that convention part of Britain’s own law, was one of the great achievements of this government. It is sad that Blair’s political weakness has tempted him to rubbish ideals of which he and the country should be proud. —Dawn/Guardian Service
The writer is Bentham professor of law at University College, London.
Commissions are not the answer
ACCORDING to a recent report, President Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz have approved a proposal to set up a national commission on government reform (NCGR) to simplify rules and procedures at “all tiers” of government for the efficient implementation of policies.
The president is reported to have said: “We must remove obstacles in the way of efficient provision of services to achieve a visible improvement in the quality of life for the common man”, and “We must fill the gap between the formulation and implementation of policies, and the simplification of rules will be a major catalyst in this respect”.
Dr Ishrat Husain, the former State Bank governor who will head the nine-member commission is reported to have told the media that the commission has been tasked to put forward proposals for the “early” removal of “impediments in the way of efficient governance”.
Now it is a matter of common knowledge that no illness can be treated and cured unless it is properly diagnosed. The importance of correct diagnosis for proper treatment is so crucial that no doctor today, no matter how experienced and well qualified, would start treatment without making the patient go through some basic tests. That is why more and more sophisticated diagnostic equipment is being invented and perfected so that diseases can be identified with certainty for the medicine to be effective.
The same holds true for social diseases and their treatment. It is the first prerequisite that the cause of a particular problem be properly identified. Using this as the basis for our argument, we can start analyzing the malaise, for which the president and the prime minister have prescribed the cure.
Reading the president’s statement regarding the task of the new commission, it seems that the absence of services for the common man is due to the complicated nature of our laws and the gap between the formulation and implementation of policies. It follows, according to him, that if the laws are simplified and the gap between the formulation and implementation of policies filled, all problems such as corruption, lack of essential services involving water, electricity, transportation, education, basic health care, employment and security can be solved.
I am amazed at the simplicity of our leaders who think that by simplifying laws all our problems can be solved. If it was that easy then President Musharraf should have achieved these goals during the last six years. He was in absolute control of the country from October 1999 to December 2002 when the Constitution stood suspended and parliament remained dissolved. Even today, when parliament is functioning and the Constitution is no longer in a state of abeyance, he enjoys the power to hire and fire the prime ministers, appoint and remove the chiefs of the three services, the governors of all the provinces, the chief election commissioner and so on. Most of all, he has the power to dismiss an elected government and dissolve elected national and provincial assemblies and to hold or not to hold new elections.
Therefore, to think that Dr Ishrat Husain and his nine member commission can accomplish what President Musharraf himself could not in six years is not only to doubt the intelligence of the people but to admit his failure and that of all other bureaus, commissions and councils, such as the National Reconstruction Bureau, the Human Development Commission and the National Security Council that he created for the same purpose. Moreover, the creation of the NCGR also implies that the induction of over one thousand retired and serving generals, brigadiers and colonels in the civil administration and the foreign service of Pakistan in the last six years at a heavy cost to the national exchequer was a wasteful exercise.
Thus, it is easy to predict that the NCGR, even under the guidance of a capable person such as Dr Ishrat Husain, will not improve the lives of the common man in this country. However, if the purpose of creating the NCGR is to reward the former governor for the good work he did at the State Bank, he could be given another job such as the chairmanship of the privatisation commission or even the ministry of finance, where his knowledge and experience could be put to good use. But to make him the chairman of a sinecure commission that is bound to fail in its mission and yet cost the country heavily is to be callous about the problems of the nation.
It is unfortunate that whenever governments fail to do their job, they begin to create national bureaus, commissions and councils to give an impression to people that they have found the right answer to the latter’s problems. They want people to believe that it is not their ineptness but matters like complicated rules and procedures that are responsible for the lack of good governance. They do not realise that the people have been deceived so often that they have become cynics and trust no government. That is why there is so much apathy in Pakistan today.
If the president really wants to alleviate poverty and improve the quality of life of Pakistanis, he first needs to identify what has been going wrong in our nation for the last 58 years rather than paper the cracks. The creation of the NCGR is not the answer and will only lead to the consumption of precious national resources, which, if used wisely, could improve the lot of the people. Such high maintenance permanent commissions only make the vicious cycle of poverty and powerlessness more acute and breed hopelessness among the masses.
Once again the country is polarised and divided on sectarian, ideological and ethnic lines because our constitution exists only in name and the rule of law is not applied across the board. The economic condition of the masses has remained more or less unchanged in the last five years. The law and order situation is dismal and violence has become rampant. Certain areas of the country have slipped out of the government’s control. Parliament is no more than a rubber stamp body and the judiciary is a powerless third pillar of the state which does quite the opposite of what it is supposed to do.
The all powerful executive remains impervious to public opinion and beyond any accountability. In this situation, creating of another commission to simplify laws, which in any case is the job of parliament, is to indulge in a thoughtless and futile exercise. Dr Ishrat Husain himself is an upright person who is said to have refused the offer of a further extension as governor of State Bank. He should decline the new offer as well to save his reputation.
As far as President Musharraf is concerned, I would say that if he really wants to give good governance to the country, improve the conditions of its people and go down in history as one of the greatest military leaders of Pakistan, then he should uphold the Constitution as a sacred document, create conditions to make the judiciary truly independent, hold free and fair elections in 2007, let the majority in the National Assembly elect its own leader, contest the election of the president as a civilian and let the MNAs and MPAs vote freely without any arm-twisting or horse-trading by the agencies.
Certainly, he will need a lot of courage to do all that and run the risk of losing his job. But he will be remembered as an enlightened military leader who in the end proved to be a true democrat and patriot. As he said in the beginning, the aim of his military rule was to end all future military interventions. It is still not too late to revive true democracy and the rule of law, the absence of which is the real cause of our national ailments and not the complicated nature of our laws.