Kofi Annan’s successor

MR Ban Ki-moon has assumed the office of the UN’s eighth secretary-general at a time when, in the absence of a countervailing force, America is trying to shape the world in its own image. While the Middle East remains the focus of world attention, the sole superpower seems to be advancing its geopolitical interests under the cover of the war on terror. Problems like Kashmir and Palestine remain unsolved and pose a threat to peace, while hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in Iraq and Afghanistan because of UN inaction. In fact, Mr Ban’s tenure could see new theatres of war emerging if the volatile situation in Lebanon continues, and Israel or America decides to use force against Iran. As the UN’s seventh secretary-general, Mr Kofi Annan was called upon to handle such crises as 9/11 and the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Even though the UN inspectors led by Mr Hans Blix had reported to the Security Council that it had found no “smoking gun”, the US and Britain still chose to attack Iraq, bypassing the UN. Since then the world body seems to have become a mute spectator of the situation in Iraq, its peacekeeping role having been usurped by the US-led military forces with disastrous consequences.

A man who had risen from UN ranks to become the world body’s secretary-general, Mr Annan seemed unable to make the UN’s presence felt in moments of crisis. Towards the end of his career, Mr Annan had become a bit more assertive and made no attempt to hide his disillusionment with American policies and actions. In a TV interview in October 2004, Mr Annan said that the war in Iraq had not made the world any safer. Many thought the charges of corruption against him and his son in Iraq’s oil-for-food programme were led by lobbies unhappy with his criticism of America’s Iraq policies. Belatedly he also seemed to have become aware of the consequences of the P-5’s veto power as seen in Washington’s frequent use of it to abort Security Council resolutions censuring Israel for rights abuses in Palestine. He thus came up with a two-track UN reforms programme that, among other points, sought to enlarge the Security Council. However, nothing came of it, given the fact that those who really mattered wouldn’t like to give up their veto power.

Mr Ban faces many challenges, the first and foremost being the overriding need to restore the UN’s prestige and position as the forum for resolving conflicts among nations according to the principles of the UN Charter. He must focus his attention on ending the massacres in Iraq, maintaining the country’s unity, securing the withdrawal of foreign forces, and reviving the Arab-Israeli peace process, which has remained frozen because of America’s and Israel’s refusal to talk to the elected Hamas government. Similarly, he must do all he can to find a peaceful solution to Iran’s nuclear question so as to pre-empt the use of force by the US and/or Israel. Above all, he must try to secure member states’ consensus on the reforms proposed by his predecessor. The “three pillars of the UN” — security, development and human rights — he spoke of need strengthening. Weak countries are still subjected to aggression by big powers, the vast majority of people in the world still live in poverty, and rights abuses are to be found not just in countries under dictatorships but also in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.

Teachers and their unions

THE fundamental right to freedom of association and expression is guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan. It is in this light, and on the strength of precedence, that the Sindh High Court has annulled the ban on teachers’ unions and other associations formed by provincial education department employees. In the process, the court has also invalidated all punitive actions taken against education department employees in the wake of the July ban, which the SHC has held is “of no legal effect”. While Wednesday’s ruling has naturally been welcomed by the petitioners and the teachers they represent, the Sindh education minister has stated that her department will challenge the decision in the Supreme Court and the chief minister has echoed this view. How events unfold from this point on will be of interest to all those who wish to further the cause of education.

Now that the provincial ban on teachers’ unions is of no legal consequence, where do we go from here? There can be no denying the fact that teachers — and the students they teach — bring their personal politics and party affiliations into classrooms and administrative offices. This is not surprising in a country where even bar associations are divided along party lines and engage in bitter power struggles on political grounds. It is also no secret that trade unions have, in recent years, deviated from their original purpose of protecting the legitimate, collective rights of employees. Often union membership — especially leadership — is sought primarily to further personal and political interests and influence. In the case of teachers, unions and their clout have been similarly used to shirk duties. At the same time, conscientious administrators are helpless in tackling absenteeism and other professional failings when they know that the erring teachers are supported by powerful and occasionally violent political organisations. If teachers’ unions are to exist, their leaders must themselves evolve a code of conduct that is binding on all members and which includes a blanket ban on politicking. Initially, violations of the code will no doubt occur. But over time it is possible that the new thinking may become institutionalised and be seen as the norm. The government, meanwhile, needs to ensure that teachers are selected purely on merit. Dedicated and qualified instructors will certainly not be drawn towards politics and graft.

Spreading awareness of AidsSpreading awareness of Aids

THE World Bank mission currently in Pakistan has advised the NWFP government to do more to contain the spread of HIV/Aids. The advice is applicable to the rest of the provinces too because the problem is nationwide. True, the number of HIV/Aids patients in the country —- 100,000 — is not as high as it is in neighbouring India but that does not make for complacency on the part of the health authorities in ensuring that the number does not grow. A detailed survey conducted in June this year in Sindh, where the number of patients is said to be the highest in the country, showed just how poorly informed high-risk groups were about the disease. Because of the stigma attached to HIV/Aids it may prove difficult to determine the exact number of patients, but each provincial government must conduct its own survey to ascertain the figure. This will help them formulate a strategy to deal with the issue. The most important aspect is to raise awareness levels. To some extent, the government has done well with its campaigns in the media but the advertisements are still cloaked in ambiguity. The approach must be more direct and persuasive so that the message reverberates in every part of the country.

The health authorities need to ensure that high-risk groups — sex workers, long-distance drivers, migrant workers and intravenous drug users — are made aware of the dangers of HIV/Aids. Special focus must be on this group as they also pose a threat to their spouses’ health. The causes and fatal nature of the disease must also be discussed in an appropriate manner with young people so that they can practise a responsible lifestyle as adults. Society must be sensitised into dealing with HIV/Aids patients in a caring manner instead of ostracising them.

What led to Pakistan’s dismemberment

THE dismemberment of Pakistan in 1971 was indeed a tragic blow to the nation. It also unleashed separatist tendencies in the country that have sprouted in recent years posing a serious threat to the very fabric of national unity.

The tragedy could have been avoided if Pakistan was allowed to become a truly federal state as envisioned by its founding fathers.

Some ill-informed people, however, argue that the Bengalis had always been conscious of their distinct cultural features and considered themselves to be separate from the rest of the nation. There was, therefore, nothing common between the two wings of Pakistan to make them a cohesive nation and hence there was a fragile relationship between them from the very beginning after independence. Regrettably, this was a distortion of historical facts and even a cursory glance at historical record would disprove such a hypothesis.

These elements evidently ignored the fact that religion had always played a dominant and decisive role in Indian society. In this context, it would be instructive to recall that during the struggle for Pakistan, the Indian Muslims, despite their cultural diversity and geographical location, were united in fighting for a common cause. As a matter of fact, the Bengali Muslims were in the vanguard of the movement for Pakistan that was seen by them as the only viable option to safeguard their religious, economic and cultural interests.

In order to keep things in perspective, it is advisable to briefly recall the circumstances that led to the disintegration of Pakistan that had come into being after a long and arduous struggle by the Muslims of the subcontinent under the leadership of Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah. East Pakistan lagged behind economically and its people were convinced that their economic woes could be redressed only if their province was given the desired quantum of autonomy, as stipulated in the Lahore Resolution.

This perfectly legitimate demand was, however, termed as anti-state by the decision-makers at the helm of affairs at the centre who considered themselves as the ultimate arbiters of Pakistan’s fate. They gravitated more and more towards centralisation, ostensibly, to keep the country united without realising that growing disparity among the different regions would weaken the bond of unity among them and undermine the process of national integration. The concept of a federation was thus reduced to a myth by these myopic and self-serving elements who were apparently interested in promoting their own interests. The central government’s callous insensitivity towards the economic problems and grievances of East Pakistan generated a sense of frustration in that province.

Growing disaffection among the people of East Pakistan became more manifest when, during the process of drafting a constitution for the country, the ruling elites proposed that regardless of their size and population, the two wings of the country would have parity of representation in the National Assembly.

Initially it was not accepted by the people of East Pakistan who feared that although they had a majority over the combined population of the rest of the country, they would be deprived their numerical advantage and of their due share in the national affairs. They, therefore, insisted on having a representation in the National Assembly on the basis of population but ultimately showed a magnanimous gesture by giving up their demand and agreeing to have it on the basis of parity between the two wings.

This proposal by East Pakistan was, however, rejected by Punjab as it feared that in collusion with other provinces in the country, East Pakistan could attempt to dominate at the centre. Since neither side was willing to compromise on this issue, the process of constitution-making was locked in a stalemate.

However, in order to break the deadlock it was agreed that representation of East Pakistan in the National Assembly would be on the basis of parity between the two wings and to allay Punjab’s fear about East Pakistan’s domination at the Centre, its proposal that the four provinces in West Pakistan may be integrated into one unit, with Lahore as its headquarters, was also agreed by the leaders of East Pakistan, albeit reluctantly.

This paved the way for the adoption of 1956 constitution. Regrettably, however, this did not end the deep seated polarisation between the two wings and when the constitution was abrogated by the military junta, on October 7, 1958, the people of East Pakistan were alienated further as they lost all hopes of participation in the decision-making process when the country came under martial law.

Open political activities were suppressed during the 11 years of Ayub Khan’s military rule that also made the people of East Pakistan believe that they were being ‘colonised’ by the West Pakistani rulers. Continued rumblings of discontent among them sowed the seeds of secession from Pakistan that regrettably culminated on December 16,1971.

After Ayub Khan’s resignation, owing to his poor health, General Agha Muhammad Yahya Khan headed the second successive military regime from 1969 to 1971. Yahya Khan realised the extent to which the process of centralisation under the bureaucratic and military tutelage had shaken Pakistani society.

The general elections held in 1970, on the basis of adult franchise, confirmed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that regionalism had come to dominate the Pakistani politics. The Awami League, led by Mujibur Rahman, who had campaigned on a Six-Point programme of provincial autonomy, swept the polls in East Pakistan securing an absolute majority in the National Assembly.

This was, however, seen as a threat to their interests by the politicians in West Pakistan who, in collusion with Yahya Khan, prevented Mujibur Rahman from taking the reins of power. As a result, an armed rebellion took place in East Pakistan with the active support and participation of the Indian armed forces.

To quell the rebellion in East Pakistan, Yahya Khan ordered army action in that province, on March 25, 1971. Regrettably, the elites in West Pakistan could not visualise the political implications of Yahya Khan’s action and hence did not persuade him to stop playing havoc with the people of East Pakistan.

The Hamoodur Rehman Commission that was appointed by the government of Pakistan on December 26, 1971 to enquire into the circumstances that led to the East Pakistan crisis and the surrender of Pakistan army their, found Yahya Khan responsible for the dismemberment of Pakistan for a number of reasons, including his ineptitude in handling the crisis, and recommended his public trial.

The Commission also identified a number of other officers serving in East Pakistan who had committed excesses against the people of East Pakistan and indulged in other crimes of gross moral turpitude were also made liable to judicial trial. All the patriotic elements in Pakistan are, however, dismayed and overburdened with sorrow that neither Yahya Khan nor other officers were brought to trial. All of them, despite their proven guilt, enjoyed total immunity from answerability.

The writer is a former ambassador.

Farewell to Pax Americana

WITH hindsight we may see 2006 as the end of Pax Americana. Ever since World War II, the United States has used its military and economic superiority to promote a stable world order that has, on the whole, kept the peace and spread prosperity.

But the United States increasingly lacks both the power and the will to play this role. It isn’t just Iraq, though Iraq has been profoundly destabilising and demoralising. Many other factors erode US power: China’s rise; probable nuclear proliferation; shrinking support for open trade; higher spending for Social Security and Medicare that squeezes the military; the weakness of traditional US allies — Europe and Japan.

By objective measures, Pax Americana’s legacy is enormous. Since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no nuclear device has been used in anger. In World War II an estimated 60 million people died. Only four subsequent conflicts have had more than a million deaths (the Congo civil war, 3 million; Vietnam, 1.9 million; Korea, 1.3 million; China’s civil war, 1.2 million), reports the Centre for International Development and Conflict Management at the University of Maryland.

Under the US military umbrella, democracy flourished in Western Europe and Japan. It later spread to South Korea, Eastern Europe and elsewhere. In 1977 there were 89 autocratic regimes in the world and only 35 democracies, the centre estimates. In 2005 there were 29 autocracies and 88 democracies.

Prosperity has been unprecedented. Historian Angus Maddison tells us that from 1950 to 1998 the world economy expanded by a factor of six. Global trade increased twentyfold. These growth rates were well beyond historical experience. Living standards exploded. Since 1950 average incomes have multiplied about 16 times in South Korea, 11 times in Japan and six times in Spain, reports Maddison. From higher bases, the increases were nearly five times in Germany, four in France and three in the United States.

It is fatuous to think all this would have occurred spontaneously. Since the Marshall Plan, the United States has been a stabilising influence — albeit with lapses (the Vietnam War; the inflation of the 1970s; now Iraq). Aside from security, it provided a global currency, the dollar. It championed lower tariffs and global investment, which transferred technology and management skills around the world. It kept its markets open. It’s doubtful that any other major country would have tolerated present US trade deficits (now approaching $800 billion) without imposing pervasive import restrictions.

To Americans, the lesson of World War II was that to prevent a repetition, the United States had to promote global stability. It had to accept short-term costs and burdens to avoid larger long-term costs and burdens. But the triumphalism following the Cold War fed overconfidence. Pax Americana would continue forever. It was “the end of history” — democracy and free markets would spread. The United States was a “hyperpower.” —Dawn/Washington Post Service