Turkish peace initiative
ONE must welcome the two-pronged Turkish initiative for peace in the Middle East aimed at defusing the tension over the Al Aqsa mosque and initiating talks between Israel and a Palestinian national unity government that is in the process of being formed. On Thursday, after talks with his Turkish counterpart, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that he had agreed to a Turkish inspection of the Al Aqsa mosque, beneath which Israelis are carrying out excavations in violation of several UN resolutions. The Israeli action has touched off disturbances in Al Quds, with Palestinian leaders warning that this could trigger a third intifada. The Turkish move could help stop Israeli excavations because continued digging could threaten the mosque’s foundations and cause damage to the structure of a mosque considered the third holiest by world Muslims. Speaking to newsmen, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Mr Olmert had shown him photographs of the construction work but that “failed to convince me 100 per cent”. The Turkish prime minister’s words must be taken seriously, because his country not only has friendly relations with Israel, but the two countries signed a military cooperation agreement in 1996 when Turkey was led by an Islamist government headed by Mr Necmettin Erbekan, whose resignation under pressure from the generals provided Mr Erdogan with the opportunity to form a new party and lead it to victory in the November 2002 election. Besides, the Turks have a sentimental attachment to Al Aqsa because Palestine was under Ottoman rule for nearly 500 years.
While the crisis over Al Aqsa may die down if Israel finally sees the wisdom of complying with the UN resolutions and not doing anything that could lead to further violence, the real issue is the continued Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the lack of progress on the peace process, which has remained frozen since 2001. However, hopes that Mr Olmert would revive the peace process were dashed when he announced his decision not to negotiate with the Palestinian government led by Hamas. To make matters worse, Israel cut off all non-humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian Authority and the US and the European Union followed suit. Now, following the Makkah declaration brokered by Saudi King Abdullah, President Mahmoud Abbas has asked Mr Ismail Haniye to form a new government that will include Fatah and some independents. These moves deserve to be welcomed. However, on Thursday, the US State Department made it clear the Bush administration had no intention of dealing with a national unity government if and when formed. This is hardly going to serve the cause of peace in the holy land.
Hamas is now very much in the political mainstream and is in a majority in the legislature. A broad-based government that includes non-Hamas MPs will give political stability to the PA and be in a better position to negotiate with Israel. Hamas has also indirectly recognised Israel by pledging itself to a two-state solution. However, the Israeli and American attitudes help prolong the stalemate in the peace process. Now Mr Erdogan says that he intends to invite the leaders of the new Palestinian government to Ankara to discuss prospects of peace. Such efforts need American support. At present, the Bush administration’s refusal to negotiate with the elected PA government goes against its avowed aim of “spreading democracy” in the Middle East.
The poisoning of air, water
THE relevant laws exist on paper, yet the wanton destruction of the environment continues unchecked. Pesticide and fertiliser run-off from farms is poisoning watercourses and groundwater aquifers across the country, while untreated industrial and household effluent is being discharged into streams, rivers and the sea. Air and noise pollution in major cities is approaching catastrophic levels and whatever remains of the forest cover is being decimated at an appalling rate. The toll on human health is mounting by the day, and animal and plant species are in the process of being wiped out. All this despite the existence of a comprehensive piece of legislation in the form of the Pakistan Environmental Protection Act 1997, a landmark law that recognises the direct link between conservation and long-term prosperity. The problem clearly lies in enforcement and this is where the state must focus its efforts. As things stand, those with influence can flout the law at will.
Poor water quality is of particular concern. A report released on Thursday by the World Wide Fund for Nature-Pakistan in collaboration with several other organisations brings home the truth about water contamination in the country. Citing good sources, the report reveals that nearly 250,000 children die each year from waterborne diseases, which are also responsible for up to 40 per cent of all hospital admissions. In Sindh and Punjab, 36 per cent of the population is exposed to arsenic levels that are five times higher than WHO limits. It is estimated that every third Pakistani consumes water that is not safe to drink, while “99 per cent of industrial effluent and 92 per cent of urban wastewater is discharged untreated into rivers and the sea.” The profit-driven and those unmoved by human misery should remember that all this comes at a price. Health costs related to unsafe water stand at 1.81 per cent of the GDP, or 114 billion rupees. An ailing workforce is less industrious than a healthy pool of labour, and the costs associated with low productivity are borne not just by the state but also big business. The time to enforce the environmental protection laws is now.
Organ law or an eyewash?
THE government’s response to the demand made by a section of the medical profession led by Dr Adib Rizvi, director-general of SIUT, has come in the form of an ordinance. Titled the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance 2007, it may be promulgated any day now that the cabinet has approved it. But will this law put an end to the blatant commercialisation of organ transplantation and the unscrupulous kidney trade that has become rampant in Pakistan? If one reads the finer print of the ordinance, it is plain that nothing much will change. The new law legalises “reimbursement” of the cost of removing an organ or loss of earnings incurred by the donor. Another clause empowers an “evaluation committee” to allow donation by a non-relative after it is satisfied that the donation is voluntary. The two provisions will allow money to change hands but on different pretexts.
One wonders what the government, whose brainchild this ordinance is, wants to really achieve. If it is trying to appease all parties — the honest and ethical professionals, supporters of cadaveric donations and the racketeers of the organ trade — at the same time, it is trying to do the impossible. Of course, those benefiting from the absence of a regulatory law will be pleased because for them it will be business as usual. Obviously, some in the corridors of power will also share the monetary gains — the price for keeping their mouth shut. The sufferers will be the poor whose poverty will continue to plague them even after they have parted with an organ. They may become losers in another way. Their health could deteriorate as a result of poor post-operative care. The biggest loser will be Pakistan that has already earned a bad name with the WHO chastising it for the organ racket.
Towards a multipolar world order
ONE of the many casualties of 9/11 and its aftermath has been the idea, fashionable in the 1990s, that a world with only one superpower would be a more comfortable place to live.
This hinged on the argument that in a unipolar world order the dominant state, in pursuit of its global interests and responsibilities, acts as a producer of global public goods from which everyone benefits, such as security, stability and free trade.That is the basis on which the advocates of US primacy have always defended its legitimacy. Paul Wolfowitz's famous Defence Planning Guidance paper of 1992 talked about the need for the US to "account sufficiently for the interests of the advanced industrial nations to discourage them from challenging our leadership or seeking to overturn the established economic and political order". Far from being the conceit of neo-conservative intellectuals, faith in the benign effect of US power was shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.
Things look very different today. The intervention in Iraq has strengthened the very forces of extremism and violence it was meant to weaken, with the result that we are in much greater danger. The Bush administration continues to drag its heels on the environment and prevent the action needed to meet an even greater threat in the form of climate change. The US's unwillingness to address its $764 billion trade deficit and its determination to continue consuming beyond its means is responsible for global economic imbalances that threaten meltdown and worldwide depression. Instead of acting as a provider of global public goods, the US looks more like a global free rider, using its power selfishly and irresponsibly to the detriment of the greater good.
A common mistake is to see this as a reflection of the American character, rather than as the inevitable consequence of unrestrained power. The truth is that any other nation in the US's position would do the same and probably much worse. Dominant powers are always prone to trampling on the interests and rights of others. The problem with US hegemony is that it’s hegemonic, not that it’s American. As Vladimir Putin pointed out in a speech last weekend, the unipolar model is inherently flawed because it concentrates power in ways that are unhealthy and undemocratic.
Very true, but how strange to hear it from the lips of the Russian president. In each of the criticisms he levelled at the US, more or less the same could be said about the government he leads. Putin deplores America's conduct of the war on terror, but the brutality of his assault on Chechnya makes the abuses at Guantánamo look mild by comparison. The bullying of Russia's neighbours through energy cut-offs, trade embargoes and the sponsorship of local insurgencies shows scant regard for the high-minded diplomatic principles espoused in his speech.
And when it comes to ripping up treaties and ignoring international law, Putin has little to learn from Bush. He refuses to accept Russia's obligations as a signatory of the Energy Charter Treaty, for instance, and prefers the unilateral use of energy dominance for geopolitical and commercial advantage. Putin's only real objection to a unipolar world order is that Russia is not the unipole. In every other respect his foreign policy doctrine is similar to the neo-conservative approach he purports to oppose. Anyone who takes his concern for democratic standards seriously hasn't been paying enough attention to the erosion of political and civil rights under his leadership.
Britain, along with the rest of Europe, certainly needs a strategy for creating a more balanced and legitimate distribution of global power, but it shouldn't be one that follows Jacques Chirac's efforts to offset US influence through big power summitry with an authoritarian Russia. It must be one that is true to Europe's democratic values. Of course, the concept of power balancing is in itself controversial. For some, such as Tony Blair, the suggestion that US power needs to be balanced is evidence of anti-Americanism. But his alternative of seeking influence in Washington has been given more than a fair wind, and he has precious little to show for it.
There is an alternative that allows Europe to pursue an effective power balancing strategy without resort to the cynical realpolitik of old, and it has been made possible by the remarkable political transformations of the last three decades. Almost two-thirds of the world's population, accounting for three-quarters of nation states, now live under democratic rule. It is those states collectively that form the body of legitimate world opinion and must be mobilised. US policymakers have marginalised the United Nations on the grounds that universal membership confers power and legitimacy on despots and tyrants. But what was striking about the debate on Iraq was the fact that most world democratic opinion was opposed to America's approach. The objective of power balancing must be to ensure it is brought to bear more effectively in future.India will, on current trends, overtake China to become the world's most populous country by the middle of the century. Unlike China, it is an established democracy and ought to be a natural ally in any attempt to create a more balanced and democratic world order. Another priority should be South America, where the democratic gains of the last 20 years have been as great as those of Eastern Europe. Its regional trade blocs, the Andean Community and Mercosur, are in the process of merging to form a South American Community of Nations modelled on the EU. With a population of 361 million, there are plans for a single market, a common currency and a common foreign policy.
Around these three poles – Europe, India and South America – it would be possible to galvanise a new global democratic sentiment that rejects unipolarist assumptions without being antagonistic towards the US. The end of American primacy is coming, whether Washington likes it or not. The choice is between a bipolar system in which it faces an authoritarian and increasingly confident China, or a multipolar order in which it can share the challenges of global leadership with other centres of democratic power. The shift from unipolarity to a democratic multipolarity should be our common project of the 21st century.
— Dawn/Guardian Service
Foreign prisoners
LAST September, President Bush used the leverage of a midterm election to pressure Congress into granting his administration broad powers to detain, interrogate and try "enemy combatants" in the war on terrorism. The hastily considered bill had many flaws, but perhaps the most serious was a provision stripping foreign detainees of the right of habeas corpus, by which they could appeal their detentions, their treatment or the fairness of their trials to U.S. courts. With Congress under their control, Democrats have the chance to correct this serious breach of liberty. They should move quickly.
Two substantial pieces of legislation have been introduced in the Senate so far. One is a bipartisan measure backed by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick J. Leahy (D-Vt.) and his predecessor as chairman, Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.). Their bill would simply and straightforwardly restore the habeas right -- which is spelled out in Article I of the Constitution and has been a fundamental guarantor of freedom in Anglo-Saxon common law since the 12th century -- for all foreign prisoners in U.S. jurisdiction. The measure was narrowly defeated last year in the Senate by a vote of 51 to 48. Since then the elections have changed the arithmetic, and supporters believe a comfortable majority is within reach, though some compromises may be necessary to overcome a filibuster.
A much broader bill was introduced Tuesday by a group of Democrats led by Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is a candidate for president. In addition to affirming the habeas right, the Restoring the Constitution Act would correct many other problems with the military commissions law. It would prevent the administration from introducing evidence at the trials that was obtained through coercion; close loopholes that might allow the CIA to use abusive interrogation techniques; and improve the appeals process. The measure would also narrow -- in our view excessively -- the current law's overly broad definition of who can be defined as an "enemy combatant" subject to trial by a military commission. At present, even legal residents of the United States who do no more than "support" a terrorist group could be tried as enemy combatants; under Mr. Dodd's bill, only Al Qaeda members connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and fighters captured in "a zone of active combat against the United States" would be covered.
Most of the Dodd bill's reforms are badly needed. But many could be addressed through the courts if the habeas right were restored. Over the past several years, court supervision has proved essential to curbing the Bush administration's excesses in holding and interrogating prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Court rulings or the imminent prospect of them have caused prisoners held incommunicado to be granted attorneys and hearings, trial procedures to be improved and abusive treatment to be curbed.
—Los Angeles Times