Deadly artillery

IT is not a propaganda stunt; it is not coming from Hamas or an anti-Semitic group: it has come from a respected human rights body. On Sunday, the Human Rights Watch said the Israeli war machine was using artillery shells containing the incendiary white phosphorus agent on population centres in Gaza. The white phosphorus agent causes the skin to burn and sets off fire. The HRW said its workers “witnessed hours of artillery bombardment” containing white phosphorus on the Jabaliya refugee centre in northern Gaza. Already the overwhelming majority of the nearly 900 Palestinians killed during the current Israeli offensive consists of women and children and only adds to the series of war crimes the Israelis have committed over decades of conflict with the Palestinian people. Yet, as ever, Israel is likely to go scot-free. More menacingly, since neither Israel nor Hamas has accepted the UN ceasefire resolution, Israel will probably continue the massacre, with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert having the audacity to impart a moral tone to the butchery by speaking of “patience, determination and effort” to finish the job.

According to observers of the Middle Eastern scene, the Olmert government is likely to end the slaughter before Barack Obama takes office on Jan 20. It now remains to be seen whether America’s charismatic president-elect lives up to the hopes pinned on him. So far his utterances on the Palestinian question have not inspired much confidence, for he has refrained from censuring Israel and constantly spoken of ‘violence’ in Gaza. It has not occurred to him that the cause of the unending bloodshed in the holy land is Israel’s refusal to vacate the occupied territories so that the Palestinian people could have a state of their own on their ancestral soil. In fact, his interview with an American channel the other day puts paid to hopes for a serious effort on the part of the Democratic administration to break the deadlock. Even though he promised swift action on the Middle East conflict, he said, disappointingly, that the policies pursued by the Clinton and Bush administrations constituted the “general approach” of American policy to the Arab-Israeli conflict. This in effect means the two-state solution will remain a theory.What the president-elect should note is the rising wave of anger against America’s pro-Israel policies in the Islamic world and in America’s own Muslim community. By and large American Muslims had kept away from anti-government rallies, focusing on their business and professional interests. But the Gaza terror has led to their massive participation in rallies against their government’s silence on Israel’s war crimes. Worldwide, it is the Taliban who will get more converts to their extremist philosophy.


ONE look at the weekend’s headlines from Fata and northern Pakistan is enough to dissolve any lingering new year cheer. In Mohmand Agency, several check posts and a fort were attacked; in Hangu, sectarian warfare in the wake of Ashura claimed the lives of dozens; in South Waziristan, an additional political agent was kidnapped; in Bajaur Agency, militants severed the ears of five members of the Khar peace committee; and in Swat, an ANP leader’s home was attacked, yet another girls’ school was torched and a Sharia court ordered the lashing of two alleged drug addicts. While the signs of the state’s disappearing sovereignty are ubiquitous, those of a concerted state fight-back are harder to discern. In fact, at every level of the state’s response there is cause for concern. Zoom out to the macro level: eight months since civilian dispensations assumed power in Islamabad and the NWFP their anti-militancy policy is still unclear. The ANP-led government in the NWFP has flip-flopped, first calling for a peace dialogue, then calling in the armed forces, and then calling for a dialogue again. In Islamabad, the PPP-led government chalked out a three-pronged approach that emphasised development and peace talks with reconcilable militants and military action against irreconcilable elements. However, the government has yet to clarify which militants fall in which category and where the policy has been implemented.

For its part, the Pakistan Army has thus far escaped serious scrutiny of its tactics in Fata and northern Pakistan. Media centres set up by PR departments paint a picture of slow and steady progress but independent reports suggest otherwise. For example, in Swat the lack of a tribal structure and the sheer brutality of the militants has terrorised the local population and denied the state a local partner in its counterinsurgency and counter-terrorism actions, whereas in Bajaur local help has been more forthcoming. Such differences on the ground, and the different origins of the fighting in places like Hangu (sectarian), require different anti-militancy strategies. Worse, the Pakistan Army’s whack-a-mole strategy of fighting the militants in only certain areas at any given time may actually be playing into the enemy’s hands. While the militants have access to an array of weapons and communication systems, their resources cannot match the Pakistan state’s. Were the militants to be engaged across the region simultaneously, they could quickly find themselves stretched thin and unable to mount a serious response. The militancy problem is undoubtedly complex, but without fresh political and military thinking it will only grow worse.


THOSE who still cherish ethical values in medical practice will receive with relief the report that a bill seeking crucial changes in the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Ordinance has been withdrawn from the National Assembly’s standing committee. The fact is that had the amendments been introduced they would have nullified the ethos of the law on transplantation. The underlying idea of the ordinance was to ban the trafficking in human organs and commercialisation of transplantation surgery that was bringing Pakistan such a bad name. The proposed amendments sought seemingly technical changes in definitions, allowed donation by non-blood relatives in case of an emergency on payment of compensation and provided for 10 per cent transplantation surgery in a hospital to be earmarked for foreigners. These changes would have opened the floodgates of the unbridled sale of human organs that had attracted foreigners with end-stage kidney failure to Pakistan to purchase organs from impoverished people. The doctors and vendors who supported this unethical practice in the pre-ordinance days on so-called humanitarian grounds deliberately chose to turn a blind eye to its profiteering, exploitative and anti-social aspects.

The ordinance, that was promulgated in September 2007 after a vigorous campaign spearheaded by the Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation, did produce a beneficial impact in several ways. According to the administrator of the Human Organ Transplantation Authority, the new law helped check kidney tourism considerably and the number of foreign recipients came down from 1,500 a year in 2007 to a negligible number in 2008. At least Pakistan now does not have to suffer the ignominy of being branded a centre of organ trade in international circles. Moreover, it is time society learnt to uphold the worth and esteem of a person without making monetary gain the key equation in every human relationship. This especially holds true for the health sector as medical professionals deal with issues of life and death which present them with the opportunity of exploiting an ill person’s desperation. But accessible healthcare is also the birthright of every citizen which a physician worth his salt should strive to provide.


… KARACHIITES have witnessed many fire incidents … but the havoc created by the fire that broke out on Thursday night and that claimed over 42 lives made … history. The causes of the fire could not be ascertained…. [A]nd it has left a number of unanswered questions….

Considering the divergent opinions of officials and elected representatives … a multidimensional probe is in order. The statement of a Sindh government official that some inmates gathered around the fire due to the extreme cold, and one’s shawl caught fire which then proceeded to engulf the entire shanty settlement is odd. How could this burn to the ground within hours the entire settlement leaving no escape route?

Another official believes that the fire was sparked by a power wire that fell on the huts. This version also seems lame as this would still leave options for escape and not result in the high number of deaths. Some circles are discovering similarities with the fire incident at Tahir Plaza, where chemical was used.

The possibility of a deliberate attempt to set the settlement on fire cannot be ruled out as the land on which the squatters lived was valuable and might have been under the watch of the city’s powerful land mafia. There was a dispute and the mafia wanted to get it vacated. This should also be investigated. Lands and plots are vacated at the behest of the land mafia. Such a gang could have been operating here.

Probes of earlier incidents were closed with the traditional ‘findings” and excuses that the fire was the result of the falling of electrical wiring or was accidental. There seems little hope that this incident will be thoroughly probed and go beyond the traditional findings of short circuit or accident.

Providing compensation and alternate plots to the victims is laudable, as announced by the government. But there is a dire need to find the real causes which resulted in the death of 42 people and that cannot be compensated. Further, if there is a mafia behind it, it will continue to work and we will witness more such incidents. Therefore a multidimensional probe must be undertaken to expose and punish the culprits. — (Jan 10)

— Selected and translated by Sohail Sangi


IN close proximity to two emerging global powers Pakistan’s location has made its role important to the geopolitics of the region. Post 9/11 and during the Cold War, Pakistan chose to side with the US-led strategic vision, irrespective of the changing dynamics of the region.

The question is: did Pakistan’s quest for recognition bear fruit or did it damage its image and prestige as a nation? The answer is plain for all to see.

Emerging powers seek to attain recognition through economic strength, democratic values, equitable business practices and justice. Negative asymmetries to gain temporary influence and control may beckon in the short term but their use over the long term causes untold miseries. Pakistan’s (twice-failed) experiment in Afghanistan to win strategic depth may have resulted in short-term economic respite. But its actions here were myopic when considered in the light of national unity and cohesion as a federation. Siachen and Pakistan’s Kashmir policy to enervate Indian military strength and economy may have been the only option in the balance of power game. But when viewed in the light of our own attrition and economic collapse, most apparent now in the Fata operations and the Baloch unrest, these appear to have been disastrous to say the least.

The formulation of military strategy has to be in sync with the geopolitical and strategic environment and should take in all aspects of economic, diplomatic and internal factors to maximise potential. The military has always dominated other state organs to enforce its strategic vision on vacillating civilian governments, who took more of an interest in internal power struggles rather than concentrate on external factors. This has proved to be to the detriment of the country’s interests.

The military strategy in Indian-administered Kashmir was to sustain the insurgency at a low boil to keep Indian forces committed there. The logic of bleeding the Indian Army and the results of this effort have been flawed. India’s economy is booming and its budget many times our own. The might of the USSR collapsed when its military expenditures could not keep pace with relentless US military innovations and technology, resulting in the loss of power and prestige.In the 1990s, the country was again fed with exaggerated threats from India, in retaliation for Pakistan’s support to the Kashmir insurgency. The Kargil adventure was engineered to reverse our failing policy, to regenerate our clout and to influence outside players. The political leaders at the time lacked a true understanding of the repercussions of our failure to achieve objectives, even if there were any. To this day we do not know what our objectives were in Kargil and what we achieved as a consequence of this misadventure.

The environment was never conducive to such military action. We were in a precarious state of economic default, our support to the Taliban-led government in Afghanistan faced reverses as the West wanted its ouster. Post 9/11, what were seen as freedom struggles have been labelled as terrorist movements. Dr Qadeer Khan and his network have been exposed for indulging in nuclear technology proliferation involving rogue states accused of sponsoring terrorism. All this including the lack of coordination within the government apparatus and ostensibly the military has resulted in a state of affairs that has not only isolated Pakistan internationally, but propelled it to join the ranks of those believed to be sponsoring terrorism.

With the world seeing Pakistan as an irresponsible, failing state, one which could also flaunt its nuclear capability in a reckless manner to pursue the goals of influence and power, is it surprising that our international image should have suffered so much?

The sudden U-turn on the policy of support for the Taliban was the result of the dire economic crisis and the fallout of Kargil and other misadventures rather than a pragmatic, well-thought-out strategy by the last military-led government. The fact that Pakistan was yet again being bailed out by the US, despite its irresponsible nature, was more out of consideration for its use as a staging ground for the assault on Afghanistan, than its worth as a military partner. No doubt, Pakistan saw this as another opportunity to control and influence the Pakhtuns in Afghanistan, in order to regain its political clout and bargain for a share in the Karzai-led government. However, our so-called strategists had not bargained for the influence of the Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Fata and the NWFP, where the government lost authority as it accepted the growing Islamic influence. The negative fallout was the rise of the Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan and homegrown insurgency.

It is tragic that the priority given to Pakistan’s defence needs has been at the cost of ignoring other organs of the state that could have been strengthened to achieve a more balanced and pragmatic vision, especially with regard to dispute resolution. The US has chalked out its own strategic vision with regard to the world in general and South Asia in particular. Pakistan needs to identify its core interests in its quest for survival vis-à-vis India in this unipolar world. It is about time that we reappraised our foreign and defence policy in more realistic terms to come closer to the objective of cohesion in national objectives.

__________________
Regards,
P.R.