US-Pakistan relationship
December 15th, 2011
Usually, when the government has one of its periodic spats with the US, there is a lot of public rhetoric directed at the Americans but, essentially, the level of cooperation between the two countries remains the same. However, this time, in the wake of the Nato attack on Pakistani security personnel in Mohmand Agency, things seems to be very different. Pakistan has already blocked the supply routes of Nato trucks travelling through the country, forced the US to vacate Shamsi airbase and threatened to shoot down drones flying over Pakistani territory. Now, it is planning on changing the very nature of its alliance with the US, going from at least an ostensible ally, to an openly unfriendly country. At a meeting of the country’s various ambassadors and high commissioners, it was recommended that the government renegotiate its pacts with the US governing the transit of Nato supplies through the country. (The existence of these pacts was publicly acknowledged only now). The policy shift would have Pakistan cooperate only if its sovereignty is not violated, language that is expansive enough to include even drone attacks that we have previously supported in private.
The US, too, seems to be rethinking its diplomatic options in Pakistan, moving swiftly from ally to hostile actor. A bill making its way through Congress would cut $700 million in aid to Pakistan. At this point, it is not surprising that either country is looking to take punitive measures as punishment for recent events. But the danger is that this could soon spiral out of control, leading to an ever-escalating war of words that rapidly evaporates whatever semblance of an alliance the two countries have. If the inquiry proves that the US is at fault in the Salala attack, it should seek to quickly defuse tensions by issuing a formal apology. After that, the onus returns on Pakistan to resume cooperation with the US in the fight against militancy. Pakistan needs to take strong measures so that the rest of the world stops seeing it as a sponsor of terrorism and as a country that provides sanctuaries to militant groups that carry out attacks in other states. Neither country can eliminate the scourge of terrorism on its own, so it is in both their interests to work together. This would require both sides to realise that they should not direct their anger against each other, but against their common enemy.
Safer times
December 15th, 2011
Two historic bills which have been passed by the Senate may make life just a little safer for the women of the country. The Acid Control and Acid Crime Prevention Bill and the Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill 2008, made their way through the Senate without a stumble. This will come as a relief to those backing the Anti-Women Practices Bill, drafted by PML-Q MNA Dr Donya Aziz, which had for years remained caught up in the lower house on various flimsy grounds.
The real question comes now. The Bill on Acid Control, moved by Senator Nilofar Bakhtiar, is important given the increasing rate of acid crime across the country. It imposes a 14-year jail term for those throwing acid and also aims to restrict the sale of corrosive substances. Indeed, in a pattern we have witnessed in the last year or so, acid is being increasingly used not only against women but men and children too. Incidents are reported on a regular basis providing examples of this. But inevitably, women remain the chief victims, with acid burns increasingly inflicted over nothing more than the most petty of disputes. Most perpetrators are never apprehended. We must hope that this step will make a difference in some way.
Moreover, perhaps the Prevention of Anti-Women Practices Bill, now that it has finally been passed, can play some part in stopping traditional measures such as the exchange of women to settle disputes or their marriages to the Holy Quran. At the very least, it may act to raise awareness about these issues.
But much, of course, will depend on implementation and also on will. The presence of the laws on the statute books is a welcome step. It is the first move towards ushering in change. But, as in the past, our main problem is that of implementation. Somehow the ideas that stand behind the bills need to be passed down to the grass roots level, so that police and administrative officials are made aware of the need to enforce them to protect women and ensure that they receive the justice repeatedly denied to them.
Conference on climate change
December 15th, 2011
The conference on climate change held in Durban illustrates the difficulties of tackling global problems within a framework that provides countries with little incentive to think of anything but their own interests.
The 17th conference of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ended with a pledge to make the reduction of carbon emissions legally binding on all countries, developed or developing. This is in stark contrast to the Kyoto Protocol, which stated that only developed nations would be legally bound to reduce carbon emissions, while developing countries would limit pollution voluntarily. In this sense, the Durban conference has been more successful as countries that have long been resentful of any attempt to police their emissions — India and China are prime examples — have agreed to support the initiative.
Critics of the agreement rightly point out that getting all 194 countries to support the initiative means that it has been watered down to the point of being almost ineffective. Real measures to combat carbon emissions will not become legally binding on countries until 2020.
This compromise makes it clear that most countries view the planet’s health as being less important than their economies. Developing countries are particularly wary of strict checks on industrial pollution on grounds that they will hinder growth and cause poverty.
But the Durban conference also shows that it is developing countries that have made the biggest leap forward by supporting the initiative despite their reservations. Poorer nations must continue to push for equitable but effective measures against polluters, because environment-friendly policies are a means of getting a head start on improving health and sustainable development. Compromise will continue to be the hallmark of agreements like the Durban initiative for as long as rules are not globally enforceable, but in the meantime, countries will find it easier to swallow environment-friendly policies if they view progress as a sustainable, long-term goal instead of a short-lived boom.