COMING a day after the massacre by the security forces at Homs, the second Russian-Chinese veto on Saturday seems to have made a diplomatic solution to the Syrian crisis difficult. The Arab League plan is in tatters, the possibility of a fresh P-5 consensus appears remote, and President Bashar Al Assad seems determined to stay on, no matter what the cost in terms of blood. Friday’s massacre in Homs has been described as the worst of the ‘Arab Spring’.
Even though the absence of foreign journalists has made an assessment of the extent of carnage difficult, whatever has emerged confirms that the Syrian army used mortar bombs and artillery on a city called “the heart of the revolution”.
People’s homes turned into debris or were set ablaze, and there were bodies everywhere. According to Syrian opposition sources, 260 people were killed, with burials taking place at night to avoid sniper firing. The UN had stopped counting the dead after the figure crossed 4,500 in January. But neutral observers say nearly 7,000 people have been killed, while the government claims that 2,000 soldiers have died in clashes with “armed gangs and terrorists” since the trouble began last March.

Russia and China have come under international criticism for vetoing the resolution, which contained elements of the original Arab League plan and had been watered down to accommodate Russian objections. The resolution, voted for by 13 nations, including Pakistan, had been worked out after intense negotiations. It avoided threats of sanctions and arms embargo, much less military intervention, and did not include that part of the AL plan which called upon President Assad to hand over power to his deputy to organise a fresh election. Nevertheless, the motion condemned the government for human rights violations, “arbitrary executions”, enforced disappearances and the persecution of protesters and media persons. As a sop to Russia and China it appealed to “all parties in Syria, including armed groups” to cease violence and reprisals.

It is true western delegates tried to accommodate Russian and Chinese views, but Saturday’s failure at the UN is now likely to lead to a diplomatic impasse. While the western governments showed haste in tabling the resolution, Moscow and Beijing were obviously guided less by what is going on in Syria and more by economic and strategic interests in the region. At the same time, one cannot but note the contradiction in the western attitudes. While in Libya, the US and Nato managed a military intervention to oust a dictator, they sat idle while foreign forces moved into Bahrain to save the regime and crush a popular uprising.


IN addition to those living in Pakistan’s conflict zones, in recent years the urban citizenry too has become uncomfortably familiar with acts of terrorism. The perpetrators seem to consider no place or occasion off limits. From public areas to places of worship, religious and political gatherings all have at some point come under attack.
Has the law-enforcement apparatus met with any success in quelling such attacks? In pockets, it does seem that the situation is improving. Consider Karachi, which has seen terrorist attacks in places frequented by the public — as delineated from law-enforcement and military installations that the terrorists claim are their main targets. Such instances include the bombing of the Ashura procession in December 2009 and that of the shrine of Abdullah Shah Ghazi in 2010. Yet, over the past year, various events and occasions that both ordinary people and the law-enforcement set-up feared would be targeted thankfully passed off without incident. Also, a number of high-profile militants have been arrested, implying that protecting the people is possible if there is sufficient will on the part of law-enforcement personnel.

While this is encouraging, it is clearly not enough. Combating the monster of terrorism requires a multi-pronged and holistic approach where different methods achieve success in concert. One area where law-enforcement efforts continue to under-perform is at the level of prosecution. Trials of suspected terrorists or militants tend to yield little because of either poor investigation or prosecution. A case in point is the 2006 Nishtar Park bombing, for which three men believed to be associated with the proscribed Lashkar-i-Jhangvi remain in custody. In the six years that have passed, the prosecution has presented merely one witness. This pattern is repeated around the country in terms of prosecution, and sends out all the wrong signals.
True, there are difficulties: hard evidence in such cases can be difficult to gather and, given the profiles of the terrorists involved, there is always the possibility of witnesses, prosecutors and judges being intimidated. If the police and prosecution could improve their performance in this regard, we would see greater success in combating terrorism.


PAKISTANIS have a habit of finding form and fortune in the Gulf. But bar a six by Javed Miandad that got the better of India in Sharjah ages ago, perhaps no happening in the UAE has given the Pakistani nation more pleasure than the whitewash of England in the Test series that concluded yesterday. The third victory was all the more remarkable given the side’s poor first innings score — making it a rare instance in history where a team went on to win after having been bowled out for less than 100 in its first outing. It is a spectacular series win against the world’s top-ranked team especially given the scandals involving Pakistan cricket. Only cricket could have effectively answered the criticism. Pakistan are going about fixing it the right way in not-so-familiar conditions, even if it will go down in the record books as a home series.

Under Misbah-ul-Haq’s visibly democratic leadership, Pakistan outplayed England in the first Test. They checked the English upsurge in the second and dominated the third after a couple of sessions. Younis Khan was there when he was desperately needed and Azhar Ali played a marathon knock to help seal the last Test. The series confirmed Saeed Ajmal’s expertise and he found an able partner in Abdul Rehman. Not to forget Umar Gul’s contribution as a bowler and Asad Shafiq, Muhammad Hafiz and Misbah himself in the batting department. There are areas that could do with debate — the batting, fielding, the right combination in bowling to suit all seasons and surfaces and, above all, the absence of international cricket in Pakistan. But this is not the time to take up these issues in detail. Let’s celebrate before we start wondering what more could a coach be asked to deliver.

__________________
Regards,
CHAIRMAN MAO