Parliamentary review
March 21st, 2012
After a long period of deliberation, the parliamentary committee tasked to review ties with the US came up with recommendations that are both imminently unobjectionable and yet, unlikely to ever come to fruition. Presented by the committee’s Chairman, Senator Raza Rabbani, the review’s most important proposal was regarding US drone attacks in the tribal areas. Without parliament’s approval, said Rabbani, the US would not be allowed to use Pakistani bases or airspace. Just saying this, however, does not mean it will automatically translate into reality, as the US has shown no willingness to take dictation from Pakistan while the military establishment, which has given its assent to drone attacks, has no desire to listen to orders from a nominally supreme parliament. This was all but acknowledged by the parliamentary review, which also said that no state institution can come to a verbal agreement with foreign governments on such matters.
Even though it may sound tough in its rhetoric, all the clauses have given the Americans plenty of wiggle room. Even the one recommendation most likely to anger the US — that we will continue to pursue building a gas pipeline project with Iran — is simply a restatement of existing policy. The parliamentary review has been able to bring some sense of clarity to the debate over ties with the US. We now know what the view of the civilian government is, even if there is very little chance of it being implemented or obeyed by the US or the security establishment.
The one silver lining to this debate has been the way parliament has tried to take back from the military its prerogative to devise foreign policy. Of course, there are some who may be of the view that parliament is doing precisely what the military would have done anyway. Although a single parliamentary review is not enough to do all this, but hopefully it will establish a tradition of the country’s elected representatives openly debating matters that should be under its purview. If that is indeed the case, then despite its many delays and likely ineffectualness, the parliamentary review will have served its purpose.
To write or not to write
March 21st, 2012
In his 24-page response to the Supreme Court, Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani has made it clear that he has no intentions of writing a letter to the Swiss authorities, which could bring about a reopening of cases against individuals, including President Asif Ali Zardari. The stance, of course, brings the executive into direct conflict with the judiciary; fierce party loyalty is also involved. The prime minister has already said that he is willing to go to jail rather than to write a letter and this, at least for now, has become a central issue on our political landscape.
The defiance of the court opens up many dilemmas. There is also an argument which suggests it is crucial to get to the bottom of what happened in the Swiss cases involving corruption worth billions. But there are also some simple facts that need to be faced. Emotions, rhetoric and accusations alone will lead us nowhere. Eventually, it is the law which must prevail. And the Constitution seems to state quite clearly that until the president holds office, he enjoys immunity and no case can be initiated against him. It is this clause that the prime minister says he is determined to uphold at all costs.
Certainly, it is vital that the Constitution — and all that it states — with regard to the letter be followed if we are to avoid a state of anarchy. We are already venturing far too close to such a situation. The question of immunity is one that draws different comments from either side. The prime minister, however, is determined to go by the document which determines the supreme law of the country and it is difficult to fault him for this. To a large extent, what happens next depends on the majority, or the lack of it — demonstrated by the Court, the government and its legal advisers — as we face the unpleasant prospects of yet another prime minister landing up in jail and further tensions evolving between key institutions.
Caring for animals
March 21st, 2012
The deaths of three deer at the Karachi Zoological Gardens, with a fourth also feared dead, should spur a serious discussion in the country about the conditions in which animals are kept at zoos around the country. Unfortunately, the rights of animals have rarely been taken seriously in Pakistan and so, like previous such incidents, the matter is unlikely to be brought up, let alone debated. It is because of this general apathy that officials at the zoo could claim that the deer died due to “excessive mating”, a medical problem that has never been heard of before and unlikely to be deployed again. By using this made-up condition, zoo officials have shown their utter disdain for those few who may actually care about animal rights.
In August 2011, three lion cubs died at the Karachi Zoo, with a similarly ludicrous explanation being bandied about. Back then, the authorities responsible claimed that the cubs had been eaten by its mother, even though the more likely cause of death was that the cubs were not given shelter from the rain. Back then, as now, officials were concerned only with deflecting blame from themselves, knowing well that the matter would not be pursued further. Unfortunately, they were proved right, and will probably get away with it again this time.
In the US, a country that takes animal rights seriously, just last week the Dustin Hoffman-starring TV show “Luck” was cancelled after three horses died during filming. This move is likely to cause the HBO network tens of millions of dollars in losses. Yet, they went ahead with the cancellation, not wanting to be known as the network that kills horses and face picketing by animal-rights activists. Similar pressure needs to be put on zoo officials here if we are to afford animals the rights they deserve. A start could be made by moving animals away from cages to a habitat more suitable to them. It is about time that the issue of cruelty to animals is brought to national attention as it is reflective of the level of humanity present in society.