Off they go
September 21, 2012
The Supreme Court has finally delivered the short order on petitions challenging the dual nationalities of lawmakers. All legislators with twin nationalities now stand disqualified and have been declared ineligible for public office. The court has also directed the Election Commission to initiate proceedings against lawmakers who provided incorrect information about the status of their nationalities and thereby defiled their oath of office. Chief among such lawmakers is now former Interior Minister Rehman Malik who, as it turns out, was a British citizen until May 29, 2012, even though he submitted an affidavit for the 2008 Senate elections stating otherwise. The court has directed the ECP to initiate legal proceedings against Malik and to register a criminal case. The same is to be the fate of all other lawmakers who made similarly fallacious declarations.
Is the verdict harsh? The ruling party may cry foul but it is not the Supreme Court but the constitution of this country that bars lawmakers from being dual nationals. Article 63(1)(c) of the constitution clearly reads: “A person shall be disqualified from being elected or chosen as, and from being, a member of the Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament), if he ceases to be a citizen of Pakistan, or acquires the citizenship of a foreign state.” In essence, then, these disqualifications are not an articulation of the SC caprices but an attempt to implement the constitution in letter and spirit. Likewise, the court is also well within its rights to order legal proceedings against lawmakers who, under oath, actively lied about the status of their nationality. Indeed, what could be more disgraceful and undignified than parliamentarians – the very people into whose hands we entrust the making of this country’s sacred laws – misleading the courts and the country about their true status as nationals of Pakistan or other countries? At this point then, we can only hope that, when the Election Commission gets down to the task of examining the cases of National Assembly and provincial assembly members individually, as directed by the court in Thursday’s ruling, lawmakers will have better sense to tell the truth in the fresh declarations that will be sought from them.
Another attack
September 21, 2012
The kind of news we consume daily – in our newspapers and on our television sets – has become eerily familiar, with reports of the same kinds of attacks carried out by the same culprits. The latest such incident took place on the outskirts of Peshawar Wednesday, when a van carrying Pakistan Air Force personnel was bombed, killing eight and wounding 30 people. The device had been placed in a busy area and was denoted by remote control, according to police officials. As has become the norm, the Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP) immediately claimed responsibility for the bombing, which like past attacks targeted security personnel. Those in uniform have for long remained a key Taliban target. The police are investigating the incident but this seems unlikely to lead to much. It is an established pattern with arrests often proving difficult. While the small fry are captured, those who actually plot and plan such assaults almost inevitably escape without facing any consequences. This has only encouraged more killing and led to further mayhem by militant groups.
We have also completely failed to tame the Taliban or other groups who use violence to carry forward their message. It is true the scale of such attacks may have reduced slightly when compared to the situation some four or five years ago, but from time to time daring attacks are launched. A top security site – the Kamra Air Base – was hit only weeks ago. The question is how to put an end to this alarming state of affairs. Somewhere in our tribal areas, Taliban leaders still hold sway and retain the ability to carry out attacks where and when they please. This does not say much for the success of the military operation against them that has continued over many years and disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of ordinary citizens. The time has come to assess why this is the case.
Sino-Japanese ties
September 21, 2012
A dispute over the sovereignty of a group of tiny uninhabited islands threatens to negatively impact on the economies of China and Japan. The physical demonstrations against Japanese interests and diplomatic missions in China appear to be dying down, and neither side seems to have much taste for escalation. The Chinese economy is already contracting; a report by HSBC on Thursday detailed 11 months of decline with little sign of reversal. In the wake of violent and destructive protests, factories, mini-markets, clothing and vehicle retailers and fast-food outlets that were Japanese owned are closed, with some virtually in ruins. Nissan, Toyota, Honda and Mazda have suspended operations at some of their plants and hundreds of 7-Eleven shops run by a Japanese company are closed. There have been calls – heeded – to boycott Japanese goods and services and the stock-market value of a number of Japanese companies has fallen; Nissan by five percent, Honda by 2.5 percent and Uniqlo by seven percent.
Analysts in both countries see this as a potential turning point. The Japanese, who anyway have a somewhat tendentious relationship with China that historically spans wars dating back centuries, may decide to recalibrate their risk exposure in terms of investing and operating on the Chinese mainland. They could choose to diversify into South America and Southeast Asia, as well as the African states where China is already busy deepening its own economic ties and activity. This is no storm in an economic teacup. Trade between the two in 2011 was valued at almost $350 billion. China is Japan’s largest export market and has received foreign direct investments of about $12 billion from Japan in the same period. Tourism between the two is a significant revenue-earner and more than three million Japanese visit China every year. At the height of the demonstrations there were wild rumours that China was preparing to go to war with Japan. They were unsubstantiated but indicative of the negativity generated by the sovereignty of the islands. The US Defence Secretary Leon Panetta is travelling in the region and has called for restraint and a diplomatic settlement, something that seems distant for now. There are other tiny scraps of land across the Asia-Pacific region whose ownership is hotly disputed as the global hunt for extractable resources turns to seabeds and offshore exploration. Territoriality matters and, where national boundaries are drawn and internationally recognised, determines who benefits from the resources at the bottom of the sea. China and Japan are unlikely to clash militarily over the issue, but the economic damage will have significant and long-term implications.