Grave challenges ahead

LET me return for a moment to the Zia period in order to go forward with the analysis I began to offer in this space last week. The third takeover by the military was poorly timed; in fact, the country would have benefited from the political accommodation that seemed on the way between the government headed by Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto and the forces of opposition. Military intervention set back the process of political maturation.

Was it political ambition that propelled General Ziaul Haq to take over power? Or, had the military senior command, given the rapid deterioration of law and order on the street, become too restive to be ignored by the chief of staff? I asked these questions in several conversations I had with President Zia but he always maintained that the law and order situation had deteriorated to the point where the military had no choice but to intervene.

It is interesting that of the four generals who have led the military into Pakistan’s political space only the first, Muhammad Ayub Khan, admitted that he had planned that action for a long time. All others have pleaded that they reacted to extraordinary circumstances. The position they took reflected the thinking on political development at the time of their intervention. In the late 1950s, there was a widely accepted view among political and economic experts that military rule could hasten development in developing societies. That view changed after the spectacular failure of military regimes in many parts of the world in the half century after Ayub Khan’s coup d’etat.

How did the military governments fare in Pakistan? This is an important question and I will attempt to provide some tentative answers for the fourth regime, the one headed by General Pervez Musharraf. However, before getting into the subject, I should mention one conclusion that is clear from an examination of the performance of the military in politics. The legacies left by military governments in Pakistan had more to do with the personality, thinking and beliefs of the leader in charge and little to do with the military as an institution. The Zia government is a particularly good example of that.

The Zia administration succeeded in some areas such as bringing growth back to the economy but, in retrospect, his legacy was extremely negative. Zia’s one contribution was to bring fundamentalist Islam to the country that had lived comfortably for centuries with a considerably more benign form of the religion. Pakistan is still dealing with the plants that sprouted from the seeds sown by General Ziaul Haq.

What about the fourth intervention by the military? Would General Pervez Musharraf have taken over the country’s administration had Prime Minister Mian Nawaz Sharif not made the clumsy attempt to change once again the military’s top command? Did the military incursion into Indian held Kashmir and the way the aftermath of the Kargil episode was handled by the political authorities create so much tension between the civilian government and the military command that only a takeover by the army could resolve it? General Musharraf knows the answers to these questions but he continues to maintain that it was the attempt to hijack his plane that provoked his colleagues to intervene. What would have happened had he not taken over the administration?

I can think of many answers to these questions. Pakistan would have continued the headlong plunge towards Islamization, choosing the interpretation of the religion favoured by the more conservative elements of the Muslim would. Prime Minister Sharif would have succeeded in imposing a new political order which would have introduced religious authoritarianism into the country. His 15th amendment had not been abandoned; it was placed on the back-burner waiting to be brought forward once a Senate that he controlled had been elected. The prime minister would have continued with the task of turning the military into a deeply religious institution, ready to achieve the goals of the ummah.

The economy would have continued its march towards bankruptcy, hastened by the sanctions that were imposed on the country following the explosions of nuclear bombs in the Balochistan desert. And, confronted with the choice given to his successor by the administration in Washington after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the prime minister would have most probably wavered before committing himself fully to the American led war on terrorism.

According to my way of looking at Pakistan’s history, the country was heading towards an abyss when the military chose to intervene. In October 1999, the economy was in shambles, the political system was in disarray, dozens of Islamic groups that espoused all kinds of radical causes were on the loose, the law and order situation was fast deteriorating, and a worried world had begun to fear the worst. A number of foreign analysts had already begun to call Pakistan a failed state; those who were a trifle more generous were prepared to settle for the description of a failing state.

Has General Musharraf pulled the country back from the abyss; can we be certain that Pakistan under his direction will move towards his cherished goal of “enlightened moderation”? Has he brought the Islamic groups under the control of the state, winning back for the government the right to determine in which direction the country should proceed? Has the economy been set on the course to high levels of sustained growth?

Is the large pool of poverty created in the reckless 1990s beginning to shrink in size? Has the country begun to gain the respect of the international community? Is the economy getting integrated into the global economic system and the system of international production that is redefining the way the world operates? Is the large and rapidly growing population being educated and trained to participate in the international system of production?

It is difficult to answer these questions unambiguously. It is difficult to state unequivocally that General Musharraf has succeeded in the tasks which he has defined for himself on several different occasions. Some of his successes and failings are now becoming apparent. The economy is healthier today than it was six years ago but it is still not set on a course on which it can grow and sustain at a rate of growth that would bring a perceptible decrease in the incidence of poverty. Very little has been accomplished to improve the system of education and train the work force. Women have not received their rights that were taken away so crudely by a number of laws put on the statutory books by President Ziaul Haq. Even less has been done to prepare the country to become a full participant in the new global economy. Pakistan remains disconnected with the world. For instance, only one European airline operates a service to Pakistan and even that is only three times a week. None has dared to operate from the United States.

All this notwithstanding it should be recognized that some brave steps have been taken to reverse the disastrous policies of the past. The economy has been saved from bankruptcy and government’s budget has been brought under control. There are growing contacts with India and somewhat better relations with Afghanistan. There is a tentative opening to the state of Israel and some overtures have been made to start a dialogue with the Jewish community of the United States.

President Musharraf has begun to explain more clearly to the world that his country is equally resistant to giving support to the stateless people who are determined to upset the global order in the name of Islam. He is becoming increasingly more open in condemning Islamic extremism and all that it stands for. These steps — some small, some large — have been noticed by the world but they have not fully dispelled the scepticism with which Pakistan continues to be looked at by the global community.

To understand how far Pakistan has been left behind and to appreciate the distance it has to travel, one needs to visit India or read what is being written about the country. I compare Pakistan’s situation with India for the reason that there is so much that is common between the two countries. Nonetheless for reasons that need to be explored India is now regarded with great favour while Pakistan continues to be seen with fear and suspicion. For President Musharraf to succeed in his project he will have to work hard to change the country’s image.

There can be no doubt about the great interest the world has in India and great confidence in its future. During my most recent visit to the country, I took a flight out of Munich to Delhi which was full of Europeans going to India for business, for sightseeing, for various academic pursuits. I went through Munich for the reason that no seats were available from points such as London, Frankfurt and Paris from where I would have preferred to start my journey.

The plane landed at Delhi’s shabby airport but offloaded the passengers to be taken by bus to the terminal. All the available gates were taken by aircrafts that had come in from Europe, the United States and East Asia. The hotels were full, again with foreigners. It was obvious that India for several reasons was the favoured destination for tens — if not hundreds — of thousands people.

For a good example of what is being written about the country I would recommend Thomas Friedman’s latest book on globalization. The book, The World is Flat uses India as the example of a country and, an economy that is reshaping the global production system. I’ll quote one passage from the many that celebrate India in the book. “August 15 commemorates freedom at midnight. Y2K (the need to convert computer programmes on the eve of the 21st century) made possible employment at midnight — but not any employment, employment for India’s best knowledge workers. August 15 gave independence to India. But Y2K gave independence to Indians — not all by any stretch of the imagination, but many of them from the most productive segments of the population. In that sense India was lucky, but it also reaped what it had sowed through hard work and the wisdom of its elders who built all those IITs, the Indian Institutes of Technology.”

Playing with safety

A letter published recently in the correspondence columns of this newspaper spoke of a discussion on a TV channel in which representatives of the Association of Builders and Developers and the Karachi Building Control Authority had been invited.

The correspondent said that the discussion was presumably organized keeping in mind the post-earthquake situation with special reference to Karachi. The only problem, though, he wrote, was that both parties praised each other, with the moderator not holding either side accountable for the haphazardly planned and shoddily constructed high-rise buildings that have come to dominate Karachi’s skyline.

All of this was of course made legitimate by the promulgation by the then Sindh governor (and now chairman of the Senate) Mohammadmian Soomro of an ordinance which sought to ‘regularize’ all buildings in Karachi that had been built in violation of the prescribed building code — on payment of a prescribed fine. The building code that is applied to Karachi is called UBC for short, or ‘uniform building code’ and is adapted from a similar code in the US.

According to columnist Ardeshir Cowasjee, writing in this newspaper on Oct. 30, the number of buildings that have been ‘regularized’ under this ordinance is in the region of 5,000.

This ordinance was wrong to begin with and, as has been pointed out, was strongly resisted by the private members of the KBCA’s then governing body (not in place anymore) which said that this was tantamount to legalizing illegally built buildings and that, instead of taking action against such errant builders, the ordinance would end up rewarding them for their violation of the KBCA’s rules and regulations. In fact, it would not be an exaggeration to say that the ordinance was an instance of the government putting at grave risk the lives of those living in unsafe apartment buildings.

According to the UBC rules, the builder of any structure of ground plus four storeys must submit the building’s plan to the KBCA which will then have it scrutinized by a panel of engineers. This rule is in place because Karachi is included in Zone 2-B of the seismic hazard map of the country, which places the city in an area of moderate seismic activity.

According to the building code, any high-rise should be so designed that it is able to withstand an earthquake of intensity between six and 6.5 on the Richter scale. In the presence of the ordinance, it is most likely that all those buildings which did not conform to the requirements of the building code were ‘regularized’ on payment of a fine. This means that many of these buildings might actually be dangerous to live in given that the city is situated in a zone where a moderate earthquake could strike.

What is perhaps even more disturbing is that the regulatory body concerned with ensuring that buildings are safe to live in has done just the opposite with this ‘regularization’ charade. In fact, not only had it ignored the building violations; it had also directly profited from them in a sense given that the ordinance allows buildings with violations to be ‘regularized’ on payment of a fine.

Of course, part of the blame for this state of affairs is to be borne by the builders who make such buildings and even by those who live in them knowing fully well that they are not built according to proper standards. However, the greater responsibility clearly lies with the KBCA since it has the authority to check violations and to ensure that the structures are built according to the prescribed code.

The standard practice of the KBCA seems to be that from time to time it issues advertisements in newspapers saying that the completion plan for such and such building has been approved. The ad also contains information as to how many storeys and covered area the building is supposed to have. On occasions it has also cautioned prospective buyers against purchasing flats in buildings which have not been issued a ‘no-objection certificate’ by it. However, other than this it hasn’t really done much, although in a few rare cases some structures built illegally have been demolished — but mostly on court orders.

So one wonders of what use are these ‘public service’ ads when so many of Karachi’s buildings are manifestly built in a manner that violates building regulations and would most likely not withstand the jolt of even a moderate earthquake? In the past, some cynics referred this whole exercise to some form of ‘noora kushti’ which means a wrestling match in which everything is fixed but the audience thinks the contestants are actually engaged in a tough fight. Such practices, one hopes, will come to an end in the light of the devastation caused by Oct 8 earthquake in the north.

As for the ‘regularization’ ordinance, the total number of buildings that have been regularized and the amount collected under the head of ‘regularization’ remain classified information so far. These figures should be made public. Also, there is the issue — brought to the fore after the Oct. 8 earthquake — of launching a survey of all buildings that may have been built in violation of the rules and hence may present a danger to their occupants. The KBCA has been directed to carry out this survey but that hardly makes any sense since it was the KBCA itself which did not carry out its regulatory task properly and allowed such illegal structures to be built in the first place. It would be far better if such a survey was carried out by a commission set up by the government and comprising independent design and engineering experts and whose report and recommendations should then be made public. Otherwise, the post-quake survey may also turn out to be another act of deception with many of Karachi’s high-rise buildings remaining as dangerous and prone to earthquakes as at present.

In addition to this, it remains unclear what exactly will be done if a building is deemed vulnerable to seismic activity. Last but by no means the least, those who allowed these illegally- built structures to come up the first place should also be held answerable.

Email: omarq@cyber.net.pk

This isn’t the real America By Jimmy Carter

IN recent years, I have become increasingly concerned by a host of radical government policies that now threaten many basic principles espoused by all previous administrations, Democratic and Republican.

These include the rudimentary American commitment to peace, economic and social justice, civil liberties, our environment and human rights. Also endangered are our historic commitments to providing citizens with truthful information, treating dissenting voices and beliefs with respect, state and local autonomy and fiscal responsibility.

At the same time, our political leaders have declared independence from the restraints of international organizations and have disavowed long-standing global agreements — including agreements on nuclear arms, control of biological weapons and the international system of justice.

Instead of our tradition of espousing peace as a national priority unless our security is directly threatened, we have proclaimed a policy of “preemptive war,” an unabridged right to attack other nations unilaterally to change an unsavoury regime or for other purposes. When there are serious differences with other nations, we brand them as international pariahs and refuse to permit direct discussions to resolve disputes.

Regardless of the costs, there are determined efforts by top US leaders to exert American imperial dominance throughout the world.

These revolutionary policies have been orchestrated by those who believe that our nation’s tremendous power and influence should not be internationally constrained. Even with our troops involved in combat and America facing the threat of additional terrorist attacks, our declaration of “You are either with us or against us!” has replaced the forming of alliances based on a clear comprehension of mutual interests, including the threat of terrorism.

Another disturbing realization is that, unlike during other times of national crisis, the burden of conflict is now concentrated exclusively on the few heroic men and women sent back repeatedly to fight in the quagmire of Iraq. The rest of our nation has not been asked to make any sacrifice, and every effort has been made to conceal or minimize public awareness of casualties.

Instead of cherishing our role as the great champion of human rights, we now find civil liberties and personal privacy grossly violated under some extreme provisions of the Patriot Act.

Of even greater concern is that the US has repudiated the Geneva accords and espoused the use of torture in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, and secretly through proxy regimes elsewhere with the so-called extraordinary rendition programme. It is embarrassing to see the president and vice president insisting that the CIA should be free to perpetrate “cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment” on people in US custody.

Instead of reducing America’s reliance on nuclear weapons and their further proliferation, we have insisted on our right (and that of others) to retain our arsenals, expand them, and therefore abrogate or derogate almost all nuclear arms control agreements negotiated during the last 50 years. We have now become a prime culprit in global nuclear proliferation. America also has abandoned the prohibition of “first use” of nuclear weapons against nonnuclear nations, and is contemplating the previously condemned deployment of weapons in space.

Protection of the environment has fallen by the wayside because of government subservience to political pressure from the oil industry and other powerful lobbying groups. The last five years have brought continued lowering of pollution standards at home and almost universal condemnation of our nation’s global environmental policies.

Our government has abandoned fiscal responsibility by unprecedented favours to the rich, while neglecting America’s working families. Members of Congress have increased their own pay by $30,000 per year since freezing the minimum wage at $5.15 per hour (the lowest among industrialized nations).

I am extremely concerned by a fundamentalist shift in many houses of worship and in government, as church and state have become increasingly intertwined in ways previously thought unimaginable.

As the world’s only superpower, America should be seen as the unswerving champion of peace, freedom and human rights. Our country should be the focal point around which other nations can gather to combat threats to international security and to enhance the quality of our common environment. We should be in the forefront of providing human assistance to people in need.

It is time for the deep and disturbing political divisions within our country to be substantially healed, with Americans united in a common commitment to revive and nourish the historic political and moral values that we have espoused during the last 230 years.—Dawn/Los Angeles Times Service

The writer is a former president of the United States.

Ethics 101

AS if the president doesn’t already have his plate full, he now must deal with ethics in the White House. His popularity is at an all time low and members of his team are under a cloud.

Mr Bush has ordered his staff to take a “refresher” course in ethics and the handling of classified material.

Here is how it might go:

“Loyal members of the White House staff. Welcome to the crash course in Remedial Ethics 101. As you know, the president feels our ethics are not up to snuff, and you people, by staying the course, have lost your moral compass.

“If he can get us out of the war he got us into, solve the energy crisis, and save Medicare and Social Security, he can recoup his popularity and go down in history as the greatest president of all time.

“Now what is ethics? It is not lying to the American people, unless you have to for a greater good.

“Being president of the most powerful nation in the world is hard, hard, hard work. And having his people indicted by a grand jury doesn’t make the job any easier.

“I am going to give the class some hypothetical cases, and I want you to respond with the first thing that comes to mind.

“Someone in the government has written an op-ed piece in the New York Times making us look trigger-happy for going to war in Iraq. What is the first ethical thing to do? Stinman?”

“Have Press Secretary Scott McClellan deny it?”

“No, the first thing to do is find out who the writer is married to. If by chance he is married to an undercover CIA agent, what is the second thing you do? Boomlaw?”

“Call Robert Novak and leak it to him?”

“In the past that would be the only thing to do, but under the new guidelines it is not ethical. If Novak prints it, everyone will know it came from the White House. The only way is to invite Novak to lunch with Vice-President Cheney and let find the name of the CIA agent under his salad plate. You have a question, Muffin?”

“Why not leak it to Judy Miller? She went to jail rather than reveal her sources.”

“Yes, leaking to Judy would not only be the right, but also the ethical, thing to do.”

“Professor, can I give it to Tim Russert?”

“You can talk to Russert and ask him questions about what the Buffalo Bills’ chances are of going to the Super Bowl. But don’t give him names, because he’ll tell the grand jury, and they’ll hang you for perjury.

“All right class, let’s continue. We have to avoid the trouble Lewis Libby got into. How do we do that?”

“Don’t take Robert Novak to lunch.”

“Good answer, Robatusin. Now we have to be very careful with classified material. We don’t want it to get into the hands of the president’s enemies, such as Sen. John McCain.

“Don’t reveal any secrets to the media unless they are marked ‘Top Secret’ and show the president knows what he’s doing. Remember this. If you get into any unethical situation, you’re on your own. Even Karl Rove can’t get you out.”—Dawn/Tribune Media Services

Unkept promises

ONE of the modestly positive features of Egypt’s unfree presidential election two months ago was the set of promises made by the 77-year-old incumbent, Hosni Mubarak, on his way to being awarded a six-year-extension of his 24 years in power.

Mr Mubarak, a de facto dictator up until now, promised to allow a free press and independent judiciary, lift emergency laws that stifle political activity, and reduce presidential powers in favour of a more freely elected parliament. In short, he offered the prospect of a slow but steady journey by Egypt toward liberal democracy. The first test of his commitments, and of the country’s direction, came last week, with the beginning of parliamentary elections.

The results so far are discouraging. Though it has received little attention outside Egypt, the parliamentary vote is in some ways more important than the much-discussed multi-candidate presidential election Mr Mubarak allowed.

The results of several rounds of polling between last week and early December will determine whether the national legislature can evolve from its current rubber-stamp status and also whether the next presidential election will be more competitive, because to nominate a presidential candidate an opposition party will need at least 23 of 444 seats.

So far, neither development looks likely. Mr. Mubarak’s National Democratic Party, which holds more than 85 percent of the parliament’s current seats, won 24 of the first 28 seats that were decided.

—The Washington Post