US drive for hegemony

THE Iranian nuclear issue could well prove to be a watershed in world politics. August 31 was the deadline set by the UN Security Council resolution 1696 for Iran to halt its uranium enrichment programme. As President Ahmadinejad has been making it known all along, Iran has not complied with the demand made by the Council. It is plain that President George Bush does not have the support of all the co-sponsors of the resolution for imposing sanctions on Iran, which has been the American goal since the crisis started. When the resolution was adopted in July, Russia and China managed to water down the draft because they are not inclined to back the US in its policy of confrontation with Iran. The resolution does not speak of sanctions in case of Iranian non-compliance by the stipulated date. The resolution only speaks of “appropriate measures under Article 41 of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations”. It is also underlined that further decisions will be required should “such additional measures be necessary”.

The last proviso has obviously been added to pre-empt Mr Bush from repeating what he did in Iraq — taking punitive action outside the framework of the UN Security Council as he could not be certain of avoiding a veto from Russia, China and France. This time there is no doubt that the American policy of unilateralism has reached a dead end. America will have to confront Russia, China and France before it can take on Iran. Tehran has played its cards cleverly. Even countries which are staunch opponents of nuclear weapons and champions of peace have not been able to fault Iran because it has categorically declared that its nuclear programme is not designed to manufacture weapons. Just having a uranium enrichment process does not mean that a government is violating the NPT which does not ban such a move. Moreover, Iran has been largely submitting its programme to inspection by the IAEA. Above all, in a letter delivered ten days ago to the six governments that had offered an incentives package to Iran, Mr Larijani, the Iranian negotiator, offered serious talks on the issue. Iran had even agreed to a moratorium on uranium enrichment in 2003 and signed the Additional Protocol for more stringent safeguards while it was conducting a dialogue with the EU-3. Hence common sense demands that the six powers that have sponsored the new resolution should agree to unconditional talks with Iran on the nuclear question rather than try to browbeat it into submission.

The Bush administration’s ambition to establish American hegemony has been exposed. Russia and China do not perceive America’s approach to Iran as being a result of its concerns about nuclear proliferation. Its threats and pressure tactics are being seen as devices aimed at bringing about a regime change in Iran. This is wholly unacceptable in the changing context of world affairs. The performance of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, Russia’s and China’s growing economic and political ties with Iran, and Europe’s independent line on the Middle East will hamper America’s relentless drive for world hegemony. Even Tony Blair, who led Britain into a subservient role of playing second fiddle to the White House, is not so politically strong today. One hopes that the winds of change will bring some wisdom to Washington and it will open a dialogue with Tehran.

Need for water management

STRESSING the need for integrated water management, participants at a recent IUCN workshop in Karachi noted that debate on an issue as critical as water is currently dominated by emotion rather than reason and ground realities. This worrying state of affairs does not bode well for the country and, in particular, the agriculture sector. Pending a consensus on large dams, alternative solutions must be explored to stave off a crisis that is bound to deepen with time. Emphasis must be placed on flood control and storage schemes for harnessing surplus water, as well as small reservoirs that can collect rainwater in arid areas. There is no reason why a time of plenty, such as the current monsoon spell, should lead to disaster instead of good tidings for the future. Storage capacity, however, is just one aspect of the problem: remedial efforts must also focus on efficient use. In this connection, lining of canals and watercourses is of paramount importance, as is land-levelling to reduce run-off velocity, improve moisture retention and prevent erosion. At the same time, farming techniques that provide a higher yield per unit must be encouraged. Rational use has not only the potential to bring under cultivation land that is lying fallow for want of water, but also to reclaim areas lost to waterlogging and salinity. Any increase in agricultural output will, in turn, help alleviate poverty and raise livelihood levels. Besides strengthening the country economically, greater access to water can go a long way in improving inter-provincial relations.

Agriculture is by far the single largest consumer of water, accounting for between 95 and 97 per cent of available resources. As such, that is the sector where conservation is most urgently required. But in cities too water is being wasted on a staggering scale because of dilapidated distribution networks and a failure on the part of consumers to use this precious resource prudently. Treatment and possible reuse of waste water is another neglected area. On the federal level, it is important that the draft National Water Policy is approved and implemented in consultation with the provinces. Without coordination, trust and honesty of purpose, integrated water management will remain an elusive goal.

Retrieving the body

AS if the killing of Nawab Akbar Bugti was not enough of a cause for shock and grief, the retrieval of the body itself has turned into a major issue. By taking a media team to the cave in the Kohlu area where the Bugti chief was killed, the government has attempted to make things transparent. Part of the body is said to be visible, but it is apparently deep inside the collapsed cave, whose roof may give in because the explosion that reportedly killed the nawab and others weakened the L-shaped cave’s structure. There are explosives, too, which could go off, killing more people. Because of the mountainous nature of the terrain, earth-moving machinery cannot reach the spot, so the retrieval process is being done manually, and the job, according to the government, could take as much as a week. Unfortunately, the distrust between the government and the angry Bugti family is making matters worse. The authorities want his sons to go to Kohlu to see things for themselves, but the sons have refused, saying they are being threatened. Given the way the intelligence agencies operate, one should not be surprised if the Bugti sons feel threatened. This kind of attitude will only boomerang on the government.

Already, a wave of anger is sweeping Balochistan and other parts of the country over the killing, and any further delay in the recovery of the body and burial will only inflame popular passions. The late nawab’s family must also be incensed over the government’s insistence that only two family members should attend the last rites — a condition the government says the rival Bugti sub-tribe has imposed. Since it is obviously finding it difficult to speak to the late sardar’s family, the government could perhaps secure the services of some truly neutral persons who could help remove misunderstandings between the two sides. The body must be recovered at the earliest, without counting too much on the patience of the bereaved family. (According to latest information, the body of Nawab Akbar Bugti has been recovered.)

Divine guidance on wealth

THE Quran provides guidance to human beings in respect of every aspect of life. With regard to the economic aspect, it says “And do not covet what Allah has given some of you more than others: the men shall have their due share according to what they have earned and the women shall have their share according to what they have earned. So pray to Allah for His Bounty: most surely Allah has perfect knowledge of everything” (4:32).

The word “earned” in the verse has reference to what one can earn and get in this world like material wealth and substance and not the reward in the Hereafter as some people think. This is also evident from the word “covet” occurring in the verse because it is the intense desire for material wealth or substance, specially that which belongs to others, that is condemned and prohibited and not the desire for reward in the Hereafter.

The Quran enjoins the believers not to eagerly desire whatever material wealth or substance Allah has given to others even if it is more than what they have got. The words “what Allah has given” in the verse have reference to what one has earned or acquired in the rightful way like the money earned as compensation for one’s efforts or labour or through an honest business transaction or through legal inheritance etc. It means that the Quran recognises and protects one’s right to private property, without any limit, if earned, possessed and used in the rightful manner.

The verse treats the men and women at par with each other in matter of material earnings. The women have the same right to strive for and earn material wealth or substance as men in the rightful manner. And if they have the same right as men to strive for earning material wealth or substance, they should naturally have the same right to acquire the requisite skills and capabilities for the purpose, within the limits of decency and modesty set by the Quran and Sunnah, and the same or similar opportunities to make use thereof.

The Quran, while recognising one’s right to own material wealth and property, at the same time takes care that the wealth is not accumulated in a few hands. For that purpose the Quran has devised two ways. One is the process of inheritance through which the wealth and property of a deceased Muslim, male or female, is divided among his or her heirs according to the prescribed shares. The other is the process of charity which can also be in two ways. One is through the payment of zakat and ushr at the prescribed rates which is obligatory if the things held, on which zakat or usher is payable, exceed the prescribed limits in quantity or value.

The other is spending in the way of Allah which, though not obligatory, has yet been repeatedly emphasised by the Quran and Sunnah. The Quran has also specified the persons and purposes on whom or on which the amount of zakat and ushr and that paid otherwise than as zakat and ushr has to be spent.

The Quran rather says that in the wealth of every believer there is a due share of him who asks and of him who is needy (51:19). The wealth will never accumulate in a few hands if the Quranic directives in regard to inheritance and spending in the way of Allah are strictly adhered to. About the hoarding of wealth and not spending it in the way of Allah, the Quran says “and for those who hoard up gold and silver and do not spend it in the way of Allah, announce for them a painful chastisement” (9:34).

Another aspect which the verse (4:32) specifically highlights is that instead of coveting what belongs to others one should rely on his own efforts to earn more in the rightful way. People, instead of earning through their own efforts, start grabbing what belongs to others which can have manifold unpleasant outcomes. A person tends to become lethargic if he can easily grab what belongs to others. It may also encourage many other ills and crimes in society such as thefts, robberies and misappropriations. That is why the Quran enjoins the believers that instead of eagerly desiring what belongs to others, they should earn through their own efforts what they desire.

Another aspect which the verse (4:32) emphasises is that everyone, whether a man or woman, shall get according to his or her contribution. From the words “according to what they have earned” in the verse it is crystal clear that what one should get should be in proportion to his or her contribution. This principle has a two-fold objective. One is that a person shall be compensated in accordance with the scale of his contribution which indeed could be the most appropriate and fair way of compensating a person for his contribution or effort in consonance with the spirit of another Quranic verse which says “is there any reward for good other than good” (55:60).

The other factor is that no one should be under the impression that he will get what he wants just by sitting idle. This principle has been spelled out by another Quranic verse which says “and there is nothing for man but what he has striven for” (53:39). The Quran also says “We have created man in toil” (90:4) which means that man has to undergo hard labour to earn his livelihood.

Thus, when the verse (4:32) says “pray to Allah for His Bounty”, it does not mean that one will get what he wants without any effort. He has to make due effort to get it. He should of course pray to Allah for fortitude, right direction, granting him right opportunity and the ability to endure all adverse conditions that he may encounter and for success in achieving the desired objective. The Quran repeatedly exhorts the believers to seek the Bounty of Allah (17:66) (28:73) (35:12) which means that the Bounty of Allah has to be sought.

In fact, what should be prayed for should be the ability to seek and what should be sought in the right way should be the material gain or advantage which one will get in abundance if earnestly striven for. Seeking does involve making of efforts, physical or mental. At the same time the Quran condemns extravagance in spending (17:26) and prohibits the believers from eating up their properties in vanity (2:188).

In regard to the economic progress, the Quran provides excellent guidance when it says “Lo! Allah does not change the condition of a people until they change (first) that which is in their soul” (13:11). The verse in terms refers to change in the socio-economic condition of the people which according to it follows a set rule. There is first change in the soul of the people concerned i.e. a change in their thinking, perceptions, levels of awareness, visions, outlooks, behaviours, habits and priorities appropriate to the change they want to bring.

Stumbling towards peace

LAST WEEK Somalia’s major port — in the capital, Mogadishu — saw an unusual scene: a cargo ship unloading there for the first time in more than a decade. The city’s international airport reopened last month. Yet so much bad news has emerged from Somalia since its collapse into anarchy in 1991 that few expect to hear anything positive.

That may change. Events in Somalia could spark a war in the Horn of Africa. But there are signs of a better outcome as the country regains the trappings of a functioning society. Which way things go depends on how Somalia’s neighbours and the world react.

The worry is that the outsiders, through a mix of misunderstanding and malice, will block progress. The country is fractured, into near-independent Somaliland in the north and the chaotic south. But the three factions fighting for control in the south became two in June when an Islamic movement drove out the warlords who dominated Mogadishu.

For all the talk of a Somali Taliban, a loose alliance of Islamic courts has brought a sort of order to southern and central Somalia.

It faces the legitimate but impotent UN-backed government, based in Baidoa. A reconciliation between the Islamists and the weakened government could give the country a single source of authority and a prospect of development. The UN is calling for talks. But two dangers lie ahead. The first is that the Islamists may fall further into the hands of extremists and fight on rather than talk. The second is that the interim government could break apart into violence.

Somalia’s neighbours, Ethiopia and Eritrea, are stirring the pot. Ethiopia backs the secular government and is sending in troops and weapons, enraging the Islamic courts and worrying the UN. Eritrea, which wants to confront Ethiopia over their ongoing border dispute, is said to have responded by selling arms to the Islamic courts. The danger of a conflagration in Somalia as a proxy for an Ethiopian-Eritrean war is acute. The US, whose intervention in Somalia in 1991 went so wrong, has not helped. It blundered by bankrolling Mogadishu’s warlords, while Britain offered more measured support for the interim government.

Recent US backing for a Somali defence force, as opposed to the divisive issue of foreign peacekeepers, suggests there may be a way forward. There is talk of an African peacekeeping force.

But the answer to the country’s agonies must come from within. If its neighbours can be restrained from interfering and internal groups can be encouraged to collaborate, peace and progress might arrive unexpectedly and even quickly.

— The Guardian, London