|
| November 19, 2006 | Sunday | Shawwal 26, 1427 |
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)
Tackling terrorism
Where is Gohram Saleh?
Eu’s problems with Turkey and Russia
THE European Union’s relations with two of its largest and most influential neighbours — Turkey and Russia — have hit rock bottom, raising serious doubts about the 25-nation bloc’s ability to forge strong alliances with powerful players in its immediate region. Current strains in EU ties with Ankara and Moscow have also raised questions about the 25-nation bloc’s ability to speak with one voice on the global stage and take quick and politically balanced decisions.
DESPITE reports of rifts within its ranks, the Muttahida Majlis-i-Amal seems determined to resign from the National Assembly in protest against the adoption of the Women’s Protection Bill. The MMA considers the bill as deviating from Islam and, according to some of its more outlandish comments, as opening the floodgates of free sex. The religious alliance had previously stated that it would leave the assembly if the bill went though without the amendments proposed by the ulema committee which had the MMA’s support and the setting up of which was one of the major tactical mistakes made by the PML-Q. The MMA therefore is sticking to a stand that it had previously announced, and it is entitled to do so. But whether it is right or wrong is another matter. Also to be considered is the churlish reaction of some other political parties which are demanding that the MMA should prove faithful to its promise and resign so that they can contest on the vacant seats in by-elections.
In the last general elections, the MMA alliance had won more seats than expected largely thanks to the Musharraf government’s fear of and distaste for the two main parties, the PPP and the PML-N. Despite this backing, the MMA represents a minority of the electorate. How then can it presume to dictate to the majority and then threaten to resign from parliament if its dictation is not accepted? This position flies in the face of those democratic principles that the MMA claims it is fighting for though its stance is authoritarian. It also depicts the majority supporting the bill as un-Islamic, which is exactly the kind of self-righteous posture that is putting moderate Muslims in despair. For four years the MMA has been part of the same parliament that it now believes has steamrollered the women’s bill — and not only benefited from its presence in parliament but also managed to use this presence to legitimise the general’s rule in uniform. There is of course much that is wrong with parliament, which is one of the main institutions to suffer from our periodic bouts of military rule and which the present regime has also done everything to belittle. But resigning in the year remaining before the general elections doesn’t seem like a sound strategy and will do nothing to convince the public that the MMA’s decision is motivated by the general good and is not actually a decision based on short-sighted, bigoted and parochial views.
Nor should the ruling party and its allies crow over the MMA’s intended move. It is not good for democracy if a party holding a sizable number of seats decides to quit parliament. All political parties should, without being blackmailed, leave the MMA alone to sort out its own contradictions and come to its own decisions. The MMA stalwarts should realise that the issue that they have chosen on which to take the extreme step of resigning strikes no chord in the hearts of the majority of the people, who believe that misguided male chauvinist attitudes falsely based on religion have as much to do with the exploitation of women as feudal attitudes and oppressive social customs. Those looking forward to by-elections should remember the East Pakistan experience when almost all parties had demeaned themselves by contesting for seats forcibly emptied of Awami Leaguers by the military junta.
FRIDAY’S bombings in Peshawar and Lahore come as a rude reminder that the demon of terrorism is alive and kicking. The roadside blast in Lahore using a timed device left 20 bystanders injured; in the Peshawar suicide bombing, the 20-year-old bomber blew himself up and injured two policemen. Of late, terrorist attacks have been on the rise in Quetta and the rest of Balochistan. Karachi, too, has had more than its fair share of bombings over the years. Last month, even in the high-security environment of Islamabad, a rocket attack on the presidency was foiled just in time. Overall, little has been achieved by the country’s vast intelligence and security apparatus in checking the wave of terrorism. The security agencies’ primary concern seems only to facilitate the VIPs’ movement and safety, leaving the lesser mortals going about their daily business with a sense of fear and insecurity. The total apathy of the authorities towards public safety is appalling.
The hard fact is that no amount of surveillance is a surety bond against an act of terrorism. It is for policymakers, politicians and opinion leaders to go into the reasons behind the growing menace and start addressing the causes that sustain this frightening new creed of homegrown terrorists. Young men planting bombs or, worse still, carrying out suicide missions against innocent people are only symptoms of a deeper malaise which many believe is born of our own, wrong policies pursued with a tunnel vision over the years. While intelligence agencies must do more to reduce the danger posed to society by desperate elements lured into carrying out a deadly, political, religious or whatever twisted agenda of the known and invisible leaders and masterminds, tinkering with it is no solution. Unless a genuine sense of democratic participation in shaping the country’s internal and external policies is restored, terrorism can only be wished away, not done away with. Little can be achieved by a forced sense of moderation and enlightenment thrust upon the people, with the shortsighted aim of brushing up the country’s image abroad; it is the wrongs that have sullied the image which should be corrected.
IT IS easy to understand the concerns of Gohram Saleh’s family who held a peaceful rally outside the Press Club in Karachi on Friday to protest against his detention by agencies since August 2004. Not knowing where your loved one has been for well over two years can be agonising, especially if the authorities remain impervious to all pleadings for tracing out and securing the release of a missing person. On the contrary, Mr Saleh’s family say they are being harassed and their house was raided on Nov 10 and 11 — it is not known by whom and why. Sadly, they are not alone in their plight as scores of other men and even some women have mysteriously disappeared since the global war on terror began. Their whereabouts remain unknown while the government denies holding them. The courts are the only institution to offer a beacon of hope by accepting petitions filed by missing persons’ families, but when asked, the government invariably denies any knowledge of the person’s whereabouts. The Supreme Court recently took up a petition of 42 missing persons and has given the government a Dec 1 deadline to trace them, warning that “no excuse will be tolerated” if it fails to deliver. One hopes that the government will be more forthcoming than it has been so far on where all those missing persons — including Mr Saleh — are being held and why.
There is a judicial process in place that must be respected. If, for example, Mr Saleh is being detained for a crime he committed, he is entitled to a fair trial. This issue has caused international concern too. Most recently, the Human Rights Watch noted that the pattern of disappearances had “increased dramatically” in recent years. It is time the government ensured that its agencies adhered to the law when detaining people and took steps to prevent more forced disappearances from occurring.
In addition, the souring of ties with Turkey and Russia is a blow to the EU’s international credibility at a time when the bloc’s global reputation has taken a dive because of rising acrimony over the future of the crippled constitution and growing “enlargement fatigue” affecting the public and key policymakers.
In both cases, relations with neighbours have become strained because the 25 EU states cannot agree on a common position. In both cases, it is one member state — a newcomer which joined the EU in its 2004 “big bang” enlargement — which is responsible for the current difficulties.
The dark cloud hanging over Turkey’s long-standing bid to join the EU is the result of a hardline stance taken by the Republic of Cyprus over Ankara’s failure to open its ports to Greek Cypriot ships. While many other EU states watch in some dismay, it looks likely that Ankara’s failure to comply with Nicosia’s demands could lead to a suspension in EU-Turkey talks later this year.
EU relations with Russia, meanwhile, are in jeopardy because of a tough line being taken by Poland, a former communist nation and close ally of the former Soviet Union. Warsaw is refusing to give its go-ahead to an ambitious new EU-Russia cooperation agreement over Moscow’s failure to ratify an international energy charter which would open the gas and oil sector to foreign competition.
The difficulties are not surprising. They may be part of the same Union, but the 25 EU member-states are by no means united in their view of their immediate neighbourhood or the wider world. Most importantly, despite efforts to forge a common stance on issues like the Middle East and Asia, EU nations continue to harbour very different foreign policy goals and ambitions.
This often leads to stimulating debates in the European Commission, the EU parliament and the council of ministers. But it certainly does not lead to decisive action. And the problem is expected to get even worse once Romania and Bulgaria join the EU next January, taking the grand total of EU states to 27.
The new constitution was hammered out to correct exactly this problem. But the treaty ran foul of French and Dutch voters last year, leaving the bloc to limp on with existing rules for decision-making which often require unanimity on key questions.
Unanimity often means paralysis, however, and the result quite simply is a mess. Europe’s current difficulties with Turkey are especially disheartening.
Having opened long-awaited membership talks with the EU last year, Ankara is under increasing pressure to comply with the bloc’s demands for political reform, better human rights protection and a reduced role for the armed forces in politics.
Turkish officials say they are doing their best to meet EU standards, with some admitting that EU pressure is beneficial because it encourages speedier reforms and faster political modernisation of the country. However, Cyprus has upped the ante by demanding an immediate move by Ankara to open its ports to Greek Cypriot ships, a move that Ankara says it can only make once the EU ends its current economic boycott of the Turkish part of the divided island.
Unless Ankara concedes to Cypriot demands, EU leaders are expected to decide at a summit in Brussels mid-December to suspend the entry talks with Turkey. The hardline Cypriot stance is being echoed by Austria, whose public is largely against Turkey’s membership of the EU, as well as France.
Austrian Foreign Minister Ursula Plassnik told reporters in Brussels recently that she wanted a “time-out” on the Turkish negotiations to reduce tensions. The Austrian proposal was not backed by other EU states but apart from Britain, Italy and Spain, Turkey at the moment has few allies in Europe. France has said it will hold a referendum on Turkey’s membership. Germany is pushing for a “privileged partnership” for Turkey instead of full membership, a proposal that Ankara rejects.
However, help appears on hand from the other side of the Atlantic, with US officials questioning Europe’s right to impose formal deadlines on Ankara. Those in favour of a tough line on Turkey, argue that by refusing to allow Cypriot ships to enter its ports, Ankara is flouting a pledge it made last year to treat all EU states equally.
The commission has said this is a “legal obligation” which Ankara must comply with as soon as possible. Critics, however, accuse the EU of losing sight of the bigger, strategic picture in its relations with Turkey.
With its dynamic economy and vast pool of low-cost labour, they say Turkey will give the EU an economic boost, allowing the bloc to face up to competition from China and India. A meeting of the World Economic Forum held in Turkey said recently that European countries should start thinking of Turkey in terms of rewards, rather than risks. Participants at the meeting advised the EU to look beyond the problems of the large, relatively poor, Muslim nation and focus on the long-term benefits that Turkey can offer.
“Turkey is perceived by many as a source of risk to Europe; it may be just the opposite,” Thierry Malleret, an author of the forum’s report on Turkey, said in a statement. Closer integration with Turkey, would enhance European energy security, help the bloc overcome a demographic decline and help better integrate minorities over the next couple of decades, the report said.
Turkey is fast becoming a transit country for gas and oil supplies from the Caspian Sea, Russia and the Middle East, which would help Europe diversify supplies and reduce dependence on single suppliers. Turkey has a young population compared to that of Europe, a factor that could help overcome any labour shortages in Europe, the report added.
“Whatever the short-term outcome of current negotiations on accession to the EU, Europe and Turkey are bound together. They have overwhelming strategic interest in maintaining mutual security and prosperity,” It added.
Relations between the EU and Russia are also in bad shape, with Poland refusing to lift its objections to a new EU cooperation pact with Russia which officials say will increase the bloc’s access to Russian oil and gas. Warsaw insisted that Moscow must first ratify an international energy charter aimed at liberalising the oil and gas sector. It is also demanding an end to a Russian import ban on Polish meat and plant exports.
The Polish stance is a blow to other EU states which were hoping to launch negotiations on an ambitious new agreement with Moscow at a summit with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki on November 24.
EU diplomats said Finland, as current holder of the EU presidency, will now try to break the deadlock in “political level” talks with Polish leaders over the coming days. The European Commission also said it was sending a team of veterinary experts to Warsaw in the coming days to try and reassure Russia that Poland was in compliance with EU standards for meat and plant exports.
EU officials have also urged Poland not to allow its bilateral problems with Moscow to stand in the way of an EU-wide drive to upgrade relations with Russia, a leading supplier of natural gas to the 25-nation bloc. However, Polish President Lech Kaczynski in a recent interview called for equality and genuine partnership to be established as prerequisites in his country’s relations with Russia.
Kaczynski, twin brother of Poland’s Prime Minister Jaroslav Kaczynski, told the Dziennek newspaper that despite numerous statements of goodwill, Russian politicians had fallen short in offering solutions to the most significant problems. The Polish president said he saw two possible solutions to the problem — either Russia lifts the blockade against Poland or the EU imposes similar sanctions against Russia.
Negotiations on a new EU-Russia pact cannot start until a mandate is acquired from all 25 EU member-states. The European Commission is attempting to put a brave face on the setback, saying the summit with Putin will focus on other issues and that failure to launch talks on a new agreement will not create a “legal vacuum” as the current accord with Russia can be extended.
Although the current problem resolves around Poland, EU countries are in fact deeply divided over how best to deal with Russia. Poland and other former Soviet allies make no secret of their desire for a tougher EU policy towards Moscow, including in the energy sector.
But while other EU governments have also watched with growing alarm Moscow’s use of its energy resources as a foreign policy tool, its punishing blockade against Georgia and its perceived defiance of European norms of human rights and economic liberalism, they believe that changes in Russia’s stance can only be obtained through dialogue, not confrontation.
The problem is that the softly-softly approach does not seem to be paying off. At a summit meeting last month in Lahti, Finland, a defiant Putin refused to sign the energy charter. A divided EU can expect even more tough-talking from the Russian President on November 24 in Finland.