Going after Iraq?

SPECULATION is rife that Washington is about to make a unilateral military move against Iraq as part of the world coalition’s war against terrorism. To confirm the impression, Vice-President Dick Cheney is scheduled to visit the Middle East to persuade four of Iraq’s neighbours to go along with the US — to oust Saddam Hussein from power. Reports even speak of the State Department having selected the man — an Iraqi ex-general now living in Denmark — who will replace President Saddam Hussein. Israel, too, has been given a role, for media reports say that Tel Aviv will not be restrained this time, as it was during the Gulf war, and will be allowed to attack Iraq.

This is a dangerous option even to think of, knowing the likely reaction of most other coalition partners, especially Muslim countries, to any such adventure. Besides, an Israeli attack on Iraq as part of a US-led military operation will transform Saddam Hussein into an Arab and Muslim hero overnight, which at present he is not. In fact, Saddam’s is one of the most isolated regimes in the Middle East. Should America and Israel jointly attack Iraq, the Middle East would witness an upheaval whose outcome is difficult to predict. Nor is it clear what precisely are America’s grievances against Baghdad. Of late, there has been no evidence that the Iraqi government is supporting terrorism, or that it was in any way involved in the Sept 11 carnage: Washington itself has made no such accusation. The only American complaint is Iraq’s alleged plans to develop weapons of mass destruction.

In the first place, the UN inspectors had completed their job of dismantling before Iraq ended its cooperation. It also transpired that some, though not all, inspectors were working for American intelligence agencies. Secondly, the Iraqi people have suffered terribly because of severe and over-extended sanctions which have long outlived their need and failed to shake much less topple the Baathist regime. The shortage of life-saving drugs and baby food has resulted in the death of an estimated half a million Iraqi children, besides a phenomenal rise in cancer cases because of the use of depleted uranium. The misery of the Iraqi people has aroused worldwide concern. More dangerously, this has contributed in no small measure to the rise of extremist and terrorist groups which accuse America of what they perceive as a case of mass murder of Iraqi children and pledge revenge.

It is time the US realized that the inspection issue can be solved by peaceful means. As President Putin said on Monday, there are many ways for securing the return of the UN inspectors. But the military option was far from being “the sole, universal or best solution”. An attack on Iraq will split the world coalition. Not only its Muslim components: even America’s European partners, besides China and Russia, have opposed the move. As it is, Anglo-American air forces attack Iraq every now and then. In the event of a full-scale military move, there may be widespread disturbances and political anarchy, and extremists may seize power in a region where the US has vital economic and geopolitical interests. Only an enemy of America would recommend a second Gulf war.

Milosevic in the dock

ON Tuesday, one of the most important trials in recent history began in the Hague, aimed at bringing to justice a man accused of some of the most horrific crimes of the twentieth century. In the dock was former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, accused of genocide and ordering unspeakable war crimes across the Balkans between 1991 and 1999. The prosecution will argue that Milosevic is responsible for the deaths of nearly a quarter of a million non-Serbs in Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo during the nineties. The trial is widely seen as the most important of its nature since Nazi war criminals were tried at Nuremberg after the Second World War. As the chief prosecutor at the trial pointed out in her opening statement, Milosevic’s barbaric killing spree introduced a chilling new term — ‘ethnic cleansing’ — into the vocabulary. She added that Milosevic was responsible for the “worst crimes known to humanity” and that “some of the incidents revealed an almost medieval savagery and a calculated cruelty that went far beyond the bounds of legitimate warfare”.

While Milosevic has refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Hague court, the prosecution is bracing itself for a long-drawn-out process to prove its case, which could take as long as two years. Lawyers will have to wade through mounds of paper and listen to hundreds of hours of testimony to prove that Milosevic was aware of, and actually ordered, the terrible atrocities committed by Serbian forces in the Balkans. The trial of Milosevic will be watched closely not only by the surviving victims of his reign of terror — including tens of thousands of women who were systematically raped by the Serbs — but also by the world at large. As the first former head of state charged with genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, Milosevic’s trial by an international tribunal could serve as a powerful deterrent to autocratic rulers who feel they can get away with the most abhorrent acts while in power without being brought to justice.

Better textbooks

THE induction of the private sector in the publication of school textbooks from the next academic year is a welcome step taken by the Sindh education department in that it should help scale down the influence enjoyed by the Sindh Textbook Board over the quality of school education. If implemented properly, it should also prevent the usual textbook shortages that happen every year, right before the start of the academic session. The reason for this is simple: the Textbook Board is simply too bureaucratic and the process by which it contracts out orders for printing too opaque for it to play its due role in ensuring that textbooks are easily available wherever needed. Other than that, the quality, or lack of it, of texts published by the Board is well known to most parents and others. Its virtual monopoly means that the Board has little or no incentive to make its books more interesting and innovative. In fact, what one does find is that many of them are poorly written, contain inaccurate information, and the language used is often grammatically incorrect or full of errors.

Improving textbook quality is key to improving the quality of education and the whole learning process. Books which are visually appealing and reader-friendly, and written in language which is easy to comprehend, are more likely to draw and hold the attention of students than those that read like a sermon or are badly written. Involvement of the private sector should also help raise the quality of content of our textbooks. Many of them are heavy on ‘ideology’ and seem to follow an agenda whose primary aim is to brainwash the younger generation into believing only officially-sanctioned truths about the nation and its history. We hope this too will change and textbooks will become the tools of genuine learning that they are meant to be.