3
June 24-30, 2013
OPINION
Priorities and promises
T
Najmul Hasan Rizvi
he people are expecting new leaders to put Pakistan into right gear to ensure a smooth drive on the road to progress. “And the right gear means they have to identify the right priorities,” Mr Right said placing a newspaper on the table. “What do you mean by right priority?” I asked. “It simply means first thing first, but it may be different for different people,” Mr Right remarked. “There is a joke that once a teenager went for her first driving lesson. As she slid behind the wheel, the instructor told her to make seat adjustments so that the car is comfortable for her. ‘Now what the first thing you should do?’ the instructor asked her. ‘Change the radio station,” she replied. “Most of our leaders in the past
had been making themselves comfortable in the driving seat with things turning more entertaining for them,” I said. “These were their priorities,” Mr Right said. “The new leaders will have to work out different choices.” “But for Maulana Fazlur Rehman, every politician’s first priority should be to join hands with the party in power and he has succeeded in this after the PML-N agreed in principle on his ‘priorities’.” “And what are his other priorities?” “As usual, ministries ,which have little impact on the voters’ lives and celestial laws that, in his view, would automatically prevent brothers from killing brothers, what a day dreamer he is,” Mr. Right grinned. “And what about the others?” I looked at him. “Well, the PML-N has expressed its intention to deal with loadshed-
ding on a priority basis,” he explained. Nawaz Sharif is keen to increase power supply to reduce the agony of the people.. He has also turned his eye to big organisations and public corporations overloaded with inefficient staff.” “The government has already started a nation-wide talent hunt to replace bad managers,” I pointed out. “And this means ‘loadshedding’ is going to stay in the country in another form.” “In Punjab, Shabaz Sharif is ready to launch a ‘Metro Bus Drive’ against corruption, measles and electricity shortfall,” Mr Right said. “Many heads might roll there as well.” “Imran Khan too has a long list of priorities,” he observed. “Drone attacks are on top of the list. But he is yet to find an alternate target for them. Drones are made to attack the enemies of our great friend and operations in the mountains will stop only if new enemies are identified.”
“Imran’s party is also going to change the police system in the KP,” I said. “Will they elect or recruit them at the village level ?” “The first priority for the KP government should be to remove confusion about their reforms,” Mr Right stressed. “The chief minister’s rhetoric till now has only left the people guessing about the shape of things to come in their province.” “Then the PPP is the only political party that has no confusion about its priorities,” I said. “The party’s name itself seems to be an acronym of Priority, Priority, Priority.” “No doubt, their priorities are the same as before. These include projection of personalities, protection of power and putting people in peril,” Mr Right elaborated. “They are again in power in Sindh and the people are bracing for new disasters,” I said. “Don’t lose your heart,” Mr Right
Syria: Only rhetoric, no action
U
LINDA HEARD
S President Barack Obama has finally warmed to the idea of arming and training Syrian opposition forces after quashing a similar plan touted by former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and former CIA chief Gen. David Petraeus last February. He says he’s altered his mind because he has conclusive proof that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons against rebels, which he considers to be a red line. The move has generally gained the approval of US lawmakers, although many complain that it’s too little, too late. Remember the old adage “he who hesitates is lost?” The Syrian conflict has been raging for two-anda-half years. The UN says almost 93,000 have been killed. Millions have been made homeless; hundreds of thousands have sought safe harbor in neighboring countries. And until now, the so-called Leader of the Free World has talked the talk but failed to walk the walk, ignoring the urging of the UK and France to get proactive. Former US President Bill Clinton has criticized his friend over his inaction, warning Obama that he risks being perceived as “a wuss.” There’s no doubt that the superpower’s credibility has taken a nosedive, which is probably the reason Obama has capitulated…or has he? Is he sincere about making a difference or is he merely dipping his toes in the water as a P.R. stunt? By all accounts, Obama has little interest in implementing a no-fly zone over Syria preventing regime airstrikes. And he only intends to supply rebel fighters with relatively light weapons of the type they’re already getting via the back door from other sources, rather than much-needed sophisticated anti-tank and antiaircraft guided missiles. This halfhearted approach will do little to tip
the balance in the opposition’s favor when the other side has fighter jets, helicopter gunships, tanks and missiles, courtesy of Russia and Iran that has greatly bolstered the regime’s prowess with battle hardened Hezbollah guerillas and Iranian Revolutionary Guards. The US president excuses his reluctance to fulfill the demands of opposition forces, saying he doesn’t want heavy American weaponry falling into the hands of militant groups linked to Al-Qaeda, such as Jabhat Al-Nusra that’s gained popularity due to its battlefield victories. Too much analysis leads to paralysis. Obama should decide once and for all which side he’s on and goes for it; else he’s merely prolonging the misery for all concerned. Yes, there are undesirables among the dissenters but when the opposition is fighting for the country’s future identity neither Obama nor anyone else has the luxury of being picky. However, Obama’s milestone announcement has further alienated Moscow with senior Russian government officials saying the Geneva-2 peace conference, scheduled for next month, may be in jeopardy. Russian President Vladimir Putin hasn’t pulled any punches with his response. “You will not deny that one does not really need to support the people who not only kill their enemies, but open up their bodies, eat their intestines in front of the public and cameras. Are these the people you want to support? Is it them who you want to supply with weapons? Then this probably has little relation to humanitarian values that have been preached in Europe for hundreds of years,” he told reporters at a press conference. Putin is suffering from chronic hypocrisy. True, Assad hasn’t been chomping on human organs as far as we’re aware, but his emissaries have been torturing and dismembering children, bombing apartment blocks with families still inside, and turning
historic cities into Armageddon-type movie sets. And what moral platform does the Russian president have when he’s consistently used his country veto to block Western and Arab League attempts to censure the regime and plans to supply Assad with S-300 anti-aircraft missiles and advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, if he hasn’t already done so. There is no magic pill here. But one thing’s for sure: More weapons means more blood spilled. Putin says the conflict can only be resolved through “political and diplomatic means.” If that’s the case, which it surely is, then he should start the ball rolling by quitting his testosterone-propelled stubborn stance long enough to work with the international community in putting an end to a human manufactured disaster that shames our planet. Putin is in a position where he can make a difference. If he were disposed to drop his support for Bashar Assad and lean heavily on Tehran to keep its distance that would be a gamechanger. Russia was geopolitically and financially burned by the US-led invasion of Iraq, which is why the Russian leader is digging in his heels over Syria that hosts a Russian naval facility on the Mediterranean. What’s to prevent Moscow negotiating a deal to keep its base with the National Security Council that umbrellas opposition groups as a condition for Russia’s backing? UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is one of the few voices of common sense. He rightly says that this conflict has no military solution and so, the arming of either side “would not be helpful.” It’s tragic that his is one message that squabbling world powers don’t want to hear. They would rather continue their game of oneupmanship, no matter how many innocents are paying the ultimate price. There are high hopes for Geneva-2 but as long as the major players refuse compromise, I fear those hopes are destined to be dashed.
comforted me. “The chief minister has promised a new era for Sindh with strong measures to end unrest in Karachi and elsewhere even without the help of the MQM.” “Karachi is producing more garbage and dead bodies on a daily basis than any other city in the country and the government has failed to keep the streets clean due to shortage of resources,” I said. “It would be very wise to outsource cleaning services to Edhis, who are taking good care of dead bodies dumped in lanes and ditches.They are really well-equipped to handle all kinds of litter in the city,” I suggested. “Top priority should be attached by the authorities concerned to means of removing bullet-riddled bodies in Karachi and Quetta,” Mr Right pleaded. “One has to keep the roads hazard-free and the administrative vehicle in right gear to make the journey successful.”
EU’s military commitment
T
M.N. Hebbar
he armaments industry worldwide has never really had it so good, thanks to the ongoing sundry wars in most regions of the world, the Cold War and post-Cold War developments, especially in Europe where states submissive to the dictates of erstwhile military alliances sought to catch up on their respective defence needs under the new dispensation. Until now. The formation of the European Union (EU) was expected to provide a sense of unity and direction to its 27-member states, especially in the crucially important spheres of security, foreign policy and economic cooperation. However, recent years have seen a gradual decline in the ability of European nations to do much on their own in the area of defence as the US alone now accounts for nearly three-fourths of NATO defence spending. With the US readying to meet a new age of military austerity, shifting its focus, among others, to the Pacific, European defence spending has declined by some 20 per cent over the past decade even as China upped its spend by a whopping 200 per cent. For the first time, Asian nations spent more on military budgets last year than European countries. Today, with military conflicts looming far beyond Europe’s borders — the Middle East is in turmoil, with thousands dying in Syria and Iran with its nuclear programme threatening destabilisation of the whole region — the question arises whether European nations, faced with differing national priorities across the continent have lowered their priorities and military effectiveness. Syria is an ongoing disaster. ‘Politicking’ by the US, Europe and Russia that have been interchanging diplomatic intervention with threatened military action has not broken the logjam of the incendiary scenario. Now the news that the EU has decided to lift the arms embargo on the main Syrian opposition, the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) with “adequate safeguards against misuse” has come as a belated shot in the arm for the SNC. Has it really? The SNC, while welcoming the EU move, has bemoaned it as “too little, too late”, indicating that the situation demanded more than just weapons. Help in firmly restoring democratic rights and institutions was more urgent. It was lamentable that it was democracies (read EU) that were slow in assisting other democracies around the world in times of crisis, was the refrain. The reason advanced for the EU decision has been to send “a clear signal to the Assad regime that it has to negotiate seriously and that all options remain on the table if it refuses to do so”. But it has been evident all long that the Syrian regime has not showed any real interest in negotiations with the rebels except for making the right noises sporadically. Reports emanating from Brussels indicate that the decision to lift the arms embargo on the Syrian opposition was taken after serious internal rifts amongst the members, with the majority not quite in favour of the move. It was France and the UK, the EU’s biggest military powers, which finally gave a push to the decision. The EU decision poses a serious question. Is it just a morale booster? Does it have the wherewithal to execute its decision or is it taking refuge behind the veil of improbabilities? No state has stated its readiness to send lethal weapons to the SNC as yet. Or its preparedness.
www.diplomaticaffairs.net