BY the end of 2016, when Ban Ki-moon’s second term ends, the UN General Assembly will appoint the next secretary general “upon the recommendation of the Security Council”.

The UN Charter describes the secretary general as the “chief administrative officer” of the world organisation who also performs “such other functions” as are assigned to him by the UNGA, the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council. Importantly, the secretary general has the authority “to bring to the attention of the Security Council any matter which in his opinion may threaten the maintenance of international peace and security”.

Over the years, the UN secretary general has come to personify the world organisation. His role, pronouncements and actions reflect directly on the image and credibility of the UN. He is expected to promote the lofty principles and purposes of the UN Charter. Often, he has been described as the “secular pope”. The best secretaries general have been those able to act independently of the influence of the major powers.

A secretary general must not be beholden to one or more of the permanent members.

The UN’s non-permanent members have consistently complained of their virtual marginalisation in the secretary general’s appointment. The Security Council, in informal consultations, agrees on one candidate and ‘recommends’ his appointment to the General Assembly which has virtually no option but to approve the recommendation. In fact, the Security Council’s critical consultations take place in closed quarters among the five permanent members, each of whom has the right to veto a candidate.

In 2006, the Asian countries unanimously claimed the secretary general’s post. This was agreed in principle by all except the US. The story is that at a bilateral lunch, the US ambassador, John Bolton, asked his Chinese counterpart: which Asian candidate was acceptable to China. The latter replied that China could accept any of the five Asians. Bolton responded the US would veto all except Ban Ki-moon. That was how the current secretary general was selected. He has been loyal to his benefactors.

This is reflected in the UN’s Western-oriented priorities over the last decade: terrorism, non-proliferation, human rights, climate change. Issues that are difficult for the West, the Arab-Israeli dispute, foreign interventions in the Muslim world, development assistance, have been pushed to the sidelines. All major UN departments and agencies are headed by representatives of Western powers. Today, it is the real pope, rather than the secular pope, who speaks truth to power and advocates the rights of the downtrodden.

In response to calls for greater transparency in the secretary general’s election, it has been agreed that this year, candidates for the post will be interviewed in the UNGA. It is unlikely this will change the outcome. In the final analysis, the Security Council will again submit one name (not two or more as desired by reform advocates) which the UNGA will be hard put to reject.

Among the UN’s five regional groupings, the East Europeans have never provided a secretary general and have claimed the post this time. Several East European candidates have entered the field, including an ex-president of Slovenia and two Bulgarian women — an EU commissioner and the present director general, Unesco.

But East Europe no longer exists as a political group since all its members, except Belarus, Ukraine and Russia, have joined or are in the process of joining Nato or EU or both. As a permanent member, Russia cannot be a candidate. Belarus and Ukraine would be unacceptable. Thus politically an East European candidate will in fact be a candidate from a West-dominated Europe.

Since East is now West, a number of West European candidates have also entered the race. Among them, Portugal’s former prime minister Gutierrez and Helen Clark, former New Zealand prime minister. The New York Times has endorsed Chancellor Merkel for the post. But, since Germany (like Japan, India and Brazil) aspires to a permanent Security Council seat, would this disqualify her for the secretary general’s post?

Several Latin Americans also feel they are eligible since their group last held the post 20 years ago. The new foreign minister of Argentina; the foreign minister of Chile (and ex-chairman of the Benazir Bhutto assassination inquiry commission), even the serving Chilean president may be candidates. 

There is a strong move within the UN in favour of a female secretary general since all have been males hitherto. Thus the emergence of several women candidates. However, this politically correct consideration will not weigh decisively with the permanent members when deciding which candidate best serves their interests.

The historical record shows that candidates who enter the field early seldom succeed. Most successful candidates have emerged from the shadows towards the end of the process. The interview process agreed this year may change this dynamic, especially if a cut-off date for the presentation of candidatures is agreed.

On at least two occasions, the choice has fallen on ‘insider’ candidates. Under-secretary U Thant became acting secretary general after Dag Hammarskjold’s death and was later confirmed in the post. Kofi Annan, under-secretary general for peacekeeping, was sponsored by the US secretary of state when she decided to be rid of an overly independent Boutros-Ghali. This time also, the highly respected deputy secretary general, Jan Eliasson, could emerge as a compromise selection.

To play an effective role, a secretary general must not be beholden to one or more of the permanent members. To this end, it may be best for the incoming secretary general to declare at the outset that he/she will not seek a second term. This would enable him/her to resist the influence of the major powers and play an independent, effective role.

Although the post has been described as the “most impossible job in the world”, an independent, intelligent secretary general possesses the moral authority and institutional capacity to secure much wider and more consistent adherence to the core principles and purposes of the UN Charter and thus restore a semblance of order in a world that is unequal, complex, violent and dangerous.

The writer is a former Pakistan ambassador to the UN.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016

AS both diplomats and political experts have stressed, one key way of improving Indo-Pakistan ties would be to bolster regional integration and trade. However, integration — as well as peace and normalisation — will remain a pipe dream unless the visa regime in the subcontinent is liberalised in the true sense of the word. Speaking at a programme in Lahore recently, Indian high commissioner Gautam Bambawale said there was no better way of improving relations between Pakistan and India than trade. This is quite true, while calls for an integrated and connected South Asia are also imminently sensible. But what are the respective governments doing to encourage trade or even people-to-people contact? Not much apparently. For example, the exercise of getting a visa for the other country by the average citizen remains a test of endurance and commitment. In Pakistan, citizens can apply for an Indian visa through courier services, which saves a trip to Islamabad. But the process is both lengthy and bureaucratic, with applicants having to secure ‘sponsorship’ letters from their Indian hosts, as well as attaching a thick file of paperwork. In India, those desiring to visit Pakistan have to come to New Delhi from across the far reaches of that vast land to lodge a visa application with the Pakistan High Commission.

If one is lucky enough to get a visa, the modes of transport to cross the border are relatively limited. For instance, the Thar Express — the train service that links Sindh and Rajasthan and which has been running for 10 years now — continues to suffer from inadequate infrastructure. Police reporting in both countries is also an odious, archaic procedure. Both governments can easily remedy this situation by easing visa procedures and making them less complicated, increasing the options for cross-border travel and reopening deputy high commissions in Karachi and Mumbai, respectively. Once people can freely meet and trade, and work with each other, the animosities of old can give way to a relationship based on trust and good neighbourliness.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016

 

Not nabbed yet [NAB AND THE EXISTING GOVERNMENT OF PML-N]

CYRIL ALMEIDA — THE DAWN/21.02.2016The writer is a member of staff.

FIRST, the good news: at least no one lost their minds. There’s been no crisis. No mutants crawling out of the woodwork. Nobody thinks the government is about to fall.

Basically, a win for continuity.

The longer this democracy thing goes on, the more folk will be able to take disagreements in their stride. It’s how democracy is supposed to work.

---

The surest thing we’ve learned about Nawaz is that a confident Nawaz makes for a snippy Nawaz.

---

Not everything is the end of the world. Not everything is so fragile. Some things are built to last.

Now, on to the bad news: continuity aside, there’s not much good going on here.

NAB is a flawed organisation. Thoroughly so. It has to be: it was created by a military man and designed to take on civilians.

Partly, that’s what’s happening again. But that’s not only why Nawaz is snarling and his acolytes are yelping.

The surest thing we’ve learned about Nawaz the third time round is that a confident Nawaz makes for a snippy Nawaz.

Basically, Raheel’s told everyone he’s going home.

Which means Nawaz is king of the castle for a while. At least until the next chaps settles in. And that makes for trouble.

If Nawaz thinks you’re an irritant, anyway.

Remember Model Town? The massacre happened hours after Zarb-i-Azb began. The calculation then was as clear as it is now: the boys were on-side, which was a good time to whack an opponent or two.

This time, we’ve learned the boss isn’t too happy about how NAB is going about its business. And it’s revealed several things to us, besides the obvious.

First, the media has been neutralised. Its ability to cause real trouble for a government is gone.

There, fault originally lies with the boys: they decided independence — raucous, self-serving, manipulated media independence — was a step too far.

Once the boys intervened, the government got its chance. Soon enough, hyper partisanship was the name of the game. Which makes hysteria less effective.

So now — Nawaz snarls at NAB, the media goes into a frenzy, and most everyone else yawns. You can’t really know what the truth is because you already know which side everyone is on. 

Second, the outburst revealed the extent to which Nawaz has been captured — or allowed himself to be captured — by bureaucrats.

Go over the original words. He was aggrieved that NAB was scaring bureaucrats. Not letting them do their job; interfering willy-nilly.

It’s like government of the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats. That’s never a good thing — for democracy or politicians themselves. Nawaz’s insularity is at its peak.

Third, Nawaz doesn’t much care for the rules. The NAB probing is partly rooted in an old political problem: trying to get too much done too quickly without the regular checks and balances.

Big-ticket items — flagship infrastructure projects — this government is so proud of are hard to get off the ground. Not impossible, but really difficult.

The rules are byzantine, the agencies many and the traps countless. There’s always someone around to say no and another three people to explain why.

But Nawaz — and the brother in Punjab — is impatient. Politics is about results, not rules.

So short cuts are taken and trouble is created — partly because the system is broken and partly because there’s no interest in reforming it.

Fourth, the guy at the top seems to think everyone around him is like him. Possibly a rupee trillionaire by now, there’s no real impulse for Nawaz to line his pockets.

The brother in Lahore is nowhere near as wealthy, but he’s rich enough — and money isn’t what seems to really make him tick.

What the brothers are doing, they believe they’re doing for the greater good. Which makes them bristle at corruption probes — it is to question the basis of all that they now think they stand for.

Five, not everyone around them is like the Brothers Sharif. This is obvious enough — or should be.

If you’re not already a billionaire or trillionaire, there’s incentive to stick your hand in the cookie jar. And maybe too if you already are a billionaire.

The system is so big, the opportunities so many, the temptation so great that only a fool would believe that there’s nothing going on at all.

Corruption exists because corruption makes sense — the upside is great, the downsides few, especially when the system is broken and your boss has your back.

Put all of that together and we’re still left with that one, big old question: how to get the pols to do the right thing?

The most obvious route is gone. Were Iftikhar Chaudhry still around, he would have roared and suo motu-ed his way to the centre of things. We’d either have a new NAB or a rejuvenated old one.

Parliament is compromised. The old opposition, ie the PPP, is worried about itself; the new opposition, ie the PTI, is caught between radicalism and the status quo. And the government — well, we already know what the government is thinking.

Scandal could be a catalyst — but the media is compromised. Without a credible vehicle to flog scandal, scandal loses its effect. So even if scandal arrives, it likely won’t go very far.

Which leaves — the boys. And that brings us full circle. The boys know how to work institutions, but the pols know the boys can’t fix institutions.

Essentially, the boys have a hammer, but the pols hold the strings.

Which means a scalp or two may be got and stuff at the margins curbed, but the game, the greater game, will go on.

It’s good to be a politician again. Unless Raheel has something up his sleeve.

The writer is a member of staff.

cyril.a@gmail.com

Twitter: @cyalm

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016

 

Lifting of Iran sanctions [PAK-IRAN RELATIONS]

EDITORIAL — THE DAWN/21.02.2016

MORE than a month after most other countries in the world lifted sanctions against Iran, Pakistan has finally followed suit. It is a welcome step, even if it appears to have been reluctantly taken and has come rather late. As a contiguous neighbour, Pakistan ought to have moved faster and deeper down the road to restoring normal economic ties with Iran than most other countries. This is especially true given the natural complementarities between the economies of the two countries. Iran has a surplus of energy but is food deficient, while Pakistan is food secure but energy deficient. Nevertheless, the fact that our own raft of sanctions, mostly issued through the Foreign Office, has now been lifted has cleared the way for parties on both sides to start re-engaging with one another. And this is precisely the point where the road towards the resumption of normal economic ties comes into view before us.

That road, it is becoming increasingly clear, is longer than what most might envisage. Even the act of lifting our own sanctions against Iran proved slightly more complex than imagined. The step was undertaken on prodding from the Iranian side during the prime minister’s visit to Tehran last month, at the time the UN Security Council endorsed the nuclear deal through Resolution 2231. The language of the draft notification issued by the Foreign Office to lift Pakistan’s sanctions then had to be vetted by various stakeholders within the government, such as the ministries of defence and law and the State Bank. This process could have begun sooner, considering that the IAEA had confirmed Iran’s compliance with the terms of the nuclear deal as early as Dec 2, 2015. 

Now that the lifting of the sanctions has been notified by the Foreign Office, the hard part of actually rebuilding economic ties can commence. No further legal obstacles stand in the way of private-sector parties to start engaging with the neighbouring economy, but significant logistical obstacles still remain. Banks need to build counterparty arrangements with Iranian banks so LCs can be processed, the road linkages need to be upgraded significantly to handle the clearing of containerised cargoes, and a clientele needs to be developed by traders on either side of the border. A visa regime needs to be developed that will facilitate a growing and thriving trade relationship through easier visa rules and by enhancing people-to-people contact. In time, air and rail links must be expeditiously built as well. The road to a $5bn trade relationship is still a long one, and much work remains to be done. The private sector can be counted on to step up to the opportunities that will come its way, but at the moment it is the government that must shed the impression that it is being dragged reluctantly to the finish line.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016

US hopes to host Sharif-Modi meeting

ANWAR IQBAL — THE DAWN/21.02.2016

WASHINGTON: The United States has said that it would support any decision to hold a meeting between Pakistani and Indian prime ministers in the US capital next month.

“We’re supportive of any decisions that could be made for this to take place,” said a State Department spokesman, Mark Toner, when asked if the United States was involved in efforts to arrange a meeting between the two South Asian leaders.

Diplomatic observers in Washington say that the United States, India and Pakistan are quietly exploring the possibility of a meeting between Prime Ministers Nawaz Sharif and Narendra Modi when the two leaders visit Washington next month. 

Both leaders have accepted US President Barack Obama’s invitation to attend a nuclear summit the White House is hosting on March 31 and April 1.

Mr Toner said that while he did not have “anything specific to point to”, he could confirm that the US remained engaged with both Pakistani and Indian governments.

“Certainly, we remain engaged with the Indian government. We want to see this entire effort move forward,” he said.

The Pakistani and Indian prime ministers have had three meetings so far: the first in May, 2014, when Mr Sharif attended Mr Modi’s swearing-in ceremony in New Delhi. 

They met again on the sidelines of a regional summit in Ufa, Russia, in July last year, and on Dec 25 Mr Modi had a surprise stopover in Lahore while returning home from Afghanistan.

At the State Department briefing, Mr Toner also noted Pakistan’s efforts to fight terrorists, noting that no country was more affected by terrorism than Pakistan.

“I can’t speak specifically to ISIL’s presence or non-presence in Pakistan,” said the US official while responding to a question about the presence of militant Islamic State group in the country.

“I can say that we’ve seen elements of ISIL or ISIL-affiliated groups spring up in Afghanistan. I mean, they look for ungoverned spaces. There are parts of Pakistan that are havens for some of these terrorist organisations,” he added.

He said the United States “fully recognised” the Pakistani government’s “commitment to pushing back and fighting these terrorists”.

“No one’s more affected by terrorism than the people of Pakistan, and we’re going to continue to support them, whether it’s ISIL or other terrorist groups operating on their soil,” said the US official.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016

 

Sindh asks centre to set up judicial commission [NAB, PML-N, PPP]

APP — THE DAWN

KARACHI: The Sindh government has decided to request the centre to constitute a judicial commission to examine the actions taken by the Federal Investigation Agency in the province.

“The provincial government deems the actions of FIA and NAB (National Accountability Bureau) in Sindh as ‘a strode over move’ (sic) of their limits and jurisdiction,” said a statement issued by the Chief Minister’s House on Saturday.

It said Interior Minister Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan had informed PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari that he was ready to constitute a judicial commission to look into the raids and seizures carried out by FIA in Sindh if the latter (Zardari) desired so.

“The Sindh government would appreciate if Chaudhry Nisar Ali Khan, in order to keep the record straight, takes a bold initiative to constitute a judicial commission to look into the FIA raids in Sindh,” the statement said.

According to the provincial government, the FIA had taken away more than 15,000 files of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation. Sindh feels that the FIA had no authority and jurisdiction to conduct raids on its offices.

---

Provincial govt has reservations on ‘raids’ conducted by FIA

---

 

ALSO READ: 

Supra-commission to check ‘misuse of power’ by NAB on the cards

 

“The provincial government has its own mechanism to take action against corruption in its departments. The FIA, under a self-proclaimed authority, has taken over the role of an anti-corruption agency in the jurisdiction of the provincial government. This is unconstitutional, especially against the spirit of the 18th Amendment.”

The statement said the findings of the judicial commission would help remove misunderstandings developed on the issue of jurisdiction or actions of FIA and NAB in Sindh.

“This is a very good, pragmatic and bold offer on the part of minister for interior,” it said.

Amir Wasim adds from Islamabad: Reiterating his offer to constitute a judicial commission to look into allegations that the FIA was exceeding its mandate, Chaudhry Nisar said on Saturday that the federal government could move an application in this regard next week if the PPP leadership agreed to it.

In a statement, he asked the PPP-led Sindh government to go to court if it had any reservations over the FIA’s role in the KMC case.

The minister clarified that he had offered for scrutiny of all cases being pursued by the FIA during the present government’s tenure and not about any specific case. 

He alleged that the PPP leaders through their statements had been making the FIA’s investigation into corruption cases controversial.

Chaudhry Nisar had offered on Wednesday to form a judicial commission to look into the role and performance of the FIA over the past two and a half years in a rejoinder to PPP Co-chairman Asif Ali Zardari’s claim that the FIA was following in the footprints of NAB in exceeding its mandate.

The minister had assured that the FIA would not be used against political opponents or innocent people as long as he held office. He, however, said the FIA would act with full force against the corrupt and not show any leniency.

Waseem Shamsi adds from Sukkur: Leader of Opposition in the National Assembly Syed Khursheed Shah has said nobody should be worried about actions of the National Accountability Bureau in Punjab.

Talking to the media at his residence on Saturday, he said if Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had expressed his outrage over NAB actions in parliament, his credibility would have increased enormously.

He said the NAB had been taking action for some time in Sindh and Balochistan and if it did the same in Punjab nobody should fear. Instead, the system of NAB’s working should be corrected.

In reply to a question, the opposition leader said he was not aware that the NAB chairman had refused to meet the prime minister.

He said it was wrong to first arrest the accused, take his remand for 90 days and send him to prison and after two years he was declared an innocent. The NAB should first complete the investigation and then give the accused an opportunity to record his statement, he added. “Action must be taken against a corrupt person.”

He said Mr Sharif had opposed a proposal to close the NAB and set up an accountability commission, but now he himself was talking against the bureau.

The PPP leader said the government had claimed that the signing of an agreement for import of LNG with Qatar was its achievement, but gas would be costly.

He urged the government to take parliament into confidence on the issue of a terrorist attack on an airbase in the Indian city of Pathankot and the recent registration of an FIR in Gujranwala.

Published in Dawn, February 21st, 2016