|
Column 1 یہ کالمز ڈان اخبار سے یہاں نقل کئے گئے ہیں
Deadly influences
Mahir AliJune 26, 2019
AMONG the broadly sensible recommendations at the end of the report, released last week, by the UN special rapporteur [خسوصی نمائندہ]on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions following an “investigation into the unlawful death of Mr Jamal Khashoggi”, Agnes Callamard suggests that member states “impose targeted sanctions against individuals allegedly involved in the killing … These should include the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, focusing on his personal assets abroad, until and unless evidence has been produced that he bears no responsibility for the execution of Mr Khashoggi”.
Given that Mohammed bin Salman’s (MBS) most precious personal asset abroad resides in the White House, the suggestion is unlikely to have sparked any sort of panic inside the royal palace in Riyadh. After all, there has been much else to worry about in recent days, not least a ruling by the UK’s court of appeal that British arms sales to Saudi Arabia are unlawful in view of their contribution to civilian casualties in Yemen, and bipartisan[دو مخالف پرٹیوں کے اتفاق پر مبنی] votes in the US Senate along similar lines.
There is no prospect, however, of the Senate voting to override[مسترد کرنا] the inevitable presidential veto. In fact, Donald Trump on Sunday dismissed the special rapporteur’s request for a criminal investigation by the FBI into the murder of Khashoggi by saying it would interfere with the sales of weaponry. “I think it’s been heavily investigated,” he told NBC. “By everybody … I’ve seen so many reports.”
There’s no doubt Khashoggi’s murder was entirely premeditated.
These reports presumably include submissions by the US intelligence community, which reached the same conclusion as Callamard: namely that the US-based journalist could not conceivably have been butchered inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul without the crown prince’s knowledge. The gruesome [ہولناک]details in the special rapporteur’s report leave little doubt that the killing was entirely premeditated, down to preparations for disposing of the corpse, even though the aftermath hadn’t been clearly thought through. The idea of getting away with pretending that Khashoggi walked out of the consulate in one piece, followed by expressions of confected [بھلے انداز میں پیش کی گئی] concern by Riyadh over his subsequent ‘disappearance’, is mind-boggling.
The Turkish authorities — which initially milked the murder for all it was worth, then stepped back after Recep Tayyip Erdogan got what he wanted out of Saudi Arabia — shared only brief excerpts [اقتباسات، کسی تحریریا تقریر کے ٹکڑے] from the audio recorded inside the consulate with the special rapporteur, who was not allowed to make copies of it or take notes. There are nonetheless telling instances, including references the day before the killing to chopping up the journalist’s remains, and the head of the death squad, Maher Mutreb, describing Khashoggi as “the sacrificial animal” shortly before the latter stepped into the consulate on Oct 2 last year.
The initial international reaction was horror, and a few nations and companies withdrew from an economic conclave [میٹنگ] scheduled shortly afterwards. In the somewhat longer term, though, MBS wasn’t mistaken in counting on getting away with it. It would be surprising if Callamard’s report were to seriously challenge his impunity[سزا یا جرم کی ذمہ داری سے بچ جانا].
Germany, to its credit, was the only significant nation to halt arms sales to the Saudis — and even though Berlin’s contributions to the Saudi arsenal[اسلحہ] have been relatively small, British foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt has reportedly lobbied the government of Angela Merkel to lift the embargo[بیچنے پر پابندی کا اقدام]. Hunt is thus far the underdog among the last two contenders for Conservative Party leadership, but there is no reason to suppose his rival, Boris Johnson, who is expected to become Britain’s prime minister late next month unless he self-destructs in the interim, has a different opinion about arms sales to the Saudis.
A comprehensive report in The Guardian earlier this month noted that London’s military relationship with Riyadh extends to the deployment of personnel from the war industry and the RAF, which compounds British complicity [کسی جرم میں معاونت]in the aggression against Yemen — also initiated by MBS.
In this he had the crucial assistance of Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince and de facto ruler of Abu Dhabi who, according to an investigative report published in The New York Times some three weeks ago, was instrumental in elevating MBS to the position of Saudi crown prince (the previous incumbent, Mohammed bin Nayef, wasn’t particularly friendly with the Emiratis) and has served as his mentor.
He was also quick to ingratiate [چاپلوسی سے اپنی بات منوا لینا] himself with the Trump team via Blackwater founder Erik Prince (who has helped to recruit mercenaries for the Yemen misadventure) and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law, whose so-called peace plan for Israel and the Palestinians apparently has MBZ’s stamp all over it.
Nothing much will come of the UN’s Khashoggi investigation, given that the US and the UK, in their hostility towards Iran, have closely allied themselves with even more disruptive and potentially destructive elements in the shifting sands of the Middle East.
mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2019
Column 2
Crime & Punishment
Andalib AzizUpdated June 26, 2019
TORTURE by law-enforcement agencies is so endemic [وباکی طرح پھوٹ پڑنےوالا] it is often accepted as ‘police culture’. We only have to look at the overwhelming news reports and academic research for proof. And the reason it is so endemic is that there is little to no penalty or accountability against LEAs, and hence no effort to change this culture.
Today is International Day in Support of Victims of Torture. But Pakistani victims have little hope of receiving any form of support from the judiciary, executive or legislation.
The case of Sajid Masih is a telling — and appalling[ہولناک یا خوفناک] — example of broken governance. Sajid’s cousin was accused of blasphemy, due to which he was also roped in. They were both arrested and interrogated by FIA officials, during which they were reportedly beaten and abused. By his account, Sajid was allegedly ordered to rape his cousin. He refused. The officials shouted at him to do as he was told. He couldn’t, and jumped out of a fourth-floor window to escape the humiliation[ذلت]. The fall could have killed him. But he survived, albeit [البتہ]with multiple injuries, to tell his harrowing[خوفناک] story.
An enforceable law criminalising torture is the need of the hour.
Stories such as these often go unnoticed. But it is when local and international press, along with human rights defenders, take up the matter that authorities are forced to respond. Following the outcry, a government official promises an inquiry. Similarly, in Sajid’s case, a senior FIA official stated, “An inquiry has been initiated against four officials. If found guilty, punitive [سزا پر مبنی]actions will be taken against them.” And then, in a bizarre [عجیب و غریب]move, the FIA also filed a case of attempted suicide — a crime in Pakistan — against Sajid. Ludicrous[مضحکہ خیز].
It is important to remember that the investigation by LEAs is the first step in the criminal justice system. When this first step is ridden with abuse, it sets up a case for a faulty investigation — resulting in a faulty trial and subsequent faulty sentence and appeals.
Under Pakistani law, there is no specific offence that criminalises torture. Instead, a cocktail of different sections in the Pakistan Penal Code is used. Section 166 (“Public servant disobeying law, with intent to cause injury to any person”) can be employed, but the provision has rarely been used or enforced. Generally, a mixture of offences that constitute ‘hurt’ is used depending on the type of injuries inflicted. It is also an offence under Section 156 of the Police Order, 2002, but is not enforceable throughout the country. The lack of a specific offence, however, is not the only problem.
To enforce these provisions, it is the Code of Criminal Procedure that is applicable for investigation, trial and other procedural aspects. The main dilemma with this is that reporting and investigating torture is also done by the police, which cannot guarantee an independent and unbiased mechanism. Under the CrPC, if the police refuse to lodge an FIR, the victim can address the matter before a justice of the peace. However, the justice of the peace can only order the police to register an FIR, and it will still be the police who investigate the case. This is problematic as it exposes victims to further harassment, abuse and torture.
Pursuing litigation [قانونی جنگ]is expensive and time consuming for victims. And given the adversarial system followed in Pakistan, the court environment is often a cause for stress and further complications. These problems would not arise if a separate legislation criminalising torture is enforced, as these costs and problems would then be borne by the state, not the victim. Sajid’s parents did not have the means or influence to lodge a complaint against the FIA.
The offences of ‘hurt’ have been proven to be problematic as they are compoundable offences, allowing for the matter to be resolved through a compromise — without criminal accountability. Even when victims are successful in lodging an FIR against police officials, most people from marginalised and impoverished backgrounds cannot stand the pressure from a public official and give in to a compromise.
An enforceable law criminalising torture is the need of the hour. Political will, though sporadic[بے ترتیب اور اور بے قاعدہ], is also there. Three bills on the matter have been tabled by the PML-N’s Maiza Hameed and the PPP’s Farhatullah Babar and Farooq Naek. All of them have lapsed. Recently, Dr Shireen Mazari and Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari have also publicly stated they will table bills to criminalise torture, but it has yet to transpire [حقیقت میں وقوع پذیر ہونا]. The reason is unknown and inexcusable.
The only way of moving the criminal justice system of Pakistan forward is by criminalising torture, which can only be done through a special law. This special law will need to take stock of the current problems so as to ensure that others like Sajid do not have to suffer similar fates.
By failing to criminalise torture, we are affirming the flawed system as sacred.
The writer is a criminal lawyer and advocacy technical coordinator of Justice Project Pakistan.
Twitter: @AndalibAziz
Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2019
Column 3
Trump's war games {Zahid Hussain}
THE world was apparently 10 minutes away from witnessing a war launched on Iran when President Donald Trump reportedly decided to heed the advice of his favourite Fox Newstelevision host among others to stop the strike. There may have been some other reasons too for the maverick [جدت پسند اور آزاد] leader to pull back, though it was certainly not out of a humanitarian concern for the potential loss of lives as he claims.
Trump’s threat of obliterating Iran [ایران کو صفحہ ہستی سے نابود کردینا]may be exaggerated[مبالغہ پر مبنی] but the danger of tensions spiralling out of control cannot be minimised. A war cloud still hangs over the Gulf. The massive US show of military strength in the region and a new round of sanctions against Iran are ominous signs[بدبختی کے آثار]. The conflagration [جنگ کا الاو]will not be limited and could sweep across an extremely volatile region.
Trump’s war cry has thrown geopolitics into a tizzy[گھبراہٹ اور بے چینی]. A new American war in the Middle East would be much more disastrous than even the Iraq invasion. It would certainly pull other major powers into the fray. And it would be a huge, costly gamble for the Trump administration. Trump may have pulled back from attacking Iran at the last moment. But no one knows what happens next giving his unpredictable behaviour. There has not been any softening of tone.
Any military adventure against Iran would further alienate Washington from its Western allies who are already upset with the Trump administration over its position on the Iranian nuclear agreement. The Europeans blame Trump for pushing Iran towards jettisoning[ترک کردینا یا پھینک دینا] an agreement that was working, as do China and Russia.
Getting involved in the Iran-US conflict in any way will be disastrous for Pakistan.
The conflict will also cause the ongoing proxy war to intensify between Saudi Arabia and Iran. That may lead to a new civil war in the Middle East. With Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries aligning themselves with the United States against Iran, the situation has become extremely intricate[پیچیدہ]. The Saudi push in Trump’s anti-Iran campaign is all too obvious.
Saudis officials never mince their words [کھلے الفاظ مین بات کرنا]where it comes to Iran, labelling the country as ‘the most dangerous adversary’. Their anti-Iran campaign has brought Saudi Arabia and Israel much closer. Both countries had welcomed Trump’s decision to unilaterally annul the nuclear deal with Iran. In Trump, they have found a perfect ally.
The situation has serious implications for Pakistan. Notwithstanding our delicate balancing act, it will be hard for us to escape the fire next door. It is never easy to navigate the labyrinth [الجھے راستوں والا معمہ]of the Middle East’s ever-changing politics and alignments but it is becoming even more challenging for Pakistan with the prospect of a chronic [پرانی]Saudi-Iran proxy war heating up.
A major challenge for Pakistan will be to take a firm position against any American aggression targeting Iran while maintaining its neutrality in the Saudi-Iran power struggle in the Middle East. It will certainly be a tightrope walk. We have been in a similar situation in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, and more recently, in the Yemen civil war.
Yet the situation this time round is more complex, given Pakistan’s increasing reliance on Saudi Arabia and other Gulf countries for financial support. Besides, Pakistan is also a part of the Saudi-led so-called Islamic alliance force. Although it is supposed to be a counterterrorism force, it is largely perceived as a Sunni alliance against Iran. Getting involved in the conflict in any way will be disastrous for Pakistan.
While the conflict has been building up for long, particularly after Trump’s pulling out of the Iran nuclear deal, the attacks on oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz and the downing of an American drone by Iranian security forces has brought the stand-off to a head.
In an attempt to bring the Iranians under pressure, the Trump administration earlier this year reimposed some of the sanctions that had been withdrawn after the 2015 nuclear deal. In an unprecedented move, Washington has also declared the Iranian elite forces known as Pasdaran a terrorist group.
It is perhaps for the first time that the security force of any country has been so sanctioned. The latest travel sanction against top Iranian leaders and military commanders may not affect them much, but the move is meant to further tighten the screws. All those punitive [سزا پر مبنی]actions have failed to force Tehran to come to the negotiating table and agree to Trump’s conditions. A defiant[بات نہ ماننے والا یا ضدی] Iranian government has announced it will revisit its commitments under the nuclear deal to put on hold its uranium-enrichment process.
Meanwhile, recent rocket attacks by Yemen’s Iranian-backed Houthi forces against Saudi Arabia have added to the tension. The Saudis are already deeply involved in the destructive civil war that has taken a massive human toll. The Yemen crisis has provided Saudi Arabia an opportunity to consolidate an anti-Iran coalition[اتحاد]. The overreaction of the Arab countries to the Yemen crisis seems to have been triggered by that perceived Iranian threat.
It is not that the Iranians are not disconnected from the Houthi revolt, but Tehran is certainly not the instigator. The cause of the Yemen crisis is rooted in its internal political and tribal divides and history. However, some statements emanating from Tehran have reinforced concerns about Iran’s own power game in the region. The Saudis are militarily involved in the Yemen civil war.
Interestingly, Israel has tacitly[خاموشی سے] supported the Saudi-led military intervention in Yemen. Both countries seem unified in their view of Iran’s involvement in the Yemen unrest as ‘a strategic move to dominate the region’.
The US escalation [شدت کو بڑھانا] against Iran may also have implications for the ongoing Afghan peace negotiations. Iran has a huge stake in Afghanistan and its support is extremely important for any peace agreement to succeed. American officials have long been accusing Tehran of providing logistic support to the insurgents.
Trying to understand this multitude of paradoxes [باہم متصادم حالات یا بیانات]is like attempting to find one’s way out of a maze where most turns lead to a dead end. This new battle in the Middle East is likely to be an ugly and violent one.
The writer is an author and a journalist.
zhussain100@yahoo.com
Twitter: @hidhussain
Published in Dawn, June 26th, 2019
Column 4
{The author of this column has autopsied the mayoral elections in Istanbul in which the party of Recep Tayyip Erdogan has received crushing defeat}
She says:
The implications of the AKP’s defeat in Istanbul are significant even beyond Turkey. The AKP was one of the first moderate Islamist parties to come to the fore. Its primary appeal was populist, promising a better life to the ordinary man or woman, without the seeming paternalism of the country’s elite-led (in the AKP’s view) secular leaders. There are a lot of these in Istanbul, perhaps not in the European parts of the city, but in areas like Uskudar, a middle-class suburb on the Asian side. The cultural appeal of the party was summarised by one voter who pointed out that 20 years ago, someone like her who chose to wear a headscarf could not get a university education in the country.
|
