 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bitter reality awaits Gilani |
HIGH treason is so outrageous a crime against the country and the people that Article 6 is couched in most unambiguous language and is absolutely free of any proviso. Without placing the law on high treason in any rigmarole, the said Article stipulates “Any person who abrogates or subverts the Constitution by use of force shall be guilty of high treason”. The July 31 judgement of the Supreme Court finds General Pervez Musharraf guilty of high treason because his November 3, 2007 Emergency, among other actions, was “unconstitutional” and “ultra-vires of the Constitution”, thus obviating the need for further Investigation and proving of charge. As to who can initiate proceedings for the trial of a person accused of committing high treason there is no confusion either: the High Treason Punishment Act of 1973 authorises none else but the Federal Government to set the ball rolling. Where is then the place in the law for a parliamentary resolution, consensual or non-consensual, demanding of the present government to open trial of the former military dictator? Indeed there is an element of chicanery and bombast in Prime Minister Gilani’s call for a unanimous National Assembly resolution. Instead of chiding and challenging the opposition he should stand by the law.
Even when the country’s apex court has found the former military dictator guilty of high treason, without any shadow of doubt, one would be green enough to think that, on this issue, the present parliament can adopt a unanimous resolution. If Gilani was side-tracking the issue, the PML (N) is not realistic also in seeking the trial of Pervez Musharraf through a parliamentary resolution. No doubt the PML (N) is the most aggrieved party in the case, but one would not be telling the whole truth by missing out the background of the hush-hush meetings in London and Dubai and the commitments made by concerned interlocutors that finally led to Musharraf’s abdication. He surrendered in return for certain guarantees given, implicitly or explicitly, by the stakeholders, including some powerful foreign guarantors. Who did not see the pompous farewell given to him at the Aiwan-i-Sadr and who doesn’t know that in London, his residence now, he enjoys more perks and privileges than any other former head of state or army chief of Pakistan. Initiating his trial would be problematic because it is not as simple as it is being put out, but that does not mean he should not face the music. He and all his collaborators must be brought to justice because they violated the Constitution, - as simple as that. Of course, history would deliver its own judgement on them but leaving them unpunished for this cardinal sin against the people of Pakistan would be a mockery of our democratic struggle over the last several years. Legally speaking, the Parliament has not much to do with the trial of Pervez Musharraf on the charge of committing high treason of which the former president has been found guilty by the Supreme Court. But that doesn’t mean that the Parliament has nothing else on hand to do this summer. Its plate is full with the work cut out for it by the same very court in the same very judgement: the Parliament must take up and give its position on some three dozen ordinances that are now in the field. One of them is the notorious National Reconciliation Ordinance (NRO), a kind of running Ganges that washed many hands.
|
| |
|
Afghan imbroglio |
THE new NATO secretary-general, former Danish Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen, says winning the war in Afghanistan is the organization’s top priority. Given the absence of other pressing commitments, that seems a statement of the obvious. Nonetheless, the fact that he flew to Kabul to meet political and military leaders just four days after taking over as head of NATO shows his personal commitment to bringing the conflict to a conclusion. Echoing statements by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the new commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, Rasmussen also says that he is determined to reduce Afghan civilian casualties to an absolute minimum. It is a must. Bringing peace to Afghanistan cannot happen without it. History is full of stories of armies welcomed as liberators only then to be seen as the enemy because of their brutal behavior to civilians. In Afghanistan’s case, it is eight years since the Taleban regime was overthrown. Yet, Afghans are dying in ever-growing numbers at the hands of foreign forces there to protect them. In the first six months of this year, around a third of the thousand Afghan civilians killed in the conflict died through NATO action. It is causing deep anger. “Death to America” was the cry of crowds near Kandahar on Wednesday after three children and a man were killed in an airstrike at the same time Rasmussen was speaking on the subject with President Hamid Karzai in Kabul. The NATO-led forces are losing the battle for Afghan hearts and minds.
Rasmussen says that the NATO-led forces will stay in Afghanistan for “as long as it takes.” Significantly, though, two days before heading to Kabul, he also said that Afghanistan must take responsibility for its security during his term in office. This is the first hint of an exit strategy. His term of office is five years. He is effectively saying that by 2014, large numbers of foreign forces will have been pulled out and Afghanistan would be in the same position that Iraq is supposed to be over the next few months. The surge in foreign troops is bound to help but there is a mountain to climb before Afghanistan ever reaches that point. For the moment, the conflict seems to be getting worse. July was the bloodiest month in terms of foreign troop casualties since the overthrow of the Taleban. Civilian casualties are up a quarter this year and still there is no peace in sight. Indeed, Rasmussen’s sentiments about reducing civilian casualties may add to NATO woes. Knowing its need, the Taleban will do everything to try and get NATO troops to kill civilians. They will attack in built-up areas, using mosques, schools and hospitals; hiding behind women and children; hoping that NATO will shoot and kill them, so that they can then present themselves as champions against these evil foreign forces.
—Arab News
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
