In the favour of Emergency
Shahid Cheema

While the “state of emergency” is not good for any political dispensation, the country has been at a dangerous juncture where proclamation of emergency became absolutely necessary in the best interest of the country to address the institutional breakdown and constitutional imbalance. Good governance demands complete harmony among judiciary, legislative and executive. The system allows each of the three pillars to cheek and control the powers of others and to prevent any one pillar from becoming too powerful. At the same time, cooperation of all three branches is necessary for the development, execution and Administration of public policy in the country. This is how good governance can be ensured. President Musharraf’s leadership is threatened by an increasingly defiant court by some judges of “working at cross purposes with the executive”. As the imposition of emergency may harm the democratic forces, therefore, extensive consultations were carried out before reaching such an unpleasant decision.
Ever since the reinstatement of suspended Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry, the Judiciary has increasingly turned against the Government and impeded normal functioning of the Administration. The Supreme Court assumed as the main check on executive and legislative branches of the political system. The Judges of the Supreme Court virtually had placed themselves above the law. The Judiciary mistreated senior official especially of law enforcing agencies that caused demoralization and a paralysis in the Administration. Senior officials of the Administration were hesitant in taking decisions to avoid becoming target of judicial activism. The Supreme Court had initiated nearly 100 suo moto actions and there were other hundreds of petitions before the court. This had nearly paralyzed the Administration to operate effectively.
The “Presidential reference” against the former Chief Justice of Pakistan Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry was a constitutional obligation of the President. The Supreme Judicial Council (SJC) should have been taking action as required under the constitution, but the reference was dismissed by a bench of the 13-member Superior Court. In doing so, the constitutional body namely the Supreme Judicial Council was undermined and the constitutional requirement with regard to the reference violated. The Superior Court also interfered in the jurisdiction of the executive and brought the process of privatization to standstill by citing the Steel Mill Judgment (SMJ). The procedure adopted for privatization of the Steel Mill was correct and found impeccable after due consultations with eminent economists. The former Chief Justice had discussed the matter with the President along with financial and legal experts and appeared satisfied. However, the judgment was to the contrary and was a setback to our economic growth which was propelled by a policy based on privatization in addition to liberalization and deregulation.
A policy to fight extremism requires the full support of the people, and any action that alienates the people and political forces of Pakistan will further aggravate terrorism and extremism in the country and slide the country into anarchism. The Lal Masjid case where the court ordered on investigation in the “Operation Silence”, some of the police officers were suspended. The court reinstated supporters of the former clerics to administer the mosque and ordered reconstruction of Jamia Hafsa and revival of Jamia Farida (Madrassah in E-7). Such judgments undermined government’s efforts against extremists and encouraged militants. The rising Islamic extremists had forced the Government to take emergency measures that included replacing the nation’s Chief Judge Iftikhar Mohammed Chaudhry. According to the latest estimates, 61 terrorists have been freed on order from the court held by intelligence agencies. Extremists are openly roaming, and no one knows whether any of these freed men were behind recent bomb attacks of Oct. 18 on Former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto killing 145 people. The extremism has even spread to Islamabad, and the extremists are taking the writ of the government in their own hands, and even worse they are imposing their obsolete ideas on moderates.
The Judiciary was responsible for the environment of uncertainty and anxiety created by the court decision to spend the notification of President Musharraf’s election by the parliament. The court decision was contrary to an act of the parliament and the provincial assemblies that had elected President Musharraf with 57% majority vote. The resulting “suspended animation” aggravated the uncertainty and institutional paralyses in the country.
An evident sign of entanglement was witnessed between the provincial authorities and the security forces. However, with the appointment of the new Chief Minister in NWFP, an efficient working relationship has been established and the Government is now acting forcefully to root out the menace of terrorism from the tribal belt. Earlier, the political interests of the MMA government were at variance with the obligation of firm action against extremists. The armed forces could only be deployed in support of the civil Administration; however, MMA Government was reluctant in taking decision. For example, the two Division moved in the frontier were not requisitioned by the provincial government of MMA for deployment and operations.
According to the doctrine of democracy, the interests of the society are best served when their activities are least interfered with by Government. However the extent of Government intervention needed depends entirely upon the political situation in which a state finds itself. The imposition of “emergency state” in a democratic setup like Pakistan includes relative presence of state control and regulation of the individual’s activities for the benefit of its members. The political and socio-economic conditions prevailing in some of the developed countries are quite different from our situation and the standard of civil liberties and human rights can not be applied there. Some people argue that democracy is not suited to the sensibilities of the people in Pakistan. Others say that education and economic development are prerequisites for the establishment of a democratic polity. Irrespective of the power of these views, one needs to explore the meaning of democracy for a country like Pakistan. Our transformation would have to be gradual and responsive to our culture and environment. The West should understand that Pakistan is at a developmental stage where democratic system in true letter and spirit can not be fully implemented. It is beyond doubt that the country is passing through a critical political turmoil. The emergency was declared to regulate anti-Pakistan activities of few judges who virtually incapacitated the Administration to operate its anti-terrorists policies. It is a limited type of emergency and the political activities will continue with parliamentary election to be held before February 15, 2008. The environment of political reconciliation and good governance will also continue to effectively address the challenges that Pakistan faces so as to ensure political stability and economic growth.

Mission of confidence
Wang Gangyi, Wang Yanjuan & Chen Wen

After nine months in office, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appears to be more optimistic, encouraged and confident about solving some of the thorny, long-standing issues both at the UN and in the world. Some recent developments have given him good reasons to be so. In an exclusive interview with Beijing Review in his office at UN headquarters in New York, Ban said he has adopted significant measures to reform the UN, with some already successful and some still ongoing. The successful ones he cited are restructuring the peacekeeping operation department and reforming the disarmament sector. His next focus will be on how to strengthen “preventive diplomacy capacity,” as he has been doing in handling some regional issues. Ban said that “communicating and consulting” with all the 192 member states of the world’s largest intergovernmental organization is the most difficult part in carrying out his reform, which “involves time and energy.” But the UN secretary general is quick to add that he is very much committed to do that.
On the world front, progress has been made on Darfur, an issue that has confounded world leaders for four years - and one in which Ban has taken a strong personal interest since he took office. His hectic efforts over the past few months to build support for his initiatives to help resolve the Darfur situation have included a high-level meeting at the UN in September and a weeklong trip to Sudan, Chad and Libya earlier the same month. After these meetings, Ban had garnered enough regional and international support that he decided to host the peace talks on Darfur planned for later this month in Tripoli, the Libyan capital.
Though the UN secretary general is concerned that some of the leading groups in the Darfur region are still showing reluctance, he has urged them to participate in the talks and made it clear that non-participation of any individual group should not be the criteria to judge if the talks succeed or fail. “So, we will convene the meeting as planned,” he said.Contrary to those who had accused China of inadequate action on the Darfur issue, Ban said that the country has been playing a “very constructive role.” China has dispatched an engineering team to Darfur and appointed a special envoy who has been working very closely with the international community, he said.
The so-called boycott of the Beijing Olympic Games based on that accusation is not warranted and is misplaced, the UN secretary general said. “We are looking forward to the most successful hosting of the Olympic Games next year,” he added. The UN secretary general said China is a key player in the United Nations and that maintaining a strong partnership between the United Nations and China is very important, particularly to the United Nations.
Advancing the global agenda on climate change was another major achievement of the UN secretary general. On September 24, the day before this year’s UN General Assembly general debate, Ban chaired a high-level meeting to secure political commitment and build momentum for the UN Climate Change Conference scheduled for December 3-14 in Bali, where negotiations on a new international climate agreement should begin. More than 80 heads of state and government, with representatives from 168 countries, attended the one-day event in September, making it the largest meeting ever of world leaders on climate change. “I was very much encouraged by the result of the high-level meeting,” Ban said.
According to Ban, the leaders have agreed that now is the time for the international community to take action and that the appropriate forum of negotiation should be the United Nations and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. “On the basis of this in Bali, I hope we’ll be able to reinvigorate the old maps and directions of our negotiations,” he said. Ban described the joint declaration signed at the second inter-Korean summit earlier this month as a step forward in solidifying the ongoing exchanges and cooperation, which would help further the national reconciliation of and build mutual trust between South Korea and North Korea. Ban was one of the architects of South Korea’s so-called “sunshine policy” toward North Korea before he became the UN secretary general. The first inter-Korean summit was held in June 2000. He said he is “quite confident that the implementation process will be much smoother” this time. Ban was equally encouraged by the agreement signed at the six-party talks on the North Korean nuclear issue on October 3 in Beijing. “This is much further on the basis of the February agreement this year,” he said. As South Korea’s former minister of foreign affairs and trade, Ban used to be a key player in the six-party talks that are aimed at finding a diplomatic solution to the dispute over Pyongyang’s nuclear program.

Ban’s Plan for the UN Completed:

- Restructure the peacekeeping operation department
- Restructure the disarmament sector

Ongoing:
- Strengthen “preventive diplomacy capacity”
- Change the working culture of the UN
- Advance the global agenda on climate change.




Somalia: What news has failed to report
Ramzy Baroud

THE people of Somalia are enduring yet another round of suffering as Ethiopian forces wreck havoc in the capital, Mogadishu. Apparently in response to an attack on one of its units, and the dragging of a soldier’s mutilated body through the city’s streets, an Ethiopian mortar reportedly exploded in Mogadishu’s Bakara market on Nov. 9, killing eight civilians. A number of Somalis were also found dead the following day, some believed to have been rounded up by Ethiopian forces the night before.
Nearly 50 civilians have reportedly been killed and 100 wounded in the two-day fighting spree between fighters loyal to the Union of Islamic Courts and government forces and their Ethiopian allies. A report, issued by Human Rights Watch, chastised both Ethiopian troops and “insurgents” for the bloodletting. Peter Takirambudde, the watchdog’s Africa director, was quoted as saying, “The international community should condemn these attacks and hold combatants accountable for violations of humanitarian law — including mutilating captured combatants and executing detainees.”
Of course, one cannot realistically expect the international community to take on a constructive involvement in the conflict. Various members of this community have already played a most destructive role in Somalia’s 16-year-old civil war, which fragmented a nation that had long struggled to achieve a sense of sovereignty and national cohesion. To dismiss the war in Somalia as yet another protracted conflict between warlords and insurgents would indeed be unjust because the country’s history has consistently been marred by colonial greed and unwarranted foreign interventions. These gave rise to various proxy governments, militias and local middlemen, working in the interests of those obsessed with the geopolitical importance of the Horn of Africa. Colonial powers came to appreciate the strategic location of Somalia after the Berlin Conference, which initiated the “Scramble for Africa”. The arrival of Britain, France and Italy into Somali lands began in the late 19th century and quickly the area disintegrated into British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland. Both countries sought expand their control, enlisting locals to fight the very wars aimed at their own subjugation.
World War II brought immense devastation to the Somali people, who, out of desperation, coercion or promises of post-war independence, fought on behalf of the warring European powers. Somalia was mandated by the UN as an Italian protectorate in 1949 and achieved independence a decade later in 1960. However, the colonial powers never fully conceded their interests in the country and the Cold War actually invited new players to the scene, including the United States, the Soviet Union and Cuba. One residue of the colonial legacy involved the Ogaden province of Somalia, which the British empire had granted to the Ethiopian government. The region became the stage of two major wars between Ethiopia and Somalia between 1964 and 1977. Many Somalis still regard Ethiopia as an occupying power and view the policies of Addis Ababa as a continuation of the country’s history of foreign intervention.—Arab News