De-inducting Army personnel

AT long last when President Musharraf doffed his military uniform and handed over the command of world’s fifth largest army to General Ashfaq Parvez Kiyani late last year, it was natural to expect that restoring Pak Army’s pristine image would be high on the new chief’s priorities list. As an intuitive commander of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) directorate, he knew better than anyone else that over the past some years the image of the army had received severe battering for its involvement in politics and manipulation of pillars of the state. Not only that the institution was being accused of supporting a certain political doctrine and thus propping up a quasi-military architecture, a part of its senior command had been seconded to lucrative civilian assignments. Confronted as the armed forces are with the serious challenge of defending national borders in a rapidly changing regional security situation, the new chief rightly concluded that his men must return to barracks to take up their professional responsibility. He asked his officers to stay away from politics and shun meeting political leaders. His promise to recall some 300 senior army officers from their civilian posts was endorsed by the 106th Corps Commanders meeting last week. Accordingly, the GHQ has now asked the Establishment Division to release all of them. Given the nature of their assignments, some 150 of them would revert to their army posts immediately, and others over the next six months. These orders cover all the six Major-Generals presently working with NAB, 18 Brigadiers, 7 Colonels, 50 Lieutenant Colonels, and 71 Majors and Captains in various civilian departments. The conference also banned for future the practice of sending uniformed officers to civilian departments on secondment, which came into being in the aftermath of the Ayub Khan martial law and institutionalised in the early years of General Ziaul Haq. Of course, there are always certain situations that can crop up under abnormal circumstances like natural calamities or breakdown of law and order in a part of the country, forcing civilian administration to seek assistance from the armed forces. Then there are some civilian slots like the anti-narcotics force that can be manned more effectively by the uniformed personnel.
But these special circumstances have been clearly envisaged by the Constitution and catered to under its various provisions. Sending military officers to cushy positions as favour has no legal basis, however. But as the Musharraf rule prolonged earning stiff rejection from various segments of civil society and political parties, accusing fingers were raised towards the armed forces. The induction of serving military officers was considered as interference. The issue became more controversial in the wake of military operation in Balochistan and the Lal Masjid episode. The way the government handled these two situations the broad public opinion resented it. There was the growing argument that the army should have stayed away from these operations as these were essentially the concerns of the police and should have been handled at that level. The new leadership in the GHQ seemed to be fully sensitive to this argument, as the deliberations at the 106th Corps Commanders conference suggested. The call by the conference to de-induct army personnel from civilian service is, therefore, likely to positively impact public perception of the Army. But this is not enough. Such reforms are needed in some other areas also. For instance, the army high command has to reconsider the role the ISI has embraced in the national political affairs. The ISI directorate has a section under the rubric of Internal Security Wing, which is believed to be deeply involved in propping up and pulling down governments. It is a strange paradox that this wing within the ISI came about as a result of an amendment in its mandate made by the late Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, with the purpose to tame insurgency then plaguing some parts of Balochistan.

Fair trial for all

CHARGES slapped on the first six Guantanamo Bay inmates directly related to 9/11 plot and the impending trials by controversial US military tribunals once again betray an alarming attitude to the rule of law and fair trial by the Bush administration. The Guantanamo facility was among the first causes for suspicion at a time when Washington boasted unprecedented international support and Bush commanded record approval ratings as he commandeered the US war on terror. And through the war-years, Gitmo has symbolised how America’s new way of war is one that outrightly rejects international legal and humanitarian provisions in favour of a high handed, cruel approach that serves to stamp the superpower’s overriding authority. To begin with, Gitmo and later discovered CIA secret prisons were conveniently placed outside the US territory to bypass the country’s courts and inconvenient questions dealing with human rights and the treatment of prisoners of war. And even though scores were released after bearing unduly harsh treatment without charge, those brought to American shores for trial are not being provided with adequate legal cover either. The military courts will function under the Military Commissions Act that was passed by the US Congress in ’06, and will incorporate evidence squeezed through controversial torture techniques, including water-boarding, that are not permissible in regular US courts. Given such circumstances, US Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff’s promise of free trials rings just as hollow as President Bush and Co’s war-rhetoric.
These developments also confirm fears that not much is going to change in the way America’s current administration runs the prisoner of war business. Guantanamo alone houses a further 275 people whose fate remains uncertain at best. And after years of severe ill treatment, the innocent ones have very little hope left of leaving the notorious jailhouse with some measure of sanity intact. To make matters worse, their post-US-election future is also hazy. While Democrats have indicated a different route ahead, which might also include the prisoners’ fate, Republican frontrunner McCain has made his more-of-the-same policy pretty clear. Human rights groups, too, can only do so much, save raise voices and join in protests that have little impact-value. It seems that considering the times, the issue can find best representation with the American people who are about to choose the person that will have the greatest sway over international affairs for at least four years. They should press this question into the election debate, and make it an integral part of their voting criteria.

—Khaleej Times