Prime Minister should set example

BOTH the newly elected government and the GHQ are finally on the same page as regards the issue of militarymen serving in civilian departments, which is nice except for some aberrations that remain. Last week the GHQ announced, as per an earlier statement by the Chief of the Army Staff, General Ashfaq Kiyani, to recall all militarymen serving in various government and semi-government departments. Most of the officers, said an official announcement, would go back to the barracks by May 1 and others by the middle of August, by which time the concerned departments must find replacements. The issue has been important enough to find mention in Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani’s maiden speech in the National Assembly. He said that he wanted all uniformed men to return to the barracks within two weeks’ time. It has been customary for military rulers to install fellow militarymen in various government and semi-government departments, often in top positions, as a way of sharing the spoils of power. This has been going on at the expense of the members of civil bureaucracy. They have reason, therefore, to be resentful of the practice since it affects their upward career mobility, and also because the two services have entirely different orientations and hence different ways of managing affairs. It is hardly surprising if there exists an uneasy relationship between them, manifesting itself in a negative impact on their work. Also contentious is the role of retired army officers in various departments and institutions that include premier educational institutions. According to the GHQ spokesman, officers who are retired or about to retire from service would remain eligible for reemployment on three to five years contracts, renewable until the attainment of the government officers’ retirement age of 60 years. Already a large number of such officers are working in important positions, causing much resentment among their competitors. People take strong exception, and rightly so, to retired army officers acting as heads of big public sector organisations, even as university vice chancellors. Of course, no functioning democracy allows such large-scale induction of retired militarymen in civilian institutions.
Indeed, it would be a rarity to find a retired military officer serving as vice chancellor of a major university in any society. The business of fighting and acquisition of knowledge have little in common. It makes little sense, therefore, for us to allow the continuation of this practice. A policy review is in order vis-à-vis retired officers as well. Given the amount of displeasure the presence of militarymen generates in the public mind in general and members of the bureaucracy in particular, it was only appropriate that the Prime Minister should have wanted to hasten the process of their recall. He also needs to think about reversing another practice under which successive prime ministers, from Zulfikar Ali Bhutto onwards, have maintained uniformed men as military secretaries and aides-de-camp (ADCs). It, in fact, began with Bhutto who first served as civilian martial law administrator and president before assuming the office of prime minister. He acquired military aides as president and, apparently, liked the aura of pomp and ceremony those officers lent to the seat of power so much that he decided to keep them even as prime minister. It is ironical, indeed, that this should have become an unquestioned tradition in a country like Pakistan, which has suffered military dictatorships for nearly one-half of its sixty years of existence. The last thing the people here like to see is the presence of uniformed men lurking behind elected, civilian prime ministers.



Unnecessary provocations

IT IS hard to understand President Bush’s eagerness to have the Ukraine and Georgia become full members of NATO. Militarily both countries have little to offer the alliance while politically each brings major burdens that threaten relations with a resurgent Russia. Indeed the accession of Georgia could bring NATO into direct conflict with the Kremlin because there is a disputed border between the two countries. Why therefore should Bush be tweaking the nose of the Russian bear by bringing what the Russians perceive as a threatening military alliance right up to their borders? We already have the precipitate American move to site a missile defense shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. Moscow very reasonably assumes that this $53 billion project, officially called the Ground-Based Midcourse Defense (GMD), will be deployed against its own missiles rather than those which Washington claims the Iranians may have in due time. Any Kremlin defense strategists with half a brain is going to appreciate that bringing NATO right to Russia’s eastern and southern frontiers constitutes a further threat. The Georgians, whose army is being trained and equipped by America may welcome NATO membership as a further guarantee of their independence from Russian influence. However, many Ukrainians who are not of Russian origin are actually deeply concerned at the loss of their nonaligned status.
Nor are NATO members such as Germany and France at all enthusiastic about extending membership to these two new countries. Bush’s proposals may be rejected if they do not disappear with the end of his presidency. Indeed it must be wondered why the president has chosen to use his last NATO summit to raise such a divisive issue. All three would-be presidents, John McCain, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have indicated that on foreign affairs, they will restart the listening that the Bush administration has signally abandoned with such disastrous consequences. The next US president already has an ugly legacy to unpick and Bush’s proposal this week at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania is surely only going to add to the work. It was already expected that in his last appearance as a summit guest, Russia’s outgoing President Vladimir Putin would have more bitter things to say about the alliance. Bush’s plan will boost his anger. It is also likely to inform the diplomatic stance of Putin’s chosen successor, Alexander Medvedev, elected with over 70 percent of the popular vote last month. The new man may very well follow in the steps of his former master who is expected to become instead his premier. But new administrations always start with something of a clean sheet and now was the time to appease rather than provoke the incoming president. Yet Bush has thrown away the opportunity.

—Arab News