Barrister Harun ur Rashid

Outgoing British Prime Minister Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, commonly known as Tony Blair, is being recommended by the Bush administration to act as Special Envoy on behalf of the Quartet, the US, EU, Russia and UN on Middle East. Tony Blair is not sure whether all the stakeholders will agree to represent them as he left office on June 27 under pressure from his Labour Party.
   His botched policy on Iraq virtually cost his job and he is only 52. He must find a productive role for the rest of his life, just as President Clinton has made one. He totally supported President Bush in his misadventure in Iraq, and thereby lost his credibility among American public.
   Americans are against the war as the US soldiers are dying in scores (latest 3,558) in Iraq. Bush's popularity is extreme low (between 32 to 34 per cent) and Tony Blair identification with the Iraqi war may not be suitable as a speaker to various institutions in the US.
   Many think that it was Blair who could have advised the President about the faulty intelligence gathered about Saddam Hussein's regime. When politics is coloured by intelligence, the disaster begins. That is why the future Prime Minister of Britain, Gordon Brown, made it clear that intelligence has to be assessed objectively, not from political angle and apologised government's mistakes on Iraq's intelligence in starting the war in Iraq.
   Let us examine how appropriate Tony Blair will be as the special envoy for the Middle East, in particular Israeli-Palestine problem? Some of the reasons deserve mention in the following paragraphs:
   First, the Palestinian - Israeli issue is complicated and multi-dimensional because it is mixed up with three other inter-related issues, namely, Lebanon-Israel territorial dispute, Israeli occupation of Syria's Golan Heights since 1967 and Hamas-Fatah war with each other in Palestinian territory (West Bank and the Gaza). President Mahmoud Abbas seems to be an ineffective Palestine leader and is now toying with the idea of a new election.
   Second, EU and Russia may not be enthusiastic about Tony Blair because he divided European powers, such as France and Germany in support of Iraq's war. For the first time the Atlantic Alliance was split largely because of Tony Blair's role in the Iraq war. Russia was against the war and Blair may get a cold shoulder from President Putin's government.
   Third, Hezbollah in Lebanon is unlikely to cooperate with Blair because Britain together with the US had allowed the Lebanon-Israeli war to continue for 34 days before a ceasefire was agreed upon. The US and Britain wanted Hezbollah to capitulate to Israelis but with the support of Iran, Hezbollah stood up against Israeli military power. Israel's top soldier had to resign because of the debacle.
   Fourth, the recent action of Blair to confer Knighthood to the controversial novelist Salman Rushdie has enraged many nations in the Islamic world. Furthermore, Hezbollah and Hamas, in all likelihood may find Blair working against Islam. The two organisations have a crucial role to play for achieving vision of two-states, (Israel and Palestine), a performance-based road map given by the Quartet in April 2003. Nothing has moved forward since that time, although time frame for the two states formula was earmarked in 2005.
   Finally, given the doubtful credibility of Blair in the Arab world, many say Blair will not be the right person to deal with Palestine question. The Palestinian issue is like an onion with alternating layers of blame, harsh action of Israel and inaction of international community, going all the way back to the partition of Palestine in 1948 to create a new state of Israel.
   The writer is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

UN braces for new kind of refugees

Thalif Deen at United Nations

As the international community continues to express fears over the potentially devastating impact of global warming worldwide, there is also growing concern over the steady increase in a new category of displaced persons: environmental refugees.
   "I believe it is high time that the United Nations take the lead in addressing this matter that threatens to affect the lives of so many, particularly those living in the coastal areas in the least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS)," U.N. Under-Secretary-General Anwarul Karim Chowdhury told IPS.
   "We need to prepare ahead of time to know what kind of support they would need, and what could be offered," said Chowdhury, U.N. High Representative for LDCs, Landlocked Developing Countries and SIDS.
   The Tokyo-based U.N. University-which sponsored a panel discussion on "Environmental Refugees: the Forgotten Migrants" in New York last week-says that victims of political upheavals or violence have access to financial grants, food, tools, shelter, schools and clinics, but environmental refugees receive no such aid because they are not yet recognised in international conventions.
   The seminar was co-sponsored by the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration and the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP).
   Addressing the seminar, Maryam Niamir-Fuller, principal technical adviser at the UNDP's Environment and Energy Group, said that some are beginning to talk about "climate refugees", especially in the context of sea-level rise, "which is the most dramatic and visible form of change."
   "The poor have the least access to support systems, both as a result of their vulnerability and marginalisation, as well as their lack of empowerment, representation and knowledge," she added.
   Niamir-Fuller said there is a need to raise awareness not just among policy makers but also the potential refugees themselves.
   "The state has an obligation to plan and manage the change. There is a need for orderly 'exit strategies' to help the poor-and one of these could be environmentally motivated, and beneficial migration," she said.
   Niamir-Fuller said the label "environmental refugees" has a negative connotation because it implies that "we need to return these people back to their homes".
   "Our goal should be to eliminate environmental refugees, reduce environmentally forced migrants, and promote more flexible environmentally motivated mobility," she added.
   Chowdhury told IPS that the U.N. definition of a refugee, according to the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, excludes "environmental refugees".
   He pointed out that about a third of the world's 50 LDCs are threatened by global warming and sea-level rise, including Bangladesh, Cambodia, Kiribati, Maldives, Comoros, Samoa, Solomon Islands, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.
   And seven out of 10 countries are SIDS, which have large proportions of their population (about 40 percent) in low elevation coastal areas. But as they have small populations, their total number is small.
   According to Andrew Simms, policy director of the New Economics Foundation in Britain and author of a book titled "Environmental Refugees: The Case for Recognition", scholars are predicting that about 50 million people worldwide will be displaced by 2010 because of rising sea levels, desertification, dried up aquifers, weather-induced flooding and other serious environmental changes.
   By one rough estimate, as many as 100 million people worldwide live in areas below sea-level.
   Brian Gorlick, senior policy advisor at the New York Office at the U.N. refugee agency, told the seminar there is no agreed definition of environmental refugees-in international law, at the United Nations or among environmental experts.
   He said one of the proposed definitions of environmentally displaced persons reads: "People who are displaced from or who feel obliged to leave their usual place of residence, because their lives, livelihoods and welfare have been placed at
   serious risk as a result of adverse environmental, ecological or climatic processes and events."
   These "processes" include climate change, global warming, desertification and land degradation, rising sea-levels, deforestation, soil erosion and crop deletion. And "events" include earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, floods, droughts and famines.
   Gorlick also pointed out the different estimates of recent statistics on environmental refugees: 50 million more by the end of this decade (United Nations University); 150 million by 2050 (Oxford University); 50 million by 2060 in Africa alone (the U.N. Environment Programme in Nairobi) and; one billion displaced globally by 2050 (Christian Aid).
   He said the existing definition of a refugee as spelled out in the Refugee Convention reads: "People outside of their own country because of a well-founded fear of persecution on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a social group or political opinion, and where there is a failure of state protection in the country of origin or habitual residence."
   Dr. Ing Janos J. Bogardi, director of the United Nations University's Institute for Environment and Human Security, said the environment should be included as a dimension of the ongoing international debates on migration.
   According to some of the conclusions of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, he said, 10 to 20 per cent of dry lands are already degraded and pressure is increasing on dry land ecosystems to provide services such as food and water for humans and livestock, as well as irrigation and sanitation.
   Moreover, climate change is likely to increase water scarcity in regions that are already under water stress. Additionally, droughts are becoming more frequent and their continuous re-occurrence can overcome the coping mechanisms of communities.
   Lester R. Brown of the Earth Policy Institute says those who track the effects of global warming had assumed that the first flow of climate refugees would likely be with the abandonment of Tuvalu in the South Pacific or other low-lying islands.
   "We were wrong. The first massive movement of climate refugees has been that of people away from the Gulf Coast of the United States," Brown said.
   He points out that Hurricane Katrina in August 2005 "forced a million people from New Orleans and other small towns on the Mississippi and Louisiana coasts in the United States to move inland, either within states or neighbouring states, such as Texas and Arkansas."
   - Inter Press Service

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

Jehan Perera in Colombo

President Mahinda Rajapaksa's warning to his party members that he will dissolve Parliament if there are any more defections to the opposition reflects the strength and weakness of his position. This admonition came shortly after two stalwarts of the ruling SLFP, former Foreign Minister Mangala Samaraweera and former Deputy Shipping Minister Sripathy Sooriyarachchi, crossed floor and joined the opposition bench. A few days earlier these two rebels also founded a new political party to which they invited their former colleagues to join. In addition they made a request to former President Chandrika Kumaratunga, who has openly disagreed with her successor on matters of policy, to join with them to restore democracy and moderation in the country.
   The SLFP's policies have undergone a radical shift since President Rajapaksa took over the leadership of the party. This shift is most pronounced in the ruling party's policies with regard to the resolution of the ethnic conflict. At the end of her term of office in November 2005, former President Kumaratunga had persuaded the SLFP to accept a federal solution to the ethnic conflict. She also persuaded her party to accept the P-TOMS joint tsunami reconstruction mechanism that envisaged a partnership between the government, LTTE and Muslim parties. In addition, former President Kumaratunga did not permit lawlessness and impunity to prevail, even to combat the LTTE's roving squads of assassins and suicide bombers.
   By contrast, the SLFP led by President Rajapaksa has moved to the Sinhalese nationalist corner, echoing the JHU position both on being totally anti-federal and advocating a crushing of the LTTE's military capacity rather than any form of partnership with it. This nationalist platform also attempts to deal with the LTTE's terrorist activities of assassinating and terrorising people in the same coin. During the past year and a half, over a thousand people have disappeared or been killed by shadowy groups, and not all of these human rights abuses can be placed at the door of the LTTE. One of the consequences of this no-holds barred war against terror has been unprecedented international criticism especially by international human rights watchdog groups.
   Not even President Rajapaksa has been immune to the negative fallout of the heavy human and economic costs of the government's strategy of head to confrontation with the LTTE. The President's seemingly unassailable popularity with the rural Sinhalese masses is now under challenge. But even in these straitened circumstances, the President retains a peculiar political strength through his constitutional power to dissolve Parliament at any moment he decides is opportune after the elapse of one year of Parliament's term. The present Parliament is now over two years, which enables the President to utilize his power of dissolution. This is the same power that former President Kumaratunga used without scruple to dissolve Parliament in February 2004 and bring to an end the government of Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe.
   
   Justified fears
   However, there is a significant difference between the situation that prevailed in 2004 and today that would be causing apprehension to the President and his advisors. Former President Kumaratunga dissolved a government that was headed by her main political rival, with the Prime Minister coming from the largest rival political party. She had little or no role to play in that government that sought to exclude her from governance. Therefore she was able to make a critique of the performance of the government she had prematurely ended, and lead her party to victory at the general election that followed. On the other hand, it is ironic that President Rajapaksa should feel impelled to threaten to dissolve a government that is headed by a Prime Minister from his own political party. There is also every likelihood that if the President dissolves Parliament at this time and calls for fresh general elections, the ruling party may not be able to form the next government, as its popularity has dipped in recent months.
   The cause for Presidential apprehension would be the recent liberal-spirited activism on the part of the Supreme Court. As it evolved over the centuries, the democratic system has developed checks and balances on the power of elected public officials. One of these is the division of powers between the executive, legislature and judiciary. At the present time the distinction between the executive and legislative power has got blurred due to the ruling party being in control of both the executive and legislative branches of government. Fortunately, the Supreme Court has now demonstrated its ability and willingness to be a restraint on the undue and abusive exercise of governmental power.
   In recent days the Supreme Court has halted the enforced and arbitrary eviction of Tamil visitors to Colombo and also called a halt to the dubious sale of Sri Lanka Telecom shares to a foreign investor. The Court has also taken on the task of probing allegations of corruption involving government ministers. There is the possibility of more cases involving government abuse of power coming before the Court in the expectation that something will be done, where before there was nothing that could be done. Two of the more important in terms of changing the complexion of power in the country would be the issue of the government wooing opposition members to cross over and obtain ministerial positions and perks of office. The other is the issue of the 17th Amendment and the establishment of the multi-partisan Constitutional Council that makes appointments to key offices of state.
   
   Necessary interventions
   At the present time there are about 25 MPs from the UNP who have been induced to cross over to the government and have received ministerial positions that have swelled the size of the cabinet. As ministers of the government they regularly vote with the government. When they crossed over some of them promised that they would ensure the UNP's policies would be brought into the government. But so far they have not publicly opposed any of the government's actions, especially with regard to the war, even when they have caused untold misery to people. In addition several of those who have crossed over have been prone to make personal attacks against the UNP leadership, perhaps to reassure themselves that theirs was not an act of political treachery. At the same time they claim to be members of the UNP and thereby have made claim to retain the parliamentary seats they won at the last general election while contesting on the UNP platform. These cross overs, claims and attacks have eroded the dignity of Parliament and the moral basis of electoral representation, and are ripe for judicial intervention.
   Another area where judicial intervention is necessary is with regard to a basic pillar of good governance in the country. A decade ago Parliament unanimously passed the 17th Amendment to the constitution that sought to depoliticise key institutions of the state. These included the public administration, police, elections, judiciary and Human Rights Commission. Due to technical defects in this law, the process of appointing independent commissioners by political consensus has come to a stop, and President Rajapaksa has made his own selections, some of which are unfathomable and difficult to justify. As a result there has been serious erosion in the credibility of these public institutions.
   In the coming days there will be an increased expectation that judicial activism will correct the political imbalances that are threatening to erode the moral integrity and sovereignty of the country in ever greater measure. As a national institution vested with decision making power, including that of inflicting punishment, the judiciary can be a formidable force for reform in Sri Lanka. In ideal situations, the executive and judiciary have worked together for reform, as in the United States during the Civil Rights era of the 1960s that saw the elevation of the rights of the American Black population. People who oppose extremism and cherish moderation will have to be patient, for their time is yet to come.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE

---

ISLAMABAD DIARY

0000

Jonaid Iqbal

Not-functioning Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is back after addressing the Faisalabad and Multan Bar. In these two places he again asked for autonomous judiciary that provide justice to the masses and thus solve people's problems for an end to their misery. Just when that utopia would materialise? Since six months the lawyers of Iftikhar Chaudhry have been arguing his case, while he awaits justice from the courts.
   The incident has cast him into the position of a national hero. His case has been taken up by the civil society that now clamours for restoration of undiluted democracy and a fair and transparent election that could throw up a sovereign parliament instead of a dictated one; of the kind we have had since Oct. 1954 when governor general Ghulam Muhammad dismissed the first Constituent Assembly.
   Seven weeks ago Chief Juistice Iftikhar planned to address in Karachi on May 12 but he was thwarted. Instead he had to stay put inside the airport building, while outside the entire Karachi city was being ruled by disorderly mobs brandishing latest state of the art machine guns and killed as many as 50 innocent people. He by no means made it to the High Court and had to return to Islamabad.
   On the same day (May 12) President Musharraf addressed a huge rally of about 300,000 ruling Muslim League party workers boasting of the people's power in Karachi who were showing their support for him.
   However, the entire country condemned the Karachi killing and upbraided the government and its inefficiency in controlling the Karachi mayhem. The television channels had done a good job in capturing the grim threat the people were under on that day. That weakened the government position and as damage control it leaned on Pemra (a government organization that overseas TV networks issued a decree banning live coverage of the huge procession that travels with the CJ as he goes about touring one Bar Council and other.

^ TOP OF THIS PAGE ^ MAIN PAGE