The New Nation - Internet Edition

Truth and Accountability Commission

IT needs understanding among concerned quarters that the proposed Truth and Accountability Commission (TAC) would not be creating two different standards within the same legal system - one for those who would come under it and those who won't and be required to face the ordinary processes of the law. But the reality is that offenders would be required to be punished or to pay penalties under both systems. The ones who would confess their corruption before the TAC would not go free. They would be spared imprisonment but would have to pay fines proportionate to their corruption and their ill-gotten wealth would be forfeited to the state treasury.

The TAC is also seen as arising out of a practical need of easing the pressures on the traditional legal system in force. Cases from the Anti-Corruption Commission (ACC) and the special committee dealing with serious crimes, have swelled the number of corruption cases stressing severely the capacities of the courts to deal with them in time. The costs and other burdens on the government have also gone up. Cost, time and energy of the government can be saved from voluntary disclosures by the offenders.

More significantly, some offenders who have been otherwise making a positive contribution to the country's economy by operating big business houses but who remain now in jail, would be in a position to be free and go on discharging their beneficial role in the economy. As it is, some major business and industrial conglomerates have been experiencing substantial curtailment of their activities following the internment of their owners and the economy also suffered. TAC can help change the situation for the better. The TAC will not be something inconsistent with the prevailing legal system but only a pragmatic addition allowing for plea bargain that is practiced in western countries.

Tourism to go private

NOW it is the turn of the tourism sector to go private. The government appears to be serious about enacting a new law to turn the state-owned Bangladesh Parjatan Corporation into a national tourism authority as the newly appointed chairman said the other day. The corporation has decided 'to lease out' all its business enterprises including hotels and motels, restaurants and rent-a-car services to the private sector by December next. The government has formed two committees to formulate 'a modern tourism law in the light of those in neighbouring countries.' The committees are expected to make recommendations for 'tourist-friendly immigration law' and reduction of tax and tariff to attract more tourists to the country.

The resources of the corporation would be handed over to the said authority. The proposed National Tourism Authority will supervise and facilitate tourism-related private organisations besides initiating various promotional activities for making the country a tourist destination. It will provide legal and infrastructural support to tourism and hospitality sector entrepreneurs.

The chairman said, business is not the job of the corporation, which should work as a facilitator. Since its establishment, the corporation has not been able to make its own business profitable as stated by its new chairman. All the tourism-related organisations like hotels, motels and tour operators will have to be registered with the proposed tourism authority. Government agencies concerned have started surveying the tourist spots and are exploring new places of tourist attraction. For the development of tourism as an industry, creation of infrastructure to cater the needs is required first. Countries like Malaysia and Maldives have achieved tremendous success in this regard with excellence keeping their own national and religious objectives above all others in promoting tourism for strengthening their economies. Bangladesh has all the potentials to follow the same line for economic prosperity.

Democratisation in Pakistan

MAH Nazim

History-long arch-rival Pakistan People's Party and Pakistan Muslim League-Newaz together now have been able forming a national government of unity for the first time. Both PPP and PML-N have long historical backgrounds for the emergence and promotion of Pakistani statehood and democracy, flatly to be said.

Recently, these rival parties have succeeded to form a coalition government under the presidency of Pervej Mosharraf, the chief ally of Bush's War on Terrorism. PPP Chairman and son of slain Benazir Bhutto-studying in Oxford University-avoiding greatly expected Makhdom Amin Fahim, popular PPP acting president, nominated Yusuf Raja Gilani as the Premier of Pakistan. This decision has dissatisfied with many due to firing Makhdom Fahim.

The new Gilani-administered government has heavy challenges such as combating Islamist terrorism inside and outside of Pakistan, reinstatement of fired judges in the apex court who were sacked by Pervej Musharraf, democratisation in country politics and minimising army's role in politics etc and what not. How much strong personality Gilani deserves, it is the prior matter to see obviously. He has many records, as leading Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir narrated, to say 'no' to his bosses.

The new premier went to jail in 2001, serving five years following a conviction over illegal government appointments. This was during his term as Speaker of parliament between 1993-96.

The sentence was passed by an anti-corruption court formed by President Gen Musharraf as part of what he termed measures to cleanse politics. His opponents say it was a means of intimidating and coercing their members to join his government.

Mr. Gilani, by the way, was born on 9 June 1952 in Karachi but his family hails from the Punjab. The Gillanis are among the most prominent of landowners and spiritual leaders in the south of the province. Their home town is the ancient Punjabi city of Multan, one of the oldest unbroken human settlements in the world.

The family's prominence naturally led to vying for political power. His grandfather and grand-uncles joined the All India Muslim league and were signatories of the 1940 Pakistan resolution. This was the declaration which eventually led to partition.

His father, Alamdar Hussain Gillani served as a provincial minister in the 1950s. Mr. Gillani joined up in 1978 when he became a member of the Muslim League's central leadership. This was soon after he completed his MA in journalism at the University of Punjab. His first term as a public servant was as a nominee of General Zia-ul-Haq.

The Pakistan Army chief had been the country's dictator since he overthrew elected Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in a 1977 coup. Mr. Bhutto was later executed in 1979, an act that forever soured the relationship between the army and the PPP. Mr. Gillani was elected as the chairman of the Multan union council in 1983.

Two years later he was elected to the federal parliament. It was during this first stint that circumstances arose which led to his leaving the League. While serving as a minister he fell out with then Prime Minister Mohammad Ali Junejo. This led to him being replaced as minister and sidelined in the party.

The democracy road, by the by, in Pakistan is very bizarre, to be spoken. The manners, culture, people's outlook, role of the establishments, feudalistic societies etc are the key points here to analyse the political situation there.

If we look back in the historical retrospect of British-India, we disclose the clumsy, painful and divisive feature, indeed. Why and how the political parties in Pakistan failed to continue democratic rule in the country? We will now try to find out the causes behind it below.

In 1906 during British era, the Muslim leaders especially Bengali Muslim leaders formed All India Muslim League for the counter face of Indian National Congress. There was an idea erected in the mental construct of Muslim community that Congress was representing and looking after the interests of Hindu community and Muslim should have separate party which would look after the interests of Muslim community, actually.

After the partition in 1947, Muslim League put away the sight from the mainstream of the entire national interest. Mohammad Ali Jinnah, who was the chief of it then, was allegedly the harbinger for de-democratisation in the country of Pakistan from its very inception.

No doubt, he was a charismatic leader to some portion of people of the then Indo-Pakistan. But, he lost his apex and unique leadership image to the undivided Pakistani people gradually. Pakistani leaderships virtually failed to form a constitution to rule the country despite Jinna was governing the state. Besides, the elite rulers, Jinnah himself too, of Pakistan launched despotic ruling system through Governor General-style of hierarchy in the state.

On the other hand, the other country of India which born simultaneously with Pakistan, to be said, however, from the very beginning started democratic ruling system albeit the last Governor General of Britain to British-India Lord Mount Batten was in charge of head of the state in India. Shortly after, this country succeeded to form constitution, pluralistic characters of the politics and other political culture etc that led friendly pace to the Indian democracy.

I cannot restrain my temptation to mention a vocalisation of Mohanchand Karamchand Gandhi alias Mahatma Gandhi that 'simple living, high thinking' in national life was absent in Pakistani ruling characters.

Hi-influential Pakistani army, meanwhile, took interference in the Pakistani national politics. A number of technocrat and non-political bodies came to the politics which destabilised the normalcy of country and politics. Ataur Rahman Khan, a renowned politician and later the premier of military ruler Ziaur Rahman's administration in independent Bangladesh, disclosed the role, in his famous book 'Ojarotir Dui Bachar,' of Pakistani bureaucrats in politics. He showed in his book that hi-powered military and civil bureaucrats were always busy to keep their interests safe using the mode of politics.

There was little chance of politicians in the government body and they were aloof from major decision making policies.

Nevertheless, Pakistan is still ruled by the elite groups of the society. Mohammad Ali Jinna, Bhutto dynasty, Newaz Sharif, Yusuf Gilanni, military forces etc were and are the elite elements in the country. So the hunger for grabbing the state and local power were used to prevail there from long since.

Even they adopted bloodshed means to be succeed.

A number of political assassinations took place intending to grab as well as to strengthen the thrown in state power. For the last instance, forced exiled PPP leader Benazir Bhutto is the last top political figure who braced suicide attack death in the military city of Rawalpindi on 25th December of 2007.

Just after her death, PML-N boss Newaz Sharif and Asif Ali Zardari, PPP acting chief who was also charged with corruption during Sharif regime, met together to dethrone Muharraf from the state power.

They both claimed Mosharraf's hand behind this brutal assassination although he categorically denied his himself or government's agency's involvement behind the killing. Even, he invited UK-based Scotland Yard in his country to investigate the case.

As far the history page says, a number of people from various quarters of Pakistani society under the cancelled-Chief Justice Iftekhar Muhammad Choudhury were on the streets about Musharraf's decision canceling him from the job of Pakistan CJ. They staged demonstration against Musharraf's such dictatorial action. The international TV media showed then democracy-loving people were protesting on the roads seeking to reinstate Justice Choudhury and other judges on their posts as well as to restore democracy in the country.

In this time, it is to be said, all the rivalry politicians, except MQM and PML-Q, came under same umbrella of this resolute justice. The democratic character, however, was virtually seen to come in the political arena. At last, deterring national elections after few times, PML-N and PPP alliance won a big victory defeating Musharraf-backed PML-Q in the parliament in Feb 18 elections.

The political leaders for the first time, indeed, expressed views to force Mushie step aside immediately.

The general people of the country, we believe, do not like to see him more in the power. Albeit he was apparently a strong crusader against militancy inside and outside of Pakistan, now, it seems he is a failure oar-man of the country.

He should immediately step down otherwise he may have to buttress the painful fate of his predecessor Gen Ziaul Haque, who died in a mysterious plane crash.

There is a wide range saying around Pakistan politics and in the USA too, Musharraf is a staple ally of Bush-led 'war on terrorism' against Taliban and internal militants who are supposed to be like minded and activists of Taliban and al Qaeda.

Musharraf helped with 90,000 troops to the US forces and Nato forces operating anti-Taliban raid in neighbouring Afghanistan. It's an interesting matter that Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirate recognised Taliban-administered Afghanistan since 1996 to before 2001 collapse.

Another big culprit is militancy. When the most powerful and military mighty state of America and Nato forces experienced frequent attack by the Taliban, alleged Saudi jihadists and local Qaeda-backed militants; the Bush administration asked Pervej administration to launch attacks on Afghan bordering militant hotbeds.

But, there was 'no attack' deal between suspected tribal warlords and the government bearing that the troops would not attack on the region, especially on North and South Waziristan near Afghan frontier.

Galloping US huge pressure Musharraf's troops started bombing and airstrike on the 'militant' hotspots in mid-July of 2006 that triggered relentless suicide attacks across the country. Such strikes in the tribal regions of Bajaur and South Waziristan, in late 2006 and early 2007, enraged militant leaders. They vowed revenge against the government saying the government betrayed with them scrapping 'no attack' deal unilaterally.

On the other hand, in July, 2007, the army's storming of the radical Red Mosque in the country's capital, Islamabad, added fuel to the fire. More than 200 people were killed in the three attacks. The government described the occupants of the Red Mosque as militants, but they and their political allies said they were either religious students or innocent civilians.

The most dangerous matter is some women wearing veils from top to toe made suicide attacks on army or police checkpoints. Day by day, the death toll caused by these hatred attacks is rising and spread the panic among the masses deeply.

So, it is very crucial matter to handle such briskly insecure situation for Mr. Gilani. Most people believe in the country that such odd phenomena can not be postponed making military or gunship attacks rather it is more scientific to solve the problem negotiating and talking with embattled groups. Moreover, a ceasefire treaty and restoration of arms from terrorists in the landmass is must.

The democratic leaderships have to be let function on right track. Besides, Gilani govt.'s big challenge is to deal with the US govt. more technically because the US is believed to be the mastermind behind all scenes. It is the time to wait to see the aftermath for how this government of representatives can handle the upcoming uncertain circumstances of the state.

Arab League Summit in Syria

Dr.Abdul Ruff

Boycotted this year by half of the Arab world's leaders, the Arab League's two-day annual summit opened in March 29 in the Syrian capital Damascus in the midst of crises in the region. (While Lebanon is reeling under seriolus "ruling" crisis, Hamas is under virtual siege from Israeli forces with their borders closed down by Israel, followed by air-strikes killing many, resulting in panic situation created in Palestine and Palestinians breached a part of the border with Egypt to buy essential daily requirements). In all, nine heads of state from the Arab League's 22 members are not attending the Damascus gathering. Key leaders are staying away amid signs of a growing regional rift among the Arab states themselves.

The shaky start for the summit has been signaled by the absence of several Arab states and accusations followed by counter-allegations by member-states. They protest Syria's hard-line stances in nearly every crisis in the Mideast. They blame Syria for the ongoing political crisis in Lebanon, whose government is staying away completely. Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora denounced Syria for preventing the election of a consensus president in Beirut. Their absence is touted by Syria as a triumph over American influence.

The summit has been driven by deep divisions between Arab leaders, mainly over alleged Syrian meddling in Lebanese affairs. Lebanon is boycotting the meeting, while Egypt and Saudi Arabia have announced, in an unprecedented move, they are sending only low-level officials to the gathering in a snub to Syria, rather than their heads of state or even their prime ministers or foreign ministers. However, it has been billed by Syria as "the summit of joint Arab action" is expected to boost its prestige. Lebanon is boycotting the summit completely, the first time an Arab country has refused to send a delegation since Arab leaders began holding annual summits in 2000. The Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora accuses Syria of blocking attempts to elect a new Lebanese president.

Meanwhile, Syria billed it as a golden opportunity for regional unity but there is little sign of this. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Moualem accused the US of trying to divide Arabs by urging allies to stay away. Syria has accused them in the past of being subservient to the US. Moualem told reporters that USA did their best to prevent the summit but they failed. "Their aim is to divide the Arab world." He promised that there would be "no trace of the United States on the summit's work or agenda".

Washington last week urged its Arab allies in the region to think twice before attending the summit, accusing Syria of blocking the election of a new president in Lebanon. As a result, Egypt is sending a junior minister while powerhouse Saudi Arabia and Jordan will be represented by their ambassadors to the Arab League. Lebanon has boycotted the summit altogether.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is hosting the leaders of Algeria, the Comoros, Kuwait, Libya, Mauritania, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Sudan, Tunisia and the United Arab Emirates-only half of the 22-member league's heads of state. The two camps are in a yearlong struggle for control of Lebanon: US allies Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt are strong supporters of Saniora's government, while Syria backs Hezbollah, the militant group that leads the Lebanese opposition. Arab countries, which are mostly Sunni-led, are also nervous about Syria's controversial alliance with Shiite Iran. They view host country Syria as a trouble-maker, too close to Iran and a destructive force in divided Lebanon.

Lebanon has been without a president since the end of November and has been mired in political crisis for more than a year because of feuding between the Western-backed parliamentary majority and the Hezbollah-led opposition, backed by Syria and Iran. In a televised address on Friday ahead of the summit, Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora said his government had decided to boycott the meeting because of Syrian meddling in his country's affairs.

The Lebanese crisis, the worst since the end of the country's 1975-1990 civil war, is widely seen as an extension of the conflict pitting the United States and its regional allies against Syria and Iran. Because of Lebanon's absence, the Arab foreign ministers have decided to adopt the same statement decided in Cairo three weeks ago which calls for supporting Lebanon as well as the Arab initiative on Lebanon," he said. That initiative calls for the election of army chief General Michel Sleiman as president, forming a national unity government in which no single party has veto power and a new electoral law.

The League of Arab States, or Arab League, is a voluntary association of countries whose peoples are mainly Arabic speaking. It has 22 members, including Palestine, which the league regards as an independent state. It aims to strengthen ties among member states, coordinate their policies and direct them towards the common good.

The idea of the Arab League was mooted in 1942 by the British, who wanted to rally Arab countries in war against Germany, against the Axis powers. However, the league did not take off until March 1945, just before the end of World War II. At that time the issues that dominated the league's agenda were freeing those Arab countries still under colonial rule, and preventing the Jewish minority in Palestine from creating a Jewish state.

The highest body of the league is the Council, composed of representatives of member states, usually foreign ministers, their representatives or permanent delegates. Each member state has one vote, irrespective of its size. The council meets twice a year, in March and September, and may convene a special session at the request of two members.

The annual summit is frequently plagued by no-shows, often because of personal disputes among leaders. But this year, the differences are sharper and the snubs even more pointed. With the no-shows, the headliners at this year's summit are Assad, Libya's leader Moammar Gadhafi and Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who were arriving with other delegations.

The out come of the summit is easy to be discerned right now; there would no resolution of the Lebanon and Palestine crises in the forum. It appears the division within the region is now clear. There is no shortage of crises in their region but Arab states disagree over who is to blame and what is to be done and it seems unlikely they will resolve those differences now without key members present. If they do, that could further complicate the crises. The West says that there are now two axes - Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah are on one side and the rest are on the another end. Syrian axis is coherent and they have a clear objective and they are working in an organized way.

At the meeting aheld on 27 March, the Arab League foreign ministers also agreed to re-endorse the 2002 Arab initiative for Middle East peace but expressed their frustration at Israel's refusal to follow up on their plan, after Muallem hinted that it could be rethought.

But Damascus may benefit from the absences, which ensure the summit will not pressure it to change its stances toward Lebanon or the Palestinians. Also, Syria showed it won't be forced to exchange its strong alliance with Iran for approval from Arabs. By staying away, the countries aimed to show Damascus the diplomatic cost of its hard line on Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But it is likely instead to strengthen Damascus' alliance with Iran and the Hamas and Hezbollah groups.

But an isolated Syria could even revise its policy in the neighborhood. However, no conclusions could be drawn until the close of the summit and unless the results are seen influencing the positive course of Mideast crisis.