Political will is a must for implementing National
Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010
By Sheher Bano
Pakistan is a major transit country for opiate produced in Afghanistan. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) estimates that 40 percent of all the heroin and morphine trafficked out of Afghanistan transits through Pakistan. The UNODC reported in 2009 that opiate trade in Pakistan was valued at about USD 1 billion. The 2006 National Assessment of Problem of Drug Use in Pakistan estimated that the prevalence of opiate use in Pakistan is around 0.7 percent of the adult population. The same report estimates the number of opiate users at 628,000 of which 77 per cent (482,000) are chronic heroin abusers. According to the National Survey on Drug Abuse 1993, carried out by the Pakistan Narcotics Control Board, there were 3 million reported drug addicts in the country. Recent figures estimate about 6 million addicts in the country, although the fresh, exact data is not available.
The government formulated its first Anti-Narcotics Policy in 1993. The new National Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010 addresses both Pakistan’s prevailing drug situation and changes in the global narcotics environment that have emerged since the 1993 Narcotics Policy. The policy will soon be announced. Although the 1993 Policy created various institutions and drug enforcement structures, an effective mechanism to coordinate and integrate these efforts was lacking. The absence of a cohesive approach has led to continued drug trafficking and proliferation in Pakistan, compounded by a limited availability of treatment centres and data on drug addiction.
The new policy aims at re-energising the existing National Drug Laws Enforcement Institutions, capacity building of Anti Narcotics Force and developing an effective coordination and control mechanism, concurrently mobilizing people of Pakistan, especially youth, so as to ensure their active participation in eradication of the menace of drugs from Pakistan. The Policy seeks to boost treatment and rehabilitation services.
The focus of the policy is on eradication of narcotics and maintenance of Pakistan’s poppy-free status. The new Policy outlines a number of objectives targeting three areas namely: supply reduction, demand reduction and international cooperation. The Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010 supports the Drug Control Master Plan 2010-2014.
In order to cope with the segment of "Drug Supply Reduction" the policy has outlined steps like elimination of poppy cultivation, effectively check-resurfacing of heroin laboratories, prevention of the trafficking and production of narcotic drugs, psychotropic substances and precursor chemicals, strengthening and streamlining law enforcement agencies and their activities, improving legislative and judicial processes, enhance coordination/information-sharing through structured arrangement within organisations/institutions; capacity building of Anti-Narcotics Force; enhanced efforts for forfeiting drug-generated assets and improvement of judicature for expeditious disposal of drug cases.
On the Drug Demand Reduction side, the policy aims to prevent drug use through education and community mobilisation campaigns and create a drug-free society in Pakistan, particularly the youth. It also proposes an effective and accessible drug treatment and rehabilitation systems and conducting a drug abuse survey to determine the prevalence of drug addiction and establishing a national coordination mechanism for drug demand reduction. In order to seek international cooperation, a mechanism for active participation in bilateral, regional and international efforts to combat drugs will be devised.
National Anti-Narcotics Council (NANC) will be set up under the Chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Pakistan in order to evaluate and review Anti-Narcotics Policy. The council will meet annually with the MNC acting as the Secretariat. Parliamentary Committees on Narcotics Control will exercise parliamentary oversight by evaluating and monitoring the implementation of the Anti-Narcotics Policy. The Committee will also prepare recommendations regarding review and improvement of Anti-Narcotics Policy for the NANC.
The Prime Minister of Pakistan also wants Lahore to be a drug-free city under the new draft National Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010. The Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010, though quite comprehensive, misses out on certain key issues. On the supply side, it does not lay stress on the need for strict legislation, registration and licensing of the sale and purchase of precursor chemicals like acetic anhydride or phenobarbitone (an anticonvulsant). The latter is a chemical used to treat epilepsy, hence, may be used inappropriately. Such a policy will not only allow documented tracing of chemicals but also act as a measure of check on those involved in the trade of chemicals with the potential for such grave harm. The policy must take into account the availability of drugs through prescriptions and must place an effective ban on substances and medicines that can be misused.
Thirdly, the policy is silent on the question of how regularly the Drug Abuse Survey will be conducted. In the absence of proper statistics, revising the policy will serve little purpose and become ineffective. In order to reduce the health, social and economic costs associated with drug trafficking and substance abuse in Pakistan, the Drug Control Master Plan 2010-2014 has been developed in accordance with international best practices. Pakistan is a signatory to all United Nations (UN) drug control conventions as well as the SAARC Convention on Drug Control.
Recently PILDAT arranged a series of Consultative Sessions on Draft National Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010 in Islamabad, Karachi, and Lahore with all the stakeholders in order to take their views on the proposed policy so that a comprehensive plan can be put in place.
In all these sessions the participants stressed on introducing stricter punishments for drug traffickers and users, like that of death penalty, social mobilisation, a vigorous anti-narcotics drive on the pattern of judges movement, an efficient law enforcement staff to achieve the drug-free status of Pakistan, considering certainty of the punishment more necessary than the severity of the punishment etc. However, strong drug mafia network and weak law enforcement leaves a question for all the efforts done towards a drug-free society. Differentiation is also required in the policy between drug trafficking and drug cultivation.
The policy must introduce subsidies and incentives for farmers in areas where poppy cultivation is high so as to facilitate crops, which are legal and equally profitable. The policy must introduce a framework and monitoring of drug rehabilitation and treatment centres, rehabilitation of displaced persons, especially youth who suffer poverty, lack of employment opportunities. Besides, post-rehabilitation monitoring to check for re-lapse in drug users and to identify reasons for re-lapse is also mandatory. One of the participants suggested replacing "drug addict" with "drug user" in the policy. The criticism was also raised on the contents of the policy, which to many seemed a replica of the past policies made in Pakistan.
Participants also suggested following "Rainbow Strategy", which was adopted in the Paris Pact in Vienna, in order to reduce the negative health, social and security consequences of opium and heroin in and around Afghanistan. In this connection, in order to strengthen cross-border counter-narcotics cooperation, a Trilateral Initiative between Afghanistan, Iran and Pakistan should be initiated.
Muhammad Naveed Younus, Coordinator, New Horizon Care Centre, Karachi said that the policy lacks the involvement of representatives from grassroots level which is actually needed for effective implementation. While highlighting some of the amendments, he suggested twice yearly meeting of the National Anti-Narcotics Council (NANC. Besides, he also recommended that President of the Drug Free Pakistan should be the member of this committee. He suggested forming National Anti-Narcotics Committee under federal secretary, a Provincial Narcotics Control Committee under Chief Minister, with a permanent representative from Pakistan Merchant and Dyes Association, City Narcotics Control Committee under DCOs, and Town Committees under Town Nazims. He suggested deputing young officers in the ANF staff instead of near retirement officers, so that the cause does not suffer due to the retirement of any officer.
While the political will is a must for implementing National Anti-Narcotics Policy 2010, in the words of Lt. Gen. (Retd.) Moinuddin Haider, former Governor Sindh and former Interior Minister, "drug-free Pakistan may be a big dream, but we have to dream big to achieve big."
Apr 6, 2010
VAT’s effects on economy
Lenders are least pushed about the inequitable character of our tax system
By Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq
On November 25, 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved the $7.6 billion standby arrangement for Pakistan to be delivered over 23-month. As expected, a number of conditions were imposed by the IMF. One of the demands of the lender was introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) from July 1, 2010, coupled with surrendering control of monitoring of the revenue collection to the IMF; six of its directors and two of the World Bank since then are supervising revenue collection and the preparation of the federal budget of Pakistan.
There are remarkable similarities in the operations of the IMF/World Bank in Pakistan and the colonial era of East India Company vis-à-vis revenue collections. According to many historians, the East Indian Company’s tax collectors would take away one half to two-thirds of the crops. Therefore, the peasants’ lives were most miserable during the colonial period — the same is the case now for Pakistanis.
Our economic survival now lies in collecting taxes wherever due by abandoning the policy of appeasement towards the powerful and the rich. However, VAT is not an answer. Being regressive in nature it would push more people towards poverty — their number has already reached 50 million. The rich will pass on the burden of this tax to the poor consumers. The real solution is taxing the rich and mighty by introducing asset-seizure legislation. If they fail to pay taxes on their un-taxed assets — kept in or outside Pakistan — they should be seized at once. This legislation will be true manifestation of democratic rules confirming an unshakeable determination, consistency and political will to curb the 64-year-old habit of defying tax laws, together with complete purge in the tax machinery.
The primary function of any tax policy is to raise revenue for the government for its public expenditure. So the first goal of a development-oriented tax policy is to ensure that this function is discharged effectively but simultaneously it ensures removal of inequalities through redistribution of income and wealth. Higher rates of income taxes, capital transfer taxes and wealth taxes are some of the means for achieving economic justice. In Pakistan, an opposite approach has been adopted: there has been a complete shift from equitable to highly inequitable taxes. The progressive taxes aimed at removing inequalities are replaced with regressive ones favouring the rich.
Taxes collected are consumed on debt-servicing, defence, security of the rulers and their foreign tours. Besides regressive taxation, the government keep on borrowing at a high cost, from wherever source available, to run the day to day affairs. Interest payments on domestic and foreign debts during the ongoing fiscal year 2009-10 are likely to exceed Rs664bn (48 percent of revenue target fixed for the year) that is 17 billion more than what was estimated in the budget. If the defence spending — including cost of ‘war against terror’ — is added, the entire revenue collection of Rs. 1380 billion will be engulfed by just two items, meaning by for all other outlays more borrowings, domestic and international, will be made. It is a never-ending vicious circle.
It is now well-established that there is a direct link between growing poverty in Pakistan and distortion in tax base since 1991, when a major shift was made by introducing presumptive taxes (indirect taxes in the garb of income tax) and VAT-type sales tax. Since 1991, the burden of taxes on the poor is increased by 38 percent whereas on the rich it is reduced by 18 percent. The lack of judicious balance between direct and indirect taxes has pushed an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis towards the poverty line — their number is now 48 million according to official figures.
The FBR has in its reports admitted that in the first half of the current fiscal year 2009-10, the share of indirect taxes rose to 72 percent and that of direct taxes dipped to 28 percent. It confirms that the taxation system of Pakistan, contrary to the rest of the world, is highly regressive. If we take into account the portion of so-called income tax collection, which is in fact indirect in nature, the share of indirect tax would not be less than 82 percent in the total collection of FBR. The IMF and others lenders are least pushed about the inequitable character of our tax system, under which the burden of taxes is less on the rich and more on the poor. They are interested in getting their money back with interest.
Over a period of time, our tax system has become rotten, oppressive, unjust and target-oriented. There is a dire need for discussing the philosophical framework, the principles of equity and justice, which should be the main concern of our tax policy; not mere achieving of targets set out by the foreign lenders. Our tax managers are meeting budgetary targets through oppressive taxes, shifting incidence on the poorer segments of society and exempting the rich. We must reintroduce wealth tax, gift tax, estate duty and capital gain tax — progressive taxes abolished by military dictators.
The Senate Standing Committee on Finance is also of the view that VAT is inflationary in nature. It has pointed out in its recommendation forwarded to the National Assembly that 15 percent VAT will have a burden of 21 percent on taxpayers. It has asked for deferment of the VAT for a year at least. It is hoped that National Assembly and all the four provincial assembles, while discussing the IMF-drafted VAT laws, will reject them in totality and instead will go for progressives taxes mentioned above.
The legislators must reject iniquitous prescription of VAT as it will never solve our economic problems. The only solution is introduction of taxes on the rich coupled with reducing the monstrous size of the government. They should monetize all the perquisites and benefits available to them and to the civil-military bureaucracy. If we manage to drastically cut the size of government and formulate a rational tax policy through public debate and parliamentary process, and implement it through consensus and not coercive measures, there is every possibility to ward off the IMF and World Bank in the shortest span of time. However, if we continue following their prescriptions, we will neither tap our real tax potential, which is not less than Rs. 4 trillion, nor achieve the cherished goals of self-reliance, rapid industrial and economic growth, and socio-economic justice for all
By Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq
On November 25, 2008, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) approved the $7.6 billion standby arrangement for Pakistan to be delivered over 23-month. As expected, a number of conditions were imposed by the IMF. One of the demands of the lender was introduction of Value Added Tax (VAT) from July 1, 2010, coupled with surrendering control of monitoring of the revenue collection to the IMF; six of its directors and two of the World Bank since then are supervising revenue collection and the preparation of the federal budget of Pakistan.
There are remarkable similarities in the operations of the IMF/World Bank in Pakistan and the colonial era of East India Company vis-à-vis revenue collections. According to many historians, the East Indian Company’s tax collectors would take away one half to two-thirds of the crops. Therefore, the peasants’ lives were most miserable during the colonial period — the same is the case now for Pakistanis.
Our economic survival now lies in collecting taxes wherever due by abandoning the policy of appeasement towards the powerful and the rich. However, VAT is not an answer. Being regressive in nature it would push more people towards poverty — their number has already reached 50 million. The rich will pass on the burden of this tax to the poor consumers. The real solution is taxing the rich and mighty by introducing asset-seizure legislation. If they fail to pay taxes on their un-taxed assets — kept in or outside Pakistan — they should be seized at once. This legislation will be true manifestation of democratic rules confirming an unshakeable determination, consistency and political will to curb the 64-year-old habit of defying tax laws, together with complete purge in the tax machinery.
The primary function of any tax policy is to raise revenue for the government for its public expenditure. So the first goal of a development-oriented tax policy is to ensure that this function is discharged effectively but simultaneously it ensures removal of inequalities through redistribution of income and wealth. Higher rates of income taxes, capital transfer taxes and wealth taxes are some of the means for achieving economic justice. In Pakistan, an opposite approach has been adopted: there has been a complete shift from equitable to highly inequitable taxes. The progressive taxes aimed at removing inequalities are replaced with regressive ones favouring the rich.
Taxes collected are consumed on debt-servicing, defence, security of the rulers and their foreign tours. Besides regressive taxation, the government keep on borrowing at a high cost, from wherever source available, to run the day to day affairs. Interest payments on domestic and foreign debts during the ongoing fiscal year 2009-10 are likely to exceed Rs664bn (48 percent of revenue target fixed for the year) that is 17 billion more than what was estimated in the budget. If the defence spending — including cost of ‘war against terror’ — is added, the entire revenue collection of Rs. 1380 billion will be engulfed by just two items, meaning by for all other outlays more borrowings, domestic and international, will be made. It is a never-ending vicious circle.
It is now well-established that there is a direct link between growing poverty in Pakistan and distortion in tax base since 1991, when a major shift was made by introducing presumptive taxes (indirect taxes in the garb of income tax) and VAT-type sales tax. Since 1991, the burden of taxes on the poor is increased by 38 percent whereas on the rich it is reduced by 18 percent. The lack of judicious balance between direct and indirect taxes has pushed an overwhelming majority of Pakistanis towards the poverty line — their number is now 48 million according to official figures.
The FBR has in its reports admitted that in the first half of the current fiscal year 2009-10, the share of indirect taxes rose to 72 percent and that of direct taxes dipped to 28 percent. It confirms that the taxation system of Pakistan, contrary to the rest of the world, is highly regressive. If we take into account the portion of so-called income tax collection, which is in fact indirect in nature, the share of indirect tax would not be less than 82 percent in the total collection of FBR. The IMF and others lenders are least pushed about the inequitable character of our tax system, under which the burden of taxes is less on the rich and more on the poor. They are interested in getting their money back with interest.
Over a period of time, our tax system has become rotten, oppressive, unjust and target-oriented. There is a dire need for discussing the philosophical framework, the principles of equity and justice, which should be the main concern of our tax policy; not mere achieving of targets set out by the foreign lenders. Our tax managers are meeting budgetary targets through oppressive taxes, shifting incidence on the poorer segments of society and exempting the rich. We must reintroduce wealth tax, gift tax, estate duty and capital gain tax — progressive taxes abolished by military dictators.
The Senate Standing Committee on Finance is also of the view that VAT is inflationary in nature. It has pointed out in its recommendation forwarded to the National Assembly that 15 percent VAT will have a burden of 21 percent on taxpayers. It has asked for deferment of the VAT for a year at least. It is hoped that National Assembly and all the four provincial assembles, while discussing the IMF-drafted VAT laws, will reject them in totality and instead will go for progressives taxes mentioned above.
The legislators must reject iniquitous prescription of VAT as it will never solve our economic problems. The only solution is introduction of taxes on the rich coupled with reducing the monstrous size of the government. They should monetize all the perquisites and benefits available to them and to the civil-military bureaucracy. If we manage to drastically cut the size of government and formulate a rational tax policy through public debate and parliamentary process, and implement it through consensus and not coercive measures, there is every possibility to ward off the IMF and World Bank in the shortest span of time. However, if we continue following their prescriptions, we will neither tap our real tax potential, which is not less than Rs. 4 trillion, nor achieve the cherished goals of self-reliance, rapid industrial and economic growth, and socio-economic justice for all
"The West still has a very colonial mentality"
By Ramma S. Cheema and
Gulalai Khan
Robert Fisk is one name in international journalism that needs little introduction. A British and foreign correspondent for The Independent, Fisk visited Pakistan recently to report on political, social, and judicial system for his paper. Fisk happens to be one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama Bin Laden three times between 1994 and 1997. Fisk has been voted International Journalist of the Year seven times in his career. In an exclusive interview with The News on Sunday on phone, Fisk talks about a host of issues, including the current political system in Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan, 9/11, Middle East, and the ethics that journalists need to apply when reporting. Excerpts from the interview follow:
The News on Sunday: Pakistan is governed by a democratic system now after an 8-year long military period. Keeping in mind the current political and economic situation of Pakistan, do you think we have benefited from this transition from military to democracy?
Robert Fisk: In the 60 something years of Pakistani politics you have seen very few years of formal democracy. Political opposition to military rule hasn't had much practice. Sadly, the concept of corruption has seeped deeply into the fabric of Pakistani politics. Even dictatorship is an extreme form of corruption. It's very important that you put dictatorship into the past now and accept only the shining dynamic of democracy as the only system.
Corruption is like cancer. Once you suffer from it, it's difficult to get rid of it. When you have politicians, almost all of whom are tainted with corruption, there is a cynicism in the electorate (people who come out to vote). In Britain, we did have military dictatorships. British parliament is also corrupt but not on the scale as here. The public says why should we vote for the corrupt, they don't represent us? Tony Blair went to war in Iraq even after a million people walked on the London streets against the invasion. Similar discontent is present in other European countries between the people and the people they elect.
What you have here in Pakistan, which really goes in your favour, is a strong body of lawyers who for various reasons have helped the country in intricate moments. They have stood together for the advocacy of the rule of law. The fact is that the issue of the reinstatement of the chief justice showed greatly on Pakistan. It showed that this little country can show great political maturity and belief in law as opposed to the belief in power which is what Musharraf wanted.
Any democratic setup in Pakistan has to tackle the issue of poverty, unemployment, electricity, and education on an urgent basis to avoid anger and social disruption. The coming out of people on the streets of Islamabad when transport fares were raised is symptomatic of a dangerous tradition. In any other country you will need a much bigger social injustice and inequality to bring people on the streets. It is a very fragile situation.
But one thing that has always impressed me about Pakistanis is the intelligence of the people here. Despite low literacy rates, the people are intellectually very sound. The people here don't need to be highly educated in order to know about politics and what's going on around them. People discuss law and politics in detail; know about the political parties, their manifestos. The people are the saving grace of this country and that is the reason I like coming here. You can ask anyone about politics here and you will get an interesting reply.
TNS: You say you like coming here but Time Magazine reported Pakistan to be one of the most dangerous places in the world. You have spent time here. What do you have to say?
RF: Journalists have their own point of view, I don't believe what I read in the Time. You all should stop believing it too.
Here is Pakistan I am amazed that you worry about what Time or New York Times report about you than worry about your own country and its reality. I think it's a very bad habit to refer to foreigners talking about your country. You have no future if you keep asking foreigners what they think of your country. Ask people from the nearest city or village, not people from New York, London or Tel Aviv.
TNS: Do you think 9/11 was staged in order to attack Iraq and Afghanistan?
RF: No. Everywhere I go people ask me, do you really think George Bush staged the 9/11. I reply do you actually think George Bush was capable enough to carry out 9/11 (laughs). He wasn't capable of doing anything. I think Bin Laden's people were behind it. I also think that the American administration and intelligence authorities were aware something was about to happen and were thinking of a response in case it happened. At least one senior member of the Bush administration was talking about Iraq within 24 hours of 9/11. The members of the Bush administration were aware what opportunities could present themselves if America was attacked or wounded by terrorists…I don't like the word terrorists…I call them mass murderers. The Bush administration wasn't quick enough to cover up the security lapses but by and large people should stop believing that 9/11 was a CIA administered conspiracy.
TNS: Is Obama doing a better job than Bush as far as the policy in Middle East is concerned?
RF: Well, he is pretty much doing the same thing. Governments are not about good or bad guys. It's about conducive power. Obama understands Middle East better, has a number of intellectual Arab friends but in Washington power does not lie with individuals. There are several lobbies. Not just the Israeli lobby, several others too. In Washington, at the end of the day the Congress does know that if it opposes Israel, the Israel lobby will support its opponents in the next general elections. Remember the president of the US may be the most powerful man in the world but he has little power to make decisions in Washington.
When Gaza war was going on, 1300 Palestinians were slaughtered. Obama said nothing. Now if 1300 Israelis were killed I am sure he must have said something. I heard Obama's speech in Cairo and Obama's referring to the exodus of the 1948 as the 'relocation' of Palestinians. That's a very odd way to mention what was clearly ethnic cleansing and he didn't use the word refugee camps throughout his lecture and I was there taking down notes and thinking: now there is a problem here.
TNS: Why do you think Americans and foreign journalists are afraid to report actual facts relating to Palestine?
RF: There are a number of things. Firstly, reporters don't want to get into trouble with their editors or land up in a major controversy relating to Israel. Therefore, they have invented a special language which in my opinion is outrageous and disgraceful but keeps the press safe from accusations. They use words 'disputed' instead of 'occupied' for areas that are essentially occupied areas. Then they call the settlements 'Jewish neighbourhood' and fence. Even a paper in Pakistan called the wall a 'security fence'. I find it outrageous because a fence is something you have around your fields, a neighbourhood is somewhere where you can chat to your neighbours, a dispute is something you solve over a cup of tea or a lower court.
Once you turn a colony into a neighborhood, an occupation into a dispute, a wall into fence, you de-semiticise the entire thing. It's sad that our reporting not only supported the Israeli occupation but also made Palestinians into a generically violent people who throw stones at Israelis. And this happens because of the practice in journalism where journalists think it's better not to be controversial and write in a way not to offend anyone but by doing that they take away from the reality of war, the blood and the suffering of the people.
American journalists are especially fearful of being labelled anti-Semitic, of losing their jobs due to strong Jewish lobby, be reviled, be shunned. These people make anti-Semitism respectable. One of the papers in Pakistan also called the settlements controversial. I say it's not controversial, it's illegal. But you see you can't give a backbone to a reporter. If you are a reporter who doesn't have the courage to speak the truth then it's better to go work in a bank, IT or Public Relations.
Another problem is the editors. An editor needs to stand by the reporter. I am very fortunate to have an editor who trusts me and whom I trust. I am lucky because if you don't have a courageous editor, no matter how good a reporter you are, you will be defeated.
TNS: Do you think the US is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan and it's affecting the entire region?
RF: Yes. No one in history has won a war in Afghanistan. The British lost in 1842, the nineteenth century, 1919, the Soviets lost in 1979 and 1989. Americans are on the verge of losing it now. We can malign our enemies anywhere, call them savages, terrorist etc. The Canadian commander in Afghanistan called the Taliban 'scumbags' but you see that is not the point. The point is that the Afghans, the people, are never going to tolerate any foreign occupier. Afghan people might have a very low rate of education, live in intolerable conditions but they know if a president has had a fraudulent election and then they hear that Obama calls the fraudulently elected president, Karzai and congratulates him on getting elected. Afghans are not stupid. Being uneducated doesn't mean you are stupid.
We can be romantic about the situation, be moralistic about the situation but at the end of the day the truth is we will never win in Afghanistan. These lands don't belong to the British or Americans. They belong to the Muslims, the Afghans people. The Muslims might need our education, our technical assistance but they don't need our military, our soldiers. We do not have any right to have our military in the Muslim world.
TNS: You are reported to have said that all strategy on Afghanistan and this region will fail if the Kashmir dispute isn't resolved. Is it true?
RF: Yes, it's true. There will be no solution to the mess in Afghanistan and this region until America deals justly with Kashmir. When Richard Holbrooke was appointed he was appointed for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was told he wasn't dealing with Kashmir. Does that mean Kashmir is an India issue not to be discussed with Pakistan? Then why should the Pakistan army, the ISI, and the people of Pakistan fight a war that is essentially America's? It's like asking people in Gaza to support US foreign policy after it supports Israel to occupy Palestinian land and carry out atrocities on the people of Palestine. It won't work. People won't do that. They are not stupid.
One of the main problems I think while dealing with this region is that the West still has a very colonial mentality by which they feel they can tell the Muslims what to do and what not to do. We still think we are better than them. This is very demeaning to the people here.
TNS: Did Musharraf really have a choice to say no when confronted with "are you with us or against us"?
RF: Remember then you had a dictator and his priority was not the future of Pakistan but the future of Musharraf. For him, it was a personal situation and power that mattered when confronted with 'with us or against us'. He agreed to go along with the US because had he refused the US would have found a way to get rid of him. It didn't matter to him what it might do to Pakistan in the future. At that time Pakistan was safe because there was no internal insurgency but now after Pakistan took sides with an Imperial power, the war came to the country.
TNS: How do nations like Pakistan avoid falling victim to the US, of the West's notion of democracy in their own country?
RF: It's difficult. The history of this nation began with Pakistan and although Pakistan is a great nation the history after partition is not glorious at all with constant military dictatorships and economic disasters. On the other hand, the West has a long history of colonisation and occupation but I feel there is one occupation more sinister than the military occupation and that is economic domination. You see you don't see any Western soldiers marching on your streets but you need their money to run your country.
The moment you go to Washington to ask for money, they say you have to pay interest and the interest is to support their foreign policy because of their economic hold. How do you avoid it…by good governance, a government of people who don't rule to make money out of politics but to improve and help the country. You have a spirit alive in Pakistan that can save this nation. The lawyers came close to it. The conditions here might be tough but that doesn't mean you can't run your country. If you don't do that you will have to ask the West for their money and in return submit to their foreign policy demands.
Gulalai Khan
Robert Fisk is one name in international journalism that needs little introduction. A British and foreign correspondent for The Independent, Fisk visited Pakistan recently to report on political, social, and judicial system for his paper. Fisk happens to be one of the few Western journalists to have interviewed Osama Bin Laden three times between 1994 and 1997. Fisk has been voted International Journalist of the Year seven times in his career. In an exclusive interview with The News on Sunday on phone, Fisk talks about a host of issues, including the current political system in Pakistan, the war in Afghanistan, 9/11, Middle East, and the ethics that journalists need to apply when reporting. Excerpts from the interview follow:
The News on Sunday: Pakistan is governed by a democratic system now after an 8-year long military period. Keeping in mind the current political and economic situation of Pakistan, do you think we have benefited from this transition from military to democracy?
Robert Fisk: In the 60 something years of Pakistani politics you have seen very few years of formal democracy. Political opposition to military rule hasn't had much practice. Sadly, the concept of corruption has seeped deeply into the fabric of Pakistani politics. Even dictatorship is an extreme form of corruption. It's very important that you put dictatorship into the past now and accept only the shining dynamic of democracy as the only system.
Corruption is like cancer. Once you suffer from it, it's difficult to get rid of it. When you have politicians, almost all of whom are tainted with corruption, there is a cynicism in the electorate (people who come out to vote). In Britain, we did have military dictatorships. British parliament is also corrupt but not on the scale as here. The public says why should we vote for the corrupt, they don't represent us? Tony Blair went to war in Iraq even after a million people walked on the London streets against the invasion. Similar discontent is present in other European countries between the people and the people they elect.
What you have here in Pakistan, which really goes in your favour, is a strong body of lawyers who for various reasons have helped the country in intricate moments. They have stood together for the advocacy of the rule of law. The fact is that the issue of the reinstatement of the chief justice showed greatly on Pakistan. It showed that this little country can show great political maturity and belief in law as opposed to the belief in power which is what Musharraf wanted.
Any democratic setup in Pakistan has to tackle the issue of poverty, unemployment, electricity, and education on an urgent basis to avoid anger and social disruption. The coming out of people on the streets of Islamabad when transport fares were raised is symptomatic of a dangerous tradition. In any other country you will need a much bigger social injustice and inequality to bring people on the streets. It is a very fragile situation.
But one thing that has always impressed me about Pakistanis is the intelligence of the people here. Despite low literacy rates, the people are intellectually very sound. The people here don't need to be highly educated in order to know about politics and what's going on around them. People discuss law and politics in detail; know about the political parties, their manifestos. The people are the saving grace of this country and that is the reason I like coming here. You can ask anyone about politics here and you will get an interesting reply.
TNS: You say you like coming here but Time Magazine reported Pakistan to be one of the most dangerous places in the world. You have spent time here. What do you have to say?
RF: Journalists have their own point of view, I don't believe what I read in the Time. You all should stop believing it too.
Here is Pakistan I am amazed that you worry about what Time or New York Times report about you than worry about your own country and its reality. I think it's a very bad habit to refer to foreigners talking about your country. You have no future if you keep asking foreigners what they think of your country. Ask people from the nearest city or village, not people from New York, London or Tel Aviv.
TNS: Do you think 9/11 was staged in order to attack Iraq and Afghanistan?
RF: No. Everywhere I go people ask me, do you really think George Bush staged the 9/11. I reply do you actually think George Bush was capable enough to carry out 9/11 (laughs). He wasn't capable of doing anything. I think Bin Laden's people were behind it. I also think that the American administration and intelligence authorities were aware something was about to happen and were thinking of a response in case it happened. At least one senior member of the Bush administration was talking about Iraq within 24 hours of 9/11. The members of the Bush administration were aware what opportunities could present themselves if America was attacked or wounded by terrorists…I don't like the word terrorists…I call them mass murderers. The Bush administration wasn't quick enough to cover up the security lapses but by and large people should stop believing that 9/11 was a CIA administered conspiracy.
TNS: Is Obama doing a better job than Bush as far as the policy in Middle East is concerned?
RF: Well, he is pretty much doing the same thing. Governments are not about good or bad guys. It's about conducive power. Obama understands Middle East better, has a number of intellectual Arab friends but in Washington power does not lie with individuals. There are several lobbies. Not just the Israeli lobby, several others too. In Washington, at the end of the day the Congress does know that if it opposes Israel, the Israel lobby will support its opponents in the next general elections. Remember the president of the US may be the most powerful man in the world but he has little power to make decisions in Washington.
When Gaza war was going on, 1300 Palestinians were slaughtered. Obama said nothing. Now if 1300 Israelis were killed I am sure he must have said something. I heard Obama's speech in Cairo and Obama's referring to the exodus of the 1948 as the 'relocation' of Palestinians. That's a very odd way to mention what was clearly ethnic cleansing and he didn't use the word refugee camps throughout his lecture and I was there taking down notes and thinking: now there is a problem here.
TNS: Why do you think Americans and foreign journalists are afraid to report actual facts relating to Palestine?
RF: There are a number of things. Firstly, reporters don't want to get into trouble with their editors or land up in a major controversy relating to Israel. Therefore, they have invented a special language which in my opinion is outrageous and disgraceful but keeps the press safe from accusations. They use words 'disputed' instead of 'occupied' for areas that are essentially occupied areas. Then they call the settlements 'Jewish neighbourhood' and fence. Even a paper in Pakistan called the wall a 'security fence'. I find it outrageous because a fence is something you have around your fields, a neighbourhood is somewhere where you can chat to your neighbours, a dispute is something you solve over a cup of tea or a lower court.
Once you turn a colony into a neighborhood, an occupation into a dispute, a wall into fence, you de-semiticise the entire thing. It's sad that our reporting not only supported the Israeli occupation but also made Palestinians into a generically violent people who throw stones at Israelis. And this happens because of the practice in journalism where journalists think it's better not to be controversial and write in a way not to offend anyone but by doing that they take away from the reality of war, the blood and the suffering of the people.
American journalists are especially fearful of being labelled anti-Semitic, of losing their jobs due to strong Jewish lobby, be reviled, be shunned. These people make anti-Semitism respectable. One of the papers in Pakistan also called the settlements controversial. I say it's not controversial, it's illegal. But you see you can't give a backbone to a reporter. If you are a reporter who doesn't have the courage to speak the truth then it's better to go work in a bank, IT or Public Relations.
Another problem is the editors. An editor needs to stand by the reporter. I am very fortunate to have an editor who trusts me and whom I trust. I am lucky because if you don't have a courageous editor, no matter how good a reporter you are, you will be defeated.
TNS: Do you think the US is fighting a losing battle in Afghanistan and it's affecting the entire region?
RF: Yes. No one in history has won a war in Afghanistan. The British lost in 1842, the nineteenth century, 1919, the Soviets lost in 1979 and 1989. Americans are on the verge of losing it now. We can malign our enemies anywhere, call them savages, terrorist etc. The Canadian commander in Afghanistan called the Taliban 'scumbags' but you see that is not the point. The point is that the Afghans, the people, are never going to tolerate any foreign occupier. Afghan people might have a very low rate of education, live in intolerable conditions but they know if a president has had a fraudulent election and then they hear that Obama calls the fraudulently elected president, Karzai and congratulates him on getting elected. Afghans are not stupid. Being uneducated doesn't mean you are stupid.
We can be romantic about the situation, be moralistic about the situation but at the end of the day the truth is we will never win in Afghanistan. These lands don't belong to the British or Americans. They belong to the Muslims, the Afghans people. The Muslims might need our education, our technical assistance but they don't need our military, our soldiers. We do not have any right to have our military in the Muslim world.
TNS: You are reported to have said that all strategy on Afghanistan and this region will fail if the Kashmir dispute isn't resolved. Is it true?
RF: Yes, it's true. There will be no solution to the mess in Afghanistan and this region until America deals justly with Kashmir. When Richard Holbrooke was appointed he was appointed for Afghanistan and Pakistan. He was told he wasn't dealing with Kashmir. Does that mean Kashmir is an India issue not to be discussed with Pakistan? Then why should the Pakistan army, the ISI, and the people of Pakistan fight a war that is essentially America's? It's like asking people in Gaza to support US foreign policy after it supports Israel to occupy Palestinian land and carry out atrocities on the people of Palestine. It won't work. People won't do that. They are not stupid.
One of the main problems I think while dealing with this region is that the West still has a very colonial mentality by which they feel they can tell the Muslims what to do and what not to do. We still think we are better than them. This is very demeaning to the people here.
TNS: Did Musharraf really have a choice to say no when confronted with "are you with us or against us"?
RF: Remember then you had a dictator and his priority was not the future of Pakistan but the future of Musharraf. For him, it was a personal situation and power that mattered when confronted with 'with us or against us'. He agreed to go along with the US because had he refused the US would have found a way to get rid of him. It didn't matter to him what it might do to Pakistan in the future. At that time Pakistan was safe because there was no internal insurgency but now after Pakistan took sides with an Imperial power, the war came to the country.
TNS: How do nations like Pakistan avoid falling victim to the US, of the West's notion of democracy in their own country?
RF: It's difficult. The history of this nation began with Pakistan and although Pakistan is a great nation the history after partition is not glorious at all with constant military dictatorships and economic disasters. On the other hand, the West has a long history of colonisation and occupation but I feel there is one occupation more sinister than the military occupation and that is economic domination. You see you don't see any Western soldiers marching on your streets but you need their money to run your country.
The moment you go to Washington to ask for money, they say you have to pay interest and the interest is to support their foreign policy because of their economic hold. How do you avoid it…by good governance, a government of people who don't rule to make money out of politics but to improve and help the country. You have a spirit alive in Pakistan that can save this nation. The lawyers came close to it. The conditions here might be tough but that doesn't mean you can't run your country. If you don't do that you will have to ask the West for their money and in return submit to their foreign policy demands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)