www.civilsocietyonline.com

March 2008 Edition     Irene Khan London

ACROSS South Asia, with the exception of India and Bhutan, the army plays a prominent role in national life. In Sri Lanka, during over two decades of military campaigns against Tamil separatists, the army brass has acquired a powerful position. In Nepal, after a decade-long conflict with Marxist rebels, the army is formally taking a backseat as a political solution is forged between various parties under civilian leadership but remains a significant player in the transition. In Bangladesh, the army's role remains unclear, mired inspeculation and suspicion, some projecting the army as a midwife to democracy:helping the Caretaker Government to deliver free and fair elections- while others claim that it is trying to doctor, rather than deliver, democracy. In Myanmar, on the other hand, there hasnever been any doubt about the military junta's determination to hold on to power, despite international condemnation and internal uprising, most recently by peace-loving monks.

In each of these countries, no matter what the ambition or intention of the army, the international community has been clear that it wants to see democracy, human rights and the rule of law prevail. The sole exception in the region has been Pakistan. Pervez Musharraf who recently discarded his army general's uniform for civilian clothes, but continues to retain all the power and trappings of military dictatorship with the full approval of the United States and other Western governments, reinforced during his tour of European capitals in late January.

The US and its Western allies justify their different - and differential - treatment of Musharraf on the grounds that he is an indispensable ally in the fight against terrorism. But is the West really furthering the cause of counter-terrorism in Pakistan by supporting the Musharraf regime? Or are they playing a ''Great Game'' that will, like Great Games of the past, lead only to greater instability and human rights abuses? Amnesty International delegates who visited Pakistan reported a deep sense of despair. ''Pakistan is on the verge of disaster,'' said many of those they spoke to. Pakistanis - and the rest of the world - are still reeling from the shock of the brutal killing of Benazir Bhutto.

It is a measure of the country's desperation that despite Benazir's unimpressive human rights record during her previous terms of office, in Pakistan she had come to be seen by many citizens, including human rights activists, as the country's best chance for positive change. Many of those interviewed were convinced that parliamentary elections, scheduled for February 18, would be a sham with recourse against illegalities unlikely. Elections are supervised by judicial officers accountable to the Election Commission, which s working hand in glove with the executive, and ultimately to the chief justice, who has been hand-picked by President Musharraf. Over the past year the courageous stand of the judges and lawyers had given hope to many in Pakistan of a new future in which human rights and the rule of law might prevail. Remarkably, Chief Justice Iftikhar Chaudhry had departed from the Pakistani tradition of judicial compliance with the executive by challenging the government's position on a number of key issues.

The Supreme Court's decision to take up the legal challenge to Musharraf's candidacy as President while also retaining his post as Army Chief is well known. Less known, but extremely important from the perspective of human rights, was the judicial scrutiny of the government's role in enforced disappearances of nationalist and terrorist suspects. During the Supreme Court hearings, Chief Justice Chaudhry claimed there was ''irrefutable proof'' that the missing people were in the custody of secret agencies and that those responsible would be prosecuted. But the optimists had made a major miscalculation. In the warped Western strategy of the ''War on Terror'', Musharraf has a licence to act like no other general in the sub-continent. Human rights and the rule of law have no place in the''Great Game'', and if the judiciary is not willing to play that game, it must be cut down.

As such, last November, Musharraf accused the judiciary of ''working at cross purposes with the executive and legislature in the fight against terrorism and extremism''. Acting in his capacity as Chief of Army Staff -but beyond any powers granted to him as such - general Musharraf declared himself Supreme Legislator, whose decrees and actions could not be challenged. He imposed a state ofemergency and suspended the constitution, then proclaimed a Provisional Constitution Order (PCO) suspending fundamental rights, including safeguards relating to arrest and detention, security of the person, and freedom of expression, assembly, and association.

He removed Iftikhar Chaudhry as Chief Justice for a second time and barred judges of the higher judiciary from office unless they took an oath to abide by the PCO. His actions unleashed a wave of protest across the country, but he cracked\ down with impunity. Just weeks before Musharraf's action in Pakistan, the military junta in Myanmar had cracked down on protestors. The international reaction could not have been more different. Myanmar was put on the UN Security Council agenda, and the UN Secretary-General despatched his personal envoy to Yangon. US and EU governments reinforced their arms embargo and trade sanctions. On Pakistan, however, their silence was deafening. Such double standards weaken their impact on both countries. After a new batch of more compliant judges confirmed his eligibility as President, General Musharraf stood down as Army Chief, lifted the state of emergency, installed anew caretaker government, and set a date for elections.

This compliant judiciary approved legislation suspending fundamental rights and prohibiting judicial review of government actions. Asfor the ''War on Terror'', a recent increase in military activity in the regions of Swat and Waziristan has led to concerns even among some of his staunchest allies inthe US government that Musharraf has given more attention to attacking judges and lawyers in recent months than to fighting terrorism. As political unrest and extremist violence spread throughout Pakistan, the international community would do well to take a good, hard look at the foolhardiness of supporting military strongmen and corrupt politicians who undermine human rights and the rule of law in the name of national security. In the long run, the only real option is to exert pressure on the Pakistani government to reinstate the independence of the judiciary so that human rights and the rule of law can be upheld. Throughout South Asia, civil society has been a force for social and political change, and a bulwark against authoritarian rule. InPakistan, the spark that was first lit by the lawyers and judges has now been taken up more broadly by others.

Activists, journalists, students, and political workers are continuing to protest, often at extreme risk, as the suicide bomb attack outside the High Court building in January showed. Will civil society there as elsewhere in the subcontinent help close the chapter on military rule?

Irene Khan is the Secretary General of Amnesty International. ips.

_________________________________________________________________________________________Share this article

Newsvine

del.icio.us

Comment on this article and be one of lucky 100 readers to get a copy of Civil Society FREE for two months in India.

Name Email Subject Phno Address Comment on this article (Not more than 250 character)

 

Disclaimer

The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.

 

About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society

.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )