|
Chastising
Diplomatically
By Rajneet
Kaur
Most Canadians like to think they are North Americans with
a difference, meaning, they are a
separate breed, different from Americans, very much sovereign
and independent and with their
own unique value system and outlook on life. That is way they
feel the Arab and Muslim prisoners
brought to Guantanamo Bay from Afghanistan should be treated
as prisoners of war, and not
as ‘unlawful combatants,’ as Americans claim. They
believe Canadian troops sent to
Afghanistan should be peacekeepers rather than warriors. But
on both counts, they are
stumped. The distinctions have become increasingly blurred,
and many Canadians are not only
unhappy,
but also embarrassed.
|
They are embarrassed by reports coming out
of Guantanamo Bay that the Taliban and Al Qaida fighters are
being mistreated, and by the seeming inability of their government
to voice its opposition to this alleged mistreatment. They are
also clearly unhappy that Canadian troops sent to Afghanistan,
are not peacekeepers, but combatants, not only deployed to fights
shoulder to shoulder with Americans, but taking orders from
American generals.
The result is Canada’s well-intentioned involvement in
Afghanistan has become a bone of contention across the country.
The pictures of Arab and Muslim prisoners in orange jumpsuits
with their arms and legs shackled and their eyes blinded with
darkened goggles, kneeling on the ground or being moved about
Camp-X-ray with heavily armed escorts-many of them suffering
gunshot wounds-have been particularly shocking to Canadians,
and for days human rights groups have urged Ottawa to get the
Americans to fall in line with the Geneva Convention to treat
them as POWs. Like many Europeans, they suspect the detainees
are being treated inhumanely and that the U.S. is failing to
meet international standards regarding POWs.
“We can’t outsource our moral obligations,” complained
an outraged ruling Liberal Party MP John Godfrey. “We are
being compromised in our sovereignty, in our values. I think
this goes to the heart of who we are.”
Jamie Fellner of Human Rights Watch, went a step further. He
said it may be difficult for Americans who have lived through
the horror of September 11 and its aftermath to accept the idea
that anyone captured during the fighting in Afghanistan has
basic rights that must be respected. “But to think otherwise
is to accept the values of terrorism,” he added.
But the government of Prime Minister Jean Chretien remains tongue-tied.
Despite the mounting complaints from within and outside that
the way the detainees are being treated looks unseemly, unnecessarily
harsh and vindictive, and unbecoming to a civilized regime,
Canadian government has not said a word. Though an ally and
a member of the international coalition supporting the war in
Afghanistan, Canada seems to have no voice in this matter. The
Geneva Convention has become a matter of America’s convenience,
but Ottawa, it appears, does not want to say anything for fear
of upsetting Washington. The opinion on the street is vastly
different. Even ordinary Canadians are clearly embarrassed.
The government too probably wish this is not so. But it is so
and it is likely to remain so for a considerable time –
time enough for Canada’s image as an impartial international
third party, to suffer irreparable damage.
The warrior role assigned to Canadian troops in Afghanistan
is adding to this controversy, and questions are being raised
about Canadian sovereignty. As opposition New Democratic Party
Leader Alexa McDonough, pointed out these acts of commission
and omission are making Canada look bad in the world. “For
a nation with our ideals and our reliable and dependable support
of international rules of conduct and behavior, we have been
made to look meekly equivocal, if not cowardly,” she said.
To be sure, the argument that Canadian troops should be peacekeepers
and not warriors is not without merit. In the past, whenever
Canada got involved in military missions abroad. Canadian troops
have operated either under a United Nations mandate or as part
of Nato or, as in the case of the last two world wars, as part
of the Western alliance.
Canada may be America’s closest neighbour and ally, but
Canadians have long felt the need to live their separate lives,
appear in the world as masters of their own destiny by striving
to create an image of themselves as people who go out to put
out fires, rather than direct combatants in international conflicts.
After all, it is Canadians who conceived the idea of international
peacekeeping, and they try to live up to that credo by being
open-minded and helpful third party intermediaries offering
reasonable initiatives as its contribution to solving international
problems.
But in Afghanistan, after failing to negotiate an appropriate
role for Canadian troops in the British-led peacekeeping force,
the Chretien government tried to avoid the embarrassment of
being left out altogether by sending them there as quasi-Americans.
For the Prime Minister it was the politically expedient thing
to do, especially since he was being pilloried in the Canadian
media for allowing the armed forces to run down under his watch.For
the government it was also a chance to demonstrate Canada’s
solidarity with Washington, at a time
when Americans
have become increasingly nervous about security along
the Canada-U.S. border, the critical lifeline of the Canadian
economy.
But solidarity carries a huge price tag, as Canadians
are starting to find out. In this instance, the price
is not simply deploying 750 men and women in Canadian
uniform in Afghanistan under American command, but also
to have them turn over prisoners they apprehend there
to American authorities. That means accepting the strange
logic of this war on terrorism: all the legal limitations
and responsibilities that ‘war’ implies, but
since it has not been declared, prisoners captured in
the course of prosecuting it can be largely treated as
the winners see fit.
Canada is naturally in a bind. Caught between the need
to play a party because it is a strong ally and an immediate
neighbour dependent very much on unrestricted access to
the American market and the need to maintain its enduring
values and immediate security, Ottawa has no room to manoeuver.
There is no way the government can reverse course now.
For, if Chretien tries to change course, lend his voice
in support of the growing demand for more humane treatment
for Arab and Muslim prisoners in Gauntanamo Bay, it is
sure to be misunderstood in Washington as a sign of disloyalty.
Many analysts and opposition politicians cite this as
an unintended consequence of the government’s hurried
decision to send troops to Afghanistan and place them
under American command. They ask what Ottawa would do
if President George W. Bush decided to expand the war
into Iraq as part of the campaign against international
terrorism. Would Ottawa be willing to participate in an
attack on Baghdad without any conclusive evidence of any
Iraqi involvement in the September 11 terrorist attacks?
May be not. May be Prime Minister Chretien can still say
no, even at the risk of Americans dumping him as a fair-weather
friend. But he can make that potential problem less cumbersome
for Canada with some quiet diplomacy now. Without seeming
to make waves or tub-thumping Canadian independence, the
Prime Minister can urge Bush to rethink on the PoW issue.
He can impress on him it is a mistake not to do so. He
can tell him that the fallout from this mistake would
be damaging not only to Americans but also to good friends
like Canada as will.
By insisting that Americans have to respect the Geneva
Convention they have signed and pointing out that the
U.S. is held to a higher standard of humanity than the
Vietcong or Pol Pot or the Burmese military Junta, Canada
may be able to save face. |
Suicide:
A New Curse
By M. Zubair
A Sensitive society is expected
to take cognizance of any new trend that suddenly
develops within it, specially, so , if it is
a negative one. A new trend to commit suicide
has developed in this country since 1995. It
was something very uncommon here. Now the news
is just a regular feature in all dailies.
The other day a press report said that during
January and February, 2001, 210 people committed
suicide throughout the country. It further said
that out of these 210, there were 146 males,
49 females, 12 male children and 3 female children.
The Lawyers for Human Rights and Legal Aid (LHRLA)
believe that these are only the reported cases
while many remain unreported. In fact most go
unreported.
A common thinking about the suicides was that
it is man’s internal revolt against the
unnatural civilization. In 1968,. The World
Health Organization published a list of countries
where suicides were common. The first eight
countries were West Germany, Austria, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Later in 1970, the Organization noted that the
phenomenon was, “Parallel to disorganization,
organization and the break down of the family.”
In Asia only Japan was famous for its cult of
“Harakari” or self-killing because
their religion sanctioned it as no act of self-sacrifice.
In other Third World countries of Asia, Africa
and Latin America it was only negligible; only
a prerogative of failed lovers or people whose
consience was burdened with guilt.
It is said that this trend in Pakistan has surfaced
due to poverty and unemployment. Most of our
neightbours are poorer than ourselves. People
in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, India,
Nepal or Bhutan do not resort to suicide. There
is no great industrialization, urbaniztion or
family break down in this country as it is in
the United States or Europe. People in the war
ravaged and famine stricken countries in Africa
do not resort to suicide. What has happened
here?
Somtime back, two sisters whose brother was
killed by a law enforcer resorted to self immolation
in protest against delay in dispensation of
justice. Then a Hindu widow in Kot Ghulam Muhammad
torched herself alongwith her newborn baby girl.
It was reported that she committed “Sati”,
the Hindu tradition of burning the widow on
her husband’s pier. However it was not
“Sati” because she did not die at
her husband’s pier; It was just a case
of suicide.
Unfortunately, neither any statistics is available
about suck cases nor any research is being done
on this trend in the psychology departments
of our universities. The news of suicide is
published like a news of murder or robbery which
is not correct.
Another very relevant fact is, that Islam strictly
forbids self-killing. Why this trend has set
in this predominantly Muslim society. One may
ask why other acts which are strictly forbidden
in religion, such as murder and robberies are
being committed. The only difference is that
these crimes existed in the society while suicide
has developed as a new trend.
In a study psychologist found that children
belonging to families in which people speak
loudly, tend to grow aggressive. Loud speech
in so common here. We hear it at the home, at
the school, on the street, in the cinema halls
and from the television. Gone are the days when
“music fell on the ears softly”. Now
it is nothing but noise. Even in the TV dramas
the background music is so loud that one cannot
hear the dialogue. Then the terrorism reported
in the newpapers and depicted in movies and
TV serials also have psychological effects.
The wide spread economic disparities and corruption
take their toll. Above all are the feelings
of helplessness and hopelessness which lure
youngsters to seek refuge in drugs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
E-Mail
This Article To Your Friend
|
Your
Comments
|
Articles
Of Previous Issues
|
|
|
|
