« July 2007 | Main | October 2007 »
September 28, 2007
Indigenous Rights and the Quartet
After two decades of deliberations, the United Nations General Assembly finally adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples on September 13. The voting demographics were most interesting: 143 nations in favour, 11 abstaining and 4 against. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States were the quartet that voted to deprive indigenous people of a largely ceremonial endorsement of their fundamental rights. Pakistan happily voted in favour of this resolution, though I wonder how much our government really appreciates the status of our tribal populations.
After two decades of deliberations, the United Nations General Assembly finally adopted a non-binding declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples on September 13. The voting demographics were most interesting: 143 nations in favour, 11 abstaining and 4 against. Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States were the quartet that voted to deprive indigenous people of a largely ceremonial endorsement of their fundamental rights. Pakistan happily voted in favour of this resolution, though I wonder how much our government really appreciates the status of our tribal populations. The list of abstentions was all over the map: Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Burundi, Colombia, Georgia, Kenya, Nigeria, Russian Federation, Samoa, Ukraine. This resolution was not about some external immigrants trying to gain access to post-colonial resources, but rather an affirmation of the rights of the original inhabitants of the lands that we now rank among the most economically productive places on Earth.
The impact of this negative vote from the quartet on native communities was palpable. “We’re very disappointed... It’s about the human rights of indigenous peoples throughout the world. It’s an important symbol,” said Phil Fontaine, leader of the Canadian Assembly of First Nations in a press interview.
Why would the quartet miss an opportunity for such a chance at cross-cultural understanding with their own citizens? The arguments given for the negative votes revolved around contesting sovereignty and incompatibility with the constitutions of the respective countries.
Yet even if such contestations might prove to be true in a purely legal context, the fact remains that this declaration was purely ceremonial and no litigation could possibly be launched on its behest. The sole purpose of the declaration was to hasten the healing process between settler populations and pre-colonial indigenous communities. Regardless of how we may view social policy towards indigenous people at present, there is little doubt that settler communities in all the quartet countries benefited enormously from the victimisation of the indigenous inhabitants. From land appropriation to forced cultural assimilation, the impact of colonialism was most acute in these four countries where the colonisers also became the majority population.
All this declaration aimed to do was to acknowledge that hurt and move on. This declaration was no threat to any of these states in terms of a cavalcade of lawsuits. Granted that many positive laws have been passed in the quartet during the last few decades to give greater rights to indigenous communities but the statistics are still grim. In a Harvard study published last year, Native American males in South Dakota had the lowest life expectancy of only 58 years among all counties in the country — 33 years less than the highest life expectancy that was found among Asian women in Bergen county, New Jersey. Data from the other three quartet shows a similar asymmetry between indigenous and settler populations.
Sadly, many politicians continue to blame the victims as being culturally indolent or perpetually inebriated with welfare payments. Yet, we refuse to confront the underlying causes of despair in these communities that often stems from a sense of rejection and diminished self-worth.
As I have argued in these pages before, tribal populations constitute ancient social systems that historically provided a means of survival under hostile environmental conditions. In Pakistan, the term “tribal” has an ominous ring because of its association with a decadent form of medievalism that masquerades as conservative theology. At one level, we should try to transcend “tribalism” as broader conceptions of human civilisation become widely accepted; on the other hand, however, these tribal affiliations give us distinct and diverse cultural traditions — food, music and language, which provide texture and meaning to the fabric of humanity. It is this positive side of tribal identities that we should embrace, while rejecting the exclusionary attributes.
If we are to mitigate threats to national unity and contain conflict escalation, we must first acknowledge the past. In the case of Pakistan, it requires acknowledging past injustices against tribal groups such as the Baloch or the Kalash. This is only possible through collective healing processes such as those enunciated by the UN declaration, which also affirms that: “all peoples contribute to the diversity and richness of civilisations and cultures, which constitute the common heritage of humankind.”
Given their unique historical status, indigenous communities in the quartet countries deserve to be specially recognised not just for political correctness but for the larger good of democratic governance. The great American jurist Felix Cohen’s words come to mind: “Like the miner’s canary, the Indian marks the shift from fresh air to poison gas in our political atmosphere; and our treatment of Indians, even more than our treatment of other minorities, marks the rise and fall of our democratic faith.”
Pakistan should be proud of voting in favour of this resolution but the affirmative vote also brings forth immense responsibility. We should consider how the development paths of our tribal groups could be improved while celebrating the positive attributes of their cultural traditions.
Instead, we seem to cling on to the negative aspects of tribal culture (such as misogynistic behaviour) and reject the ancient positive aspects such as music and religion. There is a glimmer of hope that trends are changing. At least Islamabad now has a national museum that can institutionally support cultural attributes of our indigenous people. Let us make this UN declaration more than a mere document that resides in a database or a web site. Only then can we overcome the despair that ails so many of our most ancient cultural brethren.
Posted by Saleem Ali at 07:45 PM
September 16, 2007
Israel and Pakistan: comparative perspectives on the judiciary
Paradoxical protests of victory were recently held on both sides of the famed barrier fence that Israel has been constructing to prevent suicide bombings. On September 6, the head of the village council of a Palestinian village called Bil’in won a ruling at the Israeli Supreme Court that declared that the route taken by the barrier had illegally appropriated land from the village. Palestinians had accused Israel of seizing around 200 hectares of land in the village to make way for the barrier, and charged that thousands of olive trees had been uprooted for construction. This week’s ruling provides residents with the opportunity to reclaim at least 100 hectares of confiscated land.
Paradoxical protests of victory were recently held on both sides of the famed barrier fence that Israel has been constructing to prevent suicide bombings. On September 6, the head of the village council of a Palestinian village called Bil’in won a ruling at the Israeli Supreme Court that declared that the route taken by the barrier had illegally appropriated land from the village. Palestinians had accused Israel of seizing around 200 hectares of land in the village to make way for the barrier, and charged that thousands of olive trees had been uprooted for construction. This week’s ruling provides residents with the opportunity to reclaim at least 100 hectares of confiscated land.
Celebration among the villagers of Bil’in was understandable, but even the losing side in this case was celebrating before cameras and applauding the objectivity of the courts. The Israeli government spokesman remarked to the BBC that the decision made him proud to live in a country where “the rule of law prevailed over politics”. Soon, comparisons were being made with Muslim states where such independent decisions would never have happened. Israel was once again heralded by Washington policy-makers as the bastion of good governance as compared to its neighbours.
Clearly, many neighbouring states have a long way to go before they meet international standards of human rights, particularly with regard to women. However, the independence of the judiciary is also significant in other Muslim states that are often maligned in such contexts. Consider the example of our own Pakistan, which shares with Israel the characteristic of being the only other country in the world that was formed exclusively on the basis of religion.
Two weeks earlier, the Supreme Court in Pakistan ruled against the government of General Pervez Musharraf by allowing the former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif to return from exile in Saudi Arabia. The court also ruled that extrajudicial arrests of street suspects on grounds of terrorism need to be justified by the government. Of course, these decisions came after the reinstatement of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, following months of street protests by lawyers. However, this strong stance of the courts, as well as the Pakistani civil society, was not given the credit it deserved in terms of positive governance. Instead of applauding the independence of the judiciary in Pakistan, think-tanks in London and Washington continued their complaints of “poor governance,” and “state failure”.
Since comparisons are so often made between countries in the region to justify favouring one country over another, it is worth mentioning that Israel has not necessarily abided by all legal standards itself, despite the celebration of the Bil’in ruling. In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a non-binding ruling that parts of the 650-kilometre (410-mile) barrier along the West Bank are illegal and should be torn down. However, among many American political circles these days, the ICJ and the United Nations are quickly dismissed as “politicised institutions”. Such selective celebration of judicial high ground only furthers cynicism about the West in most Muslim countries.
As the next US presidential election approaches, the world should consider which politicians are willing to go beyond such trivialisation of international institutions. The only candidate in the race who currently shows promise to be balanced in these matters is Bill Richardson, the former US ambassador to the United Nations and currently Governor of the state of New Mexico. He understands global politics better than any of the other front runners like Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Rudolph Giuliani. Understanding and contrasting measures of justice are essential if we are to move towards resolving global conflicts.
While recognising these asymmetries of power and double-standards, it is essential that Muslim countries applaud the Israeli court’s decision and perhaps use this as a positive means of self-criticism. The Saudis in particular should reconsider their recent snub of the Pakistani courts by suggesting that their ad hoc exile deal with Musharraf regarding Sharif should override the Pakistani Supreme Court’s decision. This intervention led Musharraf to forcibly deport Sharif when he arrived in Islamabad earlier this week. This is not to exonerate Sharif, or for that matter, Benazir Bhutto: they should face all court cases in which they have been charged.
Despite these cautionary comments about reading too much into the Bil’in decision, we should certainly use this as an opportunity for further peace-building. Palestinian Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad’s visit to the village, to gain some credit for what was basically a grassroots action, is nevertheless heartening. His comments were the most explicit to date about the prospect for peaceful co-existence between Israel and Palestine. Fayyad stated unequivocally that it was a sign that both Israelis and Palestinians could live “side by side” in peace. The work of Michael Sfard, the Israeli lawyer for Bil’in municipality, also shows the potential for working across physical and political barriers on such matters.
At the end of the day, Israelis, Palestinians and Pakistanis alike seek justice just as much as any other human community. The perception of how justice is configured and dispensed on either side of an issue is just as significant for conflict resolution as the substance of the cases themselves. It is high time that the West and the East become more discerning about giving credit and censure where it is due, regardless of our own political proclivity.
Saleem H Ali is associate dean for graduate education at the University of Vermont’s Rubenstein School of Environment. He is the editor of the new book Peace Parks: Conservation and Conflict Resolution (MIT Press). Email: saleem@alum.mit.edu
Posted by Saleem Ali at 04:42 PM
September 05, 2007
Greening Pakistan's Cities
By Saleem H. Ali
Nostalgically, most Pakistanis salute President Ayub Khan for his vision in establishing the capital city of Islamabad. Apart from its abysmal airport, which pales in comparison to Lahore and Karachi’s lavish terminals, Islamabad is often mentioned by expatriate Pakistanis to foreigners with a sense of pride. The spacious boulevards and relatively clean environs are a welcome relief from the sweltering dusty bazaars of most other cities in the country.
During the twentieth century, there were a series of planned capitals built all over the world. From Canberra in Australia, to Brasilia in Brazil, to Abuja in Nigeria, countries were keen to sanitize their diplomatic image, and the easiest route to many was a gleaming new metropolis. Such a large enterprise as building a new city is a tremendous opportunity for improving plans and learning from design mistakes of the past and the planners of Islamabad aimed to accomplish that.
The team which designed Islamabad was led by the great Greek urban planner, Constantinos Doxiadis, who is considered a pioneer in modern ecological urban design. The fabled “green belts” which we often extol in Islamabad were his brainchild, and he also founded a movement in architecture known as “ekistics,” which aimed to harmonize various aspects of aesthetic design and livelihood needs in human settlements. Doxiadis famously said: “What human beings need is not utopia (‘no place’) but entopia (‘in place’), a real city which they can build, a place which satisfies the dreamer and is acceptable to the scientist, a place where the projections of the artist and the builder merge.”
Each sector in Islamabad was designed to be self-contained with its own central area, the “markaz”, and parks, as well as easy access routes to the downtown “blue area”. Over the past four decades or so, Islamabad has endured rapid growth and infringements of zoning regulations from madrassa construction to shopping complexes with relative grace. However, there are limits to what even the most visionary of architects could accommodate in terms of mismanaged growth and careless infrastructure planning.
Instead of focusing on good public transportation infrastructure, the government has chosen to build more roads and underpasses that only tear up the original urban plans. Imagine the vitality of a good monorail, similar to Kuala Lumpur, which would connect the F-11 sector to the Blue Area, or a circular rail system, starting from the newly refurbished Golra train station, that trails the Margalla hills across to Quaid-e-Azam University and around to Rawal Lake, and then back towards Rawalpindi. Consider how easy life would be for the average commuter and also for the tourist who currently languishes in wait for taxis at one hotel or another.
The amount of money needed for such green planning is usually no more than what is invested in many other misguided infrastructure projects. Since competition with India usually spurs many Pakistanis out of their complacency, I should mention that Delhi has a new subway system which is pretty good and is being used by people from across the economic spectrum. Chandigarh (capital of Indian Punjab and Haryana), which is also a planned city and one which shares some design similarities with Islamabad (though designed by the Swiss architect Le Corbusier and the American urban planner Albert Mayer), has made tremendous strides to reduce pollution. Its air quality is now comparable to many Western European cities. Interestingly enough, the city was established because Lahore, the old capital of Punjab, came to Pakistan. While Chandigarh is not a patch on Lahore in terms of historical and cultural richness or monumental splendour, it has clearly scored well in true “greening”.
Air pollution is now getting quite oppressive and intolerable in many South Asian cities, and in this regard the situation in Pakistan is looking a bit positive due to widespread use of CNG in cars (the highest in Asia). Nevertheless, we still have a major problem with diesel fumes and factory pollution that will eventually have to be curtailed.
As a Lahori, I am quite proud of the city’s green space and some credit should certainly be given to former Chief Minister Shahbaz Sharif for aesthetic embellishments and road maintenance. Sadly, gargantuan bill-boards have obscured many of the picturesque vistas that were created by the greening efforts of that time. Furthermore, many of the long-term urban planning features for sustainable growth are still absent in Lahore, just as much as they are in Islamabad or Karachi. Poor public transport, uncontrolled sprawl and non-strategic construction of new public buildings such as schools, universities and colleges are a major problem.
The strategies for green design of an ancient city such as Lahore clearly require greater innovation and are far more complex. Historic buildings need immediate preservation and preferential subsidies for developers to rehabilitate rather than demolish and rebuild. Water and sanitation infrastructures need prime attention and these are sadly lacking in all of Pakistan’s major cities. I was amused to recently encounter a brand new sign in Samanabad which declared a road bordering an open sewer as the “Ganda Nala Road”!
Imagine the amount of concrete needed to build the Lahore-Islamabad Motorway. If one less lane had been built on this largely vacant causeway, we would have had enough material to probably fill all of Lahore and Islamabad’s “ganda nalas”. The benefits of this would not only be in terms of stench-reduction but also prevention of contagious diseases and reclamation of thousands of acres of wasted land that are taken up by putrid sewers. Yet, the master-builders were more concerned with building big rather than with building smart. Just as the Gulf states are obsessed with satisfying some phallic urge to build towers upon towers, we seem to have fallen for the same urge. Thankfully, the Abu Dhabi establishment has decided to truly green their city and not emulate Dubai’s rampant real estate euphoria.
Squatter settlements are a major concern throughout the developing world and any green city will need to equitably address the millions who live in such kachi abadis. In this regard, Indian cities are even worse than Pakistan and tend to have the most intransigent squatter population. I remember landing in Mumbai once to discover that our flight’s landing had been delayed because one of the runway radars at the airport had been stolen by some thugs from a neighbouring slum!
Perhaps a good lesson in dealing with these informal settlements can be drawn from the experiences of dealing with the Kashmir earthquake of 2005. There are numerous low-cost habitation arrangements which can be instituted for squatter communities with careful planning and regulatory enforcement. One would hope that education and employment opportunities would eventually catch up with the slum-dwellers as they did in Malaysia, so that they can have their own formal apartments.
With growing urbanisation rates, Pakistan will have to contend with the challenge faced by our cities immediately. The solutions are not as far-fetched as we may initially consider. This week, as forest fires raged in Greece and arson by greedy real estate developers as well as growing urban sprawl was blamed for some of them, I pondered over how the grand vision of Doxiadis was being shattered by his own country. More than thirty years after his death, the man who gave us our capital deserves to be remembered now more than ever. His plans for an eminently liveable Pakistani city must be realized by the government and by us all.
Originally published in Pakistan's Daily Times, September 1, 2007
Posted by Saleem Ali at 08:10 PM
