Wednesday, November 13, 2024

THE SENSIBLE BALOCH
Journalist and writer Sajid Hussain was living in exile in Sweden when he disappeared in 2020; later, his body was found in a river.



Mohammed Hanif 
Published November 10, 2024
DAWN


LONG READ

Dear Sajid,
I received the first section of your novel-in-progress and I am writing to give you feedback as I promised all those years ago.

Like most struggling novelists, you are late with this. I received it four years after your death. A friend you had shared it with, forwarded it to me. We sometimes talked about the problems of writing novels and joked that most novels die in the third chapter. You have come up with the ultimate twist: rather than letting your novel die in chapter three, you killed the author.

As we writers know, sometimes it’s easy to start a sentence but we struggle to finish it. When I say you killed the author, I don’t know whether I am talking fact or fiction or even common sense. We also know that it’s a bad writing practice to start making lists when describing a dear one’s departure from this world. But I’ll go ahead and list all the possibilities, although they all lead to the same conclusion: that you are not here anymore to take this feedback, accept it, reject it, or just laugh at it.


Journalist and writer Sajid Hussain was living in exile in Sweden when he disappeared in 2020. Later, his body was found in a river. Swedish police closed their investigation by saying that it was death by drowning. His friend Mohammed Hanif writes to give him feedback on a recently discovered manuscript Sajid was working on…

A. You met a tragic accident in a city called Uppsala in Sweden, you fell and drowned in a shallow river called Fyris.

B. You self-exited, as the kids say these days. You wrote yourself out of your own life’s story by drowning in a cold river in Sweden.

C. You were abducted, disappeared and killed by the very forces you ran away from, because you had reasonable doubt that these people one day might kill you. Because they had abducted and killed your uncle and then his son and many others you knew, we knew, many more we didn’t know.

Initially, some of our friends did try to treat the genre of your death as a murder mystery, but there’s been utter disbelief and such overwhelming grief that we wouldn’t speculate on the circumstances of your exit, and talk about the story that you were trying to tell, and the story you were living.

As I promised, I’ll give you some constructive feedback, although you might turn around and say that it’s a bit late, that you don’t need it anymore, because you are up there in the heavens, giving your own feedback to Allah saaien about the big bad book of our lives.

Amongst friends, when we joked that you were the most sensible Baloch young man around, we weren’t really joking. You had one clear mission in life: you didn’t want to become a missing person. You were adamant that you didn’t want to be abducted, tortured and then have your body dumped on the roadside.

You had reasons to be apprehensive. Many of your friends and relatives had gone missing, sometimes for years, and then returned as dead bodies, with little slips of paper with their names in the pockets of their tattered clothes. Their torturers and killers were human enough that they wanted these bodies to be returned to their families. A body dumped on the roadside was an act of mercy, permission to mourn and move on. “The missing haunt me more than the dead,” you often said.

Sometimes, it seemed you weren’t really scared by the prospect of being abducted and put in a dark dungeon, you were wary of the pointlessness of the whole thing. How would Baloch struggle benefit from your abduction? How would the life of a poor Baloch improve if you let them burn your body with cigarettes, like they often did with the missing persons? And, of course, you knew that if you were to end up a missing person, your abductors were not likely to give you books to read or a notebook to scribble notes for your novel.


If you had gone missing in Pakistan, we would know where to look. We wouldn’t find you, but we would make Panaflexes with your pictures, petition the high courts, a group of family and friends would gather outside the press club, there would be candles, press statements, protests. But what do we do when someone goes missing in Sweden?

You did the most sensible thing that any young Baloch man should do, at the first hint of trouble: you left the country abruptly, without any elaborate goodbyes, in a hurriedly packed suitcase. Being alive and homesick and sad in exile was obviously a better choice than to become a missing person in your own land.

Not becoming a missing person was your first mission in life. Another one was that you wanted to write a novel. Many of us journalists harbour the desire that one day we’ll write a book. You weren’t sure what novel, but whenever we talked, you said you were working on one, that it was difficult but it was coming together. When I repeated that joke about novels dying in the third chapter, you said you weren’t there yet, so you were safe.

Four years after your death (still not sure if to call it an accident, a suicide or a disappearance and murder, so let’s just stick to editorially neutral ‘death’) I received the opening chapters of your unnamed novel. You had emailed it to a friend with a note that if anything happened to you, he should share these chapters with your daughter.

But yaar Sajid, you were a very sensible young man and had made sure that nothing would happen to you. You had made sure that you would not go missing. That your mutilated body would not be found on the roadside. You had gone far, far away from your beloved Balochistan, where these things happened and continue to happen.

You might interrupt me here and say, ‘Stop talking about my life and death and stick to your feedback.’ But as one of your favourite writers, Vladimir Lenin, said, ‘What is to be done?’ Your novel remains unfinished, the book of your life has ‘*The End’* written over it.


Sajid Hussain’s corpse was recovered from the Fyris River in Sweden on April 23, 2020 | Facebook



For feedback, the first thing I want to say is that, if you had written your last days into your novel, no reader, no editor would have believed it. You didn’t want to go missing. You did. In Sweden of all the places. You didn’t want to end up a mutilated body. You were found in a shallow river, 50 days after your disappearance. We never got a last glimpse of your face. I write to conjure up that not yet disappeared face, brooding but about to break into a half smile, sparkling eyes, not yet obliterated by the weight of an obscure European river’s water.

Before you did the sensible thing and left Pakistan, you were mostly like us, the crucial difference being that you were Baloch. Your career path was similar to many Baloch young men of your generation. You got involved in nationalist politics as a student, joined BSO [Baloch Students Organisation]-Azad, became its information secretary for a while, and started a magazine.

You were a misfit in nationalist circles, as you refused to follow blindly, you questioned everything. The leadership sometimes described you as a fifth columnist when you disagreed with them publicly. On Baloch militancy, you often angered your comrades when you said, “Yeh ghareebon ke bachay marwaayein gey [They’ll get the children of the poor killed.]”

Then you disentangled yourself from politics and became a journalist, first an assistant editor and reporter with The News and then with the international wire agency Reuters. You were amongst that endangered species of Baloch men who, if educated and had some kind of compulsion for plainspeaking, were likely to get abducted, go missing for years and for their body to be found on the roadside.

You had lived their stories. You had covered these stories and you were determined that you wouldn’t become one such story. You were generous while sharing your knowledge about Balochistan. You betrayed no grand passion, there was no bitterness, and you had hard facts and cold analysis.

When you became a reporter, you left your nationalist politics outside the newsroom and dazzled us with an occasional scoop. I remember that Karachi morning when we woke up to your byline on the front page, with a cracker of a story. Gwadar Deputy Commissioner Abdul Rehman Dashti goes for dinner at a friend’s house. An argument happens, the host shoots the deputy commissioner, calmly walks off and disappears into thin air.

You named the man as Imam Bheel, a drug baron whose name appeared on the American FBI’s ‘Most Wanted’ list. You managed to tell his story in the most matter-of-fact way. Two old friends. A dinner. A shooting. And here’s the name of the man you can’t catch. At that time, not many journalists knew who Imam Bheel was. The readers can Google away and find who Bheel is because this really is not his story. It’s yours.

You also had that other uncommon disease amongst journalists. You had the book bug, one of those rare journalists who are found hunched over a book during their newsroom breaks. In conversations, you quoted Franz Kafka and Frantz Fanon and many Baloch writers we had never heard of.

Much later, you wrote in an essay from exile that you started drinking too much tea to get ulcers, because you read somewhere that Kafka had ulcers. You harboured the desire to go into exile because your literary hero Gabriel Garcia Marquez had. But you really didn’t want to go into exile, you were happy dreaming of exile. Then they came looking for you. And you didn’t hesitate. As we used to joke, you had seen this film too many times. You left.

There’s no point recounting the years of exile in Oman, UAE and Uganda where, for a while, you worked for a trucking company. You had said it’s a good job for a writer: between counting trucks and inspecting their tyres, you can read and write.

You called up one day and asked for Asma Jahangir’s phone number. Someone close to you had been abducted. I was surprised you didn’t have Asma Jahangir’s number, as she was the first port of call for the families of the missing. You said you were not interested in chasing missing people and you wanted to study and teach the Balochi language.

Your exile dreams finally came true. You got asylum in Sweden, were about to start a Masters degree on the Balochi language, got a side gig as the director of a Balochi dictionary, reunions with your wife and children only months away.


A rally against enforced disappearances in Balochistan held at the Karachi Press Club on October 4, 2023: Sajid Hussain had often reported on and written about the issue of missing persons | White Star



And then you disappeared.


You’ll agree that not many writers can pull off a twist like that and get away with it.

You had one purpose in life, not to become a missing person. And now you were on the list of Swedish Missing Persons. How do people go missing in Sweden? Voluntarily, we found out. People get bored with their lives, throw away their phones and credit cards and disappear into the mountains.

If you had gone missing in Pakistan, we would know where to look. We wouldn’t find you, but we would make Panaflexes with your pictures, petition the high courts, a group of family and friends would gather outside the press club, there would be candles, press statements, protests. But what do we do when someone goes missing in Sweden?

We prayed and made lists. Here’s a list of possible scenarios that we drew up after your disappearance:

1. Sajid has fallen in love and eloped with someone, leaving his past life behind.

2. Sajid is staging an elaborate hoax, making us feel how the friends and families of missing persons feel. Since we have become insensitive to their plight, he wants us to remind us, once more, that the missing haunt more than the dead.

3. Like a panicked writer, fearing no writing time as a full-time student and a family man, Sajid has got a cottage in the mountains and decided he wouldn’t come down till he has finished a first draft.

Fifty days after our wishful speculations and prayers, when your body was found, we had nothing but bewildered tears. In their grief, your family and friends were responsible citizens of Pakistan — they didn’t even once accuse Pakistan’s establishment. Some of your friends speculated, but the family was asked to and gave it in writing that all they wanted was to bring their boy back home and bury him in his village.

You probably didn’t know this, we definitely didn’t know, that you were so important that the family needed security clearance before bringing your body back. Pledges were given, good records as good citizens were presented but, for a whole month, you were not allowed to come back.

Never have we felt more helpless than when we left your body in a cold storage at an airport in Sweden and waited for someone in Islamabad to sign a paper. First, you were in a watery grave for 50 days and then in a makeshift morgue for more than a month. In Karachi’s sweltering heat, we shuddered with shame at one of our own lying in an airport cold storage.

As we have already established, you were a sensible man. You would have laughed at our shame: I am dead now so what does it matter what the temperature in the airport’s cold storage is? Who cares how many days have passed?

Sometimes, when a novel manages to survive the third chapter death, writers use flashbacks, again not a recommended device, but you, Sajid, haven’t left us much choice. Your life is one long flashback.

Before you became a stranded body at Stockholm Arlanda Airport’s cold storage facility, you reported on other Baloch bodies, their journeys. One of these stories was about Haji Razaq Sarbazi. You called it ‘Evolution of a Dead Body.’ Like you, like me, Sarbazi was also a journalist who wanted to write books. He worked for the Baloch daily Tawar and was abducted one day.

This was a good time for families of the missing, because they were allowed to speak up at press clubs, at the Karachi Arts Council, and at an occasional literature festival. There was a seminar going on about and by the families of missing people at Karachi Arts Council. Razzak’s family, five or six women, including two young girls, stood outside the hall, with folded-up banners. They were new to the role of being the family of a missing person, but they had learnt fast. They had got Panaflexes with Razzak’s picture, but they weren’t sure what to do with them — how to put them up, how to unfold them.

They had gone to the Karachi Press Club, the home of all the missing persons’ families, and someone had sent them to this seminar. They were invited in. They sat and listened for a while. Then they got up and said this is all very well for you to have seminars, but Razzak has been gone for three days. They were probably thinking what families of missing persons think in the first few days: that their man is not a missing person.

“Razzak just went to work and didn’t come back, there must have been some mistake, can we stop all these discussions and do something to bring him back?” his sister shouted at the people in the hall.

Surprisingly, it didn’t take Razzak long to come back. Three months later, a body was found in a sewerage near Surjani Town. The family was contacted, the family saw the body and declared that it wasn’t him. His face was so mutilated that they didn’t recognise him. While reporting the story for Reuters, you contacted the family and were relieved that it wasn’t our colleague Razzak.

Going back and forth on the story, you remembered that you had spent an evening with him, laughing your head off as he read you his Balochi translation of The Evolution of Mankind, as Razzak had invented his own Balochi expressions for complex anthropological terms.

One day you are laughing at someone’s bad translation, choking on smoke in a Lyari room, and on another, you are making calls to his family, to check if they have identified his body. There was confusion because two Haji Abdul Razzaks had been missing. Razzak’s family finally identified him from the few clothes left on his body. This is what you wrote in ‘Evolution of a Dead Body’:

“But I still think that Razzak’s sister and family must have had their moments of suspicion that the body they buried was really that of Haji Abdul Razzak Sarbazi or Haji Abdul Razzak Marri.” You said that those who abduct them “are kind enough to leave a note on the dumped bodies bearing the name of the victim, making it easy for the relatives to identify their loved ones and stop searching for them. This kindness worked for many years.” But now that more than one person of the same name are missing, the abductors “should also leave a photo of the victim along with the note bearing the name.”

It’s not surprising that your novel is set in Balochistan. As they say, you can take the boy out of Balochistan but…

In the beginning of your novel, in a hospital in Turbat, an angry crowd is gathering, trying to identify the bodies of the missing and dumped. The about-to-retire Medical Superintendent (MS) of the hospital is thinking of a business plan to set up an ice factory, to supply ice to the hospital’s overflowing morgue. Other workers at the hospital are hatching their business plans for using hospital ambulances as taxis for the dead and to buy donkeys. Maybe you didn’t have to write more of this novel because not much has changed.

Inside the hospital, mutilated bodies and business plans. Outside, an angry crowd wanting their dead back with some dignity. Only if we knew how this terrible, tragic story will end. Only if you, the master of deadly twists, were around to give a happy ending to this haunting story.

The writer is the author of five novels, including the upcoming Rebel English Academy.
X: @mohammedhanif

Published in Dawn, EOS, November 10th, 2024
PAKISTAN WOMEN'S DOWERY

Unsafe inheritance
November 11, 2024
DAWN


DESPITE regulations, the troubling practice of robbing women of their rightful inheritance — the culprits are often their own kin — is rampant in Pakistan. In fact, the mental health law is being misused to limit a woman’s agency; some women are even kept in psychiatric facilities by families. A recent complaint about the misuse of this law by male heirs, mistreatment of patients in private rehabilitation centres and forced hospitalisations prompted the National Commission for Human Rights to support the petitioner’s suggestions, such as including neutral government psychiatrists in the board to uphold personal freedoms and evaluate an individual’s admission in a private centre, and direct the Punjab government to review the Mental Health Ordinance 2001. In 2022, the NCHR had released the report Malpractice in Mental Health in Pakistan: A Call for Regulation, which highlighted many gaps in mental health services, statute and policy, as well as in practitioners’ qualification and accreditation.

The primary obstacles between women and their inheritance are patriarchy and legal illiteracy. Women face court battles, social prejudice and financial losses because of an absence of information about legal rights, a loophole that must be addressed through community outreach initiatives. Further, women’s property rights are enshrined in the Constitution: Article 23 specifies the right to own property for men and women and Article 24 ensures that no one is divested of their property. The Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, was seen as a breakthrough as it protects ownership and possession of women’s properties and shields females from harassment, coercion and deceit. But enforcing it will be a challenge unless the judicial system is more sensitised to women’s security. In addition, lawyers, activists and government representatives must join forces to highlight and thwart attempts to exploit and violate liberties. Only a gender-neutral system can save women from becoming casualties of male avarice.

Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2024

Islamic learning

Ghulam Shabbir 
November 8, 2024


MAN’S superiority over all creatures lies in his faculty of creative knowledge, which the heavens, despite their heights, the mountains, despite their firmness, and the earth, despite its vastness, refused to take on (Quran 33:72). This points to the faculty to discern the properties of things and give them ‘names’ (2:31). This is man’s inherent capability to unravel the mysteries of the universe and employ the same for his mastery over nature. Thus his mastery of the universe was a foregone conclusion. What matters most is to wield this mastery responsibly, for knowledge is a double-edged sword, prone to be used both for salutary and destructive ends.

Therefore, man’s real test lies in ‘mastering’ that mastery of the universe. So, ‘al-amana’ or the ‘trust’ which the universe trembled to bear, according to late Islamic scholar and thinker Fazlur Rahman, was to discover the laws of, and thus achieve mastery over, nature or in the Quranic terminology, to know the ‘names’ of all things and then use this mastery — under the human initiative — to create a positive world order.

To the Quran, all knowledge — intellectual, scientific or intuitive — comes from God. It sets high value on knowledge and excludes no category of learning whatsoever, with the overriding principle that this knowledge should be utilised through proper and constructive channels. Man’s essential task is to reconstruct a scientific picture of the objective reality and employ the same to create a healthy moral order. So, to engage in scientific pursuit without harnessing it for the creation of a just moral order — to know the ‘names’ without utilising them — would be, in the words of the Quran, ‘abath’ or a vain, dangerous, indeed Satanic pursuit.

Pristine Islam combined metaphysics and social reality — the Holy Prophet’s (PBUH) religious experience concerned both monotheism and socioeconomic justice. With an inherent symbiotic relationship, both monotheism and socioeconomic reforms assume fusion and flow like a seamless singular stream from the inner unity of the Quran and the immaculate conduct of the Prophet. Closer examination reveals that it was not monotheism but rather its entailing social reforms that invoked a vehement reaction from the Makkan oligarchy for they were least bothered by the monotheism of the Hanifs — certain Makkans who arrived at monotheism through self-deliberation — not linked with social reforms.


Islam combined metaphysics and social reality.

Islam, unlike the ancient world, combined metaphysics and social reality. Earlier, the streams of pure intellect and transcendentalism had flowed independently despite the coexistence of Jews and Greeks for a considerable period of time at Alexandria. To Christianity, excepting the gospels, everything was futile. Islam focused on the fusion of religious and positive knowledge; it made history a field of divine activity to objectify moral values. The Quran inspired Muslims to pursue all branches of knowledge irrespective of the dichotomy of the sacred and the profane and to utilise the same for the benefit of mankind.

Born out of a violent break with its past, the modern West will seek no negotiation with any spiritual system or moral ideology. In such a situation, what else but the Quran can steer the world out of its crisis? For Islam was the only genuine movement in history which ethically ‘oriented’ the raw materials of history rather than compromised with them under the convenient cover of secularism. Later, vested interests broke the fusion of metaphysics and social reality. Orthodoxy’s nexus with dictators led to the dichotomy of state and religion, while many Sufis’ neutr­ality to social phenomena triggered ‘personal-ism’ at the cost of collectivism. Ever since, orthodox religious knowledge is quarantined in the ma­­dressah, having no organic link with the positive knowledge of the external world.

The world of Islam in contradistinction to the ‘material’ West and the ‘spiritual’ East stands as a ‘gold median community’ (2:143) tasked with arbitrating their conflicts. On this premise, Iqbal has said: “Although we [Muslims] are coiled up in ourselves like a bud; should we perish, the whole garden [of the world] must perish.”

Dr Fazlur Rahman similarly challenged the West along the lines that you can ignore the law of gravity but Islam cannot be ignored. Muslims have become prisoners of the past and if they do not take the initiative to rediscover Islam, their future is bleak.

Muslims owe it to themselves and to the world at large to recover the fusion of moral values and social phenomena by the crystal-clear Weltanschauung of the Quran. This would be a potent step for them to assume the steering wheel of history. For how long must the Muslim faith remain in the grip of the past?

The writer is an academic.


Published in Dawn, November 8th, 2024

Bracing for Trump 2.0
November 11, 2024 




THE world was already bracing for Donald Trump’s return to power. And it is a stunning comeback. His clean sweep in the election, winning the White House, Senate and most likely the House of Representatives, will make him a more powerful president than he was in his first term, with a stronger mandate.

What his foreign policy will look like is being feverishly assessed across the world. Will it mimic his first term’s America First approach which translated into an America Alone policy? Will it prove as disruptive and destabilising as in the past?

Influencing assessments is the widespread view among the international community that Washington’s engagement with the world in recent years has neither been sustained nor consistent, which raises questions about US reliability. This at a time when the US is no longer the sole dominant power in an increasingly multipolar world, which places limits on its ability to shape global geopolitics and determine outcomes.

Trump’s unpredictable and impulsive personality will intensify uncertainty about the course of American policy especially given his penchant for suddenly changing course. His ‘America First’ unilateralist worldview created much discontinuity and volatility in foreign policy in his first term and dented America’s international standing. His isolationist approach also made the US retrench from its global role.

One certainty, with far-reaching implications for global stability and economy, is that Trump 2.0 will continue the well-established US policy of containment of China. A bipartisan consensus now sees China as a strategic adversary and challenge. Trump might escalate the confrontation over trade and technology issues. During the campaign he threatened to impose 60 per cent tariffs across the board on Chinese imports and end China’s most favoured-nation status. Whether he raises tariffs to this extent is doubtful as he will have to calculate its impact on American consumers; costlier imports would push up prices and that too when inflation is a challenge. It would also pose a risk to European economies as China is Europe’s biggest trading partner.

During the campaign, Trump also said he would seek a good relationship with Beijing. In a Fox News interview, he said while there was no greater critic of China than him, he respected China and President Xi Jinping. Though Trump will take a tough position on trade issues, his business instincts will urge him to be transactional and open to striking deals with China on trade and perhaps other contentious issues, including Taiwan. While intensifying the rivalry with China, Trump would want to avoid a collision course or military conflict over Taiwan. He has, in fact, been critical of Taiwan, saying it should pay the US for defending it.

Disruptions in US policy are likely at a time when the world is already in a state of chaos.

Trump has proposed a 10 to 20pc tariff on all imported goods, which will strain relations with America’s European allies, who Trump treated with derision in his first term, casting them as free-loaders. Aimed at all countries that have a trade surplus with the US, this would nonetheless be hard to implement. It would be a blow to developing economies and dampen global economic growth.

While Trump is an avowed protectionist, the question is how far he will go to press this agenda. According to economic experts, his plan to raise tariffs and order mass deportations of immigrants will further fuel inflation that Trump has promised to tackle.

Where a radical change in US policy is likely is on the Ukraine war. Often claiming he can end the war “in a day”, Trump is expected to push for talks to end a conflict he says “should never have happened”. This is cause for concern for Europe. Trump has said he will press Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky and Russian President Vladimir Putin to enter negotiations for a peace deal. He may not be averse to an outcome that favours Moscow in which Ukraine has to cede territory. He is unlikely to respond to reservations of European nations in this regard.

Trump has frequently chastised Nato allies for not sharing the defence burden. He has also said in his second term, America will fundamentally rethink “Nato’s purpose and mission” and ask European nations to reimburse the US billions of dollars for military supplies it sent to Ukraine. This may be bluster but there is little doubt that Trump and the Republican Party do not want to continue military funding to Ukraine.

European allies, therefore, have much to worry about. They have to deal with a president who has shown little commitment to European security, and who declared during the campaign that “in many cases, our allies are worse than our so-called enemies”. Trump sees European countries not contributing enough to their own security and taking advantage of the US, a situation he wants to end. He has no patience with alliances. Or with multilateralism.

The crisis in the Middle East presents a clear and present challenge that Trump might seek to address by forcing a ceasefire in Gaza. While avoiding specifics, he repeatedly said during the campaign he wants to see peace in the region and Israel should end the war quickly — by winning it and “finishing the job”. He is even more pro-Israel than President Joe Biden and has no empathy for the plight of the Palestinians (Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu once called Trump the best friend Israel ever had in the White House).

Nor has Trump shown any commitment to a two-state solution even though that remains the US position. Any deal he might push for will be on Israel’s terms and will also aim to goad other Arab countries to accede to the Abraham Accords — his signature Middle East initiative in his first term. This will principally involve encouraging Saudi Arabia to normalise ties with Israel, although Riyadh has made it clear this will only be possible once a Palestinian state is established.

Unpredictability is likely to be the hallmark of Trump’s foreign policy. But because he has a transactional view of international relations that would also open his policies to pragmatic possibilities. The world can expect disruptions in US policy at a pivotal time when wars and crises hang in the balance in what UN Secretary General António Guterres calls an “age of chaos”.

The writer is a former ambassador to the US, UK and UN.

Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2024


Trumped again
Published November 13, 2024
DAWN



DONKEYS are reputed to be stubborn beasts. That possible misinterpretation of their instinct for self-preservation characterises a party that has utilised Equus asinusas a symbol since Andrew Jackson embraced a hostile description of himself as a jackass back in 1828.

The Democrats’ election symbol might be an insult to a species whose intelligence has been underrated since donkeys were domesticated 6,000 years ago, but its traditional implications accurately reflect the party hierarchy’s mindset after last week’s devastating defeat.

The post-mortems began pouring in as soon as it became obvious that Kamala Harris had been trounced by Donald Trump. Yesterday, the president-elect was due to be hosted in the Oval Office by a man who had described him as a dire threat to democracy.

Joe Biden’s claim wasn’t exactly inaccurate, but it ignored his own party’s contribution to the promotion of plutocracy. It may not have been initiated by the Democrats, but they ran with the neoliberal trend exe­mplified by the Reagan administration.

The Democrats have enabled him once more.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama lent their imagined heft to the Harris campaign, and both ignored the issues whereby their presidencies led, respectively, to George W. Bush and Trump. The Clinton presidency did not deviate all that much from the Reagan era, and Obama effectively pursued both the neoconservatism and neoliberalism of his Republican predecessor.

No one can claim with any certainty that the 2024 result would have been different had Biden butted out after the 2022 midterm elections, in which the Democrats did not fare quite as badly as the polls and the mainstream media projected, but they might have made amends that bolstered their support two years later. No such luck. Biden did propose some healthy measures on the economic and renewable energy fronts, but they made no immediate difference to most of those who were suffering from the consequences of the Covid pandemic and its inflationary aftermath.

The Democrats offered no alternative to the status quo beyond gradual improvement over the years, bolstered by pundits who proclaimed that the economy was going gangbusters, with rising employment and declining inflation. Too many voters did not feel the joy that Harris sought to project, recalling that their grocery bills were lower before Biden took over. Among the many promises Trump is unlikely to fulfil, he vowed to bring down grocery bills, cut taxes and end all wars.

Back in 2016, he emerged as a potential disruptor of a status quo that wasn’t working for most Americans. He could not reclaim the perch in 2020, after four years in power. That he was able to achieve a far more convincing victory than eight years ago is a testament to the decrepitude of the Democrats.

That does not only mean that Biden ought to have ruled himself out a couple of years ago on the basis of his senescence, but also that his successor should have diverged from a self-defeating formula by offering viable alternatives to both an economy whose supposedly thriving aspects are not trickling down to most voters, and to a foreign policy that involves prolonging a nasty war in Europe and promoting a genocide in the Middle East.

Harris focused, instead, on slamming Trump and saying that she wasn’t Biden — the latter of which was obvious given her gender and ethnicity, but less so when it came to her ideology. Much of the Democratic elite that has ridiculed Bernie Sanders for accurately claiming that the working class was only returning the favour when it deserted the De­­mocrats have also claimed that Har­ris ran a wonderful campaign but was der­ailed by unavoidable obstacles. That’s nonsense. It’s true she had only 100 days to stake her claim, thanks to her geriatric chieftain’s obduracy and his party’s inexplicable obeisance, but her rallying cries consisted of little more than hollow platitudes, and her oratorical skills don’t match those of Barack Obama.

Sanders consistently reminds the electorate that real wages haven’t increased since the 1970s, the minimum wage is far too low, and it’s a travesty that so many citizens of the world’s richest nation live in poverty despite full-time jobs, and struggle to pay their medical bills and education debts. While the Republicans’ ridiculous response is to privatise everything, the Democrats are petrified by the prospect of proposing anything more than a bit of tinkering on the edges of neoliberalism.

It’s easy to empathise with the likeliest victims of Trump’s non-consecutive second term, an achievement previously pulled off only by Grover Cleveland in the 19th century. And he was a Democrat back when the Republican Party was relatively progressive.

Trump’s unpredictability means we can only wait and see how far he will go in carrying out his threatened atrocities at home and his promised peacemaking abroad.


mahir.dawn@gmail.com
Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2024


An apocalypse Trump won’t see
November 12, 2024 
DAWN



ON one of Donald Trump’s last days as lame-duck president in 2020, senior Democrats led by Nancy Pelosi rushed to US military generals to caution them against heeding any command from him that could start a nuclear war.

Whatever be the truth about the Democrats’ worry, the world was on edge. Then, the shoe was on the other foot. Biden followed a needle-and-thread policy — threading cavalier alliances and needling Russia and China into a rage. Much of the worried world responded by gravitating to BRICS. Biden and his secretary for state woke up every day to arm and finance the most gruesome slaughter of women and children since Hitler in Gaza. The Democrats thus helped Trump seem less menacing to the voters.

The Doomsday Clock is still at 90 minutes to midnight with Trump’s second win, continuing to remind humanity that the threat from manmade apocalypse hasn’t receded. The president-elect did sound unusually benign and even faux inclusive in his victory speech. On the flip side, he pres­sed the accelerator on the unfolding environmental catastrophe. “Nobody’s ever seen anything like that,” he exulted to cheering supporters, listing the cultural and ethnic mix that voted him to office. The thought alone should worry Democrats, who regard multiculturalism as their exclusive turf, in contrast to Trump’s white supremacist calling.

“They came from all corners. Union, non-union; African, Hispanic, Asian, Arab, Muslim; we had everybody, and it was beautiful,” he croaked. It’s always disturbing to hear gilded words from autocrats. Has a compulsively sectarian Trump bucked the trend to project himself as a leader of all Americans equally? In which case, the rivals are in deeper trouble than one thought.

The Doomsday Clock has kept a watch on signs of manmade calamity that Albert Einstein had feared. Global warming is somehow only now, and grudgingly, being seen as an existential threat to mankind, though Noam Chomsky had presciently called it as lethal as the bomb. Trump walked out of two momentous agreements in his first term, making the world insecure on both counts.

He ditched the Paris Agreement on climate change, and even today, remains unconvinced that the destruction Hurricane Helene wreaked on North Carolina during the election campaign could be a sign of nature paying back in kind. He also tore up the Iran pact, making it a factor today in war-gaming an Iran-Israel nuclear exchange as a possibility. Iranian officials say that a fatwa against the bomb could be lifted if the war with Israel so demands.

Trump’s cavalier comments in his victory speech on the primacy of fossil fuel ‘to make America great again’ could send shivers down the spine of climate activists gathered in Baku this week for the fortnight of deliberations at COP29. In one fell swoop, Trump destroyed any hopes environment activists may have had from Robert Kennedy Jr in the new team. He all but declared that the environment lawyer, who doubles as an anti-vaccine campaigner, could be assigned the health portfolio. Calling Kennedy to the stage, Trump anointed him. “He is going to make America healthy again.”

As for Kennedy’s concern for climate change, Trump pre-empted trouble. “Bobby, leave the oil to me. We have more liquid gold — oil and gas — We have more liquid gold than any country in the world; more than Saudi Arabia. We have more than Russia. Bobby, stay away from the liquid gold. Other than that, go have a good time, Bobby.”

Trump’s second win reminds humanity that the threat from manmade apocalypse hasn’t receded.

Trump’s astounding return, completely, albeit unsurprisingly, missed by pollsters, has brought unforeseen responses. An American-Canadian friend says she is surrendering her US citizenship because she finds Trump insufferable. Google searches for ‘move to Canada’ surged 1,270 per cent in the 24 hours after the US East Coast polls closed on Tuesday. Similar searches about moving to New Zealand climbed nearly 2,000pc, while those for Australia jumped 820pc.

It’s not dissimilar to a whole host of people who have left or are leaving India with the advent of Narendra Modi, heading not to Pakistan, where his rabid cheerleaders would have wanted dissenters to go, but to trickier climes. The recent repatriation by the Biden administration of dozens of illegal migrants from India is a good example.

Trump’s denial of climate change is envied by many of his fans who do not have the means to be as brazen. On the global stage, Narendra Modi, an ardent Trump fan, presents himself as a keen environment buff. “India is committed to clean energy and environment,” he said at the recent G20 summit in Delhi. Yet it is no secret that India will use coal for decades to come, even as it explores renewables to move towards net zero in 2070.

Three days before COP27 in Egypt, India’s finance minister showcased the doublespeak. “India needs greater investment in coal production,” said Nirmala Sitharaman at the Delhi launch of the country’s biggest-ever coal mine auction, where 141 new sites for coal mines were on offer. The move was rehearsed at the COP26 climate talks in Glasgow. That’s when India, backed by China, made a last-minute intervention to water down the language of the final agreement, changing the commitment to “phase down” rather than “phase out” coal power.

The fallout is palpable in the neighbourhood and beyond. The Maldives archipelago faces a watery doom, and vast swathes of Bangladesh would become uninhabitable as the sea encroaches. Pakistan, too, is reeling from the effects of climate change, not least since the 2022 flood fury.

The prime minister’s point person for environment, Romina Khurshid Alam, was preparing Pakistan’s talking points for Baku when Trump was drooling over the oil resources of America he had inherited in his victory. Ms Alam’s terror at the speed with which the mighty glaciers of the Hindu Kush are melting contrasts apocalyptically with the sight of Trump drooling over the oil wealth he plans to plunder to make America great again.

The writer is Dawn’s correspondent in Delhi.


jawednaqvi@gmail.com

Published in Dawn, November 12th, 2024



The real issues
Published November 9, 2024
DAWN



THERE is nothing complicated about Donald Trump’s win as much of the mainstream media would like the world to believe. If you live in America you know the truth, and if you watch TikTok anywhere in the world, you know the truth and more.

While the liberals have a tantrum and try to complicate the reasons behind why the Americans chose to paint their country Red this time, and in essence decided to cosy up to the Draconian Blond, the reality is easy to decipher for first-time voters, seasoned baby boomers and all generations in between.

It was as simple and down to earth as ‘roti, kapra aur makan’.

Election 2024 is a clear indication that after all is said and done, after all the soap opera, the theatrical and manufactured issues, dramatic hyperbole, staged debates, and woke issues that need no oxygen or air time, politics is still about only the real issues.

One may choose to hate Trump for his crassness or his politics, but he ran on what matters to an average American — no foreign wars, no inflation, no crime, no illegal immigration and the impact on a household. In contrast, Kamala Harris ran on feelings, vague abstract vibes, oxygenating fears, a high horse with a Hollywood saddle, constant virtue signalling, appearances on SNL, and a zero-sum issue-driven campaign. Being uncharismatic didn’t help. She lacked authenticity and charisma and the Democrats’ overall message was focused on vilifying Trump and the Republican voter. That backfired.

This time it was all about making sure that Harris lost.

She clearly chose not to separate from her boss on most agendas. Plus the constantly invoked moral high ground — ‘We are better than the Republicans’ — did not work when tens of thousands of unarmed people were being obliterated in a genocide on her watch. And endorsements from the likes of warmonger Dick Cheney, which should have caused revulsion, were worn like a badge of honour. Bizarre!

Flashback 2020: Biden picked a losing vice-president in order to ensure he would do eight years. Her campaign had zero momentum from the get-go and a late arrival left no runway time for the campaign to take flight. She is no Barack Obama. And while Obama’s politics may not be ideal, his persona was absolutely dynamic.

It seemed Harris only ran on the abortion issue, and despite her calls from the pulpit, the country figured out that Trump is not really pro-life, as the Democratic rhetoric would like them to believe. Trump ran an intelligent campaign and perceptively pulled ahead of the Democratic rhetoric by clearly rejecting a countrywide abortion ban.

What was Harris left with?

She beat the drum on ‘cry wolf’, when the wolf wasn’t really there. The wolf wasn’t interested in eating the sheep.

Another sensitive issue that Harris championed was the gender choice for minors — an issue that did not sit too well at the ballot box regardless of what the pundits or the extreme left wing might have had the campaign believe. The Red sweep clearly told the Democrats that if a child can’t get a tattoo before the age of 18 without parental presence, then something as consequential, life-altering and monumental as gender change has to be off the table.

And here we are today and America has made its choice. It chose to let a felon into the White House, and as a friend (who hails from occupied Kashmir, and has faced persecution) said, “America decided it did not want undocumented immigrants no matter how persecuted they feel in their country of birth. Misogyny does not bother the majority, hate speech and da­­ngerous rhetoric isn’t that bad, reproductive rights for wo­­m­en aren’t that big of a deal after all, and the list goes on.

But nothing, and I mean nothing, compares to normalising a yearlong genocide. Liberals worked overtime to make a fascist sound normal to the people who do not agree with what has been going on this past year. They thought we could focus on safe abortions instead.

He might turn out to be just like his predecessors and continue America’s Middle East policy, but he won’t feed the world lies about it. Those who did not vote for Kamala or simply abstained as an act of defiance or for the lack of a better choice, you have my respect.’’

Cue the Muslims in the US who chose to make their voice heard.

While in 2016 there was a feeling of deep depression at Trump winning, this time it was all about making sure that Harris lost. America voted, and it voted for a better life by tuning out the noise.

And while the mainstream media looks for more rhetoric as to why Trump won, the answer is simple; real issues always trump vague feelings. Period.

The writer has published two books and is a freelance journalist.

Published in Dawn, November 9th, 2024





The Donald supremacy

An empire unravels as the "short-fingered vulgarian" reclaims the throne.


Published November 8, 2024
DAWN

It wasn’t even close. But also, it was never going to be.

As the 2024 polls conclude, the global hegemon may be entering its own late Soviet Union phase: ancient leaders, vomiting soldiers, and the collapse of a rules-based order that, even in its prime, never quite applied to those writing it.

And yet such obituaries are a risky business: while the West’s neoliberals make up the dying regime today, they’re not going the way of the communist bloc just yet.

After all, America remains the greatest economy, the mightiest military, and the uncrowned keeper of the world’s reserve currency. It is empire, and empire is everywhere.
America picks Trump, again

But one would be hard-pressed to think, after yet another toxic election, that the American experiment isn’t flailing hard. Described over three decades ago as a “short-fingered vulgarian” in Vanity Fair, Donald Trump is displaying a different sort of hand gesture to elite magazines these days.

Fresh from a hero’s journey grosser than the reality TV he headlines, Trump is cruising past two assassination attemptstwo impeachments, even a criminal conviction, to become the 47th president of the United States. “We love winners,” he said during his last term. “We love winners. Winners are winners.”

And losers are losers. Surely, asked The Guardian, didn’t the world see “Kamala Harris’s competence and expertise, her decency and grace, her potential to be the first female president?”

If the world saw it, the voter didn’t, handing the God & Oil Party its first popular victory in two decades. And the emotional meltdown on the other side is silly, self-indulgent, and self-delusional.


Because Kamala Harris was never going to win. Let’s face it: how many times has it happened in America that an unpopular incumbent won amid economic anxiety? Kamala hadn’t to distinguish herself from Trump so much as from Sleepy Joe. She decided not to. She couldn’t attack Trump’s corruption. Biden was corrupt. His harassment of women; Biden did that too. His age: Biden is ancient. His mental acuity: Biden is demented.

So Kamala was left with Kamala, and a politburo of Pelosis and Obamas lurking in the hall — a dizzy ex-prosecutor that had never won a single primary, couldn’t carry her own state in 2020, had no recognisable ideas as vice-president, had no core beliefs in general, and sold out each of her positions from the wall to Palestine. Should she have run?

Because the core theme of this election, same as the one before it, was simple: if Bill Clinton’s boys had come up with “It’s the economy, stupid”, the same dinosaurs were now too high up the managerial class to let Kamala know it was the economy again, and that those amid it were suffering.

Instead, the donors, operators, and hopey-changey Ivy Leaguers that form the Dems’ shadow party — the ones that knifed Biden when his brain froze on the debate stage — went on and on about Joe’s economic miracle: more growth, more jobs, more recovery all around.

And if median income was taking a beating, and food insecurity was at a high, and health insurance was on the wane, who cared? As Charles Schumer shrugged in 2016, for every blue-collar Democrat that dropped off, the party would snatch up two suburban Republicans. It was a poor trade to make, and it wasn’t going to work anyway, given the massive workers’ exodus from the left across the board.

“It should come as no great surprise,” said Bernie Sanders, forever the thwarted king across the sea, “that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them.”

And how: nearly 80 per cent of voters that thought the economy was their top issue voted for Trump.
Racist orange billionaire beats deep state genocide enabler

In the other corner was Harris as a sad parody of Hillary — courting vapid celebrities over unions, and vile chicken-hawks like Liz Cheney over decent human beings. Say what you want about the state of Biden’s brain, he’d been in politics long enough to do a populist feint when needed, from laying track to splurging on jobs (all watered down once in office).

Not Kamala — she was content with just saying she’d be better than the brownshirts coming back. And why not; standing against something is still a stand. It’s just that the last time America defeated fascism, it required a titanic reorientation of the entire economy, near-full employment, and a war that killed 4pc of the world’s population.

What Kamala had were bumper stickers. “Never again,” she enjoyed telling crowds. “Never again. Never again.”

Interestingly, it may well have been never again: as of this writing, Trump is bagging the same number of votes as his losing bid in 2020, if not less. In essence, the Dems lost more than Trump won.

Yes, a fair few wealthy suburbanites feared, correctly, that Trump would take a gold-plated wrecking ball to their democracy. For everyone else, however, there were more immediate crises at hand. (“Did America really elect a dictator because Frosted Flakes hit $7.99 at the grocery store?” asked the Jacobin.)

But inflation’s a desperately dull subject, one almost as dull as social stratification — the kind that breeds status anxiety; the realisation that a certain standard of life can now only be the province of rich idiots that live in gated communities, go to the same schools, inter-golf, and inter-marry. Why not vote for Trump?


Instead, the rest of the world gets to listen to how America’s rotten id let the Donald win again — a triumph of racism, sexism, fascism, this-ism, and that-ism; that the barbarians have disarmed lady Liberty, and the Capitol will be toppled next. If it was Jan 6 then, it’ll be blood in the streets now.

The hysteria is so loud, it’s almost as if this hasn’t happened before: that a void so carefully nourished over generations — a culture that sanctifies capital, and a politics bereft of class — wouldn’t be filled by right-wing populists.

Because it’s hard to imagine it was Nazis that re-elected the Squad: Rashida Tlaib, who refused to endorse Kamala, was returned to Congress by the same Michigan voter that had so humiliated Harris, in a stunning 20,000-vote swing away from Biden’s haul in 2020.

“Genocide is bad politics,” said an activist in Dearborn. Unless, of course, we believe the Democrats: that the minorities have turned into white supremacists overnight. Could it be, instead, that they sensed the liberal order’s self-immolation in Gaza; that the bodies of shredded children on hooks was no longer international law as usual?

It was hard to come to any other conclusion, especially with Bill Clinton being trotted out to tell potential voters their family members deserved ethnic cleansing at the hands of Eretz Zion. Incidentally, the man thought best-suited to soothing Muslim horror over an ongoing genocide was the same president that had let Serbs slaughter their way to the last Bosnian enclave before stirring himself awake (and was still celebrated by the Muslim street for it).

In fact, the Republican Party, despite boasting the world’s most diverse range of war criminals — from Kissinger to Rumsfeld to Bolton — sounded more moderate on killing kids overseas than the Democrats this round. And if the Kamala voter was being expected to ignore a genocide, why should the Trumpist be made to blush over race riots?

As for policies at home, the blues seem to have decided that victory, via a happy left-wing, would still be worse than defeat by grandpas in red hats. If there was a coalition the Democrats wanted to win over last week, it was, well, the Republican coalition. And the Republican coalition couldn’t even recognise itself: the neocons were dead, the blazers-and-slacks bunch was cowed, and the MAGA Trumpers were legion.

Because politics in America is no longer about bettering social conditions; it hasn’t been since Reagan. Politics in America is about target selection — a perverse culture war that helps people forget what’s attributed to Tanzania’s Julius Nyrere: that the US is a one-party state, but with typical American extravagance, they have two of them.

So it is that a racist orange billionaire beats a deep state genocide enabler, in what the press calls our “most crucial election” — even as both are united on backing Israel, fighting China, protecting guns from their victims, deporting illegals en masse, drilling record amounts of hydrocarbon, and building up defence-tech. The big stuff is settled.

If there are differences, it’s on the second-string issues — tax cuts for the rich, anti-trust enforcement, crackdowns on even-legal immigrants, and whether or not Elon Musk is a white replacement weirdo.

And yet, if Trump remains the anti-war provincial he pledges to be, that will be more than enough for millions of innocents so removed from his universe — the kind of indifference that drove Bush-era torturers like Dick Cheney and Alberto Gonzales into the Democrats’ loving arms.

As for Pakistan — and depending on the politics of the Pakistani saying so —he’s a breath of fresh air for the country’s largest party, the PTI, and bodes well for the imprisoned Imran Khan; alternatively, say those partial to the current regime’s jailers, Pakistan’s not important enough to care about anyway. The first assumption is still premature; the second is already wrong.

What’s beyond argument is that the Donald returns older, angrier, and more extreme. He’s mopped the floor with America’s traditional dynasties, the Bushes and the Clintons, and carries a party remade entirely in his image. Meanwhile, the Senate has flipped red; the House is on knife-edge; and a third of the Supreme Court sits as his appointees. A broader realignment, towards the populist roar, is ensuring his surname becomes an era.

“This will truly be the golden age of America,” he says. Ever since its supervillains took the controls in 2000, it hasn’t been.



The author is an advocate at the Lahore High Court. He is a partner at Ashtar Ali LLP, where he focuses on constitutional law and commercial litigation. He is also a columnist at Dawn.

Colonial mindsets


Abrahim Shah 
Published November 11, 2024 
DAWN





BRITISH Prime Minister Keir Starmer was recently accused of having a ‘colonial mindset’ by fellow lawmakers for declining to discuss slavery reparations in the Commonwealth Summit in Samoa. PM Starmer claimed his denial stemmed from a desire to “look forward” rather than holding ‘discussions on the past’.

The construct ‘colonial mindset’ is a powerful one, for as authors like Frantz Fanon, Edward Said and Bernard Cohn explain, colonialism was as much an exercise in psychological control as it was of physical domination. The brown denizen of the subcontinent, for instance, was forced to recognise and internalise the white man’s superiority — a mental trauma that people of colour continue to carry today.

This perpetuation of colonial forms of control — both covert and overt — necessitates a scrutiny of PM Starmer’s dismissal of even discourse around slavery and reparations. Defence couched in ‘looking forward’ remains unsatisfactory as well, primarily because as we witness today, the past continues to inform and shape the present.

Dismissal of an open and honest conversation on past depredations is thus not only flawed but also points towards a deeper malaise: the inability to recognise how modes of control continue to operate, which disenfranchise the Global South. This takes on numerous forms: harsher immigration policies and hate towards refugees, heightened surveillance of black and brown bodies and communities, condoning genocide and the contrasting responses to Ukraine and Palestine.

The Global South must not dismiss the past’s impact on lives.

In some aspects, therefore, PM Starmer is correct; there is a dire need to look forward, but any efforts to mould the future must actively engage with structures of injustice inherited from the past. This requires a critical discourse on colonialism, race, gender, Islamophobia, inequality and the global financial structure.

The inability to launch or sustain critical discourse highlights yet another fundamental concern: the dearth and sheer impotency of modern political discourse and activism. Ever since the advent of neoliberalism in the 1970s and the rise of the ‘new left’, the ideological spectrum in the political landscape has drastically shrunk, converging on what Tariq Ali calls the “extreme centre”: a vapid political domain where economic exigencies emphasising GDP growth dominate other concerns.

This phenomenon is not limited to the UK. It is prevalent across the world, including in the US where conversations on race and drastically rising inequality are jettisoned in favour of economic growth. This has resulted in an ‘indistinguishable political elite’, to yet again quote Tariq Ali, one that offers little alternative or solutions to impending crises. Conversations on means of production, inequality, and curtailing capitalism are dismissed as ‘too radical’, further revealing this dearth of imagination and political alternatives. Instead, half-baked solutions are proffered that do not address underlying causes. The inability to effectively tackle climate change globally or address land-use and developmental models triggering smog in Pakistan serve as examples.

Dissent, however, finds avenues for expression. This occurs on the margins through the rise of populist movements including Donald Trump’s and the far right which are casually dismissed by the mainstream. Very often, this dissent manifests in violence as we saw with the Occupy Wall Street Movement in 2011 and the more recent Islamophobic hysteria in the UK. Present upheavals across the world — protests in Pakistan against a private educational institute, the overthrow of Hasina Wajid in Bangladesh or farmer agitation in France can all be contextualised in the larger economic and political failings of our day.

What does all this mean for the Global South? First, we must actively recognise the past and not dismiss its continuous impact on our lives. Justifications of colonialism including ‘they gave us railways and the penal code’ too must be criticised, recognising how colonialism altered the very social fabric and psyches of non-white societies. This backdrop must then inform attempts at reform that highlight not just reparations but also change in immigration and employment policies in the West, and greater First World responsibility to combat climate change.

Considering the anaemic political environment, this is a protracted struggle but it is a necessary one to rectify centuries of historical injustice. Individuals such as Bell Ribeiro-Addy and Clive Lewis — British lawmakers who called out PM Starmer on his stance on reparations — and dissident voices like Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar in the US — show us that silver linings do hide behind the clouds.

The writer is a civil servant and is currently pursuing graduate studies at the University of Oxford.


Published in Dawn, November 11th, 2024
 CAN THE UN SUSPEND ISRAEL?


Aidan Hehir Published November 10, 2024
THE CONVERSATION
Tanzanian Ambassador to the UN Salim A Salim announces that South Africa has been suspended from the UN General Assembly on November 12, 1974 
| United Nations

"Where is the UN?” is a question that has often been asked since the start of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza. As the death toll rises and the conflict spreads, the UN appears woefully unable to fulfil its mandate to save humanity “from the scourge of war” — as it was set up to do.

While the UN secretary-general, António Guterres, has repeatedly condemned Israel — and been banned from the country for his pains — his pleas have been ignored. Attempts by the UN to sanction Israel have also failed. UN sanctions require the UN Security Council’s consent. The US has used its power as a permanent member to veto draft resolutions seeking to do so.

There have also been calls to suspend Israel from the UN. On October 30, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, Michael Fakhri, called on the UN General Assembly to suspend Israel’s membership because, as he said: “Israel is attacking the UN system.”

Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories, is reported to have told a news conference the same day that the UN should “consider the suspension of Israel’s credentials as a member of the UN until it ends violating international law and withdraws the ‘clearly unlawful’ occupation.”



Given the US’s veto power in the Security Council, it may be politically very difficult, but it is legally possible. And there’s a precedent

But suspending a member is more complicated and politically fraught than many appreciate.

Israel and the UN

For decades, Israel’s relationship with the UN has been fractious. This is primarily because of the UN’s stance on what it refers to as Israel’s “unlawful presence” in what it defines as “occupied territories” in Palestine. In the past 12 months of the latest conflict in Gaza, this relationship has deteriorated further.

Many have argued that Israel has repeatedly violated UN resolutions and treaties, including the genocide convention during its campaign in Gaza. Some UN officials have accused Israel — and certain Palestinian groups — of committing war crimes. Israel has also come into direct conflict with UN agencies — some 230 UN personnel have been killed during the offensive, and many governments and UN officials have alleged that Israel deliberately targeted UN peacekeepers in Lebanon.

But the enmity between Israel and the UN came to a head on October 28, when the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, banned the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) from operating inside Israel, sparking a wave of condemnation.

The UN’s powers

Given this open hostility towards the UN, it is not surprising that some are now calling for Israel’s membership to be suspended.

But can the UN legally suspend a member? The answer is yes. Under articles 5 and 6 of the UN charter, a member state may be suspended or expelled if it is found to have “persistently violated the principles contained in the present Charter.”

But articles 5 and 6 both state that suspension and expulsion require the consent of the General Assembly as well as “the recommendation of the Security Council.” As such, suspending Israel requires the consent of the five permanent Security Council members: the US, UK, China, Russia and France.

And, given the US’s past record and current president Joe Biden’s affirmation of his “ironclad support” for Israel, this is effectively inconceivable. But while it is, therefore, highly unlikely that articles 5 or 6 will be invoked against Israel, there remains a potentially feasible option.

The South Africa precedent

At the start of each annual General Assembly session, the credentials committee reviews submissions from each member state before they are formally admitted. Usually, this is a formality, but on September 27, 1974, the credentials of South Africa — which was then operating an apartheid system — were rejected.

Three days later, the General Assembly passed resolution 3207, which called on the Security Council to “review the relationship between the United Nations and South Africa in light of the constant violation by South Africa of the principles of the Charter.”

A draft resolution calling for South Africa’s expulsion was eventually put to the security council at the end of October, but it was vetoed by the US, the UK and France.

However, on November 12, the president of the General Assembly, Algeria’s Abdelaziz Bouteflika, ruled that given the credentials committee’s decision and the passing of resolution 3207, “the General Assembly refuses to allow the delegation of South Africa to participate in its work.” South Africa remained suspended from the General Assembly until June 1994, following the ending of apartheid.

It is important to note that South Africa was not formally suspended from the UN, only the General Assembly. Nonetheless, it was a hugely significant move.

A viable solution?

Could the same measure be applied against Israel and would it be effective? The South Africa case shows it is legally possible. It would also undoubtedly send a powerful message, simultaneously increasing Israel’s international isolation and restoring some much-needed faith in the UN.

The 79th session of the UN General Assembly began in September, so it’s too late for the credentials committee to reject Israel. But this could conceivably happen prior to the 80th session next year, if there was sufficient political will. But this is a big “if”.

Though a majority of states in the General Assembly are highly critical of Israel, many do not want the credentials committee to become more politically selective, because they fear this could be used against them in the future. Likewise, few want to incur the wrath of the US by suspending its ally.

As ever, what is legally possible and what is politically likely are two very different things.

The writer is Reader in International Relations at the University of Westminster in UK

Republished from The Conversation


Published in Dawn, EOS, November 10th, 2024




A summit to nowhere
November 13, 2024
 DAWN



AFTER silently watching Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza for the past one year, the leaders of the Arab and Muslim countries have once more met in Riyadh to discuss the escalating conflict.

The so-called international alliance conceived by Saudi Arabia, with its aim of pressing for the establishment of a Palestinian state, failed to formulate a concrete plan of action to stop the Israeli invasion that has been extended to Lebanon.

Interestingly, the resolution issued at the conclusion of the joint summit of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and Arab League is restricted to the usual condemnation of Israeli aggression. It doesn’t even plainly describe the ongoing Israeli military action in Gaza, which has killed more than 43,000 people, mostly women and children, as a genocide.

There is no suggestion to sever the diplomatic and trade ties with Israel that some of these countries continue to have, despite the war crimes being committed by the Zionist forces. With the complete blockade of the Gaza Strip, more than a million people face death by starvation and disease. Mere condemnation cannot stop Israel’s genocidal war. It is nothing short of a betrayal of the hapless people of Palestine.

In fact, the inaction of the Muslim world has given impunity to the Zionist state, which is now threatening to annihilate the entire occupied territory. The latest summit was held a year after a similar gathering in Riyadh. Then, too, the leaders had merely condemned the Israeli military action in Gaza. They could not agree on even a minimum plan of action to stop Israeli atrocities.

The OIC-Arab League resolution does not go beyond the usual condemnation of Israel.

They did not even leverage their oil and economic capabilities to apply pressure on countries supplying arms to Israel to stop the war. One year of war crimes doesn’t seem to have brought any change in their position, which can be described as capitulation. The resolution is as toothless as the previous one.

The most shocking part of the resolution is the decision “to affirm support and express appreciation for the tireless efforts made by the Arab Republic of Egypt and the State of Qatar in cooperation with the United States of America to achieve an immediate and permanent ceasefire in the Gaza Strip… “. It couldn’t get more outrageous given that the ongoing genocide in Gaza is essentially supported by the US. It is massive American military aid that has helped Israel sustain its war.

Notwithstanding the occasional rebuke by US officials, there has never been any real American pressure on Israel to implement a ceasefire. In fact, the Biden administration has repeatedly vetoed resolutions in the UN calling for one. Some of the Arab rulers are believed to have tacitly supported what Israel has described as its war against Hamas. Moreover, America has its bases in Arab countries, and concerns have been raised that they could have supplied Israel with weapons to kill Palestinians. These countries have not prohibited the use of these bases.

Significantly, the latest summit took place soon after Donald Trump’s victory, which has been hailed by some member countries, prompting observers to conclude that it was meant to send a message to the incoming US administration. It seems that the ‘international alliance’ is now pinning its hopes on the incoming Trump administration to get Israel to agree to a ceasefire and accept the creation of a Palestinian state.

For instance, while addressing a Council of Foreign Ministers preparatory meeting a day before the summit, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar expressed the hope that the incoming US administration would “lend its weight to reinvigorate efforts for peace in the Middle East”. His remarks show his utter ignorance about Trump’s hard-line approach to the Middle East conflict.

Such expectations from the president-elect, who is considered even more pro-Israel than the outgoing Biden administration, are unrealistic. During his election campaign, Trump had called on Israel to finish the offensive and “get the job done”. He has stated that he would “defend our friend and ally in the State of Israel like nobody has ever”.

How can one forget that in his previous term he shifted the American embassy to occupied Jerusalem? The move defied Washington’s earlier position of not recognising one of the most sacred of Islam’s holy places as Israel’s capital. In his previous term, Trump had also endorsed Israeli settlements in occupied West Bank, which are illegal under international law. Under the so-called Abraham Accords, he oversaw the establishment of diplomatic relations between Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, and Morocco.

Although Saudi Arabia did not enter into such an agreement, it did indicate its willingness to recognise Israel in return for security and economic benefits, though insisting there would be no diplomatic ties without a Palestinian state. Some analysts believe that the Riyadh summit has sent a clear signal to the incoming Trump administration that it can rely on the kingdom as a strong partner in extending American interests in the region. The summit has pushed for greater American leverage in bringing the war to an end.

But it is very clear that the incoming Trump administration will not push for the establishment of a Palestinian state as envisaged by the ‘international alliance’. There has been no mention of the two-state solution in his recent statements on the Middle East conflict.

Since winning the election, Trump has spoken to the Israeli prime minister more than once. Therefore, it’s not surprising to see the right-wing Israeli government harden its position after Trump’s election.

In a recent statement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, saying it was “unrealistic”. Surely the inaction of the Arab and Muslim countries has made things worse for the Palestinians. The joint resolution indicates that these countries do not have any intention of using their leverage to put pressure on Israel and its allies to end the war.

The writer is an author and journalist.

zhussain100@yahoo.com

X: @hidhussain

Published in Dawn, November 13th, 2024

 

More than one third of Vietnam’s mammal species are at risk of extinction



Pensoft Publishers
VIETNAMAZING logo 

image: 

VIETNAMAZING logo

view more 

Credit: -





recent study highlights that over one-third of Vietnam’s 329 mammal species are threatened with extinction. Conducted by German scientist Hanna Höffner of the University of Cologne and Cologne Zoo, alongside an international team, the research underscores Vietnam's vital but fragile position as a biodiversity hub within the Indo-Burma Biodiversity Hotspot.

Published in the open-access journal Nature Conservation, the study reveals that 112 mammal species in Vietnam face extinction, despite most being found in at least one protected area. Some micro-endemic species, such as Murina harpioloides, are particularly vulnerable as they are not present in any protected sites. 

Around 40% of the threatened species lack ex situ conservation (zoo conservation breeding) programs, increasing their risk of extinction. Iconic species like the saola (Pseudoryx vuquangensis), the silver-backed chevrotain (Tragulus versicolor), and the large-antlered muntjac (Muntiacus vuquangensis) are among the Critically Endangered taxa at risk.

The study advocates for the IUCN's "One Plan Approach" to species conservation, which calls for combining different expertise and integrated in situ and ex situ management strategies. Establishing assurance colonies in zoos and increasing connectivity between isolated protected areas are critical recommendations for safeguarding Vietnam’s unique mammal diversity.

By building up ex situ populations for threatened taxa, zoos can help to literally “buy time” and act as modern arks that can contribute with later releases according to the IUCN’s “Reverse the Red” conservation campaign. Ex situ species holding data by Species360 are now also integrated in the IUCN Red List species’ chapters (a “One Plan” approach to species data).

Vietnam is home to a rich array of mammals, including 36 endemic species and nine micro-endemic taxa. Its primate fauna is particularly noteworthy, with 28 species, the highest number in mainland Southeast Asia. This includes the endemic tonkin snub-nosed monkey (Rhinopithecus avunculus) and Delacour’s langur (Trachypithecus delacouri). 

Northern Vietnam and the Annamite Mountain Range are biodiversity hotspots, hosting species such as the Critically Endangered Cao-vit gibbon (Nomascus nasutus), the southern white-cheeked gibbon (Nomascus siki) and the red-shanked douc (Pygathrix nemaeus).

The study calls for prioritising the "One Plan Approach" to conservation of highly threatened species, reassessing Data Deficient species, and enhancing habitat connectivity. The conservation campaign VIETNAMAZING by EAZA (European Association of Zoos and Aquaria) currently highlights Vietnam’s biodiversity treasure and advocates for improved conservation of threatened mammal species.

Original study

Höffner H, Nguyen ST, Dang PH, Motokawa M, Oshida T, Rödder D, Nguyen TQ, Le MD, Bui HT, Ziegler T (2024) Conservation priorities for threatened mammals of Vietnam: Implementation of the IUCN´s One Plan Approach. Nature Conservation 56: 161-180. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.56.128129 


Ex situ preservation of threatened Vietnamese mammals worldwide.

Credit

Höffner et al.

Hipposideros alongensis.

Credit

Son Truong Nguyen



Red shanked douc.

Credit

Đặng Huy Phương


Murina harpioloides.

Credit

Son Truong Nguyen

Gaur.

Credit

Đặng Huy Phương