Insurgentjg

“Right to life” is a phrase that describes the belief that a human being has an essential right to live, particularly that a human being has the right not to be killed by another human being. The concept of a right to life is central to debates on the issues of capital punishment, euthanasia, self defense, abortion and war.

By liberty we mean how can he or she feel free of doing whatever he or she likes and practices all their deeds freely and as well freedom of expression.

By security we mean how can a person feel secure in his territory and feel free of any kind of threat. Security of person can also be seen as an expansion of rights based on prohibitions of torture and cruel and unusual punishment.. All these rights play very important and significant role in a person’s life and in a society.

 If we give an overview of these rights in Pakistan we will come to know how these rights are been violated in our society. Present regime in which Pakistan’s military has acted with increasing impunity to enforce its writ over the state and to protect its grip on Pakistan’s economic resources, especially land. For instance, in the Okara district of the military’s traditional stronghold of Punjab, paramilitary forces acting in conjunction with the army killed and tortured farmers who refused to cede their land rights to the army. Other pressing human rights concerns in the country include

• a rise in sectarian violence;
• legal discrimination against and mistreatment of women and religious minorities;
• arbitrary detention of political opponents;
• harassment and intimidation of the media;
• Lack of due process in the conduct of the “war on terror” in collaboration with the United States. A major military offensive against alleged Taliban and Al-Qaeda forces in the South Waziristan area bordering Afghanistan resulted in massive displacement of civilians and scores of deaths.

 Gender-Based Violence and Discrimination  
Violence against women and girls, including domestic violence, rape, “honor killings,” acid attacks, and trafficking, are rampant in Pakistan. The existing legal code discriminates against women and girls and creates major obstacles to seeking redress in cases of violence. Survivors of violence encounter unresponsiveness and hostility at each level of the criminal justice system, from police who fail to register or investigate cases of gender-based violence to judges with little training or commitment to women’s equal rights.  
Under Pakistan’s existing Hudood Ordinance, proof of rape generally requires the confession of the accused or the testimony of four adult Muslim men who witnessed the assault and if she is unable toprove her innocence she is to be charged for adultery, the criminal penalty for which is either a long prison sentence and public whipping, or, though rare, death by stoning. According to Pakistan’s Interior Ministry, there have been more than 4,000 honor killings in the last six years. Nongovernmental groups recorded more than 1,300 honor killings in 2003.
Religious Freedom  
Sectarian violence increased significantly in Pakistan in 2004. While estimates suggest that at least 4,000 people, largely from the minority Shi’a Muslim sect, have died as a result of sectarian violence since 1980, the last five years have witnessed a steep rise in incidents of sectarian violence. For example, in October 2004, at least seventy people were killed in sectarian attacks perpetrated by both Sunni and Shi’a extremist groups in the cities of Multan and Karachi. In recent years, Sunni extremists, often with connections to militant organizations such as Sipah-e Sahaba Pakistan, have targeted the Shi’a. There has been a sharp increase in the number of targeted killings of Shi’a, particularly Shi’a doctors, in recent years. Discrimination and persecution on grounds of religion continued in 2004 and an increasing number of blasphemy cases were registered. Other religious minorities including Christians and Hindus, also continue to face discrimination. 

Military Impunity  
During President Musharraf’s tenure, Pakistan’s military increased its influence over the political and economic life of all Pakistanis. The starkest example of military impunity came from the brutal repression of a farmers’ movement in Okara district of Punjab province, where tens of thousands of tenant farmers have resisted efforts by the military to usurp their legal rights to some of the most fertile farmland in Pakistan. Pakistani paramilitary forces subjected the farmers to a campaign of murder, arbitrary detention, torture, “forced divorces,” and summary dismissals from employment. On two occasions, the paramilitaries literally besieged villages in the area of dispute, thus preventing people, food, and public services from entering or leaving for weeks on end. In Okara, senior military and political officials have either participated in or allowed violations to occur.  
 
“War on Terror”  
The conduct of the “war on terror” in Pakistan led to serious violations of human rights. Suspects arrested and held on terrorism charges frequently were detained without charge and subject to trials without proper judicial process.  
In September 2003, Pakistani authorities detained thirteen young men and boys from Malaysia and Indonesia, the youngest of whom were under sixteen at the time of arrest, legally attending an Islamic school in Karachi. They were not alleged to have engaged in any illegal activity, but were arrested on the claim that they were being trained to engage in future terrorist activities. No charges have been brought against any of them.  
Since March 2004, the Pakistan Army has engaged in an ongoing operation in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) along the Afghan border, with particularly heavy fighting in the South Waziristan region. The Pakistan government did not apply international humanitarian law to the conflict, arguing it was an anti-terrorist operation. These events in the South Waziristan, reports of extrajudicial executions, house demolitions, arbitrary detentions, and the harassment of journalists abound.  
 According to government sources, at least sixty-three foreign and local combatants were killed in the operation. In addition, as the “spring offensive” got underway, army and paramilitary troops reportedly evicted between 25,000 and 35,000 civilians from the area

in and around the village of Kalusha on March 16, 2004.
 
Arbitrary Arrest and Detention of Political Opponents  
The government continued to use the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and a host of anti-corruption and sedition laws to jail political opponents or blackmail them into changing their political stance or loyalties or at the very least to cease criticizing the military authorities.  
 In April 2004, the president of an opposition party, Makhdoom Javed Hashmi of the Alliance for the Restoration of Democracy, was sentenced to twenty-three years in prison on sedition charges for reading an anti-Musharraf letter to assembled journalists. Meanwhile, Asif Zardari, husband of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto has begun his ninth consecutive year in prison. Initially the government filed twelve cases against Zardari, most based on charges of corruption and financial impropriety.

More than 5,000 people detained during Pakistan’s state of emergency, including opposition leader Imran Khan, in November 2007.  
 
Freedom of Expression
The right of free expression and dissemination of information were persistently undermined through the arrest of editors and reporters from local and regional newspapers on charges of sedition.  
Rasheed Azam, a journalist and claimed he was abused and tortured, including being beaten while hung upside down and subjected to sleep deprivation. He was released after several months in custody though charges of sedition filed against him are still being processed.

Similarly, Amir Mir, a journalist was reportedly publicly threatened by President Musharraf on November 20, 2003. Two days later, three unidentified persons set Amir Mir’s car ablaze outside his house.  
Two French journalists, Marc Epstein and Jean-Paul Guilloteau, and their Pakistani assistant, Khawar Mehdi Rizvi, were arrested in Karachi on December 16, 2003 who  were preparing a report on alleged links between Pakistani government agents and the Taliban operating in neighboring Afghanistan.   
While the Pakistani government did not formally restrict access to South Waziristan during the “spring offensive,” journalists were repeatedly detained or prevented from reporting through tactics such as the destruction or confiscation of equipment. Journalists were eventually allowed limited access to the affected villages on March 28 upon the conclusion of the first phase of the operation. However, media access to FATA in general and South Waziristan in particular remains limited as military operations continue.  

Conclusion

From the all the above points we can see that how important it is to practice these rights in society like Pakistan. Where people are deprived of there rights have to face a lot of hardships. A meaning-filled life is more than mere existence; it involves purpose, direction, and a sense of belonging. Humanistic family values embrace individual rights to autonomy, dignity, free choice, liberty, fraternity, the pursuit of happiness, and security. Our human family has devised a multitude of different ways to accomplish these goals through law, education, role modeling, as well as through words, acts, and symbols of encouragement and support. Each positive effort must be appreciated and inherent differences tolerated. To establish such values and the ethical standards that protect all human beings for the 21st century we must be prepared to learn from the past, evaluate the present, and project the highest and best that we know into our aspirations for the future. We must examine our values on the basis of international, national, and personal commitments.

What we do now is important. We must, each one of us, pledge ourselves to action in helping to move humankind towards a way of living where the humanistic family ethic overlays the nationalistic, linguistic, religious, and ethnic differences that separate us. For the world of the 21st century, humanistic values must project the vision of a peaceful world in which every man, woman or child, or class of men, women, or children shall be a wanted, welcomed, and esteemed member of the one human family. For the world where each person is given right to live with self respect, dignity and honor.

 References:
www.hrw.org
 

This article is based on class discussions ad readings by Anum Atiq

A child dies every three seconds; 1.3 million people are directly affected; and every year there are 25 million more victims. We are not talking about war or natural disasters here! This terrifying phenomenon is extreme poverty – living on less than a dollar a day – the daily struggle for one in every five people in the world. The world has never been as rich as it is today, yet it is poverty which is growing and not technology. Poverty enables individuals not to develop their full potential and prevents them from realizing their plans.

One fails to understand the fact that when humanity is on the verge of discovering the secrets of life, then how is it that there is complete incapacity to ensure the well-being of people around us. We are living in a ruthless world where everyone is running after the one and only thing which is “money”. We make money but don’t know where to spend it. Hence, the wealth is only being stored in the banks. We lack the awareness about the systems around us. We make ourselves clothes, jewelry, houses, educate ourselves from high level institutions and feed ourselves on food which is fit for a king!!! But to understand the condition of a family living in poverty is beyond our minds. We do not think or maybe we don’t want to think that 1 out of every 3 people living in the sub-Saharan desert remains hungry. That, 8 million children die each year due to poverty related diseases every year. We have shut our minds tightly to the fact that the term “poverty” is part of our society.

Poverty began to be defined as the lack of income, but by the late 90s it was very clear that poverty was not just about lack of resources; it was about increased vulnerability to violence and other kinds of violations of human rights. Poverty is a cause and a product of human rights violations.
Most human right activists feel that poverty creates circumstances which lead to human rights violation. For instance, poor people are usually discriminated against. When an armed conflict breaks out, it is the poor who are affected the most. When it comes to paying bribes, the poor bear the burden disproportionately. These people often live in economies of illegality, spending most of their disposable income on buying protection either from the police or the local gangster, in order to retain their shelter or protect their physical integrity. Generally they find it harder or impossible to participate in the labor market and have little or no access to basic services and resources.
On the other hand, some Human right Activists feel that human rights violations may cause poverty. For instance, in a case where a person is illegally detained, victims of discrimination or persecution, thereby infringing his freedom of movement, and right to a fair trial, his family may be driven into destitution if he is the sole bread-winner for the family. In Kashmir, Pakistan, a father, son and brother who was earning just sustain his family was taken into prison on the suspicion that he was a terrorist by the Indian army. The whole family suffered because of that and till now he has not been freed yet.
It is very depressing to know that poverty is rarely seen or thought through the lens of human rights. Rather, it is often perceived as tragic and sometimes even as the responsibility of those who suffer it. At best those living in poverty — countries and individuals — are portrayed as unfortunate or most of the time as lazy and undeserving.

In Pakistan, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. Talking to one of the house maids, it was discovered that the whole family had not had an egg since the last Ramadan. Another one said that due to less income they were not able to afford to send their children to school. Thus the poor in many societies cannot enjoy their rights to education, health and housing simply because they cannot afford them. And poverty affects all human rights.
It is necessary to keep in mind that the poor people also possess the rights to livelihood, food, shelter, health and employment. But they are unlikely to be granted these if their voices are unheard, if they are discriminated against and if the governments and institutions are not accountable for perpetuating violations.

It is seen that poverty is part of the development right which every individual has and which has been confirmed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and most recently in the Declaration for the Right to Development. The status of poverty has increased the approach towards it. Such an empowering approach is needed given the disparity between those who possess resources and the 1.3 million who live in absolute poverty.

Human development makes the full realization of human rights possible. And without human rights, human development to its full extent is not possible.
Many organizations like the UNESCO, Millennium Declaration and the Millennium development Goals, United Nations Development Programs etc are working together to make poverty history. These various organizations have been working in Africa, India and other parts of the world to fight poverty. The realization of human rights – including the fight against poverty — is a duty, not a mere aspiration.
Few Facts
§ 3 billion people receive 1.2% of the world’s global revenue while one billion people living in rich countries receive 80%.
§ 150 million children suffer from aggravated malnutrition.
§ 100 million children live in the street.
§ 20% of the world’s population consume 90% of the world’s resources
§ 22% of the world’s population do not have access to safe drinking water

Bibliography:
§ http://www.udhr.org/UDHR/default.htm
§ http://muse.jhu.edu/demo/human_rights_quarterly/
§ http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
§ http://www.unhchr.ch/development/right.html
§ http://www.pdhre.org/rights/development.html
§ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/fxbcenter/FXBC_WP7–Sengupta.pdf
§ http://www.pdhre.org/rights/women_and_poverty.html

Reference:
§ UNESCO, Social and Human Sciences Sector Magazine. Page 8, 9, 10 and 11
§ Poverty and human rights by Peter Townsend (preliminary report)
§ UNESCO, Bureau of public Information. Eradicating Povery, page # 1 and 2
§ UNDP, Poverty Reduction and Human Rights

This article is based on readings and class discussions by Zofia Javaid

The devastating attack on the World Trade Centre in 2001 changed the whole picture of the world’s politics. Nine days after the September eleven attacks the American President George W. Bush launched a ‘War on Terror’. This war was authorized on September 18, 2001, by the United States Congress under the Authorization for Use of Military Force against Terrorists. This war basically begun to erase the very roots of the terrorist groups with global reach, however it extended to include the Iraqi regime as well. The Iraqis have witnessed two wars in the past. One of which was the bloody Gulf War, therefore they know what a war is and its terrible cost. 650,000 Iraqi civilians have been estimated dead in this war.

The war on terror has encouraged torture, rape and other extreme human right abuses that have gone beyond its main objective. Even the most disciplined and restrained soldiers take advantage of their power and the surrounding conditions of war has allowed others to take advantage as well. It is a fact that most forces of war do not have self control. The forces use hunger and deprivation of water as weapons of war against the civilian population. Most of them on purpose use certain tactics to intimidate those they consider their rivals for example the Iraqis are exposed to white phosphorus that can burn the flesh by the U.S soldiers.

 “In Iraq, a fresh outbreak of violence, includes an attack on a family in the native village of former president Saddam Hussein, has left 22 people dead and 14 others injured. Nine people from one family were shot dead in the village of Ouja north of Baghdad, the police said. Gunmen stormed in the early hours of Thursday the home of a building contractor and killed him and his wife and children.” On the other hand in the bewildered situation of war the Iraqis take their revenge from the U.S soldiers to resolve their grievances through revenge killing or other forms of revolt.

 Someone who has lost a loved one in the recent bomb blasts in Pakistan can understand the pain that the Iraqis are going through. The lives of the people who are dependant on that person come to an unexpected end forever. War creates orphans and bereaved family members. War on terror is an unjust operation especially infants who play no role in waging a war invariably suffer. The trauma in so intense that the children can not get out of the shock all their life. Mothers plead the officers to pick the dead bodies lying on the streets so that their children will be spared from the horror of looking at them on their way to school.

 The lives of the Iraqis have been changed forever; they do not have even the basic needs, they depend on the aid to get their food supplies. Even cultivation has become impossible which is terrible for a country which has two major rivers running through it. The water supplies have been damaged. The domestic and health conditions have been extremely deteriorated. The death toll especially in infants is extremely high: 1 in 8 children die by the age 5. Local and international aid flooded into Iraq in 2004, the year following the invasion, but much of the supply was blocked off after the kidnapping of many aid activists in the country. The food the Iraqis did get was often not what they needed, or wanted. The Iraqis do not feel comfortable receiving food aid when they exported food in the past. Iraq has been a field of aid NGOs since the U.S. occupation began and many of those NGOs brought foodstuff that is not what Iraqis were used to but they had to take it due to the need they were facing. Under the occupation, Iraqis are getting much of their food from companies in Australia and other countries who assisted the United States during the invasion and occupation. This food has often been of low quality.

 68 % of the Iraqis are without clean water and 81 percent are without working sewers. The already damaged water and sanitation system can further be damaged if the power stations are hit. This can lead to epidemics such as cholera and hepatitis. According to the United Nations, “the outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions is very likely”. The greatest risk is to the water and sanitation due to war. There is an increase in the development of weapons of mass destruction, therefore the war itself and its preparation is the largest source of pollution on earth. The chemical toxins that are dropped may effect the population for two decades and may have disastrous effects on the future generations. Millions of Iraqis are suffering from catastrophic situations that are further getting worse. The medical professionals are fleeing from Iraq after witnessing the abduction of their colleagues.

 There have been political, financial and operational problems surrounding the provision of aid and the reconstruction of Iraq. In particular there has been a difficulty in striking a balance between the US and the UK fulfilling their responsibilities to provide aid and assist in rebuilding and their control of the process to the detriment of its effectiveness. In October 2003, the US pledged 20 billion dollars for reconstruction in Iraq. This amount is equal to one and a half times the USA’s annual development aid budget. Pledges by other donors were far smaller, but those like the UK, the European Commission or Spain that have pledged an amount equivalent to 20% of their annual development budget for Iraq will have to dig deep. The politicization of relief complicates the provision of aid, and may yet scupper the effective reconstruction of Iraq. Using humanitarian aid as a political or military tool to woo the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Iraqi population risks prolonging suffering, entrenching unilateralism and reducing the willingness of states to contribute towards the rebuilding of Iraq.

 With the horrible conditions prevailing in Iraq it would not be wrong to say that this is not a war on terror rather this is a war of terror.

_______________________________________ 

References

http://www.casi.org.uk/briefing/030416aid.html
http://www.iraqanalysis.org/
http://www.whereistheoutrage.net/wordpress/category/war-on-terror/
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/48

This article is based on class readings and discussions by Anum Khan
 

“Media provides a pre-packaged hysteria that has dominated both U.S rhetoric and mainstream media, who, at times, are joining forces to create cynicism about the global war on terror. In short, it is a business, a product. If people are scared, they are going to want to know what is going on, driving both the medium and the message; even if it is, at times, difficult to tell exactly who is wagging the dog.”[i]

It is in the nature of masses, as well as individuals, to escalate between the extremes and while doing that they miss the part that is the truth. The notion of something ‘extraordinary’ sounds so attractive that we almost become victims of our own instincts. How many of us thought, as our first reaction to Benazir’s murder, that our own ‘existence’ is endangered?”Americans Are Coming”, “Civil war Ensues” and “Pakistan People Party Is Over” are few of the reactions that I noticed.

Role of media is to feed on these instincts that already exist in masses. It builds on those instincts, enhances them but it does not create them altogether. Once the stage is set, its easier to add or subtract the desired ingredients. Everybody wants to hear what their hearts are saying. Something unusual happens in a normal day and you get the feeling that it has larger repercussions. You log on to BBC Website and somewhere some sage is telling you about the exact fears that were latent in your heart. You realize your sense of ‘happenings’ of current affairs is enhanced and that u can brag about it among your peers, and then you move on with your routine life. There is a way to bypass these inherent inclinations by adopting more rational approach. Anybody heard of Aristotle’s “Golden Mean”? But let me not get into that.

Perhaps there is only one question, in question here. Why the phrase “War on Terror’?

At first the U.S. used the word “crusade” but it was quickly pointed out that if they hope to enlist their allies in the Islamic world, it would be a serious mistake, for obvious reasons.  The rhetoric therefore shifted to “war.”The proper term would be “crime”-perhaps “crime against humanity,” as Robert Fisk (British journalist and is currently a Middle East correspondent for British news paper, The Independent) has stressed. But that does not sound so appealing now does it? also it requires solid evidence and it opens doors to dangerous questions: to mention only the most obvious one, who were the perpetrators of the crime of international terrorism condemned by the World Court 21 years ago (in 1986 the U.S. was condemned by the World Court for “unlawful use of force” (international terrorism) and then vetoed a Security Council resolution calling on all states (meaning the U.S.) to adhere to international law)?

For such reasons, it is better to use a vague term, like “war.”  To call it a “war against terrorism,” however, is simply more propaganda, unless the “war” really does target terrorism. Now the ‘War on Terror” is still raw because Western powers can never abide by their own official definitions of the term, as in the U.S. Code* or Army manuals.  To do so would at once reveal that the U.S. is a leading terrorist state, as are its clients.

Perhaps I may quote political scientist Michael Stohl in support of my point: “We must recognize that by convention- and it must be emphasized only by convention-great power use and the threat of the use of force is normally described as coercive diplomacy and not as a form of terrorism…..”

Therefore it was essential for the United States Government to gather support among the masses to continue her acts of terrorism in a legal fashion and thus the need of media-help. The immediate reaction of the public after 9/11 was shock, horror, anger, fear, a desire for revenge. Media loves such short and catchy terms. Stage was set and yes super-hot topics like it sell so fast! I’m surprised that the obvious contradictions in the phrase did not go through the eyes of so many Western Newspapers, journalists, political pundits etc with a few exceptions of scholars like Noam Chomsky.

It is entirely typical for the major media and the intellectual classes generally, to line up in support of power at a time of crisis and try to mobilize the population for the same cause.

Speaking of Chomsky, he is the first modern political philosopher to identify role of the media as an instrument of state control. He believes that the media always supports the current state policies whether they are right or wrong. Only times of clashes are when the Government is in direct conflict with the ‘men of power’ within the official network i.e. Men of power vs. Men of power. He gives the example of WaterGate scandal where Nixon lost the battle only because he made the choice of making wrong enemies and not because he was corrupt. He points out that there were other bigger issues of corruption at the time that the media could have brought to the fore. All this he explains, in detail, in his book “On Language” published in 1977.

Back to the original question, its answer and the conclusion; the phrase “War on Terror” is ‘good business’, it’s got ‘Government support’ and it feeds on the latent weakness of the masses i.e. fear, and hence it’s got a lot of potential for manipulation. Seen in this context the role of media becomes very clear. Bombardments, repeated publication, Omni-presence of ‘War on Terror’ even if it will answer the most fervent prayers of bin Laden and his network. Bin Laden’s network draws from a reservoir of anger, fear, and desperation, which is why they are praying for a violent U.S. reaction, which will mobilize others to their horrendous cause. Not to mention, means justify the ends. And it’s all good business in the end.  No?

* “[An] act of terrorism, means any activity that (A) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life that sis a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any State, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or of any State; and (B) appears to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by assassination or kidnapping.” (United States Code Congressional and Administrative News, 98th Congress, Second Session, 1984, Oct 19, volume 2; par 3077, 98 STAT. 2707 [West Publishing Co., 1984]).

[i] Excerpt from a thesis on Role of Media, University of the Sindh.  

Bibliography 

This essay is based on the group discussions and readings by Sana Naveed 

Robert Fantina in his article “A colony by any other name” states the New York Times report about the new US demands from Iraq. He says that Bush’s vision of democratic Iraq that “the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law.”

This statement brings forth two alarming concepts that should alarm the United Nations, Halls of Congress and the Arab World. Gaining broader authority to start combat action in Afghanistan and Iraq was easy with the backing of republican controlled congress. Readers must be wandering about the reaction of United Nations. The body has very little impact when America has veto power in the system. There is little which can be done to stop Mr. Bush from imperial destruction of countries in question. Member nations will not give in easily to United State’s new demands but this is achievable through the congress and the military. Invading nations give themselves all the rights to roughshod over the citizens of the invaded nation. The world has witnessed the horrifying scenes of abuse and violations of human rights in past. “Germany invaded Poland, Austria, France and other nations during World War II, it, like the U.S. today, simply gave itself the authority to do so. When Russia invaded Afghanistan it was simply, like the U.S., giving itself the authority to invade a sovereign nation. Even when Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, it had simply granted itself the right to do so, although long-standing disputes over borders and oil were the reason for that invasion. The U.S. was less amenable to the idea of such an invasion at that time than it has been more recently.”[1]   These violations not only creates disturbance in the invaded countries but also the neighbouring nations suffer equally. As the distress and violations increase in the invaded countries people flee to the safety of neighbouring nations. Unlike U.S. citizens many of Iraq’s neighbouring countries have experience the unrest and burdened economies when Iraqi nationals fled their country to find safety.The second point which makes us ponder is the fact that U.S. contractors in liberated Iraq are to be provided with protection from Iraqi law. Any logical mind will wonder that why should a foreigners be allowed to violate the local laws.  Cont…

[1] A colony by another name, Robert Fantina, www.counterpunch.com