Banner Advertise

Monday, November 3, 2008

[chottala.com] World human rights in danger : Case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui has entered into a crucial stage

World human rights in danger

Comment
Nasir Mahmood

THE case of "Daughter of Pakistan" Dr. Aafia Siddiqui has entered into a crucial stage. It has become one of the most famous trials of the new century. Any bad precedent in this matter is likely to affect the future of human rights for very long time and almost everywhere in the world. Time is of essence here, because it seems as if evidence is being destroyed very fast.

We need to be absolutely clear that the real issue here is the set of allegations in which Aafia is victim, not accused. By remaining silent on that issue, the whole world is allowing a victim to become accused. Concerned citizens of the world need to explore whether there is a proper channel for taking up this issue beyond slogans, protests and demonstrations. If no such channel exists then it needs to be created.

For America, it is a moment of truth. The international community has been hearing so much about the "deposed" Chief Justice of Pakistan, Iftikhar Chaudhry, who used to take suo motto action on such cases, forcing his government and its much-dread intelligence agencies to become answerable to the court. For that he risked his job, personal freedom and the future of his children.

Global observers are likely to notice that no judge in US seems to be as willing to take suo motto action in this case as Justice Chaudhry of Pakistan would have been even if such thing had been found in his jurisdiction. Tables are turning: at the going rate it might not be very long before US finds itself lagging behind developing countries in matters of awareness about human rights among the masses. For its own good, US ought to revise its take on this case.

United Nations was a giant step towards peace, but what about "United Humanity"? We need to alter certain perceptions now and we need to set new precedents. We need to take some vital measures without losing any further time.

Human rights groups in US should file petition in a US court to the effect that Aafia's trial is unfair and should be dismissed. It needs to be dismissed immediately, and in any case latest by November 7, i.e. forty days before the date which has been set for hearing whether or not Aafia is mentally fit to stand trial.

There is reason to suspect that some foul play is going on which is likely to accomplish its ends by that date and evidence related to actual culprits will have been destroyed, possibly including memory of the victim herself.

Separately, a complaint should be lodged against culprits who victimized Aafia earlier, and a plea should be made for the recovery of her two missing children. All peaceful and healthy means should be used for educating people in as many countries as possible about the AAFIA issue – especially the message that a victim should not be victimized and the meaning of justice should not be distorted.

If any rights group decides to make a separate committee for pursuing this case, then that committee should also look into the wider implications and related issues, and hence "AAFIA" might be a good acronym for "Affirmative Action for the Freedom and Independence of All" (Aafia literally means comprehensive safety). Fresh grounds need to be broken for safeguarding human rights in these new times.

Terrorism is a serious threat which should not be trivialized the way it has been through the victimization of Aafia Siddiqui and her minor children. Genuine efforts being made against terrorism will also earn a bad name, if not fall flat on their face, if moral superiority is lost and it will be lost if injustice in the case of Aafia Siddiqui completes its course.

The case is so complex, and its details so gruesome, that many still may not have realized what the possible outcome of her mistreatment might turn out to be. A great setback for human rights may be suffered because in our times such rights rest on the premise that people are entities who should be respected, their humanity cannot be usurped by any government and a person cannot be objectified before the mystique of state. Losing this one case of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui can mean losing the very premise of human rights, and losing it in bright limelight.

She is a highly educated woman who made it to the upper strata of middle class in two societies – Pakistan and US. What happened to her can happen to anyone, and it may happen more easily in future if bad precedent is set now.

On March 30, 2003, Dr. Aafia Siddiqui disappeared from Karachi along with her three minor children. Media reported that she had been taken by the US authorities with compliance of Pakistani authorities since the FBI had wanted to seek some information from her. In the face of general outcry, the US and Pakistani authorities quickly backtracked but then a year later Pakistani Foreign Office admitted publicly that Aafia had been handed over to the US.

She became a concern for human rights organizations including Amnesty International who kept the case alive for five years. On July 6, 2008, political party Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf presented a British journalist in Islamabad who said there was reason to believe that Aafia was the "Prisoner 650" at Bagram (Afghanistan) and had undergone brutal rape and torture for five years. Outcry reaches a high water mark and urgent appeals were sent by Asian Human Rights Commission on July 22, to President George Bush and other persons of authority.

On August 4, the US authorities officially admitted of having Aafia in their custody but the US Department of Justice brought forth a charge sheet against her, claiming that she was arrested on July 17 (and not before) while loitering around near the residence of Ghazni's Governor. They alleged that papers found in her handbag included instructions on making bombs and notes about installations in US.

They explained her wounds by saying that a day after her arrest she took an M4 rifle which belonged to US military personnel and fired two rounds at close range, which missed, and she had to be shot in the torso.

On August 16, the US envoy to Pakistan made a public statement saying that the US had no "definitive knowledge" of the whereabouts of Aafia's children but only a few days later the Afghan authorities revealed that an 11-year-old boy had also been "arrested" with Aafia and this boy was then repatriated to be received by Aafia's family as her eldest son.

The story narrated about this alleged episode is not plausible, and contradictions self-evident. Yet Aafia has been suffering pain and humiliation in US prison for more than two months now. There are fears that she is now being brainwashed in order to render her incapable of giving evidence against any atrocities that might have been committed against her.

The anomalies in the trial are quite open. Basically; victim has become the accused; allegations are not being addressed in proper order; and allegations against US authorities by human rights groups and concerned citizens are going un-addressed. Those who say that they hope to get justice from US legal system in this case are overlooking the fact that the trial is not being held to provide justice to Aafia. It is being held against her.


Actually the allegations are not addressed in proper order. The case involves three allegations, not one. These need to be addressed in the order in which they appeared:

1. The FBI's declaration that it needed Dr. Aafia Siddiqui for interrogation (2003)

2. Allegations raised by human rights organizations and Pakistan Tehrik-e-Insaf that Aafia Siddiqui was being illegally detained, raped and tortured by US authorities (with possible compliance of Pakistani authorities) for five years, and that her three minor children were in illegal detention. July 6, 2008 is the high water mark for this allegation.

3. Allegation raised by US authorities against Dr. Aafia Siddiqui that she tried to assassinate US army personnel on July 18, 2008. This allegation was brought forth on August 4, 2008.

The first of these has not been legally pursued by authorities even after they admitted having custody of Aafia. Hence it may be considered as dropped. The second allegation, which is against US authorities, has never been answered seriously except for a flat rebuttal in inappropriate and condescending tone (consider the US envoy's open letter of August 16).

Now the third allegation is being addressed in a court of law without addressing the second. This leads to great confusion. The victim has been given into the custody of the party accused of committing offenses against her, and mandate is given to them to further curtail her liberties as a "high security risk".

Let's understand that it's not as if US Government said that it would rather like to keep Aafia in a rehabilitation center in America for treatment of torments suffered by her during five-year-long illegal detention. The victim is now in custody of the party accused of committing the following atrocities against her.

Abduction and illegal detention of the victim, Abduction and illegal detention of the victim's minor children, Attempt of coercing the victim to sign false evidence, Threatening the victim with murder of her children, Sexual abuse, rape and torture, Attempted brainwashing, Possibly, murder of two of the victim's minor children.

Now the first step should have been to ensure that the party accused of committing these offenses didn't have any further access to her with malevolent intent. The opposite has happened. Aafia's transfer from military to civil authorities doesn't ensure that her abusers have lost influence.

Following incidents which can be seen as injustice or malpractice have occurred after August 6, when Aafia was first presented in New York.

Victim was remanded on implausible charges, Bail was not even sought by her lawyers, US envoy gave a questionable statement about victim's children, It's possible that the victim's eldest son was brainwashed before being handed over by Afghan authorities, Motion to establish the victim as mentally unfit to stand trial, if accepted, will disqualify her from giving evidence later against her abusers, At Creswell, the victim can be at risk of being brainwashed or rendered incapable of providing evidence.

Two children of the victim are still missing. If they are still alive then it is possible that they are being used as hostages to pressurize her. Allegations of her illegal detention, rape, etc, and the abduction of her children, is going unaddressed. Can she get justice from US legal system?

That question will arise only after a case is brought up to seek justice for her. The current trial has been registered against the victim and not against her abusers.
 
 
 
 
Amnesty International Human Rights Watch News
Aafia's son freed by Kabul, flown to Islamabad
Pakistan Dawn, Pakistan - Sep 15, 2008
By Syed Irfan Raza ISLAMABAD, Sept 15: A 12-year-old son of neuroscientist Dr Aafia Siddiqui was handed over to his aunt Fauzia Siddiqui here on Monday ...
Full security for Dr. Aafia's son: interior ministry sources The News International
Afghanistan frees young son of al-Qaida suspect The Associated Press
Aafia Siddiqui's Son Released to His Aunt OhmyNews International
New York Times - Online - International News Network
all 371 news articles »
 
__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___

[chottala.com] Fw:Sustainable Transport Letter

On Sun, 11/2/08, maruf rahman <marufrbd@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sent: Monday, September 22, 2008 3:10:18 PM
Subject: Fwd: International Symposium for Sustainable Transport for Developing Countries and STP initiatives for Dhaka City

 

Kigali                                                                        

22 September 2008

 

To

 

Coordinator/Organiser

International Symposium for Sustainable Transport for Developing Countries

Co-organisers:

Bangladesh University of Engineering & Technology (BUET)

Loughborough University, UK

Hiroshima University, Japan

British Council, Bangladesh

 

Subject: International Symposium for Sustainable Transport for Developing Countries and STP initiatives for Dhaka City

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

On behalf of Roads for People, a movement dedicated to the development of an eco-friendly and sustainable transport system in Dhaka City, I would like to draw your attention to some of the features of your recently concluded (28 - 29 August, 2008 in BUET) symposium.

First of all I would like to congratulate the organisers of the symposium for undertaking initiatives for sustainable transport development in developing countries.. However, it is a matter of deep concern that in the name of sustainable transport development, the forum was mainly used to promote unsustainable, capital intensive, car-friendly and anti-fuel free transport policy directives, notably the Strategic Transport Plan (STP) for Dhaka City. The STP initiatives cannot be regarded as sustainable transport initiatives under any circumstances because the approach:

·Shows total disregard to the majority of trips, i.e. all short trips (76% of the total trips) and fuel free transport (48% of the trips);

·Takes a stand against sustainable transport modes by banning fuel free transport and restricting intercity buses and railways, etc.;

·Invests the maximum amount of resources (237% more) for the less optimal transport solution;

·Promotes car friendly and unsustainable policy directives like change of modal share in favour of cars, promotion of more car parking facilities, etc.;

·Promotes auto-friendly, inefficient and environmentally disastrous projects like the Eastern Bypass, elevated expressways and other unnecessary road projects,  defying the findings of the STP study itself;

·Develops transport alternatives considering only the supply side of the problem under the assumption of unconstrained demand, which would likely promote unsustainable use of scarce resources;

·Takes important transport policy decisions solely on the basis of arbitrary reasoning without any valid supporting scientific analysis;

·Promotes long distance trips and encourages the need for more travel, which is likely to induce more congestion and pollution;

·Provides a disproportionate amount of resources for car-friendly and capital intensive projects and allocates inadequate provisions and funding for sustainable transport systems such as walking, fuel-free vehicles (bicycles and rickshaws), low cost public transit and an integrated waterway system;

·Promotes inequality and social injustice.

 

A detailed review of the main features of the STP and ongoing unsustainable transport interventions is attached herewith, which you may find useful.

In this connection, it might be appropriate to learn lessons from the dismal failure of Dhaka Urban Transport Project (DUTP) (DUTP 2006, Bari and Efroymson 2006). The approach adopted in the DUTP was very much similar to that of the recommended solutions of STP. Key features of the project include: construction of a number of flyovers, banning of fuel-free transport from main roads, forcing the pedestrians to take elevated crossings, widening of roads at the expense of footpaths, etc. It may be mentioned here that the total travel time disbenefits of the project were at least twenty times more than the tiny savings of travel times. The moral from the dismal failure of DUTP is that in planning for a multimodal transport system, there is no scope to take decisions on the basis of prejudices while defying standard approaches of transport appraisal. Yet a similar unscientific approach is evident both in DUTP and in STP.

The main conclusion of the project is that there is no justification for wasting public money in the name of so-called development projects, such as DUTP, which cause colossal damage to the economy (well over Tk 7.78 billion per year), reduce mobility of people and goods, divide neighbourhoods and sever service facilities, inflict environmental degradation, destroy the basic fabric of sustainable development, deny vulnerable sections of the society their fundamental rights to accessibility and income, promote social inequality, and exacerbate poverty and hunger. An independent assessor appointed by the World Bank (World Bank 2007) also came down heavily on the justification of the key initiative of the project which attempted to ban fuel-free transport in favour of a tiny minority of car owners, who represent less than 5% of the population.

The dual role currently being played by a section of academics related to some higher learning institutions in Bangladesh is a matter of serious concern. These academics seem to be directly involved in formulating unsustainable, capital-intensive and environmentally disastrous policy directives like the banning of fuel-free transport, promotion of more free car parking facilities, and construction of flyovers and elevated expressways. It is difficult to understand how it could be appropriate to, one the one hand, be key members of STP or DUTP, while at the same time being directly involved in lucrative consultancy services for these wasteful and capital-intensive infrastructure projects. Such consultants would seem to assign more time to promoting lucrative infrastructure projects rather than for research and academic activities. Such behaviour not only represents a serious conflict of interest but also acts as a hindrance for the congenial development of academic and research activities, particularly at the postgraduate level. I would like to draw the attention of such malpractices to the University Grant Commission and other relevant authorities and hope that concerned academics will keep them above criticism and uphold the dignity and sanctity of higher learning institutions of Bangladesh.

The use of a sustainable transport development forum to promote such unsustainable STP or DUTP policy directives represents both insult and injury to the genuine movement for sustainable transport development. Those of us in that movement strongly deplore such practice and hope that organisers will in future be careful to avoid allowing their forum to promote such misguided transport initiatives.

We also hope that the sponsors of the symposium would constitute an enquiry committee comprising an international panel of experts on sustainable transport development to review the activities of the so-called sustainable transport development symposium and undertake requisite corrective measures to avoid such controversies in future and hence to uphold the dignity of the basic philosophy of sustainable transport development, that is, to promote low-cost, eco-friendly, space- and energy-efficient transport that recognizes the rights of the majority rather than prioritizing the elite.

Sincerely,

 

On behalf of the Roads for People movement,

 

Mahabubul Bari

International Expert on Transportation Infrastructure

Independent Adviser to the Ministry of Infrastructure

Republic of Rwanda

Kigali

Post Box: 4989

Rwanda

 

Mobile:  +250 0341 650

__._,_.___

[* Moderator's Note - CHOTTALA is a non-profit, non-religious, non-political and non-discriminatory organization.

* Disclaimer: Any posting to the CHOTTALA are the opinion of the author. Authors of the messages to the CHOTTALA are responsible for the accuracy of their information and the conformance of their material with applicable copyright and other laws. Many people will read your post, and it will be archived for a very long time. The act of posting to the CHOTTALA indicates the subscriber's agreement to accept the adjudications of the moderator]




Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe

__,_._,___