President of Pakistan - Pervez Musharraf's acknowledged yesterday that he is now undertaking the role of Presidnet in a caretaker capacity and this is to be welcomed. Even though this is mainly just a technicality as he has replaced with loyalists the uncooperative Supreme Court who will ultimately make the decision on the legality of his recently received second mandate, the fact that he still recognises this and his government has siad here that he is now acting in a caretaker capacity as President gives some hope for the future of democracy and the rule of  law in Pakistan.

Musharraf is not one’s typical idea of a dictator. He seems to want the understanding and acceptance (and maybe the love) of the West for the course he feels he has been forced to take. He disarmingly appeared on Sky News a couple of days ago sating “The day when there is no turmoil in Pakistan, I will step down…I am not a dictator, I want a democracy”. Also with his recent autobiography - In the line of fire, he made numerous appearances on a number of American talk shows including the Tonight Show with Jon Stewart, seeming folksy and eager to please. Among the more interesting quotes from the autobiography are “a true leader will always be loved by his people; they will be prepared to follow him, not because of his rank or position but because of their rank and esteem for him”. He was also informed us that he had been told by a former top ranking Mr. Universe that “I had a most muscular physique” and also gave us the insight that “I prefer small dogs” (These quotes comes via a very insightful comment piece about the man by Steve Cole in the New Yorker magazine).

Yet the impression that's come across to me that perhaps he’s overcompensating for the fact that his mother didn’t hug him enough as a child is perhaps too facile. After all, the U.S. have given either $10 billion (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon) or $11 billion depending on your source in aid since the events of 9/11, much of which has gone to the military probably for their continued support for the regime. Indeed so anxious was Musharraf to avoid the withdrawal of finding that he  “called the chairmen of the Senate and House foreign-relations committees to explain his actions” and also “dispatched a top legal adviser to Washington and New York to meet with media and think thanks, and stress the potential dangers of cutting support for his government”  (Wall Street Journal on 9th November - Jay Solomon).

Unfortunately, even though, as Seumas Milne states in the Guardian withdrawal of this aid would probably topple Musharraf and possibly restore democracy, the fact remains that he his now head of a volatile county and the last thing the U.S. desires is to introduce more instability. Questioning the he value of his continued rule is valid, however - Pakistan has gone from a putative bulkwark against jihadist terror as George W. had hoped, to a place where most of al-Qaida operatives are now trained in the largely uncontrolled mountain border area with Afghanistan.

Milne also notes that a human tragedy underlies all of this, including the fact that “a third of its 160 million people go hungry and 44% are living below the poverty line" and it is a place where "half the population is illiterate and barely one in two girls goes to school”. Very few people are gaining from this situation, perhaps the newly laundered whiter-than-white from her previous corruption links, Benazir Bhutto, perhas al-Quida but many millions in Pakistan again bear the brunt of political instability and mismanagement.

It’s going to be tougher to get this Treaty passed in a Referendum than the “Yes” campaign thought and tougher for the "No" to get a claer reason to vote no.

The Irish Times poll of 5th November showing 24% in favour of the Reform Treaty, as opposed to the 46% that backed the EU Constitution, in retrospect should be no surprise. It’s easier, when asked the question – are you in favour of the EU Constitution to say yes, than when asked in you’re in favour of an EU Reform Treaty – which sounds altogether more technical, abstract (all of which is most definitely true). It also appears to be a slight misnomer…people expect Treaties to be one-off occurrences – Amsterdam, Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement etc, the notion of a Treaty reforming what is already there seems a big paradoxical.

 The differences and divergences between Member States is supposed to be one of the driving forces of the EU. However the fact that the EU Constitution would probably have passed with a strong enough Yes campaign in Ireland (in my opinion), while the whole idea of an EU constitution would kill the document in the U.K. (so much so that Tony Blair was forced to concede to a referendum on the Constitution during the last election)  while the Netherlands voted against the text (I think France probably voted against it predominantly for domestic reasons) shows that the people of the E.U. have hugely divergent views of the European Union and what it should and has to do.

The Yes campaign will have to be even stronger in favour of this Treaty as teh argument - "vote for europe" is unlikely to succeed as well this time as  the argument was overused in Nice2. The No campaign will not be able to point to one article or another to justify their arguments as each it refers to myriad other articles and paragraphs, their agruments will doubtless be derided as baseless when their opposition entreat the public to look to "the treaties as a whole".

I haven’t been able find a copy of the Reform Treaty as between the legalese it appears no compounded version has been made up yet, but if you would like to torture yourself trying to understand it, below is a draft of it incorporating most of the text. It’s bitty and jumpy and impossible to understand as opposed to the EU constitution which was unified and therefore much simpler to understand.

I will return to the positives and drawbacks of the Treaty from my perspective (which has been sparked by reading a very good article in the 26th October to 8th November edition of “Business & Finance” magazine.

draft_reform_treaty_lisbon.pdf
File Size:	1517 kb
File Type:	pdf

Download File

---

Trying to divine what the government is thinking in relation to any policy position is difficult, however I have found it next to impossible regarding this proposed Civil partnerships legislation. Listening to the Green party Equality spokesperson Ciaran Cuffe on Morning Ireland on 1st November , he seemed to intone that there was one almighty fight between the Green Party and Brian Lenihan – Minister for Justice about the scope of the legislation, with the Green party seeming to have come out the losers of this fight. Among the comments made by Cuffe are that the government is “not in a position to deliver on full recognition” and it will be a “step in the right direction”, none of which fills me with eager anticipation for the legislation promised in March (Kieran Rose of the Gay, Lesbian Equality Network stated on the same programme that the measures will “falls far short of equality”). The one possible bright spot is that there is a period of over 5 months to organise an effective campaign to bring pressure to bear and deliver full and equal Civil Partnership.

Below is a letter I wrote to the Irish Times yesterday (1st November 2007) outlining one of my concerns about how this legislation may develop:

"Dear Madam, I very much welcome the commitment of the Government given in the Dáíl on 31st October 2007 by the Minister for Justice to "provide for the registration of civil partnerships of same sex couples".  This legislation has been promised many many times during the lifetime of this government and though it seems they are able to rush through Criminal Justice Bills in a matter of a month while for a period of over 6 years it seemed unable to find time for this Programme for Government promise, the commitment is welcome nonetheless.

However, I am still mystified at why the Government does not simply accept the Labour party proposal, supported by all parties except those in government, which seeks to implement the very successful Civil Partnerships approach from the U.K. The comments of the Minister for Justice worry me in that he states that the forthcoming legislation "will also provide protection for other relationships which lie outside marriage but which may be heterosexual or same sex." The only interpretation I can put on this is that the Minister is proposing to include relationships of people who are not currently excluded from marriage. If this is so, and the Minister wishes to implement tax-breaks for co-habitees in non-conjugal relationships such as brothers and sisters then he should do that, but separately from any Civil Partnership legislation. His priority should be equality before the law for gay people, who are the only sector of society denied the privilege of marriage. I do not wish to have my loving, sacred and permanent Civil Partnership be compared to that of a non-conjugal couple such as cohabiting family members who enter into the same Partnership for transient and selfish financial purposes. It is my belief that the Minister is proposing something quite similar to what the Catholic clergy proposed some years ago (*See below). Though it is admirable that he would attempt to integrate the views of all sections of society, when a core issue of equality for a large section of our society is at stake, it is imperative that it be addressed fully and without compromise.

I believe the Minister should concentrate on one core objective – equality for same-sex couples through the implementation of the what the Government's own Colley report called for and what the Programme for Government encourages, that is "Civil Partnerships at the earliest possible date in the lifetime of the Government", otherwise the inequality and exclusion of a large section of our society will continue.

Yours,David Garrahy"

My concerns were compounded by the comments of Dr. Manseragh, reported in the Irish Times on 1st November when it was reported "In the case of civil partnership, said Dr Mansergh, there should be no necessity for there to be a physical relationship"...I have a fear that a whitewash will be served up, comprising some sort of tax scheme for siblings, family members and other random people which will be backed by the Catholic church and will fall well short of equality. As I siad in a previous letter published in the Irish Times on 6th March 2007 - "The problems these two sets of people face are very different and the solutions should also be different." Of course, if the government successfully legislates in this area, any reform of that system would be 10 -15 years away, potentially leaving and unequal system in place for the near future. That settles it - I'm going to Canada!

* Clarification on 12th November 2007 - When I mentioned the Catholic clergy position, this is based on comments from Archbishop Diarmuid Martin as reported by David Quinn then of the Irish Indepndent (he is now freelance having edited the Irish Catholic and setting up the Iona Institute earlier this year) - hear comments at  this link