EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT.ie, IRELAND

What price for our national family silver?

CAN sales of state assets -- "selling off the family silver" -- help us in any substantial way to reduce the yawning deficit in the Government's finances and give us a leaner and more vigorous future? Clearly the European Union and the International Monetary Fund think so.

Proposals for such sales were in the air long before the EU-IMF bailout, but they have taken on added force since the deal was concluded. They have featured in other bailouts. For example, the EU and IMF want Greece to raise no less than €10bn in this manner.

Now Colm McCarthy, the eminent economist commissioned by the outgoing government to examine the question, has sent detailed proposals to the new Government. They include some ingenious ideas.

Coillte, the state forestry company, could sell the growing trees but not the land they grow on. Similarly, Bord na Mona could sell the rights to extract the peat but keep the land underneath. Later, the two companies -- or a single merged company -- could stay in business, albeit engaged in different activities. Let us hope that these activities would be profitable.

All this not only accords with the views of the EU and the IMF but makes excellent sense. There is no obvious reason why the State should be involved in forests or bogs, any more than in growing vegetables or breeding cattle.

But many difficult questions remain, and the bigger the company involved, the harder the question.

Far more valuable than Coillte or Bord na Mona are the ESB and Bord Gais. Would selling all or part of them make a radical difference to the Government's finances? Possibly, but the Government must not underestimate the problems that will arise.

Would such moves help us to achieve an efficient energy market? That is impossible to answer at this stage.

What of the huge deficits in several of the state companies' pension funds? Will the burden fall, as usual, on the taxpayers?

Will a slimmed-down system produce the efficiencies, and the new outlook, that we need so urgently? And does a Fine Gael-Labour coalition have the political will to carry the process through?

Our "family silver" is badly tarnished. But powerful vested interests want to keep it that way. At worst, reform could lead to full-scale confrontation with the trade unions.

The Government must ensure that it acts on the basis of a fully comprehensive, workable plan.

 Greens must now plant the seeds of renewal

JOHN Gormley has announced his intention to resign as leader of the Green Party. His move was inevitable in the wake of the general election, when the party lost all its six Dail seats, including Mr Gormley's.
The party had not had a happy time in office.
Its Fianna Fail coalition partners showered it with cabinet and junior ministries and other favours, but it exerted no serious influence on policy, for two reasons.
First, Fianna Fail was, and remains, totally indifferent to environmental aspirations.
Secondly, the Green Party was simply too small.
It lacked muscle.
On the overwhelming issue of our time -- the economic crash -- it might as well have not existed.
A point of complete absurdity was reached when it made a critical issue out of the stag-hunting ban, a matter in which 90pc of the population had no interest. At the same time, it failed spectacularly to make progress on the environmental questions that chiefly concerned its supporters.
These issues will not go away. The tragic events in Japan have brought one of them, nuclear power, to the forefront of world-wide debate.
Green parties, here and elsewhere, still have a future.
That future, however, remains to be built.
To attain a real place in the Irish political system, the Greens will have to shed their eccentric image and get in touch with the feelings and aspirations of ordinary voters.
Mr Gormley's successor will have to build from the ground up.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

A Chance to Build Again

Many of the 85,000 dams in the United States are so old — an average of half a century — that every time one is repaired, two more become dangerously weak. Cities across the country discharge billions of gallons of untreated wastewater into rivers and lakes, and more than a quarter of all bridges are either deficient or obsolete.

The statistics are both frightening and familiar, though they tend to come up only in the “crumbling infrastructure” articles that appear after major disasters. In practice, government — with its lack of cash and consensus — keeps most of these projects on distant back burners until people actually lose their lives.

And then a disaster occurs — like the one in Japan, which was a reminder that even a well-prepared small country can suffer terribly from a natural disaster. The hazards are even greater for a sprawling one with a long history of indolent maintenance and planning.

Last week, though, a bipartisan group of senators came up witha promising idea to get some of these projects started, and very possibly put thousands of people back to work by doing so. The proposal, to create an infrastructure bank that would lend out seed money, represents a refreshing break from the extremist culture of cutting for the sake of cutting that grips Washington and so many state capitals. That culture blocks vital investment just to avoid sensible tax increases.

The proposal was presented by John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts; Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas; and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia. The bank would lend money to build big-ticket transportation, water and energy projects that have a clear public benefit. The loans, or loan guarantees, would be designed to attract private capital as well. In fact, at least half a project’s financing would have to come from the private sector. As much as $640 billion could be leveraged this way over the next decade, proponents say.

The bank would initially be funded with $10 billion from the treasury, which would be given out as loans, not grants. To make that possible, the bank would invest largely in projects that generate money, like toll bridges and tunnels, water systems backed by ratepayers, and energy projects built by utilities, governments or corporations. An independent, bipartisan board appointed by the president and Congress would choose the investments and oversee construction, audited by an inspector general and the Government Accountability Office.

By providing low-cost capital to states, cities and authorities, the bank would help these strapped governments kick-start projects that are now unaffordable, while attracting investments from pension and private-equity funds that are looking for stable money-generating ventures in which to invest. “We can either build, and compete, and create jobs for our people,” said Mr. Kerry, “or we can fold up, and let everybody else win. I don’t think that’s America.” The bank was backed by unions and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The idea builds on one that President Obama has proposed, a $30 billion bank limited to transportation projects that would also make grants. It is designed to be more palatable to lawmakers who are politically averse to spending, but alreadyconservatives are railing against what some have called a “boondoggle,” a phrase used to demonize virtually any public investment.

What will these opponents tell voters when the dams break and the bridges fall? Before more lives are lost, lawmakers should ask themselves whether they used their public office only to slash spending (and taxes for the wealthy), or to spend money wisely.

Long-Delayed Rules for Cleaner Air

After 20 years of delays and interminable litigation, the Obama administration has proposed a new rule requiring power plants to reduce emissions of mercury and other airborne toxics by 91 percent within the next five years. Some environmental groups saw the rule as the most important step forward for healthier air since the Clean Air Act was last updated in 1990. It is unquestionably a victory for the public: when fully effective, the rule could save as many as 17,000 lives a year.

Some — but by no means all — power companies complained that the rule would impose high costs yielding relatively little payoff. So, too, did Congressional Republicans who have been on a two-month crusade to undermine the E.P.A.’s authority to regulate a whole range of pollutants, including greenhouse gases.

The numbers do not support them: The E.P.A. estimates the annual cost of compliance at $10 billion a year, compared with health benefits from reduced hospital visits and lost time on the job at $100 billion a year. Mercury and other airborne toxics like lead, arsenic and chromium can adversely affect the nervous system in children and fetuses and worsen respiratory ailments.

Nor is there merit in the argument that the technology for controlling these pollutants is not available. About one-third of all states have imposed their own rules on air toxics. In response to these rules, as well as earlier federal regulations governing other pollutants, plants with 60 percent of the country’s coal-fired capacity have already installed pollution controls that can be upgraded to meet the new standards.

The new rules bring to a close a bitter regulatory battle in which industry’s lobbying power has largely had the upper hand. President Bill Clinton waited until the end of his tenure to issue rules. They were promptly rescinded by President George Bush, whose own rules — ghost-written, in part, by industry — were thrown out of court as inadequate and inconsistent with the law.

More broadly, the new rules will help drive the power sector toward greater investments in more efficient plants and cleaner fuel sources. While many older coal-fired units can be retrofitted without great cost, some will be retired and others switched to cleaner-burning natural gas. This is something industry can afford and the nation needs.

False Confessions

Douglas Warney, a person of limited mental capabilities who has been diagnosed with AIDS and AIDS dementia, served nine years in New York State prisons for a murder he did not commit. Now the state is seeking to compound the injustice by denying Mr. Warney compensation, even though there is a state law to provide redress for people who are wrongly convicted. New York’s highest court, which is considering his case, should not permit it.

Mr. Warney was convicted in 1997 based on a false confession that contained incriminating details the police said only the real killer could know. Mr. Warney’s wrongful conviction rested on that signed confession. There was no physical, eyewitness or forensic evidence tying him to the crime, and he was exonerated in 2006 by DNA evidence that showed the murder was actually committed by a man Mr. Warney had never met.

New York State has primarily argued, and lower state courts have rashly agreed, that Mr. Warney’s false confession makes him ineligible for compensation because the Unjust Conviction and Imprisonment Act bars recovery for those whose own misconduct caused their conviction.

That limit was meant to weed out deliberate misconduct to gain some tactical advantage, say a confession intended to conceal a loved one’s guilt. Mr. Warney’s false confession was not the product of misconduct. It was the reaction of a particularly susceptible individual to common police interrogation techniques that sometimes cause innocent people to confess. That phenomenon was illuminated in a friend-of-the-court brief filed by the American Psychological Association.

Peter Neufeld of the Innocence Project, who represents Mr. Warney, says roughly a quarter of DNA exonerations in New York have involved false confessions.

If there was misconduct in Mr. Warney’s case, it was on the part of police officers, who fed him “held back” facts about the murder and then claimed those facts in his typed confession originated with him, providing reliable proof of his guilt. When the case was argued before the Court of Appeals in February, several judges seemed troubled by these circumstances.

A ruling making clear that a false confession does not per se bar recovery under New York’s law would honor its language and intent and provide a measure of justice for Mr. Warney. It would set a worthy example as states with similar statutes confront the same issue.

Reconsidering the Robin

Emily Dickinson may have “dreaded that first robin so,” but she speaks for herself alone. To the rest of us, robins bring a mixture of joy and relief, the sign of a natural cycle still intact. The snow withdraws, and returning robins follow it across newly open ground like shorebirds tracing a falling tide. Their movement is almost as distinctive as their call: hasten and pause, hasten and pause. Once the ground is thoroughly thawed, there they are, tugging on earthworms as though they were the hawsers of the S.S. Earth.

And yet it’s only the first few robins in spring that really stand out. Soon we overlook them — because they’re so common and so open in manner, always in plain sight, flying low, nesting just out of reach above us. We see the familiarity as much as the bird itself, which wears, as always, a morning coat of gray and a waistcoat of the most understated red.

Give it a breast as vivid as the shoulder patches on a red-winged blackbird and the robin would never seem to recede the way it does as spring rushes onward, out-colored and out-sung by the birds of summer.

Somehow the robin stands for all the birds migrating now, the great V’s of geese heading north, the catbirds that will show up surreptitiously in a month. It also stands for the surprise of spring itself, which we had begun to fear would not arrive. We have all been keeping watch, as though one morning it might come sailing over the horizon. And now it’s here — the air a bit softer, snowdrops and winter aconites blooming, the bees doing their cleaning and the robins building their nests again.

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE SUN, UK

Topple tyrant

ANY Libyan pilot who tries to take to the air over his country today has to be mad. Just like Colonel Gaddafi.

But impressively swift creation of a no-fly zone by Britain and our allies is just the start.

Much more needs to be done to protect Libyan civilians. And it becomes clearer by the hour that the only action that will ensure their safety is the permanent removal from power of Gaddafi himself.

The United Nations resolution approves the use of 'all necessary measures' to stop and prevent the slaughter of innocent Libyans - which means anything short of an invasion and occupation.

But NO ONE is safe while the crazed Gaddafi rants and raves from his Tripoli bunker - while ordering paid foreign killers to 'show no mercy'.

NO ONE can trust a man who promises a ceasefire while launching bloody attacks on homes and hospitals as he sets about destroying rebel cities like Benghazi and Misrata.

NO ONE can ever again have dealings with a maniac who threatens revenge by blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. Doubtless using the expertise he gained after ordering the Lockerbie atrocity.

And NO ONE can believe a single word from a man who brands the action supported by other Arab countries, Africa and the West as 'a new Hitlerism'. Perhaps he was looking in a mirror at the time.

When Gaddafi is just another chapter in the world book of tyrants, the people of Libya will have to sort out their own problems.

They will never be able to do that while Gaddafi is around.

 

EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

Time to join forces to ensure nuclear safety

The ongoing nuclear crisis in Japan teaches the world a lesson: There is no absolute guarantee of safety in developing nuclear energy, no matter how much people rack their brains to ramp up security measures.

Statistics from the International Atomic Energy Agency in January showed that there are presently 442 commercial nuclear reactors around the world generating about 16 percent of the world's electricity. The World Nuclear Association also predicts that there will be one 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant built every five days by 2015.

The accident in Japan proves that nuclear power plant leaks cannot be contained by frontiers. No single country can hold the reins on nuclear safety. As a result, people have to find better ways to maintain the safety of nuclear power plants.

This recent accident also highlights overconfidence in some people. Many used to believe that the Chernobyl nuclear accident was caused by the Soviet Union's social system. Japan's tragedy shows us that even the country with the most advanced technology in the world can fall victim to a nuclear accident.

To date, we have invented neither convenient and inexpensive radiation protection costumes nor found effective ways to quickly cool down an out-of-control reactor. Images of Japanese workers and helicopters attempting unsuccessfully to drop seawater on the most troubled reactor in Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station seemed no more advanced than someone trying to douse a house on fire with a bucket of water.

Many countries around the world are enthusiastic about military drills. But it's rare to hear of a country mobilizing tens of thousands of people to deal with a nuclear power plant accident.

Countries with nuclear power plants should accelerate steps to advance nuclear safety technology, just as they are doing in the aerospace and top end military weapons industries.

It is high time that nuclear powers join hands to tackle the causes behind accidents as well as develop new equipment to deal with nuclear tragedies. Furthermore, they can even set up a rapid response army in this field to better ensure the safety of nuclear power plants.

The iron curtains between countries that develop nuclear energy technology should be removed once and for all. No single country should take nuclear safety for granted. What they need to do is take concrete measures right now.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

Multiple crises call for clear command structure

The Yomiuri Shimbun

The government's measures to deal with the disasters caused by the March 11 earthquake have lagged from the beginning. The Prime Minister's Office must rebuild its crisis management system as soon as possible.
Extensive physical damage is not the only characteristic of the Tohoku Pacific Offshore Earthquake. The multiple disaster situation includes a wide variety of problems, such as the nuclear plant accident, the urgent need to rescue disaster victims and support their livelihoods, paralysis of the commodity distribution system, a shortage of electricity, the yen's appreciation, and falling stock prices.
The government has to tackle these problems concurrently. Prime Minister Naoto Kan and Chief Cabinet Secretary Yukio Edano are taking all the work upon themselves, but they are too busy dealing with the nuclear accident to handle other issues and have become trapped in a vicious cycle.
The prime minister shows strong interest in measures to deal with the nuclear accident since he studied science at university and feels that he has considerable knowledge about nuclear issues. But he has not made any major achievements. Meanwhile, Edano has his hands full with press conferences, which are held very frequently, and has been failing to play his original role as a senior coordinator for measures to deal with earthquake disasters.
===
Govt must meet basic needs
Of course, it is very important to prevent a large-scale diffusion of nuclear material from the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant. But at the same time, the government should not neglect delivering food and medicine to disaster victims and must work to minimize the adverse effects of electricity shortages on economic and civic activities.
The government's crisis management should be rebuilt as a system headed by the prime minister, with a commanding officer appointed for each problem and a clear chain of command established.
Former Chief Cabinet Secretary Yoshito Sengoku, now acting president of the Democratic Party of Japan, was appointed deputy chief cabinet secretary and put in charge of supporting the livelihood of disaster victims. This unusual appointment suggests that the government acknowledged flaws in its current crisis management system, though it came a bit too late.
The Kan administration proposed a plan to appoint three additional ministers and invited Sadakazu Tanigaki, president of the opposition Liberal Democratic Party, to join its Cabinet. This aimed to create a national salvation Cabinet by forming a grand coalition with the major opposition party. We well understand this attempt because the present time of emergency is rightly considered a national crisis.
The LDP has taken the increase of ministers under consideration, but refused the request for Tanigaki to join the Cabinet. The party said the government made the request "too suddenly." However, we expect the LDP not to act on partisan interests but to cooperate with the government as much as possible.
===
Involve the experts
Meanwhile, the Kan Cabinet should stop clinging to its principle of leadership by politicians, which already has come to exist in name only. Politicians and bureaucrats must unite to overcome the current crises.
It is important for the prime minister and other ministers to listen calmly to the opinions of bureaucrats and experts first and then concentrate on bringing out the best in the gigantic bureaucratic organization. They must avoid by all means a situation in which the pretext of leadership by politicians discourages bureaucrats from taking the initiative in their work.
Kan made a high-profile visit to the head office of Tokyo Electric Power Co., operator of the troubled nuclear plant, and State Minister in Charge of Government Revitalization Renho was told to serve concurrently as state minister in charge of a campaign to save energy. But such mere performances are no longer wanted.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Damaged tourism

THE tourism chief put it very mildly when he said that terrorism has “damaged” Pakistan’s tourist industry. Talking to reporters at Taxila some days ago, the managing director of the Pakistan Tourism Development Corporation estimated losses from the decline in tourism at Rs550bn, though the period these statistics covered was not specified. While it is true that terrorism has done incalculable harm to all sectors of Pakistan’s economy, the tourism industry has never been anywhere near its potential in terms of the breathtaking beauty of the country’s north. The first blow to tourism came from the cataclysmic events of the late 1970s. Until then, western tourists used to take the land route, crossing from Europe into Turkey, enjoying sites in Iran and entering Pakistan through the Khyber Pass, going on to Lahore and then sailing along the Grand Trunk Road en route to India. The revolution in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan cut off this route to middle-class western tourists, who formed the bulk of foreign visitors. Tourists still came, but in a trickle — by air. The 9/11 trauma, the kidnapping and murder of foreigners, and the vicious rise in terrorism dealt a death blow to tourism. Even domestic tourism suffered when the rebels occupied Swat. The army later evicted the terrorists, but home tourists still keep away from it.

The hotels and motels destroyed in last year’s floods and the consequent damage to roads and bridges will take time to rebuild and rectify. But the hurdles in the way of a flourishing tourist industry are of a political nature, and there is little the tourism officials can do. What the PTDC can, however, do is to prepare itself for that good day when terrorism disappears and normality returns and focus on planning, with an emphasis on low-cost transport and lodgings.

Attack on Libya

THE Tomahawks, accompanied by warplanes, struck Libya on Saturday. The military operation, led by Europe and the US, did not come as a surprise. A UN Security Council resolution adopted last week called for “all necessary measures” to establish a no-fly zone and protect civilians in the North African country. This was the green signal needed to pave the way for foreign armed intervention in the Libyan crisis. However, the military action seems to be more along the lines of ‘no-fly zone plus’. The allies must realise that if the intervention means putting boots on the ground — as some western leaders have hinted at — there will be a negative reaction in the Muslim world, as the Afghan and Iraqi experiences have shown.

Col Muammar Qadhafi has decided to dig in his heels, proclaiming on Sunday that his forces were prepared for a “long war”. The Libyan state’s propaganda machine has also claimed that there have been civilian causalities caused by the western strikes. We think the use of force against the Qadhafi regime at this point is not a good idea. The sooner it ends the better as western firepower may take a significant civilian toll. The world community is also divided on the use of force, as both Russia and China have opposed military intervention. The African Union also wants a mediated solution. What is more, nobody really knows who the rebels fightingCol Qadhafi’s government are. Are they tribesmen, the political opposition or some other entity? It will complicate matters if a worse alternative to the Libyan dictator is installed because of the one-point western agenda of getting rid of him.

Interestingly, the world’s urgency — perhaps for reasons of realpolitik — seems to be limited to Libya, forgetting other parts of the Arab world where strongmen are also crushing peaceful dissent. In Yemen, pro-government forces shot over 40 protesters at a demonstration in Sana’a on Friday. The Yemeni regime is seen as a bulwark against Al Qaeda, which is believed to have a strong presence in the impoverished country. Hence the use of kid gloves while dealing with Yemen’s autocratic government. In Bahrain, resistance against the Al Khalifa monarchy is hardening, with growing calls for the royal family’s overthrow. The ruling family’s suppression of protests, aided by Saudi military help, is largely responsible for this. With the creation of ‘no-protest zones’ in the Gulf, a greater debate is needed in the West and the UN about how to respond to calls for change in the Arab world, and to decide whether it is ethical to be selective when it comes to supporting or ignoring pro-democracy movements.

Food crisis

HUNGER stalks the land. Earlier during the year, the rates of malnutrition in northern Sindh were likened to those prevailing in Chad and Niger. Now, the World Bank has released a report pointing out that inflation in food prices is such that the country’s poorest families spend 70 per cent or more of their total income on food alone. In all provinces, says the report, increases in wages have been considerably below those witnessed in the price of wheat. These facts merit serious attention. Such a massive chunk of the household income going on procuring food would have a disastrous domino effect on family welfare. Even among households that do not count among the country’s poorest, families have been forced to divert funds previously spent on education andhealthcare towards grocery budgets. Meanwhile, increasing numbers of people continue to fall below the poverty line.
Consider the long-term effects on a population that is spending virtually all it has to keep body and soul together. Nutritional deficiencies — since prices limit food intake — and consequent ill health will become a reality for millions — perhaps for an entire generation, given how heavily the country’s population demographic is skewed towards the young. This will increase costs incurred by the state in the already strained public health sector. Then, an uneducated and ailing workforce is not a productive workforce. In the future, Pakistan could witness falling levels of income generation in terms of individuals and the state itself, with direct links to the current situation of hunger and malnutrition. Pakistan needs to do all it can to turn away from this grim trajectory. First, it is vital that food inflation be brought under control and social safety nets put in place. Second, as theWorld Bank suggests, Pakistan needs to increase its agricultural policymaking capacity — our spending on agricultural research is currently 30 per cent below that of Bangladesh. Finally, the state can launch a public awareness campaign exhorting and teaching citizens to grow their own produce wherever possible, perhaps providing seeds at subsidised rates. Concerted efforts and political will could achieve significant results.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

Action against Gaddafi

Diplomatic options must be explored

Libya is under armed attack from the United States, United Kingdom and France. The action against Tripoli, mandated by a UN Security Council resolution, with significant abstentions has been taken to prevent the autocratic regime of Muammar Gaddafi from attacking and killing his own people, who have in these past few weeks made it clear that they want him out of power. For his part, Gaddafi has not helped matters any by vowing to show no mercy to those who have risen against him. His chilling warning that his forces will conduct house to house and room to room searches to locate his opponents has only demonstrated the desperate straits his people are in.

That said, it is a matter of huge concern that military action by the Western powers against Gaddafi now threatens not just the regime but the future of Libya as well. That Gaddafi's hanging on to power can only worsen matters for his people is not in question. The bigger issue, though, is the dilemma the air attacks on Libya pose for those Libyans who want him out. In the first place, the attacks will likely cause civilian deaths and injuries while taking the anti-Gaddafi initiative out of the protestors' hands. In the second, it could lead to Libya's becoming another Iraq or Afghanistan, with perhaps foreign soldiers eventually marching into the country. The worries are immense.

There is yet time for a diplomatic solution to the crisis. To be sure, there is the need to prevent Col. Gaddafi from carrying on the way he has, indeed to convince him that for the good of Libya he must go. But that is a task calling for other kinds of pressure, a focused and relentless imposition of sanctions for instance. In the past, sanctions have worked well, though they have taken longer to convince tyrants they must leave.

We urge all concerned that the Libya issue be handled diplomatically, through engaging the Arab League and the African Union. Gaddafi rather than killing his own people should take the path of diplomacy. The point is one of how to forcefully persuade the Libyan regime into submission without causing long-term damage to the liberty and territorial integrity of Libya. And intervention is no option.

Public interest motions in JS

Allow more space for debate

It is discomforting news that notices relating to matters of public interest are mostly rejected in the Jatiyo Sangsad. In the last two years more than four thousand motions have been rejected by the House. Even matters of serious issues like citizens' security, renovation of Dhaka-Chittagong highway and law and order situation etc., were not taken up.

Notices are served both by the ruling party and opposition law makers under article 71 of the rules of procedures. Everyday between thirty and fifty notices are served but only three are accepted. And fifteen, among the rejected notices are allowed to be raised in the House with two-minute time slot for each speaker but not adopted for discussion.

This is a disappointing situation for laymen, let alone the constitutional and parliamentary experts. In parliamentary democracy it is the merit and importance of the issue that must get precedence over who tables a motion.

True given the time constraints the speaker would need to be selective but that does not necessarily mean that so many public interest related issues would be set aside. The picture has been similar in the last four parliaments. Motions that could be embarrassing to the government were generally not allowed for discussion irrespective of party in power.

We feel that any serious topic of public interest should be taken up for discussion whether it is from the ruling party or the opposition lawmakers. That is where the test of speakers' impartiality and ruling party's allowing space to the opposition lies.

Usually the motions are centered on problems facing the public or a development project in which a constituency is involved. That is why such matters deserve attention of the authorities concerned at a high level.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MIRROR, SRILANKA

Might is Right

Gaddafi calls it Colonial, Crusader Aggression, the bombers call it Odyssey Dawn. So far 48 people had been killed and 150 wounded in the Western air strikes by early on Sunday in Libya. Three US B-2 stealth bombers dropped 40 bombs on a major Libyan airfield (Remember the precision/surgical bombing?) that was not further identified. Hours later, U.S. and British warships and submarines launched 110 Tomahawk missiles on Tripoli. 150 Weapons of Mass Destruction at Tripoli and for that count 48 deaths is really a conservative estimate-if one knew what Tomahawk and B2 bombs mean.
The military intervention in Libya has nothing to do with the humanitarian pretexts offered by the conniving Western powers. Innocent civilians are going to die in numbers in the coming days and UN Gen. Sec. Ban- ki moon and his cohorts should be pulled up in the War Tribunal to go by the common logic.
After Iraq, this could be the beginning of the war for the resources, may be the third World War by extension.
Military intervention in Libya, whose energy resources have made it the object of imperialist ogling for decades, is used both to secure access to oil and to bring a strong military presence in the region. A military presence in Libya would help the West to intimidate the Arab world -not the rulers of the Arab world whose faith and cultural conscience are more Western than Muslim.
The bombing would not protect human lives, but would transform the country into a battlefield with thousands of innocent victims just like in Iraq, where finally and shamelessly the perpetrators blamed it on the intelligence reports that there were no WMDs. None of the countries which killed the 200,000 still face any accountability charges! 300,000-330,000 civilians killed in Darfur but the so called humanitarians didn’t do anything about it. 800,000 were killed in Rwanda in 1994 and still nothing happened.
Why are the great powers not applying the same criteria in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the regimes they back employ brutal violence against any opposition? And what of Bahrain, headquarters of the US Fifth Fleet, where Sheikh al Khalifa has shot down unarmed protesters with Saudi support? What about Gaza, where these same powers stand by as the Israelis massacre Palestinians? What about Yemen, where the Western-backed President Ali Abdullah Saleh on Friday shot dead some 50 protesters? asked a news editorial on the web.
Funnily French President Sarkozy, received Gaddafi just a few years ago with great pomp in Paris to negotiate trade deals worth billions, recognized the Transitional Council as the official representative of Libya. The truth is the ‘Council,’ has guaranteed international oil companies unhindered exploitation of the country’s mineral wealth.
China and Russia, which abstained in the U.N. Security Council vote last week endorsing intervention, expressed regret at the military action.  Funnily enough, neither vetoed the move.
Which endorses the unsavoury fact how much the emerging markets (BRIC) depend on the West for their economy and growth.
Meanwhile, more than 100 anti-war protesters were arrested outside the White House in demonstrations marking the eighth anniversary of the US-led war in Iraq.

 

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Middle East upheavals present hope and dangers

The West must stay the course until Gaddafi is gone

AFTER weeks of policy paralysis over Libya, allied attacks on Gaddafi's air defences are a welcome development, and the hope must be that they will not cease until the murderous despot is driven from power. He has no legitimacy. He must go. And the allies must demonstrate their determination to act decisively in Libya as elsewhere.

Having finally bitten the bullet over Libya, far greater fortitude and resolution must be shown in dealing with the whirlwind of crises erupting across the Arab world. From the horrifying weekend bloodbath in the Yemen capital Sanaa to the brutal crackdown in Bahrain, base of the US Fifth Fleet so critical to the confrontation with Iran, the challenges to long-standing policies and presumptions are grave.

The once omnipotent King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia has had to respond to rising protests among Shi'ites that are rocking the oil-rich eastern province close to Bahrain by offering tens of billions of dollars in handouts. Jordan's King Abdullah, another key Western ally, is trying to appease extremists including the Muslim Brotherhood by including stridently anti-Israeli elements in his new cabinet. Alarmingly, after years of refusing to do so, he may accept overtures from Iran.

The West cannot afford to vacillate, but it must be alert to the forces who would seize any opportunity to hijack legitimate demands for democratic reform. There can be no one-size-fits-all response to these evolving crises, though political repression, corruption and poverty is at their heart. The reality of Iranian subversion looms large, especially among Shi'ite communities, as it seeks to traduce the demonstrations and further its hegemonistic ambitions. Bahrain has long been coveted by Teheran as a 14th province. In Yemen, things are more complex than ousting dictatorial President Ali Abdullah Saleh, in power for 32 years. Saleh is a bulwark against al-Qa'ida, led locally by the notorious Anwar al-Awlaki. Osama Bin Laden's former spiritual guide Abdul Majid al-Zindani is among the anti-Saleh protesters. How to support the legitimate demands of the demonstrators without opening new opportunities for extremism is the great diplomatic conundrum.

Egyptians, in a promising start after the Jasmine Revolution, went to the polls in a celebration of their new-won freedoms. But the ruling junta's new amity with Tehran has allowed Iranian warships through the Suez for the first time since 1979 to establish a base in Syria. And what does the growing influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, now that the Mabahith security agency has been disbanded, and the free rein given smugglers and jihadists in the Sinai, portend? There should be no retreat from support for those clamouring for freedom and democracy. The same resolution and adaptability that governed the West's response to the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe must be shown. The challenge is to offer that support while ensuring it doesn't open new opportunities for Iran and al-Qa'ida. Libya has shown that doing nothing is no answer. Staying the course and dealing decisively with Gaddafi is a test the allies must not fail. To do so would be a disaster for freedom and democracy across the Arab world.

End vacillating on boatpeople

The government must show leadership over detainees

DESTRUCTIVE violence by detainees on Christmas Island and inertia in processing asylum-seekers' applications are the end-products of more than three years of vacillating by the Rudd and Gillard governments over what to do about the unauthorised arrivals of boatpeople. In condemning the violence yesterday, Julia Gillard sounded unconvincing, again failing to show any real resolve about addressing either the immediate problems on Christmas Island or the underlying issue of stopping the boats. Nor does the prospect of scaling back the operation on Christmas Island offer much promise of being a circuit-breaker.
Since November 2007, Labor has been torn between competing imperatives of border security, the arguments of the human rights lobby, which would put out the welcome mat to boatpeople, and broader public opinion, which favours a much firmer approach. In trying to be all things to all people -- tough but fair, firm but compassionate -- the government has found itself in no-man's land.

From a humanitarian point of view, it is hardly compassionate to stick with policies that have failed to discourage thousands of people from risking their lives and those of their children on a treacherous sea voyage. For those who make it to Australia, the average time spent in detention has almost tripled to 214 days since the government temporarily suspended visa-processing for Sri Lankan and Afghan asylum-seekers last year. That move, not renewed, proved an abject failure at stopping the boats, with more than 3200 new boatpeople arriving during the second half of last year.
The damage to the Christmas Island centre, built by taxpayers at a cost of $400 million, is extensive. In addition to moving an extra 70 Australian Federal Police to the island at great expense, the government needs to deal effectively with those rioting. Criminal violence should never be tolerated, and if such acts were committed by other immigration applicants, they would be refused entry. Rather than promising to take the violence into account in processing asylum-seekers' applications, the government should make it clear that those who have rampaged through the centre hurling rocks and missiles, burned down facilities and crashed through fences are barred. As well as repatriating those who engaged in criminal acts and deterring others from doing so, such a move would free up waiting times by striking several hundred people out of the queues.
Australia has shown a generous forbearance towards boatpeople, allowing most of the 10,000 arrivals in recent years to remain. It now emerges that the government has agreed to pay more than$500,000 to repatriate the bodies of 22 victims of the shipwreck off Christmas Island in December to their own countries for traditional burials, at the wishes of their next of kin. We note that when Australians die overseas, normal practice is for the families of the deceased to arrange and pay for the repatriation of remains.
Compassion would be better spent by doubling or trebling the nation's refugee intake. Refugees have made a positive contribution to Australia's economic and civic life and they are welcome. But an orderly program must be restored, and quickly, before public confidence is further eroded . The government must stop acting like a hapless bystander and assert some leadership.

Time to revive the intervention

Bipartisan and community support is essential to progress

TONY Abbott's offer of bipartisan support for a reinvigorated Northern Territory intervention is a constructive proposal that the Gillard government should take seriously. The fraught process initiated in the last months of the Howard government and backed by Labor has made some progress in reducing infant mortality and improving education and nutrition through income management, but much more remains to be done. Violent crime, sexual attacks, substance abuse, homelessness, truancy and lack of services have worsened considerably in some areas. Fresh thinking and fresh resolve is urgently required.
The Opposition Leader, Julia Gillard and Indigenous Affairs Minister Jenny Macklin agree that Aboriginal communities, families and individuals must take greater responsibility for helping themselves attain equality. Mr Abbott believes the movement of people from remote settlements into larger towns has exacerbated conditions that would not be acceptable in any coastal city or town in Australia.

There are no short cuts or easy options. Law and order must be restored. Violence must be punished and liquor licensing laws must be enforced as a first step. Beyond that lies the enormous task of rebuilding communities and lives. Bipartisan support will pave the way.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT.ie, IRELAND

For Japan, in tribute

The Dead

These hearts were woven of human joys and cares,

Washed marvellously with sorrow, swift to mirth.

The years had given them kindness. Dawn was theirs,

And sunset, and the colours of the earth.

These had seen movement, and heard music; known

Slumber and waking; loved; gone proudly friended;

Felt the quick stir of wonder; sat alone;

Touched flowers and furs and cheeks. All this is ended.

There are waters blown by changing winds to laughter

And lit by the rich skies, all day. And after,

Frost, with a gesture, stays the waves that dance

And wandering loveliness. He leaves a white

Unbroken glory, a gathered radiance,

A width, a shining peace, under the night.

'The Dead', by Rupert Brooke (1887-1915), was published in 1914

 

EDITORIAL : THE ASHARQ ALAWSAT, published in LONDON

The renowned daily in the Middle East

Is this the Syrian spark?

Demonstrations emerged after the Friday prayers in several cities in Syria: Damascus, Homs, Baniyas, and in Daraa, in the south of the country on the border with Jordan. These demonstrations resulted in deaths, injuries and arrests, so are we now witnessing the Syrian spark?
Syria is by no means immune to what is happening in our region, in terms of demonstrations and uprisings, yet of course at the same time, Syria is not like other Arab states. As I have said repeatedly: Tunisia is not Egypt, and likewise Bahrain is not like either of those states, because there are sectarian motives there, and Yemen is also unique, for Sanaa is a highly complicated ticking time bomb, especially with the intransigence of the Yemeni president, whilst Libya remains open to all types of intimidation. As I noted above, Syria is not immune to what is happening in our region, but Damascus has always tried to avoid reality, using all tricks and excuses to postpone facing the truth. The problem it faces now concerns the internal situation and the Syrian people, rather than foreign affairs, which are somewhat favorable at the moment especially with the calm on the Israeli border. Indeed, the Syrian-Israeli border is currently less eventful than the Egyptian-Israeli border throughout the years of the Mubarak regime.
Syria's problems are similar to those of other states which avoid reality and believe that time stands still, and that their tricks always succeed. Their modern history reminds us of empty slogans, yet the reality must be dealt with, before an uprising becomes inevitable. The facts cannot be overlooked by patronizing or lecturing the people, in the manner of Bouthaina Shaaban's articles, who writes as if she's based out of Switzerland. The best way to deal with the facts is to confront them. It is true that Syria is not like other troubled Arab countries, but the Syrians have arguably greater cause for grievance and resentment. Syria is the most deplorable example of a lack of balance between the minority and the majority, something the international community staunchly advocates these days. Yet some media, and likewise certain news agencies, have not been as engrossed with the Syrian protests as they have been with Bahrain for example. This is either because they have been prevented from doing so, or because Syria does not have the readily available sectarian motives and background as we saw in Bahrain, especially as depicted by some photographers and many biased sources.
If this is the Syrian spark, then the coming situation will be very difficult, especially after the Security Council resolution against Libya, and the international emphasis on the relationship between the minority and majority. There is a lack of international confidence in the Syrian approach, which is the product of years of erroneous Syrian policies, and Damascus' historic hostility towards the Muslim Brotherhood. We can add the critical internal situation to this, both politically and economically, and the wider crisis facing Arab republics in general. Thus the forthcoming era will be a difficult one, for experience tells us that citizens will continue to defy their repressive regimes, such as in Tunisia. When internal resentment is evident, the outcome is usually explosive.
What is happening in Syria must be seen as a good development, for we must be aware of the anxiety and tension now evident in both Iran and Hezbollah, whilst noting the extent of their extremism, and lack of credibility. Will they condemn, for example, the use of violence against the Syrians, and support the protestors' right to demonstrate peacefully, in the same way in which they criticized Bahrain? I think the reader knows the answer!