EDITORIAL : THE ASHARQ ALAWSAT, published in LONDON

The Syrians and the media complaints

Damascus has complained of what it has described as media incitement, namely the impact of the media coverage of the demonstrations taking place in around 7 different Syrian cities, not to mention the [coverage] of the violence and even killings of demonstrators in the city of Deraa in southern Syria.
The truth is that the international media in particular, as well as Arab media in general, have only recently begun to pay attention to what is happening in Deraa, despite the abundance of images and video clips on YouTube. However, the situation naturally changed following the rise in the death toll, as well as the violent crackdown carried out by the Syrian authorities against the people of Deraa and against protestors throughout Syria. This is only natural, and when there are people being killed, the regime – any regime – can no longer complain about the media, or consider what is happening in the country to be an internal affair; similarly the media cannot be silent or overlook what is happening.
Therefore, as I said in my article on Thursday [My advice for Friday: Do not kill], "my golden advice to Damascus is: Do no kill, and do not open fire" and this is because killing only incites the situation and intensifies the crisis. Therefore the most effective way for Syria to deal with what is happening is for it to put a stop to the injustices and respond to the demands of the people in a respectable manner, especially as what is happening in the country is not being incited by external forces, but are rather genuine demands. The latest statements from Damascus acknowledge this, with the government promising greater media freedoms, as well as the licensing of political parties, and studying the possibility of lifting the state of emergency that has prevailed in Syria for more than 4 decades without reason. Therefore how, after all of this, can Syria say that foreign hands are responsible, or that terrorists are behind what is happening in the country? What we have seen today is that all of those killed [in Deraa] are from the ranks of the protestors, not the police.
The media is not the story…and if anybody wants to see what media incitement truly looks like and confirm that the media, particularly the western media, have taken a lenient stance towards the Syrians, then you need only look at the western media's coverage of Bahrain in order to spot the difference. The western media's coverage of Bahrain was characterized by sectarian incitement and manipulation, and attempts to portray the Bahraini governments as being dictatorial, despite the fact that since the first day [of the crisis] it had responded with offers to discuss the protestors demands. However in response to this, the opposition transgressed the limits to the point of calling for a Republic of Bahrain!
Therefore, the best way for Damascus to deal with what is happening in Syria today is for it to put a stop to the violence and killing, rather than blame the media and accuse others of treason. The demonstrations are intensifying, and are no longer confined to Deraa, but rather demonstrations have broken out in 7 Syrian cities. This is dangerous because the demonstrations did not originate in the capital, Damascus, but rather on the edges [of the country], with these demonstrations moving towards the capital and other important Syrian cities. The implications of this are huge, and most importantly of all the fear barrier has been broken by the killings [in Deraa]. Therefore today is different from yesterday, particularly with regards to the media and technology, not to mention the prevailing situation in our region, since Ben Ali's escape, Mubarak's ouster, and the war in Libya. Perhaps more importantly than all of this, is the situation in Yemen where the curtain is on the verge of coming down [on the regime], although it is not clear whether this end will be a violent one, as in Libya, or calm, as in Egypt. All of this means that the situation in Yemen is far more complex and complicated. 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

Rich District, Poor District

To balance New York State’s budget, Gov. Andrew Cuomo wants to cut a record $1.5 billion from the $23 billion budget for grades K-12.

The cuts would scarcely affect wealthy districts that rely primarily on local taxes to support lavishly appointed schools. But they would be catastrophic for impoverished rural districts that have been starved of state aid for decades and are still reeling from cuts levied last year when David Paterson was governor. Already struggling to furnish even basic course offerings, the poorest districts would need to cannibalize themselves to keep the doors open and the lights on.

The fundamental inequity of the cuts, as currently proposed, can be seen in how they would affect two of the state’s school districts: Ilion in the economically depressed Mohawk Valley, and Syosset, a wealthy town in Long Island’s Nassau County.

ILION

CURRENT BUDGET 2010-2011: $25 MILLION

NUMBER OF STUDENTS: 1,600

CUOMO PROPOSED CUT: $1.1 MILLION

  The system is one of the poorest in the state. More than a third of its 1,600 students are eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches, and that figure would no doubt be higher if some families whose children need free lunches to eat nutritiously were not too ashamed to apply for it.

Impoverished districts like Ilion, which has an eroding tax base and relies on the state for more than three-quarters of its budget, were supposed to fare better after a 2006 court ruling that ordered the state to give each district enough money to provide every child with a “sound basic education.”

Under a new formula created by the Legislature, some of the poorest districts were promised as much as an 80 percent increase. The increases were to be phased in over four years in steadily larger amounts. Ilion, which had been promised a 35 percent increase, got a modest boost in the first two years. But then the state ran into fiscal trouble; funding was kept flat in 2009 and cut in 2010. Like many other poor districts, Ilion retrenched. It laid off teachers and backed down from plans to expand its course offerings.

Thanks to an ambitious school building program carried out by the state, Ilion’s low-rise brick high school is in great shape and indistinguishable from similar buildings even in wealthier communities. The course offerings tell another story. The school offers only one foreign language, Spanish, and is unlikely to offer any others until and if the economic climate improves. As a result, a transfer student who was seeking a third year of French has had to take the course online.

The school offers only four of the possible 34 Advanced Placement courses, which allow students to earn college credit in high school. The Advanced Placement course in biology was particularly hard won: school officials said they had to “steal nickels here and there” to buy microscopes and other material necessary to run the course, which is certified and overseen by the College Board.

Under the Cuomo administration’s proposal, Ilion would be asked to absorb a new $1.1 million cut, on top of the $450,000 cut it took last year. That would not even come to a rounding error in the state’s richest districts. But for Ilion, whose budget is about $25 million, the new cut, combined with the $1.3 million the district is obligated to pay for raises, benefits and other costs, produces a deficit of about $2.4 million.

Mr. Cuomo has left the impression that school districts like Ilion could weather cuts by tightening their belts and winning pay freezes through negotiations with their employees. A pay freeze would save Ilion only $600,000, leaving a huge deficit of $1.8 million. The district could save money in the long term by getting teachers to contribute more to their health care costs. But that will not happen, if at all, until the current contract expires next year.

Moreover, pension expenses, which will cost the district more than $1 million this year — and about 2.5 percent more next year — are locked in by the State Constitution, which makes it illegal to reduce benefits for workers already enrolled in the system. Proposals that would create less expensive pension plans for future employees will take decades to produce significant savings.

A Minimum Wage Increase

As the nation grapples with a jobs crisis and unemployment hovers near 9 percent, it is easy for policy makers to forget the plight of those who work but earn very little. There are about 4.4 million workers earning the minimum wage or less, according to government statistics. This amounts to about 6 percent of workers paid by the hour. They need a raise.

Today, a worker laboring 40 hours a week nonstop throughout the year for the federal minimum wage could barely keep a family of two above the federal poverty line. Though it rose to $7.25 an hour in 2009, up $2.10 since 2006, the minimum wage is still lower than it was 30 years ago, after accounting for inflation. It amounts to about $1.50 an hour less, in today’s money, than it did in 1968, when Martin Luther King Jr. and Robert Kennedy were killed, Richard Nixon was elected president and the economy was less than a third of its present size.

The minimum wage has many opponents among big business and Congressional Republicans. In Nevada, the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce is pushing to repeal the state’s minimum wage, a whopping $8.25 an hour. Representative Darrell Issa, the California Republican, has proposed a bill in the House that would effectively cut the minimum wage in states where it was higher than the federal threshold by allowing employers to count health benefits toward wages.

Opponents argue that raising the minimum wage would inevitably lead to higher unemployment, prompting companies to cut jobs and decamp to cheaper labor markets. It is particularly bad, the argument goes, to raise it in a weak labor market. Yet with unemployment likely to remain painfully high for years to come, this argument amounts to a promise that the working poor will remain poor for a long time.

What’s more, we know now that the argument is grossly overstated. Over the past 15 years, states and cities around the country have rushed ahead of the federal government to impose higher minimum wages. Economists analyzing the impact of the increases on jobs have concluded that moderate increases have no discernible impact on joblessness. Employers did not rush off to cheaper labor markets in the suburbs or across state lines for a simple reason: that costs money too.

The most recent research, by John Schmitt and David Rosnick at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, found that San Francisco’s minimum wage jump to $8.50 in 2004 — well above the state minimum of $6.75 — improved low-wage workers’ incomes and did not kill jobs. An even bigger jump in Santa Fe, N.M., the same year — from $5.15 to $8.50 — had a similar effect.

Despite evidence to the contrary, businesses and Republicans may keep pushing against the minimum wage — using the jobs crisis now to clinch their argument. They should be disregarded, because their argument is wrong and the United States is too rich to tolerate such an underclass.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, THE OBSERVER, UK

Protest is fine. Now for a proper debate

Hundreds of thousands marched through London to protest against the coalition plans, but we have yet to see a viable alternative to these austerity measures

George Osborne's budget last week reaffirmed the government line that there is no alternative to immediate austerity. On the streets of London yesterday, hundreds of thousands of citizens disagreed.
Even in the most straitened circumstances, there is always a range of options: who is taxed, who is spared, which departments' budgets are protected, which are not. In that sense, the marchers have self-evident truth on their side. Public service cuts express political choices, not immutable forces of nature.
But there is also an important truth in Mr Osborne's position. Last year, when the coalition was formed, the UK had a budget deficit of around 12% of GDP; the government was being forced to borrow some £140bn just to cover the annual overspend on public services.
There are multiple explanations for that state of affairs. Reckless profligacy by Gordon Brown, say Tories; emergency measures to cushion the country from a global crisis, say Labour. But there is no serious dispute about the need to bring the deficit down, only about the best timetable. Labour leader Ed Miliband's principal line of attack is that the government is going "too far, too fast". And yet, going slower would still hurt. There are choices aplenty, but none is easy.
The government is determined to eliminate the deficit within four years, regardless of any variations in the economic climate. There is no Plan B.
So, under the strictures of Plan A, Mr Osborne's budget last week had to be "fiscally neutral", meaning that every pound given away was clawed back elsewhere. There were some of the usual populist manoeuvres – some pennies off petrol made easy headlines. And there were a couple of meaty reforms – raising the personal tax allowance; cutting corporation tax.
But in terms of the bigger picture, every Treasury calculation flows from a bet the chancellor made last year on a sudden private sector renaissance paying off. The idea is that a macho display of fiscal discipline, combined with some tax incentives and deregulation, will give businesses confidence in the long-term stability of the UK economy, thereby prompting them to invest.
The danger is that austerity drives up unemployment and hits people's spending power before the recovery has a chance to gather pace. The government then ends up spending more on benefits and taking less in taxes, which undermines the original goal of reducing the deficit.
This theoretical economic argument over the wisdom of cutting has reached an impasse. Only developments in the real economy will prove one side right. Meanwhile, the cuts themselves are on the way to becoming a political fait accompli. Many people will continue to demand that spending on public services should be protected – yesterday's demonstration will not be the last. But with no sign that the government is wavering, debate in policy terms will soon have to move on to the broader question of what the public sector should look like in austere times.
That poses a challenge to the anti-cuts movement. Yesterday's march proved that the relationship between the British people and their public services is about more than value-for-money transactions. The fact that so many people turned out indicates an emotional involvement, one that recognises how government-funded institutions can be part of the social fabric. Contrary to David Cameron's belief that the two are antithetical, society and the state sometimes happily merge.
But a mass show of affection does not bring the opposition any closer to a sustainable funding model for public services. There is a tendency among trade unions and sections of the Labour party to present the cuts as an exclusively ideological assault on the welfare state. Among some Conservatives, it is. But there remains the awkward, non-ideological fact that government revenues in 2011 will not cover the cost of services as they were provided in 2007, at the top of the boom.
There will be plenty of opportunities in the months ahead to denounce individual strokes of the Treasury axe. But the big question at the centre of British politics is not: "Do we want good services?" Plainly we do. It is: "How will we pay for them?"
The cuts are only half of the government's programme. The coalition is proposing radical restructuring of the NHS, epic upheaval in the way schools are run, the biggest changes to welfare since the Second World War, a "revolution" in penal policy, major changes to policing and an overhaul of the state pension, alongside many smaller-scale initiatives.
Some of these projects are ideologically motivated; some are pragmatic responses to funding shortfalls; some seem driven as much by personal ministerial ambition as public policy rationale. But the overall political impression is of a high-octane administration roaring off down the road, leaving the opposition spluttering in the dust. That is the product of a deliberate – and, so far, effective – strategy by the coalition to make irreversible changes before the opposition has had a chance to organise its response.
Labour is being pushed into a stance of perpetual carping. Their answer to the question of public sector reform by the time of the next election risks amounting to little more than: "Well, we wouldn't start from here."
Ed Miliband is right to tap into anxiety that deficit reduction is happening too fast. But that view contains the tacit recognition that it must still happen at some stage. Any credible alternative to the cuts must include some ideas about the long-term financial sustainability of the welfare state. That will be true even if Labour are proved right about the macro-economic folly of extreme austerity. "We told you so," is also not a very appealing campaign slogan.
In other words, it should be possible to argue against the economic gambles taken by Mr Osborne and also accept the need for a radical approach to delivering public services when the Exchequer is cash-starved. The coalition has a clear programme. There is much to dislike in it, and good reasons for the public to mistrust aspects of it. But there are also bound to be some ideas worth embracing and many that invite constructive dialogue.
Over the next few years, political debate should be about competing visions of the economy, society and the state's role in both. At the moment, on the vital matter of public sector reform, the coalition agenda is pretty much the only game in town. A crowd hundreds of thousands strong yesterday demanded an alternative. That would be a truly formidable force in politics, if only someone could express what the alternative is.

North Africa is Europe's problem–not Obama's

The EU, not America, must take the lead against Gaddafi

Committees are sometimes the fairest way to decide policy; rarely, if ever, are they the most efficient. As a system for conducting wars, their shortcomings are obvious.
Public concern about the risks of intervention in Libya are hardly allayed by the impression that no one appears to be taking ultimate political charge of the mission.
The diplomatic impetus for action came from France and Britain. The US was, after some delay, recruited as a key advocate. Most of the military assets being used in the operation come from members of the Nato alliance. The Arab League is providing diplomatic support and some hardware in the form of Qatari and UAE jets.
The tactical imperative of halting Colonel Gaddafi's assault on Benghazi meant it was necessary last week to shoot missiles first and ask organisational questions later. But those questions quickly reasserted themselves. Almost as quickly, they led to disagreement among anti-Gaddafi allies.
The US does not want to take the lead role, preferring Nato members in Europe to conduct a conflict on their Mediterranean flank. That idea was then bogged down in disagreement between France and Turkey, both Nato members, but with different views of what should be happening in Libya. Paris wants maximum freedom to interpret the UN mandate for intervention. Ankara is more circumspect, wary of a creeping escalation of Nato involvement in North Africa. Britain's view seems to be expressed mainly in sullen whispers of disappointment that the Americans are not more engaged.
For now, the significance of these disagreements should not be exaggerated. But they do expose fault lines that will become more dangerous if the Libyan operation drags on, as well it may. It is revealing also how disorderly the strategic and military dialogue can be among Europeans when the US does not hold their hands.
There are good reasons why Washington wants to be a semi-detached partner. American forces have heavy commitments in Afghanistan. Public opinion in the US is not remotely prepared for a campaign against Gaddafi. Washington has little cause to agitate for regime change in Tripoli. President Obama might plausibly have decided – as indeed he appears initially to have done – that this particular North African rebellion was not his fight. Only late in the day was he persuaded that it was a cause worth fighting for.
Such ambivalence has led to charges of fatal vacillation against the White House. An alternative view is that President Obama, for obvious reasons, weighed his country's interests carefully before committing to another risky military intervention in a fissile Arab country. Having agreed to get involved, perhaps President Obama also surmised that an all-American banner draped over the operation would make it harder to win support in the Arab world and thereby hinder the chances of success.
All of the strategic logic of this conflict points to a predominantly European operation. Tripoli is a short boat ride away from the border of the EU. It is thousands of miles away from Washington. Historically and economically, Libya is in Europe's backyard. Seen from the American perspective, it is a bit rich for Europeans, many of whom are quick to complain about US global hegemony, also to lament a lack of transatlantic GI swagger in a crisis.
The idea of a more assertive, collective continental foreign and security policy has been the ambition of a number of European leaders in recent years. It was a key rationale behind the EU's much-disliked Lisbon treaty, which came into effect last year. But those ambitions have looked painfully naive as a social and political conflagration has torn through North Africa and the Middle East
The US is looking weary of policing the world and, rightly or wrongly, feels starved of gratitude when it does. Nato will take command in Libya, so the US continues to have a major stake in military operations. But the lesson is clear: whatever happens next in North Africa, it is Europe's problem.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MIRROR, SRILANKA

Educating ourselves on the need and value of dissent

At the opening of one of the world’s most beautiful Campuses -- the Peradeniya University, the Duke of Edinburgh spoke these memorable words, “We will be open more than usual”.

Looking back at Peradeniya and reflecting on University Education in our country today one wonders whether those words are true. Recently when the University Lecturers’ Union wanted to hold a news conference in the Colombo University premises it was not allowed to do so. This is in keeping with the Sri Lanka today governed by the 18th Amendment which replaced the 17th Amendment. In this context one should also remember that the discussion planned, in the run-up to the passage of the 18th Amendment in parliament, was abandoned.

 Perhaps we are paying the price for not learning from our past mistakes. During the past few decades because of this type of arrogant behaviour by the elders of our society those issues had gone underground. It was because of issues such as the educated youth in the North and South not knowing English and therefore unemployable that the country had to face the violence that erupted in the South and North. However the elders of our society appear to have forgotten this despite the Lakshman Jayatilleke Commission which attempted to touch base and go to the roots of the problems of the youth.

Today, we are told from high places and their disciples following the example set by George W. Bush after 9/11 that terrorism must be wiped out, we in Sri Lanka have a home grown remedy and therefore we are prepared to teach the world as to how terrorism has to be eradicated.

Along with India we in Asia are an ancient people. We have a rich heritage, culture and civilization. Our education was based on our homes and primarily centered on places of worship.  In India therefore we have the great tradition of Rabindranath Tagore, well known for his Gitanjali and the Noble Prize for Literature and the Shantiniketan. So let those who work under the 18th Amendment remember that stopping a meeting of University Students or lecturers is not education. Like the people of Japan rising from the ashes of the recent earthquake, tsunami and nuclear radiation the Sri Lankan mind cannot be stopped from participating in dissent and therefore in opposition. However like senior journalists or civic rights activists we may be shot dead during the heat of the day. However killing is the work of cowards and not the people who value and learn from dissent and opposition. Therefore it is the task of the media to stand up to the Vice Chancellors and their fellow travellers.

It is good to remember a slain editors farewell editorial in which he quoted a South American thinker, about not being there to protect those who need our help, then we too won’t have anybody not even the 18th Amendment to protect us when the assassin comes looking for us.

EDITORIAL : THE PEOPLE'S DAILY, CHINA

People's Daily Editorial: Bringing social cohesion into full play

"Bringing social vitality into full play and social harmony to the highest limit and reducing all the non-harmonious factors to a minimum," are the goals Chinese Communist Party General Secretary Hu Jintao set for at a symposium as he urged provincial-level Party carders to strengthen and innovate social management.
"People's welfare," "happiness" and "stability" have become the keywords for the Twelfth Five-Year Plan. It will enrich Marx's social management theory and make innovation to CPC's mass work in new phase by building an all-round well-off society, speeding up the process of modernization, examining closely the social vitality, harmony and stability from strategic perspective.
China is in a critical period of great social transformation, with social strata, social organization and social values having undergone or undergoing profound changes. The gaps between urban and rural areas, regions, industries and social members keep widening, the interest claims of the masses are showing signs of variation and diversification, and the conflict of interests are becoming more and more conspicuous.
With the progress made in economic growth, building of democracy and exchanges of various ideas and culture, people's ideology has become more and more independent, changeable and different, which has made the achievement of social accord all the more unattainable. It is an epic theme to adapt to this kind of deep change, accelerate and innovate social management and maintain social vitality and harmony.
As the development of some countries has shown, the period during which national income rises from the middle level to a higher level is usually accompanied by misadjusted economic performance, social disorder as well as psychological problems among individuals. The biggest challenge we are facing is how to avoid falling into the "middle-income trap."
Humanity, the most active factor in productivity, is the subject of strengthening social cohesion. Social management is to provide services and administration to people. All social management sectors are those that serve the people. All social management work is to serve the interests of people, and everything in social management centers around mass work.
Faced with different interests, cultures and ideology, China can benefit the masses of the people as well as spark people's enthusiasm, initiative and creativity and bring the social cohesion into full play by strengthening and improving social management, coordinating social ties, regulating social behavior, solving problems and conflict, answering people's calls and ensuring sound security and benefits.
Faced with a new situation and a new task, China is expected to continue to strengthen and innovate social management, safeguard people's interest, promote social justice, maintain social order, raise people's income and improve personal sense of security to create a sound environment for the development of the Party and government. Only through these measures can we create a better environment for the causes of the Party and government to flourish and concentrate their strength for the country's modernization drive.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

PM's welcome call to opposition

BNP should join AL in this vital endeavour

We welcome Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's call to the opposition to join the ruling party to register their contributions to the forthcoming session that will concern itself with amendments to prevent grabbing of state power through extra-constitutional means. Her statement in the Jatiyo Sangsad on Thursday to associate the opposition with the process should be reciprocated by the latter. We believe that in the larger interest of pluralism and with a view to securing a democratic future for the nation, the BNP should take up the government offer. That this nation has paid a high price because of past instances of coups and counter-coups has never been in doubt. The need, therefore, is now for both the ruling and opposition parties to forge a consensus on effectively putting a stop to such adventurism by ambitious elements.

It is in the interest of both the Awami League and the BNP to ensure the continued survival and strengthening of democracy. Strengthening democracy entails, however, much more than an exercise of the ballot once every five years. The restoration of democracy in 1991 notwithstanding, we have observed that it is always the majority party which appropriates all power for five years while the opposition has hardly any role to speak of. Modern democracy is all about governing, and governing well through the ruling party keeping the opposition engaged on crucial national issues. Similarly, it is for the opposition to remain focused on its role in parliament as a shadow government. The culture that has developed, of the ruling party governing in arrogance and the opposition boycotting parliament, can never be conducive to making democracy strong and fruitful.

Democracy very much requires ensuring that all the institutions of local government, so well defined in theory, are made fully operative. It is only through empowering the many tiers of democracy, especially at local levels --- union parishad, upazila parishad --- that democracy can take deeper roots and its fruits can be enjoyed by the people. The prime minister's call should now be followed by concrete action on the part of both the ruling party and opposition. 

Our part of WC ends

Elated to have hosted it

Finally the curtain has fallen on the ICC world cup extravaganza in Dhaka. With the third quarter final match between mighty Proteas and the Black Caps finishing on the wires, the World Cup itinerary in Bangladesh is well and truly over.

Without dwelling on our teams performances, we can say that the way we hosted our part of the tournament is cause for gratification for us and appreciation from our guests.

The organizing bodies and the members have successfully held the event with no major hiccups. The grand opening ceremony on February 17 at the Bangabandhu Stadium earned highest felicitation from all over the world. The striking display of light and sound kindled the hearts of cricket lovers the world over. Dhaka and Chittagong wore festive looks. Facilities and security provided to the players, distinguished guests, foreign visitors and the locals have been up to the mark even meeting international standards.

Match venues were no less gorgeous with all state-of-the-art facilities. The overwhelming response of the people of all ages, their appreciation of good cricket and their overall disciplined behaviour were marks of maturity. People's hospitality was praised by the guests and the players alike.

The only shortcoming was observed in the area of ticketing and ticket sales. There have been complaints that normal channels did not work efficiently as people had to undergo strains for getting tickets queuing up for hours together in front of the selling banks. Tickets slipped into the black market and sold at exorbitant prices. This shouldn't have happened.

It heartens to note that Bangladesh, as a co-host of ICC World Cup has played its part with passion, efficiency and management skill. This should encourage us to hold many more international sporting events.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

Cricket diplomacy

INDIAN Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s invitation to President Asif Ali Zardari and Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to watch the Cricket World Cup semi-final between the two countries is not quite a googly — cricket diplomacy has been used in the past — but can something come of the gesture? First, the positives. The peace process, stalled since November 2008, appears to be cautiously edging back on track. The interior secretaries of the two countries are to meet on Monday-Tuesday in New Delhi; next month, the commerce and trade secretaries are to meet; and in July the foreign secretaries and ministers are scheduled to meet in New Delhi. All these meetings will take place in the light of the reasonably promising joint statement issued in Thimphu in February by the foreign secretaries, which read in part:

“[The foreign secretaries] agreed on the need for a constructive dialogue between India and Pakistan to resolve all outstanding issues. They affirmed the need to carry forward the dialogue process.”

Off the cricket field, there are also some quick diplomatic ‘wins’ that are within grasp. Siachen and Sir Creek remain two problems to which the solutions have long been known and all but agreed on. But in Pakistan there is a perception that the Indian military has dug its heels in on both issues. For example, from a military perspective, India has the upper hand in Siachen and that appears to be something the Indian military is unwilling to give up. Similarly, a more relaxed visa regime and some trade concessions by both sides are within reach — if both sides de-monstrate the necessary maturity and spirit of understanding.

While there are positives to be found in the present situation, there remain many reasons to be cautious. The Indian prime minister may have his legacy in mind while reaching out to Pakistan, but scandals at home have weakened both his and his government’s position. Even if he wants to, it is far from clear if the Indian prime minister can go beyond gestures and offer something substantive. Equally, on this side of the border, there are reasons to be cautious about the establishment’s ability to compromise on India at the moment. From Indian involvement in Afghanistan to India’s hydro projects on rivers that are a lifeline for Pakistan, there are serious concerns here about India’s actions that could have a chilling effect on whatever gains the diplomats may be able to engineer. But both sides must be careful to not endlessly roam the space between a breakdown in ties and a breakthrough — talks for talks’ sake will fatigue both publics.

Tough challenge

REAL estate in Pakistan is expensive. The advertisements in Sunday newspapers are evidence of this — the sales price quotes run into multiple millions of rupees. Given that each sales transaction is subject to tax, the federal and provincial governments ought to be earning significant amounts of revenue. That is the theory. In reality, the government earns only a tiny amount of the sum exchanged since property is officially registered at a fraction of its market value. The official price of the land, which is meant to be reviewed annually, is kept low by a nexus of corruption which deprives the government of tax revenue that would contribute significantly towards solving its financial problems. Real estate transactions are conducted in effec-tively two ‘stages’, the first where the payment is based on the official rate, and the second where the balance dictated by the market price is transferred. It is not just private individuals that defraud the public exchequer in this way. Government and other agencies such as the development authorities in Islamabad, Lahore and Karachi, the Defence Housing Authorities and Cantonment Boards in various cities are to a greater or lesser extent all colluders in the under-valuing of expensive real estate. Some banks offering mortgage loans issue more than one cheque.

It is therefore encouraging that early reports about the next budget say that there are plans to revise the system. A senior FBR official told this newspaper on Thursday that an exercise is under way to link the tax imposed on transactions to the market-rate value of property. If achieved, this would significantly improve the financial situation of the federal and provincial governments. However, the challenge faced by the FBR is daunting. It will face tough opposition from the people and organisations, many of them functionaries of the government, that are benefiting from the current system. The FBR must stand firm, though. The official value of real estate must match its market price. Real estate transactions involve massive sums of money and there is no reason why corrupt practices should deprive the government of its legitimate revenue.

Afghan nationals

A NEWS report based on last Thursday’s proceedings in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Assembly offers evidence of what could be called the country’s preferential ‘AFAM’ policy that lumps together two close allies. The report suggests the Afghans and the Americans exist outside the government’s definition of foreigners. Incredibly, only five US nationals are shown by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa home department ledger to be staying in the pro-vince right now. This is a ‘huge’ presence considering that official figures fail to record the presence of any Americans in the province in 2009-2010.

At the same time, the Afghans are also not considered foreign enough to make it to the list of aliens, even though some 350 of them receive their visas daily from the Pakistani embassy in Kabul alone.

The Afghans and their neighbours in the Pakistani areas speak the same language, are connected by familial ties and brought together by cultural and business interests. These linkages did make it easier for millions of Afghan refugees to assimilate in Pakistan. But here we are talking about people with a foreign passport and a Pakistani visa. Even in the case of Afghan refugees, while they were extended special treatment here, in recent years much emphasis has been put on their repatriation based on an assertion of their identity as Afghan nationals. Why would the authorities then not want to register bona fide Afghan visitors to Pakistan? Indeed, it may be easier to have records for them than for many others who travel to and fro without documents. The fact that even Pakistani nationals are routinely required to prove their origins to the picket-minders here should have made exemptions that much more difficult. This laxity is not new to Pakistan. However, with each new incident, it is more frustrating than it was in the past.

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

Strengthen cooperation with Asia-Pacific nations

Japan, China and South Korea have decided to enhance their cooperation regarding disaster response and nuclear safety, drawing on the lessons of the March 11 Tohoku Pacific Offshore Earthquake and the subsequent accidents at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant operated by Tokyo Electric Power Co.

The three countries agreed on greater cooperation at a meeting of their foreign ministers held March 19 in Kyoto. Details are expected to be decided at working-level talks, and we want discussions to be held as soon as possible.

The day after the massive earthquake and tsunami, South Korea dispatched a rescue dog team to disaster-hit areas, and a short time later sent more than 100 rescue workers.

A 15-member Chinese rescue team arrived two days after the quake.

Such immediate rescue activities, which take advantage of the three nations' proximity as neighboring countries, will be central to the cooperation among Japan, China and South Korea.

===

Large donations of fuel

South Korea also provided Japan with 500,000 tons of liquefied natural gas that could be used as fuel to run a thermal power station, while China supplied 20,000 tons of gasoline and other fuels.

We hope this assistance from Beijing and Seoul will develop into a mutual assistance framework under which Japan would in turn move quickly with rescue and assistance operations if a large-scale disaster hit China or South Korea.

South Korea also offered boric acid, which can suppress nuclear fission, to help deal with the Fukushima nuclear power station. Seoul has stockpiles of boric acid for use during inspections and repairs at its nuclear power stations, illustrating the usefulness of a three-country system to help each other procure emergency goods at the time of a nuclear accident.

In the case of an accident at a nuclear power station in one country, it is most important to disclose and share information quickly at home and abroad. A groundless rumor spread in China and South Korea immediately after the start of the crisis that radiation from the Fukushima plant would contaminate the air and seawater.

A country where a nuclear accident has occurred has a responsibility to provide accurate information. The Foreign Ministry has carried information on the quake and tsunami disaster in English, Chinese and Korean on its Web site, but it may need to provide information in many more languages.

===

Dealing with tsunami critical

Tsunami following the March 11 earthquake caused damage on the U.S. west coast, Indonesia and other locations. How to deal with large tsunami is a common issue for countries facing the Pacific Ocean.

Disaster relief training exercises were held last week in Indonesia with the participation of more than 25 countries, including Australia, India, Southeast Asian countries and the United States.

Organized jointly by the Japanese and Indonesian governments, the field exercise was conducted on the premise that tsunami had caused huge damage, and included drills on evacuation, helicopter transportation and searching for victims trapped under wreckage.

Technical know-how regarding such relief activities will unquestionably be useful in emergencies. These exercises should be made a regular occurrence.

Offers of help have reached Japan from 130 countries around the world, including nations in Europe, Central and South America, the Middle East and Africa, as well as the United States and other Asian countries. We are very grateful, and Japan will always offer a helping hand to those countries when they are in difficulty.