EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MIRROR, SRILANKA

 

‘Justice has been done’

It really is a quite pertinent question as to why the US; which celebrates the death of Al Qaeda supreme Bin Laden moved to send a fleet of ships to rescue ruthless LTTE leader Velupillai Prabhakaran in the last days of war against terrorism in Sri Lanka. When that failed and the LTTE was annihilated the Obama administration bemoaned the death of the LTTE leader and his organization and pushed UN Secretary General to prepare grounds for a possible intervention.
A position in stark contrast to that adopted by successive American Presidents when faced with the scourge of terrorism on its own soil;  certainly, no one grudges the US and its allies the right to launch a war on terror, given the necessity to rid the world of the inhumanity that terrorism stands responsible for. The threat terrorism spreads through civilized nations can never be tolerated- be it in the US or in the tiny island, Sri Lanka. Unlike the US, Sri Lanka suffered heavily for over three decades, watched its economy crumble, its innocent civilians butchered by the madness that was the LTTE and ironically enjoy the empathy of countries like the US.
However addressing the American people President Barak Obama, justified his right to arrest the scourge and spoke of ordering the director of the CIA, ‘to make the killing or capture of Bin Laden the top priority of our war against Al Qaeda’. Again, a necessity that we, as a people that has suffered under the LTTE can relate to. Yet, it is the principle behind the duplicity with which the administration deals with the terrorism in the US as opposed to that in Sri Lanka that must be condemned.
‘As a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened, nor stand idly by when our people have been killed.  We will be relentless in defence of our citizens and our friends and allies.  We will be true to the values that make us who we are. Justice has been done,’ he added.
No one grudges Washington the triumph of victory. While the death of a human being is not to be celebrated; the death of one who posed a threat to millions of innocent people cannot be. But it is sad that Mr. Obama’s administration does not believe in granting the same privileges to countries like Sri Lanka; which too could not ‘stand idly by’ when it faced the same threat. Colombo too had to be ‘relentless in the ‘defence’ of its citizens and ensure that ‘justice’ was done.
Just as Mr. Obama celebrate the ‘professionalism, patriotism, and unparalleled courage of those who serve’ his country, so must the Colombo administration.  The controversial UN report is a case in point. It is imperative that he understands as he vows never to ‘waver’ in his ‘commitment’ to do ‘whatever it takes’ to prevent another attack on his shores, so must the government here. These are responsibilities that governments cannot give up on- these are duties that bound Statesmen to their countries and their people.
 

EDITORIAL : THE HINDU, INDIA

What the end of bin Laden means

In the nearly 10 years since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States, if there was a man who could claim responsibility for single-handedly setting the world's agenda, it was Osama bin Laden. As the smiling face behind the 9/11 attacks, the leader of a global terror network that reared its head in countries from the U.S. to the United Kingdom to Indonesia, bin Laden changed the way we led our lives in more ways than has yet been fully understood. With the attacks on the Twin Towers, the U.S invaded Afghanistan, unleashing a war that has claimed thousands of civilian lives, in which much of the western world is involved to a greater or lesser degree. It did not make the world a safer place as promised but only made people everywhere more vulnerable to terrorist attacks. Al-Qaeda's alleged spread into Saddam Hussein's Iraq was one of the reasons cited by the Bush administration for the 2003 invasion of that country. With an ideology that offered nothing but a pledge to destroy the U.S. and the “enemies of Islam” everywhere, bin Laden and his network of jihadists exploited a welter of real and perceived grievances of populations in the Islamic world, both against their own governments and the outside world, especially the U.S. In the al-Qaeda solution, there was no room for negotiations, bargains, or compromises with the “enemy.” The true path was that of violence, which created a self-fulfilling prophesy of a “clash of civilisations” by drawing the U.S. and other western powers into an ever-spiralling war against “terror” — a war al-Qaeda and its ally, the Taliban, and other groups linked to them by their radical ideologies were able to project as a war against Islam, strengthening bin Laden's hands with every passing day. The U.S. had been pursuing him even before 9/11, in fact from as far back as 1992. After his escape from the fierce assault on his hideout in Afghanistan's Tora Bora caves, he was suspected to be hiding in Pakistan. His killing on the night of May 1, in a targeted operation by U.S. Navy Seals at his hideout 150 km from the Pakistan capital city Islamabad, is a landmark development in the “war against terror.”

Beyond relief, what implications does this development hold for the world? When President Barack Obama announced the death of bin Laden in an address from the White House, he was correct in cautioning that this did not mean the end of al-Qaeda. Over the decade since 9/11, the network has expanded, spread, morphed, and broken off into what have come to be known as “al Qaeda franchises” round the world. These franchises have shown their ability to plan and carry out attacks in their area of operation independently of bin Laden. Only last year, a plot to carry out a bombing in the United States with explosives packed in couriered parcels was uncovered in the nick of time; the plot was claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AIQM). Last month al-Qaeda warned it would unleash “a nuclear hell storm” in Europe, giving rise to fears that it might have a nuclear bomb. There is a real possibility that the killing of bin Laden will turn him into a martyr, inspiring others to take up the battle. Certainly, countries around the world are bracing for reprisal attacks. Much, however, depends on how Washington conducts itself from this point onwards. For starters, President Obama needs to rethink the war in Afghanistan. If the ultimate objective is to talk to “moderate” Taliban in order to negotiate an end to this war, there is no justification for further military operations in that country, and no excuse for delaying the departure of the U.S. and other foreign troops.

Pakistan certainly has some soul-searching to do. Its political leaders and officials always rejected suspicions that the al-Qaeda leader was holed up in their country. It is deeply troubling that the 54-year-old bin Laden, for whom the U.S. had announced a bounty of $50 million, had made a home not in some remote inaccessible corner of Pakistan, but in one of its most pleasant cities, close to the capital, in a house that was so big it could not have escaped notice. That it was located less than a kilometre from the Kakul Military Academy is even more troubling. Is it believable that Pakistan's intelligence agencies did not know about the presence of the world's most wanted terrorist? Did they ignore what was going on under their noses? Or worse, were they involved in maintaining the safe haven? During his 2008 election campaign, President Obama pledged that if there was “actionable intelligence” about bin Laden in Pakistan, he would authorise action with or without Islamabad's help. In his speech, he was careful to highlight Pakistan's counter-terrorism cooperation. But this daring operation, eight months in the planning, had no Pakistanis on board. In the last few months, relations between the two countries have deteriorated over the CIA's covert operations inside the country.

While much blame can be apportioned to the way the U.S. has conducted itself in the region, for Pakistan the killing of bin Laden on its soil is a moment of truth, somewhat similar to the discovery that the 2008 Mumbai terror attacks were launched from its territory, only much bigger in its implications. In India, which has tried to overcome the public's hostility towards Pakistan over the Mumbai attacks through a series of peace moves under the personal initiative of Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, it will certainly be hoped that the death of bin Laden strengthens the hands of those forces in Pakistan who want their state to shut the door on militancy, extremism, and terrorism once and for all. While it may be tempting to see bin Laden's killing at Abbottabad as confirmation of India's worst fears, New Delhi must resist the temptation to crow, and must push ahead with the peace process with the civilian government of Pakistan.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY STAR, BANGLADESH

          

 

End of bin-laden

Will it end extremism?

After nearly ten years of the destruction of the Twin Towers the alleged mastermind behind the attack and indeed behind many other terrorist attacks before and since, mostly against US interest, has been killed. Reportedly, he was taken out from his lair in the town of Abbotabad in Hazara, a border district in the erstwhile NWFP of Pakistan

It was perhaps a matter of time before the Americans caught up with and destroyed the symbol and the motive force behind the spate of religiously motivated terrorist acts in the world. And it is time that we deliberate on the implication of his life and death, both for the world, and, more importantly, the region of South Asia which has been transformed into the focus of the US led war on terrorism.

It is true that for many Muslims bin-Laden was a symbol of resistance against US hypocrisy and double standards. And some may have looked up to him as one that could stand up to the Americans. It was that anti-US sentiments that Laden had so skillfully exploited all these years and no doubt many had become ideologically, if not organically, associated with him. But it is also true that a vast majority of the Muslims did not agree with his method of work. Killing of innocents was abhorrent to the religion that Laden aspired to establish over the world, and yet very few among the vast majority that disagreed with him, picked up the courage to protest.

Physical elimination of a leader is one thing, overcoming his ideological hold, however restricted that may be, is quite another.

Though bin-Laden's methods were violent, an element of his appeal was due to Western hypocrisy in dealing with Muslim issues, especially that of Palestine.

We would like to add that with bin-Laden's death the image of Western hypocrisy will not be erased so the West should work towards eliminating that impressing by striking at the roots of injustices against them.

We in Bangladesh should do everything to eliminate all forms of extremism and religious bigotry. bin-Laden promoted a brand of religious extremism that we must totally abjure and do everything to build a democratic and tolerant society.

World Press Freedom Day

New media for freer democracies

Twenty years into the declaration of World Press Freedom Day, today, the media landscape has been greatly transformed, a change brought in largely by the internet and new media. This year's theme for the day is thus quite rightly, “21st Century Media: New Frontiers, New Barriers”. Yet, the objective of observing the day and of the spirit behind it, remain the same -- the freedom of expression and freedom of the press as a basic human right.

Without a vibrant press there can be no vibrant democracy, as we have seen in the case of Bangladesh which underwent clampdowns on the press from governments and military rulers almost since its very inception. Throughout the decades of democracy too, it has faced many threats, from governments and, increasingly, corporate pressures, to outright closures of television and news channels, newspapers and the blocking of internet sites by the state. Individual journalists have been vulnerable to threats, with several local journalists being killed in the south-western region of the country some years ago, cases in which justice is yet to be served. True, the press in Bangladesh enjoy more freedom than in many other countries in the world, but the culture of impunity of those who pose a threat to journalists and media freedom must be removed in order to ensure freer media, leading to a more transparent and effective democratic state.

The government's commitment to building a digital Bangladesh is in tune with today's global theme but ways to utilise it to its full potential -- such as by providing widespread access to the internet and promoting it and social networks as platforms for democratic discussion and civic participation, the importance of which we have witnessed in the Arab uprisings this year -- must be borne in mind.

On this day, we reiterate our hope that our media will be given maximum freedom to perform its duties -- a freedom which it in turn will exercise with responsibility. The press should be seen not as an opponent but as a partner in democracy and development.