EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

Wild geese still fly

They called him the face of terrorism but he died faceless as he was mowed down by American bullets. In a few hours was consigned to the sea off the coast of Afghanistan with minimum publicity.

For some it was closure to the tragedies of 9/11 and for others it was the end of a blood-soaked chapter in modern terrorism. From the days of the Red Army, the Baader Meinhof gang, the Khmer Rouge and IRA, terrorism has converted from rebellion to a full-scale industry. Bin Laden took it to another level by masterminding the aircraft attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and became the master of the macabre game. As his legend grew, largely nourished by the inability of the US and its allies to track him down, there was also a certain aura of invincibility.

That branding has collapsed but there are now so many splinter groups that have sprouted in various parts of the world that terrorism is still a commodity that can be exported at will and if the price is right. The wild geese have a larger flock and are capable of growing wilder with mercenaries available in battalion size for the right price.

Disenchantment feeds the beast and the comforting part is that recent developments underscoring people power have marginalised the symbolic leaders like Bin Laden, who have used the latent outrage of social injustice and poverty to feed its ranks and increase them. It will be very difficult for fragmented terrorist groups to generate the necessary togetherness or sense of purpose to create another cult figure like Bin Laden — largely because the base population in the global village is no longer so easily led astray and has discovered that it can stand on its own without the need to pick up arms.

On the contrary, in present circumstances, what one has to be cautious of is the retaliatory actions of the less organised groups who might target at will and with such arbitrariness that no one could possibly second guess them. To that extent all the world can do is exercise greater vigilance, but the destruction of the Bin Laden saga does mark, to a tangible extent, the beginning of the end of the past forty years of extremism that have held sway in the world.

A change of policy in Cairo

In a major policy shift, Egypt has called upon the United States to extend support to the declaration of an independent Palestinian state.  

Previously reticent on the issue of the  Palestinian initiative which has obtained the support of some key South American states, Egypt is now seen leaning towards the same. Post-Hosni Mubarak, the Egyptian transition government’s moves seem to be geared towards changing the perception vis-à-vis its long-standing policy on the Palestine-Israel issue.

In fact, the Egyptian foreign minister Nabil al-Araby recently reiterated his country’s full support of the Palestinian independence declaration. He also urged Washington to view the recently Cairo-brokered unity deal between Fatah and Hamas as a positive development. The US has been ‘cool’ about the coming together of the estranged Palestinian factions since it views Hamas as a terrorist organisation. For Washington, any unity Palestinian government must renounce violence against Israel and recognise its existence before any talks are held. Israel of course, has rejected any talks with a Palestinian government inclusive of Hamas.

Irrespective of how the situation develops on that front, the question here is how Egypt plays its cards. No doubt Egyptian influence is crucial for both Israel and the United States.

Since Egypt has always been at the forefront of talks with both Israel and the Palestinians, the new change in attitude in Cairo may prove a bit unsettling for Washington and Tel Aviv. Moreover, this may also cause some hurdles for Cairo as it seeks financial aid from the US to make up for the vast economic losses incurred during the pre-Mubarak ouster weeks. However, the future of Egyptian politics is at present in an amorphous stage. After the departure of Mubarak and three decades of a one-man oppressive rule, future politicians are likely to formulate their agendas in line with popular sentiment on the street. That, unequivocally tilts towards a separate Palestine state.

It will be interesting to see the  developments that take place over the next few months. The idea behind the unilateral declaration of an independent Palestinian state has risen from sheer frustration over the non-ending impasse stemming from Israel’s obduracy on key policy issues that are only detrimental for the Palestinians and in total negation of the previously agreed settlement proposals.

The idea of the Palestinian state declaration is catching on despite strong objection from Israel and the US. In case Egypt decides to recognise an independent Palestinian state on the same footing as the Latin states, then this might become a major issue for its Jewish neighbour. It may also set a precedent in the Arab world with other  regional states supporting the initiative, thus putting additional pressure on Israel.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Hide still has important role to play

Immediately after taking control of the Act Party, Don Brash said he "saw sense" in Rodney Hide staying on as a minister. The former leader, for his part, was adamant that he wanted to remain Minister of Local Government, Minister of Regulatory Reform and an Associate Minister of Education.

A few days later, Dr Brash seemed to be changing his mind. He indicated that he would ask the Prime Minister to give Mr Hide's portfolios to another MP. But yesterday, he reverted to his first instinct. As is often the case, it was the right one. To have deprived Mr Hide of his ministerial roles would have smacked of over-the-top ruthlessness.

There were several good reasons for allowing Mr Hide to remain a minister until the general election, when he will retire from Parliament. He has carried a heavy burden, especially in orchestrating the Super City. While he has had his share of critics, especially in terms of the powers allotted to council controlled organisations in the initial blueprint, his willingness to make concessions ensured the emergence of a workable framework. That work is not complete. The Super City is still coming to life, and Mr Hide is heading the Government response to the Auckland Council's spatial plan.

Continuing this work is far more significant than the reason mentioned by Dr Brash; that Mr Hide was remaining to steer important bills through Parliament.

This referred to legislation stemming from Dr Brash's 2025 Taskforce and the Regulatory Standards Bill. Both should not take up too much of Mr Hide's time. Only minor and moderate parts of the now-disbanded taskforce's findings are involved, and the Government is committed to supporting the ill-considered regulatory standards legislation only as far as a select committee. It is highly unlikely to proceed further.

But Mr Hide's immersion in the local government portfolio should not be underestimated. Another MP could not have been expected to get up to speed overnight - it would more than likely take most of the seven months until the election. John Key, for one, would not have been keen to see a new face trying to defend an important aspect of his Government programme in public forums. Indeed, he might well have blanched when he considered the options available to Act's new leader.

This paucity of choice led to suggestions that Dr Brash would surrender Mr Hide's responsibilities and the consumer affairs and associate commerce portfolios held by the party's deputy leader, John Boscawen. This would give Act a freer hand to criticise the Government. It would, therefore, be better placed to avoid the fate of small parties that had been tarred by close association with a senior governing party.

In the end, Dr Brash has gone halfway along this path in relinquishing Mr Boscawen's portfolios. Doubtless, he sees this as a way of achieving the sort of differentiation that will be vital if Act is to get anywhere near his goal of 15 per cent of the party vote. While he and four of the Act MPs stake out the party's position, the public will be invited to see Mr Hide as a minister involved largely in the mechanics of government, and one whose time in the Act fold has but a short time to run.

Dr Brash was clearly tempted to make an unequivocal breach with the past. Stripping Mr Hide of his ministerial roles would have put further distance between Act and what he has described as a "toxic" brand.

But, on balance, there were more good reasons for not going down that path. Worst of all, there could have been considerable implications for Dr Brash's public persona. His coup strategy and execution was cold-blooded. A further strike against Mr Hide would have seemed cold-hearted.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NATIONAL POST, CANADA

State is the real threat to ratings

Credit rating agencies came away from the global financial crisis with damaged reputations. They have since taken a step forward in redeeming themselves by showing their independence from their government regulators. To wit, Standard and Poor's recently placed a negative outlook on the U.S. government and Moody's warned that the United States will need to reverse its expansion of debt if it hopes to keep its current rating.

With sovereign debt being a large part of the investment portfolios of pension funds and other institutional investors, the creditability of external ratings is important, even though ratings agencies have shown themselves to be lagging indicators of problems behind markets.

Prior to the global financial crisis, credit rating agencies were already under scrutiny because of corporate scandals such as Enron, where the agencies failed to detect financial irregularities in companies that later collapsed. These scandals resulted in regulatory initiatives such as the establishment of a code of conduct by the International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO), an international umbrella group of securities regulators. The code of conduct includes four principles, one of which is "rating decisions should be independent and free from political or economic pressures and from conflicts of interest arising due to the agency's ownership structure, business or financial activities, or the financial interests of the agency employees."

The global financial crisis prompted regulators to apply the accelerator to their regulatory agenda for credit ratings agencies. With a G20 commitment to extend regulatory oversight to credit rating agencies to ensure they meet the IOSCO code (with emphasis on conflicts of interest), G20 members have introduced new regulations, often going well beyond what the G20 called for.

Ironically, aggressive regulatory intervention may have done more to create a new conflict of interest than resolve existing ones, since the governments that make regulation rely on their ratings to borrow cheaply. Rating sovereigns is a core business of the agencies; therefore, they need to be free of the threat of regulatory retaliation for their ratings actions.

However, Europe demonstrated last June that it is not shy about coercing ratings agencies. Following a downgrade of Greece to junk status by Moody's, an EU commissioner said the decision raises questions about the role of rating agencies in the financial system. This was followed by EU Commission proposals for a publicly funded sovereign rating agency to rival the big three rating agencies.

Despite a new regulatory regime coming into force last December to implement the IOSCO code, the EU nevertheless chose to consult on further regula-tory actions, on the basis that the euro debt crisis has renewed concerns that financial institutions and institutional investors may be relying too much on external credit ratings. These institutions and investors are likely patting themselves on the back now for their reliance on ratings: The risk of a Greek sovereign default is higher than ever, despite European officials insisting last June that financial markets were wrong about Greece.

The EU behaviour towards credit ratings agency may have left management at Standard and Poor's and Moody's nervous, particularly with the new powers that regulators have under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Protection Act. The legislation also directs regulators to publish reports on potential further actions, including a review of alternate compensation structures for the rating agencies.

However, an announcement by the manager of the world's largest bond fund that it was shorting U.S. treasuries, as well as other recent criticisms of the U.S. fiscal situation, probably took some pressure off Standard and Poor's and Moody's, in the sense that their own announcements simply affirmed what everyone has already realized. Nevertheless, the rating agencies deserve credit in showing the capacity to act independently on sovereign ratings despite the potential for regulatory retaliation. To ensure the integrity of sovereign ratings in the future, G20 members need to develop standards to regulate their own behaviour.

Stand up to U.S.

From May 23 to June 10, 2011, softwood lumber producers and importers in the United States will be canvassed through a referendum organized by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to get them to agree to a tax designed to increase softwood lumber usage in the United States. A majority of the 595 U.S. producers and 883 U.S. importers of softwood lumber probably will agree to a specific tax designed to fund about US$100-million worth of market research and generic advertising over the next five years, starting in 2012, partly because they will not have to pay the whole bill.

Even though the promotional campaign will be controlled and directed by the U.S. government, Canadian exports to the United States will be taxed at the border to help pay for the American program. Canadians will not vote on whether they want to be taxed, nor have anything effectively to say about how the money will be spent.

The Government of Canada in 2006 collected US$1-billion from the Canadian softwood lumber industry and turned over the money to the United States in order to settle the most recent round of the softwood lumber dispute. Some of that money now has been used to develop this newest plan to tax Canadians and turn over still more money to the United States.

No one in the lumber industry would quarrel with the idea of promoting the use of wood, especially as less "green" materials -such as steel and plastic -have begun to compete successfully with a renewable resource. But who should pay? The designers of the U.S. "check-off program" for softwood lumber have admitted that they could not get the industry to pay voluntarily over a long period of time but they believe that Americans, who will control and run the program, will volunteer to pay part of the bill as long as they can force Canadians, who will have no say, to pay a significant part. After years of accusing Canada of subsidizing Canadian industry (something never proved), the United States, and really the U.S. industry, is coercing Canada to subsidize a program meant to promote the U.S. industry.

This program circumvents NAFTA, which forbids new tariffs at the border, and the trade laws, which provide recourse. Once enacted, there is no legal recourse, at least not under the trade laws. The check-off program is being created under the U.S. 1996 Farm Bill for the benefit of U.S. industry. Benefits to Canadians would be coincidental.

Some $350-million of the $1billion turned over to the United States in 2006 were supposed to be committed to "meritorious initiatives," including the promo-tion of green building materials. These funds remain, five years later, largely unspent and available should there be consensus for a new promotional program. Canadians should not surrender their sovereignty to a unilateral American decision to impose new taxes on Canadians, especially when, however virtuous the purpose, the funds already are available.

Canadian forest industries have been experiencing the most severe economic challenges in their history. While their markets collapsed they have had to pay export taxes for the privilege of supplying the shrinking U.S. market. Now they will be coerced to pay for a U.S. government promotional program designed principally to subsidize their American competitors.

Canada's newly elected parliament needs to address this important issue in defence of Canadian sovereignty, and the integrity and economic well-being of Canada's forest industry, which employed 238,000 Canadians in 2009. Canadian politicians ought to declare their opposition to this circumvention of international trade rules.

Fear and hope for Ontario's Liberals

For the federal Liberals, the shock of Monday night's electoral disaster probably hasn't worn off yet. But that's OK. They have four long years to let it sink in. Their counterparts in the Liberal Party of Ontario have no such luxury, however. Looking at an electoral map of Ontario, with blotches of red noticeably lacking, one can't help but suspect that the already bleak situation facing the Ontario Liberals seems a lot grimmer than it did six weeks ago.

Of Ontario's 106 ridings, a mere 11 went red on Monday night. For a party already widely believed to be out of gas and with unenviable poll numbers, it's not a good position to be in. The next provincial election is only five months away. They have that long to diagnose what went wrong and figure out how to combat it. But the blue wave that swept through Ontario on Monday night might actually be their best hope for re-election.

The most recent Ontario budget, brought down in March, speaks to the problems facing the provincial Liberals. It was shockingly sparse in goodies for a pre-election budget. Ontario is $200-billion in debt, and having run up provincial expenditures by 50% since taking office in 2003, Dalton McGuinty found himself simply unable to afford any major vote-buying measures. A few hundred million was approved to provide greater mental health care to young Ontarians, and access to breast cancer screenings will be improved, but there were no grand societal projects that Liberals seem genetically hardcoded to pursue. What the province got was a largely stay-the-course, tighten-our-belts budget. McGuinty, after years of showering money on the province's public sector unions in exchange for "labour peace," isn't a particularly convincing salesman for a message of restraint.

Especially when there's an energized Progressive Conservative party that can promise exactly the same while satisfying the electorate's demand for change and escaping the worst of McGuinty's "Premier Dad" reputation for intrusive nanny state promotion. Not even the Liberals' emergency contingency plan -shout loudly and often that the provincial Tories will destroy health care and education -seems to be working. Polls have shown the voters trust both major parties equally on those files. That, more than anything else, had to set off alarm bells at Ontario Liberal HQ.

But perhaps they now have something they can campaign with, and win. Ontario voters are often contrarian in outlook, reluctant to give one party too much power at any given time. This could prove doubly true next time, as Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, clearly identified with the right, might make Toronto voters think long and hard before giving the provincial Tories the same kind of support they were willing to give Harper's Conservatives in and around the province's largest city. With the party needing to make up at least 30 seats in order to win a majority mandate, the Tories will need strong support in the Greater Toronto Area. There are no other realistic roads to victory. On Monday, it was in large part the strength of the NDP in many Toronto ridings that gave the Tories the edge they needed to win. There's no reason to believe that a similar surge in New Democrat support will be in the offing come election day in Ontario.

Those tactical issues aside, there is still of course the question of the overall campaign narrative. Pundits and politicos in Ontario have been musing for months about polling that shows that Ontario voters are eager for change and that Dalton McGuinty would likely pay the price for that urge. But that was before the federal election was called, and change came to Canadian and Ontario politics by the bucketful. It's entirely possible that the average Ontario voter, struggling to come to grip with the virtual annihilation of the federal Liberals and Bloc Quebecois, might decide they've had all the change they need right now, and park their vote with the tired, but affable, Mr. McGuinty. Much will depend on how provincial Tory leader Tim Hudak connects with voters. To date, they have seen puzzlingly little of him.

Conservatives in Ontario, and especially in Toronto, have every right to feel good about what happened on Monday, and to look forward to the next campaign in October. But they should remember that the other guy always has a plan, too. Come election day in Ontario, the provincial Tories might have cause to wish they'd saved some of their wins this week for another day.

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Bulging coffers

The nation’s holdings of foreign currency surpassed the $300 billion mark at the end of April. Should the nation confront any financial crisis in the future, these bulging state coffers will be of great help in cushioning the blow.

To hold $300 billion in foreign reserves is nothing short of a sea change for a nation that has been exposed to the threat of sovereign bankruptcy on two occasions during the past 13 years. Korea ― the seventh largest foreign currency holder after China, Japan, Russia, Taiwan, Brazil and India ― deserves to pat itself on the back.

During the 1997-98 Asian crisis the government attempted in vain to shield the nation from the onrushing financial tsunami. Having nearly exhausted its foreign reserves in this process, the government had to ask for an IMF bailout. Though the conditions were better when it faced the global financial crisis of 2008-09, it had to secure currency swap deals with the United States and other countries.

The current high level of foreign reserves will help Korea absorb shocks during times of crisis and cope with potential limits on access to borrowing abroad. It will also help the nation meet its foreign exchange needs and external debt obligations.

If so, will it be better for the nation to maintain a higher level of foreign exchange holdings? The answer is yes. But the downside is the additional cost. The central bank is already spending a huge amount of taxpayers’ money to keep its foreign reserves at a high level and stabilize the value of the Korean currency at the same time.

To accommodate the rising foreign reserves, the Bank of Korea has to buy dollars and other foreign currencies in the market. That is what the government has been doing in response to a net foreign currency inflow, a consequence of continuous monthly trade surpluses. But the downside cannot be overlooked.

If the central bank does nothing except buying foreign currencies, the market will be awash with the Korean currency. The increase in the amount of won in circulation will push down its value and fuel inflation. That is the reason why the central bank issues monetary stabilization bonds at a high cost. Last year, the interest accrued on the outstanding bonds amounted to 6.98 trillion won.

With the foreign reserves topping $300 billion, debate is now being renewed on what the suitable level is. There is no set formula to calculate a universally appropriate level because circumstances differ from country to country.

The major factors that must be taken into consideration in determining the proper level are short-term external debt, the money supply, as measured by M2, and the amount of monthly imports. Added to the list is the amount of portfolio investments held by foreign investors.

In determining how much to put in its foreign reserves, the central bank is well advised to pay keen attention to recommendations by domestic economic think tanks. It should be worthwhile to study the rationale behind what they believe to be optimal levels.

The Samsung Economic Research Institute says $190 billion would be appropriate if only short-term debt and monthly import bills were taken into consideration, as was conventionally the case. But it says the amount will have to be raised to an amount ranging from $312.5 billion to $340 billion if foreign portfolio investments are factored in. Some others propose smaller amounts.

It goes without saying that an advanced economy with a liquid and floating currency is not as vulnerable to external shocks and, as such, not required to maintain as large precautionary reserve holdings as a less privileged one. Korea, not an advanced economy yet, will do well to be on the safe side.

 

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Killing of Bin Laden – the American way

The successful operation inside Pakistan that led to the killing of Osama Bin Laden by U.S. special forces gives President Obama the cover to disentangle from the predicament of a massive war in Afghanistan.

The mission was achieved and the outcome was clear this time. The killing of Bin Laden has been a declared and an embarrassing target for the American campaign in Afghanistan that has been going on for more than 10 years.

The production of the news and how to relay it is important for the U.S. in relation to any international event it accomplishes.

And it seems that U.S. military and political leaderships become nervous when facing decisions regarding how to release news related to big events like the killing of Bin Laden. They usually ignore the standards required for the issuing of such news.

The news about Bin Laden’s death was released and accompanied by a report on how he was buried at sea according to Islamic tradition. News agencies focused on the aspect of burial.

Hours later, Islamic scholars started airing their voices in Azhar, Cairo, and other places, saying that it was not right to bury a human being in the depth of the sea unless there is no other alternative.

Was the news of Bin Laden’s burial at sea meant to provoke hundreds of millions of Muslims who are still divided on Osama Bin Laden?

The division among Muslims on Bin Laden would not have been there had it not been for the two ferocious U.S. wars, one in Afghanistan and the other in Iraq. The victims of these wars have been used as the bait for American bullets sponsored by the governments in Kabul and Baghdad.

It seems the issue of “jurisprudence necessity” was used by American spokespersons to justify this kind of burial. They said they were compelled to do so because there was no country willing to receive his body.

This is a pretext as there is no evidence that Washington had contacted all the countries in the world to see whether they would accept to provide a proper burial for him.

They buried him at sea. They were quick to make that announcement and now it is hard for them to retrieve his body.

 The other contentious issue relates to U.S. saying that the target of the operation was to kill and not capture Bin Laden at a time the whole world knows that seizing just one of al-Qaeda operatives is like a treasure of useful security information.

How much useful it would have been had the U.S. captured Bin Laden?

Later they said the troops could not seize him alive.

Then abruptly they announced the operation was solely carried out by U.S. troops and that Pakistan had no say in it.

And when the issue of violating the sovereignty of an independent state surfaced, they quickly added there was coordination with Islam Abad.

Everything was done in accordance with the America way that is characterized with blunders and stupidity.

One reason might be the event was bigger than the potential of U.S. administration to issue statements.

EDITORIAL : THE TRIPOLI POST, LIBYA

Have They Really Killed What They Themselves Had Created?

“The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth.” - Jean de La Bruyere
So let me see if I got this right; the man accused of orchestrating a major attack on US soil, wasn't on the FBI's most wanted list, was supposedly in a cave for 10 years, who the rest of the world has reported dead for years, was finally caught, shot, and killed... no trial, no evidence, no proof, and his body was dumped into the ocean in the middle of the night, within 24 hours. Makes total sense and all State-sponsored.

If the day of the killing were April 1 and not May 2, I could dismiss as an April fool's joke the day’s headline that Osama bin Laden was killed in a firefight in Pakistan and quickly buried at sea.

The death of Osama Bin Laden, while being a setback for al Qaeda, will not result in an end to the extremist violence spawned by fundamentalism. In the name of fighting the al Qaeda, the US devastated Afghanistan and Iraq. Hundreds of thousands of people lost their lives in these wars of aggression.

The US had enlisted Pakistan to fight the Afghanistan government backed by the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The Pentagon and CIA had equipped and financed through the ISI (Inter-Services Intelligence), people like Osama, thus fuelling the later day Taliban and Jehadi fundamentalists.

The CIA and al Qaeda were on the same side during the anti-Soviet struggle.

The recent military intervention in Libya and the continuing war in Afghanistan, show that the United States has learnt no lessons from the past. State terrorism and fundamentalist terrorism feed each other.

Unless the United States changes its approach of resorting to military force and state terrorism, the problem of terrorism cannot be tackled successfully.

Human dignity was not served by images of jubilant crowds cheering at the news of the death of Osama bin Laden.

None of the rights’ defenders expressed satisfaction with the theatrically choreographed media event, or its star, President Obama.


To feel excited about somebody’s death is a weird feeling, even when it comes to Osama bin Laden. Under the headline, “Justice!” the New York Post’s editorial summed up the mood: “The son of a bitch is dead. Ding dong.”

There is something deeply wrong with this picture. By celebrating death, even of someone as Bin Laden, we let our worst impulses trump what is called “the better angels of our nature”. We look petty, juvenile, and small. And we should all be worried about that.

Governments all over the world welcomed the news. The President of Peru bizarrely linked the death to the beatification of John Paul II on the same day, declaring that his “first miracle has been to wipe off the face of this earth the demonic incarnation of crime, evil and hate”.

But was Bin Laden’s demise really a victory for “all who believe in peace and human dignity”, as President Obama put it?

Not really. There was something weird about the tooting horns and the fist-pumping. It was jubilation at the death of a human being, just as objectionable as people cheering outside jails after the execution of a murderer.

Maybe Osama bin Laden was a man responsible for horrendous evil. But he was a man, not a character in a video game.

“The public celebrations in the West Bank after the awful events of September 11 that appalled us in the West seem somehow eerily mirrored in the celebrations we are now witnessing at the White House. Pick the difference!”

To me all kinds of crowds are excitable and that college students in Times Square are remarkably like the residents of the slums of the Gaza strip, both excitable and easily swayed by base emotions. They both need to read the wise words of Martin Luther King Jr:

"The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate.

“In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that."

It is absurdly exaggerated to claim, as the US President did in his speech, “today’s achievement is a testament to the greatness of our country and the determination of the American people”.

But surely isn’t greatness more than nailing a fugitive? Genuine greatness of spirit lies in following up victory with magnanimity and wisdom. Managing this will require the wisdom of Solomon, which is very doubtful if even minutely present in any recent American administration!

As an ethicist, I am always questioning things that seem obviously good or bad. It is natural for me to question the goodness of Bin Laden’s demise, simply because it seems good at face value.

Osama bin Laden may well and truly be dead. He predicted long ago he would die a martyr in a gunfight with US forces. Bin Laden is dead, but Bin-Ladenism lives on and will prosper and spread, enhanced by the image of Osama the martyr, who may be smiling in his watery grave.

Well, could it turn out that, after all, Osama bin Laden would prove to be more dangerous dead than alive?

The death of Osama bin Laden should be an occasion for sober reflection, not for silly celebration. Hopefully the alleged death of Bin Laden symbolises a smouldering end to the seductive appeal of violence amongst humans!

I will quote here one wise man: "Justice may require the death of evil men, but it never requires our joy at their passing"

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

A major blow for al-Qaeda

The killing of Osama bin Laden by an elite US military team is a singular achievement in the long fight against terrorism that affects the world. His death could help bring justice to thousands and closure to millions. Among bin Laden's nearly 3,000 victims in the Sept 11, 2001 attacks on New York were two young Thai women with entire lives ahead of them. Another huge and tragic casualty has been Islam, the religion bin Laden shamed and dragged down. His evil associates have killed more Muslims than any other group, and have also caused suspicions between Muslims and non-Muslims which had not before been prevalent.

This is a legacy of shame for the man born in Saudi Arabia whose own country withdrew his citizenship and declared him persona non grata. Around the world Muslims are celebrating the death of bin Laden. As the Muslim Council of Britain put it tersely: "Few will mourn the reported death of Osama bin Laden, least of all Muslims." Predictably, noisy and violent groups popped up to try to disagree.

Leaders of the Palestinian terror group Hamas said they mourn the loss of bin Laden. The terrorist-linked Indonesian group Jemaah Ansharut Tauhid (JAT), with links to Jemaah Islamiyah, hailed bin Laden as a martyr. Presumably members of Asia's other main group formed and nurtured by al-Qaeda, the Abu Sayyaf of the Philippines, has similar thoughts. But groups such as these stand to lose from bin Laden's death.

Loyalists in the main group that bin Laden headed now will be fighting for control and influence. Such actions are predictable for any such independent group with a charismatic leader. The killing of bin Laden is a major strategic blow to al-Qaeda and all its subsidiary groups worldwide.

There is major criticism and even suspicion of Pakistan over this spectacular killing. And for good reason. Bin Laden had been hiding in plain sight, living in an upscale villa of Abbottabad town just 60km from the capital. The contrast with a similar case in Thailand deserves notice.

In 2003, the chief of operations of Jemaah Islamiyah was on the run. Hambali had set up JI with al-Qaeda help and had travelled to Afghanistan to visit bin Laden. He took a small room in a small apartment house in Ayutthaya. Within days, local people were curious about the foreigner, and brought him to the attention of authorities. He was quickly captured, interrogated and placed in the Guantanamo Bay prison.

The question Pakistan is avoiding, but must answer, is how a foreigner could live in a quiet town which has a military barracks, and still not be noticed.

Immediately after news of bin Laden's death was announced in Washington, the US ordered a high alert around the world. In Bangkok, security forces took fresh steps at the US and other embassies, and at certain large Western companies.

More pertinently, the security forces ordered strong attention to two possible threats. The first is from the deep South, where at least some gangs are known to be deeply sympathetic to al-Qaeda. The other is an intensive look at immigration records to double-check on possibly unwelcome visitors.

The end of bin Laden is not the end of terrorism by any means. But it marks a major advance in bringing terrorists to heel, and then to book.Justice was served to bin Laden, as US President Barack Obama said. Bin Laden's death will give many would-be terrorists pause. It should also make it less difficult to track down other would-be terrorist leaders.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

Showing US we can do it is a tough task

IT may be a cruel irony, but Ireland is a more appealing place in which to invest than it was during the boom and bubble. There are an abundance of able young people, and experienced older ones, desperate for a job; office and factory space are to be had at bargain basement prices; and a humbled government system will be more attentive -- within reason, of course -- to the requirements of investors.

It might seem, therefore, that there is no reason for the Taoiseach to jet off to the US to explain that "Ireland is open for business," but the opposite is probably true.

There are several reasons why the message needs selling. One is understandable confusion about the nature of the crisis. The fall in output, of almost 20pc, is unprecedented in a rich economy. It leaves the impression that economic activity must have ground to a halt. Foreign visitors who know the statistics are often taken aback by the crowds they find in Ireland's nightspots and more popular shopping outlets.

Publicans and retailers could tell painful tales of how much business has fallen. But there is still plenty of business. One reason for the deceptive appearances is that the population of young, single, debt-free, employed people is still the highest in the EU.

A more fundamental explanation for the confusion can be seen in yesterday's survey which found manufacturing growing at almost the fastest rate in 11 years. The bulk of the fall in GDP has come from the collapse of the construction bubble. That has wrecked the banks and public finances, and brought much hardship to many families, but it is not something which is visible on the streets.

A second reason for spreading the message is that, while success has many friends, failure is an orphan -- and nowhere more than in America. The crisis is financial, both government and private, and Mr Kenny has his work cut out to counter the depressing effect of the belief that Ireland is headed for some form of bankruptcy.

It would help if he could point to even the glimmering of a European strategy for this most profound of crises, but things go only from bad to worse on that front. Yesterday the Greek finance minister said any debt re-structuring would be a disaster for his country, which is the exact opposite of recent comments from the German finance minister.

In the face of such failure at European level, Mr Kenny is entitled to talk tough on corporation tax. He received some unexpected support from the finance minister of the Netherlands -- a country known to have been unhappy about the transfer of savings funds to Dublin -- during President McAleese's visit. Then Queen Beatrix praised the way we have faced up to our debts.

If Mr Kenny can come even close to Mrs McAleese's ability to win hearts and minds, his US visit will not be in vain.

To Europe with a song

It is customary for the Eurovision song contest to make the careers of winning entrants. That was the case even with Abba. But this year's Irish entry is already so successful that it has trademarked its name before the contest. Or should that be entries?

We are talking, of course, about the remarkable Jedward -- two guys, one name and hairstyle, and something of a sensation. The reasons for the sensation are a puzzle to many but their fans, however young, are entitled to their choice. What can be said is that Jedward are a brand, and a brand must have a trademark.

Brands are usually conceived and developed in discreet office suites; Jedward's creation was on view for all to see in the 'X Factor' under the formidable drive and self-promotion genius of Louis Walsh.

It is now time for the export market. That is always the hardest one to crack, and nowhere more so than in popular entertainment. Should the strange appeal of Jedward translate to the sub-teens of the continent, the potential for market development will be boundless.

It may be going too far to suggest, as Monday's RTE documentary did, that Eurovision brought down the Soviet Union but its bizarre concoction does seem to have a knack of mirroring European trends.

Still, good luck to Jedward. We can't afford another turkey.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

A united Palestine for peace

The international community must give its support to the recent peace deal between the two main rival Palestinian factions. The agreement between the Al Fatah movement, which rules the West Bank, and Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, brings not only the two groups together but also their people under one single authority, even if physically they are still separated.

Not unexpectedly, Israel has criticized the Egyptian-brokered deal as a big setback to any peace prospect with the Palestinians given Hamas’ UN designation as a terrorist group. Western governments have also threatened to cut the massive financial aid that has propped up the Fatah government.

But weren’t they the ones who criticized Palestinian Authority chair Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah for negotiating with Israel with the mandate of only half his people? They surely could not have been serious in suggesting that Israel could have cut a peace deal with the Palestinians in the West Bank but not those in the Gaza Strip. Abbas could not have been expected to sign any peace deal for the establishment of a Palestinian state without the Gaza strip.

At this stage in the peace process, it is far more important to tend to the interests of the Palestinian people and not so much about the prospect of peace with Israel. Interestingly, the Fatah-Hamas deal came in response to pressures from grassroots Palestinians who drew their inspiration from democratic uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. Their message is clear: Palestinian leaders need to put their house in order first before they negotiate and settle their dispute with Israel.

This means nothing less than establishing a democratically elected government, one managed on the principles of good governance and that is held accountable to the people. The Fatah-Hamas deal calls for the establishment of a credible technocratic authority to prepare for a free and fair election in both the West Bank and Gaza.

The eventual elected Palestinian government, whether under Fatah or Hamas, will be in a much better position to negotiate with Israel. It will have not only come to the table with a full mandate, but also with stronger leverage to press its claims. This show of unity is also important as the Palestinian Authority formally requests admission as a United Nations member state in September.

Like it or not, peace with Israel has a better chance of succeeding under a united rather than divided Palestine.

Creeping Islamic state

Beyond our imagination, the Indonesian Islamic State (NII) teachings have spread to many layers of society, but the way the government plays down the lurking danger that may cost the existence of Indonesia is regrettable.

Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Affairs Djoko Suyanto raised many eyebrows when he, in response to brainwashing practices involved in the recruitment of NII members, regarded the clandestine organization as having no potential to endanger national integrity.

Unfortunately, Djoko’s statement is too good to be true.

Due to its aspiration to form a state that breaches the Constitution, NII makes no difference from the now defunct Free Aceh Movement and the Free Papua Organization, which the government used to and is trying hard to quell due to their secession movement, which is a serious crime.

For years NII has been recruiting members, many of them students and even political party members and government officials, and collecting funds, findings that should give cause for concern not only to the government but also the public at large.

No less surprising is the confession of a former NII minister, Imam Supriyanto, who said President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s Democratic Party donated US$10,000 to an Islamic boarding school widely rumored to have been used to promote NII ideology and recruit followers.

Not to mention a possibility that NII deposited billions of rupiah into the now defunct Bank Century, prompting the House of Representatives to ask the Financial Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre to verify the report.

NII may have not transformed its dream to build an Islamic state into an armed movement as the Aceh rebels and the old NII did, and Papua separatist group is perpetrating, but the ideology war NII is waging could be more effective, particularly if people lose their confidence in democracy and a prosperous and just society envisioned by our founding fathers.

Indonesian modern history has seen the commitment to a nation state that preserves plurality surviving a series of efforts to change the Pancasila state ideology to Islam, either through constitutional or unconstitutional ways.

The fourth and latest constitutional amendment in 2002 confirmed that the Pancasila ideology, which does not recognize the Islamic state, was final and would be maintained as it stood.

Sadly the political elites have been compromising the national consensus by giving false hope to an Islamic state or a quasi of it for short-term interest and political gains. The passage of regional ordinances that are inspired by Islamic law in many regencies and provinces is a trick the elites have deliberately chosen, regardless of its repercussions which many warn as creeping Islamization.

The hard-won democracy has allowed everybody to exercise their freedom, but there is always a limit. The freedom shall not put the nation state that was built on blood and sufferings of our founding fathers at stake.

It was this concern that perhaps triggered noted Muslim scholar, the late Nurcholish Madjid, to consistently uphold his famous and hopefully everlasting motto “Islam yes, Islamic parties no”.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

News never seems easy at ABC

NATIONAL broadcaster is again caught short by a major story.

It says a lot about the ABC that on Monday, when one of the biggest news stories of the decade was breaking, its primary television station first continued to broadcast Monarch of the Glen and then, when it was the last network to go to coverage of Osama bin Laden's death, it switched to Qatar-based broadcaster, al-Jazeera. So much for an Australian perspective. We can only presume Ultimo was slow to realise the significance of the story, disorganised in how to cover it and uncertain whether its hosts could anchor the on-air coverage until President Barack Obama spoke.

Judged by the ABC's charter, which requires "innovative and comprehensive broadcasting", this was another epic failure. The ABC also neglected to go live to air with the dispatching of our Prime Minister last year, so despite all of its resources and annual taxpayer funding of $1.13 billion, the ABC bungles the major stories. The viewing public is entitled to believe this is not good enough. Defensively, ABC boss Mark Scott has pointed to coverage on the digital 24-hour news channel, but this has a tiny audience and is not even available to many viewers. TV's channel two and local AM radio are the mainstays of ABC audiences and should be treated as such. Mr Scott needs to get these right before spending all his time and our money tinkering with ever more channels, increasing the ABC's "platforms" and spruiking about how "tech savvy" it is.

Australians grew up expecting the national broadcaster to deliver reliable and timely news and current affairs. Now they must wonder about its priorities, with the managing director and many staff seemingly spending more time on Twitter than they do broadcasting. Clearly Mr Scott should spend more time on content and developing the news-focused, can-do attitude that seems to flourish in the commercial media. The ABC likes to deride commercial media but, yet again, its rivals showed better judgment and greater flexibility.

Given News Limited's corporate investment in the successful Sky News channel (which went to the bin Laden story 20 minutes before the ABC's 24-hour news channel) it would perhaps be in The Australian's commercial interests to leave the ABC to its lumbering ways. But we are fiercely concerned about the stewardship of taxpayers' money and the ABC's ability to perform its proper duty in the national interest.

Baillieu budget nets more debt

VICTORIAN taxpayers to face some pain but not till later.

Incoming Victorian Premier Ted Baillieu did all the pre-budget softening up, blaming his predecessor for blow-outs and black holes, but he has failed to follow through on his promised tough budget. Given his rhetoric and the reality of a state living beyond its means, the budget needed to demonstrate fiscal discipline. The economic and political reality demanded much of the hard work be done immediately, in the first year of a fixed four-year term.

Delivering popular election promises is one thing, digging taxpayers further into debt to pay for them is quite another. Treasurer Kim Wells says he will deliver a $140 million surplus next year, and ongoing surpluses averaging $164m, despite $5.1 billion of increased spending. He is paying for this through some welcome budget cuts totalling $2.2bn but, more worryingly, by nearly doubling state debt to more than $23bn, taking it to almost 6 per cent of gross state product.

The government claims to have cut the trajectory of expenditure growth from 8 per cent a year to an annual rate of 3.2 per cent. The trend is welcome, but it means government spending growth remains slightly higher than the forecast 3 per cent economic growth. Prudent management would see government shrinking as a share of the economy rather than expanding. Mr Wells makes a virtue of not cutting public sector jobs, but it is invariably through payroll numbers that governments lock in to spending growth.

The focus on police numbers and public transport security is understandable given Melbourne's particular crime problems, but efficiencies could have been found elsewhere. And stamp-duty cuts and utility concessions are all well and good, but only when states can afford them.

Medium-term threats remain for Victoria with diminishing payments from the federal government's GST revenue possibly eroding further as a result of Canberra's review of federal-state financial relations. By borrowing instead of cutting, the Baillieu government hasn't avoided a reckoning, merely forestalled it. If there is a dampening of national economic trends before the cuts are made, the difficulties will intensify and Victorians might be wishing their government had muscled up when it said it would. 

Obama's opportunity to increase the war on terror

THE US must demand Pakistan stands up to extremists.

Just as Osama bin Laden's odious attacks on the US on September 11, 2001, did not threaten the country's survival, his death does not mean the war on terror is at an end. This is not to underestimate the US achievement in killing him or its international impact. As the crowds congregating outside the White House and World Trade Centre construction site on the night it was announced understood, bin Laden's end illustrates their nation's global reach. As much as it is appropriate retribution for the thousands who died on September 11 at bin Laden's command, as well as all the other innocents murdered by his al-Qa'ida organisation, his death demonstrates that for the US appeasement is never on the agenda. This was the outcome George W. Bush promised and Barack Obama announced, in a speech which will lift his standing in the polls and his country's reputation all over the world.

But there is still much for the the US and their allies to do. It seems certain bin Laden no longer led the al-Qa'ida terror organisation, that his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri who remains at large, has long been in charge. This means the watch against terrorists on city streets and in airports all over the world must continue. The fight in Afghanistan against the heroin-exporting warlords who command the Taliban must also go on. To abandon the long-suffering Afghan people to men who protected bin Laden and claim Islam justifies their misogyny and feudalism would send a signal to ordinary Muslims that the US is cynically selective in defending human rights.

The Americans lost interest in Afghanistan after the Soviet Union was forced out a generation ago -- it must not make the same mistake again. And in Pakistan, leaders who take US aid while officers under their command talk to the Taliban must be called to account. If US intelligence could find bin Laden living near Pakistan's military academy, how could he have eluded the nation's Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate?

The challenge for President Obama is to use bin Laden's death as a circuit-breaker in Pakistan, birthplace or spiritual home to terrorists responsible for attacks across the border in Afghanistan and across the world in Britain and the US. The country's armed forces have been preparing for war with India for 60 years, but have proved variously incapable and uninterested in protecting their country against terrorists. In 2009, the central government lost control of the famous Swat Valley to an Islamist militia. Last January, a provincial governor who campaigned against the country's blasphemy laws was murdered by a member of his military escort. We still do not know whether presidential candidate Benazir Bhutto was assassinated in 2007 for being too liberal, a woman or both. President Asif Ali Zardari, who appears a genuine opponent of terrorism, faces leading a failed state where the government cannot protect its citizens unless he imposes his will on zealots in his own ranks. That the US caught and killed bin Laden alone should shame Mr Zardari into stiffening his spine. And if he needs encouragement, Mr Obama need only spell out Pakistan's choice: stand with the world against terrorism or slide into the hatred that Osama bin Laden espoused.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

Make or break

 
Senate President Juan Ponce-Enrile is right in his analysis that the next Ombudsman can make or break Noynoy Aquino’s government. He must perforce make the right choice in appointing the next Ombudsman, who will have to be measured by higher standards, given the many charges leveled against resigned Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez on the turtle-slow pace she had in resolving cases, along with the charge that she was so incompetent that she had a very low rate of conviction.
Noynoy and his allies demonized Merci too much that Filipinos will now expect the new Ombudsman not only to resolve complaints and their investigation and resolution with speed but also measure the new Ombudsman’s “competence” through a high conviction rate.
In other words, by wrecking the reputation of Merci as an Ombudsman, Noynoy gave himself a bigger problem with a new Ombudsman who may not fit the public’s expectation.
There is very little question that whoever becomes the next Ombudsman will be going after the previous Malacañang occupant and her officials. This is expected, and it is just as certain that whoever Noynoy appoints to that top position will also share his bias against Noynoy’s political foes. Naturally, since the focus will be on the previous administration officials, Noynoy’s allies and cronies will be spared of any and all charges and prosecution.
This is what happened during the term of Cory Aquino, where all focus on claimed corruption was on the Marcoses and his associates and cronies. But where did it get Cory or the Yellows, or even the nation, for that matter, when the cases were filed, not because there was strong evidence with which to convict them, but because of political motivation and presidential influence over the judges at that time.
It may have taken years, even decades, but to this day, Imelda Marcos has not been convicted and many of her cases have been dismissed. She was even acquitted by a US court on Rico charges, as there was no evidence from the Philippine government to prove its case.
Whoever is appointed Ombudsman, whether a soon to be retired high court justice or someone else, the truth is that it is not as simple a case of an Ombudsman to quickly investigate and resolve complaints to elevate them to the Sandiganbayan. And it is just as certain that whoever will be appointed the next Ombudsman will not be without bias against the previous administration officials, besides which, that new Ombudsman will be just as vulnerable to political influence.
Simeon Marcelo, as Ombudsman, also took a long time in resolving cases and most of the cases elevated to the anti-graft court were hardly buttressed by strong evidence. At the same time, cases concerning then sitting President Gloria Arroyo’s allies, such as Hernando Perez, with all the documents that could have convicted him for plunder, Marcelo even sent to Gloria, as Marcelo waited for directions on what he should do. So much for independence that the Yellows ascribe to Marcelo.
Even some of the high court justices identified with a famous law firm were hardly independent as they always voted in favor of Gloria and only turned against her when the law firm and the Arroyos had a falling out.
Thus far, the voting record of these justices is always today in favor of the current Malacañang tenant.
But the test of independence and integrity of an Ombudsman should not be based on the new official running only after Noynoy’s political foes, but running equally against the new administration officials, as well as Noynoy’s allies today who were not too long ago, the allies of Gloria Arroyo, and who were also said to have been involved in many irregularities.
But already, Noynoy is leading the way in the absolution of his allies and officials, and without even the benefit of an investigation, such as the recent tax evasion charge of his Finance chief, Cesar Purisima, where Noynoy said would not be subjected to any investigation, as he has already explained his case. But it is such attitudes and moves that may make or break Noynoy and his government, just as the choice of his Ombudsman, and how that official will fare, may make or break him.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW STRAITS TIMES, MALAYSIA

Death of a terrorist

OSAMA bin Laden, creator of al-Qaeda and designer of the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, is now dead. American commandos took him out in what is said to have been a "kill" operation in Pakistan -- with or without the cooperation of Pakistani authorities, it is difficult to say. The American public rejoiced at the news that the mastermind behind the 9/11 tragedy had finally been terminated. Stock markets surged at the prospect of an end to the global war on terror. Such optimism was, however, quickly dampened by warnings that while the figurehead is indeed deceased, he has spawned enough zealots willing to don his mantle. And while the Western presence in Afghanistan will not end overnight, it will give President Barack Obama a chance to scale down the conflict. Announcing the bloody culmination of a 10-year manhunt on Sunday, he said once again that the United States was not and will not be at war with Islam.

The world cannot but welcome the demise of its most wanted terrorist, who has been largely to blame for the theatres of war that have opened up in the Muslim world over the last decade. Experts are divided as to exactly how large an impact Osama's removal will make on al-Qaeda operations. But there is no doubt that his cause remains -- perhaps more decentralised and dispersed, and thus harder to pin down, than before. America's CIA warned immediately of reprisals, and its facilities and citizens have been put on alert. Pakistan is certainly bracing for a backlash. Many other countries will be extra vigilant, for Islamic extremism has travelled well beyond its cauldron of the Middle East. Even in Malaysia, which is not normally a terrorist target, al-Qaeda offshoots like Jemaah Islamiyah have been sniffing around. The next terrorist act could take place where no one is looking hard enough -- as in Bali, Indonesia, in 2002 and 2005.

Muslim radicals did not, though, materialise for no reason. Malaysia had opposed the retaliatory invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan because they had recklessly enlarged the war on terror without any consideration of root causes. Aside from gross injustices and historic grievances in the Muslim lands, Palestine is a sore point in the transnational extremist mindset. Obama recognises this and is trying to reshape his country's relations with the Muslim world. The "Arab Spring" may take the sting out of extremism when democratic institutions are realised. But justice must prevail for the Palestinians and a large body of their Muslim brethren for terrorism to finally lose its appeal and its biggest excuses.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

        

 

Ian Tomlinson: Unlawfully killed by the law

Justice in the individual case is still far from certain, but following the inquest's verdict it is at least a possibility once again

Nothing could be more serious than the state taking the life of one of its subjects – except, perhaps, for the state's agents preventing this coming to light. After an inquest's ruling yesterday, it is now official that the newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, was unlawfully killed amid the policing of the G20 protests in 2009. Many who saw the footage the Guardian obtained, which showed PC Simon Harwood striking Mr Tomlinson just before his death, will regard the verdict as a statement of the blindingly obvious. But it matters. For one thing it raises again the prospect of a prosecution; for another it invites searching questions about why it took so long to get the truth recognised.

The most immediate dilemma is for the director of public prosecutions. As he is required to do, he last night set the wheels in motion for reconsidering whether there is a realistic chance of a conviction. His unfortunate conclusion last year, which was not lightly arrived at, was that the mixed (and mixed-up) medical evidence precluded pinning responsibility beyond reasonable doubt on anyone. The inquest jury's considered view that the cause of death was "abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma", albeit it in a person whose susceptibility was increased by liver cirrhosis, surely moves things on. Justice in the individual case is still far from certain, but it is at least a possibility once again.

Even if it ultimately arrives, however, justice will have come via such a tortuous route that one has to wonder whether it could get lost next time. After a day on which many officers were concealing their identity badges, the Met dragged its heels. A botched postmortem followed, carried out by a physician who was under investigation. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said there was "nothing in the story" that Mr Tomlinson had died after a fatal run-in with the thin blue line, and it waited a full week before launching an investigation. Whether through incompetence, conspiracy or some mix of the two, every check that the citizen imagines him or herself to have against the authorities was initially frustrated.

Healthy democracies are distinguished from police states by the ideal that those who enforce the law should be subject to it in the same way as everyone else. For the most part this happens in Britain, but there can be chilling lapses in the most serious cases, as was seen in the pall thrown over Blair Peach's killing for 30 years, and in the failure to bring the Met to book over the de Menezes case, other than through health and safety laws. The killing of a newspaper salesman who was simply trying to get home raises all the old anxieties about state power which is accountable to none.

AV referendum: The fairer alternative

Otherwise progressive Labour voters who are contemplating a no vote have a special responsibility to think again

There is a built-in difficulty with all referendums. You ask the voters one question – but you risk getting the answer to a completely different one. Tomorrow's UK-wide referendum on changing the general election voting system has been marked by a mostly dismal campaign that may well produce such an outcome.

The question on the ballot paper is whether to replace the first past the post system with the alternative vote (AV). That issue is straightforward. In the present system, where voters select a single candidate, there is frequently a large majority of votes against – not in favour of – the successful MP. Under AV, where voters number their choices in order of preference, the winner must always have a majority mandate, after a process of redistribution. But that is not the issue uppermost in many voters' minds. For these, the referendum is about how to do down their opponents. In conservative Britain, energetic as ever in defence of the status quo, the unerring aim is to preserve the Tory party's capacity to win a Commons majority on the basis of minority support – as Margaret Thatcher did three times to such divisive effect. In progressive Britain, opinion is more evenly balanced. Most progressive Liberal Democrats are for change, as are many in the Labour party, including Ed Miliband. But large numbers in the Labour party are consumed by a cruder purpose – to bash the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg in particular, and preserve a system which also produced three successive majorities for their own party in recent history. To defend this system, large numbers of Labour activists have eagerly jumped into bed with the Tory party. Not a pretty sight.

There is plenty of criticism to dish out in all directions over this campaign. But the otherwise progressive Labour voters who are contemplating a No vote have a special responsibility to think again. A No victory will weaken the Lib Dems. But it will not kill the coalition. Instead it will bind it together on increasingly Tory terms. This will not help Labour as much as these opponents of change imagine. Under new constituency boundaries that eliminate the current pro-Labour bias, with Labour losing its grip on its Scottish heartlands to the SNP, and under new party funding rules that will boost the Tories and make things harder for Labour, the big winner from a No victory will be David Cameron. A Yes vote, by contrast, would inflame the Tory grassroots, threaten Mr Cameron's control over his party and strengthen the resolve of progressive Lib Dems to be more assertive about their party's values on social justice, civil liberty and democratic reform. It would also massively enhance the possibility that Labour and the Lib Dems can work together in the progressive cause in the future.

So, even progressives whose priority is to bash the coalition should vote Yes. But those who have remained focused on electoral reform should do so too. The existing system may be simple. But it is unfair to the ever larger proportion of voters who do not vote for the two big parties. And the alleged complexities of the alternative vote have been overstated. What's not to understand about one, two, three? AV gives a better reflection of public opinion than the existing system while retaining the constituency basis of the House of Commons.

You can't be a fairer society without having fairer politics. Keeping first past the post would mean keeping the system in which general elections mean national media campaigns funded by very rich backers which concentrate all their efforts on a few thousand swing voters in marginal seats. AV would take democracy back to the grassroots and would make more voters matter. Britain in 2011 is becoming a more unfair country both economically and politically. Voting Yes to AV tomorrow will help to stop that process and eventually reverse it. It will help to put the majority in charge, not the minority as at present.

In praise of … hunting for black boxes

The retrieval of two Air France flight recorders from the Atlantic renders the needles and haystacks cliche woefully inadequate

The resolution of one long hunt is dominating the news, but by any objective criterion another deserves some exposure too. The "uncovering" of Bin Laden's compound, with its 12-18 foot walls, hardly justifies the cliche about needles and haystacks. By contrast, the same analogy is woefully inadequate for the parallel search operation to retrieve two Air France black boxes from the bottom of the Atlantic. The flight recorders took up perhaps one part in every 1020 of that ocean's watery vastness. You thus need a number with 21 digits to put things in mathematical perspective, which – from any human perspective – means the recorders simply drop out of view. But since the French flag carrier's worst crash cost 228 lives in 2009, the Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses has slogged for 23 months, and through savvy deployment of submarinal robots with manipulator arms, it has now made its double retrieval from the deep. The vanishing of flight AF447 was shrouded in obscurity but, if the boxes dry out as hoped, the first will reveal precisely where things went wrong, and the second, which recorded the crew as the catastrophe hit, could even reveal why. Was there a problem with the hardware's design, or merely the way it was used? This is a question of pressing legal and practical importance. The boxes, which despite the name are painted orange to make them conspicuous, offer the bereaved a chance of the truth, and give all air travellers the hope that lessons will be learned.