EDITORIAL : THE DAILY OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

                  

 

Afghans Determined to Protect Democratic Order and Civil Society

After the fall of Taliban regime in late 2001, Afghanistan was able to write and approve a new constitution to establish an "order based on the people's will and democracy" and form a "civil society free from oppression, atrocity, discrimination and violence." Ten years later, this order and civil society are being threatened by the extremist militants that ideologically do not subscribe to such an "order" and "civil society" and want to impose their own ideology-driven and discriminate order and run the country based on their own pleasure, which serve foreign interests. But there appears to be a strong will among Afghan people to protect, safeguard and institutionalize the order and civil society. This is who Afghans are now.

In fact, this is because they do not want to return to the dark days of the past whose indicators were oppression, atrocity, discrimination, violence and violation of human rights. The death of Osama Bin Laden has provided a new opportunity for Afghan people and their international partners and allies to increase pressure on the Al-Qaeda-linked and affiliated militants here in Afghanistan. Although killing of Bin Laden is a turning-point in the fight against terrorism, more needs to be done to make sure that Afghanistan will not be used as safe haven for lunatic fringes once again, and to ensure Afghans that they will not be left alone again.

The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry, in latest statement has said that the Taliban have one option- that is- to break with Al-Qaeda and join the peace process offered by Afghan government. Officials from NATO member states have said that their goal was not just to kill Osama Bin Laden but rather to build a strong democratic and peaceful prosperous Afghanistan. Internally, on Thursday, May 05, 2011, former chief of Afghan National Intelligence, Amrullah Saleh, asked President Hamid Karzai not to make a "false identity" for the Taliban militants and do not make peace a position of weakness. Both Afghan politicians and people believe that it is time to put more pressure on the Taliban to embrace an open society free from discrimination, violence and with justice for all. In fact, it is high time to turn the situation around. Any misstep at this critical juncture will have catastrophic consequences for Afghanistan and international community alike.

Shortcomings Need Recovery

Following international pressures on the Pakistani government to answer for
Osama's hiding near the capital Islamabad and in vicinity to the country's most
well-known military training academy, US congressmen discussed whether to revise the billions of dollars of aid to Pakistan. The idea was raised because the US officials believed Pakistan had not done enough to restrain extremism. The US administration has said they didn't share the intelligence with the Pakistani side and the operation to capture Al-Qaeda head inside Pakistan.

Subsequent to previous series of tense relations between the two strategic partners, the analysts believed that the declining cooperation and increasing distrust would seriously damage cooperation on the war against terrorism. It had led to the Pakistani military's demand on the United States to curb drone strikes and reduce the number of US spies operating in Pakistan, a sign of clearly edgy relations between the two allies.

Prior to the legendary operation against the September 11 Mastermind, in a blunt statement, the US military's top officer, Admiral Mike Mullen, accused Pakistan's spy agency of having links with militants targeting troops in Afghanistan. He had said Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) had a "long-standing relationship" with a militant group run by Afghan insurgent Jalaluddin Haqqani. However, afraid of the possible damage of cooperation between the two countries' intelligence agencies and the diplomatic ties, Mullen said U.S. and Pakistani leaders agree they cannot afford to let security ties unravel, even as he acknowledged persistent strains. The statement reveals the truth that Pakistan's role in fight against terrorism remains substantial despite the shortcomings seen earlier. The country's restive areas host groups of multinational terrorists, including Al-Qaeda. In a new statement, the US ambassador in Kabul, has asserted that the hotbed of terrorism and Al Qaeda strongholds lie beyond afghan borders.

Despite Pakistan's partnership with the US, there are grave shortcomings in the process that need to be remedied immediately. Osama Bin Laden's presence in Abbotabad has raised further international criticisms against the country and President Zardari's government. With militancy increasing in the region, a more precise scrutiny of the situation is required. US's call for further determined stance against the scourge of terrorism reveals the fact that every party in the war against terror owns a specific position in the process. They need to carry on struggles to collaboratively accomplish the mission. The world stands against terrorism and Pakistan should remain a close part of the process.

Violence in Baluchistan

Over the last nine years, the capital of Baluchistan province of Pakistan, Quetta considered one of the important hubs of Taliban and other groups of militants has gradually turned into violent place for its residents to live. This strategically important city is only around 250 km away from Kandahar province of Afghanistan. This makes Kandahar city, the used-to-be capital of Taliban's Afghanistan, the closest city to Quetta.

The loosely controlled Chaman-Boldak border crossing between Baluchistan and Kandahar largely facilitates the in and out movements of militants and smuggling of weapons and drugs. After the US intervention in Afghanistan in 2001, Taliban and their leaders in Kandahar and other southern provinces easily escaped to Baluchistan, mainly to the city of Quetta. Taliban's Quetta Shura is globally known. Taliban leaders, including Mullah Omar, are believed to have hidden in this city. Presence of Taliban in Quetta seems to have largely assisted other smaller groups of militants having similar ideologies as that of Taliban. Terrorists signal their power and influence in the city from time to time by launching attacks on government and people. Quetta is among the first cities that protested the killing of Osama last week and burned the images of US President Obama and the US flag.

The peaceful residents of this city are having no good days as militancy is multiplying at a fast pace and government is falling short to counter it. Target killings, suicide bombings and kidnappings have ruined the peace from the lives of people. The ethnic and religious minorities are particularly targeted. On Friday May 06, 2011, in early morning shooting and rocket attack, launched on Hazara community of Quetta, at least 10 people were killed and 15 others injured.

This is not first time, since 2002 hundreds of people including leaders, politicians and high ranking government officials belonging to the same community have been the victims of terrorism. The government of Pakistan has no achievement against this violence. The United Nations and human rights organizations have also kept mum, albeit the people have raised their voice time and again.
The government of Pakistan should do more to counter the growing militancy and extremism across Pakistan and assure security of all Pakistanis including minorities.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

From Daraa to Damascus

Syria is exploding. The pressure tactics adopted by the Baath Party to quell the uprising have now resulted in mass massacre.

From Daraa to Damascus, there seems to be no respite in midnight knocks, arrests and torture of political opponents, and people being gunned down with impunity. Amateur footage from the flashpoints is quite gruesome and predicts a horrible future for the country, which is geopolitically sensitive and socio-culturally, the heartthrob of the Middle East.

Violence cannot be allowed to continue and it is high time the administration of President Bashar Al Assad mends its ways, and ceded ground to the people on the streets who have been demanding their fundamental rights and an equitable distribution of power and resources. The rolling down of tanks and sending in of shooters will not work.

Assad, who had ably handled intrigues and foreign aggression designs for long, should take a lesson or two from the fate of Hosni Mubarak and Ben Ali. If his role model is the embattled Libyan leader, then he is definitely treading a losing path. Assad, who talked high of social and cultural values, and had worked at length to modernise society should not undo his achievements by indulging in a genocide of his countrymen, that too for the sake of expediency.

The Assad legacy, which spans almost five decades, had been respected and admired even by his adversaries for  the smooth running of administration and being able to cater to the needs and aspirations of a heterogeneous society. But what is happening now is purely power politics and that too with a stink of egoistic arrogance.

If even governmental estimates are to be believed, more than 500 people have been killed in the month-long uprising, which had also seen thousands disappear under the dark shadows of terror. This goes on to reflect the regime’s desperation and failure in finding an amicable solution to the dispute.

Irrespective of severe international pressure to curb the violent tactics, the respite for the regime should come in the fact that the world is yet to demand the exit of Assad. This is the moment from where Assad can pull back and put a halt to brutal tactics. The Syrian army, which had been thoroughly checking Israeli designs, should not kill its own people. This is most disturbing. Assad has to work out a solution before it gets too late. 

Post Osama revelations

Even as US President Barack Obama paid tribute to the victims of 9/11 at Ground Zero in New York on Thursday, questions pertaining the killing of Osama bin Laden remain unanswered.

The decision to not release pictures of Bin Laden’s body for the sake of deterring violent reprisals and inciting extremism has led to questions on the veracity of the operation.

The raid on the compound Bin Laden was living in has resulted in the possession of  documents that revealed plans for future terror attacks targeting US railways and major cities.  This proves that Bin Laden may have been actively involved in the planning and  execution of terror attacks till the end contrary to the impression that he had been reduced to a mere figurehead. It is hoped that the data retrieved from the site may also lead to the trail of other Al Qaeda leaders, currently  at large. 

However, the operation has caused major embarrassment to Pakistan. The revelation of facts such as the CIA observing the compound from a safe house close by and the apparent ignorance of Pakistani authorities of knowing Bin Laden’s presence in a house in close proximity to a military academy is bad enough. It has also prompted a raging debate in Pakistan on the military’s involvement and/or its ability to protect the Pakistani people. Another hot issue is the question of sovereignty that has reared its head again in the wake of US Special Forces having conducted the operation in radar jamming stealth helicopters.

The furore over the issue has been loud enough for the Pakistani Army chief to have issued a strong statement warning a review of  military/intelligence cooperation with the US in case of another such unilateral attack.  According to Pakistani military sources, the CIA did not seek to share further development of intelligence on the case despite Pakistan intelligence  informing the CIA of the cellphone details of Bin Laden’s courier.  Moreover, the Pakistan military has demanded a further reduction of US Special Forces personnel in the country which was already on the cards post the US agent Raymond Davis incident in which three Pakistani nationals got killed.

Despite the reassurances to Pakistanis of the military’s capability to protect the country’s strategic assets, clarifications are being demanded. The Republicans have already moved a bill in Congress demanding a stop to the $3 billion aid for the current year unless Pakistan proves that it had not given sanctuary to Bin Laden. It is hoped that Pakistan provides the answers sooner rather than later in order to quell the clamour at home and abroad.   

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Breakers deserve to be recognised for victory

The Breakers well deserved the acknowledgment of a parade up Queen St yesterday, even if the size of the crowd was a little disappointing. Their claiming of the Australian National Basketball League title had been somewhat overshadowed by the royal wedding.

If that was understandable, it meant the breakthrough victory by a New Zealand sports team in an Australian club competition was in danger of not receiving the praise it warranted.

That would have been unfortunate. When New Zealand teams were admitted to Australian rugby league, soccer or basketball championships, few could have imagined it would take so long to achieve success. Altogether, those teams have taken a combined 34 seasons to enter the winner's circle.

Various theories have been advanced about why this should be so. One that, perhaps, is not given enough prominence is the toll of constant to-ing and fro-ing across the Tasman and the impact of time zones.

In overcoming this, the Breakers have provided a lesson in the importance of continuity of playing and coaching staff, and of administrative stability.

The Australian competitions are always a grind and always ultra-competitive. They must be tackled without the disruption from constant chopping and changing of players and coaches and back-office traumas.

Even so, the Breakers did not do it the easy way. Third games were required for the semifinal victory over the Perth Wildcats and the ultimate triumph over the Cairns Taipans. In some ways that made their success all the more memorable.

Drug-harm test signals end for party pills

The advent of party pills, Ecstasy and other synthetic psychoactive substances took the law by surprise a decade or so ago.

They could be sold as "legal" drugs because they were unknown to the Misuse of Drugs Act 1975, which was written when recreational drugs of concern were primarily cannabis and LSD.

In 2007, the previous Government asked the Law Commission to look at the new substances as part of a review of the act. This week, without much fanfare, the commission produced its conclusions.

It proposes setting up an authority in the Ministry of Health for new psychoactive substances, and that manufacturers or importers should need approval of a substance before it can be distributed.

That would deprive the drugs of the presumption of innocence they now enjoy. As the law stands they can be sold unless and until they are found to cause harm.

It takes time for harm to be established, but that is not the main reason a mood-altering pill should be banned until proven safe.

Party-pill manufacturers have shown themselves capable of substituting a pill's chemical composition with another as soon as the first is found harmful, and the substitute might be worse, as health authorities discovered when a product claiming to be a non-neurotoxic substitute for Ecstasy went on sale in 2005. It took several months to discover that the new ingredient was an analogue of an already prohibited Class C drug.

But if party pills are not to be allowed on to the market until a health official is satisfied they are safe, party pills of any potency are probably not going to be seen again. This is a risk-averse age. Safety is a hard test to satisfy, particularly where health is concerned.

If society's most common recreational drug, alcohol, was applying for approval from a health and safety regulator today, would it get it? Its sale is subject to age restrictions, one of which Parliament is about to raise from 18 to 20 at the urging of public health campaigners and the Law Commission.

But the principle remains that the law should not, without very good reason, restrict what people consume voluntarily at a risk to nobody but themselves.

Drugs, as the commission's report notes, have been used since antiquity. It was not until the late 19th century that Governments started trying to prohibit some of them.

Opium was legal in New Zealand until 1901.

Referendums on the prohibition of alcohol started in 1902 and one nearly succeeded in 1919.

Restrictions on alcohol sales began to be eased in the 1960s and gathered pace in the last quarter of the century, but other drugs did not enjoy the same leniency.

Tobacco came under increasing control after its harm was confirmed. Cannabis, still a widely used illicit substance in New Zealand, is no closer to legalisation than it has ever been, though the commission suggests a relaxation of penalties for possession for personal use.

New Zealand's national drug policy states that restrictions are justified if the drug user can cause harm to others, or lacks the necessary information, maturity or ability to assess the risks.

If the Government decides party drugs must pass that test before they are put on sale, their days are probably numbered.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY NATIONAL POST, CANADA

Science good, markets bad

Martin Nowak, Professor of Mathematics and Biology at Harvard University, thinks George Orwell's Big Brother was on to something. According to Professor Nowak, "[T]he knowledge that our behaviour is being observed -or that it may be observed -could provide policymakers with new leverage to deal with climate change."

In his book SuperCooperators, written with Roger Highfield, Prof. Nowak offers specific examples: "Energy costs of individual households could, for example, be published by local newspapers. Companies could be ranked according to their emissions and their investments in climate protection. Stickers [on gas guzzlers] could be used to mark out the polluting vehicles with pitiful efficiency."

What we need is a system like Cuba 's neighbourhood Committees for the Defence of the Revolution. "Exposing who on your block or in your office uses most energy might be a good incentive for everyone to reduce their carbon footprint."

Prof. Nowak suggests that telescreen ecofascism should be extended beyond Earth Hour and "Do Not Buy" campaigns. "We need detailed information on the degree to which people, companies, or countries squander precious resources," he writes. "We need to know the true environmental cost of everyday items, from a boiler to a car, so that we can build it into the price tag."

But it wouldn't all be Invasion of the Body Snatchers-style finger pointing and bureaucratic price control. Prof. Nowak suggests people might be allowed to display green flags if they buy expensive "alternative" energy. Given "feed-in tariffs," every user of electricity in Ontario would be able to raise the green standard of "co-operation" on their dandelion-infested front lawns.

The ideas presented in this book alternate between the stunningly naïve and the outright horrifying. What is most scary is that Prof. Nowak believes they are based on "science." His principal climate "mentor" is Bob May, who, as the U.K. government's chief scientific advisor, then head of the Royal Society, provided a model of commitment above objectivity. Lord May once famously declared that the debate over climate was "over." Last year, several dozen members of the Royal Society revolted at how the famous institution had -significantly thanks to Lord May -been used as a political instrument.

Yet another of Prof. Nowak's intellectual inspirations is Garrett "Tragedy of the Commons" Hardin, who believed that allowing humans "the freedom to breed" was "intolerable." Mr. Hardin's solution to the intractable problems manufactured by his fevered brain was a "fundamental extension of morality." However, like most moralists, Mr. Hardin failed to examine where his own sense of morality might have originated, and how it might possibly lead him astray. The key point about the evolution of morality -as Prof. Nowak notes without following the thought through to its problematic conclusions -is that its adaptive function lay in "group selection." The dark side of that evolution was that it involves the demonization of the "out group: " those, say, who dare to express skepticism about catastrophic climate change. It is worth remembering that the greatest examples of moralism are genocide and suicide bombing.

In Gulliver's Travels, Jonathan Swift parodied the Royal Society of his day in the floating island of Laputa, which was inhabited by distracted boffins who were not merely impractical but tyrannical too, given to raining terror on their subjects below. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World was another satirical take on the dangerous pretensions of scientists to create "a better world" by fiddling with human nature.

As a mathematician, Prof. Nowak's particular Laputan conceit is that human nature (before it is upgraded) is to be discovered in increasingly sophisticated computer programs rather than by examining the real thing. He is an undoubtedly brilliant man who has used mathematical modelling to develop crucial insights into areas such as cancer treatment, but he makes quite unjustified leaps from the study of ants, and of simplistic laboratory games, to the suggestion that humans "must" co-operate -that is, take orders -at a global level because of an alleged existential threat.

Although his book is about co-operation, it is no coincidence that Prof. Nowak makes only passing reference to the greatest example of systemic human co-operation in history, the extended order of economic markets. Insofar as he does mention it, it is to misconstrue and condemn it -all too typically and tediously -as a force for resource exhaustion and unsustainable growth.

Before he suggests that the UN start masterminding global economic development, he might at least look at Climategate, Glaciergate and now Mass Migrationgate. We might also note the frightening fact that his co-author is the editor of the New Scientist, the world's most popular science and technology magazine.

Prof. Nowak quotes evolutionary biologist John Maynard Smith as saying that "an ounce of algebra is worth a ton of verbal argument." Perhaps, but where is the formula for, say, Rajendra Pachauri, the arrogant careerist head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?

Professor Nowak confirms how the best-credentialled of scientists can be dangerously ignorant and naïve in the policy arena. He suggests that "A realignment of the internal compass of millions of individual minds can do much to augment government policies."

But wasn't this once called the creation of the "New Soviet Man?"

McGuinty's secret deal

In 2008, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty signed a new four-year contract with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union (OPSEU), the province's largest. Mr. McGuinty and his finance minister, Dwight Duncan, touted the new agreement as a success for Ontario and a product of tough bargaining, noting that the 2% annual raise was less than the union had sought. The government then used the deal with OPSEU as a template for other, similarly limited, pay boosts for other unions.

But as was revealed this week after a hearing by the Ontario Labour Relations Board, the government also signed a secret, second deal with OPSEU, promising the union an extra percentage point raise for 2012, after the next provincial election was safely over. The public was not informed of this separate arrangement; indeed, the government wanted it to be remain hidden, on the grounds that Ontario would have a harder time negotiating with other unions if it were to become public.

But clearly, the government already has trouble enough on that front. As the OPSEU agreement demonstrates, neither Mr. McGuinty nor Mr. Duncan were willing to stand up to organized labour, even at a time of crisis. Instead they mouthed their determination to get tough while simultaneously doing the opposite.

Since being elected in 2003, Ontario's Liberal government has showered the province's public-sector unions with money. During this time, Mr. McGuinty has ramped up provincial spending by 50%. The one-time economic engine of Canada is now $200-billion in debt.

Reckless disregard for Ontario's fiscal health is bad enough. Deliberately misleading the public while spending money under the table is worse. It suggests Mr. McGuinty is more concerned with his own good than that of the province he leads.

Bringing Quebec into the Tory Cabinet

As a judicial recount in one of the Tories' six seats in Quebec threatens to bring their Quebec seat count down to a mere five, the Prime Minister must send a potent signal to reassure Quebecers that he understands and recognizes Quebec's importance within the federation and in his new government.

Mr. Harper also needs to reach out to the inner conservative that lies dormant in the hearts of most Quebecers.

How to kill these two birds with one stone? Appoint Maxime Bernier as President of the Treasury Board.

The position is open, since incumbent Stockwell Day decided not to run in the May 2 election.

Maxime Bernier hails from Beauce, a fortress of entrepreneurship in the heart of the province. He is an efficient communicator who sticks to the message. He emphasizes fiscal conservatism and individual liberties, a stance that resonates with a core of enthusiastic supporters in the province. He preaches the entrepreneurial values that lie at the very centre of Quebec's conservative past, but are too seldom celebrated nowadays.

But hasn't Quebec just voted massively for the NDP?

No worries. That was not an ideological vote, but a last-minute beauty contest among the party leaders. Most Quebecers, especially outside Montreal, hold political opinions radically different from those of the NDP, as they are just beginning to learn.

A recent opinion poll about public finances in Quebec showed that a vast majority of Quebecers believe spending should be cut to balance the budget. Moreover, a majority of Quebecers said that they would like to see the provincial budget balanced next year. And on top of that, it is in Quebec that we find the strongest support for two-tier healthcare.

It is far easier for most Quebecers to identify with a fiscal conservative like Maxime Bernier than with their 58 new NDP MPs combined -especially if Bernier is head of the Treasury Board.

Maxime Bernier is a committed fiscal conservative who pounces on government spending like a hawk. Considering the Prime Minister's campaign promise of a spending review to find $11-billion in savings, Bernier is unquestionably the ideal candidate for the job. In fact, he would likely identify even more possible cuts.

Bernier's appointment to Treasury Board would not only signal that Quebec will matter in cabinet; it would also appease fiscal hawks who are worried about the high rate of spending growth when the Conservatives had a minority government.

Appointing this outspoken and charismatic fiscal conservative from Quebec would allow the Prime Minister to start mending his frayed links with ordinary Quebecers, and with fiscal conservatives everywhere.

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

Asian solidarity

It is a matter of course that prevention is better than cure. But an Asian financial safety net, designed to fight off future financial crises, cannot be relied to prevent them. Instead, it may be used to take action only when a financial crisis is confirmed to have dealt a blow to a country.

This weakness in the Chiang Mai Initiative Multilateralization (CMIM) program, a $120 billion pool of funds to be tapped through currency swaps in times of financial crisis, will soon be addressed, as agreed by finance ministers from member nations of the ASEAN Plus Three ― Korea, China and Japan. The accord is undoubtedly one step forward in the pursuit of cooperation among the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and the three Northeast Asian countries.

The finance ministers, meeting on the fringes of the Asian Development Bank’s annual congress in Hanoi, also agreed to take other measures, which will certainly have great implications on regional solidarity. Among the accords are:

― The launch of the ASEAN Plus Three Macroeconomic and Research Office, better known by its AMRO acronym, this month. AMRO, an agency to monitor the financial situation in the region, will determine the amount of currency swaps needed to deal with financial turmoil. As the ministers said in a statement, AMRO’s surveillance function will be an “effective tool to prevent a financial crisis in the region.”

― The inclusion of governors of the central banks in the future meetings of finance ministers. This accord is an unmistakable indication what the ASEAN Plus Three is pursuing ― greater coordination in monetary policy among the member nations. The reinforced format for policy debate is patterned after those of Group of Seven and Group of 20 talks on global finance.

― Research on the proposed “regional settlement intermediary.” The proposal aims at boosting the Asian Bond Market Initiative ― an effort to develop efficient and liquid bond markets in Asia and, by doing so, utilize Asian savings for investments in Asia. The finance ministers also agreed to discuss the possibility of expanding the Asian Bond Market Initiative into an Asian Capital Market Initiative as a means of dealing with equities, derivatives and other financial products as well as bonds.

Each accord is of great importance on its own. But when all accords are implemented, they certainly will produce synergy, bringing CMIM closer to what was once proposed to be an Asian version of the International Monetary Fund ― an Asian Monetary Fund.

CMIM originates in the Asian financial meltdown. Shortly after a financial crisis developed in Thailand in 1997, Japan proposed to launch an Asian Monetary Fund, initially with $100 billion in a central reserve placed under the joint control of the contributors for the purpose of lending to countries in financial trouble. But the proposal did not fly in the face of strong opposition from the United States.

The idea was revived when finance ministers gathered at the annual ADB congress in Chiang Mai, Thailand, in May 2000. CMIM came into being when the underlying accord, signed in December 2009, took effect in March 2010.

Still, questions are raised about whether or not CMIM will serve its intended purpose ― averting a regional financial crisis. It is pointed out that the CMIM pool of money would be woefully small to fight a second Asian financial crisis. As such, it will have to work, not alone, but with the IMF. Moreover, financial ministers are already discussing the idea of doubling the amount of swaps.

The chances are virtually nil that CMIM will evolve into an Economic and Monetary Union anytime soon. But who knows if it will be remembered as an Asian version of the European Coal and Steel Community several decades down the road?

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Former intelligence officers put on pension

The government has decided to grant more than 6,000 Iraqis who were employed by the country’s former intelligence agencies public pension benefits.

Iraqi intelligence officers of the former regime of Saddam Hussein have been unemployed since the 2003-U.S. invasion. Even those who were temporarily employed were sacked.

The new measure is believed to grant justice to the officers who have been the hardest hit in the years since the U.S. invasion.

The disbanding of Iraqi army, police and intelligence and security organizations under Saddam Hussein by the U.S. is thought to be one of the main factors for the upsurge in violence that followed his overthrow.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

Enough of this shame game

If there were glum faces at the Commerce Ministry this week, they belonged to ministers and officials responsible for enforcing intellectual property rights. The United States had just issued its annual report card which lauded them for making a "continuing commitment to improving protection and enforcement", but then chided them for "failing to make substantial progress". That apparent contradiction means another year on the Priority Watch List, which could translate into barriers to trade and other penalties.

Washington lobbyists for the movie, music, software and pharmaceutical industries almost certainly had a say in this blinkered decision by the Office of the US Trade Representative. The main points of contention are illegal downloading of pirated works from the internet, alleged camcording of motion pictures in cinemas and the theft of cable and satellite signals. The demands, according to Deputy Commerce Minister Alongkorn Ponlaboot, are for an anti-camcording law; punishment of landlords renting space to sellers of pirated products; a law protecting copyright on digital and internet networks; and another law authorising Customs officials to seize counterfeit products without requests from the private sector.

Insistence on this raft of legislation will be seen by many as a bullying tactic, especially as there has been significant progress in the past decade with a notable increase in momentum over the past two years. Apart from the multitude of cases before the intellectual property courts, police last year took action in 4,851 cases of alleged piracy and seized a total of 4.25 million items. An anti-camcording draft bill has already received cabinet approval and revisions have been proposed to the 2007 Computer Crime Act, although legislators have yet to debate these highly controversial proposals.

Unlike in some cultures, elected representatives in this country have never reacted well to foreign pressure. Encouragement and tangible recognition of positive results are more likely to spur further action than the confrontational attitude of someone waving a big stick. No one disputes or condones the fact that pirated goods and software are widely available and that downloading from overseas torrent sites is rife. But the authorities are tackling the problem and the political will exists to solve it.

There is no magic bullet. Abruptly closing down Bangkok's notorious red zones would merely drive the problem underground. A gradual approach is already paying dividends with the closure of one major centre, a feat believed impossible a few years ago. If it were as easy to get rid of fakes and online transgressions as Washington seems to believe, there would be no bootleg products available on the streets of New York or other major US cities. Nor would there be any illegal downloading to the home of Hollywood, or camcorders sighted in US theatres blatantly stealing movies. But despite tough laws, these gangs and freelancers are still in evidence. Those who are so quick to point the finger at Thailand would do well to look in their own backyard.

The proper course of action is to go after big-time producers, not vendors, close our borders to the movement of counterfeit goods and make the public aware that the major cost of intellectual property theft is not to the big international brand-owners but to the country's economy, its reputation and future. Far more Thais would be able to make profits and gain a better life with enforcement of intellectual property rights, than the minority who benefit from piracy and online theft.

Only unity and strength of purpose will achieve this. Threats are counter-productive.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

Eurozone growing ever more fragile

THE EU united last night in its denials of reports that Greece was preparing to leave the eurozone. These ranged from the EU Commission to the German government to the Greek finance ministry itself. Other governments across the 17-member currency union were also prepared to dismiss the report.

Yet the mere hint of such a move was enough to push the single currency down almost 1.5pc -- its biggest drop against the dollar in a year. The report, carried in the German magazine 'Der Spiegel', suggested the Greeks were looking to leave the euro because their debts had become unsustainable.

The fact that a leading and reputable German news magazine could suggest such an eventuality simply highlights just how fragile the eurozone has become. It also highlights just how inadequate the European response has been to this economic crisis which began in January 2010. The European approach has been to place a sticking plaster over the problem -- and heavily indebted countries have simply been asked to pile up even more debt.

While Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy have ruled out -- at least for now -- allowing countries to default on their debts, the markets have refused to stop talking about it, and many observers believe this is where Greece is heading.

Technically a default can be carried out in the eurozone or outside it. Either way the departure of a single country from the eurozone would be likely to cause serious economic disruption across the continent, including here. On the plus side, it would allow Ireland to make itself more competitive by the country going back to the old Irish punt, which would be far less valuable than other European currencies and that would boost our exports.

But this apparent positive is hugely outweighed by a range of negatives. These include what would happen to all the debts Ireland's banks owe other lending institutions and the ECB. They are priced in euros and if Ireland reverted to the Irish punt, paying off this debt would be even harder than before. There is the long-term question of how would Ireland access the European market if is was no longer part of the bigger club, particularly if that club included giant economies such as German and France.

How this latest twist in a crisis is handled will be crucial to avoid a potential feeding frenzy on the markets and to show the stewardship Europe needs to secure its future.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

We must remain alive to ongoing al-Qa'ida threat

An illustration by Bill Leak. Source: The Australian

SOMEWHERE on the floor of the North Arabian Sea lies the body of al-Qa'ida founder Osama bin Laden.

We should be grateful for this not-so-small mercy. But we must also take a hard look at the implications of what has occurred and whether it has made us safer.

An excess of hand-wringing, self-loathing and self-analysis over the way the Americans, our allies in the war on terror, ended bin Laden's evil life has been the chief distraction of the week. The absurd moral equivalence that demands a lawyerly "due process' for a cynical, strategic terrorist leader who launched a horrific asymmetric war, deliberately designed to slaughter civilians, invites ridicule. Here was a man who sanctioned numerous attacks killing thousands of defenceless men, women and children for the express purpose of weakening our resolve. So when we show the resolve to track him down and bring his leadership to an end, anyway we can, it affirms our willingness to defend our freedoms. And it is a just outcome. 

It is surprising and disappointing that the White House has chosen not to release the images of bin Laden's corpse given US commitment to free speech. As gruesome as this would be, it would provide additional confirmation, closure and transparency. President Barack Obama's justification for not doing so is flimsy. Those who are offended by bin Laden's death will react, photographs or not. The central purpose of the war on terrorism is to protect freedom so that our decisions and policies are not dictated by threats or acts of violence.

The sobering revelations of this momentous week point to the ongoing threat of terrorism, including in our region. Already material seized from the Abbottabad compound has alluded to plots against US passenger trains as a sickening way to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11. We are reminded that bin Laden's ideological supporters will carry on in the Middle East, Africa, Southeast Asia and in Western nations such as our own. Long-held concerns about Pakistan are now heightened as its tenuous political leadership, always just an incident away from chaos itself, seems incapable of exercising control over the military and security apparatus. Covert support is provided to the Taliban in Afghanistan, and we must assume, al-Qa'ida, not only in Pakistan's border regions but in its cities as well.

The discovery of bin Laden in Abbottabad places greater significance on the arrest of Bali bomber Umar Patek there earlier this year. We know other bombers met and trained with al-Qa'ida before their murderous Bali attacks. So news that Patek could have been seeking funding and/or guidance from the al-Qa'ida leadership for another attack in Indonesia is disturbing. It underscores the need for vigilance and ongoing determination in the battle against this insidious threat. The security co-operation between Australian and Indonesia, forged in the aftermath of Bali, has been pivotal to the successful prosecutions against al-Qa'ida's regional franchise, Jemaah Islamiah. Sadly, whatever comfort we take from bin Laden's death must be tempered by the realisation that al-Qa'ida and its affiliates are still active, even in our region. For these reasons, we end the week in a higher state of apprehension than we began it.

Flicking the switch to Doha

THE ABC's Lateline has done a good job this week examining the shortcomings that might have arisen from the Gillard government's contracting out of the management of detention centres to Serco.

In the same vein, taxpayers have the right to ask why their ABC contracted out one of the biggest news stories of the decade, the slaying of the world's most wanted terrorist, Osama bin Laden, by US forces. If it was unable to cross to its own bureaus or provide its own hosts in an Australian studio, coverage was available from independent British and American broadcasters. Instead, the ABC surrendered control of its airwaves to Middle East broadcaster Al-Jazeera, which is owned by the Emir of Qatar, Sheik Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani. According to Britain's Index on Censorship, an organisation committed to promoting free speech, Qatar is so sensitive about censorship that in March it detained blogger and human rights activist Sultan al-Khalaifi for daring to criticise the country's censorship rules. All of which makes Qatar's national broadcaster a curious choice for outsourcing the initial coverage of such a major story by the ABC.

Taxpayers are entitled to ask why the provision of more than $1 billion in annual funding does not buy Australian coverage but an Al-Jazeera feed. 

Gillard's unspecified solution

IT'S too little too late but the Gillard government's decision to partially revive John Howard's so-called Pacific Solution seems rushed and incomplete.

We can only hope the formal announcement involves more than processing refugees in Papua New Guinea, because that alone is unlikely to solve the problem. Violence and arson at Australia's overcrowded detention centres and the arrival of about 10,000 boatpeople since Labor abandoned the Coalition's tough border protection policies in February 2008 have compelled Julia Gillard to act. She should have done so much sooner, long before the tragic drowning of as many as 50 people in a boat wreck off Christmas Island last December.

Offshore processing on its own will not stop the boats when people-smugglers and their desperate passengers know that the chances of asylum-seekers eventually ending up in Australia are good. The government's move, however, is at least a step in the right direction. It has chosen PNG rather than Nauru because PNG is a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees. And thankfully it signals the embarrassing end of the Prime Minister's fanciful notion of a regional processing centre in East Timor.

Within PNG, Manus Island, where the Howard government operated a processing centre, would be a good location. The local people are well disposed to the idea, welcoming the financial boost to the local economy it provided last time, including AusAID in the form of new classrooms. But if Labor is to have any hope of stemming the flow of boats, it cannot afford to stop at piecemeal measures, or ruthless people-smugglers will continue to perceive it as a "soft touch". The Howard government's effectiveness in stopping the boats involved occasionally turning them around before they reached their destination and the extensive use of temporary protection visas, which prevent asylum-seekers sponsoring relatives to come to Australia and which allow individuals to be repatriated if conditions improve.

Politically, the Gillard government's decision to send senior officials cap in hand for help to PNG is a humiliating backdown. After years of "collective denial" over the tide of boatpeople, the appeal to PNG is a tacit admission that weak policies have boosted the "pull" factors and encouraged desperate people to pay at least $10,000 to risk their lives on a treacherous journey rather than wait and hope to enter Australia through official channels. As a result of its own incompetence and procrastination, Labor is being forced to eat its words. In 2008, when the Rudd government abandoned the Pacific Solution, then-immigration minister Chris Evans labelled it a "cynical, costly and ultimately unsuccessful exercise." Last year, he said it was about "conning the Australian people and ... punishing those who sought our protection."

In another useful backflip, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen has acted to ensure that any detainee who commits a crime in an immigration facility will receive only a temporary visa, even if he or she obtains refugee status. The law will be backdated to cover the fires at the Villawood detention centre. However apoplectic the Greens and the human rights lobby become about this more pragmatic approach, the government has no alternative if it is to stem an inhuman trade. Whether it can put the genie back in the bottle remains to be seen. 

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

Transjakarta’s extended hours

The late night operation of the Transjakarta Busway on two of its corridors has undeniably been helpful for people who work late, and we believe that extending operational hours along all of the 10 busway corridors would help ease the acute traffic congestion in the capital.

A city administration official has said that the decision to extend the operational hours at night was based on the increasing number of passengers using the Pinangranti-Pluit corridor (Corridor 9) and the Blok-M-Kota corridor (Corridor I). On both corridors, Transjakarta buses run until 11:30 p.m.

“We will soon operate buses along Corridor 2 [Pulogadung-Harmoni] and Corridor 3 [Kalideres-Harmoni]. As both corridors are connected to each other, it will help the night working people,” Transjakarta Busway head Muhainmad Akbar said this week.

We support the busway’s extended night operations, not only because it will be helpful to people who work late, but because the buses, we believe, will ease traffic congestion.

The late night busway service, if it materializes, would be a similar move to that of state railway operator PT KAI Commuter Jabodetabek, which already operates night trains, will encourage workers to reevaluate their working hours. Many people may prefer to travel at night on more convenient bus services rather than getting trapped in traffic gridlock during rush hour.

The city administration may even need to further focus on traffic congestion by reevaluating its policy on the working hours of both civil servants and private employees. The shift in working hours will help reduce congestion as it will provide opportunities for urban workers to have different working hours.

We believe that consistent night busway operations will not only give people working late more alternatives for transportation, but that it can also help the city overcome traffic problems. Therefore, the city authorities need to integrate this policy with other efforts to ease the burden on the city roads, such as by improving public transportation services in the capital.

And the most important thing is that Transjakarta Busway’s operator has to maintain the quality of its services, including by paying serious attention to the security and safety of passengers, particularly when they are inside the buses or in the busway shelters.

The capital city of ASEAN

“Nambahin macet saja [just worsens the already congested traffic],” the abusive words have often and will continue to be heard before and during the May 7-8 ASEAN summit.

Such a complaint, however, is not only about the more severe traffic jams during the regional grouping leaders’ meeting, but more importantly about the indifferent feeling of Jakartans on the summit as they do not see yet the benefit or relevance of the event.

As a good host, however, we Jakartans have the moral responsibility to create a comfortable and friendly atmosphere during the stay of our guests, be they diplomats, government officials, politicians, social workers and journalists. It is true that many of us do not see the urgency of such a costly event in the short term, but foreign affairs and policies are unseparated from other pillars of the state’s life.

It is understandable when many stakeholders of this state complain that the government should give priority to much more pressing domestic issues such as huge unemployment and unsatisfactory economic growth. But we should not forget that our economy also heavily depends on the outside world.

In the meantime, it is not impossible that some guests may take extra security arrangements to ensure the safety of their delegations, especially their leaders. We need to understand their feeling no matter how ridiculous it may be for Indonesia.

We should realize that Jakarta has several times been the target of terror attacks over the past decade. But we also call for an understanding of our guests that the government, including the security forces and the whole of society, do their best for the comfort and safety of our honorable guests.

Since its establishment in 1967 in Bangkok and even since its transformation into an official organization after the signing of the ASEAN Charter in 2007 in Singapore, many Indonesians and citizens of other member countries have perceived that ASEAN is their government’s business and has almost nothing to do with them.

All leaders of the 10-member ASEAN — except Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong who has to focus on the general election on Saturday — will regroup on Saturday and Sunday. At the end of their discussion they are expected to issue their accountability report to the public on the direction of the regional bloc for another year ahead.

Many Jakartans perhaps do not realize that their city slowly but consistenly has transformed itself as the capital city of ASEAN such as Brussels for the EU. More countries such as the US and Japan have stationed their ambassadors to ASEAN here. In the past many envoys to Indonesia also served as representatives of their governments to ASEAN. Being a diplomatic capital city of ASEAN does not only mean political prestige but also major economic benefits.

We do hope that ASEAN leaders can achieve concrete results during their meeting to prove to their citizens that their conclusions of their meeting are not just strong on paper.

Be a good host. The positive attitude is expected from all citizens of this city. And we believe our guests will also appreciate our warm hospitality.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

 

7/7 bombings: A summing up

Conclusions from the 7/7 verdict suggest the institutions guarding people's safety are not as good as they could be

London is one of the great cities of the world, an ethnic and cultural hub, a tourist magnet. In 15 months' time, it will host the Olympics, attracting hundreds of thousands more visitors in a glare of global publicity. The institutions that guard the safety and well-being of the capital have to be world-class too. Yesterday's conclusions of the long and careful inquest into the 7 July bombings suggest they are not as good as they should be. Worse, they suggest a reluctance in MI5 either to acknowledge or to address the weaknesses the terrorists exposed.

Lady Justice Hallett has proved a compassionate and feisty coroner, allowing survivors and witnesses the space to recall their experiences in a way that may, perhaps, have helped them and certainly allowed the rest of us to honour the extraordinary courage of ordinary people on an ordinary day caught up in extraordinary and unforgivable events. She has illuminated shortcomings in the emergency services' response. Even more significantly, she has brought a senior MI5 officer to the witness box and exposed what has been at best a shameful negligence of the truth, at worst a deliberate intention to mislead members of Westminster's intelligence and security committee. Not surprisingly, some of the victims' families believe a public inquiry might uncover more MI5 lapses. A long history of inadequate (and until recently non-existent) scrutiny has fostered a dangerous culture of arrogance.

The coroner believes the bombings could not have been prevented. But her inquest was restricted by rule 43, under which she could only make recommendations aimed at preventing further deaths. It is not a substitute for a fuller probe into the competence of the intelligence agencies. While seven of her nine recommendations relate to the emergency response, on the central issue of whether the bombings might have been prevented Lady Justice Hallett is able to demand just two reforms. All the same, although she acknowledges the scale of the complex challenges facing the security services and recognises that the clarity of hindsight can be misleading, there is no mistaking that she is deeply concerned about MI5's conduct in the years leading up to July 2005, even in the truncated narrative she allows herself.

Her call for the best available photographs to be shown to witnesses for possible identification and her proposal for proper recording of the reasons for not putting an individual under surveillance seem elementary. That either point needs to be made suggests the security services were overwhelmed in the face of mounting evidence of home-grown terrorism. Indeed there is a litany of weekly resource allocation meetings that hint at the struggle for the necessary share of an inadequate pot. Surveillance is costly, time-consuming and labour-intensive but it is also indispensible. Much has changed in the past five years: MI5 is both much bigger and much better-resourced. But that only increases the need for proper accountability.

From Iraq to torture allegations to the London bombings, intelligence failings have been a recurrent part of the story that is matched by a reluctance to accept accountability. It has taken successive inquiries to extract an accurate picture. Lady Justice Hallett details the discrepancies between what she learned in evidence and what the ISC was told in its two earlier inquiries – most significantly that far from believing two of the bombers, Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, to be "small time fraudsters", desk officers knew they were in contact with others against whom there was more compelling evidence. Given the opportunity to correct the ISC's misapprehension, MI5 ignored it. Others also went unchallenged. "Unfortunate," Lady Justice Hallett remarks – all the more so since, when she began, she was assured there was nothing new to learn. The ISC had already conducted an exhaustive inquiry. Yesterday's report should embarrass MI5. It is mortifying for the ISC.

Despite the shortcomings, the coroner concludes MI5 could not have prevented the attacks. The 52 innocent lives could not have been saved. But if the same mistakes are not to be made again the security services must be properly held to account for their failures. If a public inquiry is what it takes to change the culture, then a public inquiry must be held.

 

Elections and referendum: All shook up

The single most important consequence of Thursday's voting is the sheer bloodiness of the bloody nose delivered to the Liberal Democrats

So many of the most potent themes of British politics came together for a few hours in Thursday's elections that the contests, and the simultaneous AV referendum, seemed as important as a mini-general election. Except that a general election has only one overridingly large story to tell – the new government. This week's Super Thursday, by contrast, produced such a bulging goody-bag of resonant local and national stories – the defeat of electoral reform, the nationalist triumph in Scotland, the nationalist setback in Wales, excellent news for the Conservatives, grim news for the Liberal Democrats, something in between for Labour – that it is hard to know where to start.

On any other day, the triumph of the Scottish National Party in winning an outright majority in the Holyrood parliament – the very outcome that the devolved electoral system was expressly designed to prevent – would take the palm. While the United Kingdom survives, however, the single most important consequence of Thursday's voting is the sheer bloodiness of the bloody nose delivered to the Liberal Democrats. The damage is truly shocking. One in three Lib Dem voters from 2010 abandoned the party. At least 550 councillors were lost and the party was bundled from power in cities like Newcastle and Sheffield. The Lib Dem presence at Holyrood was decimated and in the Welsh assembly is now vestigial. The writing is on the wall for many of the party's biggest names in the House of Commons. And the AV referendum, so central to the party's hopes of having something distinctive to show for the coalition, was swept away by two-to-one.

There is something for the Lib Dems to cling on to all the same: the 15% share of the poll is grim not catastrophic; council victories in Burnley, Eastbourne, Watford and elsewhere serve notice that this was not an all-out rout, while in Eastleigh (the seat of Chris Huhne) there was even some Lib Dem advance. Yet Nick Clegg now presides over the rubble of his party's 20-year incremental forward march through British politics. This defeat is the all but inescapable price to be paid for an all but inescapable decision to enter government a year ago. Much the same may happen next year too. The bottom-line is that a large swathe of liberal Britain, more than this party can afford to lose, feels abandoned by Lib Dem membership of a coalition which is overwhelmingly defined by the slashing of public services, the overturning of the health service and the about-face on tuition fees. Mr Clegg and his party must confront this or face a decade of marginalisation.

The contrast with the fate of the Conservatives makes this all the more dismaying. If liberal Britain feels abandoned, conservative Britain feels vindicated. The Tory vote held up. There were even some council gains. And AV was crushed. True, there were Scottish and Welsh setbacks yet again. But the party of David Cameron, George Osborne, Andrew Lansley and Michael Gove – the real architects of the coalition's core policies – went not merely unpunished but has been majorly rewarded. In some ways, the Conservatives have more to cheer than Labour, who should have done better, not just in Scotland, but everywhere outside its traditional heartlands. For Labour, feeling good about winning well in Wales and about attracting back voters who should never have been lost in the first place are the easy bits – Labour's eight-point boost since 2010 and its nearly 700 new councillors are in one sense the Gordon Brown departure dividend. The larger point is that Labour's electoral counter-attack against the Tories is still almost non-existent. Yet without a credible strategy for turning some Tory votes into Labour ones, Labour's hopes of governing again may remain stillborn.

Both Scotland and electoral reform also remain crucial to any future centre-left advance of any kind. Yet Alex Salmond's stunning SNP win – amazing under a proportional system as well as the biggest personal electoral triumph for any party leader since Tony Blair's 1997 Labour landslide – poses a double challenge to Labour aspirations: it threatens Labour's future Westminster election chances and if – big if – the SNP win their way on independence, it may mean the end of any Scottish MPs at Westminster at all. In the wake of the abject failure of AV to win public backing, meanwhile, many will conclude that electoral reform is off the agenda for a generation. Yet if British voters go on producing general election outcomes with which the two-party Westminster system cannot cope, electoral reform may get back on the agenda sooner than now seems likely.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

The Return of ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’

With the country again facing $4-a-gallon gasoline, the time would seem ripe for a grown-up conversation on energy. What we are getting instead is a mindless rerun of the drill-baby-drill operatics of the 2008 campaign, when gas was also at $4 a gallon. Then, as now, opportunistic politicians insisted that vastly expanded oil drilling would bring relief at the pump and reduced dependence on foreign oil. Then, as now, these arguments were bogus.

As President Obama observed in a March 30 address on energy issues, drilling alone cannot possibly ensure energy independence in a country that uses one-quarter of the world’s oil while owning only 2 percent of its reserves. Nor can it lower prices, except at the margins. Only coordinated measures — greater auto efficiency, alternative fuels, improved mass transit — can address these issues.

Still the oil industry and its political allies persist in their fantasies. On Thursday, the House passed the first of three bills that will require the Interior Department to accelerate drilling permits without proper environmental or engineering reviews, reinstate lease sales off the Virginia coast that were canceled after the BP blowout, and open up protected coastal waters — East, West and in Alaska — to drilling.

The bills would make regulation of offshore drilling even weaker than it was before the spill. They would also do almost nothing to solve the problems of $4-a-gallon gas.

Here’s the hard truth: Prices are set on the world market by the major producers, OPEC in particular. Even countries that produce more oil than they need, like Canada, have little leverage. Canada’s prices track ours.

The Energy Information Agency recently projected what would happen if the nation tripled production on the outer continental shelf. There would be no price impact at all until 2020 and only 3 cents to 5 cents a gallon in 2030.

By contrast, the agency found, raising the fuel efficiency of America’s cars would do real good. Increasing the fleetwide average from roughly 30 m.p.g. today to 60 m.p.g. in the next 15 years, an ambitious but not implausible goal, could bring prices down by 20 percent.

Some politicians get it. Senator Max Baucus, a Montana Democrat, is drafting a bill that seeks to repeal $4 billion in annual taxpayer subsidies to the oil industry and use the proceeds to develop more efficient cars and alternative fuel sources. Mr. Obama has tried twice, without success, to get rid of those subsidies, and the House voted in March to preserve them in the current budget.

The tax breaks — fast write-offs for drilling expenses, generous depletion allowances, and the like — may have been useful years ago but are wholly unnecessary when oil prices and industry profits are reaching new highs.

Even John Boehner, the Republican leader, conceded in a recent ABC News interview that oil companies “ought to be paying their fair share.” When horrified aides reminded him that ending the subsidies would amount to a tax increase — anathema among Republicans — he backed off.

Repealing these breaks would reduce the deficit and yield revenues to be invested in cleaner fuels, while having no real impact on prices. Mr. Obama may not be able to persuade the House of these simple truths. But he can and must seize whatever opportunities are offered in the Senate, involving himself, not just rhetorically, in the hard but necessary struggle for a sane energy policy. 

One Hand Clapping

Jobs data can be hard to read. When an economy is emerging from recession, a rising jobless rate can be a good sign if it reflects an increase in the people actively looking for work. Sadly, that was not the case with the April employment numbers reported on Friday. The jobless rate rose because the people who lost or left their jobs outnumbered those who found new work.

That does not diminish the boost from the increase of 244,000 jobs in April, but it does add perspective. Job growth is not taking off. At the current monthly rate, it would take more than five years to return to the pre-recession unemployment rate of 5 percent in December 2007.

What will it take to move the job market from weak to strong? For starters, it would require top policy makers to be asking that question and looking for answers. Instead, Congress and the White House are preoccupied with budget cutting, ignoring that more good jobs — which would create tax revenue and reduce spending on government aid — would be the best way to fight deficits.

They are also ignoring that a modicum of recovery has exposed deep pockets of distress. States and local governments are still shedding jobs. High school graduates under age 25 have had a jobless rate of nearly 22 percent in the past year. For young college graduates, the rate has been 9.6 percent, about the same as high school graduates over age 25. For black workers, unemployment was 16.1 percent in April, far higher than that of white workers. College-educated blacks are also more likely to be unemployed than their white peers. Among the jobless, 43.4 percent have been out of work for more than six months.

The fixation on the federal deficit has silenced talk of more fiscal stimulus. But more aid to states could help stanch job loss. Programs that create public-works jobs could be tailored to groups with high unemployment, and job re-training could focus on the long-term unemployed.

The sound of one hand clapping is what you hear when policy makers wave those kinds of ideas away. 

In Search of a Republican Presidential Field

Even John Boehner, the speaker of the House and Republican chieftain, didn’t bother to watch his party’s presidential debate on Thursday, and it’s hard to blame him. Only five candidates showed up, none with impressive followings. And what they said demonstrated why Republicans are having such a hard time delivering a coherent and appealing message ahead of the 2012 campaign. 

One debater, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, is at heart a moderate conservative but desperately tried to bare his teeth to appeal to the Tea Partiers who rule the primaries. Another, Rick Santorum, a former United States senator from Pennsylvania, is much further to the right than the independents who control the general election. Herman Cain, the former chief executive of Godfather’s Pizza, seemed to be running for Motivational Speaker of the United States rather than president, and two libertarian candidates were tuned only to their customized ideological frequencies.

The party’s heavyweights, such as they are, stayed home. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, has not yet declared, perhaps because he is still refining his explanation of why he passionately opposes President Obama’s health care law though he implemented something very similar while governor. (His current line — that states can do what the federal government should not — is not likely to play well among the fierce partisans of the early primary states.) The other possibilities, including Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels and Donald Trump, are either uncommitted to campaigning or are coyly waiting for the field to settle a bit.

Like a dark star, the Tea Party has pulled the entire Republican party rightward, and the vast distance between that star and the nation’s center has made it difficult to run for president. The slightest deviation calls down cosmic storms. When the sharp panel assembled by Fox News for the debate noted that Mr. Pawlenty had supported a cap-and-trade system in 2008 to limit greenhouse gases, there were gasps in the audience in Greenville, S.C. He practically sunk to his knees to apologize.

“I was wrong. It was a mistake,” he said. “I’m sorry.”

With the exception of the libertarians, the other candidates have had to trample over each other to stake out positions so tough-minded they often abandon common sense. Mr. Santorum defended his position that stopping “Obamacare” was more important than avoiding a federal default. Then he went a step further and said it was the most important issue facing the country, apparently writing off any of the 13.7 million people still unemployed.

At some point, the party will have to do better to make a race out of 2012. But that will only happen if a leader can pull Republicans away from the distant margins. 

CUNY Shamed Itself

The trustees of the City University of New York got it exactly backward this week. They supported the political agenda of an intolerant board member and shunned one of America’s most important playwrights. They should have embraced the artist and tossed out the board member.

Much has been said about the importance of Tony Kushner. It’s true. His play “Angels in America” was a masterpiece that gave voice to the AIDS crisis. There also has been much talk about his precise words about Israel, and whether the trustee who blackballed him, Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, got them right. That is all beside the point.

If Mr. Kushner were a lesser artist, it still would have been outrageous for CUNY to deny his honorary degree for political reasons. And the particulars of what Mr. Kushner said are not so important. (His comments were not all that remarkable, though we disagreed with them.) The point is that a public university is supposed to nurture free speech and free thought, not quash them.

The CUNY chancellor, Matthew Goldstein, should have spoken out forcefully on this issue. And Mr. Wiesenfeld, who told The Times’s Jim Dwyer that some Palestinians are not human, should resign.

Mr. Kushner, who is Jewish, described the ousting of Palestinians from their homes in the 1940s as a form of “ethnic cleansing.” He has also said Israel is engaged in the deliberate destruction of Palestinian culture. In a letter to CUNY, he said that he has always supported Israel’s right to exist and that Mr. Wiesenfeld distorted his views.

Benno Schmidt Jr., chairman of the CUNY board of trustees and a former president of Yale, voted to table the award for Mr. Kushner. He declared on Friday that this was a “mistake of principle” and called a meeting for Monday to see if CUNY could do the right thing, too.