EDITORIAL : THE DAILY OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

               

 

Address All Contributive Factors or Expect No Win

Violence is at its worst in Afghanistan since 2001. Before the first May, for circles who assume that United States is facing failure in Afghanistan war, the life of Osama bin Laden and his vague location was a levelheaded point and for US a question for which it had no proper answer. The strong question these circles used to ask was, "if you have failed to hunt down Osama for almost a decade, how could you claim victory against Al-Qaida and its associates?" Now no one can ask that question as Osama is dead.

But still the Afghan war seems to be moving towards failure, increased violence is a clear evidence for this. Taliban hold a strong position in all 34 provinces of Afghanistan while the government is failing to extent rule of law beyond the city of Kabul and international community is inclined towards withdrawal of its forces – the US and some of its allies have already announced that they would be withdrawing thousands of their troops by the end of this year. An important factor that is deemed to have boosted up the morale of Taliban is that Afghan government has invited them to table talks and promised them monetary rewards and asylums in foreign countries.

The widening rift between Karzai administration and its Western partners, mainly over civilian killings caused by NATO, is an upbeat point for Taliban. Another reason for the deteriorating security the rivalry between countries involved in the affairs of Afghanistan. It is widely believed that Afghanistan has been sandwiched between US-Iran and India-Pakistan. These all factors have contributed in the intensification of insurgents' operation and until and unless they are addressed, security in Afghanistan is to further worsen.

There are claims that Taliban have been driven back in their strongholds but they continue to enjoy presence in almost all the thirty four provinces of Afghanistan. More than 90 percent of districts of Afghanistan are under varying influence or control of the insurgents and there are several districts which are completely out of government control. This is what the government itself admits. With more international troops deployed in Afghanistan last year and multiplication of efforts to recruit more people to Afghan National Army and Police, the security condition has drastically deteriorated.

Afghanistan is reversing towards bad security which threats the planned development and reconstruction activities and also, the newborn democracy.
The plan of US and its allies to drawdown their forces without having the issues caused by militancy and extreme fixed is another point of concern among Afghan population and increment of violence. The pitfall of withdrawal plan is that it has given psychological support to the Taliban. Taliban are now waiting for US complete withdrawal in 2014. Even if they are defeated until then, after US withdrawal they will re-emerge. Although the Taliban have been invited to negotiations by Afghan government, Taliban have signaled no readiness and definitely would continue their activities at faster pace, as they see victory only at some years distance. So, the efforts to resolve the Afghan war through peace talks and withdrawal of foreign troops in the next four years are both in the favor Taliban.

As the graph of violence undergoes positive change, the number of civilian casualties increases either. Civilian deaths caused by NATO operation are widening the rift between Afghan government and its Western allies, mainly Afghan-US relations. Not only the civilian killings have caused diplomatic harms but also such incidents trigger the anger of common people each time and result in violent protests. As of yesterday, Hundreds of Afghans protested against the accidental killing of a teenage boy by NATO-led forces in a volatile Nangarhar province, and the district governor said one man was shot dead as police fired at the crowd after it turned violent.

A UN report this year showed that 2010 was by far the most lethal for Afghan civilians with a total of 2,777 civilians killed, up 15 percent on the previous year. While the United Nations says insurgents were responsible for 75 per cent of those deaths, it is those caused by foreign troops that angers ordinary Afghans the most. The killings of civilians by NATO, although unintentionally, have brought Afghans on the roads to protest against foreigners in this country. The right to protest is a perceived human right arising out of a number of recognized human rights. But in Afghanistan protests have been extremely violent as they provide a platform for Taliban members to attack government and foreigners. Anti-Western sentiment is also running high a month after a fundamentalist US pastor burned a Quran. The NATO needs to further work to avoid killings of civilians in order to lessen these sentiments because winning the hearts and minds of people is vital to reach success in Afghanistan war.

The lingering war and worsening security situation is also because Taliban have consistent sources that financially and logistically support them. Afghanistan is believed to be the battle field of intelligence of certain countries that have rivalry since decades. These countries have their own purpose and objectives in Afghanistan and want their interests to remain solid at any cost. The beneficiary of these negative competitions is the Taliban and insurgents. Afghanistan's neighbors and its Western backers must set aside their own enmity and let peace prevail in the lives of the people of Afghanistan.

What Afghans anticipate from the international community is to assist them attain peace, development and prosperity. A peaceful and prosperous Afghanistan is in benefit of the people living across the globe while not working to address the factors contributing to insecurity in this country would lead to further expansion of militancy and extremism to the region and the world.

Taliban to Avenge bin Laden’s Death

The deadly attack on a paramilitary training center in Pakistan has been claimed by Taliban, calling it a revenge for bin Laden, and warning that further such attacks are yet to come. The twin suicide blast killed more than 80 recruits who had just finished their training period.
Friday has been a bloody day for the recent history of Af-Pak region since the fall of Taliban, and rise of militants. There have been bomb blasts and suicide attacks across both Afghanistan and Pakistan. Friday, despite being a sacred day in Islamic tradition, has been a favorite choice for the suicide bombers of Taliban and Al-Qaeda to blow themselves up and go straight to paradise, as they are made to believe.

Friday's attack is first of its kind after the death of Osama bin Laden. And with the Taliban statement saying that they would continue such attacks for his revenge, there is terror yet to come. Al-Qaeda affiliated groups in both countries Afghanistan and Pakistan have been warning of revenge attacks. In Afghanistan, we have already seen the episode in Kandahar, when the city was besieged by suicide bombers and fighters for almost 3 days, when security forces were unable to control the situation. Frontline fighters have vowed to avenge bin Laden's death. It's very likely that they are planning major attacks in Afghanistan, as that of the one in Friday in Pakistan.

Since last year, there has been a group of activist Western journalists who are trying to prove that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda have no relationship, and it was all between Mullah Omar and Osama bin Laden. The common myth being promoted is that the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan is a local movement for limited goals within Afghanistan. But the fact is that, Taliban have never fought for power or rule, otherwise they would have easily handed over bin Laden to the US and saved their rule in 2001. The driving force for their fighters and leadership is the Salafi Jihadi ideology. And there is no local or global difference of goals in such Jihad. It all depends on Taliban's capability. If they have the means and resources to reach and carry out a major attack in the West, Taliban will certainly do.

There are Taliban groups who have direct operational links with Al-Qaeda commanders. These relations go far beyond ideological bond. There is operational, tactical and strategic links. Afghan intelligence, the National Directorate of Security (NDS) spokesman has said Osama was an important player behind the intensifying insurgency in Afghanistan.

But there are some people who still live in denial and don't pay attention to the bloody fact that Taliban is more than just a bunch of "angry people". They are Jihadis with ideological roots, and we need to take them in that perspective.

Better to Rein in Revengeful Militants

No doubt, on May 1, a good news travelled across the globe bringing relief to the much of the world. It apprised and informed of nothing but the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, surprisingly near the capital city of Islamabad. There was a huge sense and show of jubilation in the capital cities and leaders of the political stage of the world were shooting congratulatory messages. The attention was focused on the news itself, so thrilling and so joyous to have heard a lunatic top terrorist was humiliatingly killed after a decade of fleeing from cave to cave under the shadow of some intelligence.

As the sense of thrill subsided, the people across the world began to ask the question that how Osama Bin Laden was protected in Abbottabad and who protected him. But on Saturday, May 14, 2011 Pakistani parliament issued a resolution calling for review of ties with the United States of America. The parliament has done this action in reaction to violation of Pakistani sovereignty by the U.S. Special Forces that unilaterally raided the compound, where Osama was living.

After the security chiefs briefed Pakistani legislators, the parliament said, "Parliament ... condemned the unilateral action in Abbottabad which constitutes a violation of Pakistan's sovereignty."

The parliament also called for an end to the U.S. drone attacks, which target the militants in their hideouts in Pakistani soil. This happens while observers believe that the drone attacks should be increased and expanded and Pakistan must remove the limitations on them. The Pakistani parliament warned that Pakistan could cut supply lines to American forces in Afghanistan if there were more such attacks.

Observers and analysts on the other hand want the U.S. administration to shift its reliance on supply routes from Pakistan to middle Asian countries. While Pakistan still reels from the embarrassment caused by Osama death in its soil, it must be happy that this atrocious terrorist was killed and instead of adding to its embarrassment by issuing warnings and statements must work to rein in the terrorists and militants that have vowed to revenge for Bin laden's killing.

India is Anticipated to A Play Greater Role

The two-day visit of Indian premier to Afghanistan marks the profundity of relations based on mutual respect and a number of commonalities that both the countries have been enjoying since centuries. Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of India on Friday May 13, 2011 addressed the parliament of Afghanistan. This made him the first foreign high authority to speak to Afghanistan's parliament in history. Speaking to the representatives of people he said that India would continue to support the peace and reconstruction process in Afghanistan and that terrorism was a common enemy of both the nations.

India's support to Afghanistan's prosperity is an undeniable fact. Currently billions of dollars worth development projects are being funded by the government of India. Tens of thousands of Afghan refugees are currently living in India and thousands of Afghan students have given scholarships in various universities of India. The people of Afghanistan have always welcomed Indian contribution as a chief donor to Afghanistan economic and social development.

Singh's visit comes just a few after Osama bin Laden's killing. Osama's death is deemed a major achievement in the counter-terrorism war. The United States sees the Afghan war giving positives results. Although violence has doubled, US government's reports conclude that Taliban have been driven back in their strongholds and are near to defeat. With this, the US and its allies (NATO) are eyeing to withdraw thousands of its forces from Afghanistan in the near future and gradually handover security responsibilities to Afghan security forces. It is anticipated that India, as neighbor of Afghanistan, will have to play greater role in strengthening Afghanistan before and beyond 2014.

Terrorism as a common enemy of Afghanistan and India is hampering economic and all sorts of development of both the nations and countries in the region. For a fast growing economy such as that of India, regional security is believed to have a critical role. Security in the region will continue to remain a dream until and unless the insurgency and extremism is eliminated from Afghanistan. In this regard, the world sees India's contribution as vital.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

                             

Mitchell goes unsung

George Mitchell couldn’t add another feather to his cap. The Ireland-fame US diplomat, who was largely seen as the man who can help rewrite the Middle East history by brokering permanent peace in the region, has resigned unsung.

 His two years of hectic shuttle diplomacy in one of the most volatile regions of the world, and subsequently between the world capitals, has just furthered the impression that it takes more than a policy prescription to address the Palestinian-Israeli imbroglio. If Mitchell’s utterances and efforts are profiled, it will inevitably convey the impression that as far as the groundwork for brokering a deal was concerned, it was very much there and only lacked the political will to further the envelope.

Mitchell’s walking down and out will be counted as an anathema for President Barack Obama’s administration. It was more than clear that it was Obama who stopped short of putting his foot down firmly when it came to speaking loud before the dispensation in Tel Aviv. This, of course, has come with a cost. The White House stands clueless and seems to be wandering in the dark in spelling out a clear-cut solution for the region. Obama’s electoral promise of brokering a two-state solution is in thin air, and nothing concrete has been achieved in his three years in office. On the other hand, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had succeeded in manoeuvring his way out, whether it be delaying tactics across the table or getting scot-free with illegal constructions in the Occupied territories. Though the peace genie was at pains in lecturing Israel over the necessity to strike a deal with the Arabs, his efforts had borne fruit as far as his vision of Palestinian unity is concerned. The coming together of Hamas and Fatah, to an extent, forms the commitment to resolving conflict and advancing democracy.

The onus is now on Obama to bring to full circle the process he had initiated with his inauguration in office. The Middle East peace plan, which the White House is set to announce this week, should not be another booklet of salient features for academic discussion. It should reflect the consensus that Mitchell had brokered in the region, which called for a more hands-on-approach. Though many see the diplomat’s exit at this crucial hour as a result of policy disagreement, which had reached an impasse, the responsibility squarely lies on the White House to keep the doves in the loop. Washington’s Mideast policy, unfortunately, is a manifest of discrimination and leans at the doors of Tel Aviv. This is quite unbecoming for the status of the United States as honest broker in the region. At times when upheavals are the order of the day from Damascus to Sanaa and from Benghazi to Cairo, America’s playing the Israeli fiddle will be suicidal. The forthcoming weeks and months are of immense importance as far as real-politicks is concerned. The spring uprising in many of the Arab capitals and the in-principle decision on the part of Palestinians to unilaterally declare their statehood will have wider geopolitical ramifications. The US cannot afford to be on the other side of the fence.

Exodus unnerves Denmark

Copenhagen is critically conscious. Its unilateral measure to reintroduce control on internal borders is being contested across the European Union, as many see it as the beginning of the end of the unity project.

 But it seems Denmark is unmindful of its impact, as it claims that the step is not a violation of EU treaties that guarantees freedom of movement across the 27-member states Union. The Schengen concept, which had come up for debate over the weekend, is likely to experience many such isolated restrictions being put to work by other states as well, as they find themselves dumbstruck while dealing with the new exodus of refugees from many of the Middle Eastern and North African countries.

Italy, which has embraced more than 25,000 immigrants since the upheavals begun in the region, has sent shivers down the spine across the continent. France, Germany and now countries as far as Denmark in the Scandinavia are reconsidering the liberal tourism regime they have been boasting for decades. Recently, Paris had to cancel some of the trains’ en-route southern Italy and undertook snap checking, arrest and deportation of many of the brown and black skin travellers. This is not merely a moment of policy perspective for the European Union, but also to dwell deep into the pros and cons of the issue in its socio-economic and
political outlook.

The Union’s endeavour to maintain passport-free travel for tourists legally inside their territory is highly appreciated. At the same time, the concerns that member states feel on security and social policy context cannot be underestimated. The creeping in restrictions in the form of random checks of cars and documents, midnight knocks at tourist resorts and a sense of xenophobia for non-white race citizens are alarming. Apart from ensuring that the Union’s security and sovereignty is not breached on the count of immigrants, the prosperous EU can spare a thought on chalking out a plan of action wherein it could look into the factors that compel many of those faceless people to adventure across the high seas.

Socio-economic disparity and political discrimination back home are reasons for the flight of people in search of greener pastures. Provision of a safe and serene life back home can make the difference.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZEALAND HERALD, NEW ZEALAND

Tinkering at disaster's edges

The Prime Minister's signals this week that KiwiSaver is in for a shake-up in Thursday's Budget are all consistent with the Honest John image he is fond of cultivating.

Key signalled that the Government incentives - the $1000 "kickstart" payments for new KiwiSaver members and the $20-a-week tax credit - were likely to be slashed, in the face of a forecast $15 billion deficit and a "zero Budget".

The changes to KiwiSaver will not take place until after the election, lending them a "taking it to the people" lustre.

That has the feel of the fair deal about it, but it does tend to confirm the impression that this is a timorous Government, wanting to look like it is doing the right thing but not to the extent that it might hurt anybody's feelings.

Almost half of New Zealand voters have signed up to KiwiSaver, although their average total contribution - of the order of $2500 since the scheme started - does not suggest a passionate commitment to it as a savings instrument.

Anecdotal evidence - not to mention good sense - rather points to people investing the minimum of $1043 a year to get the dollar-for-dollar tax credit, and then putting the rest of their money elsewhere.

And why should they not? Savers who have done so since the beginning have got something like a 160 per cent return on their money - a figure not to be sniffed at, as anyone who has had sharemarket exposure over the same period will attest.

The problem is that the Government is borrowing the money to give it to us, which was never sustainable and certainly is not now.

New Zealanders always get jumpy when politicians start playing around with their retirement savings or superannuation entitlements. But we are also a pragmatic people and we know that desperate situations call for desperate remedies.

Even if we were not in the financial hole we were in, the KiwiSaver incentives would make no fiscal sense. Far better to ditch them and make retirement savings compulsory - albeit at a nominal rate while household budgets are as stretched as the national one.

The bigger elephant in the room that the Government is ignoring is that of interest-free student loans. The outstanding $11 billion - which is an incredible 6 per cent of GDP - means forgoing other spending or saving (a so-called opportunity cost) of $65 million a year.

Bill English rightly condemned the axing of interest on student loans as an election bribe when Labour announced it in 2005. It was exactly that, and it saved the Clark administration's bacon in that election.

But when we are borrowing $300 million a week (or around $70 a week for every New Zealander) just to stand still, it is an insane waste of money.

In an interview John Key gave to the BBC when he was in London for the royal wedding, Key smiled a lot and insisted that the expert independent commentary about the crises we face was "just people's opinions".

That's a politician's job - to put a brave face on it. Deep down, Key knows the shape we're in. But he seems to lack the political will to do anything about it.

Act leader Don Brash, whose public pronouncements have so far been conspicuously devoid of specific policy, got one thing right in his open letter to Key this week: the PM, he said, is frittering away "the greatest reserves of prime ministerial popularity in New Zealand history".

It's not too late for Key to prove him wrong. But time is certainly running out.

Don't blame us - we only live here

As the acronym Jafa suggests, Aucklanders do not, in general, enjoy the esteem of the rest of New Zealanders to the extent that we would like. We do not have to travel far beyond the Bombays or the Waiwera River to encounter the sense that we are seen as a breed apart.

At worst, we will detect a curling of the upper lip in contempt when we admit where we live; at best, the non-Aucklanders will shake their heads in pity.

Pronouncements such as the one favoured by former Auckland City mayor John Banks - "There are only two kinds of people in New Zealand: those who live in Auckland and those who wish they did" - are not exactly going to endear us to our cousins in the provinces. They sound arrogant and are hardly calculated to make people like us more.

But the release of a survey this week lends weight to the idea that, rather than hating us, the rest of New Zealand ought to feel sorry for us. Any dislikeable traits we may exhibit are down to the fact that we're stressed to the max.

The national online survey, conducted for the Southern Cross Healthcare Group, found that 60 per cent of us are overworked - and it's a fair bet that the other 40 per cent are looking for a job.

Given the gridlock we have to negotiate on the daily commute, it's a surprise that only one in three of us feels stressed - Cantabrians were worse off in that regard, but if the survey had been taken before the ground started shaking they would surely not have been.

We're not eating our greens, other than the lettuce in the hamburgers taken at the desks we're chained to and we're not exercising enough (who has time for exercise? Have you seen the size of the mortgage?) or sleeping enough (ditto) and we're overweight (see above).

We smoke less (we're not allowed cigarette-break time) but we drink more than anyone except Wellingtonians (who have a good reason to drink a lot: they have to live in Wellington after all, which is a fate worse than Auckland).

Taken all in all, it's a dirty job being an Aucklander, but someone has to do it. We don't expect the rest of the country to thank us for it but a bit of sympathy wouldn't go amiss.

EDITORIAL : RFI english, FRANCE

 

 

French press review

 

 

Saturday’s papers are dominated by encouraging French economic figures with a recorded growth of one per cent in the first three months of 2011.

Le Figaro welcomes the statistics underlining that France is on course to meet its year-on-year economic growth projection of two per cent – the strongest rate since the second quarter of 2006.
also salutes the good news, noting that the German economy , also expanded by 1.5 per cent in the first quarter. That sets the Eurozone’s largest economy on target to post an annual 5.2 per cent growth rate -a level last seen before the economic crisis in 2008.
Germany and France account for more than one third of the eurozone’s GDP and Le Monde is pleased that Europe’s main stock markets and the euro each advanced on the back of the figures.
The newspaper says France’s Top 40 companies have improved their performances posting gains of over seven per cent, with analysts projecting annual profits of up to 16 per cent in 2011.
Some of Saturday’s papers comment that the government has legitimate reasons to be credited for the good performance of the economy.
La Republique des Pyrénées claims in an editorial that strategists within the ruling UMP party are in buoyant mood thanks to the news and will seek to make political capital out of it as they prepare to launch president Nicholas Sarkozy’s re-election campaign.
Le Figaro sees the growth figures as the prize of three years of sustained policies implemented under difficult economic and political conditions.
The paper notes that austerity hasn’t killed economic growth as some sceptics suggested. Le Figaro urges the government to cheer up and reap the fruit of its labour - more fiscal revenue for its battle to cut the public deficit.
Despite the promising annual economic outlook the papers are concerned about recent external turbulence and persisting tensions in the sovereign debt markets.
Le Monde reports that Europe’s growth faces external risks including rising global inflation. It is pegged at an average 2.6 per cent in the eurozone.
The newspaper says it is fuelled in large part by higher prices for oil and other commodities, as well as unrest in North Africa and the Middle East. Unemployment is not likely to drop until next year, according to the forecast.
Le Monde quotes experts calling for still more budget tightening and a determined implementation of structural reforms especially in southern European countries
IMF chief and potential Socialist Party presidential candidate Dominique Strauss Kahn continues to be at the centre of a controversy over his ostentatious lifestyle.
The popular Strauss Kahn has instructed his lawyers to seek reparations in case for a damaging article published by the evening daily France Soir.
The poll ratings of the IMF chief have continued to drop since he was photographed riding a luxury Porsche car in Paris a fortnight ago.
The renewed interest has seen a flurry of investigative articles on his lifestyle, including his wife’s vast fortune.
La République des Pyrénées argues that taking the newspaper to court is a political error.
The tabloid says while the lawsuit is probably a warning from Strauss Kahn to people plotting to destroy him, the decision to go to court portrays a febrility few of his supporters will understand.
Le Monde takes to task Strauss Kahn’s pals who are causing him all the trouble - communications strategist Stephane Fouks, Ramzi Khiroun, the owner of the cursed Porsche car, Gilles Finchelstein and Anne Hommel.
The newspaper says they have a bad reputation in the Socialist Party where they earned a nick-name 'the firm' and stand accused of being behind Strauss Kahn’s lukewarm relations with elected leaders and the masses
.
The regional newspaper, La Montagne points to the so-called Terra Nova club – a group of centrist intellectuals set-up by Strauss Kahn himself a few years back as a think tank.
The newspaper describes its members as ostentatious braggers whose posture has discredited Strauss Kahn in his socialist family .
La Montagne also says that they are turning Strauss Kahn into a poison for poor voters who are now trooping towards populist mavericks such as National Front party chief Marine Le Pen and far-leftist leader Jean Luc Mélenchon.
Libération warms about the looming threat of another election disaster for the Socialists.
The left-leaning newspaper slams the shocking defection to the National Front of two prominent socialists – the respected lawyer Gilbert Collard and Robert Ménard, a former president of Reporters Without Borders.
Libé says their decision is the clearest evidence that the dam isolating the National Front has given way. The paper portrays the pair, more as donkeys going to the water trough to drink bad soup than birds of a bad omen.

Dossier: Eurozone in crisis

Le Monde

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Ancient mounds destroyed in southern Iraq

A senior Antiquities Department official says three ancient mounds have been destroyed in southern Iraq following the construction of a rural road.

“We warn all authorities that encroaching on ancient sites is illegal,” said Sabah Mahdi, representative of the Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities in the southern Province of Missan.

“The ministry will take legal measures to stop any violation of these sites,” he added.

The three ancient sites which have been destroyed by the construction of a new road belong to Islamic civilization which flourished in Iraq in the 7^th century.

“These mounds have already given the scientists gold coins and other artifacts,” Mahdi said.

Missan is the site where Iraq’s Sumerian civilization emerged. The Sumerians, who inhabited largely the provincial borders of Missan, were the world’s first nation to have invented writing and a civil system of government more than 5,000 years ago.

The Sumerian capital, Ur, lies within Missan’s provincial borders.

The head of the Antiquities Department in Missan was furious about the encroachment on ancient sites.

He said the department would file a suit against “the road authority” for planning the road to pass through archaeologically significant sites.

Legally, no building or construction can take place in Iraq without prior permission from the Antiquities Department.

There are at least 10,000 archaeologically significant sites of which 400 are in Missan.

EDITORIAL : THE TEHRAN TIMES, IRAN

Persian Press Review

Tehran Times Political Desk

This column features excerpts from news articles, editorials, commentaries, and interviews of the leading Iranian newspapers and websites.

Saturday’s headlines

KHORASAN: President and Majlis speaker agree on the way ministries should be merged, Ahmad Tavakoli announces

TAFAHOM: Sound pollution in 20 highways in Tehran

JAME JAM: Most of the deviant current’s activities are a preparation for the next elections, Ayatollah Jannati says

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ: 5 million people visited the Tehran International Book Fair

HAMSHAHRI: The inauguration of 700 city projects in western Tehran

HEMAYAT: Crime prevention is a public mission, deputy Judiciary chief says

IRAN: Education Ministry’s budget increases 8 percent this year

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ: Ayatollah Jannati says distributing large sums of money is for the next elections

SHARQ: Science minister says universities have turned into beauty salon

MELLAT MA: Gaddafi is injured, flees from Tripoli

Leading articles
In an interview with KHABAR ONLINE, MP Ali Motahari says a claim by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that the ninth and tenth administrations (the current and previous administrations) were the best administrations in terms of obedience to the law since the victory of the Islamic Revolution is like a “joke”. He cited an example and pointed to the difference between the administration and the Supreme Audit Court in which the SAC says 1 billion dollar has not been deposited in the treasury but the president says, “Finally, it became clear that auditors had made a mistake,” and this is while the SAC insists on its statement and the issue has been referred to the court. Motahari, also said the remark by the president that “certain people think that they are the employers and the government is their worker” which shows the president’s interpretation of the relations between the Majlis and the administration is the source of conflict between these two branches of government. The MP said the president does not accept that the administration is only obliged to implement the parliamentary approvals. He added if the enforcement of law is interpreted as doing works and setting legislation as being employer then it is true that Majlis is employer and the administration is worker and both of them should take pride in their duties.

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ in a news report says a few days after his dismissal as Shiraz governor Hossein Ghasemi presented a series of information about the deviant current and its activities in Fars province. Ghasemi, he claims he was dismissed because of his resistance against the deviant group’s demands and his disclosure of the group’s economic corruption, argues the group intended to take people to the streets and cause unrest. However, he added, no one welcomed the group and it temporarily backed down. Ghasemi said the group backed down to keep its status in the government. The former governor predicted the group will enter the scene with a new plan in a right time. It is just a political or religious group rather it is an economic mafia group.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

 

Proactive stance is critical in Chiang Mai

The number of hits are mounting on Google for ''mysterious deaths in Chiang Mai'', in reference to the seven people who have died suddenly with similar symptoms since early February (see this week's Spectrum), and the case is beginning to attract widespr

The deaths of the seven people _ four of whom stayed at the same hotel, the Downtown Inn, and two of whom had used that hotel's facilities _ are  tragic any way you look at it, but it is conceivable that something similar could happen anywhere in the world. What is potentially so harmful to Thailand's image and well-earned reputation as a relatively safe vacation spot is the perception that the hotel's owner and the authorities are not doing all they can to prevent similar tragedies and to get to the bottom of the mystery. Although it is possible that the deaths are unrelated, it is irresponsible to assume that it is all just coincidence, as has been the official line from the start.

Last week, evidence was presented on the New Zealand TV3 programme 60 Minutes that the insecticide chlorpyrifos may have been responsible for the deaths, as traces of the chemical were found in rooms at the Downtown Inn in which four of the deceased stayed in February, even after the rooms had been cleaned routinely by hotel staff. On the programme, United Nations chemical expert Ron McDowall gave strong support to the idea that the organophosphate chlorpyrifos is a prime suspect.

A Bangkok Post reporter was told last week that the hotel floor where three of the victims stayed has been closed, but that is not enough. The entire hotel should be closed immediately, voluntarily by the owner or at the insistence of the authorities, and it should be done with fanfare, sending a message that public health is the first priority. Then a well-organised and no-holds-barred investigation comprising local, national and possibly international health and forensic experts should be convened to put this deadly mystery to rest.

CRISIS HAS NUCLEAR POWER ON THE ROPES

It is becoming obvious that the earthquake that spawned the deadly March 11 tsunami in northeast Japan has also dealt a serious, if not mortal, blow to the future of the nuclear power industry.

With the realisation that radiation may be escaping from the tsunami-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant for some time to come, public opinion in Japan is turning against nuclear power. Prime Minister Naoto Kan said last Tuesday that Japan would abandon plans to build more nuclear reactors. Only last year the government released a plan to build 14 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and increase the role of nuclear power in Japan's electricity generation scheme to 50%.

Almost immediately after the Japan disaster, Germany announced a moratorium on nuclear expansion, and a number of other countries have indicated that they are re-assessing their situations. Even the government of China has expressed new concerns over the safety of nuclear power, although it will reportedly go ahead with its ambitious expansion plans.

On Thursday, Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco), which operates the Fukushima plant, admitted that a meltdown had occurred at reactor No1.

Tepco said water levels in the reactor are much lower than previously thought and nuclear fuel rods are in danger of being completely exposed, with the release of large amounts of radiation. This news will surely put nuclear power in an even worse light globally.

The future of the nuclear industry will depend on two things: First, on how bad this disaster ultimately turns out to be, and, second, on whether a truly viable non-fossil fuel alternative to nuclear power emerges.

In this regard, projects like the Atlantic Wind Connection are promising. The project is designed to generate massive amounts of cheap energy from wind turbines off the coast of the US state of Maryland by 2016.

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

We have reached our tipping point

Unlike Neil Armstrong's 'small step for man, but giant leap for mankind', last week's employment initiative was -- even before the pensions furore erupted -- one small step for everyone. We should not be too dismissive about decisions such as cutting the VAT on hairdressing, for one good hairdresser adds more to the sum of human happiness than a thousand lawyers. But hairdressers aside, Mr Kenny's little initiative did at least serve to indicate just how serious a fix we are in.

Michael Noonan's shifty raid on private pensions revealed that the State has finally reached the point where it must cannibalise the private resources of its citizens if it is to survive. The Coalition did attempt to ameliorate the impact of its furtive swoop by putting a cap of four years on the tax. But the intrinsically permanent nature of all new taxation is epitomised by the claim that the imposition of income tax in Britain to fund the Napoleonic wars would be a temporary measure.

And make no mistake about it, the desperate decision to put the State's hand into your pocket is only the start of it. No one should be under any illusions about the certainty that the Government will be putting its hand into your savings on an ever-more frequent basis to fund the reparations that their predecessors ceded to our brutal ECB overlords.

The ECB's amoral reduction of our citizens to the status of mere economic units that must be bled to feed the interests of German bankers explains why Morgan Kelly's economic stance has been so seductive. But whilst no one would blame this heartsick country for wanting to exact a similar revenge on our dissembling European 'partners' to the one that which we dished out to Fianna Fail, Mr Kelly's cure runs the risk of being worse than the disease.

It is excessively blasé, even for an academic economist, to advocate solutions involving the future of millions of our citizens whose chances of success are little better than betting on the flip of a coin.

One of the realities to which governments must succumb is that whilst wars are generally popular at the beginning, they should never fight battles whose outcome is uncertain. But whilst caution is a political virtue, our administration needs to wake up to the fact that when it comes to resolving our woes, we are becoming pressed for time.

The current cautious approach to reform is confusing immediate survival with long-term sustainability. If the Government is not careful, the sort of modest proposals which appear to provide us with a safer course will create the same scorched earth that ministers claim Mr Kelly would land us in. Happily, amidst this uncertainty, some hope was provided by the ESRI's quarterly report.

Although RTE called it "radical", the suggestions that we should cut our spending to meet our measure and raise the taxes we need in the short rather than the long term were logical. It might still not be enough, but if we do that which we are supposed to do and we are still sunk by the banking crisis, Ireland will have a moral case for some form of burden sharing on our banking front.

Moral force in the face of an over-mighty Germany is a weak argument. For now, however, outside of a return to real growth, and that is the game changer everyone from the ECB to Mr Kelly appears to have forgotten, the politics of Gandhi appears to be the only option we have.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

The week in review: Corruption threatens ‘reformasi’

The alleged corruption surrounding the development of SEA Games facility in Palembang, South Sumatra has triggered a storm within the ruling Democratic Party, which has two senior politicians set in the eye of the storm.

In a desperate bid for damage control, the Democratic Party has formed an internal investigation into allegations that two of its politicians, treasurer Muhammad Nazaruddin and lawmaker Angelina Sondakh, had received kickbacks from the Rp 197 billion project.

The result is predictable: a clean bill for both politicians. But who would believe in such an “investigation”, especially when the general public knows very well that political parties seeking funds through brokerage is standard operating procedure.

The scandal exploded last month after the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) caught “red-handed” Sports Ministry secretary Wafid Muharram, SEA Games contractor Muhammad El Idris and broker Mindo Rosalina Manulang.

KPK said El Idris and Rosalina were handing Rp 3.2 billion to Wafid as a “finder’s fee” for the lucrative project. In the subsequent questioning, Rosalina reportedly told investigators she acted on behalf of her “boss” — Nazaruddin, who allegedly received Rp 25 billion for finding El Idris the project.

Nazaruddin is an owner of PT Anak Negeri, a brokerage company where Rosalina was marketing manager. Rosalina also reportedly told her then-lawyer about Angelina (and an obscure Indonesian Democratic Party of Struggle lawmaker named Wayan Koster) seeking “success fees” for House members in charge of overseeing sports.

When the issue spun out of control, Rosalina retracted her confessions to the KPK while Nazaruddin and Democratic Party politicians are out to convince the public that the party has had no hand in the SEA Games scandal.

As the party’s ultimate leader, Yudhoyono personally assured the public that he and the Democratic Party would not intervene in the legal proceedings that may eventually implicate Nazaruddin and Angelina.

The SEA Games kickback scandal deals a big blow not only to Democratic Party, but also to Yudhoyono, who famously promised to personally lead the fight against corruption.

Let’s hope the President has been sincere this time about his non-intervention promise. In the past, he would express concern about many state problems and ordered his aides to solve them, but nothing happened.

***

Last week’s Merpati aircraft crash in the shallow of Kaimana Gulf that killed all 27 people on board in West Papua has again highlighted concern about Indonesia’s flight safety standards, which may have been compromised with corruption.

The ill-fated aircraft is one of the three Chinese-made MA60 models already in the Marpati fleet, which serves outlying areas — a business venture that no other major commercial airlines are interested in, for obvious reasons.

Doubts about the 60-seat vessel’s safety standard have arisen from official acknowledgment that the aircraft, built by Xi’an Aircraft Company Limited, only has Chinese certification and is yet to be internationally accredited by other aviation authorities, such as the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Indonesian officials want us to believe that the ill-fated aircraft was flight-worthy and that FAA certification is a must only if it operates in the US.

The accident and the safety debate that has followed has not changed the government’s mind in its decision to spend more than US$230 million to buy a total of 15 MA60 aircraft.

The lack of transparency in the purchase, which was initially a business-to-business arrangement, but later became a government-to-government deal, has given rise to suspicion that the scheme is mired with corruption.

The state enterprise ministry approved only $225 million in 2006 to buy 15 aircraft, but in 2007, the National Development Planning Ministry raised the budget to $232 million.

However, a 2008 report from the asset management company PT PPA claimed that the actual price of an MA60 aircraft was only between $11 million and $12.5 million — way below the $15 million the government has claimed; adding credence to suspicions of marked-up prices.

Yudhoyono has asked all relevant officials to explain the purchase to the skeptical public.


The observance of the May 1998 tragedy has become a routine ritual, with street demonstrations and visits to the graves of the four Trisakti Univesity students that were slain on May 12, 1998, while attending a rally demanding political reform and the resignation of president Soeharto.

The shooting incident triggered widespread street protests that culminated in the infamous anti-Chinese riots in many major cities across Indonesia, which claimed the lives of more than 1,000 people and forced Soeharto to step down.

Thirteen years on, the tragedy, which also saw killings, rape and widespread destruction of the property and assets of Chinese-Indonesian families, has remained a mystery because the government has refused to investigate while most of the alleged conspirators are still holding sway in politics.

The National Commission of Human Rights has submitted its reports on the tragedy to the government, but only to be ignored.

The House of Representatives issued a resolution in 2009, asking the President to form an ad hoc tribunal on rights abuses, find the missing activists, provide compensation for the victims’ relatives and sign the international convention on forced disappearance.

Obviously, no state institution is powerful and persistent enough to make the Yudhoyono administration find resolution for the tragedy.

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

Noy’s political cleansing

 

Noynoy is back again on the belligerent path picking up a fight where none is necessary against the Sandiganbayan for its recent ruling upholding the plea bargain agreement between the Office of the Ombudsman and former military comptroller Maj. Gen. Carlos Garcia.

The Sandiganbayan said it merely ruled on the agreement after determining that it satisfied all legal requirements, thus warranting its approval.

Reason is not the agenda of Noynoy and his Yellow vigilantes, however, in raising a howl against the Sandiganbayan’s resolution. The past few days saw a series of theatrics that appeared scripted which was fired off by House allies of Noynoy who spearheaded the impeachment of Ombudsman Merceditas Gutierrez calling for the resignation of the Sandiganbayan justices.

Apparently, Noynoy and his allies have a simple solution whenever they don’t agree with decisions made by independent bodies: Put the pressure on them to resign then appoint Palace-friendly justices and Ombudsman in their stead, which would serve as a guarantee of their toeing the Noynoy line.

Gutierrez and state prosecutors under her claimed that it was former Ombudsman Simeon Marcelo who made the case against Garcia weak and the plea bargain was a recourse to save the case from being totally lost and the government ending up without anything to gain from it.

The Palace, in turn, played coy saying that it is the prerogative of those being asked to resign to do so, the meaning of which is very obvious.

Noynoy, meanwhile, unleashed again his righteous self calling the decision legally wrong and unacceptable. How Noynoy could claim that he is an expert on the law is beyond anybody’s comprehension.

That was the same Noynoy who complained that the Sandiganbayan exists in a vacuum for not appreciating the result of the proceedings of the recent Senate inquiry into the plea bargain deal which Noynoy claimed proved that the Garcia agreement was illegal not knowing that it is the exact state that is an ideal situation for men of the law.

Being in a vacuum frees judges from being influenced by the outside world and allows them to render an impartial decision.

By saying what he did, Noynoy merely exposed his true intent in intimidating the Sandiganbayan which is his expectation that the justices would toe his administration’s line and take the Yellow path.

The logical direction of Noynoy’s Yellow warpath is an ultimate face off with members of the Supreme Court whom he and his wards in the Palace considered as remnants of the corrupt past arguing that most of the tribunal’s members are appointees of former President Arroyo.

Being associated with Arroyo is a mortal sin for Noynoy, which makes the political cleansing that he is currently undertaking morally right for him.

Just recently he issued an executive order directed to the Presidential Commission on Good Government which is as good as an order for the forcible removal of Arroyo holdovers from sequestered corporations.

Earlier political appointees in government agencies were all ordered to resign under the precept of their need to obtain state employment eligibility.

Noy’s pursuit is costing the government, in turn, lost opportunities to improve services as a result of conflicts and uncertainties within agencies.

With the unpresidential divisive attitude that he is showing, he would always find somebody to argue with during the remaining five years of his presidency.

Making a lot of ruckus, of course, is an old gimmick to hide incompetence.

In turn, often picking a fight makes Noynoy look like achieving something, even when clearly he has not.

 

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN / THE OBSERVER, UK

          

 

The McCanns: David Cameron's use of grief for political ends is shameful

The prime minister's intervention came on the day a national newspaper urged him to act

There are no words adequate to describe the pain experienced by Kate and Gerry McCann over the disappearance of their daughter, Madeleine, in 2007. The whole country has been witness to their suffering.

David Cameron, as a father, as a human being, is no more immune to their agony than anyone else. Perhaps that is why he asked Scotland Yard to review the case. But that is not the only reason. The prime minister's intervention came on the same day that a national newspaper urged him to act. Mr Cameron, remember, is a former public relations executive for a television company.

For some, the McCanns' expressions of gratitude will be enough to allay criticism of Downing Street. But Mr Cameron needs to be careful about presenting himself as some benevolent tsar, bestowing favours on petitioning subjects.

"An exceptional case" is the defence from Number 10. Indeed it is, and a tragic one, but for that very reason it is not necessarily the right context in which to set policy. And Mr Cameron's action is not without policy implications. His government is currently struggling to push legislation through Parliament that would change the structures that hold police forces accountable. The Conservatives lost a vote in the House of Lords over the establishment of popularly elected police commissioners.

Much of the debate over this issue hinges on the question of whether forces would be more or less subject to political interference. The official Tory line is that the police – and other public servants – should face less meddling from the centre. Yet it seems Mr Cameron excuses himself from that rule. The Metropolitan Police, struggling to implement huge budget cuts and facing many other heartrending, unsolved cases, must set its priorities to the prime minister's fiat. The nation is united in respect for the McCanns' grief. Shame on Mr Cameron for playing politics with it.

The press must put its own house in order

Better self-regulation than legislation to guarantee journalistic freedom to uncover the truth

Britain has a free press. Newspapers are allowed to criticise government and expose wrongdoing by public officials. They are also at liberty to publish prurient speculation about the private lives of minor celebrities.

Often, these revelations have a tenuous claim to be in the public interest, although the way they boost sales proves that they interest the public, which is a different thing entirely.

In theory, there are a only handful of prohibitions on what can be published. In practice, courts are getting increasingly aggressive in the way they use those limited powers to gag the press. One instrument that has become notorious in recent weeks is the injunction that grants anonymity to the subjects of particular stories. In some cases, mention even of the existence of a ban is forbidden. The existence of any such device should provoke suspicion in a democracy.

Many of the stories involved relate to sexual peccadilloes of people who are in the public eye but not concerned with public policy: adulterous footballers and actors. There is a strong argument that their intimate affairs should not be ransacked as spectator sport.

But there are other, less clear cases. Politicians, corporations and bankers whose actions have an impact on ordinary lives must forfeit some of their right to privacy.

There is a huge grey area in between. Many high-profile figures trade on an artificially constructed image of their private lives for profit. If there is a huge hypocrisy behind that image, perhaps the consuming public has a right to know?

The rich and powerful have always tried to silence their detractors, although the traditional mechanism in Britain has been libel law. A blanket right to privacy is a relatively recent innovation. It derives from article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which, under the 1998 Human Rights Act, was incorporated into UK law. A countervailing force is article 10 which guarantees freedom of expression.

Courts are expected to weigh these conflicting imperatives. That power of arbitration irritates journalists since it overrides their professional autonomy. But it also annoys Parliament on a point of constitutional order. If there are to be rules about privacy, mutter some MPs, they should be set by the House of Commons, not devised ad hoc by judges.

There is, for now, not much appetite in Westminster for a grand Privacy Act and rightly so. There is every danger that politicians would shape it to suit their secretive habits. Parliament has only ever embraced transparency after a fight and a scandal. Even a liberal statute might be open to authoritarian interpretation. It would give the police a hand in regulating the press, which is a grim prospect.

The key question is not whether Parliament should set new press rules, but why it is that a clamour has arisen for something to be done.

Some judges are prejudiced in favour of privacy and wary of journalists' claims to be acting as noble crusaders for freedom. Courts might be less trigger-happy with injunctions if newspapers had not so often published material based on invasions of privacy where the "public interest" defence is meretricious.

There is an absolutist argument that says the investigative ferocity of the British press is a good in itself. The fact that it is sometimes directed at celebrities is a price worth paying, goes the argument, when it is also regularly applied to worthier targets. Footballers and their wives, in this view, are collateral damage in the wider war against lies, corruption and official secrecy.

Lies, bullying and kiss-and-tell profiteering do, sadly, go unpunished too often in newsrooms. But a lot of investigative energy is also spent unearthing serious abuses of power, not only in politics but, just as often, at the sleazier side of sport.

The newspaper industry is competitive, irreverent and tenacious in pursuit of a story. Those traits make it an effective check on arrogant, unaccountable power.

The problem is that the press itself is charged with arrogance and unaccountability.

The Press Complaints Commission (PCC), the body through which newspapers govern themselves, is not, as sometimes alleged, a feeble apologist for the trade. Editors take its adjudications seriously; reporters generally obey when it requests they leave subjects alone. The PCC code of practice demands respect for privacy in terms that hardly differ from the rights extended under the European Convention. Its successes in policing that right go unnoticed by definition, because journalists have not reported whatever it is they were asked not to report.

But no other powerful institution enjoys the privilege of self-regulation on such a scale. Journalists like it this way, but the public does not share newspapers' generous evaluation of their own integrity. The PCC is little known outside the industry. It is generally respected within it, but it should be more feared. It needs tougher powers of sanction. It should, for example, be able to force retractions of bad journalism on a scale appropriate to the offence. Since the motive for invading privacy is often commercial, there should be financial disincentives too. The PCC should levy fines for gross breaches of its code.

Much tougher self-regulation is not a threat to press freedom but a last bastion to protect it. Such regulation would help silence demands for dangerous privacy laws designed to suit politicians. It would also enhance journalists' authority, marking a useful distinction between the press, which has rules, and those sections of the blogosphere which have none.

Currently, journalists are trusted in society at around the same level as politicians and used-car salesmen. That is one reason why judges feel relaxed about gagging them. Newspapers should not crave respectability for its own sake, but they should do more to resist being seen as disreputable.

Serving up what interests the public makes good commercial sense, but it is not enough simply to entertain. A press that is admired by decent citizens and feared by crooks would easily shrug off attempts at political or judicial interference. That is how the real public interest is served.

Drug laws: 40 years on, only a complete change of approach will do

The Misuse of Drugs Act has failed utterly and there is no political consensus about the idea of trying anything new

It is 40 years since Parliament passed the Misuse of Drugs Act, establishing the framework that, with periodic tweaks, is used for controlling substance abuse today. Actual drug use has been going on a lot longer, so it is hardly surprising that one legal instrument has failed to kill the habit.

It is remarkable, however, how utterly the system has failed. Drugs are available to anyone who really wants them. The classification system of substances into degrees of harmfulness – A for the worst, C for the least bad – is ignored by users and dismissed by many scientists. Its only practical use seems to be in determining prison sentences and filling our jails with drug users has had no deterrent effect on use.

Meanwhile, the volume of new products coming to the market is growing at an alarming rate. Laboratories in the far east churn out synthetic variants of natural narcotics or make minor molecular adjustments to old drugs, turning them, from a legal point of view, into new ones. According to a report by the UK Drug Policy Commission, revealed in today's Observer, 40 new substances appeared on the streets last year.

These "legal highs" are ignored by the law until their use attracts sufficient media attention. Then they are classified, proscribed and sold, in a more toxic form, on the black market instead of over the counter. In the 40 years since this process began, patterns of actual drug use have been driven as much by fashion as policy. Heroin in the 80s, ecstasy in the 90s, cocaine today. Cannabis is a staple; levels of use vary a bit, but not in correlation to its pointless, politicised journey between classes B and C.

It is hard to think of a legal approach to any other problem that has failed so thoroughly without political consensus emerging around the idea of trying something else. The 40-year regime introduced by the Misuse of Drugs Act has been characterised by a nonstop boom in the misuse of drugs. Surely it is time to rip it up and start again.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

A Big Whine From Big Oil

With gas at $4 a gallon, oil at $100 a barrel and profits at near-record levels, it is hard to feel sympathy for the oil industry. Yet sympathy is what the C.E.O.’s of the five biggest companies asked for when they appeared Thursday before a Senate hearing on a Democratic proposal to eliminate about $2 billion in tax breaks for the Big Five.

Exxon’s Rex Tillerson called the proposal “misinformed and discriminatory.” ConocoPhillips’s James Mulva, in a letter, called the idea “un-American” because it would supposedly cost American jobs, raise consumer prices and discourage investment — a position he reasserted during the hearings.

The other three companies at the witness table, BP America, Shell and Chevron, raised similar complaints. How absurd are their claims? Utterly absurd.

Take investment. In 2005, with oil nearing $60 a barrel, Mr. Mulva and other top executives told a Senate committee that the companies did not need the tax breaks to keep exploring for oil. Congress left them in place. Now that the Senate seems serious about getting rid of them, he and his colleagues have changed their tune — even though their companies obviously need them even less at $100 a barrel.

Or take prices at the pump. In a memorandum to Senate Democratic leaders on Wednesday, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service said that eliminating the tax benefits would have virtually no effect on the price of gasoline. The impact on industry profits — the Big Five earned a robust $35 billion in the first quarter of this year alone — would be trivial.

The report also addressed one more industry claim: that ending the tax breaks for the oil companies alone would be discriminatory. Most of the breaks — deductions for well depletion, intangible drilling costs and the like — are unique to the industry. The exception is a deduction for domestic production, designed to encourage all manufacturing companies to invest in this country. But as the research service pointed out, industry is not going to stop drilling on American territory as long as the oil is there and yielding big dollars.

These subsidies are clearly unnecessary, and returning $2 billion to the Treasury would be a good thing. But more than anything, one has to wonder why the oil companies are fighting so hard for a comparatively small amount of cash, at least for them. The only explanation we can come up with is that they have always gotten what they wanted and expect to do so now, so why not?

The House is certainly tripping over itself to do the industry’s bidding. Last week, it passed two more irresponsible bills accelerating drilling permits and authorizing leasing in long-protected waters of the north and central Atlantic coasts, the Southern California coast and Alaska, including Bristol Bay. It is as if the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico had never happened.

It is imperative that the Senate block the House’s drilling and leasing plans, and that President Obama veto them if the Senate caves. And both the Senate and the president should keep pressing to eliminate the tax breaks. Three-fourths of Americans responding to a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll said they want to end them.

Obviously, $4-a-gallon gas has something to do with this. But there is also an elemental matter of fairness here. As Mr. Obama put it in his radio address a week ago, when the oil companies are making huge profits and people are suffering and deficits are growing, “these tax giveaways aren’t right. They aren’t smart. And we need to end them.”

Did the Microsoft Case Change the World?

Remember when Microsoft ruled the PC industry? In the 1990s, its Windows operating system became so dominant that government trust-busters took it to court. They spent four years and millions of dollars making the case that Microsoft was unduly using its power to wipe out rivals in the Web browser business and other domains.

The settlement to that case, which put limits on Microsoft’s behavior and imposed a decade of government oversight on the company, expired last Thursday. Almost nobody noticed. Given the furious pace of innovation by companies like Apple, Google and Facebook, an inevitable question springs to mind: Did the biggest high-tech legal action of the 20th century make any difference, or was it a waste of money and time?

Critics of the settlement, and there are many, argue that the Microsoft case did little to change technological development; it was Google, the Internet and bad business decisions that put an end to the dominance of Microsoft. The conditions imposed by the court, to stop forcing consumers to use Internet Explorer and preventing rival software from operating properly on Windows, had little relevance to the future path of innovation.

This seems too narrow a reading of history. It is, of course, impossible to say what would have happened had the Justice Department and 19 state attorneys general not taken Microsoft to court in 1998. But beyond specific conditions imposed on the company, the case did seem to alter Microsoft’s behavior, taming its ruthless drive.

Government oversight not only swayed Microsoft to pull its punches, it sent a signal to other innovators that it was O.K. to work on technologies that Microsoft was interested in — something they might never have done before. Had Internet Explorer become as dominant as Windows, Microsoft could have held more sway over the development of new services on the Web.

Today, Microsoft is way behind the curve. New innovators, like Google and Facebook, have emerged with big power over their respective markets. Yet the precedent of Microsoft’s antitrust case poses an important question about the future: Should we worry about dominant information technology companies, or can we simply wait for the next big thing to bump them aside?

Microsoft thinks we should worry. Last June, it filed a letter about Google with the Federal Communications Commission. It said: “When a single entity achieves dominance and thereby becomes a gatekeeper, there is an inherent risk that it may have both the incentive and ability to place its own interests above consumers’ interests in access to a broad and diverse range of content, services and viewpoints.”

Regulators agree. The European Commission is deciding whether Google abused its search dominance, and American authorities are considering an investigation. We support these efforts. Innovation needs competition.

The Secrecy Tax

Who are the fat-cat five? Political money bundlers are wondering now that the Internal Revenue Service has put five unnamed donors on notice that it is looking at the checks they write to nonprofit groups that are increasingly funneling money directly to political campaign troughs.

The news is properly disturbing to campaign fund-raisers who anticipate a bonanza election year. Strategists in both parties aim to feature nonprofits because the innocuously named groups make it easy for deep-pocket donors to give in secrecy to causes operating as hard-ball partisans, even as they claim to be independent. The Federal Election Commission should be policing some honest disclosure here, but it has abdicated its responsibility.

So it is commendable that the tax agency has the will to enforce existing law, particularly if it puts some caution in the minds of donors preparing to flood the next elections with secret money. The tax rate they should be paying for their multimillion-dollar gifts is 35 percent on anything over $13,000 a year. Quite a premium in the pay-to-play casino.

No one is saying which political bankrollers might have received the tax notice — whether David Koch on the Republican side, George Soros for the Democrats, or whomever. The I.R.S. stresses that this is not part of some larger plan to look at runaway donations. Collecting unpaid taxes is the goal.

Failure to pay, of course, adds insult to injury for ordinary taxpayers who wind up subsidizing the partisan moguls’ political clout — a clout that unendowed voters do not enjoy. That is reason enough to enforce the law.

Strolling Coney Island the Hard Way

Not since Charles Feltman was credited with inventing the hot dog 140 years ago has Coney Island had to adjust to such radical change as the “concrete compromise” that’s about to alter its signature boardwalk along the Atlantic beachfront.

Feltman merely applied a bun as a clever way to do away with plates and silverware for sausage eaters. But city officials proposed last year to replace worn-out boardwalk stretches with concrete causeway slabs — no more of the hardwood boards that generations of New Yorkers have strolled as an integral pleasure of a day at the beach.

Concrete was cheaper and more durable and better for the patrol cars and park trucks sharing the boardwalk with sun-baked pedestrians, the city sales pitch went.

Instantly, protesters gathered. “This is violating the one piece of solitude in a city that’s already a concrete jungle!” declaimed Mike Greco, founder of Friends of the Boardwalk. In their fury, some accused “Mayor-for-Life Bloomberg” of favoring trees over beachgoers consigned to slippery, scalding concrete.

Prodded by Coney Island community board members, the concrete compromise began to take shape, replete with ersatz hardwood in the form of composite planks striated to resemble wood. The current deal is for a concrete demi-causeway 12 feet wide flanked by two 19-foot-wide walkways of genuine splinter-free imitation wood. Purists remain dissatisfied. They complain a faux boardwalk is no boardwalk worth walking.