EDITORIAL : THE DAILY TRIBUNE, THE PHILIPPINES

 

 

A free ride it wasn’t

It can’t be helped but notice the degree of urgency in Noynoy’s tour of the US aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson where practically the whole Aquino Cabinet was present.

Presidential spokesman Ricky Carandang said that the invitation to tour the carrier had been made a long time ago but it was only accepted fairly recently such as the exact moment when the US asked Noynoy and his wards to board the carrier last Friday.

Carandang, however, cannot deny that the invitation was so sudden that Noynoy did not even have time to cancel the courtesy call of boxing legend Manny Pacquiao who arrived from his US bout with Shane Mosley on the same day that the tour was suddenly on the agenda for the day of Noynoy.

The militants speculate that the whisking away of Noynoy to the US ship out in the high seas prior to the docking of the US battle fleet in Manila had something to do with the recent visit of US government officials at Subic Bay to explore the possibility of an interim base while a massive military installation is still being set up in Guam.

What also raised suspicion in the carrier visit was the aerial show of the capability of modern F-16s to Noynoy while in the carrier as if an offer is being laid on the table.

The Philippines remains without any respectable air force to defend the country even as outside threats primarily involving the contested Spratly’s islands increase mainly from Chinese forces.

Carandang also likened the carrier tour to a courtesy call on Noynoy that appears to have been done in reverse with Aquino making the call on the ship’s captain.

The ship was also the same vessel that carried the body of the slain Osama bin Laden before it was thrown into the sea that gave it some significance in the American anti-terror campaign in which the Philippines is considered a theater in the war on terror.

Remnants of the al-Qaeda are expected to use the Philippines as a launching pad for their operations and major Muslim groups linked to the terror network still operate in the country.

The Americans are expected to step up their global campaign against groups that they consider to be part of the al-Qaeda terrorist network with bin Laden dead.

It would be hard to believe that Noynoy and nearly his whole Cabinet were all brought to the US carrier for a mere joyride that happened all too sudden and all too secretly as most of the nation learned where Noynoy really was only after the supposed tour was done with.

Noynoy and the Palace owe it to the public to provide the full details of what brought about the USS Carl Vinson tour instead of allowing the nation to suddenly wake up anytime soon on another secret deal with the Americans.

The military basing issue looms large and real amid the US military campaign against terror near the region and Noynoy boarding suddenly a US aircraft carrier raises a lot of question about its real purpose.

Noynoy had promised a transparent government to the people and he should start showing commitment to his vow by coming out clean on the supposed unscheduled tour.

Carandang said that was part of a routine visit of the carrier group under the Visiting Forces Agreement which it was not since this was the first time in recent memory that a Philippine president or presumably another country was willingly whisked away to a US vessel out in the open seas.

Had it been his birthday, Noynoy’s claim for a sudden free tour with an aerial show onboard the US carrier would have been believable.

Unfortunately his birthday was in February.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

 

 

Seeking a solid ASEAN defense

 

The 5th ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting (ADMM), the highest defense mechanism within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, will officially commence today. The two-day annual event is scheduled to discuss and exchange views on current defense and security issues as well as the challenges faced by ASEAN’s 10 member states.

Bringing together the 10 ASEAN member states, which are socio-culturally unique (although many share similar traditions because they are neighbors), is no easy task. One of the main obstacles in establishing a strong and united ASEAN, an association formed on Aug. 8, 1967, are the prolonged border disputes between its members. Almost none of the members are free from territorial problems with their neighbors.

One of the hot current issues in the region is none other than the Thailand-Cambodia border dispute. The conflict began in June 2008 and is the latest round of a century-old dispute between Cambodia and Thailand involving the area surrounding the 11th-century Preah Vihear Temple, located between the Choam Khsant district in Cambodia’s Preah Vihear province and the Kantharalak district in Thailand’s Sisaket province.

Another conflict is the on-and-off border disputes between Indonesia and Malaysia. After the Sipadan-Ligitan dispute was settled in December 2002 following the issuance of a ruling by the International Court of Justice (which stipulated that both islands belonged to Malaysia), the two neighbors continued to disagree over a number of border regions, the Ambalat Block being the most recent.

Last is the multilateral dispute over the Spratlys — a group of more than 750 reefs, islets, atolls, cays and islands in the South China Sea between Vietnam, the Philippines, China, Malaysia and Brunei Darussalam. About 45 islands are occupied by relatively small numbers of military forces from Vietnam, the People’s Republic of China, the People’s Republic of China (Taiwan), Malaysia and the Philippines. Brunei has also claimed an Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the southeastern part of the Spratlys, encompassing just one area of small islands above mean high water level (on Louisa Reef).

The Thailand and Cambodia border dispute has been intensively discussed at forums within ASEAN, with Indonesia as the current ASEAN Chair taking the initiative to facilitate talks between the two neighbors. Still, there has been no significant progress in this area. Such border disputes, if unsettled properly and in a timely manner, will have significant impacts on the sustainability and success of the already approved agreement to develop the ASEAN Community by 2015.

There are a number of defense and security issues to be discussed at the two-day meeting, including an agreement to strengthen regional defense and security cooperation, to reaffirm a commitment to implement the Declaration of Conduct (DOC), and to work towards the adoption of a COC (Code of Conduct) in the South China Sea.

But above all the urgent tasks, a commitment to settling border problems should be at top of the priorities of ASEAN member states, lest these talks be fruitless and become a mere forum of symbolic diplomacy.

 

Out of the LKY shadow

 

It was bound to happen, sooner or later. In the case of Singapore, so, so much later. The announcement by Lee Kuan Yew (LKY) to give up his post as mentor minister signals he is letting go of the nation he singlehandedly transformed from a backwater British colonial post in Southeast Asia into a wealthy state; first as prime minister from 1959-1990, and later in different, but powerful, capacities in the Cabinet.

After 52 years, Singapore is no longer a baby. It is a nation that is so wealthy that some might say it is probably running too well. The recent general election, however, also shows creeping signs of LKY-fatigue. Lee’s style of strict discipline in raising Singapore may have served the nation very well over the last five decades, but it is increasingly seen by the younger generation today as simply outdated.

The Internet, like it or not, has widened the corridors for freedom of expression that Lee once personally derided. The raging debate in the social media, with many criticizing the government’s failings, would have been unthinkable a few years ago. The election, which saw the People’s Action Party (PAP) winning 60 percent of the votes, down from 67 percent in 2006 and 75 percent in 2001, indicated that Singaporeans want change.

At 87, Lee remains analytically sharp and correctly reads the election figures — not so much as a vote for the opposition, but as a vote against the PAP’s old ways. Lest he step out, he would be seen as part of Singapore’s problems. He may no longer be part of the solution, either. At the very least, however, he should not be an obstruction.

Let Singaporeans — whether under the rule of the PAP or not — decide on their own. They will determine their future in the way they see fit.

LKY’s omnipresence in the Cabinet after 2001 may have given protective shade at the beginning, but his shadow is now starting to impair the vision of Singapore’s future.

Even after emerging from the LKY shadow, it will be hard for Singapore to step out and move on beyond his legacy. He may have had his shortcomings, and historians may chide his style of rule, but there is no denying that Singapore owes its status as a strongly-disciplined, highly-entrepreneurial and wealthy island state today to that grand old man.

When he does leave the Cabinet, he will be bidding adieu, but not good bye.

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE INDEPENDENT, IRELAND

 

 

Visit is healing the wounds of history

 

THIS is the day which the Lord has made: let us rejoice and be glad. The words of the Psalm seem somehow apt at the near-miraculous sight of a British monarch laying a wreath in honour of those who died for Irish freedom. Perhaps the Lord did have a hand in bringing this day about.

There has been no shortage of prayers during the 30 years of Northern violence; many accompanied by bitter tears. But we can be certain about the tireless effort which so many politicians and leaders of church and community put into making this remarkable act of reconciliation possible.

Among them, a special mention must be made of President Mary McAleese and her husband Martin. She greeted Queen Elizabeth not just as a fellow head of state, but as someone who played a key role in building trust between nationalists and unionists, and closer relations between Britain and Ireland. The mood was enhanced by the obvious close relations between the two women.

It would be impossible to name all those who played a leading role in ending the age-old quarrel between the two countries -- an often bloody quarrel which, some would say, goes back to Baginbun and 1155.

But it would be churlish not to mention, in particular, the work of Bertie Ahern and Tony Blair when they led their respective governments. John Hume was there yesterday to see the ceremonial seal put on his 40-year crusade to persuade everyone that unity is not about land but people.

Very few remain to be persuaded. How few could be seen from yesterday's protests. The kind of people they are could be seen from the disgraceful scenes of violence.

Deluded though they are, they understand that this is not a routine state visit. Perhaps visits by a British monarch or a US president will always be different from those of any other head of state, but future British ones will merely perform the normal job function of cementing good relations. This week is different, and unique.

Even if there were no security threat, it is not really an occasion for walkabouts and hand-waving. Nor do we have to feel particularly excited about having a queen visit the country. The visit is possible only because the Irish question has been settled, and is necessary to give symbolic effect to that fact.

Over the past few weeks, one has regularly heard those who object to the visit complaining about the British claim to jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. But Britain no longer claims jurisdiction over Northern Ireland. Neither does the Irish Republic. The future constitutional position of Northern Ireland is now entirely a matter for its people. Both countries have put their hand to that, backed up by their joint guarantee of equality for all the citizens of the North.

It would not be helpful to state this very often, or very loudly. As a result, many citizens, both North and South, probably do not fully grasp it. Doing so, however, should lessen the unease which many in both the unionist and nationalist traditions may feel in seeing the queen at the Garden of Remembrance -- or on southern soil at all.

Such feelings are instinctive and understandable. The two governments, along with the Aras and the palace, are to be congratulated in not shrinking from these sensitivities by drawing up an anodyne programme for the queen.

They could have avoided powerful symbolism and confined events to places like the Guinness hopstore and the National Stud. But as well as the Garden of Remembrance, the queen will go to Croke Park -- whose historical resonance needs no explaining -- and Cork, the cradle of the War of Independence.

It may be worth recalling that the last political obstacle to a royal visit was the transfer of responsibility for policing to the Northern Executive. The symbolism of this week comes after the even more telling scenes of the GAA and the PSNI acting together at the funeral of the murdered constable Ronan Kerr.

Of course, history cannot be obliterated, nor the past forgotten. There is a stark reminder of that in the campaign, so far unsuccessful, to have London open files on the Dublin/Monaghan bombings. The difficult task of healing the wounds of history is not complete, but we can be glad that the future which beckons is one of healing, not hurting.

 

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

 

 

One legal system for all 

 

ALL Australians deserve consistent protection under the law.

The Australian Federation of Islamic Councils' push for Muslims to enjoy "legal pluralism" through sharia, the religious law of Islam, is a bad idea that Attorney-General Robert McClelland was right to stop dead in its tracks.

It is beside the point that the councils' submission to the parliamentary inquiry into the government's new multiculturalism policy says it wants a more moderate variety of Islamic divorce law that would fit with Australian values. In a free and democratic society, a violation of the separation between church and state is not afforded to any other religious group and would be intolerable. No other religious group has made such a request, and the concession would spur widespread community unease and, in some quarters, fuel ugly racism towards Australian Muslims. In Britain and Canada, debates over proposals for parallel legal systems involving sharia have been deeply destabilising.

Australia, in the main, like other democratic, civil societies has been well-served for generations by one law for all, a factor that has attracted many Islamic families to our shores. It is appreciated, in particular, by Muslim women, who in Islamic states often find themselves stripped of property and financial entitlements if they initiate divorce proceedings.

The one deflection in Australia from the principle of one law for all has been the mixing of mainstream and indigenous tribal law in jurisdictions such as the Northern Territory, which has produced occasional serious anomalies. In 2006, after a 55-year-old Aboriginal elder was sentenced to a month's jail for having anal sex with a 14-year-old girl promised to him in marriage, the Howard government moved to prevent judges taking account of customary law when passing sentence.

Australia has been enriched by the multitude of races and cultures from which our citizens are drawn. All groups, regardless of their backgrounds, deserve the protection and fairness afforded by one law for all.

Budget makes rate rises likely

 

WAYNE Swan's timidity will make Julia Gillard's job tougher.

Home owners bracing for another round of interest rate hikes need to be aware that at least some of the blame belongs to the Gillard government's first budget. Wayne Swan talked a tough pre-budget game about the need for fiscal discipline, making all the right arguments about winding back expenditure to allow room in the economy for the massive expansion in mining investment, and reducing high levels of government spending to get the budget back into surplus and minimise inflation. If achieved, this would ease upward pressure on interest rates. Yet on budget day the knife the Treasurer brought to his cost-cutting task was not a Crocodile Dundee blade but the sort of blunt knife that would struggle to slice through the kids' cheddar. This Treasurer has now delivered four budgets, but the only time he has wielded a knife is when he helped to bring down Kevin Rudd.

Tough talk is one thing but a budget table is worth a thousand pre-budget words and it is all there at budget paper No 1, statement 3, table 3. This shows that over the next four years the decisions taken in the budget will lead to an additional $18.956 billion in spending and an extra $21.681bn in savings (a third of these so-called savings are actually tax increases). The net savings are $2.725bn over four years, or just under $700 million a year. In other words, Mr Swan has managed to come up with savings over four years that will total slightly more than the government wasted in just one of its bungled stimulus schemes, the home insulation program. Despite this, some supposedly sage, older commentators have given the budget a nod of approval, suggesting it shows fiscal restraint. Such assessments must come from people who pine for the Whitlam years, but these sanguine nods to government largesse surely have no place in today's highly competitive and globalised economy. The budget makes no allowance for the risk of a deterioration in our terms of trade, placing all our chips on the boom. Yet it expects inflation to be contained at 3 per cent, so clearly something is expected to dampen the economy. To be fair, there is reference to the high dollar and the withdrawal of the post-GFC fiscal stimulus acting as handbrakes. But the budget also refers to the withdrawal of "monetary policy stimulus" which, of course, is economist-speak for increases in interest rates.

Australian home owners should be in no doubt about what is going on here. Mr Swan has shirked his responsibility to deliver meaningful spending cuts in the full knowledge that it will necessitate higher interest rates. Instead of cutting his own spending, the Treasurer is relying on the Reserve Bank to push up interest rates and force the public to curb their spending.

This is a deliberate policy decision. Mr Swan should tell Australians straight up that he wants them to make the hard decisions with their budgets that he wouldn't make with his.

Gillard obstinate despite business dismay about IR 

 

THE government should respond to the needs of industry.

"WE have created the Fair Work system and it is there to stay." So declared an intractable Julia Gillard in response to serious concerns from senior business leaders at the Australian Agenda forum in Sydney on Monday. The Prime Minister shared a panel with Westfield group's Steven Lowy, Westpac's Gail Kelly and the Seven Group's Kerry Stokes, who were united on one issue: workplace laws need to be reformed. Ms Gillard's blunt rejoinder was that voters had rejected Work Choices and she would defend the system she put in place.

This is not good enough. The shortcomings of Labor's approach were apparent as long ago as the party's 2007 national conference. And recent developments should prompt an overhaul of the worst rigidities of Fair Work that are acting as a straightjacket on productivity in a way last seen in the early 1980s, before the Hawke government embarked on early workplace reform.

Mr Lowy pointed out that restrictive, state-regulated opening hours were compounded by Ms Gillard's workplace laws, which made it hard for retailers to open because of the penalty rates imposed under the current system. Consumers are increasingly finding shops and cafes shut on weekends and public holidays. Ms Gillard also appeared unconvinced by Mrs Kelly's observation that workplace flexibility is fundamental to improving productivity. Nor was she swayed by Mr Stokes's point that having the commonwealth involved and going through various court systems was laborious and unnecessary in enterprises where workers and management were in agreement.

If this was a snapshot of the government's relationship with the business community, the productivity agenda is in trouble. Despite Ms Gillard's insistence that she does not encounter many businesspeople "spruiking" Work Choices, The Australian has found that disillusionment over IR and dismay about Wayne Swan's performance as Treasurer are among business leaders' most frequent gripes. Industry lobbies, too, are demanding IR changes. Yet Labor continues to dismiss the business community as rent-seekers rather than partners for progress.

The generous pay deals struck at Victoria's Wonthaggi desalination plant, where workers are paid $50 an hour more than their counterparts at other projects, are further evidence of workplace laws that have swung too far against the national interest. With the current annual inflation rate at 3.3 per cent, slightly above the RBA's preferred range, it is troubling that Labor's workplace laws have made it easier for unions to take strike action in support of excessive wage demand. That trend must be reversed, especially in the slower sectors of the two-speed economy. If it is allowed to run unchecked, jobs will be lost, as they were in the early 1980s, when exorbitant wage rises cost 100,000 jobs in the metal industry alone.

In road transport, employers are saddled with so-called "job security" clauses dictating who they will hire and how much contractors will be paid, a battle that has spread to other sectors, including Qantas. Both the Gillard government and the opposition must listen to those running productive enterprises and muster the courage to support an IR system that suits current conditions.

 

EDITORIAL : THE NATIONAL POST, CANADA

 

 

Immigration: the long view

 

This week, the Fraser Institute released a major study on immigration in Canada. It tracks the income earned, taxes paid and public benefits received by new Canadians since 1987. Contrary to popular belief, the authors conclude, immigrants no longer represent a net economic gain: "The low average incomes of immigrants, combined with the provisions of our welfare state, have reduced the average per-capita incomes of [all] Canadians." A summary of the calculations contained in the study appears in an op-ed published elsewhere on these pages by Fraser Institute senior fellow Herbert Grubel. The annual fiscal burden of immigration, he argues, comes to about $25-billion.
To remedy this problem, the study authors propose that we replace the current immigration system with one that would issue temporary renewable two-year work visas, under strict conditions, to persons who found employment in Canada. After four years of continued employment, a worker would qualify for a permanent immigrant visa, and two years later, would be eligible to apply for citizenship.
The study also proposes to eliminate the family class of immigrants -a group that consists in large part of parents and grandparents with scant language or job skills. Under the new rules, only spouses and dependents could immigrate; as an exception, the study proposes that parents and grandparents might be sponsored through an annuity program funded by their younger relatives. The argument here is that older, unemployed immigrants use our health-care system, but don't pay the taxes that fund it.
Mr. Grubel and his co-author, Patrick Grady, are to be lauded for embarking on this comprehensive effort to catalogue the economic effects of immigration. But their focus on the direct fiscal costs and benefits is too limited to serve, by itself, as a basis for creating public policy. Looking beyond dollars and cents, Canadian governments should encourage, where possible, the integrity and cohesiveness of families, whether they be immigrant or native-born -even if not everyone in the family earns wages and pays taxes.
What of the many people born in Canada who never pay any taxes, yet use our healthcare system? By the logic at play in the Fraser study, a stay-athome mother or elderly married woman who was born in Canada but never worked outside the home should also be regarded as a drain on our economy. In fact, if state benefits were tied to income taxes, 40% of Canadians would not receive them, because they don't pay any. Yet these Canadians generally contribute to society in other ways -by raising children, doing unpaid work inside households or as future taxpayers.
Many native-born Canadians wonder how it is that new immigrants can work 16-hour shifts at a convenience store or balance multiple full-time jobs, even though they have small children. The answer, in many cases, is the caregiving grandmother or grandfather living at home -the very folks who immigration hawks ask us to regard as an economic nullity.
As any visit to an urban Canadian hospital, child-care facility or old-age home will attest, Canada needs immigrants to fill many of the jobs that native-born Canadians can't or won't do. And many of our most economically vibrant communities -such as Toronto's northern suburbs -are full of immigrant entrepreneurs. Much of our nation's future economic progress depends on them.
In the multi-generational long-term, the contributions of Canadian immigrants will regress to the mean, as they go from "new Canadians" to "Canadians," full stop. Even in the short-term, the fiscal shortfall that immigrants generate has more to do with our welfare state than with the newcomers who benefit from it. In the 1960s, government spending represented 25% of GDP, while today, it represents close to 40%. Medicare, welfare, unemployment insurance and a host of other social benefits accrue to all Canadians, while the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries declines as our population ages and has fewer children.
The solution to this problem is not to end family reunification (which, in 2009, accounted for less than a quarter of all immigrants). It is to downsize our bloated welfare state, a change that would not only address the $25-billion shortfall described by the Fraser Institute, but that would benefit all Canadians, both new and old alike.
A smaller state, it should be emphasized, also would be less attractive to those immigrants who were looking for handouts and a free ride. Reducing the tax burden would stimulate job creation and make it easier for immigrants to find work, instead of relying on social assistance. It would also encourage a sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance among new arrivals which would help them succeed in building their new life.
Canada wants skilled workers -but it also wants people who will embrace Canadian values. Those values include hard work, but also respect for the family. Protecting Ottawa's bottom line is an important goal of immigration policy -but it is not the only goal.

 

EDITORIAL : THE ASHARQ ALAWSAT, SAUDI ARABIA, published in LONDON

Commenting on the minister

An important interview with Yusuf Bin Alawi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs for the Sultanate of Oman, was published in our newspaper yesterday. The importance lies in the fact that the man, despite his stature, very rarely conducts press interviews.
In his interview, Bin Alawi addressed an angle that is often overlooked, namely the Iranian media. The minister said: "Iran has enormous media power. It is a revolutionary tool". He added "the Iranian media, which is not necessarily subordinate to the Iranian government, uses means such as the channels "al-Aalim", and "al-Manar", and Iraqi channels belonging to some Shiite communities. It has also increased the pace of its campaign against the Kingdom of Bahrain, and this is unacceptable. The Iranian government has informed us that this media campaign is not an (official) stance from Iran". The minster has the right to be diplomatic in his answers, but the reality is that those channels are entirely Iranian. A former Iranian minister, who is still very much active, previously told me that he was part of the team supervising the establishment of "al-Manar"!
Returning to the minister, commenting on whether [improved] relations with Iran would put an end to its media provocation, he said "the issue is not the relationship, there is one, but the issue is dealing with and regulating a sectarian, provocative media". He added "some Shiite forces believe the media is a force to impose what you want". This is true, but in order to counter this, one must communicate with the sincere media, disclose information first hand, refute positions, and gauge public opinion before any decision or position. In today's world, politics cannot be managed according to the principle of "seeking to resolve one's needs by staying silent". Reality is different entirely, both at state and administrative level. If you are in a position where you deal with public opinion, then there must be commentary and interaction, and this must be done through the media, not decrees or edicts.
The simplest example is the decision of the GCC summit to accept the request of Jordan to join the Council, and the subsequent invitation for Morocco. In this situation, it would have been incomprehensible for the Council to come out with a brief statement, not answer questions from reporters, and not gauge public opinion. Talking to the media is an unwritten condition before making a decision, because this is an issue that affects millions in the Gulf, as well as the Jordanians, the Moroccans, and the entire region.
The problem for our states and the Gulf in particular, is that they take decisions and then proceed for a long time justifying them, instead of focusing on the implementation, or listening to complaints from the media. It makes more sense for the politician himself to go back to deal with the media. Through communication with news outlets, a politician can contribute to the creation of a sincere media, and help to develop it, instead of being restless and complaining. In the words of one former British politician [Enoch Powell], "politicians who complain about the media are like sailors who complain about the sea".
You cannot deal with politics in today's world by keeping quiet. It is suffice here to consider the leaks that have come out the day before President Obama's expected speech. All these leaks are intended to put a limit on the ceiling of expectations, and to test the reactions of the parties concerned. The media here is part of diplomacy, both internally and externally, it is smart diplomacy.
The other thing is that we must not leave the space open for the Iranians to exploit, and the Gulf specifically must ask themselves: How many serious television channels do we have, not ideological ones, compared to the Iranian channels that are poisoning the airspace?

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

 

 

President Obama and the Arab Spring

 

It should be no surprise that the ferment in the Arab world has touched the Palestinians, whose promised two-state solution is no closer than ever. On Sunday, the anniversary of Israel’s creation, thousands marching from Syria, Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank breached Israel’s borders and confronted Israeli troops. More than a dozen people were killed; scores were injured.

According to The Times’s Ethan Bronner, the protests were coordinated via social media, but they also appeared to have support from Lebanon and President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, who is eager to divert attention from his crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators.

Israel must defend its territory. But the protests and the casualties might have been avoided if credible peace negotiations were under way. Since President Obama took office, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have had just three weeks of direct talks. Last week, George Mitchell, Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, quit.

There is blame all around: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who is scheduled to meet with Mr. Obama at the White House on Friday, has shown little interest in negotiations and has used the regional turmoil as one more excuse to hunker down. Arab leaders haven’t given him much incentive to compromise. President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority wants a deal but seemed to give up after Mr. Obama couldn’t deliver a promised settlement freeze.

President Obama has done far too little to break the stalemate. As he prepares to give a speech on Thursday on the Arab Spring, the White House signaled that he is unlikely to offer any new initiative to revive peace talks.

Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward. It is time for Mr. Obama, alone or with crucial allies, to put a map and a deal on the table. The two sides will not break the impasse by themselves.

This is a singular moment of great opportunity and challenge in the Arab world. The United States and other democracies cannot dictate the outcome but must invest maximum effort and creativity to help shape it. There is no one-size-fits-all doctrine for dealing with disparate countries. The United States and its allies are right to balance values and strategic interests.

Still Mr. Obama can use the speech to articulate principles that Arab countries should follow as a condition of Western economic and political support: democratic elections, free markets, peaceful relations with neighboring states — including Israel — rights for women and minorities, the rule of law.

He should press American allies to lay out similar principles when the Group of 8 industrialized nations meets this month in France and back them up with clear offers of support. The United States and its allies must help Tunisia and Egypt — their struggles have inspired the region — weather severe economic problems, providing debt relief, trade and access to international financial institutions. Civil society groups need support.

President Obama raised great hopes in 2009 when he spoke in Cairo about “a new beginning” with the Muslim world. The glow has faded. He has another chance this week to bolster this country’s image and to help support democratic change in the region. Reviving the peace process must be part of that effort. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict wasn’t central to protests in Egypt, Libya or Syria. But as Mr. Assad proved, it is still a far too potent weapon for autocrats and extremists.

 

Will the Banks Finally Have to Answer?

 

At long last, there may be a serious investigation into the mortgage mess — the kind that results in clarity as well as big fines and maybe even accountability.

Gretchen Morgenson reported in The Times on Tuesday that Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, wants to discuss mortgage operations during the housing bubble with executives of Bank of America, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. He has also requested documents and information from the banks, examined material given to his predecessor, Andrew Cuomo, and studied issues raised in lawsuits against the banks.

Mr. Schneiderman would not comment on the investigation. What is needed is a broad inquiry into how banks inflated the housing bubble, profiting as it expanded and getting bailed out when it burst — leaving investors and homeowners devastated.

Any serious investigation must take a close look at “securitization” — the pooling of thousands of home loans into securities that were sold to investors the world over. Three years after it all imploded — and even after Congress vowed to get answers and names — Americans still don’t have answers to vitally important questions.

Topping the list: Did the big banks know (if not, why not?) that billions in loans and related securities were destined to fail? Did they intentionally mislead investors and insurers or were they just incompetent?

An investigation must also figure out the extent of wrongdoing in Wall Street practices that fed the securitization pipeline. By extending credit to mortgage lenders, Wall Street allowed them to make loans far longer than they otherwise could have. Did Wall Street purposely inflate the bubble when it enabled loans to uncreditworthy borrowers for unreasonably priced homes?

All indications are that last year’s robo-signing scandal, in which banks were found to have filed false court documents in foreclosure cases, was just the tip of an iceberg. A growing body of Congressional testimony, academic research, court cases and other evidence suggests pervasive defects, and potentially vast lawbreaking, in the securitization and foreclosure process.

It has also been suggested that federal and state officials have ignored or played down allegations of widespread illegality, a charge that is all too easy to believe. A recent federal investigation into banks’ foreclosure abuses ended with a wrist slap. Talks between state attorneys general and banks over those abuses appear hamstrung, in part, by the apparent failure of state officials to do a thorough investigation on which to base demands for meaningful reforms and stiff penalties.

It is critical that someone stand up and say “no” to allegations that go unexamined, to wrongdoing without redress. Mr. Schneiderman, it’s up to you.

 

What’s Good for Workers ...

 

The refusal by Congressional Republicans to renew assistance for workers who lose their jobs to overseas competition is another instance of their callous determination to slash the budget at the expense of the most vulnerable Americans. It is also bad for American business and other constituents dearer to their hearts.

We support passage of the three long-delayed trade agreements with South Korea, Colombia and Panama. But the White House is right not to submit the deals to Congress until Republicans agree to the benefits renewal.

The Trade Adjustment Assistance program, which has enjoyed strong bipartisan support, retrains displaced workers and provides extended unemployment insurance. The 2009 stimulus bill added health insurance benefits and expanded the list of those eligible to include the large number of service-sector workers displaced by outsourcing. Those expanded benefits expired in February.

Adjustment assistance should be seen as a core component of the nation’s strategy to embrace globalization. The United States Chamber of Commerce and other business groups have made clear their support for renewal. Earlier this month, a business coalition, including the chamber and other business groups, sent a letter to the president and Congressional leaders reaffirming their “long standing support for T.A.A. as a central part of America’s overall trade agenda.”

Public declarations and letters are clearly not enough. Business leaders need to press hard on Republican leaders, telling them it is time to stand up to the antigovernment fringe. The assistance package is not only good for American workers and businesses, it is in the best interest of the whole country.

 

Wagons North!

 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg didn’t make many friends when he offered his own idea for saving Detroit, which has lost one-fourth of its population over the last decade.
Speaking on “Meet the Press” on NBC earlier this month, he suggested that Congress “pass a law letting immigrants come in as long as they agree to go to Detroit and live there for five or 10 years, start businesses, take jobs, whatever.  You would populate Detroit overnight because half the world wants to come here.”
Detroiters like Mayor Dave Bing were displeased (the fact that Mr. Bloomberg had called him a “great mayor” didn’t quell his pique). “I don’t know what he was on,” Mr. Bing said, pointing out that his city had scarcely enough jobs to sustain the people already there. Yet Mr. Bloomberg had the big picture exactly right: immigrants and economic vitality go together. That was certainly the experience of New York City, which was on life support in the 1970s until a transfusion of immigrant energy and entrepreneurship brought it roaring back.
Renewal by immigrants is the fundamental American narrative, the story of people in ships, then covered wagons, coming to settle and make fruitful a land that rewarded their courage and grit. Except now that story is scorned and discarded, along with many of those immigrants.
Bills to streamline and increase legal immigration die in Congress. There are no visas of the type Mr. Bloomberg imagines, though we could use immigrant entrepreneurs in Detroit, Buffalo, New York City — all over. Nearly 150 years after President Lincoln signed the Homestead Act, the new frontier is in the inner city, not way out West. There is no federal or state Department of Urban Homesteading, but — DUH — maybe there should be.

 

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, UK

 

 

Climate change targets: Bold in theory

Whatever other challenges he faces, the energy minister can be pleased by the outcome of cabinet talks on carbon reduction

Fast lane or slow lane, Chris Huhne has been driving climate change policy in the right direction. Whatever else is going on in his career – and the allegation that he asked his wife to take speeding points for him is serious – the energy minister can be pleased by the outcome of cabinet discussions on future carbon reduction. With some important qualifications, the government has decided to accept the recommendation of the independent, advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC) for a 50% cut in emissions by 2027. Anything less would have been shaming, both for Mr Huhne and the coalition as a whole, just a year after David Cameron promised it would be "the greenest government ever".

The speeding claims against Mr Huhne were understandably on MPs' minds yesterday afternoon, when he turned up in the Commons, under some duress, to make an oral rather than written statement on climate targets. A sniff of scandal draws MPs and journalists into the chamber but, whatever happens next in that story, climate change certainly matters more. In the moments after Mr Huhne's statement, both Greenpeace and the CCC put out statements largely welcoming what he had to say. "This is a world first: no other country has made legally binding commitments to ambitious emissions reduction targets for the 2020s," said the CCC. For such support, Mr Huhne must have given much thanks.

Politically, climate change is no longer the most pressing of issues in Britain. Scientifically, it still is. Politicians of all parties have to balance the immediate need for economic growth against the contradictory demands of tough carbon targets in the future. It is easy but dishonest to pretend that these two things can sit together without tension. Green jobs will provide future employment, but right now it is dirty jobs in manufacturing that are driving exports. Both the Treasury and the business department are well aware that what remains of the steel industry and the ceramics industry, to pick just two, would decamp abroad if Britain imposed costs on them that other countries do not. Exporting carbon pollution is not the same as reducing it, and the debate inside government about the right response to the CCC was not quite the battle of virtue against evil that some have described.

As a result, the fourth carbon budget, which will run from 2023, was announced alongside important (and still undefined) exemptions for energy-intensive industries, which could in the end render the targets hollow. Mr Huhne has also agreed to review progress in 2014, an automatic revision that will align Britain to progress elsewhere in the EU. Until now, this country has been boldly unilateralist on carbon targets, signing up, through a process set out in the Climate Change Act, to an emissions cut to a fifth of 1990 levels by 2050. The review means that if the rest of Europe falters in its task, Britain may do so too. This will dismay green groups. But unilateralism only makes sense to the extent that it encourages others to go further too. A heroic carbon reduction target that cannot be met only breeds cynicism.

It is of course easy for governments to set themselves tests far into the future. Mr Huhne will not be the climate change minister in 2027, when yesterday's target must be met. The greater test of this government's green credentials is what is being done now. Emissions fell heavily in 2009, because of recession. Any economic recovery now would probably push them back up. There are very difficult decisions ahead on energy supplies, and in particular nuclear. If petrol prices stay high, the government will face more pressure to drive them back down. Nonetheless, for all the jokes about speeding offences in the Commons yesterday, a downcast Mr Huhne did have something substantial to announce. Looking to the long term is a sound escape from present woes.

In praise of… Abdo Khal

Acclaimed author shines a light on life at the bottom of the heap in Saudi Arabia's often forgotten villages

As anyone who has picked up One Thousand and One Nights is aware, there is a venerable tradition of Arabian storytelling. Before sky-scrapers shot up in the Gulf, the heart of the culture was found in the tales shared around evening fires, and perhaps that is what organisers of this week's Book World Prague jamboree had in mind in making Saudi Arabia their guest of honour. Or, just perhaps, they grabbed the petro-dollars without stopping to think. Conditions in the kingdom are dismal ones for creating literature of any quality. With no cinemas, youngsters can grow up missing out on the great tales of the times, and there are ludicrous new strictures on literary clubs, even before we consider the heavy scrawl of the censor's black pen. The Prague delegation arrived with just one obscure writer, deliberately leaving behind novelists whose sheer gift has overcome all of the barriers to win international acclaim. Foremost among them is Abdo Khal, whose Spewing Sparks As Big As Castles won a $60,000 prize dubbed the Arab Booker. A modest man stemming from the Hijazi west, he shines a light on life at the bottom of the heap, in Saudi's often forgotten villages. His voice blends image-rich poetic classicism with contemporary patois, which makes for an unmistakably Arab mix, but it reliably sets to work on universal themes. Spewing Sparks casts an unflinching eye on those seduced by the glamour of palace politics. Needless to say, it is not easy to get hold of in Saudi Arabia.

Irish state visit: The Queen in green

Although no one is naive enough to think that all passions between Ireland and Britain are spent, this visit is a powerful attempt at achieving a sort of closure between the two states

The phrase used by the BBC's Ireland correspondent yesterday morning said more than he intended. This was one small step for the Queen, observed Mark Simpson, as Elizabeth II stepped on to Irish soil, but one huge moment in British-Irish history. The echo of Neil Armstrong's famous comment prompts a striking thought. The Sea of Tranquillity is about a thousand times further than the centre of Dublin is from Buckingham Palace. Yet for much of the Queen's long reign, the thought of a royal visit to Ireland was almost as improbable as the thought of a royal visit to the moon.

Yesterday, though, the previously unthinkable happened at last. Good. Inevitably, the first hours spent by a British monarch in Ireland since George V a century ago generated a potent array of British-Irish symbolism. Some of it was discordant. Most of it was not. The Queen wore green – though jade, not emerald. Her plane arrived at Casement aerodrome, named after a man executed for treason against her grandfather. Soldiers of the Irish Republic saluted as she drove up to what was once the Viceregal Lodge for lunch with President McAleese. Then, particularly freighted with meaning, the Queen drove along Irish history's most iconic thoroughfare, O'Connell Street, to the garden of remembrance where, after the playing of the British national anthem, she bowed her head in memory of those who took up arms against her ancestors in 1916 – and before and since.

All this is long overdue. The Irish and British peoples have no transcending quarrel with one another. Nor, nowadays, do the two states. On both sides, there is a craving for normality. A minority, of course, continue to fight old battles. Central Dublin was locked down for the Queen's visit yesterday because of security fears about those who might protest, as a few did. But the barriers to normality are not on the Irish republican side alone. Perhaps the Queen, driving up O'Connell Street, paused to reflect that Catholic emancipation remains unfinished business as long as the Act of Settlement remains unamended. It is high time, if so.

Ireland is changed utterly since the Easter Rising. So is Britain. Yet the history still resonates, and rightly. Some still take all these symbols too seriously, and cannot think outside them. Others do not take them seriously enough, and fail to understand them. Yet while formal events and wreath-layings are the stuff of all state visits everywhere between former adversaries, and although no one is naive enough to think that all passions between Ireland and Britain are now wholly spent, this visit is a powerful and proper attempt at achieving a sort of wider closure between the two states that the two peoples mostly made long ago.

EDITORIAL : THE GLOBAL TIMES, CHINA

 

 

Demolitions can bring down grander edifice

 

The Ministry of Land and Resources released an emergency notice recently, calling for the strict prevention of forced demolitions and relocations.
Though the new relocation rule came into effect in January this year, incidents of forced relocation having turned violent still have come to light. Such events have regrettably marred China's grand urbanization process.
Large-scale infrastructure projects, distinctive in urbanization, have generated the momentum to take China's economy forward, but have also created confrontations between developers and residents, usually over the huge compensation sums involved.
The examples of "nail households" have attracted quite a number of copycats, further complicating the issue. With no proper arbitration platform to solve these issues, forced demolitions have severely undermined the image and credibility of the government.
Forced relocation cannot be allowed to continue at the present pace, since the troubles it causes could outweigh the economic benefits. There should be more transparent and authoritative compensation standards to regulate these practices while allowing necessary construction to go on.
However, to break this trend, local governments must rethink their infrastructure-driving economy. Over the past 30 years, China has built a fairly solid infrastructure. The highway network has been extended to remote counties. Airports sprout out nationwide though some small airports are left with many facilities lying idle. Many middle-sized cities are now building subways.
In fact, the current infrastructure is capable of meet ing the basic demand of urbanization; the next step is to realize economic growth without repetitive construction at the same level.
This is the key to breaking the reliance on land confiscation, which causes conflicts due to the demolition and relocation at play.
College towns and central business districts, in addition to pseudo-classic types of architecture, are being copied everywhere to stimulate economy, often to only dubious effect.
Shoddy buildings have taken up land, but have not generated profit. Local officials, lured by the incentives to achieve tangible political achievement, seem unable to resist grand yet shallow projects to burnish their careers.
The infrastructure frenzy must be cooled down. The economic growth for the next phase has to stop relying on steel and cement.
Tension over forced relocations will likely be cushioned as demolitions lessen. Stimulating the economy without building something concrete is much more difficult, but there is indeed no other option.

                                                             Dated-17/05/2011

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY YOMIURI, JAPAN

 

 

Quickly contain water leaks, radioactive contamination

The Yomiuri Shimbun

Most of the nuclear fuel inside the No. 1 reactor at the Fukushima No. 1 nuclear plant has melted down.

Tokyo Electric Power Co., the plant operator, made this assessment after analyzing temperatures, pressure readings and other data taken from the reactor's central control room.

The fuel is estimated to have started melting about four hours after the plant was hit by the massive tsunami triggered by the March 11 earthquake. Most of the fuel melted and fell to the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel within about 15 hours of the tsunami striking the plant. The government and TEPCO previously believed that about half of the fuel had melted down.

Once deprived of electricity and water needed for cooling, nuclear fuel inside a reactor will overheat and quickly melt. There is no doubt that TEPCO's response to this emergency was flawed.

Both TEPCO and the government, which is responsible for nuclear plant safety regulations, must do some serious soul-searching over these shortcomings.

===

Too little, too late

Countries using nuclear energy, including Japan, have tried to improve nuclear safety by adopting emergency countermeasures since the 1990s.

The opening of pressure-release vents at the reactor at the Fukushima plant soon after the tsunami was one emergency measure taken to try to bring the reactor under control. Opening the vent is meant to release pressure that builds up inside the reactor after the core cooling systems are knocked out. This, in turn, is meant to prevent the reactor core from being damaged and make it easier to inject cooling water into the reactor--and avoid a meltdown.

This was supposed to have been done at the Fukushima plant, but the vent was opened too late. The procedure began only after the meltdown started.

To ensure this situation does not occur again, surefire prevention measures should be put in place at other nuclear plants.

The nuclear fuel that fell to the bottom of the No. 1 reactor pressure vessel is being cooled by the continued injection of water from outside the reactor. At least for the time being, there is little likelihood that a large amount of radioactive material will be released into the environment.

However, it was found last week that the pressure vessel had been damaged and that water poured in to cool the fuel was leaking from the vessel.

===

Prepare for the worst

According to a timetable compiled last month by the government and TEPCO to bring the nuclear accident under control, the No. 1 reactor would be cooled by filling the containment vessel with water. Now this plan has become impossible.

The leaked water is seeping into the reactor building's basement. Should the leak continue for several months, highly radioactive water could escape from the building.

An explosion damaged the upper section of the No. 1 reactor building soon after the tsunami. If rainwater enters the building through the damaged section during the upcoming rainy season, the amount of contaminated water will increase further. A new cooling method to replace the current injection of water needs to be found.

The possibility that fuel at the plant's Nos. 2 and 3 reactors also could melt down has been pointed out. Should this happen, these two reactors would leak more water than the No. 1 reactor has. Steps to prevent this scenario must be taken quickly.

Healthy money flow key to Tohoku recovery

The Yomiuri Shimbun

To ensure a steady recovery from the March 11 disaster, a soundly functioning financial system--often called the economy's blood flow--is essential.

Areas that were damaged will need huge amounts of funds to repair and rebuild factories, stores and housing. Generous lending by local financial institutions is indispensable for this to be attained.

Banks in devastated areas saw their business deteriorate after the disaster, but they should not use this as an excuse to be reluctant to lend money. If necessary, public funds should be injected into these institutions to bolster their capital.

After the disaster, the government strengthened financial assistance for cash-strapped small and midsize companies, including offering low-interest loans from state-affiliated financial institutions. These steps could have some effect in preventing corporate bankruptcies, but they are far from sufficient.

In the business slump following the so-called Lehman shock of September 2008, many small and midsize firms used up their lines of credit and were unable to access additional aid.

Borrowing money for reconstruction on top of existing debts would saddle local firms with a dual financial burden.

===

Listen to local needs

We want the government to listen closely to requests from people in the afflicted areas to further improve its financial assistance measures.

As economic activity in the devastated areas shifts from recovery to reconstruction, private financial institutions will begin to play a greater role. With their understanding of regional priorities and potentials--as well as long-standing connections with local businesses--regional banks, credit associations and shinkin banks are uniquely qualified to perform precise loan screenings and give proper management guidance to local companies.

Nonetheless, the situation the local banking institutions are in is severe. Of the eight regional banks based in Miyagi, Fukushima and Iwate prefectures, six are expected to report deficits for the business year ended in March. This was caused by the institutions' difficulty in collecting payments from borrowers in devastated areas, which led to a surge in losses from disposing of nonperforming loans.

If these institutions are to be able to expand their lending, it will be necessary to increase their capital. But with business deteriorating, it will be difficult for them to raise capital on their own.

===

Lower legal hurdles

To deal with the situation, the Financial Services Agency plans to attain a legal revision in the current Diet session that would allow these institutions to beef up their capital with public funds. The revision would include a clause excepting banks in damaged areas from the usual conditions for an injection of public funds, such as submitting profit-planning progress records.

The revision also calls for exempting shinkin banks and credit associations that run into financial difficulty from repaying the public money if they agree to restructure their management.

The planned legal revision is expected to help ease private-sector resistance toward injections of public funds. We urge the government and ruling parties to realize these legal amendments as soon as possible.

The Sendai-based 77 Bank is among the regional banks that have decided to apply for public funds. Other banking institutions should actively look into applying for such funds for the benefit of the Tohoku economy.

EDITORIAL : THE DAILY MIRROR, SRILANKA

Conflict resolution and temple training for politicians

As pandals and lanterns continue to glitter with ceremonies to mark Vesak and the 2600 anniversary of the enlightenment of the Lord Buddha, government leaders are claiming that Sri Lanka is most honoured by the world for preserving Theravada Buddhism in its pristine purity. If they confine this to the new 16-storey Buddhist Research and Information Centre which is proclaimed as the biggest and best in the world, then it might be a case of a sandcastle that crumbles in a storm.

Instead government leaders, others in high positions and indeed all Buddhists need to remember that the only Dhamma sermon that billions of people all over the world will listen to is the Dhamma sermon of our lives and the only Buddhist scriptures the world may read are the scriptures of our lives.

In the afterglow of Vesak when we get back to the daily work, toil and struggles of our lives, we also need to reflect on some areas where we could earn the honour of the world not just by preaching the Dhamma but by practising it in various dimensions of our lives, individually and collectively. This is important especially for government leaders because often the world judges the country by the conduct of our leaders and their response to various situations. If the world sees craving for power and the subtle propagation of family dynasties through laws such as the 18th Amendment, if the world sees political leaders plundering the resources of the country through rampant bribery and corruption then it will be like the case of the devil quoting scriptures.

One of the vital areas in which our political leaders and others need to practise the principles of the Buddha Dhamma is our attitude and approach to conflict resolution. We are paying a heavy price nationally and internationally for the bloody mishandling of the ethnic conflict for more than half a century and we need to learn from it, repent and follow the path shown by the Dhamma if we wish to avoid getting into a bigger mess or muddle. One of the core teachings of the Dhamma is that violence will not cease by violence but can be conquered only by a spirit of love, compassion, accommodation and dialogue. During this Vesak period our political leaders could rise to noble heights and carry the people also with them by following the hallowed precepts for conflict resolution. The first is a paradigm shift, a change of attitude and of our mental picture or perception of any issue. We need to become aware that our perception is never absolute and always relative because our small minds despite all our big talk sees only a part of the picture. If we accept this reality that our perception is relative and not absolute then we will be able to accept the perception of other parties. Those who delude themselves into thinking that their perception of any issue is absolute, need to be reminded that they are suffering from some dangerous mental imbalance as did the notorious killer Hitler. This attitude of being open to a growing awareness and understanding will also open the door for a dialogue where we will be sincerely ready to listen to the grievances and aspirations of the other party or parties instead of just trying to win the argument at any cost such as the bloody cost we paid for the 30-year ethnic war because of various factors beginning from the “Sinhala only” folly of 1956.

If all parties are ready to listen to each other with an open mind then the synergy will generate a positive situation where one plus one will make three – meaning that all parties will see the issue in a new light and be ready to come to some accommodation on the middle path.

In the light of the wisdom of the Dhamma it might be also prudent for Sri Lanka to consider a 20th Amendment whereby those who wish to enter politics beginning at the local council level would first need to take a vow of simplicity, humility and sincerity and go to a temple for a year or two where Nayake Theras could teach them how to be selfless, detached, sacrificial and honestly serve the people in the field of politics. A minister is doing this for two weeks, and it should be wise for others to follow this example.

EDITORIAL : THE INDIAN EXPRESS, INDIA

 

 

Trust in law

 

Last week’s decision by the Supreme Court to overrule the Karnataka high court and reinstate 16 members of the Karnataka legislative assembly was a spark for the current, many-sided confrontation between the BJP, the Congress, the JD (S) and the state governor, H.R. Bhardwaj. The implications of the judgment for the anti-defection law, however, also need close examination and discussion. Ever since the anti-defection law was first passed in 1985 and subsequently strengthened, many of its provisions have been open to multiple readings — and many speakers have interpreted them to suit their parties’ purpose. Now the court has brought clarity to many points.

In this case there were several questions at stake. When, in a highly controversial decision in October 2010, the speaker of the Karnataka assembly disqualified 11 BJP MLAs and five independent MLAs — enabling the Yeddyurappa government to survive a trust vote — was there a proper process that he needed to follow? Does writing to the governor and asking for a change of CM constitute abandoning your party? Does an independent MLA who takes a ministerial berth give up his “independent” status and become part of the party he is supporting and has received his cabinet post from? The high court had gone with the speaker’s view on most of these issues; the Supreme Court has answered those questions differently. The Karnataka speaker, in particular, came in for some pointed criticism from the judges: relying on news reports is not enough, they said, the MLAs should have been permitted to speak for themselves.

Friends with benefits

 

Unlike West Bengal, the Tamil Nadu election results were not a foregone conclusion. Jayalalithaa’s victory is even more impressive for being less talked-up, a consequence of patient strategising and playing to the strengths of her alliance. In the last decade of the DMK’s dominion, she seemed to be retreating from the scene — she moved away from Chennai, she hardly attended the assembly, she rarely made her presence publicly felt. However, the strength of her recent rallies in Madurai and Coimbatore in the last few months should have been an indication of Jayalalithaa’s clear return to favour.

This also unlocks many new political possibilities, as was made abundantly clear at Jayalalithaa’s swearing-in ceremony — attended by the unlikely crew of A.B. Bardhan and D. Raja, N. Chandrababu Naidu and Narendra Modi. The Congress has also made congratulatory noises. For years now, one or the other ruling party in the state has bolstered the national alliance. In the last decade, the DMK had raised this mutual backscratching to an art, using its support to the Congress at the Centre to enlarge its aura in the state. Jayalalithaa does not have as competent a party machine, but she has also been a consummate coalition operator. She remains a coveted partner despite her erratic history — the BJP had a scarring experience with Jayalalithaa in 1998-99, when she kept them on tenterhooks and eventually walked out of the government a year later, causing it to collapse. She has been hostile to the Congress as well, making her antipathy to Sonia Gandhi only too obvious. In recent years, as the DMK-Congress alliance solidified for their mutual convenience, the AIADMK was seen as an essential component of an emergent Third Front. However, she has offered support to the Congress after the 2G scam if it threw over the DMK, just as she has been conspicuously friendly to the BJP.

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE DAWN, PAKISTAN

 

 

Senator Kerry’s visit

 

IN what appears to be the first breakthrough in US-Pakistan relations since the US operation against Osama bin Laden in Abbottabad, Senator John Kerry has met Pakistan’s top civilian, military and intelligence chiefs in Islamabad. America sent the right man for the job; Senator Kerry has long been committed to a strong relationship between the two countries. As the head of the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he is also well positioned to take back a positive message about our relationship with the US to Capitol Hill, where some are calling for a suspension of aid to Pakistan. And while his public remarks included messages about America’s “grave concerns” regarding Bin Laden’s presence in Pakistan, and militant sanctuaries here, his emphasis was on a shared security goal and the importance of cooperation. At the same time, the senator made a welcome effort to lay out for the Pakistani people the need for going after Bin Laden on their territory and the reasoning behind the manner and timing of the raid, including the need for secrecy. Whether or not his argument is considered reasonable, the time spent addressing concerns vis-à-vis the operation is at least an acknowledgment of Pakistan’s unease about the way in which it was carried out.

What further marked the visit as an important move towards re-establishing relations was a joint communiqué issued by the two sides, which, in addition to emphasising the need for cooperation, stated that the two countries “will work together in any future actions against high-value targets in Pakistan”. It also appears that behind closed doors Senator Kerry has managed to extract some promises. Although few details have emerged about what exactly the leadership signed up for, Pakistan reportedly made commitments in terms of counterterrorism cooperation, intelligence-sharing and targeting terrorist safe havens. Lack of clarity about the parameters of engagement seems to have contributed to the breakdown of the intelligence relationship, so it would be a positive step forward if specific goals and avenues of collaboration were discussed.

The need now is for words to be followed up with concrete progress in terms of strengthening the relationship. According to Senator Kerry, a “road map” has been put in place that will be developed further in meetings with senior officials, including the deputy director of the CIA, who will visit Pakistan in the run-up to a trip by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. If this latest visit has in fact launched a discussion about the specific future contours of the relationship, it will have been a useful one.

Nawaz Sharif’s overtures

 

ON a visit to Sindh, PML-N chief Nawaz Sharif has been saying quite a few right things. Although showing disappointment with the presidential camp and complaining of attacks suffered at the hands of the PPP government, his remarks have been rounded off with reassuring lines about the perils of ending democratic governments midway through their term. He has pressed for a probe into the May 12, 2007 Karachi killings, and his call for investigating the Akbar Bugti case is a continuation of the position his party has maintained for years. Mr Sharif has asked for a review of ties with India and sought the accountability of generals and judges responsible for derailing democracy in Pakistan. Above all, the demand for sovereignty of parliament was a clarification much needed from the seasoned politician who had proposed a judicial commission for an inquiry into the Bin Laden raid. He has said an independent commission, in line with parliament’s recent resolution, would be the first step towards achieving that sovereignty. Actually, the number of probes that the PML-N leader has on his mind would justify the creation of a permanent parliamentary body tasked with looking into all controversial cases of national importance in the past — from Benazir Bhutto to Liaquat Ali Khan and from Abbottabad to Kargil and beyond.

Mr Nawaz Sharif’s pragmatism is, however, somewhat tempered by populism when he emulates younger brother Shahbaz Sharif’s magical trick titled Breaking the Begging Bowl. Not the idea of self-reliance, it is the futility of the follow-up austerity measures that Mr Sharif proposes that tends to expose his statement as a political stunt. By right, the PML-N chief has left the window open for an intensified campaign against the government. Then again, his warning of a direct confrontation with the president and prime minister in case he is ‘not satisfied’ with the commission’s findings of the US raid on May 2 is out of sync with his other remarks. What he deems satisfactory has not been divulged; but he has raised suspicions about the competence of the would-be commission and a parliament he wishes to see as sovereign.

Unnecessary suffering

 

CONDITIONS in the country’s public-sector hospitals are already less than ideal; when doctors serving in these institutions go on strike, the suffering of patients — many of whom have no choice but to seek treatment at a government hospital — is amplified manifold. Such has been the situation at Karachi’s Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Centre and the National Institute of Child Health since Monday, when OPD and test facilities had to be shut down because of a doctors’ protest. Operations were also postponed. The situation on Tuesday was no different. The medics had already been observing a two-hour token strike daily for the past several days over reports that the federally run institutions are to be transferred to the provincial government under the 18th Amendment. Thousands of patients visit the hospitals daily, the majority of them being the poorest of the poor and often coming from far-flung areas for treatment. There were reports that doctors in parts of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa also observed a strike on Monday, while only last month doctors in Punjab ended a lengthy strike over demands for higher pay. However, that issue remains unresolved.

Considering the immense hardship caused to patients, doctors should rethink their methods. Their demands may be genuine but a different mode of protest should be employed, one that does not involve shutting down facilities and denying treatment. The Pakistan Medical Association has said it is not in favour of strikes, yet some senior doctors feel there are no options left but to protest in this manner when an unresponsive bureaucracy refuses to listen to them. There is an urgent need to rethink the strategy: doctors should press for their legitimate demands in ways that don’t hurt the patient while the government must lend a sympathetic ear to doctors’ concerns regarding issues such as job security and working conditions.