EDITORIAL : THE CITIZEN, TANZANIA

Stars mass immunization against measles now   

Why has measles broken out and little is being done to contain it?  Why is the ministry of Health and Social Welfare dragging its feet on launching a mass immunisation campaign against it?

The fact that no fewer than 1,573 measles cases have been reported in six Mainland regions since early this year is frightening.

The ministry acknowledges that Arusha, Dar es Salaam, Iringa, Coast, Morogoro and Tanga have high measles cases and 18 people have died of the disease.

Although the government says the country’s measles vaccination rate is 85 per cent, there is still a cause for alarm.
The ministry plans to launch an immunisation drive for children aged between nine months and 15 years in October.
The director of Prevention Services, Dr Donan Mmbando, says the outbreak usually occurs between September and December every year, but it was not noticed last year.

He believes that the current outbreak could be part of what was supposed to happen last year.
If that is the trend, the ministry should have been well prepared to deal with the problem instead of being caught off guard.

We do not know why when the disease broke out in January and the ministry withheld the crucial information for the public until last week, when the situation worsened. It should have embarked on multi-faceted approaches involving various stakeholders to ensure that the immunisation drive is stepped up.

We wonder why should the ministry wait till October to vaccinate children aged nine months and 15 years when the disease is in our midst.

Measles is a viral disease spread through respiration and patients may become blind or lose their lives within days unless they are treated. That being the case the ministry was supposed to act immediately and correctly.

We also call on the ministry to investigate whether the vaccine handling, storage and distribution are done appropriately. Vaccines are weakened pathogens and any poor handling can be disastrous.

Conserve Environment   

Tanzania is contending with an alarming rate of environmental destruction despite attempts to reverse it. Forests are massively being destroyed in search of building materials, wood fuel and clearing land for agriculture.

In some areas, small-scale miners have been polluting water sources and destroying forests.

It is understood that 55 per cent of the land could be used for agriculture and over 51 per cent for grazing.
About six per cent of the agricultural land is cultivated with the practice of shifting cultivation, which causes deforestation and land degradation on the pastoral land.

Studies estimate that wood fuel and agricultural residues account for 92 per cent of the total energy consumption in the country.

As a result, the mismanagement of fuel resources significantly contributes to deforestation and environmental degradation.

The biodiversity is lost, soil degraded and water sources dried up. Floods or dry spells have been ravaging parts of our country, destroying infrastructure and farms.

By March, at least 1.3 million people were facing a food shortage and needed assistance.
Last week’s reports that some unlicensed people were harvesting trees in Kilimanjaro Region are therefore disappointing.

We call on individual Tanzanians and authorities to brook no further environmental destruction in Kilimanjaro and elsewhere.

Treatment and disposal of waste should be properly done in urban areas to reduce pollution to a large extent.

EDITORIAL : ASHARQ ALAWSAT, SAUDI ARABIA, published in LONDON

Who do our television channels think Nasrallah is?
  

Who's Hassan Nasrallah for our news channels to interrupt their scheduled programming to broadcast his speeches that are full of inaccuracies and empty propaganda? For he is neither an elected leader nor a monarch, rather he is the chief of an armed militia that is no different than the Taliban. Nasrallah's speech, which lasted about an hour, was full of misdirection, but included three major pieces of information or news.

Firstly, Nasrallah's acknowledgement of the presence of Israeli spies within his group. Secondly, his support for the al-Assad regime that is brutally suppressing the defenseless people of Syria. Thirdly, his attack on Bahrain, which represented a loathsome example of sectarianism. Other than this, there was nothing of any news value in Nasrallah's speech that justified our television channels interrupting their programming and exposing the viewer to such a massive dose of misleading propaganda. If there was a war in Lebanon, for example, such as the 2006 war with Israel that Hezbollah embroiled Lebanon in, then it would be understandable for our television channels to interrupt their programming; however for this to occur every time that Nasrallah reaches for the microphone is incomprehensible and unjustifiable.

All that Nasrallah's speech deserves, with regards to television coverage, is nothing more than a news item containing these three important pieces of information i.e. his acknowledgement of the presence of Israeli spies in his organization, his support for al-Assad, and his attack on Bahrain. In addition to this, the television coverage should include information that scrutinizes and analyzes what Nasrallah said on these three issues. Other than this, there was nothing of any news values that would urge our television channels to broadcast all of the political mistakes and crude propaganda contained in Nasrallah's speech, particularly as this speech began as if it were being issued by one of the Syrian regime's "analysts." This could be seen when Nasrallah called on the public not to focus on the issue of the spies [within Hezbollah] as much as the security achievements made by the organization? Is there anything more belittling than this?

Television is not like print journalism, for no respectable publication would provide a full transcript of Nasrallah's speech, or indeed any other speech, unless this contained real news value. A newspaper might publish the full transcript of a speech on its website for the purposes of documentation or reference however the newspaper itself would only publish the most important pieces of the speech, along with analysis of what was said, including editorials also analyzing the speech.

What is strange is that western news channels, for example US news channels, would broadcast an entire 30-minute speech made by US President Barack Obama, and then spend around one hour analyzing this speech. This is not to mention the [US] publications, magazines, and internet websites that would take apart the speech over the next week. However our news channels interrupt their programming to broadcast Nasrallah's hour-long speech – which is full of propaganda and inaccuracies – and then spend just 5 minutes analyzing it, if they even analyze it in the first place! Our television channels grant Nasrallah legitimacy, and a position that he does not deserve, and in this regard these television channels are no different than those Arab officials who go blind-folded to meet Nasrallah in some unknown cellar in the Beirut suburbs, and this is shameful!

When will our television channels respect the difference between covering the news of militia chiefs and covering the news of statesmen? When will they respect the difference between covering propaganda and reporting the news? When we say that Hezbollah is like the Taliban this is not an exaggeration, for Nasrallah said that he did not have any economic interests in banks in Lebanon due to the Islamic Shariaa law position on this issue; so what is the difference between him and the Taliban in this regard?

Therefore it is wrong for our television channels to contribute to the publication of Nasrallah's misleading propaganda!

EDITORIAL : THE TODAY'S ZAMAN, TURKEY

How Capitalist is America? CAMBRIDGE – If capitalism's border is with socialism, we know why the world properly sees the United States as strongly capitalist.

State ownership is low, and is viewed as aberrational when it occurs (such as the government takeovers of General Motors and Chrysler in recent years, from which officials are rushing to exit). The government intervenes in the economy less than in most advanced nations, and major social programs like universal health care are not as deeply embedded in the US as elsewhere. But these are not the only dimensions to consider in judging how capitalist the US really is. Consider the extent to which capital – that is, shareholders – rules in large businesses: if a conflict arises between capital's goals and those of managers, who wins? Looked at in this way, America's capitalism becomes more ambiguous. American law gives more authority to managers and corporate directors than to shareholders. If shareholders want to tell directors what to do – say, borrow more money and expand the business, or close off the money-losing factory – well, they just can't. The law is clear: the corporation's board of directors, not its shareholders, runs the business. Someone naïve in the ways of US corporations might say that these rules are paper-thin, because shareholders can just elect new directors if the incumbents are recalcitrant. As long as they can elect the directors, one might think, shareholders rule the firm. That would be plausible if American corporate ownership were concentrated and powerful, with major shareholders owning, say, 25% of a company's stock – a structure common in most other advanced countries, where families, foundations, or financial institutions more often have that kind of authority inside large firms. But that is neither how US firms are owned, nor how US corporate elections work. Ownership in large American firms is diffuse, with block-holding shareholders scarce, even today. Hedge funds with big blocks of stock are news, not the norm. Corporate elections for the directors who run American firms are expensive. Incumbent directors typically nominate themselves, and the company pays their election expenses (for soliciting votes from distant and dispersed shareholders, producing voting materials, submitting legal filings, and, when an election is contested, paying for high-priced US litigation). If a shareholder dislikes, say, how GM's directors are running the company (and, in the 1980's and 1990's, they were running it into the ground), she is free to nominate new directors, but she must pay their hefty elections costs, and should expect that no one, particularly not GM, will ever reimburse her. If she owns 100 shares, or 1,000, or even 100,000, challenging the incumbents is just not worthwhile. Hence, contested elections are few, incumbents win the few that occur, and they remain in control. Firms and their managers are subject to competitive markets and other constraints, but not to shareholder authority. In lieu of an election that could remove recalcitrant directors, an outside company might try to buy the firm and all of its stock. But the rules of the US corporate game – heavily influenced by directors and their lobbying organizations – usually allow directors to spurn outside offers, and even to block shareholders from selling to the outsider. Directors lacked that power in the early 1980's, when a wave of such hostile takeovers took place; but by the end of the decade, directors had the rules changed in their favor, to allow them to reject offers for nearly any reason. It is now enough to reject the outsider's price offer (even if no one else would pay more). American corporate-law reformers have long had their eyes on corporate elections. About a decade ago, after the Enron and WorldCom scandals, America's stock-market regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), considered requiring that companies allow qualified shareholders to put their director nominees on the company-paid election ballot. The actual proposal was anodyne, as it would allow only a few directors – not enough to change a board's majority – to be nominated, and voted on, at the company's expense. Nevertheless, the directors' lobbying organizations – such as the Business Roundtable and the Chamber of Commerce (and their lawyers) – attacked the SEC's initiative. Lobbying was fierce, and is said to have reached into the White House. Business interests sought to replace SEC commissioners who wanted the rule, and their lawyers threatened to sue the SEC if it moved forward. It worked: America's corporate insiders repeatedly pushed the proposal off of the SEC agenda in the ensuing decade. Then, in the summer of 2010, after a relevant election and a financial crisis that weakened incumbents' credibility, the SEC promulgated election rules that would give qualified shareholders free access to company-paid election ballots. As soon as it did, the US managerial establishment sued the SEC, and government officials felt compelled to suspend the new rules before they ever took effect. The litigation is now in America's courts. The lesson is that the US is less capitalist than it is “managerialist.” Managers, not owners, get the final say in corporate decisions. Perhaps this is good. Even some capital-oriented thinking says that shareholders are better off if managers make all major decisions. And often the interests of shareholders and managers are aligned. But there is considerable evidence that when managers are at odds with shareholders, managerial discretion in American firms is excessive and weakens companies. Managers of established firms continue money-losing ventures for too long, pay themselves too much relative to their and the company's performance, and too often fail to act aggressively enough to enter new but risky markets. When it comes to capitalism vs. socialism, we know which side the US is on. But when it's managers vs. capital-owners, the US is managerialist, not capitalist. Mark Roe is a Professor of law at Harvard Law School. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2011.

EDITORIAL : THE OUTLOOK, AFGANISTAN

               

 

Effort Oriented against Democratic Consolidation

Since democracy is the only solution to Afghan problems, any effort oriented against democratic consolidation in the country is to be deprecated as it catapults the country into a disastrous crisis. It is tantamount to depriving the nation and people of opportunities to shape their democratic future and the democratic future of the country.

Afghan history is a history of failures to modernize and develop. It cannot afford to go through another failure or reversal. Afghan people have given many sacrifices to bring down the oppressive and autocratic regimes. Getting to this point of history was not easy for the people of Afghanistan. A democratic path was carved out when the constitution was written down. It may-or does- need reforms but it must never be bypassed. The second cycle of Afghan parliamentary election was held on September 18, 2010. Both national and international observers hailed it as a success as Afghans ran it. But since president Karzai was not happy with failures/losses of his favorite candidates, he issued a decree to establish a special election court without any constitutional and legal base. The court was set up at the time when the game was over.

More than nine months after the conduct of parliamentary election, the court, which is against the constitution on its own, has now plunged the three branches of power into a deep crisis. Moreover, the Special Election Commission itself did not go through a transparent process to do the recount of the votes. One can just say that it was not even equipped with tools to do that professionally. All it seemed to have done is just preparing a list of favored candidates and unfavored members of parliament. By playing political games, president Karzai is undermining the credibility of judiciary as well.
In fact, Afghan people will lose their trust in the three branches of power as well as in the electoral processes if president Karzai continues to maintain the current muddied situation. He must be taking responsibility for the deteriorating security situation. The president must lead the country into peace but unfortunately instead he is creating further political instability. He needs to deal with widespread corruption in his administration instead of trying to unseat those elected representatives of the people that are not favored by him.

ANP, Problems Multiply Despite Huge Investment

In countries like Afghanistan only a professional and well-equipped police force can counter crimes including terrorism. A police force that is involved in crimes itself can not give any hope to a nation. "Police is for serving the people" is the motto of Afghan National Police (ANP) but the question is, "Is it competent enough to demonstrate its motto practically?" According to NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan (NTM-A), the United States and its allies have spent $6.1 billion on bolstering the capacity of Afghan Police. In the year 2011 – a year that is vital to Afghan forces and they will soon begin taking over the security responsibilities on their own – more than $11 billion is being spent to train and equip both Afghan National Army and Police. Despite low capacity, the Afghan National Army (ANA) has appeared as the most creditable institution in the post Taliban Afghanistan. However, serious concerns over the competency of ANP exist as their problems have multiplied over the past years.

The ANP stand accused of extorting money from drug smugglers, gunrunners, brothel owners and gamblers, in return for looking the other way. A UN commissioned survey report released in February portrayed that the police force is widely viewed by Afghans as corrupt and biased, underscoring doubts about a planned Nato handover. About half the 5,052 Afghans surveyed across all 34 provinces said they would report crime elsewhere. In addition to corruption that has rooted deep in ANP, high illiteracy rate, affiliation with insurgents, drug addiction, drop-out rates etc remain big challenges for the ANP to nurture as expected.

In order to stand strong and effective against the insurgents, in addition to training and equipping, a cleaning-up process should be started for the purpose of diminishing the pitfalls the ANP has at current. Police's role has become more prominent as the transition process is to kick off soon. With current standing, it is far difficult for the ANP to serve the people as they should, enforce law and protect the Afghan people against the insurgents – the problem is especially serious in remote districts and districts where Taliban has influential presence.

US New War Strategy

Obviously the assassination of Al-Qaeda's top leader, Osama bin Laden, largely affected US military policies in Afghanistan. It was far likely for President Barack Obama to scale down US military presence in such a level as he announced on June 22. i.e. 33,000, previously surged, US troops would leave Afghanistan by next September; if Al-Qaeda leader was alive. Thus, his murder, recognized as giant strategic success for Obama's administration, has accelerated an anti-war attitude among common people as well as officials alike.

But, seemingly, the consequence is not limited to above issues only. His dead has dealt far larger effect on entire war strategy in Afghanistan. There are approved allegations that US is directly involved in diplomatic measure with Top Taliban leaders. And, frequently, Taliban leaders also have voiced out that Kabul government is not the principle part in ongoing peace process negotiation, but it was US that they were negotiating with. Assuming the allegations true, the question would be raised that why, though top US commanders disagree with the plan and many analysts believe that ongoing situation necessitates stronger as well as longer presence, President Obama decided to pull out military in such a large extent, as many maintain?

Several factors can be assumed in this regard, like economic and financial problem at home, declining popularity of war in Afghanistan, coming Presidential election in America and etc. but there is another factor which is ignored somehow, and which is linked to Osama's murder. His dead has sparked a new notion among top US officials and the war strategy is going to be redefined. The notion is that operations as that held for his assassination should be stressed much rather than costly military involvement for cracking down lower layers of militants.

During past years, the US military operations was concentrated much on elimination of military strength of militants, but it was not successful as much as expected. Taliban leaders still continue to rigidness and inflexibility to compromise with Kabul government. The new notion or strategy concentrates much on militants' leaders, which far less frugal as well as, perhaps, effective forcing them to come to negotiating table. It is assumed that if top leaders of Taliban are threatened to death will help the ongoing peace process more effectively instead of waging costly war against common Taliban fighters. But whether the strategy proves effective, as many maintain, is quite early to judge.

EDITORIAL : THE KHALEEJ TIMES, UAE

The drug war

It is a matter of great comfort that the Dubai Customs has never eased its stranglehold on those who try to move illegal narcotics through the country or into it. The very fact that over 800 bids to smuggle narcotics were thwarted and several carriers brought to book is worthy of mention.

The training given to the crack squads that monitor intelligence on this menace and ensure that the emirate is drug free is exemplary. One must congratulate the Director-General Dubai Customs Ahmed Butti and his team on doing a great job. It is because of their ability to psychologically and scientifically assess potential criminals that they have this high 
success rate.

But that said, since drug movements are a sophisticated business with no rules and no emotions, the top cadre have begun to use technology and adopt more sophisticated ways of moving their hauls. And since narcotics recognise no boundaries and underground markets abound in which the profit margins are massive, greed and stupidity will always combine to discover someone who will be willing to take the risk. Even though they know it is foolish to try and smuggle a package through Dubai, they will try it. This is why one of the reasons that the war on drugs has global support is that the specialists understand that they can slow the traffic, stem the flow but not stop it. For them it is all about chasing down the weakest links and that can only be sustained if the exchange of information is ongoing, without reservation and shared 
in real time.

As the druglords seek new markets and target the rich and the young, their two main end-users, the need to crackdown hard has to be universal. So long as it is done in pockets while others are casual and easygoing about it, the international trail can always navigate the high security areas and re-route themselves. This is why a zero tolerance approach must be mandated because otherwise it makes the job of those who seriously want to eliminate the scourge that much more difficult

Side by side with the constant vigilance at entry points it is also necessary to de-romanticise the use of drugs and show it for what it is…a killer. Media has a role in this and there is no such thing as recreational drugs. That is a message that has to be pounded to the public.

India, Pakistan: Getting real

Harmony between India and Pakistan is the benchmark for peace and tranquility. This is why the recently concluded secretary level talks that hinted at furthering the process to normalise their bilateral relations are widely seen a breakthrough of sorts.

The very fact that senior diplomats got down to paraphrase the political will of their respective leaders is an achievement, indeed, and goes on to prove that the process of sustained negotiations is the only way out to address unresolved intrigues in the region. Apart from their bag-pack of irritants that include terrorism, Kashmir, Siachen and nuclear woes, the readiness in Delhi and Islamabad to comprehensively exploit the potential of human resource by softening trade and travel issues is a welcome development.

Considerable good time has already been lost with both the countries indulging in an Ostrich syndrome, and refusing to resynchronise their relationship in the spheres of commerce, intellectualism and tourism. The sequence of Composite Dialogue has proved to be more of an academic exercise, than one meant for streamlining the thick and thin of interaction between the 1.5 billion people of the region. Visa restrictions, taxation puzzles and an unending trade impasse has come to irk whatever hopes the people had in the process of talks. Similarly, a host of confidence building measures that largely reflected the versatility of pluralistic thoughts are yet to see the light of the day. Institutional collaboration and that too in the fields of media, finances and telecommunications possesses immense potential, but have not been explored for reasons best known to the authorities concerned. The foreign ministers, who are scheduled to meet in New Delhi, could just further the envelope with their personal fondness of belief that stalemate and hobnobbing should graduate into a formal relationship free from coercion 
and compromises.

Both the nuclear-powered countries should keep in view that a lot has changed since they started talking. Especially in the post Osama bin Laden era, there is little that could be set aside by terming it as bilateral in context. The terror nexus that engulfs the entire region is a challenge, and cannot be brushed aside as the responsibility of any one party. A holistic approach is the need of the hour, and the common enemy can only be defeated if India, Pakistan and the regional conglomerate join to deepen their trust and relationship. Meeting for photo-ops hasn’t delivered to this day. It’s time to seize the moment 
and get decisive. 

EDITORIAL : THE NEW ZELAND HERALD, NEW ZELAND

Chinatown idea doesn't need city's nurturing

For years, the former Auckland City Council adopted a sensible approach to the development of a Chinatown. It insisted that it would not try to create ethnic precincts, but recognised they might develop on their own. That, however, was never likely to be good enough for those who glanced enviously at the likes of Sydney and Vancouver, which boast Chinatowns that are major tourist drawcards. Their view gained some traction when the creation of a Chinatown in downtown Auckland was included in a 20-year city master-plan released in March by the Auckland Council's future vision committee. Now, a more activist approach is also being proposed by Massey University researchers, who want the council to explore turning part of Dominion Rd into Chinatown.

The researchers found that in the area from Balmoral Rd to Kensington Ave, as many as 78 per cent of Dominion Rd's businesses were Asian-owned - 51 per cent Chinese - and only 14 per cent were owned by European New Zealanders. The area between King Edward St and Valley Rd also has a preponderance of Asian-owned businesses. It would be interesting, said the researchers, to explore with the business owners the possibility of "a themed or branded precinct that might be labelled a Chinatown or, more likely, something more modest such as decorations or signage which reflects the Asian/Chinese character of sections of Dominion Rd".

In effect, this is a call for the Auckland Council to get involved in a development that, so far, has happened of its own volition not only on Dominion Rd but in several other pockets of the city, such as Northcote and Botany. These hubs have developed naturally, with people choosing to concentrate there because of affordability, an existing Chinese population, and services. In Dominion Rd, the cluster of Chinese food stores, restaurants, small businesses, beauty parlours and suchlike has been complemented by banks, real estate companies and finance firms in the area employing a large number of China specialists.

City planners have played no part in this process. To involve them now would only undermine Dominion Rd's authenticity. The outcome would, more likely than not, be an embarrassingly fake, theme park-style development. The capital city's Wellywood initiative would have a rival. If a Chinatown is to be established, the push must come from the community. That would involve the Chinese business owners of Dominion Rd abandoning a customary reticence and taking the initiative.

The Auckland Council ethnic panel chairwoman, Camille Nakhid, has other grounds for worrying about the Massey researchers' recommendations. She says they "could segregate a segment of the community". That concern is not warranted. Auckland has moved far past this. There may, however, be some danger that city planners pushing a Chinatown could pressure members of the Chinese community into believing that this is where they should be. Many may, indeed, want to be in such a precinct but they should not feel they have to be.

A Chinatown on Dominion Rd would be welcomed by those who have long lamented that Auckland is rare, as a tourist destination without such a feature. But this shortcoming is surely overstated. The fact that all major cities have Chinatowns means little prestige would be attached to another. Certainly, there would be no cachet for a development engineered by a city trying too hard to fit into what some see, misguidedly, as a world-class ideal. If there is to be Chinatown, let it develop of its own accord.

EDITORIAL : THE KOREA HERALD, SOUTH KOREA

 

 

The enemy within

 

June, the “Month of National Protection,” is passing with public and private events to evoke the people’s determination to fight whatever enemy threatens national independence. Media special features around Memorial Day on the 6th and the Korean War anniversary on the 25th reminded Koreans of who they are indebted to for what the Republic of Korea is today and how they should prepare themselves to protect national security.

Yet social and political developments these days have unfortunately turned Koreans’ attention more keenly to the enemy within rather than the enemy without. Social critics are naming “Sin O-jeok,” or the new five bandits, in the manner of poet Kim Ji-ha’s satirical writing during the pro-democracy movement.

Democracy has settled in the republic, at least as far as the essential political freedom and the representative system are concerned, while its operational sophistication still leaves much to be desired. On the other hand, corruption persists, particularly in the upper echelons of the society and politics, prompting President Lee Myung-bak to declare: “The entire nation is rotten.”

Speaking to a workshop of Cabinet ministers, vice ministers and presidential secretaries in the middle of this month, the president made an overview of corruption and injustice in Korea, which he found to be worsening as his administration moves toward its closing in early 2013. Then he enumerated those that are responsible for rendering his design of a just society impossible. The president’s complaint led the conscientious people to pick up five groups.

Leading the list of internal enemies are the policy makers of both the ruling and main opposition parties, who are now blindly competing with a whole range of welfare programs, daring to bankrupt the state finances. As the Grand National Party floor leader promised a 30 percent cut in university tuition over the next three years, his Democratic Party counterpart reconfirmed a 50 percent reduction from the very next semester.

Coming next are the top prosecution and national police leaders, who reached an ambiguous tentative agreement last week after extended wrangling for years over the authority to conduct criminal investigations. President Lee defined the perennial contest between the two law enforcement organizations as a “fight to grab the bigger rice bowl.” With present and former senior prosecutors and police chiefs ceaselessly involved in major corruption scandals, this turf war between the two agencies earned them a place on the list of crooks.

Senior members of the Financial Supervisory Service and some on the Board of Audit and Inspection who turned their eyes away from the improprieties of savings banks in exchange for kickbacks made it into the list for the gravity of their wrongdoings. In a dramatic exposure of the corruption nexus, the former head of the prosecution’s Central Investigation Division, who was directing the probe into the savings banks, was once hired as the counsel for the chairman of Busan Savings Bank shortly after he retired from the prosecution.

The ex-CID chief was offered 300 million won as his initial fee, rising to 900 million won if the Busan bank’s chair stays out of prison. (The contract was later canceled.) We are simply dumbfounded at the level of moral laxity of high prosecutors-and judges-turned lawyers, who mostly do not hesitate to use their influence over the offices where they worked before retirement.

The rest of the new “O-jeok” are the owners of the savings banks with their indescribably wicked way of business, preying on small-time depositors, and the executives of big conglomerates who their suppliers and contractors complain of sucking their blood by cutting the prices of parts and services they provide to them.

There can be more entries with comparable public denunciation. The above list reflects the public anger at the abandoning of integrity and responsibility by the major players of society, as revealed by the recent savings bank failures, the disclosure of pervasive corruption surrounding their business and the lukewarm investigation into their executives. President Lee needs to exhibit unrelenting leadership to fasten public discipline beyond just airing his frustration over the present state of affairs. National watch over the enemy within continues with growing intensity.

 

 

 

Four rivers under rains

 

Officials of the Ministry of Homeland and Maritime Affairs in charge of the Four Rivers Development Project, the local authorities along the rivers and millions of residents are anxiously watching the water levels rising in this rainy spell. They all fear possible damage to the embankments, dikes and bridges built over the past couple years under President Lee Myung-bak’s signature project.

The year’s first typhoon, Meari, did not directly hit the peninsula but brought downpours of more than 300 millimeters to the central areas of South Korea. The “Bridge of Defense” in Waegwan, North Gyeongsang Province, where South and North Korean forces fought fiercely for control of Nakdong River during the Korea War (1950-53), collapsed due to the floods. Piers of the bridge gave way, causing a 100-meter span to sink into the water on Saturday. Environmental activists claimed that a massive dredging of the riverbed as part of the four-river project made the bridge vulnerable to flooding.

Earlier rains have already destroyed dikes in Yeoju, Gyeonggi Province, Sangju, North Gyeongsang Province and other newly built facilities along the Han, Nakdong, Geum and Yeongsan Rivers. The Homeland Ministry’s engineers have built makeshift levees to protect dams under construction and the ministry said they proved useful in minimizing damage from the rains accompanying Meari.

But it was just the beginning of a long rainy season. The nation could see up to 10 more typhoons bringing heavy rains by this autumn. The four-river project to make the main waterways deeper, broader and more beautiful is about 70 percent complete. Nobody knows how much damage recurring floods will inflict on the new facilities.

The vulnerability of the river work comes from the fact that all sections of the project started construction almost at the same time and foundations are therefore not strong enough to sustain against floods. But government authorities have asserted that heavy rains will prove them right, as the river project ― still incomplete ― is intended to reduce damage from floods. At stake are huge state assets as well as public confidence in the government. The authorities and contractors should take no chances and render all efforts to prevent major disasters.

 

 

 

 

 

EDITORIAL : THE AZZAMAN, IRAQ

Iran to ship surplus oil products to Iraq

Iran has expanded its oil refining capacity which it says it meets domestic needs with much surplus for exports.

The markets it wants to target are those of neighboring states, mainly Afghanistan, Turkey and Iraq.

Iraq is even richer than Iran in oil riches but the country is Tehran’s main target for exports.

Iraq’s refining capacity is still below domestic consumption requirements.

Iraq is in urgent need of gasoline and other forms of products, namely fuel oil to run its power plants.

During a recent visit by an Iranian delegation to Baghdad, the countries were reported to have reached a broad agreement on expanding cooperation in fields of energy.

Iran currently exports electricity to Iraq, builds power plants, constructs bridges, roads and housing units.

Iran even exports gasoline, the commodity of which it used to import millions of liters every day.

The delegation has promised to furnish Iraqi power plants with 3 million liters of fuel oil to meet needs of the country’s power plants for fuel.

Iraq has emerged as Iran’s number one trading partner with the value of trade exchange forecast to reach $10 billion this year.

EDITORIAL : THE BANGKOK POST, THAILAND

 

 

Can Cambodia find justice?

It will be bustling this morning at a specially built complex on the outskirts of Phnom Penh. Officials and judges at the simply named Khmer Rouge Tribunal _ it used to be the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia _ will call the names of some of the most ruthless men and women in history.

Ieng Sary and Nuon Chea are the main subjects of yet another attempt to make the Khmer Rouge pay for undoubted crimes against all of their fellow Cambodians nearly 40 years ago.

One wishes the tribunal and the Cambodian people well in their quest for justice and long legal battle for partial closure.

But the chances that justice will prevail seem slim at best.

Nuon Chea was the morally corrupt ''Brother No.2'' in the tiny Khmer Rouge hierarchy that ran Cambodia from 1975 to 1979.

He was number two to the late Saloth Sar, aka Pol Pot, the chief of the then-faceless dictatorship that terrorised the nation and killed or was directly responsible for the savage deaths of a million and more Cambodians. Ieng Sary, it is embarrassing for many to recall, was the ''sophisticated'' and outward face of the Pol Pot regime. He convinced many diplomats that Cambodia was just trying to build a new, agrarian society.

In fact, he believed and stated to closed meetings that the regime he helped to lead had plans to reduce the population of Cambodia from about seven million to one million, because it needed no more.

Since Vietnam did the world a favour and overthrew the Pol Pot regime in January 1979, no Khmer Rouge leader has gone on trial.

The ''democratic dictator'', Prime Minister Hun Sen, personally arranged for most of his ex-Khmer Rouge comrades to live in peace, isolated but comfortable. The charges against Ieng Sary, his equally high-ranking wife Ieng Thirith and Nuon Chea are unfortunately the exception. In fact, so far, only a torturer who ran the regime's unbelievably brutal prison in Phnom Penh has been tried and sentenced.

Some of the charges this morning are ironic to the world, but a slap in the faces of the inhumanly treated survivors of the killing fields.

Assuming Nuon Chea and Ieng Sary even make it to the dock, given their pathetic claims of being old and infirm, they will face charges of capturing and killing US yachtsmen and Vietnamese fishermen.

During the Pol Pot years, foreigners who happened to touch Cambodian shores were savagely tortured, then killed. But the real crimes of that regime were against Cambodians, and two generations of Khmer are still awaiting some sign of justice.

Ieng Thirith has claimed to be ill for a long time, and may not even make it to court.

The so-called ''intellectual'' Khieu Samphan, another man who presented a semi-kindly face to the world while helping to kill thousands, has always managed to be too sick to face judges.

Of course all these old people claim to be wondering what all the fuss is about, they know of no mass murders or brutality.

And so far the court system cobbled together by concerned nations worldwide has been a total failure in bringing the rule of law to Cambodia.

Every decent person must hope that after 32 years, there will be some justice for Cambodians, the dead and survivors alike. Unfortunately, the record so far indicates more farce lies ahead.

EDITORIAL : THE AUSTRALIAN, AUSTRALIA

Labor's Green alliance to colour taxation debate

INCREMENTALLY, a more detailed picture is emerging about the pivotal climate change policy debate shaping national politics.

The Prime Minister has revealed that a combination of tax cuts, increases in family payments and boosts to pensions will ensure that seven million households, or 90 per cent of Australians, will receive some compensation for the carbon tax. While Julia Gillard will need to provide much more detail, such as dollar figures and rates, she at least faces no ambiguity about the source of her funds -- they will be raised by the carbon tax itself.

Tony Abbott, on the other hand, has pledged to rescind any carbon tax, yet now also promises tax cuts. He will have to propose sufficient budget cuts to fund more than $3 billion over four years for the Coalition's direct action carbon abatement plan, plus some broad tax cuts, likely to be substantially more expensive. Mr Abbott has already rejected Ms Gillard's offer of Treasury resources to detail his funding plans.

The political calculations, of course, have been made. Mr Abbott will be happy to wear the taunts about his absent costings from now until the election, content that his promise of tax cuts dents Labor's attack that he will be scrapping the government's package. But this newspaper believes he should go further. The Coalition should detail its tax cuts and the proposed savings measures. If it is good enough to flag tax cuts at this stage of the electoral cycle, it is good enough also to quantify them and identify the savings measures to pay for them.

In broad brush, this argument will shape much of the political debate between now and the next polling day. It is a discussion not just about climate change and what is best for the environment, but increasingly about economic management and who is best equipped to restore the budget. Ms Gillard will need to explain why she believes her carbon tax does not put us ahead of the international emissions reduction game and place Australian jobs at risk. Mr Abbott will need to justify his less efficient carbon abatement program and detail significant spending cuts to pay for it, along with his tax cuts.

But the Prime Minister is not well served by having the Greens make her economic arguments for her. When Bob Brown attacked the Coalition's plan yesterday it was a reminder that Labor's formal partner in government is a high-taxing, big-government party. Senator Brown was brutally frank about his desire to see the carbon tax eventually force the closure of coalmines. Ms Gillard must consider the implications of a formal alliance with a party that openly seeks to shut down the nation's largest export industry. Taxpayers deserve to know what role Senator Brown is playing in major economic decisions.

With the Greens assuming the balance of power in the Senate next week, the portents are ominous. As if destroying our main export industry isn't odd enough, Senator Brown has announced a bizarre assortment of 70 portfolios to be shared among the 10 Greens. The leader takes responsibility for foreign policy but there are separate spokespeople for Burma, Tibet, West Papua and East Timor. Whaling and Antarctica will form another portfolio -- one of the seven held by Senator Brown, another of which, it must be noted, is Treasury.

Troops home by election day

THAT the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan announced by Barack Obama is a considerable gamble is clear from the publicly expressed disquiet, extraordinary in itself, articulated by his two most senior military advisers.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mike Mullen, has said the cuts incur more risk than he was originally prepared to accept. More force for more time would be the safer option, he says. General David Petraeus, the top commander in Afghanistan, has disclosed the drawdown is more aggressive than he recommended and has warned it increases the risk the military will not achieve its goals. But he has conceded, as Commander-in-Chief, Mr Obama has to take account of considerations beyond the purely military.

By any yardstick, those are hardly ringing endorsements of the decision to pull out 10,000 troops by the end of this year and 23,000 more by September next year, conveniently in time for the presidential election. Nor is a statement by retiring Defence Secretary Robert Gates who, recalling events 20 years ago when the US ended its support for the mujahideen after they forced the Soviets out of Afghanistan, noted that Washington walked away satisfied it had secured US national interests. 9/11 showed just what a tragic miscalculation that was.

Mr Obama insists he has ordered the drawdown from a position of strength after the surge in troop numbers and intensified drone attacks achieved major successes, most notably in killing Osama bin Laden. Given Admiral Mullen's and General Petraeus's views, however, it is hard to believe other than Mr Obama has now embarked on a political rather than a military strategy, seeking to maintain the arbitrary deadline he set for himself when he authorised the surge, and trying to gain political advantage ahead of the election. Certainly, Mr Obama has done no favours to his NATO and other allies, including Australia. Senator John McCain has warned the cuts are likely to have a domino effect, with leaders of coalition countries having a hard time arguing their troops should stay while the Americans are going. To her credit, Prime Minister Julia Gillard has insisted there will be no decrease in Australia's troop levels, pointing out our 1500 Diggers still have work to complete ahead of the scheduled 2014 handover.

Coalition countries less resolute than Australia may find it harder to hold the line and in that lies the real danger of Mr Obama's announcement. After the drawdown, 68,000 US troops will remain until 2014. But the likelihood is the Taliban, just when they have shown signs of a willingness to talk, won't see Mr Obama's announcement as one coming from a position of strength but, rather, one that exposes his political weakness and vulnerability. There is much unfinished business in Afghanistan. Even 2014, given the gross corruption and incompetence of the Karzai government in Kabul, looks an extremely optimistic date. And what about Pakistan with its huge arsenal of nuclear warheads, which remains, as it has always been, the real target of al-Qaida, and would be a sitting duck if the terrorists were again to establish themselves in Afghanistan?

It's always tempting for political leaders in search of votes to take the course of political expediency. Mr Obama, despite the unpopularity of the war in Afghanistan, should avoid doing that. There's far too much at stake.

Making slurs and casting votes

CLAIMS of treachery might be common in politics, but they are not often made publicly by senior figures talking about their own party.

When departing Liberal senator and right faction boss Nick Minchin levelled that charge at the Liberal Party's four vice-presidents last week, it was a surgically targetted counter-attack. Senator Minchin was supporting incumbent party president Alan Stockdale and deplored the public support for challenger Peter Reith. By rebutting the vice-presidents' campaign, Senator Minchin probably saved Mr Stockdale, who won the ballot by a single vote on Saturday, giving Senator Minchin a significant factional victory in his last days as a senator. Given the Coalition's determination to form government sooner rather than later, this window on their internal ructions was concerning. After apparently encouraging Mr Reith to run, Tony Abbott voted for Mr Stockdale. So, having sought change, the Opposition Leader backed away from it at the last. Presumably he figured the status quo would create fewer waves. He best hope so. Because, for all Mr Abbott's disciplined work, the Coalition has hard yards ahead. If it wants to be perceived as a government-in-waiting there should be no time for substandard organisational arrangements or internal factional brawls.

EDITORIAL : THE INDENDENT, IRELAND

          

 

Education crisis puts us all to test

ALL government is about priorities, and next to the economic crisis the Fine Gael-Labour Coalition can have no greater priority than the education system. Our future as a society, not just as an economy, depends on nurturing the next generation, and generations to come, of well-educated and highly skilled young people.

But the problems that face Education Minister Ruairi Quinn are as daunting as any yet encountered by his colleagues Michael Noonan, in handling the shattered public finances; and Brendan Howlin, in containing expenditure and reforming the bureaucracy.

An international report has found that almost a quarter of Irish 15-year-old boys are illiterate. Class sizes have risen while the number of special needs teachers has declined. Large numbers of school buildings are in need of repair.

And all this will soon be pushed into the background by a crisis of simple numbers. The youngest children of the deceased Tiger will be starting primary school, their elders moving to second or third level.

The projections, constantly revised, have become breathtaking. According to the Education Department's latest forecasts, by 2014 the number in education at all levels will have risen by 80,000. By 2017, it will have risen by 10pc, to a total of 1.1 million. If existing staffing levels were maintained -- an evident impossibility -- the numbers would dictate the recruitment of 2,000 more teachers at primary and post-primary level.

For the minister, the department and the staff on the ground to fulfil all the tasks demanded by this situation would require, in the absence of increased funding, extraordinary ingenuity.

But the most difficult problems will arise in the field of higher education.

All experts agree that we need to increase, not reduce, third-level funding. There may be a self-serving element in some pleas, but unquestionably we must maintain world-class standards.

Yet at the same time we will continue to require cuts in public spending. And the choices for sources of funds are limited. Any increase in taxes could wreck our chances of economic recovery. There is much to be said for a student loan system, but Ireland has a special difficulty caused by emigration.

Most observers now think that a return of tuition fees is inevitable. If that happens, it will be immensely unpopular, especially among the middle classes who determine election results. Mr Quinn may ponder wryly that a Labour minister abolished tuition fees and a Labour minister may have to bring them back.

But this is not just a matter of political courage. We also need public awareness. Would a return of fees deny higher education to large numbers from poorer backgrounds? And what, crucially, does that mean for the society that we are trying to preserve and reconstruct?

Empathy one quality we can't do without in Aras

MAIREAD McGuinness and Gay Mitchell voted in the European Parliament last April against a proposal to freeze MEPs' salaries and expenses next year. The event attracted little publicity at the time, but most of those who noted the vote saw it as yet another example of the "European gravy train".

This description is not entirely fair. Most of the MEPs' staggering expenses, about €400,000 a year, are claimed and spent legitimately. There may even be a few who spend the entire amount on public duties. But that any member should oppose a freeze at the present time borders on the amazing.

Ms McGuinness and Mr Mitchell are both seeking the Fine Gael nomination for the Presidency. Opinion is divided on what constitutes qualification for that office; but it is unanimous on one point -- that it includes empathy with the Irish people.

Regardless of the two MEPs' undoubted merits, one can only wonder if they are as much out of touch with public feeling as the last, unlamented, government.

EDITORIAL : THE JAKARTA POST, INDONESIA

Uneasy waters

The multiple claims in the South China Sea are much like a dormant virus within the body politic of nations in Southeast and East Asia. When quiescent it is an almost neglected contention among individual parties. But when flagrant, it erupts, spreading a virus of antagonism that belies the diplomatic camaraderie regional leaders boast of before the public.

One should not be surprised. For well over a decade, there have been numerous treatments, but no cure, to this problem.

Over the past two weeks, tensions have again risen among the multiple claimants — especially China, the Philippines and Vietnam. It all goes to show that despite the string of meetings, initiatives and press-friendly statements to ease and resolve the South China Sea issue, there has been much progress but minimal results.

It is further ironic that while disputing states engage their diplomatic hardball and military tit-for-tat with fervor, none, we believe, are would press for an escalated conflagration. Each country on the rim of the South China Sea recognizes the repercussions to their economy of inflated tension on this issue.

Let us note that Indonesia has an immediate interest, which is potentially impacted by strains in the South China Sea. Over the next decade, there needs to be an assured level of stability and security as Indonesia develops its gas deposits at the D-Alpha Natuna bloc south of the disputed area.

Hence there is no excuse to remain reticent about Southeast Asia’s most enduring flashpoint.

As a non-claimant state, Indonesia should perceive the latest flare-up in one of two ways: A cry for help among those involved to seek a way out of the impasse they have mutually created, or diplomatic chess match in which claimants have been drawn into action and counter action. In either case, Indonesia should actively make its good offices fully available.

In the case of the former, domestic constituents make it impossible for claimants to back down from their stated positions. Hence a third-party initiative is needed, particularly in hastening the realization of the South China Sea Code of Conduct, which has been in the works for several decades.

After a decade of workshops and debates, there is no reason — other than grandstanding or malcontent – that the Code of Conduct cannot be agreed on within the next 12 months.

Members of ASEAN, which includes the Philippines and Vietnam, should first come to a common platform on this issue, thus placing pressure on China to act responsibly as a regional superpower by coming to terms with the proposed documents.

In the case of the latter, Indonesia also needs to ensure that the issue does not escalate into a game of balance of power, with the US showing growing interest in projecting itself in the South China Sea talks. This would only segregate the region into unhealthy alliances and vex Beijing to take an even harder stance.

The US does have a positive role to play in resolving these contentious claims, but not as the trump card to be played by smaller countries against China.

We are confident, ultimately, that the latest tensions will abate into diplomatic niceties by the end of the year. Nevertheless we must still ensure that restraints are in place so the issue does not flare up again for the region’s sake and our own.

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.
Sunday’s headlines

HAMSHAHRI: Iran regards campaigning against terrorism as its bounden duty, Leader says

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ: Case of government’s violation appertaining to metro referred to Judiciary

JAME JAM: Terrorists under defense umbrella of Western countries

KHORASAN: Special place of Iran among 8 great space powers in the world

JAVAN: Cooperatives minister appointed as caretaker sports minister

KAYHAN: Gasoline produced from natural gas for the first time in Iran

FARHIKHTEGAN: We study qualifications of candidates without fear: Kadkhodaei

TAFAHOM: No security as long as U.S. forces stay in Afghanistan, Leader says in a meeting with Afghan president

MELLATEMA: Rise in prices is normal, deputy commerce minister says

SHARQ: Drugs constitutes threat to national security, director of anti-drug special committee at Expediency Council warns

Leading articles

KHORASAN in a news report quotes former MP Hamid-Reza Taraqi, a member of the Islamic Coalition Party, as saying that the symphatizers of Expediency Council Chairman Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani will be allowed to participate in the upcoming parliamentary elections through the Moderation and Development Party if they have not made illegal activities. Pointing to the fact that Rafsanjani may participate in the upcoming elections, Taraqi said Rafsanjani, as a political figure and an active member in the Islamic establishment, can participate in the elections. “Rafsanjani cannot be regarded as a principlist figure,” he said. Rafsanjani and his supporters have their own views on economic and social affairs, he stated. MP Ali Asgari also said Rafsanjani, just like others, is concerned about the fact that the deviant current may manipulate the elections. It is clear that the objective of the deviant current is to manipulate the elections, he added. “I’m sure that an independent current will emerge along with candidates from the administration and principlists,” Asgari stated.

TEHRAN-E EMROOZ in a news report quotes IRGC Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri as saying that former president Mohammad Khatami is not competent enough to propose an initiative for national reconciliation. He said those who guided the political unrest that occurred after the Iranian presidential election of June 2009, are in connection with the opposition directly or indirectly and are not competent to propose such a plan. Asked if he thinks the deviant currents and seditious movement falls within the soft warfare project against Iran launched by enemies, he said, “yes”, adding that the reason why enemies are opposed to the Islamic Revolution is that it is based on religious principles. And enemies have used various methods to confront Iran’s revolution, he concluded.

EDITORIAL : THE NEW YORK TIMES, USA

Gay Marriage: A Milestone

New York State has made a powerful and principled choice by giving all couples the right to wed and enjoy the legal rights of marriage. It is a proud moment for New Yorkers, thousands of whom took to the streets on Sunday to celebrate this step forward. But this moment does not erase the bigotry against gays and lesbians enshrined in the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which denies federal recognition of same-sex marriages and allows any state to refuse to recognize another state’s unions.

Though there was unnecessary secrecy in the negotiations, Gov. Andrew Cuomo made a determined effort to achieve marriage equality in New York. He shares credit with the four Republican state senators who bucked their party and threats from conservatives to do what they knew was right. State Senators James Alesi, Roy McDonald, Mark Grisanti and Stephen Saland, all from upstate districts, deserve the support of their communities. They showed the kind of strength that is extremely hard to find in today’s politics.

In drafting a compromise, however, Senator Saland and other Republicans insisted on language that carves out exceptions for religious institutions and not-for-profit corporations affiliated with those religious entities. That provision allows those tax-exempt entities to refuse to marry a same-sex couple or to allow the use of their buildings or services for weddings or wedding parties. There was simply no need for these exemptions, since churches are protected under both the federal Constitution and New York law from being required to marry anyone against their beliefs. Equally troubling, an “inseverability clause” in the act appears to make it impossible for any court to invalidate part of the law without invalidating the whole law — raising questions about what happens to couples during an appeal.

While some civil rights advocates are optimistic that these provisions are relatively minor, we are deeply troubled by their discriminatory intent. The whole purpose of this law should be to expand civil rights without shedding other protections in the process.

The marriage equality law was such a powerful finale to this year’s legislative session that a few other important measures may be relegated to the footnotes. Lawmakers passed a limited ethics bill for legislators and statewide elected officials, a modest expansion of rent regulations for millions of New York City residents, an important five-year tuition plan for the state’s universities — all moves in the right direction.

The one big misstep is a property-tax cap of about 2 percent a year that will severely hurt schools and services in poorer communities.

This legislative session will be remembered for New York’s acceptance of same-sex marriage, a milestone in the national fight for this fundamental freedom. Five other states, along with the District of Columbia, allow same-sex couples to marry. But more than three dozen states define marriage as between a man and a woman. For gays and lesbians, the battle for freedom from discrimination continues.

Gay Marriage: Where’s Mr. Obama?

On Thursday night, when same-sex marriage in New York State was teetering on a razor’s edge, President Obama had a perfect opportunity to show the results of his supposed evolution on gay marriage.

Unfortunately, he did not take it, keeping his own views in the shadows. The next night the Republican-led New York State Senate, of all places, proved itself more forward-thinking than the president on one of the last great civil-rights debates in this nation’s history.

Speaking to the Democratic Party’s LGBT Leadership Council at a fund-raiser in New York, Mr. Obama ran through the many efforts he has made on behalf of gay rights, including his decision to end the government’s legal support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which forbids federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The act should be repealed, he said, since marriage is defined by the states.

Mr. Obama’s legal formula suggests he is fine with the six states that now permit same-sex marriage, and fine with the more than three dozen other states that ban it. By refusing to say whether he supports it (as he did in 1996) or opposes it (as he did in 2008), he remained in a straddle that will soon strain public patience. For now, all Mr. Obama promised was a gauzy new “chapter” in the story if he is re-elected, and his views remain officially “evolving.”

Fundamental equality, however, is hardly the equivalent of a liquor law that can vary on opposite sides of a state line. Why is Mr. Obama so reluctant to say the words that could lend strength to a national effort now backed by a majority of Americans?

In the 2008 campaign, when Mr. Obama said he supported civil unions and believed marriage should be between men and women, he may have wanted to appeal to slightly more conservative voters who were wary of him.

After he took office, it became evident that Republicans intended to portray him as a radical, out-of-touch leftist no matter what he did. Supporting same-sex marriage at this point is hardly going to change that drumbeat, and any voter for whom that is a make-or-break issue will probably not be an Obama supporter anyway.

Firm support for gay marriage is, on the other hand, likely to help him among his cheerless base. Mr. Obama opposes the Defense of Marriage Act and is presiding over the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” He signed the United Nations declaration on gay rights, and allowed the Census to count same-sex relationships. But he has been absent from the biggest and most difficult drive of all.

Public opinion has swung toward acceptance of gay marriage since 2008; five more states and the District of Columbia have lifted marriage bans. Thousands of gay men and lesbians now possess marriage certificates and many former skeptics have come to realize that the moral foundation of the country has been strengthened. It is long past time for the president to catch up. He often criticizes discrimination with the memorable phrase, “that’s not who we are.” Favoring this discrimination should not be who he is.

Where’s the Reconciliation?

King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain has promised to launch a national dialogue aimed at reconciling his country after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protesters. It is hard to take this seriously — or see any real chance of success — when many of the people who should be at the negotiating table are still in jail.

At a time when the Sunni-led minority government should be showing good faith, it did the opposite: a military show trial last week convicted 21 activists, almost all Shiites, on charges of conspiring to overthrow the government during the Arab Spring demonstrations. Most defendants received terms of up to 15 years, but eight were sentenced to life in prison. Why would anyone trust the government after that?

Bahrain’s claims that Iran is the hidden hand behind the unrest are exaggerated. The protests have been led by Bahraini Shiites demanding fair treatment in housing, education and employment. Few are allowed to serve in the military or the police. We have little doubt Tehran is eager to meddle wherever it can. For Bahrain, the real domestic threat comes from ignoring the legitimate demands and needs of its people.

Bahrain is home port to the United States Navy’s Fifth Fleet and the Obama administration has been too cautious in its criticism of the government. It must speak out more forcefully. If Bahrain continues to abuse its citizens, it will face more instability. And resentment of the United States will only grow.

Legal Help for Indigent Parents

A court in South Carolina jailed Michael Turner for 12 months for civil contempt because he owed $5,728.76 in accumulated child support. He could have avoided jail by proving he was indigent and could not pay. But Mr. Turner could not afford to hire a lawyer to make that argument, and the state did not provide him one.

While an indigent defendant may have a right to counsel in some civil cases where he could lose his liberty, the Supreme Court, in a 5-to-4 ruling, found that there is no such automatic right in a child support case like Mr. Turner’s where the parent may face jail time. The court, however, said there is a right to safeguards that reduce the risk of improper incarceration — like an opportunity to present financial information to the court.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not go far enough in ensuring fairness. In civil contempt proceedings, a court may not impose punishment if it is clear that the individual is unable to comply with the order. But, without a lawyer, it is very hard for defendants like Mr. Turner to show that they cannot comply.

Justice Stephen Breyer, writing for the majority, said that the due process clause does not automatically require a court-appointed lawyer in child support collection cases and that procedural safeguards could suffice. He was especially concerned about the potential unfairness of providing a lawyer to an indigent parent if the opposing parent does not have one. He left room, however, for a right to counsel to be found in other situations, like a hearing where a state lawyer presses a defendant for support payments owed to the state. 

The chance to respond to questions about financial status is not a substitute for having a lawyer. To ensure that no parent in a civil contempt proceeding is jailed for being poor, the court should extend the right to counsel.

EDITORIAL : THE GUARDIAN, ENGLAND

         

 

Legal aid: Unjust cuts

The need for reform and a more cost-effective system is undisputed – but careful analysis must come before savings

Government ministers, notoriously, have no time to think about the way they do their jobs. That is why the excellent Institute for Government, mobilising the afterthoughts of former ministers, does the thinking for them. This month they have been discussing how fast and how far reform should go – and the case for a touch on the foot brake in time to avoid the perils of an emergency stop. Members of the coalition should make time to read it. There is still time to slow down.

The latest political row erupted over Ken Clarke's justice policy, with a bit part for defence after David Cameron suggested the top brass should do less talking and more fighting. The strategic security and defence review may be a case apart. But the impact of the cuts in legal aid are a powerful argument for a different way of doing government. It is not only the short-termism of slashing free legal advice. Take family justice. It is now being examined for the eighth time since the Children Act 1989, but still no one knows what cases involving family matters – from divorce to care proceedings – actually cost the public purse. This week, consultation on the interim report of the latest review ended: the report is due in the autumn. But Mr Clarke's legal aid reforms, cutting £350m out of the budget, pre-empt careful analysis.

The need for reform, and for a more cost-effective system, is undisputed. The family justice review speculates that the cost of the entire groaning, overloaded family court system – only likely to be exacerbated after Thursday's report into the death of another toddler, Ryan Lovell Hancox – could be in the region of £1.5bn. Care and other public law cases take nearly £1bn of that, but the rest is the cost of so-called private law – that is, cases arising from divorce. Unless violence is involved, these will no longer be eligible for legal aid and costs will have to be met by the people involved. Professionals acknowledge that too many of these cases come to court, and welcome the proposal for greater use of mediation. But one result, as the justice ministry knows, will be even more litigants in person who, it accepted this week, tend to take more court time and come out worse than if they were represented. Meanwhile children, whose interests are supposed to be at the heart of the process, endure delay and inconsistency and, according to the children's commissioner, go through an unavoidably distressing process only to be left feeling ignored and confused. This is a system failing all the way from the back office, where the family justice review found "an almost unbelievable" lack of management information, to the children at the sharp end. Change is needed. There are savings to be made. In that order.

The euro: A project in peril

The catastrophe in Greece is merely the starkest incidence of long-running flaws within the eurozone

Discussions of the Greek debacle commonly assume that it's a disaster made in Greece that now requires the rest of the Europe to step in and sort it out. Wrong: this is a crisis of the eurozone, in which Athens is not a leading actor but merely a stage set. The catastrophe that has been unfolding in Greece over the past year is merely the starkest incidence of long-running flaws within the eurozone. The disaster that European and IMF officials are currently struggling with in Athens naturally has particularly Greek idiosyncrasies – a tax system leakier than a sieve, for one. Still, were this strictly a Greek problem, afflicting an economy worth around only 3% of the eurozone's GDP, it could be contained with some adept statecraft (admittedly a quality rather lacking among the current crop of European ministers). But this meltdown goes wider, as a glance at Dublin, Lisbon or even Madrid will confirm: it is the inevitable product of the design faults of European monetary union. Unless those flaws are fixed, the single currency will remain under existential threat.

Throughout the 90s, as Jacques Delors was brokering the deals that created the euro, the discussion among policymakers centred around whether such a disparate bunch of economies really could hang together. This was a natural anxiety, to which the Eurocrats' answer was the Maastricht treaty's economic entry criteria. Not only were those rules flouted – Belgium and Italy were allowed in, despite breaking the laws over debt – they were also stupidly mechanical (why allow in countries with a deficit of 3% of GDP, but not 3.1%?). They were also deflationary, forcing countries to keep down borrowing, and making no mention of economic growth. The same went for the European Central Bank, whose job is to keep inflation below 2%, even amid massive recession.

The result is that eurozone governments from Dublin to Tallinn have one monetary policy alongside 17 different fiscal policies and 17 different banking systems. This was always a nonsense, although it took a financial crisis to expose it as such. As governments have been forced to prop up their banks, broke European states like Greece have had to rely on the ECB and other institutions to keep their financial systems afloat. That transfer of cash from "core" Europe to the periphery is a baby step towards a common fiscal policy. There is also the European stability mechanism, which will allow eurozone states to bail out a stricken neighbour much more easily – again a small move towards a common European treasury. The details of these policies barely get reported, let alone debated – and they smack of a new economic order being built brick by brick without consulting the electorates who will ultimately have to stump up for it. But if the euro is to survive with all 17 members, and as a rival to the dollar, ministers will have to think up more such policies, such as issuing a common eurobond.

Crucially, they must also win the consent of voters. Eurozone policymakers too often treat democratic accountability as a luxury rather than a necessity, as shall be made amply clear this week when Brussels will force the Athens parliament to pass a raft of sharp spending cuts, tax hikes and privatisations – despite the hostility of Greek voters. Finally, the balance of the continental economy must be altered. For most of the past decade, the picture of the European economy has been of sluggish Germany and France lending money to bubbletastic Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. That model was great for northern European banks and businesses, but terrible for everyone else. If the single-currency zone is to continue, policymakers will need to think about instituting caps on how much member states can export to each other – and put far more emphasis on stimulating demand at home. This is a challenging list, to be sure, but an economic project that cannot meet it does not deserve to be in business.

In praise of … a regional base

The housing of Sir Alan Ayckbourn's archive at York University underlines his successful decision to eschew the capital

Sir Alan Ayckbourn has been praised here before, four years ago, when he announced his retirement as director of Scarborough's Stephen Joseph theatre. The accolade then was primarily for his extraordinary dramatic output, which continues in spite of a stroke. His 75th play opens in September, and so far this year he has had a play on stage or in rehearsal in the UK every day. Now we learn that his archive is to be housed at York University, with instructions to make it accessible to as many people as possible. This is of a piece with Sir Alan's refusal – in the face of many offers – to move to London. His success undermines claims that networking and convenience make the capital a sine qua non. This has never been true of academia, medicine, the church and science, whose best-known centres of excellence – Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh, Newcastle upon Tyne, Canterbury, York, Harwell, Daresbury – are well outside the M25. The ease of digital communication must surely encourage more to stick to their regional guns – Ayckbourn's stash at York will increasingly be available anywhere at the click of a key; David Hockney, always up for adapting his art to new technology, spends ever more time in Bridlington. "I'm sitting here in the sunshine overlooking the sea. Why should I be anywhere else?" says Sir Alan. A good question for corporate executives, the media and politicians. When the 100th Ayckbourn hits the boards, as he fully intends, we hope many more reply: "Spot on. Us too."